The Reform Era.
WILLIAM IV. ascended the throne in 1830, in a period of great political
excitement. During his short reign of seven years, there was the
greatest political agitation ever known in this country about a Reform of
Parliament, a measure which the people had long and earnestly desired.
Many meetings were held in this city, and petitions were adopted in
favour of reform, long called for and long deferred. In fact, the king,
during the early part of his reign, had other and more pressing causes of
anxiety. His accession to the throne brought him an inheritance of the
jealousy, to which the country had been gradually roused, on the subject
of the extravagance and corruption of the old systems of government. In
the effort to reduce a vast expenditure, the House of Commons was in no
mood to be so liberal to the new sovereign as he thought he had a right
to expect. The ministry were withheld, by the very forcible opposition
of one of its members, from asking the house to grant the expenses of the
queen’s outfit, and the king himself had to submit to the mortification
of finding the pensions charged on the public by former monarchs sharply
criticised, and even his own household expenses commented on with
severity.
On September 8th, 1831, the grand ceremony of the coronation of the king
took place in Westminster Abbey. The auspicious event was celebrated in
Norwich in a most loyal and joyous manner. The festivities of the day
commenced with the merry chime of St. Peter’s bells, and the waving of
banners from all the public buildings. The mayor and members of the
corporation went in procession from the Guildhall to the Cathedral.
After their return to the hall, the regiment of the First Royals marched
into the Market Place and fired three vollies. The electors who had
supported Gurney and Grant received £1 each, and a dinner was given to
600 of the freemen, who voted for Wetherell and Sadler, at Laccohee’s
gardens. The citizens, in fact, have never lost an opportunity of
displaying their loyalty, but they always expected something in return.
Several petitions were sent from Norwich in favour of the Reform Bill;
and the passing of the bill was celebrated here with great rejoicings,
festivities, and a public procession on July 5th, 1832. This brief reign
was remarkable, moreover, for the abolition of the slave trade after a
violent agitation which convulsed the whole country, and ended in the
passing of an act of emancipation of the slaves in the West Indies, at a
cost of twenty millions; and it is also noted for the suppression of the
rebellion in Canada, and the restoration of tranquillity to that colony.
An Act of Parliament received the royal assent on June 23rd, 1832,
removing the assizes from Thetford to Norwich; and the corporation passed
a vote of thanks to John Stracey, Esq., for his exertions in obtaining
that measure, and also a vote of thanks to the lord chancellor for having
granted two jail deliveries in the year. Since then the city assizes
have been held at the Guildhall, and the Norfolk assizes at the
Shirehall. The city sessions are held every quarter at the Guildhall,
and the petty sessions daily at the same place.
The reformed House of Commons having presented an address to His Majesty,
praying for the appointment of a commission to inquire as to the existing
state of municipal corporations in England and Wales; the king, on July
18th, 1833, complied with the address, by issuing a commission; and
notice was subsequently given to the mayor of this city, S. Bignold, Esq.
(now Sir Samuel Bignold), of the intention of the commissioners appointed
to investigate the affairs of the Norwich corporation, in compliance with
a request from a meeting of 300 citizens, held on the 13th of May
preceding. A special meeting of the corporation was at once convened to
consider the course to be pursued, and the assembly determined on a
reluctant submission to the inquiry, so far as regarded the production,
by the corporate officers, of all “charters, books, deeds, accounts,
papers, and muniments of title,” but at the same time protested against
the commission as illegal and unconstitutional, and against the right of
the commissioners to make any inquiry whatsoever. As may be supposed,
the dominant party in the city did not like it, and the sheriffs
especially protested against it. They declined to attend at the proposed
enquiry, or to recognize the authority of the commissioners by any act,
and addressed a letter to that effect to the commissioners, signing their
names, W. J. UTTEN BROWNE, and EDWARD STEWARD, sheriffs of Norwich. Of
course the commissioners were not very pleased at this ostentatious
opposition to their authority, and in the course of their enquiry showed
an evident hostility to the predominant party. Witnesses were allowed to
make statements reflecting on the characters of the living and the dead,
and every facility was afforded for the gratification of political,
perhaps of _private_, revenge. This will appear in the following summary
of the evidence, taken from the Digest, published soon afterwards.
THE INQUIRY RESPECTING THE OLD CORPORATION.
This inquiry was conducted by George Long and John Buckle, Esqs., and
commenced on November 25th, 1833, at the Guildhall. Nearly all the
officials of the corporation were examined, and many influential
gentlemen. Some strange statements were made as to the effects of party
spirit, and the enemies of the old corporation alleged, amongst their
favourite charges, that the magistrates were biassed by party spirit, and
that the funds of the corporation had been devoted to electioneering
purposes. Evidence, however, was given to the contrary.
J. J. GURNEY, ESQ., said, “I believe that there are many most laborious
and useful magistrates in the city, and no persons would be so fit as
many of those who have already been accustomed to the business. I do not
find the slightest fault with the application of the magisterial power.
It is my most decided opinion that the magisterial authority has been
impartially exercised.”
W. SIMPSON, ESQ., said, “Whatever money may have been spent, it certainly
has not been the money of the corporation.”
ALDERMAN BOLINGBROKE said, “I have been an alderman near twenty years; I
do not know of any corrupt application of the corporate funds to
elections or any other purposes. I do not think any misapplication of
the corporate funds could have taken place without my knowing it.”
As the inquiry proceeded, however, evidence was given of the influence of
party spirit in the distribution of patronage, appointments, and
employments, and also in admissions to freedom. It was proved that the
police were very inefficient, and often refused to act in cases of riot,
and when the mob were pulling down polling booths. As to the expenditure
of money at local elections,
The Mayor, S. BIGNOLD, Esq., said, “I am quite sure that if respectable
persons were to offer themselves at local elections, it would repress the
excesses which sometimes take place. The local elections are attended
with considerable expense. I am not aware that the aldermen interfere in
these elections. I am not aware of anything which would prevent the
aldermen interfering in the promotion of sheriffs. They consider the
oath as debarring in the one case and not in the other. Committees are
formed on the occasion of elections in the different wards. I cannot say
whether the aldermen are frequently members of those committees. I have
not had any opportunity of witnessing unfair exertions. I cannot say
whether any subscriptions are made on those occasions. I have never
subscribed a shilling. I cannot say whether notes are given by the
aldermen or others. I never saw such a note as the one produced before.
I have heard of notes purporting to get certain persons into the
hospitals, being given by aldermen on the occasions of municipal
elections. I have never seen any such notes. My knowledge of them has
arisen in this way. I have been asked myself and told that A and B have
given them, but never fulfilled their promise.”
“Question. Do you think that the mode in which the local elections are
carried on tends to keep out respectable and intelligent persons from
filling the various offices?
Answer. I am sorry to say that those respectable and intelligent persons
have contributed to the system.
Q. Has that been the case generally?
A. I should say, generally, with the leading persons in this city on
both sides, connected and unconnected with the corporation.
Q. Have the members of the court of aldermen contributed to your
knowledge?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Is it your belief that they have or have not?
A. I think they would not in the election of an alderman, but they might
for sheriff or common councilmen.
Q. On what ground is that distinction made?
A. The aldermen consider that they are not to interfere in the election
of their brethren, in consequence of the oath they have taken.
Q. The oath makes no distinction?
A. There is an impression to the contrary.
Q. If there had been an extraordinary excitement at elections, can you
say that in no case that excitement was enlarged by the aldermen?
A. I should say in no case.
Q. What do you consider the intention of the aldermen in subscribing to
the funds?
A. I can only answer that question in general terms, that the excitement
has never been increased by any act of the aldermen.
Q. Are you acquainted with the case of Hornigolds with reference to the
elections?
A. In no other way than by your drawing my attention to it. I know of
no other note to that effect. No improper persons have been admitted
into the hospitals on account of their votes.
Q. Have they in all cases been fit and proper persons?
A. Certainly they have.
Q. Do you think the same persons would have been introduced if they had
not been political supporters?
A. Not identically the same persons.
Q. Are there instances where persons have been put in by the aldermen,
who have not been political supporters?
A. Yes. I have put an individual in myself who was not a political
supporter in any way.
Q. Are such instances rare or frequent?
A. I am only able to answer from information I have derived from my
seniors; I should say they are frequent.
Q. Are the great majority of persons admitted freemen?
A. Yes. I think they are.
Q. Are the exceptions few?
A. I do not know.
Q. You said all the freemen introduced to the hospitals were fit and
proper persons: have they been introduced as the political friends of the
aldermen?
A. Yes. I should certainly introduce my political friends in
preference.
Q. Do you consider the power of the aldermen to have been exercised
_bonâ fide_, or for influence at the elections?
A. Certainly, _bonâ fide_.
Q. Do you think this privilege is frequently exercised in favor of
political opponents?
A. No. There are twenty-four aldermen, and the patronage is about
15–24ths on the Tory side to 9–24ths on the Whig side.
Q. Is it your opinion that more urgent cases have been passed by, and
others taken on account of political services?
A. I think not; I think very pressing cases have had the preference over
political supporters.
Q. Is it, in your opinion, a justification if a person is put into the
hospital under such a promise, or a more pressing case; and would the
alderman exercising the power, do it under an impression that he was not
guilty of any breach of duty, or of violating his moral feelings?
A. I think where an alderman had made such a promise, he would be
perfectly justified in performing it, provided the person was a fit and
proper object.
Q. The alderman, so promising, in the event of a more pressing case,
would he change his turn?
A. It is done frequently for the express purpose in pressing cases; and
those changes are made with political opponents.”
ALDERMAN NEWTON examined, said, “I have no doubt there have been large
sums of money expended at local elections. It has been a common thing to
make subscriptions for local elections. Sometimes the subscriptions have
far exceeded the necessary expenses. In some cases, but not generally,
the subscriptions have been under the management of a committee. An
individual mostly takes the management. He has the whole of the funds
under his care, and is not accountable to anyone. The committee never
interfere. It is left to one individual to manage the funds. The mode
of distributing the money is known to members of the committees, who are
generally members of the corporation. I do not know of aldermen being
members of the committees. Aldermen have subscribed, but very rarely, at
contested elections. A good deal of money has been expended on those
occasions. The general supporters of the parties have been subscribers,
including the common council, but not the aldermen. The scenes at
elections have been very disgraceful sometimes. I recollect the election
of Alderman Marshall. I have heard that the scene on that occasion was
very disgraceful. I have heard that much money was spent, but I think
£1000 would be the outside. I recollect the election of Alderman
Steward. Money was spent on that occasion, but nothing like £1000. I
remember the election of Mr. Steward for sheriff. I have heard that
money was then spent. I heard that the Whig party gave a large sum for
the last six votes that they polled, and I believe it to a certain
extent. No doubt there was money spent by the Tory party to a large
extent. I have heard that from £10 to £15 were given for a vote. There
was a large subscription by members of the council, but not by the
aldermen. I think Mr. Steward subscribed, but I do not know to what
amount. On other occasions subscriptions have been made for the same
office. Money was given to the freemen, but the far greater amount was
spent in giving them beer and tobacco on either side. It has been
carried to a greater extent by the Gurneys than by any other persons. I
have no doubt that the money was given for bribery.”
J. J. GURNEY, Esq.; stated that the assertion as to bribery by the
Gurneys was utterly false as to him; that he had never given a farthing
for the purpose of bribery; nor had the firm done so; nor had they any
loans; nor had their clerks been employed for such a purpose; had the
deepest impression of the sin, guilt, and misery, involved in our local
elections; and he would rather have his arm cut off than promote them
directly, or in any way whatsoever. Not only had there been bribery, but
a system of demoralization to a fearful extent; but treating was the root
of the mischief here. He believed the root of the evil was the election
of the magistrates and corporate officers by popular means.
The commissioners asked, What mode of election do you consider would be
preferable? and Mr. J. J. Gurney replied:—
“I think that the magistrates, being the representatives of the king,
ought to be appointed by the executive government; I mean those
officers connected with the government of the town. The parties here
are evenly balanced, and it therefore becomes a close contest.
Nothing gives us rest but the predominance of one party. We are at
rest now solely owing to the predominance of the Tory party.”
A good deal of evidence was given of the great extent to which the system
of cooping was carried on at elections. Voters had been frequently taken
away by force a dozen miles, locked up in public houses and half-starved
in them, and otherwise ill-treated. This system was carried on by both
parties. The worst proceedings of this sort seem to have occurred at the
elections of Alderman Angell and Alderman Springfield, when there was a
vast amount of bribery, treating, and cooping.
Mr. WILLIAM WILDE, afterwards coroner, gave evidence as to the election
of Alderman Springfield, in November, 1821. He was one of the committee
for conducting that election. Mr. Ives, a retired clergyman of the
Church of England, was the other candidate. The Northern ward was then
two to one in favour of Springfield. About 440 to 240 would have been a
fair poll if no money had been given. When the vacancy occurred, Mr.
Springfield was not in Norwich. Mr. Wilde continued, “I sent for him
express, and when he returned we heard from good authority that great
sums had been offered by Ives’s party first. We generally sent out
freemen to see how markets were going. Springfield was returned, though
it was generally reported that Ives’s party meant to buy the ward. But
Springfield said he would not be bought out. We went then into a regular
system of buying, they buying all the men of ours they could, and we
buying all of theirs we could. About £10 was a regular price. We spent
£600 or £700 in buying votes. On the morning of the election, Mr. Ives’s
party commenced by giving two sovereigns each at the polling place. Mr.
Springfield paid his men the same. In consequence more than 300 out of
430 who voted for Springfield took two sovereigns at the booths. Persons
draw a distinction between money paid at the booths, and a bribe at any
other place. Many who take money at the booths will not accept bribes in
any other shape. Springfield’s election cost £1530. The money at the
booths is openly given, and it is not considered a crime to take it. I
think about 60 or 70 persons sold their votes at £10 apiece. Small
shopkeepers are not a bit better than freemen. I have stood openly in
the market to buy votes with money in my hand. This system is generally
acted upon at all contested elections where the money can be found.
Nothing but poverty of purse makes purity of election in Norwich. At
Alderman Angell’s election the same system was followed. It is the same
at ward elections. I have given £30 for a vote at an election for common
council only for a year, but there are few instances of such a high
price. I once gave the father of a nominee £20 for his vote. That sum
is frequently given. I have known promissory notes given for votes. I
do not recollect an instance of notes given by aldermen, but 1 have no
doubt of the fact. The usual plan is for a person to say ‘My family wall
not vote unless you give a turn at the hospital,’ and application is then
made to an alderman. I think the effects of what I have been stating are
most debasing and demoralising. I have known poor men who have for years
withstood the temptations offered them at elections; and when once they
have fallen into the snare, I have observed their conduct to alter, and
they have been much changed. I am perfectly satisfied of the evil
tendency of the course pursued hitherto, and in very few instances has
the money given been any benefit to the freemen, but quite the contrary.
The effect has been the same with both the giver and receiver of bribes.
I should be sorry to bring up any of my children in the course which I
have pursued.”
Commissioner Buckle then thanked Mr. Wilde for the very open and candid
manner in which he had given his evidence.
Mr. JOHN RISING STAFF said that on Alderman Angell’s election, for two
days and two nights previous the town was in a state of great disorder,
occasioned by large parties of men employed by each party going about the
streets molesting any persons whom they met of the opposite party,
attacking freemen personally, and by improper intrusions into their
dwelling houses or other places where they were supposed to be concealed.
In some instances where they were in search for a voter, and could not
find him at his own residence, they went into the residence of other
persons, not in the ward where the election was to take place, to search
for individuals. Witness gave several instances of cooping.
ALDERMAN BOLINGBROKE also stated instances of cooping that came under his
notice as a magistrate.
MR. JOHN FRANCIS said, “I have been a manufacturer in Norwich many years,
and I consider the acts of the corporation to have engendered every
species of bribery and strife. Its patronage is invariably exercised in
favour of political adherents. During the last ten years our commercial
interests have materially suffered from it. It creates disunion between
those gentlemen where friendship would otherwise exist. The local
elections are pregnant with evil; they take men from their work, those
who are not free as well as those who are free; and in case of a contest
it is impossible to get any work done for six weeks after; and this in
the spring time of the year when work is brisk and calls for close
attendance. The consequence is that the masters suffer materially. I
never engaged in bribery at elections, except at the late election for
sheriff, when I bought a bunch of four in the market for £8; I also
offered another man £5, but he wanted £10, which I thought too much. The
numbers, however, were running close, and I went to buy him at that
price, but I found that he had been settled for and voted. Therefore I
saved £10.”
Mr. A. BARNARD said, “At the election of Mr. Foster as sheriff, I bought
about forty votes at from 30s. to £4 apiece. I know personally of no
instances of bribery by an alderman. I have known instances of an
alderman saying, ‘You may make use of my turn in the hospital to get a
vote.’ I have known this five or six times. These promises were given
by three aldermen. I decline to give their names. I have no objection
to say they were Whigs. I have acted frequently as paymaster at
elections. Aldermen have often subscribed for ward elections. Both
parties are pretty much alike.”
GEORGE PALMER was examined very closely, and he stated that he had always
voted in the Whig interest, and that he had received a note from Alderman
Springfield for four shillings weekly till his brother’s child could be
got into the hospital. The note was written and signed by a Mr. Batson
in Mr. Springfield’s presence, and by his order. It was given to witness
for his vote in favour of Mr. Foster at the election of sheriff in 1832.
Witness had never been offered the hospital by any alderman on the other
side.
A great deal more evidence was adduced as to notes of admission to the
hospital given by both parties. The last part of the inquiry was the
most important, relating as it did to the effect of local elections on
the trade of the city.
J. J. GURNEY, ESQ., said, “I can assure the commissioners that they have
no notion of the sin, guilt, wickedness, and poverty, which our local
elections inflict upon this city. I wish to add an expression of my
conviction, that if the election of magistrates and other officers was
altered, the whole city would be benefitted, and no persons more so than
the poor freemen. I was lately informed by a principal manufacturer, who
has large dealings with the poor, that it was his firm conviction that
one single ward election does more harm than all the preaching in all the
churches and all the meeting houses in all the year does good; and I
believe it to be true. I would observe that I make no distinction of
parties; both, to my knowledge, are equally guilty; and whenever the
managers find a purse, they fly to it as an eagle does to a carcase.”
MR. H. WILLETT was of opinion that the local elections were an injury to
the lower orders, notwithstanding the money they received. There was
less work done on account of these elections. Party had a very injurious
effect on the trade of the city. He thought Norwich suffered from
carrying on trade in a different manner to that pursued in other towns.
The trade had not paid in previous years, and capital was not employed
because it did not pay. The trade was carried on upon such a system that
there was no inducement to employ capital. An open rate of wages would
cause capital to be more beneficially employed. A great deal of capital
had been lost to the city. At that time there was less capital employed
in this city than in any manufacturing town of its size in the kingdom.
He thought the city had been brought into this state by a fixed rate of
wages, and the trade had been gradually leaving the city for years. The
fixed rate operated against the workmen, because it prevented their being
employed regularly. In consequence of this small capitals were employed.
The men thought they would be injured by a fluctuating scale, but he
believed the contrary. While the country generally was never more
flourishing, the city was never in a worse state. Manufacturers feared
so much annoyance, that they would not risk altering the present system.
Many influential men were of his opinion as to the fixed rate of wages,
but dared not avow it, lest they should lose their political influence.
He dared not adopt the varied rate. He did not choose to subject himself
to the consequences. The weavers were the only operatives who had a
fixed rate. He believed that a fixed rate was kept up by municipal
elections, because the leading men were afraid of losing their influence.
Most of the influential men were unconnected with manufactures. He
believed politics to be the first consideration with all of them. He
believed that the apprehension of violence deterred all the manufacturers
from attempting to alter the fixed rate of wages; but wages were reduced,
or else the whole trade would have left the city. This caused such a
disturbance that he dared not go home. The civil power was not
sufficiently strong at the time, and the Dragoons were called out to
enable him to go home. His warehouse was attacked, and his windows were
broken. The magistrates rendered all the assistance in their power, and
measures were adopted to prevent any further injury. His premises were
guarded by special constables for two or three weeks.
MR. WRIGHT, one of the largest manufacturers of the city, said he was
attacked in consequence of his reducing wages. Vitriol was thrown on his
face, by which he lost the sight of one of his eyes. A majority of the
manufacturers considered a reduction of wages to be necessary, but some
of them became alarmed and did not acknowledge it. The reduction
prevented a further decrease of a declining trade. But for the reduction
there would have been a greater decline of the trade. Formerly the trade
was very flourishing when there was a fixed rate of wages, but that was
when there was a great demand for Norwich crapes, then very much worn for
mourning.
MR. JOHN FRANCIS, a manufacturer, said he did not quite agree with Mr.
Willett. He did not think a fixed scale of wages advisable; but they
were not in a condition to alter it. He thought the alteration would
create more strife between masters and men. He considered a fixed scale
to be a disadvantage to the men, but it was not too high. He believed
that the local elections prevented capital being employed, and disunited
the people. But for these local elections there would have been more
trade. Both parties had united in promoting one establishment, but six
such mills would not supply all the yarns wanted for Norwich
manufactures.
MR. JOHN ATHOW regarded the local elections as the cause of the ruin of
the city, as far as such ruin had taken place; as ruinous both to
property and morals. The mode in which the elections were then conducted
had contributed to the poverty and depravity of the city. He believed
that the streets were in a more disgraceful state than in any other town,
from what he had seen, and from what he had heard from commercial men
visiting Norwich.
MR. R. M. BACON, then editor of the _Norwich Mercury_, believed that the
prosperity of the city and private intercourse were all poisoned by the
party spirit engendered by frequent municipal elections.
MR. J. W. ROBBERDS, a manufacturer, connected with the corporation from
1807 till 1827, said that during that period he had seen the working of
the municipal system, and witnessed the strife of parties. He believed
that by the contests in the different wards the character of the whole
population of the city had been greatly deteriorated; that a great
depravity among the lower classes had been produced; and that the
character of the whole corporation had been affected. He knew that
individuals had entered the corporation, not from any consideration of
public duty, but to serve their own private interests.
THE ELECTION OF STORMONT AND SCARLETT.
During the inquiry of the commissioners, evidence was taken as to the
general election of the previous year.
THOMAS RUST stated, “Mr. Grimmer, in order to induce me to vote for
Stormont and Scarlett, offered to pay me £50 down, and to procure me £50
of the city money after Christmas. He promised distinctly to procure the
city money. I have taken an active part at general elections. I believe
there was great bribery at the last election for members of parliament.
I do not think there was any bribery previous to the last election. I do
not know any instance of it. I saw some bribery at the last general
election. I was up two nights working for the party. I never had money
offered to me at local elections, but I was offered £100 at the last
general election to go out and buy votes. The proposition was made by
two leading partizans of Stormont and Scarlett. One of the parties
produced a large quantity of promissory notes. I told him that he was
playing a dangerous game. The partizan said ‘Can’t I lend money to whom
I like?’ I replied, ‘I think not; it depends on the conditions.’ The
gentleman who made the proposition said, “This is the way we do
business.” The proposers were not members of the corporation. They went
away and called again. One of them pulled out a large bag of sovereigns,
and said he would not only lend me £100, but give it to me to join the
party, and to do what I could in the Northern ward. They declared more
than once that they were determined to buy it. They were guardians of
the poor. There was no distinction as to the voters to be bought;
freemen as well as others.”
HENRY BUSH said, “Alderman Turner authorized me to give £6 to a voter, to
vote for Lord Stormont and Sir James Scarlett, and said that was the most
money they were then giving. I would not take the money as I said it was
not enough.”
MR. ALDERMAN TURNER declared on oath that the statement was false.
MR. JOHN HAYES said, “On the second day of the last general election, Mr.
George Liddell gave me three sovereigns for my vote, but never told me in
which interest I was to vote. Mr. Wortley, one of the common council,
also gave me three sovereigns to vote in the interest of Stormont and
Scarlett. I took the sovereigns but voted in the Whig interest, and
carried the money to the committee and gave it to Mr. Beare and Mr.
Springfield. It was returned to me in four months afterwards.”
MR. WORTLEY denied the statement, but several persons were named who were
present when Mr. Wortley paid the money.
MR. COZENS was examined as to the evidence which had been given before
the House of Commons’ committee by Mr. W. J. U. Browne, then sheriff, who
when asked whether there was any committee for conducting the election of
Lord Stormont and Sir James Scarlett, replied, “Certainly not;” and the
manuscript was produced of a letter which appeared in the _Mercury_, in
answer to one sent out by Mr. Robberds, in which Mr. Browne spoke of “the
committee for conducting the election,” and signed himself as chairman.
MR. J. FRANCIS mentioned circumstances to prove that there was a
committee, and produced a note.
MR. WILLIAM COOPER, deposed, “There was no formal committee. If anybody
had asked him for a committee man, he could not have stated one. He
should say the whole party formed the committee. He was active during
the election, but he was not aware that he belonged to any committee.”
COMMISSIONER BUCKLE:—“We have a letter in Mr. Browne’s own handwriting,
in which he states that the committee was not dissolved, and he signs
himself chairman.”
MR. COOPER observed, “Mr. Browne has given his own explanation of that.
I am not prepared to give any other interpretation to the circumstance.
I have given my opinion and my belief as to the existence of the
committee.”
COMMISSIONER LONG said, “I have no doubt, Mr. Cooper, you have spoken
perfectly correct. At some elections there are committees, and at others
it is thought better to avoid them.”
* * * * *
After the prolonged inquiry, a special meeting of the corporate body was
held on January 9th, 1834, to determine what should be done in
consequence of the course pursued by the commissioners. A great deal of
virtuous indignation was expressed, and it was resolved—
“That it is the confirmed opinion of this assembly, that this
corporation would have been perfectly justified in refusing their
sanction to the attendance of their members and officers, and in
declining to allow the production of their charters and muniments
before the commissioners, considering themselves well advised in
regarding the commission as an assumption of power contrary to law,
and as an exercise of prerogative, totally at variance with those
constitutional principles which, in defining the limits of regal
authority, guarantee alike the public rights and the private of the
subject.”
“That on these grounds, and influenced solely by a strong sense of
duty, the assembly of the 15th November last, recorded their protest
against a commission so dangerous in precedent, so menacing to the
privileges of chartered institutions, and so hostile to the cause of
civil liberty. Yet, at the same time, animated with reverential
attachment to the king, unwilling to be deficient in proper respect
towards functionaries acting in the sovereign’s name, and above all
being unconscious of having, either in a corporate or magisterial
capacity, done any act calculated to prejudice the interests of the
city, or to bring discredit on themselves as a body, the assembly of
the 15th November last, ordered that the town clerk and other
officers should give the fullest documentary information for which
the commissioners might think fit to call.”
“That this corporation not only by such order, but also by
subsequently permitting oral evidence to be given by their members
and officers, now feel themselves the more imperatively called upon
to express their mingled sentiments of regret and disapproval at the
course of examination pursued, an examination governed by no rules of
evidence recognised in any English courts of law, but carried on in a
manner irregular, vague, and arbitrary, precluding the slightest hope
of arrival at such a conclusion as can possibly conduce to the ends
of truth and justice, still less such as can prove congenial to the
good feelings of any well-regulated, candid, and impartial mind.”
“That this assembly, considering that the great mass of information
received by the commissioners, emanated from the most decided and
unscrupulous partizans; that many of them were intimately connected
with, and implicated in the transactions to which allusions were
made; that those allusions involved charges against highly respected
and honourable individuals, since deceased, whose representatives had
no means of refuting the aspersions cast upon their memories; that
many also of those who came forward as the most material witnesses to
impugn the conduct and character of the corporate body, stand
self-convicted as the active unblushing agents of gross corruption,
and by their own admissions have proved themselves unworthy of
credit—considering all these things, and looking moreover to the
incontrovertible fact, that not one farthing of the corporate funds
has been either appropriated to electioneering purposes or diverted
from its originally destined and legitimate, object”—
“Do PROTEST against any report being made by the municipal
commissioners respecting the corporation of Norwich, based on
statements so utterly unfit to justify parliament in legislating on
so important a subject, and do most respectfully towards the crown,
but with firmness and fidelity to the obligation of their oaths as
corporators, deem it their duty to resist every attempt to exact from
them a surrender of the charters of the city and, therewith, of the
rights and privileges of the freemen of Norwich.”
“That this assembly invite the various corporations throughout the
kingdom to make common cause with them in endeavouring by every
lawful and constitutional means of resistance to defeat any design
that may be in contemplation for wresting from them their ancient
charters, franchises, and liberties.”
A committee was appointed for this purpose, and to devise means for
protecting the charters, rights, and privileges of the corporation. But
all this opposition proved to be of no avail, and the Municipal Reform
Act came into operation in 1835.
* * * * *
1835. In January, 1835, the number of registered voters was 4018. At
the election in this month, the bribery oath was administered to every
voter. Sir James Scarlett, who had represented the city in parliament
from 1832 to 1834, on being made Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer,
was raised to the peerage by the title of Baron Abinger of Abinger, in
the county of Surrey, and of the city of Norwich. He took for his motto,
“_Stat viribis suis_,” and on application to the corporation, was
permitted to use the two angels, supporters to the city arms, as
supporters to his own.
On January 28th, the first _conversazione_ of the Norfolk and Norwich
Museum was held, and was well attended. On the 27th and 28th, a dinner
was given to the electors who voted for the defeated candidates, Messrs.
Harbord and Martin, at the late election. About 1000 dined on the first
day.
March 23rd. A meeting of the hand-loom weavers was held in the Cellar
House, at St. Martin’s at Oak, to petition the legislature to establish
local boards of trade.
In April an alteration was made in the conveyance of letters to and from
London, being transmitted by the Ipswich instead of the Newmarket Mail,
by which means the citizens got their letters earlier. On the third of
this month the mayor and corporation waited on Lord Abinger, at the
lodgings of the judges, with an address of congratulation on his first
visit to the city in his judicial capacity.
June 16th. William Moore, Esq., was sworn into office as mayor of the
city. This was the last Guild day under the old corporation. It was
celebrated with all the customary civic splendour. The Latin speech was
delivered at the porch of the Free School by Master Chambers, son of John
Chambers, Esq., of the Close, and he was presented with books to the
value of £5 5s., as was also Master Norgate, the orator of the preceding
year. At the dinner in St. Andrew’s Hall about 800 ladies and gentlemen
sat down to a sumptuous repast.
July 14th. A meeting of the freemen was held in St. Andrew’s Hall to
petition parliament to preserve to them and their children the privileges
they had so long enjoyed, but they soon lost their exclusive privilege of
voting for members of the corporation. The Municipal Reform Bill passed
on September 8th, and received the royal assent on the following day. On
Sunday, September 27th, the mayor and corporation attended divine service
in the Cathedral for the last time under the old charters. The Hon. and
Very Rev. the Dean (Dr. Pellew) preached the funeral sermon of the old
corporation.
Michaelmas day this year passed over without the customary ceremony,
owing to the new Municipal Act coming into force. From 1403 it had been
customary to swear the sheriffs into office on that day, and for many
years they had given inauguration dinners. Mr. Winter, the last speaker
of the old corporation, was presented with a handsome piece of plate by
that body on October 21st; and at a special assembly held on December
17th, a vote of thanks was passed to the mayor, William Moore, Esq. This
was the very last meeting of the old corporation under the ancient
charters of the city.
On December 26th, the day fixed by the Municipal Act, the first election
of councillors took place under the new law.
* * * * *
1836. January 1st. T. O. Springfield, Esq., was chosen the first mayor
of the new corporation. He had been a very active partizan in the
Liberal interest. He was a member of the council nearly all his long
life; his influence was very great in promoting the return of candidates
of his own party. On the occasion of his going out of office, a dinner
was given to him in St. Andrew’s Hall. About 600 sat down to a sumptuous
banquet.
March 1st. The new police, eighteen in number, made their first
appearance under Chief Constable Yarington.
On September 20th, 21st, and 22nd, the Norfolk and Norwich Musical
Festival was held in St. Andrew’s Hall, when the concerts were well
attended, and realised a large sum for the charities.
December 1st. S. Bignold, Esq., was the chief promoter of the Norwich
Yarn Company, which had a large capital, the whole of which was lost to
the shareholders. On the occasion of laying the first stone of the yarn
factory, the pageant in honour of “Bishop Blaize” was revived, on
December 1st, 1836. The whole affair was cleverly got up, and admirably
conducted. The procession having completed a tour of the city, returned
to St. Edmund’s, whence they proceeded to the site of the new building,
where S. Bignold, Esq., laid the first stone. This being done, the
procession set out to St. Andrew’s Hall, where 900 persons, men, women,
and children, sat down to an excellent dinner.