Reign of Queen Victoria.
QUEEN VICTORIA was proclaimed here in the usual manner, on June 23rd,
1837, amid great rejoicing. On Thursday, August 17th, Dr. Stanley was
enthroned in the Cathedral; he was the sixty-sixth bishop of the diocese,
and the thirty-third since the reformation. After the installation about
a hundred of the gentry, clergy, and laity dined at the Norfolk Hotel.
This bishop was a great promoter of the education of the poor. An
episcopal chapel was opened in Heigham on August 10th, and afterwards
consecrated by the bishop under the name of “Trinity Chapel.” His
lordship also consecrated the new church at Catton.
* * * * *
1838. January 3rd. A meeting was held in St. Andrew’s Hall to petition
parliament to abolish the apprenticeship of negroes in the colonies. On
the 5th the new district schools were opened in St. Augustine’s.
On July 11th, a very numerous meeting of the camlet weavers was held, for
the purpose of resisting the proposed reduction of wages. About this
time some differences existed between the men and their employers
respecting wages. Col. Harvey was requested to mediate between them, and
he did so, but without any good result. The city was much disturbed in
consequence of these disagreements.
* * * * *
1839. On May 18th, a meeting was held at the Norfolk Hotel to consider a
bill about to be presented to parliament for the improvement of the city,
and to give the citizens an opportunity of objecting to any of its
clauses. On June 19th this bill passed, but very little was done under
it in the way of improvement. A great part of the city remained
undrained, and the pavements continued in a bad state.
On August 16th, the Norfolk and Norwich Art Union opened their exhibition
of pictures at the Bazaar in St. Andrew’s. About 400 pictures were
exhibited, some of them of great merit.
About this time much excitement prevailed in the city respecting the
designs of the Chartists, who, although they were not numerous, were
considered dangerous, as they were known to possess arms, many guns and
pikes having been taken from them by the police. On Sunday, August 18th,
the Chartists attended divine service at the Cathedral, when the bishop
made a spirited appeal to them. Many meetings of the Chartists were
held, and exciting harangues were delivered, advocating the five points
of the charter, including universal suffrage, and vote by ballot, which,
some of their opponents said, meant “Universal suffering, and vote by
bullet.”
* * * * *
1840. On February 10th, Queen Victoria’s wedding day was kept as a
holiday, and addresses were adopted, to be presented to Her Majesty and
Prince Albert. The poor of the various parishes were substantially
regaled, and the citizens were admitted free to the pit and gallery of
the theatre. On many subsequent occasions, on the birth of a prince or
princess, the citizens have shown their loyalty by presenting addresses
of congratulation.
On February 25th, a meeting was held in St. Andrew’s Hall to consider the
necessity of a bill then before parliament, for “repealing and altering
the existing paving acts,” and to oppose the same, if necessary: when a
petition was adopted to be presented to the House of Commons, praying
that the bill might not pass. The Marquis of Douro presented the
petition.
On June 15th, at a meeting in the Guildhall, addresses of congratulation
were agreed on, to be presented to the Queen and Prince Albert, on their
happy escape from an attempt at assassination.
The first annual meeting of the Norfolk and Norwich Protestant
Association was held on October 15th in St. Andrew’s Hall, when 2000
persons were present. Addresses were delivered advocating the Protestant
cause. Subsequently many similar meetings were held in this city. The
speakers always raised the cry of “no popery,” explaining that they
meant, “No withholding of the bible from the people; no worshipping of
God in a dead language; no bowing down before images as helps to
devotion; no divine homage offered to a human being, though the mother of
our Lord; no prayers to saints; no priests pretending to offer the
sacrifice of Christ continually in the mass; no polluting confessional;
no persecuting inquisition; no Jesuits with their hidden works of
darkness; no licenses for doing evil that good may come; no absolution
for the worst of crimes; no power of a priesthood over courts of law; no
canon law to overrule the statutes of the realm; no cursing with bell,
book, and candle; no enforced celibacy; no nunneries where women are
buried alive; no convents for lazy, vicious monks; no masses for the
dead; no fictitious purgatory; no power of priests to forgive sins,” &c.,
&c
* * * * *
1841. In June this year the census of the united kingdom was taken, and
the result, as regarded this city, showed but a small increase of the
population, the total number being 62,294, while in 1831 the number was
61,304. The number of hand-loom weavers had been greatly diminished by
the competition of steam power. Many of them left the city, and others
went into the boot and shoe trade, which had now become of some
importance.
This year many political meetings were held in the city, of Tories,
Whigs, Radicals, and Chartists. The prospect of a general election kept
the city in a state of great excitement. The leaders of the two former
parties tried to prevent a repetition of such scenes as had taken place,
by a compromise, which was a most hateful thing to the freemen, and
working men generally. When the election came on in June, Mr. Dover, a
Chartist, nominated Mr. Eagle, a Chartist, of Suffolk, and afterwards, it
was said, received a bribe of £50 to withdraw the nomination. In
consequence of this, a riotous mob assembled in the Market Place, and
Dover had to be protected by the police from their violence, for if they
had got hold of him, they seemed as though they would have torn him in
pieces. On the following day the mob having learned that Dover was at a
public house in St. George’s Colegate, went there and dragged him thence,
threatening to throw him into the river. He was much injured, and would
probably have lost his life but for the timely arrival of the police.
* * * * *
1843. On August 9th, a dreadful storm of hail, rain, wind, and thunder,
passed over the city and county, and did immense damage to property,
especially to the growing crops. Parochial subscriptions were raised to
the amount of £5,622, and private subscriptions £4,391, towards
compensating the sufferers for their losses. An immense number of
windows were broken by the hail in the city, and many places were
flooded.
* * * * *
1844. This year the railway was opened between Yarmouth and Norwich, and
in the next year the line was opened from Norwich to Brandon,
simultaneously with the Eastern Counties line from London to Ely. This
caused an entire change in the mode of travelling, and in the carrying
trade of the district. All the old stage coaches were of course
discontinued.
POOR LAW REFORM.
1846. About the year 1846, the high rates in Norwich became the subject
of complaint and discussion. A good deal of alarm was excited in the
city in consequence of a proposal of Sir Robert Peel, then prime
minister, to alter the law of settlement, so that all persons who had
resided five years in any place should have a permanent settlement there.
As many families belonging to the county parishes were then resident in
Norwich, it was feared that they would become chargeable to the city and
be a permanent burden on the rate-payers. This apprehension proved to be
well founded, for after the passing of the Poor Removal Act, hundreds of
county families did become chargeable to the city, and have been so ever
since.
Mr. G. Gedge, of Catton, instituted inquiries on the subject; and being a
member of the court of guardians, often called attention to it. He was,
in fact, the first in this city to advocate a general or national rate as
the most effectual remedy for the evils of the then existing system of
rating. He spared neither time, trouble, nor expense in promoting his
views, which were generally approved by the more influential citizens.
He employed Mr. Hutchinson, an eminent statist in London, on the
recommendation of Mr. Wakley, to collect information respecting the gross
inequalities of the system of rating all over England, and this
information was published and circulated in a valuable work, from which
nearly all the statistics on the subject have been derived and quoted by
members of Parliament.
Mr. Gedge introduced the question of a national rate at many meetings of
the court of guardians in 1846. He showed that the poor rates then
collected annually amounted to about five millions. Nearly the same sum
was raised by the property and income tax; and it followed that if only
those were rated who paid the latter tax, the charge throughout England
and Wales for the support of the poor would not amount to more than
sevenpence in the pound. But including all the parties not then
chargeable to the property and income tax, and who would be fairly liable
to the poor rates, the annual rate would not amount to more than half
that sum. This would be a most important difference to the great mass of
the rate-payers, whose payments to the relief of the poor would be
greatly diminished, whilst they would have the pleasure of knowing that
the poor would be better cared for, and that those comforts which they
had a right to expect, as producers of wealth, would be placed more
immediately within their reach.
Mr. Gedge explained that, as all the parishes in the city were
incorporated in regard to the relief of the poor, a general rate being
raised from all those parishes for that purpose, his proposition was that
this general mode of rating should be extended over the whole country,
and that a general rate should be raised to be applied for the relief of
the poor wherever they were located. He showed that if each parish in
this city supported its own poor, the rating would be very unequal, and
some of the richest parishes would pay least, while the poorest and more
populous would pay most. To prevent this inequality, all the parishes
had been incorporated. This had been found to be a great improvement,
and it should be further extended. Many persons, fund-holders and
others, living in lodgings, were exempted from poor rates. Many large
establishments in Cheapside and the middle of London paid no poor rates,
because the poor did not live in those localities. Many persons living
in fashionable towns also escaped poor rates, for the same reason, while
the industrious and the middle classes had to bear the burden. He
therefore maintained that there should be a national rate.
Most of the members of the court of guardians concurred with these views,
and ultimately a petition to Parliament was adopted in favour of a
national rate. The petition was duly presented in the House of Commons.
On Wednesday, June 10th, 1846, an important meeting of the rate-payers of
the city was held in the sessions court, at the Guildhall, to petition
Parliament against the Poor Law Removal Act, which had been lately
introduced into the House of Commons. The mayor, J. Betts, Esq.,
presided and opened the proceedings. Mr. S. Bignold, Mr. T. Brightwell,
Mr. J. G. Johnson, Mr. E. Willett, Mr. A. A. H. Beckwith, Mr. Banks, Mr.
Newbegin, Mr. Hardy, & Mr. G. Gedge, addressed the meeting in support of
resolutions, and a petition was adopted against the proposed alteration
in the Law of Settlement and the Poor Law Removal Bill. Mr. G. Gedge
moved a resolution,—
“That this meeting is decidedly of opinion that the only effectual
alteration of the law of settlement, by which free scope would be
given to the labour of the people, would be to abolish the present
law of settlement and rating, and to substitute a general national
tax on real and personal property, and that a petition founded on
this resolution be presented to the House of Commons.”
He showed the very injurious operation of the law then existing, and
expressed his belief that a national rate, if obtained, would prove a
great benefit to the city. Mr. Sheriff Colman seconded the resolution,
which was carried unanimously.
After this meeting, two petitions were presented to Parliament, from this
city, in favour of a national rate; one from the court of guardians, and
one from the citizens at large. These petitions, however, had no effect,
and the Poor Law Removal Bill was passed into a law. The consequence
was, that about 1500 families belonging to county parishes, who had lived
five years in the city, obtained a settlement in it, and most of them
soon applied for relief. This greatly increased the expenditure for the
relief of the poor.
At the monthly meeting of the court of guardians, held on December 1st,
1846, Mr. G. Gedge moved a resolution of which he had given notice at the
previous court, in respect to a national rate, and he urged the usual
arguments in favour of that measure. He wished the support of the court
to a petition to be presented to Parliament during the following session,
for the total repeal of the mode of rating to the relief of the poor,
then in operation, and the substitution of a national rate. He believed
that public opinion was now fixed on this question, and that a national
rate must come. A petition was adopted, _nem con._
* * * * *
1847. A meeting of the city operatives was held on Wednesday, March
23rd, in St. Andrew’s Hall, for the purpose of petitioning Parliament to
abolish the law of settlement then in operation, and to establish a
national poor rate. The meeting was numerously attended by working men,
who manifested a great interest in the question. Several of them
delivered speeches against the law of settlement and in favour of a
national rate, and a petition to Parliament was adopted. Mr. Gedge spoke
at some length in favour of the measure, which he believed would be
carried.
A public meeting of the citizens was held on December the 2nd, 1847, to
consider the evils arising from the alteration of the law of settlement.
The mayor (G. L. Coleman, Esq.) presided, and many influential gentlemen
addressed the meeting in support of resolutions deprecating the
alteration in the law, and in favour of a more equitable system than that
in operation. Sir S. M. Peto, M.P. for the city expressed his
concurrence, and the resolution was carried unanimously. Subsequently,
several meetings were held in Norwich in favour of a national rate.
During the same year, also, an association was formed in London, having
the same object in view; and, eventually, the movement resulted in the
passing of an Act of Parliament, by which a union poor rate was
established in every county in England. This has proved to be a vast
improvement of the old system, and a great advance in the direction of a
national rate, but still the poor rate is levied on real property only.
The most equitable system would be for every man to pay according to his
ability, whether he be a landowner, a shipowner, a houseowner, a
fund-holder, or an artisan.
Before the Removal Act passed, the Norwich guardians were quite aware of
the effect it would have on the city. In order to prove that their
apprehensions were well founded, they caused a census to be taken in the
city and county of those paying a yearly rental of £6 and under, and an
inquiry to be instituted as to the settlement of the tenants of those
houses. They found, after a full investigation, that more than a third
of the houses were occupied by persons not having a settlement in
Norwich, but in other districts. The operation of the act was to throw
the expense of the maintenance of such persons on the city, at an
estimated cost of £5000 yearly. This was represented to the government,
who paid no attention to it, and the Act passed nevertheless.