CHAPTER XIX.

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.