CHAPTER I.

Political History.

WE have already recorded the chief political events of the last century, and we shall now proceed to connect it with the present period by a brief review of political meetings and elections. An account of all the contested elections, in full detail, would be highly interesting if it could be written, but unfortunately the local records are very imperfect and unreliable. The public journals have been, of course, biassed by party considerations, and from them it is impossible to derive an impartial account.

The English parliament has now attained the patriarchal age of 600 years. The latest researches confirm the conclusions of the earlier historians, that the year 1265 is the date of the first regal summons convoking the great council of the nation, at least in its complete form, on a muster of lords, spiritual and temporal, knights of the shire, and representatives of cities and boroughs; and throughout the whole sexcentenary period which has elapsed, the estates of the realm have been convened at frequent intervals to advise the sovereign on national affairs. Parliament gradually effected great advances in the cause of liberty; for, at the time of granting taxes and aids, they generally coupled such concessions with important provisions for the good of their fellow-citizens and the community at large.

Henry IV. directed a writ to the bailiffs by which four citizens of Norwich were ordered to be returned to Parliament; but, the attendance of members being then _paid for by their constituents_, the expense was an object, and they therefore made interest to get the members reduced to two only. Under the old charters of the city the freemen were entitled to vote for members of parliament and members of the corporation; and householders were not included in the list of voters till the Reform Act of 1832. The old freemen, therefore, formed the greater part of the constituency, and in the course of time became a very corrupt body here, as well as in all other corporate towns. By the act of 1729, it was provided “that at every election for burgesses in parliament, every one that votes must swear that he hath been admitted to his freedom twelve calendar months before that election, and that he hath not been polled at that election before, or in case of an election of two members, but for one person.” The Reform Act of 1832, however, extended the franchise to £10 householders in towns, and gave them a preponderating power in parliament.

For many centuries the House of Commons represented only the landed interest, and nearly all laws were in favour of the land-owners, who, under pretence of protecting native industry, enacted laws to prevent or to limit the importation of foreign corn. The great land-owners in the House of Lords had their nominees, too, in the House of Commons, and ruled the entire country.

The first Revolution in France produced a wonderful effect on the political and religious worlds. In the year 1790 commenced those great and important events in France, which laid the foundation of the long war that afterwards raged between that unfortunate empire and this country, and which almost ruined Norwich. Party spirit here began to rage with increased violence. The Tories were vehemently against the Revolution, and the Whigs were equally earnest in its favour. It is well known, indeed, that the unparalleled convulsions on the continent extended their influence to England and Scotland, and raised a storm, although not so disastrous, yet scarcely less permanent. The jealousies of government had been excited to an unreasonable height, and the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act furnished the ministers with an opportunity of gratifying all their revenge on political opponents. England, in short, by the base, suspicious, and mean conduct of her rulers, became for a short time the land of persecution and oppression. Many of the most respectable men were imprisoned on frivolous charges, while others were accused of high treason; and though acquitted by juries, yet imprisonment injured their health, distressed their families, and exhausted their property. These disgraceful transactions continued for some time, and roused a strong feeling of indignation against the government of the day.

Mr. Mark Wilks, a Baptist preacher in this city, of whose history we have already given some extensive details (see p. 482), made himself very prominent as an advocate of the Revolution, and of radical principles. On July 14th, 1791, he preached two political discourses, before crowded congregations, in defence of the Revolution in France, and these discourses had a marked effect in the city; and he became a very active political partizan, both in the city and county. He took a great interest in Hardy and his associates, who had become involved in debt by the great expenses of their trial. He instituted a subscription in all parts of the kingdom to assist the sufferers; and on April 19th, 1795, he preached two sermons in Norwich, in which he exposed with great severity the injustice of the measures adopted against them, and vindicated their characters and conduct. The collections, after the sermons, amounted to a large sum. In one of his sermons, he said:—

“In favour of Mr. Windham’s acquitted felons, (Thomas Hardy, John Horne Tooke, Bonney, Kidd, Joyce, Holcroft, Richton, and Baxter, and all their supposed associates in guilt), we may adduce their peaceable and orderly demeanour in all their public and private transactions. By whatever names men are called, whether loyalists or republicans, whether Reevites or Jacobins, I will venture to say that friends of anarchy are foes of society, and ought to be considered as wolves scattering the shepherd’s flock, and dealt with accordingly. But have we seen one atom of licentious wantonness, one spark of civil discord in these friends of reform? No! the peaceable and orderly deportment of these societies has been sufficient to convince every unprejudiced mind how much they have acted under the influence of that wisdom which cometh from above, which is in its nature peaceable, and productive of good fruits.

“The Jacobins in this city—and except at Paris there can have been none greater—have given repeated demonstrations of their love of peace. At a time when the starving poor felt an iniquitous disposition to riot; when the friends of freedom were represented as having formed a design of regulating markets, dividing farms, and equalising property; and when the imbecile farmer credulously imbibed the representation, the affiliated societies in this city published this resolve, ‘_That if any member should break the peace by the violation of existing laws_, _he should not only be excluded_, _but delivered up into the hands of justice_.’ No exclusion, however, has taken place in consequence of this resolution; and the reason has been obvious—there has been no offence. The traitorous conspirators (so called) in this city can call upon the Right Hon. W. Windham to bear testimony to their love of peace. The opposition he experienced last July, he very well knows arose from no personal disrespect, nor from any view of incompetency on his part in point of talents, but from a love of peace and an inveterate hatred of this accursed war. Mr. Windham very well knows, that when he appeared in the character of a true patriot, when it was his creed that ‘The influence of the crown had _increased_, was _increasing_, and ought to be _diminished_;’ when he avowedly acted as a spy on the executive government; when he was found to be the vigilant guardian of the life, liberty, and property of his constituents; when no horrid imprecation from his all-erring lips had blasted our commercial interests; when he had not learned to calumniate his constituents and to impute the blackest crimes to the friends of his country; when he had not apostatized from the sacred path marked out by a Hampden’s and a Sydney’s blood; when he had not frowned on freedom and preached the doctrine of extermination, he was respected—yes, loved; at least by one, who has offended his best friends, sacrificed his interest, and endangered his life to procure his present elevation. Mr. Windham knows that he was never despised by the Whig interest in the city, till he appeared in the character of a war minister, and the enthusiastic abettor of the most disgraceful and perilous measures ever pursued by weak and wicked men. Perhaps Mr. Windham may boast that his friends in Norwich are not diminished, that he found as many last July as he was wont to find. True, but where did he find them? Where public money had paved his way! At the Back of the Inns, among flannel-waistcoat manufacturers, in the precincts of the Cathedral, and in many places and connexions where, on former occasions, he would have been ashamed to have sought them. Here are those who by the possession of places, contracts, promises, expectations, and anticipations, are influenced to vote for all the measures of government, right or wrong; and those who, connected with the above description, are pleased with their prosperity and rejoice to see them fatten, though on the public spoil.

“Those, too, are to be met with here, who under the influence of superstition and prejudice tremble for the safety of _Church and King_. Nor are we without those brainless Gallios, by whom men and measures are never weighed; who, devoid of sense and negligent of the means which might make them wise, always see with the eyes of others, and bow obsequious to their lordly wills. To the credit of the nation, however, at the late election, a fifth class of citizens was found, a class of freemen who, though called Jacobin levellers, could not countenance a man of blood. These, averse to coercive measures, averse to violence, averse to war, averse to the annihilation of commerce, and alike averse to a nation’s ruin, turned their eyes to a friend of peace; and in the person of Mr. Mingay found an unsullied blank, on which 770 freemen wrote their protest against the measures of the administration, the commencement and continuance of a dreadful war. Let me ask Mr. Windham, let me ask the world, who are the best men, the advocates of negociation, who wish to overcome evil with good, or those who destroy the world by casting about firebrands, arrows, and death? If the former, I will then assert that the reputed conspirators are of that description, and deserve the character of the best of men.

“When the friends of freedom met to celebrate the deliverance of the acquitted felons, had the duke of Portland known their character, our present worthy mayor would have received no orders from his grace’s office to parade the streets with constables to preserve the peace. Had no curry-favour sycophant, no worthless candidate for the receiver generalship, endeavoured to excite the jealousy of his grace, the mayor would not have been necessitated to do what to him was unpleasant, or of vindicating in his letter to the duke, which to his honour he did, the injured character of his fellow-citizens.

“Thank God! the traitorous conspirators need no militia, no barracks, no standing army, no royal proclamations, no suspension of the Habeas Corpus, to keep them quiet. Men of principle detest tumult; and in their love of order and of peace, they find a restraint more powerful than any government can impose. From their peaceful habitations the savage whoop has not been heard; they have not assailed their quiet neighbours, nor burnt the dwellings of God or man. But can this be fairly said of their accusers? Have no anarchists, rioters, and levellers been found among them? (alluding to events at Birmingham). Ah! had that been happily the case, thy streets, O Birmingham, had never been lighted by the rioter’s torch! nor Thy temples, blessed God, reduced to ruins! Bigotry and persecution had not deprived us of the most splendid talents, nor had philosophy been forced to seek an asylum under calmer skies! Had the vain, the greedy, the ambitious candidates for honour and emoluments in the army, the navy, and the church been under the same influence that has governed the hearts and directed the conduct of the friends of freedom, the destroying sword had been lodged in its peaceful scabbard, there to have slept an eternal sleep.”

The preacher proceeded in the same eloquent manner to denounce the war and its advocates, and to defend the friends of freedom and peace, who it appears were numerous in this city, and who formed various associations of, what was deemed, a radical character. The Tories also had their political clubs under various names, and held weekly or monthly meetings at different hotels or taverns. The Eldon Club, formed and named in honour of Lord Eldon, is the only one that now remains, and the members have long held their meeting at the Bell Inn, on the Castle Hill. For some years the growing feeling here in favor of various pluses of reform, manifested itself chiefly in contests for the representation of the city; but gradually, public meetings and petitions to parliament became more and more frequent, and during the few years which preceded the great Reform Bill, were very numerous and often very excited. Amongst the first subjects which called forth the indignant protests of the citizens was that of the corn-laws. On Jan. 12th, 1815, a county meeting was held at the Shirehall, when it was unanimously resolved to petition parliament to take the corn-laws into consideration, on account of the depressed prices of agricultural produce. The bill, fixing the protecting price of wheat imported at 80s. per qr. and barley at 20s. per coomb, was this session enacted. On February 8th, at a numerous meeting held at the Guildhall, the mayor, (J. W. Robberds,) presiding, it was resolved to petition the House of Lords against the bill, which had then passed the House of Commons. The petition was signed by 13,000 citizens, but it passed the House of Lords, and received the royal assent. Great excitement prevailed, and on March 17th, Thomas William Coke, Esq. and Lord Albemarle, both Liberals, were attacked by the populace, at the cattle show, and pelted with stones, in consequence of the support which they had given to the corn-laws. Fortunately, they escaped to the Angel Inn (now the Royal Hotel), and afterwards from the city, but the tumult raged so highly, that the riot act was read, and the Brunswick Hussars were called out to quell the disturbance.

In the following year (1816) the attention of the citizens was turned to the question of Parliamentary Reform, and on the 14th October, a common hall was held for the adoption of a petition in its favour. Mr. Edward Taylor moved the adoption of the petition, and after congratulating the meeting on having a representative, in the person of Mr. Smith, who was an able and constant friend of the liberties of the people and of Parliamentary Reform, he reminded the audience that it was in vain for members of parliament to attempt to stem the torrent of corruption, unless the people supported them. The people had been long inactive, but he hoped to see the spirit of zeal and energy on behalf of this great cause revived, and extend itself to the verge of the island; and that petitions on the same principle as that about to be adopted by the present meeting would be sent to the legislature from every part of the kingdom. Mr. Firth had objected to the time as inappropriate. This he (Mr. Taylor) regarded as the old Pitt cant, according to which it always appeared that there were two seasons when any attempt to reform parliament was improper; the former of these was a state of war, when it was said that the ministers had something else to do besides redressing public grievances; the other was a state of peace, when the objection was that, all things being quiet, it was best not to disturb them. He (Mr. Taylor), however, affirmed that it was no less the duty than the right of the people of this country to call loudly for reform, especially at a time when their burdens and distresses were so great. Surely they were justified in asking for retrenchment in the public expenditure, when Lord Bathurst alone took more of the nation’s money, than was sufficient to maintain the poor of Norwich for a year. There was a long black list exhibiting many more such; while, at the same time, our trade was stagnant, and our poor rates increasing; and, therefore, he asked boldly whether such persons as these, who were taking the public money, ought not to be called on to disgorge some of the plunder. The petition was adopted by acclamation, and then Mr. William Smith, M.P., for Norwich, addressed the audience, approving of its prayer.

Mr. E. Taylor attended many meetings elsewhere in favor of Reform in Parliament. He took a very active part in local politics and was the life and soul of his party at contested elections, whether for the city or the council. He never connived at bribery or any improper practices. On one occasion, during the excitement of a parliamentary election, a man named Bradfield, a working brazier, was offered £30 to vote “orange and purple.” Though sadly in want of money, he steadily refused the tempting offer, which was repeatedly pressed upon him, and he voted “blue-and-white!” The result was that he lost his employment, and fell into great distress. Mr. Taylor having heard of the circumstance, interested himself on behalf of the honest voter, and promoted a subscription, by means of which he was furnished with tools, and enabled to begin successfully on his own account. Many years afterwards, Mr. Taylor, meeting him in the street, offered him the usual greeting of a friend; but Bradfield, fresh from his work, excused himself on the ground that his hands were “dirty.” His generous benefactor, however, would not allow the force of the apology, declaring that the man’s hands could not be very “dirty,” his conduct had shown that his heart and conscience were so pure. Mr. Taylor, in short, was so much respected for his rectitude, both political and religious, that it was no matter of surprise when he was seen walking arm in arm with a political opponent. Mr. Taylor’s electioneering labors were chiefly confined to serving on committees, visiting clubs, canvassing voters, and haranguing the people. He was a good speaker and always popular. On the platform, his strong good sense and nervous eloquence rendered his speeches effective, and they derived great weight from the known integrity of his character. If elections could have been gained by arguments alone, his addresses would have been more formidable to his opponents than they were. But there was often a majority, which could be won to either side by “golden” arguments.

So matters went on till 1822, when many political meetings were held, at which Mr. Edward Taylor took an active part. On January 12th, he moved and carried a resolution for Parliamentary Reform at a county meeting, convened for the avowed object of considering “agricultural distress.” On March 5th, he attended a Reform meeting at Bungay. On April 24th, he attended another “agricultural distress” meeting, and carried a resolution in favor of Parliamentary Reform. On May 11th, a county meeting was held with the express object of petitioning for reform, and resolutions were carried in favor of it. On Nov. 5th, Mr. Taylor presided at the annual dinner of the Norwich Reform Club.

The agitation for the repeal of the corn laws was continued in 1825, and on April 18th a public meeting was held in St. Andrew’s Hall, where a petition was adopted for a revision of the corn laws, which afterwards received 14,385 signatures, and was forwarded on the 26th to be presented to the House of Commons. Meetings were also held in the same year to promote the abolition of slavery, a question which excited a good deal of interest in this city; while the years from 1826 to 1829 were devoted chiefly to agitations for the abolition of slavery and Roman Catholic emancipation, counter petitions being sent to parliament in regard to the latter by the Whig and Tory sections of the clergy.

On June 29th, 1830, King William IV. was proclaimed, on the Castle Hill, by the High Sheriff, the bells ringing in honour of the event. Next day the king was proclaimed in the city, amid the cheers of the citizens; and the mayor presided at a dinner, in celebration of His Majesty’s accession, at the Norfolk Hotel. This king was believed to be in favour of Reform and Retrenchment, and the liberal party always made him appear to be so. But the correspondence of the late Earl Grey with his Majesty, recently published, proves that the king entertained the question of Reform with great reluctance, which was shared even by some of the Whig ministers. Lord Grey himself wrote, January 16th, 1831,—

“It has often been my wish to find the means of postponing it, but the result of all my consideration has been that an attempt to do so would be fatal to the character of the government, and would lead to its dissolution under circumstances still more disastrous than those which would follow such a result, if his Majesty were unfortunately compelled, by a sense of duty, to withhold his assent from the measure which may be submitted to him by his ministers. And other members of the government itself interposed difficulties. Even Lord Brougham objected, after the measure was drawn up, to the abolition of the close boroughs, urging the argument that there would be no means for getting seats for persons in the government,” &c.

And Lord Grey seriously feared that on this point his lord chancellor might “throw us over with the king!” The king would not hear of the ballot, and he strongly objected to shortening the duration of parliament to five years as proposed. At last all obstacles were removed, and on March 4th, 1831, the bill was introduced by Lord John Russell into the House of Commons. After a prolonged debate it was read a second time by only a majority of one. It was defeated in committee on an amendment against diminishing the number of English representatives. Then the cabinet, by a minute, called on the king for a distinct answer to the request for a dissolution. He yielded, avowing that the perils to follow at home and abroad from a change of ministry were greater than could arise from a dissolution. But he took occasion to recur to some of his old objections, and to urge that the bill should be remodelled before being re-introduced; and he pressed the condition, above all, of resistance to extreme change.

In consequence of the dissolution on the defeat of ministers on the Reform Bill, an election took place in this city on April 29th, 1831. The polling commenced next morning, Saturday, and was continued on the following Monday and Tuesday. The numbers were for R. H. Gurney, Esq., (L.) 2158; the Right Hon. Robert Grant, (L.) 2163; Sir Charles Wetherell, (C.) 977; and Mr. M. T. Sadler, (C.) 964. The two former gentlemen were declared duly elected. On the Monday evening the Tory polling booths were pulled down and afterwards burned.

On February 29th, 1832, Lord Viscount Sidmouth presented an address to the king, signed by 2300 of the gentry, clergy, freemen, freeholders, and other inhabitants of the city, praying his Majesty to “withhold his royal sanction from any measure which might compromise the independence of either branch of the legislature, and expressing their fullest confidence in his paternal regard for his faithful people to preserve the fundamental principles of the British constitution.” This petition was in reference to a threatened creation of new peers in the House of Lords. On May 14th, ministers having been again defeated on the Reform Bill, (by a majority of thirty-five in the House of Lords,) a requisition was presented to the mayor, Sir J. H. Yallop, to call a public meeting in support of the bill. The mayor complied, and the meeting was called. A procession was formed on the Castle Meadow, and being joined by a very large body from Wymondham, carrying many banners and accompanied by bands of music, proceeded to St. Andrew’s Hall, which was quite filled. The mayor presided, and a petition was adopted praying the House of Commons to stop all supplies till the bill was passed. The cry was for “the bill—the whole bill, and nothing but the bill.” On June 5th, the “Telegraph” coach arrived in the city with the news of the passing of the Reform Bill, by a majority of eighty-four. A large number of people were in waiting, and the moment the coach entered the top of St. Stephen’s Street, the people on hearing the news loudly cheered, and the cheering was continued along the whole line of the street into the Market Place. A large party perambulated the city with a band playing lively airs, all the evening, and on the following night a bonfire was kindled on the Castle Ditches. During the month several public dinners were held to celebrate the passing of the Reform Bill; and the 5th of the following month was devoted to a special demonstration. The morning was ushered in by the firing of cannon and the ringing of bells, and a procession having been previously arranged, about 11 a.m. a large body of horsemen took up their position on the Castle Ditches whence, headed by three mounted trumpeters, and followed by the Norwich Political Union and electors of the different wards, and accompanied by an immense concourse of spectators, they passed through the principal streets of the city. The electors afterwards proceeded to the Old Cricket Ground, where they were regaled with roast beef, plum-pudding, and ale, and spent the rest of the day in rural sports.

THE REFORMED PARLIAMENT.

The first election for the city, after the passing of the Reform Bill, took place on December 10th, 11th, and 12th, 1832, with the following result.

Lord Viscount Stormont (C.) 2016 Sir James Scarlett (C.) 1962 R. H. Gurney, Esq. (L.) 1809 H. B. Ker, Esq. (L.) 1765

The contest was a severe one, and the total number polled was 3807, including 2283 freemen, 834 freeholders, and 690 occupiers. Gross bribery prevailed, and a committee of investigation was at once appointed, meetings were held, and subscriptions were collected from house to house throughout the several parishes, in support of a petition to parliament against the return of the sitting members. The petition was presented by Mr. Grote on the 18th of Feb., 1833, and on the 4th of April, intelligence reached the city by mail that a committee of the House had declared the members duly elected, but that they had decided that the petition was neither frivolous nor vexatious. At page 396 we have already given some of the evidence afterwards taken in Norwich on the subject, by the commissioners appointed to enquire into the state of the municipal corporation. The decision of the parliamentary committee was received with great surprise. On June 19th of the same year, the Conservative ladies of Norwich, having previously subscribed for two banners to be presented to Lord Stormont and Sir James Scarlett, the presentation took place in the Council Chamber, in the presence of 150 ladies, with several members of the corporation. Lord Viscount Stormont attended, and Mr. Robert Scarlett was present on behalf of his father, Sir James Scarlett. Mrs. Bignold, the mayoress, and Mrs. Preston presented the banners amid great applause.

The first Reformed Parliament assembled January 29th, 1833. It lasted barely two years, for the dismissal of the Whig ministry by the king, and the placing of Sir Robert Peel at the head of a Conservative government, caused its dissolution on December 10th, 1834.

_Election of January_ 6_th_ _and_ 7_th_, 1835.

Lord Viscount Stormont (C.) 1892 Hon. Robert C. Scarlett (C.) 1878 Hon. Edward V. Harbord (L.) 1592 Frank Offley Martin, Esq. (L.) 1585

The second Reformed Parliament assembled, Feb. 19th, 1835, and on the 26th an amendment on the address led to a division with the following result:—for the amendment 309; against 302; majority against ministers, 7. This led to the resignation of the Peel administration; and Lord Melbourne was recalled to the head of the government. The death of the king led to a dissolution, on July 17th, 1837, and then followed the most severe and costly contest that ever took place for the representation of Norwich; bribery, intimidation, and treating, being carried on to a most shameful extent; £40,000 is said to have been spent in the demoralization of the electors.

_The Election of July_ 25_th_, 1837.

Marquis of Douro (C.) 1863 Honorable R. C. Scarlett (C.) 1865 Benjamin Smith (L.) 1843 W. Mountford Nurse (L.) 1831

A petition was presented against the return of Lord Douro and Mr. Scarlett, and the result was, that by arrangement the poll was reduced—Douro, 1842; Smith, 1841; Scarlett, 1840; Nurse, 1829. Consequently, Lord Douro and Mr. Smith were declared duly elected.

The third Reformed Parliament assembled on Nov. 15th, 1837, and continued till June 23rd, 1841. Another election took place on June 28th, 1841, when the former members were again candidates. No polling took place at this election, but it was rendered remarkable in consequence of the Chartists and other electors being much opposed to the compromise, which the exhausting contest of 1837 had induced the leaders of the Liberal and Conservative parties to enter into, and an opposition of some kind was resolved upon. Accordingly, after Lord Douro and Mr. Smith had been nominated at the Guildhall, John Dover, a stalwart Chartist freeman, proposed as a candidate, Mr. William Eagle, a barrister of Lakenheath, in Suffolk. John Whiting, a £10-occupier, seconded the nomination, and a show of hands was taken, which the sheriff declared to be in favor of Lord Douro and Mr. Smith. Then Dover demanded a poll for Mr. Eagle, who was not present. The under-sheriff thereupon required a guarantee for the expenses, and some delay occurred. Many persons were applied to in the emergency, but declined to give the guarantee required. Dover ultimately withdrew the nomination on receiving £50 from certain parties, as he alleged, for expenses which had been incurred. This soon became known to the crowd of Chartists outside of the Guildhall, and a riot ensued. When Dover came out they surrounded him, took his money from him, and tore the clothes off his back. He escaped for the time, but on the following day the mob found him again, and threatened to throw him into the river, but he was rescued by the police. A petition was subsequently presented, by Mr. Duncombe, to the House of Commons, signed by 6000 inhabitants of Norwich, complaining of the return of Lord Douro and Mr. Smith, but it led to no result, and they sat in the house till the next election.

The fourth Reformed Parliament assembled Aug. 19th, 1841, and was dissolved July 23rd, 1847. Another election took place on July 29th, 1847. A very great effort was made at this election, by a large body of voters, to break down the compromise which had been entered into in 1841; and though not successful, it proved the difficulty of maintaining such an arrangement in a large constituency. Mr. Parry, a Barrister of the Home Circuit, was nominated by the extreme Liberal party. The result of the poll was as follows:—

_The Election of July_ 29_th_, 1847.

Samuel Morton Peto (L.) 2448 Marquis of Douro (C.) 1727 John Humfreys Parry (L.) 1572

The fifth Reformed Parliament assembled on Sept. 21st, 1847, and its dissolution took place in consequence of the accession to office of Lord Derby’s ministry, on July 1st, 1852. A severe contest took place between the Liberals and Conservatives, on July 8th, 1852, with the following result.

_The Election of July_ 8_th_, 1852.

Samuel Morton Peto (L.) 2190 Edward Warner (L.) 2145 Marquis of Douro (C.) 1592 Col. Lothian S. Dickson (C.) 1465

The sixth Reformed Parliament assembled on Nov. 4th, 1852, and an election took place here in Dec., 1854. The vacancy in the representation which caused this election, arose in consequence of Mr. Peto having, in conjunction with his partners, undertaken to construct a railway from Balaclava to Sebastopol, to assist the British army in bringing the siege of that place to a successful conclusion. Though no contract had been entered into by Mr. Peto with the government, he had to resign his seat. Sir S. Bignold became a candidate in the Conservative interest, and Anthony Hamond, Esq., for the Liberals. The contest ended as follows:—

_The Election of Dec._, 1854.

Sir S. Bignold (C.) 1901 Anthony Hamond (L.) 1635

The sixth Reformed Parliament was dissolved on March 21st, 1857, in consequence of a resolution having been proposed by Mr. Cobden, in condemnation of the proceedings of the ministry with regard to the Chinese war. A division took place at an early hour, on March 4th—For Mr. Cobden’s motion, 263; against, 247; majority against the government, 16. This caused an election here on March 28th, 1857.

_The Election of March_, 1857.

Lord Viscount Bury (L.) 2238 Henry Wm. Schneider (L.) 2247 Sir S. Bignold (C.) 1636

The seventh Reformed Parliament assembled April 30th, 1857. On Feb. 19th, 1858, Lord Palmerston, who commenced the session with a large majority in his favour, was defeated on the Conspiracy to Murder Bill, by 234 to 215 votes. Lord Palmerston accordingly resigned, and was succeeded by Lord Derby. An election took place on April 30th, 1859, and another severe contest ensued between the Liberals and Conservatives, with the following result:—

_The Election of April_, 1859.

Lord Viscount Bury (L.) 2154 Henry Wm. Schneider (L.) 2138 Sir S. Bignold (C.) 1966 C. M. Lushington (C.) 1900

The eighth Reformed Parliament assembled May 31st, 1859; and Lord Derby, being defeated on an amendment to the address, resigned. Lord Palmerston again came into power, and Lord Bury was appointed Treasurer of the Household. This occasioned a vacancy in the representation, and the election took place on June 29th, 1859.

_The Election of June_, 1859.

Lord Viscount Bury (L.) 1922 Sir S. Bignold (C.) 1561 Colonel Boldero (C.) 39

The election of Lord Bury and Mr. Schneider, on April 30th, 1859, having been declared void on the ground of bribery (which had been shamefully resorted to on both sides) by a committee of the House of Commons, on July 30th, 1859, and the subsequent election of Lord Bury, on June 29th, having been also declared void, writs were ordered, on March 23rd, 1860, to be issued for the election of two members. This led to a grand trial of the strength of the two parties here on March 29th, 1860, with the following result:—

_The Election of March_, 1860.

Edward Warner (L.) 2083 Col. Sir Wm. Russell (L.) 2045 Wm. David Lewis (C.) 1631 Wm. Forlonge (C.) 1636

The eighth Reformed Parliament, during the existence of which Lord Palmerston continued premier, was dissolved on Thursday, July 6th, 1865. The nomination for this city was appointed to take place on Tuesday, July 11th.

_The Election of July_, 1865.

Mr. Warner and Sir William Russell offered themselves for re-election. The Conservatives, however, undismayed by past defeats, determined again to contest the representation. At a large meeting of the party, held at the Norfolk Hotel on Saturday evening, July 1st, Sir S. Bignold, who presided, after opening the proceedings, introduced Robert Edmond Chester Waters, Esq., of Upton Park, Dorsetshire, to the electors present, who resolved unanimously to support him as one of the Conservative candidates. At a meeting subsequently held in the third ward, Augustus Goldsmid, Esq., was introduced and accepted as the second candidate. The electors knew very little about the antecedents of either gentlemen, and never supposed that Mr. Waters had been a candidate in the Liberal interest, and a member of the Reform Club. He was a young man and a good speaker, and by his eloquence and address greatly pleased his numerous supporters. On the Friday following, however, in the two local Liberal newspapers, the _Norfolk News_ and the _Norwich Mercury_, and at a large meeting of Liberal electors in St. Andrew’s Hall, certain serious charges were made affecting the character of Mr. Waters, which charges, it was alleged, had led to his “retirement” from the Reform Club, of which he had once been a member; and the Conservatives were challenged to investigate the truth of the charges. Mr. Waters himself indignantly denied them, and issued a circular stating that he had ordered legal proceedings to be instituted against the authors of the slanders. He also addressed a great meeting in St. Andrew’s Hall in his own defence, and vehemently denounced his calumniators. The challenge of the Liberals was accordingly accepted, and Mr. H. S. Patteson and Mr. E. Field were appointed on behalf of the Conservative committee to accompany Dr. Dalrymple and Mr. J. H. Tillett to London, to examine the books of the Reform Club, and make other investigations. In the meantime the Conservative committee issued an appeal to the electors, expressing themselves satisfied with the proofs Mr. Waters had submitted to them of his position in society, and asking them to suspend their judgment until the return of the deputation from London. On the Monday, the gentlemen forming the deputation proceeded to London, and in the course of the day, a telegram, unfavourable to Mr. Waters, was received by the committee in the city, which resulted in the following notice being issued:—

“FELLOW CITIZENS; in consequence of a telegram just received, we feel it our duty to withdraw our support from Mr. Waters, as one of the candidates for the city. The other gentlemen who signed the previous paper are absent from Norwich. Signed, Fred. Brown, J. B. Morgan, F. E. Watson, Henry Ling. Norwich, 10th July, 1865.”

As may be supposed, this telegram caused great consternation among the Conservatives, many of whom resolved to support Mr. Waters notwithstanding. Indignation meetings of a large section of the party were held at various taverns in the city, and Mr. Waters was received with greater enthusiasm than ever. At a meeting held in the evening, Mr. Waters addressed his friends, and the Hon. Major Augustus Jocelyn also spoke, bearing testimony to the high personal character of Mr. Waters. This only confirmed the gentlemen of his committee in their previous decision, whereupon Mr. Waters declared his determination to stand independently, and he continued his candidature.

The nomination took place on Tuesday, July 11th, in the Guildhall, which was crowded by partisans. The sheriff (C. Jecks, Esq.) presided as returning officer. Sir William Foster, Bart., nominated Edward Warner, Esq., of Higham Hall, Woodford, Essex, as a fit and proper person to represent the city of Norwich in parliament. Mr. E. Willett seconded and Mr. J. J. Colman supported the nomination, amid much applause. Dr. Dalrymple nominated Sir William Russell, Bart., C.B., of Charlton Park, Gloucestershire; Mr. J. H. Tillett seconded and Mr. Donald Steward supported the nomination. Mr. J. G. Johnson nominated Augustus Goldsmid, Esq., Barrister-at-law; Mr. Patteson seconded and Mr. J. B. Morgan supported the nomination. Mr. R. P. Wiseman nominated Robert Edmond Chester Waters, Esq., of Upton Park, Dorsetshire; Mr. J. Allen (surgeon) seconded and Mr. John Hardy supported the nomination. The sheriff then called for a show of hands, and declared it to be in favour of Mr. Warner and Sir William Russell. Mr. J. G. Johnson demanded a poll on behalf of Mr. Goldsmid, and Mr. Wiseman for Mr. Waters. The polling took place on Wednesday and was kept up with great spirit; at the close the numbers were:—

Sir William Russell (L.) 1845 Edward Warner (L.) 1838 Augustus Goldsmid (C.) 1466 R. E. Chester Waters (C.) 1363

The House of Commons, as organised in 1832, performed, during the thirty-five years of its existence, a work of the first magnitude, the repealing of the old and bad corn laws. It also swept away the navigation laws, the paper and newspaper taxes, the window duties, and every restriction which impeded the progress of industry. But a new House of Commons was needed, a House that should represent not only the middle but also the working classes, not only capital but labour. For this purpose, a new Reform Bill became necessary, to lower and extend the franchise to all householders, to give at least every rate-payer a vote, to enable working-men to help in returning members to Parliament. After Lord Palmerston’s death a new government was formed; and in 1866, Mr. Gladstone brought in another Reform Bill, which was not accepted, and on an adverse division, respecting a rating clause, the ministry resigned. Lord Derby came into office, and Mr. Disraeli introduced a Bill for Household Suffrage, on terms based on rate-paying by the occupiers. This Bill, which swept away all “compounding” for rates, was passed in 1867, and under it the number of voters in Norwich was increased from five to twelve thousand. In 1868, ministers were defeated by a majority of more than sixty, on a motion by Mr. Gladstone for the dis-establishment and dis-endowment of the Irish church, and the government determined to appeal to the new constituency.