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.
CHAPTER XX.
Leading Events (continued).
In the autumn of 1848, the Royal Agricultural Society of England held a meeting in this city. The exhibition of stock and implements took place in a large field near the Newmarket Road, and attracted thousands of visitors. The trials of implements took place on land near the city. Lectures were delivered by the Rev. E. Sidney and others at the Shirehall. The members of the Society and their friends dined together on two occasions, in St. Andrew’s Hall. Addresses were delivered by Professor Sedgwick and other eminent men on various subjects. S. Bignold, Esq., was mayor during this year.
Murder of the Norwich Recorder.
Late on the night of November 28th, 1848, the city was startled by the intelligence of the murder of Isaac Jermy, Esq., the Recorder of Norwich, and his son. His son’s wife (Mrs. Jermy Jermy), and her servant, Eliza Chastney, were also fired at and wounded by the same murderous hand. The first news of these murders and attempted murders excited universal horror. They appeared to be so inhuman and atrocious, that public feeling was wrought up to the highest pitch; and all the reports published in the local and metropolitan journals were read with the greatest avidity. James Blomfield Rush, a farmer, well known in Norfolk, and a tenant under Mr. Jermy, was at once suspected and apprehended. He was examined before the magistrates, committed, tried, found guilty, and executed. We give a short account of this terrible tragedy.
Mr. Jermy, with his wife and family, lived at a mansion called Stanfield Hall, about two miles distant from Wymondham, and Rush lived at a neighbouring farm house, known as Potash Farm. The Preston family, of which the recorder was a descendant, originally came from the village of Preston, in the hundred of Babergh, Suffolk, and settled at Beeston St. Lawrence, in the hundred of Tunstead, in Norfolk. In 1837, the Rev. G. Preston died, leaving his son, the recorder, heir to Stanfield and his other entailed property. The recorder, previous to his father’s death, was called Mr. Preston; but soon after that event, he took the necessary steps for complying with the stipulation in the will of Mr. Wm. Jermy, from whom the property had descended, that the possessor of the estate should assume his name and arms, and accordingly he took the name and arms of Jermy by license from the crown. He was a county magistrate and one of the chairmen at quarter sessions, recorder for Norwich, and a director of the Norwich Union Insurance Office. Indeed, he had been all his life closely connected with the city.
There had been some disputes relative to the Stanfield property. It was said that one of the male relatives of William Jermy had disposed of his reversionary interest in these estates for the trifling consideration of £20. This occurred in the year 1754. In June 1838, when the Rev. George Pearson’s furniture and library at Stanfield Hall were advertised for sale, a person named Thomas Jermy, a grandson of John Jermy, with a cousin of his, named John Larner, put in a claim to the estate, and served notices both upon Mr. Jermy and the auctioneer to stop the sale. Larner then attempted to obtain possession of the hall, but was shortly afterwards ejected by Rush, (who was then acting as bailiff for Mr. Jermy,) with a party of labourers. Larner then cut down some timber and carted it away; and he and his party were apprehended for the offence, but he himself was acquitted, though his accomplices were convicted in penalties. Shortly afterwards placards were posted in the neighbourhood, stating their intention to obtain forcible possession. This they attempted to do, but they were apprehended and committed to the assizes. They pleaded guilty, and were sentenced to various periods of imprisonment.