28.—Died at Hampstead, Sir William Beechey, R.A., aged 86. He was a native of Burford, Oxfordshire, and in early life settled and married in Norwich. Elected an associate of the Royal Academy in 1793, he painted in the same year a full-length portrait of Queen Charlotte, who honoured him with the appointment of Queen’s portrait painter. In 1798 he painted an equestrian portrait of George III., with the Prince of Wales and Duke of York, reviewing the 3rd and 10th Dragoons, attended by Lieut.-General Dundas, General Sir William Fawcett, and Major George Goldsworthy. In the same year he received the honour of knighthood, the first instance of its being conferred on an artist since the time of Sir Joshua Reynolds. At St. Andrew’s Hall, Norwich, there are four portraits by Sir William, namely, those of Admiral Lord Nelson, Mr. John Patteson, Mr. Elisha de Hague, and Mr. J. S. Patteson. His son, Capt. Beechey, R.N., was one of Capt. Sir Edward Parry’s lieutenants in his second expedition towards the North Pole.
FEBRUARY.
3.—This day (Sunday) a prize-fight took place on Costessey Common, between Rix and Clarke, of Norwich, seconded by Cricknell and Blanchflower, “of the new scientific school.” Sixty-three rounds were fought, in 1 hr. 20 mins. Rix was the victor. “Never were two men more severely punished by each other.”
6.—The Rev. W. J. Bakewell, upwards of eleven years minister of the Unitarian chapel, Norwich, “who is about to embark for America,” was presented by his congregation with a purse of 105 sovs.
10.*—“The week before last, in a little more than three days, Sir Richard Sutton, Bart., and a small party of friends shot 1,313 pheasants and an immense quantity of hares, rabbits, partridges, and woodcock, on his estate at Lynford and Tofts.” (This was described as “killing, not sporting.”)
—Mr. William Dalrymple resigned office as one of the surgeons of the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, and Mr. J. Godwin Johnson was elected in his place.
11.—A trotting match took place at Attleborough, between a horse named Scroggins, belonging to Mr. Ling, of Besthorpe, and a cob the property of Mr. Robert Large, of Ellingham. The match was run in two mile heats, and was won by the former, in the presence of upwards of 3,000 spectators.
19.—Mr. Hotson, solicitor, of Long Stratton, while driving to Norwich, was robbed of a purse of money and a case of bank notes, near Harford Bridges. One of his assailants pulled him back in the gig and covered his mouth with his hand while three others rifled his pockets. At the Norwich Quarter Sessions, in April, a man named Daniel Archer was charged with the offence, and acquitted.
21.—The litigation respecting the Norwich charities entered upon its final stage in the House of Lords, when the appeal, Bignold and others v. Springfield came on for hearing. Lord Wynford said the question he had to propose was that the judges should state their opinion whether, having reference to the 74th section of the Municipal Corporation Act, the administration of the charities continued in the old Corporation after August 1st, 1836. Mr. Justice Littledale asked for time to consider the question. On June 24th the House decided in favour of the then trustees. Lord Chief Justice Tindal said: “Upon the whole we think the administration of the charity estates did not continue in the persons described in the 71st section of the 5th and 6th William IV. after August 1st.” The order was confirmed, with costs against the appellants.
—The Marquis of Douro presented to the House of Commons a petition signed by 1,600 of the inhabitants of Norwich for leave to bring in the Norwich Improvement Bill. The Bill was read a first time. It passed its second reading on March 21st, and was read a third time on June 19th. The object of the Bill was to repeal the then existing Acts and to substitute a more effectual provision for the better paving, lighting, and improvement of the city. At a special meeting of the Town Council on July 16th it was agreed to petition the House of Lords in opposition to the Bill “in the way it should come from the Commons.” When the Bill was before the Committee of the House of Lords on July 23rd objection was taken that the notices on the part of the promoters were insufficient, and the Bill was consequently lost. At a meeting of the Paving Commissioners on December 17th it was reported that costs amounting to £1,500 had been incurred in opposing the Bill.