[979] The year 1797 was also distinguished in Norfolk for two great political meetings held there in the spring of that year, of which the Norfolk Remembrancer gives the following account.—

“April 25th. a county meeting was held on the Castle Hill (Norwich,) in the open air, and a petition, praying his majesty to dismiss his present ministers, as the most effectual means of reviving the national credit and restoring peace, was moved by Mr. Fellowes, seconded by Mr. Rolfe, supported by Lord Albemarle, Mr. Coke, Mr. Mingay, Mr. Plumptre, and Mr. Trafford, and almost unanimously adopted.”

Had the whole nation done the same it might have proved of incalculable benefit. But three days after another meeting was convened by the opposite party, to counteract the effect of the former. At this meeting, (according to the work just referred to,)

“a dutiful and loyal address to the king was moved by Sir T. Beevor, and seconded by R. Milles Esq. and afterwards numerously signed by the nobility, gentry, and freeholders, expressive of their reliance on the measures adopted by the ministers for obtaining a safe and honourable peace, and of their readiness to defend with their lives and fortunes, the religion, laws, and constitution of their country.”

These swaggering and blustering life-and-fortune men have had their day, and a pretty long one it has proved. If the nation be not yet quite tired of their swaggering, and sick at heart of their system of war, bloodshed, violence, and endless expenditure, it seems high time it should. We surely, ought, to be fully convinced, by this time, that the politics of their opponents, so long decried among us, are infinitely better calculated than theirs for the welfare of this country.

[982] During the whole continuance of this Paper scarce any thing more remarkable appeared among its contents than the memorable controversy about the termination of the century, which caused a sad division among our wise men of that period. Some affirmed that the century actually ended with that year, 1799; while others insisted that it could not end till the conclusion of the following year, for this plain reason, that ninety nine could not possibly make one hundred. In short, this controversy seems to have exhibited our wise men as somewhat akin to the wise men of Gotham.

[984] Of these two addresses the former, according to the Lynn Packet, was worded as follows—

To the King’s most excellent majesty: The humble Address of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common-council of the borough of King’s Lynn, in the county of Norfolk, in Council assembled. Most gracious sovereign: We your Majesty’s Loyal Subjects, the Mayor, aldermen, and common-council of the borough of King’s Lynn, in the county of Norfolk, humbly beg leave to bear this public testimony of our horror and indignation at the late nefarious attempt upon a life so highly important to the welfare of these realms. We most cordially congratulate, not only your majesty, but all friends to our country, on your providential escape from danger so imminent; and beg leave to express our earnest wishes and prayers, that your majesty may long continue to reign over a free and happy people.—Given under our Common-Seal, at our Guildhall, the 21st. day of May, in the year of our Lord 1800.”

The Address from the inhabitants was somewhat longer, but to the same effect, though differently worded. The former mentioned the horrid act as having excited the indignation, and the latter the detestation of the addressers, neither of which could be very proper as applied to the conduct of a madman. The outrageous conduct of a maniac, may excite horror; but it is not easy to conceive how it can excite either indignation or detestation. Before we dismiss this subject we may just observe that Hadfield, Brothers, and Margaret Nicholson, were not the only personages who, in the course of this reign, were moved and impelled by the spirit of insanity to pay very extraordinary attention to the sovereign.

[985] Unless we should except the great accession of honour to our town in 1807, by the addition of the names of his royal highness William Henry duke of Clarence, and the right honourable George James, earl of Cholmondeley, to its list of freemen.