Chapter XXIII (2)

“Whilst Joseph John Gurney’s religious convictions were thus
gradually drawing him into a narrower path in connection with the
Society of Friends, his heart was becoming increasingly enlarged in
Christian concern for the welfare of others. He had already warmly
interested himself in the formation of a Lancasterian School in
Norwich, an institution which long continued to have his effective
support. The establishment of an auxiliary Bible Society in this
city, was an object into which he now entered with youthful ardour.
The general meeting for its formation was held on the 11th of the 9th
month, 1811.”

The philanthropist was married to Jane Birkbeck on October 10th, 1817, in his 29th year, and it appears to have been a very happy marriage. The event took place at Wells Meeting, and, after a short sojourn at Hunstanton, the newly-married couple travelled to their home at Earlham, where they received the visits of many friends, who were most hospitably entertained. After his marriage, J. J. Gurney continued at Earlham; and the hall, where his father had resided, and in which he himself lived from his birth, was his settled residence.

“To this place (with its lovely lawn nested among large trees) he was
strongly attached all his life. And they who knew him there can
still picture him in his study among his books, or in his
drawing-room among his friends, his countenance beaming with love and
intelligence, the life of the whole circle; or in his garden amongst
his flowers, with his Greek Testament in his hand, still drawing from
the books ‘of nature and of grace’ that lay open before him, new
motives to raise the heart to the Author of all his blessings.

“Placed by circumstances, though not the elder brother, in the
position which his father had occupied in Norfolk as Master of
Earlham, and a partner in the bank, it was his delight, as far as
possible, to continue Earlham as the family house. Even after his
marriage, his sisters, Catherine, Rachel, and Priscilla, continued to
live with him, occupying their own apartments, and it was the custom
of the other members of the family frequently to meet there as under
a common roof. * * * Up to the period of his brother John’s decease,
and for some time afterwards, it was the habit of his brothers and
himself, with their brothers-in-law, Thomas Fowell Buxton and Samuel
Hoare, to improve these occasions by a mutual impartial examination
of their conduct, in which each with brotherly openness stated what
he conceived to be the brother’s faults. Happy indeed was such an
intercourse between such minds. * * * Besides this, to him,
delightful band of brothers and sisters, his house was, as must have
been already apparent to the reader, freely opened to a large circle.

“Whilst every year strengthened his conviction of the soundness and
importance of the christian principles which he professed, he
rejoiced in that liberty wherewith Christ had made him free to
embrace as brethren all those in whom he thought he could discern
traces of his heavenly image.

“Towards the close of the year (1817) in company with his wife, his
brother Samuel Gurney, his brother and sister Buxton, and Francis and
Richenda Cunningham, he took a short tour upon the continent of
Europe, their principal objects being to establish a branch Bible
Society in Paris, and to procure information as to the systems of
prison discipline adopted in the jails of Antwerp and Ghent. Having
accomplished their objects, they returned home after an absence of
about a month.”

Soon afterwards J. J. Gurney began to preach at meetings of the Friends in Norwich and elsewhere.

“Early in the year 1818, private business called him to London. His
sister, Elizabeth Fry, had previously entered upon her important
labours for the benefit of the prisoners in Newgate, and for the
improvement of prison discipline generally. Joseph John Gurney
warmly entered into his sister’s views, and accompanied her to the
committee of the House of Commons on the occasion of giving her
evidence, and afterwards to Lord Sidmouth, then Secretary of State
for the Home Department.

“His visit to London and the pamphlet on _Prison Discipline_, soon
afterward published by his brother-in-law, Thomas Fowell Buxton,
tended to deepen in his own mind a sense of the importance of that
subject, and an opportunity soon occurred for endeavouring to
influence the authorities at Norwich to some exertion respecting it.
The mayor and corporation, attended by the sheriffs and other
citizens, whilst perambulating the boundaries of the county of the
city, were by his desire invited to partake of refreshment in passing
by the hall at Earlham. Besides those immediately connected with the
magistracy many others assembled, the whole company consisting of
about 800 persons. On this occasion, Joseph John Gurney, in an
address to the mayor and corporation, urged the erection of a new
jail, and its establishment on better principles, with a view to the
employment of the prisoners, and the improvement of their morals;
enforcing his appeal by a reference to the extraordinary change that
had then recently taken place in Newgate, through the exertions of a
committee of ladies, and concluding by offering a donation of £100
towards the object. The effort was not without fruit, though the
result was not immediately apparent.”

The editor of his Memoirs proceeds:—

“In the 8th and 9th month of this year (1818), in company with his
wife, his sister Elizabeth Fry, and one of her daughters, he took a
journey into Scotland, visiting many of the prisons both there and in
the north of England, besides attending many of the meetings of
Friends. On this occasion, in conformity with the christian order
established in the Society of Friends, he was furnished with a minute
or testimonial expressing the concurrence of his Friends of his own
‘Monthly Meeting’ in his prospects of religious service.”

We have now to view the philanthropist not only in the varied relations of private life, but also in the very important character of a christian minister. He gradually became the most distinguished member of the Society of Friends in all England, and he often delivered exceedingly impressive discourses in Norwich and other large towns, preaching the gospel with a peculiar grace of manner which fascinated every audience. We have often heard him preach before large congregations of educated people in the Meeting House at Liverpool, and always with great effect. His journal is full of details of his labours in all parts of England, Scotland, and Ireland. He became a Home Missionary, working hard at his own expense; but we must confine this brief sketch to his doings here in Norwich. The death of his beloved wife at Earlham on October 6th, 1822, put his religious principle to the severest test, and in his letters he expresses deep sorrow, but he was of too active a disposition to be long subdued by grief. During the few months succeeding his loss, he continued mostly at home in the enjoyment of the society of his sisters, Catherine and Rachel; his children becoming increasingly the objects of his tender solicitude. In the mean time, besides attending to the necessary claims of business, and to the various public objects that had long shared his interest, he devoted his leisure to study, finding relief, as he intimates, “Not in the indulgence of sorrow, but in a diligent attention to the calls of duty.”

After giving many extracts from his journal, Mr. Braithwaite continues in reference to the anti-slavery agitation:—

“Retiring for a few days to Cromer Hall, he found a large and
interesting circle. Amongst others, the late William Wilberforce and
Zachary Macaulay were there, deliberating with his brother-in-law
Thomas Fowell Buxton on the position and prospects of the
Anti-Slavery question. It was the occasion on which the latter
appears to have arrived at his final decision, to accept the
responsible post of advocate of the cause as successor to
Wilberforce. In this important undertaking, and throughout the
succeeding struggle, Joseph John Gurney gave him his warm and
efficient encouragement and support.”

Mr. J. J. Gurney, Mr. Clarkson, Mr. T. F. Buxton, Mr. Wilberforce, and others, were earnest advocates for the total abolition of the slave trade and of slavery; and they attended many public meetings at which they denounced and exposed the horrid traffic. Ultimately, as we all know, their efforts were rewarded, by rousing public indignation to such a pitch as to result in the passing of an act of parliament emancipating the slaves in the West Indies, at a cost of twenty millions.

The panic in the monetary and commercial world, and the sudden run upon the banks in London and the country, have rendered the winter of 1825–1826 memorable. As a banker, J. J. Gurney did not escape his share of anxiety, as appears from his journal, but his firm weathered the storm. Another circumstance was at this time deeply interesting to his feelings, namely, his attachment to Mary Fowler, daughter of Rachel Fowler, a cousin of his late wife. After some correspondence he made Mary Fowler an offer of marriage, which she accepted. On July 18th, 1827, they were married at Elm Grove. On this interesting occasion, he remarks in his journal,—

“Bright, hopeful, and happy was our wedding day. We dined on the
lawn, a large united company, and rejoiced together, I trust in the
Lord. Mary and I left the party at Elm Grove, in the afternoon, for
North Devon.”

They arrived at Linton, and thence proceeded to Ilfracombe. There they spent the honeymoon, and then the happy husband brought his second wife home to Earlham, where they were received with joy. After this he was visited by many eminent characters at Earlham, including Dr. Chalmers, who stayed with him several days.

“None can have attentively perused the foregoing pages” (says the
editor of the memoirs) “without perceiving that one leading feature
of Joseph John Gurneys character was an unweared active benevolence.
Like his sister, Elizabeth Fry, he seemed continually to live under a
deep sense of his responsibility towards others. A cheerful and
bountiful giver, it was not merely by large pecuniary assistance that
he proved his interest in objects connected with the welfare of his
fellow-men: to these objects he was exemplary in devoting no common
share of his time and personal attention. The steady devotion to the
Anti-slavery and Bible Societies is already before the reader. In
addition to these great and often absorbing interests, his exertions
for the distressed labouring population of Norwich were unremitting.
Year after year, during the winter, or on any occasion when their
distress was aggravated by want of employment, he was at his post,
stirring up his fellow-citizens to the necessary measures for the
alleviation of their wants. The District Visiting Society, which was
mainly instrumental in originating the Soup Society and the Coal
Society, found in him a steady and effective supporter. Often would
he say that the painful consciousness of the poverty and suffering of
many thousands around him, almost prevented his enjoyment of the
abundant blessings with which he was himself so richly favoured. On
one occasion he expended a considerable sum in providing the capital
for an attempt to supply the poor weavers and mechanics with
employment during a scarcity of work. But, though like many similar
attempts, it failed to answer the expectation of the promoter, and
was abandoned, it served at least to furnish another proof of the
sincerity and earnestness with which he laboured for their welfare.

“The depressions in trade occasioned by the panic of 1825 will be
long remembered. Norwich did not escape its influence. As a banker,
Joseph John Gurney was more than usually absorbed in his own
immediate cares, but his heart at once turned towards his suffering
fellow-citizens. ‘The dreadful distress,’ he writes to a friend,
‘which prevails in the great mass of our once labouring, now, alas!
idle population, has been such as to call forth my strenuous efforts
on their behalf. In this, success has been mercifully vouchsafed.
We have raised £3300 in five days.’

“One more illustration deserves notice. In the winter of 1829–30,
the manufactures of Norwich were again greatly depressed. The
weavers became unsettled, holding riotous meetings, and using
threatening language against their employers. The state of things
was alarming. J. J. Gurney felt it to be his duty to use his
influence in checking the spirit of discontent that was rapidly
spreading. He attended one of the very large and tumultuous meetings
of the operatives, and endeavoured to persuade them to desist from
their disorderly proceedings, and quietly to resume their work. With
a view of still further winning them by kindness, he invited a
deputation from those assembled to breakfast at Earlham on the
following morning. Between forty and fifty of them came, with Dover,
a notorious Chartist leader, at their head. After the usual family
reading of the Scriptures, they sat down to a plentiful repast which
had been provided for them in the large dining room, of which they
partook heartily; and their host afterwards addressed them in a kind,
conciliatory manner upon the subject of wages, and their duty to
their employers. The men conducted themselves in an orderly manner
and appeared grateful for the attention shown them. The scene was
not soon to be forgotten.”

The editor gives some illustrations of the philanthropist’s benevolent character, by narrating instances of his visits to prisoners in the Jail, and to afflicted inmates of the Bethel and the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital. A volume might be filled by an account of his acts of private benevolence, but we must pass on to more public matters. He seldom took an active part in contested elections, but at the election in 1833, after the passing of the Reform Act, the Whig candidates, one of whom was his near relative, were defeated, chiefly, as was generally believed, through the influence of bribery. On this subject J. J. Gurney wrote,—

“As usual, I took little or no interest in the election, but when a
petition was presented to Parliament against the returned members on
the score of bribery, I imagined it to be my place to subscribe to
the object, and wrote a letter in the Norwich newspapers stating the
grounds of my so doing. Those grounds were in no degree personal,
but simply moral and Christian. But the appearance of evil was not
avoided. The measure was construed into an act of political
partizanship; and I entirely lost ground by it in my own true
calling, that of promoting simple Christianity among all classes.”

He had thought of becoming a candidate for the representation of this city, or some other place, in Parliament. After some long conferences with his friends he abandoned the idea and devoted himself to his higher calling. Mr. J. J. Gurney was a well-known Liberal in politics, but he did not often speak at political meetings in this city. His speeches were always short and generally pertinent; and showed good sense accompanied with the seriousness of conviction. On whatever side of any question he spoke he was listened to very attentively, and all parties believed that he delivered the unbiassed opinion of an honest man. His conduct on every occasion gained him the esteem of all friends of civil and religious liberty.

In 1835, he was once more plunged into deep affliction by the long illness and death of his wife. Her health had of late years been much improved, and she had been unremitting in her attentions to his daughter during her illness from typhus fever, without apparently suffering in consequence. The disease was, however, lurking in her constitution, and after some time made its appearance. The fever gradually gained ground, and she sank under it on Nov. 9th of that year. She died happily, amid her mourning friends; and her husband knelt down at her bedside and returned thanks for her deliverance from every trouble!

His journal contains many details of his visits to Manchester and Liverpool, of his journeys in Derbyshire and North Wales, of his journeys in Scotland and the north of England, of his voyage to America, of his journey to Ohio, Indiana, and North Carolina, of his journey from Richmond to Washington, of interviews with eminent statesmen, of labours at New York, of a voyage to the West Indies and proceedings there, of a tour on the continent, and of his return home. But we cannot follow him in all his wanderings in many lands, where he went about doing good, promoting benevolent objects and preaching the gospel, his heart being too large to be confined to his native country, much less to his native city. On his return from the continent in 1841, he attended a meeting of the Bible Society, and delivered his last great speech, which occupied two hours, on the state of religion in Europe. A shorthand writer took notes of that address, which was so full of information that it was afterwards published in the Journal of the Bible Society.

Soon after his return home he married Eliza P. Kirkbridge. The event took place at Darlington, on October 10th, 1841, as noted in his journal. After the marriage he delivered an address on the “Victory which is of faith.” The dinner party was cheerful, and concluded with a short religious service. He and his bride parted from their friends, made a short tour, and returned to Earlham, which they “reached in health and great peace, the place comfortable and homeish, and the reception from his dearest children glowing.”

J. J. Gurney signed the total-abstinence pledge at the house of his friend, Richard Dykes Alexander, at Ipswich, on April 8th, 1843. He and his wife attended a great “Teetotal Meeting” held at Norwich, on the arrival of Father Mathew, on September 9th, that year. The lord bishop, Dr. Stanley, was present and requested J. J. Gurney to preside. He did so, and declared himself to be a pledged teetotaller. He spoke fully and carefully on the subject, and the lord bishop afterwards expressed his admiration of the apostle of temperance as the instrument of effecting so much moral good.

As a man of business, Mr. J. J. Gurney was ready, punctual, and attentive. He was very modest, but of a candid and social disposition. Though in large or mixed companies he seldom appeared forward, yet in the society of his friends he was exceedingly agreeable. In private life no man was more estimable as a husband, a father, a neighbour, and a friend. In Norwich and in the surrounding district he was universally honoured and beloved. He was a great reader of the bible, and he was regular and exact in family worship, but he was a stranger to bigotry, no stickler for forms, and no friend to mysticism in matters of religion.

The autumn of 1846 was spent by the philanthropist quietly at home, with the exception of engagements connected with the attendance of meetings of Friends, and with what proved to be a farewell visit to his beloved daughter at Darlington, and to his friends in several places on his way home. He attended a committee of the Norwich District Visiting Society on December 28th in that year, and on his return to Earlham he complained of great exhaustion, feverishness, &c. A few simple remedies were administered, but the uncomfortable symptoms remaining his medical man was summoned on the following morning. He pronounced it a slight bilious attack, and seemed to have no anxiety about the recovery. The philanthropist, however, gradually sank, apparently from exhaustion, and he died on January 4th, 1847, in the 59th year of his age. The news of his death spread a gloom over the city, and the universal lamentations of the citizens proved that they regarded him as a father and a friend, as indeed he had been to thousands of them. The sensation in Norwich and its neighbourhood cannot easily be described, and is probably without precedent in the case of a mere private individual. During the entire interval of seven days between his decease and the funeral, the half-closed shops and the darkened windows of the houses gave ample proof of the feelings of the inhabitants. It furnished the principal topic of conversation in every family, in every private circle, in every group by the wayside. People of all ranks vied with each other in their eulogies of their departed friend. Everyone had his own story to tell of some public benefit, or of some private kindness which had been shown to others or to himself.

The funeral, as might have been expected from this unusual public emotion, was an extraordinary scene. All the shops were closed and all business was suspended in the city. A number of gentlemen, including the mayor, the ex-mayor, and the sheriff, went out in carriages as far as Earlham Hall. The citizens generally formed the funeral procession, and followed the hearse and plain carriages from the hall to the burial place at the Gildencroft. There was no pomp or parade, no mockery of woe. A simplicity in harmony with the character of the departed marked all the arrangements. As the procession moved on towards the city it was joined by an increasing number of the inhabitants, who issued forth in a continuous stream to pay their last tribute to the memory of departed worth. Silently and sadly many stood while the hearse passed slowly by, and many a tearful countenance among the crowd bore testimony to their love for the dead. The procession gradually increased in numbers all the way to the Gildencroft, and after the thousands of people had gathered round the grave a profound silence ensued, which was at length broken by a Friend repeating the verses, “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” &c. Another pause then took place, followed by another address, and then the body was lowered into its last resting place. The circle of mourning relatives, including J. H. Gurney and his wife, the surrounding crowd of spectators—persons of all ranks, of all ages, of all communions—magistrates and artizans, clergymen and Nonconformists—representatives, in short, of the whole people of Norwich, now took their last farewell of Joseph John Gurney, and slowly turned towards the meeting house, where a meeting for worship was to be held. The service was deeply impressive, and formed an appropriate conclusion to the solemn occasion. At the Cathedral, on the following Sunday, the good Bishop Stanley preached a funeral sermon before a large congregation. His text was “Watchman, what of the night?” and after enlarging on it, he alluded in a most pathetic and impressive manner to the virtues of the deceased, and we never before saw so many people so deeply moved. The death of the beloved citizen was also publicly adverted to in most of the places of worship in Norwich.

Mr. J. J. Gurney was the author of various works, the most popular being one on the _Evidences of Christianity_. It is a production more calculated to confirm the faith of a believer than to convert a free thinker who may not admit the possibility of anything supernatural. He also published a work on “The Vows and Practices of Friends;” “Essays on Christianity;” “Essays on the Moral Character of Christ,” and “Love to God;” “The Papal and Hierarchical System compared with the Religion of the New Testament, &c.” His last and best work is entitled, “Thoughts on Habit and Discipline,” an excellent moral treatise.

_Bishop Bathurst_.

Henry Bathurst, LL.D., canon of Christchurch, rector of Cirencester, and prebend of Durham, was installed bishop of Norwich in 1805. He was a prelate much esteemed and respected. His christian deportment, conciliatory manners, and general benevolence, endeared him to this city and diocese. He was eminently distinguished for his liberal sentiments, and for his attachment to the great principles of civil and religious liberty. He was often seen walking arm in arm with Dissenters in our streets. He voted in the House of Peers for the Repeal of the Catholic Disabilities Bill, and also in favour of the Reform Bill. This disinterested and noble advocacy of liberal principles is thought to have stood in the way of his promotion to an archbishopric. He died April 7th, 1837, in the 93rd year of his age, and much lamented. A statue to his memory was placed in the choir of the Cathedral. This beautiful work of art was the last work of Sir Francis Chantrey, and is executed in his masterly style from a block of the purest Carrara marble. It is placed on a plain pedestal of white marble, and fixed in the recess at the foot of the altar steps, on the north side of the choir, commonly called Queen Elizabeth’s seat, because she sat there when she visited Norwich. The bishop is represented in a sitting posture, clothed in full ecclesiastical costume, and the artist has admirably succeeded in giving to his face that expression of benevolence for which he was so well known.

The following is a translation of the Latin inscription on the pedestal:—

To the Memory of
The Right Reverend Father in Christ,
HENRY BATHURST, Doctor in Civil Law,
Who,
While for more than 30 years he presided over
This Diocese,
By his frankness and purity of heart,
Gentleness of manners, and pleasantness of conversation, attached to
himself the good will of all:
His friends,
In testimony of their regret for one so much beloved,
Have caused this effigy to be erected.
He died 5 Ap. A.D. 1837, in the 93rd year
Of his age.

_Bishop Stanley_.

Dr. Stanley was born January 1st, 1779, and became rector of Alderley, in Cheshire. After twice declining the office, he was installed bishop of Norwich, August 17th, 1837. He ruled the diocese for twelve years, and was highly esteemed by all sects for his unceasing efforts to promote the spiritual interests of every class of society, and his readiness on every occasion to co-operate with Dissenters in every good work. He often attended their meetings to promote religious and benevolent objects. In one of his sermons he quoted the injunction “The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men; in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves;” &c. His subsequent conduct furnished ample evidence of the sincerity with which he obeyed this injunction; and although some of his clergy were somewhat estranged from him by his frequent expressions of unbounded charity, yet all were obliged to esteem him for his noble zeal and consistency of character. He was distinguished for his extensive liberality to the poor and his interest in their education. He was often seen going about from school to school, and the kindliness of his heart was so well known to the children that they sometimes pulled his coat behind to obtain his benignant smile, which to them was like sunshine after rain. On all occasions he was earnest in his advocacy of civil and religious liberty, and active in his exertions on behalf of all benevolent associations, both of the Church and of Dissenters. He was also a promoter of all literary institutions in the city and elsewhere, and often attended their anniversaries at which he delivered animated addresses. He did not lay claim to the character of a man of science; but astronomy, geology, botany, and natural history were his favourite studies. He was the author of two interesting volumes on “The History of Birds,” which were published by the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge. He was elected president of the Linnæan Society, and he accepted an appointment as one of the commissioners chosen to inquire into the state of the British Museum.

Bishop Stanley was so little of a bigot that he appeared once on the same platform with Father Mathew, a Roman Catholic, at a temperance meeting in St. Andrew’s Hall. He then and there eulogised the apostle of temperance, and advocated the cause with great eloquence. On another occasion he invited Jenny Lind, now Madame Goldscmidt, to the palace, when she visited this city. At the palace one evening, she sang before a large company. When it became known that the lord bishop of the diocese had actually entertained an operatic singer, great was the indignation of some of the clergy. This however did not at all distress the good bishop, who held on the even tenor of his way, doing good whenever he had an opportunity. By his frequent earnest discourses in many churches in this diocese, he caused quite a revival of religion among the clergy and church-going people. He died, much lamented, on September 6th, 1849, in the 70th year of his age, and he was buried in the middle of the nave of the Cathedral, in the presence of thousands who had known and loved him. A short time after his decease, a slab to his memory was laid over his grave, bearing the following inscription:—

In the love of Christ
Here rests from his labours
EDWARD STANLEY,
Thirty-two years Rector of Alderley,
Twelve years Bishop of Norwich,
Buried amidst the mourning
Of the Diocese which he had animated,
The City which he had served,
The Poor whom he had visited,
The Schools which he had fostered,
The Family which he had loved,
Of all Christian people
With whom, howsoever divided, he had joined
In whatsoever things were true and honest,
And just, and pure, and lovely,
And of good report.
Born January 1st, 1779.
Installed August 17th, 1837.
Died September 6th, 1849, Aged 70.
Buried September 21st, 1849.

_Bishop Hinds_.

Samuel Hinds, D.D., succeeded Bishop Stanley. He was the sixty-seventh bishop of the diocese, and was installed on January 24th, 1850. He was the son of Abel and Elizabeth Thornhill Hinds, born Dec. 23rd, 1793, in Barbadoes; and at the age of twelve he was sent to England, to the school of Mr. Phillips, at Frenchay, near Bristol. He entered at Baliol College, Oxford, but for want of rooms removed to Queen’s, graduated in honours 1815 (second in classics), and in the year following he obtained the Latin essay. He returned to Barbadoes as a missionary and remained there five years, the three latter as vice-principal of Codrington College. After he returned to England he became vice-principal of Alban Hall, Oxford; and he accompanied Archbishop Whately to Ireland, as his private chaplain. He was subsequently presented with the living of Yardley, in Herts., by Dr. Coplestone, bishop of Llandaff. Dr. Hinds again returned to Ireland, having been preferred to the living of Castlenock by Archbishop Whateley, and was chosen private chaplain to Lord Clarendon, lord lieutenant of Ireland. Hence he removed to the deanery of Carlisle, but was scarcely settled there when he was appointed to the bishopric of Norwich. He had previously refused the bishoprics of New Zealand and Cork. He laboured in this diocese for seven years, often preaching in the churches, attending religious meetings, and delivering addresses of a high character. He generally preached at the anniversaries of the Church Associations in this city. He resigned the see of Norwich in April, 1857, and retired into private life. His health is said to have been impaired by his arduous labours in conducting the Oxford commissions which the government had entrusted to him, and which, added to his duties in the diocese and the office of chaplain to the house of lords, proved too much for his constitution. Dr. Hinds is perhaps the most learned of modern bishops. His literary talents are considerable. He is the author of the “Rise and Progress of Christianity,” first published in the “Enclyclopædia Metropolitana,” and considered a standard work, highly esteemed for its comprehensive views of religious truth. The “Three Temples of the One God;” “Catechists’ Manual;” and “Inspirations of the Scriptures,” are works from his pen, which testify to his deep learning and great research. He is the author of many beautiful poems and hymns, some of which are familiar to the congregation at Norwich Cathedral, from being repeated in the service as arranged to music. The confirmation hymn is simple and appropriate.

_Mr. William Dalrymple_.

In a brief history of the _Norfolk and Norwich Hospital_, published by Dr. Copeman, we find the following memoir of the subject of this notice:—

“Mr. Dalrymple was a native of Norwich, his father having removed
thither from Scotland. He was born in 1772, and at an early age was
sent to the Grammar School at Aylsham, in Norfolk, from whence he was
removed to the Free School at Norwich, where he became a favourite
pupil of its then head master, the celebrated Dr. Parr. Here he had
for a schoolfellow Dr. Maltby, and with both, Dr. Parr kept up a
friendly intercourse of visits to the latest period of his life. It
affords a strong proof of Mr. Dalrymple’s early talents and his
industry in cultivating them, that, although in accordance with the
then custom of requiring medical apprenticeship to extend to seven
years, he was obliged to leave school at the age of fourteen, he had
yet attained such a proficiency in classical reading, and so correct
an appreciation of its beauties, that, amidst all the urgent and
various occupations and anxieties of his succeeding life, he found
the greatest relief to his toils in a recurrence to his favourite
authors. His taste was scholarlike as well as scientific; his
conversation embued with classical allusion, and his felicity in
quotation remarkable. {527}

“Mr. Dalrymple was apprenticed in London, and studied at Guy’s and
St. Thomas’ Hospitals under Cline and Sir Astley Cooper. He returned
to Norwich in 1793, and opened a surgery in his father’s house; and
although for several years his progress in establishing a practice
was slow, he at last attained the highest reputation as a surgeon in
his native city, and for many years enjoyed the confidence,
friendship, and patronage of a very large number of patients of every
grade of society and in every district of the county.

“In 1812 Mr. Dalrymple was elected assistant surgeon to the Norfolk
and Norwich Hospital, and two years afterwards succeeded to the full
surgeoncy, a post which he occupied with great credit to himself and
benefit to his profession until 1839, a period of twenty-five years.
He was then in the 67th year of his age, his powers were less
vigorous, and finding himself no longer equal to his hospital
practice, he resigned his position there, receiving a cordial
acknowledgment from the governors, of ‘the able, humane, and
successful exercise of his official duties,’ and being honoured by a
request to accept the appointment of honorary consulting surgeon. In
1844 Mr. Dalrymple finally retired from professional life, and died
in London on the 5th of December, 1848, aged 75 years.

“From the year 1831 to 1835, I had ample opportunities, as house
surgeon of the hospital, of observing, and profiting by, the mode in
which the late Mr. Dalrymple performed his public professional duties
in that institution; and remember with pleasure and satisfaction,
that I was sometimes able to render assistance, and save trouble, to
one so deserving of the gratitude and goodwill of those with whom he
had to do. At the period referred to, Mr. Dalrymple was beginning to
feel the burden of heavy surgical responsibilities more weighty than
his somewhat feeble frame would bear; his naturally acute sensibility
was increased by a measure of debility resulting from overmuch
professional occupation. The sudden call to perform a serious and
difficult operation was accompanied sometimes with a degree of shock
to his nerves, which told upon him injuriously; and the desire he had
to save the life of the sufferer submitted to his charge (always a
predominant feeling in his mind,) would well-nigh overpower him with
emotion. I have often heard him say that he was not able to sleep
the night before he had to perform the operation of lithotomy,
although in such cases his success was great; but he possessed so
much sympathy for his patient, and felt his own responsibility so
strongly, that he failed to secure to his mind that rest which alone
could have enabled him to meet the contingencies of his profession
with composure. This nervous sensibility was due in part to original
constitution, and increased by professional toil. Sometimes it
arises from defective knowledge, or from want of success; but so far
from either being the case with Mr. Dalrymple, his knowledge was
ample, the result of many years’ industrious application of a mind
capable of vast acquirements—sufficient to have given him confidence
in the treatment of any case submitted to his care; his success was
beyond that of many placed in similar circumstances; such, indeed, as
might fairly have been expected from one who had so much sympathy for
suffering humanity, and who devoted the whole energy of his mind to
devise means to relieve it. For a long period no one but himself,
perhaps, was aware of the stress upon his feelings which his
professional duties, so well performed, were wont to occasion; and
when it did become apparent to others, it was delightful to witness
how pleased, how grateful, how kind in expression he was for any
attention, encouragement, or assistance offered him; and how highly
he estimated the friendship of those who watched an opportunity to
perform those little offices of kindness and consideration, which,
although difficult to be defined, can always be appreciated by a
sensitive mind and a feeling heart.

“The experience of a long and active professional life endued Mr.
Dalrymple with the valuable qualification of forming a right judgment
in cases of a complex and difficult nature, which was fully
appreciated and acknowledged. The firmness and decision of his
opinion upon a difficult case, when once formed, could not fail to
impress the practitioner by whom he was consulted with confidence,
and his patient with the assurance that dependence might be placed
upon the result of his deliberations.

“No one who had the privilege of Mr. Dalrymple’s acquaintance can
think of him otherwise than as a kind friend, a highly intelligent
and well-informed man, an amusing and instructive companion, and a
profoundly gifted practitioner of the art and science it was the
business and happiness of his life to pursue.”

_Mr. John Greene Crosse_.

We make the following extracts from a memoir of Mr. Crosse published in Dr. Copeman’s _History of the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital_.

“John Greene Crosse was the second son of Mr. William Crosse, of
Finborough, in Suffolk, and was born on the 6th of September, 1790.
In order to make known some particulars of his early life and
education, I cannot do better than quote his own journal, which
contains many remarks upon the subject evidently intended to have
formed part of a history of his life. In April, 1819, he penned the
following observations.

“‘I never went to boarding school, which contributed, with many other
occurrences of my subsequent life, to fix me in the unsocial habits
that hitherto never did and never will forsake me. In my early
years, no classical learning, not a line of Latin, was taught at the
proximate market town to which I resorted as a daily pupil; and my
first lessons of reading, arithmetic, and writing were received from
a master of whom I entertained the greatest horror, for the ferocity
of his conduct, the severe discipline by which he drove into us the
simplest rudimental knowledge. His stern brow, raucous voice, and
long cane, are now livelily depicted to my mind: how much I owe to
him, I am even now, with a long life in retrospect, unable to tell;
but I was glad when circumstances arose that released me from his
tutorage.’

“‘Very small matters, and such as we have no control over, and call
accidental because unable to trace the chain of causes giving rise to
them, influence our mortal destinies. I had attained my 12th (?)
year, under such tremendous instruction as is related, when a Welsh
gentleman making some mistake at college (not implicating his good
character, an _informality_ I should call it) found it well to
rusticate; and taking with him his premature wife, sought a living by
opening a classical school in Stowmarket. I became one of his early
pupils; and but for this good, easy man’s settling in the town,
should never have launched into such studies as Latin and Greek; of
which, it is true, I did not learn much, nor very accurately. But he
was, nevertheless, a plodding, working man; an increasing family made
him exert his abilities to the utmost; and I got out of him all the
instruction I ever received as a school-boy in the learned languages.
When about fifteen years of age, returning from my daily school, in a
feat in jumping, I had the accident, I ought not perhaps to say the
misfortune, to break my leg. The respectable village surgeon
attended me: he was one of the old school; of fine, soft, soothing
manners, clean dressed, with powdered head; rode slowly a very
well-looking horse; in short, he was a gentleman, and commanded the
respect of every one when he entered the house; he was also a skilful
and kind surgeon. What wonder that the idea should be awakened in my
mind to be of the medical profession! to be as great a man as he—the
Village Doctor! to whom every one bowed, and who could relieve pain
and cure injuries so quickly and skilfully. I had conceived an
object of ambition, and the idea never deserted me. I was in a month
upon my crutches, and soon recovered; a surgical case fixed my future
destinies.’

“‘I persevered a few years longer at Latin, Greek, French, and
Euclid. My father was successful and able now to place me out well;
wished me to be a lawyer, and I was for a time under the instruction
of a gentleman of that profession—attending bankruptcy meetings, and
feasting at midnight at the expense of the already distracted
creditors. Those were good times for lawyers. A learned chancellor,
whom I met on one such occasion, I well remember complimenting me on
my quickness in counting money; but all would not do, my mind was
prepossessed—I quitted the law to follow my inclination; I made my
own choice; it was a pledge to success. The surgeon who cured my leg
agreed to take me as his first and only pupil, and I was accordingly
articled in due form for five years.’

“On the 27th of September, 1811, Mr. Crosse went to London for the
purpose of studying his profession in that Metropolis, and was the
following day introduced to Mr., afterwards Sir Charles Bell, whose
pupil he became, with whom he contracted a close intimacy, and of
whose merits as a teacher and man of science he always spoke in the
highest terms of respect and gratitude. In the following January, he
entered to Abernethy’s Lectures; and in April, 1812, became a student
at St. George’s Hospital, where his industrious habits and
intelligence attracted the particular attention and marked notice of
the medical officers of that noble institution. In the following
month, he entered as a pupil at the Lock Hospital; and in the course
of the year, officiated as House Surgeon during the temporary absence
of the gentleman who occupied that situation. In the following
winter session, commencing October, 1812, he studied under Brodie,
Bell, Brande, Clarke, Home, and others; and remarks in his journal,
‘very industrious all this winter, sitting up constantly till past
two a.m.’ In March, 1813, he became a dresser to Sir Everard Home at
St. George’s Hospital; attended Midwifery under Dr. Clarke; and on
the 16th of April, passed the College of Surgeons in London. After a
short holiday, he returned to London on the 13th of May, and attended
the Eye Infirmary at Charter-house Square. In June, he resigned his
dressership under Sir E. Home; became acquainted with the late Mr.
Travers, Abernethy, Sir W. Blizard, and Dr. Macartney, whom he agreed
to accompany to Dublin; and much of his spare time during this summer
was devoted to the study of German, a language he ever after
cultivated that he might enjoy the profundity and research of the
professional literature of that country.

“Mr. Crosse left England for Dublin on the 2nd of October, 1813,
arriving there the following day. In December he became Demonstrator
of Anatomy under Dr. Macartney, and remained there until October,
1814, when he returned to London, having received a very handsome
testimonial from the numerous students of the school in which he
taught, as to his ability and energy in the capacity of their
instructor in anatomy.

“On quitting Dublin, Mr. Crosse returned to Suffolk, and was
afterwards introduced to the late Dr. Rigby of Norwich. In December
he went to Paris, where he remained until the end of February, 1815,
during which period he took French Lessons, wrote his Diary in the
French language, and availed himself of every possible opportunity of
increasing his professional knowledge.

“On the 29th of March, 1815, Mr. Crosse came to Norwich; and after
remaining one year in lodgings, took a house in St. Giles’, in which
he resided for many years. He soon after published his “Sketches of
the Medical Schools of Paris,” and showed, both by his writings and
the industrious pursuit of his professional avocation, that he was
destined to arrive at considerable eminence in the locality he had
chosen for the arena of his future life. On the 19th of July, 1823,
he was the successful candidate for the appointment of Assistant
Surgeon to the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital. So great was his desire
to become connected with the Hospital, and so strong the competition
in which he was engaged to obtain this object, that his health gave
way under the exertions he made to succeed; and he was obliged to
absent himself for a time, on which occasion he took a trip to
Holland, visiting Brighton on his return. The result was favourable,
and he returned to Norwich in good health. On the death of Mr. Bond,
in 1826, he was elected full Surgeon to the Hospital, and thus
attained one of the greatest objects of his ambition.

“The rapid rise and progress of Mr. Crosse’s reputation as a
professional man, and the large extent of his private practice, are
too well known to require further notice; but notwithstanding the
unremitting exertions required to fulfil his private engagements, he
never allowed them to interfere with his public duties; and the
devotedness of his service to the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital was
remarkable. It may be truly said that no private patient received
more kindness, skill, and attention at his hands, than did those who
were placed under his care in the wards of the Hospital.

“As an operating surgeon, Mr. Crosse had but few superiors, and not
many equals. He was possessed of considerable manual tact and
dexterity, which, coupled with a sound judgment as to the necessity
for the performance of an operation, stamped him as a surgeon of
first-rate attainments. In his early professional life he studied
anatomy with great assiduity, and his subsequent occupation as
Demonstrator of Anatomy at Dublin so impressed the subject upon his
memory, that the constitution and form of the human body were always
in his mind’s eye; and thus he was rendered equal, at all times and
upon all occasions, to the serious emergencies of surgery. In short,
he obtained and held for a long period the foremost rank in his
profession in this district; and such was the quality of his mind,
that he would probably have been pre-eminent in whatever locality it
might have fallen to his lot to be placed.

“In 1819, Mr. Crosse published _A History of the Variolous Epidemic
of Norwich_, which has been, and is even now, quoted as an excellent
standard work. In 1822 he published _Memoirs of the Life of the late
Dr. Rigby_, prefixed to the valuable Essay which the Doctor had
published some years before _On Uterine Hæmorrhage_.

“In 1835, the Jacksonian Prize was awarded him for his _Essay on the
Formation_, _Constituents_, _and Extraction of the Urinary Calculus_;
and in the same year he received, in consequence of this Essay, the
Diploma of M.D. from the University of Heidelberg.

“From 1822 to the close of his life, Mr. Crosse contributed many
valuable Papers to different medical periodicals, which are of deep
interest to professional men.

“In 1836, Mr. Crosse was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society—a
distinction which marked him for eminence throughout the whole
civilized world. In 1845, the College of St. Andrew conferred the
Degree of M.D. upon him, and there is scarcely a medical or surgical
society in Europe of which he was not a member, as well as being an
honorary member of the most eminent societies in Asia and America.

“During the last year of Mr. Crosse’s life (1850), it became
painfully evident to his friends that he was gradually losing that
vigour of mind and body which had so long characterized him; and at
the urgent solicitation of his medical advisers, he was induced to
leave home for a few weeks, when he took the opportunity of
consulting Sir B. Brodie and Dr. Watson in London, and spent a short
time with the late Dr. Mackness at Hastings, of whose kindness he
afterwards spoke in the highest terms of gratitude. On his return
home, he endeavoured to resume his professional and even his literary
avocations; but although in a degree benefited by his holiday, he
gradually lost power, and it was clear that his race was almost run.”

He died in his 60th year, having been a resident in Norwich 35 years.

_Dr. Hooker_.

Norwich and Norfolk have produced an array of distinguished botanists, such as Smith, Turner, Lindley, and the elder Hooker. The president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Dr. Joseph D. Hooker, F.R.S., is the son of Sir William J. Hooker, formerly Director of the Royal Gardens at Kew, and he succeeded his father in that very important post on November 12th, 1865. The present director of Kew sprung from a race of botanists. His paternal grandfather, a citizen of Norwich, devoted his leisure to the cultivation of curious plants. This circumstance, doubtless, helped to create that taste for botany which, in the career of his illustrious father, has borne such ripe fruits. On the maternal side, the grandfather of Dr. Hooker was Mr. Dawson Turner, of Yarmouth. The eldest daughter of this gentleman became the wife of Sir William J. Hooker in 1814. Mr. Turner’s is a well-known name in the annals of British botany; he is the author of various botanical publications, and it was at his suggestion that a narrative of a visit made to Iceland in 1809 by his future son-in-law was given to the world, a work which brought the name of Sir William J. Hooker prominently before the scientific world. So descended Dr. Joseph D. Hooker was born at Halesworth, in Suffolk, on June 30th, 1817. Although thus by birth a native of Suffolk, he is by descent a Norwich man. He has been a great botanical traveller in many parts of the world, and he has added greatly to our knowledge of the plants of Asia and India. On August 19th, 1868, as President of the British Association, when the meeting took place in Norwich, he delivered the Inaugural Address in the Drill Hall before a large audience.

_Mrs. Opie_.

Amelia Opie was the daughter of Dr. Alderson, a physician in Norwich, and was born here in 1769. The varied circumstances of her early life gave the bent to her after career. In her girlhood she beguiled the solitude of her father’s summer house by composing songs and tragedies; on her visits to London, the superior society into which the graces of her person and the accomplishments of her mind introduced her, served to stimulate her aspirations; and after her marriage, in 1798, to the painter, Mr. John Opie, she was encouraged by her husband to become a candidate for literary fame. Accordingly, in 1801, she published a novel, entitled _Father and Daughter_. Although this tale showed no artistic ability in dealing either with incidents or with characters, yet it was the production of a lively fancy and a feeling heart, and speedily brought its author into notice. She was encouraged to publish a volume of sweet and graceful poems in 1802, and to persist in the kind of novel writing which she had commenced so successfully. _Adelaide Mowbray_ followed in 1804, and _Simple Tales_ in 1806. The death of her husband in 1807, and her return to Norwich, did not slacken her industry. She published _Temper_ in 1812, _Tales of Real Life_ in 1813, _Valentine’s Eve_ in 1816, _Tales of the Heart_ in 1818, and _Madeline_ in 1822. At length, in 1825, her assumption of the tenets and garb of the Society of Friends checked her literary ardour, and changed her mode of life. Nothing afterwards proceeded from her pen except a volume entitled _Detraction Displayed_, and some contributions in prose and verse to various periodicals. A good deal of her life was spent in travelling and in the exercise of Christian benevolence. When in this city she was often seen in the assize court, sitting near the judge. She seemed to take a great deal of interest in criminal cases. She died here in 1853. A life of Mrs. Opie, by Miss C. L. Brightwell, was published in 1854.