Chapter I: Samuel III. 18 (1)

Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

GENESIS XVIII. 25.

In Affectionate Memory of
Richard Cecil Henry,
The second beloved son of
James Henry Gwyther, M.A., Vicar of this Parish,
And Mary Catharine his wife.
Born Sep. 21st, 1851. Died April 4th, 1855.

Yes, Thou art fled and saints a welcome sing,
Thine infant spirit soars on angels’ wing,
Our dark affection might have hop’d thy stay,
The voice of God has called his child away.
Sweet Rose of Sharon, plant of holy ground,
Like Samuel early in the temple found;
Oh; more than Samuel blest, to thee ’tis given,
The God he served on earth, to serve in heaven.

BENEFACTIONS.

1706. May 28th, Basil Brooke, Esq. of Madeley gave by will £40, to which an addition of £60 was made by unknown Benefactors, wherewith certain Cottages and Premises were purchased and conveyed to Trustees for the benefit of the Poor of this Parish.

1800. The yearly sum of five shillings was given to the Poor of this Parish to be paid out of the Rates of the Premises lately belonging to Mr. Richard Beddoes, but now in the possession of Walter Bowdler, of Madeley.

1825. Joseph Reynolds, Esq., of the Bank House, presented a Service of Communion Plate for the use of this Church, of the value of £100.

1810. Sept. 6th, Mr. William Yate, of this Parish, gave by will to the Churchwardens for the time being in Trust, four kneelings in his Pew, No. 13 in the Gallery, for the benefit of the Sunday Schools of this Parish.

1852. Thomas Lister, Esq., of Broseley, gave £100 to the Sunday and National Schools connected with the Parish Church of Madeley, which sum was invested in the three per cent Consolidated Annuities, on the 19th day of January, 1853, in the names of Rev. J. H. A. Gwyther, John Anstice, and Thomas Smith, Vicar and Churchwardens, Managers of the said Schools.

The Foundation Stone of this Church
was laid by the Rev. George Pattrick, L.L.B.,
September 22nd, 1794.

Divine Worship first performed therein by the Rev. Samuel Walter, A. M., Curate of this parish, on Easter Day, being

April 16th, 1797.

William Purton, Thomas Wheatly, } Churchwardens.

MADELEY. EXTINCT AND ANCIENT NAMES.

An old book containing tithe charges has names of places now no longer known. In 1786, for instance, Mr. Botfield is stated to occupy under the family of the late Sir Joseph Hawley some pieces of land called the Hoar Stones. The Rev. Charles Hartshorne in his Salopia Antiqua describes hoar stones at some length and quotes passages from sacred and profane writers to shew that they were in some cases memorial, and in others division marks between property. They occur at a place called Hoar, or “Whure Edge,” on the Titterstone Clee, and in several other places in Shropshire and neighbouring counties, whilst in Wales, both north and south, they are still more numerous.

Among old names of places applying to portions of Madeley Court property we find the Hopyard, adjoining “the slang,” a piece of 11 acres, 2 perches, and 16 roods, formerly in the occupation of Mr. W. Purton, and belonging to Richard Dyott Esq.; and the Coneberry, and Coneygrey; Deer Close, and Battlefield, all belonging to the same in 1787.

MADELEY MARKET.

Grants of markets and fairs appear to have been made by kings in former times by way of favour to the holders of manors, rather than from a wish to accommodate the people who shared the privileges. Madeley market was granted by the necesstous king, Henry III., to the Prior of Wenlock, July 6, 1269. He also granted an annual fair, to be held on three days; namely, on the vigil, the day, and the morrow of St. Matthew the apostle. The market was to be held on Tuesdays, but it fell into disuetude, and was either removed to or revived in another portion of the same manor; and the inhabitants of the village for many years, had no market nearer than Ironbridge or Dawley. The old market was at one time held at Cross Hill, in an open space where a group of cottages now divide the roads. It was also held at one time in a building which served as a market hall, now the property of Mr. Legge, adjoining the barn in which king Charles was lodged. Subsequently it was removed to Madeley Wood; and afterwards to Ironbridge, which was at that time a rising place. Ineffectual attempts were made in 1857 to re-establish a market, but nothing effectual was done till 1869, when an energetic committee was appointed, of which Mr. Legge was Treasurer and the writer of this article was Sec., which succeeded in establishing the market, first in the open street and secondly in treating with the lord of the manor, through his agent, W. R. Anstice, Esq., for the erection of a suitable building, on condition that a scale of tolls was adopted sufficient to cover the outlay. The market has proved of great advantage to the town; not only to purchasers but to tradesmen, by causing more ready money to be spent in the town than formerly.

MADELEY AS A PART OF THE FRANCHISE OF WENLOCK.

Madeley for the last 900 years has been associated with Wenlock. It formed part of the possessions of the Church of St. Milburgh in the time of King Edward (son of the Great Alfred) at the commencement of the tenth century, and is mentioned as such in Domesday. It shared the privileges which the many franchises obtained by the Prior of Wenlock conferred. These privileges and exemptions from taxation gave, Mr. Eyton observes, to each acre of land a two-fold value. On the other hand it suffered from the occasional extortions of the Priors, and inconveniences from being subject, as all lands of the Borough were, to the Mother Church of Holy Trinity, Wenlock. It was subject to the Courts of Wenlock, and as early as 1267 a case is mentioned in which the Provost of Wenlock and the Prior were engaged in _disseizen_ one of the tenants of the Prior at Madeley.

The Bailiff and his peers, together with the Recorder, were Justice of the Peace, with a Jurisdiction co-extensive with the Borough.

These officers had Constables in the several divisions of the Borough, termed Allotments, sometimes Constablewicks. The men selected for the office appear to have been men of substance, standing, and integrity; and upon them devolved the duties of maintaining the laws, of collecting monies for the king &c.

Here, for instance, are the “Articles which the constables” of Madeley and Little Wenlock were called upon “to present upon oath.”

1.—What felonies have been committed and what default . and by and
in-whom.

2.—What vagrant p’sns. and sturdy beggars have passed through yo’r.
limitts unpunished, and whether the same and impotent poor of yo’r.
p’ share provided for, and poor children bound apprentices according
to Law.

3.—What Recusants of about the age of sixteen are in yo:e limitts,
and who absent themselves from church on ye Lord’s Day, and how many
sabbaths.

4.—Who have profaned the Sabbath by swearing, labouring or otherwise.

5.—What Ingrossers, forestalled, or . . . of the market, of cow or
cattle, or other dead victuals are within yo’r limitts, or any
Badgers or Drovers of cow or cattle.

6.—Who make mault to sell of corn or grain or tythe or tylth not
being their own . and are not licensed thereunto.

7.—What Masters or Servants give or take greater wages than is
appointed by Justices of the Peace according to Law.

8.—What cottagers or inmates are evicted, removed or maintained, and
by whom, and how long.

9.—What unlawful games, drunkenness, tipling other evil rule or
disorder hath been in Inns, ale houses &c. and by whom.

10.—What Servants have departed from their masters, and what masters
have put away their servants within the compass of their time.

11.—Who use gunns, or take or destroy hawks or hawk’s eggs, of
pheasants, partridges, younge deer, hares, snipes, fish, or fowl,
with snares or other engines whatsoever for that purpose against the
Law.

12.—Who use unlawful weights or measures or buy by a greater and sell
by a lesser weight or measure.

13.—Whether watch and ward be duly observed and kept according to ye
statute; that is to say, between Ascension Day and Michaelmas in
convenient places, and who has made default therein.

14.—What highways have been repaired and what have been neglected.

15.—Who have sold beer, or syder, or perry, &c. unlicensed, or who
hath evaded ye assize of bread and drink unlawfully, either the
bakers or assizers.

16.—What butchers have killed or sold meate on the Lord’s Day, or
sold any unwholesome flesh at any other time.

17.—Who have any assault, battery, or bloodshed.

18.—Who have profanely sworn or cursed, and how often.

19.—What common brawlers, drunkards, scoulds, eavesdroppers,
talebearers, and such disordered p’sns are within y’re limits.

20.—Who have sold ale or beer on the Sabbath day, or who have been
drinking or tipling in any alehouse on that day.

As the reader may surmise, from references to recusants and others who refused or neglected to attend church, or to acknowledge the supremacy of the King as the head, these instructions were drawn up and submitted by the Bailiff to the Constables of Madeley, Little Wenlock, Beckbury, and Badger, in the early part of reign of William and Mary.

Vagrants and sturdy beggars, it appears, were to be strictly looked after; they swarmed through the country, giving themselves up to pilfering; the women breeding children whom they brought up to the same idle way of living, so that, according to a writer about that period, (1677) there were 100,000 paupers in England. Harsh measures were therefore resorted to: the law of Settlement was passed, and once more the poor were reduced to bondage to the soil from which they had been emancipated a century or two before. By this law, which remained in force 130 years, and which was not repealed till the close of the last century, the poor were imprisoned within their allotments; and upon the complaints of the Churchwardens or Overseers, any two Justices of the Peace had power to lay hold of the new comer and within forty days remove him to the Parish in which he was last settled, unless he could prove that he was neither a pauper nor a vagabond, or that he rented a tenement of the value of £10 per annum.

Here, for instance, is a copy of a letter addressed to the constables of Madeley.

Wenlock

To the Constables of the p sh. of Madeley,
Greeting.

Whereas I have been informed yt. Thomas Richasson doth endeavour to
make a settlement within the s’d p’ish of Madeley, contrary to the
laws &c. I am therefore in the King and Queen’s Ma’ties names, of
England that now are, to will and require you the said Constables, or
one of you that you bring before me or some other of their Ma’ties
Justices of the Peace for the said Town and lib’ties, the body of the
said Thomas Richasson, to the Serjeant’s House in Much Wenlock, upon
Tuesday the tenth day of this instant month of March, to answer to
such matters as shall be objected against him by the overseers of the
poor of the parish of Madeley. And you, the said constables, are
required to give notice to John York of yo’r p’sh, Smith, that he be
and appear before me &c. at the time and place above said, by nine
o’clock in the morning, to put in sureties for his and his wife’s
good behaviour towards Elinor Alnord, Widdy, and all their Ma’ties
loyal people. And you are to make due returns of this warrant at the
time above stated &c. Given under my hand and seal this second day
of March, Anno domini 1690.

You must give notice to Thomas Cope, Anne Cludd, and Elizabeth Morris
to appear to testify the truth of their knowledge.

Lan. Stephens.

Probably there were other reasons for these strict enquiries, as the feudal bondage to which the poor were reduced was closely interwoven with another evil, the thriving-traffic of Shipping likely young paupers to American Plantations, as was done by the Bristol Corporation, which held out to the poor wretches the alternative of leaving England or being flogged or imprisoned.

It may perhaps be a redeeming feature in the character of that “ermined iniquity and prince of legal oppressors,” as Judge Jeffreys, who was not unconnected with Shropshire, was called, to say that as Lord Chief-Justice he exerted himself successfully to put down this abomination.

Another summons from Wenlock to the constables requires them by virtue of an Act of Parliament (fifth of William and Mary) to give notice to all householders, and to all others they may believe to be disaffected, inhabiting within their “Constablewick,” being sixteen years of age and above sixteen, to appear at the house of, Humphrey Powell, Sergent-at-mace, at Wenlock &c. to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to their Ma’ties, and to subscribe the declaration in the Act &c. Dated 16th June, 1692.

Signed Thos. Crompton, Bailf.
Chas. Rindar. Recorder.
Lan. Stephens.
John Mason.

This summons does not appear to have brought the parties to book, for we find a large number charged with contempt, and again summonsed under a fine of 40s. to appear before the Sergeant-at-mace.

In 1693, William Hayward, Roger Brooke, Gent., and John Smytheman, Gent., and others are applied to, as assessors for Madeley, Beckbury and Little Wenlock, in carrying out the Act passed in the fifth year of the reign of William and Mary, entitled “an Act for granting to their Majesties an aid of Four Shillings in ye pound for one year, for carrying on a vigorous War against France.” After giving the nature of the property to be taxed, the Bailiff and his Officers call upon the assessors to levy a double tax upon “every papist, or reputed papist, of ye age of 16 years or upwards, who hath not taken the oath mentioned and required to be observed in an Act of Parliament passed in the first year of that reign, entitled an Act for abrogating the oaths of Supremacy and allegiance,” unless they then take the oath they shall administer. The papists however were not alone in this respect; others who had not taken the oaths, or who refused to take those tendered, were to be similarly rated or assessed.

In some cases the Constables were required to look after and to report upon all young men of a certain age and height, likely to be of use to his Majesty in war times, &c.

Here is a specimen.

(To the Constables of Madeley.)

“We whose names” &c., His Ma’ties Justices of the Peace, having
received a summons from the Deputy Lieutenant of the county, together
with a copy of a letter from the Lords of the Privy Council &c.,
Command you to make diligent search for all straggling seamen,
watermen, or seafaring men, and to impress all such, giving each one
shilling, impressment money, and to bring the same before us, to the
intent that they may be sworn and provided for, as by the said letter
directed; and You, the sd. Constables are not to impress any very
old, crazy, or unhealthy men, but such as are younge, and of able
healthy bodies, fit for se’vice; and herein you are to use yo’e: best
endeavours as you and any of you will answer the contrary. Given
under our hands &c.

“You are to take notice that what monye you shall lay out of yo’e:
purse upon this service we will take care the same shall be speedily
repaid you according to the order of their Majesties Privy Council.”

Jas: Lewis, Balf.
Geo: Weld.
Tho: Compton.

Turning back to the period when great political, religious, and moral changes were taking place in the country, when Royalists and Republicans had been struggling for the mastery, and the latter were victorious, to ascertain their reflex and influence upon the little local parliaments sitting in the Guildhall at Wenlock, we found some characteristic presentments by those then important officers the constables, from the several constablewicks within the franchise, with other matters coming before the bailiffs and Justices of the Peace, and instructions issued by them such as may be of interest in shewing the intermeddling spirit of Puritanism in its then rampant attitude, when the neglect of public worship, and the walking out of sweethearts, and even husbands and wives, during sermon time, was punished with fines, imprisonments or the stocks. The stocks in fact appear to have been in frequent requisition, and fines as frequently imposed for such trivial offences as hanging out clothes on a Sunday, being seen in an ale house on the Sabbath, and for the very mildest form of swearing, or for the least utterance of disaffection or disrespect of the Commonwealth. Here, for instance, is the presentment of

“Articles of evil behaviour of Edward Jeames, of Long Stanton Clee,
in the Liberties of Much Wenlock, xiiiith day of September, 1652,
John Warham, gent., Bailiff.

“First, that the said Edward Jeames is a common disturber of the
Publike Peace, of this Commonwealth, by stirring up strife and
sedition among his neighbours.”

The presentment then proceeds to state that the said Edward Jeames doth often quarrel with his owne wife and family.

“Secondly That the said Edward Jeames doth take abroade wh. him a
Welsh servt. Lad wch. he keepeth, to the end yat if any neighboure
being by him abused by opprobvious and unseemely language and word of
provocation, doe make any answeare or reply to him, out of which any
advantage may be taken, the said Lad shall verify ye same upon oath
on purpose to vex and molest the same neighboure and to gaine revenge
against him. Thirdly that the said Edward Jeames, in September,
1651, when the titular king of Scotte invaded yis land wh. an army,
saied openly in ye heareing of divse persons yt he was glad yt ye
kinge was comen into ye land, for if he had not come he thought yt ye
pesent. government would have altered religion & turned all unto
Popery.”

We did not turn to other old parchments containing the decisions of the Justices to see what punishment, if any, was meted out to Mr. Jeames for his evil behaviour, but turned to note some of the Informations laid against ale house keepers, and persons frequenting ale houses on the Sabbath. Here is one from Barrow, not from the Constable, or from one living within the franchise; but from a gentleman who first proclaims his own goodness by telling us that he himself had attended service twice on the Sunday, but who, like many others just then, felt it to be his duty to look after others. He commences by saying

“that yesterday, being Lord’s Day, I was at Wenlock morning and
evening prayer, and going home by the house of John Thompson of
Barrow, ale seller, both the doors being open I saw both hall and
parlour full of people, both men and women drinkeinge and some
drinkeinge forth of dores. There is a private house standing farr
from any rode and hath the report to bee a verye rude house on ye
Lord’s Day. I am Louth to be the informer, because I doe nott live
wthin ye franchise, but leave yt to ye worshps. consideration hoping
you will take som course whereby God may bee better honoured, and his
Sabbathes less defamed in that house. What I can speke of that man
further I forbear, for ye pesent.

Yours to command,
WILLIAM LEGG, senr.”

“Sworn before the Bailiff, John Warham, gent.”

The above John Thompson appeared, and we find

“& is ordered to appear at any tyme hereafter when Mr. Bailiff shall
requyer.

6th September, 1652.”

The next is an information against John Aston, of Madeley, in the county of Salop, in which the said John is summonsed to appear before the Bailiff, John Warham, gent., and Justices of the Peace of the said town and liberties. The information appears to have been sworn to by Thomas Smytheman, of Madeley, husbandman, who states that Lawrence Benthall, and William Davies, of Madeley, were seen drinking on the Lord’s Day, at Aston’s ale-house. The summons appears to have been issued by John Weld the younger, of Willey. The case is now brought before the Bailiff who says:

“Let a warrant issue forth to the officers for the leviing of the
monies forfeited for the said offence, according to the Act of
Parliament in that behalf; signed, John Warham, Bailiff.”

We find similar informations as to ale-houses from Broseley and other parts of the franchise about the same time.

SHEEP STEALING IN SHIRLETT: CUNNING DEVICE.

“The information upon oath of John Eabs of Shurlett, taken upon oath the xxvth day of May, 1648, conserninge some Sheepe stolne from him of late.

“Deposeth that upon ffriday night last he had a Lamb feloniously stolne from him either out of his yearde or out of the pasture, and alsoe upon Wensday night he had likewise a weather sheepe stolne, and upon search made for the same yeasterday being Saturday he wh. Edward Buckley the Deputy Constable, found in the house of Willm. Wakeley in Shurlett a qter. of lambe hyd in a Milkepan, wh. a brest and halfe a brest, a neck not cutt from the brest of lambe, all covered upon wh. flower, yis said Edward Wakeleye’s Wife denynige soundly yat there was any Mutton or lambe in the house or whin. yat Milkepane, and desieringe ye searchers not to shead her flower in ye pan wh. ye meate was hyd in, and indeavouringe to obscure ye place, beinge a Cobard, in wh. ye lambe was, and further cannot informe but yat he verily beleiveth in his conscience ye said meate was feloniously stolne by ye said Wakely or his people.

Sworn before Audley Bowdler.

Edw. Wakeley upon being examined says that the lambe was one of his own which he killed on _Friday_ night, and that parte of it was eaten by his own people before search was made next morne; “being demanded why it was hid and hid over with flower in such obscurity in his house, he says he knoweth not whether it was hid or not, but if it was it was wht. ye privity of ye said Examind, and done by his people unknown to him.”

This puts us in mind of another famous old sheep stealer of Shirlett, who having stolen a sheep hid it in the baby’s cradle, and when the Constables called to search his house, with the greatest _nonchalance_ told them they might search away; but added, “don’t make a noise or else you’ll wake the baby”; and he continued to smoke his pipe and rock the cradle till the search was completed, and the officers departed _without_ finding any “meate.”

The Constables appointed by the Corporation of Wenlock, were officers who within the Constablewicks or allotments into which the Borough was divided, were entrusted, under the Bailiffs with very many important duties, such as collecting monies for the king, and carrying into execution acts of parliament, as well as executing summonses and bringing up defaulters. They were a superior class of men, selected from such as held land, or were persons of property. Later on quite a different class of men were appointed; still, sometimes from small tradesmen, but at others from men who sought the office for the sake of its emoluments, and who often became the tools of unscrupulous men in office, whether Bailiffs or Justices of the Peace; as in the case of Samuel Walters, a broken-down tradesman, whose doings at last, together with that of the Justices, attracted the attention of parliament. Walters, was the son of the Rev. Mr. Walters, incumbent of Madeley, and it may serve to give an idea of the estimation in which he was held in the parish to mention, that he on one occasion attempted to enlist his own father, by giving him the shilling in the dark.

The powers exercised by the borough justices were often most arbitrary, especially when the individual who came within their power happened to be a dissenter, or “a dangerous radical.” On the merest pretence blank warrants were issued, which unscrupulous constables, like “Sammy Walters,” as he was called, carried in their pockets, and filled as occasion required. One notorious instance was that of three Dutch girls, (Buy-a-Brooms, as they were called), whom Walters overtook in his “Teazer,” between Wenlock and Shrewsbury, and invited to ride with him. Calling at a public-house on the road he went in, filled up three of his warrants, and then drove them straight to Shrewsbury gaol. This case came before the House of Commons, and was inquired into by the Home Secretary, and the system of granting blank warrants was abolished throughout the kingdom. Madeley is one of the three Wards into which the borough is divided. For parliamentary purposes Beckbury and Badger are included, these having been, like Madeley, part of the extensive possessions of the church of St. Milburgh. Madeley also formed part of the wide extending parish of Holy Trinity of Wenlock, a parish which embraced Broseley, and was not limited even by the Severn. The words of the charter granted by Edward IV. to Sir John Wenlock were these:—

“That the Liberty of the Town or Borough shall extend to the Parish
of the Holy Trinity, and through all the limits, motes, and bounds of
the same parish, and not to any other Towns or Hamlets which are not
of the Parish aforesaid.”

The charter granted by Charles I., in the seventh year of his reign, added somewhat to the privileges previously possessed, and either gave or confirmed the right of the burgesses to send _one_ member to parliament. Originally it seems to have been the prior who had the right of attending parliament; for we find in 1308 Sir John Weld holding Willey by doing homage to the prior by “carrying his frock to parliament.” How the burgesses obtained the further privilege of sending two members to parliament no one seems to know, and there is no document, we believe, in the archives of the corporation tending to throw light on the subject; but they appear to have enjoyed that privilege as far back as Henry VIII’s time.

The burgesses of Madeley were not numerous, we fancy; some well known Madeley names, however, occur, both as burgesses and as bailiffs, like those of Audley Bowdler and Ffosbrooke de Madeley; the former was “Bailiff of the town and liberties” in 1655 and 1678. In 1661 Thomas Kinnersley de Badger, Armiger, was bailiff, which would seem to indicate that the burgesses of Badger at that time shared in the municipal duties and privileges of the borough. In 1732 Mathew Astley de Madeley, Gent, was bailiff. The Astleys lived in the old hall, a stone building partly on the site of Madeley Hall, now the residence of Joseph Yate, Esq., a portion of which building is supposed now to form the stable. The names of the Smithemans, one of whom married the co-heir of Cumberford Brooke, Esq., of Madeley Court and Cumberford in Staffordshire, occur among the bailiffs. Later on we get that of George Goodwin, of Coalbrookdale and the Fatlands.

At the passing of the Municipal Reform Act in 1835–6 mayors were substituted for bailiffs; the last elected under the old title and the first elected as chief magistrate under the new title was likewise a Madeley gentleman, William Anstice, Esq., father of the present William Reynolds Anstice, Esq., of Ironbridge. Mr. Anstice was elected bailiff in 1834; in 1835 there appears to have been no election, but in 1836 he was the first gentleman elected, as we have just said, under the new title. Subsequently the names of other parishioners, as Henry Dickinson, Charles James Ferriday, John Anstice, Charles Pugh, John Arthur Anstice, and Richard Edmund Anstice, Esquires, occur. The present (1879) Aldermen and Councillors for the Ward are Egerton W. Smith, first elected Alderman 1871, and John Fox elected Alderman 1879; John Arthur Anstice first elected Councillor 1869; Alfred Jones 1873; John Randall 1874; Richard Edmund Anstice 1876; Andrew Beacall Dyas 1878; {235} and William Yate Owen 1879.

The electors for parliamentary purposes prior to the passing of the Reform Rill in 1832 were few in number so far as Madeley was concerned. They consisted of freemen, men who acquired the right to vote for members of parliament either by birth, servitude, or purchase. Such freemen however could live many miles distant; they were often brought at a closely contested election even from the continent, at considerable expense; and the poll was kept open for weeks.

The Act of 1832, 2 William IV., limited this right to persons resident within the borough for six calendar months, or within seven statute miles from the place where the poll was taken, and this was uniformly taken at Wenlock. It limited the right of making freemen to those whose fathers were already burgesses, or who were entitled to become such prior to the 31st March, 1831. The twenty-seventh clause of the act, which conferred the right to vote upon ten-pound occupiers of houses or portions of buildings, added greatly to the franchise in Madeley as compared with other portions of the borough. The alterations effected by the act of 1867 in the borough franchise were, of course, very much greater, as it gave the right of voting to every inhabitant occupier as owner or tenant of any dwelling house within the borough, subject to the ratings and payment of poors rates; also to occupiers of parts of houses where rating was sufficient and separate.

Contests were not very frequent under the old state of things; when they did occur they arose more out of rivalry or jealousy on the part of neighbouring families than from anything else. The most fiercely fought contests that we remember, under the old limited constituency, were those of 1820 and 1826; when Beilby Lawley and Beilby Thompson put up. The most memorable under the ten pound franchise were those when Bridges put up in 1832; and on a subsequent occasion Sir William Sommerville, in 1835. Bridges and Sommerville came forward in the liberal interest, and the numbers polled from Madeley, were—

Sommerville 111 Forester 67 Gaskell 45

Among Sommerville’s supporters were many plumpers.

The more recent contests under the extended franchise were when C. G. M. Gaskell, Esq. came forward, and only polled 846 votes against 1,708 polled by the Right Hon. General Forester, and 1,575 by A. H. Brown, Esq., and the more recent of 1874, when Sir Beilby Lawley came forward.

PETTY SESSIONS.

Madeley with its two sister wards has Petty Sessions once in six weeks, which are held in the large room built for that purpose over the Police Office at Ironbridge. In the lower story are cells for prisoners, very different indeed as regards cleanliness and conveniences of all kinds to the old Lock-up, which many may remember near the potato market. The justices for the borough generally sit here, the Mayor being chief magistrate presiding. The first batch of magistrates, in the place of the borough justices, took place in the 6th year of the reign of William IV., those for Madeley being William Anstice, Esq., of Madeley Wood, and John Rose, Esq., of the Hay. Others have been appointed from time to time as circumstances seemed to require.

The borough from the first period of incorporation had its General Sessions, and its Recorder, who, being a lawyer or other fit person, was chosen by the burgesses to sit with the Bailiff to be justices of the peace, to hear and determine felonies, trespasses, &c., and to punish delinquents therein; and King Charles’s Charter fixed this court to be held once in two weeks. There was also a General Sessions. The same charter states

“That there shall be a General Sessions of Peace to be holden by the
said Bailiff and Justices in any place convenient within the Borough
aforesaid, from time to time for ever; so that they do not proceed to
any matter touching the loss of life or member in the said Borough,
without the presence, assistance, and assent of the Recorder of the
said Borough. That they shall have all fines, &c., imposed as well
in the said Sessions aforesaid as in all other Courts to be held
within the said Borough.”

In our “History of Broseley,” p.p. 38 and 39, we have given the names of the bailiff, recorder, justices of the peace, those of the constables, and grand jury, who sat in cases heard at Wenlock July 21st, 1653. The right to hold such Sessions was originally granted by Edward IV. in 1468. When the reconstruction of the borough courts took place in consequence of the changes effected by the passing of the Municipal Act in 1836, this institution of General Sessions appears to have been overlooked: but the privilege was afterwards granted upon petition by the council, in the 6th year of the reign of her present majesty.

The magistrates resident in the parish at present are—

Appointed. John Arthur Anstice, Esq. 1869 William Gregory Norris, Esq. 1869 Charles Pugh, Esq. 1871 Richard Edmund Anstice, Esq. 1877

COURTS FOR THE RECOVERY OF DEBTS, COUNTY COURT, &c.

A County Court or sciremote was instituted by Alfred the Great, and gradually fell into disuse after the appointment of Justices of Assize in the reign of Henry II. Courts of Request were afterwards created. The charter already quoted, for instance, speaking of the burgesses says:—

“That they may have a Court of Record upon Tuesday for ever, once in
two weeks, wherein they may hold by plaint in the same court all
kinds of pleas whatsoever, whether they shall amount to the sum of
forty shillings; the persons against whom the plaints shall be moved
or levied, to be brought into plea by summons, attachment, or
distress.”

This court was held at Broseley, before Commissioners, of whom there were eight chosen, to represent the eight parishes over which it had jurisdiction. It was held at the Hole-in-the-Wall public house, and Jeremiah Perry (Jerry the Bum as he was called) was bailiff, and after him Henry Booth, when we remember it. It was abolished when the Act for the recovery of small debts was passed and the present system of County Courts established in 1847. The books and documents, three tons in weight, were transferred to the court at Madeley, afterwards to London, and were sent to the Government paper mills, we believe.

The County Court at Madeley was formerly held in the Club Room of the Royal Oak Inn; but a county court house was erected in 1858. The building is in the Grecian style, and comprises a large court room, registrar’s and bailiffs office, and dwelling house for the court keeper. The present judge of the circuit, which comprises twelve courts, is Arundel Rogers, Esq.; Registrar and High Bailiff, E. B. Potts, Esq.; Chief Clerk, Mr. E. A. Hicks, with an efficient staff of bailiffs. The court has jurisdiction in ordinary cases up to £50, in equity to £500; and divides with Shrewsbury the whole bankruptcy business of the county. A bill has already passed the House of Lords proposing to greatly increase the jurisdiction of all county courts. Scale of fees: summary—

Under £2 1s. in the £. Above £2 1s., and 1s. extra. Hearing Fees 2s. in the £. Executions 1/6 do. do.

There are between 2000 and 3000 new cases annually.

MANORIAL COURT.

This court was originally held at the Court House, by the Prior of Wenlock, as lord of the manor of Madeley, as shewn on page 9, where the pleas and perquisites of the said court are mentioned as being entered in 1379 at 2s. The right to hold such court, a Court Leet, as it was called, was transferred, together with other privileges, by Henry VIII. to Robert Brooke when he sold the manor. It passed to John Unett Smitheman, Esq., who married Catherine Brooke, daughter and co-heir of Cumberford Brooke, Esq., of Madeley, and Cumberford in Staffordshire. The Smitheman’s sold the manor to Richard Reynolds, from whom it passed to his son William. The property belongs now to the devisees of the late Joseph Gulson Reynolds, and those of his brother William Reynolds, M.D.. Esq.

The Court Leet has not been held of late years. It had jurisdiction over various offences, extending from nuisances, eaves dropping, and various irregularities and offences against the public peace.

THE DISPENSARY.

This useful and valued institution was established in 1828. At its fiftieth anniversary, held July, 1878, the president was the Right Hon. Lord Forester. The vice-presidents: the Hon. and Rev. Canon Forester; W. O. Foster, Esq.; the Rev. G. Edmonds; C. T. W. Forester, Esq., M.P.; A. H. Brown, Esq., M.P.; C. G. M. Gaskell, Esq.; and the treasurer, John Pritchard, Esq. The surgeons include E. G. Bartlam, Esq., Broseley; T. L. Webb, Esq., Ironbridge; C. B. H. Soame, Esq., Dawley; J. Procter, Esq., Ironbridge; Dr. Thursfield, Broseley; H. Stubbs, Esq., Madeley; and J. J. Saville, Esq., Cressage.

At this meeting the following subscribers, together with the president, vice-presidents, and treasurer, were appointed a committee for the ensuing year:—

William Reynolds Anstice, Esq.

Mr. Alexander Grant.

Mr. Edward Burton.

Mr. Egerton W. Smith.

W. Gregory Norris, Esq.

Arthur Maw, Esq.

John Arthur Anstice, Esq.

Richard Edmund Anstice, Esq.

Edward Roden, Esq.

Rev. Frederick Robert Ellis.

Rev. George Fleming Lamb.

Mr. Francis G. Yates, (since deceased).

George Burd, Esq.

John Pritchard, Esq., Chairman.

MADELEY UNION.

Prior to the passing of the New Poor Law in 1836 each parish maintained its own poor, a system which had been acted upon, we suppose, from the time of Queen Elizabeth. But how the Madeley poor were housed or treated prior to the erection of the Old “House of Industry,” or “Workhouse,” which stood on the hill overlooking the valley of the Severn, now in course of demolition and conversion into cottages, we are unable to say. {242} In all probability out-door relief alone was administered. At all times there have been kind and open hearted men of means who out of their worldly store have taken care to make some provision for their less fortunate brethren, either during their lifetime or by way of devise at their death. In this way, as we have seen on page 217, there were two principal charities, called the Brooke and Beddow charities which amounted altogether to £100. At the latter end of the last century the trustees appear to have invested this in the purchase of several small leasehold cottages and lands, chiefly at Madeley Wood. When it was resolved to build a house of industry in 1787 these properties were sold by the trustees for that purpose. They consisted of two messuages and 15 perches of land situate at the Foxholes, which produced £45. One messuage and garden containing 6¼ perches in the possession of Samuel Hodghkiss, which produced £24. An old messuage and garden in Madeley Wood containing 17 perches and a piece of garden ground containing 2½ perches, which produced £53 10s. A stable in Madeley Wood which produced £10. And two messuages and gardens in Madeley Wood containing a quarter of an acre, and a piece of garden ground containing five perches, which produced £83; also another which fetched £23; making a total of £235 10s.

The investment itself seems to have been so far a good one; the value of the property having increased, owing to the works springing up in the neighbourhood; and it was resolved to raise a subscription in the parish to be added to this £235. The further amount of £806 13s. 6d. was thus raised, making altogether £1,042 3s. 6d., which sum was applied in the erection on a part of the charity land of a house of industry, the cost of which was £1,086 13s. 7¼d.; and a lease of that piece of land, with the house so erected upon it, containing 3r. 12p. or thereabouts, was at the 2nd of January, 1797, granted by the vicar and the major part of the trustees to the then churchwardens and overseers for the use of the parish for a term of 999 years, at the yearly rent of £18. The Charity Commissioners say that the premises described in the leases do not appear to tally exactly with the parcels contained in the two deeds of purchase; and add:—

“Nor are we able to trace the variations of the property which have
taken place; as far as we can judge, however, nothing has been lost
to the charity. It appears indeed to us that in former times there
must have been considerable inattention in the trustees of the
affairs of the charity, for we find that previously to the leases
granted in 1797, the holders of the tenements claimed the property in
them on payment of the interest of the £100 which had been vested in
the purchase, and the trustees were obliged to establish their right
by an action of ejectment, a state of things which could scarcely
have taken place without much previous remissness on their part.
Whether the trustees were strictly justified in making the disposal
of the property which they did in 1797 may be questionable. In
effect they have sold original property of the charity, and have
purchased a rent-charge on the house of industry. Under the
circumstances of the case, however, it does not at present appear to
us that they could have made a more beneficial arrangement. The
income of these premises, amounting to £18 4s. 6½d., together with
5s. a year derived from another fund, has been for many years applied
in providing clothing for the poor. At Christmas 1818, tickets of
5s. value were distributed to 71 poor persons, which were received in
payment by the different tradesmen for such articles of clothing as
were wanted. In 1817 the distribution was wholly suspended, and in
the preceding year partially, in order to raise a fund for defraying
the expense of a new trust deed. This had occasioned a balance in
hand at the time of our inquiry of £23 15s. The deed was prepared
and paid for, and it was intended that the whole of the remaining
balance with the accruing rents should be given away at the ensuing
Christmas.”

For some years the proceeds of the charity were given away to the poor—blankets were bought and distributed; but for over forty years, prior to the last distribution in 1879, it had been accumulating, excepting that on the first and second visitations of the cholera, it was made use of for the purpose of alleviating the distress then existing; and it had been thought advisable to permit its accumulation for the purpose of forming a reserve fund on which to fall back in times of urgent distress, whether arising from contagious disease or depression of trade.

The charge of £18 per annum upon the old poor-house was transferred to the new, and is still paid to the trustees; and to the sum accumulated has been added the £750 which the old workhouse sold for, and it was out of the interest of the whole that the last distribution of the funds of the charity took place in 1879, when blankets to the value of £70 or thereabouts were given away.

The union of parishes was formed in 1836, and Wm. Anstice, Esq. was chosen chairman. He held office for fifteen years, and was succeeded by G. Pritchard, Esq. who held it for eleven years. At his death W. Layton Lowndes, Esq. was elected, and held the office for seventeen years. John Arthur Anstice, Esq., who succeeded Mr. Lowndes on his retirement in April 25th, 1879, now discharges the duties of the office.

A building erected and designed for the poor of one parish was scarcely likely to be suited to the wants of a number of parishes, like Barrow, Benthall, Broseley, Buildwas, Dawley, Linley, Little Wenlock, Madeley, Posenhall, Stirchley, and Willey, which formed the new Union; and although additions were made from time to time the building was evidently inadequate for the accommodation of the number of paupers, tramps, &c., who sought aid or refuge within its walls. It was some time however after the subject was broached before anything was decided. Some Guardians advocated the further enlargement of the old building, whilst others were for a new one entirely; but these even differed among themselves, some being in favour of a new building on the old site, whilst others advocated another site and a new plan altogether. The Poor Law Commissioners at Somerset House accelerated the issue by threatening to close the old building, as unfit for the uses to which it was put; the result being that a site was purchased and the present extensive and well arranged suite of rooms, wards, &c., with their various conveniences, were erected. The original loan of £6,000 obtained in 1870 towards the purchase of the site and the erection of the building was to be paid back by instalments out of the rates levied in the several parishes of the Union, according to the proportions of the rating. The loan altogether has been £10,000, and, with interest, the cost of the erection may be said to have been £13,800; but a further sum of £600 is required for the erection of tramp wards. The building stands upon 7¾ acres, which was purchased at a cost of £1,700; and six acres, previously very rough ground, is under cultivation, and made productive, and in part highly ornamental, by the judicious labour of the inmates of the house. Altogether the grounds and building have a pleasing rather than that forbidding appearance such institutions sometimes have. The building consists of a front range, with central entrance, with master’s sitting room, board room, and clerk’s offices, on the right; whilst on the left are the visitor’s rooms, and one for the porter, with male and female receiving wards, bath room &c.

Inside the quadrangle we get central offices of various kinds, cooking and dining rooms, pantry, clothing room, master and matron’s offices. On the right are the laundry, the washhouse, work rooms, able bodied women’s rooms, children’s room, old infirm women’s room, and three small apartments for married couples. There is also a dormitory on the ground floor for old and infirm women; and over the whole of the offices and rooms mentioned are bedrooms. On the left are similar arrangements to those we have mentioned for the men, but with workshops for carpenters and tailors. On the east is the infirmary, a detached building, with male and female apartments, nurses, &c.; and below this a fever hospital. The whole building is capable of giving accommodation to 225 inmates; but at the time we write 88 are the total number, notwithstanding the very depressed state of trade; and 90, we learn, is about the average.

We visited many of the rooms, that in describing the building we may be able to give our own impressions of the appearance of the inmates. The bedrooms were tenantless, but clean, well lighted and airy; we could not say however what they would be from the breath of so many sleeping in them at night time. Many of the old people we saw in the day rooms were very old, and a large number imbecile, several having been recently brought here from Bicton Heath Asylum. And although this was the case with the women there seemed something about the internal domestic arrangements, which, in giving them employment, seemed to create interest. There was a cheerful alacrity among the female workers, in washing, ironing, mending, making, and scrubbing, and a readiness in replying to questions put by the matron which seemed to speak favourably of the way in which she discharges her duties amongst them. In the “day-rooms” of the men too, although we saw feebleness and age, we saw little of that torpid inanimateness, helplessness, and hopeless looking withered faces one is apt to look for in workhouses. Some were dim-eyed with age, but others were reading books, and more would read no doubt if they had something to read which was interesting. And why should they not have? Here were old men 75, 80, and “going of 85,” sitting round a good cheerful fire in a snug room to whom a few illustrated books or newspapers, which everybody could spare, would be a godsend. If all cannot read some can, and they would be pleased to amuse or interest their fellows. We suggested as much to Mrs. Hayes, the matron, who approved of the suggestion of these and of a few prints hung up in the bedrooms, as well as the day and school rooms; as also did the Rev. H. Wayne, one of the Guardians, who wished we had been in time to make the suggestion to the board. We mention it here that it may be acted upon by others, if the board, or to the master, to whom all such books, prints, or papers should be submitted, approve. Age and infirmity require as much commiseration as childhood, and in very many respects the same means will comfort and solace the aged and impotent as the young child. We ought at any rate to try to make old age endurable. If we do not do this we but add to the weight of old age already bent down with infirmities, and—

‘We furnish feathers for the wing of death.’

One thoughtful lady had, we found, kindly furnished the school-room with some really good prints and drawings. On sunny and suitable days Mr. Hayes employs the men in the grounds, and by the growth of vegetables contributes to the maintenance of the establishment, of which we might say much more if space permitted.

The amount administered in out-door relief at present is a little over that of in-door maintenance, which for the half year ending Michaelmas, 1878, was £544 11s. 2¼d

We have already mentioned Master and Matron: Clerk to the Board Mr. H. Boycott; Chaplain Rev. G. Wintour. Relieving officers Mr. W. Morris and Mr. W. T. Jones.

THE CHOLERA.