Chapter IV: Part 4

Signing every pair of parish indentures 1 0

Every license to sell ale, the fee to the clerk of the peace for
filing ye recognizance, stamp and paper included 5 0

Every recognizance for peace or good behaviour 2 6

Every warrant for the highways 1 0

Swearing the surveyors to their presentment and receiving it 1 0

Every hue and cry 1 0

Every warrant for appointing overseers of the poor 1 0

Signing a warrant to distrain for the poor's levy 2 0

For a warrant to disturb inmates 1 0

An order and copy for removing a person from one parish to
another 2 6

If drawn by another and only signed by you 1 0

Signing a certificate from one parish to another 1 0

Making and signing every original pass. 0 0

Signing every other pass 0 0

Every mittimus 0 0

Taking examn. of a settlement or bastard 1 0

Drawing an order for adjudging the reputed father of a bastard
child 2 0

Signing the same order 1 0

Warrant to levy every penalty or forfeiture 1 0

For a summons for conveaning Quakers, &c. 0 6

Every order thereon 1 0

A warrant upon refusal 1 0

For a summons for a master who refuses to pay his servants'
wages 0 6

For the discharge of a servant from his master 1 0

A warrant to distrain for servants' wages 1 0

Allowing overseers' or constables' levys 0 0

Signing freeholders' lists 0 0

For every warrant to the collector of the land tax for taking
up a deserter. 1 0"

In 1753, William Cooper, of Shipston, was fined £5 for taking money of William Taylor, of Armscot, to excuse his serving upon the jury at Sessions. The only remaining item under this head is an order made in 1789, "that at all future Sessions, business be conducted only by counsel, and not by attorneys as heretofore; but that in testimony of the respect due to Wilson Aylesbury Roberts, Esq., for his integrity and abilities, as well as for the regularity of his attendance and the assistance this court has received from him through a series of years, he is from henceforth received and heard as our advocate or counsel, as if he was a barrister, and as if the said order had been never made."

Witchcraft.

Our county records do not contain evidence of the existence of this superstition to a great extent, owing to the fact that witchcraft cases were usually tried at the Assizes. The first instance occurring in the Sessions rolls is in the year 1601, when Edward Buckland "exhibited articles complaining of John Genifer, to whom he had lent money," and when Buckland's "poor wife" asked for it, Genifer used shocking language, and "charged her with being a witch, and had deserved burning seven years sithence, and if she was a midwife was not fitt to bringe a ---- to bed, much less a woman."

In 1633 the recognizance of widow Bellett, of Stony Morton (?) was taken, to appear at the next Sessions, to answer charges brought by William Vaughan, of Inkberrow, and others. This document is in some places scarcely legible, but it appears that the principal charge was "for the evil artt that shee useth with the ---- wich, and she gives ---- to finde out goodes lost, and using the name of Peter and Paule therein in profane manner, beinge sayde to be ---- of that sleight ----." I found no account of her trial.

In May, 1660, the examination of Elinor Burt was taken before Gervase Bucke and William Collins, Esqrs., and "being examined whether she hath not taken upon her to cure several persons afflicted with several diseases and distempers in their bodyes, ansheareth and saith, that shee did not take upon her soe to do, but confesseth that when diverse had come to her that hath aches in their heads and other infirmities, she had and hath a gifte from God, by good prayers and laying her hands upon their heads or faces, oftentimes to recover and heal them of their diseases; and being examined what other means she useth to recover sick persons, saith, noe other means but good prayers; and further doth not materially confess." As the Sessions order book does not commence till 1693, there is no means of ascertaining the result of this and other cases prior to that date which are mentioned in this abstract of the records; but in the same year (1660) it is stated that "Joane Bibbe was bound for good behaviour for beinge of evil fame, and suspected for wychcrafte, butt not as yet charged." This is undoubtedly Joan Bibb, of Rushock, who (as stated in a MS. note-book of Mr. Townsend, of Elmley Lovett, who was a county justice at that time) "was tyed and thrown into a poole, as a witch to see whether shee could swim." But she brought her action against Mr. Shaw, the parson, for his share in this transaction, and recovered £10 damages, and Mr. Townsend compounded for her and others with Mr. Shaw for £20. The same MS. records the bringing of four other persons from Kidderminster that year, and ducking them in the Severn at Worcester, but the details of their cases have already been published by Nash.

Elizabeth Ranford, of Great Comberton, widow, lays an information before the magistrates on the 26th of September, 1662, "that she heard Joane Willis, wife of Thomas Willis, of Great Comberton, say that shee will take her oathe that shee, the said informant, is a witch, and bewitched to death one Thomas Right's wife and one Robert Price's child, both of Comberton aforesaid; and that shee behegged one of the said Joane Willis her children; likewise the said informant informeth, that shee, the said informant, was gooing to one Margaret Willis her house, in Comberton aforesaid, about her business, and the said Joane Willis came violently upon her and gave her several blows with a staffe, and ripped her quaife of her head, and prophanely did swear, blood and wounds shee would kill her."

In the month of August, 1666, Ann Powell, spinster, of Kington, lays an information that "upon St. James's Day last she and one Elizabeth Daffye, widow, having discours together concerning Mary, the wife of Anthony Slater (being this informer's dame), the said Elizabeth then told this informer, in the presence and hearing of others of the neighbourhood, that shee had late before had a heifer strangely amisse, and supposing shee might be bewitched, she went to a telster or wise woman (as shee termed her), who told her, the said Elizabeth, that the said Mary, the wife of the said Anthony Slater, had done the said heifer harm, meaning, as this informer conceaveth, that the said Mary had bewitched the said heifer; and further this informer sayth, that by reason of the speaking of the said wordes, her said dame hath been much scandalized in the neighbourhood, and several quarrels and fighting between her and others of her neighbours have ensued thereupon." Although unable to give the result of this charge, the information will be sufficiently interesting of itself, as affording us an insight to the state of society at that time. Joseph Orford, of Oldswinford, nailer, was presented in the year 1687, "for being a common disturber, and for charging Thomas Barnes, a person of good repute, with being guilty of witchcraft, and that he hath boasted that he would have the said Barnes and his wife duckt for witches, and he would procure one John Johnson, a drummer, to be present at the doing it, to make the more sport." But here comes a case with more curious detail.

At the Midsummer Sessions of 1698, Martha Farmer, of Astley, deposed before Mr. James, a magistrate, that Margaret Hill, of Shrawley, came to deponent's house about Midsummer three or four years ago, during her absence, and required her child, who was only seven or eight years old, to sell her some oaten meal, but as the child would not do so in her mother's absence, "shee pluck'd the child to her and hurt her finger, causing blood to come from it. In the morning the child fell ill, and continued in a sickly manner for some days, till a strange woman came to the dore and told her the child was bewitched; and Margaret Hill was sent for to come and pray over the child. She at first refused, but at length being prevailed on, shee said her prayers and the child recovered; but after some time it relapsed into its former sicknesse, and lay screeching and crying." Margaret Hill was sent for the second time, but would not come till after she had been "threatened by Farmer that if the child died she would have life for life. Then shee prayed by the child, which recovered, and continued well." During the child's illness Hill's daughter came to the deponent's house and offered to go for a doctor, and returned the same day, bringing some water in a bottle to cure a surfeit which she said the child had, and desired her not to be angry, for if her mother had injured the child she was sorry for it. Ann Farmer also deposed that when she went to fetch Margaret Hill "the latter called her a Judas b----, and told her she should not be well whilst she lived, whereupon she fell lame, and continues to be soe, beinge fairly persuaded that Margaret Hill was the occasion of her lameness." Mary Wall made oath that "Margaret Hill came to her house and begged for butter-milk, but she had none, and the same afternoon the cow which gave the milk fell ill, and they sent for a man skilled in distempered cattle, who told her that the cow was bewitched; whereupon they sent for Margaret Hill, who came and prayed over the cow. My husband went to a wiseman at Worcester, who said his cow would be dead before he got home (and it was soe), and told him to keepe all suspected persons out of his house. Some time before the cow died, Margaret Hill came and asked witness whether her husband was gone for help for the cow, although they had not informed her of his going." Margaret Powell gave evidence that "7 or 8 years ago Margaret Hill came to buy half a qtn. tobacco, and was refused to trust her, when shee asked witness if shee had any piggs; and going where they were, the piggs began foaming and tumbling about and died." Catherine Jones deposed that the accused "also came to her house 3 years ago to buy a peck of corn, but could not agree as to price, and presently afterwards deponent had a calf fell ill, lingered, and dyed." So damning a body of proof, it may fairly be presumed, was too much for poor Mrs. Hill, but I find no record of the result, the case having probably been tried at the Assizes, the rolls of which court, I suppose, are in London. More particulars respecting witchcraft in this county will be found further on in this volume.

Crime.

From the earliest period to which the county rolls refer, the constables and churchwardens were charged to present in the Sessions all persons who regularly absented themselves from the service of the church and would not receive the sacrament, all innkeepers who made charges above the scale allowed, all tipplers and houses where tippling was allowed during divine service, to report whether due watch and ward was kept and all vagabonds duly punished; besides a variety of other returns. The beerhouse nuisance was even at that time the most fertile generator of crime. In 1602 one Edward Pearce was charged for that, "in November last past, he with one other of his companions were eatinge of fresherings with two women in an alehouse in Inkberrow, and when they had done, Pearce went to his chamber and did set a candle lighted in his window, and when he returned he said that he had done as the scollers in Oxforde did when they meant to doe aney exployt, to light a candle, that they might be thought to be at their book; and thereupon he and his companion in the night went abroade into the field with the two women very suspiciously;" it was also alleged that they set some corn on fire, and "riotously drew drink in kettles and drank it with apples;" and that Pearce drank so long and so hard that a catastrophe occurred which cannot be mentioned here; lastly, that about the same time he went into an alehouse and called for drink, and because the landlady did not make haste he laid her on the fire. A memorial signed by nineteen inhabitants of Bayton was sent to the Sessions in the year 1612, setting forth "that John Kempster and Thomas Byrd do not sell their ale according to the law, but doe sell a pynte for a penny, and doe make ytt soe extraordynarye strong that itt draweth dyvers ydle p'sons into the said alehouses, by reason whereof sondrye assaults, affrayes, blodshedds, and other misdeameanors, are there daylie comytted by idle and dronken companie which doe thither resort and there contyneue in their dronckenes three dayes and three nights together, and also divers men's sonnes and servants do often resort and contineue drinking in the said houses day and night, whereupon divers disorders and abuses are offered to the inhabitants of Bayton aforesaid, as in pulling down styles, in carrying away of yertes, in throwing men's waynes, plowes, and such like things, into pooles, wells, and other bye places, and in putting their yokes for their oxen into lakes and myery places," &c. A nice picture of young England in the seventeenth century. In the same year (1612) Henry Cartlage was presented "for hanging a pair of horns at the door of Kenelm Gritt, at Bromsgrove, insinuating that he was a cuckold," and for other bad actions. It was a very general custom in the middle ages to signalize the unhappy husbands of false women by means of horns. The origin of the custom has always been a matter of dispute. In an old ballad, called "The Merry Humours of Horn Fair," are these lines:

"The parson's wife rides with the miller;
She said, I hate horns I do declare,
Yet happy are the men who wear them,
My husband he shall have a pair."

The Corn Market in Worcester was the usual scene for whipping and using the pillory, as well for county as city prisoners, and from twelve to two o'clock on the market day (Saturday) the time generally chosen, for the sake of publicity. Mary and Elizabeth Squire, _alias_ Skamp (!) were ordered to be whipped there in 1710; and the regular instructions, for women as well as men, were "to be whipped on their backs till they be bloody." On some occasions these floggings took place through the streets, as in 1732, when John Potter was "whipt at the cart's tail from College gate to the liberty-post in the Foregate Street," for a felony. This liberty-post stood at the north east corner of Salt Lane. At other times they were whipped from the bridge to the liberty-post in St. John's. On October 7th of the same year it was "ordered that the sentence passed on Richard Baylis, John Lawer, and Edward Jones, touching their being as this day putt in the pillory, be respited till next Saturday, the Corporation of the city of Worcester having taken down the pillery, and there being not time to get one erected to putt them in the pillery this day." In 1765 two guineas were paid to Mr. Baxter, the Under Sheriff, for erecting a pillory; and in 1797, Thomas Wilkinson was sentenced to the pillory in the Corn Market "for obtaining 4s. from John Waterson, miller, of Salwarpe, on pretence that he was an inspector for printing the prices of grinding in the said mill."

At Bromsgrove, men and women were whipt in the market place; and at Upton, from the bridge to the turnpike gate leading from thence to Gloucester. At the latter town, in 1737, John Willoughby and Adam Cook were presented for removing and carrying away the prison house or gaol belonging to the town! The circumstances of this very singular charge are not detailed, but the presentment was quashed.

The Gaol.

The first mention made of the state of the county gaol was in 1616, when a petition was sent to the Quarter Sessions from the poor debtors confined therein "against various hard usages, exactions, and extortions offered to prisoners by Mrs. Moore, the keeper," and "when one of the justices took pains to amend it she obeyed him not but used more extremities." Mrs. Moore, however, commenced a cross fire, by petitioning the magistrates at the same time, alleging that her late husband had "taken the gaol upon a very great and extreme _rent_," and she and her husband had "given trust and credit to many poor distressed prisoners, hoping of satisfaction at their enlargement," but since the death of her husband divers persons had run into debt, and had brought false articles of accusation against her to shield themselves. Her plea was _ad misericordiam_--that she was "an unprotected female" since the death of her husband, and was persecuted by the very parties to whom she had shown kindness. But unfortunately the lady's allegations were not borne out by fact, for Mr. Fleete, the justice above-named, who had been commissioned to inquire into the matter, caused Mrs. Moore to be bound in £100 "to sell an ale quart of beare for a penie" from that time forward, as it appeared that she had been in the habit of selling the prisoners ale by wine measure, and otherwise so managing her retail business, that for a hogshead of drink which cost her but 12s., she received 32s. Moreover she "tormented those that were of mean condition (i.e., who could not afford to buy her ale) with double irons." So Mr. Fleete ordered this to be discontinued, and that the debtors should be separated from the felons. Nevertheless, next year (1617) out comes the following "Humble petition of the pore prisoners in the Castle of Worcester, humbly showeth unto your good worships that they are many pore men, to the number of thirty prisoners and upwards, who lye there, some upon their behavior, and the most parte of the reste upon matters of small or noe value, having nothinge but the bare allowance of a penie a day to relieve their faintinge bodyes, so that yf they should be inforced to lye longer in this miserable place wold unchristianlike be starved to death with hunger, cold, and nakedness; some of them alsoe having many pore children like to be left to the wide world. May yt therefore please your good worships to consider them, to have their present triall before your good worships, who rather desire to be out of the world than to indure the misery wherein they now are, and your petitioners will ever pray for your worships' health."

A system under which a gaoler rents his prison, and makes his profit by selling drink to the inmates at an enormous rate, reads curiously enough in these days when the science of prison discipline has so greatly advanced as to induce us to make the most costly sacrifices. It will be observed that the county prison was on the site of the ancient castle, once standing near the Cathedral precincts, but which had long been destroyed. An order was made in 1723, "that Mr. Hall, the treasurer, doe take due care that the partition be made in the women's ward, in order to keep the debtors from the felons." In 1767 the Clerk of the Peace was directed to apply to the Treasury for the grant of "a certain piece of garden ground, about five acres, lying contiguous to the public gaol of the county, and particularly serviceable to the occupiers thereof for the time being, and also the site and remains of the old castle or citadel of Worcester, which now is and hath long been used as a public gaol or prison and bridewell for the said county," and praying that the grant of the premises be made to the Earl of Plymouth, Lord Coventry, Lord Sandys, Lord Ward, and other magistrates, including the names of Lygon, Rushout, Winnington, and Dowdeswell, "in trust, for the keeping of prisoners and otherwise for the use and benefit of this county." A petition was, however, transmitted to the Lords of the Treasury, by the mayor and aldermen of the city, against the grant of the site of these fortifications to the county magistrates, and the city authorities were successful in the application. This seems to have been the first effort made towards gaol improvement, but the period was near at hand when the outraged laws of health were to vindicate themselves. The Worcester county prison, with several others in the midland counties, in the year 1783, was visited with the fatal gaol distemper, which swept the cells of their inhabitants and proved fatal to that eminent physician, Dr. Johnstone. At that period I find an order on the book "to apply to the sheriff for his concurrence to fix a temporary gaol, and endeavour by advertisement and otherwise to find one or more proper places for the confinement of felons." Extensive improvements were set on foot, in which the humane system suggested by the philanthropist Howard was introduced, and when the works were finally completed (in 1795) a sum of between £4000 and £5000--a large amount for that period--had been expended. In 1785, William Lygon, Esq., was thanked "for his great trouble in procuring the removal of a number of transports from the county gaol on board the lighters on Thames, whereby the county was saved a considerable expense and the health of the gaol was preserved." About four years afterwards, and while the alterations were still going on, an order was made not to confine any one in the dungeon of the gaol nor to confine any two prisoners in one cell. The spirit of reform, however, was not yet satisfied, for scarcely had the century closed when it was found that the great outlay that had been incurred was useless, and that the establishment was altogether insecure; William Davis, the gaoler, complaining of the escape of certain prisoners; and a "watchman or guard" was decided on. After an unprecedented opposition on the score of expense, and a protracted scene of strife and contention among the magistracy, the Court of Quarter Sessions at length resolved, in the year 1808 (but not till Lord Chief Baron Macdonald had threatened the county with a heavy fine), to build a new gaol in Salt Lane, at a cost of £18,000. The details of these transactions will be found in "Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century," recently published, the author of which informs us that on the Sunday during or immediately following the Assizes, which used to be known as Assize Sunday, and kept as a great fair, the keepers at the (old) county gaol were accustomed to show the prisoners through the bars to the curious crowd, and collect money in a boot for pointing out those who were sentenced to be hanged! In 1814 the prisoners were removed to the new gaol; and at the very next Sessions, Mr. Wells, attorney, was requested to apply to Mr. Sandys, the architect, relative to the escape of some prisoners therefrom!! From that time to the present this ill-fated building has seemed destined to an endless sinking of capital, for the trial of new experiments and for remedying the stupidity of bygone architects and committees. About £18,000 was spent on it a dozen years ago, and now (1856) nearly £20,000 has been voted for the same purpose.

The Poor.

When the Monasteries were dissolved by Henry VIII, the first authorised parochial machinery was established for the relief of the poor and for suppressing vagrancy. An act was passed authorising the head officers of every parish to receive and keep all poor applicants, putting the able-bodied to constant labour. The necessary funds were to be derived from voluntary contributions collected by the officers, and also the proceeds of stimulating sermons in the churches. But the voluntary system proved a failure, and it was left for Elizabeth to introduce the principle of compulsory taxation for this purpose. The statute 43rd Elizabeth, chap. 2, was kept in full operation till the passing of the Poor-law Amendment Act, in 1834. In the time of Elizabeth, cottage building for the poor was an object of great jealousy to the inhabitants of towns and villages, who dreaded the location of paupers amongst them, and took immense pains to "pass on" any mendicants who happened to stray within their boundary. Officers were usually appointed to "remove intruders," and these knowing "porrochials" would not infrequently offer a bribe when no other means had availed for ejecting the obnoxious tramp from a parish. By an act (31 Eliz.) it was declared that "no cottage should be erected unless there be four acres of ground of their own freehold to be continually used therewith." The operation of this statute was often attended with great 'privation and suffering to the poor, and the Sessions Rolls of this county abound with petitions and memorials to the bench on the subject. In 1612, William Dench, labourer, of Longdon, in his petition, set forth that "being destitute of habitation, and having a wife and seven small children, William Parsons, of Longdon, in charity took him to live in a little sheepcot of his in the said towne, with the consent of the churchwardens and overseers; but because yr poor orator (the usual term for "petitioner") had not licence in open Quarter Sessions, nor under the hands and seals of the lords of the manor, and because the said sheepcot standeth on the freehold of William Parsons, and not on the waste, contrary to the act 43rd Elizabeth, chap. 2, therefore he was indicted and is sued to an outelary (outlawry), petitions for pardon and for a licence to continue in the said sheepcot."

The Worcester County Quarter Sessions, 1660, made an order that all cottages erected since the late war should be "pluckt downe" as a "greate grievance," and that no house-room should be provided for "lusty young married people," who, if they unwisely married before they had got houses, were told to "_lye under an oke_." A few years previously, one Corbett, a Parliamentary soldier, settled at Bricklehampton, and purchased half-an-acre of land to build a house upon. The parishioners, it seems, were content, but the lord of the manor refused. On application to the Sessions, leave was granted to build.

Two years later, in consequence of great complaints of the country being much burdened and impoverished, the magistrates ordered that the constables should cause every parish to be surveyed and inspected as to how many cottages (and under what conditions) had been erected during the last forty years. It had also been ordered that every person apprehending a vagrant, and bringing him to a constable or tithingman, should have 12d. a piece for them--this step being considered necessary in consequence of "the great charge of wandering beggars and the efforts made in other counties to reduce them." Many persons were indicted for erecting cottages without having the necessary quantity of land attached; their cottages were pulled down, and all their little substance destroyed. Poor people were driven to herd together, great numbers in one house, or to sleep in sheds and in the open air; and thus a law which was intended to suppress mendicancy resulted in great suffering to the lower classes, and undoubtedly to the engendering of filth, disease, and crime. So scrutinizing were the precautions against a liability to support the poor, that no person who belonged to that unfortunate class could travel out of his parish into another, and accept employment and a lodging there, without a certificate from the churchwardens and overseers of his own parish that in case he should ever require relief they would take him back. The following memorials are sad pictures of poverty and suffering in the seventeenth century:

"The humble petition of the poore distressed towne of Duddeley,
most lamentablie complaineth and sheweth unto your good
worships that whereas heretofore wee have with our willinge
duetie and bounden service acknowledged our obedience unto
his majestie, and in the tyme of God's visitation upon your
worships' commande did compassionatelie contribute unto the
citie of Worcester, may it now please you that our poore towne
havinge greivous experience of sicknesse which hath continued
almost for three quarters of an yeare: and our said towne
standing principallie on poore handicrafts men: who are much
impoverished and now themselves wante ayde who heretofore dyd
contribute to the releife of the poorer sorte and likewise wee
havinge att this instant seven score children by reason of
this sicknesse, who either want father or mother or both and
many of these besides divers: in like or greater wante. And
for that the same sicknesse doth continewe and suspected to
increase unto our farther impoverishment and iminent danger of
famishment of many amongst us wee havinge strayned our utmost
abilitie for there succour until this instant and not able
furthur to sustayne there wants doe most humblie petitionate
and beseech your worship to tender our miserie and considerate
our neede by collection and contribution within the countie
whereby the poore will be comforted and preserved and thus for
God's cause. Tendringe our humble suit to the consideration of
your mercifull affections, wee in all humilitie remember ye
service restinge to protest and confirme the truth hereof at
your worships' command.

"RICHARD FFOLEY, Mayor.
"HENRY JACKSON, Vicar.
"RICHARD FINCH, Bailiff.
"(And a number of inhabitants.)

"Duddeley,
8th of
April, 1616.

"The consideration of this petition is referred to Sir Francis
Egiock and Sir Richard Grevys, knights, who are desired to take
order therein accordinge to justice."

The following petition is dated 1693:

"The humble petition of ye poore inhabitants of ye Tything of
Whistones, humbly showeth, that the said inhabitants, through
the greatness of the several taxes and dayley increase of
our poore (to whom we pay 4s. per pound) and all manner of
provision so excessively dear, by means thereof most of ye
contributors to the poore are reduced so low to their very
small estates and mean imployments that they are not able
to mayntain them aney longer unless yr worships will be
charitably influenced to redress our grievances, wee being
the true objects of yr compassionate consideration; your
petitioners therefore most humbly pray that yr worships would
be favourably pleased to consider our necessitous condition,
and either to annex and joine us unto Claynes, being our
parish, to which undoubtedly ye said tything is a member and
thereunto belongeth, or to order us the hundred money as
formerly, or as Parshore, by some adjacent parishes to help us
and ease the unsupportable burden which our shoulders have and
still groan under, without which timely assistance many of our
poor fellow Christians will unavoidably perish and languish
through miserable hunger and want."

In the parish records of Claines (now in the churchwardens' chest of that church) an allusion to this petition is entered on one of the account books, to this effect, that upon the complaint of the inhabitants of the hundred of Oswaldslow, of the great burthen of the poor of the Tything of Whistones, alleging that the same township was in the town of Claines, an examination into the facts was intrusted to the Lord Windsor, Sir E. Dineley, and others, when the inhabitants of Claines showed that the township of Whistones was an ancient township, and had "parishtionall officers" to themselves, and was not in the parish of Claines, but anciently had its own church, and that the township was never included in the parish of Claines, and that the poor there had received relief of the hundred from time immemorial--at least from the time of King James--and never from Claines; that it had been questioned in the time of King James, but could never be shown that Claines had paid to their poor. The Court thereupon would not alter proceedings observed for so long a time, and discharged Claines from the said poor, except by paying its share as a part of the said hundred.

Vagrancy--notwithstanding the extraordinary vigilance exercised for its suppression--maintained a flourishing existence. The following is one of the earliest instances of the "begging letter imposture," and a greater specimen of impudence probably was never exhibited by any member of the class who have in our own days become so notorious:

"To the Worshipful Robert Charlton.

"Though I am unknown to you, yet the report of your courteous
behaviour towards all gentlemen in distress emboldeneth me to
beseech you to take into your favourable consideration the
sad condition which I am now in, who for my loyalty to the
King was by the great tyrant (Cromwell) banished and sent into
the West Indies, where I thought I had shot the very gulfe of
affliction, but cominge lately from thence (in a ship bounde
for London) was by tempest at sea driven into Wales amongst a
salvadge people, who had noe regarde to my misery (although I
am become the very object of pittie), soe that in my jorney
hither I have tasted of the bitterness of adversitie, for I am
in such a nasty ragged posture that I am ashamed to present
myself before aney person of quallitie; yet beinge destitute
of money to beare my charges to London (or acquaintance in
these parts to borrow of), fame of your most noble and generous
disposition gives me encouragement to presume upon your
goodness, hopeing you will be pleased to accommodate me with
a small sum, and if it please God that I ever come into this
country againe I will repay it. Moreover you will perpetually
oblige him whose ambition is to stile himself

"Your servante,

"JOHN SEAMOUR.

"Sir,--I am well known to your son, Mr. Job Charlton, and I
doubt not but you have heard of me. _I am that Seymour who
delivered the last letter from his majesty that now is to the
late king upon the scaffold, a little before he was murthered_,
therefore I beseech you let me receive your answer by one of
your owne servants, for I am unwilling that aney base peasant
should know my condition.

"May 8, 1661."

Another handwriting on the same document records that, "Upon examination of the above-named Seamour I finde nothing of truth in the above letter, neyther that he was banished by Cromwell, nor that he hath ever been in West Indies, or that he landed in Wales; but this I find that he hath been a wanderer almost all over England, and knoweth most men of any quallitie in the kingdom, and hath changed his name so oft that he hath almost forgot it. It is also reported that he hath one wife at Harford, with another at Bristol"--(the remainder of the document is destroyed).

It appears by another that Seamour informed Mr. Charlton that he had been "_the king's tutor and bedfellow for seven years, and had preached the late king's funeral sermon_!" The art of impudence could not much further go; and it is probable, by an information being laid at the Sessions, that the fellow received his reward, but the books containing convictions and sentences of that date are not in existence.

In 1698, however, I find on the books that "Wm. Bilson, for wandring abroad with a false letter of request, p'tending a ffire at Icomb, be publicly whipt on Saturday next." Five years later it was "ordered, for the carrying of vagrants, that the constable be allowed 2d. per mile for one horse, and by the same proportion for two or three horses, or if a teame having three or more horses, then to allow them 6d. per mile, and to allow the passengers 5d. per head for their night's lodging and necessaries." In 1714 an order "touching the settlement of Ann Guise" was quashed on the ground of "there being no such place as Leye-Shinton." The magistrates' geographical knowledge must have been somewhat limited if they were unaware of the existence of a place but five miles off. It is probable, however, there was some legal technicality in the matter, and that Leigh Sinton, which is only a hamlet or place in the parish of Leigh, had been represented as a parish of itself, which the bench could not admit. I now give an interesting document relative to the mode of proving a pauper's settlement in 1738:

"Upon the appeal of the churchwardens and overseers of the
poor of the parish of Camden, in the county of Gloucester,
to an order of removal of Mary Calcott from the parish of
Kingsnorton, in the said county of Worcester, it appeared to
this court, upon the examination of the said Mary Calcott,
taken upon her oath in court, that the said Mary Calcott was,
upon All Saint's Day, in the yeare of our Lord 1735, hired
with John Ellis, of Camden, chapman, for a year, to spin with
yarn, at the rate of 1s. 6d. a stone, and that she was to
provide herself with meat, drink, washing, and lodging, where
she pleased, and that she spunn for him the whole year, and
lodged in her said master's house, and boarded with him at
Camden, and received 1s. 6d. a stone for her work, allowing her
master 2s. 6d. per week for her lodging and board. And upon her
examination she said that by her said contract as aforesaid
she thought she was not at liberty to work for any other
master, but she thought she was at liberty to play or be absent
from her work as long as she pleased, being to be paid att a
certain rate for her work done. Wherfore it is the opinion of
this court that the said hyring and service aforesaid was not
sufficient to gain for the said Mary Calcott a settlement in
the parish of Camden, and this court doth accordingly reverse
the said order of removal."

A refusal to serve the office of overseer by a resident of the Cathedral precincts (in the year 1804) may be unknown to the present inhabitants of that locality, to whom it will prove interesting:

"I, Francis Stafford, one of the sextons of the Cathedral
Church of Christ and the blessed Mary the Virgin of Worcester,
do hereby give you and each of you, and all others whom it
may concern, notice that I shall appeal to the next general
Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be holden at the Guildhall of
the city of Worcester, against the nomination and appointment
made by you under your hands and seals, and bearing date July,
1804, whereby you nominated and appointed me by the name and
description of 'Francis Stafford, a substantial householder of
the vill and hamlet of the precincts of the Cathedral Church
of Christ and the blessed Mary the Virgin of Worcester, in
the county of Worcester, to be overseer of the said vill and
hamlet;' and be pleased to take notice, that the grounds of
my appeal are--that the said precincts are not nor never were
reputed to be a vill and hamlet, nor a place for which an
appointment of overseer is directed by law. And further, that
the said precincts are not, nor were, nor at any time have been
reputed to be, a vill, village, hamlet, or township, nor a
place for which an appointment of overseer is directed by law.

"Witness my hand, &c.,

"FRANCIS STAFFORD.

"T. Dowdeswell, Esq., and
"Henry Salmon, clerk."

The order for the appointment was quashed at the October Sessions of the same year. Exemption from the interruption of the civil powers was what all the great monastic establishments sooner or later obtained, but that of Worcester had a long struggle with the hereditary sheriffs of the county before its immunity from their officers could be obtained. The Reformation introduced great changes, and the precincts of the Cathedral became part of the outer county, but still they remain independent of the city or county interior, being a separate district under the superintendence of the Dean and Chapter.

Social Regulations.

In no one particular does the contrast between the present times and those of which we are treating appear more marked, or the progress of society more decided, than in the interference of the ruling powers of olden times with various descriptions of trades and occupations. There were the assizes or ordinances regulating the price of bread, ale, fuel, and other common necessaries of life; they clipped or expanded servants' and workmen's wages; prohibited or encouraged by bounties the growth of various articles of consumption; adjusted carriers' charges and the numbers of horses they might use up certain hills; permitted the sale of many things only by license; and otherwise sadly dammed up the current of human progression within their own narrow channel. As regards servants' wages, it would appear that the scale allowed early in the seventeenth century was far from illiberal, for in the year 1613 the authorities of Broadway petitioned "that servants' wages be rated according to the statute in that case, for we find it a great grievance in this county the unreasonableness of servants' wages, so that they have grown proud and idle." The rates for wages for servants and labourers fixed in 1663 were as follows:

£. s. d.
"A bailie of husbandrie by the yeare 4 0 0

A cheife hynde by the yeare 3 6 8

An ordinary husbandman 2 10 0

A laborer by the day without meat and drinke from the
feast of All Saints untill Candlemas 0 0 7

And with meate and drinke 0 0 3

After Candlemas vntill harvest without meate and drinke 0 0 8

And with meate and drinke 0 0 4

A mower by the day without meate and drinke 0 1 0

And with meate and drinke 0 0 6

A reaper the like as a mower.

A woman reaper without meate and drinke. 0 0 8

And with meat and drinke 0 0 4

Sawers by the hundred, without meate and drinke 0 2 4

With meate and drinke 0 1 2

A thatcher by the day without meate and drinke 0 1 0

And with meate and drinke 0 0 6

A carpenter by the day without meate and drinke 0 1 0

And with meate and drinke 0 0 6

A mason the like wages as a carpenter

A laborer with a carpenter or a mason by the day without
meate and drinke 0 0 10

A made servant, by the yeare 1 10 0

A dairy maide or cheife maide servant, by the yeare 2 0 0"

In 1731 it was ordered "that printed advertisements be publicly sett upp in all publick places that the wages and rates of servants and labourers be the same as last year, except masons, who are allowed 14d. a day."

The corn trade was an object of special attention. An instance of the great want of agricultural statistics occurs in the year 1631, when the subjoined imperious missive was received by the Worcestershire magistrates from the government officials at Whitehall. This document will probably be considered confirmatory of the experience derived from history--namely, that whether a state undertakes to buy for the people what they may want for their consumption, or regulates the trade by interfering with the supply, it is immaterial as to the result. In either case the people may expect to be starved whenever corn is scarce:

"We cannot but very greatly merveile (marvel) that
notwithstanding his Majesty's proclamation and book of orders
and the diverse earnest letters of this Board, the price of
corne and other graine is risen so high, and the same sold at
such excessive rates in many places; neyther can wee conceave
how this can be if the directions sent from hence had been duly
executed; you are therfore to take notice that wee expect a
more careful performance thereof and a more particular account
then hath hitherto been given us, and accordingly wee do
hereby, in his Majesty's name, expressly charge you to cause
presently a diligent and exact survey to be made through all
that county, what provisions of graine there is, and to returne
to this Board a certificate thereof with all expedition, and
likewise to see the markets well served according to the
orders, and not forestalled by greedy engrossers, to the
intollerable wrong and prejudice of those that are to buy,
especially of the poorer sort. You are likewise to use your
best care and endeavour that during the continuance of this
present dearth the maltsters be not permitted to make any
greater quantities of malt than may be sufficient for necessary
use; that soe there may be more plenty of barley for the
reliefe of the poore; and soe wee bid you hartily farewell.

(Signed by) "LONDON. "H. MANCHESTER.
"DORCHESTER. "DANLEY.
"EXETER. "E. NEWBURGH.
"LINDSEY. "J. FALKLAND.
"THO. COVENTRY. "T. COKE."

In 1715 it was ordered "that Richard Carwardine, of Castle Morton, have a licence to be a comon badger of corne for one year;" and in 1732, "that Thomas Wadley, of Hanley Castle, have a licence granted him to be a common badger, buyer, seller, and carrier, of all sorts of corn and grain in any fair or market within this kingdom of England, so that the same continue in force but for one year from the date hereof and no longer." These badgers of corn were persons who bought corn to sell again. By the statute 5th Elizabeth, chap. 12, they were compelled to take out an annual licence from the Quarter Sessions. At the present time, persons who go round to the farms and cottages in the neighbourhood of Monmouth to buy poultry and bring it for sale to the market at Monmouth are called "badgers."

In pursuance of an act passed in 1769, weekly returns of the prices of wheat, rye, barley, oats, and beans, were ordered from Bewdley, Kidderminster, Stourbridge, Dudley, and Bromsgrove; and the following persons were instructed to furnish such returns: Timothy Clare, stationer, Bewdley; John Fawcett, weaver, Kidderminster; Robert West, stationer, Stourbridge; Oliver Dixon, mercer, Dudley; and George Wall, skinner, Bromsgrove.

Towards the close of the same century many convictions took place "for selling loaves of bread without imprinting on them the letter W in Roman capital, the said loaves not being rasped either before or after the bespeaking or purchasing thereof, against the form of the statute." Ordered (in 1710) "that Wm. Dimock, of Bishampton, have a licence for a comon higler, lader, kedder, carrier, buyer, and seller, of hens, chickens, capons, eggs, butter, cheese, ffish, and all other dead vittualls, except pheasants, hares, and partridges." The Clerk of the Peace was instructed in 1730 "to give notice by public advertisement in the Worcester newspaper for all carriers in the said county to attend this Court at the adjourned Sessions, in order to settle the price of carriages, according to the form of the statute in that case made and provided." It was likewise ordered "that no common waggoner or carrier shall take for carrying any goods to or from Bewdley to London the sum of more than 7s. per cwt. till further order." And in 1752, "that every waggon or other carriage drawn up from the signe of the White Hart, Broadway, to the top of the hill, so far as in the county of Worcester, may be drawn with ten horses if the owner shall think proper." Ditto, up the Malvern Hill, with seven. Tolerably suggestive this of queer roads and stiff gradients. The rates of carriage to be charged by carriers were fixed by the Quarter Sessions under the statute 3rd William and Mary, chap. 12, sec. 24, and the number of horses by which carts and waggons were to be drawn was regulated by the statute 5th George I, chap. 12.

Large quantities of salt were from time to time lost in the Severn, as the vessels laden with that commodity were making their way down the river from Worcester, owing to strong tides and violent winds; and the rolls record frequent applications to the Court "for certificates to entitle them (the owners) to such allowance as the act of Parliament permits." These allowances were no doubt the return of a part or the whole of the very heavy duty then levied on salt.

By the 21st George III, chap. 58, and 26th George III, chap. 43, certain bounties were offered for the cultivation of hemp and flax. Nevertheless, England has never grown a sufficient quantity for its own consumption, farmers not regarding it with favour, owing to the supposed exhaustive nature of the crop. In Worcestershire, for 1782 and some following years, claims were made (and allowed by Quarter Sessions) for these bounties, by--

Jos. Cooper the elder } All Saints, Evesham

Jos. Cooper the younger }

(grown by them at Bretforton, Great Hampton, Fladbury,
Pershore, Honeybourne, Cropthorne, and the Littletons).

John Taylor of Bromsgrove.

Henry Ellins of Stoke Prior, at Rushock, Doverdale, Bromsgrove,
Stoke, and Hanbury.

Thomas Brooks, Droitwich, at Doverdale.

John Tolley of Stoke, at Tardebigg and Hanbury.

Jos. Rose, Bromsgrove.

George Dunklin, ditto.

William Moore, Tardebigg.

Jos. Downing, Bromsgrove.

James Andrews, Pershore.

John Corbyn, Tardebigg.

James Heynes, Alvechurch.

William Shepherd, ditto.

Eliz. Eaves, ditto.

Edw. Pearkes, ditto.

Thomas Overton, Tardebigg.

Jos. Duffill, Bromsgrove.

H. D. Humphries, ditto.

Jos. Rose, ditto.

William Hutchins, Wick, Pershore.

John Tolley, Stoke.

Clement Nash, Stoke.

William Tay, Kingsnorton.

Jos. Everill, Tenbury.

Jos. Downing, Belbroughton.

Thomas Brookes, Droitwich.

From 1787 to 1792 the Worcestershire claims for flax bounty amounted to £79. 8s. 10d., and these were allowed.

Tobacco also was an article of which the Court of Quarter Sessions took cognisance, and some interesting particulars relative to the growth and suppression of "the weed" in Worcestershire will be found in another part of this work.

In the year 1670 the grand jury presented Henry Sandalls, bailiff of Bewdley, "who hath toll of the market, for upholding unjust measures;" Elias Arch, bailiff of Kidderminster, ditto; Thomas Foley, Esq., "who receives the benefit of the toll of Stourbridge, for not providing a brass measure according to act of Parliament, and for not making the measures of the town according to the same; and that the justices do take into consideration the great abuse that the people of this county which resort to this city of Worcester to market do receive by unjustness of the measures, and by the jogging and shaking of the same;" and suggesting various rewards for the capture of several known offenders.