Chapter III: Part 3

1847—JULY—(General Election.)—Mr. C. Lloyd, nephew of Lord Mostyn, canvassed the electors on the Liberal interest, and had some promise of support from the agents of a noble lord in the neighbourhood (Lord Ward), who was expected rather to have thrown his influence into the Conservative scale; but, notwithstanding this, Mr. Lloyd found that he had very little chance of success, and consequently retired, leaving the field free for Sir John Pakington, Bart., who was reëlected.

BEWDLEY.

THIS, before the Reform Bill, was a close Tory borough, with some thirty or forty self-elected burgesses, who returned their member with no confusion or turmoil. Under the new state of things, Stourport joins with it in the exercise of the franchise, and the united constituency now includes 371 electors. Parties have been very evenly balanced here of late years.

1802—JULY—(General Election.)—Miles P. Andrews, Esq., who had for some time represented the town, again chosen.

1806—NOVEMBER—(General Election.)—Mr. Andrews reëlected.

1807—MAY—(General Election.)—Mr. Andrews reëlected.

1812—OCTOBER—(General Election.)—Mr. Andrews reëlected.

1814—AUGUST—(Vacancy occasioned by the death of Mr. Andrews.)—Charles Edward Wilson, Esq., of Bognor, Sussex, chosen.

1818—JUNE—(General Election.)—Wilson Aylesbury Roberts, Esq., returned; Mr. Wilson having retired in his favour.

1820—MARCH—(General Election.)—W. A. Roberts, Esq., reëlected.

1826—JUNE—(General Election.)—W. A. Roberts, Esq., reëlected.

1830—JULY—(General Election.)—W. A. Roberts, Esq., reëlected.

1831—MAY—(General Election.)—W. A. Roberts, Esq., reëlected.

1832—DECEMBER—(General Election.)—After the passing of the Reform Bill, Mr. Roberts did not choose again to offer himself, and Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., was elected without opposition. He was proposed by Arthur Skey, Esq., and Jonathan Worthington, Esq.

1835—JANUARY—(General Election.)—Sir Thomas Winnington reëlected without opposition.

1837—JULY—(General Election.)—Sir Thomas Winnington resigned in favour of his son, T. E. Winnington, Esq., who was elected without opposition.

1841—JULY—(General Election.)—For the first time this century this borough was contested, Mr. Robert Monteith, son of a Lanarkshire gentleman who had accumulated a fortune as a Glasgow merchant, coming forward to oppose Sir Thomas Edward Winnington. At the nomination Sir Thomas was proposed by A. Skey, Esq., and seconded by J. Williams, Esq.; and Mr. Monteith by W. A. Roberts, Esq., and K. Watson, Esq. Sir Thomas declared himself for an alteration of the Corn Laws, but for some measure of protection. Mr. Monteith declared himself a thorough Conservative. The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Monteith, and the struggle throughout was a most severe one. In the Bewdley district Mr. Monteith had a majority of eight, but this was more than counterbalanced by Sir Thomas’s advantage at Stourport. The total numbers were—Winnington, 173; Monteith, 168: majority, 5. A scrutiny was threatened but not proceeded with. A dinner was afterwards given at the Swan Inn, Stourport, to congratulate Sir Thomas Winnington on his return. The chair was filled by George Harris, Esq., and the vice chairs by B. Devey and P. Baldwin, Esqs.; and the company numbered 180. In September, the Conservative party entertained Mr. Monteith at a dinner in a large marquee—400 persons sitting down to the tables; Slade Baker, Esq., presided. In the ensuing month Mr. Monteith sent £100 to be distributed amongst the various charities of the two towns.

1847—JULY—(General Election.)—Sir T. Winnington was again opposed, and this time successfully, by Thomas James Ireland, Esq., of Hooton Hall, Suffolk, professing high Church and State principles, and liberal in the expenditure of his money. At the hustings, Sir Thomas was proposed by Mr. Skey and Mr. Baldwin; and Mr. Ireland by Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Heath. The show of hands was in Mr. Ireland’s favour, and after a most exciting struggle Mr. Ireland was declared to have 160 votes, and Sir Thomas only 158.

The return was petitioned against; and on the 4th March, 1848, the inquiry commenced before the Parliamentary committee, consisting of three Liberals and two Conservatives. Mr. Sergeant Wrangham and Mr. Sergeant Kinglake were the principal counsel employed by Sir Thomas Winnington; and Mr. Alexander, by Mr. Ireland. After five days’ examination of witnesses, the committee decided that Mr. Ireland was not duly elected—that it had been proved that a voter, named Price, had received £15 for his vote—and that treating had been proved against Mr. Ireland’s agents. The recriminatory case against Sir Thomas Winnington occupied six days, and the committee decided that he had been guilty of treating, by his agents, and that therefore the election was void. Mr. Elgie, his principal agent, was himself examined, and proved that 26 or 27 inns were opened on Sir Thomas’s side, some of which supplied as many as 1,000 gallons a day. The committee made a special report to the House that a most pernicious system of intimidation, kidnapping and treating prevailed in the borough, and the writ was suspended, on the motion of Mr. Hume, until the evidence was printed and laid before the house. On the 12th of April, Captain Rushout moved that a new writ should issue, but Sir John Hanmer proposed its further suspension. After a debate, in which the corruption disclosed in the evidence before the committee was pretty freely commented upon, the House came to a division, and 80 members voted for issuing the writ, and 38 against it; so the writ was ordered, and a fresh election took place in—

1848—APRIL 17—The candidates on this occasion were Viscount Mandeville, son of the Duke of Manchester (Conservative), and the Hon. Spencer Lyttelton (Liberal). On the hustings, Mr. Lyttelton was proposed by Mr. Skey and Mr. Pierce Baldwin; and Viscount Mandeville by Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Heath. The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Lyttelton, but Viscount Mandeville headed the poll throughout; the numbers at the close being—Mandeville, 171; Lyttelton, 156. Of course this election was, to a great extent, free from the corrupt practices of former ones, but the circumstances under which it occurred furnished matter enough for excitement.

KIDDERMINSTER.

KIDDERMINSTER once returned two members to Parliament, but not liking to have to pay them was, upon its own petition, relieved of the “honour.” It was again enfranchised by the Reform Bill; but had only one member allotted to it. The constituency here is remarkably small, in comparison with the population, owing to so few of the operatives living in houses which pay £10 a year rent. The number of electors now on the register, including duplicates, is 490.

1832—(General Election.)—In anticipation of the passing of the Reform Bill, Richard Godson, Esq., a barrister on the Oxford Circuit, who was very popular with the weavers because of his successful defence of some of their number when tried for riot, made an entry into the town on the 4th April, 1831, and gave a public statement of his political principles. He was not, he said, the nominee of some lord, but one of the people, come to represent the people. The Reform Bill was merely a restoration of the good old constitution, which would give every man his proper weight in the national assembly. All other reforms must follow it; the defects of the church must be removed; and, especially, there must be a free trade in corn. And though he was interested in a West Indian estate he should advocate Emancipation, &c. &c. His reception was, altogether, most enthusiastic. He was, however, opposed by G. R. Phillips, Esq., of Weston House, Warwickshire, also professing reform principles. Mr. Phillips was proposed, on the hustings, by J. Newcombe, Esq., and H. Talbot, Esq.; and Mr. Godson by William Boycot, jun., Esq., and Mr. James Cole. A very severe contest took place, and the numbers at the close were—Godson, 172; Phillips, 159: majority for Godson, 13. The total constituency was 388.

1835—(General Election.)—Mr. Godson was again opposed by Mr. Phillips. Mr. Godson still professed to be a Reformer, but was supported by the Conservatives. The show of hands was almost even, but decided by the High Bailiff in Mr. Godson’s favour, and a poll was demanded by Mr. Phillips, who was, eventually, returned by a majority of 73; the numbers being—Phillips, 197; Godson, 124. Mr. Phillips refused to be chaired, saying that he should spend the money amongst the people in other ways. On the 10th of June, a piece of plate (ornament for the dinner table, in silver, worth £150) was presented to Mr. Godson, by 1,975 inhabitants of the borough, “in grateful remembrance of his ever watchful, independent, and patriotic conduct when in Parliament.” The presentation was made by Mr. Alderman Joseph Boycot, on the balcony of the Lion Hotel, in the presence of some 7,000 persons.

1837—(General Election.)—Mr. Phillips, some time before the writ was issued for this election, declared his intention of withdrawing all pretensions to the representation; being evidently afraid of a defeat, or that a triumph could only be purchased on terms too dear. Mr. Godson, however, found an opponent in the person of John Bagshaw, Esq., ex-M.P. for Sudbury. Mr. Godson was proposed by Mr. Morton and Mr. Cole; Mr. Bagshaw by Mr. Turner and Mr. Joseph Newcombe. The show of hands was considerably in Mr. Godson’s favour, and a poll was demanded for Mr. Bagshaw. Mr. Godson headed the poll from the first, and in the course of the afternoon Mr. Bagshaw retired; the numbers being—Godson, 198; Bagshaw, 157.

1841—(General Election.)—Mr. Godson was opposed by Mr. Sampson Ricardo, brother of Osman Ricardo, Esq., who came forward at the last moment, after the Liberals had been disappointed by the candidate they had fixed upon—a Mr. Rennie. Mr. Godson was proposed by Mr. Morton and Mr. Cole; Mr. Ricardo by Mr. Charles Talbot and Mr. H. Worth; and the Mayor fairly enough declared the show of hands to be in his favour, though, for so doing, he was assailed by the Conservatives in a most discourteous manner. The contest was, what Kidderminster contests always have been, a very sharp one; but Mr. Godson was returned by a majority of 12; the numbers being—Godson, 212; Ricardo, 200.

1847—(General Election.)—Mr. Godson was reëlected without opposition.

1849—SEPTEMBER—(Vacancy occasioned by the sudden demise of Mr. Richard Godson.)—The first candidate in the field was John Best, Esq., a barrister of short standing, son of W. B. Best, Esq., of Blakebrook House, who came forward as a Conservative and Protectionist. Thomas Gisborne Esq., of Yoxall Park, near Burton-on-Trent, next made his appearance on the Reform side, professing very liberal opinions. He had, formerly, been member for Nottingham. A diversion was speedily effected by the arrival of a third man, in the person of Crawshay Bailey, Esq., of Tredegar, South Wales, who was also Conservative in his views, and apparently entertaining similar opinions to those of Mr. Best upon all subjects. He was supported by a very influential section of the Kidderminster Conservatives, and a downright split amongst them seemed inevitable. However at the end of a week Mr. Bailey finding he had little chance, withdrew from the contest, and left the two first to fight it out. Considerable soreness of feeling, however, was felt amongst the Conservatives by this temporary division, and the opponents built thereupon very sanguine expectations of success. At the nomination Mr. Best was proposed by Mr. William Boycot, sen., and Mr. Henry Chellingworth; and Mr. Gisborne by Mr. William Holmes and Mr. Henry Brinton, in whose favour the show of hands was declared to be. Mr. Gisborne headed the poll till twelve o’clock, when some thirty voters, who had been supporters of Mr. Bailey up to the time of his retirement, and who, it was hoped by one party, and feared by the other, would now remain neutral, came to the booths and recorded their votes for Mr. Best. This decided the struggle; and when the clock struck four, Mr. Best was found to have 217 votes against 200 only recorded for Mr. Gisborne. The election, on the whole, passed off quietly, and with decorum.

In the session of 1850 a petition was presented by some of the Liberal electors against Mr. Best’s return, on the score of bribery and corruption, and the matter came before a committee of the House of Commons, on the 15th of April. The committee consisted of Mr. Bouverie (chairman), Lord Enfield, Mr. Augustus Stafford, Mr. David Morris, and Sir William Joliffe; the majority being Liberals. Mr. Sergeant Kinglake led the case for the petitioners, and Mr. Alexander, Q.C., for Mr. Best. The committee sat seven days, and a variety of witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners; but bribery was only attempted to be proved in two cases, the evidence, on all points, being decidedly weak. The committee confirmed Mr. Best’s return.

DUDLEY.

THE privilege of sending a member to Parliament was conferred on this borough by the Reform Bill. The number of voters now on the register is 912.

1832—(General Election.)—Sir John Campbell—then the Whig Solicitor General, and long a practitioner on the Oxford Circuit, now Lord Chief Justice of England—was returned. He had an opponent in the person of Horace St. Paul, Esq., who contested the election on Tory principles. Sir John was proposed by Mr. Twamley and Mr. Braidley; and Mr. St. Paul by Mr. Dixon and Mr. Salisbury. The numbers, at the close of the poll, were—Campbell, 315; St. Paul, 225: majority for Campbell, 90.

1834—FEBRUARY 27—(Election rendered necessary by Sir John Campbell’s elevation to the Attorney Generalship.)—Sir John was this time opposed, on the Conservative interest, by Thomas Hawkes, Esq. The show of hands, at the nomination, was in favour of Sir John; whereupon a poll was demanded by Mr. Hawkes’s friends, and commenced immediately with great briskness. At three o’clock, Sir John’s committee, finding great difficulty in bringing their friends to the poll, gave up in a huff, and Mr. Hawkes was declared duly elected; the numbers being—Hawkes, 322; Campbell, 242: majority, 80. This result was said to be mainly owing to the Dissenters and ultra-radicals refusing to vote for Sir John, “in order to teach ministers a lesson;” but the effect was rather to disgust the Whigs than to urge them forward with church reform. Sir John had also made enemies by an attack, in the House, on the Dudley magistrates.

1835—(General Election.)—Mr. Hawkes returned by a majority of 93 over his Whig opponent, Captain Forbes.

1837—(General Election.)—Mr. Hawkes again elected. Mr. Merryweather Turner was the candidate on the Liberal interest, and obtained the show of hands at the nomination; but at the poll the numbers were—Hawkes, 385; Turner, 289: majority for Hawkes, 96. A challenge resulted from some speeches at this election, and the Dudley magistrates issued their warrants to bind over both Mr. Turner and Mr. Hawkes to keep the peace. Mr. Turner did not get the challenge till half an hour after he had been bound over at the instigation of Mr. Hawkes’s friends.

1841—(General Election.)—Mr. Hawkes again elected; though opposed, on the Liberal interest, by Mr. W. A. Smith, son of the then member for Norwich. Mr. Downing and Mr. B. Best proposed Mr. Hawkes at the hustings; and Mr. Thomas Lister and Mr. Thomas Hill proposed Mr. Smith, who had the show of hands. The numbers on the poll were—Hawkes, 436; Smith, 189: majority for Hawkes, 247.

1844—AUGUST 8—Mr. Thomas Hawkes’s acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds, in consequence of the embarrassed state of his affairs, having caused a vacancy, John Benbow, Esq., agent for Lord Ward, and, therefore, possessing much influence in the borough, was put in nomination on the Conservative interest, and opposed by Mr. William Rawson, an Anti-Corn-Law lecturer. Mr. Benbow was proposed, on the hustings, by Mr. Thomas Badger and Captain Bennitt; and Mr. Rawson by Mr. Charles Twamley and the Rev. J. Palmer. The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Rawson. The polling was a very quiet affair, and at the close the numbers were—Benbow, 388; Rawson, 175: majority, 213.

1847—(General Election.)—A Mr. Joseph Linney, Chartist operative from Bilston, was put in nomination on the day of election, in opposition to Mr. Benbow—addressed the crowd, and got the show of hands; but having no money to pay his share of the expenses of a poll, was obliged to withdraw, and Mr. Benbow was declared duly elected.

ELECTIONS OF COUNTY CORONERS.

THE number of coroners appointed for each English county was formerly regulated by usage, the statute of 3 Edw. I, cap. 10, merely enacting that “in all shires a sufficient number of men should be chosen as coroners;” but it was competent for the Lord Chancellor to issue a writ for the election of additional coroners, upon a petition from the freeholders of the county and the approbation of the justices in quarter sessions. The manner of the election was regulated by the statute of 58 Geo. III, cap. 35, and the poll might be kept open ten days. By cap. 6 of 28 Edw. III, it was enacted, “that all coroners of the counties should be chosen in the full counties, by the commons of the said counties, of the most meet and lawful people that should be found,” &c. Although by this statute the election is not expressly confined to freeholders, yet as none but freeholders are suitors at the county court (who were “the commons of the counties” referred to by this statute) the usage has been for freeholders only to vote. The amount of estate not being defined, any _bonâ fide_ freehold interest in lands in the county, however small, will confer the right to vote. Previous to the division of the counties into districts—power to do which was given to the Privy Council, on petition of the County Justices, by 7 and 8 Vic., cap. 92—each coroner acted throughout the whole county, and every freeholder was entitled to vote at each election. Now, however, the coroners, though still considered coroners for the whole county, cannot hold inquests out of their respective districts, except in special cases; and only the freeholders residing within the district are entitled to vote at the election for that district. The justices, of course, virtually assign the districts; and a dispute which arose in this county, between the magistrates and one of the coroners, on his claiming compensation for loss of emolument by the division they had made, will be found noticed in a subsequent part of this work. The poll at elections for coroners is now limited to two days.

1801—AUGUST 13—Richard Barneby, Esq., elected coroner in the room of Humphrey Littleton, Esq., deceased. No opposition.

1809—APRIL 26—Election of a coroner for the county, in the room of Mr. George Best, removed, took place this day at the Talbot Inn, Claines. Mr. Godson, of Tenbury, Mr. Cheek, of Evesham, and Mr. Griffiths, of Broadway, were the candidates; but to save the expenses of a poll, they agreed to leave the choice to three gentlemen—one nominated by each candidate. The gentlemen chosen were—J. Philips, Esq., H. Wakeman, Esq., and T. Bund, Esq.; and they determined (by drawing lots) on Mr. Godson, of Tenbury, who was thereupon declared duly elected.

1810—FEBRUARY 14—Election for a coronership in consequence of the resignation of Mr. Richard Barneby. The candidates on this occasion were Mr. J. H. Griffiths, of Broadway, and Mr. George Hill, of Worcester. Both candidates rested their claim for support on the locality of their residence—Mr. Griffiths saying that, as the other coroners lived one at Chaddesley and the other at Tenbury, the Evesham side ought to have one resident there—and Mr. Hill contending that there should be one, at least, living in the county town. The nomination took place at the Talbot, in the Tything, Worcester; and Mr. Griffiths was proposed by T. Bund, Esq., of Wick, and seconded by — Knowles, Esq., Broadway; Mr. Hill by R. Berkeley, Esq., Spetchley, and seconded by Philip Gresley, Esq., High Park. The numbers after the first day’s poll were—Hill, 395; Griffiths, 79: and then Mr. Griffiths retired from the contest.

1815—FEBRUARY 10—Mr. Thomas Hallen, of Kidderminster, elected a county coroner, in the room of Mr. Fidkin, deceased. Mr. H. Robeson, of Bromsgrove, had been a candidate, but retired before the election. Mr. Hallen was proposed by E. M. Wigley, Esq., of Shakenhurst, and seconded by the Rev. R. F. Onslow, vicar of Kidderminster.

1822—SEPTEMBER 27—Election to supply the place of William Godson, Esq., of Tenbury, then lately deceased. The nomination took place in the College Yard, at the east end of the Cathedral. Earl Mountnorris proposed Mr. Charles Best, of Evesham, and this nomination was seconded by Thomas B. Cooper, Esq.; T. S. Vernon, Esq., proposed, and John Phillips, Esq., of Hanbury Hall, seconded, Mr. S. H. Godson, of Tenbury, son of the deceased coroner. The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Best, and Mr. Godson demanded a poll. This went on vigorously till five o’clock in the evening, when the numbers were—Best, 635; Godson, 230. Mr. Godson then retired from the contest, and Mr. Best was duly sworn in.

1826—DECEMBER 13—The most determined contest ever known in this county for a coronership commenced this day. Immediately on the death of Mr. George Hill, five candidates announced themselves for the office—viz., Mr. William Smith, Worcester; Mr. Frederick Stokes, Worcester; Mr. Stephen Godson, Worcester; Mr. Charles Beville Dryden, Worcester; Mr. Thomas Davis, Worcester; and Mr. Skey, Upton. Of these, however, all had withdrawn before the nomination day, excepting Mr. Smith and Mr. Stokes. The Sheriff had at first fixed that the nomination should take place in the Castle Yard, but this property had recently been sold by Government to Mr. Eaton, with a reservation of it for the nomination of members of Parliament; but nothing had been said (according to Mr. Eaton’s view of the matter) about coroners, therefore he refused to allow it to be used. The nomination, therefore, took place at the Hare and Hounds Inn, Sidbury; where Mr. Smith was proposed by Major Bund and John Williams, Esq.; and Mr. Stokes by Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., and the Rev. George Turberville. The show of hands was declared to be in favour of Mr. Smith, and a poll was demanded for his opponent; and this was continued for ten days—the utmost period allowed by law. For the first three days Mr. Stokes headed his adversary considerably; Mr. Smith, on the fifth day, however, obtained the ascendancy, and kept it, though with varying numbers, to the last day, when he very materially increased his majority, which, in the end, amounted to 189 votes. The numbers polled were—Smith, 3,875; Stokes, 3,686: total number of freeholders polled, 7,561. The contest resolved itself quite into a political struggle—Mr. Smith representing the Tory and Mr. Stokes the Whig interest. The city, during the progress of the election, was in a state of the utmost excitement—the voters being brought in to the sole polling place, with flags and bands of music, in every possible description of vehicle. On the sixth day, a fierce fight took place between the partisans of the two candidates, on their accidental meeting in the Tything; and several men with broken heads were taken to the Infirmary. Mr. Stokes, at the conclusion of the poll, demanded a scrutiny; and the matter of right and power, on the part of the Sheriff, to grant one, was formally argued; but it was ultimately refused, and Mr. Smith was sworn into the office. The contest cost each of the candidates about £3,000 a day, while it lasted. [The copy of the reservation clause in Mr. Eaton’s conveyance was afterwards produced, on special application to Government, and it seemed that the Sheriff was empowered to hold any court in the Castle Yard which he pleased.]

1832—NOVEMBER 7—Mr. W. S. P. Hughes, solicitor, elected a county coroner, in the room of Mr. Smith, who had absconded. Mr. Hughes was proposed by the Rev. George Turberville, seconded by John Williams, Esq., and no other candidate having offered himself, he was at once declared duly chosen.

1838—NOVEMBER 28—Election for county coroner, in the room of Mr. Thomas Hallen, of Kidderminster, who had resigned. Mr. William Boycot, jun., of Kidderminster, Mr. Henry Corser, of Stourbridge, and Mr. Ralph Docker, of Kingsnorton, had offered themselves as candidates; but the two first withdrew, and it was expected that Mr. Docker would “walk over.” It was said that the three gentlemen had “tossed up,” and so decided the matter, but that was denied. However, on the evening before the election, Mr. Thomas Waters, Clerk of the Peace for the city, offered himself to the freeholders for election, and there was every expectation of a sharp contest. Mr. Spooner proposed Mr. Docker, who was seconded by Mr. Ellis; Mr. Waters was proposed by Mr. Alderman R. Evans and Mr. Alderman Stephenson. The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Docker, and Mr. Evans demanded a poll for Mr. Waters. At the end of the first day the numbers were—Docker, 246; Waters, 138: and Mr. Waters then retired from the contest.

PUBLIC MEETINGS.

IT may be that the interest attaching to many of the meetings detailed here is gone for ever, but the interest of others will perhaps increase as time advances, and curiously serve to mark the ebb and flow of human feelings and affairs. Though there is often reason to coincide with the Duke’s apothegm—“Public meetings are public farces,” yet they at least give us the results of the popular instinct, which is often as sure a guide as the popular reason would be; and, when most foolish in their conclusions, they are to be regarded as fortunate escapements for those excitements without which a community cannot exist long together. If any explanation should be felt necessary by the reader, of the public occurrences which called forth these meetings, he will find it in another portion of this work.

1800—MAY 14—County meeting held in Worcester Town Hall, to consider what steps should be taken in consequence of the high price of provisions, which was very numerously attended. Resolutions were passed, begging holders of corn to bring it into the market at reduced prices; and requesting millers to grind for the poor at half their usual charge. The Town Hall was granted as a place of deposit for corn, to be retailed to the poor at prime cost. The greatest pleasure was evinced by the meeting at hearing that vessels were arriving from abroad with importations of wheat. It is recorded that many farmers attended Worcester market, in consequence of this meeting, and sold wheat at 15s. to 18s. a bushel.

1800—JUNE 7—County meeting to congratulate the King on his escape from assassination by Hadfield; and meetings for a similar purpose held at Stourbridge, Bromsgrove, &c.

1800—OCTOBER 9—A common hall held at Worcester, at which resolutions were passed to petition Parliament for fresh enactments against “engrossing,” &c., and begging the legislature _to fix a certain price_, _beyond which it might be unlawful to sell wheat_.

1801—MAY 25—Common hall held at Worcester, at which a petition to Parliament was unanimously agreed to, praying that wheat, and all other grain, might be made saleable by weight only.

1806—MAY 28—A public meeting of the inhabitants of Worcester convened in the Town Hall, John Dillon, Esq., in the chair, to petition against the proposed tax on beer. Amongst other reasons against it the petition alleged—“That it will prevent, in a great measure, the frugal offices of hospitality and charity.”

1807—APRIL 24—Common hall at Worcester to take into consideration the critical state of public affairs, at which an address, thanking His Majesty for his strenuous opposition to the Catholic Services Bill, and rejoicing in its rejection, was unanimously agreed to.

1808—APRIL 14—A common hall, convened in Worcester, over which Mr. J. Palmer presided; at which petitions were agreed to to both houses of Parliament, in favour of the Bill then pending, for restricting the grants of offices in reversion.

1809—APRIL 13—A common hall, convened in Worcester, to adopt resolutions relative to the investigation of the conduct of the Duke of York, as Commander in Chief, in selling military promotions through his mistress, Mrs. Clarke. The Mayor occupied the chair. Mr. J. Palmer moved resolutions, thanking Colonel Wardle, M.P., for promoting the inquiry, and Mr. Gordon, one of the city members, for voting for it; which were seconded by Mr. Pope. Mr. J. Williams moved, as an amendment, that the resolutions should be couched in more general terms and no names mentioned in them; and Mr. B. Johnson, Town Clerk, seconded it. The original resolutions were, however, carried by a large majority. In this meeting occur the first mutterings of the Reform agitation; for the last of the resolutions declares that “the late decision of the honourable Commons (negativing Colonel Wardle’s motion for the Duke’s dismissal) has disappointed the hopes and expectations of the people, and convinced us of the necessity of a speedy and effectual reform in the representation of the Commons in Parliament, as a security to the throne, a support to the nobility, and a safeguard to the people—against that tide of corruption which has laid so many nations of Europe prostrate at the feet of the ruler of France.”

1809—OCTOBER 25—County meeting. Henry Bromley, Esq., Sheriff, in the chair. To present an address to His Majesty on his entering the fiftieth year of his reign.

1811—JULY 8—A common hall, Worcester, called by requisition to the Mayor, to consider the best means of preventing the destruction of small fish in the Severn, and the first Association formed for the protection of the Fisheries: the great decrease of salmon lamented; and it is said to fetch 3s. to 4s. a lb. The corporation subscribed twenty guineas. A great many seizures of illegal nets speedily made.

1812—MAY 11—A public meeting, held at the Guildhall, Worcester, Thomas Carden, Esq., in the chair, to consider what steps should be adopted for the relief of the poor, who were suffering severely from the excessive price of all provisions. A very large subscription was raised, and it was unanimously resolved that it should be appropriated to the purchase of bacon, peas, and rice, to sell again at reduced prices. The total number of persons applying thus to be assisted was 7,418, and the sum raised about £1,500.

1813—FEBRUARY 10—A common hall held at Worcester, with the Mayor presiding, at which a petition was unanimously agreed to against the renewal of the monopoly of the East India Company. The resolutions were moved by Mr. Johnson, Town Clerk, and seconded by Mr. Richards.

1813—APRIL 28—A requisition, signed by seventy-four respectable freemen and inhabitants of Worcester, was presented to the Mayor, requesting him to call a common hall, for the purpose of addressing H. R. H. the Princess of Wales, “on the late atrocious attempt against her honour and her life;” but His Worship refused to call one. A public meeting was therefore held at the Bell, Mr. Robert Felton in the chair, at which such an address as had been contemplated was unanimously agreed to.

1814—MAY 25—A common hall held in Worcester, the Mayor presiding, to petition against the proposed imposition of corn duties. Mr. Nichols moved a petition, which was seconded by Mr. Moseley, carried unanimously, and received 6,000 signatures in two days. The petitioners declared that corn, during the last twenty years, had been dearer in this country than in any other in Europe, and, what was of the utmost importance, the manufacturers of this country could not vie with other markets if the prices of the necessaries of life could not be brought nearer to the prices of other countries. If it was imagined that at the then prices of corn (wheat averaging 8s. 6d. per bushel, and the quartern loaf selling at 10½d.) the present rent of land could not be paid, the petitioners submitted that the proper remedy was to lower the rents. The artisans, during the war, when the price of corn and meat was excessive, had behaved themselves in the most patient, loyal, and laudable manner, and it was hard that they should not be allowed to share in the blessings of the peace, &c.

Dudley, Droitwich, &c., petitioned against the measure, which was rejected by the House of Commons, in bringing up the report, by 116 to 110.

1814—JUNE 30—A public meeting held in Worcester to petition the legislature against that part of the recent treaty of peace with France which related to the Slave Trade, and seemed likely to encourage its revival. The Mayor took the chair. Mr. Stanley Pumphrey moved, and Mr. Richard Spooner seconded, the resolutions and petitions, which were unanimously adopted. The petitions received about 1,000 signatures; and one with a similar object, sent from Evesham, received 900 signatures.

1814—JULY 29—A public meeting of noblemen, gentlemen, and freeholders of the county held at the Town Hall, Worcester, to vote an address to the Prince Regent on the glorious termination of the war. Mr. Clarke, Under Sheriff, in the chair. The address was moved by Lord Deerhurst, seconded by the Hon. W. B. Lygon, M.P., and passed unanimously.

1815—JANUARY 16—A common hall convened in Worcester to address Parliament on the subject of the property and other war taxes. Mr. Josiah Palmer first moved resolutions, which were opposed by Major Wigley, as too strong, and aimed at the landed interest. Mr. Richard Spooner moved others, which were seconded by Mr. Hooper, and carried by a considerable majority. A petition was founded upon them, praying for the repeal of the Income Tax, and the taxes on malt, tea, leather, and salt.

1815—JANUARY 25—A county meeting held with much the same purpose; Mr. Clarke, Under Sheriff, in the chair. Mr. E. M. Wigley moved a petition against the Property Tax, which was seconded by Sir William Smith, Bart., and adopted without opposition. The meeting then passed to the consideration of the necessity of some protection to the farming interest. Mr. Richard Spooner moved a petition praying that “foreign corn, on importation, should be subjected to the same rate of duty as is now paid by the British farmer.” He said the agricultural interest was greatly depressed, and the foreigners ought to pay a duty equivalent to the taxes paid by the British farmer. Lord Foley seconded the adoption of the petition, which was carried by acclamation.

1815—MARCH 6—A common hall held in Worcester; Samuel Garmston, Esq., Mayor, in the chair; to petition against Mr. Robinson’s Corn Bill, preventing the importation of wheat when under 80s. a quarter. Mr. J. Palmer moved the petition, saying that the question was one of cheap or dear bread, and not at all the benefit of the farmers, many of whom signed the petitions against the bill, for they saw that its object was to ensure the landholders their enormous rents. The Mayor, Colonel Wall, Mr. Brown, Mr. Felton, &c., supported the petition, which was carried with enthusiasm, and _received_ 7,965 _signatures the same afternoon_, when it was obliged to be sent off by the London mail.

EVESHAM—One of the most numerous meetings ever known in this borough was held on this subject. Mr. Easthope (afterwards Sir John Easthope) moved the petitions, which were supported by Mr. Phillips, Mr. Barnes, &c., and opposed by Colonel Cooper, Rev. Mr. Shaw, and Mr. Phelps. They were carried by a large majority.

1816—MARCH 14—A county meeting held, with Joseph Lee, Esq., in the chair, to petition for a reduction of expenditure. The speakers were E. M. Wigley, Esq., Lord Deerhurst, Lord Elmley, and the Hon. W. H. Lyttelton, and the general resolutions were then passed without opposition. R. Spooner, Esq., then moved a petition praying for a readjustment of the Property Tax, so that “occupiers of land might not be taxed according to a fictitious assumption of profit,” and further objecting to it as applied to the ordinary profits of industry. It also prayed for the repeal of the war taxes on malt and salt. Mr. Wigley moved that the consideration of the resolution be postponed; and Mr. Talbot moved as an amendment that the Property Tax ought not, under any modifications, to be revived. Both these were negatived, and Mr. Spooner’s petition carried.

1816—MARCH 15—A city meeting was held for the same purpose, at which very similar petitions were agreed to.

1817—FEBRUARY 6—A common hall held by the Mayor, to vote addresses to the Prince Regent to congratulate him on his escape from assassination, and also to petition Parliament “to make such arrangements as should seem likely to restore the commerce, manufactures, and agriculture of the kingdom to their former flourishing state,” and praying for reduction of expenditure; but adding that the petitioners “looked with anxiety to Parliament firmly and strenuously to defend the constitution from the imminent dangers of wild and speculative innovation.” The hall was densely crowded. The address to the Prince Regent was moved by Mr. Lechmere, seconded by Mr. Spooner, and carried unanimously. But on the petition being proposed, Mr. Josiah Palmer moved its rejection, because it did not recommend retrenchment sufficiently, and because a meeting was to be held on the same subject the following day. Mr. Richard Mence seconded Mr. Palmer’s amendment in a very energetic speech; and, after several speeches, the petition was put to the meeting and decidedly rejected.

1817—FEBRUARY 7—A requisition was presented to the Mayor to call a common hall to petition the legislature in favour of Parliamentary Reform, but His Worship (R. Chamberlain, Esq.) declined, though he would grant the use of the hall to the requisitionists for that purpose. Of this permission they availed themselves; and a most crowded meeting was assembled, with Mr. Robert Felton in the chair. The only speakers were Mr. J. Palmer and Mr. Moseley, who moved petitions for reform, retrenchment, and the abolition of sinecures, which were carried unanimously, and forwarded to Lord Deerhurst for presentation.

1817—NOVEMBER 28—County meeting and common hall held in Worcester, at which addresses of condolence were agreed to—to the Prince Regent, Her Majesty, and Prince Leopold—on the death of the Princess Charlotte.

1818—DECEMBER 12—A county meeting held, at which the Earl of Coventry moved, and the Lord Bishop seconded, an address of condolence to the Prince Regent on the death of his mother, the Queen; which was, of course, carried unanimously. A similar address was presented from the corporation of Worcester.

1819—MAY 1—A meeting of the proprietors and occupiers of land in the county of Worcester, held at the Crown Inn, Broad Street; George Wigley Perrott, Esq., in the chair; when it was unanimously resolved that a memorial should be signed by the parties present, and sent to the Right Hon. Frederick John Robinson, President of the Board of Trade, “to press the just claims of the cultivators of the soil to a _full_, _fair_, _and ample protection_ from the legislature; the _imperious necessity_ of which was becoming daily more and more apparent.” The memorial, adopted by the meeting, stated that “the unparalleled quantity of 26,000,000 bushels of foreign corn imported into this kingdom within the last year, DUTY FREE, {65} and of 13,000,000 lbs. of wool in three quarters of a year, or nearly so, had occasioned a ruinous loss to the tenantry and other occupiers of the soil, lessened the demand for labour, increased the poor rates, diminished the means of paying for them, and must also have tended materially to injure the home trade of the country.” The subscribers were—G. W. Perrott, Cracombe House; C. E. Hanford, Wooller’s Hill; John Hawkes, Allesborough; E. F. Welles, Earl’s Croome; John Fletcher, Hill Croome; John Onley, Bransford; Thomas Hudson, Pershore; Joseph Smith, Henwick; Francis Holland, Cropthorne; John Winnall, Braces Leigh; and William Woodward, Birlingham.

1820—FEBRUARY 28—A county meeting held at the Guildhall, Worcester, to address His Majesty on the decease of his venerable father, and to congratulate him on his accession to the throne. The address was moved by the Earl of Coventry, as Lord Lieutenant of the County, and seconded by Lord Beauchamp.

1822—FEBRUARY 8—A county meeting to consider agricultural distress; E. Isaac, Esq., High Sheriff, in the chair. Mr. J. Richards first addressed the meeting. He alluded to the circumstances in which the agricultural interest now found itself. In the previous session of Parliament the petitions of the farmers had caused the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the causes of the distress. They, in their report, admitted that arable land could now only be cultivated at a loss, but added that Parliament could grant no redress—they must look only to time and patience. But this was a mockery, for they had had good seasons and harvests, and how then was their case to be bettered by patience? Mr. George Webb Hall professed to have discovered a remedy in the imposition of a very heavy duty on foreign corn—the object of that was, of course, to prevent its importation altogether, and increase the price at home. But if that was done, where were the people to get money to purchase it? The manufacturers would no longer be able to compete with foreigners, and people would emigrate by tens of thousands. It was not true that the price of corn had fallen because of foreign importation—the price of meat had fallen just in the same proportion, and cattle and sheep were not imported. Prices were low all the world over, and the only remedy for the present state of things was a diminution of taxes. If it was asked why corn could not be grown at 40s. a quarter now, as it could be in 1792, he would reply, because taxes, rents, and tithes, were all much higher. The Bank Restriction Act of 1797, and Mr. Peel’s bill of 1819, had committed a fraud in the value of money; and this was another cause of distress. Ultimate relief, he thought, would only be obtained from a reformed Parliament. He moved a series of resolutions in accordance with these sentiments. Mr. Richard Spooner seconded them. Mr. Beale Cooper then moved an amendment, stating—“That for 150 years, from 1663 to 1814, importation of the produce of the soil was never permitted without the payment of some duty; and it is a matter of historical truth that during that time the prosperity of agriculture, commerce, and manufacture progressively increased to a height of opulence unexampled in the history of the world.” To the “unlimited competition” (after 80s. a quarter) introduced for the first time by the bill of 1815, the amendment attributed the depression of the produce of the soil below that of every other commodity, necessarily caused by diminution of circulating medium, and therefore the amendment prayed for a prohibitory duty.

Mr. C. E. Hanford said if this amendment passed, the meeting would be a farce. The Duke of Sussex, the Duke of Bedford, and Mr. Coke thought the remedy was to be found in retrenchment and Parliamentary Reform.

Mr. Spooner replied to Mr. Beale Cooper, who had told them that because corn was imported duty free, therefore it had diminished in price; but there had been no importation at all for the last three years, and so that argument must be fallacious. The conduct of Parliament in endeavouring to swindle the nation into payment of an unjust debt, which, as it had been incurred in paper, ought to be paid in paper, showed the necessity for reform. He was for triennial Parliaments and an extension of the franchise, so that those who by direct taxation contributed towards the burdens of his country, should have a voice in electing those by whom they were imposed. He had been but a short time in Parliament, but he had had sufficient opportunity of seeing how matters were managed there; swarms of boyish members came in just at a division, and only looked where the Marquis of Londonderry or Mr. Tierney stood, to see on which side of the house they should go.

Mr. G. W. Perrott seconded Mr. Cooper’s amendment, which, however, was lost by a very large majority. Mr. Richards’s resolutions were then all carried, excepting the last, which called for Parliamentary Reform; but after several persons, and the High Sheriff amongst others, had begged him to withdraw it as not pertinent to the objects of the meeting, that also was carried by acclamation. Petitions were then agreed to, founded on Mr. Richards’s resolutions, and the meeting broke up. Lord Foley and Sir Thomas Winnington, who were unavoidably absent from the meeting, attached their names to the petitions.

[Lord John Russell, just about this time, wrote a letter to the farmers of Huntingdonshire, recommending them indeed to seek for retrenchment and reform, but using all the arguments now in vogue amongst Protectionists against the importation of corn, and expressing his fears that Government were going to hand over the country to political economists.]

1822—MARCH 30—A meeting of the inhabitants of Kidderminster held, George Hallen, Esq., High Bailiff, in the chair, to petition Parliament for a revision of the Corn Laws; and it was resolved that the restrictions upon the importation of corn were inconsistent with sound principles of national policy, and were proved, by ten years’ experience, to be injurious to the general interests of the community; and a petition was therefore adopted for a moderate import duty on corn; which, in addition to the unavoidable expenses of importation, would be a fair protection to the farmer, and would be much preferable to the perplexing state of the law, as it then stood. They also prayed generally for the relaxation of all commercial restrictions.

1823—APRIL 30—Meeting in Worcester, William Wall, Esq., in the chair, at which a petition to Parliament, praying for the abolition of Negro Slavery in the British colonies, was agreed upon. One was also forwarded from Evesham at this time.

1828—JUNE 20—Public meeting in the Guildhall, Worcester, with the Mayor in the chair, at which petitions were agreed to, praying for restrictions on the importation of foreign gloves.

1828—NOVEMBER 7—Public meeting in the Guildhall, for the purpose of establishing an Infant School in Worcester. The Mayor (James Fletcher, Esq.) presided; and there were on the platform the Lord Bishop of Rochester, Dean of Worcester, Rev. C. Benson, Sir A. Lechmere, Bart., W. Wall, E. Isaac, J. P. Lavender, Esqs., Dr. Hastings, Mr. Henry Newman, Mr. Josiah Newman, &c. A considerable subscription was entered into, and the school was established in Friar Street, where it still exists.

1828—NOVEMBER 27—A meeting at the Guildhall, Worcester, convened by the “City and County Brunswick Club,” of those “who were friendly to its political principles,” for the purpose of increasing the number of its members. The general public, however, assembled in large numbers, and the opposition, principally, took possession of the Nisi Prius Court. The Brunswickers thereupon went into the Crown Court, and left Mr. Payne, Roman Catholic, to harangue the company in the Nisi Prius Court upon the unfairness of the proceeding. In the Crown Court, Major Bund was called to the chair, and read the address and resolutions of the Brunswick Club, with a view of obtaining “the concurrence and support of those who might be friendly to them.” He proceeded, amidst mingled cheers and hisses, to propose petitions to the King and Parliament, praying that no concession might be made to Catholics. Mr. Richard Spooner endeavoured to put an amendment, but was told that he had no right there unless friendly to the principles of the Brunswick Club, and a show of hands was taken whether he should be heard. The chairman having decided that it was against Mr. Spooner, he retired, and the other resolutions were proposed by Dr. Beale Cooper, E. Burroughs, Esq., John Phillips, Esq., and carried without much opposition. On the suggestion of the Rev. Mr. Havergal, three cheers were given at the close of the meeting for Protestant ascendancy. Meanwhile, Mr. Spooner, in the body of the hall, and Mr. Foster, of Evesham, in the Nisi Prius Court, proposed resolutions to the people unable to get into the Crown Court, declaring the Brunswick Club to be unnecessary and uncalled for—and these were carried by acclamation. The Brunswickers’ petition received about 700 signatures on the day of meeting.

1830—MARCH 2—County meeting, presided over by John Scott, Esq., High Sheriff, for two objects—first, to consider the question of erecting a Shire Hall; and, secondly, to petition Parliament on the subject of agricultural distress.

As to the first matter, John Williams, Esq., moved a resolution requesting the magistrates to be satisfied with alterations and additions to the city Guildhall. This was seconded by Richard Spooner, Esq. The Rev. Thomas Pearson proposed, as an amendment, that the county ought to erect courts suitable to its respectability, but that the measure should be postponed till the depression of the agricultural interest had passed over. Dr. B. Cooper seconded this. Sir C. S. Smith and R. Spooner, Esq., supported the original proposition, which was carried almost unanimously.

Colonel Lygon having briefly addressed the meeting, warning them not to regard Parliamentary Reform as a panacea for their ills, Richard Spooner, Esq., rose and proposed a petition for the adoption of the meeting: it complained, in the first place, of extravagant salaries to placemen, and next of the standard of currency to which the county had been obliged to return by Mr. Peel’s act, and prayed for a thorough reform in Parliament as the only means of setting these things right. Mr. Spooner bitterly inveighed against the corruption of the Parliament as it then existed. The petition was seconded by Charles Hanford, Esq. Sir C. Smith, Major General Marriott, Dr. B. Cooper, and J. Williams, Esq., agreed with all the statements of the petition; but did not want reform, and begged Mr. Spooner to put it into a separate petition by itself. Mr. S. refused, and the petition was carried almost unanimously. It afterwards received 2,180 signatures.

1830—FEBRUARY 13—Meeting held in Worcester to form an “Agricultural Society,” and to adopt such other measures as might be deemed expedient in the present depressed state of the agricultural interest. Charles Hanford, Esq., was called to the chair. The Rev. H. Berry moved a petition to Parliament, praying for inquiry into the causes of distress, for economy and revision of the poor laws, and for a salutary reform of Parliament. F. Holland, Esq., of Cropthorne, seconded the adoption of the petition. Mr. Allen objected to the “Reform” part of the business, and suggested that a county meeting should be called. This was agreed to, and a requisition to the High Sheriff immediately prepared. The “Agricultural Society,” however, was formed.

1830—AUGUST 6—County meeting, to vote addresses of condolence and congratulation to His Majesty King William IV, on the death of his brother and his accession to the throne. John Scott, Esq., High Sheriff, in the chair. The addresses were moved by Lord Deerhurst, and seconded by Sir Anthony Lechmere, Bart.

1830—OCTOBER 13—Anti-Slavery meeting at the Guildhall; Dr. Hastings in the chair. The speakers were the Rev. John Davies, the Rev. Thomas Lowe of Hallow, the Rev. Daniel Wilson, Vicar of Islington, Major Bund, Mr. Henry Newman, the Hon. T. H. Foley, M.P., the Rev. Dr. Ross of Kidderminster, the Rev. Henry Hastings of Martley, the Rev. George Redford, J. W. Isaac, Esq., the Rev. John Brown, Mr. Stanley Pumphrey, and the Rev. Mr. Bell of Knightwick. Both the attendance and the speeches were very respectable. A petition was agreed to, which received 1,826 signatures. Petitions were also forwarded to Parliament, about this time, from every town and many villages of the county.

1831—MARCH 17—City of Worcester Reform meeting, to support the bill just then introduced into the Commons. The Mayor, H. B. Tymbs, Esq., refused to call a town’s meeting, but left the Guildhall at the disposal of the requisitionists. On the motion of R. Spooner, Esq., William Saunders, Esq., was called to the chair. Mr. Allen moved, and Mr. Deighton seconded, the first resolution, expressing the gratification of the meeting in the measures proposed by His Majesty’s ministers. The other speakers were Thomas Scott, Esq., Mr. Daniel George, Mr. Timings, Dr. Corbett, Mr. George Brook, Mr. Greening, Mr. Spooner, Mr. Gillam, Mr. Wensley, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Thompson. The hall was crowded, and everything was unanimous and orderly.

1831—MARCH 18—County of Worcester Reform meeting; Osman Ricardo, Esq., High Sheriff, in the chair. The meeting was most numerously attended, and there was no opposition. The speakers in favour of Reform were Sir Thomas Winnington, Sir Christopher Smith, C. E. Hanford, Esq., H. E. Strickland, Esq., R. Berkeley, Esq., W. Welch, Esq., W. Acton, Esq., T. C. Hornyold, Esq., T. T. Vernon, Esq., and H. Bearcroft, Esq. Lord Lyttelton, after the resolutions had all been carried, addressed the meeting at considerable length, expressing his delight at having lived to see the day in which the principles he had advocated through life were, at last, to obtain a triumph in the wise and salutary measure of Reform brought forward by the Government. The Hon. T. H. Foley, M.P., also spoke in favour of the bill.

1831—SEPTEMBER 30—Public meeting in the Guildhall, Worcester, of citizens and others, to petition the House of Lords in favour of the Reform Bill, which had now reached the Upper House. William Saunders, Esq., was called to the chair. The principal speakers were Mr. Merryweather Turner, Mr. Curwood, and Mr. Acton; the other movers and seconders of resolutions being Thomas Scott, Esq., Mr. G. Brook, Mr. Smith, Mr. Blackwell, Mr. John Bishop, and Captain Wilson. The hall was crowded and the proceedings most enthusiastic.

1831—OCTOBER 14—The Reform Bill having been rejected by the House of Lords by a majority of 41, another meeting of the citizens was called in the Guildhall, Worcester, to vote an address to the King, praying “that he will continue his present confidential advisers.” John Curwood, Esq., was in the chair, and the speakers were much the same as on the previous occasion. The tone of the meeting was tolerably moderate. The Worcester Political Union and the parishioners of All Saints and St. Michael met and agreed to similar addresses.