Chapter IV: Part 4

1831—NOVEMBER 5—The county meeting, for a similar purpose, was held this day, Osman Ricardo, Esq., High Sheriff, presiding. The meeting was crowded and enthusiastic. The speakers were Sir Edward Blount, Captain Winnington, Colonel Davies, T. C. Hornyold, Esq., Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., W. Acton, Esq., Lord Lyttelton, Sir C. S. Smith, C. Hanford, Esq., John Richards, Esq., Richard Spooner, Esq., A. Skey, Esq., G. Farley, Esq., Colonel Jefferies, Rev. Mr. Berry, and the Hon. T. H. Foley, M.P. The various speakers impressed upon the people the necessity of order, and spoke confidently of obtaining reform shortly. Three cheers were given at the conclusion of the meeting for Lord Lyttelton, three groans for the Earl of Coventry, three cheers for the King, three for Earl Grey, Lord Brougham, and Lord Althorp, and three groans for the Corporation. Some disturbances took place in the city, in the evening of this day, which will be found narrated in another place.

1832—MAY 14—The Worcester Political Union met on the resignation of ministers, because the Lords, for a second time, refused to accept the principle of the Reform Bill. The meeting was held in Pitchcroft, at five p.m., and the members of the Union went in procession to the grand stand, headed by flags and a band. It is said that at least 10,000 persons were present. C. Hanford, Esq., was called to the chair by the acclamations of the crowd, who were first addressed by Mr. Arrowsmith; and the other speakers were Mr. Hornidge, Mr. Raby, Mr. Mansell, Mr. W. Bristow, Mr. Southan, Mr. Meek, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Payne, Mr. Bayliss, Mr. Coates, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Stevenson, and the Rev. Mr. M‘Donnell and Mr. Salt of Birmingham. The resolutions and petition prayed the House of Commons to refuse the supplies, and not to pass the Mutiny Bill till the Reform Bill was passed.

Meetings were held at Kidderminster (Henry Talbot, Esq., presiding) and at Evesham (William Welch, Esq., in the chair) with similar intentions and results.

1833—APRIL 12—A meeting held at the Guildhall, Worcester, to petition Parliament on the subject of Negro Slavery. It was very numerously attended. Dr. Hastings occupied the chair, and the audience was addressed by the Rev. John Davies, Rev. George Redford, Rev. Peter Duncan, Lieutenant Davis, Colonel Davies, M.P., Rev. Thomas Pearson, Rev. R. Turnbull, Rev. Jacob Stanley, Mr. Stanley Pumphrey, Rev. Thomas Davis, Mr. J. T. Price, Captain O’Brien, Mr. William Parry, Mr. Thomas Pumphrey, Rev. Thomas Waters, and Rev. S. Webb.

1833—APRIL 18—Meeting in the Guildhall, Worcester, to petition the legislature for a repeal of the House and Window Taxes. In the absence of the Mayor, Mr. John Blackwell was called upon to preside. Mr. Prosser, architect, Mr. Greening, Mr. Wensley, Mr. Edward Hooper, Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Scott, Mr. Williams, Mr. J. Davis, Mr. Wheeler, &c., moved and seconded the resolutions, which declared that the house duty was oppressive and especially obnoxious, because of the power vested in the surveyor who levied it—that the window tax was offensive in principle and in practice—that they both pressed most heavily on the middle classes—who had, indeed, to bear everything—and that they ought to be forthwith abolished.

1834—JANUARY 20—Meeting of Dissenters at Kidderminster, Dr. Ross in the chair, to memorialise Government for the redress of grievances. The speakers were the Rev. Mr. Fry, Mr. Henry Brinton, Mr. Chadwick, Rev. Mr. Smith, Rev. Mr. Warren, Rev. Mr. Coles, Mr. W. Brinton, Mr. Charles Talbot, and Mr. Thomas Hopkins. The memorial agreed to was directed to Earl Grey, and prayed, first, for relief from Church Rates; second, the power of celebrating marriages without conforming to the Church service; third, for the right of interring their dead in parochial burial grounds by their own ministers; fourth, the right of admission to the universities; fifth, for a general system of registering births, deaths, and marriages, without regard to religious distinction.

1834—FEBRUARY 24—Meeting of laity of the Church of England at Kidderminster, to express unshaken confidence in the principles of the Establishment, and to petition Parliament in its behalf. The meeting was held in the National School-room, and was numerously attended. Abraham Turner, Esq., was called to the chair, and the resolutions were proposed by the High Bailiff, Mr. Samuel Beddoes, Mr. Woodward, churchwarden, Mr. J. Gough, Mr. Bradley, Mr. George Hooman, Mr. Thomas Hallen, Mr. Boycot, sen., Mr. Dixon, Mr. Tomkins, and Mr. Harvey. The resolutions were unanimously adopted. [The Catholic priest, displeased at some allusion made to his religion at the Dissenters’ meeting, declared that he thought a union of Catholics with the Church of England not at all impossible.]

1834—APRIL 9—Meeting of owners and occupiers of land, at the Bell Inn, Worcester, “to consider the propriety of petitioning Parliament on the ruinous state of the agricultural interest.” The room was very much crowded; and the Earl of Coventry was called to the chair. Sir Anthony Lechmere, Bart., moved the adoption of a petition which attributed the greatest part of agricultural distress to the alteration of the currency, by the Bill of 1819, and therefore prayed that Parliament would institute an immediate inquiry into the effects of that measure. The removal of “the present, though inadequate” protection of the Corn Laws, would certainly accelerate their destruction, which was daily drawing nearer by reason of the enormous increase of their various burdens. Earl Beauchamp seconded the adoption of the petition. Major Bund moved that that part of the petition which related to the currency should be left out, for that was a subject into which if they once got they would never be able to get out again. This called forth a long speech from Mr. Spooner, “going into” the currency question very fully; and the result was that the amendment was withdrawn, and the petition carried unanimously. The petition had 3,000 signatures attached to it. Mr. T. Attwood, when it was presented to the House by Colonel Lygon, “hailed it with satisfaction, because it was the first agricultural petition which traced the distress to its true source—the Currency Bill of 1819.”

1835—JULY 27—A meeting at the Crown Inn, Worcester, to consider the ninetieth clause of the Municipal Reform Bill, which, it was feared, would prevent the new town councils from leasing the borough property on anything like the same terms as the old corporations had done. John Williams, Esq., was called to the chair. Mr. John Hill proposed, and Mr. Francis Hooper seconded, a motion suggesting that a committee should be appointed to inquire in the proper quarter what was the precise intent of the clause. Mr. Waters moved, and Mr. G. Allies seconded, as an amendment, “that this meeting, not believing that property, held under corporation leases, will be depreciated in value, are unwilling to address the legislature on the subject.” Mr. Waters’s motion was carried. The Mayor wished only holders of corporation property to vote, but other parties, who had thronged the room, insisted on their right to express an opinion; and the result was regarded as a test of public opinion in the city, with regard to the bill.

1835—AUGUST 12—Meeting in the Corn Market, Worcester, to address His Majesty on the subject of the Municipal Reform Bill, requesting him to take measures to ensure its passing the House of Lords without mutilation. The Mayor, Mr. Leonard, had refused to grant the use of the hall. C. H. Hebb, Esq., was called to the chair; and the speakers were Mr. Carey, Mr. Munn, Mr. Sanders, Mr. C. A. Helm, Mr. Greening, Mr. E. L. Williams, and Mr. B. Stokes. A petition to the Commons was also agreed to at this meeting, begging them not to consent to any alteration of the measure. It received 6,221 signatures.

1835—SEPTEMBER 7—Protestant meeting, in the Guildhall, Worcester, the alleged object being to disseminate a knowledge of the principles and practices of Popery, and to promote the great principles of Protestantism as maintained by the Established Church. The assembly room was well filled. Richard Spooner, Esq., was called to the chair. The Rev. Mortimer O‘Sullivan was the chief speaker; the others being Sir Matthew Blakeston, Bart., Rev. C. Benson, Colonel Taylor, Rev. George Turberville, Rev. John Cawood, John Brown, Esq., Lea Castle, Dr. B. Cooper, C. Hawkins, Esq., Samuel Kent, Esq., Rev. W. Chesshyre. A “Protestant Association” was determined on, but the meeting resolved itself, in reality, into an opposition to the appropriating clauses of the Irish Church Bill, then before the Lords. This meeting was the occasion of a correspondence between Mr. Hanford and Mr. Spooner, and a whole host of general letters in the newspapers. The Rev. T. M‘Donnell came from Birmingham on purpose to preach about it at the Catholic Chapel.

1835—SEPTEMBER 26—Meeting of the Worcestershire Agricultural Society, at the Crown Inn, Worcester, numerously attended. Sir A. Lechmere, Bart., the president for the year, in the chair. It was first resolved that agriculturists had waited long enough for the amelioration of their condition, which, according to a committee of the Commons in 1833, was to result from “the cautious forbearance rather than the active interposition of Parliament.” That it was necessary the agricultural body should be roused into energy to prevent the “total ruin impending over both landlords and tenants.” That Government were remitting all sorts of taxes to the manufacturing interests, and none to them—and, then, that it was highly desirable that the question of the currency should be brought under the serious attention of Parliament; as the sudden reduction of the amount of circulating medium had been one of the chief causes of the ruinous prices of agricultural produce. It would also be a great relief to the farmer to be allowed to malt grain, the produce of his own farm, duty free. The Marquis of Chandos was accepted as the farmers’ champion; and he was to be urged to bring these matters before Parliament, these being the only remedies suggested.

1835—OCTOBER 17—Meeting of the agriculturists of the county at the Crown Inn, Broad Street, to consider the distress and ruinous condition of the agricultural interest. Sir A. Lechmere, Bart., was called to the chair. Mr. Spooner moved an address to the King, setting forth the distress of the farmers, and suggesting that there ought to be an alteration of the standard of value to relieve them—they ought, also, to be allowed to malt their own grain. Mr. Robinson, M.P., Captain Winnington, M.P., and Mr. Pakington, M.P., were very averse to mixing up the currency question with agricultural distress, and had a long argument with Mr. Spooner thereon. Mr. Robinson had voted for repeal of the malt tax, but would never consent to one set of men only being exempt from the excise laws. The address, as it originally stood, was carried by a large majority.

1836—MAY 30—Town’s meeting at the Guildhall, Worcester, to agree to an address to His Majesty’s ministers, and a petition to the House of Commons, in favour of the Irish Municipal Reform Bill. The Mayor, C. H. Hebb, Esq., was in the chair; and there was a numerous gathering of citizens. Mr. Acton, Mr. Hanford, Mr. Alderman Gibbs, Mr. Sheriff Allies, Mr. Alderman R. Evans, Mr. Hardy, Mr. Carey, Mr. Parry, Mr. Greening, Mr. Chapman, and Mr. Southan were the speakers. The proceedings were unanimous.

1836—JUNE 30—Meeting in the Guildhall, Worcester, to form a “Worcester Reform Association;” the principal object alleged being to look after the registration. Mr. Robert Hardy was called to the chair, and the hall was crowded with operatives and others. The meeting was addressed by Captain Corles, Mr. F. T. Elgie, Colonel Davies, and others. G. Munn, Esq., was elected president of the new association.

1837—JANUARY 26—Meeting in Worcester Town Hall, to petition for Vote by Ballot. The meeting had, first of all, been called for the Thursday previous, but the requisitionists having determined to postpone it, the Mayor left the hall. A number of the Conservative party were left waiting in the Crown Court, and not having been properly apprised of the adjournment, they, after a little interval, called Major Bund to the chair. Mr. Gutch and Mr. F. Hooper moved a petition condemning the ballot, which was declared to “lead to the corruption of public morals by the general practice of treachery and hypocrisy.” This was carried by a large majority. Mr. Gutch and Mr. Lingham then moved that “the conduct of the Mayor and the requisitionists in not attending the meeting, and not offering any explanation of their absence, was an insult to the citizens of Worcester, and highly censurable;” and this also met with the approval of the parties present. These proceedings of course only made the original promoters of the meeting more in earnest, and the hall was this day crowded by a company entirely unanimous in favour of the ballot. The Mayor was in the chair; and the various resolutions and petitions were moved by Mr. F. T. Elgie, Secretary to the Worcester Reform Association, W. Acton, Esq., Mr. Hardy, Mr. Arrowsmith, Mr. John Hill, Town Clerk, Mr. Raby, C. Hanford, Esq., Mr. Alderman Corles, Mr. John Hall, &c. Mr. Waters asserted that he had told Major Bund, half an hour before the meeting of the previous week, that it was postponed. The ballot was declared, in the petition adopted by the meeting, to be “essentially necessary to the purity of election.”

1837—MARCH 30—Meeting of the clergy of the diocese, at the Chapter House, to petition against the Church Rate Bill, then lately introduced by ministers. The Venerable Archdeacon Onslow was in the chair. The Rev. John Peel, Rev. T. Baker, Rev. John Foley, Rev. J. R. Gray, Rev. C. Benson, Rev. R. B. Hone, Rev. A. B. Lechmere, Rev. H. Hastings, Rev. E. W. Wakeman, and the Hon. and Rev. J. S. Cocks moved or seconded the resolutions. The tone of the speeches generally was moderate; but the Tithe Commutation Act was included in the animadversions of the speakers, as well as the bill for abolishing church rates.

1837—MAY 5—Public meeting at Worcester, to consider the best means of alleviating the distress existing amongst the operative glovers. The Mayor, C. H. Hebb, Esq., was in the chair. John Dent, Esq., Dr. Hastings, Mr. S. Pumphrey, E. H. Lechmere, Esq., John Williams, Esq., W. Wall, Esq., Mr. Tymbs, Mr. Lavender, R. Berkeley, Esq., and Mr. T. Newman moved the various resolutions. The distress was not traced further, as to its causes, than the decay of trade and want of orders. Many hundreds of families had applied for relief. It was determined that a general subscription should be entered into, and a committee of master glovers was appointed to scrutinise the applications for charity. About £1,000 was collected, including £100 from the Earl of Coventry, £50 from Earl Beauchamp, and £30 from a performance at the Theatre, given for this purpose by Mr. Bennett.

1837—JULY 18—Anti-Slavery meeting at the Guildhall, to hear an address from Mr. Joseph Sturge, on the apprenticeship system. Mr. Alderman R. Evans was called to the chair. Dr. Redford, Mr. Stanley Pumphrey, Rev. Thomas Waters, and Mr. Brewin moved resolutions declaring for total abolition; and pledging the meeting only to support such candidates, at the next election, as would vote for such a step. Mr. Robinson and Colonel Davies gave the meeting satisfactory assurances. Mr. Bailey was not present, but Mr. Gutch read a note from him.

1837—AUGUST 10—County meeting held at the Guildhall, Worcester, to congratulate Queen Victoria on her ascension to the throne, and to condole with the Queen Dowager on her bereavement. The High Sheriff, W. Roberts, Esq., was in the chair. The Earl of Coventry moved the addresses; and the Bishop of Worcester seconded the one, and the Lord Lieutenant, Lord Foley, the other. Earl Coventry was requested to present them.

1837—DECEMBER 20—Meeting of the clergy in the Chapter House, the Ven. Archdeacon Onslow in the chair. Addresses to Her Majesty, a memorial to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and petitions to Parliament were adopted against certain clauses in the Marriage and Registration Acts, against the Tithe Commutation Act, and against the constitution of the Ecclesiastical Commission. The Revs. T. Baker, C. Dunne, Hon. J. S. Cocks, A. B. Lechmere, G. W. Kershaw, C. Benson, R. B. Hone, J. F. Turner, W. R. Holden, and W. A. Pruen, moved or seconded the resolutions.

1837—DECEMBER 30—Anti-Slavery meeting in the Town Hall, to petition for the immediate abolition of the apprenticeship system. Mr. Stanley Pumphrey was in the chair. The speakers were—Dr. Redford, Mr. Bowly, Mr. George Thompson (London), Mr. S. Burden, Mr. Alderman R. Evans, Mr. Ledbrook, and Mr. B. Stokes.

1838—FEBRUARY 6—Common hall at Worcester, to petition for the ballot. Mr. Alderman Hebb took the chair. The movers of the resolutions were—William Acton, Esq., Mr. Arrowsmith, Mr. Elgie, Mr. James Wall, Charles Hanford, Esq., Mr. Greening, Mr. Edward Hooper, and Mr. George. A Mr. Davis, a native of Worcester, but who had resided a considerable time in the United States, said the ballot had not worked well there. Colonel Davies and Mr. Turton, the expectant candidate, afterwards addressed the meeting.

1838—SEPTEMBER 11—Meeting of citizens at the Guildhall, at which it was resolved that an act should be applied for to obtain powers for the better regulation and repair of the streets and highways within the borough. Mr. Pierpoint proposed that the powers under such act should rest in the City Commissioners, and Mr. Deighton moved, as an amendment, that they should lie in the Council. Mr. Pierpoint’s resolution was carried; and, further, that the qualification of a Commissioner should be reduced to an income of £20 a year. In consequence of this decision the Council refused to proceed further with the bill.

1839—FEBRUARY 23—County meeting, in the New Shire Hall, on the Corn Law question. The High Sheriff, Mr. Russell, presided. The outer hall was completely filled, and the minority of Corn Law repealers were very noisy. The first resolution, proposed by the Earl of Coventry, and seconded by William Acton, Esq., was as follows: “That taking into consideration the natural and artificial causes which produce variations in the price of corn, and which experience has proved it is beyond the power of human legislation at all times to obviate or control, and looking at the slight changes in prices which have occurred since the last corn act was passed, which, while it regulates the duties on importation, affords protection to the home grower—this meeting is of opinion that it would be unjust and impolitic to make any alteration in the principle of the present law.” The remaining resolutions were merely routine, and were moved or seconded by Sir Offley Wakeman, Bart., O. Mason, Esq., Hon. W. Coventry, George Allies, Esq. (Mayor of Worcester), John Freeman, Esq., Sir A. Lechmere, Bart., Earl Beauchamp, and General Lygon, M.P. They were all carried by very large majorities. Towards the close of the meeting the uproar was very considerable, and at last, on the interposition of the Earl of Coventry, Mr. F. H. Coates, though not a freeholder, was allowed to speak in favour of a repeal of the Corn Laws, and was heard with considerable attention.

1839—APRIL 6—Large meeting of the clergy and laity of the Church of England held in the Crown Court, New Shire Hall, to form a Diocesan Board of Education in connection with the National School Society. The Lord Bishop took the chair, and the Rev. Donald Cameron read a report of a committee which had been previously appointed on the subject. Archdeacon Spooner, Sir John Mordaunt, Bart., M.P., Prebendary Digby, Mr. Pakington, and Canon Benson were the principal speakers, and moved resolutions pledging the meeting to form such a society as was suggested, and vigorously to support it. A training school for teachers was especially mentioned. Handsome donations were given on the spot.

1840—MARCH 27—The first Anti-Corn-Law meeting held in Worcester. It was a gathering of operatives, and took place in the Town Hall. Mr. John Richardson, ironfounder, was called to the chair; and the speakers were Mr. Robert Hardy, Mr. Thomas Waters, and several operatives, by whom indeed the meeting was convened. A petition, praying for a total repeal of the Corn Laws, was unanimously agreed to. The meeting was held with the view of strengthening Mr. Villiers’s hands in an approaching debate, and the number of signatures attached to the petition was 3,326.

1840—JUNE 29—County meeting, with the High Sheriff in the chair, to address the Queen on her escape from the attempt at assassination by Oxford. The resolutions were moved by Sir A. Lechmere, Mr. Pakington, Lord Southwell, Colonel Davies, Dr. B. Cooper, and the Hon. and Rev. W. W. C. Talbot.

1841—NOVEMBER 15—Public meeting in the Guildhall, Worcester, to vote congratulatory addresses to the Queen and Prince Albert on the birth of the Prince of Wales. The Mayor, Edward Evans, Esq., presided; and the resolutions were moved by the Lord Bishop of Worcester, John Williams, Esq., Sir A. Lechmere, Bart., Captain Thomas, &c. A subscription was entered into to supply the poor of the city with coal at a reduced rate, and this was called the Prince of Wales’s Coal Fund—£1,021 were raised by this means.

1842—FEBRUARY 23—A common hall convened at Worcester, to consider the distress of the country. The requisition had been taken round for signature by Mr. J. D. Stevenson, and a great number of persons had affixed their names. The hall was densely filled with operatives, and the proceedings were commenced by Mr. R. Hardy, who moved a resolution declaring that the distress of the country could be traced to “the Corn Laws and other restrictions on the trade and liberties of the people.” This was seconded by Mr. Edward Webb, and every hand was held up in its favour, save one. Mr. Alderman Corles proposed another resolution, declaring that the Corn Laws never would have been enacted if the people had been fully represented in Parliament, and that all bad statutes had arisen from class legislation. This was seconded by Mr. Alderman Padmore, and carried unanimously. Mr. Elgie moved the third resolution—that the present Parliament was not the people’s Parliament, and that it was necessary for the operative and middle classes to unite for the overthrow of monopolies. This was seconded by Mr. Fisher; but a Chartist, named Davie, moved an amendment—“that the principles of the People’s Charter should be embodied in the petition;” this was seconded by an operative named Williams, and two Birmingham Chartists, named Young and Mason, wanted to speak to the amendment; but the Mayor would not let them, because this was a “town’s meeting” and they were strangers. This caused great uproar; so he put the matter to the meeting, and requested those who were of opinion that the people of Worcester could manage their own affairs, to go to the right—and those who thought they were not competent so to do, to the left. This but increased the disturbance, and the Mayor put the question in the usual method; and, whether by mistake or not, the great majority declared that strangers should not be heard. The Mayor then put the amendment in favour of the Charter, and two-thirds of the meeting held up their hands in its favour. Davie then moved the adoption of the “National Petition,” praying for universal suffrage, repeal of the union, &c. &c. &c. The Mayor objected that this was not put as the petition of the people of Worcester. Dr. Redford made an attempt to convince the operatives of their mistake in creating disunion, but after a few sentences he gave up the task. The Mayor declined to put the National Petition; and after asking whether any gentleman had anything else to propose, he declared the meeting dissolved, and left the hustings. The Chartists remained in the hall, and having moved Mr. Stevenson into the chair, Mason and Whyte made long orations, especially abusive of the Mayor, and the National Petition was carried by acclamation.

1842—APRIL 16—A numerous meeting of the agriculturists, held at the Crown Inn, to consider Sir Robert Peel’s New Tariff. P. V. Onslow, Esq., in the chair. Mr. Curtler, Mr. Williams, and others thought they had not sufficient information before them to go upon, and expressed confidence in Sir Robert Peel. Mr. Woodward moved a series of resolutions, stating that the proposed alterations would seriously injure the agriculturists, and they could have no confidence in any ministry who proposed them. Mr. Benson moved a resolution somewhat milder, but deprecating the reduction of duty on cattle, &c., and this was carried by a considerable majority.

1843—MARCH 13—Public meeting in the Guildhall, Worcester, John Lilly, Esq., Mayor, presiding, to petition against the tenth article of the Ashburton treaty; which, in providing for the extradition of criminals from Canada to the United States, was thought likely to interfere with the liberty of escaped slaves. The resolutions were moved by Dr. Redford, Alderman E. Evans, Rev. Mr. Holden, Rev. J. Earnshaw, Mr. G. Grove, Rev. C. Lee, &c.; and Sir Thomas Wilde was requested to present the petition.

1844—FEBRUARY 27—Public meeting at the Bell Hotel, to form an Agricultural Protection Society for Worcestershire. P. V. Onslow, Esq., took the chair; and the resolutions were moved by Mr. F. Woodward, Sir Anthony Lechmere, Dr. B. Cooper, Mr. Henry Hudson, J. S. Pakington, Esq., M.P., Mr. Onley, Mr. Curtler, Mr. James Taylor, and the Hon. and Rev. W. W. C. Talbot. The meeting was attended by about 300 farmers and landowners, and about £550 were subscribed on the spot.

1844—OCTOBER 4—A meeting of the medical profession of the county, convened in the board room of the Worcester Infirmary, for the purpose of considering the provisions of the Medical Bill introduced in the late session of Parliament by Sir James Graham. Dr. Malden was called to the chair; and Mr. Pierpoint, and Mr. Davis of Pershore, moved a resolution approving of the bill in general. Dr. Hastings, and Mr. A. Martin of Evesham, moved a second, declaring that the bill was defective in not containing a clause for the punishment of unqualified and unregistered practitioners, and that it was the duty of every medical man to oppose the bill unless such a clause were inserted. A petition was agreed to, praying for the insertion of such a protective clause.

1844—NOVEMBER 28—A town’s meeting called at Droitwich, to consider the proposal of the Patent Salt Company to carry their brine down to Camp by means of pipes, and convert it into salt there, so as to save the great expense of tonnage on the Droitwich Canal. The Mayor, T. G. Smith, Esq., presided. The meeting unanimously agreed to petition against the proposed measure, as one which would be utterly destructive of the trade of the borough. Mr. Curtler, in moving the second resolution, went at length into the whole matter, attributing the Salt Company’s want of success to their own mismanagement; and he blamed them for seeking to monopolise the whole trade in their own hands. At the same time he admitted that they had a right to complain of the heavy charges imposed by the Canal Company, who fancied themselves bound by the guarantee given them by the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company to give them £8 interest per share, to keep the tolls up to the _maximum_ of 3d. a mile per ton. But he said the Canal Company were about to take steps to alter this state of things. Mr. Pakington, who attended the meeting to learn the wishes of his constituents, said he should give the Salt Company’s measure his most strenuous opposition in Parliament. The scheme was shortly afterwards abandoned.

1844—DECEMBER 16—A public meeting held in the Guildhall, Worcester, to consider what steps should be taken for the relief of the poor in the city during the winter, which had commenced with much severity. The Bishop of Rochester took the chair; and it was unanimously resolved that the balance left from the Prince of Wales’s Coal Fund should be increased by a general subscription, and another distribution of coal, blankets, &c., take place. Mr. Mence suggested that the funds should be distributed by the Visiting Society; but it was discovered that this had recently become entirely a Church of England society, and Dr. Redford protested against any general fund therefore being committed to its charge. A committee, upon which all the Dissenting ministers of the city were placed, was appointed by the meeting for the distribution of the funds. The subscriptions amounted to £702. 17s.

1845—DECEMBER 27—The Agricultural Protection Society held a general meeting at the Crown Hotel, Broad Street, Worcester; P. V. Onslow, Esq., in the chair. The speakers were Mr. F. Woodward, Mr. Lucy, J. S. Pakington, Esq., M.P., Mr. Curtler, the Hon. W. Coventry, Mr. Gutch, and Mr. Whittaker. The proximate causes for calling the meeting were—Lord John Russell’s letter avowing himself a total repealer, and the certainty that some measures affecting the agricultural interest would be brought forward by Sir Robert Peel in the ensuing session. Mr. Curtler avowed that he believed Sir Robert Peel to be an honest statesman, who had no motive for injuring the agricultural interest, and never would think of doing such a thing. The resolutions pledged the Society to carry out “a well-digested mode of action” against repeal of the Corn Laws.

1846—APRIL 29—A town’s meeting held at Worcester, to consider the New Gas Company’s Bill; William Lewis, Esq., Mayor, presiding. There had been many complaints of the bad quality of the gas supplied by the Old Company, and murmurs were heard about the price charged; in consequence of which, some parties thought it would answer their purpose to project a new set of works. The Old Company thereupon reduced the price from 8s. 4d. to 7s. 6d. per 1,000 feet; but this was only taken as an admission that the price ought to have been less before, and the New Company’s project went on and a great deal of ill feeling was excited—the popular cry, of course, being raised against that which had been a good while established, and was supposed to have been a source of considerable emolument to the parties engaged. That it had not been so to the shareholders was proved, but it was thereupon retorted that the management had been bad, and that the lessee of the works had made a fortune by them, &c. Negociations were at one time opened for the sale of the Old Company’s works to the New, but these fell through; and the New Company being now about to bring their bill before Parliament, it was necessary that they should have the approval of the town to back them. Mr. Pierpoint, at this meeting, elaborately stated the case on the New Company’s behalf; and Mr. H. B. Tymbs (chairman of the Old Company), Mr. Jones (their new manager), Mr. Francis Hooper, Mr. John Hill, and Mr. Bedford spoke for the Old Company. A petition in favour of the New Company’s bill, proposed by Mr. W. D. Lingham and Mr. Barnett, was carried by a majority of three to one.

1847—MAY 24—The Mayor of Worcester, Mr. Elgie, convened a public meeting in the Guildhall, for the purpose of considering the steps that should be taken to relieve the poor of the city, who were suffering much from the then high price of provisions. The meeting was most respectably attended by men of all parties, and more than £300 was at once collected for the purpose of furnishing the poor with provisions at a cheap rate.

1848—FEBRUARY 26—Public meeting of the inhabitants of Worcester, to petition against the Government proposal to increase the Income Tax per centage. The Mayor, E. Webb, Esq., presided, and Mr. Gutch, Mr. Alderman Elgie, Mr. F. H. Needham, Mr. Manning, Mr. Arrowsmith, Mr. John Hood, Mr. Pierpoint, and Mr. Bedford moved or seconded the resolutions. F. Rufford, Esq., M.P., also spoke. In consequence of demonstrations like these throughout the country, the Government proposition to levy a three per cent. permanent income tax was abandoned.

1848—JUNE 16—A town’s meeting, held at Worcester, to petition in favour of “further reform.” The Mayor, Mr. Webb, presided; and Mr. R. Hardy and Mr. J. Wall moved the first resolution—declaring that the present representation of the people in the House of Commons was partial, &c.; and this was carried almost unanimously. Mr. Arrowsmith and Mr. Everett moved a petition in favour of Mr. Hume’s motion for extension of the suffrage to all householders, triennial Parliaments, ballot, and equal apportionment of members to the population. John Dinmore Stephenson moved a petition for the whole “six points” in amendment, but after twice calling for a show of hands the Mayor declared the amendment to be lost, though it was a very near thing. The other resolutions were moved by the Rev. William Crowe, Mr. Alderman E. Evans, &c., and carried without opposition.

1849—MAY 5—County meeting, held at the Shire Hall, Worcester, to consider the distress under which the agricultural body were then said to be labouring. The High Sheriff, John Dent, Esq., occupied the chair; and the meeting was most numerously and respectably attended. James Taylor, Esq., of Moseley Hall, moved the first resolution—expressing alarm at the depression under which both the agricultural and manufacturing interests of the county were suffering. Mr. Joseph Stallard seconded this resolution. Mr. James Baldwin, paper manufacturer, of Birmingham, proposed an amendment, which, while it admitted the depression in trade and agriculture, suggested a remedy in the reduction of taxation, and chiefly from a repeal of the malt and hop duties. Mr. George Baker seconded the resolution. Mr. Laslett, addressed the meeting from the gallery, declaring that there was no possibility of any return to Protection, and that a reduction of rent was what was wanted. Mr. Laslett concluded his observations by saying, “You should have sent men to Parliament who would have taken care of your interest and not have sold you,” at which, as through his speech, there was great uproar. The resolution was carried with comparative few dissentients. Mr. Curtler then moved—“That the free trade measures of 1846 are partial and unjust in their operation—are inconsistent with the burdened interests of this country—must render abortive the utmost efforts of British industry to struggle against the unequal competition to which it is exposed, and which (if the present free trade measures are continued) will involve all classes in one common ruin.” This resolution he supported in a long and clever speech, endeavouring to show the preponderance of the agricultural over the manufacturing interest, and inveighing against Sir Robert Peel for his treachery to the agricultural party. The loss to the farmer, by the removal of Protection, he declared could not be made up to him, even if he was set free from paying any rent at all. The Rev. John Pearson seconded the resolution, declaring that, though he had been accustomed to take what was called a liberal line of politics, he was compelled to advocate Protection from a conviction that the farmers had not been fairly dealt with. The other resolutions were moved or seconded by Mr. J. R. Cookes, Mr. Gardiner, Mr. Francis Woodward, and Mr. Henry Hudson, and were all carried unanimously. Sir John Pakington afterwards addressed the meeting at great length, saying that, though he had voted against the repeal of the corn laws, and still continued to think that a very dangerous measure, yet free trade must have a trial. He did not think things quite so gloomy as his friends had represented them to be—prices had been lower even in days of Protection, and he was not inclined to increase the panic which prevailed. He recommended that they should demand from Parliament a redistribution of local taxation. Mr. Whittaker, amidst great cheering, begged the meeting not to be led away by the speech they had just heard; they must stick to Protection and not seek after a score of other things. General Lygon, M.P., and Captain Rushout, M.P., declared their firm adhesion to the principles of Protection.

1850—JANUARY 19—A county meeting, in compliance with a requisition most numerously signed by agriculturists, was held in the Crown Court of the Shire Hall, in favour of Protection. John Dent, Esq., the High Sheriff, being indisposed, the chair was taken by the Hon. W. Coventry. The first resolution, declaring that the abandonment of Protection had involved large classes of Her Majesty’s subjects, as well manufacturing as agricultural, in distress and ruin, was moved by James Taylor, Esq., and seconded by T. G. Curtler, Esq.; but before Mr. Curtler could conclude, such vehement cries, for adjournment into the outer hall, arose, that the proceedings were entirely interrupted. The chairman declined to adjourn, and the free traders, in the principal gallery, maintained such a continual uproar that all the rest of the proceedings passed in dumb show. The other resolutions and petitions were moved or seconded by Mr. Cookes, Mr. Henry Hudson, the Rev. John Pearson, Mr. Best, M.P., the Hon. and Rev. W. W. C. Talbot, Mr. F. Holland, &c., and were carried by large majorities in the midst of great noise.

1850—NOVEMBER 16—A meeting of the clergy of the Archdeaconry of Worcester, attended by about 200 of the clerical body, held in the Chapter House, to protest against the Papal Aggression. The Venerable Archdeacon Hone presided, and opened the meeting in a temperate speech. Canon Wood moved an address to Her Majesty, declaring that the Bishop of Rome had invaded the Queen’s prerogative by appointing archbishops and bishops here with titles taken from English cities and towns—assuring Her Majesty of their attachment to the principles of the Reformation—and, also, that they would support her in the discharge of the solemn obligations of her coronation oath to maintain the Protestant religion and the rights of the bishops and clergy. The Rev. R. Seymour, rector of Kinwarton, seconded the address, declaring that the Bishop of Rome had been guilty of a schismatical act, and had invaded the unity of the Church by appointing bishops in this country. The Rev. J. F. Mackarness, vicar of Tardebigg, protested at length against the meeting adopting this course. They would appear to be asking the help of the civil power against the intrusion of Rome, and that would be most unwise. The Church of England was already too much open to the taunt of being a law-made church; and the only true way of conserving and extending their influence as clergy was by earnestness of faith and devotion in labour. The address was, however, carried without other dissent. The remaining resolutions were moved by the Rev. H. J. Hastings, the Hon. and Rev. W. H. Lyttelton, the Rev. H. Woodgate, and the Hon. and Rev. W. W. C. Talbot.

1850—NOVEMBER 18—A city meeting held in the Guildhall, Worcester, on the subject of the Papal Aggression; the Mayor, Mr. Hughes, in the chair. Sir E. H. Lechmere and Mr. Gutch moved the first resolution, which declared that the Pope’s appointment of bishops in England, with territorial titles, was “an act of aggression justly calling forth the indignation of every true Protestant, and ought to be met with the most determined resistance which our laws will sanction.” John Dent, Esq., then moved an address to Her Majesty; but the meeting was fast falling into confusion, and was indulging in speculations about the use and propriety of bishops in general, when Dr. Redford came forward to second the address, and by his speech procured the unanimous carrying of the address. The other resolutions were proposed by F. Hooper, Esq., Henry Aldrich, Esq., H. B. Tymbs, Esq., and W. Dent, Esq. The parishioners of St. John’s parish also protested against the aggression, in vestry meeting.

1850—DECEMBER 14—The county meeting on the subject of the Papal Aggression was held this day in the Shire Hall, having been convened by the High Sheriff in compliance with a requisition signed by 700 persons. Mr. Watkins, the High Sheriff, presided. James Taylor, Esq., and the Hon. Gen. Lygon, M.P., moved an address to Her Majesty, declaring the measures of the Pope to be “an assumption of authority over this kingdom—an invasion of Her Majesty’s supremacy—an attack on the liberties and independence of the Church of England—and an important advance in the attempt to reimpose the doctrines and jurisdiction of the Roman Church upon the people of this country.” Sir Edward Blount, Bart., and Robert Berkeley, jun., Esq., moved a counter address, declaring that the appointment of a Roman Catholic Hierarchy did not require any legislative interference, and deprecating all restrictions upon the free enjoyment, by every religious body, of its spiritual order and discipline. The meeting was addressed by Mr. Spooner, M.P., the Rev. J. Walsh, Wesleyan minister, and the Rev. — Alexander, Baptist minister from Upton, who spoke in favour of the original address, and C. Hanford, jun., Esq., for the amendment. The original address was carried by a very large majority. Lord Lyttelton and Colonel Bund moved an address to the Bishop of the Diocese; and on the motion of T. G. Curtler, Esq., seconded by the Rev. J. Pearson, an addition was made to this address, thanking the Bishop for having rebuked and discouraged Tractarian principles and practices in this diocese. Mr. Knight, M.P., and the Rev. G. Hodgson, moved another formal resolution, and the thanks to the High Sheriff were proposed by Lord Southwell and seconded by Sir O. P. Wakeman. Meetings on this subject were held about the same time at Stourport—T. S. Lea, Esq., presiding; at Malvern, where T. C. Hornyold, Esq., and the Hon. Mr. Clifford, moved an amendment; at Bromsgrove, Upton, Droitwich, Evesham, Bewdley, Kidderminster (the Mayor presiding), Stourbridge, Dudley, &c.

THE COUNTY MAGISTRACY.

THE conduct of the general affairs of the counties of England, such as their police, the regulation of the gaols and lunatic asylums, the preservation of the county bridges, the levying of rates, &c., is intrusted to the unpaid magistracy, nominated by the Lords Lieutenant, and appointed by the Lord Chancellor; and at a time when an agitation is afoot to change the character of the body by whom these important matters are transacted, some consideration of the manner in which they have discharged their high trust may be opportune and useful. It is now proposed that a certain number of persons, chosen by the Boards of Guardians of the different Poor Law Unions, should be associated with a chosen body of the magistracy to manage all the county business. The principle sought to be carried out is one now generally acknowledged as a just one—viz., that “representation should be coordinate with taxation;” but it is worth consideration whether anything will be gained by such a change of system as is suggested, whether the interests of the ratepayers are likely to be better cared for than they are at present, and whether, indeed, they had not better let well alone. The Bench of County Magistrates in Worcestershire may be supposed to be a fair representation of the magistracy of the kingdom generally, and certainly on a review of their proceedings during the last fifty years, especially with regard to financial matters, the ratepayers must feel satisfied that their affairs could not have been in better hands. The Worcestershire Magistrates have had to consider, during the first half of the nineteenth century, many matters involving a very large outlay of the public money; and upon a review of the course they have taken, no one will be able to point to an instance of grossly unnecessary expenditure, or a lavishness in dealing with the public purse. They have always given attention to the representations of the ratepayers, but have not often suffered themselves to be turned aside from what was a plainly desirable, or necessary, object, by false considerations of economy, and have generally taken an enlarged view of the question before them. A most vigilant check has been kept upon the details of the county expenditure, and a laudable desire to lessen the general burden always been manifestly apparent. And they have, of course, been free from those changes which representative bodies from limited constituencies are ever and anon pretty sure to undergo, when the fickleness of public favour—some party cry, or prejudice, or the efforts of individuals striving for place and power—suddenly dispossess old and tried men from the offices for which they may be eminently suited, in order to make way for unqualified busybodies, whom the passing commotion may have brought into notice—“Straws,” as Junius said of Wilks, “on the surface of the torrent.” And while such commotion lasts, brief as it may be, mischief is often done which years are required to set straight again.

The Worcestershire Bench has, of late years, been singularly fortunate in its chairmen. It is only another mark of their anxiety to conduct their business on the soundest principles, that they have not suffered party considerations to sway them in the choice of the person upon whose discretion and judgment so much will always depend. The services of the Right Hon. Baronet who now fills the chair at Quarter Sessions have often been acknowledged, and are fully appreciated both by his fellow magistrates, and the body of the county at large.

With regard to the administration of the criminal code which now devolves to so great an extent upon courts of Quarter Sessions, each year’s experience adds its proof that the substantial ends of justice are as well attained there—and if the commonly received maxim, _Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur_, be accepted as the test—even better attained, than in any other criminal court in the kingdom.

In the very commencement of the present century, the county magistracy were occupied with a matter as important—at least, if the question of expense be taken as the criterion of importance—as any that has been the subject of their deliberations at more recent periods. It was the rebuilding of the county prison. The county gaol formerly stood on what is now known as Castle Hill, near to Edgar’s Tower, in the city of Worcester. It was extremely insecure; several prisoners had escaped from it, and the complaints of its absolute insufficiency for the purposes it was intended to answer, were many and frequent. {90} The county magistrates had at length come to a determination to build a new gaol on a different site; but this was no sooner known than a violent opposition was raised on the score of the cost, and few matters seem to have created so much general alarm and excitement throughout the agricultural districts as this proposal. In April, 1802, a meeting of landowners and others paying county rates was convened at the Guildhall, Worcester, at which the High Sheriff, Mr. Newnham, presided. There it was resolved, that the erection of a new prison would be accompanied with great and unnecessary expense, and that the existing gaol might be sufficiently enlarged and repaired, at a moderate cost. The magistrates still appearing determined to proceed, parish after parish protested against any such step being taken, and these protests signed by most of the influential tenant farmers, were published time by time, occupying many columns of the then diminutive Worcester newspapers. W. Welch, Esq., Chairman of Quarter Sessions, in order to correct the misrepresentations which were abroad on the subject, replied to these protests by a public letter, in which he stated that the cost of a new gaol would only be £19,000, and that properly to repair the old one would cost £13,000; that the grand jury had so often presented the gaol, that something was absolutely necessary to be done; and that the burden on individual ratepayers would not be anything like what was represented. Mr. R. Hudson of Wick, on the other hand, challenged the magistrates to meet him at the Crown Inn, Worcester, when he would prove to them that the proceedings lately taken in the erection of a new prison had been irregular, and could not be supported.

At the Midsummer Quarter Sessions in that year, Mr. Welch, in his charge to the grand jury, recapitulated the causes which had compelled the magistrates to determine on a new gaol, and in proof of their desire to study the general interest of the ratepayers, stated that, since he had occupied the chair, the county accounts, which had formerly been in great confusion, had been methodised and arranged, a saving had been effected in the expenditure of the gaol of some hundreds a year, and a considerable annual allowance from the exchequer, hitherto considered as a perquisite of the Under Sheriff’s, proved to be due to the county, and in future would be paid into the general fund.

Yet so strong was the feeling against the new building that the magistrates were compelled for awhile to abandon the project, and it was not till the escape of more prisoners caused the Lord Chief Baron Macdonald, at the Summer Assizes in 1807, to warn the county grand jury that, if the gaol were not altered or rebuilt, the county would be attached with a heavy fine for neglecting so essential a part of its duty, that any further steps were taken in the matter. At the Midsummer Sessions, 1808, the magistrates determined, without delay, to build a new gaol, as they believed that the old one admitted of no sufficient alteration. The expense was estimated at £18,000, and the site in Salt Lane was fixed upon. The bench published a minute statement of the number and amount of rates this expenditure would render necessary.

A great deal of excitement and uneasiness, however, was found still to prevail upon the subject, and it was especially said to be unnecessary to change the site; so at the Epiphany Sessions, 1809, the matter was again taken into consideration, and the bench adhered to their former determination, referring, however, the question of site to a committee. Mr. Welch, the chairman, about this time received an anonymous letter, threatening his life, “if he interfered any further respecting a new prison.”

At an adjourned sessions, held in February, 1809, the magistrates finally determined on the land in Salt Lane as the site for the new gaol, and adopted the plan of a Mr. Sandys. They published the reasons for their decision at length, the principal being, that the nature of the ground upon which the old prison stood would not admit of their obtaining a good foundation for the extensive buildings contemplated.

The new prison was, after this, vigorously proceeded with, and at the Epiphany Sessions, 1813, the chairman announced that the new gaol was completed, and in spite of much difficulty about the foundations, &c., the cost was within the estimate. The grand jury having inspected it, declared their entire approbation of the works, and thanked the magistrates for their attention to the interests of the county.

1810—A Special County Sessions was held in July this year, to take into consideration the report of a committee appointed to investigate charges of peculation brought against Mr. Welch, the chairman, by Mr. Johnson, a fellow magistrate. The matter arose out of Mr. Welch receiving what were called “justice wages,” and paying thereout for the dinners of the magistrates at the Hoppole. Mr. Johnson declared that he had a balance in hand, on account of this fund, of £65, which, but for his discovery, Mr. Welch would have appropriated. The committee, however, reported that the charge was “wholly unjustifiable and unfounded,” and a vote of thanks to Mr. Welch, “for his uniform, upright, and independent conduct,” was thereupon passed unanimously. Long replies and rejoinders, from Mr. Johnson and Mr. Welch, afterwards appeared in the public prints.

1810—AUGUST 28—In consequence of Mr. Johnson’s reiteration of the charge, another Special Sessions was held this day, not very numerously attended, at which a general resolution of confidence in Mr. Welch was passed, but not unanimously; indeed a more strongly worded motion had been negatived; and William Smith, Esq., gave notice of a motion, at the next sessions, for the removal of Mr. Welch from the chair. This, however, was abandoned.

1817—At the Easter Quarter Sessions, William Welch, Esq., resigned the chair in consequence of ill health, after having held it for nearly twenty years. Earl Beauchamp moved a vote of thanks to Mr. Welch for the services which he had rendered to the county, which was seconded by Lord Deerhurst, and carried unanimously. The Right Hon. Earl Beauchamp was then chosen chairman in his stead.

1819—The magistrates at the Michaelmas Sessions publish a declaration in the Worcester newspapers, of their abhorrence of the blasphemous and seditious sentiments then openly disseminated in society—of their attachment to the throne—and of their full unanimous and unequivocal determination to support the tried and invaluable constitution. The grand jury do the same. [This was just after the trial of Carlile for republishing Paine’s _Age of Reason_, and in the midst of the excitement attendant on the Peterloo Massacre.]

At the same Sessions, Edmund Meysey Wigley, Esq., was chosen chairman, in the room of Earl Beauchamp, who had expressed a wish to relinquish the office. The noble Earl, however, afterwards resumed its duties.

1823—At the Midsummer Sessions, Benjamin Johnson, Esq., was temporarily elected to the chair, now vacant by the decease of Earl Beauchamp.

At the Michaelmas Sessions following, Henry Wakeman, Esq., of Perdiswell, was unanimously chosen to the chair, on the motion of Lord Deerhurst, seconded by Richard Spooner, Esq.

1824—At the Epiphany Sessions, Mr. Wakeman declined the proffered honour of the chair, as his health would not permit him to discharge its duties, and proposed Lord Plymouth. This was seconded by Sir Thomas Winnington, and his lordship was thereupon elected.

1824—At the Easter Sessions, it was determined, after a warm discussion and division, to erect a treadmill in the county gaol. Thirteen magistrates said “aye,” and ten “no.”