Chapter IX: Part 9

1839—FEBRUARY 7—Mr. E. L. Williams proposed that the Council, “being deeply impressed with a conviction of a thorough examination of the existing Corn Laws,” should petition Parliament for an inquiry into their operation. He thought agriculture needed some protection, though the present laws wanted alteration: if gloves required protection, corn did. Alderman E. Evans seconded his motion. Mr. W. Pugh proposed, as an amendment, that the Council should petition for a total repeal. Alderman Hastings said that a repeal of the Corn Laws would be productive of immense evil; because if they reduced the revenues of the rich, they took it out of their power to assist the poor; and they would certainly rue the day if they agreed to a change that would be so silly. No measure that the legislature could adopt would prevent corn being occasionally dear, and its dearness now arose from deficient production and regrating. On a division there appeared

For total repeal: Aldermen Hall, Corles, Lilly, and Padmore; Councillors F. Hall, Greening, Davis, Smith, Oates, J. Hall, George, W. Pugh, Crane, W. Chamberlain, Southan, Dance, Lee, Ledbrook, Groves, and Thompson—twenty.

For inquiry only: The Mayor; Aldermen E. Evans, Hastings, and Palmer; Councillors Fawkes, Horne, Dent, Lea, Grainger, Lingham, Summerfield, and Williams—twelve.

At this meeting the Council, in compliance with the order of the Lords of the Treasury, awarded Mr. Thomas Hughes an annuity of £3. 6s. 8d., as compensation for the loss of his office of clerk to the forty-eight, which he had held under the old corporation. Mr. Hughes had claimed much larger compensation as Deputy Chamberlain.

1839—MAY 24—An address voted to the Queen, on the motion of Alderman Hebb, seconded by Alderman Corles, thanking her for resisting the attempt to change the ladies of her household, and, further, for having called back the Whigs to her councils. The only dissentient was Mr. Summerfield.

1838—NOVEMBER—The elections still brought no diminution in the preponderance of the Whig party. Mr. Alderman Hastings was first elected Mayor, but declined to serve; and having paid the usual fine of £50, required its disbursement on the score of his being an alderman, and the Municipal Act did not say anything about their being fineable. Mr. Alderman Chalk was elected unanimously in his stead.

1840—MARCH AND APRIL—The Council determined to oppose the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Company’s new bill in Parliament; but afterwards Alderman Corles moved, and Alderman Hebb seconded, a motion for the discontinuance of such opposition, on the ground that the Council had no legal right to pay the expenses out of the borough fund. Alderman Hastings moved the confirmance of the Council’s previous resolutions; and this amendment to Alderman Corles’s motion was carried by 20 to 6.

1840—JUNE 16—The Council voted addresses to the Queen, the Prince, and the Duchess of Kent, expressing their loyal joy at Her Majesty’s escape from the shot of the assassin, Oxford.

1840—MARCH TO JULY—The grant of £200 for the improvements in front of All Saints’ Church, made by the old corporation conditionally on their being completed by November, 1839, and renewed by the new body for five years longer, was repeatedly discussed. Mr. Alderman Hebb held that it was an illegal grant, and ought to be resumed; but the Council, on obtaining an undertaking from Messrs. Lea, Leonard, and Williams for its repayment at the end of the second term of five years if the alterations were not then completed, suffered the money to remain in their hands.

1840—NOVEMBER 9—The newly elected Council—consisting of almost the same parties as in the previous year—elected C. A. Helm, Esq., as Mayor for the succeeding twelve months. Mr. W. Lewis was also proposed, and received 16 votes to 22 for Mr. Helm. Mr. Alderman Edward Evans was chosen Sheriff.

1841—MAY 6—The council unanimously petitioned for a revision of the import duties, on the motion of Mr. Sheriff Evans, seconded by Mr. F. T. Elgie.

1841—SEPTEMBER 29—A special meeting of the body was held to memorialise the Queen on the subject of the Corn Laws. Mr. Elgie moved the memorial, which asserted that the Corn Laws were the principal causes of the present distress of the country. Mr. Pierpoint moved an amendment, declaring that the discussion of political subjects was contrary to the spirit of the Municipal Act, and highly inexpedient; and wound up by an assertion of a wholly political character, viz., that the distress of the country had been produced by the hasty and crude legislation of the Whigs. The amendment was negatived by 26 to 5, the minority consisting of Messrs. J. Dent, Anderson, Pierpoint, Bedford, and Summerfield.

1841—NOVEMBER—The Conservatives made great efforts in all the wards to get a footing in the Council this year, but, except in St. Nicholas, were wholly unsuccessful. Mr. Alderman Edward Evans was elected Mayor, and Mr. Alderman Lilly, Sheriff, by 23 votes, while 12 were given for Mr. Elgie. Mr. Hebb retired from the Council; and Messrs. R. Evans, J. Hall, W. Lewis, G. Allies, C. A. Helm, and C. Hastings were elected aldermen in room of those who retired.

1841—DECEMBER 3—A special meeting to protest against the recent appointment of magistrates without consulting the Council. Mr. Alderman Allies proposed a resolution, which declared that the six individuals who had been appointed magistrates owed their elevation to political partizanship and not to the esteem in which they were held by their fellow citizens; protesting also against the appointment because of its exclusiveness, and because the Council had not been asked to recommend. Mr. Alderman Padmore seconded the motion. Mr. Hughes moved, as an amendment, “That this meeting is unnecessary and uncalled for;” and this was seconded by Mr. Bedford, who said that parish officers could not get justice from the present justices; and denounced the appointment of Mr. Sidebottom to the stipendiary magistrateship as a “flagrant job,” only to make way for Mr. Hill. The motion was carried by 27 to 4, and a memorial prepared to be presented by Sir Thomas Wilde to the Secretary of State.

1842—JANUARY—A committee appointed, on the motion of Mr. Elgie, to inquire into the truth of Mr. Bedford’s declaration, that the appointment of Mr. Sidebottom as stipendiary magistrate was a “flagrant job,” and they reported that it was altogether “untrue and unfounded;” inasmuch as Mr. Sidebottom declared that his resignation of the office of town clerk was voluntary.

1842—MAY 20—A special meeting of the body was held to congratulate the promoters of the Severn Navigation Improvement on the passing of the measure, and to thank the noblemen and gentlemen by whose exertions its success had been secured.

1842—JULY 12—The Council refused to nominate Commissioners of Income Tax for inquiring into the emoluments arising from public offices held in the city, and the appointment, therefore, reverted to the treasury or the commissioners for general purposes.

1842—OCTOBER 26—A special meeting held to consider the railway question. Mr. Alderman Chalk proposed that it was desirable for the Council to examine whether there was any agreement subsisting between the city and Mr. Berkeley, such as should preclude the city from consenting to the project, or going to Parliament for whatever line they thought fit. Mr. Pierpoint seconded the motion. Mr. Elgie proposed, as an amendment, that it be referred to the railway committee to inquire whether any engagement had been entered into by which the citizens were bound in honour or equity from becoming parties to the Bredicot branch. The Town Clerk gave it as his opinion that there was no agreement in existence which bound the city in any way. On a division, the amendment was carried by 15 to 13—the Mayor, Alderman Corles, and four other councillors declining to vote. Mr. Chalk, Mr. Bedford, and others protested against the amendment being declared carried, because it had not obtained, as required by the sixty-ninth clause of the Municipal Act, _a majority of those present_.

1842—NOVEMBER—Mr. Alderman John Lilly unanimously elected Mayor, and Mr. Alderman Lewis, Sheriff.

1843—JANUARY 2—The Council determined to oppose the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Company in their application to Parliament for powers to make the Bredicot branch, by a majority of 25 to 5.

1843—AUGUST 1—The Town Clerk brought a bill of £250 for the costs of the unsuccessful opposition to the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Money Bill. Mr. Alderman Palmer moved that it be referred to the Finance Committee; but it was resolved by 11 to 9 that the bill, which was admitted on all hands to be very fair in its charges, should be paid at once, together with £17 due to the Town Clerk on a former occasion.

1843—OCTOBER—The Guildhall having been illuminated on the occasion of the Queen Dowager’s visit to the city, Mr. W. D. Lingham, the City Chamberlain, brought in a bill of £18. 7s. 6d. for the expense, the payment of which was disputed with most pitiable parsimony. The Council divided, and 19 voted for payment to 14 against it.

1843—NOVEMBER—There was but little contest in the municipal election this year. Mr. Alderman Lewis was elected Mayor; and Mr. L. Ledbrook, Sheriff, by 21 votes to 19 given for Mr. Edward Wheeler.

1843—DECEMBER 5—Upon the motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Alderman Padmore, it was decided that the meetings of the Council should be thrown open to the public; but this was afterwards set aside.

1844—JANUARY 4—The Council, on the motion of Mr. Bedford, determined only henceforth to style themselves, “The Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Worcester,” as their proper legal title. A motion to give a salary to the Mayor was rejected by 19 to 10.

1844—SEPTEMBER—The Council (and afterwards the Chamber of Commerce) pronounced in favour of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway project, in preference to any other of the schemes before the city, by large majorities.

1844—NOVEMBER—There were no contests in the wards this year, except at St. John’s. Mr. William Lewis was reëlected Mayor without opposition, and Mr. Lloyd was chosen Sheriff by 22 votes to 12 given for Mr. Elgie.

1845—JANUARY 11—At a special meeting called to assent to, or dissent from, the Tring line promoted by the London and Birmingham Company, and which would pass through part of the corporation property in the Blockhouse, &c., Mr. Alderman Chalk asked the Council to abide by its former decision in favour of the Oxford line, and dissent from the Tring scheme—and proposed a resolution to that effect, which was seconded by Mr. Alderman R. Evans. Mr. Wall and Mr. Hood moved that the Council do assent to the Tring line; but this was negatived by 18 to 7, and Mr. Chalk’s resolution carried.

1845—MARCH 27—The Council again declared in favour of the Oxford and Wolverhampton line. Mr. Knight moved, as an amendment to the resolution proposed by Mr. Elgie, that the Council should petition in favour of the Tring line; but this was lost by 19 to 8.

1845—NOVEMBER—The elections this year brought two more Conservatives into the council. E. J. Lloyd, Esq., was elected Mayor, and Mr. F. T. Elgie, Sheriff.

1846—FEBRUARY 3—The Council petitioned for a total and immediate repeal of the Corn Laws by a majority of 17 to 9.

1846—APRIL 14—William Lewis, Esq., chosen Mayor for the remainder of the year, in the room of Edward Lloyd, Esq., deceased.

1846—MAY 5—At this, a quarterly meeting of the Council, Mr. Sheriff Elgie moved a petition against the New Gas Company’s Bill (which had been approved, in public meeting, the week before), and Mr. Hood seconded it. Mr. Alderman Chalk objected to such a subject being brought on without previous notice, and to a quarterly meeting being taken advantage of for such a purpose. He moved an amendment for the postponement of the question, which was, however, lost by 16 to 5, and Mr. Elgie’s petition carried. A counter petition was afterwards presented from fourteen other members of the body.

1846—NOVEMBER—F. T. Elgie, Esq. was unanimously chosen Mayor by the new body, and Mr. Edward Webb, Sheriff.

1846—NOVEMBER 16—Mr. Arrowsmith moved that the Council should erect baths and washhouses with as little delay as possible. Mr. Bedford thanked Mr. Arrowsmith for bringing the matter forward, remarking that hitherto his own efforts, for sanitary improvements, had all failed for want of support. The motion was unanimously carried, and a committee appointed to carry out the suggestion; and this committee has been formally renewed from time to time, yet five years have now elapsed and baths and washhouses in Worcester seem further off than ever.

1847—APRIL 24—A memorial having been presented to the Council, from the agriculturists, praying to have the Sheep Market leased to them, in order that they might erect a Corn Exchange thereon, Mr. Arrowsmith moved that no sufficient reason had been shown to the Council to authorise them in making a change that would be so injurious to a great number of the inhabitants of the city. This was carried by 18 to 13. The Council also, by a majority of 18 to 8, agreed to a petition in favour of Lord Morpeth’s Sanitary Bill.

1847—NOVEMBER—The elections this year resulted in very little change. Edward Webb, Esq. was chosen Mayor, and Mr. Padmore, Sheriff.

1848—APRIL 5—The Council granted a lease of the Wheat Sheaf Inn, Corn Market, and other premises, to one of the Corn Exchange Companies.

1848—MAY 2—The Council, at a quarterly meeting, passed a resolution, approving of the Mayor’s efforts to bring about an arrangement between the rival Corn Exchange Companies; and begging the agriculturists to rest satisfied with the one in Angel Street.

They also petitioned in favour of Lord Morpeth’s Health of Towns Bill.

1848—AUGUST 11—At a special meeting, called to consider the Corn Exchange question, the Council, after a very warm debate on various propositions, determined to take the opinion of Mr. Alexander as to their right to regulate the Corn Market, to take toll on corn sold, and to prevent the removal of the market from its ancient site. The opinion only went to justify the corporation in taking toll on corn pitched in bulk, and no further proceedings were taken in the matter.

1848—OCTOBER—The Council, with only one dissentient, agreed that it was desirable that the Public Health Act should be applied to Worcester; and appointed a committee to make a representation to that effect to the Central Board of Health.

1848—NOVEMBER—Mr. Alderman Padmore was elected Mayor; and as he declined to give a Sunday breakfast, go to the Cathedral, or wear a gown, he gave £100 to the city instead. This donation, having afterwards been considerably increased, has found a permanent shape in the handsome town clock which now ornaments the front of the Market House. Mr. Goodwin was elected Sheriff.

1849—JANUARY 1—The Council having previously determined to petition the Lord Chancellor to appoint six new city magistrates, because some of those named in the original commission were dead, and others did not attend on the bench, this day proceeded to the selection of names. Alderman Lewis had 29 votes; Alderman Chalk, 27; the Mayor, 25; Alderman E. Evans, 25; J. W. Isaac, Esq., 22; Alderman Webb, 20; Dr. James Nash, 14; William Stallard, Esq., 10; Mr. Jabez Horne, 8; Alderman Helm, 3; Mr. Bedford, 1; and Alderman Elgie, 1. The first six names were consequently transmitted to the Lord Chancellor.

1849—NOVEMBER—The agitation respecting the carrying out the Health of Towns Act this year, caused considerable change in the composition of the municipal body; the only suitability sought in the new councillors being their known determination to oppose the measure. Their subsequent proceedings have had reference almost entirely to the

APPLICATION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT TO WORCESTER.

THE passing of the Public Health Act in the session of 1848 was an epoch of our civilisation. It was the recognition of a great social want, and an attempt to remedy a great social evil, which had silently grown up with the increase of our large towns, and threatened to turn our prosperity and blessings into a curse. The principle of the act received the cordial and unanimous assent of all the great parties in the state; and though numerous alterations were made in the measure during its progress through the Lower House of Parliament, these were entirely improvements amicably suggested and cordially adopted by the ministry who introduced it. Those who determinedly opposed some of its details were always left, upon a division, in very small minorities.

The chief objection which has been raised against the measure, by those who have conscientiously or interestedly resisted its operation, has been to the constitution of a General Board of Health in London, having some check over the doings of those local bodies to whom the working out of the act has been intrusted. This is denounced by the word “centralisation,” but the Poor Law Board daily exercises, without remark, a much more stringent authority over Boards of Guardians, who are just as much representative bodies as Town Councils, than any which is vested in the Board of Health. In many places where the act has been applied, the need of such a supervision as that of the Central Board has been so strikingly evinced that Parliament will, probably, soon be induced to place yet greater powers of control in the hands of the Board, and make the provisions of the act entirely compulsory instead of optional. It might seem wise and well to leave the unerring laws of health and disease to work out their own results, in punishing those who neglect the necessary conditions by which alone health can be maintained where men congregate together; but as the epidemics engendered by such neglect cannot be confined to those who are their responsible producers, the legislature, on behalf of society at large, has the right to interfere.

The application of the act to Worcester has been productive of immediate results that are sufficiently curious; but its importance, as regards the future welfare of the city, cannot be overrated, and on that account, much more than for any present turmoil, which, in “the whirligig of time,” will subside and be forgotten, the subject claims a special notice here.

Worcester, more than most English towns, needed the application of such a measure to its internal economy. Its fair exterior, and the outward cleanliness of its principal streets, are but the deceitful masks of hidden insalubrities. Surrounded by hills, which attract the moisture and screen it from the healthful breezes that would drive away miasma, its atmosphere is too constantly damp and relaxing in summer, and in winter the fogs, rising from the stream and the undrained soil, lie long upon its dwellings. The river, which flows through it, fortunately keeps up a constant current of air, but epidemics always follow the course of rivers. Though apparently well situated for drainage, the greater part of the city is ill-circumstanced in this respect, for the southern and western half, at least, is built on a cold marl, which retains the soakings of the surface as a sponge. These are natural reasons which, it might be supposed, would have suggested to the inhabitants the most careful attention to drainage and cleanliness; yet it is a fact, that scarcely a street in the whole city is supplied with a sufficient drain, and that it contains more open cesspits, prolific of noisome smells and active disease, than any town of equal size in the kingdom.

The merit of having drawn public attention, in this city, to the paramount importance of Parliamentary interference to enforce sanitary improvements belongs to Sir Charles Hastings, M.D.

At the city election in 1846, when Sir Denis Le Marchant suddenly appeared as a candidate, Dr. Hastings, upon the hustings, addressed the citizens, who were then gathered together, and said he was anxious Sir Denis should have their opinion on a matter of the greatest importance to every individual amongst them. “Amidst the great party struggles,” continued the Doctor, “in the legislature, the social improvement of the people had been too much overlooked, and it was certain that the sanitary condition of the great mass of the inhabitants of this kingdom was such as reflected no credit upon its Government. He wished, therefore, the citizens of Worcester to impress upon Sir Denis Le Marchant the propriety of giving his best attention to this great question, and of using his best endeavours to get it promoted by the Government. He hoped that the measures which had been under the attention of the legislature for the last six or seven years would, at last, receive the consideration they merited. All alike would be benefitted by the passing of laws necessary for the protection of the public health, and which would have also a great effect on public morals. (Applause.) He trusted that was their opinion, and if it was so he prayed them to hold up their hands.”

The assembly unanimously responded to the Doctor’s appeal; and Sir Denis declared himself the warm advocate of sanitary measures.

Dr. Hastings afterwards addressed a letter to the Town Council on the subject; and in seconding Mr. Ricardo’s nomination, in 1847, he again mentioned the matter, amidst the cheers of the assembly, and pressed it upon the attention of each of the candidates.

Mr. Austin, the secretary to the Health of Towns Association, came down in the autumn of 1846 to make an inspection of the city, and report upon the works and alterations necessary to be undertaken for the purpose of securing the greatest possible amount of health and comfort to the inhabitants. Mr. Austin presented his report to the City Commissioners in December, 1846, and so able and informative was it deemed that it was ordered, on the motion of Mr. Pierpoint, to be printed for general circulation; and a sum of £20 was afterwards voted him by the same body. Mr. Austin estimated the gross cost of drainage for the entire city, proper water supply to every house, baths and washhouses, conversion of soil for agricultural purposes, at £74,000; he believed a revenue of £19,000 per annum might be derived from such works when carried into full efficiency; the interest and expenses of management he set down at £11,650. Some parties, unconnected with either of the two governing bodies in the city, this year gave notice of their intention to apply to Parliament for a “City Improvement Act,” in which powers would be taken to carry out all those alterations which were felt to be so necessary for the good ordering of the town; but this project was soon abandoned, and the City Commissioners declared that, if Parliament did not that year introduce a general act, they would themselves apply for an extension of powers to enable them to carry out needful sanitary improvements.

At a dinner given to Captain Candler, in February, 1847, Lord Lyttelton strongly pressed upon the Mayor, and citizens of Worcester generally, the desirability of at once carrying out the suggestions of Mr. Austin’s report in their integrity.

The Government having introduced the Public Health Act into Parliament, in the spring of 1847, petitions in its favour were forwarded from Worcester, one of which was signed by 700 of the working classes. The principal difference between the measure as introduced by the Whig and Conservative Governments was, that the one proposed by the latter placed the “centralising” power in the hands of the Home Secretary, instead of the Central Board, and would have constituted new local bodies for working out the act, instead of placing it in the hands of the Town Councils, which the Whigs did on principle.

The first public meeting held in Worcester was one convened by the Mayor, Mr. Elgie, on the 19th of April, 1847, to consider the measure proposed by Government. But the Commissioners met in the morning, and determined on opposing the Government bill, doubtless because it would altogether extinguish them; and as a good deal of alarm had already been created in the town by the large figures in Mr. Austin’s report, there was a considerable opposition raised at the meeting. Dr. Hastings and Mr. Orwin moved a resolution, declaring the necessity which existed for sanitary measures; and this was carried. Mr. Arrowsmith and Mr. J. W. Isaac moved a second, approving of the Government measure; but Mr. R. M. Mence and Mr. Francis Hooper moved an amendment, to the effect that the Health of Towns Bill contained many unnecessary and mischievous provisions. The cost and the centralisation were the topics chiefly dwelt upon by the opponents of the measure. Mr. Orwin spoke in favour of the bill, and Mr. Thomas Lucy and Mr. Pierpoint against it; the latter producing a toy whose joints were moved by a string, to illustrate what the Town Council would be in the hands of the Central Board. The proceedings were spun out to such an inordinate length, that the meeting had almost dissolved itself, before the resolution and amendment were put. The division was very close, but the Mayor decided that the resolution in favour of the Government bill was carried. A petition to Parliament in its favour was afterwards proposed, but that was lost, and the resultless meeting then broke up.

The same week the Council adopted a petition in favour of the measure, by a majority of 18 to 8.

In May, a petition was presented from Worcester in favour of the Public Health Act, signed by the Very Rev. the Dean, and most of the Canons and parochial clergy. The medical men of the city also, without a single exception, petitioned that it might pass.

The bill was committed in June, by a majority of 191 to 50; the only Worcestershire members who voted in the minority being General Lygon and Mr. P. Borthwick. The bill was, however, after all, with a multitude of others, in the annual “slaughter of the innocents;” and then came the general election.

In seconding Mr. Ricardo’s nomination as a candidate for Worcester, Dr. Hastings again mentioned sanitary matters, and declared, amidst the cheers of the assembly, that he would not give his vote for any man who would not pledge himself to support a bill for the improvement of the public health.

In January, 1848, Mr. Thomas Beggs lectured in the Town Hall, Worcester, on sanitary improvements; and on the following day a public meeting was held, over which the Mayor, Mr. Edward Webb, presided. The Rev. John Davis then moved a petition to the legislature in favour of sanitary measures, which was carried without dissent; and Mr. Ricardo, who was present, expressed the pleasure he should feel in presenting it, and in supporting Government in any measure they might propose for the advancement of the sanitary condition of the people.

In April, a town’s meeting was called to consider the Government measure, on a hostile requisition; and the Mayor being indisposed, the friends of sanitary improvements took no part. Mr. Summerfield was called to the chair; and on the motion of Mr. Mence and Mr. Hooper, a petition was adopted in opposition to the Health of Towns Bill, and ordered to be forwarded to Mr. Urquahart, for presentation.

In May, the Town Council, with only one dissentient, petitioned in favour of the measure; and a petition of similar import was also very generally signed by the inhabitants of the city.

The bill passed the House of Commons on the 20th of June—the opposition, in their strongest division, having only mustered fifty-four votes. It met in the House of Lords with entire approbation; and every one of the amendments made in committee there, were with a view to make its provisions more stringent and “centralising.”

On the 3rd of October, 1848, the Worcester Town Council, on the motion of Mr. Alderman Elgie, came to a resolution, “That it is desirable forthwith to bring into operation within the city the provisions of the Public Health Act.” In a numerous meeting there was only one dissentient to this resolution. A committee of fifteen members was then appointed to carry out the resolution. They communicated the resolution of the Council to the Central Board, and requested that an inspector might be sent down to inquire into the propriety of applying the act to Worcester.

Mr. George T. Clark, Government Inspector, accordingly gave notice in November, both by advertisement and handbills posted in all parts of the city, that he should make the necessary inquiries as to the sanitary condition of the city, and invited all parties to give evidence before him. Mr. Clark sat for the first time at the Guildhall, on the 4th of December, and was very cordially received by the Mayor, Mr. Padmore, and a considerable number of leading citizens and tradesmen, some of whom have since taken a very active share of the opposition to the working of the measure; but not one word of objection to the application of the act to Worcester was ever uttered in Mr. Clark’s presence.

Mr. Clark’s report appeared in April, 1849, and the conclusions to which the inspector arrived were, that the public nuisances in Worcester were many and great—constantly creating sickness, and increasing the mortality of the place; that what was principally wanted was a proper water supply, surface paving and drainage; and that remedies for the evils complained of might be applied for a rate of not more than one penny a week per house. The cost of the necessary drainage he estimated at £20,315, and of the water supply at £21,750, while he set down the annual income derivable from the water works at £4,238.

Acting upon this report, the Central Board made a provisional order for the application of the Public Health Act to Worcester; being competent to do this, as to any place where the mortality ranged above 23.0 in 1,000 per annum—and, according to the Registrar General’s report, the average mortality in Worcester, for the seven years previous to the passing of the Public Health Act, was 25.05 in 1,000. A bill to confirm this provisional order was introduced into Parliament in July, 1849; and, passing without opposition, received the royal assent in August.

Immediately after the application of the act to this city, all sorts of absurd rumours were put into circulation as to the expense it would occasion to the ratepayers; and the ignorance and misinformation that appeared to prevail upon the subject, would scarcely be credited if related. Ward meetings were very generally held, at which memorials to the Council were adopted, praying them not to carry out the act, or to postpone its operation. And thus commenced an agitation, which, being fostered by persons who had their own or party ends to serve, long continued to disturb the peace of the city.

At the meeting of the Council on the 7th of August, Alderman Elgie moved that the Public Health Committee should report to the next meeting as to what offices were necessary to be appointed, and other steps requisite to be taken under the Health of Towns Act. This was carried by a majority of 19 to 11.

At a subsequent meeting, the committee reported that the officers required would be a clerk, treasurer, surveyor, and medical officer of health. An amendment for delay was rejected by 22 to 12, and the clerk and treasurer were at once appointed.

In consequence of the determination thus evinced by the Council to proceed vigorously with the practical application of the measure, a public meeting was called by the parties hostile to it. This was held on the 25th of September, 1849, and presided over by the Mayor, Mr. Padmore. Mr. Summerfield moved the adoption of a memorial to the Central Board, praying that the act might not be applied to Worcester, because it was denied that the mortality of the city exceeded 23 in 1,000; and because a majority of the inhabitants were said to be unfavourable to the introduction of the Public Health Act. Alderman Thompson seconded the memorial. Alderman Edward Webb proposed, as an amendment, “That inasmuch as the act is at present applied to the city, and considering the unsatisfactory state of the dwellings of the poor, the insufficient drainage, and bad supply of water, the memorial is unnecessary.” Alderman Elgie and Mr. Waters addressed the meeting at great length on the general question, and pointed out the absurdity of supposing that any memorial to a board in London could stop the operation of an Act of Parliament. Excepting Mr. James Wall, who made a few observations, no one attempted to speak on the other side; but the amendment was lost, and the memorial carried by a large majority.

The presentation of the memorial was intrusted to the Rev. R. Sargeant and Mr. Lucy, but the Board declined to receive them as a deputation in the absence of Mr. Clark. The Rev. R. Sargeant, therefore, forwarded it with a letter, and the Board of course returned for answer, that they had no power to stop proceedings under an Act of Parliament; and further, that the act had been legally applied to Worcester—as the Registrar General had certified to them, under his own hand, that the mortality was 25.05 in 1,000.

The appointment of surveyor was postponed by the Council till after the municipal elections for 1849; but at the meeting of November 16, further delay was resisted, and an amendment to that effect was defeated by 26 votes to 12. Mr. Edward Leader Williams was then chosen surveyor under the Public Health Act, by 23 votes to 8 given for the opposing candidate, Mr. Samuel Purchas. The question of salary was postponed.

For some months Mr. Williams went on, under the directions of the health committee, preparing his plans for the improved drainage and water supply of the city. His report on the drainage question was issued and printed in June, 1850, and met with very general approval. Having been called before the Council, at their meeting in August, and given explanations upon some points, the Council in full meeting adopted the report with only two dissentient voices. The report estimated the cost for the entire drainage of the city at £17,345.

The excitement amongst ratepayers was, however, kept up by a question of the necessity of appointing a medical officer of health; and so strong was the current of public opinion against such an appointment, that the Council were compelled to abandon all thoughts of making it. Dr. Malden and Dr. Hastings both addressed letters to the Council, declaring that, in their opinion, a medical officer was needed for the proper carrying out of the act.

The by-laws necessary under the Public Health Act for the regulation of slaughter houses, lodging houses, &c., were another fruitful source of squabbles during 1850. On the 5th of March a code was agreed to in the Council, by a majority of 15 to 7, which rendered it necessary that an “officer of health” should have the superintendence of such places, and to these the Secretary of State gave his assent. In July, however, the anti-sanitary party having increased in boldness, carried a new set of by-laws, by a majority of 18 to 16, in which the words “inspector of nuisances” was everywhere inserted instead of “officer of health.” They then begged the Home Secretary to endorse their inconsistent proceeding, but he refused to do so. The original by-laws are, therefore, now law in the city of Worcester; but as there is no “officer of health,” no use has been made of them—they remain a dead letter.

On the 5th September, 1850, the anti-sanitary party had a public meeting in the Guildhall, at which Mr. Toulmin Smith attended and delivered an harangue against centralisation. The meeting actually came to a resolution “to resist the application of the act in that city and elsewhere; and, if possible, obtain its repeal.”

At the municipal elections for 1850, parties were returned to the Council avowedly “to put a stop to the working of the act altogether;” but the dignity of the Council and its proceedings was not improved by this infusion of new blood. Up to the present time not a single step has been taken towards the practical application of the act in the city; but, instead of that, the Council have been engaged in a dispute with the surveyor, whom they refused properly to remunerate—and thus they have involved the city in great expense to no sort of purpose. The details of this affair it would be altogether undesirable to resuscitate, and the more so, as the Central Board have pronounced the Council to be entirely in the wrong; but there is reason to hope that wiser and more enlightened views, on a subject which involves the future prosperity of the city and the health and life of its inhabitants, will soon prevail.

WORCESTER INFIRMARY.

THIS noble charity had its origin in the philanthropy of the medical men of Worcester in the year 1745. It was first opened in a room in Silver Street, and it was not for twenty years afterwards that the present hospital was built, at an expense of upwards of £6,000. It has been enlarged at various periods since that time, and is now capable of accommodating 100 in-patients. The funded property of the institution exceeds £27,000, and the annual subscriptions amount to upwards of £1,200. The physicians and surgeons attached to the institution at the beginning of the present century, were Dr. Johnstone, Dr. Seward, and Dr. Mylne; Mr. Pennell Cole, Mr. Sandford, and Mr. Carden. The following are minutes of the appointments which have since taken place, and of the more important proceedings of the governors:

1800—JANUARY 31—Election of physician in the room of Dr. Johnstone, who resigned. There were three candidates, and the choice of the subscribers fell on Dr. Skey, who had 127 votes; Dr. Philip W. Wilson 108, and Dr. Barnett 73.

1800—JUNE 27—At a quarterly meeting of the governors, it was ordered that all legacies and benefactions amounting to or exceeding £50 be funded.

1801—AUGUST 7—In consequence of “the distressed state of the Infirmary and the dearness of every article of provision,” the order respecting the funding of £50 legacies was suspended.

1801—AUGUST 28—Dr. Barnett unanimously elected one of the physicians in the room of Dr. Chambers, resigned.

1803—FEBRUARY 1—Dr. Philip W. Wilson unanimously elected in the room of Dr. Skey, resigned.

1810—MARCH 30—It was ordered that the property of the institution, then invested in the Three per Cents., should be transferred to the Four per Cent. Government Annuities.

1812—JUNE 26—Ordered that in future the secretaries of the Infirmary should give security, by bond, to the amount of £200, for the delivery of all books and papers belonging to the Infirmary. This was in consequence of the late secretary, Mr. Staples, having refused to give up the books, and a dispute as to the balance due from him. The funds being very low and inadequate to meet the expenses, the Bishop of the Diocese requested the parochial clergy to make collections in their respective churches on behalf of the institution, by which means £1,483 were added to the funds.

1812—OCTOBER 2—Mr. Charles Hastings elected house surgeon in the room of Mr. Blower, resigned. Mr. Hastings had a competitor in the person of Mr. James Lewis; and the votes were—for Mr. Hastings, 132; Mr. Lewis, 131.

1813—AUGUST 13—The number of patients which each subscriber was allowed to recommend was limited to one patient for every guinea subscribed. The high price of provisions was alleged as the reason for this step.

1814—AUGUST 30—Dr. G. Woodyatt elected physician on the resignation of Dr. Barnett.

1815—JUNE 30—The order, limiting the number of patients, rescinded, and the subscribers permitted to recommend two patients for each guinea subscribed, as was the case previously. The medical officers were requested to invite the rest of the faculty in Worcester to witness all the more important operations.

1815—NOVEMBER 6—Election of surgeon: the office being vacant by the retirement of Mr. Pennel Cole, Lord Somers proposed Mr. Thomas Stephenson, who was seconded by Lord Beauchamp; Mr. Josiah Palmer proposed Mr. J. P. Sheppard, seconded by Mr. Watson, Stourport; Hon. and Rev. W. Jenkinson proposed Mr. Dangerfield, seconded by Dr. Cameron. The result of the ballot showed for Mr. Stephenson, 335 votes; for Mr. Sheppard, 238; and for Mr. Dangerfield, 135. The total polled was thus 708, or very nearly the then average number of subscribers.

1815—DECEMBER 29—Mr. Herbert Cole (son of Mr. Pennel Cole, for thirty years one of the surgeons to the Worcester Infirmary) unanimously elected as house surgeon of the institution in the place of Mr. Charles Hastings, resigned.

1816—JANUARY—Sir William Smith, Bart., furnished the matron’s rooms at his own cost.

1816—JULY 29—Dr. Lewis Evans elected a physician in the room of Dr. Cameron, resigned.

1818—APRIL 20—At a large meeting of the governors, Dr. Philip W. Wilson brought forward certain charges against his brother officers of the medical staff, as to an operation which he alleged had been improperly performed, but the charges were dismissed by the governors.

1818—APRIL 24—Dr. Philip W. Wilson retired from his post, as physician, avowedly on the ground that his brother physicians and surgeons constantly opposed the admission of others of the profession to witness the operations they performed. Dr. Wilson’s letter to the public was replied to by Mr. J. H. Savigny, who thought it undesirable that infirmaries should be turned into theatres for display.

1818—OCTOBER 2—Ordered that, if the income arising from subscriptions and funded property is insufficient to keep open two additional wards, then first fitted up, a sum, not exceeding £200 annually, should be appropriated for that purpose from such legacies as should be left to the charity, and not specially directed to be vested in the funds.

1818—NOVEMBER 2—Jonas Malden, M.D., and Charles Hastings, M.D., were appointed physicians in the place of Drs. Philip W. Wilson, and Louis Evans, resigned.

1819—FEBRUARY 15—J. P. Sheppard, Esq., elected surgeon in the room of Mr. Stephenson, resigned.

1819—Dispute amongst the medical men as to the treatment of surgical and medical cases.

1819—APRIL—J. H. Savigny, Esq., took the office of secretary _pro. tem._, in the place of Mr. Jackson, resigned.

1819—OCTOBER 29—Mr. Matthew Pierpoint appointed surgeon in the room of Mr. Sandford, who resigned after twenty-seven years of most useful service to this institution. Mr. Pierpoint was proposed by Lord Deerhurst, and seconded by Mr. Sandford himself.

1820—JANUARY 12—A silver cup presented to Mr. Savigny for his various and important services to the institution.

1823—APRIL—An additional wing erected in addition to the north end of the Infirmary.

1823—JULY 26—Mr. John Eleox chosen secretary to the Infirmary, _vice_ J. H. Savigny, Esq., resigned.

1824—APRIL 23—Dr. Lewis chosen physician in the room of Dr. Woodyatt, deceased.

1826—NOVEMBER 6—Election of a physician in the room of Dr. Lewis, resigned. The candidates were Dr. Nash, proposed by John Williams, Esq., and William Wall, Esq.; and Dr. Streeten, proposed by the Rev. Digby Smith and Major Johnson. At the close of the ballot Dr. Nash was found to have 298 votes, and Dr. Streeten 243—majority for Dr. Nash 55.

1827—MAY 8—The governors agreed to the erection of an operating room, and other necessary offices, at an expense of £700.

1829—JUNE 5—Mr. T. H. Wheeler elected secretary, _vice_ Mr. Elcox, resigned.

1829—JULY 27—Mr. T. Carden elected surgeon, _vice_ John Carden, Esq., resigned.

1830—JULY 2—The funded property of the institution, hitherto in different stocks, was all transferred to the Three-and-a-half per Cents. Reduced.

1833—DECEMBER 27—At the quarterly meeting of the governors, Earl Beauchamp in the chair, it was announced that £1,126 had been collected for the institution during the last few months at different churches and Dissenting chapels, which would pay off the debt of £550, due to the treasurers, and enable them to get through the next twelve months without touching the funded property. Mr. Gutch afterwards read a report of a committee which had been appointed to inquire into the expenditure of the institution which had, for a series of years, exceeded the income. They admitted that there had been great abuses in various departments of the institution, and especially as to the supply of drugs and chemicals, and it was therefore recommended that a practical chemist should be appointed on the drug committee, who, during his appointment, should be ineligible to supply drugs. They recommended also that all legacies, above £100, should be funded, with sundry other regulations. The report was received, but it was determined not to publish the evidence upon which it was founded, by a majority of 16 to 11.

1834—APRIL 4—At the quarterly meeting of the governors, a resolution, determining that all legacies of £100 should be funded, was adopted; and it was also resolved that the evidence taken respecting the mal-administration of the drug department, should be referred to a select committee.

1834—JUNE 27—It was determined to take counsel’s opinion as to the power of the Corporation to renew the lease of ground on which the Infirmary stood, as it belonged to Nash’s Charity. This matter had repeatedly been under the attention of the governors, and at last it was found necessary to obtain an Act of Parliament, in order to legalise the lease. The sub-committee reported that no further investigation that could be made into the irregularities which had taken place, and the discrepancy between the amount of drugs ordered and consumed, would be satisfactory; and so the matter finally dropped.

1838—AUGUST 16—Election of a surgeon, in the room of Mr. Thomas Carden, deceased. There were no less than ten candidates, and a great deal of interest was excited in the matter by peculiar circumstances attending some of the candidates. John Williams, Esq., was called to preside over the meeting, which was adjourned to the County Courts for the sake of room. The chairman proposed Mr. Edward Morris, who was seconded by William Acton, Esq.; Colonel Davis and Mr. Sidebottom proposed Mr. J. H. Walsh; James Morton, Esq., and R. Spooner, Esq., proposed Mr. H. D. Carden; the Major and Mr. Duncan proposed Mr. Budd. An objection had been raised to Mr. Carden because he had not been, as the rules were considered to require, resident during the previous twelve months in Worcester. Counsel’s opinion was taken on the point, and a very tedious and hot discussion took place on the matter at the meeting. Ultimately it came to a vote, and 106 declared Mr. Carden eligible, and 90 that he was not. His name, therefore, went to the ballot, and he was elected—having received 310 votes to 131 for Mr. Walsh, and 40 for Mr. Budd.

1843—JUNE 30—At a quarterly meeting of the governors, a strong resolution was passed in reference to a disgraceful attack upon C. H. Hebb, Esq., which had appeared in the _Guardian_ newspaper. Mr. Hebb having had an operation very successfully performed upon him, presented the Infirmary with a sum of £10 in token of his thankfulness, and partly because the instruments belonging to that institution had been employed by the operating surgeon. The writer in the _Guardian_ affirmed that the instruments had been purchased solely with a view to this very operation, and so “the shine was taken out” of Mr. Hebb’s donation. This proved to be utterly false.

1845—DECEMBER 19—A very sharp contest for the office of secretary to the Infirmary, in the room of Mr. T. H. Wheeler, deceased, between Mr. John Palmer, proposed by Mr. Curtler and Dr. Hastings—and Mr. D. W. Nash, proposed by the Rev. T. Pearson and Mr. John Parker. Mr. Nash had 216 votes, and Mr. Palmer 169.

1846—MARCH 28—At the quarterly meeting of the governors, the committee appointed, on the motion of Mr. Curtler, to inquire into an alleged laxity of attendance on the part of the medical officers of the institution, and ill conduct of its general business, presented their report. Mr. Curtler, however, had not attended the meetings of the committee, because the medical officers all insisted on their right to be present; and several complaints, therefore, had not been brought before them. The charges, in most of the cases investigated, seemed to be disproved; but of the beneficial effect the inquiry had in the improved management of the institution there can be no doubt. Mr. Curtler obtained another committee, to revise the whole of the rules of the institution.

1846—JUNE 26—A quarterly meeting of the governors held in the Nisi Prius Court, at the Shire Hall, with John Williams, Esq., in the chair. The medical men connected with the institution offered great opposition to a motion of Mr. Curtler’s to exclude the subscribers from all meetings of committees, and give them leave only to attend the general quarterly boards; the object being to enable the governors to appoint select committees. Mr. Curtler supported the proposition, as the usual practice of all large bodies and institutions of this kind, and because inquiry into the affairs of the institution by a select committee became absolutely necessary, as the funds were being frittered away and the rules neglected. The medical men said the alteration was aimed at them, and sought their exclusion from the committees. They called select committees secret committees, and said the rules made with so much wisdom by their ancestors ought not to be altered. The medical men defeated Mr. Curtler’s resolution by 58 to 32.

1847—JANUARY 2—A quarterly meeting of the governors held at the Shire Hall, over which the Lord Bishop of the Diocese presided. Mr. Curtler moved for a select committee, on which only two of the medical officers of the institution should attend, to consider what alterations were necessary in the rules. The medical men insisted upon their right to be all present at the meetings of the committee, and only yielded when the majority of the meeting was evidently seen to be against them. They then agreed to a committee of nine gentlemen, reserving the right to delegate any two of their own body to act with them.

1847—MARCH 27—At the quarterly meeting of the governors, Mr. Curtler’s committee for revising the rules of the institution presented their report. The medical men having given way, a great number of alterations were recommended, and power taken to appoint select committees, on which two of the medical officers should always serve. The other medical men of the city and neighbourhood were invited to witness operations; and the salary of Mr. Cole, the house surgeon, increased to £100 a year. Mr. Curtler mentioned—as one among other things showing how necessary inquiry had been—that the malt supplied to the institution was enough for twice the beer that was consumed within the walls, and that about thirty-three hogsheads annually disappeared out of the back door. The report was unanimously received.

1849—MARCH 31—At the quarterly meeting of the governors it was determined that the £840 obtained from the sale of tickets at the Jenny Lind concert should be applied to the building of a chapel for the use of the patients. The Very Rev. the Dean added another £100; and it was principally to his exertions in obtaining what more was necessary in the way of funds, that the public and the patients owe the very pretty erection which is now attached to the back of the main building.

WORCESTER MUSICAL FESTIVALS.

THE history of the origin of the meetings of the three choirs of Worcester, Hereford, and Gloucester, does not belong to the nineteenth century. It will be sufficient here to say that the first took place in the year 1725 (when £48. 18s. was collected), and that they have gradually risen in importance, till, besides being the means of obtaining annually a very large sum for the support of the widows and orphans of the clergy, they have now taken a first place amongst the musical _réunions_ of the kingdom, and have greatly aided in fostering the melodious science. It will be seen from the following brief notes of the festivals at Worcester, that the most celebrated singers have, from time to time, all taken a part in the performance here of the chief works of the great masters of music. In the seventeen meetings held here this century, upwards of £14,500 have been realised for the clergy’s widows and orphans.

1800—SEPTEMBER 14—Seventy-seventh meeting of the three choirs. The festival this year occupied three days. The sermon was preached by Dr. James. _The Messiah_, _Creation_, _Acis and Galatea_, &c., performed. The principal novelty was the chorus in Handel’s _Ode to St. Cecilia_—“As from the Power.” Chief performers—Madame Mara and Miss Tennant; Messrs. Knyvett, Nield, and Bartleman. Amount collected for the charity, £468; and the receipts for tickets yielded a surplus of £250 in addition.

1803—SEPTEMBER 27—Sermon by the Rev. H. Stillingfleet. Principal vocal performers—Mrs. Billington and Miss Fanny Ross; Messrs. Melville, Incledon, Bartleman, Nield, &c. The collections for the charity amounted to £501. 8s. The receipts were £2,630, and exceeded the expenses by £600.

1806—SEPTEMBER 22—Sermon by the Rev. G. Turberville. _The Messiah_ and _Alexander’s Feast_ were the only entire works performed. The principal performers were Mrs. Billington, Mrs. Vaughan, Miss Melville; Messrs. Harrison, Knyvett, &c. The collections amounted to £714.

1809—SEPTEMBER 26—Sermon by the Rev. Dr. Wingfield. _The Messiah_ the only oratorio performed entire. Performers—Mrs. Billington and Mrs. Vaughan; Mr. Braham (his first engagement at these festivals), Messrs. Bartleman, Vaughan, and Goss. The sum collected for the charity was £800, the largest amount up to that time ever collected.

1812—SEPTEMBER 9—Sermon by Rev. Dr. Onslow, Vicar of Kidderminster. Principal performers—Madame Catalani, Mrs. Salmon, Miss Melville; Messrs. Vaughan, Goss, Hawes, Denman, and Bellamy. _The Messiah_ and _Creation_ performed entire. Collections, £906.

1815—SEPTEMBER 12—Sermon by Rev. J. Fleming St. John. Principal performers—Madame Marconi, Miss Stephens, Mrs. Vaughan; and Messrs. Bartleman, Vaughan, Knyvett, &c. _The Messiah_, Haydn’s _Seasons_, and various selections performed. Collections, £749. The tickets were printed in London, and some spurious ones got into circulation.