Transcribed from the 1852 Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans edition by David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org

WORCESTERSHIRE
IN THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY.

A COMPLETE DIGEST OF FACTS OCCURRING IN THE
COUNTY SINCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE YEAR 1800.

BY
T. C. TURBERVILLE.

LONDON:
LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, AND LONGMANS,
AND SOLD BY ALL BOOKSELLERS.
1852.

BIRMINGHAM:
PRINTED BY JOSIAH ALLEN AND SON,
3, COLMORE ROW.

THIS VOLUME

IS, BY KIND PERMISSION,

DEDICATED TO

THE RIGHT HON. SIR JOHN SOMERSET PAKINGTON,

OF WESTWOOD PARK, BART., M.P.,

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES.

ADVERTISEMENT.

In this day the man who writes a useless book, commits a great sin against society. The aim of this volume is utility; although the word, as applied to it, must be interpreted in a very limited sense. Beyond a circuit of a few miles it will have no interest; and even in respect to its legitimate sphere it only assumes to be a record of facts by which the man in public life may refresh his memory as to the particulars of past events, or by which those who have lived and moved amongst the occurrences here set down may call up pleasant associations of things and times gone by. By its means all persons resident in or connected with Worcestershire may possess themselves of a knowledge of the history of the County during the century, besides having at their command a repertory of all the principal events of the locality. It would in many instances have been more gratifying to the writer to have exchanged the chronicle for the narrative—the annal for something more pretentious as a history, but the “utility” of the book would thereby have been impaired, and he refrained. To have attempted a continuation of Nash would have been mere pedantry, and the mode would have been wholly unsuitable for a record of modern Worcestershire. As for the opinions which may be found scattered here and there on the following pages, the writer is no further anxious about them than as being naturally desirous that what he believes to be truth should be accepted and acted upon by others. But as to the facts professed to be narrated, he hopes that they will be found scrupulously accurate and undistorted by anything like party bias; of the faults of omission, no one can be so conscious as the writer himself, but the book, even now, is larger than he had at first intended. If errors should be found, those whose censure would be the weightiest will readily be able to suggest abundance of excuses, and to their forbearance he unhesitatingly trusts the following pages.

Worcester, October, 1852.

INDEX.

WORCESTERSHIRE IN THIS NINETEENTH CENTURY.

Before entering on a detail of occurrences which possess, comparatively speaking, only an isolated interest, I shall occupy a few pages in the consideration of some general facts and statistics, which may enable the reader to judge of the advance which the County of Worcester has made during a truly remarkable half-century. No former period in the world’s history ever witnessed such mental activity and progress.

The Increase of Population, though not a perfect test of general prosperity, yet indicates that the employments which engage the attention of the inhabitants of any given district are flourishing, that there is no such apprehended deficiency of the articles of wealth as seriously to check marriage, and that there is an absence of some of those evils which are constantly at work to retard the replenishment of the earth by the human family. For the statistics of population in this county I refer the reader to Table 1, in the Appendix, from which he will perceive that a continuous, and in some instances a rapid increase has taken place in the manufacturing districts. Until the last ten years, however, the increase of population in this county, though exceeding that of many counties, did not quite come up to the average increase of the entire kingdom. The rate of increase from 1801 to 1811, was—

From 1841 to 1851, the rate of increase for Worcestershire was slightly above the average, being as nearly as possible 13 per cent., while that of England, as a whole, had declined, and was only about 12.7. This is a fact upon which no interpretation can be put, except such as is flattering to the condition and prospects of our county. Emigration has been slowly going on from our manufacturing districts during the last fifteen years, but there has been no remarkable exodus at any particular period. Many farm labourers and small occupants of land have also been seduced by the Mormons to seek an imaginary paradise in the Far West. Even this desultory emigration cannot but be beneficial. Great Britain has yet, however, to acquire the practical wisdom of the ancients in carrying out a systematic colonization, and it still remains for her people to perform the noble mission which their national advantages and insular position seem to assign them—that of peopling the solitudes of the earth with a race which has hitherto proved equal to all difficulties, and who would carry with them the laws of an Alfred, the language of a Shakspere, and, above all, the ennobling influences of the Christian religion.

A tabular statement of Criminals convicted, and of the nature of the sentences inflicted upon them, will also be found in the Appendix. When the improvement in the machinery for detecting crimes and bringing offenders to justice is taken into account, there would not seem to be any serious increase in the amount of crime committed; but there certainly is no room for believing that the intelligence of the age, or the activity of the police, have been successful in diminishing it. Neither does the comparative leniency of the punishments inflicted afford any proof that the crimes committed are less heinous than formerly. The decrease in severity of punishments is to be attributed solely to the amelioration of our criminal code, and the humane desire to reclaim rather than to punish, which now distinguishes our legislature and even pervades the judiciary. Worcestershire, it must be admitted, holds a bad preëminence both in respect to the number and character of the offences committed within its boundaries: a recent return, made by order of the Privy Council, assigns it the very lowest place amongst the English counties as to the proportion of criminals to the population, and within three of the bottom of the list in degree of crime.

Education is regarded by many as the panacea which is to empty our prisons and render the judge’s office a sinecure; and, without being inclined to attribute to it any such efficacy, it cannot be doubted that it does act as a check to the commission of many of the grosser offences against society. A private individual has not at his command the means necessary to compile complete statistics on a subject like this; it is a matter of congratulation, however, that Government caused inquiries to be made, at the last census, which will by and by put us in possession of much important information on this head. Without pretending to accuracy, I believe it will be found that there are in Worcestershire about 550 private and public day and boarding schools, having accommodation for the instruction of 20,000 scholars. It is not, indeed, want of accommodation that is now so much to be complained of—for few of the school-rooms are filled—as inferiority in the quality of the instruction imparted. Earnest efforts are, however, being made by all educational societies and the supporters of public schools to remedy the admitted deficiency. Nearly all the schools now existing in the county, with the exception of the Grammar and Free Schools of which there are some seventy-six, have been founded during the present century, and owe their existence, and in greatest part their continuance, to the voluntary benevolence of persons residing on the spot. Within the last three or four years, public attention has been much directed to the lax administration of the funds of the various charity schools in the county, and should the gentlemen who have taken the matter so zealously in hand be successful in bringing about the reforms which these institutions so imperatively need, the poor of many future generations will have reason to thank them for their labours. I must not omit to notice here the means which have been taken in the latter part of this half-century to induce a love and pursuit of knowledge amongst the working classes, by the establishment of Mechanics’ Institutions, one of which is now to be found in almost every town in the county. The elder born of these societies are, unfortunately, already passing to decay, and, as at present conducted, they do not seem to possess any inherent vitality. They have undoubtedly been useful in displaying the more attractive results of study and science—the flowers by the wayside, which may tempt triflers to venture a short distance on Learning’s easier paths—but they offer little or no assistance to those who would resolutely dare its difficult ascents. The efforts of the friends of education should be directed to making these institutions what their projector, Lord Brougham, intended they should be—People’s Colleges.

An estimate of the provision made for Religious Instruction in this county will be found in the Appendix—Table No. 3. The Established Church, by new buildings or enlargements, has increased the accommodation for attendants on its forms of worship, since the year 1800, by one fifth to one fourth. Upon looking at the large numbers provided for by Wesleyanism, in its various forms, the thought cannot but occur that if the Church of England could have retained John Wesley and his followers, as Rome did St. Francis D’Assissi, to be its evangelists among the masses of the population, it must have received a vast accession of strength. The Wesleyans in forsaking their first simple object of evangelism for that of building up a permanent ecclesiastical polity, seem to have mistaken the source of their own power, and during the last two years their numbers have considerably decreased from disaffection in the body. The Independents and Baptists have been deficient in proselytism, conceiving their special mission to be to keep in purity the faith committed to them from their Puritan forefathers. The Unitarians and Friends are stationary sects. The Roman Catholics have built ten small chapels in this county during the present century, and as to numbers, they have barely kept pace with the increase of population. The annual value of church livings in this county is about £62,000; the income of the See of Worcester is fixed at £5,000; and the net revenue of the Dean and Chapter of Worcester is returned at £8,698. The various bodies of Protestant Dissenters raise at least £20,000 annually for the support of their ministers, Sabbath schools, missions, and other religious institutions.

This county yields at once the richest fruits of the soil and the most practically valuable mineral productions. The total acreage of the county, exclusive of roads and rivers, is 431,616; and by far the larger portion of this surface is devoted to Agriculture. According to Mr. Fowler’s valuation, made in the year 1842, the total value of property assessable to the county rate is £912,863; of which £263,000 may be taken as representing the rental of buildings and land in the towns and manufacturing districts, leaving £650,000 as the annual value of agricultural property. In this statement the city of Worcester, the rateable rental of which is about £75,000, is, of course, not included. If it is assumed that 380,000 acres are arable and grass land, that will probably be an approximation to the truth. In the total absence of agricultural statistics any attempt to compute the present produce of the county would be quite out of the question, but that it has greatly increased of late years cannot be doubted. A gentleman, upon whose practical knowledge and information the most entire reliance may be placed, informs me that the average yield per acre throughout the Vale of Evesham is now about 27 bushels in wheat, 32 in barley, 40 in oats, 27 in beans; and that there has been an increase of fully 15 per cent. in the wheat and barley crops, and of 10 per cent. in the bean crop, within the last 20 or 25 years. Hops, however, for which this county has been and still is so famous, have to a great extent gone out of cultivation; and while at the beginning of the century some 6,000 acres were devoted to their growth, there are now not more than 1,625 acres of hop plantation. With regard to the general progress of agriculture, the half-century may be divided into three periods. During the war the high prices of provisions stimulated improvement, and much drainage was then done, though in so rude and unscientific a way that it has since been found necessary to replace a great deal of it. The Earl of Plymouth, the Earl of Coventry, and A. Lechmere, Esq., in this county, very early bestowed great pains on the drainage of their estates. From 1814 to 1830 agriculture, comparatively speaking, was at a stand still; [6] but during the last twenty years many and signal improvements have been made in its science. Many persons still living can recollect whole hamlets and villages in this county in which there was scarce an enclosure; and nearly the whole of the land was cultivated in common by the resident farmers, to each one of whom would be assigned a certain quantity in wheat, barley, vetches, and fallow. Between each ploughed land was left a strip of mere, into which the surface water from the adjoining ridges all sank and rendered it little better than a constant bog, which diseased the few poor sheep grazing upon it and made the ague a common and hereditary ill to farmer and labourer alike. The amount of unenclosed land now to be found in the county is quite unimportant; thorough drainage is regarded as essential to all cultivation; burnt soil has been much used to lighten the heavy clays; manures of all kinds are extensively employed; and implements of a very improved and economic description are used in almost every farming operation. The increased cultivation of the turnip, and better management of the clay fallows, are marked features in Worcestershire agricultural improvements. Clay lands, that formerly were allowed to lie fallow every fourth or fifth year, are now planted with vetches, and sheep-folded. A remarkable advance, too, has been made in the character of the stock reared, especially in the size and quality of the sheep. The better drainage of the land has prevented much of the disease which used formerly to thin out the flocks year by year, and there has been no serious rot in the county since 1831. The local agricultural societies, which have been established during the last fifteen years, have done much by their premiums and annual exhibitions to stimulate improvement, but our chief confidence for progress in the future lies in our being able to number amongst our landowners and occupiers men of intelligence and enterprise, who, in all quarters of the county, are seriously engaged in adjusting the relations of landlord and tenant to the circumstances of the times, and by improved modes of farm management and cultivation seeking to meet successfully unrestricted foreign competition.

Our mineral productions are Coal and Iron, both of which are found in large quantities at the northern extremity of the county, and coal is also raised in the neighbourhood of Bewdley. The Dudley division of the South Staffordshire coal field is celebrated for producing what is known as the ten yard or thick coal—so named because the bed is thirty feet in thickness. It is, indeed, the largest and most important bed of coal in the kingdom, and its good qualities are too well known to every housekeeper in this district to need that I should expatiate upon them here. With the associated thin coals and ironstone this bed is worth at least £1,000 per acre. The number of tons of coal raised in the Dudley district (Worcestershire only) during 1851 may be approximately reckoned at 700,000, worth perhaps £25,000. It was in this district that coal was first used for the purpose of smelting iron, in the year 1619. The duties on the introduction of foreign iron were cither removed or rendered merely nominal in 1826, and the production has since nearly quadrupled, and now amounts to 2,250,000 tons annually. The South Staffordshire and Worcestershire iron district ranks second in importance, far surpassing Scotland in the manufacture of wrought iron, and the quality is superior to that of South Wales. The number of furnaces now in blast in this county is twenty-eight, and eighteen out of blast. Nearly 150,000 tons of iron were made here in 1851, and prices ranged from 50s. to 57s. 6d. hot blast; cold blast, 60s. to 67s. 6d.; best makes, 120s., and second ditto, 110s. per ton. The make of iron has not greatly increased in Worcestershire during the last few years, but no branch of our productive industry rests on surer foundations, or has more prospect of continuous extension, than the iron trade.

The Glass manufacture, of which Stourbridge is a principal seat, affords a most striking instance of the tendency of excessive duties, collected under regulations which interfere with and cramp industrial processes. In 1811 the home consumption of glass amounted to 417,911 cwt.: in 1812 the excise duties on this article were doubled; the average consumption of the next three years was but 264,931 cwt.; and up to the time of the reduction of the duties by two-thirds, in 1835, there had been no increase whatever in the consumption of British glass since the commencement of the present century. Since the entire abolition of the duties, in 1845, the consumption has increased to a surprising extent, and glass has been applied to uses previously undreamt of. The manufacture was introduced into Stourbridge, about 1556, by refugees from Lorraine, and has continued to flourish there ever since. The descriptions principally made here are flint, bottle, and chemical utensil glass. There are now twelve glass manufactories in the town and neighbourhood, employing about 1,050 pairs of hands, and the trade generally is in a prosperous state. The manufacture of Fire Bricks, and the sale of clay for glass works, is a trade at Stourbridge, now almost as important as the manufacture of glass itself; and as it is one with the details of which the public are not generally conversant, I shall enter somewhat into particulars. Beneath all coal strata is found a clay, which, from the peculiarity of its ingredients, is remarkably well adapted to stand the action of intense heat. An analysis of the best clay raised at Stourbridge, gives

The presence of lime or iron in any considerable quantities would render the clay fusible, but when the silica and alumina so greatly preponderate, it will stand any amount of heat that can be raised in ordinary furnaces. The best clay fetches about 55s. per ton, and is used for glass-house pots and the bricks used in making glass furnaces, not only in England but other countries; it is exported to North America in large quantities, and to South America, France, Holland, and Germany. Besides the best clay, inferior descriptions called “seconds,” “black,” and “offal” clay are raised to a considerable extent. The first (black), mixed in certain proportions with “seconds,” potsherds, &c., is chiefly used for making crucibles, in which metals are melted; and of these Birmingham alone takes about 100 dozen weekly from this district. The “offal clay,” or that which is raised from the mine in the mixed or broken state, is not “picked” (or selected), but ground and sold at 10s. per ton: with this the great bulk of fire bricks are made. The trade is one of ancient date; Rufford’s clay works have been carried on during the whole of this century under the same name, but its principal development has taken place within the last forty years. Formerly the owners did not get half the best or other clays, and forty years ago there was no better speculation than taking to what was then considered a broken, or worked-out mine. Nor did they attempt any but square or roughly-made bricks, whereas the trade now can model and finish neatly. Even now the capabilities of Stourbridge fire clay are not generally understood. It has had a steady unfluctuating demand, and notwithstanding the discovery of fire clay in various parts of the island, Stourbridge never did a larger business than at present. The Stourbridge clays and bricks are sold freely both in the north and in Wales. About 15,000 tons of best clay are raised annually in the Stourbridge district. There are four proprietors of clay mines in Stourbridge, and two firms renting mines; five out of the six being also manufacturers of fire bricks and other articles in which the clay is used. The fire bricks are made of all sizes; the largest kept in regular stock weighs 635lbs. The glass-house bricks are sold “green” (dry) and but seldom burnt. The common description for gas works, iron works, and all other purposes, are burnt. About 14,000,000 of bricks of all descriptions are made annually in the Stourbridge district, consuming about 46,000 tons of clay, and may be valued at £50,000. An important branch of the trade, and one which has been gradually increasing for the last seven years, is the manufacture of clay retorts for gas works, and they are now generally preferred to metal. The most striking purpose to which the fire clay has been turned is the manufacture of large baths in one piece. At the suggestion of Prince Albert, the Society of Arts in 1846 offered a premium for the production of such an article, and in 1850 one was made at the works of F. T. Rufford, Esq., which gained the Gold Isis Medal. It had been thought impossible to manufacture such an article in one piece because of the great contraction which all pottery undergoes in burning, but after much patient experiment, the ingenuity and skill of the practical men in Mr. Rufford’s works produced a perfect and beautiful vessel which may be said to be imperishable, will never discolour, is cleansed without labour, and is incapable of retaining the poison of any contagious disease in an active form. The clearness of the colour (white or marbled) is effected by veneering china on the inner surface of the fire clay, and the contractile effect of burning is overcome by assimilating the two clays. Many public baths are now supplied with this useful article, which bids fair altogether to supersede the metallic baths. The number of hands employed at Stourbridge in the manufacture of bricks and other articles from fire clay is about 900. The town has been considerably improved since 1820: the bridge over the Stour was widened in 1840; a new market hall has recently been erected, and the inhabitants generally seem to have somewhat of the spirit and enterprise expected in a flourishing manufacturing place.

The manufactures of Kidderminster are of many years standing. In 1536 it was enacted that “No person of what degree or quality soever they be, shall make within the shire of Worcester any manner of woollen cloths, except only within the city of Worcester, the borough and towns of Kidderminster, Evesham, Droitwich, and Bromsgrove, under pain of forfeiting, for every broad cloth elsewhere made, the sum of ten pounds;” and in the time of Charles II an act was passed “for regulating the manufacture of Kidderminster stuffs.” Arras, frieze, cheneys and ratteens, poplin, prunellas, rich brocades and quilted stuffs were all made here in their turn, but the Carpet Manufacture, to which the town has entirely owed its prosperity and fame in later years, was not introduced till the middle of last century. At first the Scotch carpets only were made, but afterwards Wilton and Brussels, and the Kidderminster goods at once acquired celebrity for substantial workmanship and brilliancy of colouring. At the beginning of the present century there were probably about 400 looms at work here, but there are now at least 3,000. The trade has of course been subject to many fluctuations, and there have been several seasons of severe distress amongst the weavers, which have been for the most part coincident with stagnation in other departments of manufacture, and are traceable to the same general causes. During the last ten years the business has been comparatively prosperous, there has been a great increase of production, and the tapestry carpeting is largely exported to the Continent, where its cheapness secures sale in the teeth of the elegant, but costly, “velvets” of France. The many improvements which have been introduced into the method of manufacture during the present century, have principally had reference to the construction of the looms, and economy in the amount of wool used; in design there is still something to be accomplished. The principal varieties now made are the ordinary Venetian carpeting, the Scotch or Kidderminster, Brussels, Wilton, Genoa velvets, Axminster, Saxony, and the patent tapestry carpetings, which last are among the most recent and important introductions. Some of the yarns employed in the fabrication of these were printed and arranged in Halifax, under a patent from Messrs. Crossley, which however expired in September last. Steam looms for tapestry under patents from the same firm are already at work in the town, and steam looms for the manufacture of Brussels carpeting are about to be introduced, the effect of which, upon the general character of the trade, must needs be exceedingly important; but though the change can scarcely fail to occasion temporary distress, it may fairly be hoped that, like all other improvements, it will result in a large increase of the manufacture, and add to the demand for labour and its remuneration. The other manufactures carried on here, principally relate to the preparation of leather; damask silks are made by one manufacturer; and there are one or two spinning mills. There are various tin forges in the neighbourhood, and iron, tin, and screw works at Cookley employing many hands.

Redditch and its neighbourhood is the principal seat of the needle and fish hook manufactures in this kingdom, and has been so for upwards of a century. In 1800 perhaps 500 persons found employment in this business at Redditch, while the present number, including children, is at least 2,300, and the quantity of needles made has increased from 150 to 1,000 millions per annum. A very large population is also engaged in the manufacture, at Astwood Bank, Feckenham, Crab’s Cross, &c., but all the needles so made are known as Redditch needles. The superiority of the article manufactured here ensures it a sale all over the world, and it is only in the common and inferior descriptions that the German makers come into competition with those of this county; in fact, the Germans themselves send to Redditch for their best goods. Some very important improvements have been lately introduced into the manufactories, and especially a contrivance for carrying off the fine steel dust created in the operation of grinding the needles, which was formerly very destructive of the lives of the persons employed. The fish hook trade is carried on to a considerable extent in this neighbourhood, and large quantities of barbs, from the fly fisher’s delicate tackle to the whaler’s harpoon, are annually exported to all quarters of the globe. There is also one pin manufactory in the town. The operative needle makers are amongst the most intelligent of our artizans, and the future prospects of the trade are in most respects encouraging.

Nail Making employs a large number of people both at Bromsgrove and in the neighbourhood of Stourbridge. In the former town and district there were, some sixty years ago, only five or six nail masters or factors, and not more than 400 or 500 persons engaged in the business, but it now furnishes occupation for ten times that number. Twenty-five years since the trade was in a prosperous state, but about this time, owing to the demand being good, an inferior article was made, with which the customers were dissatisfied; and the result of this state of things was the invention of a machine which, by singular ingenuity and application of mechanical skill, cuts every part of the nail at once out of a solid sheet of iron. The rapidity, ease, and cheapness with which nails were thus multiplied, of course caused a great change in the condition and prospects of the nail-making districts. The demand, however, still continues for many descriptions of the article which cannot be made, or so well made, by machine, and supplies a tolerable amount of employment. The French and Germans now successfully compete with us in the manufacture, and the export trade to America is decreasing in consequence of the prohibitory duty imposed by the government of that country. The nailors, as a class, are almost as destitute as the colliers of everything like intelligence, and this is chiefly owing to the early age at which the children work at the trade and are able to earn a livelihood for themselves. The truck system—by which the employer pays the wages of his workpeople, not in money, but in goods of his own providing, and at prices of his own fixing—is an evil of monstrous growth, which has greatly assisted in the degradation of the workpeople. Recently, however, many benevolent efforts have been made to provide them with education and to remedy the social evils which exist amongst them. Thirty or forty years ago there was a considerable linen trade carried on at Bromsgrove. A good deal of flax was once grown in this neighbourhood, and the manufacture by the hand loom was considerable, but the introduction of machinery superseded this mode of making, and enterprise and capital, necessary to the establishment of factories with the latest improvements in machinery, were wanting. Moreover Bromsgrove linens got into disrepute, because those of inferior make were sent here for bleaching and sold as of Bromsgrove manufacture. Bromsgrove itself has been much improved within the last twenty years. In the year 1846 an Act of Parliament was passed for paving, cleansing, draining, and improving the town, and for the better assessing and collecting the parochial rates.

The Salt Manufacture of Droitwich is one of the most ancient businesses in the kingdom, having been carried on for upwards of 1,000 years, and the salt made here has always been celebrated for its strength and purity. From the year 1805 until 1823 salt was subject to a duty of 15s. a bushel or £30 a ton, and this impost was collected by the excise every six weeks. A large capital was therefore required to carry on the trade, and the price of fine salt was at least £32 per ton. In that year, however, the duty was reduced to 2s. a bushel, and in 1825 it was removed altogether; and the highest price of fine salt, since its repeal, has been £1. 2s. 6d. per ton. That such a reduction in price must have led to a greatly increased consumption is self-evident, but there was no very immediate or considerable increase in the make. The proprietors of the original salt works in this borough sought to protect themselves against competition, by buying up most of the land that would be available for the erection of new works, and for a time they kept up their profits. Rival companies, however, did at length find means of establishing themselves, and about twelve or fourteen years ago a large increase of production took place, but the price of the article has been so reduced by this competition that the business has become very unremunerative. Repeated failures have taken place amongst the more recent firms; and half a million of capital, invested in the manufacture within the last twenty-five years, has been entirely lost. Within the last fifty years the primitive method of simply boring for the brine has been improved upon by casing the pit with wood, and more recently shafts have been sunk quite through the fresh water springs, the bottom and sides of which are secured with iron cylinders before boring down to the brine springs. By this means the brine (which lies 173 feet from the surface) is obtained at its full saturation of 42 parts of salt to 100, while formerly it varied between 28 and 37 percent. The present annual make at Droitwich of all kinds of salt is about 80,000 tons, and at the works at Stoke, from 25,000 to 30,000 tons; the average price per ton is scarcely more than 10s. The Droitwich trade labours under considerable disadvantage in the heavy tonnage which the manufacturers have to pay for the carriage of the article to the outports, and the iniquitous tax imposed upon the article in the East Indies, where it is almost a necessary of life, is a great hindrance to an extension of sale.

The manufactures with which Worcester itself is associated, during the half-century just closed, have reached their meridian and have seriously declined. Our porcelain factories were once almost as famous as those of Sévres, and notices will be found in the following pages of continual visits from Royal and distinguished personages to witness the art of the potter, and to give large orders for splendid services of China; but this is one of those articles the demand for which has been greatly affected by a change of fashion, and plate has now almost wholly superseded China for dinner services amongst people of wealth. Truth requires it to be said also that our manufacturers have allowed themselves to be outstripped, in spirit and improvement, by those of other places. At the beginning of this century there were forty or fifty master glovers in Worcester. The trade received a serious check by the suspension of our intercourse with America in 1812, nevertheless, the number had increased in 1826 to 120; but the repeal of the import duty in that year, together with the more general use of Berlin and silk gloves, has had such a damaging effect upon the trade, that there are at present only twenty master glovers in the city. One firm, however (known as the Messrs. Dent’s), has a world-wide celebrity, and manufactures on a very large scale. It was not so much in price as in quality that the Worcester makers had to dread foreign competition; the article sent out from their workshops before the repeal of the duty was clumsily and badly made. Worcester gloves are now equal in every respect to those imported from France, and are often sold as French to accommodate the prejudice of the customer. It seems hard to say why Worcester, a city so centrally situated, and, before the railway era, so advantageously situated as regards the means of communication with other parts of the kingdom, has not become a manufacturing emporium and a place of much greater importance. In my belief, one principal reason has been the hindrance to speculative or bonâ fide building, which exists in the bad tenure of land everywhere around the city; there can be no doubt that this has driven enterprising men to settle in places which in other respects were less suitable for their undertakings. There has, moreover, been a lack of unity and coöperation amongst the inhabitants in the promotion of the general good which has been “the worm i’ the bud” to many schemes which would in all probability have greatly advanced the prosperity of the city. Considerations of the common weal have been postponed to the interests of partizanship. To make an application of our civic motto—Worcester, if faithful to herself, may flourish ever. Worcester is rich in charitable institutions and revenues for alleviating the distresses of poverty. It may be a question, indeed, whether these have not reached the point at which eleemosynary aid ceases to be advantageous, begins to foster dependence, and eats out the energy of a community; but their abundance has at any rate not had the effect of drying up the streams of private benevolence. At least £40,000 have been raised in Worcester at different periods of distress and necessity which have occurred since 1800, for the relief and aid of its own poor.

There are many minor manufactures carried on in the county, especially the preparation of leather at Bewdley, Stourport, and Worcester, which need not be further particularised, and for the remaining towns and boroughs—these—like an honoured aristocracy—repose on their historical associations; the fame which the touches of a master hand, such as Fielding’s, may have cast around their name; or the remembrances of former activity and bustle. But I must not omit a passing notice of Malvern, that gem of nature’s setting, on whose hills the purest air is breathed, the purest water drank, and the richest and most unique inland landscape to be seen in all England. Formerly what is called Malvern Wells was the only part of the hills at which visitors stopped, but for the last twenty years Great Malvern has been gradually growing as a place of resort, and is now a “town” by Act of Parliament. And whether for pleasure or for health it must continue to be resorted to, and to increase in fame and importance; for it abounds in nature’s simplest but most efficacious restoratives, and its beauties will bear repeated inspection, and will be appreciated just in proportion to the cultivation of the mind that dwells on them.

Even from this hasty and cursory glance at the progress of the county during the first half of the nineteenth century, it will be apparent that Worcestershire has not been deficient in contributing her quota to the general prosperity. The age is remorseless in its demands; we cannot stand still. The years that are past press with all their accelerated momentum on the heels of those that follow and hurry them to a yet greater speed. But our resources are not exhausted, nor need we fear that they shall ever be. We do not trace the decay of nations to any failure in the material of greatness, but in the enervation of the mind that should develop it. It only remains for us, then, to be found in the practice of intelligence and industry—which make a people great—and of the virtues which make a people happy.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS.

The great change in constituencies and elections which divides with so marked a line the period over which the records of this volume extend has long been accepted by all parties as un fait accompli, and few, if any, would revert to the system of former days, even if it were possible. All now see that by its means we have been enabled to take Reform as our watchword, instead of Revolution, and to escape anarchy and despotism—the Scylla and Charybdis into which the continental nations have been continually falling. Elections in Worcestershire have of course been much the same as elections elsewhere; often scenes of riot and corruption, now and then the occasions of an irresistible burst of popular feeling, but very far from being at any time exercises of calm, deliberative, and patriotic judgment. As to the changes which should be made in the constituencies with a view to remedy existing evils, and to add strength to our constitutional edifice, everybody now-a-days has his own crotchet, and the writer’s is an educational franchise. He believes that it would be perfectly feasible to make a register of all parties who could read and write, in the presence of the revising officer, some declaration of the privileges and responsibilities of a vote, and who could satisfy him that they understood the functions of a representative. No one that had not so far qualified himself for the exercise of the franchise could in these days reasonably complain of being denied it, and it would give a greater impulse to elementary education than all the grants of public money that ever have or ever will be made for the establishment of schools.

COUNTY OF WORCESTER.

Before the passing of the Reform Bill the number of electors on the county register was not much more than 3,500. At the last revision there were in the eastern division, 6,515; western, 4,135.

1802—July 12—(General Election, the old Parliament having run out its legal term.)—The Hon. Edward Foley, of Stoke Edith, and Wm. Lygon, Esq., reëlected without opposition.

1803—July 19—(Vacancy occasioned by the death of the Hon. E. Foley.)—The Hon. W. Ward elected without opposition.

1806—March 3—(Vacancy occasioned by the elevation of Wm. Lygon, Esq., to the Peerage.)—The nomination takes place in the Castle Yard, Worcester. The Hon. W. B. Lygon, son of the peer recently created, was proposed by the Rev. Mr. Pyndar, and seconded by Thomas Hornyold, Esq. The Hon. W. H. Lyttelton, undeterred by the Beauchamp influence, then thought to be overwhelming, came forward “to assert the independence of the county,” and was proposed by John Amphlett, Esq., of Clent, and seconded by the Rev. Mr. Onslow, Vicar of Kidderminster. The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Lygon, and a poll demanded by his opponent. After five days’ polling Mr. Lyttelton resigned, the numbers then being—Lygon, 1,502; Lyttelton, 1,145—majority for Lygon, 357. A sharp correspondence, imputing artifices, fraud, &c., afterwards took place between the candidates. The representation of the county had not been contested previously since the general election of 1741 (64 years before), when the numbers were Lechmere, 2,309; Pitt, 2,120; Deerhurst, 1,930; Lyttelton, 1,412.

1806—November 7—(General Election on the accession of the short-lived Fox ministry.)—The Hon. Mr. Lygon, and the Hon. Mr. Lyttelton, returned together without opposition; the Hon. Mr. Ward having retired from the representation in consequence of ill health.

1807—May—(General Election—Change of Ministry, and Appeal by the King to the country on the Catholic Question.)—Hon. W. B. Lygon, and Hon. W. H. Lyttelton, reëlected without opposition. A storm came on while the election was proceeding, and the Sheriff was obliged to retire into the Castle to finish the proceedings. It is noticed that the accommodation in the Castle Yard was of the worst possible description.

1812—October—(General Election.)—The Hon. W. B. Lygon, and Hon. W. H. Lyttelton, returned again without opposition.

1816—November—(On the elevation of Lord Elmley, the Hon. W. B. Lygon, to the peerage by the death of his father, Earl Beauchamp.)—Col. H. B. Lygon, younger brother of the former member, elected without opposition.

1818—June—(General Election.)—Col. Lygon, and the Hon. W. H. Lyttelton, reëlected without opposition.

1820—March—(General Election on the demise of George III)—The Hon. W. H. Lyttelton retired from the representation from family considerations, and Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., offered himself as a candidate in his stead. At the nomination, Col. Lygon was proposed by Sir A. Lechmere, and seconded by Sir William Smith, Bart.; and Sir Thomas Winnington was proposed by T. S. Vernon, Esq., and seconded by E. M. Wigley, Esq. There was no opposition.

1826—June—(General Election. Parliament dissolved by George IV, its possible sands having almost run out.)—Col. Lygon and Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., reëlected without the shadow of an opposition.

1830—August—(General Election on the accession of William IV.)—Sir Thomas Winnington retired from the representation, and the Hon. Thomas Henry Foley, son of Lord Foley, was elected in his stead, with Colonel Lygon, who thus for the fifth time was returned without opposition.

1831—May—(General Election to take the sense of the country on the Reform Bill.)—The Reformers from the first moment that this election became imminent, looked about for a candidate to oppose Col. Lygon. First, Mr. Sergeant Russell was mentioned, and then John Richards, Esq., of Stourbridge. The last named gentleman actually did one week issue an address to the freeholders, but, frightened at hearing that the Dowager Lady Beauchamp had subscribed £50,000 to fight the country, he hastily withdrew on the next. However, a few days before the election, Captain Spencer, brother to Lord Althorp, allowed himself to be named as a candidate, and a tremendous struggle ensued. Col. Lygon, while canvassing in the Corn Market, Worcester, was attacked by a town’s rabble, and compelled to take refuge in a neighbouring tavern. On the morning of the nomination, Col. Lygon assembled his friends at Madresfield; Mr. Foley at the New Inn, Ombersley Road; and Captain Spencer, at the Talbot, Tything. The nomination took place in the Castle Yard, Osman Ricardo, Esq., High Sheriff, being returning officer. John S. Pakington, Esq., proposed Col. Lygon, who was seconded by John Phillips, Esq.; T. T. Vernon, Esq., proposed, and T. C. Hornyold, Esq., seconded, the Hon. Mr. Foley; and Sir C. S. Smith, Bart., and Robert Berkeley, Esq., were Captain Spencer’s proposer and seconder. Before the show of hands was taken, Dr. Beale Cooper demanded proof of Captain Spencer’s qualification, whereupon the Captain said he had expected such a demand, and handed to the under sheriff a deed bearing date April 30, purporting to be a grant from Earl Spencer to Captain Spencer, of a rent charge to the amount of £600 upon manors and estates in the county of Herts. The show of hands was declared to be in favour of Foley and Spencer, whereupon Col. Lygon demanded a poll, which immediately commenced. Col. Lygon headed the poll the first day, but never afterwards; and on the morning of the seventh day he resigned all further contest, the numbers then being—Foley, 2,034; Spencer, 1,765; Lygon, 1,335. At the close of each day speeches were made by the candidates and their friends, from the booths at the back of the Talbot Inn, Tything; and the coalition formed between Foley and Spencer, on finding that Colonel Lygon’s friends were plumping for him, formed a most fertile topic for talk. A riot took place in Broad Street one evening, in consequence of one of Col. Lygon’s friends having imprudently irritated the mob by throwing a decanter amongst them from the committee-room. The windows of the room were immediately broken, and other disturbances took place. There can be no doubt that the result of this election had great effect upon the country generally.

A dinner was given in the next week to the Hon. Mr. Foley and Captain Spencer, at the Bell Inn, with Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., in the chair. Sir C. S. Smith was in the vice-chair, and Lord Lyttelton and about 100 other gentlemen were present. Dinners were also given to the successful candidates at Hagley, Kidderminster, Evesham, Stourbridge, Dudley, and Birmingham. The Birmingham dinner was held at Dee’s Hotel, with Dr. Edward Johnstone in the chair.

Immediately after the election a meeting of Col. Lygon’s friends was held at the Hoppole, Worcester, “to take into consideration the best mode of testifying their approbation of his manly, spirited, and patriotic conduct upon the late election; and for his faithful services during the fifteen years he represented this county in Parliament.” J. S. Pakington, Esq., was called to the chair, and there was a very respectable attendance. Mr. Pakington asserted that the minority who had voted for the Colonel, comprised the majority of the education and respectability of the county. The “discreditable coalition” proved the theme of much lamentation. Resolutions approving of Col. Lygon’s Parliamentary career and general conduct were agreed to, and a subscription entered into for the purchase of plate. This was presented at a dinner at the Hoppole, in February, 1832. It was a superb vase, 57 inches in circumference, supported on a massive column and plinth, decorated with embossed Acanthus leaves, and weighing in the whole 600 oz. It was designed by the inscription to be “a testimony of the gratitude of his political friends for his long and faithful attention to their interest in Parliament, and especially for his support of our glorious and long cherished constitution.” John S. Pakington, Esq., was the president of the evening, and presented the testimonial.

1832—December—(Election rendered necessary by the passing of the Reform Bill.)—The county now divided into two divisions.—West Worcestershire.—The Hon. T. H. Foley (Whig), and Col. Lygon (Conservative), returned without opposition. The nomination took place in the space fronting the County Gaol, and the candidates were not proposed or seconded, the cries of “Foley and Lygon” by the crowd, without any other person being named, being taken by the Sheriff as sufficient.

East Worcestershire.—The nomination of candidates took place at Droitwich, Mr. Pakington (Conservative), being proposed by James Taylor, Esq., and John Phillips, Esq., of Hanbury Hall; Thomas Henry Cookes, Esq., (Whig) by Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., and C. E. Hanford, Esq.; and Wm. Congreve Russell, Esq., (Whig) by T. T. Vernon, Esq., and W. Acton, Esq. The High Sheriff declared the show of hands to be in favour of Mr. Pakington and Mr. Cookes, whereupon a poll was demanded for Mr. Russell. After the two days’ poll the numbers were declared to be—Russell, 2,576; Cookes, 2,516; Pakington, 1,916. The whole proceedings were conducted in a peaceable and gentlemanly manner, and Mr. Pakington, who addressed the electors at the “Declaration,” as well as the successful candidates, was very well received. He complained of broken promises, and the coalition of his opponents as fettering the “independence” of the county, but declared himself neither disheartened nor offended.

1833—May—West Worcestershire.—(Vacancy occasioned by the elevation of the Hon. T. H. Foley to the House of Peers, on the death of his father.)—The nomination took place in the field at the back of the Talbot Inn, Tything. Sir Christopher Smith, Bart., proposed Captain H. J. Winnington, who was seconded by Robert Berkeley, Esq. John Williams, Esq., and T. C. Brock, Esq., proposed and seconded John S. Pakington, Esq., who, to the great detriment of his cause, was not present during any part of the proceedings—having just previously sailed to America. Major Bund spoke at the hustings on his behalf. A Mr. Crowther also made many attempts to be heard, but was hissed down, and he afterwards explained in a letter to the newspapers that instead of being Mr. Pakington’s opponent, as formerly, he intended to be his supporter, because Captain Winnington and the Whigs had voted for the erection of the New County Courts, while Mr. Pakington, on the contrary, “had always opposed that unnecessary and shameful expenditure of the freeholders’ money.” The show of hands was very decidedly in favour of Captain Winnington, and the Court was declared adjourned (from the Wednesday) to the following Monday. At the end of the first day’s poll Captain Winnington was 79 a-head, and the utmost excitement prevailed. Lord Eastnor addressed the multitude on Mr. Pakington’s behalf, and the Rev. Thomas Pearson spoke for Captain Winnington. The second day only increased Captain Winnington’s majority, but the result was not certainly known till the declaration of the numbers by the High Sheriff, on Thursday morning, when they were announced to be—for Captain Winnington, 1,369; for Pakington, 1,278: majority for Winnington, 91. Mr. Pakington had a majority in the Worcester and Upton divisions, but was beaten in those of Stourport and Tenbury. Out of 3,122 voters, 2,647 were polled, and though there had never been so close a contest in the county before, it was carried on with very good humour. Captain Winnington’s return was celebrated by a dinner at the Star and Garter Hotel, with Sir C. S. Smith in the chair.

1835—January—East Worcestershire.—(General Election on the breaking up of the Grey and Spencer cabinet, and the accession of the Duke of Wellington and Sir R. Peel to power.)—Mr. Russell retired from the representation at this election, on the score of ill-health, and his place was taken on the Reform interest by Edward Holland, Esq., of Dumbleton. Mr. Horace St. Paul was brought forward late in the day by the Conservatives. Sir Thomas Winnington, M.P., and C. E. Hanford, Esq., proposed Mr. Cookes, the former member. James Taylor, Esq., of Moseley Hall, and Mr. Whitmore Jones, proposed Mr. St. Paul; and Mr. Bate, of Stourbridge, and Mr. Acton, Mr. Edward Holland. The choice of the people at the nomination was declared to have fallen on Messrs. Cookes and Holland, and a poll was demanded for Mr. St. Paul. At the end of the two days’ poll the numbers were—Holland, 2,254; Cookes, 2,192; St. Paul, 2,145. Majority of Cookes over St. Paul, 47. 4,125 persons voted out of 5,226 on the register. There was some rioting at Stourbridge, which necessitated the sending for two troops of lancers from Birmingham, and Mr. St. Paul, declaring that some of his voters had been prevented from coming to the poll by violence, presented a protest against the election. A petition was talked of on this ground, but it came to nothing. A dinner was given to the successful candidates, at the Golden Cross Hotel, Bromsgrove, at which Colonel Davies presided. A similar dinner at Stourbridge, with J. H. H. Foley, Esq., in the chair, gave rise to a correspondence between Messrs. Robins, Hickman, Hodgetts, and Trow, and Mr. Robert Scott and Lord Lyttelton. The first named gentlemen chose to believe that some remarks made by Mr. Scott on the partiality and incompetency of the county magistracy generally, were intended for themselves, and they appealed to Lord Lyttelton to institute an inquiry. The Lord Lieutenant not only refused to accede to their request, but rebuked them for the language they had used.

West Worcestershire.—The candidates were as before, Colonel Lygon and Mr. Pakington, who professed to coalesce on the Conservative interest, and Captain Winnington, Whig. Sir A. Lechmere and the Hon. W. Coventry proposed Col. Lygon; Mr. Osman Ricardo and Mr. Berkeley, Captain Winnington; and Lord Eastnor and Mr. T. C. Brock, Mr. Pakington. The show of hands was declared to be in favour of Captain Winnington and Mr. Pakington. At the close of the poll the numbers were—Lygon, 1,945; Winnington, 1,938; Pakington, 1,773: majority for Winnington, 165. 3,619 persons voted out of 4,126 upon the register.

1837—July—(General Election on the death of William IV.)—West Worcestershire.—General Lygon and Captain Winnington reëlected without opposition.

East Worcestershire.—Here there was a fierce contest, ending in the return, for the first time, of two Conservatives. Before the election took place the Conservatives offered a compromise, and suggested that one of each party should be allowed to walk over, but the Liberals were so sanguine of winning that they would not listen to the proposal. Mr. Cookes had retired from the representation from ill-health, but his place was supplied by Mr. J. H. H. Foley, who, with Mr. Holland, came forward in the Liberal interest, while the Conservative candidates were Mr. H. St. Paul and Mr. Barneby. On the hustings Colonel Davies and Sir William Rouse Boughton, Bart., proposed Mr. Holland; T. H. Cookes, Esq., (the late member) and James Foster, Esq., Mr. Foley; James Taylor, Esq., and Thomas Hawkes, Esq., M.P., Mr. H. St. Paul; and Lord Eastnor and Edward Dixon, Esq., Mr. Barneby. The show of hands was in favour of Messrs. Barneby and St. Paul; and after the two days’ poll they were declared duly elected; the numbers being—St. Paul, 2,595; Barneby, 2,528; Holland, 2,175; Foley, 2,168. In the Stourbridge, Bromsgrove, and Evesham districts only, had the Liberal candidates a slight majority. Mr. Horace St. Paul’s expenses at this election are said to have been £16,000.

1841—June—(General Election. The Parliament having declared their want of confidence in the ministers, the Whigs appeal to the people on the Corn Law, Sugar, and Irish Registration questions. Sir Robert Peel’s “no confidence” motion had been carried by a majority of one against ministers.)—West Worcestershire.—General Lygon and F. Winn Knight, Esq., nephew of the late John Knight, Esq., of Downton Castle, were elected without opposition. Captain Winnington had retired from the field in consequence of the division amongst his supporters on the Corn Law question. He had constantly voted against any alteration of the Corn Laws, and therefore did not please the constituencies of the towns. With this state of things, added to the loss of the Foley interest in the county, he could have had no chance, and therefore refused to disturb the division by a contest.

East Worcestershire.—John Barneby, Esq., and James Arthur Taylor, Esq., returned. Mr. Horace St. Paul retired from the representation because of ill-health, and for the same reason Mr. Holland declined to offer on the Liberal interest. The Hon. Captain St. George Foley, brother of Lord Foley, offered himself to the electors as an advocate of Liberal measures, and of a moderate fixed duty upon corn. At the nomination at Droitwich, Mr. Barneby was proposed by J. S. Pakington, Esq., M.P., and W. Hemming, Esq.; Captain Foley, by James Foster, Esq., and Robert Scott, Esq. M.P., in long and able speeches; and Mr. Taylor, by C. Noel, Esq., and Whitmore Jones, Esq. The show of hands was in favour of Barneby and Taylor, and Captain Foley’s friends demanded a poll. At a meeting, however, which was held at Mr. Galton’s, shortly after nomination, it was decided, much to Captain Foley’s own mortification, not to proceed to a poll, and that determination was communicated the same evening to the opposite party. The Sheriff at first thought that he should be obliged to take a poll, under the circumstances, notwithstanding, and the Attorney General’s opinion was taken upon the point, but this being in favour of the propriety of dispensing with the poll, Messrs. Barneby and Taylor were declared duly elected without further trouble.

1847—January—East Worcestershire.—(Election to supply the vacancy caused by the decease of John Barneby, Esq.)—Captain Rushout was the first candidate announced, but J. H. H. Foley, Esq., having intimated his intention of contesting the division, a meeting of the Conservative party was called at Droitwich, at which an arrangement was entered into, by which Mr. Foley retired from the field at present, and was to be permitted to come in unopposed at the next election, when it was expected that a vacancy would be caused by the retirement of Mr. James Arthur Taylor. This created a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the Conservative electors, but the contracting parties were too influential to admit of their decision being contravened. Captain Rushout was, therefore, on this occasion elected without opposition.

1847—August—(General Election on the retirement of Sir Robert Peel from office, after carrying his free trade measures.)—East Worcestershire.—In consequence of the arrangement noticed above, Mr. J. H. H. Foley was allowed to come in in the place of Mr. J. A. Taylor, who retired from Parliament, and with Captain Rushout was returned unopposed.

West Worcestershire.—General Lygon and Mr. Knight were returned without opposition.

CITY OF WORCESTER.

The constituency of the city is no larger now than it was in days of yore, when freemen were made in any quantity at the pleasure of the corporation; often while the election was proceeding. The number of voters now on the register is about 2,200; of these, 1,099 still qualify as freemen, and nearly 700 have no other qualification.

1802—(General Election)—The electors having been convened together in the Guildhall for the nomination in the usual manner, the Mayor (Mr. Rowlands) proposed the reëlection of Edward Wigley and Abraham Robarts, Esqs., the previous members. This proposition was seconded, and the business of the day went on most smoothly until within seven minutes of the hour at which the writ was made returnable, when the hall became suddenly and most violently agitated by the arrival of Joseph Scott, Esq., of Great Barr, a relative of Lord Dudley and Ward, who came forward and declared himself a candidate, as he said, in compliance with the wishes of a number of the inhabitants. A poll was demanded on his behalf, which immediately commenced, and continued for four days; at the end of which, the numbers were—Robarts, 2,163; Scott, 1,197; Wigley, 1,180. On the fifth morning Mr. Wigley retired, and Robarts and Scott were declared duly elected. There was no disturbance. Politics seem to have entered very little into consideration, and the matter to have been decided by person and purse. Mr. Wigley, in his retiring address to the “Worthy Freemen of the City of Worcester,” intimated that he had come forward thirteen years before, at their own request, to rescue their city from becoming a Government nomination borough, and he did not see why he should now have been rejected. To those “who promised him their support, but voted for his opponent, he had nothing to say, because he could say nothing that would be pleasing to himself.” A meeting of his friends and supporters was afterwards held at the Crown Inn, Henry Wakeman, Esq., presiding, at which resolutions were passed thanking Mr. Wigley for his conduct in Parliament, and his great attention to the interests of this city, where he and others of his family had resided for more than thirty years, and “been an example, rarely exceeded, of piety, benevolence, and charity.”

1806—October—(General Election.)—Candidates, Abrm. Robarts, Esq., the former member; Colonel Bromley, of Abberley Lodge; and William Gordon, Esq., who rested his claims to support on the fact of his being a mercantile man, and, as such, better fitted to represent the city of Worcester than Colonel Bromley, a country gentleman. He was supported by gentlemen who were disgusted by the unblushing bribery of previous elections. After three days’ polling, Mr. Gordon retired, the numbers being—Robarts, 856; Bromley, 563; Gordon, 348: total number of freemen polled, 902. Mr. Gordon was afterwards fêted at the Crown Hotel, on which occasion he attributed his defeat to his being so late in the field. Mr. Gordon, however, afterwards presented a petition against Colonel Bromley’s return, which that gentleman declined to defend, and accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, so that the seat again became vacant.

1807—February 13—At the election thus rendered necessary, Alderman Squires proposed William Gordon, Esq., and Alderman Carden, John Attersoll, Esq., both gentlemen being London merchants. Mr. Gordon declared himself to be a staunch Church and King man, and utterly opposed to the continuance of the Slave Trade. Mr. Attersoll talked a little more about civil and religious freedom. There seems to have been no show of hands taken, and both parties required a poll, which was commenced amidst a great deal of fighting and outrage. After three days’ polling Mr. Attersoll retired, the numbers being—Gordon, 766; Attersoll, 414: majority for Gordon, 352. A petition was next presented against Mr. Gordon’s return, on the score of bribery, by several inhabitants of the city. A meeting was held at the Crown, to take steps to counteract this petition, Mr. J. Palmer in the chair. Mr. Hebb moved the resolutions, in a speech which the reporter of the time says “displayed great constitutional knowledge and erudition.” The petition was dismissed in consequence of the necessary recognizances not being entered into.

1807—May 6—(General Election.)—Mr. Robarts and Mr. Gordon returned without opposition. Mr. Attersoll having canvassed the electors, and found that he had no chance, retired on the eve of the contest.

This election was chiefly remarkable for the quantity of pens and ink wasted upon it. Mr. Gordon, after being returned as an “independent” member, followed the example of most of his contemporary M.P.’s, in turning his position to account, and obtained from the Government a license to trade with Spain. He was warned of the consequences of becoming a tool of Government by Mr. Hebb, in a series of letters bearing the signature of Cato Uticensis. Then followed various blasts and counter-blasts, especially a sheet of rhyme called the Doctoriad, to which there was a smart replication under the title of the Gordonian; and these were for some time the poemes celébres of Worcester elections.

1812—October 5—(General Election.)—Mr. Robarts and Mr. Gordon again candidates, though, as the latter was out of the country, he was represented by his father-in-law, Sir George Cornewall. A day or two before the election, a number of freemen presented a requisition to Lord Deerhurst, pressing him to offer himself, which he did. At the nomination, Mr. Robarts and Lord Deerhurst obtained the show of hands, and a poll was demanded on behalf of Mr. Gordon. After eight days’ contest—severer than any which had taken place in the city since the celebrated one in 1761, between Sir William Watkin Lewes and Mr. Rouse—the numbers were found to be—Robarts, 1,248; Gordon, 939; Deerhurst, 855. Lord Deerhurst then retired, having won golden opinions from all sorts of men, by the eloquence of his speeches, the courtesy of his manner, and the good humour he had maintained. He polled a majority of the resident freemen, but was beaten by the out-voters. The number of freemen polled at this election was 1,765. No particular political principle seems to have been at all involved in the contest. A gold cup was afterwards purchased by Lord Deerhurst’s supporters, and presented to him at a dinner at the Crown; Thomas Farley, Esq., in the chair.

1816—December—(Vacancy on the death of A. Robarts, Esq.)—Lord Deerhurst again offered himself as a candidate, and Colonel Davies made his first appearance in Worcester. He continued an active canvass for some time, but at last finding that Lord Deerhurst had indubitably secured a majority of votes, he withdrew. Lord Deerhurst was proposed at the hustings by the Mayor (R. Chamberlain, Esq.), and seconded by E. M. Wigley, Esq. The chairing took place immediately afterwards, and the chair itself was very prematurely demolished by the mob in High Street. On the following day a grand dinner was given to the new member at the Hoppole.

1818—June 15—(General Election.)—This was one of the severest contested elections which had been known in the city of Worcester, and it terminated in the return of Colonel Davies to Parliament for the first time. The city had been kept in great excitement for some months before the election, by the continued canvassing of all the candidates. All parties were enthusiastic in their support of Lord Deerhurst, whose return was safe from the first, and the contest lay between Sir William Duff Gordon and Colonel Davies. Sir William Gordon had forfeited some of his popularity by the course he had taken in voting with Government, for the orders in council altering the import duties, and which were supposed to have had a great effect upon the glove trade. Colonel Davies, shortly before the election, gave up his commission in the Guards, that he might make the better Member of Parliament, by having his time entirely unfettered. Though not much was said about political principles in the addresses of the different candidates, it was understood that Colonel Davies was more Whiggish in his views than either of the other men. Tumults took place both at Kidderminster and in London amongst the out-voters, who were canvassed there by the different parties, and at the polling places the riot and disturbance was worse than ever before recollected. At the nomination, Lord Deerhurst was proposed by the Mayor (S. Wall, Esq.), and seconded by Mr. John Dent. Sir William Gordon was proposed by Major Bund and Mr. Thomas Dent; and Colonel Davies by Alderman Nash and Mr. Richards. After seven days’ polling, Sir William Gordon withdrew from the contest; the numbers then being—Deerhurst, 1,422; Davies, 1,024; Gordon, 874. Colonel Davies had a majority both in the city and out-votes; but he was principally the gainer among the London freemen. The total number polled was 1,963. The two members were chaired as usual the day after the election had concluded, and the chairs demolished by the populace, according to their ancient prerogative and right.

Petitions were presented against both Colonel Davies’s and Lord Deerhurst’s return. The latter, however, was withdrawn. On the 16th March, 1819, the committee to investigate Colonel Davies’s return was ballotted for, and Mr. Alexander Baring, M.P. for Taunton, chosen chairman. The petition alleged bribery and treating, but the necessary witnesses were kept out of the way. Colonel Davies was declared duly elected by the casting vote of the chairman, and the news was received in Worcester with great rejoicings by his supporters.

1820—March—(General Election.)—Lord Deerhurst and Colonel Davies returned without opposition: the former being proposed by Thomas Carden, Esq., and seconded by Samuel Crane, Esq.; and the latter, by Richard Nash, Esq., seconded by E. M. Wigley, Esq. The chairing, on this occasion, was a very splendid affair.

1826—June—(General Election.)—So long before this election as March, 1824, George Richard Robinson, Esq., a London merchant, announced his intention of becoming a candidate on “independent” principles, and by a free expenditure of money made himself popular. All parties had been engaged in a very active canvass, but in May Lord Deerhurst suddenly announced his determination not again to offer himself as a candidate. This caused immense chagrin, not only to his pledged supporters, who said his victory was certain, but also to all those who had revelled in the prospect of the high price which votes would fetch in a prolonged and doubtful contest—such as the forthcoming one promised to be. Lord Deerhurst made his appointment as a Vice Lieutenant, and his other numerous public duties, the plea for retiring. Richard Griffiths, Esq., of Thorngrove, was induced to come forward in his stead at the eleventh hour. On the hustings, Colonel Davies was proposed by Mr. Alderman Carden and Mr. John Palmer; Mr. G. R. Robinson, by Mr. Alderman Ballard and Major Bund; and Mr. Griffiths, by Mr. John Dent and Mr. Henry Clifton. Colonel Davies avowed himself in favour of reform, economy, and free trade; Mr. Robinson intended generally to support ministers, but declared himself independent; and Mr. Griffiths was a thorough Church and King man. After six days’ poll the numbers were—Robinson, 1,542; Davies, 1,268; and Griffiths, 1,036. Mr. Griffiths then withdrew from the contest, having spent, during the week he was in the city, some £8,000, and thus answered the chief end of the parties who dragged him forward. There indeed was scarcely ever such a dear election, to all the candidates, in the city of Worcester—the most unprecedented exertions in fetching voters from a distance, &c., being made. The entire sum spent is said to have been £25,000. The total number of freemen polled was 1,963—viz., 1,184, city; 246, from London; and 433, country. This was the largest number on record as having polled at any election. Davies had 322 plumpers; Robinson, 132; and Griffiths, 50. The chairing took place as usual, and the elegant cars were broken to pieces at the bottom of Broad Street, at the imminent risk of the new members’ lives. A dinner was given in the succeeding week to Mr. Robinson, at the Hoppole, Mr. Alderman Ballard presiding. Colonel Davies’s friends met to form a committee to secure his return in future at less expense; and Mr. Griffiths announced his firm intention of offering himself again, whenever a vacancy should occur.

1830—July 30—(General Election.)—Colonel Davies and Mr. Robinson returned without opposition; all the efforts of the third-man-no-matter-who party having failed to produce a candidate.

1831—May—(General Election.)—The Tory party three days before the election brought forward a candidate in the person of the Hon. Colonel Henry Fitzroy, brother to Lord Southampton, but the Reform enthusiasm was so strong that his voice was drowned in the disapprobation of the people the moment he opened his lips, and all the significant hints that he had plenty of money to spend were thrown away. The Colonel soon found that he was in a false position, and did not appear on the hustings at the day of nomination. Colonel Davies was proposed by George Farley, Esq., and seconded by Mr. John Palmer; while Archibald Cameron, Esq., proposed, and Thomas Scott, Esq., seconded, Mr. Robinson. They were declared duly elected, and the chairing took place forthwith, but the chair was demolished sooner than usual.

1832—December—(General Election.)—Colonel Davies and Mr. Robinson again returned. A few weeks before the election a third candidate appeared on the scene, in the person of R. A. Dundas, Esq., cousin of Viscount Melville, intending to contest the city on Conservative principles, but after a canvass he gave the matter up as hopeless. Mr. Robinson having in an address to the electors, said that Mr. Dundas had been “deluded with hopes of success, which proved utterly fallacious”—his supporters sent for him back again, and declared that he should stand a poll unless Mr. Robinson withdrew these “offensive” expressions. A long conference took place, and some modification of the terms, or explanation of their intention, was conceded, and Mr. Dundas once more made his bow. Colonel Davies was proposed by Mr. Hebb and Mr. George Allen; and Mr. Robinson by Mr. Spooner and Mr. Munn. The members went through the city in an open carriage drawn by six grey horses, instead of in a chair, and the mob having shewn some disposition to destroy the carriage, they were disappointed by the postillions turning suddenly along the back streets into the Hoppole yard. Some of the crowd climbed the gates, and began to tear the decorations, but they were beaten off. A dinner was afterwards given to the two members unitedly, at the Bell Inn, Mr. Hebb in the chair.

1835—(General Election.)—On this occasion a candidate was brought forward by the Conservatives in the person of Joseph Bailey, Esq., a very opulent ironmaster from Glanusk, in Monmouthshire. Mr. Robinson appeared to be an universal favourite, as by the comparative moderation of his views he had conciliated many of the Tory party, but they concentrated all their animosity against Colonel Davies, who had not only been a very determined but very active promoter of Reform measures in the House of Commons. The Colonel had lost favour with some of the glovers by his support of free trade principles. The most strenuous exertions were made by the Colonel and Mr. Bailey, between whom it was at once seen that the struggle would lie, while Mr. Robinson rested upon his oars in security. At the nomination, Mr. Hebb and Mr. Allies proposed Colonel Davies; Dr. Hastings and Mr. Thomas Scott, proposed Mr. Robinson; and Mr. John Williams, of Pitmaston, and Mr. Dent, proposed Mr. Bailey. The show of hands was entirely in favour of the two old members, and a poll was demanded by Mr. Gutch in favour of Mr. Bailey. At the end of the first day’s poll the numbers were—Robinson, 1,309; Davies, 882; Bailey, 835; but the second day altered the state of things, and the final return, as made by the Sheriff, was—Robinson, 1,611; Bailey, 1,154; Davies, 1,137: majority for Bailey, 17. There was a sharp affray between the street partizans of the various candidates on Tuesday evening, and several heads were broken. Immediately after the election a dinner was given to Colonel Davies and Mr. Robinson, at the Bell Inn, W. Sanders, Esq., in the chair; at which it was announced to be the intention of Colonel Davies’s friends to bring the result of the election before a committee of the House of Commons. Captain Winnington, Mr. Cookes, and Mr. Holland, the three recently elected Whig members for the county, were present. A dinner was given to Joseph Bailey, Esq., M.P., at the Hoppole, in February. The party numbered nearly 200, and Mr. Richard Spooner was in the chair. The various speakers boasted of the “reaction” which had taken place in favour of Conservative principles. Mr. Bailey paid his first visit to Worcester after his election in October; dinners were provided for his supporters, and eighty public houses were “opened” in the evening. The principal party was given at the Unicorn Inn, Broad Street, where Mr. Richard Spooner presided. Mr. Henry Clifton and Mr. Pierpoint were vice-chairmen.

As soon as the session opened, a petition was presented against Mr. Bailey’s return, and a scrutiny of votes took place before a committee of the House of Commons, which was ballotted for March 31st, and consisted of seven Tories and four Whigs; Mr. J. E. Denison (Nottinghamshire) being chairman. After a sitting of eleven days, fifty-five votes were struck off by the petitioners, and forty by Mr. Bailey, still leaving that gentleman in a majority of one; and the petitioners then gave up the struggle, in consequence of several adverse decisions on the part of the committee. The following is a summary of the votes struck off on each side:

The petitioners alleged three cases of bribery on Mr. Bailey’s part, but failed in the proof; and the votes of a number of Mr. Bailey’s professional agents, objected to by the petitioners, were retained, in consequence of the memorable evidence of one of their number—that their services were all gratuitously rendered. The conduct of the petition was intrusted to Mr. John Hill, and by him managed most admirably. The expenses were all covered by the subscriptions, which had been previously raised, and that almost entirely among the citizens themselves. Mr. Bailey’s expenses are said to have been £16,000. The expenses of the election itself were but trifling. Of course the greatest excitement prevailed in the city during the progress of the petition, and Mr. Bailey’s party had great rejoicings on the issue.

In September, 1836, a dinner was given by the Worcester Conservative operatives to Mr. Bailey, at the Theatre. 427 persons sat down to table, and there were many spectators. The chief speakers were Mr. Bailey, Mr. Spooner, Mr. Pakington, and Mr. John Dent. There were great congratulations on the “reaction” which had taken place in the city, as elsewhere, in favour of Toryism.

Immediately afterwards (October 24) the operative Reformers got up a great dinner in the Town Hall, to refute the cry about “reaction.” Eight hundred persons sat down to dinner in the outer hall, 500 in the assembly room, and others at different inns. Mr. Arrowsmith was in the chair; supported on his right by the Mayor, and on the left by Colonel Davies. The whole party met in the outer hall after dinner (this being brilliantly lighted up for the occasion), and a number of appropriate toasts were given.

1837—(General Election.)—The candidates at this election were Mr. Bailey and Mr. Robinson (the former members), and Colonel Davies; but on the day of nomination Mr. Robinson retired in the most unexpected manner. This was owing to many of the Liberal electors having refused to give him their promises on his canvass, because they thought he had not behaved well to Colonel Davies at the previous election, and had, moreover, offended them by some votes in the House, which did not savour sufficiently of party. Mr. Bailey and Colonel Davies were declared duly elected, under protest from Mr. J. D. Stevenson, who had proposed (but a little too late) Mr. James Morison, of London.

Mr. John Hood and Mr. Joseph Lingham proposed Mr. Robinson on this occasion; Mr. John Williams and Mr. John Dent, Mr. Bailey; the Mayor and Mr. George Allies, Colonel Davies.

Barristers’ opinions were afterwards obtained, declaring that the return of the Sheriff was, under the circumstances, incorrect. In anticipation of another election, therefore, a Mr. Turton, son of Sir Thomas Turton, a Sussex baronet, was introduced to the electors as a candidate on the Liberal interest. He addressed a public meeting in the Guildhall in October, at which it was resolved—first, to petition; and, secondly, to support Mr. Turton if a vacancy then occurred. Colonel Davies’s friends refused to promise a coalition with Mr. Turton. At the eleventh hour the petition was abandoned, and Mr. Bailey brought an action against the petitioners to recover £174, the sum which he had expended in preparing to defend his seat; but on an appearance being put in, the claim was abandoned.

1841—July—(General Election.)—Colonel Davies retiring from the representation, because of ill-health, was succeeded by Sir Thomas Wilde, who, during his candidateship for the city, was made Attorney General, in the room of Sir John Campbell, elevated to the Irish Chancellorship. Mr. Bailey again offered himself on the Conservative interest, and Mr. Robert Hardy, of the firm of Hardy and Padmore, ironfounders, being determined that the Tories should not have the seat uncontested, presented himself as the candidate of the Radical party, of which he had long been a leading member. Mr. Hardy’s personal character and liberality had caused him to be greatly respected in the city; but his ultra opinions, and especially the fact of his being a Dissenter, left him little chance of success. The usual meetings took place before the election, and Sir Thomas Wilde availed himself of the opportunity to make some most able speeches in exposition and defence of the policy of the ministry. The nomination in the Guildhall presented more than the usual scene of confusion, and a fight with bludgeons took place in the midst of it, which had well-nigh proved fatal to one young man, who was accidentally struck on the head. Mr. Bailey was proposed by Mr. John Dent and Mr. Pierpoint; Sir Thomas Wilde, by Mr. George Farley and Alderman Corles; and Mr. Hardy, by Mr. Edward Lloyd and Mr. Ledbrook. Sir Thomas Wilde and Mr. Hardy had a great majority on the show of hands, and a poll was demanded by Mr. Bailey. The numbers, as declared by the Sheriff, were—Wilde, 1,187; Bailey, 1,173; Hardy, 875. All parties were surprised to find that Mr. Hardy had obtained so many votes.

The supporters of Mr. Hardy afterwards presented him with a large silver salver “for his generous and patriotic conduct in coming forward to vindicate, by his example, purity of election, and to afford his fellow citizens an opportunity of redeeming their opinions from misrepresentation by a Tory.”

1846—July—(Election caused by Sir Thomas Wilde taking office under the new Whig ministry.)—Sir Thomas Wilde having been appointed Attorney General, he came to Worcester to be reëlected by his constituency, and on the Monday (July 6) he addressed his supporters in the large room of the Bell Hotel. They unanimously agreed to renew their adhesion, and no other candidate was thought of. The election was fixed for Wednesday, but on Tuesday evening Sir Thomas was apprised by Lord John Russell of the sudden decease of Sir Nicholas Tindal, and of the intention to elevate Sir Thomas to the chief justiceship of the Common Pleas. Of course, under these circumstances, Sir Thomas could no longer be member for Worcester, but Government had taken care to provide a candidate in the bearer of the message, Sir Denis Le Marchant, Bart., now chief clerk of the House of Commons. The Liberal party were hastily summoned together on Wednesday morning, and on the recommendation of their late representative, they transferred their support from Sir Thomas to Sir Denis. Walking from the place of meeting to the hustings, Sir Denis was proposed by the Mayor, and seconded by Francis Edward Williams, Esq., as the member for the city of Worcester. Sir Thomas Wilde spoke on his behalf, and no other candidate having been proposed, Sir Denis was declared duly elected. He afterwards spoke at some length, declaring himself a thorough free trader, and generally a supporter of the Liberal government. Edward Evans, Esq., and George Allies, Esq., then moved a vote of thanks to their late representative, Sir Thomas Wilde, and it was carried with loud acclamations. Sir Thomas replied with great empressement and feeling, and after a vote of thanks to the Sheriff, Mr. Elgie, the singular election of 1846 ended. The gentleman thus suddenly made the representative of Worcester proved, during the short time he held that office, one of the most practically useful members which the city ever had. Four days elapsed between the election and the usual procession, and in that interval Sir Denis returned to town to negociate, as is generally believed, the support of the Times to the Whig ministry. The subsequent tone of the “leading journal” may be supposed to give some corroboration to this rumour.

1847—July—(General Election.)—Sir Denis Le Marchant and Mr. Bailey, having each withdrawn their pretensions to represent the city (the latter, in order that he might be elected for his native county of Breconshire), both political parties had to look out for fresh candidates. The Liberals fixed upon Osman Ricardo, Esq., of Bromsberrow Place, a country gentleman who had taken little part in public matters, but was known as a man of principle, and who laid himself out for the substantial good of the neighbourhood in which he lived. The Conservatives were not quite so easily suited, or so unanimous in their choice. Mr. Sergeant Glover was first named by one section of the party, but he at length gave way to Mr. F. Rufford, who, as chairman of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway Company, possessed some amount of popularity in the city. Mr. Rufford, in his addresses to the electors, indignantly denied that he was a monopolist, and certainly led people to believe that he was what was called in common parlance, “a free trader,” and on the hustings said, “I am here to advocate free trade to its fullest extent,” but in practice he turned out to be a Protectionist. Mr. Robert Hardy again came forward on the Radical interest, avowed his desire to see a separation of Church and State, and disapproved of Government education.

Mr. Alderman Lilly and Mr. Alderman John Hall proposed Mr. Hardy; Mr. William Stallard, jun., and Mr. H. D. Carden, Mr. Rufford; and Dr. Hastings and Mr. Alderman Edward Evans, Mr. Ricardo. The show of hands being in favour of Messrs. Ricardo and Hardy, a poll was demanded for Mr. Rufford, and at its close the numbers were—Ricardo, 1,163; Rufford, 1,142; Hardy, 930. The “open house” iniquity rioted in a rankness which had never been equalled at previous elections. Probably, too, half the electors were paid for their votes under what is called “the messenger dodge.” Mr. Rufford, in 1851, became a bankrupt, and his examinations showed that he certainly was not solvent when he offered himself as a candidate at this election, yet he admitted that he expended considerably more than £4,000.

EVESHAM.

Evesham has enjoyed the privilege of sending two representatives to Parliament from a very early date. In 1295 two burgesses were chosen to represent the town in a parliament of Edward I, but there is no record of any return from that date till the incorporation of the borough by James I. Some of the elections which have taken place here during the present century have been remarkable for profuseness of expenditure and tricks of party warfare. The number of voters now on the register is 345.

1802—July—(General Election.)—Charles Thelluson, Esq., the former member, Patrick Crawford Bruce, Esq., a London merchant, and Humphrey Howorth, Esq., for many years a physician in India, were the candidates. After five days’ poll the latter retired from the contest, the number of votes then being—Thelluson, 261; Bruce, 249; Howorth, 183. A petition was afterwards presented against the return, on the score of alleged bribery, but the committee report that the sitting members were duly returned, though the petition was not frivolous.

1806—November—(General Election.)—Mr. Howorth and W. Manning, Esq., a West India merchant, returned without opposition, neither of the former members standing again.

1807—May—(General Election.)—Sir Masseh Manasseh Lopez, Bart., entered the field at this election against the former members, and after six days’ poll, the numbers of votes recorded stood thus—Manning, 494; Lopez, 334; Howorth, 320. This result was obtained by the returning officer admitting 122 freeholders to the poll, contrary to former decisions, which had determined that freemen and paymasters alone had the right to vote. “A most gratifying interchange of compliments passed,” says the reporter of the period, “during the closing of the poll books, between the candidates, the mayor (W. Soley, Esq.), the assessor, and the professional gentlemen employed; and though perhaps there never was a severer contest, yet never was the conduct observed more honourable to all parties.” It seems to have been altogether, and undisguisedly, a matter of money. In a few days after the election an address was presented to Mr. Howorth, by E. Rudge, Esq., and 189 burgesses, complimenting him upon his conduct in the House of Commons, and begging him “to bring their joint cause before a committee of the House,” assured that “their insulted rights will be henceforward fixed on such a basis as will baffle the attempts of those who will dare to violate them.” A petition was accordingly presented, and in 1808, February 22nd, the report of the committee was brought up, and Sir M. M. Lopez, Bart., was declared to have been unduly elected, and Mr. Howorth ought to have been returned; opposition to petition not frivolous. Mr. Howorth, in his published address after this result, declares that he was ousted at the election by the votes of “a class of persons having no common interest or common feeling with the freemen and inhabitants of the borough.” He had “vindicated their rights, and triumphed over this foreign influence.” Mr. Howorth’s constituents afterwards presented him with a piece of plate.

1812—October—(General Election.)—W. Manning and H. Howorth, Esqs., reëlected without opposition.

1818—June—(General Election.)—A very sharp contest distinguished by all sorts of manœuvres, violence, and questionable practices. The poll was kept open for twelve days, and the numbers at its close were—for Mr. Howorth, 410; Mr. Rouse Boughton, 359; and Sir Charles Cockerell, 341. Mr. Rouse Boughton was son of Sir Charles William Rouse Boughton, Bart., and Sir Charles Cockerell, was a brother to Lord Northwick. Two petitions were presented as soon as Parliament met, against Mr. Rouse Boughton’s return; one from Sir Charles, alleging bribery, and another from voters of Evesham, against the admission of the votes of certain persons. It seemed that it had actually been the custom to admit any man to vote who had paid poor-rates for six months prior to an election, so that Evesham almost enjoyed universal suffrage. It was, however, against these votes that the petition was presented. The committee decided that Mr. Boughton was not duly elected, and struck off all the scot and lot voters from the roll, declaring that the election of members for Evesham was vested in the mayor, aldermen, capital and other burgesses, members of the corporation. The name of Sir Charles Cockerell was ordered to be inserted in the return in lieu of that of Mr. Rouse Boughton. Lord Palmerston was taken into custody for not being present when this committee was ballotted for, but discharged, of course, on payment of the fees, amounting to £30. A handsome piece of plate was afterwards presented by the supporters of Mr. Boughton, to Mr. Edward Lawes, of Sergeant’s Inn, for his exertions on that gentleman’s behalf.

1820—March—(General Election.)—Sir Charles Cockerell, Bart., and Mr. William E. Rouse Boughton elected without opposition; Mr. Howorth having retired from the representation because of continued ill-health.

1826—June—(General Election.)—There were three candidates in the field when this election was first talked of: Sir Charles Cockerell (one of the former members), Sir Roger Gresley, Bart., and Mr. Protheroe; but a coalition was formed between Sir Charles and Mr. Protheroe, and Sir Roger Gresley retired from the contest. Mr. William E. Rouse Boughton did not again offer himself. Many of the electors were very angry at being “sold,” as they called it, and looked out for a third candidate, who would spend a proper quantity of money, and they found one in the person of Patrick Grant, Esq., of Spring Gardens, London, who drove up to the hustings just in time to be put in nomination. Having stood a three days’ poll, however, he retired; the numbers then being—Cockerell, 235; Protheroe, 137; Grant, 87.

1830—August—(General Election.)—Sir C. Cockerell and Lord Kennedy (heir apparent of the Earl of Cassilis) returned. Alexander Raphael, Esq., of London, was a third candidate, but retired after two days’ poll; the numbers then being—Cockerell, 231; Kennedy, 148; Raphael, 110. The return was immediately petitioned against, on the score of bribery and treating, and it was proved that sixteen freemen had gone down from London and received £12 each (for their loss of time it was said), independently of their expenses. The election was declared void (Mr. Raphael being implicated in this bribery), and both Sir Charles Cockerell and Lord Kennedy were thus incapacitated from sitting in that Parliament. The issue of another writ was suspended, on the motion of the Marquis of Chandos, to allow of time for further Parliamentary inquiry. The Marquis afterwards brought in a bill for the disenfranchisement of the borough, which was read a second time; but Parliament was dissolved before it could be passed, and a writ was, therefore, issued to the returning officer in the usual course.

1831—May—(General Election.)—Sir Charles Cockerell and Lord Kennedy (the lately ousted members), and Thomas Hudson, Esq. (Reformer), a Portuguese merchant, were the candidates at this election; and the numbers at the close of the poll were—Sir Charles, 208; Mr. Hudson, 157; Lord Kennedy, 136. The two former gentlemen were then declared duly elected. Lord Kennedy did not appear in the town at all during the election.

Evesham having been retained in schedule C of the Reform Bill, continued to send two members to Parliament in spite of the smallness of the population—at that time only numbering 3,998 individuals. The out-voters being deprived of their right to poll, the number of electors was only 359.

1832—December—(General Election.)—Sir Charles Cockerell and Mr. Hudson reëlected. Mr. Rudge, Mr. Skirrow, and other gentlemen had “come like shadows and so departed,” declaring their intentions to be third candidates, but suddenly retreating from the field. However, at the eleventh hour, Mr. Peter Borthwick, who had signalised himself by lectures in favour of negro slavery, was put forward by the Tory party, but only received 126 votes—Sir Charles Cockerell polling 234, and Mr. Hudson 212. The number of electors who voted was 329.

1835—January—(General Election.)—Sir Charles Cockerell again came forward as a candidate; but Mr. Hudson retired at the last moment, being opposed by Mr. Peter Borthwick, the unsuccessful candidate at the previous election. However, Mr. Rudge was put in nomination in his absence by the Liberals, and a poll demanded on his behalf; the show of hands being in favour of Sir Charles and Mr. Borthwick. On the hustings Mr. George May charged Mr. Borthwick with having failed as a bookseller in Dalkeith, and having been excommunicated by the Scotch United Secession Church. Mr. Borthwick denied it, and said it was a relative whose debts he had paid for him. Mr. Rudge eventually declined to stand the poll, and Sir Charles Cockerell and Mr. Borthwick were declared duly elected. In June a dinner was given to Mr. Borthwick in the Guildhall, the chair being taken by Lieutenant Amherst; and a party of 160 sat down. The charge made against Mr. Borthwick having been repeated in the Bath Guardian, near which town he then lived, he commenced an action against the proprietors for libel, which was tried in April, 1836, and ended in a verdict for Mr. Borthwick on some counts of the indictment, with £100 damages; but the jury held it proved that Mr. Borthwick had been a bookseller in Dalkeith—had failed—had been in gaol—and had been a professional, but unsuccessful, performer on the stage of the Surrey Theatre.

1837—February—(Election in consequence of the death of Sir Charles Cockerell.)—The candidates were Lord Marcus Cecil Hill, brother of the Marquis of Downshire, on the Liberal interest, and George Rushout Bowles, Esq., nephew of Lord Northwick and the Dowager Lady Cockerell, on the Conservative side. On the hustings, Lord Hill was proposed by Mr. Benjamin Workman and Mr. T. N. Foster; and Mr. Bowles by Mr. Thomas Blayney and the Rev. Joseph Harling. The Mayor declared the show of hands to be in favour of Mr. Bowles, though his decision was questioned. The contest was a close one, ending in Mr. Bowles’s election; the numbers being—Bowles, 165; Hill, 140. About 60 electors did not vote.

1837—July—(General Election.)—The Hon. George Rushout and Mr. Peter Borthwick, the former members, coalesced to prevent the return of Lord Marcus Hill—who, for the second time, came forward on the Liberal interest—and they were successful; the numbers being—for Rushout, 168; Borthwick, 166; Hill, 156. Of 490 votes recorded, 124 were plumpers; and 119 of these were for Lord Hill. The Liberal party were loud in their indignation against the bribery which they asserted to have been practised. The return was petitioned against; and the committee ballotted for, consisted of six Conservatives and five Liberals: Sir Robert Peel, Bart., being chairman. Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Rushton were the counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Thessiger, Mr. Austin, &c., for the sitting members. Shortly after the opening of the case, the petition, as far as regarded Mr. Rushout, was abandoned, and Mr. Borthwick alone proceeded against. Mr. Borthwick was charged with bribery, both by himself and his agents; he was also declared to want qualification; and as many as 100 of his votes were objected to. The cases of bribery alone were gone into; and the one proved was that of Ebenezer Pierce, to whom Mr. Borthwick had presented a silver snuff box. He canvassed this voter personally, about a week before the election, and promised him a silver snuff box, which Mr. Charles Best afterwards brought him, with Mr. Borthwick’s compliments, and told him to put it by till after the election. It was proved that the box had been purchased at Stow and Mortimer’s by Mr. Borthwick, in the interim, and he had ordered them to engrave on it—“Ex dono amici sui conducit.” The committee, upon this, decided that Mr. Borthwick had been guilty of bribery. Mr. Austin abandoned the scrutiny, and permitted Lord Marcus Hill to be put in a majority of one, by permitting the votes of several persons, who admitted that they had been Mr. Borthwick’s paid agents, to be struck off; but he declared that the decision of the committee in the snuff box case had struck him with the utmost surprise, and begged to be allowed to call evidence to clear Mr. Borthwick’s character. Mr. Cockburn did not object, but the committee refused to hear any more evidence. The committee reported on March 20, 1838, and the return being amended, Lord Marcus Hill took his seat immediately afterwards. Soon after the decision of the committee was known, a dinner was given to Mr. Borthwick, and he was presented with an oblong silver salver, which had been subscribed for by the wives and daughters of the Conservative electors. The Rev. Mr. Harling presented the plate, and J. Amherst, Esq., presided at the dinner. Mr. Borthwick made a very long speech, reviewing his connection with the borough, and animadverting upon his late colleague, Mr. Rushout, in unmeasured terms, for having forsaken him before the committee. The language he made use of caused a challenge, and the two gentlemen met at Wormwood Scrubs. After a second discharge, without effect, Mr. Borthwick withdrew the offensive expressions. Lord Marcus Hill was also entertained at a dinner at the Town Hall, over which T. N. Foster, Esq., (the Mayor) presided; and a party of 200 gentlemen sat down to the tables.

1841—July—(General Election.)—The candidates were again Lord Marcus Hill, Mr. Rushout, and Mr. Peter Borthwick; the latter, indeed, did not make his appearance throughout the election, but he was strongly supported by a section of the Conservatives, who thought he had been ill used by Mr. Rushout in the matter of the previous election—and, generally, he seemed to be a favourite with the populace. At the hustings, Lord Marcus Hill was proposed by Edward Rudge, Esq., and the Rev. B. Bonaker; Mr. Rushout by Dr. Beale Cooper and the Rev. M. Shaw; and Mr. Borthwick by R. Blayney, Esq., and G. Eades, Esq. Mr. Francis Holland spoke for Mr. Borthwick; and on the show of hands, three-fourths of the meeting held up theirs for that gentleman, about one half for Lord Marcus, and but few for Mr. Rushout. At the close of the poll the numbers were—Hill, 188; Borthwick, 161; Rushout, 137. Lord Hill had 108 plumpers; Borthwick, 42; and Rushout, 34. After the canvass, but prior to the election, Lord Marcus was made a privy councillor, and appointed to the office of Comptroller of the Royal Household.

1847—July—(General Election.)—Mr. Borthwick retired from the representation, and his place was taken by Sir Henry Willoughby, a moderate Conservative and free trader. A third candidate came into field, late in the day, in the person of Sir Ralph Howard, formerly member for Wicklow, who professed Radical views. At the nomination, Lord Marcus Hill and Sir Ralph Howard had the show of hands. The polling was a very quiet affair, and at the close of the struggle Lord Marcus Hill was found to have 195 votes; Sir Henry Willoughby, 172; and Sir Ralph Howard, 131.

DROITWICH.

Droitwich was formerly one of the closest of Whig boroughs, and was entirely under the influence of the Foley family. To the return for the first election recorded below, the names of nineteen persons are appended in the books of the Droitwich Corporation; and at a much more recent date, ten persons returned two members to Parliament. The present constituency of the borough numbers 368.

1802—July—(General Election.)—Sir Edward Winnington, Bart., and the Hon. Andrew Foley, reëlected.

1805—February—(Vacancy on the death of Sir Edw. Winnington.)—Thomas Foley, Esq., son of the Hon. Andrew Foley, elected.

1806—November—(General Election.)—The Hon. Andrew Foley, and Lieutenant Colonel Foley.

1807—May—(General Election.)—Colonel Foley becomes a candidate for Herefordshire, and the Hon. A. Foley and Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., are returned for this borough.

1812—October—(General Election.)—Hon. A. Foley and Sir T. Winnington reëlected.

1816—April—Sir Thomas Winnington having accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, Lord Sefton is elected in his stead.

1818—June—(General Election.)—Hon. A. Foley and the Earl of Sefton reëlected.

1819—February—(Vacancy on the death of the Hon. Andrew Foley.)—Colonel Foley, son of the late member, elected.

1820—March—(General Election.)—Earl of Sefton and Colonel Foley reëlected.

1822—February—(Vacancy on the death of Colonel Foley.)—John Hodgetts Hodgetts Foley, Esq., elected.

1826—June—(General Election.)—Lord Sefton and J. H. H. Foley, Esq., reëlected.

1830—(General Election.)—Earl of Sefton and J. H. H. Foley, Esq., reëlected.

1831—May—(General Election.)—Mr. J. H. H. Foley and Sir T. E. Winnington elected; the Earl of Sefton making way for the hon. baronet.

1832—December—(General Election.)—The borough was deprived of one of its members by the Reform Bill; and on this occasion J. H. H. Foley, Esq., was returned alone, having been proposed by Sir A. Lechmere, Bart., and seconded by T. T. Vernon, Esq.

1835—(General Election.)—For the first time since 1711 this borough was contested and a Tory returned. The candidates were J. H. H. Foley, Esq. (the former member), and John Barneby, Esq., of Brockhampton. The former was proposed by Captain Vernon and Mr. Francis; the latter, by Dr. Steward and Mr. Lilley, of Wichbold. The Rev. Mr. Topham also addressed the populace in Mr. Foley’s favour, and bore testimony to his attachment to the Church. The show of hands was in Mr. Foley’s favour. At the end of the first day the numbers were—Barneby, 115; Foley, 113: and at the close of the poll—Barneby, 125; Foley, 122: majority for Barneby, 3. Out of a constituency of only 281, 34 did not vote. The election issued in a petition against the return, and on the 17th of March a committee of the house was ballotted for to decide the matter; but it was constituted very unfavourably to Mr. Foley, having at least eight Tories upon it. They refused to reopen the register, so the inquiry was limited to a few disputed votes on either side. Mr. Foley succeeded in striking off three of Mr. Barneby’s votes, and so reducing matters to an equality; but Mr. Barneby then struck off Lord Southwell’s vote, objected to on account of his peerage. This left Mr. Foley in a minority of one, and Mr. Barneby retained his seat.

1837—July—(General Election.)—John Barneby, Esq., having determined to contest the county, made way for Mr. Pakington to come in for this borough, of which he has ever since been the representative. J. H. Galton, Esq., of Hadsor, made a canvass of the electors on the Liberal interest; but finding that his chances were not very good he retired from the contest. Mr. Allen, barrister, also made a flying visit to the place, intending to put up as a Reformer, but soon took his departure. Mr. Pakington was proposed at the hustings by W. H. Ricketts, Esq., and Mr. John Tolley; and having made a long confession of his political creed (in which he avowed himself a staunch Conservative, but would not vote for a repeal of the Malt Tax, and approved of the new Poor Law), he was declared duly elected.

1841—July—(General Election.)—J. S. Pakington, Esq., reëlected without opposition.

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

BEWDLEY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KIDDERMINSTER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DUDLEY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ELECTIONS OF COUNTY CORONERS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PUBLIC MEETINGS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”

1826—At the Epiphany Sessions, the Rev. Reginald Pyndar introduced the subject of a “Worcestershire Friendly Society,” and the formation of such a society being highly approved of by the magistrates, a meeting was held the next day in the Guildhall, with John Dent, Esq., Mayor, in the chair, and the rules and tables proposed by Mr. Pyndar adopted as the basis of an association for the benefit of the industrious and provident poor of the county.

The society thus formed has continued to thrive and flourish to the present day, and has been productive of many direct and indirect benefits to a large number of the poorer class; helping them to a knowledge of the advantages of frugality—affording them a safe and profitable investment for their surplus earnings—enabling them to escape from the temptations of the public house, where the village club would have required their attendance—and saving them from the distress and misery that overtake the members of so many benefit societies constructed upon false principles, or upon no principles at all. The society at present numbers 1,899 members, of whom one-third are females, and it has a very large reserve fund. Great part of its successful working and prosperity are attributable to the fostering care and interest of the Rev. Thomas Pearson. The following is a statement of the pecuniary affairs of the institution, from its formation to the present time, which has been compiled by its efficient secretary, Mr. Thomas Holloway.