OLD DUDLEY DURING THE LAST SIXTY YEARS.
To the Editor of the Dudley Guardian.
Sir,—In reference to the letters which have appeared in the Dudley Guardian for several weeks past signed “Veritas,” and “Z.”—such letters containing matters which are in many instances preserved as historical records,—permit me to say that some of the statements are very vague and indefinite. We will take for instance Saint Thomas’ Church, Dudley. Your correspondent states it cost the sum of £24,000, raised partly by rates and partly by voluntary contributions, also giving the list of the donors, from which your correspondent omits many old Dudley names. As there was more than one subscription list, I beg to give you a copy of one of them:—
“Dudley Parish Church of St. Thomas.
July 21st, 1814.
“At a meeting held at the time and place aforesaid, in pursuance of public notice given on the preceding Sabbath in both churches (the Rev. Dr. Booker in the chair), the following resolutions were passed unanimously, to carry into effect the pious intentions of the inhabitants of Dudley, to erect a suitable parish church for the services of the Almighty.
First.—That a committee be appointed, and that all subscribers of forty pounds and upwards do constitute such committee.
Secondly.—That the following form be immediately submitted to the Right Honourable Lord Viscount Dudley and Ward, the patron, for his lordship’s concurrence and subscription, as well as that of the inhabitants at large.
We, whose names are hereunder written, do hereby undertake and promise to subscribe the several sums of money set opposite to our respective names; the same to be applied in taking down and rebuilding the Church of St. Thomas, in Dudley, and for defraying other expenses incident thereto. Which sums we do hereby severally agree to pay into the hands of the Treasurer hereafter to be appointed, by ten equal successive quarterly payments, the first quarterly payment to be made on the 25th of January, 1815.
Each subscriber of twenty pounds and upwards to be entitled to sittings to the amount of one-half of his subscription; the value of such sittings to be fixed by the Commissioners appointed under the Act of Parliament: the other half of the subscription to be a sacred gift applied towards the erection of the church.
List of Subscribers.
| £ s. d. | |
| L. Booker, vicar, who, by a plan he means to adopt and hopes to realize, trusts this sum will be augmented to not less than £200[38] | 120 0 0 |
The following additional Donations were subsequently added:—
| The Right Hon. Viscount Dudley and Ward | 2000 0 0 |
| Edward Dixon | 500 0 0 |
| Elizabeth Wainwright | 30 0 0 |
| Mary Cartwright | 40 0 0 |
| Thomas and Isaac Badger | 80 0 0 |
| W. O. Chinner | 50 0 0 |
| Edward Terry | 30 0 0 |
| John Badley, Blowers Green | 100 0 0 |
| John Badley, Surgeon, Dudley | 100 0 0 |
| Thomas Hawkes | 150 0 0 |
| James Bourne (his services gratis as Solicitor) | 100 0 0 |
| Cornelius Cartwright | 60 0 0 |
| Whitehurst, Moore, and Guest | 100 0 0 |
| Richard Moore | 70 0 0 |
| Edward Guest | 70 0 0 |
| Thomas Onions | 80 0 0 |
| Richard Powell | 80 0 0 |
| Thomas Bunn | 50 0 0 |
| Richard Salisbury | 100 0 0 |
| Thomas Wainwright | 150 0 0 |
| Timothy Hill | 80 0 0 |
| John Jesson | 40 0 0 |
| Francis Downing | 50 0 0 |
| Thomas Caddick | 60 0 0 |
| R. G. Shaw | 60 0 0 |
| Joseph Haden | 50 0 0 |
| Thomas Davis | 50 0 0 |
| Joseph Cox | 50 0 0 |
| Richard Lakin | 40 0 0 |
| R. W. Hawkes | 100 0 0 |
As regards the church costing £24,000, your correspondent is quite in error, as will be seen by the following extracts from two letters. On the 18th of January, 1818, the Bishop of Worcester writes as under, from Hartlebury Castle, “and desires to know what further sum, beyond what has been expended or is in hand, is requisite for completing the new church at Dudley, in order that he may judge whether, consistently with other urgent claims on him for pecuniary aid, he can subscribe any sum of importance to the undertaking.”
The following statement was sent to the Bishop:—
| £ s. d. | ||
| Church Contract | 10,670 0 0 | |
| Bells | 500 0 0 | |
| Organ | 800 0 0 | |
| Extra expenses | 1,000 0 0 | |
| Act of Parliament, &c. | 460 0 0 | |
| —————— | ||
| £13,430 0 0 | ||
| —————— | ||
| Raised by subscription | £7,100 0 0 | |
| Expected deficiency | 200 0 0 | |
| 6,900 0 0 | 6,900 0 0 | |
| Parish rate till Midsummer | 1,900 0 0 | |
| Unprovided except by Rate and Brief | 4,630 0 0 | |
| —————— | ||
| £13,430 0 0 | ||
| —————— |
It also appears that the Churchwardens applied and obtained leave to get a brief at the Sessions in October, 1817, but being too late in the year they could not get it signed by the Lord Chancellor, therefore they could not receive any sum from it before 1820, and then not more than £200 to £300.
A few other particulars regarding St. Thomas’s Church may be interesting to your readers. Mr. Brooks, of London, was the architect, and Daniel Evans, London, the builder. The following is a statement how the builder was to be paid:—
| £ s. d. | |
| On laying foundation stone | 500 0 0 |
| When the several walls are built level with the second plinth | 500 0 0 |
| When the walls are built up to the gallery, and the timbers of the gallery put on and the tower of Church built level with bell ringers’ floor | 1,500 0 0 |
| When walls are built up to raising plates, the window frames fixed in, and the tower level with the bell loft | 1,000 0 0 |
| When the roof is wholly put on, and the gutters laid, the battlements and upper roof put on, the roof wholly finished, and the tower level with the base of the pinnacles | 1,500 0 0 |
| When the pinnacles are finished, the ground floor joists and small joists of the gallery are laid, and the ribs for ceilings are finished | 1,000 0 0 |
| When the second coat of plastering is put on, floors of gallery and ground floors are laid, and gallery fronts are fixed up, and staircases erected | 1,000 0 0 |
| When the whole of the said buildings and erections are completely finished | 1,500 0 0 |
| And when Architect shall have certified that the whole of the work is finished to his satisfaction | 1,400 0 0 |
| Six months after completion | 200 0 0 |
| —————— | |
| £10,100 0 0 |
The builder of the organ was Mr. Thomas Elliot, of London, and cost, with fixing, &c., complete, £1025. The order was given for the organ in 1817, and some parties were not satisfied at the position in which it was to be placed. Viscount Dudley and Ward was written to early in 1818, asking if he would allow it to be placed in the Chancel gallery which would prevent great inconvenience in going into and coming out of the Church. The reply of Viscount Dudley and Ward to Dr. Booker was:—
“I beg leave to repeat to you that my mind is unaltered and unalterable with respect to the situation of the organ, and that I shall not, by any means give my consent to its being placed in the Chancel gallery.” Dated Himley, February 5th, 1818.
After this letter from Viscount Dudley and Ward, Mr. Brooks and Mr. Elliot were consulted. The result was Mr. Elliot informed Dr. Booker that he would construct the movements of the organ so as to leave a handsome entrance through the middle of the organ, and if the plan was carried out Mr. Elliot considered the organ would have a grand appearance.
The organ being made for the situation it now occupies, and the protest of the Viscount Dudley and Ward against it being put elsewhere, it is to be hoped a fixed determination will be made against any party or parties wishing it moved from its present situation—In fact, I have no hesitation in saying it will spoil the appearance of the church.
The magnificent Altar Window, painted by Blackler of London, was commenced in 1818 and finally completed and placed in the church in Sept., 1821. The original estimate for this splendid window was 500 guineas, and which Mr. Blackler, in a letter, states was but a moderate calculation for the work. Mr. Brooks, however, assured him that such a sum would be considered far too high, he therefore undertook to execute the window for one hundred guineas less than his first estimate, and the expense of fitting up and completing the window in the church was to be fifty guineas extra. The window is a masterpiece, and the Dudley people may well be proud that they obtained the same at so small a cost.
| The bells, clock, and palisading cost (after allowing for old bells) | £1120 0 0 |
| Other sundries about | 400 0 0 |
| ————— | |
| £1520 0 0 | |
| ————— |
Your correspondent will see by the above items that the Church did not cost £24,000. Your correspondent also states that a leading man of the town of that day had a jolly bargain at the expense of the parishioners, having bought the materials of the old church, which he was to pay for when he fetched the last load away. This I presume he has stated on hearsay, not from any foundation on fact. The person referred to could well afford to pay for anything he contracted for, and I do not think the Dudley people at the time would allow him to go scot free, or would they make such a foolish bargain as stated. I also see the party hinted at gave £50 towards the new Church.
In conclusion allow me to say Dr. Booker at the time worked hard for the building of the new Church. He was a good sound churchman, also an author of several works on various subjects, his name to the present day is an household word, and Saint Thomas’ Church remains a monument to him as first Vicar.
I may mention that Dr. Booker’s history of Dudley Castle is the most authentic work upon the subject that has yet been issued, and is now become very scarce and valuable.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
EPHRAIM BALL.
Dudley, October 23rd, 1871.
The late Mr. Mainwaring of Dudley, an old St. Thomas’s Chorister for a many years, gave us an amusing story of a marriage at the New Parish Church. “Soon after the New Parish Church was opened, Mr. Bourne, the Organist, and I went into the Parish Church to have a little practice upon the organ, after Mr. Bourne had played a voluntary, Mr. Richard Stanley, the Beadle, came to us and said, that the Vicar, Dr. Booker, wished us to give over for a time, as a parish wedding was about to take place; not exactly understanding what this meant, we determined to go and see it. As soon as we had reached the Chancel, we were informed by Mr. Bond, the Parish Clerk, that a certain sum of money was to be given to the young man by the parish authorities. As we had no Board of Guardians in those days, the parties in charge of the parish funds did pretty much as they liked with them, in this instance, and for certain reasons, they offered the young man about to be married five pounds. When we arrived near the altar rails we observed several young men and women in the pews, and there was an abundance of sly winking and laughing going on. At last, the Doctor entered from the vestry, and all the people became orderly and quiet. The service commenced and all went on smooth as a marriage bell, when the Doctor came to that part of the service where he said to the man, ‘Wilt thou take this woman to be thy wedded wife, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy state of matrimony,’ &c., &c. Here Mr. Bond, the Clerk, stepped forward, and told the man to answer ‘I will!’ He replied, ‘I’ll have the money first.’ The Doctor was indignant at this proceeding, and said, ‘What money do you mean sir?’ The man said, ‘Why the money they have promised me if I will marry this young woman, and I’ll have it before I answers, I will!!’ Upon this the Clerk went up to the Doctor and explained the matter to him, Mr. Bond also told the man that it was all right, the money was at his house ready counted, and after he was married he could go with him and have it. The man said, ‘I don’t care where it is, I’ll have it now and in my pocket before I am married.’ Upon this Dr. Booker told Mr. Bond to go and fetch it; the service being delayed until he came back. When Mr. Bond returned, he put the money into the man’s hands and after he counted it and put it into his pocket, he said to the Doctor, ‘You can go on now, it’s all right!’ and the service was completed, and the man, woman, and money, were all united in this (let us hope), blissful celebration.”
At the earlier part of the late Dr. Browne’s ministry among us, he met with a singular amount of innocency and ignorance at the baptismal font. A man and woman, well-known characters at Gornal Wood, thought they should like to have their next child christened at Dudley by Dr. Browne. In due course the child was brought to the font, and the portly Doctor, already equipped, enquired in his usual clear and musical voice, “Was this child born in wedlock?” “Noa, it worn’t,” says the man, “it wur born in Gornall Udd!” It is needless to say that the child got the spiritual induction, and the Doctor a homely sample of ignorance amongst the colliers in the Black Country.
This subjoined Bill is a curiosity in its way, shewing the way we did in the Army, long, long ago.
THE VOLUNTEER INFANTRY,
TO R. MOORE, Dr.
| 1804. | ||
| Mar. 26. | Paid for a Lock mending | 0 1 4 |
| May 27. | Ditto ditto | 0 0 6 |
| Sep. 10. | Ditto | 0 1 0 |
| “ | Flints | 0 1 0 |
| Oct. | Ditto | 0 1 0 |
| Paid for Drink at Droitwich, by order of Major Wainwright | 1 8 6 | |
| Paid for Sick Men at Worcester | 1 6 6 | |
| Paid for Mending Locks | 0 4 6 | |
| Ditto | 0 0 8 | |
| ——— | ||
| £3 5 0 | ||
| ——— |
Examined,
J. Payton,
W. Harrison,
Edwd. Dixon,
Thos. Moore.
A NARRATIVE OF THE REJOICINGS
AT THE
CORONATION OF KING GEORGE THE FOURTH,
WITH A SEQUEL,
BY AN EYE WITNESS.
On Thursday, the 19th July, 1820, the day appointed for the Coronation of His Majesty King George the Fourth, the inhabitants of Dudley entered into a subscription for the purpose of furnishing the poor people with a dinner, and also to regale the children of the different Sunday schools and schools of industry in the said parish, to the number of four or five thousand. This was a most delightful sight; they paraded the different streets in a very orderly manner indeed. Four sheep were roasted in the Market Place and distributed, with a large quantity of ale, to the populace. There assembled a very considerable number of people, the principal street being utterly crowded from one end to the other. An advertisement had been distributed announcing a display of fireworks which would take place in the course of the evening; this caused a great number of people to remain in the town during the whole of the day. The shops were ordered not to be opened during the day, and the mandate was obeyed, save and except the public houses, where most of the lower orders of people resorted to after having been plentifully regaled by the inhabitants. The old saying is much would have more, and it is difficult to satisfy such people, or even keep them peaceable and quiet, when a little elevated. The Himley and Enville troop of Yeomanry met on the morning of that day at Himley, and after partaking of some refreshment, proceeded to Wolverhampton, where they paraded the town and partook of a considerable quantity of wine, which, to many not being in the habit of drinking, must have had considerable effect, and was very distinguishable by one drawing his sword and threatened to cut a man down for crying the Queen. This act very much irritated the populace, and it was asserted that if they (the Yeomanry) had not filed off as they did, they would have been very roughly handled. They then bent their course to Dudley, where they arrived about three o’clock, not very sober; and after going through their exercise and firing, repaired to the hotel (Dudley Arms) to dinner in some of the lower apartments. The gentlemen of the town with the Dudley Cavalry occupied the assembly room. Things were going very peaceably in the town till between eight and nine o’clock, when the Yeomanry became very refractory, and proceeded to violence among themselves; the windows were thrown open, and one of them jumped upon the table which stood under the window facing the street, and held out a white handkerchief, and cried out “the Queen, my lads,” which immediately caused a shout from the surrounding multitude. This was followed by the Cavalry commencing a battle royal. The tables, bottles, glasses, and furniture went to rack; the remains of the bottles and glasses, in part, were thrown through the window on the heads of the populace, which they took as a gross insult. The boys procured some squibs and threw into the room, and the noise became very loud, which soon reached the ears of the gentlemen above, some of whom came into the street very drunk, and began to assault several persons who had committed no offence whatever. The young men and apprentices had been parading the street in a very sober and quiet manner, not offering to give offence to any person or persons, but having in the course of the day worn white favours in their bosoms, they excited the indignation of some very hot-headed persons who were possessed of more money than wisdom, and to shew over and above loyalty, would go any lengths to serve the cause they had espoused. At the time these scuffles were taking place, the young shop men and apprentices, as before stated, were coming through the throng. Messrs. Clymer and Stokes were arm-in-arm, and Clymer was robbed and assaulted by one of the gentlemen who could hardly articulate; Stokes said “I would never suffer myself to be insulted in that manner, knock his red nob off,” which was noticed by a person near and one of the party. This appeared a favourable opportunity for these gentlemen to show their loyalty to the world at large, by prosecuting these young men, who had done no harm to any one individual. Several of the runners were sent out to take any of the young men into custody, which they soon effected; some were confined for the night, and others bailed out till morning, when a Bench of Magistrates would sit to judge the case. On the morrow, those who were not apprehended on the preceding night, and who were seen wearing white favours, were sent for by the Magistrates, which summons was immediately obeyed. The examination took place, not by the magistrates only, but by some unknown gentlemen, whose word, had it been as strictly scrutinized as these unfortunate young men, they would e’er this have crossed the briny ocean; but their time is not yet come, when it does I have no doubt they will cut a very conspicuous figure. The young men were ordered to find bail or they were committed. Some had no bail, or would not get any one to give bail for them. What was the consequence; they were sent to prison to the Workhouse in Dudley, and were to be removed to Worcester Gaol on the morrow morning, but about nine o’clock at night the prison door was thrown open and the prisoners ordered to go about their business. These very men had confessed they broke the windows at the hotel; this is a most strange business to release the guilty and punish the innocent. This appears to be Dudley law. Stokes was not apprehended till Monday following, when he attended at the Public Office; as soon as he appeared in the room one of the Magistrates asked his father who had put that plaster on his son’s head, and whether it was a real or an artificial scar. It is proper to remark here that on the Coronation night, when one of the young men was being taken to the hotel, the Constable used him very roughly, on which Stokes cried out “don’t use him so bad, he will go gently with you without such rash behaviour.” At this moment came up Payton the Constable and struck Stokes with his stick or club on the head and broke a hole in his hat, he again lifted his staff and gave him a violent blow which cut his head; this took place in consequence of his interceding for a friend, to one who had neither pity nor mercy. As soon as the Magistrate received an answer he took his hat and left the room, and did not return. Spurrier, the Attorney, was employed on the occasion, who immediately rose and addressed the other Magistrates, saying that Mr. Stokes’s son had been served with a warrant, and was there ready to answer to any charge. If that is the case, said one of the magistrates, it ought to be heard, and immediately asked the prosecutor if he had any objections to its being gone into. He first said no, then said he had nothing against him. Spurrier then replied to the Magistrates, the warrant then in course must be discharged—the Magistrate answered assuredly so; then the matter ended as was generally supposed, but, a few days previous to the Sessions a fresh warrant was obtained, under the same charges, and Stokes was taken into custody on Friday, bail was taken for his appearance next morning at ten o’clock, which was punctually attended to; his father attended with him, met the Magistrate in the street, who shook hands with him, and said, why there is a warrant against your son, yes the father said, it is very strange he should be brought up to answer the same charges which were contained in the former warrant, he replied, pity but he had kept better company, and walked off. He was then sent after by one of the Constables, who brought word he would not hear it till four o’clock in the afternoon; the Lawyer for the Plantiff sent a Constable after Stokes, and put him into confinement till the case would be heard, which took place about five o’clock; his father was bound for him to appear at Sessions. In that part of this narrative which relates to the disturbance between the Himley and Enville Cavalry in the Hotel, it will be proper to remark what succeeded; the broken glasses, &c., that were thrown upon the heads of the people in the street, caused an immediate retaliation by the populace throwing stones, brick-bats, or anything they could lay their hands upon, and thought themselves justified, the assailants broke two or three dozen panes of glass; it has been said that the Riot Act was read, but that is very much doubted. To prevent further damage, someone, more wise than the rest, ordered the gas-lights and fireworks to be immediately lighted, which was done with all possible speed, and had the desired effect. The High Constable was, I believe, the person who furnished the fireworks, and his shop was generally furnished with those kind of articles, and exhibited for sale which is contrary to, and in violation of, the established laws of the land. It having been evidently reported that the young men had dined together at the Saracen’s Head, on that day, for a widely different purpose than really was the case, the fact is that sometime previous to the Coronation a wager was laid among the young men that the Queen would be crowned with the King; not being able to decide the wager then, it was agreed to dine together on that day, and whoever lost to pay for the same. The party broke up at a very early hour perfectly sober, and conducted themselves with the greatest propriety during the whole of the evening. Had there been no Cavalry at Dudley that day there would have been no disturbance; when the first commotion took place several of the Cavalry came into the street and proceeded to draw their swords and strike several persons in the throng, who gave them the answer to it without delay, and forced them to go back more rapid than they came. One of the Cavalry fired and wounded a man in the face in a most shocking manner. The young man (one of the Himley Cavalry), who had excited the attention of the populace by holding out his handkerchief and crying “the Queen my lads,” was brought to a Court Martial soon after, but not discharged; great numbers are ready to attest the statements herein contained, if it should be found necessary.