Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century / A Complete Digest of Facts Occuring in the County since the Commencement of the year 1800

by T. C. Turberville

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.

RECEIPTS.				PAYMENTS.
	£.	s.	d.		£.	s.	d.
Honorary Subscriptions and Benefactions	1,631	1	6	Sick Pay	4,994	8	9
Payments by the Members	16,798	16	6	Death	872	0	0
Interest	3,082	7	8	Endowments	2,007	0	6
				Annuities in Old Age	155	18	0
				Management Expenses, including purchase of Policies,Salaries, Allowances to Surgeons, Rent, &c. &c.	5,287	4	2
				Total Payments	13,316	10	11
				Balance, being total Stock	8,195	13	9
Total Receipts	£21,512	4	8		£21,512	4	8

1827—At the Easter Sessions, the Worcestershire and Staffordshire Canal Company appealed against the sum at which they were rated for their docks and basins at Stourport, by the parish of Lower Mitton. It was stated in the course of the proceedings, that the tonnage of the canal for the year ending Michaelmas, 1826, was £32,838. The officers of Lower Mitton had taken the whole value of the basins as rateable there, but the court decided that they must only charge for acreage, computing the basins as they would other portions of the canal.

1829—January 14—At the Epiphany Quarter Sessions, the Earl of Plymouth resigned the chairmanship; and on the motion of Major Bund, seconded by the Earl of Beauchamp, Sir C. S. Smith, Bart., was elected in his stead.

At these Sessions, the magistrates of Droitwich denied the authority of the county magistrates to appoint visitors to the Asylum for Pauper Lunatics kept by the Messrs. Ricketts in the borough, and on the matter being referred to the law officers of the crown, it was decided by them that the act passed in the previous session of Parliament vested the appointment of visitors in the magistracy of the borough in which the asylum was situate. Major Bund gave notice of a motion thereupon, to consider the propriety of building a County Lunatic Asylum.

1829—At the Michaelmas Sessions, the magistrates altered the divisions of the county for Petty Sessional purposes, forming them into eight districts, to be called “The Upton, Pershore, Hundred House, Worcester, Kidderminster, Droitwich, Northfield, and Blockley Divisions.”

1829—An adjourned Sessions was held in November, to consider the propriety of erecting County Courts, the inconvenience of the City Hall having been commented on at every Sessions and Assizes which had taken place for some years past. A case had been laid before Mr. Sergeant Russell, to have his opinion as to whether the magistrates could legally spend money on the enlargement and improvement of courts belonging to the city, and he had replied that they could not; and that if they wanted a Shire Hall of their own, they must obtain a special Act of Parliament for it. The Rev. Mr. Pearson, after reporting the failure of all attempts at negociation with the Worcester Corporation, moved “that it was necessary to erect new courts and suitable lodgings for the judges, and that the magistrates should take the necessary steps for obtaining an Act of Parliament for that purpose.” This resolution was seconded by Colonel Bromley. Earl Somers moved an adjournment of the question, on the ground that in the then depressed state of the country the expense ought not to be incurred. This was seconded by Osman Ricardo, Esq. An adjournment “to the next Epiphany Sessions” was carried; but Lord Foley then moved, “That it is the opinion of this court that the present courts and judges’ lodgings are totally insufficient.” This was seconded by R. Spooner, Esq.; and Colonel Davies opposed it, because he thought that the agitation of the subject was ill-timed. Lord Foley’s motion was ultimately carried by 20 to 17. A committee was then appointed to have another conference with the City Corporation.

Nine Catholic noblemen and gentlemen were now for the first time inserted in the Commission of the Peace for this county—viz., the Earl of Shrewsbury, Viscount Southwell, Sir E. Blount, Sir C. Throckmorton, R. Berkeley, Esq., W. Wakeman, Esq., T. C. Hornyold, Esq., C. E. Hanford, Esq., and W. Acton, Esq.

1830—At the Epiphany Sessions, the question of new courts was again discussed. The committee reported that they found the Guildhall, Worcester, erected in 1721, belonged exclusively to the city. The Rev. T. Pearson again moved that an Act of Parliament should be applied for, with a view to the erection of a Shire Hall; and this was seconded by the Rev. George Turberville. Major General Marriott moved as an amendment, that the Deputy Clerk of the Peace should be instructed to lay a presentment of the present courts before the grand jury at the next assizes. James Taylor, Esq., seconded this. Lord Deerhurst then moved a resolution, declaring that the county, in the present depressed condition of all classes, would rather submit to the inconvenience of the present courts than incur the expense of new ones, which was seconded by Dr. B. Cooper. Lord Deerhurst’s amendment was negatived by 31 to 25, and General Marriott’s without a division. Earl Somers then moved the appointment of a committee to ascertain the practicability of so altering the present courts as to make them sufficiently convenient. This was seconded by John Williams, Esq., but rejected by 31 to 24, and Mr. Pearson’s original motion was then carried.

1830—November 29—The general state of the county caused Viscount Deerhurst to summon the magistrates to a meeting, at which the following resolution was passed:

“That the general peaceable state of the county of Worcester affords a subject of great congratulation. The magistrates, however, viewing with the utmost abhorrence the atrocious acts of violence which have taken place in other counties, feel it their duty to declare that they have made such arrangements as, by giving full effect to the existing laws, are best calculated to prevent the occurrence of similar calamities in this county.”

1831—At the Epiphany Sessions, the subject of new courts was resumed. Several plans for the enlargement of the Guildhall were laid before the magistrates, but the court adopted a resolution proposed by the Earl of Plymouth, without a division. It ran thus: “That the consideration of the question, relative to the alteration of the courts of justice, be adjourned sine die, it being found inexpedient to enlarge the Guildhall; but that a bill authorising the magistrates to build new courts, at a future period, be drawn up.”

1831—At the Easter Sessions, J. H. H. Foley, Esq., M.P., and Lord Lyttelton, urged the necessity of building a gaol at Stourbridge, but the proposition was negatived by 27 to 14. Petitions against the bill for legalising the sale of beer to be drunk on the premises in beer houses, were agreed to at the instance of Dr. Beale Cooper.

1831—At the Midsummer Sessions, it was resolved that the new courts should be erected at the back of the gaol, and that the expense should not exceed £25,000. The bill had been brought in by the county members, and read a first time the Friday before.

1832—At the Epiphany Sessions, Dr. Beale Cooper proposed the enlargement of the gaol, which was referred to a committee. The Rev. Thomas Pearson proposed that plans should be immediately selected for new county courts adjoining the gaol. The Rev. George Turberville proposed that the matter should be further delayed till the next September, and Mr. Pearson’s motion was carried by 24 to 8.

A vote of thanks was passed to Earl Plymouth and the Yeomanry, for their promptitude and firmness in quelling riots in the county.

1832—At the Midsummer Sessions, the order which had been made at a previous sessions to build the new county courts on land adjoining the gaol, was rescinded, on the motion of the Rev. George Turberville, seconded by Mr. Pakington, by a large majority, and the committee were directed to look out for another site.

At these Sessions was discussed a matter which excited great interest amongst the legal profession, viz., the allowance of fees to attorneys, who for some two or three sessions had only been paid £1. 1s. for brief and attendance, instead of £2. 14s. 4d., as formerly. The solicitors were heard by counsel, and the former payment was restored.

1832—At the Michaelmas Sessions, a new valuation of the county parishes was read by General Marriott. The land assessable was valued at £741,854—the old valuation had been £750,250; so that the land had decreased in value about 3d. in the pound, or 1¼ per cent.

The question of erecting county courts again came under consideration—the present site in Foregate Street, and one in Pierpoint Street, both being proposed, and the former was adopted by a majority of 30 to 14. Premiums were offered for the three best plans.

1833—At the Epiphany Sessions, the court proceeded to the appointment of a chaplain to the county gaol, the office being now vacant by the resignation of the Rev. J. Hadley. A resolution was first proposed by Major Bund, and carried by a large majority, “That a beneficed clergyman ought not to be appointed chaplain to the gaol.” Votes were given for eight candidates, but the contest lay between the Rev. J. Adlington, who received 22 votes, and the Rev. W. Dunn, who had 14.

1833—At the Easter Sessions, it was resolved, upon the motion of the Rev. Thomas Pearson, that “henceforth this court should be an open one.”

The county was called upon to pay £759. 17s. for special constables employed by the Sheriff to keep the peace at the last election.

Three plans were laid before the court, by the committee, for the new county courts, viz., one by Mr. Charles Day, Worcester; Mr. Mead, London; and Mr. Habershon, London. Previous to deciding upon them, General Mariott moved that the erection of the courts should be postponed till the enlargement of the gaol should be completed, in order that two such serious expenses might not be pressing on the county at the same time. A number of letters from different parishes had been received by the chairman, remonstrating against new courts, but General Mariott’s motion was lost by 30 to 10. The three plans were then submitted to the court for choice, and the Rev. Mr. Pearson regretted that one from a Mr. Haycock, which he thought undoubtedly the best, was not amongst them. Mr. Mead’s was recommended by the committee as the best, but fifteen magistrates voted for Mr. Day’s, and only three for each of the others. Many magistrates refused to vote; and the general feeling of the public at the time was, that the advantage of the county, and the embellishment of the city, had been sacrificed to personal interest created by a canvass. A committee was appointed, with the Rev. Thomas Pearson as its chairman, to carry the plan thus chosen into execution.

1834—At the Epiphany County Sessions, the salary of the county treasurer (Sir A. Lechmere) was reduced from £100 to £60—because it was higher than that paid by adjoining counties, and farmers were in distress—by a majority of 39 to 20. Various reductions were also made in the fees of the clerk of the peace.

1834—At the Easter Quarter Sessions, Sir C. S. Smith, Bart., resigned the chairmanship—the calamity which he had recently sustained, in the loss of his lady, inducing him to retire altogether from public life. The Rev. George Turberville immediately moved the following resolution:

“That the court is fully sensible of, and grateful for, the valuable services of their late chairman, Sir C. S. Smith, Bart., and deeply regrets that he feels himself unable to continue those services for the benefit of the county.”

This was seconded by John Williams, Esq., and carried unanimously.

1834—At the Midsummer Sessions there was a very full attendance of magistrates, and the Rev. George Turberville was requested to preside as senior. The first business was to elect a chairman, in the room of Sir C. S. Smith, Bart., resigned; and on the motion of the Rev. president, seconded by James Taylor, Esq., John Somerset Pakington, Esq., was unanimously elected to the office which he has ever since filled with so much ability and advantage to the county.

1835—At the Midsummer Sessions the magistrates agreed to a petition to Parliament against the Bill for permitting counsel for a prisoner in all cases to address the jury—a privilege hitherto confined to cases of misdemeanour. Mr. Temple, General Marriott, and Mr. Hanford were the only dissentients. The measure, it was said, would tend to defeat the ends of justice by the frequent acquittal of guilty persons, and to bring juries into discredit by inclining them to found their verdicts rather on the arguments of counsel than upon the facts.

1836—May 9—A Special Sessions held, Dr. Beale Cooper in the chair, to consider what was to be done about the New County Courts and Judges’ Lodgings, as the magistrates had expended the £25,000 they were empowered to raise by the first act. After a long discussion, it was unanimously determined to apply for a fresh act immediately, enabling them to raise £7,000 more. [Parliament refused to depart from its standing orders, and so the bill could not be introduced that session.]

1836—At the Michaelmas Sessions the Prisoners’ Counsel Act was first brought into operation; and it is strange how unanimously an arrangement—now admitted on all hands to be a good one—was condemned and found fault with.

1837—The Midsummer Sessions were held in the New Courts, though these were as yet scarcely completed.

1838—May 10—A Special County Sessions, to consider the Bill then before Parliament for Amending the Constitution of County Courts and Courts of Quarter Sessions—which proposed to compel the holding of eight sessions in the year, and the holding of courts in various parts of the county; it gave the magistrates the option of having a barrister as a salaried chairman; and proposed alterations in “county courts,” to enable them to be used for the easy recovery of small debts. Mr. Pakington moved a petition against the measure, which Mr. Holland objected to—it was, however, carried by a majority of 23 to 8.

1838—At the Midsummer Sessions the New Shire Hall and Judges’ Lodgings were reported as complete; and a vote of thanks was passed to the Rev. Thomas Pearson for his able and useful exertions as chairman of the building committee for the past five years. The salary of the chaplain was increased to £250 per annum. The court refused to insert the county advertisements either in the Kidderminster Messenger or the Worcestershire Chronicle.

1839—The Epiphany Sessions adjourned to the 14th of January, and afterwards given up entirely, because no clerk of the peace had been appointed since the death of Mr. Blayney—Lord Foley, the Lord Lieutenant, being out of the country.

1839—February 5—A General Sessions of the Peace held in lieu of the Epiphany Sessions, which had been given up. The court petition for a change of law as regards beer houses. The enlargement of the County Gaol, at an expense of £2,100, agreed upon, to obtain sixty additional cells.

1839—At the Easter Sessions the court unanimously agreed to a resolution which the chairman proposed, condemning the existing system of parish constables as insufficient for the detection and punishment of criminals, and promising consideration to any measure the Government might introduce for establishing a rural constabulary. The court again petitioned against the District Courts’ Bill; Mr. Hanford alone dissenting.

1839—At the Michaelmas Sessions the important subject of establishing a rural police was brought forward by Mr. Pakington, according to previous notice. He entered into the whole subject with great ability; pointing out the great increase of crime in the rural districts, as rendering such a measure absolutely necessary, and ended by moving that “it was expedient forthwith to take measures for the adoption in this county of the act for the establishment of county district constables.” After a short discussion the motion was carried with only two dissentients—Dr. Cooper and Rev. Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Pakington proposed that a chief constable and twelve sergeants should be the only appointments under the act at present, because it would be desirable to bring it into operation by degrees. To this Mr. Hanford moved as an amendment, that there should be a chief constable, ten sergeants, and thirty men under them; and this was carried over the original motion by 20 to 18. The salary of the chief constable was fixed at £250 a year; and the Metropolitan Commissioners of Police were requested to nominate a suitable person. The court then adjourned till the 4th November, to receive and consider the rules drawn up by the Secretary of State.

1839—November 4—At the Adjourned Sessions, Mr. Pakington stated that the Government refused to allow the Commissioners of Police to nominate a chief constable, and expressed his great regret that this should be the case, as he thought the magistrates quite incompetent to select a suitable person. He proposed, therefore, that the court should adjourn to the 2nd December, then to consider all applications which might be made for the office, and proceed to the election. Dr. Beale Cooper moved that the further consideration of the plan for forming a constabulary force for the county of Worcester be postponed till the next Easter Quarter Sessions. He maintained that the thing was altogether in a crude state—had not had sufficient examination—that it was a departure from the spirit of the British constitution—and that their present constables were sufficiently on the alert, for since the year 1806 the commitments had increased from 51 to 427—the number in the previous year. William Acton, Esq., seconded the amendment, because he thought the act would probably be altered next session, and because he objected to the expense coming wholly out of the county rates. General Marriott, James Taylor, Esq., and Richard Spooner, Esq., spoke in favour of the motion; and the Rev. Mr. Cartwright for the amendment. Lord Lyttelton thought they were forced to adopt a rural police, because Birmingham and Gloucestershire had got a new force, and the chairman said that they should lose public confidence if a comparatively small bench of magistrates reversed that which had been done a month before by a much larger one. On a division, Mr. Pakington’s motion was carried by 24 to 9. A letter was agreed to, to be sent to the Secretary of State, complaining of the determination Government had come to in the matter of the chief constable. The rules sent down by the Secretary of State for the guidance of the force were agreed to.

1839—December 2—Mr. R. R. Harris, an inspector of London Police, elected chief constable. He had been recommended by the police committee out of 32 applicants, and was chosen by a majority of 21 to 13 votes given for Captain Scargill, who was proposed by the Earl of Coventry. It was determined that the pay of the sergeants should be £80 a year.

1840—October 29—At the Michaelmas Sessions the magistrates became embroiled in a dispute with Mr. W. S. P. Hughes, one of the county coroners, arising out of a complaint made by the constable of Rock, who accused Mr. Hughes of “extorting” a fee of a shilling from him illegally. The fee was “for the crier of the court,” which the coroners in this county had always been in the habit of requiring, but after the passing of the act, 1 and 2 Victoria, certainly could not be sustained; and this Mr. Hughes admitted in a letter to the committee of magistrates which had been appointed to take the matter into consideration. This, however, the committee said came too late; as Mr. Hughes had been repeatedly warned that the fee was illegal, and they considered that he had rendered himself liable to a prosecution “for extortion and misconduct in his office,” or might be removed from the coronership altogether by a petition to the Lord Chancellor. Mr. Hughes applied to be heard against the report, by counsel, but this the court refused by a majority of 33 to 7. Mr. Hughes then protested against the proceedings of the committee as ex parte, and their report as showing an animus against him wholly unwarranted and improper. Mr. Charles Best, coroner, deposed that he and his predecessors in office had always been in the habit of requiring this shilling. After a discussion, the Rev. Thomas Pearson moved the adoption of the report, and that the chairman should inform Mr. Hughes that his charge was illegal, and admonish him accordingly. This was carried, and the chairman “admonished” Mr. Hughes, who immediately said—“I do not consider you have any power to admonish me. I, as coroner of this county, am an officer far superior to the magistrates of this court; and I take leave to tell them that they by no means adopt a proper course when they take upon themselves to admonish a superior officer of the crown.”

1841—January 4—Mr. Helm unanimously appointed county solicitor. The Quarter Sessions advertisements ordered to be inserted in the Worcestershire Chronicle, but not in the Kidderminster Messenger.

1841—April 5—At the Easter Sessions, a new assessment of the county by surveyors was ordered, on which to base the county rate, and £500 placed at the disposal of a committee to obtain it.

1842—January 3—At the Epiphany Sessions, the court agreed to memorialise the Government to pay the cost of the rural police. Memorials from five parishes were presented, complaining of the expense of the police, and declaring that the county rates were nearly doubled by them.

1842—June 27—At the Midsummer Sessions, Dr. Beale Cooper brought forward a motion for the abolition of the rural police, which he said was unconstitutional, and had proved to be utterly inefficient. Colonel Bund seconded the motion. The chairman disposed of Dr. Cooper’s charge of inefficiency in a few words, and regretted that the establishment of a police was not made compulsory on all counties. Dr. Cooper then withdrew his motion.

1842—At the Michaelmas Sessions, Dr. Cooper moved that the county police force be reduced to one sergeant for each Electoral Division, and two constables for each Petty Sessional Division; to which the chairman moved as an amendment, that the question of the propriety of a reduction be referred to the police committee, and this was carried without a division.

1843—January 2—At the Epiphany Sessions, the subject of the rural police was again discussed at great length on the presentation of a special report by the police committee, declaring that the force ought not to be reduced. Mr. Onslow wanted to prevent the reception of the report, but the chairman would not consent to that course, and Mr. Onslow at last was induced to withdraw the resolutions he had intended to propose upon the subject; but a committee was formed to inquire into the provisions of the Parochial Constables’ Act.

Mr. Ellins’s case was brought before the court at these Sessions by Richard Spooner, Esq., who moved for a committee of inquiry into the facts under which Mr. Ricketts had been libelled in the Worcestershire Chronicle, as it was alleged that Mr. Ellins had supplied the information on which the libel was founded. Colonel Bund seconded the motion. Mr. Hanford opposed it, because they would be stepping out of their jurisdiction; and the chairman could not tell what was to be the course or purpose of such a committee. The committee was determined on by 34 to 10, and the chairman, Mr. Hanford, Mr. Spooner, Rev. T. Pearson, Mr. Skey, Hon. W. C. Talbot, and Mr. Temple, were placed upon it. Mr. Ellins’s application to be heard before it by attorney, was agreed to.

The chairman at these Sessions addressed a most valuable statement to the grand jury on the county expenditure, and the causes of the increase in the number and cost of criminal prosecutions.

1843—At the Easter Sessions the committee appointed in Mr. Ellins’s case were about to bring forward their report, when Mr. R. Scott and Mr. R. M. Mence moved that it should not be read, as the matter was one altogether out of the jurisdiction of the court, and with which they had no right to deal. On a division, 20 hands were held up for its being read, to 9 against it. The report was then read, and stated the committee to be of opinion that “Mr. Ellins was the moving party to the publication in the Worcestershire Chronicle, of a most gross and unfounded libel, imputing corruption and jobbing to W. H. Ricketts, Esq., in the execution of his duty as a magistrate and member of the police committee, in carrying into effect the orders of the court.” Mr. Hanford and the Rev. Thomas Pearson, as members of the committee, declared that though they believed Mr. Ellins to be a party to the libel, they did not believe him to be the sole party, as the report seemed to convey. Mr. Scott moved that the report be rejected. The court had no right to take any judicial notice of the acts or character of any of its individual members; and nothing could be more dangerous than for a judicial body to exceed its jurisdiction. Mr. Scott condemned Mr. Spooner for bringing this matter forward at the previous Sessions without notice. Mr. Benson also spoke against the reception of the report. The chairman had always had doubts as to the propriety of their moving in the matter, but thought it discourteous to the committee to reject the report, and it was received by a majority of 28 to 11. On the question of transmitting it to the Lord Lieutenant, there was another division, 20 voting for that course and 11 against it.

1843—At the Midsummer Sessions, Lord Lyttelton addressed a letter to the court, enclosing one from the Lord Chancellor, with his opinion that the proceedings of the magistrates in Mr. Ellins’s case had been very irregular. Lord Lyttelton trusted the magistrates would feel it their “duty carefully to avoid any similar proceedings for the future;” and he requested that his letter might be entered upon the records of the court. Mr. Spooner thought they had a perfect right to do as they had done, and moved that the letter be not entered on the records. The chairman said he had always considered their proceedings irregular, but thought Lord Lyttelton’s “lecture” might just as well have been left alone. The consideration of the letter was at last postponed till the next Sessions.

Mr. Simcox Lea at great length entered into the subject of the rural police, and moved, as a resolution, that their benefit had not been equivalent to their cost. He wanted the Bench to adopt the plan of paid parish constables in their stead, and insisted particularly on the inefficiency of the chief constable. Mr. Noel seconded the motion. The chairman made an able defence of the police, and adduced several instances of their efficiency. Mr. Scott would vote for the motion, because the police were too few to be of much use. Mr. Onslow complained of the number of offences that were committed without detection ensuing. Colonel Bund, the Rev. Thomas Pearson, Mr. Benson, and Colonel Clive, spoke in favour of the police, and the motion was rejected by 34 to 13.

1843—At the Michaelmas Sessions the magistrates determined that the Lord Lieutenant’s letter, in Mr. Ellins’s case, should not be placed upon the records of the court. Mr. Scott was the only magistrate who added anything to the few words which were spoken from the chairman; and he said the whole proceedings ought to be erased from the records, or the Lord Lieutenant’s letter to be added as the conclusion.

1844—At the Easter Sessions, Lord Lyttelton read a paper in re Mr. Ellins’s case, declaring the magistrates’ proceedings in the matter to have been altogether irregular, and suggesting that they ought to be entirely struck out of the records of the court, or his own letter of animadversion on them inserted. As his lordship concluded with no motion, the chairman would not permit any discussion, and the court passed to the next business on the paper.

1844—At the Midsummer Sessions, Mr. Scott again brought this matter forward, by moving that the letter of the Lord Chancellor to the Lord Lieutenant should be entered on the minutes of the court. This was seconded by the Rev. John Pearson, but opposed by the chairman and others, and at last rejected by 28 to 17.

1845—At the Easter Quarter Sessions, the police committee recommended that Dudley, Shipston, and other districts, surrounded by other counties, should be taken into this county for police purposes, and that, to this end, the force should be increased by twenty men, including a superintendent and two sergeants. Mr. Merry moved that only twelve men be added to the force, but this was negatived by 26 to 6, and the original motion carried. Mr. Hanford’s motion to do away with the carts and horses kept by the rural police was negatived by 20 to 17.

1845—At the Midsummer Sessions, Mr. B. L. Stable was elected Governor of the County Gaol, in the room of Mr. Lavender, who retired, and was voted a pension of £149. 10s. per annum.

1847—At the Epiphany Sessions the court agreed to erect a Lunatic Asylum, in connection with the city of Worcester, for the accommodation of 200 pauper lunatics. The total number of such unfortunate beings in Worcestershire was 284, but the court conceived that accommodation for two-thirds would be quite sufficient; and on Dr. B. Cooper suggesting that three-fourths should be provided for, the chairman begged the court not to agree to providing for more than 200 in the first instance, as the expense of these erections was so great. A committee was formed for the purpose of carrying the measure into effect. The Hon. and Rev. W. W. C. Talbot moved for a committee to consider the propriety of dividing the county into districts for police purposes; but Mr. Curtler, from a very carefully prepared table, showed that the police force and their expense were very equitably distributed with regard to the value of the property to be protected in the different districts of the county, and that the agricultural portion were in no sense paying for the support of the police of the manufacturing districts. Mr. Talbot withdrew his motion.

1847—At the Easter Sessions the court, on the motion of the Rev. Thomas Pearson and Mr. Curtler, unanimously agreed to petition in favour of the Juvenile Offenders’ Bill, then introduced into Parliament by Sir John Pakington.

1847—Easter Sessions—On the 19th of December, 1846, the county was divided into three Coroners’ districts by an Order in Council; and at these Sessions the magistrates assigned these districts to Mr. Docker, Mr. Hughes, and Mr. Best. Mr. Robinson still continues to act as coroner for Dudley, but, at his death, Dudley will form district No. 6 in Staffordshire. Mr. Hughes, shortly after his district was assigned, petitioned the Lords of the Treasury for compensation for loss of emolument which he said he sustained by this arrangement, and they awarded him £55 per annum. He was paid two quarters by the county authorities, but they then took an opinion as to the legality of his claim, and this being adverse to Mr. Hughes, they refused to continue the payments. In Hilary Term, 1850, Mr. Hughes applied to the Court of Queen’s Bench, and obtained a rule nisi against the magistrates, to compel them to show cause why the payment should not be continued—which, however, was afterwards discharged, on the ground that as the county had never been customarily divided into districts, Mr. Hughes could not show a loss of any fees to which he was legally entitled.

1848—At the Midsummer Quarter Sessions the court agreed to erect Stourport and neighbourhood into a separate Petty Sessional Division. The Hundred House and Kidderminster magistrates opposed the motion, but it was carried by 18 to 15.

1849—At the Michaelmas Sessions the committee of visitors appointed to superintend the erection of the Lunatic Asylum reported that they had not been able to obtain any tenders for executing the works required at the sum estimated by the architect, chiefly because the lunacy commissioners insisted on the whole building being made fireproof. The total cost of land and buildings would be about £32,000, other extras £3,044; and fittings were not included even in this sum. They had agreed with the London Life Insurance Society for a loan of the money at four per cent. The report was unanimously received.

1850—At the Michaelmas Sessions a report was read from a committee which had been appointed to inquire into the county expenditure, and to ascertain the feasibility of reduction. The cost of prosecutions and gaol expenses for the year 1849 was £8,993. 18s. 3d.; salaries, £2,661. 5s. 2d.; high constable’s cravings, £240; coroner’s cravings, £1,527. 0s. 10d.; clerk of the peace’s cravings, £745. 18s. 2d.; registration of voters, £342. 11s. 8d.; bridges, £580. 14s. 5d.; lunatics, £193. 4s. 2d.; new weights and measures, £858. 3s. 10d.; sundries, £1,099; total, £17,240. 13s. 2d.; police, £7,836. 6s. 9d.; Shire Hall, £1,696. 12s. 9d. The committee reported that the only way in which a reduction could possibly be effected was a reduction in the salaries of the general officers and of the police, which they did not deem advisable, and would rather recommend that Government should be memorialised to defray the cost of the county police, gaol, &c., out of the consolidated fund. The report was adopted without any division.

At the dinner of the magistrates, at the Shire Hall, after the transaction of the county business, the Rev. Thomas Pearson being in the chair, a portrait of Sir John Pakington, Bart., the result of a subscription amongst the magistrates, and which now hangs in the drawing room at the County Courts, was inaugurated.

Upton Bridge has been the bête noir of the county magistrates all through the half century. Since 1810 scarcely a sessions has passed at which it has not been mentioned, and it has given rise to lawsuits, disputes, and embroilments without number. In 1814–16, in 1829, and again in 1847, the magistrates took proceedings against the feoffees of Hall’s Charity—some lands left in 1570 for the repairs of Upton Church and Bridge—to compel them to account or to contribute towards the repairs of this bridge. In 1817 the bridge was reported to be in very doubtful plight, and the advice of Mr. Smirke, the eminent architect, was taken as to the repairs which ought to be done; a considerable sum of money was then laid out upon it. At the Michaelmas Sessions, 1822, a bridge warden was appointed, because much injury had been done to it by mooring vessels to the parapets, and by taking away sand from the foundations. In 1832–34 another considerable sum was spent in repairs; this time the feoffees of Hall’s Charity being concurring parties. In 1837 the parties promoting the Severn Navigation Improvement offered the magistrates £5,000 towards the expense of building a new bridge, but this was not acceeded to; and in 1838 the bench resolved to procure the insertion of a clause in the Severn Navigation Bill then before Parliament, to bear the county harmless from any loss or damage which might arise to Upton bridge from the improvements in the river; but no proceedings were necessary to be taken under that resolution, because the bill was thrown out. In 1842, £121 were expended in repairs, to keep the bridge from falling. The magistrates would not do more than was absolutely necessary, because they did not know how the operations of the Severn Commissioners might affect it. At the Midsummer Sessions, 1845, a committee was appointed to confer with the commissioners about the state of the bridge. At the Epiphany Sessions, 1846, the county surveyors recommended that £1,260 should be immediately spent on the bridge; and the magistrates at the same Sessions declared themselves “neutral” as to the bill then introduced by the Severn Commissioners. This bill took power to alter the bridge by the introduction of a swivel. At the Epiphany Sessions, 1847, Mr. Curtler read an elaborate report, in explanation of the liability of the feoffees of Hall’s Charity to aid in the repairs of the bridge; in consequence of which proceedings were taken, and in 1849 the matter was referred to a Master in Chancery. It was not finally settled till 1851, when Lord Langdale, Master of the Rolls, ordered the feoffees thenceforth to divide the receipts into three parts—the first for the church, the second for the repairs of the bridge, and the third for the general good of the town. At the Michaelmas Sessions, 1847, another committee was appointed to inquire into the state of the bridge, and to confer with the Severn Navigation Commissioners; but at the next Epiphany Sessions, Mr. Curtler, by a majority of 19 to 8, carried a proposition to seek to obtain a clause in the Commissioners’ Bill then before Parliament, to limit their power over the bridge to three years: the bill, however, was thrown out on second reading. The rest of the year was consumed in an attempt to get from Mr. Walker, C.E., a report on the state of the bridge, and in conferences with the Commissioners. At the Easter Sessions, 1849, Mr. Walker’s report was read, which recommended that the bridge should entirely be rebuilt; and a motion to that effect, made by the chairman, was carried almost unanimously. It is needless now to say, that nothing further was done in the matter but to talk about it at each succeeding Sessions, till the bridge concluded its own history by falling down during a high flood which occurred in February, 1851. It was built in 1605; and there can be no doubt that four of the original arches remained just as they had been first erected, until the day when they tumbled down of sheer old age.

REMARKABLE TRIALS.

The following are brief notes of some of the more interesting trials, as well civil as criminal, which have occupied the attention of the Courts of Assize, or Quarter Sessions, in this county, during the present century.

The King v. Waddington—In the summer of 1800 a criminal information was filed against S. F. Waddington, Esq., an eminent hop merchant residing in London, “for monopolising practices in the purchase of hops” in this county. The rule having been made absolute, the case came on for trial at the Worcestershire Summer Assizes, in that year, before Sir Simon Le Blanc and a special jury, at Nisi Prius. Mr. Plumer, principal counsel for prosecution, stated the offence to be—enhancing the price of hops by spreading rumours of scarcity among the planters, advising them not to sell, and by engrossing a large quantity of that commodity. Mr. Waddington was described as having invited the planters to a dinner, and given them as a toast, “Hops, £20 a cwt;” telling them that they had never had a large enough price, begging them to hold back, and promising to buy himself at an increased rate, rather than they should be distressed for money. Such was the enthusiasm created by his speech, that one gentleman got up afterwards and proposed, “Mr. Waddington, the saviour of the country.” He afterwards did buy great quantities of hops in Worcester market, at prices varying from 10s. to 40s. above those current prior to his appearance. The counsel characterised this forestalling as a “crime of deepest dye;” and “long, very long, had the people of this country borne with the most exemplary fortitude this greatest of all public evils.” Mr. Dauncey, Mr. Waddington’s counsel, insisted that his client had only acted as other factors were in the habit of doing, and if he were punished, the private enterprise of the country would receive a most grievous check and injury. He said the offence of “engrossing” was a most undefinable one, and not cognizable by the common law. The learned judge admitted this was a moot point, but remarked on the enormity of the offence, and told the jury they had only to say whether or no the evidence made out to them the fact of Mr. Waddington’s having done that which the indictment set forth. The jury, after this charge, immediately returned a verdict of “guilty.” On the 24th of November, Mr. Waddington was brought up for judgment in King’s Bench. Mr. Law moved in arrest of judgment, arguing that engrossing was no longer an offence at common law. Hops, too, were not “victuals.” Mr. Waddington, speaking in his own defence, arraigned the whole proceedings as altogether incompatible with the right of the individual to use his capital in trade as he pleased. Mr. Erskine, in support of judgment, said that hops being a commodity so easily engrossed, required to be strictly regulated: the practice of engrossing was innocent neither in the eyes of man nor God. Lord Kenyon, though not giving judgment, spoke at length on the matter. Hops were as much a “victual” as salt, both being used for the preservation of victuals; and he was old enough to recollect an application being made to that court for an information for a conspiracy to raise the price of salt at Droitwich. Mr. Waddington was remanded to prison till the last day of term. The judges then declared themselves of opinion that there ought to be no new trial, and that there was no defence. He was again remanded to prison till the ensuing term, in spite of a spirited remonstrance, and a reference to the case of Horne Tooke, whom Lord Kenyon characterised as a “bankrupt in character and fortune, and destitute of every virtue and quality which could command respect.” On the 8th of December, Mr. Waddington was found guilty, by a London jury, of “engrossing” hops in the county of Kent. While in prison he sold a ton of potatoes daily for ½d. per lb., and appropriated the proceeds to the benefit of his poorer fellow prisoners. On the 25th of January, 1801, Mr. Waddington was finally brought up for judgment, and Mr. Justice Grose declared that the court being unanimously of opinion that the information on which Mr. Waddington had been convicted was well supported at common law, he was sentenced to pay a fine of £500, and to be imprisoned one month. On the 4th of June, Mr. Waddington having been confined in King’s Bench prison upwards of twenty-seven weeks, at last purged his crime, and went down to Maidstone. At Tunbridge he was feasted at a superb dinner, and about two miles thence was met by a number of hop planters, who took the horses from his carriage, covered it with wreaths of hop bine, and had it drawn by relays of men (twelve miles) to Maidstone. There he rode in triumph through the streets; made a speech which was received with immense acclamation; “Waddington and the freedom of commerce” resounded through the streets; and a subscription on his behalf was entered into.

1802—At the Summer Assizes, held before Mr. Justice Lawrence and Mr. Justice Le Blanc, three men and one woman (for privately stealing) were sentenced to death, but all respited. Three privates in the 5th Dragoons were tried for the murder of Samuel Porter, ostler at the New Inn, Pershore, and one named Rankins was found guilty; but as the fatal blow was struck in what might be considered an affray, some points were reserved for the twelve judges, and his sentence was ultimately commuted to transportation.

1803—At the Summer Assizes this year there were only seven prisoners in both county and city for trial, and, of these, three were acquitted. Of the remaining four, Thomas Beach for uttering a forged £5 note, and Elizabeth Guise for robbing her master, Mr. Blizard of Stoulton, were sentenced to death. Beach was executed; the woman reprieved. At the same Assizes the Rev. J. F. Tonyn, rector of Alvechurch, recovered £300 damages from the Rev. Henry Lynam, his curate, for criminal conversation with his wife.

1805—February 21—In the Court of King’s Bench an indictment was preferred by Mr. Forrester, of Elmley, in this county, against Colonel Passingham and a Mr. Edwards. Colonel Passingham had once been an intimate friend of Mr. Forrester, had debauched his wife, and carried her off, in January, 1803. Edwards was, also, once Forrester’s friend, but becoming a bankrupt, and prosecutor being his opposing creditor, he became his implacable enemy. Both then conspired to oblige the prosecutor to make a very large settlement upon his wife, and he was actually terrified into doing so by charges of horrible crimes. These facts being proved on the part of the prosecution, the defendants brought forward eleven witnesses to swear that Mr. Forrester had actually been guilty of the offences alleged—but they utterly broke down. The jury found both prisoners guilty of the conspiracy. Being brought up for judgment in the ensuing term, they were both sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in Newgate; the additional punishment of the pillory being specially remitted, lest their lives should be forfeited by any indignant violence on the part of the populace. Mr. Forrester afterwards obtained a divorce from his wife, she having contrived to visit Passingham in prison, and assumed his name.

1807—At the Summer Assizes a special jury cause at Nisi Prius, in which Sir John Geers Cottrell, Bart., as heir at law of Mrs. Freeman of Henley Park, brought an action of ejectment against Joseph Harris, Esq., of Stanford, the sole executor and residuary legatee of that lady, appears to have excited much interest. The jury returned a verdict for defendant, establishing Mr. Harris’s right to a considerable estate in the parish of Rock, and other property. Attorney for defendant—Mr. Hyde, Worcester. At the Summer Assizes the cause again came on, the plaintiff having obtained a new trial. Some of the most celebrated counsel of the day were engaged—Mr. Garrow being retained by the plaintiff, and Sir Thomas Plumer for defendant. After a twenty-four hours’ battle, the jury confirmed the verdict of the former jury by a verdict for defendant. The finding gave general satisfaction.

1808—August—At the Worcester Summer Assizes this year was tried the cause of Hill v. Smith, an action brought to try the right of the Corporation of Worcester to toll on wheat sold by sample, and of course a matter of great interest to the agriculturists of the county generally. The Corporation pleaded—“1st, that from time immemorial they had taken a pint of wheat out of each bag, as a toll on wheat sold by sample in the market, and afterwards brought into the city: 2nd, the same justification, except that the taking was in the name of toll, and not as a distress: 3rd, that the Corporation were seized in fee of the Manor of Worcester, and that the toll was taken in respect of such manor: 4th, that the Corporation had immemorially repaired the horse and carriage road in the Corn Market, amongst others, and by reason thereof had immemorially taken the toll on all grain brought over the Corn Market to be delivered to a buyer.” The evidence fixed the custom of sale by sample to have commenced in the year 1760. The learned judge directed the jury to withdraw from their consideration the question of toll traverse in respect of the manor, and toll thorough (the last issue), the Corporation being unable to support these issues, and desired them to consider whether the grant (by charter, enabling them to toll wheat) was not originally for all corn sold, both where the bulk or only a part was brought into the market. The jury, after an hour and a half’s consideration, returned a verdict for the Corporation on the second and third issues, and for the agriculturists on the others. Counsel for the agriculturists—Mr. Sergeant Williams, Messrs. Jervis, Abbott, and Lord; attorney, Mr. Hill: for the Corporation, Messrs. Dauncey, Wigley, Puller, and Mence; attorney, Mr. Weller.

1808—At the Summer Assizes, William Reynolds, convicted of an assault upon a female, was sentenced to be imprisoned fourteen days, and to stand in the pillory at Tenbury. Ann Green, for stealing brushes, was ordered to be privately whipped; and four men, for divers crimes, were sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment and a public whipping.

1809—July 14—Worcester Summer Assizes. R. Baylis, churchwarden of Elmley Lovett, was tried for painting up libels against the rector, the Rev. G. Waldron, upon the walls of the parish church. They were principally texts of scripture, the intended application of which, however, could not be doubted. He was sentenced to pay a fine, and to twelve months’ imprisonment.

1810—Lent Assizes—A. Lechmere, Esq., v. Disson, was a trial to recover compensation for negligence in the defendant in the manufacture of oil-cake. Mr. Lechmere had paid great attention to the feeding of cattle, and had brought oil-cake into much greater notice than it had been before. He purchased a quantity from defendant, but finding his cattle did not thrive upon it as he expected, he had it analysed; and several witnesses declared, that due attention had not been paid to the clearing of the seed by skreening and sifting it; so that a great deal of extraneous matter was left in the cake.—Verdict for the plaintiff: damages, £50.

1812—April 20—A case of assault and battery, Overbury v. Moseley, tried in the Worcester City Court. It arose out of a street row, which occurred in the previous November. Overbury and another insulted some lady in the Foregate Street, and Moseley came up to her help, and gave Overbury a thorough thrashing, for which he brought this plaint. The mayor having impartially summed up, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. Defendant conducted his own cause. Complainant was represented by Mr. Sockett, an attorney of Worcester, who exerted himself for his client beyond his strength, became ill, and soon afterwards died.

1812—June—Hill v. Smith in error, having been argued before the Court of Exchequer. Sir J. Mansfield, after many delays, now gave judgment. The court held that a sale by sample was not a legal contract for the sale of anything whatever, and that the lord or superior of an open market was not entitled to any toll on commodities not brought in bulk. A sale by sample had been held by Lord Coke, and other great law authorities, to be illegal, as contrary to the principle and object for which a market was established. The verdict for the Corporation (obtained at Worcester Summer Assizes, 1808) was therefore reversed, and the cause remitted to the court below to ascertain the amount of damages the plaintiff was entitled to for the trespass committed in taking his corn; which were, of course, merely nominal.

1814—August—At the Hereford Summer Assizes was tried Ford v. Racster, being an action brought by the executors of Dr. Ford, as Rector of Cradley, Herefordshire, against Miss Racster, of Worcester, to try the question of the liability of blackpoles to tithe. It was argued for defendant, that these blackpoles, being more than twenty years’ growth, were timber trees; but the jury decided that they were not, according to the custom of the country, and thereupon verdict was entered for plaintiff, and damages assessed at £100, being for eleven years’ fallage.

1816—At the Lent Assizes was tried an action for libel, brought by the Rev. Joseph Shapland against Richard Mug Mence, Esq. Verdict for plaintiff. The Rev. Mr. Shapland pleaded guilty to an indictment for an assault. At the ensuing assizes he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, and to enter into recognizances to keep the peace for seven years, himself in £500, and two sureties in £250 each. Mr. Shapland was Vicar of St. Peter’s, and had some unhappy disputes with his wife, to settle which Mr. Mence had been called in as a mutual friend. After a while, conceiving Mrs. Shapland to have been ill-treated, Mr. Mence took her part very decidedly, and refused to sit in company with Mr. Shapland. Mr. S. at this was greatly exasperated; and meeting Mr. Mence one day walking near the Guildhall, he struck him several times with a heavy walking stick. Mr. Mence received the blows on his arm, which was severely injured. Mr. M. afterwards published a pamphlet, containing a long detail of Mr. Shapland’s family jars, and the part he had himself taken therein; and this was the libel complained of. In November, 1812, Mr. Mence was called up for judgment in the King’s Bench, and sentenced by Lord Ellenborough to six months’ imprisonment, and afterwards to find sureties to keep the peace, himself in £1,000, and two sureties of £500 each. The two gentlemen were thus both imprisoned at the same time—the one in the city, and the other in the county gaol.

1817—At the Lent Assizes, held before Mr. Justice Park and Mr. Justice Burrough, no less than twenty prisoners were sentenced to death, most of them for sheep stealing; but they were all afterwards reprieved.

1818—At the Lent Assizes this year, the trial of Joseph Steers, a respectable tradesman of Worcester, and six others, charged with being concerned in the “freemen’s riots,” and the demolition of the buildings upon Pitchcroft, created the most intense interest, and at one part of the proceedings there was an absolute tumult in court, so great was the crush of people. The history of these riots is as follows: In 1817 the “popular mind” of Worcester was much agitated and incensed by buildings being erected on the corner of Pitchcroft Ham, nearest to the city, and known as Little Pitchcroft. The citizens viewed any encroachment on this lung of the city with commendable jealousy, as it was their principal resort for amusement and promenade; besides which, each freeman had some property in the Ham, having a right of pasturage thereon. A meeting was accordingly called in August, at the Hoppole Inn, to protect the rights of the freemen in this matter. Richard Spooner, Esq., then exceedingly active in all popular movements in Worcester, was called to the chair, and a committee was appointed, who issued notices to the parties who had built upon the Ham to remove their erections before the 29th of September. On the 15th of September, however, the committee met, and agreed that as the removal of the whole buildings would be attended with great loss to a charity which derived considerable revenue from the wharfs, &c., it would be more desirable only to remove those buildings and fences which were most obnoxious. On this decision being made known, the populace determined to take the matter into their own hands; and on the morning of the 29th assembled in large numbers, and commenced the demolition of such of the fences and buildings as were not strong enough to resist their efforts. The mayor came down to the spot and read the Riot Act, but nobody took any heed of his worship, who, with the magistrates, then began to swear in everybody as special constables—the said “specials” standing by and looking on at the demolition, very anxious to keep the peace, but not venturing to interrupt the mob. At last some of the yeomanry assembled, but being pelted with stones, they retreated to the Star and Garter yard, and made no further appearance. The demolition was concluded next morning; everybody saying that it was most disgraceful, but nevertheless glad that it was done. Steers and other persons, who had taken part in the work of destruction, were indicted (under statutes which had recently been passed) for a capital offence; but Mr. Jervis, counsel for the prosecutor, Mr. John Edmunds, declared that that was only done in order to have a foundation to recover the damages he had sustained during the riot. After two witnesses had been examined, Mr. Justice Burrough, who presided, said there was enough evidence to convict the whole prisoners of a capital offence, and advised them to throw themselves on the mercy of the court. This course they adopted; and his lordship then discharged them, on entering into recognizances of £100 each, to keep the peace for twelve months. The greatest possible interest had been made on behalf of these parties; and Lord Deerhurst, whose efforts were supposed to have contributed greatly to the lenity with which they were treated, was almost overwhelmed, on leaving the court, by the tumultuous approbation of the populace. The mob endeavoured to drag Mr. Justice Burrough in triumph through the city, on leaving for Stafford; but his lordship instantly called in the aid of the javelin men, and threatened to commit the foremost of the crowd. To finish the story here; immediately after these assizes, the agitation about the encroachments was recommenced, and Mr. Thomas Carden, one of the six masters, put forth a statement that the four acres in dispute were the gift of Thomas Wylde, Esq., formerly of the Commandry in the city of Worcester, to the Corporation; and the rents and profits of this land had been uniformly applied to the benefit of the Free School, and Trinity Alms Houses. Having in 1796 let out this land in lots, the six masters had been enabled to increase the pay, to twenty-nine old women, from 3s. to 6s. per month, which was a thing much more worth doing than to allow one thousand freemen the pasturage thereon, from Old Midsummer Day to Old Candlemas Day. A common hall was shortly afterwards held, at which the committee appointed for protecting the freemen’s rights made their report. It was read by R. Spooner, Esq., and stated that they had ordered entries to be made on two of the plots in Little Pitchcroft; the result of which had been, that actions had been brought against the enterers, and the venue changed by the plaintiffs to Gloucester. The committee now wanted to know whether the claims of the freemen were to be contested or abandoned, as in the former case it would be necessary that the city generally should enter into a subscription to provide the sinews of war. The report was adopted, and a subscription forthwith commenced. A motion to make terms with the six masters was rejected. Just before the trial came on, however, the matter was settled by arrangement, concessions being made on either side; and buildings cover the greater part of “Little Pitchcroft” to this day.

1819—At the Summer Assizes, John Grindley, of Bromsgrove, was tried on a charge of wilfully murdering Thomas Mannering. They had quarrelled in a public house, gone out into the street to fight, but there made up their differences, and sat upon the public stocks, drinking some beer. While thus occupied, Grindley stabbed Mannering twice so severely that he died next day. He was found guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.

1820—At the Lent Assizes, John Burton was convicted of the murder of one Jaunty, in Worcester, on the 30th of July, 1819. Parties who had been employed by the Excise to seize some malt, were met at the back of the Hoppole Inn by a number of persons from the neighbouring public houses, and a general battle commenced; the interest of which at length concentrated itself in a fight between Burton and Jaunty. They had several rounds, and Jaunty at last getting the better of his antagonist, Burton ran off to his house, but presently returned with a pike, and stabbed Jaunty right through the heart and lungs. Burton was, however, reprieved on a point of law. At these assizes, twenty-seven persons were sentenced to death (one a woman, for stealing thirty-nine yards of bombazine from a shop at Stourbridge), but all were reprieved, except one for highway robbery.

1820—March 24—A curious application was made to the Lord Chancellor by the guardians of Sir Roger Gresley, a young man of twenty, and a ward of Chancery, to restrain the Earl and Countess of Coventry, and the Hon. John Coventry, from encouraging a marriage between Sir Roger and Lady Sophia Coventry, daughter of the earl, aged seventeen. There had been negociations for a marriage, rent rolls having been handed to the guardians, &c.; but as no settlement could be made on the bride till Sir Roger was of age, the matter was postponed. The court took it in dudgeon that anything should have been done towards disposing of its ward in matrimony without its license, &c.

1821—February 13—A rule moved for in the Court of King’s Bench on behalf of the magistrates of Worcestershire, to compel the inhabitants of Ombersley to pay £150 into the hands of the clerk of the peace for the repairs of Hawford Bridge. The Ombersley people replied that they were going to repair, and that £50 would be quite sufficient to do all that was needed. The rule was granted, but enlarged to the next term to admit of time for the repairs being effectively carried out by the inhabitants of Ombersley themselves, if they so pleased.

1821—At the Lent Assizes, before Mr. Baron Jarrow, an action was brought by a schoolmaster at Dudley, a little deformed man, named Hilliard, to recover damages from Mr. Badger for knocking his hat off at the theatre, because he would not take it off when the national anthem was being played. Mr. Badger, in the zeal of his loyalty, not only knocked the unfortunate pedagogue’s hat off, but the pedagogue himself off the bench; and Mr. Baron Jarrow, in summing up, intimated that he thought he was rather to be commended than otherwise, and pictured to the jury “the glorious sight of a whole audience in a theatre paying a just tribute of veneration to their sovereign.” The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff: damages, one farthing.

1821—August—At the Midsummer Assizes was tried, Jarratt v. the Mayor and Corporation of Evesham, being an attempt to establish the right of any person who had served a freeman of that borough for an apprenticeship of seven years to be himself admitted a freeman. The Corporation admitted that if the whole service had been within the borough the custom was to admit; but if the master and apprentice had lived elsewhere any period of the time then the right of admission failed. A verdict was entered for the Corporation.

1823—Two men, named Oliver and Skinner, convicted at the Easter City Sessions of a most unprovoked assault on three journeymen carpenters going home one dark night in January, and sentenced—Oliver to six months, and Skinner to nine months’ imprisonment. These two fellows were part of a fraternity calling themselves “lambs,” who used to infest the streets of Worcester at night for the sole purpose of annoying more peaceably disposed persons. At the trial they brought a number of witnesses to prove an alibi, but utterly failed, and disclosed the most unblushing perjury in lieu thereof.

1823—William Taylor, a working stone mason, recovered £120 damages in the Sheriff’s Court, for a fright into which he had been put by Henry Geast Dugdale, Esq., a magistrate of Worcestershire, living at Bordesley Park. He was one of some workmen who were erecting a stone lodge for defendant, who one day, when they had nearly finished, came up and peremptorily ordered them off his premises. He said he had been told by his master not to leave till he had finished the job; but Mr. Dugdale, foaming with rage, presented his gun at him, cocked it, and declared he would shoot Taylor presently, if he were not gone; whereupon he dropped his chisel and mallet in a terror, took to his heels, and had been declining in health ever since—such had been the effect of the alarm upon his nervous system. Mr. Dugdale, in addressing the jury, said “he once took a noble earl by the collar, and forced him off his lands;” and hereupon Lord Plymouth, writing to the Worcester papers, said Mr. Dugdale no doubt meant himself, but that the whole statement was entirely untrue.

1824—At the Midsummer Assizes, before Mr. Justice Littledale, was tried the cause of Pierpoint v. Shapland, in which Matthew Pierpoint, Esq., of Worcester, surgeon (and as it proved upon the trial, physician also), brought an action for slander against Miss Susanna Shapland, a lady then residing in College Green. The damages were laid at £5,000. Mr. Pierpoint had been called in to attend Mrs. Isaacs, Miss Shapland’s sister, shortly before her death, and administered an emetic: after that he ceased to attend her, and Miss Shapland afterwards told Mrs. Henry Clifton that Mr. P. had treated her sister improperly. Mr. Jervis was counsel for plaintiff, and Mr. Russell for defendant. A verdict was returned for plaintiff, with 39s. damages. This trial excited extraordinary interest—ladies, to make sure of places, going to the courts at five o’clock in the morning.

1825—At the Lent Assizes an action for libel, against Chalk and Holl, was tried before Mr. Justice Littledale. It was brought by a painter named Davis, who had, by mistake, been described in a paragraph in the Worcester Herald as concerned in a street row and an assault upon a watchman. The party’s name was Davis, but not the one pointed at in the paragraph, and defendants, finding their error, corrected it in the next paper and apologised; nevertheless Davis persisted in the action, urged thereto, as it came out in the trial, by his attorney, who had undertaken that it should cost him nothing. The counsel engaged were—for the plaintiff, Mr. Campbell (now Lord Chief Justice Campbell); and for defendant, Mr. Russell. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, as the judge told them they must to do so, with damages one farthing.

1827—Summer Assizes, before Mr. Justice Littledale. The King v. Cooke was an action against a draper, at Dudley, of the most Radical cast, for publishing libels on His Majesty’s Government. The libels were placards exhibited in the defendant’s window during a time of great disturbance amongst the colliers, in May, 1826. The case had been entered for trial at previous assizes, but put off from time to time. The alleged libel in the placards was the assertion that ministers were bringing starvation upon the people by their measures. Mr. Whateley was for the prosecution, and Mr. Campbell for the defence. The appearance of the placards in the defendant’s window having been proved, Mr. Andrew Gracewood, doorkeeper at the Foreign Office, was put in the box to prove that Earl Liverpool and others mentioned in the handbills were at the time of their publication ministers of state. Mr. Campbell, of course, ridiculed the whole prosecution, and said Cooke was being made the victim of private malice. The judge told the jury the handbills were libellous, so they returned a verdict of guilty. Cooke was only required to enter into sureties to appear when called up.

1827—At the Lent Assizes this year there were nearly a hundred prisoners for trial, and against twenty-four of them sentence of death was recorded.

At these assizes was tried Agg v. Timbrell, in which the plaintiff recovered £7 damages for the injury done to his gig by the negligent driving of the defendant’s coachman. Mr. Charles Phillips was counsel for plaintiff, and Mr. Taunton for defendant. The affair was chiefly curious from the remark of defendant, who, when the accident happened and Agg complained, said, “Do you know who I am? I’m Doctor Timbrell, Doctor of Divinity, Archdeacon, and magistrate in two counties. Don’t talk to me, or I’ll commit you!”

1828—In November, this year, in the King’s Bench, a rule for a criminal information against the Rev. Humphry Price, for issuing inflammatory handbills at the time of the late strike between the Kidderminster weavers and their masters, was made absolute. The Rev. gentleman appeared in court himself, and avowed himself to be the author of the placards charged against him. The cause against him was tried at the next Hereford Lent Assizes. A number of verses, entitled “The Complaint of a Kidderminster Weaver’s Wife to her Infant,” appeared to be most complained of; they ended thus:

“O cruel, cruel, cruel masters,
Dare ye thus mock at our disasters?
See parent, child, to phrenzy given,
And dream yourselves of reaching heaven?

Rouse from your slumbers! count the price
Of your own cursed avarice;
And count it well, ere taught too late
To dread than ours a far worse fate.”

Mr. Campbell defended the Rev. gentleman, but he was found guilty, and being brought up for judgment next term, was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment, and adjudged to pay the costs.

1829—At the Midsummer Assizes, before Mr. Baron Vaughan, John Hunter, Esq., of Pershore, was tried for feloniously altering a deed. A true bill had been returned against Mr. Hunter at the Lent Assizes, but he was enlarged till the Midsummer Assizes on very heavy bail. The respectability of Mr. Hunter, who but for this charge would this very year have been High Sheriff of the County, caused the intensest interest to be felt in the trial, and the courts were thronged to suffocation. Mr. Campbell, K.C., Mr. Sergeant Ludlow, Mr. Carwood, and Mr. Godson, were the counsel for the prosecution; and Mr. Taunton, Mr. Sergeant Russell, and Mr. C. Phillips, assisted the defendant, who, as the law then stood, was obliged to address the jury himself, and could only avail himself of counsel in cross-examination, this being a misdemeanour. The charge against Mr. Hunter was that he had erased the words “part of” from a deed which he held, and the effect of the erasure would be to put him in possession of the whole of the premises to which it referred. In fact, in 1825 he brought an action on the strength of this deed to recover the whole of the premises, but permitted himself to be non-suited. Mr. Hunter, in the written defence he handed in to be read to the jury, contented himself with denying any knowledge of how the erasure came about, and that it existed in the deed when it first came into his possession, he having bought the property as an entire property. The evidence given, and some of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution, were of a very doubtful character; and after the long array of witnesses which Mr. Hunter called to speak to a long life of unblemished uprightness, the jury said they would not trouble his lordship to sum up, and Mr. Hunter must be honourably acquitted.

1830—At the Summer Assizes, before Mr. Sergeant Bosanquet, came on the case of Chalk and Holl v. Robinson, M.P., being an action to recover £13. 8s. 6d. for printing electioneering squibs on Mr. Robinson’s behalf, at the election of 1826. They were written and ordered by some of Mr. Robinson’s agents and solicitors, and his object in resisting the claim was to disown any personal connection with them. The matter was referred, at the judge’s request, to Mr. Holroyd; and he awarded the sum claimed to the plaintiffs, holding Mr. Robinson liable; Mr. Brampton proving that the orders came from his committee room.

THE ODDINGLEY MURDER.

The annals of crime record few tragedies so fearful in their enactment, so mysterious in their present concealment, so singular in their ultimate discovery as the Oddingley murder. A clergyman is shot at noon-day, while walking in his own fields—the assassin and the motive are perfectly known, yet he eludes justice, and suddenly and for ever disappears. Some of the men to whom common rumour points as the probable instigators of the crime, pass to their account, and make no sign. At last, when twenty-four years have elapsed, the body of the murderer is strangely discovered, in a state of preservation and under circumstances which leave no room to doubt that he was himself murdered by those who had hired him to commit the crime they were afraid to perpetrate with their own hands.

Thus circumstance combined with circumstance to increase the romance of this tale of blood, and invest it with a fearful interest, creating an unparalleled excitement, not only in this neighbourhood but throughout the whole country. People delighted to point to it, as showing how, with silent footfall, justice ever tracks the murderer’s steps, and at last exposes his guilt to the gaze of day, with whatever care and midnight secrecy he has sought to hide and cover it. But it showed, also, that the punishment of murder, as of other crimes, is sometimes postponed to a more perfect time of retribution, and that men doubly dyed with the blood of others—shed under the influence of passions the most detestable—avarice, hate, and fear—can walk their lives long among their fellows with a smooth brow, and at last placidly turn their faces to the wall without, to outward seeming, one pang of remorse or outcry of conscience.

The first notice of this terrible crime appeared in the Worcester papers of June 26, 1806, and is as follows:

“The Rev. G. Parker, rector of Oddingley, in this county, was, on Tuesday evening last, most inhumanly murdered in a field near his own dwelling house. The perpetrator of this cruel deed discharged a gun at the unfortunate gentleman, the contents of which entered his right side; and afterwards, in a manner peculiarly atrocious, with the butt end of his gun fractured his skull. An inquest was held the following day, before R. Barneby, Esq., coroner, when the jury returned this verdict—‘Wilful murder, by some person or persons unknown.’”

Mr. Parker was an amiable man and benevolent to the poor, but there had been an unhappy dispute between him and his parishioners about the tithes, which was perfectly well understood to have been the cause prompting to his death. His predecessor had been in the habit of compounding with the farmers for his tithes, they giving him in lieu thereof £135 per annum. Mr. Parker, considering this inadequate, proposed raising it to £150. Captain Evans, one of his parishioners, however, prevailed on the farmers to join him in resisting this proposal, and Mr. Parker, in consequence, collected the tithe. After he had done so for two years, the farmers, finding themselves losers by the system, offered to accede to the proposal previously made. Mr. Parker told them he was still willing to abide by it, but required, as he had been at an expense of £150 in erecting a barn, and making other arrangements for collecting the tithe, that they should, in addition, repay him that sum, but this was refused.

The magistrates, immediately after the murder, issued a bill, offering a reward of fifty guineas for the apprehension of the murderer, and minutely described the person and dress of Richard Hemming, a carpenter of Droitwich, who was at once suspected as the perpetrator of this fearful crime. The report of the gun was heard by several parties, and two persons from Worcester saw Hemming escaping over some fields in the neighbourhood of the spot—indeed he was distinctly traced to a wood at Lench, but there all trace of him was entirely lost, and it was thought that he had left the country in security. A free pardon was offered at the time by Government to any accomplices in the murder who would become king’s evidence.

In June, 1807, a man, who had enlisted into the marines, was detained by the magistrates at Plymouth on suspicion of being Hemming. Mr. Carden immediately despatched parties to ascertain the truth of the matter, but it proved to be a case of mistaken identity. The affair, though public notice of it was hushed, was never forgotten—the country people had their beliefs and traditions concerning it, and though it was confidently affirmed by some that Hemming had been seen alive in America, the real truth was more than guessed at. It was by some firmly believed that Hemming had been murdered by the parties who employed him to assassinate Mr. Parker, and they themselves seemed scarcely anxious to avoid the imputation. Captain Evans, whom all pointed at as being the principal instigator of the assassination, constantly kept standing upon his estate a certain clover rick, which he had made three days only after Mr. Parker’s murder, and when he parted with the estate two years afterwards to a Mr. Barnett, this rick was still kept standing. The general belief was that Hemming’s body had been buried beneath this rick, and in 1816 Hemming’s widow (then married again) made a deposition before the Droitwich magistrates of her conviction that this was the case. A search warrant was granted, but in that same night the clover rick mysteriously disappeared, and though the ground which it had covered was carefully dug up, nothing was discovered. Captain Evans, at the time of Mr. Parker’s murder, lived upon the Church Farm, Oddingley; but in 1808 he went to reside on a small estate called New House, upon the confines of the two parishes of Hadsor and Oddingley. Here he remained till 1826, when he went to Droitwich, and there lived till his death, which occurred in 1829; he was then ninety-four years of age. He was formerly a captain in the 89th Foot, and received half pay up to the day of his death. He was a magistrate of the borough of Droitwich.

It may be well conceived that all idea of any further discovery of the circumstances under which this terrible crime was committed had long been given up, and that the discovery of the skeleton of Hemming created the most startling surprise. On the 21st January, 1830, a carpenter named Burton was engaged in removing a barn upon the Netherwood Farm, Oddingley, which, at the time of Mr. Parker’s murder, was occupied by Mr. Thomas Clewes. He had begun to remove the foundation when he met with a pair of shoes and carpenter’s rule. The story of Hemming immediately recurred to his mind, and, carefully covering up again what he had found, he went to the magistrates of Droitwich and the coroner of the county (Mr. William Smith). The further investigation of the spot was very carefully conducted by the neighbouring magistrates and Mr. Pierpoint of Worcester; and the whole skeleton of a man, of just such height and make as Hemming was known to have been, was disclosed to view. His former wife particularly identified the remains by the mouth and teeth, and declared her firm belief to be that the rule which Burton had found was that which Hemming used customarily to carry in his pocket. The bones of the skull had been beaten into many pieces. An inquest was commenced upon these remains on the following Tuesday, and, by adjournment, on the Friday; at the close of which sitting, Thomas Clewes was taken into custody on suspicion of having been concerned in the murder of Hemming, and in the course of the next day he expressed his desire to make a confession. The coroner and jury accordingly went to him in the County Gaol, where, with great composure, he gave the following account of the circumstances under which Hemming was himself murdered on the evening of the day after that on which he had shot Mr. Parker. Whether it is the absolute truth or not, coming as it did from an accomplice, must always be a matter of doubt, but it is at any rate all that will now be known of this deed of terror.

CLEWES’S CONFESSION.

“On the morrow morning after the parson was shot (I mean the Rev. Mr. Parker, Rector of Oddingley), it was on Bromsgrove fair day—I cannot recollect exactly the year—about seven o’clock, George Bankes came down to me, and says, ‘We have got Hemming, who shot the parson, at our house (meaning Captain Evans’s) this morning, and I do not know what to do with him—will you let him come down here?’ I said, ‘I will not have him here, nor have nothing to do with him.’ Bankes then went off. Bankes said, ‘he is lurking down in the meadows.’ I went up to Oddingley about eleven o’clock in the day to Mr. Jones’s; Mr. Jones is dead, and Mr. Nash lives in the farm now. As I went up the road side, I suppose he (meaning Captain Evans) kept sight of me all the way. The Captain called to me; he was in his garden, close by the road side; he followed me out of the garden into the field, and said he wanted to speak with me. He said, ‘I’ve had Hemming at our house this morning, and something must be done by him; he is lurking down towards your house now; I ordered him to get into your buildings by day-time, if possible, or at the edge of night, that you (meaning witness) might not see him, or any of your family, and somewhat must be done by him. I shall come down to your house at night, and bring somebody with me, and we must give the poor devil some money, or do something with him, and send him off; will you get up and come to the barn? it won’t detain you a minute.’ I refused coming, and said, ‘I did not like to come.’ The Captain said, ‘it can make no odds to you—you need not be afraid to come at eleven o’clock; just come out, it will make no difference to you at all; if you don’t come I shall be afraid of your dogs.’ I went out at the back door and down to the barn door, as the clock struck eleven. There was the Captain and James Taylor, and a third, whom I thought and believed to be George Bankes. They went into the barn (I mean the Captain, Taylor, and George Bankes), and I with them; I believed it to be Bankes; he had on a smock-frock; as soon as the Captain came into the barn, he calls, ‘Holloa, Hemming, where be’est?’ not very loud; Hemming spoke, and said ‘Yes, Sir;’ Taylor and the Captain then stepped on the mow, where Hemming was lying, which was not higher than my knee; the Captain pulled a lantern from under his coat, or out of his pocket; myself and George Bankes were then on the thrashing-floor; the Captain said, ‘Get up, Hemming, I have got something for thee;’ Hemming was at the time covered up with straw; he was rising up on end, as if he had been lying on his back; as he rose up, Taylor up with a blood-stick, and hit him on the head two or three blows; I (witness) said, ‘This is bad work—if I had known you should not have had me here;’ the Captain said, ‘He has got enough;’ Taylor and the Captain came down off the mow directly; Taylor said, ‘What is to be done with him now?’ the Captain said, ‘D—n his body, we must not take him out of doors, somebody will see us, mayhap.’ It was not very dark. Taylor went out of doors, and fetched a spade from somewhere; it was no spade of mine; and Taylor and the Captain said, ‘We will soon put him safe.’ Taylor then searched round the bay of the barn on the contrary side where it was done, and found holes which dogs and rats had scratched; he threw out a spadeful or two, and cleared away from the foundation side of the wall. ‘This will do for him,’ Taylor said to the Captain, who stood by and lighted him the while. Bankes and myself were still on the floor of the barn. Then the Captain and Taylor got upon the mow, and pulled Hemming down to the front of the mow. The Captain said to Taylor, ‘Catch hold of him,’ and they dragged him across the floor, and into the hole they had dug for him in the opposite bay, and Taylor soon covered it up. I cannot tell whether he was put in on his back or not; I never stepped into the bay from the floor; I thought I should have died where I was; the Captain said to Taylor, ‘Well done, boy, I’ll give thee another glass or two of brandy.’ The Captain said to me on the floor when we went out, ‘I’ll give you anything; d—n your body, don’t ever split.’ All four were present at this; we then parted; the Captain darkened his lantern; the Captain, Bankes, and Taylor, went away towards Oddingley; I went to bed; the whole did not occupy half an hour; Hemming had his clothes on; Hemming never moaned nor groaned after he was first struck; there was no blood—not a spot on the floor; nothing else was done that night. On the 26th of June I was at Pershore fair; George Bankes came to me in the afternoon, between four and five; he called me up an entry at the Plough, and said, ‘Here is some money for you that Hemming was to have had.’ Mr. John Barnett was with Bankes then, Bankes and Barnett each of them gave me money, but I do not recollect how much I had from each; I did not count it until I got home. They said when they gave it me, ‘Be sure you don’t split.’ There was no more said about it that night. It was in two parcels, in all between £26 and £27, and all in bills; there was no silver. I put it all in one pocket. This was to have taken Hemming off, as Bankes and Barnett informed me. A few days after, I was at the Captain’s; he sent for me by my own son, John Clewes, then about seven years old. When I got to the Captain’s, I found him alone; he said to me, if I kept my peace, and did not split, I should never want for £5. I never received any money from him afterwards. On the same day, in the parlour of the Captain’s house, Catherine Bankes came to me, and went down on her knees, in great distress, and begged and prayed of me not to say anything, as she feared the Captain had done a bad job, and that they would all come to be hanged if I spoke. I promised her I never would say anything.”

[Bankes was a farm bailiff; Taylor died about 1816, having lived some time in infamous notoriety at Droitwich. Barnett, at the time of the murder, was only bailiff for his mother, but had since become an opulent farmer. Clewes himself failed three or four years after the murder, and had since been engaged as a labourer or woodman.]

A great many witnesses were examined at the inquest, who spoke to expressions of hatred and malice used by Captain Evans, Barnett, Bankes, and Clewes, with regard to Mr. Parker, and many trifling circumstances which tended to implicate them in the disappearance of Hemming, and corroborate Clewes’s confession. The jury, after five days of most elaborate investigation, returned a verdict of wilful murder against Thomas Clewes and George Bankes; and further found that John Barnett, late of the parish of Oddingley, farmer, was an accessary to such murder before the fact.

These three persons were accordingly put upon their trial at the ensuing March Assizes, before Mr. Justice Littledale. A true bill was found against Clewes as principal in the second degree, and against Barnett and Bankes as accessaries before the fact to the murder of the Rev. George Parker, by Richard Hemming. Mr. Curwood was the leading counsel for the prosecution, Mr. Sergeant Ludlow for Clewes, Mr. Campbell, K.C., for Bankes, and Mr. Taunton, K.C., for Barnett. An objection was taken to the prisoners pleading as accessaries to a murder, the principal in which had not been found guilty; and this objection being allowed, Clewes and Bankes were arraigned as principals, and Barnett as accessary before the fact to the murder of Richard Hemming. Clewes was first put upon his trial alone. The evidence of the finding of the body of Hemming having been given, and its identification completed, many witnesses were examined to speak to expressions of the prisoner, tending to show that he had been anxious to procure the death of Mr. Parker; and expressions used by Hemming, showing that he had been employed to do some foul deed at Oddingley. It was proved, too, that Clewes and Hemming had been frequently in one another’s company prior to the murder. Last of all, after a sharp struggle on the part of the prisoner’s counsel to prevent it, Clewes’s confession was put in and read. Sergeant Ludlow briefly addressed the learned judge, urging that Clewes was entitled to his acquittal, as his confession stood uncontradicted, and that did not prove him to have been a principal in the crime. The court decided that the matter must be left to the jury, and to them the prisoner declined saying anything; nor did the law then admit of counsel addressing the jury in defence. The jury, after a short summing up, returned a verdict of “Guilty as an accessary after the fact;” but Mr. Justice Littledale observing that they had only to inquire whether he was guilty of aiding and abetting in the murder, they returned a general verdict of “Not guilty.” The crown refused to call any evidence on the coroner’s inquisition, or against Barnett and Bankes, so they were all discharged. The expenses attending the prosecution amounted to between £700 and £800.

1830—At the Lent Assizes, before Mr. Baron Bolland, was tried the cause of The King v. Dineley, in which Mr. Francis Dineley, solicitor, practising at Pershore, was found guilty of conspiring with one William Loxley, deceased, to defraud Nicholas Marshall of £2,000. The transaction took place so far back as 1804, when Loxley and Dineley induced Mr. Nicholas Marshall to advance the sum of £2,000 on what it was alleged they knew to be defective security, and he lost the whole of it. Mr. Campbell made a long speech in defence, alleging that the defect in the security might not have been known to his client, and remarking strongly on the long time which had elapsed. The case for the prosecution rested mainly on letters written by Dineley to Loxley.

1830—May 21—In the Arches Court, judgment was delivered in the suit of Barnett v. Rev. William Baldwin Bonaker, being a complaint on the part of some of the inhabitants of Church Honeybourne against their clergyman for neglect of duty, such as continued absence from the parish. Sir J. Nicholl, the judge, declared the evidence insufficient, and condemned the promoters of the suit in full costs.

1830—October 20—At the Michaelmas Sessions were tried the Kidderminster rioters. True bills were found for riot and assault against ten carpet weavers, and the case for the prosecution was conducted by Mr. Evans and Mr. Lea; Mr. Godson and Mr. Lumley appearing for the prisoners. Three of them, named Lamsdale, Green, and Stephens, were first tried for being concerned in an attack on the prison, on the second day of the disturbances, and with assaulting William Hopkins, a constable; but they were acquitted, to the great surprise of the court. Six men were next tried for the attack on Mr. Cooper’s factory, and for very ill-treatment of a man named Edwards, working there at low prices. He was left by the mob, thrust into the ashpit of one of the furnaces, more than half dead. Phaizy and Hopkins, the men principally concerned in this assault, were sentenced to six months’ imprisonment—Lamsdale to three months, and Price to two months’ imprisonment; and all to enter into sureties to keep the peace. Other two were acquitted. In three other cases verdicts were taken by consent, and almost nominal punishments inflicted. Mr. Godson’s strenuous exertions in these cases laid the foundation for his subsequent popularity in the borough of Kidderminster.

1830—October 18—At the trial of one of the prisoners at the City Michaelmas Sessions, Mr. Curwood, his barrister, handed in a protest against the jurisdiction of the court, because it was not constituted according to the charter of James I, which required that the recorder—“one learned and discreet man, learned in the laws”—should always preside at gaol deliveries. Earl Coventry and his ancestors had long been recorders of Worcester, and seldom (or never) present at Quarter Sessions. The magistrates refused to receive the protest.

1831—The cause list at the Midsummer Assizes this year contained thirty-one cases for trial, and two of them excited much interest. The first was an action brought by the Rev. Edward Herbert against a Mr. Heath, for an assault, in which Mr. Campbell and Mr. Whateley were for plaintiff, and Mr. Charles Phillips for defendant. For the prosecution it was merely proved that Heath struck Herbert some dozen blows with a horsewhip in Broad Street, Worcester, on the 23rd of the previous February. One witness heard Heath say the words, “that — my father, and you consider yourself well horsewhipped for it.” Mr. Charles Phillips made a very long and powerful speech for the defence, stating to the jury that if the prosecutor had dared himself to come into the box, he would have forced him to confess that he had not only broken his pledge to Mr. Heath’s sister, but had slandered his buried father in the most outrageous and unbearable manner. Mr. Justice Patteson told the jury that all they had to do was to say whether Heath had committed the assault, and so they returned a verdict of “Guilty;” but no sentence was passed, though the affidavits of defendant were ready, and Mr. Justice Patteson himself pointed out to Mr. Phillips an error in the record, no doubt with a view of getting rid of the case.

The other case was a charge against Mr. Francis Hill, of Stourbridge, of having committed wilful perjury, by swearing that he had not adopted certain royalty mines, while he had, in fact, signed a document to do so. Mr. Campbell, for the defence, urged that many a man signed deeds which he did not understand; and a host of witnesses appeared to give Mr. Hill the best of characters. He was honourably acquitted.

1831—At the County Epiphany Sessions six men were tried for destroying a thrashing machine, the property of Joseph Fretwell, of Blockley, and were indicted for a riot and assault. Mr. Godson and Mr. Lea were for the prosecution, and Mr. Strutt and Mr. Evans for the defence. There was no attempt to deny that the men did come into Mr. Fretwell’s barn, and take the machine to pieces; but on cross-examination of the prosecutor it was shown that he was just about to quit the farm, which he held under Lord Northwick, and that these men had come to take the machine down by his lordship’s orders, in order to prevent the destruction of the premises by the lawless mob who were going about the neighbourhood. Fretwell was evidently regarding his landlord with feelings of exasperation, because he had let the farm over his head. One of the men was found guilty of riot and assault, the other five of riot only. Two of them were ordered to pay a fine of £30 each, and the others of £20 each, and to be imprisoned till those fines were paid. But the money was immediately handed to them, and they were discharged from the dock.

Six men were charged with being concerned in the destruction of Mr. Baylis’s needle presses and stamps, at Tardebigg, and were sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment each.

Six other men were arraigned for going about the villages of Defford, Pinvin, &c., in a riotous manner, and obtaining victuals and drink by threats and intimidation; but the evidence only showed that they had importunately asked for relief at two or three places, and inquired of a labourer in the road whether his wheelbarrow was a “machine,” because, if it were, they would smash it! They were all acquitted.

1832—Lent Assizes—The Rev. John Lynes, Rector of Elmley Lovett, was sued for a penalty of £270 for non-residence in his parish for three months, under an act passed in the year 1817, which provided that a clergyman absenting himself for a quarter of a year should forfeit a third of the annual value of his living, and the living of Elmley Lovett was set down at about £800 a year. Mr. Jervis, with Mr. Richards and Mr. Alexander, were for the prosecution, and Mr. Campbell for defendant. A great number of witnesses were called to prove the defendant’s absence; some of them his own servants; but in the opinion of the learned judge (Mr. Justice Taunton) the absence for the entire time was not made out, and the jury returned a verdict for defendant.

At the same Assizes was tried the action of Shelton v. Steward, rival surgeons at Bromyard, and brought by the former against the latter for a libel, said to be contained in a letter published in the Hereford Times and Worcester Journal, and which was supposed to insinuate that Mr. Shelton was ignorant in his profession, and guilty of improper conduct. Verdict for plaintiff: damages, £10.

1832—At the County Epiphany Sessions, ten of the Dudley colliers were indicted for a riot, to obtain a rise in wages, in the previous December. Several parties, working in the Broad Pit Collieries (Earl Dudley’s) were ill-used by the mob for working at the ordinary wages; but Mr. Godson, who was for the prisoners, contended that their identity had not been sufficiently made out. After four hours’ consultation the jury acquitted all the prisoners. Seven of the same men were charged with an assault on one of their butties at this time, and five pleaded guilty by arrangement, and were liberated on their own recognizances. The other two were acquitted in the teeth of the evidence. Several other parties were indicted for assaults arising out of these riots, but only two, named Hill and Smart, were found guilty. Hill was sentenced to six months’ and Smart to one month’s imprisonment.

1834—At the Lent Assizes, seven men were tried before Mr. Justice Allan Park for being concerned in election riots at Dudley, breaking windows, &c., and were all found guilty. They were sentenced to trifling terms of imprisonment, excepting one man named Griffin, who had committed a serious assault on Jewkes the constable, and, therefore, was ordered to be imprisoned for twelve months.

Robert Osbaldeston was tried at these Assizes of shooting at Mr. Wood, gunsmith, Broad Street, Worcester, and was acquitted only on the ground of insanity.

Edmund Campbell Brewer, a confidential clerk in the employ of the Stourbridge Canal Company, was found guilty of forging a bill of exchange for some £13 odd. He absconded to America, and then it was found that he had embezzled £1,000 and more, belonging to the Company. Yet, upon the trial, many witnesses gave him the best of characters; and the prosecutors themselves said that his conduct had been most exemplary till this time. Mr. Eberhardt followed him to America, and apprehended him in Utica. He was sentenced to be transported for life. Great exertions were made to obtain a commutation of his punishment.

1835—At the Lent Assizes, before Mr. Justice Patteson, was tried Hill v. Hickes, an action brought by Mr. George Price Hill, a solicitor in Worcester, against Mr. Hickes, for having slandered him to his uncle at Dudley, by intimating that he was a rogue, &c. Verdict for plaintiff 40s. damages. Mr. Sergeant Talfourd was for plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Ludlow for defendant.

At these Assizes also was tried Anderton v. Gibbs and Ferney, the latter being executors of Mr. John Moor, a manufacturer of Dudley, and whose daughter Mrs. Anderton claimed to be. The question was one of legitimacy, Mr. Moor’s wife having left him and formed a criminal intimacy with a Mr. Corfield at the time of Mrs. Anderton’s birth. The jury found a verdict for plaintiff, and property, to the amount of £6,000, thus passed into Mr. Anderton’s possession.

1835—At Warwick Lent Assizes was tried Davies v. Badger, an action brought by a journeyman whitesmith of Dudley, against Mr. Badger a magistrate of Dudley, for striking him with a stick at the Dudley booth, at the previous East Worcester election. Mr. Balguy, K.C., was for plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Goulburn for defendant. It was of course made a political affair, and excited great interest. Mr. Badger, through his counsel and his witnesses, denied ever striking the man at all. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff: damages £30, costs 40s.

1835—At the Midsummer Assizes was tried Parker and Son v. Robinson, M.P., a case which excited much attention at the time, and was particularly interesting to those of the legal profession who looked to reap rich harvests at elections. The plaintiffs sued Mr. Robinson for assistance said to have been given him in the way of canvass, &c., at the election of 1832, when the sitting members were threatened with an opposition by the Hon. Mr. Dundas. Mr. Robinson had paid £75, and paid £13 into court, but the amount of the bill was £186. Mr. Robinson pleaded that he had not given authority for such expenses to be incurred by plaintiffs, who, at this election, were only subsidiary agents, Mr. Cameron being his chief attorney. Various solicitors were examined pro and con to show that the charges were reasonable or otherwise; and the Jury, eventually, returned a verdict for plaintiffs, damages £38; thus Mr. Robinson paid £126 instead of £186. Mr. Sergeant Ludlow was for plaintiffs, and Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, M.P., for defendant; and both made amusing speeches about the affair.

1836—At the Lent Assizes, before Mr. Justice Williams, was tried Badger v. Cooke, an action brought by Mr. Badger, the Dudley magistrate, against Mr. Samuel Cooke, the celebrated Radical mercer, for a libel. After Mr. Badger had been found guilty of the assault on Davis at the Stourbridge election, Cooke issued a placard triumphing in the result of that trial, and saying that “every honest man must ever afterwards look with most indignant contempt on his (Mr. Badger’s) actions, since he had already disgraced the dignified functions of his station,” &c. &c. The defendant addressed the jury in his own defence, quoting papers to show that Mr. Badger often made use of as strong expressions towards his political opponents, and declaring that it was nothing more than a question of Tory and Radical. He was found guilty, Mr. Justice Williams declaring that the paper had a palpable tendency to defame and degrade Mr. Badger in his character as a magistrate. He was only required to enter into a recognizance of £50 to appear when called upon.

1838—At the Summer Assizes this year a very painful and remarkable case of circumstantial evidence took place, being no other than the trial of a wife and daughter for the murder of one who had stood to them in the relation of husband and father. On the evening of the 3rd of August, 1837, Mr. John Orchard, the landlord of the Woolstaplers’ Arms Inn, in Stourbridge, a man in the prime of life and in good health, was seen to go up the yard attached to his house, and his wife and eldest daughter, with a man named Smith, were seen to follow him. He never returned alive. Smith came down the yard again shortly, but the wife and daughter remained there some time. Two or three hours afterwards the daughter told some of the people in the house that her father was very ill, and she was afraid he would die; but no one saw him until he was actually dead. When a surgeon arrived the body was on a chair in the kitchen, and Mrs. Orchard was supporting the head in her hands. She pointed the surgeon’s attention to a small hole between the third and fourth ribs, immediately over the heart, and said she supposed it was done by a nail in tumbling over some tubs in the yard. He had a shirt on, but there was no hole in that. The brewhouse, tubs, and yard appeared to have been just washed, and the opinion of the medical man was, that Orchard must have been dead an hour at least when he saw him. On a post mortem examination, the wound in question was found to be four inches and a half deep, and went right through the pericardium and right ventricle, so that it must have caused almost instant death. Of course grave suspicion under these circumstances could not but attach to the mother and daughter, especially as there had been repeated quarrels between them and the deceased, and the wife was also suspected to have been improperly familiar with the man Smith. The coroner’s jury, however, returned a verdict of “wilful murder against some parties unknown,” and months passed without any further discovery. At last a woman, who had assisted in laying out the corpse, told some party that the man was murdered with a skewer, which was afterwards thrown into the Stour. The woman, when interrogated by the police, denied having said anything of the sort; but a skewer—just such an instrument as would have produced the wound—was found in the Stour, nevertheless. The wife and daughter were then apprehended and put on their trial. Mr. Whateley conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Godson the defence. The judge, Lord Abinger, told the jury that they must not convict the prisoners on suspicion, and they were both acquitted.

1838—At the County Epiphany Sessions, William Baylis, the crier of Evesham, appealed against the commitment of three justices, who had ordered him to be sent to prison, under the 60th and 65th sections of the Municipal Act, for refusing to deliver up the bell. It was denied that the court had a right to entertain the appeal, but the court chose to do so, and quashed the conviction, subject to a case to the Queen’s Bench on the points argued. A similar appeal was heard from Robert Knight, one of the sergeants-at-mace under the old corporation, who refused to deliver up his mantle. The magistrates were—Mr. Strickland, Mr. Cheek, and Mr. Ashwin.

1839—At the Midsummer Assizes the Rev. T. B. G. Moore, curate of Bromsgrove, prosecuted Mr. J. B. Crane, carrier, Mr. Nicholas Hill, publican, Mr. W. Whitehouse, farmer, Samuel Taylor, John Pinfield, jun., William Sansome, George Wakeman, labourers, and Henry Hill, baker, for a riot alleged to have taken place at a church rate meeting at Bromsgrove; and Nicholas Hill and Taylor were also charged with an assault on the Rev. prosecutor. The meeting in question was held on the 14th of the previous February, and the parties who had got first to the vestry had voted Mr. Greening to the chair and then declared the meeting adjourned to the Town Hall; Mr. Moore, the curate, however, declared that he was the only lawful chairman and adjourned the meeting to the school-room. Here there was a scene of great excitement, and after the meeting had decided by a very large majority that there should be no rate, a poll was demanded by the pro-rate party. Immediately upon this there was a general rush to the platform—a violent struggle for the vestry book—and all sorts of people—Mr. Moore amongst the number—were tumbled about, struck, and ill-treated. It was said that the riot had been instigated by Mr. Nicholas Hill and Mr. Crane, and that Mr. Hill, in getting the book out of the curate’s possession, had forced his head against the desk so as to cause great pain. Mr. Sergeant Ludlow, in his speech for the defence, made much of this being a case got up by subscription—to crush the Bromsgrove opponents of church rates, and to put money into the purse of Mr. Annesley, an attorney, living twenty-five miles away from Bromsgrove. Whitehouse and Sansome were acquitted; Mr. Nicholas Hill found guilty of assault and riot, and the rest of the defendants of a riot only. Counsel for plaintiff, Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Lea; attorney, Mr. Annesley of Pershore; for defendants, Mr. Sergeant Ludlow and Mr. Godson; attorney, Mr. F. T. Elgie, Worcester. In the following November defendants were called up for judgment (after an unsuccessful effort to get a new trial), when Nicholas Hill was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment, and the other three to four weeks’ imprisonment each.

At the same Assizes, Mr. Meredith, woolstapler, of Pershore, was convicted of striking Lieutenant Amherst three times, one day in the open street. There had been considerable excitement in the town about the election of Guardians of the Poor for the parish of St. Andrew, in the preceding March, and the plaintiff and defendant were active men on opposite sides. The first time they met in the street, Meredith put a paper into plaintiff’s face, saying, “Look at that;” and when he put up his clenched fist to defend himself, Meredith knocked his hat on one side. The second time Lieutenant Amherst admitted that he had called Meredith a d— blackguard, before any blow was struck, but Meredith afterwards hit him several times. Meredith, having been found guilty, was fined £20, and bound over himself in £300, and two sureties of £100 each, to keep the peace for three years.

1839—At the Michaelmas Sessions Samuel Cooke, the celebrated Chartist draper at Dudley, was prosecuted for attending and assisting at a riotous and illegal meeting at Dudley, on the 16th of July. It was proved that a placard, calling the meeting, had been seen in Cooke’s window, and that he himself addressed the assembly; but it did not appear that he had said anything very outrageous. The meeting was tumultuous, but no actual mischief had been done. Cooke defended himself with a good deal of shrewdness, and complained that he was a persecuted man. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, which was generally considered to be a very sharp political visitation of his offence. William Smith Lindon and James Hollis, for using seditious language at the same meeting, were sentenced, the first to three months’, and the second to six weeks’ imprisonment.

1841—In November this year, in the Queen’s Bench, a rule nisi for a criminal information, was granted against the Worcestershire Chronicle, on the application of W. H. Ricketts, Esq., for a libel in that paper imputing to him jobbing and interested motives in disposing of the public money to be laid out in building the Droitwich Police Station. Upon the proprietors of the Chronicle admitting that they had been misled and offering an apology, Mr. Ricketts consented to the discharge of the rule. The information on which the article complained of by Mr. Ricketts was written, was supplied by Mr. George Ellins, a brother magistrate; and as he refused to pay any of the costs which the proprietors of the Chronicle had incurred, they inserted another article, charging Mr. Ellins with having misled them in the matter. This brought another rule nisi upon them from Mr. Ellins, who affirmed that he did not volunteer the statement to Mr. Arrowsmith, and had especially told him that what he did say was not for publication. The argument against the rule did not come on till November, when Mr. Sergeant Talfourd showed cause for the Chronicle, and the Solicitor General supported the rule on behalf of Mr. Ellins. Lord Denman said it was absurd to suppose that Mr. Ellins gave the information to Mr. Arrowsmith for any other purpose than that of publication; and the rule was discharged with costs.

1842—At the Lent Assizes was tried The Marquis of Anglesea v. Lord Hatherton, a cause more interesting from the rank of the parties interested, and the right at stake, than from any attractiveness in the subject or the evidence. It was an action to stop the noble defendant from working coal mines on certain copyhold property belonging to the latter at Cannock, in Staffordshire; and turned upon the question whether Lord Anglesea, as lord of the manor of Cannock, had right to the minerals. Sir Thomas Wilde, Sergeant Ludlow, Mr. Alexander, and the Honourable Mr. Talbot, were retained for the defendant; and the Solicitor-General (Sir William Follett), Mr. Richards, Q.C., Mr. Whateley, Q.C., and Mr. Whitmore, for the plaintiff. A great number of witnesses were called on either side, to prove rights and customs, and to perplex the jury; and ultimately, after a trial of two days, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, with nominal damages. The verdict created much surprise.

1842—July 20—A Court of Inquiry holden by Mr. Under Sheriff Gillam and a special jury, to assess damages in the case Powell v. Perrins. This was an action to recover damages for the seduction of plaintiff’s daughter, plaintiff being a land surveyor at Hagley, and defendant a chain maker, living near Stourbridge. £500 damages given for the plaintiff.

1842—At the Midsummer Assizes a horrible case of depravity was disclosed in the trial of Richard Taylor, a blacksmith of Stourbridge, charged with shooting at his wife, Hannah Taylor, with intent to murder her. Though she had been the subject of a course of the most sickening brutality, she refused to give evidence against him, and the witnesses, therefore, were the neighbours and the prisoner’s own grown-up daughter, who stood in the witness box with a child in her arms, which was the offspring of an incestuous intercourse with her own father! The prisoner, on the particular occasion for which he was tried, had shot at his wife, and beaten her till she was well nigh killed. He then turned all his children out of doors stark naked. He was only found guilty of an assault, because nothing more could be proved without the wife’s evidence, and he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment only.

1843—At the Lent Assizes, Edwin Archer, a young labourer from Rouse Lench, was tried for the wilful murder of George Green, in the previous December. He pleaded guilty to the crime of manslaughter, and was sentenced to fifteen years’ transportation. The prisoner and deceased had been quarrelling, and set about to wrestle; in the course of the struggle, Archer drew a knife and stabbed Green in four distinct places—one of the wounds penetrating the heart—and death immediately ensued. As soon as the fatal deed was done, Archer was aghast with horror, and wept like a child over the body of his passion’s victim.

Samuel Bridgwater was tried at these Assizes, at the instance of some very indefatigable Radicals, for bribery at the election of 1841. The bill had repeatedly been thrown out by the grand juries, as was supposed, on political grounds, until at last a sufficient number of the right party were found to return it as “a true bill.” The case, however, now broke down at its very commencement, because a tailor had been sent to the Crown Office for copies of the return to the writ for the Worcester election, and he had not had them compared with the originals.

1843—June 1—The Rev. William Smith, vicar of Overbury, obtained a rule nisi for a criminal information against the Worcestershire Chronicle. The parish had long been in a state of most unseemly dissension, and the Chronicle, in giving a long and very detailed statement of meetings and matters there, was said to have libelled Mr. Smith in attributing conduct to him which he disclaimed, and generally in reflecting on his character and conduct. The rule was, however, afterwards discharged by arrangement, and no further proceedings were taken.

1843—At the Midsummer Sessions, Sir Thomas Phillips, Bart., and two of his labourers, were tried at these Sessions, for assaulting George Cooper, a shoemaker of Broadway. Cooper was collector of taxes, and went to Middle Hill to get a balance of taxes from the honourable baronet. He had had repeated disputes with Sir Thomas Phillips, and this was also a disputed affair, so Sir Thomas ordered him off the premises; and when he talked of levying a distress, Sir Thomas pushed him out of the hall, and struck him with a garden paddle once or twice. The two labourers were discharged, and Sir Thomas Phillips fined £10.

1843—At the Midsummer Assizes, before Mr. Justice Maule, was tried Lavender and Another v. Bucklee, being an action to recover £3,500, which had been secured on a bond given by Messrs. Thomas and William Bucklee to William Shaw, Esq., of Britannia House, Worcester. It was said that Mr. Shaw, shortly before his death, had cancelled the bond by cutting it off. It was said by the executors that Mr. Shaw was not in a state of mind to cancel the bond; and that his housekeeper, who was a relation of the Bucklees, appeared to have great influence with Mr. Shaw. A great deal of evidence was given as to the transaction itself, at which interested parties were present and took much part, and as to Mr. Shaw’s state of health at the time. The jury, after an hour’s deliberation, found a verdict for the defendant.

A case which excited great interest in the city of Worcester, was the trial of Charles Samuel Atkins, a young man respectably connected, who was in the employ of Messrs. Griffiths and Clarke, linen drapers, as a shopman. He was charged with embezzling £4, the property of his employers, on the 27th of September, 1842. Atkins had been sent to Mrs. Jeremy with a shawl and some satinette, and on his return said Mrs. Jeremy had kept the shawl and not paid for it, and had retained the satinette for approval. Mrs. Jeremy declared that she paid the person who brought the shawl four sovereigns on the spot. It was shown that in the very next week Mrs. Jeremy had had some satinette sent her from Hill and Turley’s, by a young man remarkably like the prisoner, and that came to very nearly the same sum as the shawl; and it was suggested that Mrs. Jeremy might have confounded the two transactions. The jury returned a verdict of “Not guilty,” and the court immediately echoed with deafening cheers, while Atkins fainted away. Mr. Sergeant Talfourd conducted the prosecution, while Mr. Bodkin, of the Old Bailey, was specially retained for the defence. The linen drapers’ assistants of the city afterwards presented Mr. Atkins with a silver snuff box.

Mary Francis, 24, single woman, was charged with attempting to poison Mary Jeffs, an elderly woman, living at Alderminster. The prisoner brought the old woman a cake, pretending that some one had given it her to make a present of it to the prosecutrix, but the strangeness of her manner in delivering it, and her continually saying that she was only to eat of it herself, excited the old woman’s suspicions. The cake was analysed, and was found to contain a large quantity of arsenic. The prisoner was courted by the old woman’s son; but not the slightest motive could be assigned for her wish to deprive the mother of life. She was found guilty, and sentenced to fifteen years’ transportation.

1844—At the Lent Assizes was tried the Queen v. Smith, being an action brought by William Harris, the parish clerk of Overbury, against the Rev. William Smith, the vicar, for dismissing him from his situation. Mr. Smith alleged that the clerk had been guilty of drunkenness, had read the responses irreverently, and had interrupted the celebration of the sacrament on a particular occasion. Harris denied the whole of these charges, and the present trial was on a return to a mandamus in the Court of Queen’s Bench to ascertain their truth. Various witnesses were examined on both sides: those for Harris asserting that it was Mr. Smith’s eccentricities that alone caused the clerk to err. The jury found that the charges of drunkenness were proved, and that Harris had spoken the responses loudly to annoy Mr. Smith, but that the charge of interrupting the sacrament was not true. The court, thereupon, ordered the verdict to be entered for defendant.

1844—March 23—At Hereford Assizes was tried Bellers v. Chalk and Holl, being an action for libel, said to be contained in a paragraph in the Worcester Herald of the 2nd of December, 1843. Colonel Bund, of Malvern, gave some information to the proprietors of the Herald, on the strength of which they inserted a paragraph charging Mr. Bellers, of Barnard’s Green, with cruelty to his mare, by shutting her up for years in solitary confinement in such a position that she could not lie down. Several statements afterwards appeared in the Herald to the effect that the cruelty to the mare had been abated after the publication of the paragraph, and reporting the proceedings of a meeting, held at Gloucester, for establishing a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals. The Lord Bishop of the Diocese presided at that meeting; and Mr. Thomas, the secretary of the Society in London for Preventing Cruelty to Animals, attended, and stated that he had personally inquired into the alleged case of cruelty, and had found the statement in the Herald to be correct. On the trial, Mr. Whateley, Mr. Gray, and Mr. Godson were counsel for plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Valentine Lee for the defendants. Acting on the advice of counsel, defendants had not pleaded a justification. The publication of the libel was admitted; of course, no evidence could be offered in justification, and the jury found a verdict for plaintiff, as they were bound to do under the circumstances: damages, £150.

1844—At the Midsummer Assizes, John Bowen, a man of about fifty years, formerly an officer in the navy, was tried on the charge of defacing the parish registers of Croome D’Abitot, and sentenced to seven years’ transportation. It was shown that Bowen was engaged in making out a pedigree for a John Wood, who wanted to establish himself as a relation to the celebrated James Wood, of Gloucester, and had visited the Croome D’Abitot rectory several times for that purpose. While the curate was looking in another direction he tore a leaf out of the register. Mr. Sergeant Talfourd was for the prosecution, and Mr. F. V. Lee for the defence.

The Queen v. Newton, also tried at the Assizes, was a charge against the eccentric barrister of that name, who used to come the Oxford circuit, of having committed perjury, said to have been committed in some affidavits. The presiding judge, Mr. Sergeant Atcherley, stopped the case, as insufficiently supported in the evidence.

1844—At the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions a singular trial took place of two farmers, named Swan and Patrick, who were charged with killing deer belonging to W. L. Childe, Esq., in Kyre Parva park. The witness against them was a boy named Passey, who said he saw the parties accused chase a fine buck into one corner of the inclosure and then shoot it; but there were some discrepancies in his testimony. Both these farmers lived close to Mr. Child, and as the fences were not in the best possible condition, the deer used frequently to get on their land and eat their corn. Mr. Lee made an ingenious speech for the defence, and called many witnesses to character; after which the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, amid the applause of the court.

1845—At the Lent Assizes, eleven poachers were put on their trial for the murder of Thomas Staite, one of the Earl of Coventry’s watchers, who was killed in a very desperate affray which took place between the keepers and the prisoners on the 19th of the previous December. One of them, however, named George Lippett, was admitted as Queen’s evidence; and another, Francis Dingley, while in prison made a full confession of the whole transaction. The keepers and watchers were nine in number, and they encountered the party of poachers at the gate leading into Park Farm, Pirton. A fight with bludgeons took place, in which the keepers were altogether worsted, and one or two of them left for dead. The poachers also fired off two guns, but the shots did not take effect. The unfortunate man, Staite, was found by his comrades, after the affray was over, in a ditch close by the Park Farm house, so badly used that he could not speak; and, indeed, he never uttered a word from that hour. He was taken first to a neighbouring cottage, and then to the Worcester Infirmary, where he died in six days. The identity of all the prisoners, and the part they had each taken in the affray, was very clearly made out by the evidence of four of the watchers and the statement of the approver Lippett. Mr. Godson, in a very able speech for the prisoners, contended that the case was not made out by the evidence of the keepers, and that Lippett was not to be believed; ending with a protest against the game laws generally, as the cause of much injustice and innumerable crimes. The Lord Chief Baron Pollock, before whom the case was tried, told the jury that they might find the prisoners guilty of manslaughter; and, acting upon this hint, the jury returned a general verdict against all the prisoners of “Guilty of manslaughter.” Witnesses to character were then called on behalf of some of the prisoners, and his lordship sentenced them to different terms of transportation as they seemed to have taken an active part or otherwise in the attack upon the keepers. Francis Dingley, Samuel Turvey, Joseph Turvey, and Joseph Tandy were transported for life; Thomas Hooper, William Broomfield, and John Cook transported for ten years; George Brant for seven years; and Thomas Cosnett and William Collins were sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. The prisoners were all Pershore men, but the case excited the most intense interest in that part of the county.

1846—At the Midsummer Assizes, Richard Farley, cabinet maker, fifty-three years of age, and Ann Jones, a married woman, were tried for forging the will of William Welch, of Llandilion, near Abergavenny. The will was first produced and attempted to be used in Worcester—hence the trial took place here. Farley was Welch’s son-in-law, and the will conveyed some property at Aston Ingham to him instead of to his own son, William Welch. A number of witnesses declared that the will was not in the handwriting of the deceased, and that one at least of the signatures was written by the prisoner himself. Ann Jones was an attesting witness, and repeatedly asserted the genuineness of the will. Farley was sentenced to fifteen years’ transportation, and Jones to twelve months’ imprisonment.

1847—At the Lent Assizes this year, a trial took place which excited considerable interest—that of Harris v. Grissell, being an action brought by Mr. George Harris, carpet manufacturer, of Stourport, against (really) the Severn Navigation Commissioners, though the ostensible defendants were the contractors of the works—Messrs. Grissell and Peto. Mr. Harris had a mill on the Stour, and he said that owing to the erection of the weir at Lincombe, the water in the Stour had been so pounded up as frequently to stop his undershot wheels, and to render his mill useless. A great number of witnesses were examined on both sides, and the learned judge (Mr. Sergeant Gazelee) having told the jury that there was no defence to the action, they returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with £500 damages; but this extraordinary summing up of the judge’s enabled the defendants to get a rule for a new trial, and the matter never proceeded further.

1847—At the Midsummer Assizes, Harklas Lovell Blewitt, a travelling tinker, was tried for the murder of his wife at Dudley, on the 3rd of June. They were staying at a lodging house, and the wife, to escape the ill-treatment of her brutal spouse, hid herself in the coalhole; he followed her there with a kettle of hot water, and, holding her down with one hand, poured it over her head and shoulders. She was so dreadfully scalded that she died in ten days; but though there was no pretence for saying that it was unintentionally done, the jury, to the amazement of the court, returned a verdict of “Guilty of manslaughter” only, and the fellow was sentenced to transportation for twenty years.

1848—At the Lent Assizes, four men, named Cartwright, Sweatman, Payne, and Turberfield, were charged with breaking into the toll house at Knighton-on-Teme, kept by an old man named John Mound, and his wife, and stealing £115. The burglars used very violent threats towards the poor old people, who most distinctly swore to all four of the men as the parties who robbed and assailed them. They were consequently found guilty, and sentenced to fifteen years’ transportation each. Yet it was afterwards distinctly proved that Turberfield was not engaged in the robbery, and he received a free pardon. Two other men, convicted of burglary at these assizes, on what appeared to be the clearest evidence, were discharged by the Secretary of State, because it was afterwards proved, beyond contradiction, that the crime had been committed by other men.