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.