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

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.