Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century
by T. C. Turberville · English · Gutenberg #44040 · 800,234 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century
Author: T. C. Turberville
Release date: October 26, 2013 [eBook #44040]
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44040
Credits: Transcribed from the 1852 Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans edition by David Price
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WORCESTERSHIRE IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY ***
Transcribed from the 1852 Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans edition by
David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org
WORCESTERSHIRE
IN THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY.
* * * * *
A COMPLETE DIGEST OF FACTS OCCURRING IN THE
COUNTY SINCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE YEAR 1800.
* * * * *
BY
T. C. TURBERVILLE.
* * * * *
LONDON:
LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, AND LONGMANS,
AND SOLD BY ALL BOOKSELLERS.
1852.
* * * * *
BIRMINGHAM:
PRINTED BY JOSIAH ALLEN AND SON,
3, COLMORE ROW.
* * * * *
THIS VOLUME
IS, BY KIND PERMISSION,
DEDICATED TO
THE RIGHT HON. SIR JOHN SOMERSET PAKINGTON,
OF WESTWOOD PARK, BART., M.P.,
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES.
ADVERTISEMENT.
IN this day the man who writes a useless book, commits a great sin
against society. The aim of this volume is utility; although the word,
as applied to it, must be interpreted in a very limited sense. Beyond a
circuit of a few miles it will have no interest; and even in respect to
its legitimate sphere it only assumes to be a record of facts by which
the man in public life may refresh his memory as to the particulars of
past events, or by which those who have lived and moved amongst the
occurrences here set down may call up pleasant associations of things and
times gone by. By its means all persons resident in or connected with
Worcestershire may possess themselves of a knowledge of the history of
the County during the century, besides having at their command a
repertory of all the principal events of the locality. It would in many
instances have been more gratifying to the writer to have exchanged the
chronicle for the narrative—the annal for something more pretentious as a
history, but the “utility” of the book would thereby have been impaired,
and he refrained. To have attempted a continuation of _Nash_ would have
been mere pedantry, and the mode would have been wholly unsuitable for a
record of modern Worcestershire. As for the opinions which may be found
scattered here and there on the following pages, the writer is no further
anxious about them than as being naturally desirous that what he believes
to be truth should be accepted and acted upon by others. But as to the
facts professed to be narrated, he hopes that they will be found
scrupulously accurate and undistorted by anything like party bias; of the
faults of omission, no one can be so conscious as the writer himself, but
the book, even now, is larger than he had at first intended. If errors
should be found, those whose censure would be the weightiest will readily
be able to suggest abundance of excuses, and to their forbearance he
unhesitatingly trusts the following pages.
WORCESTER, OCTOBER, 1852.
INDEX.
PAGE
INTRODUCTORY REVIEW 1
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS 20
COUNTY OF WORCESTER 21
CITY OF WORCESTER 28
EVESHAM 39
DROITWICH 45
BEWDLEY 47
KIDDERMINSTER 50
DUDLEY 53
ELECTIONS OF COUNTY CORONERS 55
PUBLIC MEETINGS 59
THE COUNTY MAGISTRACY 88
REMARKABLE TRIALS 110
THE ODDINGLEY MURDER 123
EXECUTIONS 144
RAILWAYS 150
BIRMINGHAM AND GLOUCESTER 150
GRAND CONNEXION PROJECT 154
THE SCHEMES OF 1845 156
OXFORD, WORCESTER, AND WOLVERHAMPTON 158
IMPROVEMENT OF THE RIVER SEVERN 165
WORCESTER TOWN COUNCIL 177
WORCESTER INFIRMARY 197
WORCESTER MUSICAL FESTIVALS 204
NATURAL PHENOMENA 209
MISCELLANEOUS OCCURRENCES 216
THE COUNTY ARISTOCRACY 312
THE CHURCH 318
THE EXECUTIVE 321
APPENDIX 328
WORCESTERSHIRE IN THIS NINETEENTH CENTURY.
BEFORE entering on a detail of occurrences which possess, comparatively
speaking, only an isolated interest, I shall occupy a few pages in the
consideration of some general facts and statistics, which may enable the
reader to judge of the advance which the County of Worcester has made
during a truly remarkable half-century. No former period in the world’s
history ever witnessed such mental activity and progress.
The INCREASE OF POPULATION, though not a perfect test of general
prosperity, yet indicates that the employments which engage the attention
of the inhabitants of any given district are flourishing, that there is
no such apprehended deficiency of the articles of wealth as seriously to
check marriage, and that there is an absence of some of those evils which
are constantly at work to retard the replenishment of the earth by the
human family. For the statistics of population in this county I refer
the reader to Table 1, in the Appendix, from which he will perceive that
a continuous, and in some instances a rapid increase has taken place in
the manufacturing districts. Until the last ten years, however, the
increase of population in this county, though exceeding that of many
counties, did not quite come up to the average increase of the entire
kingdom. The rate of increase from 1801 to 1811, was—
Worcestershire, 15 per cent. England, 14½ per cent.
1811 to 1821 „ 15 „ „ 17½ „
1821 to 1831 ,, 15 „ „ 16 „
1831 to 1841 „ 10.4 „ „ 14.5 „
From 1841 to 1851, the rate of increase for Worcestershire was slightly
above the average, being as nearly as possible 13 per cent., while that
of England, as a whole, had declined, and was only about 12.7. This is a
fact upon which no interpretation can be put, except such as is
flattering to the condition and prospects of our county. EMIGRATION has
been slowly going on from our manufacturing districts during the last
fifteen years, but there has been no remarkable exodus at any particular
period. Many farm labourers and small occupants of land have also been
seduced by the Mormons to seek an imaginary paradise in the Far West.
Even this desultory emigration cannot but be beneficial. Great Britain
has yet, however, to acquire the practical wisdom of the ancients in
carrying out a systematic colonization, and it still remains for her
people to perform the noble mission which their national advantages and
insular position seem to assign them—that of peopling the solitudes of
the earth with a race which has hitherto proved equal to all
difficulties, and who would carry with them the laws of an Alfred, the
language of a Shakspere, and, above all, the ennobling influences of the
Christian religion.
A tabular statement of CRIMINALS convicted, and of the nature of the
sentences inflicted upon them, will also be found in the Appendix. When
the improvement in the machinery for detecting crimes and bringing
offenders to justice is taken into account, there would not seem to be
any serious increase in the amount of crime committed; but there
certainly is no room for believing that the intelligence of the age, or
the activity of the police, have been successful in diminishing it.
Neither does the comparative leniency of the punishments inflicted afford
any proof that the crimes committed are less heinous than formerly. The
decrease in severity of punishments is to be attributed solely to the
amelioration of our criminal code, and the humane desire to reclaim
rather than to punish, which now distinguishes our legislature and even
pervades the judiciary. Worcestershire, it must be admitted, holds a bad
preëminence both in respect to the number and character of the offences
committed within its boundaries: a recent return, made by order of the
Privy Council, assigns it the very lowest place amongst the English
counties as to the proportion of criminals to the population, and within
three of the bottom of the list in degree of crime.
EDUCATION is regarded by many as the panacea which is to empty our
prisons and render the judge’s office a sinecure; and, without being
inclined to attribute to it any such efficacy, it cannot be doubted that
it does act as a check to the commission of many of the grosser offences
against society. A private individual has not at his command the means
necessary to compile complete statistics on a subject like this; it is a
matter of congratulation, however, that Government caused inquiries to be
made, at the last census, which will by and by put us in possession of
much important information on this head. Without pretending to accuracy,
I believe it will be found that there are in Worcestershire about 550
private and public day and boarding schools, having accommodation for the
instruction of 20,000 scholars. It is not, indeed, want of accommodation
that is now so much to be complained of—for few of the school-rooms are
filled—as inferiority in the quality of the instruction imparted.
Earnest efforts are, however, being made by all educational societies and
the supporters of public schools to remedy the admitted deficiency.
Nearly all the schools now existing in the county, with the exception of
the Grammar and Free Schools of which there are some seventy-six, have
been founded during the present century, and owe their existence, and in
greatest part their continuance, to the voluntary benevolence of persons
residing on the spot. Within the last three or four years, public
attention has been much directed to the lax administration of the funds
of the various charity schools in the county, and should the gentlemen
who have taken the matter so zealously in hand be successful in bringing
about the reforms which these institutions so imperatively need, the poor
of many future generations will have reason to thank them for their
labours. I must not omit to notice here the means which have been taken
in the latter part of this half-century to induce a love and pursuit of
knowledge amongst the working classes, by the establishment of Mechanics’
Institutions, one of which is now to be found in almost every town in the
county. The elder born of these societies are, unfortunately, already
passing to decay, and, as at present conducted, they do not seem to
possess any inherent vitality. They have undoubtedly been useful in
displaying the more attractive results of study and science—the flowers
by the wayside, which may tempt triflers to venture a short distance on
Learning’s easier paths—but they offer little or no assistance to those
who would resolutely dare its difficult ascents. The efforts of the
friends of education should be directed to making these institutions what
their projector, Lord Brougham, intended they should be—People’s
Colleges.
An estimate of the provision made for RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION in this
county will be found in the Appendix—Table No. 3. The Established
Church, by new buildings or enlargements, has increased the accommodation
for attendants on its forms of worship, since the year 1800, by one fifth
to one fourth. Upon looking at the large numbers provided for by
Wesleyanism, in its various forms, the thought cannot but occur that if
the Church of England could have retained John Wesley and his followers,
as Rome did St. Francis D’Assissi, to be its evangelists among the masses
of the population, it must have received a vast accession of strength.
The Wesleyans in forsaking their first simple object of evangelism for
that of building up a permanent ecclesiastical polity, seem to have
mistaken the source of their own power, and during the last two years
their numbers have considerably decreased from disaffection in the body.
The Independents and Baptists have been deficient in proselytism,
conceiving their special mission to be to keep in purity the faith
committed to them from their Puritan forefathers. The Unitarians and
Friends are stationary sects. The Roman Catholics have built ten small
chapels in this county during the present century, and as to numbers,
they have barely kept pace with the increase of population. The annual
value of church livings in this county is about £62,000; the income of
the See of Worcester is fixed at £5,000; and the net revenue of the Dean
and Chapter of Worcester is returned at £8,698. The various bodies of
Protestant Dissenters raise at least £20,000 annually for the support of
their ministers, Sabbath schools, missions, and other religious
institutions.
This county yields at once the richest fruits of the soil and the most
practically valuable mineral productions. The total acreage of the
county, exclusive of roads and rivers, is 431,616; and by far the larger
portion of this surface is devoted to AGRICULTURE. According to Mr.
Fowler’s valuation, made in the year 1842, the total value of property
assessable to the county rate is £912,863; of which £263,000 may be taken
as representing the rental of buildings and land in the towns and
manufacturing districts, leaving £650,000 as the annual value of
agricultural property. In this statement the city of Worcester, the
rateable rental of which is about £75,000, is, of course, not included.
If it is assumed that 380,000 acres are arable and grass land, that will
probably be an approximation to the truth. In the total absence of
agricultural statistics any attempt to compute the present produce of the
county would be quite out of the question, but that it has greatly
increased of late years cannot be doubted. A gentleman, upon whose
practical knowledge and information the most entire reliance may be
placed, informs me that the average yield per acre throughout the Vale of
Evesham is now about 27 bushels in wheat, 32 in barley, 40 in oats, 27 in
beans; and that there has been an increase of fully 15 per cent. in the
wheat and barley crops, and of 10 per cent. in the bean crop, within the
last 20 or 25 years. Hops, however, for which this county has been and
still is so famous, have to a great extent gone out of cultivation; and
while at the beginning of the century some 6,000 acres were devoted to
their growth, there are now not more than 1,625 acres of hop plantation.
With regard to the general progress of agriculture, the half-century may
be divided into three periods. During the war the high prices of
provisions stimulated improvement, and much drainage was then done,
though in so rude and unscientific a way that it has since been found
necessary to replace a great deal of it. The Earl of Plymouth, the Earl
of Coventry, and A. Lechmere, Esq., in this county, very early bestowed
great pains on the drainage of their estates. From 1814 to 1830
agriculture, comparatively speaking, was at a stand still; {6} but during
the last twenty years many and signal improvements have been made in its
science. Many persons still living can recollect whole hamlets and
villages in this county in which there was scarce an enclosure; and
nearly the whole of the land was cultivated in common by the resident
farmers, to each one of whom would be assigned a certain quantity in
wheat, barley, vetches, and fallow. Between each ploughed land was left
a strip of mere, into which the surface water from the adjoining ridges
all sank and rendered it little better than a constant bog, which
diseased the few poor sheep grazing upon it and made the ague a common
and hereditary ill to farmer and labourer alike. The amount of
unenclosed land now to be found in the county is quite unimportant;
thorough drainage is regarded as essential to all cultivation; burnt soil
has been much used to lighten the heavy clays; manures of all kinds are
extensively employed; and implements of a very improved and economic
description are used in almost every farming operation. The increased
cultivation of the turnip, and better management of the clay fallows, are
marked features in Worcestershire agricultural improvements. Clay lands,
that formerly were allowed to lie fallow every fourth or fifth year, are
now planted with vetches, and sheep-folded. A remarkable advance, too,
has been made in the character of the stock reared, especially in the
size and quality of the sheep. The better drainage of the land has
prevented much of the disease which used formerly to thin out the flocks
year by year, and there has been no serious rot in the county since 1831.
The local agricultural societies, which have been established during the
last fifteen years, have done much by their premiums and annual
exhibitions to stimulate improvement, but our chief confidence for
progress in the future lies in our being able to number amongst our
landowners and occupiers men of intelligence and enterprise, who, in all
quarters of the county, are seriously engaged in adjusting the relations
of landlord and tenant to the circumstances of the times, and by improved
modes of farm management and cultivation seeking to meet successfully
unrestricted foreign competition.
Our mineral productions are COAL and IRON, both of which are found in
large quantities at the northern extremity of the county, and coal is
also raised in the neighbourhood of Bewdley. The Dudley division of the
South Staffordshire coal field is celebrated for producing what is known
as the ten yard or thick coal—so named because the bed is thirty feet in
thickness. It is, indeed, the largest and most important bed of coal in
the kingdom, and its good qualities are too well known to every
housekeeper in this district to need that I should expatiate upon them
here. With the associated thin coals and ironstone this bed is worth at
least £1,000 per acre. The number of tons of coal raised in the Dudley
district (Worcestershire only) during 1851 may be approximately reckoned
at 700,000, worth perhaps £25,000. It was in this district that coal was
first used for the purpose of smelting iron, in the year 1619. The
duties on the introduction of foreign iron were cither removed or
rendered merely nominal in 1826, and the production has since nearly
quadrupled, and now amounts to 2,250,000 tons annually. The South
Staffordshire and Worcestershire iron district ranks second in
importance, far surpassing Scotland in the manufacture of wrought iron,
and the quality is superior to that of South Wales. The number of
furnaces now in blast in this county is twenty-eight, and eighteen out of
blast. Nearly 150,000 tons of iron were made here in 1851, and prices
ranged from 50s. to 57s. 6d. hot blast; cold blast, 60s. to 67s. 6d.;
best makes, 120s., and second ditto, 110s. per ton. The make of iron has
not greatly increased in Worcestershire during the last few years, but no
branch of our productive industry rests on surer foundations, or has more
prospect of continuous extension, than the iron trade.
The GLASS manufacture, of which Stourbridge is a principal seat, affords
a most striking instance of the tendency of excessive duties, collected
under regulations which interfere with and cramp industrial processes.
In 1811 the home consumption of glass amounted to 417,911 cwt.: in 1812
the excise duties on this article were doubled; the average consumption
of the next three years was but 264,931 cwt.; and up to the time of the
reduction of the duties by two-thirds, in 1835, there had been no
increase whatever in the consumption of British glass since the
commencement of the present century. Since the entire abolition of the
duties, in 1845, the consumption has increased to a surprising extent,
and glass has been applied to uses previously undreamt of. The
manufacture was introduced into Stourbridge, about 1556, by refugees from
Lorraine, and has continued to flourish there ever since. The
descriptions principally made here are flint, bottle, and chemical
utensil glass. There are now twelve glass manufactories in the town and
neighbourhood, employing about 1,050 pairs of hands, and the trade
generally is in a prosperous state. The manufacture of FIRE BRICKS, and
the sale of clay for glass works, is a trade at Stourbridge, now almost
as important as the manufacture of glass itself; and as it is one with
the details of which the public are not generally conversant, I shall
enter somewhat into particulars. Beneath all coal strata is found a
clay, which, from the peculiarity of its ingredients, is remarkably well
adapted to stand the action of intense heat. An analysis of the best
clay raised at Stourbridge, gives
Silica 72.516
Alumina 20.264
Lime 0.891
Peroxide of Iron 3.308
Protoxide of Manganese 1.488
Phosphate of Lime 1.533
100.000
The presence of lime or iron in any considerable quantities would render
the clay fusible, but when the silica and alumina so greatly
preponderate, it will stand any amount of heat that can be raised in
ordinary furnaces. The best clay fetches about 55s. per ton, and is used
for glass-house pots and the bricks used in making glass furnaces, not
only in England but other countries; it is exported to North America in
large quantities, and to South America, France, Holland, and Germany.
Besides the best clay, inferior descriptions called “seconds,” “black,”
and “offal” clay are raised to a considerable extent. The first (black),
mixed in certain proportions with “seconds,” potsherds, &c., is chiefly
used for making crucibles, in which metals are melted; and of these
Birmingham alone takes about 100 dozen weekly from this district. The
“offal clay,” or that which is raised from the mine in the mixed or
broken state, is not “picked” (or selected), but ground and sold at 10s.
per ton: with this the great bulk of fire bricks are made. The trade is
one of ancient date; Rufford’s clay works have been carried on during the
whole of this century under the same name, but its principal development
has taken place within the last forty years. Formerly the owners did not
get half the best or other clays, and forty years ago there was no better
speculation than taking to what was then considered a broken, or
worked-out mine. Nor did they attempt any but square or roughly-made
bricks, whereas the trade now can model and finish neatly. Even now the
capabilities of Stourbridge fire clay are not generally understood. It
has had a steady unfluctuating demand, and notwithstanding the discovery
of fire clay in various parts of the island, Stourbridge never did a
larger business than at present. The Stourbridge clays and bricks are
sold freely both in the north and in Wales. About 15,000 tons of best
clay are raised annually in the Stourbridge district. There are four
proprietors of clay mines in Stourbridge, and two firms renting mines;
five out of the six being also manufacturers of fire bricks and other
articles in which the clay is used. The fire bricks are made of all
sizes; the largest kept in regular stock weighs 635lbs. The glass-house
bricks are sold “green” (dry) and but seldom burnt. The common
description for gas works, iron works, and all other purposes, are burnt.
About 14,000,000 of bricks of all descriptions are made annually in the
Stourbridge district, consuming about 46,000 tons of clay, and may be
valued at £50,000. An important branch of the trade, and one which has
been gradually increasing for the last seven years, is the manufacture of
clay retorts for gas works, and they are now generally preferred to
metal. The most striking purpose to which the fire clay has been turned
is the manufacture of large baths in one piece. At the suggestion of
Prince Albert, the Society of Arts in 1846 offered a premium for the
production of such an article, and in 1850 one was made at the works of
F. T. Rufford, Esq., which gained the Gold Isis Medal. It had been
thought impossible to manufacture such an article in one piece because of
the great contraction which all pottery undergoes in burning, but after
much patient experiment, the ingenuity and skill of the practical men in
Mr. Rufford’s works produced a perfect and beautiful vessel which may be
said to be imperishable, will never discolour, is cleansed without
labour, and is incapable of retaining the poison of any contagious
disease in an active form. The clearness of the colour (white or
marbled) is effected by veneering china on the inner surface of the fire
clay, and the contractile effect of burning is overcome by assimilating
the two clays. Many public baths are now supplied with this useful
article, which bids fair altogether to supersede the metallic baths. The
number of hands employed at Stourbridge in the manufacture of bricks and
other articles from fire clay is about 900. The town has been
considerably improved since 1820: the bridge over the Stour was widened
in 1840; a new market hall has recently been erected, and the inhabitants
generally seem to have somewhat of the spirit and enterprise expected in
a flourishing manufacturing place.
The manufactures of KIDDERMINSTER are of many years standing. In 1536 it
was enacted that “No person of what degree or quality soever they be,
shall make within the shire of Worcester any manner of woollen cloths,
except only within the city of Worcester, the borough and towns of
Kidderminster, Evesham, Droitwich, and Bromsgrove, under pain of
forfeiting, for every broad cloth elsewhere made, the sum of ten pounds;”
and in the time of Charles II an act was passed “for regulating the
manufacture of Kidderminster stuffs.” Arras, frieze, cheneys and
ratteens, poplin, prunellas, rich brocades and quilted stuffs were all
made here in their turn, but the CARPET MANUFACTURE, to which the town
has entirely owed its prosperity and fame in later years, was not
introduced till the middle of last century. At first the Scotch carpets
only were made, but afterwards Wilton and Brussels, and the Kidderminster
goods at once acquired celebrity for substantial workmanship and
brilliancy of colouring. At the beginning of the present century there
were probably about 400 looms at work here, but there are now at least
3,000. The trade has of course been subject to many fluctuations, and
there have been several seasons of severe distress amongst the weavers,
which have been for the most part coincident with stagnation in other
departments of manufacture, and are traceable to the same general causes.
During the last ten years the business has been comparatively prosperous,
there has been a great increase of production, and the tapestry carpeting
is largely exported to the Continent, where its cheapness secures sale in
the teeth of the elegant, but costly, “velvets” of France. The many
improvements which have been introduced into the method of manufacture
during the present century, have principally had reference to the
construction of the looms, and economy in the amount of wool used; in
design there is still something to be accomplished. The principal
varieties now made are the ordinary Venetian carpeting, the Scotch or
Kidderminster, Brussels, Wilton, Genoa velvets, Axminster, Saxony, and
the patent tapestry carpetings, which last are among the most recent and
important introductions. Some of the yarns employed in the fabrication
of these were printed and arranged in Halifax, under a patent from
Messrs. Crossley, which however expired in September last. Steam looms
for tapestry under patents from the same firm are already at work in the
town, and steam looms for the manufacture of Brussels carpeting are about
to be introduced, the effect of which, upon the general character of the
trade, must needs be exceedingly important; but though the change can
scarcely fail to occasion temporary distress, it may fairly be hoped
that, like all other improvements, it will result in a large increase of
the manufacture, and add to the demand for labour and its remuneration.
The other manufactures carried on here, principally relate to the
preparation of leather; damask silks are made by one manufacturer; and
there are one or two spinning mills. There are various tin forges in the
neighbourhood, and iron, tin, and screw works at Cookley employing many
hands.
REDDITCH and its neighbourhood is the principal seat of the needle and
fish hook manufactures in this kingdom, and has been so for upwards of a
century. In 1800 perhaps 500 persons found employment in this business
at Redditch, while the present number, including children, is at least
2,300, and the quantity of needles made has increased from 150 to 1,000
millions per annum. A very large population is also engaged in the
manufacture, at Astwood Bank, Feckenham, Crab’s Cross, &c., but all the
needles so made are known as Redditch needles. The superiority of the
article manufactured here ensures it a sale all over the world, and it is
only in the common and inferior descriptions that the German makers come
into competition with those of this county; in fact, the Germans
themselves send to Redditch for their best goods. Some very important
improvements have been lately introduced into the manufactories, and
especially a contrivance for carrying off the fine steel dust created in
the operation of grinding the needles, which was formerly very
destructive of the lives of the persons employed. The fish hook trade is
carried on to a considerable extent in this neighbourhood, and large
quantities of barbs, from the fly fisher’s delicate tackle to the
whaler’s harpoon, are annually exported to all quarters of the globe.
There is also one pin manufactory in the town. The operative needle
makers are amongst the most intelligent of our artizans, and the future
prospects of the trade are in most respects encouraging.
NAIL MAKING employs a large number of people both at Bromsgrove and in
the neighbourhood of Stourbridge. In the former town and district there
were, some sixty years ago, only five or six nail masters or factors, and
not more than 400 or 500 persons engaged in the business, but it now
furnishes occupation for ten times that number. Twenty-five years since
the trade was in a prosperous state, but about this time, owing to the
demand being good, an inferior article was made, with which the customers
were dissatisfied; and the result of this state of things was the
invention of a machine which, by singular ingenuity and application of
mechanical skill, cuts every part of the nail at once out of a solid
sheet of iron. The rapidity, ease, and cheapness with which nails were
thus multiplied, of course caused a great change in the condition and
prospects of the nail-making districts. The demand, however, still
continues for many descriptions of the article which cannot be made, or
so well made, by machine, and supplies a tolerable amount of employment.
The French and Germans now successfully compete with us in the
manufacture, and the export trade to America is decreasing in consequence
of the prohibitory duty imposed by the government of that country. The
nailors, as a class, are almost as destitute as the colliers of
everything like intelligence, and this is chiefly owing to the early age
at which the children work at the trade and are able to earn a livelihood
for themselves. The truck system—by which the employer pays the wages of
his workpeople, not in money, but in goods of his own providing, and at
prices of his own fixing—is an evil of monstrous growth, which has
greatly assisted in the degradation of the workpeople. Recently,
however, many benevolent efforts have been made to provide them with
education and to remedy the social evils which exist amongst them.
Thirty or forty years ago there was a considerable linen trade carried on
at Bromsgrove. A good deal of flax was once grown in this neighbourhood,
and the manufacture by the hand loom was considerable, but the
introduction of machinery superseded this mode of making, and enterprise
and capital, necessary to the establishment of factories with the latest
improvements in machinery, were wanting. Moreover Bromsgrove linens got
into disrepute, because those of inferior make were sent here for
bleaching and sold as of Bromsgrove manufacture. Bromsgrove itself has
been much improved within the last twenty years. In the year 1846 an Act
of Parliament was passed for paving, cleansing, draining, and improving
the town, and for the better assessing and collecting the parochial
rates.
The SALT MANUFACTURE of Droitwich is one of the most ancient businesses
in the kingdom, having been carried on for upwards of 1,000 years, and
the salt made here has always been celebrated for its strength and
purity. From the year 1805 until 1823 salt was subject to a duty of 15s.
a bushel or £30 a ton, and this impost was collected by the excise every
six weeks. A large capital was therefore required to carry on the trade,
and the price of fine salt was at least £32 per ton. In that year,
however, the duty was reduced to 2s. a bushel, and in 1825 it was removed
altogether; and the highest price of fine salt, since its repeal, has
been £1. 2s. 6d. per ton. That such a reduction in price must have led
to a greatly increased consumption is self-evident, but there was no very
immediate or considerable increase in the make. The proprietors of the
original salt works in this borough sought to protect themselves against
competition, by buying up most of the land that would be available for
the erection of new works, and for a time they kept up their profits.
Rival companies, however, did at length find means of establishing
themselves, and about twelve or fourteen years ago a large increase of
production took place, but the price of the article has been so reduced
by this competition that the business has become very unremunerative.
Repeated failures have taken place amongst the more recent firms; and
half a million of capital, invested in the manufacture within the last
twenty-five years, has been entirely lost. Within the last fifty years
the primitive method of simply boring for the brine has been improved
upon by casing the pit with wood, and more recently shafts have been sunk
quite through the fresh water springs, the bottom and sides of which are
secured with iron cylinders before boring down to the brine springs. By
this means the brine (which lies 173 feet from the surface) is obtained
at its full saturation of 42 parts of salt to 100, while formerly it
varied between 28 and 37 percent. The present annual make at Droitwich
of all kinds of salt is about 80,000 tons, and at the works at Stoke,
from 25,000 to 30,000 tons; the average price per ton is scarcely more
than 10s. The Droitwich trade labours under considerable disadvantage in
the heavy tonnage which the manufacturers have to pay for the carriage of
the article to the outports, and the iniquitous tax imposed upon the
article in the East Indies, where it is almost a necessary of life, is a
great hindrance to an extension of sale.
The manufactures with which WORCESTER itself is associated, during the
half-century just closed, have reached their meridian and have seriously
declined. Our porcelain factories were once almost as famous as those of
Sévres, and notices will be found in the following pages of continual
visits from Royal and distinguished personages to witness the art of the
potter, and to give large orders for splendid services of China; but this
is one of those articles the demand for which has been greatly affected
by a change of fashion, and plate has now almost wholly superseded China
for dinner services amongst people of wealth. Truth requires it to be
said also that our manufacturers have allowed themselves to be
outstripped, in spirit and improvement, by those of other places. At the
beginning of this century there were forty or fifty master glovers in
Worcester. The trade received a serious check by the suspension of our
intercourse with America in 1812, nevertheless, the number had increased
in 1826 to 120; but the repeal of the import duty in that year, together
with the more general use of Berlin and silk gloves, has had such a
damaging effect upon the trade, that there are at present only twenty
master glovers in the city. One firm, however (known as the Messrs.
Dent’s), has a world-wide celebrity, and manufactures on a very large
scale. It was not so much in price as in quality that the Worcester
makers had to dread foreign competition; the article sent out from their
workshops before the repeal of the duty was clumsily and badly made.
Worcester gloves are now equal in every respect to those imported from
France, and are often sold as French to accommodate the prejudice of the
customer. It seems hard to say why Worcester, a city so centrally
situated, and, before the railway era, so advantageously situated as
regards the means of communication with other parts of the kingdom, has
not become a manufacturing emporium and a place of much greater
importance. In my belief, one principal reason has been the hindrance to
speculative or _bonâ fide_ building, which exists in the bad tenure of
land everywhere around the city; there can be no doubt that this has
driven enterprising men to settle in places which in other respects were
less suitable for their undertakings. There has, moreover, been a lack
of unity and coöperation amongst the inhabitants in the promotion of the
general good which has been “the worm i’ the bud” to many schemes which
would in all probability have greatly advanced the prosperity of the
city. Considerations of the common weal have been postponed to the
interests of partizanship. To make an application of our civic
motto—Worcester, if faithful to herself, may flourish ever. Worcester is
rich in charitable institutions and revenues for alleviating the
distresses of poverty. It may be a question, indeed, whether these have
not reached the point at which eleemosynary aid ceases to be
advantageous, begins to foster dependence, and eats out the energy of a
community; but their abundance has at any rate not had the effect of
drying up the streams of private benevolence. At least £40,000 have been
raised in Worcester at different periods of distress and necessity which
have occurred since 1800, for the relief and aid of its own poor.
There are many minor manufactures carried on in the county, especially
the preparation of leather at Bewdley, Stourport, and Worcester, which
need not be further particularised, and for the remaining towns and
boroughs—these—like an honoured aristocracy—repose on their historical
associations; the fame which the touches of a master hand, such as
Fielding’s, may have cast around their name; or the remembrances of
former activity and bustle. But I must not omit a passing notice of
MALVERN, that gem of nature’s setting, on whose hills the purest air is
breathed, the purest water drank, and the richest and most unique inland
landscape to be seen in all England. Formerly what is called Malvern
Wells was the only part of the hills at which visitors stopped, but for
the last twenty years Great Malvern has been gradually growing as a place
of resort, and is now a “town” by Act of Parliament. And whether for
pleasure or for health it must continue to be resorted to, and to
increase in fame and importance; for it abounds in nature’s simplest but
most efficacious restoratives, and its beauties will bear repeated
inspection, and will be appreciated just in proportion to the cultivation
of the mind that dwells on them.
Even from this hasty and cursory glance at the progress of the county
during the first half of the nineteenth century, it will be apparent that
Worcestershire has not been deficient in contributing her quota to the
general prosperity. The age is remorseless in its demands; we cannot
stand still. The years that are past press with all their accelerated
momentum on the heels of those that follow and hurry them to a yet
greater speed. But our resources are not exhausted, nor need we fear
that they shall ever be. We do not trace the decay of nations to any
failure in the material of greatness, but in the enervation of the mind
that should develop it. It only remains for us, then, to be found in the
practice of intelligence and industry—which make a people great—and of
the virtues which make a people happy.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS.
THE great change in constituencies and elections which divides with so
marked a line the period over which the records of this volume extend has
long been accepted by all parties as _un fait accompli_, and few, if any,
would revert to the system of former days, even if it were possible. All
now see that by its means we have been enabled to take Reform as our
watchword, instead of Revolution, and to escape anarchy and despotism—the
Scylla and Charybdis into which the continental nations have been
continually falling. Elections in Worcestershire have of course been
much the same as elections elsewhere; often scenes of riot and
corruption, now and then the occasions of an irresistible burst of
popular feeling, but very far from being at any time exercises of calm,
deliberative, and patriotic judgment. As to the changes which should be
made in the constituencies with a view to remedy existing evils, and to
add strength to our constitutional edifice, everybody now-a-days has his
own crotchet, and the writer’s is an educational franchise. He believes
that it would be perfectly feasible to make a register of all parties who
could read and write, in the presence of the revising officer, some
declaration of the privileges and responsibilities of a vote, and who
could satisfy him that they understood the functions of a representative.
No one that had not so far qualified himself for the exercise of the
franchise could in these days reasonably complain of being denied it, and
it would give a greater impulse to elementary education than all the
grants of public money that ever have or ever will be made for the
establishment of schools.
COUNTY OF WORCESTER.
BEFORE the passing of the Reform Bill the number of electors on the
county register was not much more than 3,500. At the last revision there
were in the eastern division, 6,515; western, 4,135.
1802—JULY 12—(General Election, the old Parliament having run out its
legal term.)—The Hon. Edward Foley, of Stoke Edith, and Wm. Lygon, Esq.,
reëlected without opposition.
1803—JULY 19—(Vacancy occasioned by the death of the Hon. E. Foley.)—The
Hon. W. Ward elected without opposition.
1806—MARCH 3—(Vacancy occasioned by the elevation of Wm. Lygon, Esq., to
the Peerage.)—The nomination takes place in the Castle Yard, Worcester.
The Hon. W. B. Lygon, son of the peer recently created, was proposed by
the Rev. Mr. Pyndar, and seconded by Thomas Hornyold, Esq. The Hon. W.
H. Lyttelton, undeterred by the Beauchamp influence, then thought to be
overwhelming, came forward “to assert the independence of the county,”
and was proposed by John Amphlett, Esq., of Clent, and seconded by the
Rev. Mr. Onslow, Vicar of Kidderminster. The show of hands was in favour
of Mr. Lygon, and a poll demanded by his opponent. After five days’
polling Mr. Lyttelton resigned, the numbers then being—Lygon, 1,502;
Lyttelton, 1,145—majority for Lygon, 357. A sharp correspondence,
imputing artifices, fraud, &c., afterwards took place between the
candidates. The representation of the county had not been contested
previously since the general election of 1741 (64 years before), when the
numbers were Lechmere, 2,309; Pitt, 2,120; Deerhurst, 1,930; Lyttelton,
1,412.
1806—NOVEMBER 7—(General Election on the accession of the short-lived Fox
ministry.)—The Hon. Mr. Lygon, and the Hon. Mr. Lyttelton, returned
together without opposition; the Hon. Mr. Ward having retired from the
representation in consequence of ill health.
1807—MAY—(General Election—Change of Ministry, and Appeal by the King to
the country on the Catholic Question.)—Hon. W. B. Lygon, and Hon. W. H.
Lyttelton, reëlected without opposition. A storm came on while the
election was proceeding, and the Sheriff was obliged to retire into the
Castle to finish the proceedings. It is noticed that the accommodation
in the Castle Yard was of the worst possible description.
1812—OCTOBER—(General Election.)—The Hon. W. B. Lygon, and Hon. W. H.
Lyttelton, returned again without opposition.
1816—NOVEMBER—(On the elevation of Lord Elmley, the Hon. W. B. Lygon, to
the peerage by the death of his father, Earl Beauchamp.)—Col. H. B.
Lygon, younger brother of the former member, elected without opposition.
1818—JUNE—(General Election.)—Col. Lygon, and the Hon. W. H. Lyttelton,
reëlected without opposition.
1820—MARCH—(General Election on the demise of George III)—The Hon. W. H.
Lyttelton retired from the representation from family considerations, and
Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., offered himself as a candidate in his
stead. At the nomination, Col. Lygon was proposed by Sir A. Lechmere,
and seconded by Sir William Smith, Bart.; and Sir Thomas Winnington was
proposed by T. S. Vernon, Esq., and seconded by E. M. Wigley, Esq. There
was no opposition.
1826—JUNE—(General Election. Parliament dissolved by George IV, its
possible sands having almost run out.)—Col. Lygon and Sir Thomas
Winnington, Bart., reëlected without the shadow of an opposition.
1830—AUGUST—(General Election on the accession of William IV.)—Sir Thomas
Winnington retired from the representation, and the Hon. Thomas Henry
Foley, son of Lord Foley, was elected in his stead, with Colonel Lygon,
who thus for the fifth time was returned without opposition.
1831—MAY—(General Election to take the sense of the country on the Reform
Bill.)—The Reformers from the first moment that this election became
imminent, looked about for a candidate to oppose Col. Lygon. First, Mr.
Sergeant Russell was mentioned, and then John Richards, Esq., of
Stourbridge. The last named gentleman actually did one week issue an
address to the freeholders, but, frightened at hearing that the Dowager
Lady Beauchamp had subscribed £50,000 to fight the country, he hastily
withdrew on the next. However, a few days before the election, Captain
Spencer, brother to Lord Althorp, allowed himself to be named as a
candidate, and a tremendous struggle ensued. Col. Lygon, while
canvassing in the Corn Market, Worcester, was attacked by a town’s
rabble, and compelled to take refuge in a neighbouring tavern. On the
morning of the nomination, Col. Lygon assembled his friends at
Madresfield; Mr. Foley at the New Inn, Ombersley Road; and Captain
Spencer, at the Talbot, Tything. The nomination took place in the Castle
Yard, Osman Ricardo, Esq., High Sheriff, being returning officer. John
S. Pakington, Esq., proposed Col. Lygon, who was seconded by John
Phillips, Esq.; T. T. Vernon, Esq., proposed, and T. C. Hornyold, Esq.,
seconded, the Hon. Mr. Foley; and Sir C. S. Smith, Bart., and Robert
Berkeley, Esq., were Captain Spencer’s proposer and seconder. Before the
show of hands was taken, Dr. Beale Cooper demanded proof of Captain
Spencer’s qualification, whereupon the Captain said he had expected such
a demand, and handed to the under sheriff a deed _bearing date April_ 30,
purporting to be a grant from Earl Spencer to Captain Spencer, of a rent
charge to the amount of £600 upon manors and estates in the county of
Herts. The show of hands was declared to be in favour of Foley and
Spencer, whereupon Col. Lygon demanded a poll, which immediately
commenced. Col. Lygon headed the poll the first day, but never
afterwards; and on the morning of the seventh day he resigned all further
contest, the numbers then being—Foley, 2,034; Spencer, 1,765; Lygon,
1,335. At the close of each day speeches were made by the candidates and
their friends, from the booths at the back of the Talbot Inn, Tything;
and the coalition formed between Foley and Spencer, on finding that
Colonel Lygon’s friends were plumping for him, formed a most fertile
topic for talk. A riot took place in Broad Street one evening, in
consequence of one of Col. Lygon’s friends having imprudently irritated
the mob by throwing a decanter amongst them from the committee-room. The
windows of the room were immediately broken, and other disturbances took
place. There can be no doubt that the result of this election had great
effect upon the country generally.
A dinner was given in the next week to the Hon. Mr. Foley and Captain
Spencer, at the Bell Inn, with Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., in the
chair. Sir C. S. Smith was in the vice-chair, and Lord Lyttelton and
about 100 other gentlemen were present. Dinners were also given to the
successful candidates at Hagley, Kidderminster, Evesham, Stourbridge,
Dudley, and Birmingham. The Birmingham dinner was held at Dee’s Hotel,
with Dr. Edward Johnstone in the chair.
Immediately after the election a meeting of Col. Lygon’s friends was held
at the Hoppole, Worcester, “to take into consideration the best mode of
testifying their approbation of his manly, spirited, and patriotic
conduct upon the late election; and for his faithful services during the
fifteen years he represented this county in Parliament.” J. S.
Pakington, Esq., was called to the chair, and there was a very
respectable attendance. Mr. Pakington asserted that the minority who had
voted for the Colonel, comprised the majority of the education and
respectability of the county. The “discreditable coalition” proved the
theme of much lamentation. Resolutions approving of Col. Lygon’s
Parliamentary career and general conduct were agreed to, and a
subscription entered into for the purchase of plate. This was presented
at a dinner at the Hoppole, in February, 1832. It was a superb vase, 57
inches in circumference, supported on a massive column and plinth,
decorated with embossed Acanthus leaves, and weighing in the whole 600
oz. It was designed by the inscription to be “a testimony of the
gratitude of his political friends for his long and faithful attention to
their interest in Parliament, and especially for his support of our
glorious and long cherished constitution.” John S. Pakington, Esq., was
the president of the evening, and presented the testimonial.
1832—DECEMBER—(Election rendered necessary by the passing of the Reform
Bill.)—The county now divided into two divisions.—_West
Worcestershire_.—The Hon. T. H. Foley (Whig), and Col. Lygon
(Conservative), returned without opposition. The nomination took place
in the space fronting the County Gaol, and the candidates were not
proposed or seconded, the cries of “Foley and Lygon” by the crowd,
without any other person being named, being taken by the Sheriff as
sufficient.
_East Worcestershire_.—The nomination of candidates took place at
Droitwich, Mr. Pakington (Conservative), being proposed by James Taylor,
Esq., and John Phillips, Esq., of Hanbury Hall; Thomas Henry Cookes,
Esq., (Whig) by Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., and C. E. Hanford, Esq.;
and Wm. Congreve Russell, Esq., (Whig) by T. T. Vernon, Esq., and W.
Acton, Esq. The High Sheriff declared the show of hands to be in favour
of Mr. Pakington and Mr. Cookes, whereupon a poll was demanded for Mr.
Russell. After the two days’ poll the numbers were declared to
be—Russell, 2,576; Cookes, 2,516; Pakington, 1,916. The whole
proceedings were conducted in a peaceable and gentlemanly manner, and Mr.
Pakington, who addressed the electors at the “Declaration,” as well as
the successful candidates, was very well received. He complained of
broken promises, and the coalition of his opponents as fettering the
“independence” of the county, but declared himself neither disheartened
nor offended.
1833—MAY—_West Worcestershire_.—(Vacancy occasioned by the elevation of
the Hon. T. H. Foley to the House of Peers, on the death of his
father.)—The nomination took place in the field at the back of the Talbot
Inn, Tything. Sir Christopher Smith, Bart., proposed Captain H. J.
Winnington, who was seconded by Robert Berkeley, Esq. John Williams,
Esq., and T. C. Brock, Esq., proposed and seconded John S. Pakington,
Esq., who, to the great detriment of his cause, was not present during
any part of the proceedings—having just previously sailed to America.
Major Bund spoke at the hustings on his behalf. A Mr. Crowther also made
many attempts to be heard, but was hissed down, and he afterwards
explained in a letter to the newspapers that instead of being Mr.
Pakington’s opponent, as formerly, he intended to be his supporter,
because Captain Winnington and the Whigs had voted for the erection of
the New County Courts, while Mr. Pakington, on the contrary, “had always
opposed that unnecessary and shameful expenditure of the freeholders’
money.” The show of hands was very decidedly in favour of Captain
Winnington, and the Court was declared adjourned (from the Wednesday) to
the following Monday. At the end of the first day’s poll Captain
Winnington was 79 a-head, and the utmost excitement prevailed. Lord
Eastnor addressed the multitude on Mr. Pakington’s behalf, and the Rev.
Thomas Pearson spoke for Captain Winnington. The second day only
increased Captain Winnington’s majority, but the result was not certainly
known till the declaration of the numbers by the High Sheriff, on
Thursday morning, when they were announced to be—for Captain Winnington,
1,369; for Pakington, 1,278: majority for Winnington, 91. Mr. Pakington
had a majority in the Worcester and Upton divisions, but was beaten in
those of Stourport and Tenbury. Out of 3,122 voters, 2,647 were polled,
and though there had never been so close a contest in the county before,
it was carried on with very good humour. Captain Winnington’s return was
celebrated by a dinner at the Star and Garter Hotel, with Sir C. S. Smith
in the chair.
1835—JANUARY—_East Worcestershire_.—(General Election on the breaking up
of the Grey and Spencer cabinet, and the accession of the Duke of
Wellington and Sir R. Peel to power.)—Mr. Russell retired from the
representation at this election, on the score of ill-health, and his
place was taken on the Reform interest by Edward Holland, Esq., of
Dumbleton. Mr. Horace St. Paul was brought forward late in the day by
the Conservatives. Sir Thomas Winnington, M.P., and C. E. Hanford, Esq.,
proposed Mr. Cookes, the former member. James Taylor, Esq., of Moseley
Hall, and Mr. Whitmore Jones, proposed Mr. St. Paul; and Mr. Bate, of
Stourbridge, and Mr. Acton, Mr. Edward Holland. The choice of the people
at the nomination was declared to have fallen on Messrs. Cookes and
Holland, and a poll was demanded for Mr. St. Paul. At the end of the two
days’ poll the numbers were—Holland, 2,254; Cookes, 2,192; St. Paul,
2,145. Majority of Cookes over St. Paul, 47. 4,125 persons voted out of
5,226 on the register. There was some rioting at Stourbridge, which
necessitated the sending for two troops of lancers from Birmingham, and
Mr. St. Paul, declaring that some of his voters had been prevented from
coming to the poll by violence, presented a protest against the election.
A petition was talked of on this ground, but it came to nothing. A
dinner was given to the successful candidates, at the Golden Cross Hotel,
Bromsgrove, at which Colonel Davies presided. A similar dinner at
Stourbridge, with J. H. H. Foley, Esq., in the chair, gave rise to a
correspondence between Messrs. Robins, Hickman, Hodgetts, and Trow, and
Mr. Robert Scott and Lord Lyttelton. The first named gentlemen chose to
believe that some remarks made by Mr. Scott on the partiality and
incompetency of the county magistracy generally, were intended for
themselves, and they appealed to Lord Lyttelton to institute an inquiry.
The Lord Lieutenant not only refused to accede to their request, but
rebuked them for the language they had used.
_West Worcestershire_.—The candidates were as before, Colonel Lygon and
Mr. Pakington, who professed to coalesce on the Conservative interest,
and Captain Winnington, Whig. Sir A. Lechmere and the Hon. W. Coventry
proposed Col. Lygon; Mr. Osman Ricardo and Mr. Berkeley, Captain
Winnington; and Lord Eastnor and Mr. T. C. Brock, Mr. Pakington. The
show of hands was declared to be in favour of Captain Winnington and Mr.
Pakington. At the close of the poll the numbers were—Lygon, 1,945;
Winnington, 1,938; Pakington, 1,773: majority for Winnington, 165. 3,619
persons voted out of 4,126 upon the register.
1837—JULY—(General Election on the death of William IV.)—_West
Worcestershire_.—General Lygon and Captain Winnington reëlected without
opposition.
_East Worcestershire_.—Here there was a fierce contest, ending in the
return, for the first time, of two Conservatives. Before the election
took place the Conservatives offered a compromise, and suggested that one
of each party should be allowed to walk over, but the Liberals were so
sanguine of winning that they would not listen to the proposal. Mr.
Cookes had retired from the representation from ill-health, but his place
was supplied by Mr. J. H. H. Foley, who, with Mr. Holland, came forward
in the Liberal interest, while the Conservative candidates were Mr. H.
St. Paul and Mr. Barneby. On the hustings Colonel Davies and Sir William
Rouse Boughton, Bart., proposed Mr. Holland; T. H. Cookes, Esq., (the
late member) and James Foster, Esq., Mr. Foley; James Taylor, Esq., and
Thomas Hawkes, Esq., M.P., Mr. H. St. Paul; and Lord Eastnor and Edward
Dixon, Esq., Mr. Barneby. The show of hands was in favour of Messrs.
Barneby and St. Paul; and after the two days’ poll they were declared
duly elected; the numbers being—St. Paul, 2,595; Barneby, 2,528; Holland,
2,175; Foley, 2,168. In the Stourbridge, Bromsgrove, and Evesham
districts only, had the Liberal candidates a slight majority. Mr. Horace
St. Paul’s expenses at this election are said to have been £16,000.
1841—JUNE—(General Election. The Parliament having declared their want
of confidence in the ministers, the Whigs appeal to the people on the
Corn Law, Sugar, and Irish Registration questions. Sir Robert Peel’s “no
confidence” motion had been carried by a majority of one against
ministers.)—_West Worcestershire_.—General Lygon and F. Winn Knight,
Esq., nephew of the late John Knight, Esq., of Downton Castle, were
elected without opposition. Captain Winnington had retired from the
field in consequence of the division amongst his supporters on the Corn
Law question. He had constantly voted against any alteration of the Corn
Laws, and therefore did not please the constituencies of the towns. With
this state of things, added to the loss of the Foley interest in the
county, he could have had no chance, and therefore refused to disturb the
division by a contest.
_East Worcestershire_.—John Barneby, Esq., and James Arthur Taylor, Esq.,
returned. Mr. Horace St. Paul retired from the representation because of
ill-health, and for the same reason Mr. Holland declined to offer on the
Liberal interest. The Hon. Captain St. George Foley, brother of Lord
Foley, offered himself to the electors as an advocate of Liberal
measures, and of a moderate fixed duty upon corn. At the nomination at
Droitwich, Mr. Barneby was proposed by J. S. Pakington, Esq., M.P., and
W. Hemming, Esq.; Captain Foley, by James Foster, Esq., and Robert Scott,
Esq. M.P., in long and able speeches; and Mr. Taylor, by C. Noel, Esq.,
and Whitmore Jones, Esq. The show of hands was in favour of Barneby and
Taylor, and Captain Foley’s friends demanded a poll. At a meeting,
however, which was held at Mr. Galton’s, shortly after nomination, it was
decided, much to Captain Foley’s own mortification, not to proceed to a
poll, and that determination was communicated the same evening to the
opposite party. The Sheriff at first thought that he should be obliged
to take a poll, under the circumstances, notwithstanding, and the
Attorney General’s opinion was taken upon the point, but this being in
favour of the propriety of dispensing with the poll, Messrs. Barneby and
Taylor were declared duly elected without further trouble.
1847—JANUARY—_East Worcestershire_.—(Election to supply the vacancy
caused by the decease of John Barneby, Esq.)—Captain Rushout was the
first candidate announced, but J. H. H. Foley, Esq., having intimated his
intention of contesting the division, a meeting of the Conservative party
was called at Droitwich, at which an arrangement was entered into, by
which Mr. Foley retired from the field at present, and was to be
permitted to come in unopposed at the next election, when it was expected
that a vacancy would be caused by the retirement of Mr. James Arthur
Taylor. This created a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the
Conservative electors, but the contracting parties were too influential
to admit of their decision being contravened. Captain Rushout was,
therefore, on this occasion elected without opposition.
1847—AUGUST—(General Election on the retirement of Sir Robert Peel from
office, after carrying his free trade measures.)—_East
Worcestershire_.—In consequence of the arrangement noticed above, Mr. J.
H. H. Foley was allowed to come in in the place of Mr. J. A. Taylor, who
retired from Parliament, and with Captain Rushout was returned unopposed.
_West Worcestershire_.—General Lygon and Mr. Knight were returned without
opposition.
CITY OF WORCESTER.
THE constituency of the city is no larger now than it was in days of
yore, when freemen were made in any quantity at the pleasure of the
corporation; often while the election was proceeding. The number of
voters now on the register is about 2,200; of these, 1,099 still qualify
as freemen, and nearly 700 have no other qualification.
1802—(General Election)—The electors having been convened together in the
Guildhall for the nomination in the usual manner, the Mayor (Mr.
Rowlands) proposed the reëlection of Edward Wigley and Abraham Robarts,
Esqs., the previous members. This proposition was seconded, and the
business of the day went on most smoothly until within seven minutes of
the hour at which the writ was made returnable, when the hall became
suddenly and most violently agitated by the arrival of Joseph Scott,
Esq., of Great Barr, a relative of Lord Dudley and Ward, who came forward
and declared himself a candidate, as he said, in compliance with the
wishes of a number of the inhabitants. A poll was demanded on his
behalf, which immediately commenced, and continued for four days; at the
end of which, the numbers were—Robarts, 2,163; Scott, 1,197; Wigley,
1,180. On the fifth morning Mr. Wigley retired, and Robarts and Scott
were declared duly elected. There was no disturbance. Politics seem to
have entered very little into consideration, and the matter to have been
decided by person and purse. Mr. Wigley, in his retiring address to the
“Worthy Freemen of the City of Worcester,” intimated that he had come
forward thirteen years before, at their own request, to rescue their city
from becoming a Government nomination borough, and he did not see why he
should now have been rejected. To those “who promised him their support,
but voted for his opponent, he had nothing to say, because he could say
nothing that would be pleasing to himself.” A meeting of his friends and
supporters was afterwards held at the Crown Inn, Henry Wakeman, Esq.,
presiding, at which resolutions were passed thanking Mr. Wigley for his
conduct in Parliament, and his great attention to the interests of this
city, where he and others of his family had resided for more than thirty
years, and “been an example, rarely exceeded, of piety, benevolence, and
charity.”
1806—OCTOBER—(General Election.)—Candidates, Abrm. Robarts, Esq., the
former member; Colonel Bromley, of Abberley Lodge; and William Gordon,
Esq., who rested his claims to support on the fact of his being a
mercantile man, and, as such, better fitted to represent the city of
Worcester than Colonel Bromley, a country gentleman. He was supported by
gentlemen who were disgusted by the unblushing bribery of previous
elections. After three days’ polling, Mr. Gordon retired, the numbers
being—Robarts, 856; Bromley, 563; Gordon, 348: total number of freemen
polled, 902. Mr. Gordon was afterwards _fêted_ at the Crown Hotel, on
which occasion he attributed his defeat to his being so late in the
field. Mr. Gordon, however, afterwards presented a petition against
Colonel Bromley’s return, which that gentleman declined to defend, and
accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, so that the seat again became vacant.
1807—FEBRUARY 13—At the election thus rendered necessary, Alderman
Squires proposed William Gordon, Esq., and Alderman Carden, John
Attersoll, Esq., both gentlemen being London merchants. Mr. Gordon
declared himself to be a staunch Church and King man, and utterly opposed
to the continuance of the Slave Trade. Mr. Attersoll talked a little
more about civil and religious freedom. There seems to have been no show
of hands taken, and both parties required a poll, which was commenced
amidst a great deal of fighting and outrage. After three days’ polling
Mr. Attersoll retired, the numbers being—Gordon, 766; Attersoll, 414:
majority for Gordon, 352. A petition was next presented against Mr.
Gordon’s return, on the score of bribery, by several inhabitants of the
city. A meeting was held at the Crown, to take steps to counteract this
petition, Mr. J. Palmer in the chair. Mr. Hebb moved the resolutions, in
a speech which the reporter of the time says “displayed great
constitutional knowledge and erudition.” The petition was dismissed in
consequence of the necessary recognizances not being entered into.
1807—MAY 6—(General Election.)—Mr. Robarts and Mr. Gordon returned
without opposition. Mr. Attersoll having canvassed the electors, and
found that he had no chance, retired on the eve of the contest.
This election was chiefly remarkable for the quantity of pens and ink
wasted upon it. Mr. Gordon, after being returned as an “independent”
member, followed the example of most of his contemporary M.P.’s, in
turning his position to account, and obtained from the Government a
license to trade with Spain. He was warned of the consequences of
becoming a tool of Government by Mr. Hebb, in a series of letters bearing
the signature of Cato Uticensis. Then followed various blasts and
counter-blasts, especially a sheet of rhyme called the _Doctoriad_, to
which there was a smart replication under the title of the _Gordonian_;
and these were for some time the _poemes celébres_ of Worcester
elections.
1812—OCTOBER 5—(General Election.)—Mr. Robarts and Mr. Gordon again
candidates, though, as the latter was out of the country, he was
represented by his father-in-law, Sir George Cornewall. A day or two
before the election, a number of freemen presented a requisition to Lord
Deerhurst, pressing him to offer himself, which he did. At the
nomination, Mr. Robarts and Lord Deerhurst obtained the show of hands,
and a poll was demanded on behalf of Mr. Gordon. After eight days’
contest—severer than any which had taken place in the city since the
celebrated one in 1761, between Sir William Watkin Lewes and Mr.
Rouse—the numbers were found to be—Robarts, 1,248; Gordon, 939;
Deerhurst, 855. Lord Deerhurst then retired, having won golden opinions
from all sorts of men, by the eloquence of his speeches, the courtesy of
his manner, and the good humour he had maintained. He polled a majority
of the resident freemen, but was beaten by the out-voters. The number of
freemen polled at this election was 1,765. No particular political
principle seems to have been at all involved in the contest. A gold cup
was afterwards purchased by Lord Deerhurst’s supporters, and presented to
him at a dinner at the Crown; Thomas Farley, Esq., in the chair.
1816—DECEMBER—(Vacancy on the death of A. Robarts, Esq.)—Lord Deerhurst
again offered himself as a candidate, and Colonel Davies made his first
appearance in Worcester. He continued an active canvass for some time,
but at last finding that Lord Deerhurst had indubitably secured a
majority of votes, he withdrew. Lord Deerhurst was proposed at the
hustings by the Mayor (R. Chamberlain, Esq.), and seconded by E. M.
Wigley, Esq. The chairing took place immediately afterwards, and the
chair itself was very prematurely demolished by the mob in High Street.
On the following day a grand dinner was given to the new member at the
Hoppole.
1818—JUNE 15—(General Election.)—This was one of the severest contested
elections which had been known in the city of Worcester, and it
terminated in the return of Colonel Davies to Parliament for the first
time. The city had been kept in great excitement for some months before
the election, by the continued canvassing of all the candidates. All
parties were enthusiastic in their support of Lord Deerhurst, whose
return was safe from the first, and the contest lay between Sir William
Duff Gordon and Colonel Davies. Sir William Gordon had forfeited some of
his popularity by the course he had taken in voting with Government, for
the orders in council altering the import duties, and which were supposed
to have had a great effect upon the glove trade. Colonel Davies, shortly
before the election, gave up his commission in the Guards, that he might
make the better Member of Parliament, by having his time entirely
unfettered. Though not much was said about political principles in the
addresses of the different candidates, it was understood that Colonel
Davies was more Whiggish in his views than either of the other men.
Tumults took place both at Kidderminster and in London amongst the
out-voters, who were canvassed there by the different parties, and at the
polling places the riot and disturbance was worse than ever before
recollected. At the nomination, Lord Deerhurst was proposed by the Mayor
(S. Wall, Esq.), and seconded by Mr. John Dent. Sir William Gordon was
proposed by Major Bund and Mr. Thomas Dent; and Colonel Davies by
Alderman Nash and Mr. Richards. After seven days’ polling, Sir William
Gordon withdrew from the contest; the numbers then being—Deerhurst,
1,422; Davies, 1,024; Gordon, 874. Colonel Davies had a majority both in
the city and out-votes; but he was principally the gainer among the
London freemen. The total number polled was 1,963. The two members were
chaired as usual the day after the election had concluded, and the chairs
demolished by the populace, according to their ancient prerogative and
right.
Petitions were presented against both Colonel Davies’s and Lord
Deerhurst’s return. The latter, however, was withdrawn. On the 16th
March, 1819, the committee to investigate Colonel Davies’s return was
ballotted for, and Mr. Alexander Baring, M.P. for Taunton, chosen
chairman. The petition alleged bribery and treating, but the necessary
witnesses were kept out of the way. Colonel Davies was declared duly
elected by the casting vote of the chairman, and the news was received in
Worcester with great rejoicings by his supporters.
1820—MARCH—(General Election.)—Lord Deerhurst and Colonel Davies returned
without opposition: the former being proposed by Thomas Carden, Esq., and
seconded by Samuel Crane, Esq.; and the latter, by Richard Nash, Esq.,
seconded by E. M. Wigley, Esq. The chairing, on this occasion, was a
very splendid affair.
1826—JUNE—(General Election.)—So long before this election as March,
1824, George Richard Robinson, Esq., a London merchant, announced his
intention of becoming a candidate on “independent” principles, and by a
free expenditure of money made himself popular. All parties had been
engaged in a very active canvass, but in May Lord Deerhurst suddenly
announced his determination not again to offer himself as a candidate.
This caused immense chagrin, not only to his pledged supporters, who said
his victory was certain, but also to all those who had revelled in the
prospect of the high price which votes would fetch in a prolonged and
doubtful contest—such as the forthcoming one promised to be. Lord
Deerhurst made his appointment as a Vice Lieutenant, and his other
numerous public duties, the plea for retiring. Richard Griffiths, Esq.,
of Thorngrove, was induced to come forward in his stead at the eleventh
hour. On the hustings, Colonel Davies was proposed by Mr. Alderman
Carden and Mr. John Palmer; Mr. G. R. Robinson, by Mr. Alderman Ballard
and Major Bund; and Mr. Griffiths, by Mr. John Dent and Mr. Henry
Clifton. Colonel Davies avowed himself in favour of reform, economy, and
free trade; Mr. Robinson intended generally to support ministers, but
declared himself independent; and Mr. Griffiths was a thorough Church and
King man. After six days’ poll the numbers were—Robinson, 1,542; Davies,
1,268; and Griffiths, 1,036. Mr. Griffiths then withdrew from the
contest, having spent, during the week he was in the city, some £8,000,
and thus answered the chief end of the parties who dragged him forward.
There indeed was scarcely ever such a dear election, to all the
candidates, in the city of Worcester—the most unprecedented exertions in
fetching voters from a distance, &c., being made. The entire sum spent
is said to have been £25,000. The total number of freemen polled was
1,963—viz., 1,184, city; 246, from London; and 433, country. This was
the largest number on record as having polled at any election. Davies
had 322 plumpers; Robinson, 132; and Griffiths, 50. The chairing took
place as usual, and the elegant cars were broken to pieces at the bottom
of Broad Street, at the imminent risk of the new members’ lives. A
dinner was given in the succeeding week to Mr. Robinson, at the Hoppole,
Mr. Alderman Ballard presiding. Colonel Davies’s friends met to form a
committee to secure his return in future at less expense; and Mr.
Griffiths announced his firm intention of offering himself again,
whenever a vacancy should occur.
1830—JULY 30—(General Election.)—Colonel Davies and Mr. Robinson returned
without opposition; all the efforts of the third-man-no-matter-who party
having failed to produce a candidate.
1831—MAY—(General Election.)—The Tory party three days before the
election brought forward a candidate in the person of the Hon. Colonel
Henry Fitzroy, brother to Lord Southampton, but the Reform enthusiasm was
so strong that his voice was drowned in the disapprobation of the people
the moment he opened his lips, and all the significant hints that he had
plenty of money to spend were thrown away. The Colonel soon found that
he was in a false position, and did not appear on the hustings at the day
of nomination. Colonel Davies was proposed by George Farley, Esq., and
seconded by Mr. John Palmer; while Archibald Cameron, Esq., proposed, and
Thomas Scott, Esq., seconded, Mr. Robinson. They were declared duly
elected, and the chairing took place forthwith, but the chair was
demolished sooner than usual.
1832—DECEMBER—(General Election.)—Colonel Davies and Mr. Robinson again
returned. A few weeks before the election a third candidate appeared on
the scene, in the person of R. A. Dundas, Esq., cousin of Viscount
Melville, intending to contest the city on Conservative principles, but
after a canvass he gave the matter up as hopeless. Mr. Robinson having
in an address to the electors, said that Mr. Dundas had been “deluded
with hopes of success, which proved utterly fallacious”—his supporters
sent for him back again, and declared that he should stand a poll unless
Mr. Robinson withdrew these “offensive” expressions. A long conference
took place, and some modification of the terms, or explanation of their
intention, was conceded, and Mr. Dundas once more made his bow. Colonel
Davies was proposed by Mr. Hebb and Mr. George Allen; and Mr. Robinson by
Mr. Spooner and Mr. Munn. The members went through the city in an open
carriage drawn by six grey horses, instead of in a chair, and the mob
having shewn some disposition to destroy the carriage, they were
disappointed by the postillions turning suddenly along the back streets
into the Hoppole yard. Some of the crowd climbed the gates, and began to
tear the decorations, but they were beaten off. A dinner was afterwards
given to the two members unitedly, at the Bell Inn, Mr. Hebb in the
chair.
1835—(General Election.)—On this occasion a candidate was brought forward
by the Conservatives in the person of Joseph Bailey, Esq., a very opulent
ironmaster from Glanusk, in Monmouthshire. Mr. Robinson appeared to be
an universal favourite, as by the comparative moderation of his views he
had conciliated many of the Tory party, but they concentrated all their
animosity against Colonel Davies, who had not only been a very determined
but very active promoter of Reform measures in the House of Commons. The
Colonel had lost favour with some of the glovers by his support of free
trade principles. The most strenuous exertions were made by the Colonel
and Mr. Bailey, between whom it was at once seen that the struggle would
lie, while Mr. Robinson rested upon his oars in security. At the
nomination, Mr. Hebb and Mr. Allies proposed Colonel Davies; Dr. Hastings
and Mr. Thomas Scott, proposed Mr. Robinson; and Mr. John Williams, of
Pitmaston, and Mr. Dent, proposed Mr. Bailey. The show of hands was
entirely in favour of the two old members, and a poll was demanded by Mr.
Gutch in favour of Mr. Bailey. At the end of the first day’s poll the
numbers were—Robinson, 1,309; Davies, 882; Bailey, 835; but the second
day altered the state of things, and the final return, as made by the
Sheriff, was—Robinson, 1,611; Bailey, 1,154; Davies, 1,137: majority for
Bailey, 17. There was a sharp affray between the street partizans of the
various candidates on Tuesday evening, and several heads were broken.
Immediately after the election a dinner was given to Colonel Davies and
Mr. Robinson, at the Bell Inn, W. Sanders, Esq., in the chair; at which
it was announced to be the intention of Colonel Davies’s friends to bring
the result of the election before a committee of the House of Commons.
Captain Winnington, Mr. Cookes, and Mr. Holland, the three recently
elected Whig members for the county, were present. A dinner was given to
Joseph Bailey, Esq., M.P., at the Hoppole, in February. The party
numbered nearly 200, and Mr. Richard Spooner was in the chair. The
various speakers boasted of the “reaction” which had taken place in
favour of Conservative principles. Mr. Bailey paid his first visit to
Worcester after his election in October; dinners were provided for his
supporters, and _eighty public houses_ were “opened” in the evening. The
principal party was given at the Unicorn Inn, Broad Street, where Mr.
Richard Spooner presided. Mr. Henry Clifton and Mr. Pierpoint were
vice-chairmen.
As soon as the session opened, a petition was presented against Mr.
Bailey’s return, and a scrutiny of votes took place before a committee of
the House of Commons, which was ballotted for March 31st, and consisted
of seven Tories and four Whigs; Mr. J. E. Denison (Nottinghamshire) being
chairman. After a sitting of eleven days, fifty-five votes were struck
off by the petitioners, and forty by Mr. Bailey, still leaving that
gentleman in a majority of one; and the petitioners then gave up the
struggle, in consequence of several adverse decisions on the part of the
committee. The following is a summary of the votes struck off on each
side:
BY THE PETITIONERS. BY MR. BAILEY.
Pauper votes 33 Pauper votes 8
Personation 2 Change of qualification 17
Employed and paid 11 Employed and paid. 9
Change of qualification 8 Not registered 3
Wager 1 Dead before election 1
Wagers 2
55 40
Objections not admitted. 16 Objections not admitted. 4
The petitioners alleged three cases of bribery on Mr. Bailey’s part, but
failed in the proof; and the votes of a number of Mr. Bailey’s
professional agents, objected to by the petitioners, were retained, in
consequence of the memorable evidence of one of their number—that their
services were all gratuitously rendered. The conduct of the petition was
intrusted to Mr. John Hill, and by him managed most admirably. The
expenses were all covered by the subscriptions, which had been previously
raised, and that almost entirely among the citizens themselves. Mr.
Bailey’s expenses are said to have been £16,000. The expenses of the
election itself were but trifling. Of course the greatest excitement
prevailed in the city during the progress of the petition, and Mr.
Bailey’s party had great rejoicings on the issue.
In September, 1836, a dinner was given by the Worcester Conservative
operatives to Mr. Bailey, at the Theatre. 427 persons sat down to table,
and there were many spectators. The chief speakers were Mr. Bailey, Mr.
Spooner, Mr. Pakington, and Mr. John Dent. There were great
congratulations on the “reaction” which had taken place in the city, as
elsewhere, in favour of Toryism.
Immediately afterwards (October 24) the operative Reformers got up a
great dinner in the Town Hall, to refute the cry about “reaction.” Eight
hundred persons sat down to dinner in the outer hall, 500 in the assembly
room, and others at different inns. Mr. Arrowsmith was in the chair;
supported on his right by the Mayor, and on the left by Colonel Davies.
The whole party met in the outer hall after dinner (this being
brilliantly lighted up for the occasion), and a number of appropriate
toasts were given.
1837—(General Election.)—The candidates at this election were Mr. Bailey
and Mr. Robinson (the former members), and Colonel Davies; but on the day
of nomination Mr. Robinson retired in the most unexpected manner. This
was owing to many of the Liberal electors having refused to give him
their promises on his canvass, because they thought he had not behaved
well to Colonel Davies at the previous election, and had, moreover,
offended them by some votes in the House, which did not savour
sufficiently of party. Mr. Bailey and Colonel Davies were declared duly
elected, under protest from Mr. J. D. Stevenson, who had proposed (but a
little too late) Mr. James Morison, of London.
Mr. John Hood and Mr. Joseph Lingham proposed Mr. Robinson on this
occasion; Mr. John Williams and Mr. John Dent, Mr. Bailey; the Mayor and
Mr. George Allies, Colonel Davies.
Barristers’ opinions were afterwards obtained, declaring that the return
of the Sheriff was, under the circumstances, incorrect. In anticipation
of another election, therefore, a Mr. Turton, son of Sir Thomas Turton, a
Sussex baronet, was introduced to the electors as a candidate on the
Liberal interest. He addressed a public meeting in the Guildhall in
October, at which it was resolved—first, to petition; and, secondly, to
support Mr. Turton if a vacancy then occurred. Colonel Davies’s friends
refused to promise a coalition with Mr. Turton. At the eleventh hour the
petition was abandoned, and Mr. Bailey brought an action against the
petitioners to recover £174, the sum which he had expended in preparing
to defend his seat; but on an appearance being put in, the claim was
abandoned.
1841—JULY—(General Election.)—Colonel Davies retiring from the
representation, because of ill-health, was succeeded by Sir Thomas Wilde,
who, during his candidateship for the city, was made Attorney General, in
the room of Sir John Campbell, elevated to the Irish Chancellorship. Mr.
Bailey again offered himself on the Conservative interest, and Mr. Robert
Hardy, of the firm of Hardy and Padmore, ironfounders, being determined
that the Tories should not have the seat uncontested, presented himself
as the candidate of the Radical party, of which he had long been a
leading member. Mr. Hardy’s personal character and liberality had caused
him to be greatly respected in the city; but his ultra opinions, and
especially the fact of his being a Dissenter, left him little chance of
success. The usual meetings took place before the election, and Sir
Thomas Wilde availed himself of the opportunity to make some most able
speeches in exposition and defence of the policy of the ministry. The
nomination in the Guildhall presented more than the usual scene of
confusion, and a fight with bludgeons took place in the midst of it,
which had well-nigh proved fatal to one young man, who was accidentally
struck on the head. Mr. Bailey was proposed by Mr. John Dent and Mr.
Pierpoint; Sir Thomas Wilde, by Mr. George Farley and Alderman Corles;
and Mr. Hardy, by Mr. Edward Lloyd and Mr. Ledbrook. Sir Thomas Wilde
and Mr. Hardy had a great majority on the show of hands, and a poll was
demanded by Mr. Bailey. The numbers, as declared by the Sheriff,
were—Wilde, 1,187; Bailey, 1,173; Hardy, 875. All parties were surprised
to find that Mr. Hardy had obtained so many votes.
The supporters of Mr. Hardy afterwards presented him with a large silver
salver “for his generous and patriotic conduct in coming forward to
vindicate, by his example, purity of election, and to afford his fellow
citizens an opportunity of redeeming their opinions from
misrepresentation by a Tory.”
1846—JULY—(Election caused by Sir Thomas Wilde taking office under the
new Whig ministry.)—Sir Thomas Wilde having been appointed Attorney
General, he came to Worcester to be reëlected by his constituency, and on
the Monday (July 6) he addressed his supporters in the large room of the
Bell Hotel. They unanimously agreed to renew their adhesion, and no
other candidate was thought of. The election was fixed for Wednesday,
but on Tuesday evening Sir Thomas was apprised by Lord John Russell of
the sudden decease of Sir Nicholas Tindal, and of the intention to
elevate Sir Thomas to the chief justiceship of the Common Pleas. Of
course, under these circumstances, Sir Thomas could no longer be member
for Worcester, but Government had taken care to provide a candidate in
the bearer of the message, Sir Denis Le Marchant, Bart., now chief clerk
of the House of Commons. The Liberal party were hastily summoned
together on Wednesday morning, and on the recommendation of their late
representative, they transferred their support from Sir Thomas to Sir
Denis. Walking from the place of meeting to the hustings, Sir Denis was
proposed by the Mayor, and seconded by Francis Edward Williams, Esq., as
the member for the city of Worcester. Sir Thomas Wilde spoke on his
behalf, and no other candidate having been proposed, Sir Denis was
declared duly elected. He afterwards spoke at some length, declaring
himself a thorough free trader, and generally a supporter of the Liberal
government. Edward Evans, Esq., and George Allies, Esq., then moved a
vote of thanks to their late representative, Sir Thomas Wilde, and it was
carried with loud acclamations. Sir Thomas replied with great
_empressement_ and feeling, and after a vote of thanks to the Sheriff,
Mr. Elgie, the singular election of 1846 ended. The gentleman thus
suddenly made the representative of Worcester proved, during the short
time he held that office, one of the most practically useful members
which the city ever had. Four days elapsed between the election and the
usual procession, and in that interval Sir Denis returned to town to
negociate, as is generally believed, the support of the _Times_ to the
Whig ministry. The subsequent tone of the “leading journal” may be
supposed to give some corroboration to this rumour.
1847—JULY—(General Election.)—Sir Denis Le Marchant and Mr. Bailey,
having each withdrawn their pretensions to represent the city (the
latter, in order that he might be elected for his native county of
Breconshire), both political parties had to look out for fresh
candidates. The Liberals fixed upon Osman Ricardo, Esq., of Bromsberrow
Place, a country gentleman who had taken little part in public matters,
but was known as a man of principle, and who laid himself out for the
substantial good of the neighbourhood in which he lived. The
Conservatives were not quite so easily suited, or so unanimous in their
choice. Mr. Sergeant Glover was first named by one section of the party,
but he at length gave way to Mr. F. Rufford, who, as chairman of the
Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway Company, possessed some
amount of popularity in the city. Mr. Rufford, in his addresses to the
electors, indignantly denied that he was a monopolist, and certainly led
people to believe that he was what was called in common parlance, “a free
trader,” and on the hustings said, “I am here to advocate free trade to
its fullest extent,” but in practice he turned out to be a Protectionist.
Mr. Robert Hardy again came forward on the Radical interest, avowed his
desire to see a separation of Church and State, and disapproved of
Government education.
Mr. Alderman Lilly and Mr. Alderman John Hall proposed Mr. Hardy; Mr.
William Stallard, jun., and Mr. H. D. Carden, Mr. Rufford; and Dr.
Hastings and Mr. Alderman Edward Evans, Mr. Ricardo. The show of hands
being in favour of Messrs. Ricardo and Hardy, a poll was demanded for Mr.
Rufford, and at its close the numbers were—Ricardo, 1,163; Rufford,
1,142; Hardy, 930. The “open house” iniquity rioted in a rankness which
had never been equalled at previous elections. Probably, too, half the
electors were paid for their votes under what is called “the messenger
dodge.” Mr. Rufford, in 1851, became a bankrupt, and his examinations
showed that he certainly was not solvent when he offered himself as a
candidate at this election, yet he admitted that he expended considerably
more than £4,000.
EVESHAM.
EVESHAM has enjoyed the privilege of sending two representatives to
Parliament from a very early date. In 1295 two burgesses were chosen to
represent the town in a parliament of Edward I, but there is no record of
any return from that date till the incorporation of the borough by James
I. Some of the elections which have taken place here during the present
century have been remarkable for profuseness of expenditure and tricks of
party warfare. The number of voters now on the register is 345.
1802—JULY—(General Election.)—Charles Thelluson, Esq., the former member,
Patrick Crawford Bruce, Esq., a London merchant, and Humphrey Howorth,
Esq., for many years a physician in India, were the candidates. After
five days’ poll the latter retired from the contest, the number of votes
then being—Thelluson, 261; Bruce, 249; Howorth, 183. A petition was
afterwards presented against the return, on the score of alleged bribery,
but the committee report that the sitting members were duly returned,
though the petition was not frivolous.
1806—NOVEMBER—(General Election.)—Mr. Howorth and W. Manning, Esq., a
West India merchant, returned without opposition, neither of the former
members standing again.
1807—MAY—(General Election.)—Sir Masseh Manasseh Lopez, Bart., entered
the field at this election against the former members, and after six
days’ poll, the numbers of votes recorded stood thus—Manning, 494; Lopez,
334; Howorth, 320. This result was obtained by the returning officer
admitting 122 freeholders to the poll, contrary to former decisions,
which had determined that freemen and paymasters alone had the right to
vote. “A most gratifying interchange of compliments passed,” says the
reporter of the period, “during the closing of the poll books, between
the candidates, the mayor (W. Soley, Esq.), the assessor, and the
professional gentlemen employed; and though perhaps there never was a
severer contest, yet never was the conduct observed more honourable to
all parties.” It seems to have been altogether, and undisguisedly, a
matter of money. In a few days after the election an address was
presented to Mr. Howorth, by E. Rudge, Esq., and 189 burgesses,
complimenting him upon his conduct in the House of Commons, and begging
him “to bring their joint cause before a committee of the House,” assured
that “their insulted rights will be henceforward fixed on such a basis as
will baffle the attempts of those who will dare to violate them.” A
petition was accordingly presented, and in 1808, February 22nd, the
report of the committee was brought up, and Sir M. M. Lopez, Bart., was
declared to have been unduly elected, and Mr. Howorth ought to have been
returned; opposition to petition not frivolous. Mr. Howorth, in his
published address after this result, declares that he was ousted at the
election by the votes of “a class of persons having no common interest or
common feeling with the freemen and inhabitants of the borough.” He had
“vindicated their rights, and triumphed over this foreign influence.”
Mr. Howorth’s constituents afterwards presented him with a piece of
plate.
1812—OCTOBER—(General Election.)—W. Manning and H. Howorth, Esqs.,
reëlected without opposition.
1818—JUNE—(General Election.)—A very sharp contest distinguished by all
sorts of manœuvres, violence, and questionable practices. The poll was
kept open for twelve days, and the numbers at its close were—for Mr.
Howorth, 410; Mr. Rouse Boughton, 359; and Sir Charles Cockerell, 341.
Mr. Rouse Boughton was son of Sir Charles William Rouse Boughton, Bart.,
and Sir Charles Cockerell, was a brother to Lord Northwick. Two
petitions were presented as soon as Parliament met, against Mr. Rouse
Boughton’s return; one from Sir Charles, alleging bribery, and another
from voters of Evesham, against the admission of the votes of certain
persons. It seemed that it had actually been the custom to admit any man
to vote who had paid poor-rates for six months prior to an election, so
that Evesham almost enjoyed universal suffrage. It was, however, against
these votes that the petition was presented. The committee decided that
Mr. Boughton was not duly elected, and struck off all the scot and lot
voters from the roll, declaring that the election of members for Evesham
was vested in the mayor, aldermen, capital and other burgesses, members
of the corporation. The name of Sir Charles Cockerell was ordered to be
inserted in the return in lieu of that of Mr. Rouse Boughton. Lord
Palmerston was taken into custody for not being present when this
committee was ballotted for, but discharged, of course, on payment of the
fees, amounting to £30. A handsome piece of plate was afterwards
presented by the supporters of Mr. Boughton, to Mr. Edward Lawes, of
Sergeant’s Inn, for his exertions on that gentleman’s behalf.
1820—MARCH—(General Election.)—Sir Charles Cockerell, Bart., and Mr.
William E. Rouse Boughton elected without opposition; Mr. Howorth having
retired from the representation because of continued ill-health.
1826—JUNE—(General Election.)—There were three candidates in the field
when this election was first talked of: Sir Charles Cockerell (one of the
former members), Sir Roger Gresley, Bart., and Mr. Protheroe; but a
coalition was formed between Sir Charles and Mr. Protheroe, and Sir Roger
Gresley retired from the contest. Mr. William E. Rouse Boughton did not
again offer himself. Many of the electors were very angry at being
“sold,” as they called it, and looked out for a third candidate, who
would spend a proper quantity of money, and they found one in the person
of Patrick Grant, Esq., of Spring Gardens, London, who drove up to the
hustings just in time to be put in nomination. Having stood a three
days’ poll, however, he retired; the numbers then being—Cockerell, 235;
Protheroe, 137; Grant, 87.
1830—AUGUST—(General Election.)—Sir C. Cockerell and Lord Kennedy (heir
apparent of the Earl of Cassilis) returned. Alexander Raphael, Esq., of
London, was a third candidate, but retired after two days’ poll; the
numbers then being—Cockerell, 231; Kennedy, 148; Raphael, 110. The
return was immediately petitioned against, on the score of bribery and
treating, and it was proved that sixteen freemen had gone down from
London and received £12 each (for their loss of time it was said),
independently of their expenses. The election was declared void (Mr.
Raphael being implicated in this bribery), and both Sir Charles Cockerell
and Lord Kennedy were thus incapacitated from sitting in that Parliament.
The issue of another writ was suspended, on the motion of the Marquis of
Chandos, to allow of time for further Parliamentary inquiry. The Marquis
afterwards brought in a bill for the disenfranchisement of the borough,
which was read a second time; but Parliament was dissolved before it
could be passed, and a writ was, therefore, issued to the returning
officer in the usual course.
1831—MAY—(General Election.)—Sir Charles Cockerell and Lord Kennedy (the
lately ousted members), and Thomas Hudson, Esq. (Reformer), a Portuguese
merchant, were the candidates at this election; and the numbers at the
close of the poll were—Sir Charles, 208; Mr. Hudson, 157; Lord Kennedy,
136. The two former gentlemen were then declared duly elected. Lord
Kennedy did not appear in the town at all during the election.
Evesham having been retained in schedule C of the Reform Bill, continued
to send two members to Parliament in spite of the smallness of the
population—at that time only numbering 3,998 individuals. The out-voters
being deprived of their right to poll, the number of electors was only
359.
1832—DECEMBER—(General Election.)—Sir Charles Cockerell and Mr. Hudson
reëlected. Mr. Rudge, Mr. Skirrow, and other gentlemen had “come like
shadows and so departed,” declaring their intentions to be third
candidates, but suddenly retreating from the field. However, at the
eleventh hour, Mr. Peter Borthwick, who had signalised himself by
lectures in favour of negro slavery, was put forward by the Tory party,
but only received 126 votes—Sir Charles Cockerell polling 234, and Mr.
Hudson 212. The number of electors who voted was 329.
1835—JANUARY—(General Election.)—Sir Charles Cockerell again came forward
as a candidate; but Mr. Hudson retired at the last moment, being opposed
by Mr. Peter Borthwick, the unsuccessful candidate at the previous
election. However, Mr. Rudge was put in nomination in his absence by the
Liberals, and a poll demanded on his behalf; the show of hands being in
favour of Sir Charles and Mr. Borthwick. On the hustings Mr. George May
charged Mr. Borthwick with having failed as a bookseller in Dalkeith, and
having been excommunicated by the Scotch United Secession Church. Mr.
Borthwick denied it, and said it was a relative whose debts he had paid
for him. Mr. Rudge eventually declined to stand the poll, and Sir
Charles Cockerell and Mr. Borthwick were declared duly elected. In June
a dinner was given to Mr. Borthwick in the Guildhall, the chair being
taken by Lieutenant Amherst; and a party of 160 sat down. The charge
made against Mr. Borthwick having been repeated in the _Bath Guardian_,
near which town he then lived, he commenced an action against the
proprietors for libel, which was tried in April, 1836, and ended in a
verdict for Mr. Borthwick on some counts of the indictment, with £100
damages; but the jury held it proved that Mr. Borthwick had been a
bookseller in Dalkeith—had failed—had been in gaol—and had been a
professional, but unsuccessful, performer on the stage of the Surrey
Theatre.
1837—FEBRUARY—(Election in consequence of the death of Sir Charles
Cockerell.)—The candidates were Lord Marcus Cecil Hill, brother of the
Marquis of Downshire, on the Liberal interest, and George Rushout Bowles,
Esq., nephew of Lord Northwick and the Dowager Lady Cockerell, on the
Conservative side. On the hustings, Lord Hill was proposed by Mr.
Benjamin Workman and Mr. T. N. Foster; and Mr. Bowles by Mr. Thomas
Blayney and the Rev. Joseph Harling. The Mayor declared the show of
hands to be in favour of Mr. Bowles, though his decision was questioned.
The contest was a close one, ending in Mr. Bowles’s election; the numbers
being—Bowles, 165; Hill, 140. About 60 electors did not vote.
1837—JULY—(General Election.)—The Hon. George Rushout and Mr. Peter
Borthwick, the former members, coalesced to prevent the return of Lord
Marcus Hill—who, for the second time, came forward on the Liberal
interest—and they were successful; the numbers being—for Rushout, 168;
Borthwick, 166; Hill, 156. Of 490 votes recorded, 124 were plumpers; and
119 of these were for Lord Hill. The Liberal party were loud in their
indignation against the bribery which they asserted to have been
practised. The return was petitioned against; and the committee
ballotted for, consisted of six Conservatives and five Liberals: Sir
Robert Peel, Bart., being chairman. Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Rushton were
the counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Thessiger, Mr. Austin, &c., for
the sitting members. Shortly after the opening of the case, the
petition, as far as regarded Mr. Rushout, was abandoned, and Mr.
Borthwick alone proceeded against. Mr. Borthwick was charged with
bribery, both by himself and his agents; he was also declared to want
qualification; and as many as 100 of his votes were objected to. The
cases of bribery alone were gone into; and the one proved was that of
Ebenezer Pierce, to whom Mr. Borthwick had presented a silver snuff box.
He canvassed this voter personally, about a week before the election, and
promised him a silver snuff box, which Mr. Charles Best afterwards
brought him, with Mr. Borthwick’s compliments, and told him to put it by
till after the election. It was proved that the box had been purchased
at Stow and Mortimer’s by Mr. Borthwick, in the interim, and he had
ordered them to engrave on it—“_Ex dono amici sui conducit_.” The
committee, upon this, decided that Mr. Borthwick had been guilty of
bribery. Mr. Austin abandoned the scrutiny, and permitted Lord Marcus
Hill to be put in a majority of one, by permitting the votes of several
persons, who admitted that they had been Mr. Borthwick’s paid agents, to
be struck off; but he declared that the decision of the committee in the
snuff box case had struck him with the utmost surprise, and begged to be
allowed to call evidence to clear Mr. Borthwick’s character. Mr.
Cockburn did not object, but the committee refused to hear any more
evidence. The committee reported on March 20, 1838, and the return being
amended, Lord Marcus Hill took his seat immediately afterwards. Soon
after the decision of the committee was known, a dinner was given to Mr.
Borthwick, and he was presented with an oblong silver salver, which had
been subscribed for by the wives and daughters of the Conservative
electors. The Rev. Mr. Harling presented the plate, and J. Amherst,
Esq., presided at the dinner. Mr. Borthwick made a very long speech,
reviewing his connection with the borough, and animadverting upon his
late colleague, Mr. Rushout, in unmeasured terms, for having forsaken him
before the committee. The language he made use of caused a challenge,
and the two gentlemen met at Wormwood Scrubs. After a second discharge,
without effect, Mr. Borthwick withdrew the offensive expressions. Lord
Marcus Hill was also entertained at a dinner at the Town Hall, over which
T. N. Foster, Esq., (the Mayor) presided; and a party of 200 gentlemen
sat down to the tables.
1841—JULY—(General Election.)—The candidates were again Lord Marcus Hill,
Mr. Rushout, and Mr. Peter Borthwick; the latter, indeed, did not make
his appearance throughout the election, but he was strongly supported by
a section of the Conservatives, who thought he had been ill used by Mr.
Rushout in the matter of the previous election—and, generally, he seemed
to be a favourite with the populace. At the hustings, Lord Marcus Hill
was proposed by Edward Rudge, Esq., and the Rev. B. Bonaker; Mr. Rushout
by Dr. Beale Cooper and the Rev. M. Shaw; and Mr. Borthwick by R.
Blayney, Esq., and G. Eades, Esq. Mr. Francis Holland spoke for Mr.
Borthwick; and on the show of hands, three-fourths of the meeting held up
theirs for that gentleman, about one half for Lord Marcus, and but few
for Mr. Rushout. At the close of the poll the numbers were—Hill, 188;
Borthwick, 161; Rushout, 137. Lord Hill had 108 plumpers; Borthwick, 42;
and Rushout, 34. After the canvass, but prior to the election, Lord
Marcus was made a privy councillor, and appointed to the office of
Comptroller of the Royal Household.
1847—JULY—(General Election.)—Mr. Borthwick retired from the
representation, and his place was taken by Sir Henry Willoughby, a
moderate Conservative and free trader. A third candidate came into
field, late in the day, in the person of Sir Ralph Howard, formerly
member for Wicklow, who professed Radical views. At the nomination, Lord
Marcus Hill and Sir Ralph Howard had the show of hands. The polling was
a very quiet affair, and at the close of the struggle Lord Marcus Hill
was found to have 195 votes; Sir Henry Willoughby, 172; and Sir Ralph
Howard, 131.
DROITWICH.
DROITWICH was formerly one of the closest of Whig boroughs, and was
entirely under the influence of the Foley family. To the return for the
first election recorded below, the names of nineteen persons are appended
in the books of the Droitwich Corporation; and at a much more recent
date, ten persons returned two members to Parliament. The present
constituency of the borough numbers 368.
1802—JULY—(General Election.)—Sir Edward Winnington, Bart., and the Hon.
Andrew Foley, reëlected.
1805—FEBRUARY—(Vacancy on the death of Sir Edw. Winnington.)—Thomas
Foley, Esq., son of the Hon. Andrew Foley, elected.
1806—NOVEMBER—(General Election.)—The Hon. Andrew Foley, and Lieutenant
Colonel Foley.
1807—MAY—(General Election.)—Colonel Foley becomes a candidate for
Herefordshire, and the Hon. A. Foley and Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart.,
are returned for this borough.
1812—OCTOBER—(General Election.)—Hon. A. Foley and Sir T. Winnington
reëlected.
1816—APRIL—Sir Thomas Winnington having accepted the Chiltern Hundreds,
Lord Sefton is elected in his stead.
1818—JUNE—(General Election.)—Hon. A. Foley and the Earl of Sefton
reëlected.
1819—FEBRUARY—(Vacancy on the death of the Hon. Andrew Foley.)—Colonel
Foley, son of the late member, elected.
1820—MARCH—(General Election.)—Earl of Sefton and Colonel Foley
reëlected.
1822—FEBRUARY—(Vacancy on the death of Colonel Foley.)—John Hodgetts
Hodgetts Foley, Esq., elected.
1826—JUNE—(General Election.)—Lord Sefton and J. H. H. Foley, Esq.,
reëlected.
1830—(General Election.)—Earl of Sefton and J. H. H. Foley, Esq.,
reëlected.
1831—MAY—(General Election.)—Mr. J. H. H. Foley and Sir T. E. Winnington
elected; the Earl of Sefton making way for the hon. baronet.
1832—DECEMBER—(General Election.)—The borough was deprived of one of its
members by the Reform Bill; and on this occasion J. H. H. Foley, Esq.,
was returned alone, having been proposed by Sir A. Lechmere, Bart., and
seconded by T. T. Vernon, Esq.
1835—(General Election.)—For the first time since 1711 this borough was
contested and a Tory returned. The candidates were J. H. H. Foley, Esq.
(the former member), and John Barneby, Esq., of Brockhampton. The former
was proposed by Captain Vernon and Mr. Francis; the latter, by Dr.
Steward and Mr. Lilley, of Wichbold. The Rev. Mr. Topham also addressed
the populace in Mr. Foley’s favour, and bore testimony to his attachment
to the Church. The show of hands was in Mr. Foley’s favour. At the end
of the first day the numbers were—Barneby, 115; Foley, 113: and at the
close of the poll—Barneby, 125; Foley, 122: majority for Barneby, 3. Out
of a constituency of only 281, 34 did not vote. The election issued in a
petition against the return, and on the 17th of March a committee of the
house was ballotted for to decide the matter; but it was constituted very
unfavourably to Mr. Foley, having at least eight Tories upon it. They
refused to reopen the register, so the inquiry was limited to a few
disputed votes on either side. Mr. Foley succeeded in striking off three
of Mr. Barneby’s votes, and so reducing matters to an equality; but Mr.
Barneby then struck off Lord Southwell’s vote, objected to on account of
his peerage. This left Mr. Foley in a minority of one, and Mr. Barneby
retained his seat.
1837—JULY—(General Election.)—John Barneby, Esq., having determined to
contest the county, made way for Mr. Pakington to come in for this
borough, of which he has ever since been the representative. J. H.
Galton, Esq., of Hadsor, made a canvass of the electors on the Liberal
interest; but finding that his chances were not very good he retired from
the contest. Mr. Allen, barrister, also made a flying visit to the
place, intending to put up as a Reformer, but soon took his departure.
Mr. Pakington was proposed at the hustings by W. H. Ricketts, Esq., and
Mr. John Tolley; and having made a long confession of his political creed
(in which he avowed himself a staunch Conservative, but would not vote
for a repeal of the Malt Tax, and approved of the new Poor Law), he was
declared duly elected.
1841—JULY—(General Election.)—J. S. Pakington, Esq., reëlected without
opposition.
1847—JULY—(General Election.)—Mr. C. Lloyd, nephew of Lord Mostyn,
canvassed the electors on the Liberal interest, and had some promise of
support from the agents of a noble lord in the neighbourhood (Lord Ward),
who was expected rather to have thrown his influence into the
Conservative scale; but, notwithstanding this, Mr. Lloyd found that he
had very little chance of success, and consequently retired, leaving the
field free for Sir John Pakington, Bart., who was reëlected.
BEWDLEY.
THIS, before the Reform Bill, was a close Tory borough, with some thirty
or forty self-elected burgesses, who returned their member with no
confusion or turmoil. Under the new state of things, Stourport joins
with it in the exercise of the franchise, and the united constituency now
includes 371 electors. Parties have been very evenly balanced here of
late years.
1802—JULY—(General Election.)—Miles P. Andrews, Esq., who had for some
time represented the town, again chosen.
1806—NOVEMBER—(General Election.)—Mr. Andrews reëlected.
1807—MAY—(General Election.)—Mr. Andrews reëlected.
1812—OCTOBER—(General Election.)—Mr. Andrews reëlected.
1814—AUGUST—(Vacancy occasioned by the death of Mr. Andrews.)—Charles
Edward Wilson, Esq., of Bognor, Sussex, chosen.
1818—JUNE—(General Election.)—Wilson Aylesbury Roberts, Esq., returned;
Mr. Wilson having retired in his favour.
1820—MARCH—(General Election.)—W. A. Roberts, Esq., reëlected.
1826—JUNE—(General Election.)—W. A. Roberts, Esq., reëlected.
1830—JULY—(General Election.)—W. A. Roberts, Esq., reëlected.
1831—MAY—(General Election.)—W. A. Roberts, Esq., reëlected.
1832—DECEMBER—(General Election.)—After the passing of the Reform Bill,
Mr. Roberts did not choose again to offer himself, and Sir Thomas
Winnington, Bart., was elected without opposition. He was proposed by
Arthur Skey, Esq., and Jonathan Worthington, Esq.
1835—JANUARY—(General Election.)—Sir Thomas Winnington reëlected without
opposition.
1837—JULY—(General Election.)—Sir Thomas Winnington resigned in favour of
his son, T. E. Winnington, Esq., who was elected without opposition.
1841—JULY—(General Election.)—For the first time this century this
borough was contested, Mr. Robert Monteith, son of a Lanarkshire
gentleman who had accumulated a fortune as a Glasgow merchant, coming
forward to oppose Sir Thomas Edward Winnington. At the nomination Sir
Thomas was proposed by A. Skey, Esq., and seconded by J. Williams, Esq.;
and Mr. Monteith by W. A. Roberts, Esq., and K. Watson, Esq. Sir Thomas
declared himself for an alteration of the Corn Laws, but for some measure
of protection. Mr. Monteith declared himself a thorough Conservative.
The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Monteith, and the struggle
throughout was a most severe one. In the Bewdley district Mr. Monteith
had a majority of eight, but this was more than counterbalanced by Sir
Thomas’s advantage at Stourport. The total numbers were—Winnington, 173;
Monteith, 168: majority, 5. A scrutiny was threatened but not proceeded
with. A dinner was afterwards given at the Swan Inn, Stourport, to
congratulate Sir Thomas Winnington on his return. The chair was filled
by George Harris, Esq., and the vice chairs by B. Devey and P. Baldwin,
Esqs.; and the company numbered 180. In September, the Conservative
party entertained Mr. Monteith at a dinner in a large marquee—400 persons
sitting down to the tables; Slade Baker, Esq., presided. In the ensuing
month Mr. Monteith sent £100 to be distributed amongst the various
charities of the two towns.
1847—JULY—(General Election.)—Sir T. Winnington was again opposed, and
this time successfully, by Thomas James Ireland, Esq., of Hooton Hall,
Suffolk, professing high Church and State principles, and liberal in the
expenditure of his money. At the hustings, Sir Thomas was proposed by
Mr. Skey and Mr. Baldwin; and Mr. Ireland by Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Heath.
The show of hands was in Mr. Ireland’s favour, and after a most exciting
struggle Mr. Ireland was declared to have 160 votes, and Sir Thomas only
158.
The return was petitioned against; and on the 4th March, 1848, the
inquiry commenced before the Parliamentary committee, consisting of three
Liberals and two Conservatives. Mr. Sergeant Wrangham and Mr. Sergeant
Kinglake were the principal counsel employed by Sir Thomas Winnington;
and Mr. Alexander, by Mr. Ireland. After five days’ examination of
witnesses, the committee decided that Mr. Ireland was not duly
elected—that it had been proved that a voter, named Price, had received
£15 for his vote—and that treating had been proved against Mr. Ireland’s
agents. The recriminatory case against Sir Thomas Winnington occupied
six days, and the committee decided that he had been guilty of treating,
by his agents, and that therefore the election was void. Mr. Elgie, his
principal agent, was himself examined, and proved that 26 or 27 inns were
opened on Sir Thomas’s side, some of which supplied as many as 1,000
gallons a day. The committee made a special report to the House that a
most pernicious system of intimidation, kidnapping and treating prevailed
in the borough, and the writ was suspended, on the motion of Mr. Hume,
until the evidence was printed and laid before the house. On the 12th of
April, Captain Rushout moved that a new writ should issue, but Sir John
Hanmer proposed its further suspension. After a debate, in which the
corruption disclosed in the evidence before the committee was pretty
freely commented upon, the House came to a division, and 80 members voted
for issuing the writ, and 38 against it; so the writ was ordered, and a
fresh election took place in—
1848—APRIL 17—The candidates on this occasion were Viscount Mandeville,
son of the Duke of Manchester (Conservative), and the Hon. Spencer
Lyttelton (Liberal). On the hustings, Mr. Lyttelton was proposed by Mr.
Skey and Mr. Pierce Baldwin; and Viscount Mandeville by Mr. Nicholas and
Mr. Heath. The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Lyttelton, but
Viscount Mandeville headed the poll throughout; the numbers at the close
being—Mandeville, 171; Lyttelton, 156. Of course this election was, to a
great extent, free from the corrupt practices of former ones, but the
circumstances under which it occurred furnished matter enough for
excitement.
KIDDERMINSTER.
KIDDERMINSTER once returned two members to Parliament, but not liking to
have to pay them was, upon its own petition, relieved of the “honour.”
It was again enfranchised by the Reform Bill; but had only one member
allotted to it. The constituency here is remarkably small, in comparison
with the population, owing to so few of the operatives living in houses
which pay £10 a year rent. The number of electors now on the register,
including duplicates, is 490.
1832—(General Election.)—In anticipation of the passing of the Reform
Bill, Richard Godson, Esq., a barrister on the Oxford Circuit, who was
very popular with the weavers because of his successful defence of some
of their number when tried for riot, made an entry into the town on the
4th April, 1831, and gave a public statement of his political principles.
He was not, he said, the nominee of some lord, but one of the people,
come to represent the people. The Reform Bill was merely a restoration
of the good old constitution, which would give every man his proper
weight in the national assembly. All other reforms must follow it; the
defects of the church must be removed; and, especially, there must be a
free trade in corn. And though he was interested in a West Indian estate
he should advocate Emancipation, &c. &c. His reception was, altogether,
most enthusiastic. He was, however, opposed by G. R. Phillips, Esq., of
Weston House, Warwickshire, also professing reform principles. Mr.
Phillips was proposed, on the hustings, by J. Newcombe, Esq., and H.
Talbot, Esq.; and Mr. Godson by William Boycot, jun., Esq., and Mr. James
Cole. A very severe contest took place, and the numbers at the close
were—Godson, 172; Phillips, 159: majority for Godson, 13. The total
constituency was 388.
1835—(General Election.)—Mr. Godson was again opposed by Mr. Phillips.
Mr. Godson still professed to be a Reformer, but was supported by the
Conservatives. The show of hands was almost even, but decided by the
High Bailiff in Mr. Godson’s favour, and a poll was demanded by Mr.
Phillips, who was, eventually, returned by a majority of 73; the numbers
being—Phillips, 197; Godson, 124. Mr. Phillips refused to be chaired,
saying that he should spend the money amongst the people in other ways.
On the 10th of June, a piece of plate (ornament for the dinner table, in
silver, worth £150) was presented to Mr. Godson, by 1,975 inhabitants of
the borough, “in grateful remembrance of his ever watchful, independent,
and patriotic conduct when in Parliament.” The presentation was made by
Mr. Alderman Joseph Boycot, on the balcony of the Lion Hotel, in the
presence of some 7,000 persons.
1837—(General Election.)—Mr. Phillips, some time before the writ was
issued for this election, declared his intention of withdrawing all
pretensions to the representation; being evidently afraid of a defeat, or
that a triumph could only be purchased on terms too dear. Mr. Godson,
however, found an opponent in the person of John Bagshaw, Esq., ex-M.P.
for Sudbury. Mr. Godson was proposed by Mr. Morton and Mr. Cole; Mr.
Bagshaw by Mr. Turner and Mr. Joseph Newcombe. The show of hands was
considerably in Mr. Godson’s favour, and a poll was demanded for Mr.
Bagshaw. Mr. Godson headed the poll from the first, and in the course of
the afternoon Mr. Bagshaw retired; the numbers being—Godson, 198;
Bagshaw, 157.
1841—(General Election.)—Mr. Godson was opposed by Mr. Sampson Ricardo,
brother of Osman Ricardo, Esq., who came forward at the last moment,
after the Liberals had been disappointed by the candidate they had fixed
upon—a Mr. Rennie. Mr. Godson was proposed by Mr. Morton and Mr. Cole;
Mr. Ricardo by Mr. Charles Talbot and Mr. H. Worth; and the Mayor fairly
enough declared the show of hands to be in his favour, though, for so
doing, he was assailed by the Conservatives in a most discourteous
manner. The contest was, what Kidderminster contests always have been, a
very sharp one; but Mr. Godson was returned by a majority of 12; the
numbers being—Godson, 212; Ricardo, 200.
1847—(General Election.)—Mr. Godson was reëlected without opposition.
1849—SEPTEMBER—(Vacancy occasioned by the sudden demise of Mr. Richard
Godson.)—The first candidate in the field was John Best, Esq., a
barrister of short standing, son of W. B. Best, Esq., of Blakebrook
House, who came forward as a Conservative and Protectionist. Thomas
Gisborne Esq., of Yoxall Park, near Burton-on-Trent, next made his
appearance on the Reform side, professing very liberal opinions. He had,
formerly, been member for Nottingham. A diversion was speedily effected
by the arrival of a third man, in the person of Crawshay Bailey, Esq., of
Tredegar, South Wales, who was also Conservative in his views, and
apparently entertaining similar opinions to those of Mr. Best upon all
subjects. He was supported by a very influential section of the
Kidderminster Conservatives, and a downright split amongst them seemed
inevitable. However at the end of a week Mr. Bailey finding he had
little chance, withdrew from the contest, and left the two first to fight
it out. Considerable soreness of feeling, however, was felt amongst the
Conservatives by this temporary division, and the opponents built
thereupon very sanguine expectations of success. At the nomination Mr.
Best was proposed by Mr. William Boycot, sen., and Mr. Henry
Chellingworth; and Mr. Gisborne by Mr. William Holmes and Mr. Henry
Brinton, in whose favour the show of hands was declared to be. Mr.
Gisborne headed the poll till twelve o’clock, when some thirty voters,
who had been supporters of Mr. Bailey up to the time of his retirement,
and who, it was hoped by one party, and feared by the other, would now
remain neutral, came to the booths and recorded their votes for Mr. Best.
This decided the struggle; and when the clock struck four, Mr. Best was
found to have 217 votes against 200 only recorded for Mr. Gisborne. The
election, on the whole, passed off quietly, and with decorum.
In the session of 1850 a petition was presented by some of the Liberal
electors against Mr. Best’s return, on the score of bribery and
corruption, and the matter came before a committee of the House of
Commons, on the 15th of April. The committee consisted of Mr. Bouverie
(chairman), Lord Enfield, Mr. Augustus Stafford, Mr. David Morris, and
Sir William Joliffe; the majority being Liberals. Mr. Sergeant Kinglake
led the case for the petitioners, and Mr. Alexander, Q.C., for Mr. Best.
The committee sat seven days, and a variety of witnesses were examined on
behalf of the petitioners; but bribery was only attempted to be proved in
two cases, the evidence, on all points, being decidedly weak. The
committee confirmed Mr. Best’s return.
DUDLEY.
THE privilege of sending a member to Parliament was conferred on this
borough by the Reform Bill. The number of voters now on the register is
912.
1832—(General Election.)—Sir John Campbell—then the Whig Solicitor
General, and long a practitioner on the Oxford Circuit, now Lord Chief
Justice of England—was returned. He had an opponent in the person of
Horace St. Paul, Esq., who contested the election on Tory principles.
Sir John was proposed by Mr. Twamley and Mr. Braidley; and Mr. St. Paul
by Mr. Dixon and Mr. Salisbury. The numbers, at the close of the poll,
were—Campbell, 315; St. Paul, 225: majority for Campbell, 90.
1834—FEBRUARY 27—(Election rendered necessary by Sir John Campbell’s
elevation to the Attorney Generalship.)—Sir John was this time opposed,
on the Conservative interest, by Thomas Hawkes, Esq. The show of hands,
at the nomination, was in favour of Sir John; whereupon a poll was
demanded by Mr. Hawkes’s friends, and commenced immediately with great
briskness. At three o’clock, Sir John’s committee, finding great
difficulty in bringing their friends to the poll, gave up in a huff, and
Mr. Hawkes was declared duly elected; the numbers being—Hawkes, 322;
Campbell, 242: majority, 80. This result was said to be mainly owing to
the Dissenters and ultra-radicals refusing to vote for Sir John, “in
order to teach ministers a lesson;” but the effect was rather to disgust
the Whigs than to urge them forward with church reform. Sir John had
also made enemies by an attack, in the House, on the Dudley magistrates.
1835—(General Election.)—Mr. Hawkes returned by a majority of 93 over his
Whig opponent, Captain Forbes.
1837—(General Election.)—Mr. Hawkes again elected. Mr. Merryweather
Turner was the candidate on the Liberal interest, and obtained the show
of hands at the nomination; but at the poll the numbers were—Hawkes, 385;
Turner, 289: majority for Hawkes, 96. A challenge resulted from some
speeches at this election, and the Dudley magistrates issued their
warrants to bind over both Mr. Turner and Mr. Hawkes to keep the peace.
Mr. Turner did not get the challenge till half an hour after he had been
bound over at the instigation of Mr. Hawkes’s friends.
1841—(General Election.)—Mr. Hawkes again elected; though opposed, on the
Liberal interest, by Mr. W. A. Smith, son of the then member for Norwich.
Mr. Downing and Mr. B. Best proposed Mr. Hawkes at the hustings; and Mr.
Thomas Lister and Mr. Thomas Hill proposed Mr. Smith, who had the show of
hands. The numbers on the poll were—Hawkes, 436; Smith, 189: majority
for Hawkes, 247.
1844—AUGUST 8—Mr. Thomas Hawkes’s acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds, in
consequence of the embarrassed state of his affairs, having caused a
vacancy, John Benbow, Esq., agent for Lord Ward, and, therefore,
possessing much influence in the borough, was put in nomination on the
Conservative interest, and opposed by Mr. William Rawson, an
Anti-Corn-Law lecturer. Mr. Benbow was proposed, on the hustings, by Mr.
Thomas Badger and Captain Bennitt; and Mr. Rawson by Mr. Charles Twamley
and the Rev. J. Palmer. The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Rawson.
The polling was a very quiet affair, and at the close the numbers
were—Benbow, 388; Rawson, 175: majority, 213.
1847—(General Election.)—A Mr. Joseph Linney, Chartist operative from
Bilston, was put in nomination on the day of election, in opposition to
Mr. Benbow—addressed the crowd, and got the show of hands; but having no
money to pay his share of the expenses of a poll, was obliged to
withdraw, and Mr. Benbow was declared duly elected.
ELECTIONS OF COUNTY CORONERS.
THE number of coroners appointed for each English county was formerly
regulated by usage, the statute of 3 Edw. I, cap. 10, merely enacting
that “in all shires a sufficient number of men should be chosen as
coroners;” but it was competent for the Lord Chancellor to issue a writ
for the election of additional coroners, upon a petition from the
freeholders of the county and the approbation of the justices in quarter
sessions. The manner of the election was regulated by the statute of 58
Geo. III, cap. 35, and the poll might be kept open ten days. By cap. 6
of 28 Edw. III, it was enacted, “that all coroners of the counties should
be chosen in the full counties, by the commons of the said counties, of
the most meet and lawful people that should be found,” &c. Although by
this statute the election is not expressly confined to freeholders, yet
as none but freeholders are suitors at the county court (who were “the
commons of the counties” referred to by this statute) the usage has been
for freeholders only to vote. The amount of estate not being defined,
any _bonâ fide_ freehold interest in lands in the county, however small,
will confer the right to vote. Previous to the division of the counties
into districts—power to do which was given to the Privy Council, on
petition of the County Justices, by 7 and 8 Vic., cap. 92—each coroner
acted throughout the whole county, and every freeholder was entitled to
vote at each election. Now, however, the coroners, though still
considered coroners for the whole county, cannot hold inquests out of
their respective districts, except in special cases; and only the
freeholders residing within the district are entitled to vote at the
election for that district. The justices, of course, virtually assign
the districts; and a dispute which arose in this county, between the
magistrates and one of the coroners, on his claiming compensation for
loss of emolument by the division they had made, will be found noticed in
a subsequent part of this work. The poll at elections for coroners is
now limited to two days.
1801—AUGUST 13—Richard Barneby, Esq., elected coroner in the room of
Humphrey Littleton, Esq., deceased. No opposition.
1809—APRIL 26—Election of a coroner for the county, in the room of Mr.
George Best, removed, took place this day at the Talbot Inn, Claines.
Mr. Godson, of Tenbury, Mr. Cheek, of Evesham, and Mr. Griffiths, of
Broadway, were the candidates; but to save the expenses of a poll, they
agreed to leave the choice to three gentlemen—one nominated by each
candidate. The gentlemen chosen were—J. Philips, Esq., H. Wakeman, Esq.,
and T. Bund, Esq.; and they determined (by drawing lots) on Mr. Godson,
of Tenbury, who was thereupon declared duly elected.
1810—FEBRUARY 14—Election for a coronership in consequence of the
resignation of Mr. Richard Barneby. The candidates on this occasion were
Mr. J. H. Griffiths, of Broadway, and Mr. George Hill, of Worcester.
Both candidates rested their claim for support on the locality of their
residence—Mr. Griffiths saying that, as the other coroners lived one at
Chaddesley and the other at Tenbury, the Evesham side ought to have one
resident there—and Mr. Hill contending that there should be one, at
least, living in the county town. The nomination took place at the
Talbot, in the Tything, Worcester; and Mr. Griffiths was proposed by T.
Bund, Esq., of Wick, and seconded by — Knowles, Esq., Broadway; Mr. Hill
by R. Berkeley, Esq., Spetchley, and seconded by Philip Gresley, Esq.,
High Park. The numbers after the first day’s poll were—Hill, 395;
Griffiths, 79: and then Mr. Griffiths retired from the contest.
1815—FEBRUARY 10—Mr. Thomas Hallen, of Kidderminster, elected a county
coroner, in the room of Mr. Fidkin, deceased. Mr. H. Robeson, of
Bromsgrove, had been a candidate, but retired before the election. Mr.
Hallen was proposed by E. M. Wigley, Esq., of Shakenhurst, and seconded
by the Rev. R. F. Onslow, vicar of Kidderminster.
1822—SEPTEMBER 27—Election to supply the place of William Godson, Esq.,
of Tenbury, then lately deceased. The nomination took place in the
College Yard, at the east end of the Cathedral. Earl Mountnorris
proposed Mr. Charles Best, of Evesham, and this nomination was seconded
by Thomas B. Cooper, Esq.; T. S. Vernon, Esq., proposed, and John
Phillips, Esq., of Hanbury Hall, seconded, Mr. S. H. Godson, of Tenbury,
son of the deceased coroner. The show of hands was in favour of Mr.
Best, and Mr. Godson demanded a poll. This went on vigorously till five
o’clock in the evening, when the numbers were—Best, 635; Godson, 230.
Mr. Godson then retired from the contest, and Mr. Best was duly sworn in.
1826—DECEMBER 13—The most determined contest ever known in this county
for a coronership commenced this day. Immediately on the death of Mr.
George Hill, five candidates announced themselves for the office—viz.,
Mr. William Smith, Worcester; Mr. Frederick Stokes, Worcester; Mr.
Stephen Godson, Worcester; Mr. Charles Beville Dryden, Worcester; Mr.
Thomas Davis, Worcester; and Mr. Skey, Upton. Of these, however, all had
withdrawn before the nomination day, excepting Mr. Smith and Mr. Stokes.
The Sheriff had at first fixed that the nomination should take place in
the Castle Yard, but this property had recently been sold by Government
to Mr. Eaton, with a reservation of it for the nomination of members of
Parliament; but nothing had been said (according to Mr. Eaton’s view of
the matter) about coroners, therefore he refused to allow it to be used.
The nomination, therefore, took place at the Hare and Hounds Inn,
Sidbury; where Mr. Smith was proposed by Major Bund and John Williams,
Esq.; and Mr. Stokes by Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., and the Rev. George
Turberville. The show of hands was declared to be in favour of Mr.
Smith, and a poll was demanded for his opponent; and this was continued
for ten days—the utmost period allowed by law. For the first three days
Mr. Stokes headed his adversary considerably; Mr. Smith, on the fifth
day, however, obtained the ascendancy, and kept it, though with varying
numbers, to the last day, when he very materially increased his majority,
which, in the end, amounted to 189 votes. The numbers polled were—Smith,
3,875; Stokes, 3,686: total number of freeholders polled, 7,561. The
contest resolved itself quite into a political struggle—Mr. Smith
representing the Tory and Mr. Stokes the Whig interest. The city, during
the progress of the election, was in a state of the utmost excitement—the
voters being brought in to the sole polling place, with flags and bands
of music, in every possible description of vehicle. On the sixth day, a
fierce fight took place between the partisans of the two candidates, on
their accidental meeting in the Tything; and several men with broken
heads were taken to the Infirmary. Mr. Stokes, at the conclusion of the
poll, demanded a scrutiny; and the matter of right and power, on the part
of the Sheriff, to grant one, was formally argued; but it was ultimately
refused, and Mr. Smith was sworn into the office. The contest cost each
of the candidates about £3,000 a day, while it lasted. [The copy of the
reservation clause in Mr. Eaton’s conveyance was afterwards produced, on
special application to Government, and it seemed that the Sheriff was
empowered to hold any court in the Castle Yard which he pleased.]
1832—NOVEMBER 7—Mr. W. S. P. Hughes, solicitor, elected a county coroner,
in the room of Mr. Smith, who had absconded. Mr. Hughes was proposed by
the Rev. George Turberville, seconded by John Williams, Esq., and no
other candidate having offered himself, he was at once declared duly
chosen.
1838—NOVEMBER 28—Election for county coroner, in the room of Mr. Thomas
Hallen, of Kidderminster, who had resigned. Mr. William Boycot, jun., of
Kidderminster, Mr. Henry Corser, of Stourbridge, and Mr. Ralph Docker, of
Kingsnorton, had offered themselves as candidates; but the two first
withdrew, and it was expected that Mr. Docker would “walk over.” It was
said that the three gentlemen had “tossed up,” and so decided the matter,
but that was denied. However, on the evening before the election, Mr.
Thomas Waters, Clerk of the Peace for the city, offered himself to the
freeholders for election, and there was every expectation of a sharp
contest. Mr. Spooner proposed Mr. Docker, who was seconded by Mr. Ellis;
Mr. Waters was proposed by Mr. Alderman R. Evans and Mr. Alderman
Stephenson. The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Docker, and Mr. Evans
demanded a poll for Mr. Waters. At the end of the first day the numbers
were—Docker, 246; Waters, 138: and Mr. Waters then retired from the
contest.
PUBLIC MEETINGS.
IT may be that the interest attaching to many of the meetings detailed
here is gone for ever, but the interest of others will perhaps increase
as time advances, and curiously serve to mark the ebb and flow of human
feelings and affairs. Though there is often reason to coincide with the
Duke’s apothegm—“Public meetings are public farces,” yet they at least
give us the results of the popular instinct, which is often as sure a
guide as the popular reason would be; and, when most foolish in their
conclusions, they are to be regarded as fortunate escapements for those
excitements without which a community cannot exist long together. If any
explanation should be felt necessary by the reader, of the public
occurrences which called forth these meetings, he will find it in another
portion of this work.
1800—MAY 14—County meeting held in Worcester Town Hall, to consider what
steps should be taken in consequence of the high price of provisions,
which was very numerously attended. Resolutions were passed, begging
holders of corn to bring it into the market at reduced prices; and
requesting millers to grind for the poor at half their usual charge. The
Town Hall was granted as a place of deposit for corn, to be retailed to
the poor at prime cost. The greatest pleasure was evinced by the meeting
at hearing that vessels were arriving from abroad with importations of
wheat. It is recorded that many farmers attended Worcester market, in
consequence of this meeting, and sold wheat at 15s. to 18s. a bushel.
1800—JUNE 7—County meeting to congratulate the King on his escape from
assassination by Hadfield; and meetings for a similar purpose held at
Stourbridge, Bromsgrove, &c.
1800—OCTOBER 9—A common hall held at Worcester, at which resolutions were
passed to petition Parliament for fresh enactments against “engrossing,”
&c., and begging the legislature _to fix a certain price_, _beyond which
it might be unlawful to sell wheat_.
1801—MAY 25—Common hall held at Worcester, at which a petition to
Parliament was unanimously agreed to, praying that wheat, and all other
grain, might be made saleable by weight only.
1806—MAY 28—A public meeting of the inhabitants of Worcester convened in
the Town Hall, John Dillon, Esq., in the chair, to petition against the
proposed tax on beer. Amongst other reasons against it the petition
alleged—“That it will prevent, in a great measure, the frugal offices of
hospitality and charity.”
1807—APRIL 24—Common hall at Worcester to take into consideration the
critical state of public affairs, at which an address, thanking His
Majesty for his strenuous opposition to the Catholic Services Bill, and
rejoicing in its rejection, was unanimously agreed to.
1808—APRIL 14—A common hall, convened in Worcester, over which Mr. J.
Palmer presided; at which petitions were agreed to to both houses of
Parliament, in favour of the Bill then pending, for restricting the
grants of offices in reversion.
1809—APRIL 13—A common hall, convened in Worcester, to adopt resolutions
relative to the investigation of the conduct of the Duke of York, as
Commander in Chief, in selling military promotions through his mistress,
Mrs. Clarke. The Mayor occupied the chair. Mr. J. Palmer moved
resolutions, thanking Colonel Wardle, M.P., for promoting the inquiry,
and Mr. Gordon, one of the city members, for voting for it; which were
seconded by Mr. Pope. Mr. J. Williams moved, as an amendment, that the
resolutions should be couched in more general terms and no names
mentioned in them; and Mr. B. Johnson, Town Clerk, seconded it. The
original resolutions were, however, carried by a large majority. In this
meeting occur the first mutterings of the Reform agitation; for the last
of the resolutions declares that “the late decision of the honourable
Commons (negativing Colonel Wardle’s motion for the Duke’s dismissal) has
disappointed the hopes and expectations of the people, and convinced us
of the necessity of a speedy and effectual reform in the representation
of the Commons in Parliament, as a security to the throne, a support to
the nobility, and a safeguard to the people—against that tide of
corruption which has laid so many nations of Europe prostrate at the feet
of the ruler of France.”
1809—OCTOBER 25—County meeting. Henry Bromley, Esq., Sheriff, in the
chair. To present an address to His Majesty on his entering the fiftieth
year of his reign.
1811—JULY 8—A common hall, Worcester, called by requisition to the Mayor,
to consider the best means of preventing the destruction of small fish in
the Severn, and the first Association formed for the protection of the
Fisheries: the great decrease of salmon lamented; and it is said to fetch
3s. to 4s. a lb. The corporation subscribed twenty guineas. A great
many seizures of illegal nets speedily made.
1812—MAY 11—A public meeting, held at the Guildhall, Worcester, Thomas
Carden, Esq., in the chair, to consider what steps should be adopted for
the relief of the poor, who were suffering severely from the excessive
price of all provisions. A very large subscription was raised, and it
was unanimously resolved that it should be appropriated to the purchase
of bacon, peas, and rice, to sell again at reduced prices. The total
number of persons applying thus to be assisted was 7,418, and the sum
raised about £1,500.
1813—FEBRUARY 10—A common hall held at Worcester, with the Mayor
presiding, at which a petition was unanimously agreed to against the
renewal of the monopoly of the East India Company. The resolutions were
moved by Mr. Johnson, Town Clerk, and seconded by Mr. Richards.
1813—APRIL 28—A requisition, signed by seventy-four respectable freemen
and inhabitants of Worcester, was presented to the Mayor, requesting him
to call a common hall, for the purpose of addressing H. R. H. the
Princess of Wales, “on the late atrocious attempt against her honour and
her life;” but His Worship refused to call one. A public meeting was
therefore held at the Bell, Mr. Robert Felton in the chair, at which such
an address as had been contemplated was unanimously agreed to.
1814—MAY 25—A common hall held in Worcester, the Mayor presiding, to
petition against the proposed imposition of corn duties. Mr. Nichols
moved a petition, which was seconded by Mr. Moseley, carried unanimously,
and received 6,000 signatures in two days. The petitioners declared that
corn, during the last twenty years, had been dearer in this country than
in any other in Europe, and, what was of the utmost importance, the
manufacturers of this country could not vie with other markets if the
prices of the necessaries of life could not be brought nearer to the
prices of other countries. If it was imagined that at the then prices of
corn (wheat averaging 8s. 6d. per bushel, and the quartern loaf selling
at 10½d.) the present rent of land could not be paid, the petitioners
submitted that the proper remedy was to lower the rents. The artisans,
during the war, when the price of corn and meat was excessive, had
behaved themselves in the most patient, loyal, and laudable manner, and
it was hard that they should not be allowed to share in the blessings of
the peace, &c.
Dudley, Droitwich, &c., petitioned against the measure, which was
rejected by the House of Commons, in bringing up the report, by 116 to
110.
1814—JUNE 30—A public meeting held in Worcester to petition the
legislature against that part of the recent treaty of peace with France
which related to the Slave Trade, and seemed likely to encourage its
revival. The Mayor took the chair. Mr. Stanley Pumphrey moved, and Mr.
Richard Spooner seconded, the resolutions and petitions, which were
unanimously adopted. The petitions received about 1,000 signatures; and
one with a similar object, sent from Evesham, received 900 signatures.
1814—JULY 29—A public meeting of noblemen, gentlemen, and freeholders of
the county held at the Town Hall, Worcester, to vote an address to the
Prince Regent on the glorious termination of the war. Mr. Clarke, Under
Sheriff, in the chair. The address was moved by Lord Deerhurst, seconded
by the Hon. W. B. Lygon, M.P., and passed unanimously.
1815—JANUARY 16—A common hall convened in Worcester to address Parliament
on the subject of the property and other war taxes. Mr. Josiah Palmer
first moved resolutions, which were opposed by Major Wigley, as too
strong, and aimed at the landed interest. Mr. Richard Spooner moved
others, which were seconded by Mr. Hooper, and carried by a considerable
majority. A petition was founded upon them, praying for the repeal of
the Income Tax, and the taxes on malt, tea, leather, and salt.
1815—JANUARY 25—A county meeting held with much the same purpose; Mr.
Clarke, Under Sheriff, in the chair. Mr. E. M. Wigley moved a petition
against the Property Tax, which was seconded by Sir William Smith, Bart.,
and adopted without opposition. The meeting then passed to the
consideration of the necessity of some protection to the farming
interest. Mr. Richard Spooner moved a petition praying that “foreign
corn, on importation, should be subjected to the same rate of duty as is
now paid by the British farmer.” He said the agricultural interest was
greatly depressed, and the foreigners ought to pay a duty equivalent to
the taxes paid by the British farmer. Lord Foley seconded the adoption
of the petition, which was carried by acclamation.
1815—MARCH 6—A common hall held in Worcester; Samuel Garmston, Esq.,
Mayor, in the chair; to petition against Mr. Robinson’s Corn Bill,
preventing the importation of wheat when under 80s. a quarter. Mr. J.
Palmer moved the petition, saying that the question was one of cheap or
dear bread, and not at all the benefit of the farmers, many of whom
signed the petitions against the bill, for they saw that its object was
to ensure the landholders their enormous rents. The Mayor, Colonel Wall,
Mr. Brown, Mr. Felton, &c., supported the petition, which was carried
with enthusiasm, and _received_ 7,965 _signatures the same afternoon_,
when it was obliged to be sent off by the London mail.
EVESHAM—One of the most numerous meetings ever known in this borough was
held on this subject. Mr. Easthope (afterwards Sir John Easthope) moved
the petitions, which were supported by Mr. Phillips, Mr. Barnes, &c., and
opposed by Colonel Cooper, Rev. Mr. Shaw, and Mr. Phelps. They were
carried by a large majority.
1816—MARCH 14—A county meeting held, with Joseph Lee, Esq., in the chair,
to petition for a reduction of expenditure. The speakers were E. M.
Wigley, Esq., Lord Deerhurst, Lord Elmley, and the Hon. W. H. Lyttelton,
and the general resolutions were then passed without opposition. R.
Spooner, Esq., then moved a petition praying for a readjustment of the
Property Tax, so that “occupiers of land might not be taxed according to
a fictitious assumption of profit,” and further objecting to it as
applied to the ordinary profits of industry. It also prayed for the
repeal of the war taxes on malt and salt. Mr. Wigley moved that the
consideration of the resolution be postponed; and Mr. Talbot moved as an
amendment that the Property Tax ought not, under any modifications, to be
revived. Both these were negatived, and Mr. Spooner’s petition carried.
1816—MARCH 15—A city meeting was held for the same purpose, at which very
similar petitions were agreed to.
1817—FEBRUARY 6—A common hall held by the Mayor, to vote addresses to the
Prince Regent to congratulate him on his escape from assassination, and
also to petition Parliament “to make such arrangements as should seem
likely to restore the commerce, manufactures, and agriculture of the
kingdom to their former flourishing state,” and praying for reduction of
expenditure; but adding that the petitioners “looked with anxiety to
Parliament firmly and strenuously to defend the constitution from the
imminent dangers of wild and speculative innovation.” The hall was
densely crowded. The address to the Prince Regent was moved by Mr.
Lechmere, seconded by Mr. Spooner, and carried unanimously. But on the
petition being proposed, Mr. Josiah Palmer moved its rejection, because
it did not recommend retrenchment sufficiently, and because a meeting was
to be held on the same subject the following day. Mr. Richard Mence
seconded Mr. Palmer’s amendment in a very energetic speech; and, after
several speeches, the petition was put to the meeting and decidedly
rejected.
1817—FEBRUARY 7—A requisition was presented to the Mayor to call a common
hall to petition the legislature in favour of Parliamentary Reform, but
His Worship (R. Chamberlain, Esq.) declined, though he would grant the
use of the hall to the requisitionists for that purpose. Of this
permission they availed themselves; and a most crowded meeting was
assembled, with Mr. Robert Felton in the chair. The only speakers were
Mr. J. Palmer and Mr. Moseley, who moved petitions for reform,
retrenchment, and the abolition of sinecures, which were carried
unanimously, and forwarded to Lord Deerhurst for presentation.
1817—NOVEMBER 28—County meeting and common hall held in Worcester, at
which addresses of condolence were agreed to—to the Prince Regent, Her
Majesty, and Prince Leopold—on the death of the Princess Charlotte.
1818—DECEMBER 12—A county meeting held, at which the Earl of Coventry
moved, and the Lord Bishop seconded, an address of condolence to the
Prince Regent on the death of his mother, the Queen; which was, of
course, carried unanimously. A similar address was presented from the
corporation of Worcester.
1819—MAY 1—A meeting of the proprietors and occupiers of land in the
county of Worcester, held at the Crown Inn, Broad Street; George Wigley
Perrott, Esq., in the chair; when it was unanimously resolved that a
memorial should be signed by the parties present, and sent to the Right
Hon. Frederick John Robinson, President of the Board of Trade, “to press
the just claims of the cultivators of the soil to a _full_, _fair_, _and
ample protection_ from the legislature; the _imperious necessity_ of
which was becoming daily more and more apparent.” The memorial, adopted
by the meeting, stated that “the unparalleled quantity of 26,000,000
bushels of foreign corn imported into this kingdom within the last year,
DUTY FREE, {65} and of 13,000,000 lbs. of wool in three quarters of a
year, or nearly so, had occasioned a ruinous loss to the tenantry and
other occupiers of the soil, lessened the demand for labour, increased
the poor rates, diminished the means of paying for them, and must also
have tended materially to injure the home trade of the country.” The
subscribers were—G. W. Perrott, Cracombe House; C. E. Hanford, Wooller’s
Hill; John Hawkes, Allesborough; E. F. Welles, Earl’s Croome; John
Fletcher, Hill Croome; John Onley, Bransford; Thomas Hudson, Pershore;
Joseph Smith, Henwick; Francis Holland, Cropthorne; John Winnall, Braces
Leigh; and William Woodward, Birlingham.
1820—FEBRUARY 28—A county meeting held at the Guildhall, Worcester, to
address His Majesty on the decease of his venerable father, and to
congratulate him on his accession to the throne. The address was moved
by the Earl of Coventry, as Lord Lieutenant of the County, and seconded
by Lord Beauchamp.
1822—FEBRUARY 8—A county meeting to consider agricultural distress; E.
Isaac, Esq., High Sheriff, in the chair. Mr. J. Richards first addressed
the meeting. He alluded to the circumstances in which the agricultural
interest now found itself. In the previous session of Parliament the
petitions of the farmers had caused the appointment of a select committee
to inquire into the causes of the distress. They, in their report,
admitted that arable land could now only be cultivated at a loss, but
added that Parliament could grant no redress—they must look only to time
and patience. But this was a mockery, for they had had good seasons and
harvests, and how then was their case to be bettered by patience? Mr.
George Webb Hall professed to have discovered a remedy in the imposition
of a very heavy duty on foreign corn—the object of that was, of course,
to prevent its importation altogether, and increase the price at home.
But if that was done, where were the people to get money to purchase it?
The manufacturers would no longer be able to compete with foreigners, and
people would emigrate by tens of thousands. It was not true that the
price of corn had fallen because of foreign importation—the price of meat
had fallen just in the same proportion, and cattle and sheep were not
imported. Prices were low all the world over, and the only remedy for
the present state of things was a diminution of taxes. If it was asked
why corn could not be grown at 40s. a quarter now, as it could be in
1792, he would reply, because taxes, rents, and tithes, were all much
higher. The Bank Restriction Act of 1797, and Mr. Peel’s bill of 1819,
had committed a fraud in the value of money; and this was another cause
of distress. Ultimate relief, he thought, would only be obtained from a
reformed Parliament. He moved a series of resolutions in accordance with
these sentiments. Mr. Richard Spooner seconded them. Mr. Beale Cooper
then moved an amendment, stating—“That for 150 years, from 1663 to 1814,
importation of the produce of the soil was never permitted without the
payment of some duty; and it is a matter of historical truth that during
that time the prosperity of agriculture, commerce, and manufacture
progressively increased to a height of opulence unexampled in the history
of the world.” To the “unlimited competition” (after 80s. a quarter)
introduced for the first time by the bill of 1815, the amendment
attributed the depression of the produce of the soil below that of every
other commodity, necessarily caused by diminution of circulating medium,
and therefore the amendment prayed for a prohibitory duty.
Mr. C. E. Hanford said if this amendment passed, the meeting would be a
farce. The Duke of Sussex, the Duke of Bedford, and Mr. Coke thought the
remedy was to be found in retrenchment and Parliamentary Reform.
Mr. Spooner replied to Mr. Beale Cooper, who had told them that because
corn was imported duty free, therefore it had diminished in price; but
there had been no importation at all for the last three years, and so
that argument must be fallacious. The conduct of Parliament in
endeavouring to swindle the nation into payment of an unjust debt, which,
as it had been incurred in paper, ought to be paid in paper, showed the
necessity for reform. He was for triennial Parliaments and an extension
of the franchise, so that those who by direct taxation contributed
towards the burdens of his country, should have a voice in electing those
by whom they were imposed. He had been but a short time in Parliament,
but he had had sufficient opportunity of seeing how matters were managed
there; swarms of boyish members came in just at a division, and only
looked where the Marquis of Londonderry or Mr. Tierney stood, to see on
which side of the house they should go.
Mr. G. W. Perrott seconded Mr. Cooper’s amendment, which, however, was
lost by a very large majority. Mr. Richards’s resolutions were then all
carried, excepting the last, which called for Parliamentary Reform; but
after several persons, and the High Sheriff amongst others, had begged
him to withdraw it as not pertinent to the objects of the meeting, that
also was carried by acclamation. Petitions were then agreed to, founded
on Mr. Richards’s resolutions, and the meeting broke up. Lord Foley and
Sir Thomas Winnington, who were unavoidably absent from the meeting,
attached their names to the petitions.
[Lord John Russell, just about this time, wrote a letter to the farmers
of Huntingdonshire, recommending them indeed to seek for retrenchment and
reform, but using all the arguments now in vogue amongst Protectionists
against the importation of corn, and expressing his fears that Government
were going to hand over the country to political economists.]
1822—MARCH 30—A meeting of the inhabitants of Kidderminster held, George
Hallen, Esq., High Bailiff, in the chair, to petition Parliament for a
revision of the Corn Laws; and it was resolved that the restrictions upon
the importation of corn were inconsistent with sound principles of
national policy, and were proved, by ten years’ experience, to be
injurious to the general interests of the community; and a petition was
therefore adopted for a moderate import duty on corn; which, in addition
to the unavoidable expenses of importation, would be a fair protection to
the farmer, and would be much preferable to the perplexing state of the
law, as it then stood. They also prayed generally for the relaxation of
all commercial restrictions.
1823—APRIL 30—Meeting in Worcester, William Wall, Esq., in the chair, at
which a petition to Parliament, praying for the abolition of Negro
Slavery in the British colonies, was agreed upon. One was also forwarded
from Evesham at this time.
1828—JUNE 20—Public meeting in the Guildhall, Worcester, with the Mayor
in the chair, at which petitions were agreed to, praying for restrictions
on the importation of foreign gloves.
1828—NOVEMBER 7—Public meeting in the Guildhall, for the purpose of
establishing an Infant School in Worcester. The Mayor (James Fletcher,
Esq.) presided; and there were on the platform the Lord Bishop of
Rochester, Dean of Worcester, Rev. C. Benson, Sir A. Lechmere, Bart., W.
Wall, E. Isaac, J. P. Lavender, Esqs., Dr. Hastings, Mr. Henry Newman,
Mr. Josiah Newman, &c. A considerable subscription was entered into, and
the school was established in Friar Street, where it still exists.
1828—NOVEMBER 27—A meeting at the Guildhall, Worcester, convened by the
“City and County Brunswick Club,” of those “who were friendly to its
political principles,” for the purpose of increasing the number of its
members. The general public, however, assembled in large numbers, and
the opposition, principally, took possession of the Nisi Prius Court.
The Brunswickers thereupon went into the Crown Court, and left Mr. Payne,
Roman Catholic, to harangue the company in the Nisi Prius Court upon the
unfairness of the proceeding. In the Crown Court, Major Bund was called
to the chair, and read the address and resolutions of the Brunswick Club,
with a view of obtaining “the concurrence and support of those who might
be friendly to them.” He proceeded, amidst mingled cheers and hisses, to
propose petitions to the King and Parliament, praying that no concession
might be made to Catholics. Mr. Richard Spooner endeavoured to put an
amendment, but was told that he had no right there unless friendly to the
principles of the Brunswick Club, and a show of hands was taken whether
he should be heard. The chairman having decided that it was against Mr.
Spooner, he retired, and the other resolutions were proposed by Dr. Beale
Cooper, E. Burroughs, Esq., John Phillips, Esq., and carried without much
opposition. On the suggestion of the Rev. Mr. Havergal, three cheers
were given at the close of the meeting for Protestant ascendancy.
Meanwhile, Mr. Spooner, in the body of the hall, and Mr. Foster, of
Evesham, in the Nisi Prius Court, proposed resolutions to the people
unable to get into the Crown Court, declaring the Brunswick Club to be
unnecessary and uncalled for—and these were carried by acclamation. The
Brunswickers’ petition received about 700 signatures on the day of
meeting.
1830—MARCH 2—County meeting, presided over by John Scott, Esq., High
Sheriff, for two objects—first, to consider the question of erecting a
Shire Hall; and, secondly, to petition Parliament on the subject of
agricultural distress.
As to the first matter, John Williams, Esq., moved a resolution
requesting the magistrates to be satisfied with alterations and additions
to the city Guildhall. This was seconded by Richard Spooner, Esq. The
Rev. Thomas Pearson proposed, as an amendment, that the county ought to
erect courts suitable to its respectability, but that the measure should
be postponed till the depression of the agricultural interest had passed
over. Dr. B. Cooper seconded this. Sir C. S. Smith and R. Spooner,
Esq., supported the original proposition, which was carried almost
unanimously.
Colonel Lygon having briefly addressed the meeting, warning them not to
regard Parliamentary Reform as a panacea for their ills, Richard Spooner,
Esq., rose and proposed a petition for the adoption of the meeting: it
complained, in the first place, of extravagant salaries to placemen, and
next of the standard of currency to which the county had been obliged to
return by Mr. Peel’s act, and prayed for a thorough reform in Parliament
as the only means of setting these things right. Mr. Spooner bitterly
inveighed against the corruption of the Parliament as it then existed.
The petition was seconded by Charles Hanford, Esq. Sir C. Smith, Major
General Marriott, Dr. B. Cooper, and J. Williams, Esq., agreed with all
the statements of the petition; but did not want reform, and begged Mr.
Spooner to put it into a separate petition by itself. Mr. S. refused,
and the petition was carried almost unanimously. It afterwards received
2,180 signatures.
1830—FEBRUARY 13—Meeting held in Worcester to form an “Agricultural
Society,” and to adopt such other measures as might be deemed expedient
in the present depressed state of the agricultural interest. Charles
Hanford, Esq., was called to the chair. The Rev. H. Berry moved a
petition to Parliament, praying for inquiry into the causes of distress,
for economy and revision of the poor laws, and for a salutary reform of
Parliament. F. Holland, Esq., of Cropthorne, seconded the adoption of
the petition. Mr. Allen objected to the “Reform” part of the business,
and suggested that a county meeting should be called. This was agreed
to, and a requisition to the High Sheriff immediately prepared. The
“Agricultural Society,” however, was formed.
1830—AUGUST 6—County meeting, to vote addresses of condolence and
congratulation to His Majesty King William IV, on the death of his
brother and his accession to the throne. John Scott, Esq., High Sheriff,
in the chair. The addresses were moved by Lord Deerhurst, and seconded
by Sir Anthony Lechmere, Bart.
1830—OCTOBER 13—Anti-Slavery meeting at the Guildhall; Dr. Hastings in
the chair. The speakers were the Rev. John Davies, the Rev. Thomas Lowe
of Hallow, the Rev. Daniel Wilson, Vicar of Islington, Major Bund, Mr.
Henry Newman, the Hon. T. H. Foley, M.P., the Rev. Dr. Ross of
Kidderminster, the Rev. Henry Hastings of Martley, the Rev. George
Redford, J. W. Isaac, Esq., the Rev. John Brown, Mr. Stanley Pumphrey,
and the Rev. Mr. Bell of Knightwick. Both the attendance and the
speeches were very respectable. A petition was agreed to, which received
1,826 signatures. Petitions were also forwarded to Parliament, about
this time, from every town and many villages of the county.
1831—MARCH 17—City of Worcester Reform meeting, to support the bill just
then introduced into the Commons. The Mayor, H. B. Tymbs, Esq., refused
to call a town’s meeting, but left the Guildhall at the disposal of the
requisitionists. On the motion of R. Spooner, Esq., William Saunders,
Esq., was called to the chair. Mr. Allen moved, and Mr. Deighton
seconded, the first resolution, expressing the gratification of the
meeting in the measures proposed by His Majesty’s ministers. The other
speakers were Thomas Scott, Esq., Mr. Daniel George, Mr. Timings, Dr.
Corbett, Mr. George Brook, Mr. Greening, Mr. Spooner, Mr. Gillam, Mr.
Wensley, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Thompson. The hall was crowded, and
everything was unanimous and orderly.
1831—MARCH 18—County of Worcester Reform meeting; Osman Ricardo, Esq.,
High Sheriff, in the chair. The meeting was most numerously attended,
and there was no opposition. The speakers in favour of Reform were Sir
Thomas Winnington, Sir Christopher Smith, C. E. Hanford, Esq., H. E.
Strickland, Esq., R. Berkeley, Esq., W. Welch, Esq., W. Acton, Esq., T.
C. Hornyold, Esq., T. T. Vernon, Esq., and H. Bearcroft, Esq. Lord
Lyttelton, after the resolutions had all been carried, addressed the
meeting at considerable length, expressing his delight at having lived to
see the day in which the principles he had advocated through life were,
at last, to obtain a triumph in the wise and salutary measure of Reform
brought forward by the Government. The Hon. T. H. Foley, M.P., also
spoke in favour of the bill.
1831—SEPTEMBER 30—Public meeting in the Guildhall, Worcester, of citizens
and others, to petition the House of Lords in favour of the Reform Bill,
which had now reached the Upper House. William Saunders, Esq., was
called to the chair. The principal speakers were Mr. Merryweather
Turner, Mr. Curwood, and Mr. Acton; the other movers and seconders of
resolutions being Thomas Scott, Esq., Mr. G. Brook, Mr. Smith, Mr.
Blackwell, Mr. John Bishop, and Captain Wilson. The hall was crowded and
the proceedings most enthusiastic.
1831—OCTOBER 14—The Reform Bill having been rejected by the House of
Lords by a majority of 41, another meeting of the citizens was called in
the Guildhall, Worcester, to vote an address to the King, praying “that
he will continue his present confidential advisers.” John Curwood, Esq.,
was in the chair, and the speakers were much the same as on the previous
occasion. The tone of the meeting was tolerably moderate. The Worcester
Political Union and the parishioners of All Saints and St. Michael met
and agreed to similar addresses.
1831—NOVEMBER 5—The county meeting, for a similar purpose, was held this
day, Osman Ricardo, Esq., High Sheriff, presiding. The meeting was
crowded and enthusiastic. The speakers were Sir Edward Blount, Captain
Winnington, Colonel Davies, T. C. Hornyold, Esq., Sir Thomas Winnington,
Bart., W. Acton, Esq., Lord Lyttelton, Sir C. S. Smith, C. Hanford, Esq.,
John Richards, Esq., Richard Spooner, Esq., A. Skey, Esq., G. Farley,
Esq., Colonel Jefferies, Rev. Mr. Berry, and the Hon. T. H. Foley, M.P.
The various speakers impressed upon the people the necessity of order,
and spoke confidently of obtaining reform shortly. Three cheers were
given at the conclusion of the meeting for Lord Lyttelton, three groans
for the Earl of Coventry, three cheers for the King, three for Earl Grey,
Lord Brougham, and Lord Althorp, and three groans for the Corporation.
Some disturbances took place in the city, in the evening of this day,
which will be found narrated in another place.
1832—MAY 14—The Worcester Political Union met on the resignation of
ministers, because the Lords, for a second time, refused to accept the
principle of the Reform Bill. The meeting was held in Pitchcroft, at
five p.m., and the members of the Union went in procession to the grand
stand, headed by flags and a band. It is said that at least 10,000
persons were present. C. Hanford, Esq., was called to the chair by the
acclamations of the crowd, who were first addressed by Mr. Arrowsmith;
and the other speakers were Mr. Hornidge, Mr. Raby, Mr. Mansell, Mr. W.
Bristow, Mr. Southan, Mr. Meek, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Payne, Mr. Bayliss, Mr.
Coates, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Stevenson, and the Rev. Mr. M‘Donnell and Mr.
Salt of Birmingham. The resolutions and petition prayed the House of
Commons to refuse the supplies, and not to pass the Mutiny Bill till the
Reform Bill was passed.
Meetings were held at Kidderminster (Henry Talbot, Esq., presiding) and
at Evesham (William Welch, Esq., in the chair) with similar intentions
and results.
1833—APRIL 12—A meeting held at the Guildhall, Worcester, to petition
Parliament on the subject of Negro Slavery. It was very numerously
attended. Dr. Hastings occupied the chair, and the audience was
addressed by the Rev. John Davies, Rev. George Redford, Rev. Peter
Duncan, Lieutenant Davis, Colonel Davies, M.P., Rev. Thomas Pearson, Rev.
R. Turnbull, Rev. Jacob Stanley, Mr. Stanley Pumphrey, Rev. Thomas Davis,
Mr. J. T. Price, Captain O’Brien, Mr. William Parry, Mr. Thomas Pumphrey,
Rev. Thomas Waters, and Rev. S. Webb.
1833—APRIL 18—Meeting in the Guildhall, Worcester, to petition the
legislature for a repeal of the House and Window Taxes. In the absence
of the Mayor, Mr. John Blackwell was called upon to preside. Mr.
Prosser, architect, Mr. Greening, Mr. Wensley, Mr. Edward Hooper, Mr.
Pemberton, Mr. Scott, Mr. Williams, Mr. J. Davis, Mr. Wheeler, &c., moved
and seconded the resolutions, which declared that the house duty was
oppressive and especially obnoxious, because of the power vested in the
surveyor who levied it—that the window tax was offensive in principle and
in practice—that they both pressed most heavily on the middle classes—who
had, indeed, to bear everything—and that they ought to be forthwith
abolished.
1834—JANUARY 20—Meeting of Dissenters at Kidderminster, Dr. Ross in the
chair, to memorialise Government for the redress of grievances. The
speakers were the Rev. Mr. Fry, Mr. Henry Brinton, Mr. Chadwick, Rev. Mr.
Smith, Rev. Mr. Warren, Rev. Mr. Coles, Mr. W. Brinton, Mr. Charles
Talbot, and Mr. Thomas Hopkins. The memorial agreed to was directed to
Earl Grey, and prayed, first, for relief from Church Rates; second, the
power of celebrating marriages without conforming to the Church service;
third, for the right of interring their dead in parochial burial grounds
by their own ministers; fourth, the right of admission to the
universities; fifth, for a general system of registering births, deaths,
and marriages, without regard to religious distinction.
1834—FEBRUARY 24—Meeting of laity of the Church of England at
Kidderminster, to express unshaken confidence in the principles of the
Establishment, and to petition Parliament in its behalf. The meeting was
held in the National School-room, and was numerously attended. Abraham
Turner, Esq., was called to the chair, and the resolutions were proposed
by the High Bailiff, Mr. Samuel Beddoes, Mr. Woodward, churchwarden, Mr.
J. Gough, Mr. Bradley, Mr. George Hooman, Mr. Thomas Hallen, Mr. Boycot,
sen., Mr. Dixon, Mr. Tomkins, and Mr. Harvey. The resolutions were
unanimously adopted. [The Catholic priest, displeased at some allusion
made to his religion at the Dissenters’ meeting, declared that he thought
a union of Catholics with the Church of England not at all impossible.]
1834—APRIL 9—Meeting of owners and occupiers of land, at the Bell Inn,
Worcester, “to consider the propriety of petitioning Parliament on the
ruinous state of the agricultural interest.” The room was very much
crowded; and the Earl of Coventry was called to the chair. Sir Anthony
Lechmere, Bart., moved the adoption of a petition which attributed the
greatest part of agricultural distress to the alteration of the currency,
by the Bill of 1819, and therefore prayed that Parliament would institute
an immediate inquiry into the effects of that measure. The removal of
“the present, though inadequate” protection of the Corn Laws, would
certainly accelerate their destruction, which was daily drawing nearer by
reason of the enormous increase of their various burdens. Earl Beauchamp
seconded the adoption of the petition. Major Bund moved that that part
of the petition which related to the currency should be left out, for
that was a subject into which if they once got they would never be able
to get out again. This called forth a long speech from Mr. Spooner,
“going into” the currency question very fully; and the result was that
the amendment was withdrawn, and the petition carried unanimously. The
petition had 3,000 signatures attached to it. Mr. T. Attwood, when it
was presented to the House by Colonel Lygon, “hailed it with
satisfaction, because it was the first agricultural petition which traced
the distress to its true source—the Currency Bill of 1819.”
1835—JULY 27—A meeting at the Crown Inn, Worcester, to consider the
ninetieth clause of the Municipal Reform Bill, which, it was feared,
would prevent the new town councils from leasing the borough property on
anything like the same terms as the old corporations had done. John
Williams, Esq., was called to the chair. Mr. John Hill proposed, and Mr.
Francis Hooper seconded, a motion suggesting that a committee should be
appointed to inquire in the proper quarter what was the precise intent of
the clause. Mr. Waters moved, and Mr. G. Allies seconded, as an
amendment, “that this meeting, not believing that property, held under
corporation leases, will be depreciated in value, are unwilling to
address the legislature on the subject.” Mr. Waters’s motion was
carried. The Mayor wished only holders of corporation property to vote,
but other parties, who had thronged the room, insisted on their right to
express an opinion; and the result was regarded as a test of public
opinion in the city, with regard to the bill.
1835—AUGUST 12—Meeting in the Corn Market, Worcester, to address His
Majesty on the subject of the Municipal Reform Bill, requesting him to
take measures to ensure its passing the House of Lords without
mutilation. The Mayor, Mr. Leonard, had refused to grant the use of the
hall. C. H. Hebb, Esq., was called to the chair; and the speakers were
Mr. Carey, Mr. Munn, Mr. Sanders, Mr. C. A. Helm, Mr. Greening, Mr. E. L.
Williams, and Mr. B. Stokes. A petition to the Commons was also agreed
to at this meeting, begging them not to consent to any alteration of the
measure. It received 6,221 signatures.
1835—SEPTEMBER 7—Protestant meeting, in the Guildhall, Worcester, the
alleged object being to disseminate a knowledge of the principles and
practices of Popery, and to promote the great principles of Protestantism
as maintained by the Established Church. The assembly room was well
filled. Richard Spooner, Esq., was called to the chair. The Rev.
Mortimer O‘Sullivan was the chief speaker; the others being Sir Matthew
Blakeston, Bart., Rev. C. Benson, Colonel Taylor, Rev. George
Turberville, Rev. John Cawood, John Brown, Esq., Lea Castle, Dr. B.
Cooper, C. Hawkins, Esq., Samuel Kent, Esq., Rev. W. Chesshyre. A
“Protestant Association” was determined on, but the meeting resolved
itself, in reality, into an opposition to the appropriating clauses of
the Irish Church Bill, then before the Lords. This meeting was the
occasion of a correspondence between Mr. Hanford and Mr. Spooner, and a
whole host of general letters in the newspapers. The Rev. T. M‘Donnell
came from Birmingham on purpose to preach about it at the Catholic
Chapel.
1835—SEPTEMBER 26—Meeting of the Worcestershire Agricultural Society, at
the Crown Inn, Worcester, numerously attended. Sir A. Lechmere, Bart.,
the president for the year, in the chair. It was first resolved that
agriculturists had waited long enough for the amelioration of their
condition, which, according to a committee of the Commons in 1833, was to
result from “the cautious forbearance rather than the active
interposition of Parliament.” That it was necessary the agricultural
body should be roused into energy to prevent the “total ruin impending
over both landlords and tenants.” That Government were remitting all
sorts of taxes to the manufacturing interests, and none to them—and,
then, that it was highly desirable that the question of the currency
should be brought under the serious attention of Parliament; as the
sudden reduction of the amount of circulating medium had been one of the
chief causes of the ruinous prices of agricultural produce. It would
also be a great relief to the farmer to be allowed to malt grain, the
produce of his own farm, duty free. The Marquis of Chandos was accepted
as the farmers’ champion; and he was to be urged to bring these matters
before Parliament, these being the only remedies suggested.
1835—OCTOBER 17—Meeting of the agriculturists of the county at the Crown
Inn, Broad Street, to consider the distress and ruinous condition of the
agricultural interest. Sir A. Lechmere, Bart., was called to the chair.
Mr. Spooner moved an address to the King, setting forth the distress of
the farmers, and suggesting that there ought to be an alteration of the
standard of value to relieve them—they ought, also, to be allowed to malt
their own grain. Mr. Robinson, M.P., Captain Winnington, M.P., and Mr.
Pakington, M.P., were very averse to mixing up the currency question with
agricultural distress, and had a long argument with Mr. Spooner thereon.
Mr. Robinson had voted for repeal of the malt tax, but would never
consent to one set of men only being exempt from the excise laws. The
address, as it originally stood, was carried by a large majority.
1836—MAY 30—Town’s meeting at the Guildhall, Worcester, to agree to an
address to His Majesty’s ministers, and a petition to the House of
Commons, in favour of the Irish Municipal Reform Bill. The Mayor, C. H.
Hebb, Esq., was in the chair; and there was a numerous gathering of
citizens. Mr. Acton, Mr. Hanford, Mr. Alderman Gibbs, Mr. Sheriff
Allies, Mr. Alderman R. Evans, Mr. Hardy, Mr. Carey, Mr. Parry, Mr.
Greening, Mr. Chapman, and Mr. Southan were the speakers. The
proceedings were unanimous.
1836—JUNE 30—Meeting in the Guildhall, Worcester, to form a “Worcester
Reform Association;” the principal object alleged being to look after the
registration. Mr. Robert Hardy was called to the chair, and the hall was
crowded with operatives and others. The meeting was addressed by Captain
Corles, Mr. F. T. Elgie, Colonel Davies, and others. G. Munn, Esq., was
elected president of the new association.
1837—JANUARY 26—Meeting in Worcester Town Hall, to petition for Vote by
Ballot. The meeting had, first of all, been called for the Thursday
previous, but the requisitionists having determined to postpone it, the
Mayor left the hall. A number of the Conservative party were left
waiting in the Crown Court, and not having been properly apprised of the
adjournment, they, after a little interval, called Major Bund to the
chair. Mr. Gutch and Mr. F. Hooper moved a petition condemning the
ballot, which was declared to “lead to the corruption of public morals by
the general practice of treachery and hypocrisy.” This was carried by a
large majority. Mr. Gutch and Mr. Lingham then moved that “the conduct
of the Mayor and the requisitionists in not attending the meeting, and
not offering any explanation of their absence, was an insult to the
citizens of Worcester, and highly censurable;” and this also met with the
approval of the parties present. These proceedings of course only made
the original promoters of the meeting more in earnest, and the hall was
this day crowded by a company entirely unanimous in favour of the ballot.
The Mayor was in the chair; and the various resolutions and petitions
were moved by Mr. F. T. Elgie, Secretary to the Worcester Reform
Association, W. Acton, Esq., Mr. Hardy, Mr. Arrowsmith, Mr. John Hill,
Town Clerk, Mr. Raby, C. Hanford, Esq., Mr. Alderman Corles, Mr. John
Hall, &c. Mr. Waters asserted that he had told Major Bund, half an hour
before the meeting of the previous week, that it was postponed. The
ballot was declared, in the petition adopted by the meeting, to be
“essentially necessary to the purity of election.”
1837—MARCH 30—Meeting of the clergy of the diocese, at the Chapter House,
to petition against the Church Rate Bill, then lately introduced by
ministers. The Venerable Archdeacon Onslow was in the chair. The Rev.
John Peel, Rev. T. Baker, Rev. John Foley, Rev. J. R. Gray, Rev. C.
Benson, Rev. R. B. Hone, Rev. A. B. Lechmere, Rev. H. Hastings, Rev. E.
W. Wakeman, and the Hon. and Rev. J. S. Cocks moved or seconded the
resolutions. The tone of the speeches generally was moderate; but the
Tithe Commutation Act was included in the animadversions of the speakers,
as well as the bill for abolishing church rates.
1837—MAY 5—Public meeting at Worcester, to consider the best means of
alleviating the distress existing amongst the operative glovers. The
Mayor, C. H. Hebb, Esq., was in the chair. John Dent, Esq., Dr.
Hastings, Mr. S. Pumphrey, E. H. Lechmere, Esq., John Williams, Esq., W.
Wall, Esq., Mr. Tymbs, Mr. Lavender, R. Berkeley, Esq., and Mr. T. Newman
moved the various resolutions. The distress was not traced further, as
to its causes, than the decay of trade and want of orders. Many hundreds
of families had applied for relief. It was determined that a general
subscription should be entered into, and a committee of master glovers
was appointed to scrutinise the applications for charity. About £1,000
was collected, including £100 from the Earl of Coventry, £50 from Earl
Beauchamp, and £30 from a performance at the Theatre, given for this
purpose by Mr. Bennett.
1837—JULY 18—Anti-Slavery meeting at the Guildhall, to hear an address
from Mr. Joseph Sturge, on the apprenticeship system. Mr. Alderman R.
Evans was called to the chair. Dr. Redford, Mr. Stanley Pumphrey, Rev.
Thomas Waters, and Mr. Brewin moved resolutions declaring for total
abolition; and pledging the meeting only to support such candidates, at
the next election, as would vote for such a step. Mr. Robinson and
Colonel Davies gave the meeting satisfactory assurances. Mr. Bailey was
not present, but Mr. Gutch read a note from him.
1837—AUGUST 10—County meeting held at the Guildhall, Worcester, to
congratulate Queen Victoria on her ascension to the throne, and to
condole with the Queen Dowager on her bereavement. The High Sheriff, W.
Roberts, Esq., was in the chair. The Earl of Coventry moved the
addresses; and the Bishop of Worcester seconded the one, and the Lord
Lieutenant, Lord Foley, the other. Earl Coventry was requested to
present them.
1837—DECEMBER 20—Meeting of the clergy in the Chapter House, the Ven.
Archdeacon Onslow in the chair. Addresses to Her Majesty, a memorial to
the Archbishop of Canterbury, and petitions to Parliament were adopted
against certain clauses in the Marriage and Registration Acts, against
the Tithe Commutation Act, and against the constitution of the
Ecclesiastical Commission. The Revs. T. Baker, C. Dunne, Hon. J. S.
Cocks, A. B. Lechmere, G. W. Kershaw, C. Benson, R. B. Hone, J. F.
Turner, W. R. Holden, and W. A. Pruen, moved or seconded the resolutions.
1837—DECEMBER 30—Anti-Slavery meeting in the Town Hall, to petition for
the immediate abolition of the apprenticeship system. Mr. Stanley
Pumphrey was in the chair. The speakers were—Dr. Redford, Mr. Bowly, Mr.
George Thompson (London), Mr. S. Burden, Mr. Alderman R. Evans, Mr.
Ledbrook, and Mr. B. Stokes.
1838—FEBRUARY 6—Common hall at Worcester, to petition for the ballot.
Mr. Alderman Hebb took the chair. The movers of the resolutions
were—William Acton, Esq., Mr. Arrowsmith, Mr. Elgie, Mr. James Wall,
Charles Hanford, Esq., Mr. Greening, Mr. Edward Hooper, and Mr. George.
A Mr. Davis, a native of Worcester, but who had resided a considerable
time in the United States, said the ballot had not worked well there.
Colonel Davies and Mr. Turton, the expectant candidate, afterwards
addressed the meeting.
1838—SEPTEMBER 11—Meeting of citizens at the Guildhall, at which it was
resolved that an act should be applied for to obtain powers for the
better regulation and repair of the streets and highways within the
borough. Mr. Pierpoint proposed that the powers under such act should
rest in the City Commissioners, and Mr. Deighton moved, as an amendment,
that they should lie in the Council. Mr. Pierpoint’s resolution was
carried; and, further, that the qualification of a Commissioner should be
reduced to an income of £20 a year. In consequence of this decision the
Council refused to proceed further with the bill.
1839—FEBRUARY 23—County meeting, in the New Shire Hall, on the Corn Law
question. The High Sheriff, Mr. Russell, presided. The outer hall was
completely filled, and the minority of Corn Law repealers were very
noisy. The first resolution, proposed by the Earl of Coventry, and
seconded by William Acton, Esq., was as follows: “That taking into
consideration the natural and artificial causes which produce variations
in the price of corn, and which experience has proved it is beyond the
power of human legislation at all times to obviate or control, and
looking at the slight changes in prices which have occurred since the
last corn act was passed, which, while it regulates the duties on
importation, affords protection to the home grower—this meeting is of
opinion that it would be unjust and impolitic to make any alteration in
the principle of the present law.” The remaining resolutions were merely
routine, and were moved or seconded by Sir Offley Wakeman, Bart., O.
Mason, Esq., Hon. W. Coventry, George Allies, Esq. (Mayor of Worcester),
John Freeman, Esq., Sir A. Lechmere, Bart., Earl Beauchamp, and General
Lygon, M.P. They were all carried by very large majorities. Towards the
close of the meeting the uproar was very considerable, and at last, on
the interposition of the Earl of Coventry, Mr. F. H. Coates, though not a
freeholder, was allowed to speak in favour of a repeal of the Corn Laws,
and was heard with considerable attention.
1839—APRIL 6—Large meeting of the clergy and laity of the Church of
England held in the Crown Court, New Shire Hall, to form a Diocesan Board
of Education in connection with the National School Society. The Lord
Bishop took the chair, and the Rev. Donald Cameron read a report of a
committee which had been previously appointed on the subject. Archdeacon
Spooner, Sir John Mordaunt, Bart., M.P., Prebendary Digby, Mr. Pakington,
and Canon Benson were the principal speakers, and moved resolutions
pledging the meeting to form such a society as was suggested, and
vigorously to support it. A training school for teachers was especially
mentioned. Handsome donations were given on the spot.
1840—MARCH 27—The first Anti-Corn-Law meeting held in Worcester. It was
a gathering of operatives, and took place in the Town Hall. Mr. John
Richardson, ironfounder, was called to the chair; and the speakers were
Mr. Robert Hardy, Mr. Thomas Waters, and several operatives, by whom
indeed the meeting was convened. A petition, praying for a total repeal
of the Corn Laws, was unanimously agreed to. The meeting was held with
the view of strengthening Mr. Villiers’s hands in an approaching debate,
and the number of signatures attached to the petition was 3,326.
1840—JUNE 29—County meeting, with the High Sheriff in the chair, to
address the Queen on her escape from the attempt at assassination by
Oxford. The resolutions were moved by Sir A. Lechmere, Mr. Pakington,
Lord Southwell, Colonel Davies, Dr. B. Cooper, and the Hon. and Rev. W.
W. C. Talbot.
1841—NOVEMBER 15—Public meeting in the Guildhall, Worcester, to vote
congratulatory addresses to the Queen and Prince Albert on the birth of
the Prince of Wales. The Mayor, Edward Evans, Esq., presided; and the
resolutions were moved by the Lord Bishop of Worcester, John Williams,
Esq., Sir A. Lechmere, Bart., Captain Thomas, &c. A subscription was
entered into to supply the poor of the city with coal at a reduced rate,
and this was called the Prince of Wales’s Coal Fund—£1,021 were raised by
this means.
1842—FEBRUARY 23—A common hall convened at Worcester, to consider the
distress of the country. The requisition had been taken round for
signature by Mr. J. D. Stevenson, and a great number of persons had
affixed their names. The hall was densely filled with operatives, and
the proceedings were commenced by Mr. R. Hardy, who moved a resolution
declaring that the distress of the country could be traced to “the Corn
Laws and other restrictions on the trade and liberties of the people.”
This was seconded by Mr. Edward Webb, and every hand was held up in its
favour, save one. Mr. Alderman Corles proposed another resolution,
declaring that the Corn Laws never would have been enacted if the people
had been fully represented in Parliament, and that all bad statutes had
arisen from class legislation. This was seconded by Mr. Alderman
Padmore, and carried unanimously. Mr. Elgie moved the third
resolution—that the present Parliament was not the people’s Parliament,
and that it was necessary for the operative and middle classes to unite
for the overthrow of monopolies. This was seconded by Mr. Fisher; but a
Chartist, named Davie, moved an amendment—“that the principles of the
People’s Charter should be embodied in the petition;” this was seconded
by an operative named Williams, and two Birmingham Chartists, named Young
and Mason, wanted to speak to the amendment; but the Mayor would not let
them, because this was a “town’s meeting” and they were strangers. This
caused great uproar; so he put the matter to the meeting, and requested
those who were of opinion that the people of Worcester could manage their
own affairs, to go to the right—and those who thought they were not
competent so to do, to the left. This but increased the disturbance, and
the Mayor put the question in the usual method; and, whether by mistake
or not, the great majority declared that strangers should not be heard.
The Mayor then put the amendment in favour of the Charter, and two-thirds
of the meeting held up their hands in its favour. Davie then moved the
adoption of the “National Petition,” praying for universal suffrage,
repeal of the union, &c. &c. &c. The Mayor objected that this was not
put as the petition of the people of Worcester. Dr. Redford made an
attempt to convince the operatives of their mistake in creating disunion,
but after a few sentences he gave up the task. The Mayor declined to put
the National Petition; and after asking whether any gentleman had
anything else to propose, he declared the meeting dissolved, and left the
hustings. The Chartists remained in the hall, and having moved Mr.
Stevenson into the chair, Mason and Whyte made long orations, especially
abusive of the Mayor, and the National Petition was carried by
acclamation.
1842—APRIL 16—A numerous meeting of the agriculturists, held at the Crown
Inn, to consider Sir Robert Peel’s New Tariff. P. V. Onslow, Esq., in
the chair. Mr. Curtler, Mr. Williams, and others thought they had not
sufficient information before them to go upon, and expressed confidence
in Sir Robert Peel. Mr. Woodward moved a series of resolutions, stating
that the proposed alterations would seriously injure the agriculturists,
and they could have no confidence in any ministry who proposed them. Mr.
Benson moved a resolution somewhat milder, but deprecating the reduction
of duty on cattle, &c., and this was carried by a considerable majority.
1843—MARCH 13—Public meeting in the Guildhall, Worcester, John Lilly,
Esq., Mayor, presiding, to petition against the tenth article of the
Ashburton treaty; which, in providing for the extradition of criminals
from Canada to the United States, was thought likely to interfere with
the liberty of escaped slaves. The resolutions were moved by Dr.
Redford, Alderman E. Evans, Rev. Mr. Holden, Rev. J. Earnshaw, Mr. G.
Grove, Rev. C. Lee, &c.; and Sir Thomas Wilde was requested to present
the petition.
1844—FEBRUARY 27—Public meeting at the Bell Hotel, to form an
Agricultural Protection Society for Worcestershire. P. V. Onslow, Esq.,
took the chair; and the resolutions were moved by Mr. F. Woodward, Sir
Anthony Lechmere, Dr. B. Cooper, Mr. Henry Hudson, J. S. Pakington, Esq.,
M.P., Mr. Onley, Mr. Curtler, Mr. James Taylor, and the Hon. and Rev. W.
W. C. Talbot. The meeting was attended by about 300 farmers and
landowners, and about £550 were subscribed on the spot.
1844—OCTOBER 4—A meeting of the medical profession of the county,
convened in the board room of the Worcester Infirmary, for the purpose of
considering the provisions of the Medical Bill introduced in the late
session of Parliament by Sir James Graham. Dr. Malden was called to the
chair; and Mr. Pierpoint, and Mr. Davis of Pershore, moved a resolution
approving of the bill in general. Dr. Hastings, and Mr. A. Martin of
Evesham, moved a second, declaring that the bill was defective in not
containing a clause for the punishment of unqualified and unregistered
practitioners, and that it was the duty of every medical man to oppose
the bill unless such a clause were inserted. A petition was agreed to,
praying for the insertion of such a protective clause.
1844—NOVEMBER 28—A town’s meeting called at Droitwich, to consider the
proposal of the Patent Salt Company to carry their brine down to Camp by
means of pipes, and convert it into salt there, so as to save the great
expense of tonnage on the Droitwich Canal. The Mayor, T. G. Smith, Esq.,
presided. The meeting unanimously agreed to petition against the
proposed measure, as one which would be utterly destructive of the trade
of the borough. Mr. Curtler, in moving the second resolution, went at
length into the whole matter, attributing the Salt Company’s want of
success to their own mismanagement; and he blamed them for seeking to
monopolise the whole trade in their own hands. At the same time he
admitted that they had a right to complain of the heavy charges imposed
by the Canal Company, who fancied themselves bound by the guarantee given
them by the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company to give them £8
interest per share, to keep the tolls up to the _maximum_ of 3d. a mile
per ton. But he said the Canal Company were about to take steps to alter
this state of things. Mr. Pakington, who attended the meeting to learn
the wishes of his constituents, said he should give the Salt Company’s
measure his most strenuous opposition in Parliament. The scheme was
shortly afterwards abandoned.
1844—DECEMBER 16—A public meeting held in the Guildhall, Worcester, to
consider what steps should be taken for the relief of the poor in the
city during the winter, which had commenced with much severity. The
Bishop of Rochester took the chair; and it was unanimously resolved that
the balance left from the Prince of Wales’s Coal Fund should be increased
by a general subscription, and another distribution of coal, blankets,
&c., take place. Mr. Mence suggested that the funds should be
distributed by the Visiting Society; but it was discovered that this had
recently become entirely a Church of England society, and Dr. Redford
protested against any general fund therefore being committed to its
charge. A committee, upon which all the Dissenting ministers of the city
were placed, was appointed by the meeting for the distribution of the
funds. The subscriptions amounted to £702. 17s.
1845—DECEMBER 27—The Agricultural Protection Society held a general
meeting at the Crown Hotel, Broad Street, Worcester; P. V. Onslow, Esq.,
in the chair. The speakers were Mr. F. Woodward, Mr. Lucy, J. S.
Pakington, Esq., M.P., Mr. Curtler, the Hon. W. Coventry, Mr. Gutch, and
Mr. Whittaker. The proximate causes for calling the meeting were—Lord
John Russell’s letter avowing himself a total repealer, and the certainty
that some measures affecting the agricultural interest would be brought
forward by Sir Robert Peel in the ensuing session. Mr. Curtler avowed
that he believed Sir Robert Peel to be an honest statesman, who had no
motive for injuring the agricultural interest, and never would think of
doing such a thing. The resolutions pledged the Society to carry out “a
well-digested mode of action” against repeal of the Corn Laws.
1846—APRIL 29—A town’s meeting held at Worcester, to consider the New Gas
Company’s Bill; William Lewis, Esq., Mayor, presiding. There had been
many complaints of the bad quality of the gas supplied by the Old
Company, and murmurs were heard about the price charged; in consequence
of which, some parties thought it would answer their purpose to project a
new set of works. The Old Company thereupon reduced the price from 8s.
4d. to 7s. 6d. per 1,000 feet; but this was only taken as an admission
that the price ought to have been less before, and the New Company’s
project went on and a great deal of ill feeling was excited—the popular
cry, of course, being raised against that which had been a good while
established, and was supposed to have been a source of considerable
emolument to the parties engaged. That it had not been so to the
shareholders was proved, but it was thereupon retorted that the
management had been bad, and that the lessee of the works had made a
fortune by them, &c. Negociations were at one time opened for the sale
of the Old Company’s works to the New, but these fell through; and the
New Company being now about to bring their bill before Parliament, it was
necessary that they should have the approval of the town to back them.
Mr. Pierpoint, at this meeting, elaborately stated the case on the New
Company’s behalf; and Mr. H. B. Tymbs (chairman of the Old Company), Mr.
Jones (their new manager), Mr. Francis Hooper, Mr. John Hill, and Mr.
Bedford spoke for the Old Company. A petition in favour of the New
Company’s bill, proposed by Mr. W. D. Lingham and Mr. Barnett, was
carried by a majority of three to one.
1847—MAY 24—The Mayor of Worcester, Mr. Elgie, convened a public meeting
in the Guildhall, for the purpose of considering the steps that should be
taken to relieve the poor of the city, who were suffering much from the
then high price of provisions. The meeting was most respectably attended
by men of all parties, and more than £300 was at once collected for the
purpose of furnishing the poor with provisions at a cheap rate.
1848—FEBRUARY 26—Public meeting of the inhabitants of Worcester, to
petition against the Government proposal to increase the Income Tax per
centage. The Mayor, E. Webb, Esq., presided, and Mr. Gutch, Mr. Alderman
Elgie, Mr. F. H. Needham, Mr. Manning, Mr. Arrowsmith, Mr. John Hood, Mr.
Pierpoint, and Mr. Bedford moved or seconded the resolutions. F.
Rufford, Esq., M.P., also spoke. In consequence of demonstrations like
these throughout the country, the Government proposition to levy a three
per cent. permanent income tax was abandoned.
1848—JUNE 16—A town’s meeting, held at Worcester, to petition in favour
of “further reform.” The Mayor, Mr. Webb, presided; and Mr. R. Hardy and
Mr. J. Wall moved the first resolution—declaring that the present
representation of the people in the House of Commons was partial, &c.;
and this was carried almost unanimously. Mr. Arrowsmith and Mr. Everett
moved a petition in favour of Mr. Hume’s motion for extension of the
suffrage to all householders, triennial Parliaments, ballot, and equal
apportionment of members to the population. John Dinmore Stephenson
moved a petition for the whole “six points” in amendment, but after twice
calling for a show of hands the Mayor declared the amendment to be lost,
though it was a very near thing. The other resolutions were moved by the
Rev. William Crowe, Mr. Alderman E. Evans, &c., and carried without
opposition.
1849—MAY 5—County meeting, held at the Shire Hall, Worcester, to consider
the distress un
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/44040