Part 9

1842—APRIL 16—A numerous meeting of the agriculturists, held at the Crown Inn, to consider Sir Robert Peel’s New Tariff. P. V. Onslow, Esq., in the chair. Mr. Curtler, Mr. Williams, and others thought they had not sufficient information before them to go upon, and expressed confidence in Sir Robert Peel. Mr. Woodward moved a series of resolutions, stating that the proposed alterations would seriously injure the agriculturists, and they could have no confidence in any ministry who proposed them. Mr. Benson moved a resolution somewhat milder, but deprecating the reduction of duty on cattle, &c., and this was carried by a considerable majority.

1843—MARCH 13—Public meeting in the Guildhall, Worcester, John Lilly, Esq., Mayor, presiding, to petition against the tenth article of the Ashburton treaty; which, in providing for the extradition of criminals from Canada to the United States, was thought likely to interfere with the liberty of escaped slaves. The resolutions were moved by Dr. Redford, Alderman E. Evans, Rev. Mr. Holden, Rev. J. Earnshaw, Mr. G. Grove, Rev. C. Lee, &c.; and Sir Thomas Wilde was requested to present the petition.

1844—FEBRUARY 27—Public meeting at the Bell Hotel, to form an Agricultural Protection Society for Worcestershire. P. V. Onslow, Esq., took the chair; and the resolutions were moved by Mr. F. Woodward, Sir Anthony Lechmere, Dr. B. Cooper, Mr. Henry Hudson, J. S. Pakington, Esq., M.P., Mr. Onley, Mr. Curtler, Mr. James Taylor, and the Hon. and Rev. W. W. C. Talbot. The meeting was attended by about 300 farmers and landowners, and about £550 were subscribed on the spot.

1844—OCTOBER 4—A meeting of the medical profession of the county, convened in the board room of the Worcester Infirmary, for the purpose of considering the provisions of the Medical Bill introduced in the late session of Parliament by Sir James Graham. Dr. Malden was called to the chair; and Mr. Pierpoint, and Mr. Davis of Pershore, moved a resolution approving of the bill in general. Dr. Hastings, and Mr. A. Martin of Evesham, moved a second, declaring that the bill was defective in not containing a clause for the punishment of unqualified and unregistered practitioners, and that it was the duty of every medical man to oppose the bill unless such a clause were inserted. A petition was agreed to, praying for the insertion of such a protective clause.

1844—NOVEMBER 28—A town’s meeting called at Droitwich, to consider the proposal of the Patent Salt Company to carry their brine down to Camp by means of pipes, and convert it into salt there, so as to save the great expense of tonnage on the Droitwich Canal. The Mayor, T. G. Smith, Esq., presided. The meeting unanimously agreed to petition against the proposed measure, as one which would be utterly destructive of the trade of the borough. Mr. Curtler, in moving the second resolution, went at length into the whole matter, attributing the Salt Company’s want of success to their own mismanagement; and he blamed them for seeking to monopolise the whole trade in their own hands. At the same time he admitted that they had a right to complain of the heavy charges imposed by the Canal Company, who fancied themselves bound by the guarantee given them by the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company to give them £8 interest per share, to keep the tolls up to the _maximum_ of 3d. a mile per ton. But he said the Canal Company were about to take steps to alter this state of things. Mr. Pakington, who attended the meeting to learn the wishes of his constituents, said he should give the Salt Company’s measure his most strenuous opposition in Parliament. The scheme was shortly afterwards abandoned.

1844—DECEMBER 16—A public meeting held in the Guildhall, Worcester, to consider what steps should be taken for the relief of the poor in the city during the winter, which had commenced with much severity. The Bishop of Rochester took the chair; and it was unanimously resolved that the balance left from the Prince of Wales’s Coal Fund should be increased by a general subscription, and another distribution of coal, blankets, &c., take place. Mr. Mence suggested that the funds should be distributed by the Visiting Society; but it was discovered that this had recently become entirely a Church of England society, and Dr. Redford protested against any general fund therefore being committed to its charge. A committee, upon which all the Dissenting ministers of the city were placed, was appointed by the meeting for the distribution of the funds. The subscriptions amounted to £702. 17s.

1845—DECEMBER 27—The Agricultural Protection Society held a general meeting at the Crown Hotel, Broad Street, Worcester; P. V. Onslow, Esq., in the chair. The speakers were Mr. F. Woodward, Mr. Lucy, J. S. Pakington, Esq., M.P., Mr. Curtler, the Hon. W. Coventry, Mr. Gutch, and Mr. Whittaker. The proximate causes for calling the meeting were—Lord John Russell’s letter avowing himself a total repealer, and the certainty that some measures affecting the agricultural interest would be brought forward by Sir Robert Peel in the ensuing session. Mr. Curtler avowed that he believed Sir Robert Peel to be an honest statesman, who had no motive for injuring the agricultural interest, and never would think of doing such a thing. The resolutions pledged the Society to carry out “a well-digested mode of action” against repeal of the Corn Laws.

1846—APRIL 29—A town’s meeting held at Worcester, to consider the New Gas Company’s Bill; William Lewis, Esq., Mayor, presiding. There had been many complaints of the bad quality of the gas supplied by the Old Company, and murmurs were heard about the price charged; in consequence of which, some parties thought it would answer their purpose to project a new set of works. The Old Company thereupon reduced the price from 8s. 4d. to 7s. 6d. per 1,000 feet; but this was only taken as an admission that the price ought to have been less before, and the New Company’s project went on and a great deal of ill feeling was excited—the popular cry, of course, being raised against that which had been a good while established, and was supposed to have been a source of considerable emolument to the parties engaged. That it had not been so to the shareholders was proved, but it was thereupon retorted that the management had been bad, and that the lessee of the works had made a fortune by them, &c. Negociations were at one time opened for the sale of the Old Company’s works to the New, but these fell through; and the New Company being now about to bring their bill before Parliament, it was necessary that they should have the approval of the town to back them. Mr. Pierpoint, at this meeting, elaborately stated the case on the New Company’s behalf; and Mr. H. B. Tymbs (chairman of the Old Company), Mr. Jones (their new manager), Mr. Francis Hooper, Mr. John Hill, and Mr. Bedford spoke for the Old Company. A petition in favour of the New Company’s bill, proposed by Mr. W. D. Lingham and Mr. Barnett, was carried by a majority of three to one.

1847—MAY 24—The Mayor of Worcester, Mr. Elgie, convened a public meeting in the Guildhall, for the purpose of considering the steps that should be taken to relieve the poor of the city, who were suffering much from the then high price of provisions. The meeting was most respectably attended by men of all parties, and more than £300 was at once collected for the purpose of furnishing the poor with provisions at a cheap rate.

1848—FEBRUARY 26—Public meeting of the inhabitants of Worcester, to petition against the Government proposal to increase the Income Tax per centage. The Mayor, E. Webb, Esq., presided, and Mr. Gutch, Mr. Alderman Elgie, Mr. F. H. Needham, Mr. Manning, Mr. Arrowsmith, Mr. John Hood, Mr. Pierpoint, and Mr. Bedford moved or seconded the resolutions. F. Rufford, Esq., M.P., also spoke. In consequence of demonstrations like these throughout the country, the Government proposition to levy a three per cent. permanent income tax was abandoned.

1848—JUNE 16—A town’s meeting, held at Worcester, to petition in favour of “further reform.” The Mayor, Mr. Webb, presided; and Mr. R. Hardy and Mr. J. Wall moved the first resolution—declaring that the present representation of the people in the House of Commons was partial, &c.; and this was carried almost unanimously. Mr. Arrowsmith and Mr. Everett moved a petition in favour of Mr. Hume’s motion for extension of the suffrage to all householders, triennial Parliaments, ballot, and equal apportionment of members to the population. John Dinmore Stephenson moved a petition for the whole “six points” in amendment, but after twice calling for a show of hands the Mayor declared the amendment to be lost, though it was a very near thing. The other resolutions were moved by the Rev. William Crowe, Mr. Alderman E. Evans, &c., and carried without opposition.

1849—MAY 5—County meeting, held at the Shire Hall, Worcester, to consider the distress under which the agricultural body were then said to be labouring. The High Sheriff, John Dent, Esq., occupied the chair; and the meeting was most numerously and respectably attended. James Taylor, Esq., of Moseley Hall, moved the first resolution—expressing alarm at the depression under which both the agricultural and manufacturing interests of the county were suffering. Mr. Joseph Stallard seconded this resolution. Mr. James Baldwin, paper manufacturer, of Birmingham, proposed an amendment, which, while it admitted the depression in trade and agriculture, suggested a remedy in the reduction of taxation, and chiefly from a repeal of the malt and hop duties. Mr. George Baker seconded the resolution. Mr. Laslett, addressed the meeting from the gallery, declaring that there was no possibility of any return to Protection, and that a reduction of rent was what was wanted. Mr. Laslett concluded his observations by saying, “You should have sent men to Parliament who would have taken care of your interest and not have sold you,” at which, as through his speech, there was great uproar. The resolution was carried with comparative few dissentients. Mr. Curtler then moved—“That the free trade measures of 1846 are partial and unjust in their operation—are inconsistent with the burdened interests of this country—must render abortive the utmost efforts of British industry to struggle against the unequal competition to which it is exposed, and which (if the present free trade measures are continued) will involve all classes in one common ruin.” This resolution he supported in a long and clever speech, endeavouring to show the preponderance of the agricultural over the manufacturing interest, and inveighing against Sir Robert Peel for his treachery to the agricultural party. The loss to the farmer, by the removal of Protection, he declared could not be made up to him, even if he was set free from paying any rent at all. The Rev. John Pearson seconded the resolution, declaring that, though he had been accustomed to take what was called a liberal line of politics, he was compelled to advocate Protection from a conviction that the farmers had not been fairly dealt with. The other resolutions were moved or seconded by Mr. J. R. Cookes, Mr. Gardiner, Mr. Francis Woodward, and Mr. Henry Hudson, and were all carried unanimously. Sir John Pakington afterwards addressed the meeting at great length, saying that, though he had voted against the repeal of the corn laws, and still continued to think that a very dangerous measure, yet free trade must have a trial. He did not think things quite so gloomy as his friends had represented them to be—prices had been lower even in days of Protection, and he was not inclined to increase the panic which prevailed. He recommended that they should demand from Parliament a redistribution of local taxation. Mr. Whittaker, amidst great cheering, begged the meeting not to be led away by the speech they had just heard; they must stick to Protection and not seek after a score of other things. General Lygon, M.P., and Captain Rushout, M.P., declared their firm adhesion to the principles of Protection.

1850—JANUARY 19—A county meeting, in compliance with a requisition most numerously signed by agriculturists, was held in the Crown Court of the Shire Hall, in favour of Protection. John Dent, Esq., the High Sheriff, being indisposed, the chair was taken by the Hon. W. Coventry. The first resolution, declaring that the abandonment of Protection had involved large classes of Her Majesty’s subjects, as well manufacturing as agricultural, in distress and ruin, was moved by James Taylor, Esq., and seconded by T. G. Curtler, Esq.; but before Mr. Curtler could conclude, such vehement cries, for adjournment into the outer hall, arose, that the proceedings were entirely interrupted. The chairman declined to adjourn, and the free traders, in the principal gallery, maintained such a continual uproar that all the rest of the proceedings passed in dumb show. The other resolutions and petitions were moved or seconded by Mr. Cookes, Mr. Henry Hudson, the Rev. John Pearson, Mr. Best, M.P., the Hon. and Rev. W. W. C. Talbot, Mr. F. Holland, &c., and were carried by large majorities in the midst of great noise.

1850—NOVEMBER 16—A meeting of the clergy of the Archdeaconry of Worcester, attended by about 200 of the clerical body, held in the Chapter House, to protest against the Papal Aggression. The Venerable Archdeacon Hone presided, and opened the meeting in a temperate speech. Canon Wood moved an address to Her Majesty, declaring that the Bishop of Rome had invaded the Queen’s prerogative by appointing archbishops and bishops here with titles taken from English cities and towns—assuring Her Majesty of their attachment to the principles of the Reformation—and, also, that they would support her in the discharge of the solemn obligations of her coronation oath to maintain the Protestant religion and the rights of the bishops and clergy. The Rev. R. Seymour, rector of Kinwarton, seconded the address, declaring that the Bishop of Rome had been guilty of a schismatical act, and had invaded the unity of the Church by appointing bishops in this country. The Rev. J. F. Mackarness, vicar of Tardebigg, protested at length against the meeting adopting this course. They would appear to be asking the help of the civil power against the intrusion of Rome, and that would be most unwise. The Church of England was already too much open to the taunt of being a law-made church; and the only true way of conserving and extending their influence as clergy was by earnestness of faith and devotion in labour. The address was, however, carried without other dissent. The remaining resolutions were moved by the Rev. H. J. Hastings, the Hon. and Rev. W. H. Lyttelton, the Rev. H. Woodgate, and the Hon. and Rev. W. W. C. Talbot.

1850—NOVEMBER 18—A city meeting held in the Guildhall, Worcester, on the subject of the Papal Aggression; the Mayor, Mr. Hughes, in the chair. Sir E. H. Lechmere and Mr. Gutch moved the first resolution, which declared that the Pope’s appointment of bishops in England, with territorial titles, was “an act of aggression justly calling forth the indignation of every true Protestant, and ought to be met with the most determined resistance which our laws will sanction.” John Dent, Esq., then moved an address to Her Majesty; but the meeting was fast falling into confusion, and was indulging in speculations about the use and propriety of bishops in general, when Dr. Redford came forward to second the address, and by his speech procured the unanimous carrying of the address. The other resolutions were proposed by F. Hooper, Esq., Henry Aldrich, Esq., H. B. Tymbs, Esq., and W. Dent, Esq. The parishioners of St. John’s parish also protested against the aggression, in vestry meeting.

1850—DECEMBER 14—The county meeting on the subject of the Papal Aggression was held this day in the Shire Hall, having been convened by the High Sheriff in compliance with a requisition signed by 700 persons. Mr. Watkins, the High Sheriff, presided. James Taylor, Esq., and the Hon. Gen. Lygon, M.P., moved an address to Her Majesty, declaring the measures of the Pope to be “an assumption of authority over this kingdom—an invasion of Her Majesty’s supremacy—an attack on the liberties and independence of the Church of England—and an important advance in the attempt to reimpose the doctrines and jurisdiction of the Roman Church upon the people of this country.” Sir Edward Blount, Bart., and Robert Berkeley, jun., Esq., moved a counter address, declaring that the appointment of a Roman Catholic Hierarchy did not require any legislative interference, and deprecating all restrictions upon the free enjoyment, by every religious body, of its spiritual order and discipline. The meeting was addressed by Mr. Spooner, M.P., the Rev. J. Walsh, Wesleyan minister, and the Rev. — Alexander, Baptist minister from Upton, who spoke in favour of the original address, and C. Hanford, jun., Esq., for the amendment. The original address was carried by a very large majority. Lord Lyttelton and Colonel Bund moved an address to the Bishop of the Diocese; and on the motion of T. G. Curtler, Esq., seconded by the Rev. J. Pearson, an addition was made to this address, thanking the Bishop for having rebuked and discouraged Tractarian principles and practices in this diocese. Mr. Knight, M.P., and the Rev. G. Hodgson, moved another formal resolution, and the thanks to the High Sheriff were proposed by Lord Southwell and seconded by Sir O. P. Wakeman. Meetings on this subject were held about the same time at Stourport—T. S. Lea, Esq., presiding; at Malvern, where T. C. Hornyold, Esq., and the Hon. Mr. Clifford, moved an amendment; at Bromsgrove, Upton, Droitwich, Evesham, Bewdley, Kidderminster (the Mayor presiding), Stourbridge, Dudley, &c.

THE COUNTY MAGISTRACY.

THE conduct of the general affairs of the counties of England, such as their police, the regulation of the gaols and lunatic asylums, the preservation of the county bridges, the levying of rates, &c., is intrusted to the unpaid magistracy, nominated by the Lords Lieutenant, and appointed by the Lord Chancellor; and at a time when an agitation is afoot to change the character of the body by whom these important matters are transacted, some consideration of the manner in which they have discharged their high trust may be opportune and useful. It is now proposed that a certain number of persons, chosen by the Boards of Guardians of the different Poor Law Unions, should be associated with a chosen body of the magistracy to manage all the county business. The principle sought to be carried out is one now generally acknowledged as a just one—viz., that “representation should be coordinate with taxation;” but it is worth consideration whether anything will be gained by such a change of system as is suggested, whether the interests of the ratepayers are likely to be better cared for than they are at present, and whether, indeed, they had not better let well alone. The Bench of County Magistrates in Worcestershire may be supposed to be a fair representation of the magistracy of the kingdom generally, and certainly on a review of their proceedings during the last fifty years, especially with regard to financial matters, the ratepayers must feel satisfied that their affairs could not have been in better hands. The Worcestershire Magistrates have had to consider, during the first half of the nineteenth century, many matters involving a very large outlay of the public money; and upon a review of the course they have taken, no one will be able to point to an instance of grossly unnecessary expenditure, or a lavishness in dealing with the public purse. They have always given attention to the representations of the ratepayers, but have not often suffered themselves to be turned aside from what was a plainly desirable, or necessary, object, by false considerations of economy, and have generally taken an enlarged view of the question before them. A most vigilant check has been kept upon the details of the county expenditure, and a laudable desire to lessen the general burden always been manifestly apparent. And they have, of course, been free from those changes which representative bodies from limited constituencies are ever and anon pretty sure to undergo, when the fickleness of public favour—some party cry, or prejudice, or the efforts of individuals striving for place and power—suddenly dispossess old and tried men from the offices for which they may be eminently suited, in order to make way for unqualified busybodies, whom the passing commotion may have brought into notice—“Straws,” as Junius said of Wilks, “on the surface of the torrent.” And while such commotion lasts, brief as it may be, mischief is often done which years are required to set straight again.

The Worcestershire Bench has, of late years, been singularly fortunate in its chairmen. It is only another mark of their anxiety to conduct their business on the soundest principles, that they have not suffered party considerations to sway them in the choice of the person upon whose discretion and judgment so much will always depend. The services of the Right Hon. Baronet who now fills the chair at Quarter Sessions have often been acknowledged, and are fully appreciated both by his fellow magistrates, and the body of the county at large.

With regard to the administration of the criminal code which now devolves to so great an extent upon courts of Quarter Sessions, each year’s experience adds its proof that the substantial ends of justice are as well attained there—and if the commonly received maxim, _Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur_, be accepted as the test—even better attained, than in any other criminal court in the kingdom.