the pillory, as well for county as city prisoners, and from twelve to
two o'clock on the market day (Saturday) the time generally chosen, for
the sake of publicity. Mary and Elizabeth Squire, _alias_ Skamp (!)
were ordered to be whipped there in 1710; and the regular instructions,
for women as well as men, were "to be whipped on their backs till they
be bloody." On some occasions these floggings took place through the
streets, as in 1732, when John Potter was "whipt at the cart's tail
from College gate to the liberty-post in the Foregate Street," for a
felony. This liberty-post stood at the north east corner of Salt Lane.
At other times they were whipped from the bridge to the liberty-post
in St. John's. On October 7th of the same year it was "ordered that
the sentence passed on Richard Baylis, John Lawer, and Edward Jones,
touching their being as this day putt in the pillory, be respited
till next Saturday, the Corporation of the city of Worcester having
taken down the pillery, and there being not time to get one erected to
putt them in the pillery this day." In 1765 two guineas were paid to
Mr. Baxter, the Under Sheriff, for erecting a pillory; and in 1797,
Thomas Wilkinson was sentenced to the pillory in the Corn Market "for
obtaining 4s. from John Waterson, miller, of Salwarpe, on pretence that
he was an inspector for printing the prices of grinding in the said
mill."
At Bromsgrove, men and women were whipt in the market place; and at
Upton, from the bridge to the turnpike gate leading from thence to
Gloucester. At the latter town, in 1737, John Willoughby and Adam Cook
were presented for removing and carrying away the prison house or gaol
belonging to the town! The circumstances of this very singular charge
are not detailed, but the presentment was quashed.
The Gaol.
The first mention made of the state of the county gaol was in 1616,
when a petition was sent to the Quarter Sessions from the poor
debtors confined therein "against various hard usages, exactions, and
extortions offered to prisoners by Mrs. Moore, the keeper," and "when
one of the justices took pains to amend it she obeyed him not but used
more extremities." Mrs. Moore, however, commenced a cross fire, by
petitioning the magistrates at the same time, alleging that her late
husband had "taken the gaol upon a very great and extreme _rent_," and
she and her husband had "given trust and credit to many poor distressed
prisoners, hoping of satisfaction at their enlargement," but since the
death of her husband divers persons had run into debt, and had brought
false articles of accusation against her to shield themselves. Her plea
was _ad misericordiam_--that she was "an unprotected female" since the
death of her husband, and was persecuted by the very parties to whom
she had shown kindness. But unfortunately the lady's allegations were
not borne out by fact, for Mr. Fleete, the justice above-named, who
had been commissioned to inquire into the matter, caused Mrs. Moore to
be bound in £100 "to sell an ale quart of beare for a penie" from that
time forward, as it appeared that she had been in the habit of selling
the prisoners ale by wine measure, and otherwise so managing her retail
business, that for a hogshead of drink which cost her but 12s., she
received 32s. Moreover she "tormented those that were of mean condition
(i.e., who could not afford to buy her ale) with double irons." So Mr.
Fleete ordered this to be discontinued, and that the debtors should be
separated from the felons. Nevertheless, next year (1617) out comes
the following "Humble petition of the pore prisoners in the Castle of
Worcester, humbly showeth unto your good worships that they are many
pore men, to the number of thirty prisoners and upwards, who lye there,
some upon their behavior, and the most parte of the reste upon matters
of small or noe value, having nothinge but the bare allowance of a
penie a day to relieve their faintinge bodyes, so that yf they should
be inforced to lye longer in this miserable place wold unchristianlike
be starved to death with hunger, cold, and nakedness; some of them
alsoe having many pore children like to be left to the wide world. May
yt therefore please your good worships to consider them, to have their
present triall before your good worships, who rather desire to be out
of the world than to indure the misery wherein they now are, and your
petitioners will ever pray for your worships' health."
A system under which a gaoler rents his prison, and makes his profit
by selling drink to the inmates at an enormous rate, reads curiously
enough in these days when the science of prison discipline has so
greatly advanced as to induce us to make the most costly sacrifices.
It will be observed that the county prison was on the site of the
ancient castle, once standing near the Cathedral precincts, but which
had long been destroyed. An order was made in 1723, "that Mr. Hall, the
treasurer, doe take due care that the partition be made in the women's
ward, in order to keep the debtors from the felons." In 1767 the Clerk
of the Peace was directed to apply to the Treasury for the grant of
"a certain piece of garden ground, about five acres, lying contiguous
to the public gaol of the county, and particularly serviceable to the
occupiers thereof for the time being, and also the site and remains of
the old castle or citadel of Worcester, which now is and hath long been
used as a public gaol or prison and bridewell for the said county," and
praying that the grant of the premises be made to the Earl of Plymouth,
Lord Coventry, Lord Sandys, Lord Ward, and other magistrates, including
the names of Lygon, Rushout, Winnington, and Dowdeswell, "in trust,
for the keeping of prisoners and otherwise for the use and benefit
of this county." A petition was, however, transmitted to the Lords
of the Treasury, by the mayor and aldermen of the city, against the
grant of the site of these fortifications to the county magistrates,
and the city authorities were successful in the application. This
seems to have been the first effort made towards gaol improvement,
but the period was near at hand when the outraged laws of health were
to vindicate themselves. The Worcester county prison, with several
others in the midland counties, in the year 1783, was visited with
the fatal gaol distemper, which swept the cells of their inhabitants
and proved fatal to that eminent physician, Dr. Johnstone. At that
period I find an order on the book "to apply to the sheriff for his
concurrence to fix a temporary gaol, and endeavour by advertisement
and otherwise to find one or more proper places for the confinement of
felons." Extensive improvements were set on foot, in which the humane
system suggested by the philanthropist Howard was introduced, and when
the works were finally completed (in 1795) a sum of between £4000 and
£5000--a large amount for that period--had been expended. In 1785,
William Lygon, Esq., was thanked "for his great trouble in procuring
the removal of a number of transports from the county gaol on board
the lighters on Thames, whereby the county was saved a considerable
expense and the health of the gaol was preserved." About four years
afterwards, and while the alterations were still going on, an order was
made not to confine any one in the dungeon of the gaol nor to confine
any two prisoners in one cell. The spirit of reform, however, was not
yet satisfied, for scarcely had the century closed when it was found
that the great outlay that had been incurred was useless, and that
the establishment was altogether insecure; William Davis, the gaoler,
complaining of the escape of certain prisoners; and a "watchman or
guard" was decided on. After an unprecedented opposition on the score
of expense, and a protracted scene of strife and contention among the
magistracy, the Court of Quarter Sessions at length resolved, in the
year 1808 (but not till Lord Chief Baron Macdonald had threatened the
county with a heavy fine), to build a new gaol in Salt Lane, at a
cost of £18,000. The details of these transactions will be found in
"Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century," recently published, the
author of which informs us that on the Sunday during or immediately
following the Assizes, which used to be known as Assize Sunday, and
kept as a great fair, the keepers at the (old) county gaol were
accustomed to show the prisoners through the bars to the curious crowd,
and collect money in a boot for pointing out those who were sentenced
to be hanged! In 1814 the prisoners were removed to the new gaol; and
at the very next Sessions, Mr. Wells, attorney, was requested to apply
to Mr. Sandys, the architect, relative to the escape of some prisoners
therefrom!! From that time to the present this ill-fated building has
seemed destined to an endless sinking of capital, for the trial of new
experiments and for remedying the stupidity of bygone architects and
committees. About £18,000 was spent on it a dozen years ago, and now
(1856) nearly £20,000 has been voted for the same purpose.
The Poor.
When the Monasteries were dissolved by Henry VIII, the first authorised
parochial machinery was established for the relief of the poor and for
suppressing vagrancy. An act was passed authorising the head officers
of every parish to receive and keep all poor applicants, putting the
able-bodied to constant labour. The necessary funds were to be derived
from voluntary contributions collected by the officers, and also the
proceeds of stimulating sermons in the churches. But the voluntary
system proved a failure, and it was left for Elizabeth to introduce
the principle of compulsory taxation for this purpose. The statute
43rd Elizabeth, chap. 2, was kept in full operation till the passing
of the Poor-law Amendment Act, in 1834. In the time of Elizabeth,
cottage building for the poor was an object of great jealousy to the
inhabitants of towns and villages, who dreaded the location of paupers
amongst them, and took immense pains to "pass on" any mendicants
who happened to stray within their boundary. Officers were usually
appointed to "remove intruders," and these knowing "porrochials" would
not infrequently offer a bribe when no other means had availed for
ejecting the obnoxious tramp from a parish. By an act (31 Eliz.) it was
declared that "no cottage should be erected unless there be four acres
of ground of their own freehold to be continually used therewith." The
operation of this statute was often attended with great 'privation and
suffering to the poor, and the Sessions Rolls of this county abound
with petitions and memorials to the bench on the subject. In 1612,
William Dench, labourer, of Longdon, in his petition, set forth that
"being destitute of habitation, and having a wife and seven small
children, William Parsons, of Longdon, in charity took him to live in
a little sheepcot of his in the said towne, with the consent of the
churchwardens and overseers; but because yr poor orator (the usual term
for "petitioner") had not licence in open Quarter Sessions, nor under
the hands and seals of the lords of the manor, and because the said
sheepcot standeth on the freehold of William Parsons, and not on the
waste, contrary to the act 43rd Elizabeth, chap. 2, therefore he was
indicted and is sued to an outelary (outlawry), petitions for pardon
and for a licence to continue in the said sheepcot."
The Worcester County Quarter Sessions, 1660, made an order that
all cottages erected since the late war should be "pluckt downe"
as a "greate grievance," and that no house-room should be provided
for "lusty young married people," who, if they unwisely married
before they had got houses, were told to "_lye under an oke_." A few
years previously, one Corbett, a Parliamentary soldier, settled at
Bricklehampton, and purchased half-an-acre of land to build a house
upon. The parishioners, it seems, were content, but the lord of the
manor refused. On application to the Sessions, leave was granted to
build.
Two years later, in consequence of great complaints of the country
being much burdened and impoverished, the magistrates ordered that
the constables should cause every parish to be surveyed and inspected
as to how many cottages (and under what conditions) had been erected
during the last forty years. It had also been ordered that every person
apprehending a vagrant, and bringing him to a constable or tithingman,
should have 12d. a piece for them--this step being considered necessary
in consequence of "the great charge of wandering beggars and the
efforts made in other counties to reduce them." Many persons were
indicted for erecting cottages without having the necessary quantity of
land attached; their cottages were pulled down, and all their little
substance destroyed. Poor people were driven to herd together, great
numbers in one house, or to sleep in sheds and in the open air; and
thus a law which was intended to suppress mendicancy resulted in great
suffering to the lower classes, and undoubtedly to the engendering of
filth, disease, and crime. So scrutinizing were the precautions against
a liability to support the poor, that no person who belonged to that
unfortunate class could travel out of his parish into another, and
accept employment and a lodging there, without a certificate from the
churchwardens and overseers of his own parish that in case he should
ever require relief they would take him back. The following memorials
are sad pictures of poverty and suffering in the seventeenth century:
"The humble petition of the poore distressed towne of Duddeley,
most lamentablie complaineth and sheweth unto your good
worships that whereas heretofore wee have with our willinge
duetie and bounden service acknowledged our obedience unto
his majestie, and in the tyme of God's visitation upon your
worships' commande did compassionatelie contribute unto the
citie of Worcester, may it now please you that our poore towne
havinge greivous experience of sicknesse which hath continued
almost for three quarters of an yeare: and our said towne
standing principallie on poore handicrafts men: who are much
impoverished and now themselves wante ayde who heretofore dyd
contribute to the releife of the poorer sorte and likewise wee
havinge att this instant seven score children by reason of
this sicknesse, who either want father or mother or both and
many of these besides divers: in like or greater wante. And
for that the same sicknesse doth continewe and suspected to
increase unto our farther impoverishment and iminent danger of
famishment of many amongst us wee havinge strayned our utmost
abilitie for there succour until this instant and not able
furthur to sustayne there wants doe most humblie petitionate
and beseech your worship to tender our miserie and considerate
our neede by collection and contribution within the countie
whereby the poore will be comforted and preserved and thus for
God's cause. Tendringe our humble suit to the consideration of
your mercifull affections, wee in all humilitie remember ye
service restinge to protest and confirme the truth hereof at
your worships' command.
"RICHARD FFOLEY, Mayor.
"HENRY JACKSON, Vicar.
"RICHARD FINCH, Bailiff.
"(And a number of inhabitants.)
"Duddeley,
8th of
April, 1616.
"The consideration of this petition is referred to Sir Francis
Egiock and Sir Richard Grevys, knights, who are desired to take
order therein accordinge to justice."
The following petition is dated 1693:
"The humble petition of ye poore inhabitants of ye Tything of
Whistones, humbly showeth, that the said inhabitants, through
the greatness of the several taxes and dayley increase of
our poore (to whom we pay 4s. per pound) and all manner of
provision so excessively dear, by means thereof most of ye
contributors to the poore are reduced so low to their very
small estates and mean imployments that they are not able
to mayntain them aney longer unless yr worships will be
charitably influenced to redress our grievances, wee being
the true objects of yr compassionate consideration; your
petitioners therefore most humbly pray that yr worships would
be favourably pleased to consider our necessitous condition,
and either to annex and joine us unto Claynes, being our
parish, to which undoubtedly ye said tything is a member and
thereunto belongeth, or to order us the hundred money as
formerly, or as Parshore, by some adjacent parishes to help us
and ease the unsupportable burden which our shoulders have and
still groan under, without which timely assistance many of our
poor fellow Christians will unavoidably perish and languish
through miserable hunger and want."
In the parish records of Claines (now in the churchwardens' chest
of that church) an allusion to this petition is entered on one of
the account books, to this effect, that upon the complaint of the
inhabitants of the hundred of Oswaldslow, of the great burthen of the
poor of the Tything of Whistones, alleging that the same township was
in the town of Claines, an examination into the facts was intrusted to
the Lord Windsor, Sir E. Dineley, and others, when the inhabitants of
Claines showed that the township of Whistones was an ancient township,
and had "parishtionall officers" to themselves, and was not in the
parish of Claines, but anciently had its own church, and that the
township was never included in the parish of Claines, and that the poor
there had received relief of the hundred from time immemorial--at least
from the time of King James--and never from Claines; that it had been
questioned in the time of King James, but could never be shown that
Claines had paid to their poor. The Court thereupon would not alter
proceedings observed for so long a time, and discharged Claines from
the said poor, except by paying its share as a part of the said hundred.
Vagrancy--notwithstanding the extraordinary vigilance exercised for
its suppression--maintained a flourishing existence. The following is
one of the earliest instances of the "begging letter imposture," and
a greater specimen of impudence probably was never exhibited by any
member of the class who have in our own days become so notorious:
"To the Worshipful Robert Charlton.
"Though I am unknown to you, yet the report of your courteous
behaviour towards all gentlemen in distress emboldeneth me to
beseech you to take into your favourable consideration the
sad condition which I am now in, who for my loyalty to the
King was by the great tyrant (Cromwell) banished and sent into
the West Indies, where I thought I had shot the very gulfe of
affliction, but cominge lately from thence (in a ship bounde
for London) was by tempest at sea driven into Wales amongst a
salvadge people, who had noe regarde to my misery (although I
am become the very object of pittie), soe that in my jorney
hither I have tasted of the bitterness of adversitie, for I am
in such a nasty ragged posture that I am ashamed to present
myself before aney person of quallitie; yet beinge destitute
of money to beare my charges to London (or acquaintance in
these parts to borrow of), fame of your most noble and generous
disposition gives me encouragement to presume upon your
goodness, hopeing you will be pleased to accommodate me with
a small sum, and if it please God that I ever come into this
country againe I will repay it. Moreover you will perpetually
oblige him whose ambition is to stile himself
"Your servante,
"JOHN SEAMOUR.
"Sir,--I am well known to your son, Mr. Job Charlton, and I
doubt not but you have heard of me. _I am that Seymour who
delivered the last letter from his majesty that now is to the
late king upon the scaffold, a little before he was murthered_,
therefore I beseech you let me receive your answer by one of
your owne servants, for I am unwilling that aney base peasant
should know my condition.
"May 8, 1661."
Another handwriting on the same document records that, "Upon
examination of the above-named Seamour I finde nothing of truth in the
above letter, neyther that he was banished by Cromwell, nor that he
hath ever been in West Indies, or that he landed in Wales; but this I
find that he hath been a wanderer almost all over England, and knoweth
most men of any quallitie in the kingdom, and hath changed his name so
oft that he hath almost forgot it. It is also reported that he hath
one wife at Harford, with another at Bristol"--(the remainder of the
document is destroyed).
It appears by another that Seamour informed Mr. Charlton that he had
been "_the king's tutor and bedfellow for seven years, and had preached
the late king's funeral sermon_!" The art of impudence could not much
further go; and it is probable, by an information being laid at the
Sessions, that the fellow received his reward, but the books containing
convictions and sentences of that date are not in existence.
In 1698, however, I find on the books that "Wm. Bilson, for wandring
abroad with a false letter of request, p'tending a ffire at Icomb, be
publicly whipt on Saturday next." Five years later it was "ordered,
for the carrying of vagrants, that the constable be allowed 2d. per
mile for one horse, and by the same proportion for two or three horses,
or if a teame having three or more horses, then to allow them 6d.
per mile, and to allow the passengers 5d. per head for their night's
lodging and necessaries." In 1714 an order "touching the settlement
of Ann Guise" was quashed on the ground of "there being no such place
as Leye-Shinton." The magistrates' geographical knowledge must have
been somewhat limited if they were unaware of the existence of a
place but five miles off. It is probable, however, there was some
legal technicality in the matter, and that Leigh Sinton, which is
only a hamlet or place in the parish of Leigh, had been represented
as a parish of itself, which the bench could not admit. I now give
an interesting document relative to the mode of proving a pauper's
settlement in 1738:
"Upon the appeal of the churchwardens and overseers of the
poor of the parish of Camden, in the county of Gloucester,
to an order of removal of Mary Calcott from the parish of
Kingsnorton, in the said county of Worcester, it appeared to
this court, upon the examination of the said Mary Calcott,
taken upon her oath in court, that the said Mary Calcott was,
upon All Saint's Day, in the yeare of our Lord 1735, hired
with John Ellis, of Camden, chapman, for a year, to spin with
yarn, at the rate of 1s. 6d. a stone, and that she was to
provide herself with meat, drink, washing, and lodging, where
she pleased, and that she spunn for him the whole year, and
lodged in her said master's house, and boarded with him at
Camden, and received 1s. 6d. a stone for her work, allowing her
master 2s. 6d. per week for her lodging and board. And upon her
examination she said that by her said contract as aforesaid
she thought she was not at liberty to work for any other
master, but she thought she was at liberty to play or be absent
from her work as long as she pleased, being to be paid att a
certain rate for her work done. Wherfore it is the opinion of
this court that the said hyring and service aforesaid was not
sufficient to gain for the said Mary Calcott a settlement in
the parish of Camden, and this court doth accordingly reverse
the said order of removal."
A refusal to serve the office of overseer by a resident of the
Cathedral precincts (in the year 1804) may be unknown to the present
inhabitants of that locality, to whom it will prove interesting:
"I, Francis Stafford, one of the sextons of the Cathedral
Church of Christ and the blessed Mary the Virgin of Worcester,
do hereby give you and each of you, and all others whom it
may concern, notice that I shall appeal to the next general
Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be holden at the Guildhall of
the city of Worcester, against the nomination and appointment
made by you under your hands and seals, and bearing date July,
1804, whereby you nominated and appointed me by the name and
description of 'Francis Stafford, a substantial householder of
the vill and hamlet of the precincts of the Cathedral Church
of Christ and the blessed Mary the Virgin of Worcester, in
the county of Worcester, to be overseer of the said vill and
hamlet;' and be pleased to take notice, that the grounds of
my appeal are--that the said precincts are not nor never were
reputed to be a vill and hamlet, nor a place for which an
appointment of overseer is directed by law. And further, that
the said precincts are not, nor were, nor at any time have been
reputed to be, a vill, village, hamlet, or township, nor a
place for which an appointment of overseer is directed by law.
"Witness my hand, &c.,
"FRANCIS STAFFORD.
"T. Dowdeswell, Esq., and
"Henry Salmon, clerk."
The order for the appointment was quashed at the October Sessions of
the same year. Exemption from the interruption of the civil powers was
what all the great monastic establishments sooner or later obtained,
but that of Worcester had a long struggle with the hereditary sheriffs
of the county before its immunity from their officers could be
obtained. The Reformation introduced great changes, and the precincts
of the Cathedral became part of the outer county, but still they remain
independent of the city or county interior, being a separate district
under the superintendence of the Dean and Chapter.
Social Regulations.