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 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.