THE conduct of the general affairs of the counties of England, such as
their police, the regulation of the gaols and lunatic asylums, the
preservation of the county bridges, the levying of rates, &c., is
intrusted to the unpaid magistracy, nominated by the Lords Lieutenant,
and appointed by the Lord Chancellor; and at a time when an agitation is
afoot to change the character of the body by whom these important matters
are transacted, some consideration of the manner in which they have
discharged their high trust may be opportune and useful. It is now
proposed that a certain number of persons, chosen by the Boards of
Guardians of the different Poor Law Unions, should be associated with a
chosen body of the magistracy to manage all the county business. The
principle sought to be carried out is one now generally acknowledged as a
just one—viz., that “representation should be coordinate with taxation;”
but it is worth consideration whether anything will be gained by such a
change of system as is suggested, whether the interests of the ratepayers
are likely to be better cared for than they are at present, and whether,
indeed, they had not better let well alone. The Bench of County
Magistrates in Worcestershire may be supposed to be a fair representation
of the magistracy of the kingdom generally, and certainly on a review of
their proceedings during the last fifty years, especially with regard to
financial matters, the ratepayers must feel satisfied that their affairs
could not have been in better hands. The Worcestershire Magistrates have
had to consider, during the first half of the nineteenth century, many
matters involving a very large outlay of the public money; and upon a
review of the course they have taken, no one will be able to point to an
instance of grossly unnecessary expenditure, or a lavishness in dealing
with the public purse. They have always given attention to the
representations of the ratepayers, but have not often suffered themselves
to be turned aside from what was a plainly desirable, or necessary,
object, by false considerations of economy, and have generally taken an
enlarged view of the question before them. A most vigilant check has
been kept upon the details of the county expenditure, and a laudable
desire to lessen the general burden always been manifestly apparent. And
they have, of course, been free from those changes which representative
bodies from limited constituencies are ever and anon pretty sure to
undergo, when the fickleness of public favour—some party cry, or
prejudice, or the efforts of individuals striving for place and
power—suddenly dispossess old and tried men from the offices for which
they may be eminently suited, in order to make way for unqualified
busybodies, whom the passing commotion may have brought into
notice—“Straws,” as Junius said of Wilks, “on the surface of the
torrent.” And while such commotion lasts, brief as it may be, mischief
is often done which years are required to set straight again.
The Worcestershire Bench has, of late years, been singularly fortunate in
its chairmen. It is only another mark of their anxiety to conduct their
business on the soundest principles, that they have not suffered party
considerations to sway them in the choice of the person upon whose
discretion and judgment so much will always depend. The services of the
Right Hon. Baronet who now fills the chair at Quarter Sessions have often
been acknowledged, and are fully appreciated both by his fellow
magistrates, and the body of the county at large.
With regard to the administration of the criminal code which now devolves
to so great an extent upon courts of Quarter Sessions, each year’s
experience adds its proof that the substantial ends of justice are as
well attained there—and if the commonly received maxim, _Judex damnatur
cum nocens absolvitur_, be accepted as the test—even better attained,
than in any other criminal court in the kingdom.
In the very commencement of the present century, the county magistracy
were occupied with a matter as important—at least, if the question of
expense be taken as the criterion of importance—as any that has been the
subject of their deliberations at more recent periods. It was the
rebuilding of the county prison. The county gaol formerly stood on what
is now known as Castle Hill, near to Edgar’s Tower, in the city of
Worcester. It was extremely insecure; several prisoners had escaped from
it, and the complaints of its absolute insufficiency for the purposes it
was intended to answer, were many and frequent. {90} The county
magistrates had at length come to a determination to build a new gaol on
a different site; but this was no sooner known than a violent opposition
was raised on the score of the cost, and few matters seem to have created
so much general alarm and excitement throughout the agricultural
districts as this proposal. In April, 1802, a meeting of landowners and
others paying county rates was convened at the Guildhall, Worcester, at
which the High Sheriff, Mr. Newnham, presided. There it was resolved,
that the erection of a new prison would be accompanied with great and
unnecessary expense, and that the existing gaol might be sufficiently
enlarged and repaired, at a moderate cost. The magistrates still
appearing determined to proceed, parish after parish protested against
any such step being taken, and these protests signed by most of the
influential tenant farmers, were published time by time, occupying many
columns of the then diminutive Worcester newspapers. W. Welch, Esq.,
Chairman of Quarter Sessions, in order to correct the misrepresentations
which were abroad on the subject, replied to these protests by a public
letter, in which he stated that the cost of a new gaol would only be
£19,000, and that properly to repair the old one would cost £13,000; that
the grand jury had so often presented the gaol, that something was
absolutely necessary to be done; and that the burden on individual
ratepayers would not be anything like what was represented. Mr. R.
Hudson of Wick, on the other hand, challenged the magistrates to meet him
at the Crown Inn, Worcester, when he would prove to them that the
proceedings lately taken in the erection of a new prison had been
irregular, and could not be supported.
At the Midsummer Quarter Sessions in that year, Mr. Welch, in his charge
to the grand jury, recapitulated the causes which had compelled the
magistrates to determine on a new gaol, and in proof of their desire to
study the general interest of the ratepayers, stated that, since he had
occupied the chair, the county accounts, which had formerly been in great
confusion, had been methodised and arranged, a saving had been effected
in the expenditure of the gaol of some hundreds a year, and a
considerable annual allowance from the exchequer, hitherto considered as
a perquisite of the Under Sheriff’s, proved to be due to the county, and
in future would be paid into the general fund.
Yet so strong was the feeling against the new building that the
magistrates were compelled for awhile to abandon the project, and it was
not till the escape of more prisoners caused the Lord Chief Baron
Macdonald, at the Summer Assizes in 1807, to warn the county grand jury
that, if the gaol were not altered or rebuilt, the county would be
attached with a heavy fine for neglecting so essential a part of its
duty, that any further steps were taken in the matter. At the Midsummer
Sessions, 1808, the magistrates determined, without delay, to build a new
gaol, as they believed that the old one admitted of no sufficient
alteration. The expense was estimated at £18,000, and the site in Salt
Lane was fixed upon. The bench published a minute statement of the
number and amount of rates this expenditure would render necessary.
A great deal of excitement and uneasiness, however, was found still to
prevail upon the subject, and it was especially said to be unnecessary to
change the site; so at the Epiphany Sessions, 1809, the matter was again
taken into consideration, and the bench adhered to their former
determination, referring, however, the question of site to a committee.
Mr. Welch, the chairman, about this time received an anonymous letter,
threatening his life, “if he interfered any further respecting a new
prison.”
At an adjourned sessions, held in February, 1809, the magistrates finally
determined on the land in Salt Lane as the site for the new gaol, and
adopted the plan of a Mr. Sandys. They published the reasons for their
decision at length, the principal being, that the nature of the ground
upon which the old prison stood would not admit of their obtaining a good
foundation for the extensive buildings contemplated.
The new prison was, after this, vigorously proceeded with, and at the
Epiphany Sessions, 1813, the chairman announced that the new gaol was
completed, and in spite of much difficulty about the foundations, &c.,
the cost was within the estimate. The grand jury having inspected it,
declared their entire approbation of the works, and thanked the
magistrates for their attention to the interests of the county.
1810—A Special County Sessions was held in July this year, to take into
consideration the report of a committee appointed to investigate charges
of peculation brought against Mr. Welch, the chairman, by Mr. Johnson, a
fellow magistrate. The matter arose out of Mr. Welch receiving what were
called “justice wages,” and paying thereout for the dinners of the
magistrates at the Hoppole. Mr. Johnson declared that he had a balance
in hand, on account of this fund, of £65, which, but for his discovery,
Mr. Welch would have appropriated. The committee, however, reported that
the charge was “wholly unjustifiable and unfounded,” and a vote of thanks
to Mr. Welch, “for his uniform, upright, and independent conduct,” was
thereupon passed unanimously. Long replies and rejoinders, from Mr.
Johnson and Mr. Welch, afterwards appeared in the public prints.
1810—AUGUST 28—In consequence of Mr. Johnson’s reiteration of the charge,
another Special Sessions was held this day, not very numerously attended,
at which a general resolution of confidence in Mr. Welch was passed, but
not unanimously; indeed a more strongly worded motion had been negatived;
and William Smith, Esq., gave notice of a motion, at the next sessions,
for the removal of Mr. Welch from the chair. This, however, was
abandoned.
1817—At the Easter Quarter Sessions, William Welch, Esq., resigned the
chair in consequence of ill health, after having held it for nearly
twenty years. Earl Beauchamp moved a vote of thanks to Mr. Welch for the
services which he had rendered to the county, which was seconded by Lord
Deerhurst, and carried unanimously. The Right Hon. Earl Beauchamp was
then chosen chairman in his stead.
1819—The magistrates at the Michaelmas Sessions publish a declaration in
the Worcester newspapers, of their abhorrence of the blasphemous and
seditious sentiments then openly disseminated in society—of their
attachment to the throne—and of their full unanimous and unequivocal
determination to support the tried and invaluable constitution. The
grand jury do the same. [This was just after the trial of Carlile for
republishing Paine’s _Age of Reason_, and in the midst of the excitement
attendant on the Peterloo Massacre.]
At the same Sessions, Edmund Meysey Wigley, Esq., was chosen chairman, in
the room of Earl Beauchamp, who had expressed a wish to relinquish the
office. The noble Earl, however, afterwards resumed its duties.
1823—At the Midsummer Sessions, Benjamin Johnson, Esq., was temporarily
elected to the chair, now vacant by the decease of Earl Beauchamp.
At the Michaelmas Sessions following, Henry Wakeman, Esq., of Perdiswell,
was unanimously chosen to the chair, on the motion of Lord Deerhurst,
seconded by Richard Spooner, Esq.
1824—At the Epiphany Sessions, Mr. Wakeman declined the proffered honour
of the chair, as his health would not permit him to discharge its duties,
and proposed Lord Plymouth. This was seconded by Sir Thomas Winnington,
and his lordship was thereupon elected.
1824—At the Easter Sessions, it was determined, after a warm discussion
and division, to erect a treadmill in the county gaol. Thirteen
magistrates said “aye,” and ten “no.”
1826—At the Epiphany Sessions, the Rev. Reginald Pyndar introduced the
subject of a “Worcestershire Friendly Society,” and the formation of such
a society being highly approved of by the magistrates, a meeting was held
the next day in the Guildhall, with John Dent, Esq., Mayor, in the chair,
and the rules and tables proposed by Mr. Pyndar adopted as the basis of
an association for the benefit of the industrious and provident poor of
the county.
The society thus formed has continued to thrive and flourish to the
present day, and has been productive of many direct and indirect benefits
to a large number of the poorer class; helping them to a knowledge of the
advantages of frugality—affording them a safe and profitable investment
for their surplus earnings—enabling them to escape from the temptations
of the public house, where the village club would have required their
attendance—and saving them from the distress and misery that overtake the
members of so many benefit societies constructed upon false principles,
or upon no principles at all. The society at present numbers 1,899
members, of whom one-third are females, and it has a very large reserve
fund. Great part of its successful working and prosperity are
attributable to the fostering care and interest of the Rev. Thomas
Pearson. The following is a statement of the pecuniary affairs of the
institution, from its formation to the present time, which has been
compiled by its efficient secretary, Mr. Thomas Holloway.
RECEIPTS. PAYMENTS.
_£_. _s._ _d._ _£_. _s._ _d._
Honorary Subscriptions and 1,631 1 6 Sick Pay 4,994 8 9
Benefactions
Payments by the Members 16,798 16 6 Death 872 0 0
Interest 3,082 7 8 Endowments 2,007 0 6
Annuities 155 18 0
in Old Age
Management 5,287 4 2
Expenses,
including
purchase
of
Policies,
Salaries,
Allowances
to
Surgeons,
Rent, &c.
&c.
Total 13,316 10 11
Payments
Balance, 8,195 13 9
being
total
Stock
Total Receipts £21,512 4 8 £21,512 4 8
1827—At the Easter Sessions, the Worcestershire and Staffordshire Canal
Company appealed against the sum at which they were rated for their docks
and basins at Stourport, by the parish of Lower Mitton. It was stated in
the course of the proceedings, that the tonnage of the canal for the year
ending Michaelmas, 1826, was £32,838. The officers of Lower Mitton had
taken the whole value of the basins as rateable there, but the court
decided that they must only charge for acreage, computing the basins as
they would other portions of the canal.
1829—JANUARY 14—At the Epiphany Quarter Sessions, the Earl of Plymouth
resigned the chairmanship; and on the motion of Major Bund, seconded by
the Earl of Beauchamp, Sir C. S. Smith, Bart., was elected in his stead.
At these Sessions, the magistrates of Droitwich denied the authority of
the county magistrates to appoint visitors to the Asylum for Pauper
Lunatics kept by the Messrs. Ricketts in the borough, and on the matter
being referred to the law officers of the crown, it was decided by them
that the act passed in the previous session of Parliament vested the
appointment of visitors in the magistracy of the borough in which the
asylum was situate. Major Bund gave notice of a motion thereupon, to
consider the propriety of building a County Lunatic Asylum.
1829—At the Michaelmas Sessions, the magistrates altered the divisions of
the county for Petty Sessional purposes, forming them into eight
districts, to be called “The Upton, Pershore, Hundred House, Worcester,
Kidderminster, Droitwich, Northfield, and Blockley Divisions.”
1829—An adjourned Sessions was held in November, to consider the
propriety of erecting County Courts, the inconvenience of the City Hall
having been commented on at every Sessions and Assizes which had taken
place for some years past. A case had been laid before Mr. Sergeant
Russell, to have his opinion as to whether the magistrates could legally
spend money on the enlargement and improvement of courts belonging to the
city, and he had replied that they could not; and that if they wanted a
Shire Hall of their own, they must obtain a special Act of Parliament for
it. The Rev. Mr. Pearson, after reporting the failure of all attempts at
negociation with the Worcester Corporation, moved “that it was necessary
to erect new courts and suitable lodgings for the judges, and that the
magistrates should take the necessary steps for obtaining an Act of
Parliament for that purpose.” This resolution was seconded by Colonel
Bromley. Earl Somers moved an adjournment of the question, on the ground
that in the then depressed state of the country the expense ought not to
be incurred. This was seconded by Osman Ricardo, Esq. An adjournment
“to the next Epiphany Sessions” was carried; but Lord Foley then moved,
“That it is the opinion of this court that the present courts and judges’
lodgings are totally insufficient.” This was seconded by R. Spooner,
Esq.; and Colonel Davies opposed it, because he thought that the
agitation of the subject was ill-timed. Lord Foley’s motion was
ultimately carried by 20 to 17. A committee was then appointed to have
another conference with the City Corporation.
Nine Catholic noblemen and gentlemen were now for the first time inserted
in the Commission of the Peace for this county—viz., the Earl of
Shrewsbury, Viscount Southwell, Sir E. Blount, Sir C. Throckmorton, R.
Berkeley, Esq., W. Wakeman, Esq., T. C. Hornyold, Esq., C. E. Hanford,
Esq., and W. Acton, Esq.
1830—At the Epiphany Sessions, the question of new courts was again
discussed. The committee reported that they found the Guildhall,
Worcester, erected in 1721, belonged exclusively to the city. The Rev.
T. Pearson again moved that an Act of Parliament should be applied for,
with a view to the erection of a Shire Hall; and this was seconded by the
Rev. George Turberville. Major General Marriott moved as an amendment,
that the Deputy Clerk of the Peace should be instructed to lay a
presentment of the present courts before the grand jury at the next
assizes. James Taylor, Esq., seconded this. Lord Deerhurst then moved a
resolution, declaring that the county, in the present depressed condition
of all classes, would rather submit to the inconvenience of the present
courts than incur the expense of new ones, which was seconded by Dr. B.
Cooper. Lord Deerhurst’s amendment was negatived by 31 to 25, and
General Marriott’s without a division. Earl Somers then moved the
appointment of a committee to ascertain the practicability of so altering
the present courts as to make them sufficiently convenient. This was
seconded by John Williams, Esq., but rejected by 31 to 24, and Mr.
Pearson’s original motion was then carried.
1830—NOVEMBER 29—The general state of the county caused Viscount
Deerhurst to summon the magistrates to a meeting, at which the following
resolution was passed:
“That the general peaceable state of the county of Worcester affords a
subject of great congratulation. The magistrates, however, viewing with
the utmost abhorrence the atrocious acts of violence which have taken
place in other counties, feel it their duty to declare that they have
made such arrangements as, by giving full effect to the existing laws,
are best calculated to prevent the occurrence of similar calamities in
this county.”
1831—At the Epiphany Sessions, the subject of new courts was resumed.
Several plans for the enlargement of the Guildhall were laid before the
magistrates, but the court adopted a resolution proposed by the Earl of
Plymouth, without a division. It ran thus: “That the consideration of
the question, relative to the alteration of the courts of justice, be
adjourned _sine die_, it being found inexpedient to enlarge the
Guildhall; but that a bill authorising the magistrates to build new
courts, at a future period, be drawn up.”
1831—At the Easter Sessions, J. H. H. Foley, Esq., M.P., and Lord
Lyttelton, urged the necessity of building a gaol at Stourbridge, but the
proposition was negatived by 27 to 14. Petitions against the bill for
legalising the sale of beer to be drunk on the premises in beer houses,
were agreed to at the instance of Dr. Beale Cooper.
1831—At the Midsummer Sessions, it was resolved that the new courts
should be erected at the back of the gaol, and that the expense should
not exceed £25,000. The bill had been brought in by the county members,
and read a first time the Friday before.
1832—At the Epiphany Sessions, Dr. Beale Cooper proposed the enlargement
of the gaol, which was referred to a committee. The Rev. Thomas Pearson
proposed that plans should be immediately selected for new county courts
adjoining the gaol. The Rev. George Turberville proposed that the matter
should be further delayed till the next September, and Mr. Pearson’s
motion was carried by 24 to 8.
A vote of thanks was passed to Earl Plymouth and the Yeomanry, for their
promptitude and firmness in quelling riots in the county.
1832—At the Midsummer Sessions, the order which had been made at a
previous sessions to build the new county courts on land adjoining the
gaol, was rescinded, on the motion of the Rev. George Turberville,
seconded by Mr. Pakington, by a large majority, and the committee were
directed to look out for another site.
At these Sessions was discussed a matter which excited great interest
amongst the legal profession, viz., the allowance of fees to attorneys,
who for some two or three sessions had only been paid £1. 1s. for brief
and attendance, instead of £2. 14s. 4d., as formerly. The solicitors
were heard by counsel, and the former payment was restored.
1832—At the Michaelmas Sessions, a new valuation of the county parishes
was read by General Marriott. The land assessable was valued at
£741,854—the old valuation had been £750,250; so that the land had
decreased in value about 3d. in the pound, or 1¼ per cent.
The question of erecting county courts again came under consideration—the
present site in Foregate Street, and one in Pierpoint Street, both being
proposed, and the former was adopted by a majority of 30 to 14. Premiums
were offered for the three best plans.
1833—At the Epiphany Sessions, the court proceeded to the appointment of
a chaplain to the county gaol, the office being now vacant by the
resignation of the Rev. J. Hadley. A resolution was first proposed by
Major Bund, and carried by a large majority, “That a beneficed clergyman
ought not to be appointed chaplain to the gaol.” Votes were given for
eight candidates, but the contest lay between the Rev. J. Adlington, who
received 22 votes, and the Rev. W. Dunn, who had 14.
1833—At the Easter Sessions, it was resolved, upon the motion of the Rev.
Thomas Pearson, that “henceforth this court should be an open one.”
The county was called upon to pay £759. 17s. for special constables
employed by the Sheriff to keep the peace at the last election.
Three plans were laid before the court, by the committee, for the new
county courts, viz., one by Mr. Charles Day, Worcester; Mr. Mead, London;
and Mr. Habershon, London. Previous to deciding upon them, General
Mariott moved that the erection of the courts should be postponed till
the enlargement of the gaol should be completed, in order that two such
serious expenses might not be pressing on the county at the same time. A
number of letters from different parishes had been received by the
chairman, remonstrating against new courts, but General Mariott’s motion
was lost by 30 to 10. The three plans were then submitted to the court
for choice, and the Rev. Mr. Pearson regretted that one from a Mr.
Haycock, which he thought undoubtedly the best, was not amongst them.
Mr. Mead’s was recommended by the committee as the best, but fifteen
magistrates voted for Mr. Day’s, and only three for each of the others.
Many magistrates refused to vote; and the general feeling of the public
at the time was, that the advantage of the county, and the embellishment
of the city, had been sacrificed to personal interest created by a
canvass. A committee was appointed, with the Rev. Thomas Pearson as its
chairman, to carry the plan thus chosen into execution.
1834—At the Epiphany County Sessions, the salary of the county treasurer
(Sir A. Lechmere) was reduced from £100 to £60—because it was higher than
that paid by adjoining counties, and farmers were in distress—by a
majority of 39 to 20. Various reductions were also made in the fees of
the clerk of the peace.
1834—At the Easter Quarter Sessions, Sir C. S. Smith, Bart., resigned the
chairmanship—the calamity which he had recently sustained, in the loss of
his lady, inducing him to retire altogether from public life. The Rev.
George Turberville immediately moved the following resolution:
“That the court is fully sensible of, and grateful for, the valuable
services of their late chairman, Sir C. S. Smith, Bart., and deeply
regrets that he feels himself unable to continue those services for the
benefit of the county.”
This was seconded by John Williams, Esq., and carried unanimously.
1834—At the Midsummer Sessions there was a very full attendance of
magistrates, and the Rev. George Turberville was requested to preside as
senior. The first business was to elect a chairman, in the room of Sir
C. S. Smith, Bart., resigned; and on the motion of the Rev. president,
seconded by James Taylor, Esq., John Somerset Pakington, Esq., was
unanimously elected to the office which he has ever since filled with so
much ability and advantage to the county.
1835—At the Midsummer Sessions the magistrates agreed to a petition to
Parliament against the Bill for permitting counsel for a prisoner in all
cases to address the jury—a privilege hitherto confined to cases of
misdemeanour. Mr. Temple, General Marriott, and Mr. Hanford were the
only dissentients. The measure, it was said, would tend to defeat the
ends of justice by the frequent acquittal of guilty persons, and to bring
juries into discredit by inclining them to found their verdicts rather on
the arguments of counsel than upon the facts.
1836—MAY 9—A Special Sessions held, Dr. Beale Cooper in the chair, to
consider what was to be done about the New County Courts and Judges’
Lodgings, as the magistrates had expended the £25,000 they were empowered
to raise by the first act. After a long discussion, it was unanimously
determined to apply for a fresh act immediately, enabling them to raise
£7,000 more. [Parliament refused to depart from its standing orders, and
so the bill could not be introduced that session.]
1836—At the Michaelmas Sessions the Prisoners’ Counsel Act was first
brought into operation; and it is strange how unanimously an
arrangement—now admitted on all hands to be a good one—was condemned and
found fault with.
1837—The Midsummer Sessions were held in the New Courts, though these
were as yet scarcely completed.
1838—MAY 10—A Special County Sessions, to consider the Bill then before
Parliament for Amending the Constitution of County Courts and Courts of
Quarter Sessions—which proposed to compel the holding of eight sessions
in the year, and the holding of courts in various parts of the county; it
gave the magistrates the option of having a barrister as a salaried
chairman; and proposed alterations in “county courts,” to enable them to
be used for the easy recovery of small debts. Mr. Pakington moved a
petition against the measure, which Mr. Holland objected to—it was,
however, carried by a majority of 23 to 8.
1838—At the Midsummer Sessions the New Shire Hall and Judges’ Lodgings
were reported as complete; and a vote of thanks was passed to the Rev.
Thomas Pearson for his able and useful exertions as chairman of the
building committee for the past five years. The salary of the chaplain
was increased to £250 per annum. The court refused to insert the county
advertisements either in the _Kidderminster Messenger_ or the
_Worcestershire Chronicle_.
1839—The Epiphany Sessions adjourned to the 14th of January, and
afterwards given up entirely, because no clerk of the peace had been
appointed since the death of Mr. Blayney—Lord Foley, the Lord Lieutenant,
being out of the country.
1839—FEBRUARY 5—A General Sessions of the Peace held in lieu of the
Epiphany Sessions, which had been given up. The court petition for a
change of law as regards beer houses. The enlargement of the County
Gaol, at an expense of £2,100, agreed upon, to obtain sixty additional
cells.
1839—At the Easter Sessions the court unanimously agreed to a resolution
which the chairman proposed, condemning the existing system of parish
constables as insufficient for the detection and punishment of criminals,
and promising consideration to any measure the Government might introduce
for establishing a rural constabulary. The court again petitioned
against the District Courts’ Bill; Mr. Hanford alone dissenting.
1839—At the Michaelmas Sessions the important subject of establishing a
rural police was brought forward by Mr. Pakington, according to previous
notice. He entered into the whole subject with great ability; pointing
out the great increase of crime in the rural districts, as rendering such
a measure absolutely necessary, and ended by moving that “it was
expedient forthwith to take measures for the adoption in this county of
the act for the establishment of county district constables.” After a
short discussion the motion was carried with only two dissentients—Dr.
Cooper and Rev. Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Pakington proposed that a chief
constable and twelve sergeants should be the only appointments under the
act at present, because it would be desirable to bring it into operation
by degrees. To this Mr. Hanford moved as an amendment, that there should
be a chief constable, ten sergeants, and thirty men under them; and this
was carried over the original motion by 20 to 18. The salary of the
chief constable was fixed at £250 a year; and the Metropolitan
Commissioners of Police were requested to nominate a suitable person.
The court then adjourned till the 4th November, to receive and consider
the rules drawn up by the Secretary of State.
1839—NOVEMBER 4—At the Adjourned Sessions, Mr. Pakington stated that the
Government refused to allow the Commissioners of Police to nominate a
chief constable, and expressed his great regret that this should be the
case, as he thought the magistrates quite incompetent to select a
suitable person. He proposed, therefore, that the court should adjourn
to the 2nd December, then to consider all applications which might be
made for the office, and proceed to the election. Dr. Beale Cooper moved
that the further consideration of the plan for forming a constabulary
force for the county of Worcester be postponed till the next Easter
Quarter Sessions. He maintained that the thing was altogether in a crude
state—had not had sufficient examination—that it was a departure from the
spirit of the British constitution—and that their present constables were
sufficiently on the alert, for since the year 1806 the commitments had
increased from 51 to 427—the number in the previous year. William Acton,
Esq., seconded the amendment, because he thought the act would probably
be altered next session, and because he objected to the expense coming
wholly out of the county rates. General Marriott, James Taylor, Esq.,
and Richard Spooner, Esq., spoke in favour of the motion; and the Rev.
Mr. Cartwright for the amendment. Lord Lyttelton thought they were
forced to adopt a rural police, because Birmingham and Gloucestershire
had got a new force, and the chairman said that they should lose public
confidence if a comparatively small bench of magistrates reversed that
which had been done a month before by a much larger one. On a division,
Mr. Pakington’s motion was carried by 24 to 9. A letter was agreed to,
to be sent to the Secretary of State, complaining of the determination
Government had come to in the matter of the chief constable. The rules
sent down by the Secretary of State for the guidance of the force were
agreed to.
1839—DECEMBER 2—Mr. R. R. Harris, an inspector of London Police, elected
chief constable. He had been recommended by the police committee out of
32 applicants, and was chosen by a majority of 21 to 13 votes given for
Captain Scargill, who was proposed by the Earl of Coventry. It was
determined that the pay of the sergeants should be £80 a year.
1840—OCTOBER 29—At the Michaelmas Sessions the magistrates became
embroiled in a dispute with Mr. W. S. P. Hughes, one of the county
coroners, arising out of a complaint made by the constable of Rock, who
accused Mr. Hughes of “extorting” a fee of a shilling from him illegally.
The fee was “for the crier of the court,” which the coroners in this
county had always been in the habit of requiring, but after the passing
of the act, 1 and 2 Victoria, certainly could not be sustained; and this
Mr. Hughes admitted in a letter to the committee of magistrates which had
been appointed to take the matter into consideration. This, however, the
committee said came too late; as Mr. Hughes had been repeatedly warned
that the fee was illegal, and they considered that he had rendered
himself liable to a prosecution “for extortion and misconduct in his
office,” or might be removed from the coronership altogether by a
petition to the Lord Chancellor. Mr. Hughes applied to be heard against
the report, by counsel, but this the court refused by a majority of 33 to
7. Mr. Hughes then protested against the proceedings of the committee as
_ex parte_, and their report as showing an animus against him wholly
unwarranted and improper. Mr. Charles Best, coroner, deposed that he and
his predecessors in office had always been in the habit of requiring this
shilling. After a discussion, the Rev. Thomas Pearson moved the adoption
of the report, and that the chairman should inform Mr. Hughes that his
charge was illegal, and admonish him accordingly. This was carried, and
the chairman “admonished” Mr. Hughes, who immediately said—“I do not
consider you have any power to admonish me. I, as coroner of this
county, am an officer far superior to the magistrates of this court; and
I take leave to tell them that they by no means adopt a proper course
when they take upon themselves to admonish a superior officer of the
crown.”
1841—JANUARY 4—Mr. Helm unanimously appointed county solicitor. The
Quarter Sessions advertisements ordered to be inserted in the
_Worcestershire Chronicle_, but not in the _Kidderminster Messenger_.
1841—APRIL 5—At the Easter Sessions, a new assessment of the county by
surveyors was ordered, on which to base the county rate, and £500 placed
at the disposal of a committee to obtain it.
1842—JANUARY 3—At the Epiphany Sessions, the court agreed to memorialise
the Government to pay the cost of the rural police. Memorials from five
parishes were presented, complaining of the expense of the police, and
declaring that the county rates were nearly doubled by them.
1842—JUNE 27—At the Midsummer Sessions, Dr. Beale Cooper brought forward
a motion for the abolition of the rural police, which he said was
unconstitutional, and had proved to be utterly inefficient. Colonel Bund
seconded the motion. The chairman disposed of Dr. Cooper’s charge of
inefficiency in a few words, and regretted that the establishment of a
police was not made compulsory on all counties. Dr. Cooper then withdrew
his motion.
1842—At the Michaelmas Sessions, Dr. Cooper moved that the county police
force be reduced to one sergeant for each Electoral Division, and two
constables for each Petty Sessional Division; to which the chairman moved
as an amendment, that the question of the propriety of a reduction be
referred to the police committee, and this was carried without a
division.
1843—JANUARY 2—At the Epiphany Sessions, the subject of the rural police
was again discussed at great length on the presentation of a special
report by the police committee, declaring that the force ought not to be
reduced. Mr. Onslow wanted to prevent the reception of the report, but
the chairman would not consent to that course, and Mr. Onslow at last was
induced to withdraw the resolutions he had intended to propose upon the
subject; but a committee was formed to inquire into the provisions of the
Parochial Constables’ Act.
Mr. Ellins’s case was brought before the court at these Sessions by
Richard Spooner, Esq., who moved for a committee of inquiry into the
facts under which Mr. Ricketts had been libelled in the _Worcestershire
Chronicle_, as it was alleged that Mr. Ellins had supplied the
information on which the libel was founded. Colonel Bund seconded the
motion. Mr. Hanford opposed it, because they would be stepping out of
their jurisdiction; and the chairman could not tell what was to be the
course or purpose of such a committee. The committee was determined on
by 34 to 10, and the chairman, Mr. Hanford, Mr. Spooner, Rev. T. Pearson,
Mr. Skey, Hon. W. C. Talbot, and Mr. Temple, were placed upon it. Mr.
Ellins’s application to be heard before it by attorney, was agreed to.
The chairman at these Sessions addressed a most valuable statement to the
grand jury on the county expenditure, and the causes of the increase in
the number and cost of criminal prosecutions.
1843—At the Easter Sessions the committee appointed in Mr. Ellins’s case
were about to bring forward their report, when Mr. R. Scott and Mr. R. M.
Mence moved that it should not be read, as the matter was one altogether
out of the jurisdiction of the court, and with which they had no right to
deal. On a division, 20 hands were held up for its being read, to 9
against it. The report was then read, and stated the committee to be of
opinion that “Mr. Ellins was the moving party to the publication in the
_Worcestershire Chronicle_, of a most gross and unfounded libel, imputing
corruption and jobbing to W. H. Ricketts, Esq., in the execution of his
duty as a magistrate and member of the police committee, in carrying into
effect the orders of the court.” Mr. Hanford and the Rev. Thomas
Pearson, as members of the committee, declared that though they believed
Mr. Ellins to be a party to the libel, they did not believe him to be the
sole party, as the report seemed to convey. Mr. Scott moved that the
report be rejected. The court had no right to take any judicial notice
of the acts or character of any of its individual members; and nothing
could be more dangerous than for a judicial body to exceed its
jurisdiction. Mr. Scott condemned Mr. Spooner for bringing this matter
forward at the previous Sessions without notice. Mr. Benson also spoke
against the reception of the report. The chairman had always had doubts
as to the propriety of their moving in the matter, but thought it
discourteous to the committee to reject the report, and it was received
by a majority of 28 to 11. On the question of transmitting it to the
Lord Lieutenant, there was another division, 20 voting for that course
and 11 against it.
1843—At the Midsummer Sessions, Lord Lyttelton addressed a letter to the
court, enclosing one from the Lord Chancellor, with his opinion that the
proceedings of the magistrates in Mr. Ellins’s case had been very
irregular. Lord Lyttelton trusted the magistrates would feel it their
“duty carefully to avoid any similar proceedings for the future;” and he
requested that his letter might be entered upon the records of the court.
Mr. Spooner thought they had a perfect right to do as they had done, and
moved that the letter be not entered on the records. The chairman said
he had always considered their proceedings irregular, but thought Lord
Lyttelton’s “lecture” might just as well have been left alone. The
consideration of the letter was at last postponed till the next Sessions.
Mr. Simcox Lea at great length entered into the subject of the rural
police, and moved, as a resolution, that their benefit had not been
equivalent to their cost. He wanted the Bench to adopt the plan of paid
parish constables in their stead, and insisted particularly on the
inefficiency of the chief constable. Mr. Noel seconded the motion. The
chairman made an able defence of the police, and adduced several
instances of their efficiency. Mr. Scott would vote for the motion,
because the police were too few to be of much use. Mr. Onslow complained
of the number of offences that were committed without detection ensuing.
Colonel Bund, the Rev. Thomas Pearson, Mr. Benson, and Colonel Clive,
spoke in favour of the police, and the motion was rejected by 34 to 13.
1843—At the Michaelmas Sessions the magistrates determined that the Lord
Lieutenant’s letter, in Mr. Ellins’s case, should not be placed upon the
records of the court. Mr. Scott was the only magistrate who added
anything to the few words which were spoken from the chairman; and he
said the whole proceedings ought to be erased from the records, or the
Lord Lieutenant’s letter to be added as the conclusion.
1844—At the Easter Sessions, Lord Lyttelton read a paper _in re_ Mr.
Ellins’s case, declaring the magistrates’ proceedings in the matter to
have been altogether irregular, and suggesting that they ought to be
entirely struck out of the records of the court, or his own letter of
animadversion on them inserted. As his lordship concluded with no
motion, the chairman would not permit any discussion, and the court
passed to the next business on the paper.
1844—At the Midsummer Sessions, Mr. Scott again brought this matter
forward, by moving that the letter of the Lord Chancellor to the Lord
Lieutenant should be entered on the minutes of the court. This was
seconded by the Rev. John Pearson, but opposed by the chairman and
others, and at last rejected by 28 to 17.
1845—At the Easter Quarter Sessions, the police committee recommended
that Dudley, Shipston, and other districts, surrounded by other counties,
should be taken into this county for police purposes, and that, to this
end, the force should be increased by twenty men, including a
superintendent and two sergeants. Mr. Merry moved that only twelve men
be added to the force, but this was negatived by 26 to 6, and the
original motion carried. Mr. Hanford’s motion to do away with the carts
and horses kept by the rural police was negatived by 20 to 17.
1845—At the Midsummer Sessions, Mr. B. L. Stable was elected Governor of
the County Gaol, in the room of Mr. Lavender, who retired, and was voted
a pension of £149. 10s. per annum.
1847—At the Epiphany Sessions the court agreed to erect a Lunatic Asylum,
in connection with the city of Worcester, for the accommodation of 200
pauper lunatics. The total number of such unfortunate beings in
Worcestershire was 284, but the court conceived that accommodation for
two-thirds would be quite sufficient; and on Dr. B. Cooper suggesting
that three-fourths should be provided for, the chairman begged the court
not to agree to providing for more than 200 in the first instance, as the
expense of these erections was so great. A committee was formed for the
purpose of carrying the measure into effect. The Hon. and Rev. W. W. C.
Talbot moved for a committee to consider the propriety of dividing the
county into districts for police purposes; but Mr. Curtler, from a very
carefully prepared table, showed that the police force and their expense
were very equitably distributed with regard to the value of the property
to be protected in the different districts of the county, and that the
agricultural portion were in no sense paying for the support of the
police of the manufacturing districts. Mr. Talbot withdrew his motion.
1847—At the Easter Sessions the court, on the motion of the Rev. Thomas
Pearson and Mr. Curtler, unanimously agreed to petition in favour of the
Juvenile Offenders’ Bill, then introduced into Parliament by Sir John
Pakington.
1847—Easter Sessions—On the 19th of December, 1846, the county was
divided into three Coroners’ districts by an Order in Council; and at
these Sessions the magistrates assigned these districts to Mr. Docker,
Mr. Hughes, and Mr. Best. Mr. Robinson still continues to act as coroner
for Dudley, but, at his death, Dudley will form district No. 6 in
Staffordshire. Mr. Hughes, shortly after his district was assigned,
petitioned the Lords of the Treasury for compensation for loss of
emolument which he said he sustained by this arrangement, and they
awarded him £55 per annum. He was paid two quarters by the county
authorities, but they then took an opinion as to the legality of his
claim, and this being adverse to Mr. Hughes, they refused to continue the
payments. In Hilary Term, 1850, Mr. Hughes applied to the Court of
Queen’s Bench, and obtained a rule _nisi_ against the magistrates, to
compel them to show cause why the payment should not be continued—which,
however, was afterwards discharged, on the ground that as the county had
never been customarily divided into districts, Mr. Hughes could not show
a loss of any fees to which he was legally entitled.
1848—At the Midsummer Quarter Sessions the court agreed to erect
Stourport and neighbourhood into a separate Petty Sessional Division.
The Hundred House and Kidderminster magistrates opposed the motion, but
it was carried by 18 to 15.
1849—At the Michaelmas Sessions the committee of visitors appointed to
superintend the erection of the Lunatic Asylum reported that they had not
been able to obtain any tenders for executing the works required at the
sum estimated by the architect, chiefly because the lunacy commissioners
insisted on the whole building being made fireproof. The total cost of
land and buildings would be about £32,000, other extras £3,044; and
fittings were not included even in this sum. They had agreed with the
London Life Insurance Society for a loan of the money at four per cent.
The report was unanimously received.
1850—At the Michaelmas Sessions a report was read from a committee which
had been appointed to inquire into the county expenditure, and to
ascertain the feasibility of reduction. The cost of prosecutions and
gaol expenses for the year 1849 was £8,993. 18s. 3d.; salaries, £2,661.
5s. 2d.; high constable’s cravings, £240; coroner’s cravings, £1,527. 0s.
10d.; clerk of the peace’s cravings, £745. 18s. 2d.; registration of
voters, £342. 11s. 8d.; bridges, £580. 14s. 5d.; lunatics, £193. 4s.
2d.; new weights and measures, £858. 3s. 10d.; sundries, £1,099; total,
£17,240. 13s. 2d.; police, £7,836. 6s. 9d.; Shire Hall, £1,696. 12s. 9d.
The committee reported that the only way in which a reduction could
possibly be effected was a reduction in the salaries of the general
officers and of the police, which they did not deem advisable, and would
rather recommend that Government should be memorialised to defray the
cost of the county police, gaol, &c., out of the consolidated fund. The
report was adopted without any division.
At the dinner of the magistrates, at the Shire Hall, after the
transaction of the county business, the Rev. Thomas Pearson being in the
chair, a portrait of Sir John Pakington, Bart., the result of a
subscription amongst the magistrates, and which now hangs in the drawing
room at the County Courts, was inaugurated.
* * * * *
UPTON BRIDGE has been the _bête noir_ of the county magistrates all
through the half century. Since 1810 scarcely a sessions has passed at
which it has not been mentioned, and it has given rise to lawsuits,
disputes, and embroilments without number. In 1814–16, in 1829, and
again in 1847, the magistrates took proceedings against the feoffees of
Hall’s Charity—some lands left in 1570 for the repairs of Upton Church
and Bridge—to compel them to account or to contribute towards the repairs
of this bridge. In 1817 the bridge was reported to be in very doubtful
plight, and the advice of Mr. Smirke, the eminent architect, was taken as
to the repairs which ought to be done; a considerable sum of money was
then laid out upon it. At the Michaelmas Sessions, 1822, a bridge warden
was appointed, because much injury had been done to it by mooring vessels
to the parapets, and by taking away sand from the foundations. In
1832–34 another considerable sum was spent in repairs; this time the
feoffees of Hall’s Charity being concurring parties. In 1837 the parties
promoting the Severn Navigation Improvement offered the magistrates
£5,000 towards the expense of building a new bridge, but this was not
acceeded to; and in 1838 the bench resolved to procure the insertion of a
clause in the Severn Navigation Bill then before Parliament, to bear the
county harmless from any loss or damage which might arise to Upton bridge
from the improvements in the river; but no proceedings were necessary to
be taken under that resolution, because the bill was thrown out. In
1842, £121 were expended in repairs, to keep the bridge from falling.
The magistrates would not do more than was absolutely necessary, because
they did not know how the operations of the Severn Commissioners might
affect it. At the Midsummer Sessions, 1845, a committee was appointed to
confer with the commissioners about the state of the bridge. At the
Epiphany Sessions, 1846, the county surveyors recommended that £1,260
should be immediately spent on the bridge; and the magistrates at the
same Sessions declared themselves “neutral” as to the bill then
introduced by the Severn Commissioners. This bill took power to alter
the bridge by the introduction of a swivel. At the Epiphany Sessions,
1847, Mr. Curtler read an elaborate report, in explanation of the
liability of the feoffees of Hall’s Charity to aid in the repairs of the
bridge; in consequence of which proceedings were taken, and in 1849 the
matter was referred to a Master in Chancery. It was not finally settled
till 1851, when Lord Langdale, Master of the Rolls, ordered the feoffees
thenceforth to divide the receipts into three parts—the first for the
church, the second for the repairs of the bridge, and the third for the
general good of the town. At the Michaelmas Sessions, 1847, another
committee was appointed to inquire into the state of the bridge, and to
confer with the Severn Navigation Commissioners; but at the next Epiphany
Sessions, Mr. Curtler, by a majority of 19 to 8, carried a proposition to
seek to obtain a clause in the Commissioners’ Bill then before
Parliament, to limit their power over the bridge to three years: the
bill, however, was thrown out on second reading. The rest of the year
was consumed in an attempt to get from Mr. Walker, C.E., a report on the
state of the bridge, and in conferences with the Commissioners. At the
Easter Sessions, 1849, Mr. Walker’s report was read, which recommended
that the bridge should entirely be rebuilt; and a motion to that effect,
made by the chairman, was carried almost unanimously. It is needless now
to say, that nothing further was done in the matter but to talk about it
at each succeeding Sessions, till the bridge concluded its own history by
falling down during a high flood which occurred in February, 1851. It
was built in 1605; and there can be no doubt that four of the original
arches remained just as they had been first erected, until the day when
they tumbled down of sheer old age.