Part 10

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.