Part 11

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.