Part 20
1842—OCTOBER 26—A special meeting held to consider the railway question. Mr. Alderman Chalk proposed that it was desirable for the Council to examine whether there was any agreement subsisting between the city and Mr. Berkeley, such as should preclude the city from consenting to the project, or going to Parliament for whatever line they thought fit. Mr. Pierpoint seconded the motion. Mr. Elgie proposed, as an amendment, that it be referred to the railway committee to inquire whether any engagement had been entered into by which the citizens were bound in honour or equity from becoming parties to the Bredicot branch. The Town Clerk gave it as his opinion that there was no agreement in existence which bound the city in any way. On a division, the amendment was carried by 15 to 13—the Mayor, Alderman Corles, and four other councillors declining to vote. Mr. Chalk, Mr. Bedford, and others protested against the amendment being declared carried, because it had not obtained, as required by the sixty-ninth clause of the Municipal Act, _a majority of those present_.
1842—NOVEMBER—Mr. Alderman John Lilly unanimously elected Mayor, and Mr. Alderman Lewis, Sheriff.
1843—JANUARY 2—The Council determined to oppose the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Company in their application to Parliament for powers to make the Bredicot branch, by a majority of 25 to 5.
1843—AUGUST 1—The Town Clerk brought a bill of £250 for the costs of the unsuccessful opposition to the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Money Bill. Mr. Alderman Palmer moved that it be referred to the Finance Committee; but it was resolved by 11 to 9 that the bill, which was admitted on all hands to be very fair in its charges, should be paid at once, together with £17 due to the Town Clerk on a former occasion.
1843—OCTOBER—The Guildhall having been illuminated on the occasion of the Queen Dowager’s visit to the city, Mr. W. D. Lingham, the City Chamberlain, brought in a bill of £18. 7s. 6d. for the expense, the payment of which was disputed with most pitiable parsimony. The Council divided, and 19 voted for payment to 14 against it.
1843—NOVEMBER—There was but little contest in the municipal election this year. Mr. Alderman Lewis was elected Mayor; and Mr. L. Ledbrook, Sheriff, by 21 votes to 19 given for Mr. Edward Wheeler.
1843—DECEMBER 5—Upon the motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Alderman Padmore, it was decided that the meetings of the Council should be thrown open to the public; but this was afterwards set aside.
1844—JANUARY 4—The Council, on the motion of Mr. Bedford, determined only henceforth to style themselves, “The Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Worcester,” as their proper legal title. A motion to give a salary to the Mayor was rejected by 19 to 10.
1844—SEPTEMBER—The Council (and afterwards the Chamber of Commerce) pronounced in favour of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway project, in preference to any other of the schemes before the city, by large majorities.
1844—NOVEMBER—There were no contests in the wards this year, except at St. John’s. Mr. William Lewis was reëlected Mayor without opposition, and Mr. Lloyd was chosen Sheriff by 22 votes to 12 given for Mr. Elgie.
1845—JANUARY 11—At a special meeting called to assent to, or dissent from, the Tring line promoted by the London and Birmingham Company, and which would pass through part of the corporation property in the Blockhouse, &c., Mr. Alderman Chalk asked the Council to abide by its former decision in favour of the Oxford line, and dissent from the Tring scheme—and proposed a resolution to that effect, which was seconded by Mr. Alderman R. Evans. Mr. Wall and Mr. Hood moved that the Council do assent to the Tring line; but this was negatived by 18 to 7, and Mr. Chalk’s resolution carried.
1845—MARCH 27—The Council again declared in favour of the Oxford and Wolverhampton line. Mr. Knight moved, as an amendment to the resolution proposed by Mr. Elgie, that the Council should petition in favour of the Tring line; but this was lost by 19 to 8.
1845—NOVEMBER—The elections this year brought two more Conservatives into the council. E. J. Lloyd, Esq., was elected Mayor, and Mr. F. T. Elgie, Sheriff.
1846—FEBRUARY 3—The Council petitioned for a total and immediate repeal of the Corn Laws by a majority of 17 to 9.
1846—APRIL 14—William Lewis, Esq., chosen Mayor for the remainder of the year, in the room of Edward Lloyd, Esq., deceased.
1846—MAY 5—At this, a quarterly meeting of the Council, Mr. Sheriff Elgie moved a petition against the New Gas Company’s Bill (which had been approved, in public meeting, the week before), and Mr. Hood seconded it. Mr. Alderman Chalk objected to such a subject being brought on without previous notice, and to a quarterly meeting being taken advantage of for such a purpose. He moved an amendment for the postponement of the question, which was, however, lost by 16 to 5, and Mr. Elgie’s petition carried. A counter petition was afterwards presented from fourteen other members of the body.
1846—NOVEMBER—F. T. Elgie, Esq. was unanimously chosen Mayor by the new body, and Mr. Edward Webb, Sheriff.
1846—NOVEMBER 16—Mr. Arrowsmith moved that the Council should erect baths and washhouses with as little delay as possible. Mr. Bedford thanked Mr. Arrowsmith for bringing the matter forward, remarking that hitherto his own efforts, for sanitary improvements, had all failed for want of support. The motion was unanimously carried, and a committee appointed to carry out the suggestion; and this committee has been formally renewed from time to time, yet five years have now elapsed and baths and washhouses in Worcester seem further off than ever.
1847—APRIL 24—A memorial having been presented to the Council, from the agriculturists, praying to have the Sheep Market leased to them, in order that they might erect a Corn Exchange thereon, Mr. Arrowsmith moved that no sufficient reason had been shown to the Council to authorise them in making a change that would be so injurious to a great number of the inhabitants of the city. This was carried by 18 to 13. The Council also, by a majority of 18 to 8, agreed to a petition in favour of Lord Morpeth’s Sanitary Bill.
1847—NOVEMBER—The elections this year resulted in very little change. Edward Webb, Esq. was chosen Mayor, and Mr. Padmore, Sheriff.
1848—APRIL 5—The Council granted a lease of the Wheat Sheaf Inn, Corn Market, and other premises, to one of the Corn Exchange Companies.
1848—MAY 2—The Council, at a quarterly meeting, passed a resolution, approving of the Mayor’s efforts to bring about an arrangement between the rival Corn Exchange Companies; and begging the agriculturists to rest satisfied with the one in Angel Street.
They also petitioned in favour of Lord Morpeth’s Health of Towns Bill.
1848—AUGUST 11—At a special meeting, called to consider the Corn Exchange question, the Council, after a very warm debate on various propositions, determined to take the opinion of Mr. Alexander as to their right to regulate the Corn Market, to take toll on corn sold, and to prevent the removal of the market from its ancient site. The opinion only went to justify the corporation in taking toll on corn pitched in bulk, and no further proceedings were taken in the matter.
1848—OCTOBER—The Council, with only one dissentient, agreed that it was desirable that the Public Health Act should be applied to Worcester; and appointed a committee to make a representation to that effect to the Central Board of Health.
1848—NOVEMBER—Mr. Alderman Padmore was elected Mayor; and as he declined to give a Sunday breakfast, go to the Cathedral, or wear a gown, he gave £100 to the city instead. This donation, having afterwards been considerably increased, has found a permanent shape in the handsome town clock which now ornaments the front of the Market House. Mr. Goodwin was elected Sheriff.
1849—JANUARY 1—The Council having previously determined to petition the Lord Chancellor to appoint six new city magistrates, because some of those named in the original commission were dead, and others did not attend on the bench, this day proceeded to the selection of names. Alderman Lewis had 29 votes; Alderman Chalk, 27; the Mayor, 25; Alderman E. Evans, 25; J. W. Isaac, Esq., 22; Alderman Webb, 20; Dr. James Nash, 14; William Stallard, Esq., 10; Mr. Jabez Horne, 8; Alderman Helm, 3; Mr. Bedford, 1; and Alderman Elgie, 1. The first six names were consequently transmitted to the Lord Chancellor.
1849—NOVEMBER—The agitation respecting the carrying out the Health of Towns Act this year, caused considerable change in the composition of the municipal body; the only suitability sought in the new councillors being their known determination to oppose the measure. Their subsequent proceedings have had reference almost entirely to the
APPLICATION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT TO WORCESTER.
THE passing of the Public Health Act in the session of 1848 was an epoch of our civilisation. It was the recognition of a great social want, and an attempt to remedy a great social evil, which had silently grown up with the increase of our large towns, and threatened to turn our prosperity and blessings into a curse. The principle of the act received the cordial and unanimous assent of all the great parties in the state; and though numerous alterations were made in the measure during its progress through the Lower House of Parliament, these were entirely improvements amicably suggested and cordially adopted by the ministry who introduced it. Those who determinedly opposed some of its details were always left, upon a division, in very small minorities.
The chief objection which has been raised against the measure, by those who have conscientiously or interestedly resisted its operation, has been to the constitution of a General Board of Health in London, having some check over the doings of those local bodies to whom the working out of the act has been intrusted. This is denounced by the word “centralisation,” but the Poor Law Board daily exercises, without remark, a much more stringent authority over Boards of Guardians, who are just as much representative bodies as Town Councils, than any which is vested in the Board of Health. In many places where the act has been applied, the need of such a supervision as that of the Central Board has been so strikingly evinced that Parliament will, probably, soon be induced to place yet greater powers of control in the hands of the Board, and make the provisions of the act entirely compulsory instead of optional. It might seem wise and well to leave the unerring laws of health and disease to work out their own results, in punishing those who neglect the necessary conditions by which alone health can be maintained where men congregate together; but as the epidemics engendered by such neglect cannot be confined to those who are their responsible producers, the legislature, on behalf of society at large, has the right to interfere.
The application of the act to Worcester has been productive of immediate results that are sufficiently curious; but its importance, as regards the future welfare of the city, cannot be overrated, and on that account, much more than for any present turmoil, which, in “the whirligig of time,” will subside and be forgotten, the subject claims a special notice here.
Worcester, more than most English towns, needed the application of such a measure to its internal economy. Its fair exterior, and the outward cleanliness of its principal streets, are but the deceitful masks of hidden insalubrities. Surrounded by hills, which attract the moisture and screen it from the healthful breezes that would drive away miasma, its atmosphere is too constantly damp and relaxing in summer, and in winter the fogs, rising from the stream and the undrained soil, lie long upon its dwellings. The river, which flows through it, fortunately keeps up a constant current of air, but epidemics always follow the course of rivers. Though apparently well situated for drainage, the greater part of the city is ill-circumstanced in this respect, for the southern and western half, at least, is built on a cold marl, which retains the soakings of the surface as a sponge. These are natural reasons which, it might be supposed, would have suggested to the inhabitants the most careful attention to drainage and cleanliness; yet it is a fact, that scarcely a street in the whole city is supplied with a sufficient drain, and that it contains more open cesspits, prolific of noisome smells and active disease, than any town of equal size in the kingdom.
The merit of having drawn public attention, in this city, to the paramount importance of Parliamentary interference to enforce sanitary improvements belongs to Sir Charles Hastings, M.D.
At the city election in 1846, when Sir Denis Le Marchant suddenly appeared as a candidate, Dr. Hastings, upon the hustings, addressed the citizens, who were then gathered together, and said he was anxious Sir Denis should have their opinion on a matter of the greatest importance to every individual amongst them. “Amidst the great party struggles,” continued the Doctor, “in the legislature, the social improvement of the people had been too much overlooked, and it was certain that the sanitary condition of the great mass of the inhabitants of this kingdom was such as reflected no credit upon its Government. He wished, therefore, the citizens of Worcester to impress upon Sir Denis Le Marchant the propriety of giving his best attention to this great question, and of using his best endeavours to get it promoted by the Government. He hoped that the measures which had been under the attention of the legislature for the last six or seven years would, at last, receive the consideration they merited. All alike would be benefitted by the passing of laws necessary for the protection of the public health, and which would have also a great effect on public morals. (Applause.) He trusted that was their opinion, and if it was so he prayed them to hold up their hands.”
The assembly unanimously responded to the Doctor’s appeal; and Sir Denis declared himself the warm advocate of sanitary measures.
Dr. Hastings afterwards addressed a letter to the Town Council on the subject; and in seconding Mr. Ricardo’s nomination, in 1847, he again mentioned the matter, amidst the cheers of the assembly, and pressed it upon the attention of each of the candidates.
Mr. Austin, the secretary to the Health of Towns Association, came down in the autumn of 1846 to make an inspection of the city, and report upon the works and alterations necessary to be undertaken for the purpose of securing the greatest possible amount of health and comfort to the inhabitants. Mr. Austin presented his report to the City Commissioners in December, 1846, and so able and informative was it deemed that it was ordered, on the motion of Mr. Pierpoint, to be printed for general circulation; and a sum of £20 was afterwards voted him by the same body. Mr. Austin estimated the gross cost of drainage for the entire city, proper water supply to every house, baths and washhouses, conversion of soil for agricultural purposes, at £74,000; he believed a revenue of £19,000 per annum might be derived from such works when carried into full efficiency; the interest and expenses of management he set down at £11,650. Some parties, unconnected with either of the two governing bodies in the city, this year gave notice of their intention to apply to Parliament for a “City Improvement Act,” in which powers would be taken to carry out all those alterations which were felt to be so necessary for the good ordering of the town; but this project was soon abandoned, and the City Commissioners declared that, if Parliament did not that year introduce a general act, they would themselves apply for an extension of powers to enable them to carry out needful sanitary improvements.
At a dinner given to Captain Candler, in February, 1847, Lord Lyttelton strongly pressed upon the Mayor, and citizens of Worcester generally, the desirability of at once carrying out the suggestions of Mr. Austin’s report in their integrity.
The Government having introduced the Public Health Act into Parliament, in the spring of 1847, petitions in its favour were forwarded from Worcester, one of which was signed by 700 of the working classes. The principal difference between the measure as introduced by the Whig and Conservative Governments was, that the one proposed by the latter placed the “centralising” power in the hands of the Home Secretary, instead of the Central Board, and would have constituted new local bodies for working out the act, instead of placing it in the hands of the Town Councils, which the Whigs did on principle.
The first public meeting held in Worcester was one convened by the Mayor, Mr. Elgie, on the 19th of April, 1847, to consider the measure proposed by Government. But the Commissioners met in the morning, and determined on opposing the Government bill, doubtless because it would altogether extinguish them; and as a good deal of alarm had already been created in the town by the large figures in Mr. Austin’s report, there was a considerable opposition raised at the meeting. Dr. Hastings and Mr. Orwin moved a resolution, declaring the necessity which existed for sanitary measures; and this was carried. Mr. Arrowsmith and Mr. J. W. Isaac moved a second, approving of the Government measure; but Mr. R. M. Mence and Mr. Francis Hooper moved an amendment, to the effect that the Health of Towns Bill contained many unnecessary and mischievous provisions. The cost and the centralisation were the topics chiefly dwelt upon by the opponents of the measure. Mr. Orwin spoke in favour of the bill, and Mr. Thomas Lucy and Mr. Pierpoint against it; the latter producing a toy whose joints were moved by a string, to illustrate what the Town Council would be in the hands of the Central Board. The proceedings were spun out to such an inordinate length, that the meeting had almost dissolved itself, before the resolution and amendment were put. The division was very close, but the Mayor decided that the resolution in favour of the Government bill was carried. A petition to Parliament in its favour was afterwards proposed, but that was lost, and the resultless meeting then broke up.
The same week the Council adopted a petition in favour of the measure, by a majority of 18 to 8.
In May, a petition was presented from Worcester in favour of the Public Health Act, signed by the Very Rev. the Dean, and most of the Canons and parochial clergy. The medical men of the city also, without a single exception, petitioned that it might pass.
The bill was committed in June, by a majority of 191 to 50; the only Worcestershire members who voted in the minority being General Lygon and Mr. P. Borthwick. The bill was, however, after all, with a multitude of others, in the annual “slaughter of the innocents;” and then came the general election.
In seconding Mr. Ricardo’s nomination as a candidate for Worcester, Dr. Hastings again mentioned sanitary matters, and declared, amidst the cheers of the assembly, that he would not give his vote for any man who would not pledge himself to support a bill for the improvement of the public health.
In January, 1848, Mr. Thomas Beggs lectured in the Town Hall, Worcester, on sanitary improvements; and on the following day a public meeting was held, over which the Mayor, Mr. Edward Webb, presided. The Rev. John Davis then moved a petition to the legislature in favour of sanitary measures, which was carried without dissent; and Mr. Ricardo, who was present, expressed the pleasure he should feel in presenting it, and in supporting Government in any measure they might propose for the advancement of the sanitary condition of the people.
In April, a town’s meeting was called to consider the Government measure, on a hostile requisition; and the Mayor being indisposed, the friends of sanitary improvements took no part. Mr. Summerfield was called to the chair; and on the motion of Mr. Mence and Mr. Hooper, a petition was adopted in opposition to the Health of Towns Bill, and ordered to be forwarded to Mr. Urquahart, for presentation.
In May, the Town Council, with only one dissentient, petitioned in favour of the measure; and a petition of similar import was also very generally signed by the inhabitants of the city.
The bill passed the House of Commons on the 20th of June—the opposition, in their strongest division, having only mustered fifty-four votes. It met in the House of Lords with entire approbation; and every one of the amendments made in committee there, were with a view to make its provisions more stringent and “centralising.”
On the 3rd of October, 1848, the Worcester Town Council, on the motion of Mr. Alderman Elgie, came to a resolution, “That it is desirable forthwith to bring into operation within the city the provisions of the Public Health Act.” In a numerous meeting there was only one dissentient to this resolution. A committee of fifteen members was then appointed to carry out the resolution. They communicated the resolution of the Council to the Central Board, and requested that an inspector might be sent down to inquire into the propriety of applying the act to Worcester.
Mr. George T. Clark, Government Inspector, accordingly gave notice in November, both by advertisement and handbills posted in all parts of the city, that he should make the necessary inquiries as to the sanitary condition of the city, and invited all parties to give evidence before him. Mr. Clark sat for the first time at the Guildhall, on the 4th of December, and was very cordially received by the Mayor, Mr. Padmore, and a considerable number of leading citizens and tradesmen, some of whom have since taken a very active share of the opposition to the working of the measure; but not one word of objection to the application of the act to Worcester was ever uttered in Mr. Clark’s presence.
Mr. Clark’s report appeared in April, 1849, and the conclusions to which the inspector arrived were, that the public nuisances in Worcester were many and great—constantly creating sickness, and increasing the mortality of the place; that what was principally wanted was a proper water supply, surface paving and drainage; and that remedies for the evils complained of might be applied for a rate of not more than one penny a week per house. The cost of the necessary drainage he estimated at £20,315, and of the water supply at £21,750, while he set down the annual income derivable from the water works at £4,238.
Acting upon this report, the Central Board made a provisional order for the application of the Public Health Act to Worcester; being competent to do this, as to any place where the mortality ranged above 23.0 in 1,000 per annum—and, according to the Registrar General’s report, the average mortality in Worcester, for the seven years previous to the passing of the Public Health Act, was 25.05 in 1,000. A bill to confirm this provisional order was introduced into Parliament in July, 1849; and, passing without opposition, received the royal assent in August.
Immediately after the application of the act to this city, all sorts of absurd rumours were put into circulation as to the expense it would occasion to the ratepayers; and the ignorance and misinformation that appeared to prevail upon the subject, would scarcely be credited if related. Ward meetings were very generally held, at which memorials to the Council were adopted, praying them not to carry out the act, or to postpone its operation. And thus commenced an agitation, which, being fostered by persons who had their own or party ends to serve, long continued to disturb the peace of the city.