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.

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.