Therailway mania of 1845 of course did not leave Worcestershire uninfected. No fewer than twenty-seven schemes, having more or less reference to this county, were advertised in the Worcester papers, with long statements of imaginary advantages and abundance of “provisional directors.â€Â The Welsh Midland; Worcester, Tenbury, and Ludlow; Worcester, Warwick, and Rugby; and Worcester, Hereford, Ross, and Gloucester, were those which found most favour with the Worcester public. A great number of meetings were held in reference to them all over the county, and every scheme was enthusiastically received everywhere; it is quite useless, however, to allude to them further, as, without a single exception, they were utterly resultless, excepting in abstracting money from the pockets of people who could ill afford to lose it. The 30th November was at Worcester, as at all other places, a day of great excitement—the promoters of the various schemes which had just started into existence having, before twelve o’clock on that night (Sunday), to deposit their plans and sections with the clerks of the peace. Plans for no less than thirty-six railways were deposited at the office of the Clerk of the Peace for this county,[156]and thirteen with the Clerk of the Peace for the city.
The early part of the year 1846 was occupied with “amalgamations†and “arrangements;†then came the ordeal of standing orders, and very few survived that. In some instances ingenious engineers had made rivers run up-hill, and canals swim over bridges, instead of allowing the bridges to bestride the canals; while in many cases the most trivial error of misdescription or omission to serve a notice was sufficient to extinguish a scheme of real utility. Then ensued the panic and “winding upâ€â€”very few of the scripholders ever obtaining any return out of their deposits. Only six of all the projects connected with Worcestershire received the sanction of the legislature, and only three of the rest were resuscitated in the coming season; these were the Shropshire Union (Shrewsbury to Worcester), the Worcester and Hereford (Midland Company’s project), and the Worcester, Tenbury, and Ludlow. The last mentioned, however, seemed only to have been continued for speculating purposes, and was speedily withdrawn. The Worcester and Hereford line was warmly supported by the citizens of Worcester in a public meeting held in February, 1847, but it was thrown out on standing orders; and the Shropshire Union was also abandoned.
Thefirst meeting at Worcester with reference to railway communication between that city and the metropolis,viâOxford, was as follows:
1844—March19—The Mayor presided at a very respectable gathering of tradesmen of the city in the Guildhall, and Mr. F. T. Elgie made a statement of the proposal by the Great Western Company to construct what is now known as the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway, and requested the support of the citizens to the scheme. Mr. W. S. P. Hughes said the Grand Connection Railway would answer all the purposes of the city of Worcester, and that was to be brought before Parliament again immediately, with every prospect of success. A resolution in favour of the line proposed by Mr. Elgie was, however, carried unanimously. The merits of the two lines were discussed at a public meeting at Kidderminster, on the 4th of April, at which Mr. Elgie and Mr. Hughes supported their respective schemes, and the Oxford line had a majority in the meeting of three to one.
1844—May9—Another railway meeting was held in the Guildhall this day, with the Mayor in the chair, to support one or other of the schemes for connecting Worcester with London. Mr. Elgie and Mr. Brunel appeared for the Oxford line, and Mr. Taunton and Mr. Addison for a line from Worcester through Evesham and Leamington, to join the London and North Western Railway. This was to be only a single line of rails. Mr. Brunel assured the meeting that the Oxford line was supported by the Great Western, and that £1,000,000 would be sufficient for its construction. Mr. Hughes, on behalf of the promoters of the Grand Connection Railway, said the cost of the line from Worcester to Wolverhampton alone would be above a million; and proposed, as an amendment, that it would be premature to express an opinion in favour of any particular line till they had more details before them. The meeting, however, almost unanimously expressed itself in favour of the Great Western project.
1844—The great town’s meeting at which the Great Western and London and Birmingham projects for a Worcester Railway were brought into competition for the approbation of the citizens, was held in the Guildhall on the 4th November, William Lewis, Esq., Mayor,presiding. It was first assembled in the Crown Court, but afterwards there was an adjournment to the outer hall. The proceedings were commenced by Mr. Waters’s moving “That until the Parliamentary plans were deposited, the citizens were in no position to decide upon the eligibility of the schemes proposed to them.â€Â Mr. J. W. Lea seconded this proposition. Mr. Leader Williams denied that the Great Western werebonâ fidein their scheme, and until the plans were deposited they could have no security that they would go on with it. Mr. Elgie retorted that Messrs. Waters and Williams wanted no railway at all. The motion was negatived by a very large majority. Mr. Alderman Matthews, Mr. Francis Rufford, and Mr. Barlow spoke on behalf of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton line, which again received the almost unanimous adhesion of the citizens, Mr. E. Shelton, of Thorngrove, alone putting in a word for the London and Birmingham Company’s line.
1845—February4—The Railway Commissioners of the Board of Trade reported in favour of the Tring line, and against the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton.
1845—February22—A general meeting of the Oxford and Worcester Railway Company’s shareholders was held in the Guildhall, Worcester, at which they determined to proceed vigorously with their own measure, in spite of the unfavourable report of the Board of Trade. The report of the provisional committee, read at this meeting, stated that the project had been set on foot in the previous February, by the influential mining and commercial interests of South Staffordshire, who afterwards applied to the Great Western Railway Company to support and lease a line from Wolverhampton to Banbury; but this was ultimately changed for the line to Oxford.
On the 26th of March a common hall was convened at Worcester, at which the citizens unanimously agreed to petition in favour of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton line. A series of resolutions in favour of the Tring line was transmitted to the Mayor, who presided, as having been agreed to at a private meeting of its supporters at Messrs. Hyde and Tymbs’ offices, with Mr. Francis Hooper in the chair, the day before; and this was assigned as the reason for the non-attendance of the friends of the London and Birmingham scheme.
1845—April10—The inhabitants of Droitwich assembled in public meeting on the railway question, and on the motion of W. H. Ricketts, Esq., petitioned in favour of the Birmingham andGloucester Company’s deviation line, refusing to support the Oxford and Wolverhampton scheme.
The Great Battle of the Gauges.—The Parliamentary Committee to whom had been intrusted the duty of reporting on the various railways proposed for this district, commenced their labours on the 5th of May. The members of the committee were the Right Honourable F. Shaw (Dublin University), chairman; Messrs. Bramston, Horne, Drummond, Villiers, Stuart, and Lockhart. The lines brought before them were:
1—Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway.
2—Oxford and Rugby Railway.
3—London, Worcester, and Rugby and Oxford Railway.
4—Birmingham and Gloucester Railway—Worcester Branch and Deviation.
5—Birmingham and Gloucester Railway—Wolverhampton Extension.
6—London, Worcester, and South Staffordshire Railway—the Tring line.
7—Grand Junction—Dudley Branch, Shrewsbury and Stafford, and Shrewsbury and Wolverhampton.
8—Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway.
All the great railway interests of the country thought themselves interested in the decision of the committee, and brought their forces to bear upon the battle; inasmuch as it was supposed that it would decide to which of the gauges the preference should be given in coming railway economics, and so be of vital importance to the opponent systems and the great companies connected with them. For months prior to this contest the press had swarmed with pamphlets, some contending that a greater power, speed, and safety could be attained upon the broad gauge; others requiring a uniformity of gauge throughout the country, and pointing out the inconvenience of a break of gauge at Gloucester and elsewhere: but the decision of the committee had very little reference to any of these matters, and was clearly influenced by different considerations. The principal counsel employed were Mr. Talbot and Mr. Cockburn for the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton line; Mr. Austin and Sergeant Wrangham for the London, Worcester, and South Staffordshire line; Mr. Daniell for the Birmingham andGloucester; and Mr. Kinglake for the Great Western Company: besides innumerable others. Mr. Austin opened the case on behalf of the London and Birmingham line to Tring, which he contended was all that the district could require; that it would be absurd to introduce the broad gauge north of Birmingham; and, lastly, the Board of Trade had reported in its favour. The witnesses connected with this county, who were examined in its favour, were Mr. Richard Smith, mining agent to Lord Ward (whose interests had been especially consulted in this scheme); Mr. William Hancock, ironmaster, Cookley; Mr. W. Berrows, ironmaster, Dudley; Mr. E. Williams, miller, Dudley; Mr. Best, Kidderminster; Mr. H. Brinton, Kidderminster; Mr. Harris, carpet manufacturer, Stourport; Mr. Heath and Mr. Griffiths, Bewdley; Mr. Lukin, manager of the Weldon Tin Works; Mr. H. B. Tymbs, Mr. John Hood, Mr. A. Wells, Mr. James Wall, and Mr. J. W. Lea, Worcester; Mr. E. Smith, gardener, Evesham; &c. Mr. Daniell then opened the case for the Birmingham and Gloucester Company’s Deviation line, and examined Mr. M. Pierpoint, who said that he believed this and the Tring line would be all that the citizens of Worcester would want, and would answer their interests better than the Oxford and Wolverhampton line. Mr. W. Chamberlain and Mr. Robert Hardy, with Mr. Tombs, of Droitwich, were also examined by Mr. Daniell. Mr. Cockburn then called witnesses in favour of the Great Western Company’s broad gauge projects: those from this county were Mr. James Boydell, Oak Farm Iron Works, Kingswinford; Mr. Jonathan Fardon, Stoke Works; Rev. W. H. Cartwright, Dudley; Mr. Paul Matthews, Stourbridge; Mr. John Hill, Mr. Alderman Edward Evans, Mr. William Lewis (Mayor), Mr. Henry Webb, Mr. Leader Williams, of Worcester; and Mr. T. A. Foster, of Evesham. After the committee had sat twenty days, they reported that they found the preamble of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway and of the Oxford and Rugby lines, proved: and those of the railways promoted by the London and Birmingham not proved, with the Birmingham and Gloucester Deviation line. They evidently came to this decision from a belief that the broad gauge lines were so planned as best to answer the wants of the districts through which they passed, and that the public favour had been generally accorded them on that ground. The avowed intention of the Great Western Company to carry out a line to Port Dynllaen, had also probably some influence with the committee. The greatest excitement prevailed during the whole of the inquiry—no change of ministry evercreated greater in the lobbies of the House—and the result seemed to be very unexpected, as shares in the Tring line went up considerably a day or two before the decision was given. The committee were occupied some days longer in considering the clauses of the Oxford Company’s Bill, and gave the Birmingham and Gloucester Company power to use the loop line at Worcester, at a remuneration to be fixed by umpires. It being known that the London and Birmingham Company intended to oppose the Oxford Bill in the House, petitions in favour of that line were sent up from Worcester, Droitwich, Dudley, Blockley, and Chipping Camden. Lord Ingestre moved that the report on the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway Bill be brought up. Mr. Pakington seconded the motion. Mr. Cobden moved, as an amendment, that an address be presented to Her Majesty to appoint a commission to inquire into the comparative merits of the broad and narrow gauges. Colonel Wood seconded the amendment; which, after much debate, was lost by 247 to 113, and the Oxford Railway Bill was read a second time. Its triumph was hailed with great rejoicings in this county. The bill had a comparatively easy passage through the House of Lords, though strenuously opposed in committee by the London and Birmingham Company, and on the 4th of August it received the royal assent. Its various successes were occasions of excited rejoicings in Worcester.
The first general meeting of the shareholders was held in October, at the Guildhall, Worcester. The Yorkshire shareholders sought to set aside the agreement between this Company and the Great Western directors, by which the line was to be leased to the Great Western Company for 3½ per cent., and half the surplus profits. They wished to make this an independent line; but at the representations of the chairman and others, who, with a too fatal confidence in the Punic faith of the Great Western, represented that they were under such obligations to that Company in the starting of the project and its success in Parliament, and that it would be dishonourable to break this agreement of lease—the Yorkshire shareholders withdrew their opposition to the reception of the directors’ report.
1846—February27—At the first half yearly meeting of the shareholders, the chairman, Mr. Rufford, expressed his gratification at the resolution of the Great Western Company, to “extend the guarantee to such sum as shall appear to them necessary for the completion of the second railway and works, and fixing the rateof interest at 4 per cent. per annum in lieu of 3½ per cent. per annum; subject to such conditions as may appear equitable between the two Companies.â€Â The shareholders present seemed pleased with this arrangement. The amount of expense incurred before a sod of earth was turned, was £76,124; of which £36,765 went in law and Parliamentary expenses, and £14,288 to the engineers.
1846—August29—The second half yearly meeting of the Oxford and Wolverhampton Railway shareholders, held at Worcester, when it was promised that the deviation line from Stoke to Abbott’s Wood should be opened in twelve months, and the whole line in three years. Lord Redesdale called upon the directors to oppose the making of the Oxford and Birmingham line upon the broad gauge, foretelling that it would drain all the traffic from this line. The meeting was harmonious, and thanks very cordially voted to the directors.
1847—August27—Half yearly meeting of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway shareholders, at which Mr. Brunel reported that the loop line from Stoke to Abbott’s Wood might be finished by the end of the year. Mr. Figgins, a London shareholder, wanted to see the agreement with the Great Western, and to set it aside. Mr. Barlow said there never was a lease more binding and less likely to be set aside. Mr. Elgie produced a copy of the agreement, by which it appeared that the line was leased to the Great Western for a permanency; and the chairman said it guaranteed four per cent. to the shareholders on whatever amount might be expended. The resolutions prepared by the directors were carried unanimously.
1849—February24—At the half yearly meeting it was announced that the interest, which had hitherto been given to the shareholders on the amount of capital paid up, must be discontinued for want of funds; and the directors talked of making an arrangement with the Great Western Railway Company “more suitable to existing circumstances.â€
1849—June9—At a special meeting of the proprietors a long report was presented from the directors, complaining that the Great Western Company would now only give them £4 per cent. on £2,500,000 of capital, instead of on the whole sum necessary to complete the line, as the directors had understood them to guarantee, and had led their proprietary to believe. A committee of proprietors was appointed to confer with the directors upon the course to be adopted.
1849—September1—Another special meeting of the directors, held in London, at which the committee of proprietors, appointed at the previous meeting, presented a report, severely impugning the conduct of the directors in several particulars, and advised that the narrow gauge alone should be laid down between Tipton and Abbott’s Wood, and the line immediately opened so far.
The year 1850 witnessed a total rupture with the Great Western Company, and some very unpleasant meetings between the shareholders and the directors. The Company passed two bills through Parliament—the one authorising them to sell the Stratford Canal to the Oxford and Birmingham Company, and the other to enable certain other companies to advance them money for the completion of their line. The first morsel of the railway—the half of the loop line from Worcester to Abbott’s Wood—was opened on the 5th October, and worked by the Midland Company under special agreement.
In January, 1851, Lord Ward became chairman of the Company, and the whole management passed into different hands. Messrs. Peto and Betts accepted contracts for constructing the greater portion of the line; and arrangements were entered into, by issuing preference shares at £6 per cent., for raising the capital necessary to complete the undertaking, which, it was now estimated, would cost £3,300,000 instead of the million and a half, which was the sum originally intended to be raised.
The preference shares were almost immediately subscribed for, and the directors soon afterwards entered into an agreement to lease the line to the London and North Western and Midland Companies; whereupon Lord Ward resigned the chairmanship, and an unpleasant correspondence took place between his lordship and Mr. Peto. The arrangement, however, was never carried out, as an injunction was obtained by the Great Western Railway Company to prevent any other company doing that of which they themselves evaded the performance.
Since that time the directors have been proceeding to lay down the line upon the narrow gauge, and with the view of working it independently of either of the great companies, nor have the Great Western been able to hinder them further. The whole of the loop line was opened on the 18th of February, 1852, and thirty-six miles of the main line, from Evesham to Stourbridge, on the 1st May, 1852.
Beforethe age of railways, the advantages to a nation as well as to a district of having its ports brought as far inland as possible, were so many and apparent, that it can be no wonder the improvement of the navigation of the Severn was contemplated at an early date. It was projected in 1784, by Mr. William Jessop, an engineer of some note at that day; and though the science of hydraulics was then very little understood—as, indeed, it is even now[165]—yet the nature of the bed of the Severn and its very gentle fall, marked it out as a river easily admitting of improvement, and not at all beyond the reach of the means then known and practised. The plan proposed by Mr. Jessop was, so far as can be gathered from the reports and documents still in existence, a very fair and feasible one; he proposed to convert it into a ship canal as far as Stourport, by means of weirs. As to the details of the scheme, we have of course no means of judging. It was, however, opposed most strenuously by the landowners on either bank of the river, who feared that the weirs would prove obstructionsto the current, and increase the frequency and mischief of the floods which often cover the lands near the banks. The project was, therefore, at that time abandoned, nor was it ever formally broached again till 1835, when Mr. Edward Leader Williams, an ironmonger in Worcester, pressed the matter so strongly upon his fellow citizens, and so clearly demonstrated, by models and plans of his own devising, that it was perfectly possible to make the river, as far as Worcester, navigable for ships drawing twelve feet of water, that they at length awoke to the advantages which would accrue to them by the improvement of this outlet to “the great highway of nations.â€Â The fears and objections of some of the leading landowners having been overcome, a company was started for the purpose of carrying out the scheme.
The first public notice of the matter appeared in theWorcester Journalof November 12, 1835, when a provisional committee was announced, and the inhabitants of Worcester called together to give their opinion upon the plan. This meeting was held on the 30th November, when Mr. Jonathan Worthington was called to the chair, and Mr. Bedford read the committee’s report, which proposed that a pound lock should be erected at Gloucester, below the ship basin lock, from which a channel of 500 yards in length should be cut to pass Gloucester bridge, and a weir erected near Over bridge. The Haw, Mythe, and Upton bridges were to be passed by similar cuts, and the estimated cost of the whole scheme was £180,000; at which sum, it was thought, a depth of twelve feet might be obtained all the way from Gloucester to Worcester, and six feet thence to Stourport. Mr. Leader Williams explained the details of his plan. The Earl of Coventry declared that he should give it his hearty support; and the objections raised by other landowners were satisfactorily answered. The money required was to be raised in £20 shares, and the press and public of Worcester were singularly unanimous and enthusiastic in favour of the project. The formal prospectus of the company presently appeared—Mr. Thomas Rhodes was announced as the chief, and Mr. E. L. Williams the resident engineer.
At a very numerous meeting of the shareholders held in October, 1836, over which Mr. J. W. Lea presided, Mr. Rhodes’s report wasread; and it was decided, by a very large majority, that application should be made to Parliament to sanction a scheme for increasing the depth of the river to twelve feet. Some of the landowners proposed that the depth sought should only be six feet six inches, but this suggestion met with no support from the general body of subscribers. As soon as the people of Gloucester found that the project was taken up thus seriously, they entered into a systematic opposition, in which the selfish motives that actuated them were at first sought to be flimsily concealed, but were afterwards unblushingly avowed and unscrupulously worked out. At the first meeting which they convened upon the subject, it was pretended that the health of the city of Gloucester would be endangered by a stagnation of the river at the proposed lock; that the salmon fisheries would be destroyed, and the lands on the banks overflowed: therefore they, the citizens of Gloucester, felt bound to oppose the scheme! Afterwards they distinctly declared that they would fight it tooth and nail, because it would take part of their trade further up the river. Many of the landowners, too, could not be convinced but that any alteration of the river, if it did not increase the floods, would at least impede the drainage, and render their lands permanently cold and damp. The Shropshire traders, and a majority of the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company, both of whom feared that the tolls raised would interfere with their receipts, were also its opponents; though, as regards the Canal Company, nothing could be more shortsighted.
The bill was introduced into Parliament in the session of 1837, and was opposed on standing orders, but passed these successfully. The most urgent efforts were then made by the Gloucester interest to defeat the measure on the second reading, and with but too much success. Captain Winnington moved the second reading on the 12th of April, and Captain Berkeley moved that it be read on that day six months; the principal argument he made use of was, that it wouldbe imposing a tax on a free river! The bill was supported alike by the Government and by the leader of the opposition, Sir Robert Peel; but the private influence brought to bear by interested parties was not to be outweighed by the arguments of statesmen, or enlarged considerations of national benefit. The bill was thrown out by a majority of 149 to 124. The Gloucester people were characteristically grateful to their two city members for their “unwearied exertions†in opposition to the bill.
The shareholders met again in September, 1837, and a very ablereport from the committee was laid before them, in which it was stated that the whole plan had been laid before the most eminent engineers of the day, and some trifling alterations in detail agreed to; but they could not recommend the shareholders to seek any less depth of water than twelve feet: and as steps had been taken to conciliate the landowners, they thought another application might be made to Parliament with every prospect of success. £15,000 had been received on the shares, but on the call which had been made £4,000 were still in arrear. The expenses had amounted to £11,700. The shareholders almost unanimously agreed to form themselves into a new Company for the further promotion of the undertaking, and a provisional committee was named for that purpose. This committee, however, were not able to raise sufficient capital to proceed with the ship project, and they therefore called another meeting of the subscribers to the old Company, where Mr. Cubitt gave an explanation of a plan to increase the depth of the river to six feet six inches up to Worcester, and to six feet from Worcester to Stourport. This, he said, would cost £150,000. After discussion, this plan was adopted; and the necessary number of shares having been taken, preparation was again made for application to Parliament. In order to get rid of every pretext for opposition from the Gloucester interests, all thought of weirs and works near that city was abandoned; and from Saxon’s Lode downwards it was proposed to deepen the river by dredging only. By way of diversion, however, another scheme was started conjointly by the Worcester and Birmingham Canal and Gloucester interests, which was to procure a depth of five feet in the river between Gloucester and Worcester, by means of two extraordinary moveable weirs, to be inserted at Saxon’s Lode and Wain Lode Hill; and this, though seen to be totally impracticable and ridiculous, was advocated in the Gloucester papers by way of rivalry to the Severn Company’s plan, which they continued to describe as fraught with injustice, because it would deliver a free river into the hands of a Joint Stock Company. The funds of the Severn Navigation Company proved insufficient to carry the scheme out in its integrity; therefore the improvement of the river, from Worcester to Stourport, for the present was abandoned. This alienated the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Company, and altogether the opposition again got up to the measure was so strong, that after the bill had been introduced into Parliament in the session of 1838, and the standing orders passed, a deputation of the Worcester Company met the Gloucester and Berkeley CanalCompany proprietors, to see if some further concessions could not be made which might get rid of the principal objections to the scheme. The result of this interview was, that the Gloucester and Berkeley Canal Company consented to support a project for the improvement of the river under public commissioners, instead of a Joint Stock Company; and the bill was therefore withdrawn, with the view of introducing another, on the principle thus suggested, in the next session. The shareholders in the Company were called together in September, and received the report of the committee, but there were no assets to divide—the additional expenses (£5,333) had just swallowed up the deposits. The exertions of Mr. J. W. Lea, the chairman of the Company, were acknowledged by a special vote; and many gentlemen present declared their willingness to further any future efforts which might be made, by all the means in their power. The year 1839 was consumed in efforts to induce the Government to take the matter up, as they had recently done the navigation of the Shannon; but these, though zealously backed by Sir Denis Le Marchant, Bart., then member for Worcester, all proved fruitless.
In August, 1840, the shareholders of the Company were again convened at Worcester, and another attempt resolved on to raise funds to apply to Parliament for powers to obtain a six feet depth of water and place the undertaking under the management of a Commission. A further call of ten shillings per share was accordingly made, but so few of the subscribers responded to it that another meeting was held in the ensuing month, and the Company dissolved itself—thus ending the attempts to improve the Severn by private enterprise and speculation.
The gentlemen, however, who had so long and laboriously exerted themselves to effect this great national improvement, did not lose sight of the subject, and in a short time after the dissolution of the old Company one of the most influential meetings ever assembled in Worcester was convened to prosecute the matter afresh. At this meeting, held on the 11th October, 1840, the Right Hon. Lord Ward, who was called to the chair, made hisdebûtin public life, and advocated the cause of the Severn Navigation Improvement in a speech of remarkable ability. Lord Hatherton, Mr. Blakemore, M.P., the members for the city of Worcester, and others took part in the proceedings, and the result was that a large subscription was entered into, to which Lord Ward contributed £500, Mr. Bailey £300, Messrs. Dent £300, for the purpose of defraying the expenses ofanother application to Parliament. On this occasion the proposal was to place the undertaking under a Commission, so that no private parties might gain any benefit from it. No works were proposed at or near Gloucester, yet the usual opposition was improvised in that city and by the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company. The bill now introduced was allowed to pass the second reading unopposed, but on its going into committee an attempt was made to add the Monmouthshire and Birmingham members to the committee, but this was opposed by Government as a most inconvenient infringement of the standing orders, and was defeated by 117 to 33. The committee consisted, therefore, of what was called “The Worcestershire List,†which included eleven members from adjoining counties, as well as those for this county and its boroughs, and six selected members. E. W. W. Pendarves, Esq., was chosen chairman.
On the 30th April, 1841, the committee sat for the first time, and then began a struggle which, in the Parliamentary annals of private bills, had up to that time been quite unprecedented. Twenty petitions were presented against the bill, but for several of them nobody appeared in support, and the opposition almost resolved itself into the Gloucestershire, Shropshire, and Birmingham Canal interests, and the landowners. Mr. Sergeant Merewether, Mr. Talbot, and Mr. Craig were engaged as counsel for the bill, and Mr. Sergeant Wrangham and Mr. Austin were the principal opposing counsel. The first day was taken up by Mr. Sergeant Merewether’s opening speech. For eight days following the promoters called evidence in support of the preamble—their engineers especially being subjected to the most searching cross-examinations by the opposition. On the tenth day Mr. Talbot summed up the evidence for the promoters, and Mr. Austin commenced his address for the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company, and the examination of his witnesses occupied two days longer. On the thirteenth day Mr. Sergeant Wrangham spoke for the Gloucester interest. Six days more were taken up by other opponents and their witnesses; and on the twentieth Mr. Sergeant Merewether replied, and the committee, after a short consultation, unanimously resolved—“That the preamble of the bill is proved.â€Â This great victory was not achieved, however, without most material damage to the scheme; for in order to meet the opposition of the landowners, which evidently had great weight with the committee, the promoters had to abandon the weir below Upton, and consent to dredge the river up to Diglis. Weirs in large rivers of this kind had not been much known, and it was thought that theymight increase the floods. Mr. Walker, the engineer, too, was very positive that the required depth might be obtained by dredging, and the committee, therefore, determined that that should have a trial—and a most unfortunate determination it has proved. Some other important alterations took place in the discussion of the clauses, the principal of which was the exemption of the Shropshire trade from toll; though it could not be denied that they would derive a benefit, like all other traders, from the Improvement. A long discussion took place upon the position of the lock at Diglis, which the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company wanted put above the mouth of their canal; but to this the committee would not consent. The Commission, after much debate, was constituted as follows: three justices of the peace for the county of Worcester, three for the county of Gloucester, four for the Worcester and four for the Gloucester town councils, one for the council of the city of Bristol, one for Droitwich, one for Tewkesbury, one for Wenlock, one for Newport, one for the Upper and Lower Avon Navigation and the council of Evesham, two for Stourport, two for the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Company, two for the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company, two for the Gloucester and Berkeley Canal, one for the Herefordshire and Gloucester Canal, and one for the Coombe Hill Navigation—thirty in all.[171]The toll was fixed at sixpence per ton from Gloucester to Worcester, and fourpence per ton from Worcester to Stourport: this being what the promoters proposed. Having by this time got near the end of the session, the opponents of the measure sought to render all the efforts of the committee nugatory by speaking against time; but this was seen through and defeated by the members of the committee meeting in the evening as well as in the morning, and at last the bill was reported to the House. Mr. Waters, the solicitor to the bill, was publicly thanked in the committee room for the singular exertions by which he had carried the measure through, in the teeth of such a determined opposition. The Parliament being prorogued immediatelyafter the bill was reported, it was obliged to stand over till the next session.
In the interval there was some grumbling on the part of the Gloucester corporation and the landowners at the large sums they had to pay for the Parliamentary opposition, but the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company prepared to renew the fight. It came before the committee again in March, 1842. Some opposition was here offered on behalf of the Tewkesbury people, but the committee would not suffer the question to be reopened; and the only alterations made were those suggested and proposed by the promoters themselves. On the bringing up of the report, Mr. Muntz moved the recommittal of the bill on behalf of the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company, who complained of the lock at Diglis being placed below the mouth of their canal, and of the unjust exemption of the Shropshire trade from toll. Mr. Mark Phillips and Mr. R. Scott spoke on the same side; while Mr. Pakington, the Honourable R. H. Clive, Mr. Labouchere, Sir C. Douglas, Lord G. Somerset, Sir Thomas Wilde, Sir William Rae, and Mr. Ormsby Gore spoke in favour of the bill passing at once: and Mr. Muntz, seeing the strong feeling of the House, withdrew his motion. There was some further opposition made in committee in the Lords, and four days were consumed there; but the bill passed without any material alteration; and the royal assent being given to it on the 13th of May, 1842, it at length became the law of the land.
The first step was taken under the act on the 7th of June, 1842, when the commissioners met, and T. C. Hornyold, Esq., was elected chairman. Mr. Thomas Waters was appointed clerk. Mr. William Cubitt was appointed engineer-in-chief, Mr. E. L. Williams retaining his office as resident engineer; and advertisements were ordered to be inserted in the newspapers for loans. The first stone of Lincombe weir was laid on the 5th of August, 1843.
At several subsequent meetings of the Commission, the Gloucester commissioners amused themselves by offering every possible opposition to the speedy progress and completion of the work; though they were, of course, appointed for the express purpose of carrying it out. However, they were always out-voted by those commissioners who felt their interest and honour alike concerned in the duties assigned to them by Parliament, and the trial weir at Lincombe was opened on December 23, 1843. Spite of the ratiocinations of adverse engineers, and those ignoramuses who fancy they know everybody’s business better than their own, the weir was found tostand the current, floods, and frosts of the winter admirably, and the barge was passed through the locks in three minutes.
The work now proceeded rapidly—the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Company having advanced the necessary funds, and the contracts having been taken by Messrs. Grissell and Peto; with the exception of one sad accident on the 5th of August, 1844, by which twelve of the workmen engaged at Diglis lost their lives by the upsetting of the boat in which they were returning from their work, they were completed without a single drawback or mishap. The lock at Diglis was opened on the 9th October, 1844; and this part of the work was thus completed in fifteen months, in the most able and satisfactory manner, within the original estimate of its cost, £140,000—a fact almost unexampled in the construction of great national undertakings of this kind. The dredging, however, between Diglis and Gloucester, occupied a longer time than had been expected, and proved a very costly business; but this, it must always be borne in mind, formed no part of the promoters’ scheme, but was forced upon them by the landowners, who objected to the erection of any weirs below Diglis.
The completion of the locks and weirs was celebrated on the 25th of January, 1844, by a public dinner at the Guildhall, Worcester, when a testimonial was presented to J. W. Lea, Esq., for the zeal he had always manifested in the improvement of the river. J. S. Pakington, Esq., M.P., occupied the chair, and Alderman Edward Evans was vice-president. Amongst the party were Lord Hatherton, the Mayor of Worcester, T. C. Hornyold, Esq., Captain Winnington, John Dent, Esq., William Cubitt, Esq., &c. The testimonial, which consisted of a quantity of silver plate, with Mr. Lea’s crest engraved on each article, was of course presented by the chairman.
At the close of 1846, Mr. Cubitt certified that a depth of six feet of water had been obtained from Lincombe to Gloucester, and the Commission consequently met on the 1st of January, 1847, and ordered tolls to be levied at all the locks in the terms of the Act of Parliament. Some opposition was offered, both by Gloucester Commissioners and by traders on the river; but on Mr. Cubitt’s certificate the step of raising tolls was obligatory on the Commission. There can be no doubt that at the time of Mr. Cubitt making the certificate there was six feet of water in the river, though every one saw that under the system of dredging it would be impossible to maintain that depth in all seasons of the year.
At the annual meeting of the Commission in September, 1847, the traders complained that the depth of water in the river between Worcester and Gloucester was not six feet, and expressed their belief that it could not be secured without additional locks and weirs. The committee of works reported to the same effect, and declared the dredging a failure. A committee was, therefore, appointed to consider the best means of completing the improvement between Diglis and Gloucester.
This committee reported to a meeting of the Commission, held on the 13th December, 1847, recommending that application should be made to Parliament for powers to put a weir in at Tewkesbury, and to raise a dam at Over bridge, near Gloucester, to divert the water into the other channel and to scour out the silt accumulating there. The meeting assumed a very unpleasant character—such personal and improper remarks being made that Sir John Pakington, at one time, left the chair, but was induced to return. The opposing commissioners negatived that part of the proposal which related to the dam at the Over bridge by a majority of seven to four. Preparation was therefore made to apply to Parliament for the Tewkesbury weir alone; but Parliament had, at this time, taken it into their heads that a “preliminary inquiry†ought to be made on the spot into measures of this sort; and, accordingly, in February, 1848, sent Mr. Cockburn Curtis, a young engineer, to take evidence, and make a report to the Admiralty. At Gloucester he took a show of hands as to whether the Commissioners had kept faith with the public in imposing toll or not! Mr. Curtis’s report was in accordance with the unfriendly influence then prevailing at the Admiralty, and he recommended a scheme of his own instead of the Tewkesbury weir—a scheme which few people, besides Mr. Curtis himself, have ever been able to comprehend.
With this report in their hands, the interested opponents of all improvement on the river waited on those members of Parliament whom they could in any way influence, stole a march on the promoters, and threw out the bill most unexpectedly on the second reading by a majority of 104 to 91. This was on the 6th March, 1848.
At a meeting of the commissioners, held in October of the same year, both parties mustered their forces, and divided, in the first place, upon the question of who should be chairman, and 13 votes were given for Sir John Pakington and 11 for Mr. Hyett. It was then proposed by Mr. Lea that an application should beagain made to Parliament, similar to the one of the preceding session. It was represented that the Commission was in debt to the contractors, principally because of the great expense incurred in useless dredging, and that more money must be raised. After a very stormy debate the renewed application was agreed to by the chairman’s casting vote only, and so also were other necessary resolutions. In minor matters the opposition had a majority.
In February, 1849, the “preliminary inquiry†took place into the merits of this measure. The surveyors appointed by the Admiralty on this occasion being Captain Bethune and Mr. Veitch, C.E. These gentlemen again reported unfavourably of the scheme as proposed by the Commission, professing themselves desirous of seeing the river so altered below Gloucester as to bring the tide up to Worcester! It was understood that the great fight would again take place on the second reading, which came on on the 23rd April, 1849. The Admiralty, Board of Trade, and Government generally, Sir Robert Peel, &c., supported the second reading; but the private interests in opposition prevailed, and the bill was once more thrown out; this time by a majority of 34—191 voting against it, and 134 in its favour.
In the session of 1850 a select committee was appointed into the working of these “preliminary inquiries,†and in consequence of the evidence given by Mr. Edward Leader Williams and others, proving that they only added to the expenses of passing a bill, without performing one act of utility which might not be better done by the inquiry before the committee of the House, they were abolished, and Parliament returned to its old practice in these matters.
Since that time the Commissioners have been resting on their oars, feeling it useless to go to Parliament again if they had the same opposition to encounter, and trusting that the Admiralty might be induced to take up the improvement of the river, both above and below Gloucester, as a project of great national importance. They have, indeed, directed a survey of the whole river to be made, and Mr. Walker has made a “hasty†report thereon, in which he says as little as possible as to the river above Gloucester, and makes impracticable suggestions as to its improvement below.
The present condition of the river is an evil example of what may be done when men fancy their own selfish pecuniary interests will be promoted by impeding that which would be so manifestan advantage to the country at large, as the improvement of one of its principal rivers, so as to make it navigable for sea-going vessels to the furthest possible point inland. Some of them, however, are gradually awaking to the truth that no public interest can thus be sacrificed with impunity, and to discover their own shortsightedness in the matter. The time is not far distant when some of those who have hitherto been the bitterest opponents of the improvement of the river Severn will be found amongst its warmest supporters.
Thefirst charter of incorporation was granted to the city of Worcester in 1261—45th Henry III. The charter of James I, granted in 1622, was, with slight interruptions, the rule by which the city was governed up to the time of the Municipal Reform Act; and it must be said for the old Corporation that they appear to have been in a great measure free from the jobbery and malversation of funds which characterised so many of these close self-elected bodies. They had indeed a civic feast, for which £150 was yearly allowed, and kept a cellar of good wines; but these things were quite in accordance with the spirit of the time—some fifty years ago. John Wheeley Lea, Esq., was Mayor at the time of the extinction of the old body; the Earl of Coventry Recorder; Charles Sidebottom, Esq., Deputy-Recorder (a rather doubtful office then recently revived) and Town Clerk; and Mr. Deighton, Sheriff. Great efforts had been made to induce the burgesses, in the election of the new body, to make a calm and impartial choice of those persons who were really most fitted to conduct the business of the city, without respect to their political bias; but in the excited state of feeling which prevailed at that time, this was found impossible; and indeed itwas hardly to be expected that the Liberals, after such an entire exclusion from office, should make terms with their opponents—it was at last their turn to enjoy the honours which the Tories had hitherto monopolised. The first election took place on Saturday, December 27, 1835, when out of thirty-six councillors, thirty-four chosen were Reformers—the Conservatives only returning two in St. Nicholas’s Ward.
1835—December30—The new body met for the first time, and took the declarations required by the act.
1836—July1—First meeting for business, when the following Aldermen were elected: St. John’s Ward, Mr. Joseph Hall; St. Nicholas’s, Dr. Hastings and Mr. Edward Evans; St. Peter’s, Mr. George Allies, Mr. William Corles, and Mr. Francis Gibb; Claines’, Mr. C. H. Hebb, Mr. Richard Evans, and Mr. Thomas Stephenson; All Saints’, Mr. John Bradley, Mr. John Howell, and Mr. F. Williams. Mr. F. Williams declined the honour, and Mr. Thomas Chalk was afterwards elected in his stead.
1836—January2—Choice of officers—Mr. C. H. Hebb elected Mayor; Mr. George Allies, Sheriff; and Mr. C. Sidebottom, Town Clerk.
1836—January14—The Council assembled for the first time in the room which has ever since been used for their meetings. A committee was appointed to confer with Mr. Sidebottom about separating the offices which he held, and giving up that of Town Clerk. A finance committee was appointed to investigate the accounts of the old body; and it was determined to dress up the Mayor in robes of scarlet and purple.
1836—January21—It was agreed by a majority of 31 to 10 that Mr. Sidebottom should continue to hold the office of Stipendiary Magistrate, Judge of the Court of Pleas, and Town Clerk, at a salary of £500 per annum. Mr. Stinton, Mr. Curwood, and Mr. Whitmore, barrister, were proposed for recommendation to the Secretary of State to the office of Recorder. Mr. Stinton had the majority of votes. Salary fixed at £150 per annum, but afterwards reduced to £100.
1836—January26—The Council recommended twelve persons as magistrates to the Secretary of State—The Mayor, Mr. Alderman R. Evans, R. Temple, Esq., Mr. Alderman Hall, William Shaw, Esq., R. Berkeley, Esq., William Saunders, Esq., John Dent, Esq., L.Johnstone, Esq., William Acton, Esq., G. Farley, Esq., and Captain Thomas. Three of these gentlemen were Conservatives. Mr. Farley and Mr. Johnstone having declined to serve, the names of Mr. Lavender (Conservative) and Mr. Alderman Corles were inserted in the list, but the Lord Chancellor only appointed the first ten. The wine of the old corporation was ordered to be sold, except fifty dozen to be applied in aid of sick poor.
1836—February18—Report made by the committee appointed to investigate the accounts of the old corporation. The balance sheet presented to the Council by their predecessors showed credit a balance of £1,028, while the real fact was that the old corporation was in debt £1,170. £200 of this sum had been promised towards the improvements in front of All Saints’ Church, payable only on condition of the inhabitants doing their part within a certain number of years. The new Council confirmed this grant on the same terms.
1836—March24—First quarterly meeting. A statement of the value of the city property was laid before the Council; which, some being calculated at twenty-five years’ purchase, and others at fourteen years’, was reckoned to be worth about £43,000. In mortgages and debts to the charities there was owing by the corporation £5,381. The gross produce of the corporation wine was £823, being an average of nearly 64s. per dozen. The Council determined to discontinue the practice of “fetching the fair from St. John’s to Worcester,†as a “farce.â€
1836—April7—It was announced by Mr. Sidebottom that he had been gazetted as police magistrate of the city; and as the holding of that office was deemed by Government inconsistent with the town clerkship (as had been all along foreseen), he must give up the latter. In answer to a question by Alderman Corles, he said he intended to retain the assessorship to the Court of Pleas.
1836—April21—Mr. John Hill chosen Town Clerk in the room of Mr. Sidebottom.
1836—May5—The Council received a grant of a separate Quarter Sessions, as they had prayed. The appointment of Mr. T. Waters as Clerk of the Peace was confirmed, and Mr. J. B. Hyde was appointed City Coroner.
1836—July7—The Attorney-General’s opinion having been taken, it was decided that Mr. Thomas Hughes had no claim for compensation for loss of his situation as Vice-Chamberlain under the old body. This was a subject which had been repeatedly before the Council.
1836—October6—Dinner given by the Town Council to the Mayor. Dr. Hastings was in the chair, and proposed the health of Mr. Hebb in flattering terms; describing him as a benevolent medical man, an author of some celebrity—having translated the works of some French pathologists at a time when there was little communication with the continent—and the constant advocate of the diffusion of useful knowledge. As their chief magistrate he had laid them all under a great debt of obligation. “The Bishop and Clergy of the Diocese†was responded to by the Rev. T. Pearson, and “The Dissenting Ministers†by Dr. Redford; “The Members for the County†was answered by Mr. Cookes, Captain Winnington, and Mr. Holland; and Mr. Robinson answered for the city members. Colonel Davis responded for the “Magistrates of the County,†and was most enthusiastically received. 306 sat down at table.
1836—November9—The Council, in entering on their second year of office, reëlected Mr. Hebb as Mayor, and chose Mr. Alderman Gibb as Sheriff. There were scarcely any changes made in the body at the election on the 1st of this month.
1837—April11—The Council agreed to the by-laws which have since, with little alteration, been acted upon.
1837—July10—Addresses voted to the Queen Dowager (of condolence for her bereavement), and to the Queen Regnant on her accession. The Mayor, Mr. Sheriff Gibb, and Mr. Alderman Hall were ordered to present the latter.
1837—November—The election this year did not alter the position of parties at all. A very warm vote of thanks was passed to Mr. Hebb for his services as Mayor for two consecutive years, and Mr. George Allies was elected in his stead. Mr. Alderman Stephenson was elected Sheriff.
1837—November23—Mr. Deighton presented a petition from 126 farmers, holding 25,000 acres of land, praying the council to provide them with a covered corn market. Some gentlemen proposed that they should use the Town Hall, but eventually a committee was appointed.
1837—November27—The Council petitioned Parliament for an alteration in the fees and regulations in passing private bills.
1837—December15—The Council decided against Mr. Deighton’s proposition to allow a salary of fifty guineas to the Mayor, by a majority of 23 to 12.
1837—December28—The Council decided against Mr. Alderman Chalk’s motion to throw open their meetings to the public, by 24 to 6.
1838—February21—The Council refused to remove the Corn Market to Angel Street, or to grant the petition of the agriculturists to sell the old Sheep Market as a site for a new Corn Market.
1838—May2—The Council petitioned for the abolition of the apprenticeship system, on the motion of Mr. Alderman Edward Evans.
1838—November—The municipal election made no difference in the political constitution of the Council. At the first meeting of the renovated body, Mr. Alderman Richard Evans was elected Mayor, on the proposition of Dr. Hastings and Mr. Alderman Hall; and Mr. John Hall was chosen Sheriff. Mr. Alderman Richard Evans was the first Dissenter who ever held the office of chief magistrate in Worcester. The Aldermen elected this year were Mr. William Corles, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Chalk, Mr. Lilly, Mr. Edward Evans, and Mr. Benjamin Stokes.
1838—December20—Mr. Padmore chosen Alderman in the room of Mr. Stokes, deceased.
1839—February7—Mr. E. L. Williams proposed that the Council, “being deeply impressed with a conviction of a thorough examination of the existing Corn Laws,†should petition Parliament for an inquiry into their operation. He thought agriculture needed some protection, though the present laws wanted alteration: if gloves required protection, corn did. Alderman E. Evans seconded his motion. Mr. W. Pugh proposed, as an amendment, that the Council should petition for a total repeal. Alderman Hastings said that a repeal of the Corn Laws would be productive of immense evil; because if they reduced the revenues of the rich, they took it out of their power to assist the poor; and they would certainly rue the day if they agreed to a change that would be so silly. No measure that the legislature could adopt would prevent corn being occasionally dear, and its dearness now arose from deficient production and regrating. On a division there appeared
For total repeal: Aldermen Hall, Corles, Lilly, and Padmore; Councillors F. Hall, Greening, Davis, Smith, Oates, J. Hall, George, W. Pugh, Crane, W. Chamberlain, Southan, Dance, Lee, Ledbrook, Groves, and Thompson—twenty.
For inquiry only: The Mayor; Aldermen E. Evans, Hastings, and Palmer; Councillors Fawkes, Horne, Dent, Lea, Grainger, Lingham, Summerfield, and Williams—twelve.
At this meeting the Council, in compliance with the order of the Lords of the Treasury, awarded Mr. Thomas Hughes an annuity of£3. 6s. 8d., as compensation for the loss of his office of clerk to the forty-eight, which he had held under the old corporation. Mr. Hughes had claimed much larger compensation as Deputy Chamberlain.
1839—May24—An address voted to the Queen, on the motion of Alderman Hebb, seconded by Alderman Corles, thanking her for resisting the attempt to change the ladies of her household, and, further, for having called back the Whigs to her councils. The only dissentient was Mr. Summerfield.
1838—November—The elections still brought no diminution in the preponderance of the Whig party. Mr. Alderman Hastings was first elected Mayor, but declined to serve; and having paid the usual fine of £50, required its disbursement on the score of his being an alderman, and the Municipal Act did not say anything about their being fineable. Mr. Alderman Chalk was elected unanimously in his stead.
1840—March and April—The Council determined to oppose the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Company’s new bill in Parliament; but afterwards Alderman Corles moved, and Alderman Hebb seconded, a motion for the discontinuance of such opposition, on the ground that the Council had no legal right to pay the expenses out of the borough fund. Alderman Hastings moved the confirmance of the Council’s previous resolutions; and this amendment to Alderman Corles’s motion was carried by 20 to 6.
1840—June16—The Council voted addresses to the Queen, the Prince, and the Duchess of Kent, expressing their loyal joy at Her Majesty’s escape from the shot of the assassin, Oxford.
1840—March to July—The grant of £200 for the improvements in front of All Saints’ Church, made by the old corporation conditionally on their being completed by November, 1839, and renewed by the new body for five years longer, was repeatedly discussed. Mr. Alderman Hebb held that it was an illegal grant, and ought to be resumed; but the Council, on obtaining an undertaking from Messrs. Lea, Leonard, and Williams for its repayment at the end of the second term of five years if the alterations were not then completed, suffered the money to remain in their hands.
1840—November9—The newly elected Council—consisting of almost the same parties as in the previous year—elected C. A. Helm, Esq., as Mayor for the succeeding twelve months. Mr. W. Lewis was also proposed, and received 16 votes to 22 for Mr. Helm. Mr. Alderman Edward Evans was chosen Sheriff.
1841—May6—The council unanimously petitioned for a revisionof the import duties, on the motion of Mr. Sheriff Evans, seconded by Mr. F. T. Elgie.
1841—September29—A special meeting of the body was held to memorialise the Queen on the subject of the Corn Laws. Mr. Elgie moved the memorial, which asserted that the Corn Laws were the principal causes of the present distress of the country. Mr. Pierpoint moved an amendment, declaring that the discussion of political subjects was contrary to the spirit of the Municipal Act, and highly inexpedient; and wound up by an assertion of a wholly political character, viz., that the distress of the country had been produced by the hasty and crude legislation of the Whigs. The amendment was negatived by 26 to 5, the minority consisting of Messrs. J. Dent, Anderson, Pierpoint, Bedford, and Summerfield.
1841—November—The Conservatives made great efforts in all the wards to get a footing in the Council this year, but, except in St. Nicholas, were wholly unsuccessful. Mr. Alderman Edward Evans was elected Mayor, and Mr. Alderman Lilly, Sheriff, by 23 votes, while 12 were given for Mr. Elgie. Mr. Hebb retired from the Council; and Messrs. R. Evans, J. Hall, W. Lewis, G. Allies, C. A. Helm, and C. Hastings were elected aldermen in room of those who retired.
1841—December3—A special meeting to protest against the recent appointment of magistrates without consulting the Council. Mr. Alderman Allies proposed a resolution, which declared that the six individuals who had been appointed magistrates owed their elevation to political partizanship and not to the esteem in which they were held by their fellow citizens; protesting also against the appointment because of its exclusiveness, and because the Council had not been asked to recommend. Mr. Alderman Padmore seconded the motion. Mr. Hughes moved, as an amendment, “That this meeting is unnecessary and uncalled for;†and this was seconded by Mr. Bedford, who said that parish officers could not get justice from the present justices; and denounced the appointment of Mr. Sidebottom to the stipendiary magistrateship as a “flagrant job,†only to make way for Mr. Hill. The motion was carried by 27 to 4, and a memorial prepared to be presented by Sir Thomas Wilde to the Secretary of State.
1842—January—A committee appointed, on the motion of Mr. Elgie, to inquire into the truth of Mr. Bedford’s declaration, that the appointment of Mr. Sidebottom as stipendiary magistrate was a “flagrant job,†and they reported that it was altogether “untrueand unfounded;†inasmuch as Mr. Sidebottom declared that his resignation of the office of town clerk was voluntary.
1842—May20—A special meeting of the body was held to congratulate the promoters of the Severn Navigation Improvement on the passing of the measure, and to thank the noblemen and gentlemen by whose exertions its success had been secured.
1842—July12—The Council refused to nominate Commissioners of Income Tax for inquiring into the emoluments arising from public offices held in the city, and the appointment, therefore, reverted to the treasury or the commissioners for general purposes.
1842—October26—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—January2—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—August1—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 theoccasion 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—December5—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—January4—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—January11—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—March27—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 moreConservatives into the council. E. J. Lloyd, Esq., was elected Mayor, and Mr. F. T. Elgie, Sheriff.
1846—February3—The Council petitioned for a total and immediate repeal of the Corn Laws by a majority of 17 to 9.
1846—April14—William Lewis, Esq., chosen Mayor for the remainder of the year, in the room of Edward Lloyd, Esq., deceased.
1846—May5—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—November16—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—April24—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—April5—The Council granted a lease of the Wheat SheafInn, Corn Market, and other premises, to one of the Corn Exchange Companies.
1848—May2—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—August11—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.