Notes and Queries for Worcestershire

Such scenes of fighting, drunkenness, and debauchery, were probably never witnessed in the parish but at those times, and close beneath the shadow of its old church too. The clergy, aided by the indefatigable exertions of the present respectable clerk, Mr. Williams, at length rooted out the evil; and a little dancing which is still carried on at Fearnall Heath on the Monday is all that remains of Claines wake.

The overseers in 1678 were ordered to deduct the third part of the pay of such poor as should be found tippling in alehouses upon Sundays, for the space of a month after they should be found so tippling. Among the curious entries in these books are the following:

An interesting document relative to the liability of Claines to pay to the relief of the poor of the Tything of Whistones will be found under the head of "County Sessions Records—The Poor."

The Rev. W. Crowther is the present perpetual curate of Claines; churchwardens, Mr. Moon and Mr. Martin Curtler. Population in 1851, 1373.

COUNTY SESSIONS RECORDS.

The Sessions rolls, now in the custody of the Clerk of the Peace, consisting of recognizances, presentments, informations, memorials, grand jury bills, &c., commence with 1600, but the order books do not go further than 1693. From the latter it appears that a great portion of the county business was transacted at inns and private gentlemen's houses. The Talbot, in Sidbury, for a great number of years enjoyed the magisterial patronage, adjournments being regularly made from the Guildhall (where the County Assizes and Sessions were then held) to that respectable old hostelry, where no doubt the magnates compensated themselves for the dry and tedious work in hand by generous and stimulating potations, as was the custom with the city authorities. Several Sessions were adjourned to Hooper's coffee-house at the Guildhall, which is first mentioned in 1767 as being kept by Lucy Hooper, and also to the Trinity Hall (an old building occupied by various trading "companies" or "guilds," on the site of which now stand Messrs. Freame's warehouses near St. Swithin's church). A committee of magistrates were ordered to inspect this hall in 1796, to consider the propriety of purchasing it and converting it into an office for the Clerk of the Peace; but this seems to have fallen to the ground. The Talbot, Claines (Tything), was preferred for some time, the Star being occasionally used; then the Crown inn was chosen in 1792 by a formal vote of the bench; and in the early part of the present century the Hop-pole came in for its share. During all this period, however, on many occasions, adjournments were made to other towns and villages. The Earl of Coventry was frequently visited in this way at Croome; the Hon. H. Herbert, at Ribbesford (1710); Rev. Dr. William Lloyd, at Ripple; William Hancock, Esq., at Bredon's Norton, and the Bishop's Palace at Hartlebury (1715); Lord Herbert, at Ribbesford (1721); and in 1723 a circuit seems to have been taken on many consecutive days to the Crown, Evesham; Crown, Blockley; George, Shipston; Angel, Pershore; Talbot, Feckenham; Crown, Bromsgrove; George, Bewdley; Lion, Kidderminster; Talbot, Stourbridge; Bush, Dudley; Hundred House, Witley; Crown, Tenbury; the house of Mrs. Collins, Shelsley; and the Sun, Upton. By the statute 9th George I, chap. 24, all persons who were Papists, and all persons who had not taken the oath for securing the throne to the House of Hanover, were to do so before the 25th of December, 1723, in one of the courts at Westminster or at the Quarter Sessions. This was no doubt the cause of the adjournments of the Quarter Sessions in that year. In modern times it often occurs that the Quarter Sessions are adjourned to different places in the county for the convenience of newly-appointed magistrates being sworn into office. In the year 1809, Sir Harry Lippincott, Bart., was appointed a magistrate for Gloucestershire, and he was sworn into office at an adjournment of the Gloucestershire Quarter Sessions—the Sessions being adjourned to the White Lion, the principal inn at Berkeley (now the Berkeley Arms), the late Earl of Berkeley taking the chair, and administering the oaths to the hon. bart. In 1697, Lancelott Jewkes, the Worcester county gaoler, was fined £20 "for not attending this court to do his duty, the court having had several occasions for him." It was ordered in 1716, "that the Sheriff for the future do not return any freeholders within the burrough of Bewdley to serve on jurys for the County Sessions, they having Sessions of their own." Another order was made in 1723, "that there be an advertisement in the Worcester newspaper, to give notice to people lyable to serve on jurys not to give money to the bayliffe to excuse them, and that the treasurer doe pay for the advertisement four weeks successively." The following is a table of fees ordered in 1753 for justices' clerks, in pursuance of an act of the previous session:

In 1753, William Cooper, of Shipston, was fined £5 for taking money of William Taylor, of Armscot, to excuse his serving upon the jury at Sessions. The only remaining item under this head is an order made in 1789, "that at all future Sessions, business be conducted only by counsel, and not by attorneys as heretofore; but that in testimony of the respect due to Wilson Aylesbury Roberts, Esq., for his integrity and abilities, as well as for the regularity of his attendance and the assistance this court has received from him through a series of years, he is from henceforth received and heard as our advocate or counsel, as if he was a barrister, and as if the said order had been never made."

Witchcraft.

Our county records do not contain evidence of the existence of this superstition to a great extent, owing to the fact that witchcraft cases were usually tried at the Assizes. The first instance occurring in the Sessions rolls is in the year 1601, when Edward Buckland "exhibited articles complaining of John Genifer, to whom he had lent money," and when Buckland's "poor wife" asked for it, Genifer used shocking language, and "charged her with being a witch, and had deserved burning seven years sithence, and if she was a midwife was not fitt to bringe a —— to bed, much less a woman."

In 1633 the recognizance of widow Bellett, of Stony Morton (?) was taken, to appear at the next Sessions, to answer charges brought by William Vaughan, of Inkberrow, and others. This document is in some places scarcely legible, but it appears that the principal charge was "for the evil artt that shee useth with the —— wich, and she gives —— to finde out goodes lost, and using the name of Peter and Paule therein in profane manner, beinge sayde to be —— of that sleight ——." I found no account of her trial.

In May, 1660, the examination of Elinor Burt was taken before Gervase Bucke and William Collins, Esqrs., and "being examined whether she hath not taken upon her to cure several persons afflicted with several diseases and distempers in their bodyes, ansheareth and saith, that shee did not take upon her soe to do, but confesseth that when diverse had come to her that hath aches in their heads and other infirmities, she had and hath a gifte from God, by good prayers and laying her hands upon their heads or faces, oftentimes to recover and heal them of their diseases; and being examined what other means she useth to recover sick persons, saith, noe other means but good prayers; and further doth not materially confess." As the Sessions order book does not commence till 1693, there is no means of ascertaining the result of this and other cases prior to that date which are mentioned in this abstract of the records; but in the same year (1660) it is stated that "Joane Bibbe was bound for good behaviour for beinge of evil fame, and suspected for wychcrafte, butt not as yet charged." This is undoubtedly Joan Bibb, of Rushock, who (as stated in a MS. note-book of Mr. Townsend, of Elmley Lovett, who was a county justice at that time) "was tyed and thrown into a poole, as a witch to see whether shee could swim." But she brought her action against Mr. Shaw, the parson, for his share in this transaction, and recovered £10 damages, and Mr. Townsend compounded for her and others with Mr. Shaw for £20. The same MS. records the bringing of four other persons from Kidderminster that year, and ducking them in the Severn at Worcester, but the details of their cases have already been published by Nash.

Elizabeth Ranford, of Great Comberton, widow, lays an information before the magistrates on the 26th of September, 1662, "that she heard Joane Willis, wife of Thomas Willis, of Great Comberton, say that shee will take her oathe that shee, the said informant, is a witch, and bewitched to death one Thomas Right's wife and one Robert Price's child, both of Comberton aforesaid; and that shee behegged one of the said Joane Willis her children; likewise the said informant informeth, that shee, the said informant, was gooing to one Margaret Willis her house, in Comberton aforesaid, about her business, and the said Joane Willis came violently upon her and gave her several blows with a staffe, and ripped her quaife of her head, and prophanely did swear, blood and wounds shee would kill her."

In the month of August, 1666, Ann Powell, spinster, of Kington, lays an information that "upon St. James's Day last she and one Elizabeth Daffye, widow, having discours together concerning Mary, the wife of Anthony Slater (being this informer's dame), the said Elizabeth then told this informer, in the presence and hearing of others of the neighbourhood, that shee had late before had a heifer strangely amisse, and supposing shee might be bewitched, she went to a telster or wise woman (as shee termed her), who told her, the said Elizabeth, that the said Mary, the wife of the said Anthony Slater, had done the said heifer harm, meaning, as this informer conceaveth, that the said Mary had bewitched the said heifer; and further this informer sayth, that by reason of the speaking of the said wordes, her said dame hath been much scandalized in the neighbourhood, and several quarrels and fighting between her and others of her neighbours have ensued thereupon." Although unable to give the result of this charge, the information will be sufficiently interesting of itself, as affording us an insight to the state of society at that time. Joseph Orford, of Oldswinford, nailer, was presented in the year 1687, "for being a common disturber, and for charging Thomas Barnes, a person of good repute, with being guilty of witchcraft, and that he hath boasted that he would have the said Barnes and his wife duckt for witches, and he would procure one John Johnson, a drummer, to be present at the doing it, to make the more sport." But here comes a case with more curious detail.

At the Midsummer Sessions of 1698, Martha Farmer, of Astley, deposed before Mr. James, a magistrate, that Margaret Hill, of Shrawley, came to deponent's house about Midsummer three or four years ago, during her absence, and required her child, who was only seven or eight years old, to sell her some oaten meal, but as the child would not do so in her mother's absence, "shee pluck'd the child to her and hurt her finger, causing blood to come from it. In the morning the child fell ill, and continued in a sickly manner for some days, till a strange woman came to the dore and told her the child was bewitched; and Margaret Hill was sent for to come and pray over the child. She at first refused, but at length being prevailed on, shee said her prayers and the child recovered; but after some time it relapsed into its former sicknesse, and lay screeching and crying." Margaret Hill was sent for the second time, but would not come till after she had been "threatened by Farmer that if the child died she would have life for life. Then shee prayed by the child, which recovered, and continued well." During the child's illness Hill's daughter came to the deponent's house and offered to go for a doctor, and returned the same day, bringing some water in a bottle to cure a surfeit which she said the child had, and desired her not to be angry, for if her mother had injured the child she was sorry for it. Ann Farmer also deposed that when she went to fetch Margaret Hill "the latter called her a Judas b——, and told her she should not be well whilst she lived, whereupon she fell lame, and continues to be soe, beinge fairly persuaded that Margaret Hill was the occasion of her lameness." Mary Wall made oath that "Margaret Hill came to her house and begged for butter-milk, but she had none, and the same afternoon the cow which gave the milk fell ill, and they sent for a man skilled in distempered cattle, who told her that the cow was bewitched; whereupon they sent for Margaret Hill, who came and prayed over the cow. My husband went to a wiseman at Worcester, who said his cow would be dead before he got home (and it was soe), and told him to keepe all suspected persons out of his house. Some time before the cow died, Margaret Hill came and asked witness whether her husband was gone for help for the cow, although they had not informed her of his going." Margaret Powell gave evidence that "7 or 8 years ago Margaret Hill came to buy half a qtn. tobacco, and was refused to trust her, when shee asked witness if shee had any piggs; and going where they were, the piggs began foaming and tumbling about and died." Catherine Jones deposed that the accused "also came to her house 3 years ago to buy a peck of corn, but could not agree as to price, and presently afterwards deponent had a calf fell ill, lingered, and dyed." So damning a body of proof, it may fairly be presumed, was too much for poor Mrs. Hill, but I find no record of the result, the case having probably been tried at the Assizes, the rolls of which court, I suppose, are in London. More particulars respecting witchcraft in this county will be found further on in this volume.

Crime.

From the earliest period to which the county rolls refer, the constables and churchwardens were charged to present in the Sessions all persons who regularly absented themselves from the service of the church and would not receive the sacrament, all innkeepers who made charges above the scale allowed, all tipplers and houses where tippling was allowed during divine service, to report whether due watch and ward was kept and all vagabonds duly punished; besides a variety of other returns. The beerhouse nuisance was even at that time the most fertile generator of crime. In 1602 one Edward Pearce was charged for that, "in November last past, he with one other of his companions were eatinge of fresherings with two women in an alehouse in Inkberrow, and when they had done, Pearce went to his chamber and did set a candle lighted in his window, and when he returned he said that he had done as the scollers in Oxforde did when they meant to doe aney exployt, to light a candle, that they might be thought to be at their book; and thereupon he and his companion in the night went abroade into the field with the two women very suspiciously;" it was also alleged that they set some corn on fire, and "riotously drew drink in kettles and drank it with apples;" and that Pearce drank so long and so hard that a catastrophe occurred which cannot be mentioned here; lastly, that about the same time he went into an alehouse and called for drink, and because the landlady did not make haste he laid her on the fire. A memorial signed by nineteen inhabitants of Bayton was sent to the Sessions in the year 1612, setting forth "that John Kempster and Thomas Byrd do not sell their ale according to the law, but doe sell a pynte for a penny, and doe make ytt soe extraordynarye strong that itt draweth dyvers ydle p'sons into the said alehouses, by reason whereof sondrye assaults, affrayes, blodshedds, and other misdeameanors, are there daylie comytted by idle and dronken companie which doe thither resort and there contyneue in their dronckenes three dayes and three nights together, and also divers men's sonnes and servants do often resort and contineue drinking in the said houses day and night, whereupon divers disorders and abuses are offered to the inhabitants of Bayton aforesaid, as in pulling down styles, in carrying away of yertes, in throwing men's waynes, plowes, and such like things, into pooles, wells, and other bye places, and in putting their yokes for their oxen into lakes and myery places," &c. A nice picture of young England in the seventeenth century. In the same year (1612) Henry Cartlage was presented "for hanging a pair of horns at the door of Kenelm Gritt, at Bromsgrove, insinuating that he was a cuckold," and for other bad actions. It was a very general custom in the middle ages to signalize the unhappy husbands of false women by means of horns. The origin of the custom has always been a matter of dispute. In an old ballad, called "The Merry Humours of Horn Fair," are these lines:

The Corn Market in Worcester was the usual scene for whipping and using the pillory, as well for county as city prisoners, and from twelve to two o'clock on the market day (Saturday) the time generally chosen, for the sake of publicity. Mary and Elizabeth Squire, alias Skamp (!) were ordered to be whipped there in 1710; and the regular instructions, for women as well as men, were "to be whipped on their backs till they be bloody." On some occasions these floggings took place through the streets, as in 1732, when John Potter was "whipt at the cart's tail from College gate to the liberty-post in the Foregate Street," for a felony. This liberty-post stood at the north east corner of Salt Lane. At other times they were whipped from the bridge to the liberty-post in St. John's. On October 7th of the same year it was "ordered that the sentence passed on Richard Baylis, John Lawer, and Edward Jones, touching their being as this day putt in the pillory, be respited till next Saturday, the Corporation of the city of Worcester having taken down the pillery, and there being not time to get one erected to putt them in the pillery this day." In 1765 two guineas were paid to Mr. Baxter, the Under Sheriff, for erecting a pillory; and in 1797, Thomas Wilkinson was sentenced to the pillory in the Corn Market "for obtaining 4s. from John Waterson, miller, of Salwarpe, on pretence that he was an inspector for printing the prices of grinding in the said mill."

At Bromsgrove, men and women were whipt in the market place; and at Upton, from the bridge to the turnpike gate leading from thence to Gloucester. At the latter town, in 1737, John Willoughby and Adam Cook were presented for removing and carrying away the prison house or gaol belonging to the town! The circumstances of this very singular charge are not detailed, but the presentment was quashed.

The Gaol.

The first mention made of the state of the county gaol was in 1616, when a petition was sent to the Quarter Sessions from the poor debtors confined therein "against various hard usages, exactions, and extortions offered to prisoners by Mrs. Moore, the keeper," and "when one of the justices took pains to amend it she obeyed him not but used more extremities." Mrs. Moore, however, commenced a cross fire, by petitioning the magistrates at the same time, alleging that her late husband had "taken the gaol upon a very great and extreme rent," and she and her husband had "given trust and credit to many poor distressed prisoners, hoping of satisfaction at their enlargement," but since the death of her husband divers persons had run into debt, and had brought false articles of accusation against her to shield themselves. Her plea was ad misericordiam—that she was "an unprotected female" since the death of her husband, and was persecuted by the very parties to whom she had shown kindness. But unfortunately the lady's allegations were not borne out by fact, for Mr. Fleete, the justice above-named, who had been commissioned to inquire into the matter, caused Mrs. Moore to be bound in £100 "to sell an ale quart of beare for a penie" from that time forward, as it appeared that she had been in the habit of selling the prisoners ale by wine measure, and otherwise so managing her retail business, that for a hogshead of drink which cost her but 12s., she received 32s. Moreover she "tormented those that were of mean condition (i.e., who could not afford to buy her ale) with double irons." So Mr. Fleete ordered this to be discontinued, and that the debtors should be separated from the felons. Nevertheless, next year (1617) out comes the following "Humble petition of the pore prisoners in the Castle of Worcester, humbly showeth unto your good worships that they are many pore men, to the number of thirty prisoners and upwards, who lye there, some upon their behavior, and the most parte of the reste upon matters of small or noe value, having nothinge but the bare allowance of a penie a day to relieve their faintinge bodyes, so that yf they should be inforced to lye longer in this miserable place wold unchristianlike be starved to death with hunger, cold, and nakedness; some of them alsoe having many pore children like to be left to the wide world. May yt therefore please your good worships to consider them, to have their present triall before your good worships, who rather desire to be out of the world than to indure the misery wherein they now are, and your petitioners will ever pray for your worships' health."

A system under which a gaoler rents his prison, and makes his profit by selling drink to the inmates at an enormous rate, reads curiously enough in these days when the science of prison discipline has so greatly advanced as to induce us to make the most costly sacrifices. It will be observed that the county prison was on the site of the ancient castle, once standing near the Cathedral precincts, but which had long been destroyed. An order was made in 1723, "that Mr. Hall, the treasurer, doe take due care that the partition be made in the women's ward, in order to keep the debtors from the felons." In 1767 the Clerk of the Peace was directed to apply to the Treasury for the grant of "a certain piece of garden ground, about five acres, lying contiguous to the public gaol of the county, and particularly serviceable to the occupiers thereof for the time being, and also the site and remains of the old castle or citadel of Worcester, which now is and hath long been used as a public gaol or prison and bridewell for the said county," and praying that the grant of the premises be made to the Earl of Plymouth, Lord Coventry, Lord Sandys, Lord Ward, and other magistrates, including the names of Lygon, Rushout, Winnington, and Dowdeswell, "in trust, for the keeping of prisoners and otherwise for the use and benefit of this county." A petition was, however, transmitted to the Lords of the Treasury, by the mayor and aldermen of the city, against the grant of the site of these fortifications to the county magistrates, and the city authorities were successful in the application. This seems to have been the first effort made towards gaol improvement, but the period was near at hand when the outraged laws of health were to vindicate themselves. The Worcester county prison, with several others in the midland counties, in the year 1783, was visited with the fatal gaol distemper, which swept the cells of their inhabitants and proved fatal to that eminent physician, Dr. Johnstone. At that period I find an order on the book "to apply to the sheriff for his concurrence to fix a temporary gaol, and endeavour by advertisement and otherwise to find one or more proper places for the confinement of felons." Extensive improvements were set on foot, in which the humane system suggested by the philanthropist Howard was introduced, and when the works were finally completed (in 1795) a sum of between £4000 and £5000—a large amount for that period—had been expended. In 1785, William Lygon, Esq., was thanked "for his great trouble in procuring the removal of a number of transports from the county gaol on board the lighters on Thames, whereby the county was saved a considerable expense and the health of the gaol was preserved." About four years afterwards, and while the alterations were still going on, an order was made not to confine any one in the dungeon of the gaol nor to confine any two prisoners in one cell. The spirit of reform, however, was not yet satisfied, for scarcely had the century closed when it was found that the great outlay that had been incurred was useless, and that the establishment was altogether insecure; William Davis, the gaoler, complaining of the escape of certain prisoners; and a "watchman or guard" was decided on. After an unprecedented opposition on the score of expense, and a protracted scene of strife and contention among the magistracy, the Court of Quarter Sessions at length resolved, in the year 1808 (but not till Lord Chief Baron Macdonald had threatened the county with a heavy fine), to build a new gaol in Salt Lane, at a cost of £18,000. The details of these transactions will be found in "Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century," recently published, the author of which informs us that on the Sunday during or immediately following the Assizes, which used to be known as Assize Sunday, and kept as a great fair, the keepers at the (old) county gaol were accustomed to show the prisoners through the bars to the curious crowd, and collect money in a boot for pointing out those who were sentenced to be hanged! In 1814 the prisoners were removed to the new gaol; and at the very next Sessions, Mr. Wells, attorney, was requested to apply to Mr. Sandys, the architect, relative to the escape of some prisoners therefrom!! From that time to the present this ill-fated building has seemed destined to an endless sinking of capital, for the trial of new experiments and for remedying the stupidity of bygone architects and committees. About £18,000 was spent on it a dozen years ago, and now (1856) nearly £20,000 has been voted for the same purpose.

The Poor.

When the Monasteries were dissolved by Henry VIII, the first authorised parochial machinery was established for the relief of the poor and for suppressing vagrancy. An act was passed authorising the head officers of every parish to receive and keep all poor applicants, putting the able-bodied to constant labour. The necessary funds were to be derived from voluntary contributions collected by the officers, and also the proceeds of stimulating sermons in the churches. But the voluntary system proved a failure, and it was left for Elizabeth to introduce the principle of compulsory taxation for this purpose. The statute 43rd Elizabeth, chap. 2, was kept in full operation till the passing of the Poor-law Amendment Act, in 1834. In the time of Elizabeth, cottage building for the poor was an object of great jealousy to the inhabitants of towns and villages, who dreaded the location of paupers amongst them, and took immense pains to "pass on" any mendicants who happened to stray within their boundary. Officers were usually appointed to "remove intruders," and these knowing "porrochials" would not infrequently offer a bribe when no other means had availed for ejecting the obnoxious tramp from a parish. By an act (31 Eliz.) it was declared that "no cottage should be erected unless there be four acres of ground of their own freehold to be continually used therewith." The operation of this statute was often attended with great 'privation and suffering to the poor, and the Sessions Rolls of this county abound with petitions and memorials to the bench on the subject. In 1612, William Dench, labourer, of Longdon, in his petition, set forth that "being destitute of habitation, and having a wife and seven small children, William Parsons, of Longdon, in charity took him to live in a little sheepcot of his in the said towne, with the consent of the churchwardens and overseers; but because yr poor orator (the usual term for "petitioner") had not licence in open Quarter Sessions, nor under the hands and seals of the lords of the manor, and because the said sheepcot standeth on the freehold of William Parsons, and not on the waste, contrary to the act 43rd Elizabeth, chap. 2, therefore he was indicted and is sued to an outelary (outlawry), petitions for pardon and for a licence to continue in the said sheepcot."

The Worcester County Quarter Sessions, 1660, made an order that all cottages erected since the late war should be "pluckt downe" as a "greate grievance," and that no house-room should be provided for "lusty young married people," who, if they unwisely married before they had got houses, were told to "lye under an oke." A few years previously, one Corbett, a Parliamentary soldier, settled at Bricklehampton, and purchased half-an-acre of land to build a house upon. The parishioners, it seems, were content, but the lord of the manor refused. On application to the Sessions, leave was granted to build.

Two years later, in consequence of great complaints of the country being much burdened and impoverished, the magistrates ordered that the constables should cause every parish to be surveyed and inspected as to how many cottages (and under what conditions) had been erected during the last forty years. It had also been ordered that every person apprehending a vagrant, and bringing him to a constable or tithingman, should have 12d. a piece for them—this step being considered necessary in consequence of "the great charge of wandering beggars and the efforts made in other counties to reduce them." Many persons were indicted for erecting cottages without having the necessary quantity of land attached; their cottages were pulled down, and all their little substance destroyed. Poor people were driven to herd together, great numbers in one house, or to sleep in sheds and in the open air; and thus a law which was intended to suppress mendicancy resulted in great suffering to the lower classes, and undoubtedly to the engendering of filth, disease, and crime. So scrutinizing were the precautions against a liability to support the poor, that no person who belonged to that unfortunate class could travel out of his parish into another, and accept employment and a lodging there, without a certificate from the churchwardens and overseers of his own parish that in case he should ever require relief they would take him back. The following memorials are sad pictures of poverty and suffering in the seventeenth century:

The following petition is dated 1693:

In the parish records of Claines (now in the churchwardens' chest of that church) an allusion to this petition is entered on one of the account books, to this effect, that upon the complaint of the inhabitants of the hundred of Oswaldslow, of the great burthen of the poor of the Tything of Whistones, alleging that the same township was in the town of Claines, an examination into the facts was intrusted to the Lord Windsor, Sir E. Dineley, and others, when the inhabitants of Claines showed that the township of Whistones was an ancient township, and had "parishtionall officers" to themselves, and was not in the parish of Claines, but anciently had its own church, and that the township was never included in the parish of Claines, and that the poor there had received relief of the hundred from time immemorial—at least from the time of King James—and never from Claines; that it had been questioned in the time of King James, but could never be shown that Claines had paid to their poor. The Court thereupon would not alter proceedings observed for so long a time, and discharged Claines from the said poor, except by paying its share as a part of the said hundred.

Vagrancy—notwithstanding the extraordinary vigilance exercised for its suppression—maintained a flourishing existence. The following is one of the earliest instances of the "begging letter imposture," and a greater specimen of impudence probably was never exhibited by any member of the class who have in our own days become so notorious:

Another handwriting on the same document records that, "Upon examination of the above-named Seamour I finde nothing of truth in the above letter, neyther that he was banished by Cromwell, nor that he hath ever been in West Indies, or that he landed in Wales; but this I find that he hath been a wanderer almost all over England, and knoweth most men of any quallitie in the kingdom, and hath changed his name so oft that he hath almost forgot it. It is also reported that he hath one wife at Harford, with another at Bristol"—(the remainder of the document is destroyed).

It appears by another that Seamour informed Mr. Charlton that he had been "the king's tutor and bedfellow for seven years, and had preached the late king's funeral sermon!" The art of impudence could not much further go; and it is probable, by an information being laid at the Sessions, that the fellow received his reward, but the books containing convictions and sentences of that date are not in existence.

In 1698, however, I find on the books that "Wm. Bilson, for wandring abroad with a false letter of request, p'tending a ffire at Icomb, be publicly whipt on Saturday next." Five years later it was "ordered, for the carrying of vagrants, that the constable be allowed 2d. per mile for one horse, and by the same proportion for two or three horses, or if a teame having three or more horses, then to allow them 6d. per mile, and to allow the passengers 5d. per head for their night's lodging and necessaries." In 1714 an order "touching the settlement of Ann Guise" was quashed on the ground of "there being no such place as Leye-Shinton." The magistrates' geographical knowledge must have been somewhat limited if they were unaware of the existence of a place but five miles off. It is probable, however, there was some legal technicality in the matter, and that Leigh Sinton, which is only a hamlet or place in the parish of Leigh, had been represented as a parish of itself, which the bench could not admit. I now give an interesting document relative to the mode of proving a pauper's settlement in 1738:

A refusal to serve the office of overseer by a resident of the Cathedral precincts (in the year 1804) may be unknown to the present inhabitants of that locality, to whom it will prove interesting: