The disclosure here made, that part of the endowments went to the repair of the church, gives the key to the probable solution; because this unquestionably constituted a “charitable use,” and where such was intermixed with a “superstitious use,” only so much as went to the latter purpose was subject to confiscation under the reforming Statutes of Henry VIII. A generous interpretation would not inquire too closely into the amount left for a Chantry Priest, and the portion devoted to repairs of the fabric. It was to discriminate between the two kinds of uses that the subsequent Statute of Elizabeth (43 E. Cap. 4) was passed, empowering the Lord Chancellor to appoint Commissions authorised to investigate the complaints of aggrieved parties, and to alter the direction of the endowment funds, where necessary, to make them conformable with the Protestant religion. This was precisely the nature and function of the Willenhall Commission. All it accomplished was done under the authority of the Great Seal of England, the Commissions being generally directed by the Lord Chancellor to the Bishop of the diocese, as in this case; the judgments arrived at, and the decrees issued were given the full force of law. The Willenhall Trust was clearly constituted under this Act of Elizabeth.
On reading the introductory portion of the Memorandum, it will be observed that no date is given to the Commission referred to, which possibly might be interpreted to mean that such Commission was quite separate from the one above set out, inasmuch as the latter related only to freehold land at Bentley, while the Memorandum speaks of “certain Copyhold lands in the Towne of Willenhall” being “surrendered by certain Feoffees . . . Uppon trust,” &c.
In the documents before considered no allusion is made to there being any endowment or provision for the maintenance of the Chantry Priest or Curate other than the income from the Freehold and Copyhold lands which respectively formed the subject of those documents; and from this it is reasonable to conclude that such income formed, or was involved in what may be described as practically the only permanent provision for the maintenance of the Incumbent for the time being of the Chapel.
A century ago there appears to have been a prevalent belief that the income of the Incumbent or Curate was about £1,400 per annum. An investigation of what has happened during the last 70 years does not reveal any foundation for the belief. After the election, in the year 1838, of the late Rev. G. H. Fisher to the Curacy, it was considered by him and the Trustees of the Living to be desirable to apply to Parliament for powers to sell the surface of the lands forming the Endowment, or to sell or lease any of the mines thereunder. Accordingly, a private Act of Parliament (7 and 8 Victoria Cap. 19) granting those powers was obtained. The Preamble of this Act refers to dealings with the Copyhold Lands subsequent to the date of the Memorandum before commented upon, there being recitals that, as appears by a surrender dated the 21st November, 1727, certain Copyhold Lands, &c., in the Town of Willenhall were formally surrendered to the use of certain Feoffees and were held upon the trusts already described, and that at a Court Baron held on the 24th September, 1839, the said Copyhold lands were surrendered to the use of Thomas Hinks, John Riley Hinks, John Read, William Stokes, John Mason, Joseph Turner, John Biddle, Jeremiah Hartill and John Davies on the same trusts. The Preamble further shows a small further source of income for the Living, inasmuch as it states that certain Freehold lands in the Township of Willenhall (as well as those in the Township of Bentley) had from time immemorial been held and enjoyed in like manner as the said Copyhold lands and that the said Freehold and Copyhold lands constituted “one and the same Charity.” The Preamble further states that there stood in the name of the Accountant-General of the High Court of Chancery the sum of £386 3s. 0d. of three per cent. Consols, and that there was owing from the Birmingham Canal Company a sum of £202 2s. 0d. These two sums represented the agreed prices of lands belonging to the Living taken by the Grand Junction Railway Company and the Canal Company respectively under their compulsory powers. The freehold land in Willenhall before referred to, is comprised (with all the other lands held in Trust for the Living), in the Schedule to the Act, and consisted of a field called Ell Park, containing 1a. 3r. 28p., and produced a rental of £5 12s. 0d.
Touching the supposition before referred to as to the value of the Living being £1,400 per annum, it may be mentioned that the Schedule to the Act gives the total area of the lands held in trust for the Living at 112a. 2r. 37p., and the aggregate amount of the rentals as being £500 15s. 6d. per annum.
A further power sought for and conferred by the Act was the power to raise a sum not exceeding £1,600 to be applied in building a Parsonage House upon any of the land belonging to the Living, or, in the alternative, to purchase at a cost not exceeding £1,600, a Parsonage House, with the consent of the Court of Chancery, if thought more advantageous than to build one.
In the exercise of the powers conferred by the Act, the Trustees, in the course of a few years, sold all the lands belonging to the Living situate in Willenhall, and in recent years a piece of land containing 1 rood and 23 perches, forming part of the Freehold land at Bentley, has also been sold and there now remains at Bentley, belonging to the Living, nine pieces of land, containing a total area of 30 acres and 27 perches, which, for several years prior to Mr. Fisher’s death, produced a rental of £20 per annum.
The primary provisions of the Act with regard to the moneys to arise from sales and leases under the powers thereby conferred were: (a) That the moneys should be let out and invested under the direction of the Court in the purchase of Freehold hereditaments or Copyhold hereditaments convenient to be enjoyed therewith; (b) that the premises purchased should be conveyed unto the Trustees for the time being of the Charity and held upon the Trusts, upon which the hereditaments sold would have been held in case the same had not been so sold, and the Act had not been passed; (c) that until the moneys should be so let out and invested they should be invested in Parliamentary stocks or Funds of Great Britain in the name of the Accountant-General; and (d) that the annual produce of such funds should be applied to the person and for the purposes to which the rents of the trust lands would have been applicable.
In the exercise of the trust for purchasing lands conferred by the Act, the Trustees subsequently purchased the property in Walsall Street, adjoining and near to the Churchyard, including the site of the new Schools there, and also two Cottages and some gardens and land at Shepwell Green. The latter property has since been sold off.
Reverting to the question of the value of the Living, it may be mentioned that in the year 1886, when the Shepwell Green property and the small piece of land at Bentley were still in hand, the gross income from the Living, apart from Surplice Fees, was £792 7s. 9d., made up as follows:—
|
£ |
s. |
d. |
Rents |
194 |
2 |
8 |
Dividend from £19,941 16s. 8d., 3 per cent. Consols |
598 |
5 |
1 |
|
£792 |
7 |
9 |
The effect of the “Goschen” Act of 1888 was ultimately to reduce the Dividend on the Consols by 1/6th, and, consequently, the gross income of the Living, apart from Surplice Fees, stood a few years afterwards at £692 13s. 7d., made up as follows:—
|
£ |
s. |
d. |
Rents |
194 |
2 |
8 |
Dividend from 2½ per cent. Consols |
498 |
10 |
11 |
|
£692 |
13 |
7 |
This statement brings matters up to date (1907); the tithes are still impropriate, a rent charge of £540 being receivable by Lord Barnard in succession to the Duke of Cleveland. The tithe-owner in Bentley is the Earl of Lichfield.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into, and put a stop to, the barefaced robbery of the Church charities, which had been going on for a century or more. Every parish in England was visited, and the Report on the Willenhall Charities was published in 1825 to the following effect:—
An ancient Instrument was produced to us, purporting to be a Deed-poll (without any seals thereto, but with a portion of the lower margin torn off, not, however, as it appeared to us, in that part where the seals are usually affixed), bearing date 17 August, 1642, whereby William Prestwood, of Willenhall, in Co. Stafford, and Mariana, his wife, granted to the Wardens and Sidemen of the Church or Chapel of Willenhall, aforesaid, and to the Overseers of the poor of the said Town, and their successors for ever, all the annual rent, profits, and emoluments whatsoever, issuing, renewing, and arising from, in and out of a certain Close of the said William and Mariana, called Canne Byrch, lying and being in Willenhall aforesaid, between Willenhall Field on one part, and the highway leading towards Darlaston on the other; to have and to hold all the rent, profits, and emoluments arising from the said Close, after the death of the said William and Mariana, for ever; to the pious use following, viz.:—
To pay and contribute the annual rent aforesaid to the use and behoof of the Poor in the said Town, at the discretion of the aforesaid Wardens, Officers, and Overseers of the Chapel and Town aforesaid for ever, and not otherwise: And it is further declared that the said rent should be annually paid in the manner and form as the said William by his last Will should appoint.
We have no evidence that this piece of land, which is well known, was ever in the possession of the Parish Officers. It is now considered as the property of Hervey Smith, Esq., of Castle Bromwich, who has lately succeeded to it on the death of his father, the late William Smith, Esq., solicitor of Birmingham, and to be subject only to an annual rent charge of 20s. to the Poor of Willenhall, which is regularly paid by the tenant of the land. It has been for many years in the possession of Mr. Smith’s family, and he produced several receipts, the earliest of which is dated 31 October, 1753, and is for “£1 due Nov. 1st, 1753, for Prestwood’s Dole.”
The others are for the same sum, designating it either as “Prestwood’s Dole,” or “A Dole payable to the Poor of Willenhall.”
We do not conceive that, under these circumstances, the imperfect Instrument above stated, unaccompanied by possession, can afford any ground to the Parishioners of the Township to claim anything more than the Dole which has been so long paid. The 20 shillings are given away to 20 Poor Widows on St. Thomas’s Day.
James Pedley, otherwise Fletcher, by his Will dated 20 May, 1728, after the death of his wife, gave to his brother, Richard Pedley, alias Fletcher, his heirs and assigns, those two Closes of Land called by the name Little Clothers, lying in the Liberty of Willenhall, in the Parish of Wolverhampton, on condition that his said brother should pay or cause to be paid 30s. a year out of the rent of the said two Closes of land, as follows; that is to say, to the Minister of Willenhall 6s. 8d. a year to preach a sermon on New Year’s Day; and unto Poor Housekeepers 8s. in bread yearly, upon New Year’s Day, at the Chapel as the Chapelwardens should think fit; and to the Chapelwardens for their trouble 4d.; and 13s. yearly to one of the Chapelwardens and to the Overseer of the Poor to be given in bread to such Poor Housekeepers as they should think fit, and carry the said bread to, from house to house, upon the first day of July; and he directed that the Officers for trouble should have 12 pence apiece: And in the event of his brother’s death without issue, he gave the Closes, paying the aforesaid 30s. yearly as above directed to the right heir of the Pedleys for ever.
The premises charged with this annuity of 30s. are at present the property of Mr. George Bailey, in right of his wife, to whom they descended as heir to her brother, Charles Pedley, the great-nephew of the testator.
The several payments of 6s. 8d. to the Minister and 8s. and 13s. for bread, appear to have been annually made; but the bread having been distributed by the Pedley family themselves, or persons deputed by them, without the intervention of the Chapelwarden or Overseer, the fees of 2s. 4d. to these Officers have been hitherto withheld, and are indeed unnoticed in a Will of James Pedley, dated in 1792, whereby he devises the Closes in question to the above-named Charles Pedley, describing them as subject to the other payments of 27s. 8d. only.
Mr. Bailey has, however, expressed his readiness to supply the omission in future, and to pay the bread money, or deliver the bread to the Officers of the Township to be distributed by them according to the directions of the donor.
The distributions appear to have been hitherto made respectively on New Year’s Day and at Midsummer, among Poor Old Widows and other Poor of the Township.
At a Court Baron held for the Manor of Stowheath, on 29th May, 1781, the lords of the manor, at the request of certain persons being Chapelwardens, and certain others being Overseers of the Poor of the liberty of Willenhall, and of certain others, being three of the principal Inhabitants of Willenhall, on behalf of themselves and others, the inhabitants of Willenhall, by the hands of the Steward, according to the custom of the manor, gave, granted, and delivered to Joshua Fletcher, of Willenhall, and Catherina, his wife, all those three Closes or parcels of land, containing together five acres, or thereabouts, theretofore enclosed from the waste or common-land called Shepwell Green, within the liberty of Willenhall, for their natural lives and the life of the survivor, with remainder to the heirs and assigns of the said Joshua Fletcher for ever, subject to the payment of 20s. on St. Thomas’s Day yearly for ever, to the Chapelwardens and Overseers of the Poor for the liberty of Willenhall, to be by them paid or applied to or for the use of the Poor of the said liberty of Willenhall, yearly and every year for ever on St. Thomas’s Day aforesaid, at the Vestry of the said Chapel, according to their discretion, it being the interest of £20, £10 thereof being theretofore given by one John Tomkys, and the other £10 theretofore given by one George Welch, to and for the use of the said Poor.
These premises are now the property of John Fletcher, by whom the annuity of 20s. is duly paid to the officers of the Township. This payment is distributed on New Year’s Day among the Poor of the liberty in small sums not generally exceeding 6d. to each individual.
This Charity consists of the sum of £5, which appears to have been left by John Bate some time before the year 1701; the interest to be yearly distributed among the Poor of Willenhall on St. Thomas’s Day.
The principal was placed at interest on 21 December, 1701, in the hands of Joseph Hincks, on the security of his bond; and the interest appears to have been duly paid by himself and his heirs successively. It is now paid by Thomas Hincks on St. Thomas’s Day annually to fifteen Poor Widows of the Township in shares of 4d. each.
The founders of the “lost” Prestwood Charity were doubtless members of the family mentioned in Chapter VII. as resident in Willenhall as early as 1409; Prestwood, be it noted, was also the name of an ancient moated farm and homestead in Wednesfield. The name of Prestwood is again mentioned, as are also the names of the other Willenhall benefactors, Bates and Tomkiss, in the endowment deeds of 1607, quoted in Chapter XXI. As to the Welch family, their homestead in Willenhall stood in the location known as Welch End.
Concerning Pedley’s Charity, which has not been distributed these 50 years, the Churchwardens have, as recently as 1895, made earnest attempts at its recovery. The lands once chargeable for the dole were identified as Shares Acres, lying between the canal and the road leading to New Invention from Monmer Lane. The property, however, was found to be in the hands of the Trustees of the late W. E. Jones; and as, through the remissness of someone, the estate had been sold and conveyed without due provision for the payment of the annuity once charged upon it, the Trustees had not power to make such payment. While the minerals under this land have been yielding wealth, the Poor have been defrauded from their rightful share in the same.
Painstaking inquiries for the other “lost charities” have also been made, but with no success. For many years the Incumbent and Wardens have provided and distributed a Dole of 40 loaves, for which there has been no legal responsibility resting upon them.
In 1881 Jeremiah Hartill gave £200 to the Vicar and Wardens, which was invested in Consols, and the interest is annually distributed on January 1st amongst twenty poor people of the township. The Hartill Charity and the Tomkys and Welch Doles are the only ones now administered.
* * * * *
Thirty or more years ago a Mr. Stokes gave the Incumbent of Willenhall £500 to be applied in his absolute discretion for the benefit of St. Giles’s School. The interest until recently was applied by him for that purpose. The principal has recently been spent in purchase of an extended playground for the new Infant Schools, and in the part purchase of a site for a new Mixed Department, adjacent thereto.
A few years after the passing of Sir Robert Peel’s Act of 1847, advantage was taken of it to split the populous area of the ancient chapelry into new district parishes; and by 1855 the said chapelry was divided into three nearly equal parts, the new parishes of St. Stephen and Holy Trinity, leaving to St. Giles’s Church Bentley and the remaining portion of the Willenhall township. The fourth daughter parish, St. Anne’s, came a few years later.
St Stephen’s Church, in Wolverhampton Street, was erected mainly through the exertions of its first vicar, the Rev. T. W. Fletcher, M.A., and opened in 1854, seven years after its ecclesiastical district had been formed. Mr. Fletcher died in 1890, and the living is now held by the Rev. Herbert Percy Stevens, M.A. This parish maintains a Parochial Hall and Mission at Portobello.
St. Anne’s Church, Spring Bank, was built largely as a memorial to his wife by Mr. H. Jeavon. It was consecrated in 1861.
Holy Trinity Church (Short Heath) Vicarage and Schools were all built by the Rev. Dr. Rosedale, the first vicar of the parish, and father of the present vicar of St. Giles’s. His labours commenced in a Mission Room at the Brown Jug Inn, Sandbeds, and he trained several very earnest men for the ministry, including the Rev. John Bailey, first vicar of the Pleck Church, Walsall, and the Rev. — Pritchard, vicar of Blakenall Church, Bloxwich. The jubilee of the building of the church was held about 1905. The Rev. — Wood was the second vicar, the Rev. G. W. Johnson the third, and the present vicar is the Rev. G. C. W. Pimbury.
A Mission Room at New Invention completes the list of Anglican Establishments in Willenhall.
In connection with St. Giles’s a Men’s and a Junior Men’s Club have recently been established; and among other projects for further developments in the parochial machinery is a Mission Room at Shepwell Green. This movement was initiated some years ago when the Rev. H. Edwards was acting as Curate during the illness of the Rev. Mr. Fisher; a site has recently been purchased, in the anticipation that the Mission in due time will develop into a new ecclesiastical parish.
Dr. Hartill, as Churchwarden, was instrumental in securing a grant of £700 from a bequest of £15,000 left for Church objects by a Miss Green, with which to increase the endowment of Holy Trinity Church, Short Heath; this was supplemented by another £700 from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; while in the following year a further sum of £700 from each source was also obtained for increasing the endowment of St. Anne’s Church.
As already discovered (Chapter VII.), a church has existed in Willenhall since the 13th century. It was at first a small chapel-of-ease, and seems to have been dedicated in pre-Reformation times to a non-biblical patron, Saint Giles.
The first edifice, as a mere chapel of accommodation, was in all probability a very primitive structure, constructed entirely of timber cut from the adjacent forest of Cannock. But when it became a chantry also, the original structure may have been replaced by a more elaborate edifice, in the style which is generally known as half-timbered.
Soon after the Reformation the mother church of Wolverhampton was pewed on a plan for the specifically allotted accommodation of all the parishioners, when the centre aisle was given to the inhabitants of Wolverhampton, the south aisle was set apart for the people of Bilston, and the north aisle was appropriated to Wednesfield and Willenhall. In those days, as previously explained, the law supposed that every adult person attended church on Sundays; there was, in fact, a penalty for absence enforcible by law.
With regard to Willenhall’s timber-constructed church, there is evidence that in 1660 it was in a deplorable condition through fire ravages. After the Reformation it became a practice for collections to be made in the churches throughout the country to provide funds for the repair or rebuilding of parish churches which had fallen into a state of dilapidation beyond the means of its own parishioners to make good; or for other charitable purposes in which the needs of the one seemed to call for the help of the many. These collections were authorised to be made by Royal Letters Patent, through official documents known as Briefs; and entries of these are to be found in most Parish Registers till the middle of the 18th century, when their frequency through the complaisance of the Court of Chancery was considered such an abuse that it was ordered for the future that their issue should be granted only after a formal application to Quarter Sessions. Thus we find records in the Tipton Registers of no less than seven collections made there between 1657 and 1661 for the relief of distress through fire and other causes in Desford, Southwold, Drayton (Salop), Oxford, East Hogborne, Chichester, and Milton Abbey.
Willenhall called for this form of national assistance in 1660, as entries of a Brief on its behalf have been found as far apart as Chatham, in Kent, and Woodborough, in Notts, and may doubtless be traced in various parish registers up and down the country. Here is a copy of the Nottinghamshire entry:—
September ye 23, 1660.
Collected at ye Parish Church and among ye Inhabitants of Woodbourogh for and towards the Reliefe of ye distressed inhabitants of Willenhall, in ye County of Stafford, being Commended hityr [hereto] by ye King’s Majestyes Letters Patents with ye gorat Sale [Great Seal] for and towards their loss by fire, ye sum of 4s. 10d.
Witness,
John Allatt,
Minister.
James Job,
Henry Moorelaw,Churchwardens.
[It has been romantically suggested by a local writer that the “burning of Willenhall” was an act of revenge perpetrated by the Puritans of Lichfield and the vicinity for the succour given at Bentley Hall in 1651 to the fugitive Charles II.; and that these church collections are evidence of the personal interest taken by that monarch on his Restoration, in the place which had afforded him shelter in his hour of direst need. Two considerations will immediately dispel any such illusion. First, the Briefs were very commonplace affairs, as already shown; secondly, displays of Stuart gratitude were just as rare. All the reward commonplace affairs, as already shown; secondly, displays of Stuart gratitude were just as rare. All the reward Charles vouchsafed to the devoted Lanes was the cheap honour of an augmentation of the family arms, and the scanty gift of £1,000 to Jane Lane. Allusion has been made (Chapter XIII.) to the Royal fugitive taking advantage of the hiding-place afford by the “priest’s hole” at Moseley Hall where Charles was loyally secreted by Jesuitic and other priestly adherents, though they might have pocketed a reward of £10,000 by betraying him—yet in after years this ungrateful prince had no compunction in signing more than twenty death warrants against Romanist priests, merely for the crime of being priests!]
To resume our history of Willenhall Church: What was manifestly a “restored” chapel was in 1727 consecrated by Edward, Lord Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, on the same day that Bilston Chapel was consecrated; but the building could have been scarcely worth the attempt, as twenty years later it had to be entirely replaced.
On August 14th of the year 1727, the Bishop having first consecrated Bilston Chapel, in the presence of a large assembly of the local clergy, which included the Rev. R. Ames and two other prebendaries; the vicars of Walsall and Dudley; Mr. Tyrer, curate of Tettenhall; Mr. Gibbons, minister of Codsall; Mr. Varden, rector of Darlaston; Mr. Perry, curate of Wednesbury; and Mr. Holbrooke, curate of Willenhall; his lordship proceeded to Willenhall in a coach and four, where the ceremony of Consecration “in Latine” was repeated upon what was merely a renovated building. After which Squire Lane, of Bentley, gave a splendid entertainment in celebration of the event.
A “chappel-yard for the Burial of the Dead,” which had been added, was consecrated at the same time, and, strangely enough—as if the parishioners of Willenhall were eager to signalise their acquisition of such a parochial institution as a graveyard—the first interment was made the selfsame day.
About the middle of the eighteenth century there was a wave of zeal for church extension, on which we find Wolverhampton carried along rather freely; for within the short space of ten years, under the auspices of Dr. Pennistan Booth, the enterprising Dean, the building of four chapels-of-ease was projected. These daughter churches were:—
1746—Wednesfield (Advowson of which was vested in Walter Gough and his heirs).
1748—Willenhall.
1755—St. John’s (the new building was injured by fire, and not consecrated till 1760).
From the Registers is gleaned the following issue of a writ to release sequestration of fees:—
Memorandum. March 4, 1748.—The Faculty for Rebuilding and enlarging ye Chapel of Willenhall authorized ye then present Ministr, ye Revd. Titus Neve to charge and receive for Breaking up ye Ground or Building a Vault in ye said Chapel ye sum of two Guineas and also one Guinea for opening ye same at any time afterwards to him and his successors. The Intention of this Siquise was to prevent frequent interments which are a common annoyance to ye Living Votaries for whose use ye Chapel was erected.
From the Diary of Dr. Richard Wilkes is extracted the following illuminative entry—a contemporary record of the state of the ancient edifice:—
May 6, 1748.—This day I set out the foundation of a new church in this town; for the old one being half timber, the sills, pillars, etc., were so decayed that the inhabitants, when they met together, were in great danger of being killed. It appeared to me, that the old church must have been rebuilt, at least the middle aisle of it; and that the first fabrick was greatly ornamented, and must have been the gift of some rich man, or a number of such, the village then being but thin of inhabitants, and, before the iron manufacture was begun here, they could not have been able to erect such a fabrick; but no date, or hint relating to it, was to be found; nor is anything about it come to us by tradition.
Willenhall’s rebuilt church was completed in 1749, and had a formal re-opening on October 30th of that year. An entry in the Registers (which has already been quoted in Chapter XVIII.) seems to intimate that the regular services were not resumed till January 20th, 1750.
This edifice was a fair specimen of the crudities which went to make up the “churchwarden architecture” of the period; consisting mainly of a plain, box-like nave, pierced on either side by half a dozen staring oblong windows, and having in the whole of its hulk not one curved line or rounded form by which relief could be afforded to the eye at any single point. At one end of this unimposing structure was a flattened scutiform excrescence which served as the chancel; from the others rose the tower, the only feature by which the building could be recognised as a church. The tower, not to put the rest of the church out of countenance, was equally crude; its window piercings being as debased in the Gothic style as was its cornice in quasi-classical; and topped as it was by a low-pitched hipped roof or squat pyramid, from the point of which rose high into the air the famous Willenhall weathercock—the brazen bird flaunting itself aloft, as if deriving its defiance from the aggressive-looking furcated finials which surrounded it at the four angles.
This church endured only for about a century, being replaced in 1867 by the present edifice, erected at a cost of £7,000, raised by public subscription. The Chairman of the Committee for the rebuilding was Mr. R. D. Gough, who, with his wife, contributed £1,700. Other large contributors were Mrs. Stokes (with £505), and the Vicar and Trustees (who gave £1,000).
St. Giles’s Church is now a substantial stone building in the Decorated style, consisting of nave, aisles, chancel and transepts, and having at the west end a lofty square tower, terminated with a pinnacle at each angle. The new fane was soon adorned by the insertion of a number of stained glass windows; the large east window was presented by Mr. R. D. Gough; others were given by the Lords of the Manor of Stow Heath (emblazoning the arms of Leveson-Gower and Giffard); by the Earl of Lichfield and the Rev. Charles Lane (also heraldically distinguished); one was put in as a memorial to members of the Clemson family; and another to commemorate Mrs. Anwell, a connection of the Gough family.
The work of enlarging the church was undertaken in 1897 in memory of the late Incumbent, Mr. Fisher; and a fine organ was installed in celebration of Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee. Also at the same time choir stalls were introduced, the choristers being brought from the gallery, which latter feature was rightly removed altogether. Among the improvements promoted by the Incumbent and his energetic churchwardens, Dr. John T. Hartill and Mr. H. H. Walker, of Bentley Hall, were the enlargement of the churchyard and the scheme for providing a church house.
As the new incumbent, Mr. Rosedale, was a nephew of Mrs. Gough, the generous contributor to the rebuilding fund of 1865–7, just mentioned, it was suggested that the house she occupied might fittingly be transformed to serve as a Parsonage.
* * * * *
Almost from the time pews were first put into churches, seats became appurtenant to certain family mansions, and by custom descended from ancestor to heir, without any ecclesiastical concurrence. Instances of such proprietary pews having been bequeathed by will have occurred in Willenhall within comparatively recent times. Here is an extract from the will of Thomas Hartill, dated June 5th, 1777:—
I give and bequeath to my Son, Abraham Hartill, the fourth part of a seat in the Chapel, No. 4 in B row an all so one 4 part of a seat in F row near the Dore. . . . and I bequeath to my Daughter, Phœbe Read, one Fourth part of a seate No. 4 in B row and also one Fourth part of a seate in the Chapel in F row near the Dore.
Similar testamentary disposals appear in the will of Isaac Hartill, dated 27 May, 1818:—
I give and devise to my Son, Isaac Hartill, all that my moiety or half part of the seat or pew, being No. 10 in the South Aisle within the Church or Chapel of Willenhall aforesaid, to hold to him my said son, Isaac, his heirs and assigns tor ever. . . .
I give and devise unto my said Son, Ephraim Hartill, one moiety or equal half part of, and in my seat, or pew, being number 4 in the South Aisle within the Church or Chapel aforesaid, to hold to my said Son, Ephraim, his Heirs, and assigns for ever. And I also give and devise unto my daughter, Mary Atkins, the other moiety or equal half part or share of the said last mentioned seat or pew, to hold to my said Daughter Mary Atkins, her heirs and assigns for ever.
Of like purport is the following extract from codicil to the will of Samuel Hartill, dated June 9, 1821; probate Nov. 12, 1821:—
I give devise and bequeath to my nephew Henry Bratt, all that my seat or pew or part or share thereof being number eleven in A in Willenhall Church, to hold to him his heirs, executors administrators or assigns according to the tenure of the said property. I give devise and bequeath to my Brother-in-law, Isaac Hartill in my Will named all my other Seats or Pews or parts or shares of seats or pews in Willenhall Church aforesaid to hold to him his heirs executors administrators or assigns according to the tenure of the said property.
Thus much in witness of the heritable nature of Church Pews; now for documentary evidences of the trafficking in such properties (all relating to Willenhall Church):—
19, Jan., 1750. Recd. of Tho. Harthil, John Parker and Joseph Wood three pound one and sixpence for the seat behind ye Dore in F, sixteen shillings and sixpence being allow’d them for 6s. 8d. of ground by
Richd. Wilkes.
A 12.
6 Jan, 1750.—Recd. of Jos. Clemson, Jos. Chandler. Jo’n Buttler, Jo’n Turner, Jno. Smith, Stephen Perry, the Sum of two Ginnies for Wainscots and for 2ft. 3in. of Ground five and sevenpence halfpenny by
Richd. Wilkes.
£2 7s. 7½d.
“I hereby acknowledge that I have this day had and received from Abraham Hartill . . . the sum of One Pound Fifteen Shillings for the full and absolute purchase sale value and Consideration of all those my sittings kneelings Parts or shares of and in two different seats or pews and standing and being on the left-hand side in the first Ile and numbered with the figures 11 and 12 in the Church or Chapel of Willenhall aforesaid, and which said sittings kneelings Parts or shares of the said seats or pews I do hereby Warrant unto the said Abraham Hartill his Heirs Exors Admors and Assigns against me, my Heirs Exors Admors and Assigns and that I my Heirs Exors, Admors or Assigns shall and will at any time or times hereafter upon the request and Costs of the said Abraham Hartill His Heirs &c. . . . execute any further or other Conveyances and Assurance of the said sittings, &c. . . . unto and to the use of the said Abraham Hartill . . . free from all manner of Incumbrances whatsoever and the said Abraham Hartill Doth hereby agree for Francis Chandler and Ann his wife to use and enjoy that part or share of the above seat or pew numbered 11 for and during the term of their Natural lives and for the longest survivor of them without expence, but for no other privilege to be allowed to any other person Whatsoever. In Witness whereof the said Francis Chandler the seller of the above sittings kneelings parts or shares of the seats or pews above mentioned hath set his hand this nineteenth day of February 1790.
Witness
FRANCIS CHANDLER.
Wm. Perkin.
Saml Hartill.”“Received January 24 1783 of Isaac Hartill The Sum of Two Pounds in full for Halfe a Seat Number 10 in E In Willenhall Chappell
By mee The Mark X of Richd. Hartill.
Witness Jonah Hartill.”“Willenhall April 26th 1791 Received then of Abrm Hartill Thirteen Shillings For my Whole Right in a seat in the Chapel No. 12 in A Row.
Stephen Perrey.
Willenhall April 26th 1791 Received then of.”
Of this last voucher there is a duplicate copy bearing a twopenny receipt stamp.
Inasmuch as Bentley Hall lies within the confines of Willenhall, this place must always be associated with the rise and early history of Wesleyanism. The episode of John Wesley being haled by the Wednesbury rioters before Justice Lane at Bentley Hall (1743) belongs to the general history of the denomination, and there is no need to repeat the story here.
The reader may be referred to “The History of Methodism in the Wednesbury Circuit,” by the Rev. W. J. Wilkinson, published by J. M. Price, Darlaston, 1895; and for ampler detail to “Religious Wednesbury,” by the present writer, 1900.
That the evangelical missioning of John Wesley was peculiarly suited to the religious and social needs of the eighteenth century, and nowhere more so than among the proletariat of the mining and manufacturing Midlands, is now a generally accepted truism. There is no direct evidence that the great evangelist himself ever preached in Willenhall, but the appearance on the scene of some of the earliest Methodist preachers may be taken for granted. For were not the prevailing sins of cockfighting and bull-baiting, and all the other popular brutalities of the period, to be combated in Willenhall as much as in Darlaston or Wednesbury? And where the harvest was, were not the reapers always forthcoming?
According to Mr. A. Camden Pratt, in his “Black Country Methodism,” the earliest Methodist services were open-air meetings held round a big boulder at the corner of Monmore Lane. Then the nucleus of a Willenhall congregation was formed at a cottage in Ten House Row; outgrowing its accommodation here, a removal was next made to a farmhouse with a commodious kitchen at Hill End.
The leaders and preachers came from Darlaston, and it was not till 1830 that Willenhall was favoured with a resident “travelling preacher,” and the provision of a Wesleyan Chapel—it was on the site of the present Wesleyan Day Schools. The cause flourished and grew mightily; chapels were established at Short Heath and Portobello, on the Walsall Road (1865), and on Spring Bank.
Mr. Pratt pays a high tribute to the efforts of the Tildesleys and the Harpers, but with a sense of justice he does not forget the mead of gratitude always due to those early pioneers from Darlaston, placing on the same bright scroll of fame the names of Foster, Wilkes, Rubery, Silcock, Bowen, and Banks.
In the earlier history of local Wesleyanism, one of its chief supporters was James Carpenter, founder of the existing firm of Carpenter and Tildesley. Another pillar of Wesleyanism was Jonah Tildesley, followed later in the good work by his two sons, Josiah and Jesse, his grandson Thomas, George Ley Pearce, and Isaac Pedley; and in a lesser degree by James Tildesley (who married Harriet Carpenter), and the late John Harper, founder of the Albion Works, now the largest place of employment in the town.
One outcome of the Wesleyan spirit was seen about the year 1820, when James Carpenter, George Pearce, William Whitehouse, and other leading inhabitants made a determined effort to put down some of the coarser sports by which the annual Wake was celebrated. Through their instrumentality many of the ringleaders in the brutal sports were summoned and brought to justice. The reformers dared to go even further—they lodged a complaint with the bishop of the diocese against “Parson Moreton” for encouraging these barbarous pastimes among the people. The bishop, however, professed that he was powerless to deal with the delinquent, owing to the exceptional manner in which he was appointed to the living. But the parson on his part was very wroth, and from his pulpit he solemnly forbade any one of the name of Carpenter, Pearce, or Whitehouse ever to enter the portals of Willenhall Church.
It cannot be said the injunction was enforced; but it is a fact that from that time many church-goers were driven into the Methodist fold.
The romantic side of the evangelisation of the Black Country has been idealised by Mr. J. C. Tildesley in his “Sketches of Early Methodism,” a series of short stories founded on fact, and giving most graphic pictures of the moral and social condition of the neighbourhood at that time. This little volume may be regarded almost as one of the classics of the Wesleyan Book Room.
A short history of local Methodism, it may be mentioned, was deposited in the memorial stones of Wednesfield Chapel in 1885.
The existing Wesleyan Chapels, now under the direction of the Rev. A. Hann and the Rev. Walter Fytche, are five in number, namely, Union Street, Walsall Road, Monmer Lane, Short Heath, and High Street, Portobello. Though the denomination may be as strong as ever numerically, it can scarcely hope to rival its old-time membership in verve and vigour. In England fighting days never fail to produce fighting men.
Primitive Methodism first established itself at Monmer Lane, and then removed to Little London, but did not meet with much success at the outset, though it has now four flourishing chapels in the township. They are all at present under the direction of the Rev. C. L. Tack, and situated respectively at New Invention, Spring Bank, Lane Head, and Russell Street.
Nonconformity was first brought into Willenhall from Coseley, the brethren of the famous Darkhouse Chapel establishing a colony at Little London, where eventually they erected a pioneer Baptist Chapel. Of this chapel the Rev. A. Tettmar is now in charge; a second chapel in Upper Lichfield Street, at which the Rev. D. L. Lawrence ministers, and a third Baptist Chapel in New Road testify to the growth of the denomination in Willenhall. At one time the Baptists had day schools in the town.
The Roman Catholics first made their appearance in modern Willenhall some sixty years ago, when they established a small mission at the bottom of Union Street, afterwards building their resent chapel, which is dedicated to St. Mary, and of which the Rev. Walter Poulton (in succession to the Rev. W. P. Wells) is priest.
A mission of the Catholic Apostolic Brethren, served from Wolverhampton, completes the list of religious agencies now at work in Willenhall.
In the religious and social history of the place mention cannot be omitted of some few names which have earned the respect of the townspeople. Among them, James Tildesley, a large employer of labour, whose amiability, and kindness of heart exemplified that patriarchal relationship which once existed between master and men, anterior to the days of modern limited liability companies; George Ley Pearce, a Wesleyan of marked personality, and an eminently good man, whose memorial in the old Cemetery is thus inscribed:—
ERECTED
by voluntary subscription in memory of
GEORGE LEY PEARCE
(of Willenhall),
who died December 31st, 1873,
Aged 78;
And was buried in the adjacent vault.For fifty years he zealously devoted himself to the work of visiting the sick and afflicted of this town, whether rich or poor, and was made a great blessing to many.
His work was the outward expression of that Christ-like charity which pervaded his soul.
The opportunity to do good to our fellowmen comes to all, irrespective of sect or sex. One to embrace it with goodwill was Edith Florence Hartill, daughter of William Henry Hartill, who worked long and steadfastly in connection with the Bible Reading Union, never relaxing her efforts for the uplifting of the very poorest and most helpless of the community.
In the Market Place stands a public clock mounted upon a stone pedestal, having a watering-trough for cattle at its base. This was erected, as an inscription upon it testifies, as a memorial to the late Joseph Tonks, surgeon, “whose generous and unsparing devotion in the cause of alleviating human suffering” was “deemed worthy of public record.” The memorialised, Mr. Joseph Tonks, M.R.C.S.E., L.A.H., was a native of the town, being a son of Mr. Silas Tonks, of the Forge Inn, Spring Bank. He began to practise in Willenhall about 1879, and soon made himself extremely popular among the working classes, and particularly with the Friendly Societies, who initiated the movement to provide this public memorial.
Without sorting into sects and creeds, let it be acknowledged that Willenhall has been fortunate in the number of its townsmen whose lives have been usefully and commendably spent in the public service and for the public good. Among those whose influence on the social and moral well-being of the place has not been without appreciable benefit, may be named Joseph Carpenter Tildesley, R. D. Gough, Josiah Tildesley, Clement Tildesley, Jesse Tildesley, Isaac Pedley, Henry Hall, Thomas Kidson, Henry Vaughan, W. E. Parkes, and J. H. James. Other appreciations will occur in our concluding chapters, as the names more fittingly happen under the topics yet to be dealt with.
Having brought to a conclusion Willenhall’s ecclesiastical and religious history—and the largeness with which the church bulked on the lives of the people in past times must be held accountable for the lengthiness of this portion—we may now turn to the further consideration of its civil, social, and industrial history.
Willenhall is a township of some 1,980 acres in extent, carved out of the ancient parish of Wolverhampton, and situated midway between that town and the town of Walsall, being about three miles distant from either. Strangely enough, Willenhall is included in the Hundred of Offlow, although Wolverhampton, of which it once formed a part, is in Seisdon Hundred. Willenhall has never been a civil parish (as previously explained), nor has it been a market town; the small open market held in its streets each week-end having grown up by prescription, but never legally established by grant of charter.
The place grew up as a hamlet on the banks of a little stream, just on the verge of Cannock Forest. As a village community it seems to have been subject, so soon as its outer limits had been defined, to three territorial lords. Reference to Chapter VI. will disclose that at Domesday (1086) three hides of land in Willenhall belonged to the king, and were part of the royal manor of Stowheath; two hides were the property of the Church of Wolverhampton, and constituted the prebendal manor of Willenhall; and a century or two later, the manor of Bentley, evidently carved out of the royal forest of Cannock, became included within this township.
Of Stowheath Manor, the portions lying within Willenhall are a small part of the modern township, together with Short Heath, New Invention, Lanehead, Sandbeds, Little London, and Portobello. The remainder of this manor stretches beyond the Willenhall boundary into Bilston and Wolverhampton.
To a manor or lordship was usually attached a Court Baron, or domestic court of the lord, for the settling of disputes relating to property among the tenants, and for redressing misdemeanours and nuisances arising within the manor. The business was transacted by a jury or homage elected by and from the tenants.
How far the customary officers were chosen every year by the Willenhall Court Baron cannot now be ascertained. Doubtless appointments were made from time to time of such manorial tears as Hedgers and Ditchers, to look after the highways and byways, a Common Pinner to impound stray cattle, and Head boroughs or Petty Constables “to apprehend all vagrom men” whose room was esteemed more highly than their company.
The present lords of the Manor of Stowheath are the Duke of Sutherland, and W. T. C. Giffard, Esq., of Chillington; the Steward of the Manor is Mr. W. E. Stamer, of Lilleshall; and the Deputy-Steward Mr. Frederick T. Langley, of Wolverhampton. The Court Bailiff is Mr. H. G. Duncalfe, of Wolverhampton, but none of the ancient customary officers are now elected; and as most of the copyholds have been enfranchised, no Court Baron for Stowheath has been held in Willenhall since 22nd December, 1865; till then it had taken place annually for many years at the house of Mr. George Baker, the Neptune Inn. Subsequently this manorial court was held at the Bank, Cock Street, Wolverhampton, and now more privately at the offices of the Deputy-Steward, in that town, which was anciently within the jurisdiction of two manors, Stowheath and Wolverhampton.
THE Manor of Willenhall, which, though prebendal, is impropriate, comprises the rest of the township; of this manor the Baron Barnard is the present lord, and the sole recipient of all tithes from Willenhall, Short Heath, and Wednesfield.
A glimpse of the mediæval village of Willenhall was obtained in Chapters VIII. and XI.; it is clear the prebendal manor remained always a taxable area for the mere production of tithes, and it was the royal manor of Stowheath, when it had passed into the hands of a subject, which developed into the community in the midst of which the “mansum capitale,” or manor house, was erected.
By whom or when a manor house was first set up in Willenhall is not known; but it is not improbable that the lordship of Stowheath, soon after it passed out of the hands of the King, was acquired by a Leveson, who seated himself on the estate, reserving to himself the portion which lay nearest his mansion (demesne lands), and distributing the rest among his tenants (tenemental lands).
The house in which the Levesons resided, as previously recorded, was situated on the east side of Stafford Street; the Midland Railway now runs through the site, but before the line was cut, and whilst the mines remained ungotten, traces of its ancient moat were clearly discernible.
The residence now known as the Manor House, and occupied by Dr J. T. Hartill, though it has no connection with the manorial mansion of the Leveson family, is not without some association with the manorial form of government. It appears that upwards of half a century ago, when the late Jeremiah Hartill (uncle of the present occupant of the house) was taking his full share in the public life of Willenhall, it was most difficult, if not next to impossible, to get copyhold land in this manor enfranchised.
At that time there was a very considerable amount of property in Willenhall held by this old-world tenure, and this induced Mr. Jeremiah Hartill to take a very prominent part in the local efforts which were then being made to introduce the principle of compulsory enfranchisement. As the result of a national movement in this direction an Act was passed in 1841 to provide a statutory method of enfranchisement; and the matter was carried still further in 1852 by another Act, which introduced the principle of compulsory enfranchisement.
Mr. Hartill had at that time recently built himself a new house (1847), when, as the local leader in a movement which had been brought so far on the road to success, he was invited to a public dinner in recognition of his public-spirited efforts. One of the speakers at the banquet, in proposing the health of the guest of the evening, suggested that as Mr. Jeremiah Hartill had fought so successfully in helping to overcome the opposition of the Lords of the Manor to this measure of land reform, his new house might not inappropriately be dubbed the Manor House. The suggestion was heartily (no pun intended) approved by all present, and by that name the house has ever since been known.
The names of the chief residents in Willenhall in 1327 may be gleaned from the Subsidy Roll given in Chapter IX.; very similar names occur in another list of the taxpayers to the Scotch War of 1333. Some few held land under certain specified rents and free services, and from these came the earliest freeholders; many more held by the baser tenure of the lord’s will, and having nothing to show except the copy of the rolls made by the Steward of the Lord’s Court, were known as copyholders.
The vast importance of these Court Rolls may be gathered from Chapter XXI. The Court Rolls of the Manor of Stowheath now in existence commence on 4 January, 1645; but in the chapter referred to mention of a “Leete” being held in Wolverhampton much earlier will be found.
The residue of the Manor being uncultivated, was termed the lord’s waste, and served for public roads, and for common or pasture to both the lord and his tenants. Reference to the enclosure of the last remnants of the “waste” was quoted in the Report of 1825 on the Tomkys and Welch Charities (Chapter XXII.).
There were two kinds of enclosures, however, all made in the last few centuries; the enclosure of the open commons or wastes, and the enclosure of the common fields. “Willenhall Field,” mentioned in the “Report on Prestwood’s Dole,” as lying along the highway towards Darlaston, was arable land, not pasture. For anciently there was a common field system in every parish, and “Willenhall Field” was the area cultivated co-operatively by the whole of the parishioners or group of individuals.
In 1377 the Manor of Bentley was held “in capite,” that is, direct from the King, by one who called himself after his estate, William de Bentley. He held it for rendering to Edward III. the feudal service of “Keeping” the King’s Hay of Bentley within the royal Forest of Cannock—the Forest was then divided into a number of “hays” or bailiwicks. (See “Chronicles of Cannock Chase,” p. 14.)
The estate seems to have descended to him from his grandfather, to whom it had been granted in the reign of Edward II.; and it is noteworthy that his wife, Alianora, was a Leveson.
In 1421 William Griffiths established his right to Bentley, and in 1430 it was conveyed to Richard Lone de la Hide. Of the family of this Richard Lone of the Hyde there were afterwards two branches; one, the Hamptons, of Stourton Castle, and the other, the Lanes, of Bentley.
The halo of romance which grew up around Bentley Hall during the seigniory of the Lanes is well known. It was the scene of Charles II.’s wonderful escape from the Roundheads, under the protection of Jane Lane, whom he was afterwards wont to call his “Guardian Angel”; it was the critical scene of John Wesley’s adventure in the hands of the Wednesbury mob. The mansion has since been rebuilt.
The Lanes sold the Manor of Bentley in 1748 to Joseph Turton, of Wolverhampton, and he in turn sold it to the first Lord Anson, ancestor of the present holder.
The Manor comprises 1,200 acres, none of which is now copyhold. There was formerly a Court Leet jurisdiction, but everything connected with ancient manorial government has disappeared. The Earl of Lichfield is sole owner, except for a few acres belonging to the church, and the portions which have been acquired by the local authority for the Cemetery and the Sewerage Works.
Bentley is a parish without a church, or a chapel, and until the Willenhall District Council recently made a Cemetery there, it was also without a burial ground.
Bentley has but a scant population, and contains not a single inn. Its living history seems to have centred almost entirely round the old family mansion of the Lanes.
In 1660 a tax was levied on the fire-hearth of every dwelling-house, and the amount collected under this grievous impost in Willenhall was returned as £9 14s. 3d., representing 97 hearths. These figures seem to indicate that in the reign of Charles II. the population of the place, including the large hall at Bentley, could not have exceeded 500.
For centuries the Manorial and the Parochial forms of government ran together side by side in this country, till these two antiquated ideas of feudal lordship and church temporalities had to give way before the growing democratic principle of elective representation, and they were eventually supplanted by the modern methods of popular self-government.
In the reign of Elizabeth—say, half a century after the suppression of the monasteries which had hitherto succoured the poor—we get the first of our Poor Laws, accompanied by the rise of the Overseer, and by much added importance to the office of Churchwarden, or, as he was called in Willenhall, the Chapel-warden. The establishment of Church doles goes a long way to explain how strenuously the community strove to evade its liability to the poor, and it is probable that Willenhall did not establish its small workhouse till the eighteenth century. This was superseded when the Wolverhampton Union was constituted in 1834.
In 1776 the sum of £294 14s. 3d. had to be collected for poor rates in Willenhall, a sum which by 1785 had grown to £548 14s. 2d., and which for some years later averaged upwards of £500.
The Vestry, or public assembly of parishioners, would supplement these feeble efforts at local government by choosing not only Chapelwardens, but Parish Constables and the Waywardens. The custody of the stocks was entrusted to the former, while the latter were supposed to superintend the amateur efforts of the parishioners to repair their own highways, every one being then liable to furnish either manual labour or team work for this laudable public purpose.
Publicly elected and unsalaried Waywardens were naturally but feeble instruments to work with; so in the early nineteenth century, when coaching was at its zenith, this antiquated and ineffective system was superseded in Willenhall, as in many other places, by an elected Highway Board, charged with the duty of looking after all highways and common streets, ancient bridges, ditches, and watercourses. In a dilettante sort of way this Board was also a sanitary body.
In 1734 Willenhall is recorded to have suffered from a plague called the “Bloody flux,” which carried away its victims in a very few hours after the seizure. It is stated in the Parish Registers that there were buried in this year 82 persons, which was 67 in excess of the previous year. The population then was under 1,000.
Cholera and other epidemic scourges having made it apparent that beyond preserving the peace and mending the roads, the paramount duty of local self-government was to protect the people’s health, Willenhall in 1854 showed itself alive to this fact by adopting the new Public Health Acts and calling into being its first Local Board.
Nothing can convey an idea of the material blessings which resulted from this better than a glance at the vital statistics relating to Willenhall. The death-rate per thousand—
From 1845 to 1851 was |
29 |
,, 1851 ,, 1860 ,, |
26.8 |
,, 1861 ,, 1870 „ |
23.8 |
„ 1891 ,, 1900 ,, |
20.2 |
„ 1901 „ 1906 „ |
16.9 |
It was not till 1866, however, that the Board appointed its first medical officer of health, Dr. Parke. He was shortly afterwards succeeded by Mr. William Henry Hartill, and upon his death, in 1888, the present medical officer of heath, Dr. J. T. Hartill, was appointed. The chief executive officers in succession have been Mr. E. Wilcox (who was not a solicitor), Mr. John Clark, and the present clerk, Mr. Rowland Tildesley, appointed in 1894.
In the meantime the population, particularly in the newer outlying districts, had been growing rapidly. The population of Willenhall at the first national census in 1801 was only 3,143, and the growth in the early decades was slow, as these figures disclose:
3,523 |
|
,, 1821 |
3,965 |
,, 1831 |
5,834 |
„ 1841 |
8,695 |
,, 1851 |
11,933 |
,, 1861 |
17,256 |
With the growth thus becoming so rapid, it was thought desirable, in 1872, to erect Short Heath into a separate Sanitary Authority. The area allotted to the Short Heath Board of Health was that north of the Birmingham Canal, but the village of Short Heath itself remained part of the Township of Willenhall.
The census returns for Willenhall, minus Short Heath, have
1871 it had a population of |
15,903 |
1881 |
16,067 |
1891 |
16,851 |
1901 |
18,515 |
After the passing of Sir H. H. Fowler’s Local Government Act in 1895, both authorities became Urban District Councils. Short Heath then as a separate township had its area extended to take in Short Heath village, with New Invention, Lanehead, Sandbeds, Lucknow, Fibbersley, in addition to the former Local Board district, together with a slice from the old Wednesfield Local Board district added on its Essington side.
No part of what used to be called Stow Heath was in Willenhall Township, the extreme western boundary of the latter being Stow Heath Lane.
Modern Willenhall, although without public parks or pleasure grounds, and not yet possessing public baths, is fairly well equipped for its size and rateable value. It has its Public Offices, but no Town Hall; it has a Free Library, established in 1875, and a full complement of efficient primary schools. In 1877 it established its own School Board under the Act of 1870, but under the later Act of 1902 its educational affairs became vested in the Staffordshire County Council.
Willenhall had its own Waterworks at Monmore Lane as early as 1852; it now takes its supply from the Wolverhampton Corporation, who purchased the old works in 1868. Its old Gas Works in Lower Lichfield Street have been taken over by Short Heath; and Willenhall is now supplied by the Willenhall Gas Company, the present system of public street lighting being that of the very efficient incandescent burner.
The Sewerage of the town was completed in 1890. There are two public cemeteries; the Old Cemetery provided about 1851 under the Burial Acts, and the newer one at Bentley, established under the Act of 1879.
The Police are, as in most townships, under the control of the Staffordshire County Council; and Petty Sessions are held once a week (on Mondays). Seventy years ago Willenhall had a Court of Requests for the recovery of debts up to £5.
For Parliamentary representation Willenhall formed a portion of Staffordshire till the great Reform Bill of 1832 made Wolverhampton a borough, when it became part of that more important urban constituency.
For communication with the outer world Willenhall has had the advantage of the London and North-Western Railway from the earliest possible time—since the “Grand Junction Railway” (commenced in 1835) was opened to public traffic on July 4th, 1837. Great were the rejoicings, and prodigious the wonderment when the first train passed through on that memorable day. Since the later decades of the last century the Midland Railway has also tapped Willenhall.
The town is equally well supplied with tramways; the Wolverhampton District Electric Tramways, Limited, controlling three lines, to Wolverhampton, to Bilston, and Darlaston respectively; while the Walsall Corporation afford facilities for communication with their thriving and go-ahead borough. It is worthy of note that the old-fashioned carrier’s cart is not obsolete in Willenhall; this is probably because its staple industries provide so many small parcels for transmission to Wolverhampton, Birmingham, and other centres not too far distant.
The Wyrley and Essington Canal for heavy traffic was made in 1792, and is still a useful highway, particularly to the Cannock Chase Collieries.