It may perhaps be a redeeming feature in the character of that “ermined iniquity and prince of legal oppressors,” as Judge Jeffreys, who was not unconnected with Shropshire, was called, to say that as Lord Chief-Justice he exerted himself successfully to put down this abomination.
Another summons from Wenlock to the constables requires them by virtue of an Act of Parliament (fifth of William and Mary) to give notice to all householders, and to all others they may believe to be disaffected, inhabiting within their “Constablewick,” being sixteen years of age and above sixteen, to appear at the house of, Humphrey Powell, Sergent-at-mace, at Wenlock &c. to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to their Ma’ties, and to subscribe the declaration in the Act &c. Dated 16th June, 1692.
Signed Thos. Crompton, Bailf.
Chas. Rindar. Recorder.
Lan. Stephens.
John Mason.
This summons does not appear to have brought the parties to book, for we find a large number charged with contempt, and again summonsed under a fine of 40s. to appear before the Sergeant-at-mace.
In 1693, William Hayward, Roger Brooke, Gent., and John Smytheman, Gent., and others are applied to, as assessors for Madeley, Beckbury and Little Wenlock, in carrying out the Act passed in the fifth year of the reign of William and Mary, entitled “an Act for granting to their Majesties an aid of Four Shillings in ye pound for one year, for carrying on a vigorous War against France.” After giving the nature of the property to be taxed, the Bailiff and his Officers call upon the assessors to levy a double tax upon “every papist, or reputed papist, of ye age of 16 years or upwards, who hath not taken the oath mentioned and required to be observed in an Act of Parliament passed in the first year of that reign, entitled an Act for abrogating the oaths of Supremacy and allegiance,” unless they then take the oath they shall administer. The papists however were not alone in this respect; others who had not taken the oaths, or who refused to take those tendered, were to be similarly rated or assessed.
In some cases the Constables were required to look after and to report upon all young men of a certain age and height, likely to be of use to his Majesty in war times, &c.
Here is a specimen.
(To the Constables of Madeley.)
“We whose names” &c., His Ma’ties Justices of the Peace, having received a summons from the Deputy Lieutenant of the county, together with a copy of a letter from the Lords of the Privy Council &c., Command you to make diligent search for all straggling seamen, watermen, or seafaring men, and to impress all such, giving each one shilling, impressment money, and to bring the same before us, to the intent that they may be sworn and provided for, as by the said letter directed; and You, the sd. Constables are not to impress any very old, crazy, or unhealthy men, but such as are younge, and of able healthy bodies, fit for se’vice; and herein you are to use yo’e: best endeavours as you and any of you will answer the contrary. Given under our hands &c.
“You are to take notice that what monye you shall lay out of yo’e: purse upon this service we will take care the same shall be speedily repaid you according to the order of their Majesties Privy Council.”
Jas: Lewis, Balf.
Geo: Weld.
Tho: Compton.
Turning back to the period when great political, religious, and moral changes were taking place in the country, when Royalists and Republicans had been struggling for the mastery, and the latter were victorious, to ascertain their reflex and influence upon the little local parliaments sitting in the Guildhall at Wenlock, we found some characteristic presentments by those then important officers the constables, from the several constablewicks within the franchise, with other matters coming before the bailiffs and Justices of the Peace, and instructions issued by them such as may be of interest in shewing the intermeddling spirit of Puritanism in its then rampant attitude, when the neglect of public worship, and the walking out of sweethearts, and even husbands and wives, during sermon time, was punished with fines, imprisonments or the stocks. The stocks in fact appear to have been in frequent requisition, and fines as frequently imposed for such trivial offences as hanging out clothes on a Sunday, being seen in an ale house on the Sabbath, and for the very mildest form of swearing, or for the least utterance of disaffection or disrespect of the Commonwealth. Here, for instance, is the presentment of
“Articles of evil behaviour of Edward Jeames, of Long Stanton Clee, in the Liberties of Much Wenlock, xiiiith day of September, 1652, John Warham, gent., Bailiff.
“First, that the said Edward Jeames is a common disturber of the Publike Peace, of this Commonwealth, by stirring up strife and sedition among his neighbours.”
The presentment then proceeds to state that the said Edward Jeames doth often quarrel with his owne wife and family.
“Secondly That the said Edward Jeames doth take abroade wh. him a Welsh servt. Lad wch. he keepeth, to the end yat if any neighboure being by him abused by opprobvious and unseemely language and word of provocation, doe make any answeare or reply to him, out of which any advantage may be taken, the said Lad shall verify ye same upon oath on purpose to vex and molest the same neighboure and to gaine revenge against him. Thirdly that the said Edward Jeames, in September, 1651, when the titular king of Scotte invaded yis land wh. an army, saied openly in ye heareing of divse persons yt he was glad yt ye kinge was comen into ye land, for if he had not come he thought yt ye pesent. government would have altered religion & turned all unto Popery.”
We did not turn to other old parchments containing the decisions of the Justices to see what punishment, if any, was meted out to Mr. Jeames for his evil behaviour, but turned to note some of the Informations laid against ale house keepers, and persons frequenting ale houses on the Sabbath. Here is one from Barrow, not from the Constable, or from one living within the franchise; but from a gentleman who first proclaims his own goodness by telling us that he himself had attended service twice on the Sunday, but who, like many others just then, felt it to be his duty to look after others. He commences by saying
“that yesterday, being Lord’s Day, I was at Wenlock morning and evening prayer, and going home by the house of John Thompson of Barrow, ale seller, both the doors being open I saw both hall and parlour full of people, both men and women drinkeinge and some drinkeinge forth of dores. There is a private house standing farr from any rode and hath the report to bee a verye rude house on ye Lord’s Day. I am Louth to be the informer, because I doe nott live wthin ye franchise, but leave yt to ye worshps. consideration hoping you will take som course whereby God may bee better honoured, and his Sabbathes less defamed in that house. What I can speke of that man further I forbear, for ye pesent.
Yours to command,
WILLIAM LEGG, senr.”
“Sworn before the Bailiff, John Warham, gent.”
The above John Thompson appeared, and we find
“& is ordered to appear at any tyme hereafter when Mr. Bailiff shall requyer.
6th September, 1652.”
The next is an information against John Aston, of Madeley, in the county of Salop, in which the said John is summonsed to appear before the Bailiff, John Warham, gent., and Justices of the Peace of the said town and liberties. The information appears to have been sworn to by Thomas Smytheman, of Madeley, husbandman, who states that Lawrence Benthall, and William Davies, of Madeley, were seen drinking on the Lord’s Day, at Aston’s ale-house. The summons appears to have been issued by John Weld the younger, of Willey. The case is now brought before the Bailiff who says:
“Let a warrant issue forth to the officers for the leviing of the monies forfeited for the said offence, according to the Act of Parliament in that behalf; signed, John Warham, Bailiff.”
We find similar informations as to ale-houses from Broseley and other parts of the franchise about the same time.
“The information upon oath of John Eabs of Shurlett, taken upon oath the xxvth day of May, 1648, conserninge some Sheepe stolne from him of late.
“Deposeth that upon ffriday night last he had a Lamb feloniously stolne from him either out of his yearde or out of the pasture, and alsoe upon Wensday night he had likewise a weather sheepe stolne, and upon search made for the same yeasterday being Saturday he wh. Edward Buckley the Deputy Constable, found in the house of Willm. Wakeley in Shurlett a qter. of lambe hyd in a Milkepan, wh. a brest and halfe a brest, a neck not cutt from the brest of lambe, all covered upon wh. flower, yis said Edward Wakeleye’s Wife denynige soundly yat there was any Mutton or lambe in the house or whin. yat Milkepane, and desieringe ye searchers not to shead her flower in ye pan wh. ye meate was hyd in, and indeavouringe to obscure ye place, beinge a Cobard, in wh. ye lambe was, and further cannot informe but yat he verily beleiveth in his conscience ye said meate was feloniously stolne by ye said Wakely or his people.
Sworn before Audley Bowdler.
Edw. Wakeley upon being examined says that the lambe was one of his own which he killed on Friday night, and that parte of it was eaten by his own people before search was made next morne; “being demanded why it was hid and hid over with flower in such obscurity in his house, he says he knoweth not whether it was hid or not, but if it was it was wht. ye privity of ye said Examind, and done by his people unknown to him.”
This puts us in mind of another famous old sheep stealer of Shirlett, who having stolen a sheep hid it in the baby’s cradle, and when the Constables called to search his house, with the greatest nonchalance told them they might search away; but added, “don’t make a noise or else you’ll wake the baby”; and he continued to smoke his pipe and rock the cradle till the search was completed, and the officers departed without finding any “meate.”
The Constables appointed by the Corporation of Wenlock, were officers who within the Constablewicks or allotments into which the Borough was divided, were entrusted, under the Bailiffs with very many important duties, such as collecting monies for the king, and carrying into execution acts of parliament, as well as executing summonses and bringing up defaulters. They were a superior class of men, selected from such as held land, or were persons of property. Later on quite a different class of men were appointed; still, sometimes from small tradesmen, but at others from men who sought the office for the sake of its emoluments, and who often became the tools of unscrupulous men in office, whether Bailiffs or Justices of the Peace; as in the case of Samuel Walters, a broken-down tradesman, whose doings at last, together with that of the Justices, attracted the attention of parliament. Walters, was the son of the Rev. Mr. Walters, incumbent of Madeley, and it may serve to give an idea of the estimation in which he was held in the parish to mention, that he on one occasion attempted to enlist his own father, by giving him the shilling in the dark.
The powers exercised by the borough justices were often most arbitrary, especially when the individual who came within their power happened to be a dissenter, or “a dangerous radical.” On the merest pretence blank warrants were issued, which unscrupulous constables, like “Sammy Walters,” as he was called, carried in their pockets, and filled as occasion required. One notorious instance was that of three Dutch girls, (Buy-a-Brooms, as they were called), whom Walters overtook in his “Teazer,” between Wenlock and Shrewsbury, and invited to ride with him. Calling at a public-house on the road he went in, filled up three of his warrants, and then drove them straight to Shrewsbury gaol. This case came before the House of Commons, and was inquired into by the Home Secretary, and the system of granting blank warrants was abolished throughout the kingdom. Madeley is one of the three Wards into which the borough is divided. For parliamentary purposes Beckbury and Badger are included, these having been, like Madeley, part of the extensive possessions of the church of St. Milburgh. Madeley also formed part of the wide extending parish of Holy Trinity of Wenlock, a parish which embraced Broseley, and was not limited even by the Severn. The words of the charter granted by Edward IV. to Sir John Wenlock were these:—
“That the Liberty of the Town or Borough shall extend to the Parish of the Holy Trinity, and through all the limits, motes, and bounds of the same parish, and not to any other Towns or Hamlets which are not of the Parish aforesaid.”
The charter granted by Charles I., in the seventh year of his reign, added somewhat to the privileges previously possessed, and either gave or confirmed the right of the burgesses to send one member to parliament. Originally it seems to have been the prior who had the right of attending parliament; for we find in 1308 Sir John Weld holding Willey by doing homage to the prior by “carrying his frock to parliament.” How the burgesses obtained the further privilege of sending two members to parliament no one seems to know, and there is no document, we believe, in the archives of the corporation tending to throw light on the subject; but they appear to have enjoyed that privilege as far back as Henry VIII’s time.
The burgesses of Madeley were not numerous, we fancy; some well known Madeley names, however, occur, both as burgesses and as bailiffs, like those of Audley Bowdler and Ffosbrooke de Madeley; the former was “Bailiff of the town and liberties” in 1655 and 1678. In 1661 Thomas Kinnersley de Badger, Armiger, was bailiff, which would seem to indicate that the burgesses of Badger at that time shared in the municipal duties and privileges of the borough. In 1732 Mathew Astley de Madeley, Gent, was bailiff. The Astleys lived in the old hall, a stone building partly on the site of Madeley Hall, now the residence of Joseph Yate, Esq., a portion of which building is supposed now to form the stable. The names of the Smithemans, one of whom married the co-heir of Cumberford Brooke, Esq., of Madeley Court and Cumberford in Staffordshire, occur among the bailiffs. Later on we get that of George Goodwin, of Coalbrookdale and the Fatlands.
At the passing of the Municipal Reform Act in 1835–6 mayors were substituted for bailiffs; the last elected under the old title and the first elected as chief magistrate under the new title was likewise a Madeley gentleman, William Anstice, Esq., father of the present William Reynolds Anstice, Esq., of Ironbridge. Mr. Anstice was elected bailiff in 1834; in 1835 there appears to have been no election, but in 1836 he was the first gentleman elected, as we have just said, under the new title. Subsequently the names of other parishioners, as Henry Dickinson, Charles James Ferriday, John Anstice, Charles Pugh, John Arthur Anstice, and Richard Edmund Anstice, Esquires, occur. The present (1879) Aldermen and Councillors for the Ward are Egerton W. Smith, first elected Alderman 1871, and John Fox elected Alderman 1879; John Arthur Anstice first elected Councillor 1869; Alfred Jones 1873; John Randall 1874; Richard Edmund Anstice 1876; Andrew Beacall Dyas 1878; [235] and William Yate Owen 1879.
The electors for parliamentary purposes prior to the passing of the Reform Rill in 1832 were few in number so far as Madeley was concerned. They consisted of freemen, men who acquired the right to vote for members of parliament either by birth, servitude, or purchase. Such freemen however could live many miles distant; they were often brought at a closely contested election even from the continent, at considerable expense; and the poll was kept open for weeks.
The Act of 1832, 2 William IV., limited this right to persons resident within the borough for six calendar months, or within seven statute miles from the place where the poll was taken, and this was uniformly taken at Wenlock. It limited the right of making freemen to those whose fathers were already burgesses, or who were entitled to become such prior to the 31st March, 1831. The twenty-seventh clause of the act, which conferred the right to vote upon ten-pound occupiers of houses or portions of buildings, added greatly to the franchise in Madeley as compared with other portions of the borough. The alterations effected by the act of 1867 in the borough franchise were, of course, very much greater, as it gave the right of voting to every inhabitant occupier as owner or tenant of any dwelling house within the borough, subject to the ratings and payment of poors rates; also to occupiers of parts of houses where rating was sufficient and separate.
Contests were not very frequent under the old state of things; when they did occur they arose more out of rivalry or jealousy on the part of neighbouring families than from anything else. The most fiercely fought contests that we remember, under the old limited constituency, were those of 1820 and 1826; when Beilby Lawley and Beilby Thompson put up. The most memorable under the ten pound franchise were those when Bridges put up in 1832; and on a subsequent occasion Sir William Sommerville, in 1835. Bridges and Sommerville came forward in the liberal interest, and the numbers polled from Madeley, were—
Sommerville |
111 |
Forester |
67 |
Gaskell |
45 |
Among Sommerville’s supporters were many plumpers.
The more recent contests under the extended franchise were when C. G. M. Gaskell, Esq. came forward, and only polled 846 votes against 1,708 polled by the Right Hon. General Forester, and 1,575 by A. H. Brown, Esq., and the more recent of 1874, when Sir Beilby Lawley came forward.
Madeley with its two sister wards has Petty Sessions once in six weeks, which are held in the large room built for that purpose over the Police Office at Ironbridge. In the lower story are cells for prisoners, very different indeed as regards cleanliness and conveniences of all kinds to the old Lock-up, which many may remember near the potato market. The justices for the borough generally sit here, the Mayor being chief magistrate presiding. The first batch of magistrates, in the place of the borough justices, took place in the 6th year of the reign of William IV., those for Madeley being William Anstice, Esq., of Madeley Wood, and John Rose, Esq., of the Hay. Others have been appointed from time to time as circumstances seemed to require.
The borough from the first period of incorporation had its General Sessions, and its Recorder, who, being a lawyer or other fit person, was chosen by the burgesses to sit with the Bailiff to be justices of the peace, to hear and determine felonies, trespasses, &c., and to punish delinquents therein; and King Charles’s Charter fixed this court to be held once in two weeks. There was also a General Sessions. The same charter states
“That there shall be a General Sessions of Peace to be holden by the said Bailiff and Justices in any place convenient within the Borough aforesaid, from time to time for ever; so that they do not proceed to any matter touching the loss of life or member in the said Borough, without the presence, assistance, and assent of the Recorder of the said Borough. That they shall have all fines, &c., imposed as well in the said Sessions aforesaid as in all other Courts to be held within the said Borough.”
In our “History of Broseley,” p.p. 38 and 39, we have given the names of the bailiff, recorder, justices of the peace, those of the constables, and grand jury, who sat in cases heard at Wenlock July 21st, 1653. The right to hold such Sessions was originally granted by Edward IV. in 1468. When the reconstruction of the borough courts took place in consequence of the changes effected by the passing of the Municipal Act in 1836, this institution of General Sessions appears to have been overlooked: but the privilege was afterwards granted upon petition by the council, in the 6th year of the reign of her present majesty.
The magistrates resident in the parish at present are—
Appointed. |
|
John Arthur Anstice, Esq. |
1869 |
William Gregory Norris, Esq. |
1869 |
Charles Pugh, Esq. |
1871 |
Richard Edmund Anstice, Esq. |
1877 |
A County Court or sciremote was instituted by Alfred the Great, and gradually fell into disuse after the appointment of Justices of Assize in the reign of Henry II. Courts of Request were afterwards created. The charter already quoted, for instance, speaking of the burgesses says:—
“That they may have a Court of Record upon Tuesday for ever, once in two weeks, wherein they may hold by plaint in the same court all kinds of pleas whatsoever, whether they shall amount to the sum of forty shillings; the persons against whom the plaints shall be moved or levied, to be brought into plea by summons, attachment, or distress.”
This court was held at Broseley, before Commissioners, of whom there were eight chosen, to represent the eight parishes over which it had jurisdiction. It was held at the Hole-in-the-Wall public house, and Jeremiah Perry (Jerry the Bum as he was called) was bailiff, and after him Henry Booth, when we remember it. It was abolished when the Act for the recovery of small debts was passed and the present system of County Courts established in 1847. The books and documents, three tons in weight, were transferred to the court at Madeley, afterwards to London, and were sent to the Government paper mills, we believe.
The County Court at Madeley was formerly held in the Club Room of the Royal Oak Inn; but a county court house was erected in 1858. The building is in the Grecian style, and comprises a large court room, registrar’s and bailiffs office, and dwelling house for the court keeper. The present judge of the circuit, which comprises twelve courts, is Arundel Rogers, Esq.; Registrar and High Bailiff, E. B. Potts, Esq.; Chief Clerk, Mr. E. A. Hicks, with an efficient staff of bailiffs. The court has jurisdiction in ordinary cases up to £50, in equity to £500; and divides with Shrewsbury the whole bankruptcy business of the county. A bill has already passed the House of Lords proposing to greatly increase the jurisdiction of all county courts. Scale of fees: summary—
Under £2 |
1s. in the £. |
Above £2 |
1s., and 1s. extra. |
Hearing Fees |
2s. in the £. |
Executions |
1/6 do. do. |
There are between 2000 and 3000 new cases annually.
This court was originally held at the Court House, by the Prior of Wenlock, as lord of the manor of Madeley, as shewn on page 9, where the pleas and perquisites of the said court are mentioned as being entered in 1379 at 2s. The right to hold such court, a Court Leet, as it was called, was transferred, together with other privileges, by Henry VIII. to Robert Brooke when he sold the manor. It passed to John Unett Smitheman, Esq., who married Catherine Brooke, daughter and co-heir of Cumberford Brooke, Esq., of Madeley, and Cumberford in Staffordshire. The Smitheman’s sold the manor to Richard Reynolds, from whom it passed to his son William. The property belongs now to the devisees of the late Joseph Gulson Reynolds, and those of his brother William Reynolds, M.D.. Esq.
The Court Leet has not been held of late years. It had jurisdiction over various offences, extending from nuisances, eaves dropping, and various irregularities and offences against the public peace.
This useful and valued institution was established in 1828. At its fiftieth anniversary, held July, 1878, the president was the Right Hon. Lord Forester. The vice-presidents: the Hon. and Rev. Canon Forester; W. O. Foster, Esq.; the Rev. G. Edmonds; C. T. W. Forester, Esq., M.P.; A. H. Brown, Esq., M.P.; C. G. M. Gaskell, Esq.; and the treasurer, John Pritchard, Esq. The surgeons include E. G. Bartlam, Esq., Broseley; T. L. Webb, Esq., Ironbridge; C. B. H. Soame, Esq., Dawley; J. Procter, Esq., Ironbridge; Dr. Thursfield, Broseley; H. Stubbs, Esq., Madeley; and J. J. Saville, Esq., Cressage.
At this meeting the following subscribers, together with the president, vice-presidents, and treasurer, were appointed a committee for the ensuing year:—
William Reynolds Anstice, Esq.
Mr. Alexander Grant.
Mr. Edward Burton.
Mr. Egerton W. Smith.
W. Gregory Norris, Esq.
Arthur Maw, Esq.
John Arthur Anstice, Esq.
Richard Edmund Anstice, Esq.
Edward Roden, Esq.
Rev. Frederick Robert Ellis.
Rev. George Fleming Lamb.
Mr. Francis G. Yates, (since deceased).
George Burd, Esq.
John Pritchard, Esq., Chairman.
Prior to the passing of the New Poor Law in 1836 each parish maintained its own poor, a system which had been acted upon, we suppose, from the time of Queen Elizabeth. But how the Madeley poor were housed or treated prior to the erection of the Old “House of Industry,” or “Workhouse,” which stood on the hill overlooking the valley of the Severn, now in course of demolition and conversion into cottages, we are unable to say. [242] In all probability out-door relief alone was administered. At all times there have been kind and open hearted men of means who out of their worldly store have taken care to make some provision for their less fortunate brethren, either during their lifetime or by way of devise at their death. In this way, as we have seen on page 217, there were two principal charities, called the Brooke and Beddow charities which amounted altogether to £100. At the latter end of the last century the trustees appear to have invested this in the purchase of several small leasehold cottages and lands, chiefly at Madeley Wood. When it was resolved to build a house of industry in 1787 these properties were sold by the trustees for that purpose. They consisted of two messuages and 15 perches of land situate at the Foxholes, which produced £45. One messuage and garden containing 6¼ perches in the possession of Samuel Hodghkiss, which produced £24. An old messuage and garden in Madeley Wood containing 17 perches and a piece of garden ground containing 2½ perches, which produced £53 10s. A stable in Madeley Wood which produced £10. And two messuages and gardens in Madeley Wood containing a quarter of an acre, and a piece of garden ground containing five perches, which produced £83; also another which fetched £23; making a total of £235 10s.
The investment itself seems to have been so far a good one; the value of the property having increased, owing to the works springing up in the neighbourhood; and it was resolved to raise a subscription in the parish to be added to this £235. The further amount of £806 13s. 6d. was thus raised, making altogether £1,042 3s. 6d., which sum was applied in the erection on a part of the charity land of a house of industry, the cost of which was £1,086 13s. 7¼d.; and a lease of that piece of land, with the house so erected upon it, containing 3r. 12p. or thereabouts, was at the 2nd of January, 1797, granted by the vicar and the major part of the trustees to the then churchwardens and overseers for the use of the parish for a term of 999 years, at the yearly rent of £18. The Charity Commissioners say that the premises described in the leases do not appear to tally exactly with the parcels contained in the two deeds of purchase; and add:—
“Nor are we able to trace the variations of the property which have taken place; as far as we can judge, however, nothing has been lost to the charity. It appears indeed to us that in former times there must have been considerable inattention in the trustees of the affairs of the charity, for we find that previously to the leases granted in 1797, the holders of the tenements claimed the property in them on payment of the interest of the £100 which had been vested in the purchase, and the trustees were obliged to establish their right by an action of ejectment, a state of things which could scarcely have taken place without much previous remissness on their part. Whether the trustees were strictly justified in making the disposal of the property which they did in 1797 may be questionable. In effect they have sold original property of the charity, and have purchased a rent-charge on the house of industry. Under the circumstances of the case, however, it does not at present appear to us that they could have made a more beneficial arrangement. The income of these premises, amounting to £18 4s. 6½d., together with 5s. a year derived from another fund, has been for many years applied in providing clothing for the poor. At Christmas 1818, tickets of 5s. value were distributed to 71 poor persons, which were received in payment by the different tradesmen for such articles of clothing as were wanted. In 1817 the distribution was wholly suspended, and in the preceding year partially, in order to raise a fund for defraying the expense of a new trust deed. This had occasioned a balance in hand at the time of our inquiry of £23 15s. The deed was prepared and paid for, and it was intended that the whole of the remaining balance with the accruing rents should be given away at the ensuing Christmas.”
For some years the proceeds of the charity were given away to the poor—blankets were bought and distributed; but for over forty years, prior to the last distribution in 1879, it had been accumulating, excepting that on the first and second visitations of the cholera, it was made use of for the purpose of alleviating the distress then existing; and it had been thought advisable to permit its accumulation for the purpose of forming a reserve fund on which to fall back in times of urgent distress, whether arising from contagious disease or depression of trade.
The charge of £18 per annum upon the old poor-house was transferred to the new, and is still paid to the trustees; and to the sum accumulated has been added the £750 which the old workhouse sold for, and it was out of the interest of the whole that the last distribution of the funds of the charity took place in 1879, when blankets to the value of £70 or thereabouts were given away.
The union of parishes was formed in 1836, and Wm. Anstice, Esq. was chosen chairman. He held office for fifteen years, and was succeeded by G. Pritchard, Esq. who held it for eleven years. At his death W. Layton Lowndes, Esq. was elected, and held the office for seventeen years. John Arthur Anstice, Esq., who succeeded Mr. Lowndes on his retirement in April 25th, 1879, now discharges the duties of the office.
A building erected and designed for the poor of one parish was scarcely likely to be suited to the wants of a number of parishes, like Barrow, Benthall, Broseley, Buildwas, Dawley, Linley, Little Wenlock, Madeley, Posenhall, Stirchley, and Willey, which formed the new Union; and although additions were made from time to time the building was evidently inadequate for the accommodation of the number of paupers, tramps, &c., who sought aid or refuge within its walls. It was some time however after the subject was broached before anything was decided. Some Guardians advocated the further enlargement of the old building, whilst others were for a new one entirely; but these even differed among themselves, some being in favour of a new building on the old site, whilst others advocated another site and a new plan altogether. The Poor Law Commissioners at Somerset House accelerated the issue by threatening to close the old building, as unfit for the uses to which it was put; the result being that a site was purchased and the present extensive and well arranged suite of rooms, wards, &c., with their various conveniences, were erected. The original loan of £6,000 obtained in 1870 towards the purchase of the site and the erection of the building was to be paid back by instalments out of the rates levied in the several parishes of the Union, according to the proportions of the rating. The loan altogether has been £10,000, and, with interest, the cost of the erection may be said to have been £13,800; but a further sum of £600 is required for the erection of tramp wards. The building stands upon 7¾ acres, which was purchased at a cost of £1,700; and six acres, previously very rough ground, is under cultivation, and made productive, and in part highly ornamental, by the judicious labour of the inmates of the house. Altogether the grounds and building have a pleasing rather than that forbidding appearance such institutions sometimes have. The building consists of a front range, with central entrance, with master’s sitting room, board room, and clerk’s offices, on the right; whilst on the left are the visitor’s rooms, and one for the porter, with male and female receiving wards, bath room &c.
Inside the quadrangle we get central offices of various kinds, cooking and dining rooms, pantry, clothing room, master and matron’s offices. On the right are the laundry, the washhouse, work rooms, able bodied women’s rooms, children’s room, old infirm women’s room, and three small apartments for married couples. There is also a dormitory on the ground floor for old and infirm women; and over the whole of the offices and rooms mentioned are bedrooms. On the left are similar arrangements to those we have mentioned for the men, but with workshops for carpenters and tailors. On the east is the infirmary, a detached building, with male and female apartments, nurses, &c.; and below this a fever hospital. The whole building is capable of giving accommodation to 225 inmates; but at the time we write 88 are the total number, notwithstanding the very depressed state of trade; and 90, we learn, is about the average.
We visited many of the rooms, that in describing the building we may be able to give our own impressions of the appearance of the inmates. The bedrooms were tenantless, but clean, well lighted and airy; we could not say however what they would be from the breath of so many sleeping in them at night time. Many of the old people we saw in the day rooms were very old, and a large number imbecile, several having been recently brought here from Bicton Heath Asylum. And although this was the case with the women there seemed something about the internal domestic arrangements, which, in giving them employment, seemed to create interest. There was a cheerful alacrity among the female workers, in washing, ironing, mending, making, and scrubbing, and a readiness in replying to questions put by the matron which seemed to speak favourably of the way in which she discharges her duties amongst them. In the “day-rooms” of the men too, although we saw feebleness and age, we saw little of that torpid inanimateness, helplessness, and hopeless looking withered faces one is apt to look for in workhouses. Some were dim-eyed with age, but others were reading books, and more would read no doubt if they had something to read which was interesting. And why should they not have? Here were old men 75, 80, and “going of 85,” sitting round a good cheerful fire in a snug room to whom a few illustrated books or newspapers, which everybody could spare, would be a godsend. If all cannot read some can, and they would be pleased to amuse or interest their fellows. We suggested as much to Mrs. Hayes, the matron, who approved of the suggestion of these and of a few prints hung up in the bedrooms, as well as the day and school rooms; as also did the Rev. H. Wayne, one of the Guardians, who wished we had been in time to make the suggestion to the board. We mention it here that it may be acted upon by others, if the board, or to the master, to whom all such books, prints, or papers should be submitted, approve. Age and infirmity require as much commiseration as childhood, and in very many respects the same means will comfort and solace the aged and impotent as the young child. We ought at any rate to try to make old age endurable. If we do not do this we but add to the weight of old age already bent down with infirmities, and—
‘We furnish feathers for the wing of death.’
One thoughtful lady had, we found, kindly furnished the school-room with some really good prints and drawings. On sunny and suitable days Mr. Hayes employs the men in the grounds, and by the growth of vegetables contributes to the maintenance of the establishment, of which we might say much more if space permitted.
The amount administered in out-door relief at present is a little over that of in-door maintenance, which for the half year ending Michaelmas, 1878, was £544 11s. 2¼d
We have already mentioned Master and Matron: Clerk to the Board Mr. H. Boycott; Chaplain Rev. G. Wintour. Relieving officers Mr. W. Morris and Mr. W. T. Jones.
If some memorable occurrences in local history may be termed ‘red lettered,’ the fearful visitations of this epidemic in 1832 and 1848 may be said to have been black, and very black lettered events indeed. The steady march of this dire disease from Asia over the continent of Europe towards our shores in 1831 created the utmost alarm of approaching danger, and led to precautionary measures being taken. Medical science however was at fault; contradictory advice was given; orders in council were issued and withdrawn; and people were at their wits’ end what steps to take. A rigid system of quarantine was at first enforced; and when the enemy did arrive it was ordered that each infected district or house was to be isolated and shut up within itself, and the inhabitants cut off from communication with other parts of the country; and ‘all articles of food or other necessaries were to be placed in front of the house, and received by the inhabitants after the person delivering them had retired.’ It was in fact the exploit over again of the gallant gentleman who proposed, as Milton says, to ‘pound up the crows by shutting his park gate.’ Clinging to the belief that the disease was imported and spread by contagion, few really remedial measures founded on the hypothesis of the low sanitary condition of the population—as bad drainage, ill-ventilated and overcrowded dwellings, offensive sewers, unwholesome water, and the thousand other kindred abominations which afflict the poor, were suggested. But feelings and sympathies were naturally with the patient and against the unchristian edict which said to him—‘Thou art sick, and we visit thee not; thou art in prison, and we come not unto thee’. Gradually too it dawned upon the minds of the authorities—as the result of observation and experience—that it was not so much from direct communication that persons were affected, as from bad sanitary conditions;—for persons were not consecutively affected who lived in the same house or slept in the same bed with the sick; and that children even suckled by mothers labouring under the disease escaped. On Wednesday, the 21st of March, 1832, there was a general fast for deliverance from the plague, as it was called, but it was pretty much the same as Æsop’s case of the carter who prayed Jupiter to get his cart wheel out of the rut; and the answer vouchsafed by Providence was similar—‘put your own shoulder to the wheel’, do what you can first to make the people clean and wholesome. We have no statistics or recorded facts to fall back upon, but so far as our knowledge and experience serves us we should say that the first victims in this neighbourhood were among men and women who led irregular lives, and who lived in dirty ill-ventilated homes, and in the decks and cabins of barges going long voyages, in which men slept and ate their meals; and persons on the banks of the Severn, who drank the polluted water of the river. A case occurred at Coalport, on the 21st of July, 1832, on board a barge on the Severn, which belonged to owner Jones; and it was thought prudent to sink the vessel to destroy the contagion. A man named Richard Evans also was taken with the cholera on board a Shrewsbury barge, and was removed to the “Big House,” as it was called, at the Calcutts, which had been hired and set apart by Mr. George Pritchard and others for the reception of victims. On the 23rd, Thomas Oakes, son of John Oakes, died on board Dillon Lloyd’s vessel, and during that month and the next the plague continued its ravages by the Severn. From an old diary we learn that a man named Goosetree, his wife, and three children, were seized on the 14th of August at the Coalport Manufactory, and died the same day; as also did a Mrs. Baugh and her mother.
The more ignorant of the people were suspicious of the doctors; Mr. Thursfield on the 23rd of July visited a house at Coalford, and offered a draught to a woman whom he suspected of shewing symptoms of the disease, but was beaten off by her daughter Kitty, who said her mother wanted food and not medicine. The doctor does not appear to have been popular judging from doggrel lines in circulation at the time—
‘The cholera morbus is begun
And Dr. Thursfield is the mon
To carry the cholera morbus on.’
A man named William Titley, whilst drinking, dancing, and singing this to a public house company, was taken with the disease, and died next day. William Fletcher, a carpenter, whilst employed in making the coffin intended for Titley, was seized, and died next day, and was buried in the coffin he had made for another. A few days after, on the 14th of September, Israel Weager, a barge block-maker, who wore dirty and greasy clothes, who was grimy and dirty also in his person, and worked in a wretched shed by the Robin Hood public house, was another taken about the same time who died. During the remainder of the same month, and those of October, November, and December, the cholera continued to find victims. Men drank hard to ward off the disease and sowed the seeds which brought it on. Men and women were taken ill, died, and were buried the same day; and some were probably buried before they were dead. One man, a well known cock-fighter at Broseley, was attacked with the disease, and so stupefied by brandy that he was supposed to be dead. He was taken to the cholera ground adjoining Jackfield church on the hill, and the rattle of the soil upon the coffin which accompanied the words “ashes to ashes” &c., roused him from his stupor, when the bystanders hearing a noise lifted the lid and the old cocker came forth. [253] We believe his name was William Roberts, judging from the diary before mentioned, and that the event occurred on the 14th of September; and that on the 1st of October his wife and two children died of the plague, and were buried the same day. At many places it was much worse than it was here. At Bilston, for instance, it raged so fiercely that forty-five victims died in one day; and not less than twenty for several days running; and their neighbours at Birmingham presented a waggon load of coffins, as being the most acceptable present they could make. It was bad enough here; church bells were tolling, hearses and cholera carts were in motion often, and at untimely hours, early and late, by torch light, or accompanied by the feeble light of a lantern; and a melancholy sadness settled upon all. Many journeys were made by the “cholera cart from the Workhouse” to Madeley church-yard, with just sufficient of the inmates of the house to convey the corpse to the hole dug for it. It must not be supposed however that the victims to this terrible plague were confined to the lower classes, many of the well-to-do were stricken and died: the sister of the present Lord Forester, we are informed by the diary referred to, died on the 23rd of July of cholera in London. At last the evil spent itself and subsided; it was a fearful curse, but it had the effect of convincing us that something more than fasts and well-seasoned sermons were needed to prevent or remove the epidemic: and so much was done by public attention being called to the effects bad sanitary conditions had on the physical causes of sickness and mortality, by Dr. Southwood Smith in 1838, and by evidence by Mr. Slaney, M.P., for Shrewsbury, who obtained a select committee to enquire into the circumstances affecting the health of the inhabitants of large towns, with a view to improved sanitary regulations for their benefit, in 1840, that the knowledge gained enabled medical men successfully to grapple with the epidemic when it again threatened to spread itself over the country in 1848.
The Severn at present is of little service to the parishioners of Madeley, either as a source of food or a means of transit, compared with what it was in former times. Yet washing as it does the whole of the western side of the parish, from Marnwood brook to the brook which separates Madeley and Sutton parishes, it deserves notice. There was a time when it supplied a considerable portion of food to those living upon its banks; and when, whilst other parts of the country, less favoured, were labouring under the disadvantages of land conveyance, over roads scarcely passable, and by machines but imperfectly constructed, its navigation conferred superior privileges; both by the importation of hay, corn, groceries &c., and the exportation of mines and metals produced along the valley through which it runs. The river, inconsiderable in its origin, is indebted for its navigable importance to physical peculiarities of country that constitute its basins. An extensive water-shed of hills, whose azure tops court the clouds, brings down a large amount of rain to swell the volume of its stream. From its source to its estuary in the Bristol Channel it gathers as it rolls from rivers and brooks, which, after irrigating rich pasture lands along their banks, pour their waters into its channel. The Teme, augmented by the Clun, the Ony, the Corve, the Avon, and the Wye, having each performed similar pilgrimages through flower-dotted fields, also pay tribute of their waters. Here weaving its way through a carpet of the richest green it visits sheep-downs, cattle-pastures, orchards, hop-plantations, and hay-producing fields, as it sweeps along, conferring benefit upon the soil, increasing the fertility of fields, aiding in the development of mines, linking important wealth producing districts, bringing materials for manufacturing purposes together, and transporting their products to the sea.
This formerly more than now, so that Agriculture, and commerce felt its quickening influence and bore witness to its sway. Feeders, which capital with talismanic touch opened up by cuttings on the plain, aqueducts or embankments across the vale, tunnels, locks, and other contrivances among the hills to overcome inequalities of surface ran miles through inland districts to collect its traffic. The Shropshire, the Shrewsbury, and the Ellesmere Canals, united the Severn, the Mersey, and the Dee, and the rival ports, Liverpool and Bristol. Shrewsbury, Coalbrookdale, Coalport, Bridgnorth, Bewdley, Stourport, Worcester, and Gloucester, were centres from which its traffic flowed; iron crude and malleable, brick and tile, earthenware and pipes, were sent, the former in large quantities from wharfs at Coalbrookdale, and from others between Ironbridge and Coalport. The Shropshire trade was carried on by means of vessels from 40 to 78 and 80 tons burthen, drawing from three to four feet, which went down with the stream, and were drawn back by horses, or men or both. In consequence of the rapidity of the current over the fords not more than 20, 30, or 40 tons were usually carried up the river. About 20 voyages in the year were usually made by regular traders, but vessels carrying iron made more. The time occupied for full cargoes to get down to Gloucester was about 24 hours.
In 1756, there were at Madeley-Wood, 21 owners of vessels of 39 vessels. But many more than these came to the Meadow, and Coalport wharves. Hulbert, writing about half a century ago says: “standing upon Coalport bridge I have counted seventy barges standing at Coalport Wharf, some laden and others loading with coal and iron.” Madeley-Wood supplied fire-clay and fire-bricks for many years to the porcelain and other works at Worcester. Originally, when Fuller speaks of coals being exported by barges, and when during the Civil Wars the Parliamentary forces planted a garrison at Benthall to prevent the barges carrying coal down the river, vessels were drawn against the stream by strings of men linked to ropes by loops or bows, who were called bow-haulers. It was slavish work; and Richard Reynolds was so struck with the hardship and unfitness of the practice that he exerted himself to obtain an Act of Parliament for the construction of a road by the side of the river, now called the towing path, by which horses were substituted. Sometimes, when a favourable wind blew against the stream, vessels with all sails set would make good progress without further assistance; and it was a pleasing sight to see these and the larger ones, the trows, sailing along the valley. Had means been taken to improve the channel of the Severn, this noble river, navigable for 180 miles, may have been in a much more flourishing condition than at present.
Like opposing interests for and against improvements in the channel, between which the battle of locks and weirs was fought, two opposing forces have been striving for mastery in the tideway of the channel. One contending for an estuary, the other for a delta. Draining a district six thousand square miles in extent, having a fall of two hundred and twenty feet in its descent from its source on Plynlymmon, (1,500 feet above the sea line), to its tideway in the Bristol Channel, and being fed by boisterous brooks and precipitous streams that cut their way through shales and clays and sand-rocks, it is not surprising that the Severn should bring down a vast amount of silt to raise its bed. To correct these irregularities along a portion of the river, improvements, projected by Sir William Cubitt, some years since, were completed at very considerable outlay, after an expenditure of £70,000 before the sanction of Parliament could be obtained. Above Stourport, where these improvements terminate, the river is still in a state of nature. Except some pedling attempts by means of earth, loose stones, or sinking some dilapidated boats along the side, nothing has been done to improve the channel. The scouring action of the stream constantly undermines the banks. These give way after every flood, and come down to choke the river, or to change the channel, and every newly-formed shoal sends the stream at right angles to its bed to make fresh attempts upon its banks. Fords that served our painted ancestors to make incursions beyond their boundaries, bends almost amounting to circles around which they paddled their canoes, impede navigation still. Attempts to overcome these natural obstacles to its navigation were made as early as 1784, when Mr. Jessop proposed to render the river navigable for vessels drawing four feet at all seasons of the year from Worcester to Coalbrookdale. He proposed to obtain a sufficient depth for that purpose at all seasons of the year by the erection of 13 or 14 weirs between those places; he also recommended that that depth should be obtained below Diglis by dredging and correcting the natural channel of the river, and the Stafford and Worcester Canal Company, joined by the iron manufacturers of Shropshire, applied in the year 1786 to parliament for powers to carry out Mr. Jessop’s recommendations, so far as they related to the portion of the river described in the title of the bill, as from Meadow-wharf, Coalbrookdale, to the deep water at Diglis, below the city of Worcester. The bill was lost owing to the objections on the part of the public to the erection of locks and weirs, and owing to the dislike of the carriers to pay toll at all seasons of the year. As it is, there are often three, four, and five months when barges cannot navigate the river with a freight equal to defray the expenses of working them; indeed, instances have occurred in which in only two months of the twelve the river could be advantageously worked. Besides the additional wear and tear, more strength is required to work the vessel, and it takes treble the time to convey 15 tons at low water as it does four times that weight at other times.
To improvements that affect only a portion of the river, and that the lower portion, the Shropshire traders very naturally took objection. They saw that for any benefit to be derived from navigating the lower portion of the Severn they would be taxed, without being able themselves to participate in it, and at a meeting of iron and coal masters, Severn carriers, and others, held at the Tontine Inn, Ironbridge, on the 2nd of December, 1836, for the purpose of taking into consideration the propriety of opposing the project of the Worcester Severn Navigation Company, for the introduction of locks and weirs upon the river, Richard Darby, Esq., in the chair, it was resolved,
“That having attentively considered the plan proposed by the Worcester Severn Navigation Company, for effecting alterations in the channel of that river, it is of opinion that, whilst the execution of that plan affords no stable prospect of extensive advantage to the public at large, its effects upon a variety, of important local interests, and particularly upon the trading community of this neighbourhood, will be in the highest degree injurious. That the introduction of these works, even if Shropshire vessels were permitted to pass them free of any impost, would be injurious to the traders of this county, but that the exaction from that body of a toll or tonage for such passage would inflict on them a burden of the most unjust and oppressive character. That a petition or petitions in opposition be accordingly at the proper stage presented, and supported by evidence, according to the course of Parliamentary proceeding, and that every exertion be used to obtain the support of members of both houses to the prayer of such petitions.”
The following gentlemen were appointed a committee:—Mr. Botfield, Mr. Mountford, Mr. John Horton, Mr. Richard Darby, Mr. Abraham Darby, Mr. Alfred Darby, Mr. Anstice, Mr. Hombersley, Mr. Rose, Mr. William Pugh, Mr. William James, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. George Pritchard, Mr. John Owen, Mr. Samuel Roden, Mr. John Burton, Mr. John Anstice, Mr. Francis Yates, Mr. John Dyer Doughty, Mr. Edward Edwards, Mr. Samuel Smith, Mr. George Chune. The agitation proved so far successful that a clause was inserted in the bill exempting the Shropshire traders coming down with full cargoes from toll. This exemption was subject to the qualification that if in descending the river they took in, or in ascending it they took out any goods whatever within the improved portions of the river, their whole cargoes should be subject to toll. This concession cost the Shropshire interest a long and expensive opposition before a committee of the House of Commons. At subsequent periods the Shropshire iron and coal masters and Severn traders have had similar battles to fight in order to maintain the exemption clause. The commissioners appointed by the act of 1842, who, in 1847, sought powers to erect the weir at Tewkesbury, claimed the repeal of the qualified exemption from toll granted to the Shropshire trade, on the ground that the system of dredging below Worcester had been ineffectual in maintaining an uniform depth of six feet of water. This was complained of as an act of injustice and bad faith on their part towards the Shropshire interest. The slight assistance which, in certain states of the river, they derived from the diminished force of the stream in ascending, was more than neutralised by the loss of aid on their downward voyage and by the detention of the locks. Again the Shropshire traders, through the indefatigable exertions of W. R. Anstice, Esq., were successful in maintaining the free navigation of the river, so far as they were concerned, and subject to conditions above stated.
Traffic upon the Severn, it as been said, costs less than on any other river in the kingdom; and at the present time, notwithstanding the facilities railways afford, the river is preferred for some kind of goods, as for the fine castings of Coalbrookdale, such as grates, which are still carried cheaper and better by means of barges, than by any other.
So much importance has been attached to the Severn as the means both of supplying food and innocent recreation, that many Acts of parliament have at various times been passed for its protection. One sets forth that:
“The King our Sovereign lord James, &c., &c. Having certain knowledge that in his stream and river of Severn and in other rivers, streams, creeks, brooks, waters and ditches thereinto running or descending, the spawn and brood of trout, salmon and salmon-effs and other fish is yearly greatly destroyed by the inordinate and unlawful taking of the same by the common fishers useing and occupying unsized and unlawful nets and other engines,” &c., &c.
We have already said in our “History of Broseley” that—
The earlier acts of parliament were designed with a view to discourage rod-and-line fishing, anglers, who, according to Holinshead ranked third among the rogues and vagabonds, being subject to a fine of £5; and although recent legislation has been intended to encourage this harmless amusement, and to increase the growth of fish, the best efforts of both legislators and conservators have been frustrated hitherto by the Navigation Company, whose locks and weirs turn back the most prolific breeding fish seeking their spawning grounds. The first of these were erected in 1842; and four more have since been added. By the 158th and 159th sections of the Severn Navigation Act the Company were to construct fish passes; and although attempts have been made at various times to do this, no efficient means have been adopted. Not only salmon decreased since their erection but shad, flounders, and lampreys, never now visit this portion of the river. Formerly Owners of barges and their men, when they were unemployed, could spend their time profitably in fishing, and could half keep their families with what they caught.
Of the one hundred and fifteen tons of salmon taken in the Severn in 1877, 16,000 fish were supposed to have been taken in the lower or tidal portion of the river, and 1.800 in the upper or non tidal portions; but the latter proportion was larger that year than usual. Salmon in the Severn have been still further reduced by the too common practice of taking samlets, on their downward course to the sea, and we are glad to find that more stringent measures are being taken by the conservators and the water-bailiffs to prevent this. Amateur fishermen, gentlemen of intelligence, have not only contributed to this by their own acts but by encouraging others to do likewise under the pretence or excuse that they were not the young of salmon. It is a well ascertained fact, however, not only that they are young salmon, but that when grown to a proper size they come up the river they go down. We heard the Duke of Sutherland say, in his grounds at Dunrobin, where he rears hundreds of thousands of young salmon to turn into the Brora and other rivers, that he had marked their fins and found that they invariably came up the same river they go down, and the author of “Book of the Salmon,” says:—
“Take a salmon bred in the Shin, (one of the duke’s salmon rivers) in Sutherland, and set it at liberty in the Tweed, at Berwick, and it will not ascend the Tweed, but will if not slain in transitu, return to its native river, the Shin, traversing hundreds of miles of ocean to do so. Is this wonderful! No more wonderful than,—
“The swallow twittering from its straw-built shed,”
migrating, on the first appearance of winter from these shores, to the warm atmosphere, yielding insect food, of Africa, and returning to its natal locality in the spring, to live and give life in the temperate summer of a temperate zone.”
It is owing to this unconquerable instinct we are indebted for the few salmon we get in the upper Severn. At the spawning season they make their appearance in the estuary, and, so long as they meet with no insurmountable obstruction to their progress, will traverse miles for the deposition of their ova. Slight obstacles in the way will not deter them, and it is only after repeated failures they give up; they swim through rapids, leap from seven to ten feet high, and push on to their destination through powerful floods of descending water; and it is only at insurmountable barriers to their progress that they fall a prey to the rapacity of poachers, who have been known at one time to have taken cart loads with spears.
Since the above was in type Mr. Frank Buckland and Mr. S. Walpole, as Inspectors of Salmon fisheries, have issued their report, wherein we learn that the Severn is much polluted in its upper waters by refuse from mines, and in the middle and lower waters by the refuse from manufactories and town sewage; and that out of the 290 miles of spawning ground which the Severn possesses, only 75 are accessible to the fish. Mr. Willis Bund, the chairman of the Severn Board, supplied Mr. Buckland with the following figures as to the value of the Severn salmon fisheries. The figures show the value of the fish caught:
1869 |
£8,006 |
1870 |
13,000 |
1871 |
11,200 |
1872 |
8,000 |
1873 |
10,000 |
1874 |
10,500 |
1875 |
10,590 |
1876 |
14,560 |
1877 |
12,880 |
1878 |
8,978 |
As regards the future prospects of the Severn, Mr. Buckland confesses he does not feel quite happy, but adds that the exact cause of the non-increase of the produce of the river during recent years may possibly depend upon the peculiar conditions of the river between the first navigation weir and the sea. The fish having such a long estuary to traverse before they can get beyond the tidal nets are often unable to pass the lower weirs, and being obliged to fall back with the tide, run a second chance of being caught by the nets. The fish taken in the Severn are usually very large. For the last five years the average has been over 14 lbs. each; last year a great many varying between 30 and 40 lbs. were captured, and some even exceeding the latter weight. The largest recorded, weighing 50 lb., was taken in a draft net on the 18th March, 1878, by Mr. Browning, of Longney, Gloucestershire. The fish spawn in the Severn as early as, if not earlier than, in any other river. During the past year, 1878, Mr. Buckland says fishing was not prosperous, and he gives the number of salmon taken as 12,450, and the weight as 86 tons, against the 16,000 fish, weighing 115 tons, given on a former page, as being the take in 1877. Mr. Buckland adds that the Severn is the largest salmon river in England, and he enumerates the weirs which greatly obstruct the lower part of the river.
Shad were formerly taken in considerable numbers at the fords, by bargemen chiefly, who caught more than they could consume, and sold them to others; and in a commercial point of view, in this portion of the river, they were even more important than salmon. They were caught at night, generally by moonlight, by men who stood at the fords, watching for them as they ascended the river. Their approach was marked by a phosphorescent light, or “loom” in the water. They were difficult to catch in the daytime, as they would either go over or under the net, and fix themselves with their heads in the bed of the river, tail upwards. When in proper condition they were well flavoured fish, and attained a large size, sometimes two and three feet in length.
The flounder was another fine fish, and was as abundant as any in the Severn, affording good sport to “bottom fishers,” with rod and line. Since the locks and weirs were made they have, like the shad, ceased altogether. Lampreys too, which formerly were considered even of more importance than salmon, and which also were caught in this part of the Severn, are fish which have altogether ceased to visit us since the erection of the first weir in 1842.
Again, the rich and oily flesh of the eel formed the staple diet of dwellers along the river banks; and even the well-to-do, whose roomy chimney corners were hung with salted swine flesh, and on whose tables fresh meat appeared only at intervals, esteemed eels a luxury. Eels, like shad, were migratory, and before locks and weirs were placed upon the river myriads of minute eels in spring made their way from the brackish waters of the estuary of the Severn, keeping close to the shore. They formed a dark dense mass, like a sunken rope, and were called Elvers, a word said to be of Saxon origin, and a corruption, it is supposed, of Eelfare, meaning to travel, as in wayfare, thoroughfare, and seafaring. In this state they were caught, bushels of them, and sold at a small sum, whilst the remainder were used for manure or pig-wash. Vast numbers of these eels, when left to their instinct, found their way into the upper Severn and its tributaries.
An Act of the 30th of Charles II. for the preservation of fishing in the river Severn, imposed a penalty on all persons taking elvers; an Act of George III., but repealed so much of the former, as related to the penalty on persons taking elvers for their own use only, and not for sale; whilst the Salmon Act of 1861, repealed the 30th of Charles II. altogether; and left no law to prevent the destruction of young eels, which was carried on in Gloucestershire in what was called the elver season on a large scale.
The Severn Board of conservators, under the powers granted by Mr. Mundella’s Fresh Water Fishing Act, (41 and 42 Vic. Cap. 39) passed a resolution in March, 1879, making it the duty of eel fishermen to pay a sum of ten shillings for an annual license to use their lines. Considerable opposition was offered to this on the part of the Ironbridge and other fishermen; a memorial was drawn up and signed at a meeting of these and others from Bridgnorth and Shrewsbury, and a deputation appointed to present it to the Severn Board of Conservators at their meeting at Shrewsbury.
Mr. Yale who presented the memorial said: One complaint was in regard to the license put upon the rod-and-line. It was only 1s., it was true, and that was not much, but it involved a principle which they thought might be carried further at some future day, and to a very oppressive extent. The greatest grievance, however, was the imposition of licenses upon the use of night lines. He did not believe that the scarcity of fish was owing to the anglers or to the netters, for it was a matter of experience that when men were allowed to go and catch as many as they thought proper there were plenty of fish, but it was not so now. He used to think it a very bad day if he could not catch 20 lbs. of fish, and now, perhaps he would not take 10 ozs. That was not caused by the rod-and-line, or by the use of nets, upon which it is now sought to place these restrictions. He believed, as Mr. George had told him the other day, that the scarcity of fish was owing to the pollutions, and not to the taking of fish.
Samuel Sandals, made a statement to the effect that he worked all the hours he could at his usual work and spent the rest in fishing, and he thought it very hard to put a license upon the night lines. As to the trout taken with night lines, it was very rare indeed that they could take a trout in that way, except in the spring when the water was muddy: he believed the ducks destroyed “a sight” of the spawn on the fords.
Mr. Watton said he did not for a moment dispute what the last speaker had said with respect to his not catching trout on night lines. There might possibly be some very good local reasons for his non-success, but, speaking from his own observation, he knew well enough that the night lines were the destruction of the trout. They were laid zig-zag fashion for a great distance down the river, and swept every trout off the fords at night, and they were most destructive engines.
Mr. H. Shaw said he quite agreed with what Mr. Watton had said, and he could bring evidence to prove that an immense quantity of trout was taken upon night lines, and a very large number of small fish were destroyed in baiting the lines. To take these baits stones were rooted up and the young salmon were frequently disturbed and got devoured by large fish. No less than 3,000 or 4,000 bait were caught each day in and around Shrewsbury to supply the night lines, and that must be a very serious drawback to the stock of fish in the river.
The Chairman said it seemed to him that the gentlemen who had attended the meeting of the Board objected to the principle of issuing licenses, and if it was so, so far as he understood the matter, that Board could do nothing.