1834—APRIL 9—Meeting of owners and occupiers of land, at the Bell Inn, Worcester, “to consider the propriety of petitioning Parliament on the ruinous state of the agricultural interest.” The room was very much crowded; and the Earl of Coventry was called to the chair. Sir Anthony Lechmere, Bart., moved the adoption of a petition which attributed the greatest part of agricultural distress to the alteration of the currency, by the Bill of 1819, and therefore prayed that Parliament would institute an immediate inquiry into the effects of that measure. The removal of “the present, though inadequate” protection of the Corn Laws, would certainly accelerate their destruction, which was daily drawing nearer by reason of the enormous increase of their various burdens. Earl Beauchamp seconded the adoption of the petition. Major Bund moved that that part of the petition which related to the currency should be left out, for that was a subject into which if they once got they would never be able to get out again. This called forth a long speech from Mr. Spooner, “going into” the currency question very fully; and the result was that the amendment was withdrawn, and the petition carried unanimously. The petition had 3,000 signatures attached to it. Mr. T. Attwood, when it was presented to the House by Colonel Lygon, “hailed it with satisfaction, because it was the first agricultural petition which traced the distress to its true source—the Currency Bill of 1819.” 1835—JULY 27—A meeting at the Crown Inn, Worcester, to consider the ninetieth clause of the Municipal Reform Bill, which, it was feared, would prevent the new town councils from leasing the borough property on anything like the same terms as the old corporations had done. John Williams, Esq., was called to the chair. Mr. John Hill proposed, and Mr. Francis Hooper seconded, a motion suggesting that a committee should be appointed to inquire in the proper quarter what was the precise intent of the clause. Mr. Waters moved, and Mr. G. Allies seconded, as an amendment, “that this meeting, not believing that property, held under corporation leases, will be depreciated in value, are unwilling to address the legislature on the subject.” Mr. Waters’s motion was carried. The Mayor wished only holders of corporation property to vote, but other parties, who had thronged the room, insisted on their right to express an opinion; and the result was regarded as a test of public opinion in the city, with regard to the bill.