A SECOND BATTLE OF WORCESTER - this time in words, not slaughter and bloodshed - was breaking out between Royalists and Cromwell supporters at this time 50 years ago. The war of words in 1951 was mainly in the Council Chamber of the Guildhall and came three centuries after the original fateful battle of September 3, 1651. This year is, of course, the 350th anniversary of the Battle of Worcester.

The Journal for this week of 1951 reported, under the heading "Cromwell Again!":-

"There was more than a hint of disturbed patriotic passions in Worcester City Council's reaction to the suggestion, acidly debated on Tuesday, that a Cromwell plaque should be placed on the wall of 56 Sidbury, near which spot stood the Sidbury Gate, stormed by Parliamentary troops 300 years ago."

Number 56 was opposite the Commandery, the Royalist HQ at the Battle of Worcester and the place where the Duke of Hamilton, commander of Charles II's troops, died of wounds suffered in the final stages of the conflict.

"Alderman J. Basil Edwards described the proposal for a Cromwell plaque as showing 'an entire lack of imagination and entire insensitivity to the loyalty of this city.'

"However, the Mayor, Councillor Harold Morris pointed out that 56 Sidbury was property under the control of the Streets Committee whose members saw no objection to the plaque. The wording was to be: 'The last battle of the Civil War was fought at Worcester on September 3, 1651. 'It is, for aught I know, a crowning mercy' - Oliver Cromwell.'

"Ald. Edwards argued that the council should revoke permission for the plaque to go on Corporation property. Councillor Bertram Brotherton said that Cromwell committed unspeakable atrocities upon citizens of Worcester and its buildings. He had outraged the Cathedral, using it as stables for his horses.

"Even so, the City Chamberlain, Councillor Joe Williams appealed for 'a little common-sense about this,' saying Cromwell, however much a tyrant, had helped to make history. Councillor William Bird said that evidently, on former occasions, Cromwell had had supporters on the council because the city already had a street in his name - Cromwell Crescent.

"The Mayor assured the council that the matter would not be dealt with on any sentimental grounds."

With the benefit of hindsight, we know that the Cromwell plaque was, in fact, unveiled on 56 Sidbury later in 1951 despite an outcry from those citizens who jealously cherished Worcester's title as 'The Faithful City" for its support of Charles II.

No.56 was later demolished for street widening despite it being a superb medieval half-timbered property. The Cromwell plaque is now to be found, set into the wall of the Sidbury bridge over the canal.

Women were certainly not averse to being more than a little "catty" at this time a century ago. The following passage from the Journal's "Ladies Column," written by Berrow's London woman correspondent, very much underlines my point:

"The increased extravagance in dress of women of all social ranks cannot be denied. It is impossible to go to any party, no matter how small and unpretending it may be, without noting the costumes worn by women, in many cases quite out of proportion in cost with the incomes enjoyed or the dress allowances at command.

"The ingenuity of women has been brought to bear upon their desires in many different ways. No woman will admit that she ever wears a dress that once belonged to someone else, and that other person a stranger. But, all the same, she is open to offers of such clothes. There is a vast deal of buying and selling done on the quiet, without shop or shop windows, that the world knows nothing about.

"No great lady ever wears out a dress. She appears in a charming outfit a few times, until all her social set have admired it and, then, when it is little the worse for wear, she disposes of it to private agents who sell it again or export it to the Colonies.

"These merchants are up to all sorts of dodges to enhance the value of their goods. They collect all the waistbands upon which fashionable houses have imprinted the name of the firm, and transfer them to dresses offered for sale. They put on fresh lace and new tuckers, and touch up the whole cleverly."

This week 250 years ago, the Worcester Journal reported how a local man had been cheated out of a substantial sum of money, largely by his own remarkable gullibility.

"Some days since, a Miller near this city, through a foolish credulity, was tricked out of seventeen guineas, in the following manner, viz -

"A gypsy woman coming to his house, began in the usual cant in telling him she was sure he was born to good fortune, and that she was ordained as an instrument in the matter. Perceiving the simple man to be very attentive to her tale, she told him that if he would give her twenty guineas, she would tell him where he might be certain of finding Five Hundred Pounds.

"This circumstance wrought so upon his weakness that he presently agreed to give her seventeen guineas and half the Five Hundred Pounds when he found them. However, having only seven guineas by him, he went and borrowed ten of an acquaintance, to make up the sum which he gave the old Jade, whereupon she directed him to a certain spot of ground which, in about a week's time, he was to dig up, and would find the Five Hundred Pounds.

"She then took her leave of him and promised to be with him in a week's time in order to receive her half share of the prize. The time being expired, the Miller set to digging, but either did not dig deep enough or missed the right place, for he could not find the money, neither has the good old Lady since returned for her share of the hidden Treasure."