Newspaper Transcripts
Some Selected Reports from The Windsor and Eton Express
13th October 1842
To-day is the anniversary of the natal day of her Majesty the Queen Dowager Adelaide, who completes her fiftieth year. The event will be celebrated with the usual rejoicing at Bushy and Hampton Court, and her Majesty's tradesmen will illuminate their houses this evening. The bells of New Windsor church rang during the day in honour of her Majesty's birthday, and at noon a salute was fired from the Acre from some small artillery.
The New Terrace
On Sunday afternoon last this beautiful promenade was attended by a numerous company, chiefly of visitors to Windsor. The bands of two regiments, as usual, played some beautiful pieces of music on the parterres, and during the afternoon her Majesty, Prince Albert, and the Prince and Princess of Saxe Coburg, attended by several of the royal suite promenaded for a considerable time under the wall of the Castle.
The Long Walk
The band of the 15th regiment of foot, which has for some weeks past played in the afternoon of Tuesdays and Fridays in the Long Walk, has lately in particular, owing to the extreme fineness of the weather, attracted a large and very fashionable attendance of visitors, in carriages as well as on foot, to hear their performances.
The Storm of Wednesday Night
The storm of Wednesday night appears to have been generally felt in this vicinity. During the night an open shed in a field near the Horse Barrack's and a cart under it, in which was a set of harness, all belonging to a poor man named Gibbs, were struck by the electric fluid; the shed and cart were shattered to pieces, and the harness was completely destroyed.
Public Dinner At The Hope Inn
On Wednesday last the public dinner at the Hope Inn took place in commemoration of her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent taking up her residence at Frogmore. A spacious tent was erected for the accommodation of the company, who mustered about eighty strong, including many of the most respectable inhabitants of the town and neighbourhood. The arrangements were most excellent; the dinner excited the admiration of all present, especially the fine fat venison which was presented to the worthy host (Mr.Byles) for the occasion by the Duchess of Kent, and the wines were of a very superior description. Mr.Bedborough presided, Mr.Cantrell being vice-president. A variety of toasts were drank after dinner, and the evening was spent in the utmost conviviality and harmony, the company separating at a late hour, delighted with the entertainment, and with the successful exertions of their host.
Theatre Royal
The theatre has this week been very well attended, and has been honoured by the most distinguished patronage. On Monday, Mr.C.Baker made his first appearance this season as Sir Alfred Highflyer, in "A Roland for an Oliver," and his performance of it was most admirable. It was of a true conception and an excellent personation of the character. Mr. Dodd appeared on the same evening as Justice Greedy in "A New Way to Pay Old Debts," and was as good as ever. His drollery in his characters is irresistible . Tuesday's performances were under the patronage of her Majesty, when pieces selected were "Speed the Plough" and the "Illustrious Stranger," with a variety of singing and dancing; and on Thursday his royal highness Prince Albert commanded the performance, when the excellent comedy of "Wild Oats" and "Past 10 o'clock" were played. The house presented on each of those royal bespeaks a brilliant appearance, and the whole of the company used their greatest exertions to gratify their numerous auditors. The theatrical announcement will be seen on another page.
Rifle Shooting By the Hon.C.A.Murray
The Hon.C.A.Murray, master of her Majesty's household, on Monday morning last, undertook for a wager, with a distinguished individual at the Castle, to kill 40 rabbits with a single barrelled rifle within 12 hours. At six o'clock the hon gentleman commenced his task, and in the surprising short time of four hours the given number and three over were killed; thus winning the match in a third of the time specified. We understand Mr.Murray missed his aim but three times. The Hon.Capt.Hood and Viscount Jocelyn were witnesses to the match.
Windsor Revel
The annual rural fete comes off in the Bachelors Acre on Wednesday next, when the amusements will be provided on a most liberal scale. Should the weather continue as at present, we have no doubt that an unusually large company will be attracted to witness it. In addition to those subscriptions which we have already announced, we find this week that our illustrious neighbour, the Duchess of Kent, has this week patronised the Revel with a donation of �5, Ralph Neville, Esq., M.P, has also given �5, and the officers of the 15th Regiment, �5.
Vestry Meetings - Election of Vestry Clerk
On Thursday a Vestry Meeting of the Rate-payers of the parish of New Windsor, was held in the Vestry-room of the church "For the purpose of receiving and taking into consideration the report of the Churchwardens and Overseers, on the expediency of electing a Vestry Clerk for the said parish, and of appointing a proper person to hold such office, with a suitable salary, in case the vestry shall determine to adopt the recommendation of the parish officers thereon."
The vestry was called at the usual hour, namely, three o'clock, but anticipating a full attendance of rate-payers, it was moved that the meeting should adjourn to the Town-hall, which was agreed to, and the rate-payers proceeded to the Hall, in which, however, the attendance was not at any time very numerous.
On the motion of Mr.Poynter, seconded by Mr.Jarman, Mr.John Clode, jun., one of the churchwardens, was called to the chair.
The Chairman said he had hoped the meeting would have elected a more experienced person to fill the offices of chairman, but having been chosen, he would fill the duties entrusted to him to the best of his ability. They were all aware that they were called together to consider whether they would elect an assistant overseer or vestry clerk. It was not his province to enter into the question; the parish officers had drawn up a report, which would be read, and the meeting would adopt it or not, as they pleased; he trusted, however, that the business would be conducted without any acrimonious feeling, and with perfect impartiality and justice [hear,hear]. The chairman then read the notice of the churchwardens and overseers, convening the vestry.
The Town-Clerk next read the report of the parish officers, recommending the appointment of a vestry clerk, at a fixed salary, prescribing some of the duties of the office, and stating the reasons for such an appointment, which chiefly consisted of the great expenses to which the parishes (Clewer and Windsor) were put to in employing a solicitor to do the business of the parishes.
The Chairman then said he would be happy to hear any observations made upon the report.
Mr.Prue said he should like to know the amount of the law expenses paid during the last year to Mr.Long. It had gone the round of the parish that they amounted to �500, and he wished to know if that was correct.
The Chairman replied it was not correct, but no doubt Mr.Secker would state, from the documents, what had been paid.
Mr.Secker said he found in the year 1841 there were four bills of Mr.Long's, which amounted to �172 11s 3d. They appeared from the entries to be for the four quarters, and were for New Windsor parish alone.
To other questions, Mr.Secker replied that he had the bills for 1839, 1840, and 1841, but none for the early period of the union of the parishes.
Mr.Batcheldor thought it would have been far more just towards Mr.Long if an average of the three years had been taken, instead of selecting one year.
Mr.Sharman said he had a paper in his band, which had been circulated, showing what the legal business amounted to, and which he had no doubt, knowing Mr.Long's respectability, was correct. He then read the following circular:-
To the Rate payers of the Parishes of New Windsor and Clewer.
Ladies and Gentlemen.
A report having been industriously circulated through the above Parishes, to the effect, "that it will be better to appoint a Vestry Clerk, at a yearly salary of �150, than to pay me �500 per annum for the law expenses of these parishes." I am induced to publish the following statement for your information:-
|
|
|
For New Windsor |
For Clewer |
For both parishes |
| The total amount of my bills sent in to the parish officers since the incorporation of the Windsor Union, 6 1/2 years ago, is | �478 1s 2d | �91 19s 3d* | �570 0s 3d |
| Of which sums I paid out of my pocket | �179 6s 4d | �32 9s 9d | �211 16s 1d |
| Leaving my net charges for the 6 1/2 years | �298 14s 10d | �59 9s 4d | �358 4s 2d |
| The yearly average, therefore, is instead of �500, reported as above alluded to. | �45 19s 0d
| �9 3s 0d | �55 2s 0d |
I should here observe, perhaps, that the above amounts include
21 Appeals against orders of removal
11 Bastardy cases
3 Prosecutions **
40 Settlement cases investigated
5 Insanity cases
I have the honour to remain, Ladies and Gentlemen
Your most obedient servant
Windsor, Aug., 8 , 1842 Wm.Cole.Long
* �41 odd of this, incurred a year ago, is yet owing me.
** Fines amounting to �90 were inflicted, �50 of which was paid to the borough fund.
Mr.Sharman then proceeded to say, that of course he had been prepared to have found that the expenses, according to the reports which were circulated, were - not �500 - but from �300 to �400 a year. Certainly last year the amount was large, but it should be borne in mind that Mr.Long did not act on his own responsibility; he was instructed as to what he should do by the overseers or Guardians, and he (Mr.Sharman) thought he had taken no undue advantage in the cases entrusted to him. He trusted the meeting would not lose sight of that when they were now called on to establish an entirely new office. Looking at the authority possessed by the board of guardians and the commissioners, their irresponsibility, and their arbitrary power, those gentlemen would no doubt say, that in all these matters they took the responsibility of employing Mr.Long on themselves.
A Rate-payer - No; in the case of removal of paupers it is the magistrates who remove them.
Mr.Bedborough - Mr.Sharman is mistaken, for the guardians give directions as to removals to the overseers, and not to their clerk.
Mr.Hyde - The cases Mr.Sharman refers to are invariably investigated by the magistrates, and in special sessions. They are superior to the board of guardians.
Mr.Sharman - Then how is it that any authority has been given to Mr.Long unless by order of the guardians or overseers ?
Mr.Bedborough - I think we may assume that Mr.Long has taken the business and transacted it, and that he has not had the authority of the overseers.
Mr.Sharman said finding he was in error he stood corrected, but the matter had been reported differently to him. He had understood that the instructions had been given to Mr.Long by the guardians , and that he (Mr.Long) was quite irresponsible. Then with regard to the amount of the expenses charged by Mr.Long, it appeared to him that that amount in the absence grounds, did not justify their establishing a perpetual and a new office at the expense of �120 a year. With respect to the cost of business in matters of appeals there would still be no saving, because they were always left to the law. He should besides say they should not go to the expense of establishing a new office, when the parish officers were bound by their appointment to do all the duties of their offices [cheers]. He knew the parish officers when they required legal assistance could refer to whom they pleased for that assistance; but to appoint a vestry clerk to do the business would appear to imply that Mr.W.C.Long had acted in a way that he (Mr.Sharman) did not think him capable of doing.
Mr.Batcheldor said really Mr.Long ought to be set right to this meeting. It appeared that for the six years and a half the whole of the law expenses had not averaged more than about �75 a year; and he thought, if they examined the parish ledger, they would find that in no prior year had the expenses been less than that.
Mr.Bedborough - It has been sometimes more.
Mr.Batcheldor continued - He said it was supposed that the clerks of the unions were obtaining such exorbitant sums, that it is but right that Mr.Long should be purged of the charge made against him. It was the overseers who employed him, and they might have employed any one else if they had chosen to do so. But let any professional man take the bills and examine them, and then say if they would have done the business for anything less than Mr.Long had charged.
Mr.Jarman enquired if there were not other charges for legal business, and whether Mr.Long's bills included all the expenses.
Mr.Secker said he had been waiting to hear some other gentlemen before he detailed to the meeting the reasons which induced the parish officers to recommend the appointment of a vestry clerk. He did not presume to say that because they had recommended the appointment that the recommendation should necessarily be adopted by the meeting, but the parish officers should have some credit for having had something like grounds for their determination, and they thought that the statement of Mr.Long was not one on which the parishioners could place much reliance. He would take the liberty of first looking at that statement, which he thought was a very indiscreet publication. He had not looked at it with a professional eye, but he thought there was "something rotten in the state." He found it therein stated, as a matter of applause, and as to be taken credit for, that only one appeal was got up, out of the three cases investigated. Now was there anything like this - that there were 61 cases investigated, in which there were no less than 21 appeals ?
Why that was an increase of 500 per cent, of litigation beyond what Mr.Batcheldor had stated. One of the reasons for passing the Poor Law Bill was, that it would very much decrease, if not altogether prevent litigation, but here they found the movers of litigation getting 33 per cent of law. That was proved on the face of Mr.Long's own statement. Credit was then taken for 40 settlements investigated, and 21 appeals. Looking at those accounts, from what passed at a meeting of the parish officers, it was thought there had been some egregious blunder; but it was easy to be explained. Mr.Secker then proceeded to analyse Mr.Long's account, and showed that, in fact, the average had been �138 yearly. [Mr.Sharman here made an observation to Mr.Secker, which we did not hear distinctly.] Mr.Secker said he had no desire to state anything different from what the fact really was [cheers]. Nor did he believe Mr.Long wished to make a false statement; but there was not a sixpence of charge made in the accounts previous to Midsummer, 1838, when the sum was �62 8s 1d, leaving the balance between that amount and �478 1s 2d, which was �415, and upwards, to form the average for the three and a half years, making annually , as he before said, of about �138. The way the business was done was this. Mr.Long, by order of the board of guardians, writes a letter to the overseers, requiring them to do something; they don't know how to do it, and Mr.L., tells them he will do it, and they say, "Then do it." Well, the result of all this was, that they had 500 per cent increase in litigation.
Could any ex-overseer say he had ever heard of such a thing before ! He (Mr.Secker) had had a great deal to do with parish business professionally, but he could not screw out even half an appeal in a twelvemonth - he had not had two appeals in 25 years. If such a number of appeals as Mr.Long had had were among the blessings of the New Poor Law, then the sooner the system was altered the better. As to what Mr.Sharman alluded to, respecting the examination of the paupers, those examinations were conducted by the magistrates, who removed as they thought fit, without reference to the board of guardians, who had nothing to do with them. Mr.Batcheldor had stated that it was the duty of the overseers to do so and so, and so it was, but in a parish like this, it could not be expected they could find overseers to enter upon the task with the same zeal that a vestry clerk would. One overseer would say, "Oh! I have only three months to serve; I will leave it for another one to do, for we have no money in the bank;" and he therefore left it to No.2, and number 2 would leave it for No.3 [laughter], and so on.
Mr.Prue said he hoped an overseer would be found who would so act.
Mr.Bedborough - They have no right to neglect their duty.
Mr.Secker said he was only arguing that they could not expect the same efficiency in the discharge of the duties in an overseer as they could in a regular officer. The overseers had appealed to the guardians on the subject, who would have nothing to do with it, and did not care who was employed. The overseers of Clewer had appealed to the Commissioners in London, but they would not take any responsibility on themselves in appointing an officer. The auditor had found himself so hard pressed by bills that he went to Somerset House to enquire relative to certain charges, when he was told that he had nothing to do excepting to see that there were receipts for all the bills. The parish officers in Windsor therefore applied to the parish officers in Clewer to see if they would not join them in having a vestry clerk, in order to check the system of litigation , and to put the business under one general surveillance, checking the accounts, and saving expense and thus the present proposition was made.
He (Mr.Secker) had been told by an accountant that the way the parish accounts were kept would be a disgrace to the keeper of a gingerbread stall [laughter]. There had been a question put to him that day at Clewer at a meeting called for the same purpose, which might, perhaps, be put to him in that Hall also, and he would at once answer it. He had been asked if he should derive any benefit in case of the appointment of a vestry clerk. Now he begged to say that it was perfectly immaterial to him personally, so long as they had some person who would do the business properly, and he cared not who they appointed. He should derive no advantage whatever. The late overseers has put it to him whether he would accept the business, but he most respectfully declined it, and therefore he had no feeling one way or another. The course taken by the present overseers was not against or in favour of any one individual; but they could not shut their eyes to what had occurred, and they cared not whom the parishes might appoint, feeling satisfied to leave that in the hands of the rate-payers.
Mr.Batcheldor said Mr.Secker had not told them how many of those 21 appeals he had spoken of had been successful. If they got rid of only half that number of paupers the parish had thereby been benefited to a considerable extent.
A Rate-payer - We are not satisfied yet of the necessity [of] those appeals.
Mr.Batcheldor - But there must have been a necessity for them, for you must either appeal or keep the pauper.
Mr.Darvill and Mr.Jarman both enquired if there were not other expenses besides those already named, such as for making out the rates, and making up the lists ?
Mr.Secker - Unquestionably there are expenses for making out the lists. As to Mr.Batcheldor's question of how many of the appeals were successful. I really do not know how many.
Mr.Jarman - No one doubts Mr.Long's honesty, but I wish to know the amount of the legal expenses for last year. Was there not a bill of Mr.Barton's during that period ?
No answer was given.
Mr.Jarman - There is some concealment by the parish officers it is evident, as no one can answer the question.
Mr.Secker - There is no concealment on the part of the parish officers, but they cannot know all the expenses.
Mr.Bedborough wished to ascertain the expenses for the first three years after the Poor-law Act passed, and why after that the business was retained in Mr.Long's hands ? Because if the expenses were so small in the first three years, they might return to the old system instead of appointing a vestry clerk with �120 a year. He thought all these heavy expenses were incurred by the overseers asking Mr.Long to do that which they could do, and ought to have done. It was only from the neglect of the overseers that those expenses had been incurred. It was a fair question for the meeting to consider whether they could not return to the old system, and thereby save expense.
Mr.Jarman moved that they do return to the old system.
Mr.Hyde said the appeals from this parish were twenty times as much as some parishes within his own knowledge; and if the business could be done so cheaply in other parishes, why could they not in Windsor have their business done without incurring an expense of �120 a year ? If the duties were done by the officers on whom they devolved, there would be no necessity for a vestry clerk at all; and no necessity for such very large bills as they had. They should set about to get right, and that with the least possible expense. He proposed that there be no vestry clerk appointed.
Mr.Jarman seconded the motion.
Mr.Batcheldor said it should be borne in mind that this district of the union was a very large and populous one, while all the other parts of the union were agricultural.
Mr.Hyde then asked how it was at Brentford and Isleworth, and such populous places, where there was but very little expense incurred in law. If they appointed a vestry clerk, who was to be his master, under whom was he to act, and what guarantee had they for his good behaviour in the execution of his duty ?
Mr.Darvill said this was an important question, and one involving considerable expense. There was evidently a disease to which it was necessary to apply some remedy. If they resorted to the appointment of a vestry clerk, then there was �120 a year charged. The duties of the vestry clerk would be laid down for his guidance, but in cases of law there might perhaps be an additional expense of �150 a year. Therefore they should consider the subject very carefully before they made the appointment.
Mr.Batcheldor - Are you not a candidate for the office ? [cries of "no" and "yes"].
Mr.Darvill said he certainly had a right as a rate-payer to speak on the question. He did not want the office, but if there was any business to do he would give them value received.
Mr.Secker said a friend of his was in an office which embraced no less than 13 populous parishes, and he had told him (Mr.S.) that ever since the formation of the union he had had only two appeals. He (Mr.S.) advised then to discountenance as much as possible law proceedings.
Mr.Darvill said Windsor was peculiarly circumstanced from the fact of large numbers of workmen coming here from other parishes every now and then to be employed on large works. In this respect there was no town parallel to it in the kingdom.
Mr.Secker - They are just the persons respecting whom no appeal is necessary.
Mr.Hopkins said he was happy to find they were inclined to put a check to all nonsensical litigation. The parish officers had actually spent �13 to get �3 out of him. It was high time they had a proper officer to attend to the parish business. Mr.Long's bill of �70 if it had been taxed he was confident would not be �10.
Mr.Long - You can have it taxed, if you please; but mind it is not my bill, but my son's.
Mr.Hopkins - The overseers cannot tell the circumstances in which the parish is in. Mr.Towers, when he came into office, was a very good servant, but now he will do nothing as a vestry clerk, but throws it all on the overseers.
Mr.Secker said previous to the last election of overseers, Mr.Astle called on him, to enquire relative to the charges in one of Mr.Long's bills; he told him he could have nothing to do with it, for it was very unpleasant for him to interfere with any of his professional brethren. At length he told Mr.Astle if he would obtain Mr.Long's sanction, he would have no objection to go over the items, and give his opinion, as he had formerly been in the habit of doing, when employed in the same way. Mr.Astle afterwards called, and said Mr.Long would abide by what he (Mr.S.) should say. A meeting was accordingly appointed, and he (Mr.S.) went through the charges, item by item, and his impression was, that there were very many items not authorised by the overseers, and several paupers names were there who were not at all known to the overseers. He then desired, that as Mr.Long was absent, the investigation should be conducted in his presence, and the matter accordingly stood over. He found in some places instructions to do so and so, but no names at all put to them.
Mr.Long said his son would be happy to meet anybody, and go through every charge.
Mr.Secker - Mr.Astle afterwards told me that in his anxiety , and from fear of being "lawed," he had given a draft for the whole of the money [hear, hear].
Mr.Long said, when the board of guardians think proper that any certain thing shall be done, they order the overseers to do it, and it must have been their fault if any business was done by his son, which it was not necessary to do. As to what had been charged, about �50 a year, it was enormously cheap.
Mr.Prue thought it necessary that there should be a vestry clerk. He had attended various vestry meetings, and there was no one to enter the minutes of what passed, and at one meeting, the minute book was not to be found. He therefore moved that the report of the churchwardens and overseers be adopted.
Mr.Harrison seconded the motion.
Mr.Bedborough said, before the question was put by the chairman he wished to state his reason why he objected to the appointment of a vestry clerk with the duties stated in the report. He was of opinion that there should be a vestry clerk permanently appointed under the overseers, but he thought that the office should be united with the collectorship, with, of course, an increase of salary. As to law expenses, if the Poor-law was properly carried out, he thought those expenses would be generally rendered unnecessary . He thought that all the duties named in the report should be done, and that to them should be added what Mr.Towers now did (cheers, and a cry of "that is what we all want"). Mr.Bedborough made a motion that the two offices be united.
A Rate-payer - What would you propose as a salary ?
Mr.Bedborough - Instead of �120, I should say make it �150.
It was here stated that the nature of the duties and the salary would rest with the commissioners and guardians.
Mr.Secker said he was hardly competent to form an opinion as to the union of the two offices in one person. The collector had sufficient labours of his own, without being burdened with those of vestry clerk. He understood he had plenty of labour out of doors to perform.
Mr.Bedborough said, he thought that partly arose from the differences between the collector and the overseers. The other day there was an order made by the guardians for the overseers to pay �500, but the latter had no funds; the money was, however, shortly collected and paid, and the parish was now out of debt.
Mr.Prue, in consequence of Mr.Bedborough's proposition , which he seconded, withdrew his own motion.
Mr.Sharman asked whether they were not stepping out of the way in proposing to unite the two offices ? Their notice of meeting specified only for the appointment of a vestry clerk; they were not called to consider the removal of the collector; and he did not think even if they did so they would gain any advantage.
Mr.Ellson thought the report, which the overseers had taken great pains to draw up, should be printed and circulated, seeing so few of the parishioners present, and that the question was so beset with difficulties. He therefore moved that the report be printed and circulated, and that the meeting be adjourned for a fortnight.
A parishioner, whose name we did not learn, seconded the proposition.
Mr.C.S.Voules said the meeting was called for a specific object, and therefore they could not take into consideration Mr.Bedborough's motion. The collector's office formed no part of the notice calling the meeting, and they could not consider anything which affected him without previously giving notice.
Mr.Bedborough - Surely the office of collector is not a patent office. I don't propose to abolish the office; I only propose to unite the two offices, and Mr.Towers may be as well able to do the duties of the two; and if he should be elected, of course he will have an increase in salary.
The Chairman then put Mr.Ellson's amendment for printing and circulating the report, and adjourning the meeting, but it was negatived, only two hands being held up for it.
Mr.Batcheldor , in reference to Mr.Bedborough's amendment, submitted that nothing could grow out of it if carried. Mr.Towers held his appointment, sanctioned by the commissioners, and this meeting could do nothing to affect his office without first getting rid of him.
Mr.Bedborough said it was quite competent to put his amendment to the meeting.
Mr.Secker said he could hardly see that a public board would do an injury to a public individual by chasseeing him in that manner.
Mr.Bedborough said he did not seek to do injury to any individual.
Mr.Secker said, suppose Mr.Towers repudiated the appointment of vestry clerk, satisfied with being only the collector, at a minor salary, and disliking to take another office, was it possible that the guardians would, as it were by a side wind, turn him out of the office he already possessed; more especially when they put the strict interpretation on the notice calling the meeting, as to the appointment of a new officer, and not the merging of two offices ? He understood the commissioners had said they would sanction the appointment of a vestry clerk, but they had not been consulted as to the union of the two offices.
Mr.Hyde said there was another question as concerned Mr.Towers, which was, whether he was qualified to be vestry clerk, although he might be a good collector. The parish ought to save expense, but they would only be adding to it if they amalgamated the two offices. There was another thing, one of the duties in the report states that the vestry clerk was to countersign the checks, and if the collector be also vestry clerk, he would then have to do that which was highly improper. He did not think a vestry clerk was necessary, and as far as Mr.Towers was concerned, the motion would be an improper interference with him.
Mr.Hopkins said he was not aware that Mr.Towers had got his appointment, for he had called on him to produce it at a vestry, and it was not forthcoming; even if he had, the vestry had the power to discharge him, and not the guardians.
Mr.Bedborough said as it had now become a personal question as regarded Mr.Towers, he begged to withdraw his amendment [cheers].
Mr.Hill moved the appointment of a vestry clerk, at a salary of �80 a year [laughter].
Mr.Secker - I never heard such a proposition as Mr.Hill's .
The vestry at Clewer has affirmed to-day that which I hope this vestry will affirm. At Clewer they have commenced a poll, and adjourned it until to-morrow.
Mr.Prue then moved that the report of the parish officers, that a vestry clerk be appointed be adopted.
The Chairman put that question, and it was agreed by a considerable majority.
Mr.Jarman then moved that the vestry clerk be a solicitor, and he nominated Mr.Voules for that office.
Mr.Sharman seconded it.
Mr.Secker said it was quite competent for any gentleman to propose a vestry clerk, but not for any one now to negative the proposition; indeed he thought no person would be so indelicate as to negative the claims of any of those who would be proposed.
Mr.Bedborough thought it would be better to leave it open, whether a professional or other person should be appointed.
Mr.Secker - Yes, that is the best course.
Mr.Bedborough then nominated Mr.Darvill - seconded by Mr.Millard.
Mr.Lawrence nominated Mr.Griffin - seconded by Mr.Judge
Mr.Batcheldor nominated Mr.George Turpin - seconded by Mr.Hyde
Mr.Batcheldor said he begged to observe, in reference to Mr.Turpin, that he had been in a respectable solicitor's house nearly 20 years, and his father had paid rates and taxes in the parish for nearly half a century.
Mr.Thos.Cleave nominated Mr.John.Cleave, his brother which nomination was seconded by Mr.W.Berridge.
There being no other candidates, the chairman said it was competent to proceed to the poll at once, and after a few votes were taken, the poll would be adjourned until the next day.
Mr.Prue said one day would not be sufficient to give time for the whole of the voters to come up, and he moved that it be two days. This motion was, however, negatived, and a proposition that the poll should continue from nine to eight o'clock on the following day was carried.
Mr.C.S.Voules the addressed the meeting, and said he had not intended to become a candidate for the office until he saw another professional man had announced himself, who was not resident in the parish. As, however, that gentleman had not been nominated, he now begged to withdraw his claims [cheers].
Mr.Griffin then addressed the vestry, soliciting the support of the rate-payers, and pledging himself, if elected, to use his best exertions to fulfil the duties of office to their entire satisfaction.
The poll then commenced, and after a few votes had been taken it was adjourned to yesterday morning at nine o'clock.
On the same day a vestry meeting was held at Clewer, for the same purpose as that held at Windsor. It was very thinly attended. The proposition to appoint a vestry clerk was agreed to , and the same candidates as those proposed for Windsor were put in nomination, after which a few votes were taken, and the poll was adjourned until yesterday morning.
Yesterday the poll commenced in the two parishes, and throughout the day the candidates were busily engaged in urging their supporters in each parish to the poll. The election excited much interest in the town, and the result was eagerly sought for.
At eight o'clock in the evening the poll closed, and Mr.John.Clode, jun., the chairman of the Windsor vestry, shortly afterwards announced in the Town Hall the numbers as follows:-
Mr.Turpin, 290; Mr.Cleave, 220; and Mr.Griffin, 39. The state of the poll, as forwarded to the chairman from Clewer, was, Mr.Turpin, 199; Mr.Cleave, 57; and Mr.Griffin, 12; making a total of 489 for Turpin, 277 for Cleave, and 51 for Griffin. Mr.Turpin was therefore duly elected by a majority over Mr.Cleave of 212.
The three candidates then addressed the rate-payers assembled in the hall, thanking them for the support they had each received, and thanks having been voted to the chairman, the meeting separated.
Windsor Police - Monday
[Before John Clode, Esq.,(Mayor) and Robert Blunt, Esq.]
Sarah Smith, Mary Anne Bonsell, and Anne Watson, were charged by the police with being disorderly. They were reprimanded and discharged.
Amelia Davis, a woman apparently of a superior address, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Peascod-street.
It appeared from her own statement, that she had lived with a man from whom she had separated, but he came to her lodgings, got what money she had about her, turned her into the street, and tore her bonnet. She then met with a person who gave her a little drink, and not being used to it, she was affected by it. She got her living by making ornaments with shells. She was desirous of getting her own livelihood and of living away from the man. The magistrates discharged her with a caution as to her future conduct.
Maria Floyd was also charged with being drunk and disorderly, but she also was discharged with a reprimand.
Mr.Jesse Hollis, builder, was summoned at the instance of Mr.Liverd, the parish surveyor, for having a scaffold erected in Russell-street, to the annoyance of foot passengers. Mr.Hollis promised to remove the scaffold, and, on payment of the expenses, the case was disposed of without its being gone into by the magistrates.
John and George Chapman, two boys, brothers, who stated they were rat catchers, were charged on suspicion of stealing some ferrets found in their possession by the police. The ferrets were supposed to be stolen from Winkfield, the constable of which place had given information, with a description of the boys, to the Windsor police.
They were remanded until the constable of Winkfield was communicated with.
Uxbridge - Saturday , August 13
James Leather, labourer, of Hayes, was committed for trial by Sir William Wiseman, on Saturday last, for stealing eight ingots of spelter from a truck on the Great Western Railway, at Bull's-bridge station, in the parish of Hayes, the property of the said company. The circumstances are as follows:-
William Pitman, railway policeman, being sworn, said: that at nine o'clock on the night of Tuesday last, I was on duty at Bull's-bridge, when I then saw the trucks safe, and during the night I discovered that a rope on the truck from which the property was stolen had been cut, and in the morning it was discovered that the above property was missing.
The next witness called was James Talbot, a man who had been apprehended by Larkin the same day as the prisoner on suspicion of having stolen a valuable dog, which he had in his possession at the time, and locked up at the same time, and in the cage with the prisoner. He stated that on the afternoon on which he was locked up, the prisoner Leather said to him "there is no harm in me telling you what I am here for;" I said "not a bit of it." He then told me he believed it was about some zinc that was stolen from Bull's-bridge, and that he intended going for it that night. When I was taken out by Mr.Larkin to get some refreshment at the Swan public-house, he (Larkin) asked me if Leather had said anything about the robbery; I said he had, and told him what I have said now.
The magistrate made some observations about Larkin taking the prisoner Leather out of the county of Middlesex, and locking him up without taking him before a magistrate, and from the evidence which had been adduced, Sir William said he could not think of committing the prisoner on the bare and single evidence of Talbot, who was precisely in the same position as the prisoner at the bar, inasmuch as he had been locked up on the charge of felony, and as it appeared that the man Talbot had not been discharged by a magistrate, and he had as much right to believe the statement of Leather as Talbot.
Larkin said that the lady to whom the dog belonged declined to prosecute, upon which he let the prisoner at liberty that morning.
James Kitchen, a porter on the Great Western Railway, No.56, then came forward and stated that Larkin left the prisoner for a short time in his (Kitchen's) custody at the George Inn, Uxbridge, that (Saturday) morning, and while there the prisoner said he wanted to speak privately to witness; they then went out, and the prisoner told him that he in company with his (Kitchen's) brother stole the spelter, and threw it where it had been found.
John Larkin, constable of Iver, stated, that after taking the prisoner into custody , and while proceeding from Hayes with him to Iver, he met with a man named Talbot, having a dog in his possession, which he recognised to be the property of a lady at Iver. Knowing Talbot to be a loose character he took him into custody and locked him up with the prisoner Leather. After both had been locked up some time he, (Larkin) while listening outside the cage, thought he heard the prisoner Leather say something about Bull's-bridge, which induced him to think he was telling Talbot something about the property stolen. Sometime afterwards he took Talbot out to the Swan public-house, and gave him some refreshment. He then asked if Leather had not told him something about the robbery , Talbot said he did, and made the same statement to me as he has done here. On this information Larkin went and found the property.
The prisoner was then committed for trial at the next Central Criminal Court.
On Monday, George Lloyd, maltster, of West Drayton, was summoned before Sir W.Wiseman, Bart., and T.T.Clark, Esq., for having deposited on his premises 40 bushels of malt, with intent to defraud the revenue. Mr.Mayo, solicitor , attended on behalf of the Excise, and called the following witnesses:- Mr.Welton, supervisor, and Mr.John George Barratt, another officer of Excise, stationed at West Drayton, who, having fully proved the case against the defendant, and the magistrates conceiving it to be an aggravated case, fined him the full penalty, viz., �200.