Some Selected Reports from The Windsor and Eton Express
14th October 1837
Fatal Accident- On Thursday an Inquest was held at the Workhouse, before Mr. Marlin, Coroner for the Borough, on the body of John Webb, aged 77 years, residing in Sheet-street Road,
who died in consequence of the injuries he received three weeks ago, by being knocked down and trodden upon by a horse. Verdict "Accidental Death"- Deodand on the horse, Eight Shillings.
The Registration
- On Tuesday Henry Blencowe Churchill, Charles Cooper, Esqrs., held a Court at the Town Hall, Windsor, to revise the list of voters for the county, in respect of the parishes
and places of Clewer, Old Windsor, New Windsor, and Dedworth. The Barristers got through their business in a very short time, there being but very few objections, none of which possessed the slightest interest, except the following.
One of the Shareholders of the Windsor Gas Works was objected to by Mr. Barton, on the part of the Liberals, and supported by Mr. Voules, on the part of the Tories.
Mr. Barton said he relied on the fact that the shares were personal property, and transmissible as such; but the freehold was in the hands of trustees.
Mr. Voules said it was a conveyance of freehold property of above the value of �5 a year.
The Court, on looking over a book handed in relative to the property in question, said it appeared that the property was vested in the hands of trustees, and, as the claimant did not hold that office, the shares were personal, and not freehold. The votes were therefore disallowed.
Borough of New Windsor
- On Wednesday the same Barristers sat at the Town Hall to revise the list of voters for the borough. From the number of objections and claims, it was determined by them to take the Clewer list on that day, and the Windsor list on the following day.
Mr. R.G Barton and Mr. Darvill appeared to support the Liberal interest, and Mr. Voules appeared for the Tories.
The objections to the Clewer list were 107; viz 59 by Reformers, and 48 by Tories. There were also 8 claims; viz., 5 by Reformers , and 3 by Tories. The cause why so many objections were
necessary was, that Mr. Leddell, one of the Overseers of Clewer, had made out the list so negligently , and inserted so many names on it that were admitted by all parties had no
business there, that the only mode left to the agents on each side was, to object to them. Mr. Leddell, instead of taking last year's register as the basis of his list for this years, appears to
have put every person on the list who was on the rate, regardless whether the persons were sufficiently qualified as to length of residence. His conduct was much reprehended during the revision.
Thomas Hanson, of Thames-street, was objected to by the Tories.
The qualification was not disputed as to residence, but it appeared that by mistake of the Overseer, the voter's name had been put on the list as Anson, instead of Hanson. It did not appear there were any householders in Thames-street named Anson.
The Court held that it was such a mistake as they were authorised to correct, and they retained the vote, having altered the spelling of the name.
Mark Chiswell, of Peascod-street, was objected to by the Tories. He proved his qualification, which was an occupancy of �10 a year.
The Barrister held his vote to be good, upon which the voter, looking towards Mr. Hopkins, who was Sir John De Beauvior's chairman and proposer, but who now appeared in the character
of a Tory agent, instructing Mr. Voules, exclaimed, "What do you think of that, shopmate!"-[laughter]
Mr, Hopkins: Well, I occupied the house before you.
James Manley, of Clewer-lane, was objected to by the Liberals. He stated in his examination by Mr. Voules, that he had occupied his house for 22 years, at �12 a year, and that he had paid all his rates.
Cross-examined by Mr. Barton : To whom do you pay your rent?
Manley: That is nothing to you, Sir.
Mr. Churchill: If you do not think proper to answer the questions put to you, I shall strike your name out.
Manley: Gentlemen, I should like to know who objects to my vote, for this is the third time I have been here, and my vote has always been allowed.
Mr. Barton: Now, then, Manley, to whom do you pay your rent?
Manley: I shall not answer you. I have the receipt in my pocket, but I will not produce it.
Mr. Churchill: You need not produce it unless you like, but then your name will be struck out.
Manley then handed the receipt to Mr. Voules, which was the last he had received. He paid the rent to his mother.
Mr. Barton: I wish to see that receipt.
Mr. Voules: No, it is not put in as evidence. In fact, it is nothing; it is an old receipt of 1835.
To further questions which Manley answered very pertly it appeared he had had no receipts since the death of his father, but he had to work at the house which now belonged to his
mother, and in their settlement he always set off his rent of �12 a year, for which he considered himself liable to his mother.
The whole of the Clewer list having been gone through, excepting a few cases in which the parties were not prepared, and which were postponed until the following day. The Court adjourned at an early hour.
On Thursday morning the Court met at ten o'clock, and proceeded with the adjourned cases.
John Reynolds, of Garden-court, Bier lane, was objected to by the Liberals.
John Gray offered to prove the qualifications of the voter (who was too ill to attend), and was examined by Mr. Voules. He produced a receipt for Reynolds's rent, and said he had seen Reynolds's receipts four years back for the same house.
Cross-examined by Mr. Darvill: He could not swear that the receipt was in the hand writing of Mrs. Sawyer, the landlady. Reynolds's wife gave it him, and said it was in Mrs. Sawyer's writing. He could not swear whether the rates were deducted from the rent or not.
Mr. Darvill submitted that there was no evidences to the value of the house.
Mr. Churchill said the receipt produced no evidence at all.
Mr. Gray said that he had once canvassed Reynolds for Mr. Ramsbottom, and at the last election he canvassed him for Sir John De Beauvior, to whom he gave a plumper.
Subsequently Mrs. Reynolds, the wife of the voter, attended, and proved her husband's qualification to the satisfaction of the Barristers, who allowed the vote.
Henry Parsons, of Distil-house-row, Bier-lane, was objected to by the Liberals.
Mr. Voules, in support of the vote, said that Parsons had always appeared as a scot and lot voter, but he had on the present occasion been put by the mistake of the Overseer in the
general list as a �10 householder. Mr. Voules submitted that under the 42nd section of the Act by which the Barristers were empowered to correct mistakes, they could remove him from the householders list, and put him on that of the scot and lot voters.
Mr. Darvill said that Parsons appeared on the list as an occupier of a house at �10 a year, when in point of fact he was not so. If he had discovered that he was put on the wrong list, he should have sent in his claim to be put on the right one.
Mr. Voules: It is entirely a mistake of the overseer.
Enquiry was made for Mr. Leddell, the overseer who made out the lists; and his colleague Mr.Jones, said he was sorry to say that Mr. Leddell had gone to the Isle of Wight, and had
sent him all of the papers, but respecting which he personally knew nothing. He (Mr.Jones) had, however, cheerfully attended to render any assistance he could; but on his colleague had devoted all the town duty and making out the lists. His (Mr.Jones's) duty lay in that part of the parish which was in the country.
Mr. Darvill: Scot and lot voters, who have been similarly situated in our cases have claimed afresh.
Mr.Churchill: We must strike Mr. Parsons out, and let him , if he chooses, bring an action against the Overseer.
Mr. Gray: The overseer, to my knowledge, Sir, has kept away for the express purpose that he should not answer any questions put to him.
Mr. Churchill: There is a very good clause in the Act that will reach him.
Mr. Cooper: We cannot compel his attendance, but you have your remedy against him.
Mr. Voules: I shall certainly bring an action against him.
Mr. Cooper: Mr. Voules we can't go as far as you would wish us to in this case. Mr. Parsons ought to have claimed. If it were a mere mistake we might perhaps be inclined so to consider it, but even then we should require the evidence of the Overseer to prove it was so.
Mr. Voules: The Overseer, Sir, openly declared that he would put down every name on the list, and let the Barristers strike them out.
Mr. Churchill: I am sorry we have no power but to erase the name.
Vote expunged.
Thomas Voken, also of Distil-house-row, was objected to by the Liberals, on the same grounds as in the preceeding case.
Mr. Voules admitted that the same question applied to this case as in the preceding one, and therefore he would not trouble the Barristers with it. He was afraid Mr. Voken must look to the Overseer for redress.
Mr. Churchill said he would take a note of these two cases, which he would read to the Solicitors on both sides to be certain that he made no mistake. He inquired if either of the parties had ever voted as �10 householders ?
Mr. Voules answered in the negative.
Mr. Cooper: Then it would be of great consequence to them, for if they were off the register for two years they would be disfranchised.
Mr. Voules said they had actually been on the register, and voted at the last election as scot and lot voters.
Mr. Churchill then took a note of the facts of both cases, of their being left out of the list of scot and lot voters, of the absence of Mr. Leddell, the Overseer, and of the consequent erasure of the names.
Windsor Parish
The Court then took the list for the parish if New Windsor, commencing with the claims, of which there were 14, viz 8 by Reformers, and 6 by Tories. There were 53 objections, viz 38 by Reformers, and 15 by Tories.
The claim of John Carter of Park-street was supported by Mr. Voules.
Mr. Voules, on being sworn, said that Mr. Carter was one of his partners, the firm being Hornidge, Carter and Voules, and they had an office in Bloomsbury-square, as well as Windsor. A portion of the property in the house in park-street belonged to his partners and one room was devoted to them as a bed room, which they slept in whenever they came to Windsor. In the same way a room was reserved for him (Mr.Voules) whenever he went to London.
Cross-examined by Mr. Darvill. The house in Bloomsbury-square was also for the firm as the one in Windsor was. Both houses belonged to the three, and all were joint tenants of the two houses.
Mr. Darvill submitted that the residence of Mr. Carter was not sufficient, not being within seven miles of the borough. Mr. Carter's residence was in Bloomsbury-square, and when he came to Windsor he was nothing more than a visitor to Mr. Voules.
The Barrister held the residence in Windsor to be a good one, and admitted the claim.
The claim of Samuel Gwinnett Hornidge, the other partner of Mr. Voules, was admitted on the same grounds.
Soon afterwards the indefatigable Mr. Thomas Batcheldor made his appearance and on inquiry after the fate of the two voters in the Clewer list, who had been struck out, and on being told what had been done respecting them , he addressed the Barristers, stating that they were two poor men who had not attended being ignorant of such matters.
Mr. Churchill: The Clewer list has been concluded and is signed.
Mr. Batcheldor submitted that as the whole of the borough �
[GAP IN TRANSCRIPT]
Witness: No, I have seen him on the premises with Mr. Legh.
Mr. Voules: Do you not know that he is the partner of Mr. Legh at the moment.
Witness: No, I do not.
Mr. Churchill: That is not the question. The question is, whether Mr. Ramsbottom ceased to be the occupier previous to the 30th of July.
Mr. Voules: I apprehend, Sir, you will decide as to whether he is in the same occupation at this time.
Mr. Churchill: No. We take it as if an election was to have taken place on the last day of July.
Mr. Barton: Besides, it is in evidence that Mr. Ramsbottom is in the occupation of the premises at this very moment.
Mr. Churchill: You can ask him when he comes to vote if he has the same qualification as that for which he appears on the register, and if he has not he cannot vote.-Vote retained.
John Richard Sneyd Ramsbottom, Esq., another partner in the brewery , was also objected to by the Tories, but as this case turned upon the same question as the preceding, it was not gone into and the vote was retained.
Gidaue Bianchi, of Church-lane, was opposed by the Liberals.
In cross examination by Mr. Voules, in support of his vote, he said he had occupied his house for nearly four years, and paid �16 a year. He had paid all his rates.
Cross examined by Mr. Barton: Do you know where you were born?
Bianchi: No, I do not - [laughter]
Mr. Barton: Now, are you not an Italian ?
Bianchi: I may be an Italian for aught I know. I recollect ever since I was five years old, and I then lived in Italy. I was brought up in Italy, but I can't say whether I was born there or not.
Mr. Barton : Who were your parents ?
Bianchi: I really cannot tell you.
Mr. Barton: What was your father ?
Bianchi: I really don't know who my father was -[laughter]. I recollect a man they called my father, but I could not tell whether he was my father or not - [laughter]
Mr. Churchill: Well, you recollect your father in the same way that other people do.
Bianchi: Just so. Sir - [a laugh]
Mr. Churchill: Well, now, how long did you remain in Italy ?
Bianchi: Until I was eighteen years old.
To further questions, it appeared that he could not tell what countryman his father was, but he always spoke Italian and English.
Mr. Barton: Now, have you not told me you were an Italian?
Bianchi: I might have told you so because I was brought up in Italy.
Mr. Barton submitted that the vote was not good, it being that of an alien.
Mr. Voules submitted it was for the other side to show that Bianchi was an alien. It was just as likely that his father was an Englishman and went to reside in Italy, as that the son should be an Italian, and then come to reside in England.
Mr. Churchill: I'm afraid it is the only fair presumption, as he says he can recollect that from 5 years of age to 18 he was residing in Italy , that he is a foreigner.
Vote expunged.
John Thomas Stroud, of Thames street, was objected to by the Liberals.
In his examination by Mr. Batcheldor, Mr. Stroud said the house he occupied was his own property, and that he had been in the occupation of it ever since 1834.
Cross examined by Mr. Darvill: He was not of age until December last. It was his business that was carried on in the house, which came to him by his father's will.
Mr. Darvill objected that as Mr. Stroud had not become of age until December last he was disqualified at present from voting, having previously been legally incapacitated from being on the registry by reason of his minority.
The Barristers allowed the vote.
Robert Watkins, of Frogmore, was objected to by the Liberals.
Mr. Watkins did not appear, but Mr. Batcheldor volunteered to support the vote. He said that Mr. Watkins lived at Shaw Farm, which was Princess Augusta's property. He had lived there three years to witness's knowledge, and the value of the farm was �400 or �500 a year. The house was certainly worth more than �10 a year.
Cross examined by Mr.Darvill: He could not say whether Mr. Watkins occupied as owner or tenant - but he rather thought it was tenant. He did not know whether Mr. Watkins farmed for the benefit of the Princess Augusta or for his own.
By the Court: Mr. Watkins was steward to the Princess, but witness did not know whether he occupied the particular farm for his own or the Princess's benefit. Witness intended only to speak as to the occupation of the house which Mr. Watkins lived in, and for which he was rated. The house was attached to the farm. Witness was in the habit of going to visit Mr. Watkins but could not tell what name was on the carts and waggons.
Mr. Voules said that Princess Augusta was rated for Frogmore House and property, but not for this farm for which Mr. Watkins was rated. He submitted that there was sufficient evidence of occupancy and of value.
The Barristers thought that Mr. Batcheldor did not know enough. They should have stronger evidence before they allowed the vote, and in the absence of that, Mr. Watkins must lose his vote. Vote expunged.
The list having been gone through, Mr. Barton, in his own name, and in that of the other professional gentlemen who had been engaged on each side, tendered their thanks to the Barristers for their politeness and impartial consideration of the cases which had come before them.
Mr: Churchill: We thank you, and I assure you we feel the compliment, and it is from the good feeling that has been manifested by the professional gentlemen here, that has enabled us to get on so comfortably with the business.