Newspaper Transcripts

	The Windsor and Eton Express. Bucks Chronicle and Reading Journal
	EMail Me - Titles and Dates - Surname Home Page

Some Selected Reports from The Windsor and Eton Express

7th January 1837

County Business (continuation of an article)

The appeals having been got through, the Court proceeded to consideration of the County business. The reports respecting the state of the county prisons during the ensuing quarter were read.

Weights and Measures

The report of the inspector of weights and measures was handed in and read, from which it appeared that that officer had seized in the Wantage Division 130 measures, &c., which he had destroyed in the market-place of that town. He had visited other parts of the county, and had many cases which were fit to be brought under the notice of the magistrates.

Mr.Goodlake moved that the inspector be ordered to take summary proceedings against all shopkeepers who should be detected in using deficient weights and measures. The poor in all such cases were the principal sufferers, and the Court was bound to order their officer to prosecute, and not simply to destroy the measures.

Mr.Dove (we believe) observed that the inspector had declared he found in various places no less than 1000 cases of deficient weights and measures, which showed the great extent to which these frauds were carried.

The motion of Mr.Goodlake was unanimously agreed to.

Datchet Bridge

Captain Forbes then produced the Report of the Datchet Bridge Committee, which he preceded by reading the case submitted to Sir William Follett, and that Learned Gentleman's opinion thereon, in reference to the legal proceedings instituted by Mr.Tindal, the Clerk of the Peace for Bucks. The particulars of this subject are already too well known to induce us to repeat them; and suffice it, therefore, to say, Sir William Follett advised either that the subject matter in dispute should be referred by both parties to a third party in an amicable spirit, or that an application should be made to the Berks Magistrates to dissolve the injuction, for the latter would not be justified while the injuction stands in cutting away the timbers in dispute. He stated also that it the Berks Magistrates left their portion of the bridge unrepaired, they would render themselves liable to an indictment . Captain Forbes stated that his reason for reading those documents was that the Magistrates might themselves determine what course should be adopted, for he had been too many years himself in Chancery to recommend the other Members of the Committee to put the County to the expense of a Chancery suit.

He then read the report of the Committee, stating what had been done respecting Datchet Bridge since the last County Sessions. The Report drew the attention of the Court to the "extraordinary proceedings of the Bucks Magistrates, by their professing to communicate to us (the Committee) their intentions, while they were seeking in secret to destroy the Interests of this County;" and then it related to those proceedings which we have before published. The delay in works caused by the injuction , would entail on this County an additional expense of �100 and the Berks side of the Bridge would be completed next month. The Committee had now been appointed about two years, during which time there had been no division upon any one point, and the whole of their proceedings had gone on as with one mind. Captain F, said he ought to state the circumstance that had occurred respecting Sir John Dashwood King (one of the Bucks Committee). That Hon. Bart., had, on the two Committees meeting on the 7th November, made a most earnest appeal to the Berks Committee to exert themselves in every possible way to come to some arrangement; "for I stand," said he, "in an unfortunate situation, as the whole of the affair appears to be laid to my charge. I will therefore propose that the centre bay of the bridge be composed wholly of iron."

Now, whether there was a power behind the Magistrates greater than the Magistrates themselves he did not know, but Mr.Tindal interposed, and the proposition of Sir John Dashwood King was not persevered in. Sir J.D.King, however at the Bucks Sessions, made the best reparation in his power, by moving that the injunction be dissolved, which motion, however, was negatived. Captain Forbes next adverted to the economy which the Berks Committee had practised, and declared that if it was the affair of an individual, it could not have been done with a greater regard to the interests of the County. Every item of expense had been carefully looked at, and checked, and although there was a difference of opinion between the Committees of the two Counties, he felt that no culpability could be fairly attached to the Berks Committee - [hear, hear]. They had acted only with one desire, and that was to benefit the County, which they had strove to do to the utmost of their power - [hear]. Captain F, further observed that from the manner in which the Bucks side of the centre bay of the bridge was to be repaired, being supported on the old joists, a fresh repair would be necessary when they were decayed or it would tumble down.

Mr.Goodlake begged to observe this, more for the information of the public than for his own. It had appeared in the newspapers, that in consequence of the disunion between the two committees, the repair of the Berks side of the bridge had been so long delayed, that at this moment the expense of the ferry was being incurred by this county. Now, although the ferry had been continued at the expense of Berks, that solely arose from the anxiety which the Berks Committee had to act in unison with the Bucks Committee, and although the ferry was now maintained by Berks, while it was before maintained by Bucks, the delay in the iron part of the bridge was such as to induce the contractor to take half the expense of the ferry upon himself; therefore only half the expense would fall on this county, and in February the bridge would be completed.

Captain Forbes said it had been the intention of the Committee not to have any ferry, but from the representations of the Surveyor, who asked for it for a fortnight or three weeks, from the fear of any loss of life. He was, however , sorry to say there had already been two accidents there.

Mr.Eyston thought that one part of the report was too strong, and he should like to have it altered before he agreed to adopt it.

The passage alluded to was in reference to "the extraordinary proceedings of the Bucks Magistrates, by their professing to communicate to us their intentions, while they were seeking in secret to destroy the interests of this county."

Captain Forbes said that passage in the report was copied from the bill in Chancery.

Mr.Riley admitted the language was strong, but it was not too strong. They (the Committee) met the Bucks Committee with the best desire to complete the bridge to the satisfaction of both counties, when it appeared that Mr.Tindal was acting in secret. He contended it was a most dishonourable and insidious proceeding throughout.

Mr.Goodlake said it appeared to him that the Bucks Magistrates had nothing whatever to do with the injunction, but it was Mr.Tindal who stepped forward in that matter as a rate-payer, and took upon himself the responsibility of waging war with Berks, declaring that they should not take away the timbers. So that Mr.Tindal, knowing all the secrets of the Court of Quarter Sessions, when he found the Magistrates of Bucks would not do that which he wanted the to do, jumped up , and said in his individual capacity as a rate-payer, he would do it.

Mr.Foster said it appeared that while the two Committees were on friendly terms the Aylesbury Quarter Sessions came to a resolution upon the subject, thereby leaving the Berks Committee completely in the dark.

Mr.Clive objected to the passage in the report before complained of, and wished that instead of such language as "seeking to destroy the interests of this county," it should be, "by adopting proceedings at law."

Captain Forbes: No; that is not the case, for the Aylesbury Sessions came to the resolution some months before the application for an injuction.

Mr.Foster: It was the fact of making an order at the Quarter Sessions to fasten the new timbers to the old ones, that is complained of.

Captain Forbes said that on all occasions, excepting that one in August, the Bucks Committee had communicated their transactions to the Berks Committee, and on that occasion the Bucks Session came to the resolution of laying out �200 for the purpose of destroying the first pier. If, therefore, this Court chose to blink that question, they might do so.

Mr.Clive: No, no; but I protest against using such language in the report.

The Chairman suggested that these words should be introduced instead of those objected to, "by not continuing to communicate their intentions to us in regard to Datchet Bridge."

Mr.Goodlake: That will do better.

Chairman: It is certainly strong language to say that they were seeking to destroy the interests of the County.

Captain Forbes: But it is the fact, and our Surveyors told them so. I don't see that we ought to be very particular on the subject.

Mr.Goodlake observed that it was desirable that whatever was done should be done unanimously - [hear, hear].

Mr.Clive moved, that instead of the words objected to there should be inserted these, "by their neglecting to communicate their Resolution of the 5th and 10th August, regarding Datchet Bridge, by which we apprehend a serious detriment to the County."

Captain Forbes said he had no objection to that alteration. The Committee did not desire to put forward their own wishes, but only to ascertain the wishes of the Court - [hear, hear].

Major Court seconded amendment.

Mr.Goodlake suggested that it would be better for Capt.Forbes to introduce the words into the Report, and then it would be act of the Committee.

Captain Forbes consented to do so; and the Report, as amended, was adopted by the Court.

Constables Expenses

Captain Forbes proposed a resolution to the effect, - that Petty Constables, who had any demands for expenses, should obtain the orders of the Magistrates for them; and that, instead of their being put to the inconvenience of going to the office of the County Treasurer at Maidenhead for payment, they should be paid by the High Constables of their respected divisions, who, in making their payments to the Treasurer, should pay in those orders as money. Capt.F stated , that in many cases it was a serious inconvenience to Petty Constables to have to go a long distance to Maidenhead to get their expenses paid for the conveyance of prisoners.

Mr.Goodlake was opposed to the proposition, and said that if it were adopted, it would give rise to many informalities. He could not see any great inconvenience in the present system.

Sir Morris Ximenes said constables had frequently complained to him that to obtain their expenses they had to go so far as Maidenhead, and probably not find any person there to pay him. Persons have had to go four or five times, and to obtain payment of three or four shillings, they would spend four or five.

The motion was put and carried, but Mr.Goodlake observed that it could not be carried into effect.

Mr.Hume's Letter

The Chairman said the next subject on the list was the consideration of Mr.Hume's letter respecting his proposed Bill regarding the County Rates.

Mr.Goodlake said he had read the Bill with great attention, and he saw no necessity for it in this County at all. It would be productive of very considerable expense, a great deal of trouble, and a great deal of discussion. A variety of officers were to be appointed under it. It was to be on the representative system, and although he for one would be glad that the Quarter Sessions had got rid of the County accounts, he could see before him in that Court a Bench fully as careful of the County money as they were of their own. He moved that the question be passed sub silentio. He thought that an answer had better be returned to Mr.Hume, to the effect that his letter had been considered, and that the Magistrates of Berks did not think the Bill would be an improvement in this County.

Chairman: But it is a question whether we should come to that conclusion, as many Magistrates may not have read the Bill.

Major Court said he had read the Bill, and without going into its details, he thought that the Court should express an opinion on the principle of it, which was all he thought it was necessary to do. The principle was to give the rate-payers a sort of control over the county rates, by the nomination of deputies to act for and to represent them. For that principle he was an advocate, as it was a very salutary one, and one that was recognized by the Constitution. He recommended that the principle should be approved of by the Court, confiding in the Legislature to give the best effect to it.

Chairman: But the letter requests us to state our objection to, or approbation of, the Bill, "or any of the clauses."

Mr.Goodlake said he approved of the principle as much as Major Court did, but the expense of carrying it into effect was a great deal more than the benefit to be derived from it, and it would be injurious to the County to adopt the Bill with all its clauses.

Mr.Clive altogether objected to letters from Members of Parliament seeking the opinions of Magistrates at Quarter Sessions, but out of courtesy to Mr.Hume any Magistrate could give his individual opinion. He did not feel that in Sessions they would be justified in entertaining the question.

There being no seconder, the subject altogether dropped.

Mr.Mount then produced the Report of the Finance Committee, which was received without any observation.

Sir Morris Ximenes then rose and addressed the Court as follows: - "Sir, I rise under feelings very acute, for little did I think after near fifty years zealously acting in this county I should have had the necessity of asking the indulgence of this Court, to defend myself from the most unjust assertions made against me at the last Sessions, in a motion brought forward without any previous notice, and in a moment of excitement. Sir, I am stated to have acted disrespectfully to the Court, insulting to the feelings of other Magistrates who have hitherto acted on Finance Committee, and with conduct bordering upon persecution, and unjust to the Treasurer. To the first, Sir, I say, it is totally without foundation, for, as a body, no man has ever had a higher respect for them, nor is there any man who would more regret than myself, if in the heat of debate or excitement, I should have said one word that could have hurt the feelings of any one of the Court, and if inadvertently I have done so, why not have applied to me ? I would have given instantly such answer as the case might of required, and not by a side wind bring so unjust an accusation against me. Sir, I was appointed in 1834 as one of a special committee of accounts, &c. I accepted the duty, and with every zeal for justice to the public I went through that duty with six other zealous Hon.Members of the Committee, many hundreds a year were saved to the county, as the Gaol Accounts testify, and several sums due to the county were recovered, and after fifteen months of the most patient investigation of such documents as we were allowed to see, we made a report, unanimously signed, that without the full examination of the accounts prior to 1834 (the year we were appointed) it was not possible to state a just balance either with honour to ourselves or justice to the Rate-payers, and required an order of the Court to see the accounts in the old book, prior to those accounts in a new book, dated January, 1833, the very year we were appointed. The Court would not accede to the request of the Committee, and directed the balance in the new book of 1834 to be the balance, as a basis for all new accounts to be founded upon, the Committee being convinced from what they had seen that much required explanation, and which being refused they resigned. Since which Sir, there has been several motion made by individuals, each answerable for his own, and every Magistrate voted according to his view of the case; had they not a right to do so ?, and have they and I sworn to do justice! Where, then, has been an disrespect to the Court! Why was my name brought forward, as showing disrespect to the Court ! I had no more to do with the motion complained of than you, Sir, for I had no hope to carry an motion regarding the accounts after Sir H.Russell's motion that the Treasurer should produce his accounts according to Act of Parliament had been rejected, if I had, depend upon it, I would not shrink from any responsibility , and whenever any question is brought forward, by whom it may, for the clearing up of the ....

[--- Missing the End of this Article ---]