Search billions of records on

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

14th May 1842

Literary Institution

On Wednesday evening Mr.W.Walker delivered an admirable address to the members of this institution, in the Town-Hall, this being the concluding lecture of the season. Mr.Walker first took a review of the lectures that have been delivered in the course of season, passing upon them as he proceeded the encomiums which they so justly merited. But it was with sorrow, he observed, that the lectures had not been productive of profit, or even of sufficiency to pay their expenses, as it appeared the total sum paid for lectures was 79 10s, and the proceeds had been only 25 7s. This was a serious drawback, and the only way to obviate it would be to curtail the number of lectures, and endeavour to procure as many gratuitous ones as they could. He then proceeded to draw their attention to the prospects of the institution , as compared with others throughout England, and imparted some very interesting information relative to institutions of the kind. In 45 country institutions from which accurate returns have been made, it appears the number of members, as compared with the population , is as 1 in 180. In Windsor, the number of members of the institution is upwards 200, and taking the population at 10,000, it gives 2 to every 100. Mr.Walker then adverted to the classes of instruction, complimenting the teachers for their attention and willingness in a troublesome and gratuitous duty. He then pointed out the immense advantages resulting from this institution, and ably combated the objections of a few persons who formed the idea that they were "going to far." He also contradicted the false statement that had gone abroad, that the progress of the institution was both slow and uncertain, and of little or no advantage to society generally. The prejudices of some parties, the supineness of others, and the general want of a small portion of active and zealous men to conduct the affairs of those institutions, frequently strangle many in their birth, or allow them but an ephemeral existence. Such, the lecturer said, is not the case in Windsor. Mr.W next briefly alluded to the efficient manner in which the officers of the institution had performed their duties, and congratulated them on the pleasing prospects for the future, and concluded with an earnest wish for its success. We may mention we were sorry to see few persons present. The indefatigable exertions of Mr.Walker to promote the welfare of the society, merit not the apathy displayed by the members; however , they lost by their absence a most pleasing and instructive address.

The Goodall Memorial

The committee for managing the subscription raised for a monument to the memory of the late Dr.Goodall, Provost of Eton College, have selected Weekes as the sculptor to execute the statue.

Eton Anniversary Dinner

The annual festival of the noblemen and gentlemen educated at Eton College is fixed to take place on Saturday next, at the Thatched House Tavern. Mr.H.Hallam, the learned historian of the middle ages, has consented to preside in absence of Viscount Morpeth. A brilliant meeting is expected from Lord Denman and the influential stewards on this year's list using their utmost exertions to call together an assemblage alike creditable to the distinguished litterateur who is to fill the chair, as to that cradle of learning in which they must feel deeply interested.

Extraordinary Bird's Nest

A most extraordinary jackdaw's nest has been built in the bell tower of Eton church. The discovery was made a few days since by Mr.Gray, the clerk, in consequence of some impediment being found to the working of the bell rope, which passes through the narrow stairs of the tower, and on going up to ascertain the cause of the obstruction, the nest was first seen. The fact soon got known and a number of gentlemen having been to inspect the nest, the birds have deserted it. The size is enormous although not finished and only partially lined. In the tower there is a loop-window without glass or bars in it, which loop is only five inches wide, and yet some of the twigs conveyed through by the birds are very thick and twenty-two inches long. The nest occupies the whole width of the staircase, it fills no less than fourteen of the stone steps (rendering them impassable for any person wishing to go beyond them), and is not less than eight feet ten inches in height ! The twigs of wood forming it, we should think, would be full as much as, if not more than, a strong man could carry. It would appear that the birds could not find a basement on which to build their superstructure, and probably as the twigs were laid on one step of the tower they fell to the steps below, and thereby, by their exceeding perseverance, they built this extraordinary domicile.

Accident by Fire

On Wednesday last a thatched cottage on Englefield Green, in a lane nearly opposite to the National Schools; was destroyed by fire. It appears that about mid-day the thatch was discovered to be in flames by some of the neighbouring cottagers, who gave the alarm to the inmates as well as the neighbourhood, for the former, consisting of the wife of the cottager, named Gregory, who was from home at his work, and three or four children, were unconscious of their danger until thus aroused. As no water was at hand; and from the nature of the building, it was soon burnt to the ground, leaving only the walls standing. Fortunately the furniture was all saved. The cottage was the property of Mr.Moody of Englefield Green, and was insured. How the fire originated appears to be a mystery, as there was scarcely an atom of fire in the fireplace of the cottage, and therefore it is not thought likely to have been occasioned by the fire falling from the top of the chimney on to the thatch.

Windsor Police - Monday
[Before John Clode, Esq. (Mayor), R.Tebbott, Esq., Wm.Legh, Esq. and Mr.R.Blunt, Esq.]

This was the day fixed for hearing two charges of assault which had been last week preferred against Charles Brown, one of the borough policemen . At the commencement of the proceedings

Mr.Tebbott, addressing his brother magistrates, said the Mayor having on Thursday last done him the honour of placing him in the chair when his worship was obliged to leave the court, he found that after one case against the policeman had been heard for an assault on a female, there were two others, and therefore he had felt it his duty to call a bench of magistrates to hear them. He thought whether the charges were true or not it was desirable that they should be heard. The first case against Brown was that of assaulting a female in the Long Walk, and in that he (Mr.Tebbott) believed Brown was labouring under a mistake as to the person, but it was proved that he knocked her head against a tree -

Mr.Blunt - But we ought not to go into that case now. It is disposed of.

Mr.Tebbott said he was only doing his duty and exercising his right to state the fact. Brown was putting that young woman by force over the stile, when she fell, and he fell upon her. She brought a witness forward, who, however proved very little, excepting that he saw Brown take her by the neck and heels, and endeavour to throw her over the stile. Brown produced a witness named Massey, who said he saw her putting her over the stile, but he did not see him strike her. The young woman, however, had two other witnesses, but they were not in attendance, and the case was adjourned. He (Mr.Tebbott) was desirous that those two witnesses should attend, for it was a matter in which the public would naturally take an interest. Notwithstanding some observations that had been made in a newspaper [alluding to some remarks on the case in a Bucks paper], he could only say if the evidence he referred to had been produced he should certainly have felt it to be his duty to dismiss the policeman from his situation. He knew well that the police were very much aimed at, and it was the magistrates duty to protect them, but if they overstepped their duty, it was their (the magistrates) province to take notice of it, and to act as became them.

The Mayor said in the case of the young woman there was no doubt an assault had been committed by Brown upon her, and had it not been for Mr.Tebbott wishing for further evidence, a conviction would have taken place.

Brown was then charged with assaulting John Webb. The complainant, who is a stonemason, stated that on the Saturday week, shortly after 12 o'clock , having come out of Mrs.Cutt's public-house, on Castle-hill, where there had been a club meeting, he stood talking to a friend, when Mr.Gillman, the superintendent of police, and Brown, came by. Brown ordered him to move on; he did not immediately go, and Brown then pushed him on, pushing him as far as Mr.Adams's, the butcher's shop, where he fell down from Brown's violent pushing; he got up again and was then pushed towards the market place, when Brown was called away by Mr.Gillman, who said "Come along, the man will go home if you let him alone." Complainant said he was not drunk, having only had two pints of beer and a pipe of tobacco the whole evening, neither was he talking to his friend in a loud tone.

Richard Lown corroborated in part the statement of Webb, and added that Brown was smoking a pipe at the time, which he (witness) told him he had no business to have. Webb and his friend had not been quarrelling ; they were only talking together.

Brown denied he had a pipe in his mouth at that time, although he had afterwards. There were six or seven persons there very noisy for half or three quarters of an hour afterwards.

Witness - When Webb was shoved along he went home, and I also went to my home. I did not afterwards go to Cutt's house.

Brown said the witness was there for nearly an hour afterwards, and there was a drunken man with his son there, who were going to Slough, and he (Brown) and Silver, another policeman, set them on the right road to that place.

The witness declared he was at home and in bed at the time the policeman was speaking of.

Brown was called upon for his defence. He said it was nearly one o'clock in the morning when, as he was near Mr.Banister's house, he heard a noise and disturbance on Castle-hill, and he and Mr.Gillman went there and saw Webb and others: Mr.Gillman said,"Come, my lads, it's a late hour, and time to break up." Webb asked Gillman "if he wanted a job to night ?" to which the latter answered that he did not want them to be standing there disturbing the neighbourhood at that time of night. The parties were drunk, and Mr.Gillman desired him to move them on. He spoke civilly to Webb, who said he would go when he liked, and that he (the policeman) did not know his duty. He then related some abusive expressions used by Webb, and at last he pushed Webb by the shoulders, but used no more force than was necessary to get him to go away: Webb resisted, and when near Mr.Adams's he fell down, his hat fell off, and his handkerchief fell out of his hat. He (Brown) picked up the handkerchief and hat, and put the latter on complainant's head. Webb was very drunk, and needed no pushing to fall down. He also used very bad language. Mr.Gillman afterwards called out "let him alone," and he did so, and saw no more of him afterwards. The defendant also said that Lown, the witness for the complainant, was about an hour afterwards making a disturbance.

The defendant here requested that Mr.Cutt should be sent for, which was acceded to by the bench.

Mr.Gillman corroborated some parts of Brown's statement, and said the complainant and his friends were making a great noise. Webb was decidedly drunk. Witness advised him to go home, but he would not - he was obstinate and would not go away. Brown used no more force than was necessary, and when he got Webb as far as the market-place he called to Brown - "Come along, perhaps the man will go home." He did so, and there the matter ended. Brown was sober. The policemen were allowed to smoke a pipe after twelve or one o'clock, when the streets are quiet. Lown , when he went away from the complainant , went back to the public house. Witness did not see Webb fall down - he was probably round the corner.

James Cutt, son of the landlady of the public-house, was called, and he deposed that he served the complainant with only two pints of beer and a pipe of tobacco on the evening in question. He could not tell how long Lown was there, nor what he had. It was a club night; there was a raffle there, and a great number of persons were in the house. Witness saw the policeman push Webb along the street. He did not see Lown return to his house after that, but he could not swear he did not.

After some further evidence the magistrates decided that in their opinion Brown did not use more violence to remove Webb than was necessary to induce him to go home. Webb and his friends had come out of the public house at a late hour of the night, and there had been a great deal of talking in the streets, and Brown had done no more than his duty in desiring the complainant to go home. The magistrates would, therefore, dismiss the case, but they hoped that Brown would in future - if he had on this occasion used any violence - be more cautious, and not push people down. If he should find any opposition he could call for other assistance, and not use unnecessary violence.

The charge was then dismissed, and the bench gave a caution to Mr.Cutt about the future management of his house.

The other case was then entered into. It was a charge against the same policeman for an assault on Michael Malony , who also charged Charles Clark, another policeman, with assaulting him on the same occasion.

Malony stated that at three o'clock on the morning of Sunday week, he went home to his residence, No.5, Church-street, and was tapping at his window to get in, instead of knocking at the door and creating a noise, when Brown came up and told him he had no business there. He replied he was knocking to get into his lodgings. Brown very much abused him, on which he told Brown he would take his number and report him to Mr.Gillman; in trying to take his number, Brown drew his truncheon and struck him over the head with it, breaking has hat (which was produced) to pieces. Complainant received several blows on his arms, shoulders, and wrist. He went over to the station house and spoke to Mr.Gillman about it, and while speaking to him, Clark, the other defendant, pushed him by the breast and threw him off the kirb-stone into the street, where he fell and was hurt. He only tapped at the window, and did not kick at the door.

Brown said Malony laid hold of the railings of the house with both hands and was drunk and sick.

Malony denied that he was sick or that he was drunk, but he admitted having been drinking.

Brown, in his defence, said he heard a violent kicking at a door, and on going up he found the complainant there very drunk and being sick. He remonstrated with him, when complainant, even after the door was opened, refused for a time to go in doors, and seized hold of his (Brown's) shawl, which was round his neck, and hung by it. He told the complainant that if he did not let him go he should let his truncheon fall upon him. Malony refused, and he did let his truncheon fall on his knuckles. They had a struggle together and Malony fall down.

Clark, the other defendant, spoke to the violence of the complainant, who he said was drunk.

Mr.Gillman was called, but he did not see the man down or the beginning of the affair.

Elizabeth Sutton, in whose house the complainant lodged, deposed that she heard a loud knocking at the door on the night in question, and that on going down she saw the complainant on the ground. She also deposed that she saw the appearance of a person having been sick at the door.

The Magistrates after consulting together expressed their abhorrence of the use of the truncheon, while the defendant Brown, could have taken Malony to the station-house which was opposite where the affair occurred. They adjudged Brown therefore for this offence to be suspended for a week from his situation. As to Clark, they were of opinion that the charge against him was not supported, and it was therefore dismissed.

Jane Davis, the wife of Charles Davis, a bricklayer, living in Clewer-fields, was charged with the serious offence of cutting and maiming Samuel Gardner, also a bricklayer, with intent to do him some grevious bodily harm.

The complainant appeared with his arm in a sling, and his clothes which he had on at the time he was cut by the defendant were produced, saturated with blood. He appeared to be very weak. He stated that he had long known the prisoner to whom he was in some way related, and to whose husband he had been apprenticed. He had lodged with them for the last three weeks, but he found that Mrs.Davis had been pawning some of his things. On Saturday last he went home to settle with her and he found some of his things were missing, and he determined to leave that lodging. He afterwards left and went to the residence of Mrs.Bolton, who resides near Clewer-lane. While there, at about half-past 8 o'clock, the prisoner came into Mrs.Bolton's room, when he asked her what she wanted and ordered her out. She refused to go, kicked over the table and put out the light. A struggle ensued between them, he felt his left thumb severely cut and bleeding profusely - it was nearly cut off. He next felt her cutting at his right arm which also bled very much, and both his hands were then flowing with blood. The prisoner then took up the basket she had with her and made off. Mrs.Bolton's children were in the room at the time. The prisoner had also made a cut at his throat which penetrated his neckhandkerchief, but fortunately only inflicted a trifling wound, and she also cut him in the forehead.

He afterwards discovered that she had cut at him on his left side, the cut penetrating his flannel jacket, waistcoat, and shirt, but it did not penetrate his flannel shirt, and therefore fortunately inflicted no wound in that direction.

The clothing was here produced, and exhibited the marks of a very sharp knife having been used. The complainant added that he did not see that the prisoner had any knife in her hand. All these wounds were inflicted after the prisoner had kicked the table over, and when the light was put out. The whole did not occupy more than five minutes time.

The prisoner stated that the complainant knocked her down and pushed her about the room while she had a knife in her hand, which she had just used to cut some bread and cheese with.

The complainant denied that he knocked her down.

Charlotte Bolton, a girl 14 years of age, corroborated the complainant's statement. As she was lighting the candle she saw the prisoner put a white handle knife into her basket and leave the house after the stabbing.

Daniel Grass, a policeman, stated that he went to the prisoner's house and apprehended her on the charge of stabbing the complainant. She then said she knew nothing about it, but would willingly go with him. Witness produced the clothes complainant had on at the time, and exhibited the cuts in them. He also produced a three bladed pen knife which the prisoners daughter had given him outside the hall, as being the one her mother had. It was a small knife, but not the colour described by the girl, Bolton.

Mr.W.H.Holderness, surgeon, deposed that he was called to attend the complainant on Saturday evening , and found he had been bleeding very severely, but he was not then bleeding, his arm and thumb being wrapped up. He found two wounds, one an extensive one, across the right arm two inches in extent midway between the wrist and elbow, and the second a deep wound on the second joint of the left thumb. Witness asked him if he had any other injuries, and he said he had none, but the complainant had since discovered that he had two other superficial wounds, one on the throat and the other in the forehead. Mr.Holderness gave it as his opinion that no danger was to be apprehended from any of the wounds. The complainant had evidently been drinking , and was much excited, partly from, liquor and partly from the wounds.

The prisoner in her defence said she did not know she had cut the complainant with the knife.

She was fully committed for trial at the next borough sessions.

A boy named Edward Emory was charged with having on the 15th of January obtained some tea and coffee of Mr.Andrew Lorraine, grocer, &c., of High-street, by means of false pretences.

It appeared that the prisoner, who resided at Spital, near the residence of Mr.Phillips, one of the keepers of the Great Park, on the 15th of January went into the shop of Mr.Lorraine with a note purporting to be an order, signed by Mr.Phillips, for a pound of green tea, a pound of black tea, and a pound of coffee, all of which he was supplied with, no suspicion being then entertained that anything was wrong. The value of the goods was 17s 6d. It was not until one day last week when the bill was sent to Mr.Phillips that it was discovered to be a forgery.

Mr.Phillips said he knew the prisoner, whose parents resided at Spital. He (the prisoner) had been in the practice all winter of sleeping in carts and sheds, having left his father's house. He had never employed the prisoner to go on errands for him, and had not written the order now produced by Mr.Lorraine. He knew nothing of it until the bill was sent to him.

The prisoner in his defence said that, he was in the Market-place when he was called by a "lady" who was near the Castle Inn, who wished him to go on an errand, which was to Mr.Lorraine's with a bill, and get the goods. He did so, got the goods, and a penny Mr.Lorraine gave him for bringing him the bill, and he gave the goods to "the lady," who gave him a shilling, and then went down Peascod-street. To further questions he said he informed a boy, whom he described, of his having earned a shilling that day.

The prisoner was remanded for the attendance of that boy.


[Before J.Clode, Esq. (Mayor), R.Blunt, Esq., and J.Banister, Esq.]

Edward Emony was again brought up but there was no further evidence against him, and on his father promising to take him home and to produce him again in case any farther evidence was obtained, he was ordered to be set at liberty.

Joseph Collier was charged with deserting his two children and leaving them chargeable to the Windsor Union. He was further charged with having been guilty of the like offence in January last.

The prisoner pleaded guilty to both charges in the information and was fully committed for trial.

Eton Police - Wednesday
[Before M.Swabey, Esq., C.Clowes, Esq., G.J.Penn, Esq., and the Rev.W.G.Cookesley]

Henry Gough[?] was summoned for non payment of 2 2s for tithes, due to the Rev.Mr.Champnes, rector of Fulmar. He pleaded his inability to pay, although he admitted he had a flock of 40 or 50 sheep. The bench ordered the money to be paid, and before the conclusion of the day's proceedings it was forthcoming.

William Stannitt was re-examined on the charge of committing damage in the house of Mr.William Sharpe, of the Dog and Pot, at Stoke.

On this occasion Mr.Voules appeared for the complainant, and Mr.Williams as counsel for the defendant.

The examinations lasted a considerable time, but the facts were few. The offence was committed as far back as the 7th of Feb., late in the night of which the defendant, who was in liquor , went into the Dog and Pot, and after having a glass of gin and water he became most troublesome, upset the table with several glasses on it, broke one or two chairs, and broke also a square of glass in the window. He was brought before the magistrates for the offence of committing malicious damage, but on his promising to pay for the injury, the complainant consented to withdraw the charge. He had, however, since then on seeing the bill sent in for 30s for the damage he had done refused to pay it, and therefore the case was for the magistrates decision.

The Bench ultimately decided that the defendant should pay 4s 6d for the damage, and 2 7s costs, making together 2 11s 6d; in default of payment within a fortnight, he was to be committed to prison for six weeks.

James Wilson, a journeyman printer, at Uxbridge, Middlesex, appeared to an information charging him, under the Petty Trespass Act, with trespassing on and committing damage to the grass, the property of Mr.John Herrett, farmer, of Iver. The damage was laid in the information at four pence.

Mr.Geary, solicitor of Uxbridge, appeared for the defendant.

James Gurling stated that, on the 1st instant he saw the defendant go across a field belonging to Mr.Herrett, called the Forty-acre field. The grass was shut up for mowing, and witness supposed the defendant must have done some damage to it by walking over it.

Mr.Clowes here put a question to the witness, the purport of which we could not hear, but Mr.Geary objected to it. Mr.Clowes said he knew the field in question very well, and he knew the facts of the case, and that it was undoubtedly a trespass.

Mr.Geary objected to Mr.Clowes stating as a magistrate that he knew all the facts, and making up his mind without hearing the evidence.

Mr.Clowes - I have a right to put any question I please without regard to the subtlety of a lawyer.

Mr.Geary - The defendant has placed his case in my hands, and I will conduct as well as I am able. You, Mr.Clowes, to talk to me of the subtlety of a lawyer ! I beg to say I will pledge my respectability against yours at any time. I mean to show you that my client claims a right of way across the field, and that that fact alone will take the case out of the hands of the magistrates.

Mr.Clowes - When I said the subtlety of a lawyer, I meant it in the legal sense.

The witness then proceeded with his evidence. He said there was no public footpath across the field. There was a notice board up warning persons against going there. He had known the field about four years.

Mr.Clowes - Well, I have known it for fifty years, and -

Mr.Geary - I must object to Mr.Clowes's proceeding with such interruptions unless he chooses to be examined as a witness. If he is cognizant of the facts, I submit, with deference to him, that he ought to retire from the adjudication of the case.

The witness, after some further altercation between Mr.Geary and Mr.Clowes, then proceeded. The place the defendant went across was the side of the field where there was a beaten track.

Cross examined by Mr.Geary - Witness was in his own meadow at the time, adjoining the Forty-acre field. He had heard that there was some dispute as to the right of way across that field. He could not say that the defendant rambled over the field, or did not keep to what appeared to be a footpath, nor could he say that defendant wilfully damaged any of the grass. Witness occupied the next farm to Mr.Herretts, and they both rented under Mr.Barnes. Witness had gone over the Forty-acre field, but it was by Mr.Herrett's permission. There was another person with the defendant and two females and a child. When defendant got out of the field witness put his hand on his shoulder and told him he must go back for there was no footway there; defendant replied he should go there when he liked. Witness had been instructed by his landlord to object to any person going along the footway.

Mr.Geary then said he would call an old man named Pearce, who would prove that for a great many years until within the last six years the footpath across the field had been a public one. This was the assertion of a right of way, and if he made out a prima facse claim to that right, the case did not come within the petty trespass act the 7th and 8th of George IV, which was for a malicious trespass and damage. There was a proviso in that act that where a party trespassing acted under a fair a reasonable supposition that he had a right to do so, the magistrates had no jurisdiction, but the party complaining was to be left to his action at law.

Mr.Swabey - If you show that it is even a mistake then we have no power.

Mr.Geary said they had no evidence that it was not a public footway. The enclosure of the Moor took place 25 or 30 years ago, and then this footway was used by the public, and it had never been stopped up either by authority of the Enclosure Act or by an order of justices. In fact it had been used by the public until the last four or five years, when the property came into the possession of Mr.Barnes. He called John Pearce, who stated that he was 74 years of age and was now blind. He lived on Uxbridge Moor, and he knew the Forty-acre field. He also knew Dursley Moor years before the enclosure. He had gone across the path of the Forty-acre field hundreds of times during a period of forty years, and until within the last six years. When he wanted to go to Iver Heath he always went that way uninterrupted for the time he had spoken. He had been there both before and since the enclosure of Dursley Moor.

Mr.Geary said he had now shown an assumed right of way, which he submitted took the case out of the magistrates hands. Should the bench however convict, he should advise his client not to pay any penalty, but to try the question in another shape.

The Magistrates after some consultation dismissed the case, thus leaving the question as to the right of way to be decided by a superior court if the complainant or his landlord thought fit to do so.

Mr.Atkins, of Chalvey, farmer, was summoned by one of his servants James Richardson, for non-payment of his wages, amounting to between two and three pounds. It appeared that Richardson had conducted himself very improperly in absenting himself when he was wanted and in enlisting as a soldier. The bench reproved him for his misconduct, but thought by agreement between the parties the man was entitled to something, and they accordingly awarded that Mr.Atkins should pay him a sovereign besides the costs, which were 11s.

William Peedle was charged with poaching on the lands of Benjamin Way, Esq., of Denham. He was convicted in a penalty of 2 and costs, and in default of payment was committed to two months hard labour in Aylesbury gaol.

Henry Ackerman was charged with stealing about 15 fowls the property of Mr.Burgess of Stoke.

During the night of Friday or early on Saturday morning some thieves broke into Mr.Burgess's cow-house where some of his fowls were kept, and a great number, the exact quantity did not appear, were stolen. Mr.Larkin, the chief constable of Iver, who had been on the look-out for the prisoner and his father on suspicion of committing some other offence succeeded in tracing them to Slough and apprehending the son, but the father escaped. The prisoner confessed he had stolen Mr.Burgess's fowls. He had in his possession a basket with blood and feathers on it, and on Mr.Larkin obtaining from him the place of his residence, No.16, Peter-street, Berwick-street, he went there and found a quantity of fowls feathers. On his person were found no less than nineteen duplicates of property that had been pledged.

He was committed for trial.

Staines, Saturday, May 14

On Tuesday last our fair took place, and owing to a fresh arrangement by order of the Rural Police Act, instead of the cow cattle being in the High-street of the town for sale, which used to be a very great nuisance to the inhabitants, they were exhibited in a field near the White Lion, which alteration gave great satisfaction. Prices having considerably advanced for cattle since Colnbrook fair, caused a dull sale. - purchasers not liking to advance, and sellers not giving way. Pigs being plentiful , a great deal of business was done, and at much lower than the usual prices. In the pleasure fair there was a great variety of exhibitions, and a great many more stalls than has been the case for some years; however, owing to the scarcity of purchasers we think several of the occupiers will regret their visit this year.

Henley, Saturday, May 14
Horticultural Society

The first show of the season took place on Tuesday last. It had been intended to hold it in the grounds of Phyllis Court, but owing to the uncertain state of the weather it was deemed advisable that it should take place in the Town-hall. The collection of greenhouse and other plants were very numerous and beautiful, and the specimens of vegetables of much value; there were also some very fine strawberries which excited much attention. The cottagers table could boast many good and useful productions, and fully maintained the superior character which has marked it for so many years. The company was scarcely so numerous as we have sometimes observed at these shows. The prizes were awarded as follows:-

First Table.- Mrs. Atkyns Wright, asparagus, apples and peonies; Lord Camoys, strawberries, French beans, collection of plants; Mr.Costar, tulips and rhubarb; Mrs.Hind, calaeolarias, anemones and cucumbers; C.Lane, Esq., strawberries and carrots; Mrs.Overy, collection of plants and lemon tree; Mr.Hunt, stands of pansies; Mr.Alleway, stocks, polyanthus, apples, brocoli, leeks, asparagus and rhubarb; Mr.Betten, pansies, auriculas and cabbage; Mr.Lynn, nosegay and collection of plants; Mr.Sutton, cinerarias; Mrs.Vernon, geraniums, greenhouse plants and radishes; Sir W.R.Clayton, cucumbers.

Amateurs Table - Mr.Parker, apples; Mr.Stubbs, pansies; Mr.Crouch, pansies; Mr.Jeston, cucumbers and rhubarb; Mr.Collins, cabbage and radishes; Mr.Goff, rhubarb; Mr.Child, cucumbers; Mr.Carter, fuschia; Mr.Elsee, collection of plants, geranium, potatoes and radishes; Mr.Benwell, orange trees and asparagus; Mr.Hunt, auriculas and tulips; Mr.Hoar[?], two collections of plants, heaths and specimen plants, &c.