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

2nd April 1842

New Windsor Vestry Meeting

On Easter Monday, according to annual custom, a vestry meeting of the rate-payers of this parish, was held in the vestry room, for the election of Churchwardens, and the nomination of substantial householders qualified to serve the office of Overseers for the ensuing year. The notice convening the meeting stated in addition - "And Electing a Surveyor or Surveyors of Highways for the ensuing year, at which meeting the Surveyor of the Highways for the present year will produce his Accounts." The notice was signed by Messrs. T.Adams and Noke, churchwardens; and Messrs. Astle, Thompson, Driver, and Dunn, overseers.

The Rev.Isaac Gosset, vicar of the parish, having read the notice, and opened the business of the meeting,

Mr.Jarman said he believed it was the custom to produce the churchwarden's accounts that day.

The Chairman said he could answer for it that he had never known that done. The vestry had now only to elect churchwardens and nominate overseers.

During a pause in the proceedings, the Rev.Chairman said he was very glad to perceive in the Windsor paper, that in the case of the two women and child, who went from the Windsor workhouse to the Kensington workhouse, where the child died, the officers of this union were entirely exculpated from all blame.

Mr.Jarman bore testimony to the beneficial working of the New Poor Law. In the parish with which he was more immediately connected (Datchet) it was working exceedingly well, and he doubted not that in a few years it would be even much better.

The Chairman again read the notice that had been given for calling the vestry, and said the first business to be done was to proceed to the election of the two churchwardens. It had always been the custom for the vicar to appoint one churchwarden, and the parishioners to elect two. He should therefore, again nominate Mr.Thomas Adams as his churchwarden.

Mr.Hill wished to know whether, as Mr.Adams was a member of the board of guardians, it was legal for a guardian to act as a churchwarden ?

The Chairman - Really, I cannot tell.

Mr.Jarman - He was elected guardian before he was a churchwarden, and therefore he is not competent to occupy both offices.

Mr.George - No; he was elected guardian after he was churchwarden.

Mr.Jarman - But at present he is out of office as churchwarden, and therefore it is for us to consider the question.

Mr.F.Twinch - Have you any law to show us that it is illegal ?

Mr.Jarman - No; I have no law.

Mr.Sharman said that as far as Mr.Gosset's right to nominate a churchwarden there was no doubt about it. It had always been the custom, and he thought that it ought not to be objected to.

Mr.Twinch said it rested entirely with Mr.Gosset, and not with the parish.

Mr.Jarman - You will understand that if it should turn out that the vicar is not in the right, he cannot make another nomination during the year.

The Chairman - I shall still beg leave to nominate Mr.Adams, if he will do me the favour of accepting the office.

Mr.Adams intimated his acceptance of it.

The Chairman said it was for the vestry to elect two other churchwardens.

Mr.Hopkins proposed Mr.John Clode, jun.

Mr.Harrison seconded the motion.

No other name being proposed in opposition, a show of hands was taken, which the Chairman pronounced to be in favour of Mr.Clode.

Mr.Twinch said his only objection to the proposition had been, that it was against Mr.Noke, one of the present churchwardens.

Mr.Hill said the proposition was not so intended, for Mr.Clode was proposed in lieu of Mr.Newman, who had left Windsor.

Mr.Noke begged to observe that he was in his 61st year; he had served the parish long enough, and did not intend to serve it any longer in any public office. He was not aware that any gentleman present intended to propose him; and he had, in fact, intended not to serve again.

Mr.Sharman proposed, and Mr.Twinch seconded the proposition, that Mr.Ingalton be the other churchwarden.

On a show of hands the majority was in favour of Mr.Ingalton, who was declared elected.

After an observation by Mr.Twinch, to the effect, as was understood, that he should not have made the remark he had, had he not expected Mr.Noke's re-election.

Mr.Jarman said he had no objection whatever to Mr.Noke, but it was generally understood that that gentleman intended to retire, and did not wish to be re-elected. Besides it was better to have a change every two or three years.

The Chairman the intimated that the next business was to nominate a substantial householders qualified to fill the office of overseers of the poor.

Mr.Astle, one of the out-going overseers, said he had a list, which he begged to read.

Mr.Jarman requested the names be taken one at a time.

Mr.Sharman said that by courtesy it had always been usual that the out-going overseers - and Mr.Astle was one - should prepare and propose the whole list of twelve persons.

Mr.Jarman - Yes; but courtesy is one thing, and propriety is another.

Mr.Sharman - Oh! I will certainly give into you as regards propriety [a laugh].

Mr.Jarman - But you very well know that the magistrates have the selection afterwards.

Mr.Twinch - Now that we have elected churchwardens, I beg to propose that Mr.Gosset take the chair.

The motion was seconded and carried. [What was the object of this motion we do not comprehend, seeing the rev gentleman had presided and acted from the commencement.]

Mr.Astle then proposed his list of persons fit to serve as overseers, and Mr.Jarman proposed a counter list, which, however, included two or three names that were in that presented by Mr.Astle.

A long and rambling discussion took place on Mr.Jarman's insisting that the names should be taken one at a time, and decided on separately.

Mr.Sharman eventually said they had not met to appoint overseers, but merely to agree on a list to be presented to the magistrates for them to appoint whom they pleased; and , therefore, he thought the better way be to put both lists together.

Mr.Astle agreed in that suggestion, and moved that the lists be added together.

After some further "cross-firing" it was resolved to add the lists together. Mr.Pond, baker, begged at be excused as he had served the office already; and Mr.J.Hewitt, fishmonger, also begged to be excused. The combined lists , when perfected, comprised nineteen names, which were to be submitted to the magistrates on Thursday for them to select four as overseers.

The Chairman then called the attention of the vestry to the next business on the notice - the appointment of a Surveyor or Surveyors, and to pass his accounts.

Mr.Liverd, the surveyor, produced his book of receipts and expenditure, and the bills he had paid during the year.

The Chairman said he did not think it was necessary to bring forward at that vestry accounts like those.

Mr.Jarman, who had got the account book before him, contended that it was necessary, for the sake of the inhabitants, that the accounts should be examined.

The Chairman read from the book the general receipts and expenditure.

Mr.Jarman persisted in a minute examination and comparison of the bills with the items in the book, and put a great number of questions to Mr.Liverd, all of which were satisfactorily answered, and the bills and entries tallied. This process of examination was so slowly performed by Mr.Jarman , that it excited the laughter of some and the derision of others, as it afforded no result that Mr.Jarman had expected from it. We could only, in the general conversation and confusion, collect a few very distinct expressions and queries that passed on one side and the other. As to the receipts for road-sand sold, Mr.Jarman expressed an opinion that all that had been sold had not been accounted for. This Mr.Liverd indignantly denied. Mr.Jarman said he should go before the magistrates when the accounts were presented to be passed, and apply that they be not passed. Mr.Liverd said he could if he thought proper.

Mr.Jarman - I admit you have been most indefatigable in your duty; and if you should be proposed again, I would be glad to propose you. But I shall move that the accounts be not passed.

Mr.Liverd - If you were a gentleman, sir, you would bring forward evidence of your charge against me [applause]. I tell you I have explained everything.

The Chairman - the notice states that the surveyor was to produce his accounts. Now, has not that been done ?

Mr.Liverd (to Mr.Jarman) - I have taken a double precaution with my accounts, because I was let into the secret by one of your own men of what you intended to do [laughter and applause].

Here again was a long and undefinable wrangle between the Jarman party and several others, who considered all these proceedings a great waste of time, and leading to no result by any possibility.

Mr.Wright, who acted as vestry clerk pro tem., told Mr.Jarman that he opposed the passing of the accounts, and yet he had shown no reason for not passing them.

Mr.Jarman, however, took no notice of the hint, but demanded of Mr.Liverd to produce his day labour-book.

Mr.Liverd - That book I am not bound to produce. It is my own property, and does not belong to the parish.

Mr.Jarman said the surveyor was bound to produce all his books to let them see if they were properly kept.

Mr.Liverd, That book is at my home, and is my property. I bought it with my own money: and I can tell you Mr.Jarman, that I can show an honest a face here as you can [applause].

Mr.Judge suggested that an should be put to this wrangling. The question had nothing to do with what Mr.Jarman might say, but what the vestry would determine on.

The Chairman really thought that the vestry had nothing to do with all that had just occurred.

Mr.Sharman - I beg now to move that the surveyor's accounts be passed. Seconded by Mr.George.

The Chairman put the question, but

Mr.Jarman again interposed, and insisted on proceeding with an examination of the bills. He was permitted to do so. Having in the course of his scrutiny fallen on a bill of Messrs. Berridge which happened not to be receipted, yet credit was taken by Mr.Liverd as having paid it, he triumphantly held it up as proof of the necessity of his careful examination , and which alone he said justified him.

Mr.Liverd indignantly declared that the bill was paid, and that its not being receipted was accidental. He begged that some gentleman would step with it to Mr.Berridge's, and ascertain whether or no it was paid

. A rate-payer instantly undertook the office, and returned in a few minutes, stating that it had been paid at the time stated in Mr.Liverd's book [applause].

Mr.Jarman, who appeared nowise disconcerted, next referred to an item of 4 odd paid by Mr.Liverd to Mr.Towers for making up the accounts in the book, and contended that that charge was illegal, as Mr.Liverd was himself bound by his office to make up his own books without employing another person and charging the expense to the parish.

Mr.Liverd said such a charge had always been customary.

Mr.Jarman - I suppose, Mr.Liverd, you have always got a rate in hand.

Mr.Liverd - No, I have not; and, indeed , I have not got your rate yet [laughter].

Mr.Jarman began now to flag in his examination, and shortly laid down the bills as if he had done.

Mr.Wright - Why, Mr.Jarman, you have not yet casted up the amounts on each side of the book [laughter].

The question that the accounts be passed was then put, and carried by a show of hand. Mr.Jarman threatening that when Mr.Liverd should appear to swear to them before the magistrates, he should oppose them.

The Chairman then said the vestry had to elect the surveyor or surveyors of the highways for the ensuing year.

Mr.Sharman said he believed it was generally acknowledged that the work of the surveyor had always been exceedingly well performed by Mr.Liverd and that the [... Missing ...] had been most efficiently executed. He, therefore, begged to move that Mr.Liverd be re-appointed, with the same salary as heretofore.

Several rate-payers volunteered to second the proposition.

Mr.Hopkins said, he found by the new act of parliament respecting the office of surveyor of highways, the [.. Missing ...] of William IV., chap 81.

The Chairman - Do you call that a new act Mr.Hopkins ?

Mr.Hopkins said it was the most recent one that [.. Missing ..].

Mr.Jarman said he certainly thought that it would be better for the parish to elect a board of three persons on the principle that three heads were better than one. It would be better than to have only one person acting according to his own witt [?], and therefore it was that he seconded the motion for a board.

The chairman having taken the opinion at the vestry by a show of hands, said he should decidedly say that there were not two thirds in favour of Mr.Hopkin's proposition.

The chairman then put forward the original motion of Mr.Sharman's that Mr.Liverd be elected with the same salary, which was carried by a large majority, and he was declared duly elected.

Thanks were then, on the motion of Mr.Sharman, voted to the Rev.Mr.Gosset for his conduct in the chair, and the vestry broke up.

New Windsor Poor Rates

On Thursday a petty sessions was held at the Town-hall, for the purpose of hearing and determining appeals against the poor-rates for this parish. The business excited considerable interest, having been the subject of public discussion and very general speculation for some time past, and the court was in consequence much crowded. The whole magistracy of the borough presided on the bench, viz., John Clode, Esq. (mayor), Sir John Chapman, John Banister, Esq., R.Blunt, Esq., R.Tebbott, Esq, and W.Legh, Esq.

There were twelve appeals entered, against as many different persons or parties, the appellant in every case being Mr.Hopkins, shoemaker, of Peascod-street. The appeals were in all cases against the poor-rate made on the 12th of February last, and the grounds of appeal were set forth in the notices in not less than 18 objections to the poor rate and mode of rating. The following were the respondents: first, the parish officers; second, Mr.Burge; third, Mrs.Battiscombe; fourth, the Royal Gas Company; fifth, Mr.Cutler (of the Water Works); sixth, Mr.Hayward or Mr.Quarme [?] (of the Horse Canteen); seventh, Mr.Reid or Mr.Hayward (of the Infantry Canteen); eighth, Mr.Walters; ninth, Mr.F[?].Mason; tenth, Mr.Geo.Day; eleventh, John Clode, Esq.; twelfth, Robert Blunt, Esq.

The appeals having been entered by the clerk, Mr.Hopkins was called on to pay the clerk's fee of 1s each, amounting to 12s, which was complied with.

Mr.Williams as counsel, and Mr.Barton as solicitor appeared on behalf of all the respondents, and Mr.Secker attended on behalf of Mrs.Battiscombe.

Mr.Williams consented to admit the services of notice of appeal, to save the time of the court being occupied in receiving proof of service.

The Clerk was about to read the first notice when Mr.Williams objected to that being done at present, and was proceeding to state his reasons, when

Mr.Hopkins said it was his right to begin, and he claimed it as a right. In support of his claim, he quoted the opinion of Mr.Serjeant Talfourd.

The Mayor - Do you, Mr.Williams, object to the notice ?

Mr.Williams - Certainly. I have half a hundred objections. You see a little learning is a dangerous thing.

It was eventually agreed that the notice of appeal against the rate should be first read, and after it was done,

Mr.Williams then rose to make his objections to many of the various alleged grounds of appeal in the notice. He said that in all such cases it was usual, in the language of the bar, to "weed" the notices, and to expunge from them all those allegations and matters with which the court had nothing whatever to do, in order that the court might know what it was is really had to try. By the act of the 43rd of Elizabeth, nothing was said as to the precise duties of magistrates in reference to the poor-rates, but by the act of the 6th and 7th of William IV., chap.96, justices were expressly told what the duties of justices in regard to poor-rates were. The act of Elizabeth only gave power to the Quarter Sessions, but the provisions of the latter act were different in their nature and described the duties of justices. By the 6th clause, after stating that a special or petty sessions should be held every year, it enabled justices so sitting in petty sessions to hear and determine on all objections as to the inequality, unfairness or incorrectness of a rate. That was the first part of the clause; at the latter end of which it was provided that justices should not enquire into the liability of heriditaments to be rated, but which been omitted to be rated. Therefore all that the justices had on the present occasion to do, was to inquire into the inequality , unfairness or incorrectness of the rate, and not into the validity of the rate itself. If any party felt aggrieved at the rate, the remedy was at the quarter and not at the petty sessions, and they might by the act, and by giving the proper notices, either apply to the quarter sessions first or last. He should therefore, the law being laid down as he had stated it, proceed to dispose at once of some fourteen or fifteen of the objections in the notice of appeal.

Mr.Hopkins interrupted, and said it was his right as appellant to proceed before Mr.Williams, and again adverting to the opinion of Mr.Serjeant Talfourd, whose word surely was a better authority than that of Mr.Williams.

Mr.Williams (to the bench) - Gentleman, he is taking more liberties than any gentleman at the bar would ever pretend to do.

Mr.Hopkins - Then why not allow me to go on ! I did not expect a man of Mr.Williams's standing to appear here against me.

The magistrates were unanimous that Mr.Williams had a right to proceed with his objections to the notice.

Mr.Williams then went seriatim through the whole eighteen grounds of appeal. The first was that the rate of February last had been made before the whole of the previous rate, made in October, had been collected. Why, that was no ground of objection, for, what from deaths or other causes, no rate could be wholly collected before another one was made; and besides, it was an objection which the magistrates could not possibly entertain. The 2nd was, that the rate of February was not published according to law. That was no ground for the magistrates enquiry. The 3rd was, the collector refused to receive a rate from one James Barnes. That, if true, was the collector's business, but the magistrates had nothing to do with it, 4th - Because Mr.Hopkin's house was rated too high in proportion to other properties belonging to Mr.Burge, and others of the respondants. That, Mr.Williams admitted, was a fair ground of appeal.

The Clerk said, he thought that having come to what the magistrates really could go into, Mr.Hopkins should be allowed to proceed with that case.

Mr.Williams - No; I am only weeding the notice according to the practice of Quarter Sessions. Mr.Long will be so good as to take down what I admit. I admit the 4th objection. The learned counsel then went through all the other objections on the notice, admitting that all the reasons stated, having reference to inequality of rating, or, according to the Act "inequality, unfairness or incorrectness," were fit subjects of enquiry, but applying to have expunged whose complaining of the rate itself, or omissions from the rate - such as the Water or Gas Companies - could not be investigated. Having so weeded the reasons stated in the notice, he submitted that only numbers 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, and 17, came within the cognizance of the Petty Sessions.

Mr.Hopkins - You will allow perhaps the poor law commissioners know something of the law, and they say (here he read from the commissioners report) that until the rate already allowed be fully collected, no new one can be applied for, and that if one be made, the justices should be required to disallow it on application.

Mr.Williams - Well, I object to the rate being gone into.

Mr.Hopkins - The act of Parliament expressly says that every inhabitant who may feel himself aggrieved shall make his complaint here, and I shall go on, with the permission of the bench.

Sir John Chapman (his brother magistrates concurring), said all they had the power of doing was to determine on objections as to the inequality , unfairness, or incorrectness of the rate.

Mr.Hopkins - The poor-law commissioners say you have the power to quash any such rate.

The Clerk said the magistrates could not go into any such questions as those proposed by Mr.Hopkins. His remedy against the rate with a view to quashing it would be at the quarter sessions.

Mr.Hopkins - But the act says "any grievance," and I propose to show a grievance.

Mr.Jarman said certainly it did.

The Clerk - You must not speak Mr.Jarman. Mr.Hopkins is the only person entitled to speak on your side, he having given the notices.

Mr.Hopkins maintained that that was the court he was entitled to come to for a remedy of any grievance as regarded poor-rates. He had adopted the forms of service according as they were framed in Mr.Talfourd's book; they were according to the law, and he insisted on being allowed to proceed. Could the court not go on and inquire whether the rate was legal or illegal ?

Sir John Chapman - Certainly not. All we can do, as you have been before informed, in to enquire into the inequality , unfairness, or incorrectness in the valuation of the rate.

Some time was here lost in Mr.Hopkins urging his right to proceed to show the illegality of the rate, and in the magistrates endeavouring to make him understand that they had no power to interfere to that extent. The bench frequently urged Mr.Hopkins to go on with the first case they had power to enquire into, which was that of Mr.Burge, whose property was alleged to be rated much below its rateable value.

Mr.Hopkins - May I ask the bench a question ? Have all the magistrates now present had notices from the high constable to be here to-day ?

The Clerk said that was a question which the magistrates were not obliged to answer.

The bench however said that they had no objection (although it was an irregular question) to say for Mr.Hopkins's information that they had all had notices.

Mr.Hopkins - Because I wish to know if magistrates who signed the rate were empowered also to decide upon the rate.

Sir John Chapman - We have now nothing to do with the making of the rate, but only to judge the fairness of it.

Mr.Hopkins - I only want to know if magistrates who sign the rate, and are themselves respondents in the appeals, can act as judges in the matter ?

Sir John Chapman - If we are acting wrong, you have your remedy.

After some farther similar displays, and Mr.Hopkins wishing still to proceed in his own way, during which he was frequently reminded by the bench of the only questions they had the power of trying. Mr.Hopkins said he would then call Mr.Towers as a witness to prove the rate of October last was not all collected when the February rate was made.

Mr.Williams objected.

The Clerk - Recollect we cannot go into the rate of October last, with which the magistrates have nothing to do.

Mr.Hopkins - Well, I shall call Mr.Towers, and whether the magistrates will go into it or not, I will go into it.

Mr.Williams - Indeed you will not.

Mr.Blunt - I have consulted with the Mayor, and as he and I signed the rate, we have determined to take no part in these appeals - that is, we shall sit quietly by but not vote upon any of the questions.

Mr.Williams said he objected that the bench should adopt, as any ground of appeal, the non-collection of the old rate prior to the making of a new one.

Sir John Chapman - The first appeal we can hear is that in which William Henry Burge is respondent, which is for an inequality of the rate as concerns him. Show was what evidence you have as to that.

The Clerk also took pains again to explain to Mr.Hopkins the power with which the magistrates were invested, namely, that they could only alter the valuation, if it were proved to be wrong, but not go into the question of the validity of the rate itself. The magistrates took the act of Parliament for their guidance.

Mr.Hopkins asked if they would go into the 18th objection, which was where a party was not rated at all ?

Sir John Chapman - No, we have no power over that.

Mr.Hopkins (warmly) - Why not go into it ? You say you can enquire into any inequality, and is it not an inequality when a party is not rated at all ?

Sir John Chapman - No, that is not an inequality.

Mr.Hopkins - Is it not an unfairness then ?

Sir John Chapman - By the act we cannot go into any omission of property in the rate.

Mr.Hopkins - I contend then it is incorrectness.

Mr.Williams - But then you wish to go into the validity of the rate.

Sir John Chapman pointed out again the only grounds of Mr.Hopkins's objections that the bench could take cognizances of, and begged him to produce evidence as to the first case, that of Mr.Burge.

Mr.Hopkins - I consider it unfair not to allow me to go into the rate itself.

Sir John Chapman - Well, you can go to the quarter sessions.

Mr.Hopkins - You have the same power as the quarter sessions to go into all the questions, and the resort to this court is given for the purpose of saving expense to the parties aggrieved.

Sir John Chapman - But if thereby any person who ought to be rated at all and is not rated, we cannot go into the question of the liability of the party to be rated. As to the gas property, I understand it is on the books.

Mr.Williams - The gas property is not rated.

Mr.Hopkins - Then I call for the parish books of the new rate and the former rate.

Mr.Williams - I cannot give you the book of the former rate; here is the last rate (producing it).

Mr.Hopkins called for both books to be used as evidence.

Sir John Chapman - We have nothing to do with the former rates.

Mr.Hopkins - I see in this rate an entry for the Gas Works and Water Works pipes and mains laid in the streets, of the rateable value of 200 and 100. Yet these properties are not rated. Is it not fair that we should therefore go into it ? I call for the former rate-book.

Mr.Williams - Why not get a copy of it according to the act of parliament ?

Mr.Hopkins - I gave notice for the production of all the parish books for twenty years past.

Mr.Williams - We are not bound to produce them, and I shall not produce them.

Mr.Hopkins - Well then, I will call as a witness Mr.Jarman, to show that the gas and water property was rated in the October rate-book.

The clerk told Mr.Hopkins that he could not be allowed to do so.

Mr.Hopkins called the attention of the bench to the act the 6th and 7th William IV., chap.96, which provided for the setting out the particulars of property to be rated so far as they could be ascertained, and then he referred to the rate-book to show that there was an entry in the rate book of the Windsor Royal Gas Company, for land through which their pipes and mains passed, of the gross estimate value of 300, rateable value, 200.

Sir John Chapman enquired what it was rated at.

Mr.Williams said it was a mere entry, and no rate was placed against it. It was in fact not rated, and was not included in the aggregate sum.

Mr.Hopkins - Then can the magistrates sign only part of a rate ?

Sir John Chapman - We have nothing to do with that.

Mr.Hopkins - How can men, calling themselves churchwardens, who ought to be prudent and holy men, make such a rate as this, and declare that they have set out a rate to the best of their knowledge and belief, and yet omit such a property as this of the gas company.

Sir John Chapman - Well, we have determined that we cannot hear it, and therefore you had better go on regularly.

Mr.Hopkins - Well, I will call Mr.Towers, and I demand the production of all the parish books for the last 20 years.

Sir John Chapman - They refuse to produce those books.

Mr.Williams - Do you want the survey - the valuation of the parish on which the rate is founded ?

Mr.Hopkins said he did, and it was handed to him. He then said he wanted the minute book of the parish.

Mr.Williams said he was not able to give it him.

Mr.Hopkins said the parish officers were bound to produce it.

Mr.Williams - And they have a right to withhold it if they choose.

Mr.Hopkins - The parish officers are very negligent in not producing their books.

Sir John Chapman - If they are wrong you can go to the Quarter Sessions.

Mr.Hopkins - But, sir, why should they put a poor man like me to the expense of going to the Quarter Sessions, when the law was expressly made to save that expense by coming here. I have complied with all the forms that are laid down by Mr. Serjeant Talfourd and Mr.Spence, and I only wish Mr.Serjeant Talfourd was here, he would soon put Mr.Williams right.

Mr.Williams - I would be happy to submit to the learned Serjeant's opinion if he were here.

Sir John Chapman - If you like we will adjourn the case to enable you to employ Mr.Serjeant Talfourd, and to bring him here.

Mr.Hopkins was once more urged to proceed with one of the cases which the bench could entertain, when he said he did not, under the circumstances, know what to do, as the parish officers, by not producing the books, had refused him the means of going on with his cases.

The Clerk said, Mr.Burge's case was the first, and Mr.Hopkins could go on with that if he had any evidence.

Mr.Blunt - I would suggest to you, Mr.Hopkins, that you had better abandon that case, and take any particular case that you can go on with.

Sir John Chapman - You can abandon Mr.Burge's case and proceed with Mrs.Battiscombe's which is the next.

Mr.Hopkins - If I understand it rightly , I have a right to go into the whole of the cases ?

Sir John Chapman - No, we cannot go into them all. If you pass Mr.Burge's we shall strike it out, and we shall certainly not afterwards re-hear it.

Mr.Hopkins said, he thought it most unjust not to allow him to go into the rate itself. The Act gave the justices the power to go into anything by which the parties were aggrieved by anything done, or omitted to be done, by the churchwardens or overseers.

Sir John Chapman - If you confine yourself to what we can determine on, we will hear you, but we cannot go into the validity of the rate. As to that, your only remedy is at the quarter sessions.

Mr.Hopkins - But sir, the parish officers have refused me the books.

Sir John Chapman - All we can do is to hear evidence as to the inequality, unfairness, or incorrectness of the rate. You have the book of the last rate, and you should have given notice for the books to be produced.

Mr.Williams - He has given notice, sir, to produce the books for the last 20 years !

Mr.Hopkins - Yes, and I copied that form of words from the notes of Mr.Williams himself (laughter).

Sir John Chapman - Well, if you don't go on with Mr.Burge's case we will strike it out.

Mr.Hopkins - As I am refused the necessary documents to enable me to go on with the appeal, I will leave it to yourselves to do what you please.

Sir John Chapman - We can only go according to the evidence, and if you produce evidence we will hear it, otherwise we will strike it out.

Mr.Hopkins - Then call William Towers.

Mr.Williams - I object to it.

Mr.Hopkins - I can call any inhabitant.

Sir John Chapman - You can call whom you please to prove your case.

Mr.Hopkins after being occupied some time in examining his voluminous documents, and his law books, said he found it impossible to go on with Mr.Burge's case without Mr.Tower's evidence.

Sir John Chapman - Have you given him notice to attend.

Mr.Hopkins - Yes.

Mr.Williams - I shall require that proof on oath be given, that the proper notice was served on Mr.Towers.

Mr.Towers was then called by Simms, but he did answer.

Some conversation then took place as to the sort of notice served on Mr.Towers, when it appeared that it was only the notice of appeal, and also one to produce the books for the last twenty years, but no subpoena had been served.

Mr.Williams - Mr.Towers should have been subpoenaed, and then if he failed to come, he would have incurred a penalty.

Mr.Hopkins - This is certainly not English justice.

The Clerk - Why you have not subpoenaed Mr.Towers, which you might have done, and thereby compelled him to attend.

Mr.Hopkins contended that Mr.Towers, as a parish officer, was bound to be present. He was satisfied that the proceedings of that day would be recorded, and that the town would see he had done his duty, and that the parish officers had not done theirs. If they knew they had a just cause, they would not have acted as they had done. According to the minutes he had, ever since 1837, the gas pipes, the bridge tolls, and the water pipes, had been entered, and yet in no instance had they been rated. He had done all he could, by giving the notices required in the act of parliament, and he felt satisfied that in this matter he had done his duty.

Sir John Chapman - And we shall do ours. If you offer any evidence we will hear it, and if not we must strike the appeal out.

Mr.Hopkins - I cannot go on without Mr.Towers and the books, and all I can say is, that you must treat me as I know I am - an ignorant man.

Sir John Chapman - Have you abandoned Mr.Burge's case ?

Mr.Hopkins - I must do so because I have not got the books.

Sir John Chapman - If the books were here they would not be evidence. You should have a surveyor who could give evidence of the value of the different houses. We must strike Mr.Burge's case out.

Struck out accordingly.

Sir John Chapman - Now, then, go on with Mrs.Battiscombe's case.

Mr.Hopkins - I cannot, without Mr.Towers and the books.

Sir John Chapman - We wish, Mr.Hopkins, to give you every opportunity of producing evidence, and if you think Mr.Towers and the books of so much importance to your case, we will adjourn until Monday next.

Mr.Hopkins - That, sir, you can do as you please about.

Mr.Williams - But I hope, sit, you will not adjourn the case before hearing me, for I have something to say on that subject.

Sir John Chapman - But mind, Mr.Hopkins, if you take that opportunity, it must be with the understanding that you will then be prepared with your witnesses.

Mr.Williams - But I shall object to any adjournment, and I am ready to state my reasons for it.

Mr.Secker - I am here on the part of Mrs.Battiscombe, and I hope there will be no adjournment.

No evidence being then offered against the rating of Mrs.Battiscombe, that case was then struck out.

The other cases on the list were then successively called on, and Mr.Hopkins was asked in each if he had any evidence to produce. He replied that Mr.Towers and the parish books were his principal evidence in all the cases, and they were not forthcoming.

Sir J.Chapman - You should have subpoenaed Mr.Towers.

Mr.Legh - Cannot you go on with any of the cases unless Mr.Towers were here ?

Mr.Hopkins - No, sir.

Mr.Legh - Then you ought to have taken the proper means of bringing him here.

Mr.Hopkins - I gave him notice to produce the books.

Mr.Williams - That was only a notice to produce and not a subpoena. If Mr.Towers had been subpoenaed and had not attended, he would have incurred a penalty; but he has not been subpoenaed.

Sir John Chapman said the evidence that should have been produced was that of a surveyor to show the inequality, unfairness, or incorrectness of the value of the property rated. Mr.Towers could not, if he were here, give evidence of that, and even the books, if they were produced, would not be evidence of value. The only evidence that can be received is that of persons who can depose upon oath as to the value, which Mr.Towers could not give.

Mr.Hopkins said the parish officers had done just as they pleased, and they had been guilty of complete trickery.

Mr.Noke, one of the outgoing churchwardens, here rose with much warmth, and said, I really cannot sit and listen to such observations made upon myself and my brother officers. It is most gross conduct to take up the time of the court and the parish officers for such a man as that. It would be much better for him if he were to stay at home and attend to the education of his children.

Here was a scene of much confusion, in the midst of which Mr.Hopkins accused Mr.Noke of personal allusions, and said that gentleman was one of those who had produced that state of things in the parish which he (Mr.H.) was now complaining of. Mr.Williams was heard to say that he could not have sat still while Mr.Hopkins had so much abused the parish officers, if he had been one of them.

The bench endeavoured to restore quietness, Sir John Chapman declaring that if they could not go on calmly with the business, they would dismiss the appeals altogether.

After some short discussion, and no evidence being produced, all the appeals were dismissed.

Mr.Williams said, now that they were dismissed he had an application to make to the bench, which it would be seen was a perfectly just one. There was a most wholesome clause in the act of reference to parties in such cases as these, for it empowered the justices, in dismissing an appeal, to order the appellant to pay costs to the respondent, if it appear to them that the case was negligently, or frivolously, or improperly brought forward. He would not advert very particularly to the manner in which this case had been brought forward, because the bench were themselves witnesses of it; but where a party like Mr.Hopkins, pushes himself forward, and says he is supported by law - which law by-the-bye he ought to know something of - and raises no less than eighteen objections to a rate, the greater part of which objections were at once struck out as untenable - for he ought to have known that they could not be heard before a petty sessions; and where it was evident to every one, he came forward for party purposes, and with a bitter feeling against the parish officers, with the object only of creating litigation and annoyance to them, the magistrates would not do justice unless they made the appellant (Mr.Hopkins) pay at least a portion, if not all, the costs incurred by the respondents. If that were not done they would have at some future petty sessions not only Mr.Hopkins, but half-a-dozen Mr.Hopkinses who would come forward on a similar pretence, with their numerous objections, and wishing to induce the magistrates to believe they had subpoenaed Mr.Towers when in fact they had done no such thing. Not one of Mr.Hopkins's objections was at all tangible. It was, therefore, a case, taking it in all its circumstances as they had been exhibited before the magistrates, that would justify the respondents in asking for costs. Mr.Williams having quoted the clause of the act giving costs, moved that costs be allowed.

The magistrates, after a brief consultation, ordered Mr.Hopkins to pay 3 costs.

Mr.Hopkins "waxed wrath" at this announcement, and loudly denied that justice had been done him. He also, in no measured terms, abused the parish officers. A very noisy scene ensued, which lasted several minutes before the magistrates could out an end to it, and then only on the mayor's threatening to order Mr.Hopkins to be turned out of court.

Windsor New Church

The first stone of the new church, to be erected in Spinner's field Spital, will be laid on Monday morning next. The committee having decided on memorialising his Royal Highness Prince Albert, requesting that his Royal Highness would be pleased to perform the ceremony of laying the stone, a most gracious answer in the affirmative was received, and in consequence suitable preparations have been commenced to accommodate a numerous company who are expected to be present on the occasion.

Installation of Two Military Knights of Windsor

On Wednesday morning the ceremony of the Installation of Major Anderson, late of the 10th Regiment of Foot, upon his being raised from the Lower to the Upper Foundation (a vacancy having occurred by the death of Colonel Basset, the late Governor), took place during Divine Service, at St.George's Chapel. After having taken the usual oaths in the Chapter-room before the Rev.Wm.Canning (the Canon in residence), he was, at the conclusion of the Psalms for the day, conducted thence to the stall in the chapel by Quartermaster Johnson and Ensign Lamb, the two Junior Military Knights present. Immediately after this ceremony had been conducted, Capt. Thos. Cradock, late of the 27th Foot (the newly-appointed Military Knight), was then installed, after having taken the same oaths. Captain Cradock was also conducted to his stall by the two Junior Knights in attendance. At the conclusion of the service the statutes of the order were read to the Military Knights in the Chapter-room by the Canon in residence.

The Princess Royal

On Tuesday last her Royal Highness the Princess Royal rode, for the first time, on the beautiful and remarkable small Shetland pony, which was presented to her some time since. Her Royal Highness has, since that day, taken similar exercise on two or three occasions. This lilliputian horse is remarkably docile, and well calculated for the duties which it has now to perform.

Mr.Dobler, the celebrated conjuring artist, who has attained such celebrity in Vienna and other continental cities, and who has lately arrived in this country, had the honour of performing yesterday at Windsor Castle, before her Majesty, his Royal Highness Prince Albert, her royal highness the Duchess of Kent, his serene highness Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar, the Lord Steward, the Lord Chamberlain and Countess Delawarr, the Ladies E. and M. West, Viscount Cantalupe, the Hon.Misses Devereux and Stanley, when the Queen and the other royal and distinguished personages present expressed the greatest admiration at the wonderful dexterity of this great professor of legerdemain. M.Dobler, we understand, will shortly exhibit his wonderful talents at the St.James's Theatre.

Windsor Ball

On Thursday evening the nobility and gentry's Easter ball, took place at the Town-hall. It was not so numerously attended as usual, but the dancing was animated, and was kept up to a late hour, or rather till early in the morning, to Weippert's excellent band.

Theatre Royal

Mr.Dodd opened this house on Monday last for a short season, not for the performance of the regular drama, nor the usual light comic pieces, but with various entertainment's, such as gymnastics, monkeyana, rope dancing, &c., in the expectation of attracting those who at such seasons look for such amusing trifles. The audiences have however, during the week been very scanty, although some clever feats have been announced and have been well performed. We regret, however, to have to notice an act deserving extreme reprehension, that last evening had the effect of prematurely terminating the performances. We allude to a most unprovoked attack made by the person sustaining the character of the "man-monkey" on a respectable inhabitant of the town, who was sitting in the boxes. The particulars of this affair will be found in our police intelligence of this day.

Military Steeple Chase

We hear that a Military Steeple Chase is likely to take place near Windsor very shortly. We hope the rumour is well founded, and we should be glad if an annual one were determined upon.

It is expected that the 72nd Highlanders will march from Windsor, in three divisions, on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday next, for Manchester; and that the 15th regiment of foot, under the command of Lieut-Col. Lord Charles Wellesley , will march from Woolwich to Windsor. About 70 of the former regiment have volunteered to serve in the additional force about to be despatched to India.

Malicious Act

During Thursday night, some malicious person entered the garden of Mr.Pike, in Sheet-street-road, and in the most wanton manner cut down nearly all the trees growing there. It is to be hoped the offender may be apprehended and meet with the punishment his atrocious conduct merits.

Clewer Parish

On Monday last, a vestry meeting of this parish was held at the Church, Edmund Foster, Esq. In the chair, for the purpose of electing churchwardens and nominating overseers for the ensuing year, when Mr.Francis Henry Agar and Mr.James Brown, of Thames-street, were re-elected churchwardens, and Mr.Wells, of Peascod-street, was elected surveyor. A list of names was agreed on to be submitted to the magistrates for their selection of two persons to be overseers.

Sudden Deaths

On Tuesday an inquest was held at the Swan public house, Clewer, before Jas.May, Esq., coroner for Berks, on the body of Martha Bean, aged 58 years, living in that village. It appeared that the deceased was subject to spasmodic fits, and that on Sunday night, when in bed, she was seized with one of those fits, but no very particular notice was taken at the time; at an early hour in the morning she got worse, and medical assistance was sent for, but she died shortly afterwards. The jury returned a verdict that the deceased died from natural causes. - On Saturday night last, Mr.Barrett, sen., of Eton, while preparing to go to bed, was suddenly seized with a fit and expired very soon afterwards. A coroner's inquest has since been held on the body, and a verdict returned of "Died by the visitation of God."

Mr.John Hawtrey (a relative of the Rev.Dr.Hawtrey, the head-master) has just been appointed one of the assistant masters in the lower school at Eton College, to fill up the vacancy occasioned by the retirement of Mr.Williams, in consequence of ill-health. Mr.Williams (who was only appointed at Christmas last) obtained the Newcastle medal, at Eton, in 1835, and the Craven scholarship since, at Cambridge.

Foot Race

On Thursday morning, a foot race for 5 a side took place in the lane leading from Datchet to Upton, between the Windsor Antelope and the Eton Stag. The distance was 200 yards. The Stag was the favourite at considerable odds, and after a well contested match, he was the winner by about five yards.

Hurdle Foot Race

Cootes, the pedestrian, yesterday performed some astonishing feats in jumping over hurdles, picking up stones, &c., on the Bath road, near the Dolphin, at Slough.

Public Testimonial to Mr.Rolfe of Beaconsfield

On Monday last the public testimonial subscribed for by a number of the inhabitants of Bucks, consisting of a splendid silver inkstand and his own portrait handsomely framed, was presented to Mr.Rolfe, of Beaconsfield, at a public dinner given to him at the White Hart Inn, in that town, G.C. Du Pre, Esq., M.P., in the chair. About 150 sat down to dinner. The portrait, which is said to be an excellent likeness, and very ably executed, was painted by Mr.Steers, of High Wycombe. The dinner was an admirable one, and the conviviality of the evening was heightened by some excellent singing by Mr.Pontifex, of Uxbridge, and Messrs. Hudson and Sloman.

Windsor Police - Monday
[Before W.Legh, Esq., and Robt.Tebbott, Esq.]

Robert Gunn, a chimney sweep, was charged by the police with gambling in a lane at the back of the Gasworks, in the Goswells.

It appeared that the prisoner, on Sunday morning, during divine service, was seen with several other lads gambling in the lane alluded to , and as it was a case of frequent occurance, the policeman who discovered them, took the prisoner into custody, the others making their escape. The prisoner's master attended, and stated to the magistrates that the prisoner had several times on Sunday morning gone into the lane to gamble with other boys, in defiance of his express orders, which were to clean himself and refrain from such conduct. The prisoner was not in the habit of drinking, and he (the master) hoped if the magistrates would discharge him, it would be a warning to him in future. The magistrates considered it very kind in the master to come forward, and after reprimanding the prisoner (who promised not to be again guilty of the offence), and telling him the next time he was brought before them they would send him on the treadmill, they discharged him.

A young man, named George Percival Baker, was charged with damaging his father's property.

The father had given him in charge of the police, but declined to attended and prosecute him. The prisoner wished to enter into some family matters, but the magistrates refused to hear him, and discharged him with a caution as to his future conduct.

Nelson Brown, a one armed man, in the garb of a butcher, was charged with being drunk and disorderly.

In answer to some questions by the bench as to how he came to be christened "Nelson," the prisoner said he was born on the night of the news of the death of Lord Nelson, reaching London. He accounted for the loss of his left arm by saying that he lost it in the Portuguese service. The policeman said, the prisoner was drunk and disorderly, between ten and eleven o'clock the previous (Sunday) night in Thames-street. The prisoner, in his defence, said he was on his way from Dover to visit his wife at Henley, and on the previous day, after walking many miles, and with an empty stomach, he arrived at Windsor, when a person he had previously known gave him some beer, which had an effect upon him. The policeman said the prisoner was very civil, but he was making a noise by hallooing. The magistrates discharged him on receiving his promise to leave Windsor.

Eliza Everard, a tall, gaunt woman, with the flat features of a negro, and of most filthy appearance, was charged by Mary Flower, an equally dirty looking object, who inhabited a house in Charles-street, with breaking a jug and her door.

The complainant was the wife of a man who is now undergoing his punishment at the Reading treadmill for stealing lead. It appeared from her statement that, between twelve and one o'clock that morning the prisoner came into Mrs.Flower's house, and there being three pints of beer on the table even at that late hour of the night, or rather morning, she sat down to partake of some along with Mrs.Flower herself, another female, and several men, who were also there. After a time (but how it arose did not transpire) a row took place, in which the prisoner threw a pint jug at the head of the other female, and the said jug was shivered in pieces by the concussion, although no complaint was made of the head being injured. She was then turned out, but got in again, and by her violence, as was alleged, she forced the door off its hinges.

The prisoner denied she broke the door, the injury to which she declared was done by the men who were there.

It appeared, in answer to questions by the bench to the policeman, that the prisoner was in liquor , and the complainant was midway between the states of drunkenness and sobriety. All the party were worse for liquor.

The magistrate reprimanded the complainant for having people drinking in her house at such an unseasonable hour. She did not come to court with clean hands; and she was instrumental herself in the commission of the damage. Her husband was already undergoing punishment for stealing lead, and it would appear that she kept her house open for the reception of persons of similar character to her husband. If there were not houses of such a description for the reception of stolen property, there would be fewer depredations committed. Under all the circumstances the magistrates said they should dismiss the case as against the prisoner for the present, telling the complainant she might represent the matter to her landlord, and he would consider whether he would proceed against the prisoner for wilful damage.

[Before John Clode, Esq (Mayor), Robt.Blunt, Esq., Sir John Chapman, and Wm.Legh, Esq.]

Anne Slatter, a very decent looking woman, was charged under the following circumstances.

A few days ago the prisoner fell down in Sheet-street, near Mr.Tebbott's residence, pretending to be in a fit. Some persons collected round, and Mrs.Tebbott, witnessing what she thought a very distressing case, had her taken into her house, where she was most humanely attended to and relieved by that lady, and thence conveyed by the relieving officer who had been sent for, in a fly to the Union Workhouse, at Old Windsor. She appeared unwilling to go into the house, but she did do so and slept there. On the following morning, at 6 o'clock, she rose from her bed, and took the first opportunity of giving the usual notice of leaving the house, saying she was going to London. She was accordingly permitted to depart, but instead of going to London, she returned to Windsor, and nearly opposite the shop of Mr.Minton, the butcher, in Peascod-street, she acted the part of going into a fit again. Several persons assisted her, got her round, and taking compassion on her gave her some money. That same evening she was taken into custody in Clewer-lane, being then in a state of drunkenness. There was no doubt she was in the habit of living by feigning fits, and thus exciting the sympathy and benevolence of the public.

The prisoner in her defence declared she was subject to fits, and had been so from childhood, and she showed her bare arm to prove it. Her arm certainly bore the marks of some malady.

Sir John Chapman said she might have been subject to fits in her childhood, but he did not think she was so now.

The magistrates, on her promise to leave Windsor, consented to discharge her, with a reprimand, and said if she were found here again playing off her tricks, she would be sent to the treadmill.

Mr.Liverd, the surveyor of highways, attended to be sworn to his past year's accounts.

Mr.Jarman, who at the vestry meeting on Monday said he should attend before the magistrates to oppose the accounts, was present, but he submitted this was not the proper day for passing the accounts, no notice having been given for this day.

Mr.Blunt on looking at the printed "rota" of magisterial business, found that this day was fixed only for appointing overseers, and not for passing the surveyor's accounts, which business was fixed for the 4th of April.

The matter was accordingly adjourned to that day.

The magistrates then proceeded to appoint the overseers of Windsor and Clewer for the ensuing year. The outgoing overseers having produced the lists agreed upon the vestries of the two parishes on Monday last, the magistrates selected from them the following persons whom they therefore appointed:-
New Windsor.- Mr.Thom.Beenham, Pleasant Place; Mr. James Bate, carpenter, Peascod-street; Mr.Wm.Newman, haberdasher, Thames street; and Mr.James Till, veterinary surgeon, Peascod-street.

Clewer.- Mr.John Tomlin, schoolmaster, Clarence Road; and Mr.Wm.Humphris, Swan Inn, Thames-street.

This Day
[Before John Clode, Esq (Mayor), and Wm.Legh, Esq.]

Frederick Martini, the "man-monkey," who has been exhibiting his feats of agility this week at the Theatre Royal, was charged with committing a most violent assault on Mr.Fred.Stanfield, stonemason, &c., of Thames-street. Mr.Voules attended for the complainant.

Mr.Stanfield appeared to have been severely injured. He had a black eye, which was greatly swollen, and over his eyes were pieces of plaster where the skin had been cut.

It appeared from the evidence that last evening Mr.Stanfield, accompanied by Mr.Fred.Turner and a youth named Hask, who was under Mr.Stanfield's care, went to the theatre, and occupied one of the boxes. One of the entertainment's exhibited was that of the agility of the monkey, represented in character by the prisoner, and in the course of which he runs along the mouldings outside the gallery and boxes. When in the gallery he seized hold of the hat of some person (a monkey's trick); and threw it into the pit. Descending quickly from the gallery to the boxes, he alighted on the box in which Mr.Stanfield and his party were, knocking back Mr.Turner in the violence with which he jumped in. He then snatched off the hat from the head of the youth, Hask, placed it on his own head, and grinned over the box to the rest of the audience. Mr.Stanfield, naturally indignant at such conduct, snatched the hat from the prisoner, who immediately struck him a most violent blow on the eye, which produced the marks that were now visible. The affair caused a great uproar in the house, and a general shout of indignation was vented against the prisoner, excepting by some officers who were in the boxes, and who seemed to enjoy the scene, for they applauded him. Mr.Stanfield was advised to go for a policeman, and he went out, and finding Sexton, that constable went on the stage and took the prisoner into custody.

The prisoner in his defence said it was the practice adopted by Mazurier at Drury-lane Theatre, and by others who performed characters similar to him, now and then to take off a hat from a person's head in the performance of the character, and sometimes without permission, and it had never before been objected to. He then said he had merely taken up the lad's hat which was on the seat, and not off his head, and put it on his own head, when Mr.Stanfield struck him behind the ear. He then certainly returned the blow.

He called as witnesses Robert Cootes, who described himself as a fencing master, an undertaker, a pedestrian, and a hurdle race runner, and also the prisoner's only friend in Windsor; James Sampson, a performer at the theatre in the gymnastic and slack-rope line, and Charles Tennant, a coach cad. These witnesses were called to prove that Mr.Stanfield gave the first blow, but they differed materially in various parts of their statements, and in cross-examination it was elicited that after the assault, and when the prisoner returned to the stage, the uproar in the house was so great that Mr.Clinton, the manager, desired the prisoner to step forward to explain the matter to the audience; this the prisoner declined to do, and Mr.Clinton himself stepped forward and addressed the audience, after which the curtain was dropped, and then the prisoner, who was greatly excited, threatened Mr.Clinton, who for a time was in fear of personal violence from him.

Mr.Voules then addressed the bench, characterising the assault as one of a most brutal and unprovoked nature, and hoped the magistrates would teach the prisoner that such conduct was not to be tolerated in a person who sought the means of subsistence by the patronage of the public.

The magistrates said the prisoner had been guilty of most shameful conduct. The adjudged him to pay a fine 3 and 9s 6d costs, or in default of payment to one month's imprisonment.

The prisoner said he had not got the money. Mr.Dodd, the lessee, was indebted to him, and he hoped he might be allowed to send to him.

The Mayor - Yes, you can send to him for the money, but in the meantime you must remain in custody.

Eton Police - Saturday
[Before the Rev.Thos Carter].

James Martin, a well-known character, who was a short time ago charged with a burglary at Willowbrook, Eton, was charged with trespassing in the pursuit of game, on land belonging to Robert Harvey, Esq., in the occupation of Mr.Richard Weatherley, of Iver.

The trespass was committed on the 9th of February, but the prisoner contrived to elude justice until yesterday week, when Mr.Larkin, the chief constable of Iver, succeeded in apprehending him. On searching him Larkin found in one of his pockets a stock, and in another the barrel of a gun, the latter being loaded. There were also found a great many duplicates of property , supposed to be stolen.

The case was fully proved, and the prisoner was fined 2 1s 6d including costs, and in default of payment he was committed to Aylesbury gaol for two months.

Mr.Larkin has caused a description of the property named in the duplicates to be advertised in the Police Gazette, in the hope of parties coming forward to identify the articles.

[Before Christopher Tower, Esq].

James Botten was charged with stealing a silver spoon, the property of Mr.Joseph Williamson, of the Bull Inn, Iver.

It appeared that on Sunday night the prosecutor missed a silver spoon, and not being able to find it, he gave information of his loss to Mr.Larkin, the active high constable, through whose good management the property was found and the thief secured. Larkin, on enquiry, found the prisoner, who is a hawker and pedlar, lodged in the house, and was going on his road to London in the morning. He also ascertained that the prisoner had left the Inn for a few minutes a short time before he (Larkin) arrived there, which induced him to suspect that the prisoner was the thief, and had in that interval "planted," that is, secreted, the spoon. He therefore with King, another constable, determined to keep a watch all night outside the premises, and about six o'clock in the morning they saw the prisoner leave the Inn on his journey. When near the church they saw the prisoner stoop close by a wall, pick something out of a hole and put it in his pocket. Larkin immediately went up, collared him, and pulled his hand out of his pocket, when the prosecutor's spoon (for so it turned out to be) dropped on the ground.

He was fully committed for trial.

Egham, Saturday, April 2.

A vestry meeting was held on Monday last, to appoint churchwardens and surveyors, and to nominate overseers for the current year. The Rev.W.Henry Biedermann, vicar, in the chair. Henry Mills, and William Clode, Esq., were re-elected churchwardens. The following were elected surveyors: - For the town division, Mr.R.Gates; for Englefield-green division, Mr.Portsmouth; for the Hythe division, Mr.H.Simmons; for the Stroude division, Mr.R.Stevens. Mr.Douglas was appointed collector of highway-rates, with a salary of poundage. A vote of thanks was then passed to the reverend chairman, and the meeting separated. At five o'clock they assembled again at the King's Head Inn, to partake of the churchwardens dinner, which was attended by twenty or thirty of the gentlemen and tradesmen of the town. A sumptuous dinner was provided by Mr.W.L.Dure. It was noticed by several gentlemen who had attended the churchwardens dinners for the last 21 years, that a better dinner or more pleasant party they have never witnessed.

Mr.Second's concert came off on Tuesday with great eclat. The star of the night was Miss Birch, who favoured the company with four of her very best songs. The ballad "Farewell dearest" was sweetly sung and encored. From Mr.Blagrove and Mr.Second we had three duets. "The Grand Duet Concertante" from the Somnambula, was the favourite, the others were rather too long. Duet (Miss Porter and Master Such) "Beautiful Venice," was very prettily sung, "I'll seek a four-leaved Shamrock," by Mr.Jolly, was given with much spirit; it was his best song of the evening. Mr.Simmons was very happy in "As I view these Scenes so Charming," but we have heard him in better voice. Mr.Second presided at the pianoforte the whole of the evening , in a most excellent and masterly style.

Great Marlow Election Committee

The vote of James Giles, to which an objection had been taken on behalf of the petitioner and withdrawn, by again re-opened by permission of the committee, owing to counsel being misled by an incorrect copy of the register, was again brought under consideration. The objection was removal and misdirection.

It appeared that the voter was registered in respect of a farm at Wittenden, and was in another column described as of New Lock Cottage; and the learned counsel for the petitioner held this to be fatal to the vote.

Mr.Austin, contra, submitted that the claim not having been objected to at the time of registration the committee had no jurisdiction . The validity of the franchise was not to be effected by a mere misnomer, which was provided for by the 79th section of the act.

The committee decided that the vote was bad.

The vote of William Sparks was objected to on behalf of the sitting member, for loss of part of the qualification, and for being improperly admitted on the register.

The rate-books for 1840 were put in, which showed that the voter had been raised for a house and garden in Chapel-lane - gross estimated rental 6; rateable value 5.

Wm.Francis proved that he attended the Revising Barrister's Court in 1840, and objected to Spark's claim, the house not being worth 10 a year. The barrister decided against the objection. Made a similar objection in 1841, but the name was retained.

John Smith, the overseer, recollected having received notice of objection; the barrister over-ruled it on the ground of informality.

Two house valuers were called, who swore that the cottage and gardens were not worth more than 4 10s to 5 per year.

Mr.Colborn, the voter's landlord, estimated the value of the premises at 10 per year. A piece of the garden had been fenced off, but the residue was fully worth 10. There was a very productive pear tree in the garden , for which a fruiterer in Marlow had offered 1 a year, fruit or no fruit. The previous tenant had paid him 7 10s a year rent, but the premises had been improved.

Mr.Talbot submitted that the evidence of the last witness was conclusive in support of the vote.

Mr.Austin contended that the voter having lost part of the qualification , the vote must be expunged.

Mr.Talbot was sure the committee must see the extreme hardship that would accrue from the adoption of the principle laid down by his learned friend. Suppose a gentleman worth 1,000 a year thought it proper to let off a part of his property, could it be contended that he was not entitled to vote out of the reserved moiety, assuming that to be sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute.

The Chairman said the committee would not trouble Mr.Austin. They were of opinion that the vote was bad and must be struck off the poll.

By this decision the petitioner was placed in a majority of one. The committee then adjourned.


The vote of John Davis was objected to on behalf of the sitting member, for non occupation and want of sufficient value.

The inquiry respecting this single vote occupied the whole day, but there was not the slightest feature of public interest either in the evidence of the witnesses or in the arguments of counsel on either side.

The committee decided the vote was good and must be retained on the poll. This gives the petitioner a majority of one.


Mr.Cockburn, on behalf of the sitting member, objected to the vote of Owen Davis, on the grounds of non occupation and insufficiency of value.

William Francis deposed that he objected to the vote, and appeared before the revising barristers to sustain his objections.

Thomas Gale deposed that he lived in a portion of the house let to Davis; that he had a separate entrance, and that he always kept the key in his possession . Davis had a stable, but no horses. There was a passage between his part of the house and Davis's, and a door at each end, with a bolt on his side.

George Vernon valued the entire premises at 9 5s; Davis's portion at 5 10s; Gale's at 3 15s per annum.

George Cook valued the premises at 9; Davis's at 5 10s, and Gale's at 3 10s per annum.

William Field, land agent to Mr.Williams, M.P., deposed to letting the house to Davis, and to his payment of rent and rates. Davis was stud-groom to Mr.Williams, and, previous to taking these premises, had occupied a house the property of Mr.Williams, but had not paid rent. The alterations had been made in the premises for the purpose of getting votes out of them.

Mr.Cooper deposed that he had attended the revising barrister's court at Great Marlow, and that the voter had valued the stable, a part of the demised premises, at 3 per annum.

The committee decided that the vote of Owen Davis was good. The committee then adjourned.


It was rumoured, at the close of yesterday's proceedings, that the inquiry would be prosecuted no further, the petitioner having then a majority of one over the sitting member, who, it will be recollected, was returned by the same slender majority. However, no such intimation being made , the scrutiny was resumed.

The vote of George Curtis was objected to, on behalf of the sitting member, on the ground that the premises out of which the qualification arose were not of sufficient value.

As in all other instances, wherein value formed the subject of inquiry, there was a mass of evidence adduced on either side, but without leading to any satisfactory conclusion.

The committee decided that the vote was good.

The vote of William Hall was next objected to, on behalf of the sitting member, for want of sufficient occupation, the voter having sub-let a part of the house for which he was registered.

The allegation was proved, but, upon that, a long legal argument arose, it being held that the tenant may let off a portion of the premises for which he is registered without vitiating his electoral franchise.

The room was cleared, and after a short consultation.

The committee decided the vote could not be disturbed.

The parties, consequently , retained the same relative position they held on Tuesday evening, the sitting member being in a minority of one. The committee adjourned.


The vote of George Clarke, a scot and lot voter, was objected to by the counsel for the sitting member, on the ground of non-occupation.

Several witnesses were produced to show that the voter had resided in London, where he had been engaged as an omulbus conductor for the last two years.

Mr.Cooper deposed that he had searched the journals of the House of Commons, and found by the last determination the right of voting in Great Marlow to be "in the inhabitants only who pay scot and lot."

To sustain the vote, Anne Clarke, a daughter of the voter, deposed that her father visited Great Marlow about three times a year, and remained there four or five nights each time; that he was there in October, 1839, but she could not recollect whether he had been there during the year preceding; that he paid the rates and rent.

Thomas Gibbon's deposed, that the voter's wife and family lived in a house in Great Marlow, the property of Mr.Williams, M.P. That he had seen him there five or six times within the last three of four years. The voter had not paid rent since 1838 or 1839.

Sergeant Wrangham, contended, that as the voter had retained the house during his residence in London, and occupied it by his wife and family, and continued to pay the rates, he should be considered as an inhabitant paying scot and lot, and as such entitled to vote.

Mr.Austin replied, that the mere legal occupation of a house and the consequent liability to the rating did not constitute the tenant as inhabitant of the borough paying scot and lot, and as such entitled to vote. The learned gentleman cited several authorities in support of his argument.

The committee decided the vote of George Clarke was good. The committee then adjourned.


The vote of Thomas Corbis, jun., was objected to on behalf of the sitting member, on the ground that he did not occupy the house in respect of which he voted.

It was proved the voter paid the rates, but that there had been joint occupation between the father and son, which was held to be a disqualification.

Counsel were heard on both sides, but although the arguments occupied the greater part of the day, no new points were raised.

The committee decided the vote was bad, and must be struck off the poll.

The vote of Peter Brown was then objected to on behalf of the sitting member, for insufficient occupation of the premises, in respect of which his name had been inserted in the register.

The evidence in this case had not been concluded at five o'clock, when the committee adjourned.

The parties are now equal. From the slow progress made, it thought that the hard fought scrutiny will occupy several days more.

On the 26th ult., in Upper Woburn-place, London, Elizabeth, relict of the Rev.Thomas Powys, late Rector of Fawley, Bucks.
On the same day, at Uxbridge, Mrs.Mary Fassnidge, relict of Mr.Benjamin Fassnidge, formerly of Great Missenden, Bucks, at the age of 85 years.
On the 28th ult., Frances widow of the late Samuel Sellwood, Esq., of the Abbey-house, Abingdon, aged 78.
On the 29th ult., at Uxbridge, Sarah Ann, infant daughter of Mr.Brickwell, aged 1 year and 7 months.
Lately at Brussels, James Wm. Steuart, Esq., of Sunningdale-place, Berks.