Vestry, 1889

Buckingham Advertiser, 30 March 1889

The second meeting for the settlement of parish business was held on Thursday, 31st March, in the Yeates’ Schoolroom, when there were present:- Messrs H. Bullock, Jas. King, H. Monk, E. Parrott, A. Clear, J. Hathaway, W. Neal, Jas. East, T. Curtis, T. Saving, J. Orchard [=Archard], J. Hawley, A. Monk, W. Ingram, A. J. Clear, J. Varney, C. Colgrove, and G. Bird.  It was proposed by Mr. East, and seconded by Mr. Saving, that Mr. Bullock be chairman.

THE HIGHWAY ACCOUNTS. – The highway accounts for the year were produced, and showed a balance against the parish of £12/17/7, the expenditure being £340/18/- including the following items:  Manual labour £29/2/-;  team labour, £36;  materials, £233/19/-;  new pavement for Sheep Street, £23/4/-, &c., &c. – Mr. East proposed that these accounts be passed. – Mr. Saving seconded. – Mr. Hathaway proposed that Messrs. Monk and King be re-elected surveyors. – Mr. East proposed Mr. Saving for the third surveyor. – Mr. Parrott seconded saying Mr. Saving ought to have been in office long before.  These three gentlemen were accordingly declared appointed.

WINSLOW STREETS.- Mr. Parrott inquired if the surveyors intended to level the pitchings on the Square this time. – Mr. King said he thought not. – Mr. Parrott remarked they said they would last time. – Mr. King said he supposed they knew that the main roads would go out of their hands on the 1st of April [because of the new County Council].  He wished for instructions as to what they were to do in the interregnum. – Mr. Parrott asked whether the roads would not have to be put in good repair? – Mr. King said yes; they would have to be passed by the County Surveyor.    He would propose that they put them in good order. – Mr. Monk said he could not see the necessity of it. – Mr. King said they could not suppose the County Council would come and clear their streets, and it was necessary that the surveyors should be authorised to clean the main roads after market day as usual, otherwise they would not be able to charge it in their accounts. – Mr. Monk was understood to say that he was of opinion the Squire should be charged with the expense. – Mr. Parrott said he was of opinion that the person who took the tolls should pay for the cleaning up. – Mr. King said if the ratepayers said the surveyors were to do it they would be content to do so. – Mr. Neal thought the arrangement was about fair. – Mr. Hathaway proposed that the additional work not done by the County Council, should be done by the surveyors. – Mr. East seconded. – A remark was made that it was a good thing Grandborough Hill did not belong to this parish, for it was almost impassable. – Mr. King said there was another thing, Mr Wigley had certain sales on the Square, was he to be charged for cleaning up after them? – Mr. Saving said for as many as 30 years the squire allowed his father to have the tolls rent free, and he always cleared up, and his brother always did so for his mother, although he did not know that she ever had any of the money (laughter).  Since then Mr. Hillyer had it.  The squire promised his mother he should have it as long as she lived.  Mr. Wigley gave her £1, and he believed that was the only sum she received.  He would lake a proposal that Mr. Hillyer or the persons who had an interest in it should clean up after stalls or statute fairs, or pay the charge to the surveyors. – Mr. Clear suggested the proposal be amended so as to include cleaning up after everything which paid toll. – This suggestion was adopted. – Mr. Parrott enquired who put the gravel on the Square? – Mr. King replied the surveyors did. – Mr. Neal seconded Mr. Saving’s proposal, and it was carried. – Mr. King said the next question was Mr. Wigley’s sales, as to whether he should clean up or pay the surveyors.  He had sent the account in to Mr. Wigley for three years, and he still refused to pay it.  He wanted to know what he was to do. – Mr. Monk said they would not charge that to Mr. Wigley, but let it go in with the other things. It was for the benefit of the town at large, and they would not be narrow-minded. – Mr. Hathaway said it was the wish of the parish to have the Christmas market on the Square. – Mr. C. Colgrove said the Committee always cleared up after that. – The Chairman said he thought it was a business matter, and very different to the shows. – After some more discussion it was agreed to leave the matter to the surveyors.

SHIPTON HIGHWAYS. – The Shipton surveyors’ accounts were then produced, showing an expenditure of £49/13/11, with a balance of 4/3 against the parish. – Mr. W. Neal proposed that they be passed, and Mr. W. Ingram seconded. – Mr. Wm. Neal and Mr. A Monk were appointed surveyors for Shipton.

OVERSEERS AND INCOME TAX ASSESSORS. – The following nominations were made for overseers, Messrs. S. Jones, Robt. Dickins, J. Varney, W. S. Neal, F. Dancer, and R. Coxhill. – Mr. Hathaway proposed the re-election of the income tax assessors, Messrs. Monk, King, East, and Curtis.

WHY WERE NOT THEIR NAMES PUT IN THE RATE BOOK? – It was agreed to allow the rate collector £5 for making the highway rate, £5 for the lighting rate, and £1 for the Shipton highway rate. – Mr. Saving said he should have to call attention to certain irregularities on the part of Mr. Curtis in bringing out the rate, by omitting to enter names in the rate book to the number of about 20, and putting those who were not entitled to be so, altering others, and omitting to put certain names on when requested.  It was a matter which affected the overseers very much because they were responsible, and it was only through consideration for them they were not summoned before the magistrates.  He thought all should be entered in the rate book no matter what party they belonged to. – Mr. Monk said the overseers had their duty to put the notices on the church door, and let those who wanted a vote apply for it, or else who would want to be overseer? – The Chairman said he thought there was a little confusion between the Parliamentary voting and the rate. – Mr. Curtis said once a year he had to fill up a form for owners to say who were liable.  It was on or before the 26th March that he was to distinguish the names of the actual ratepayers, that was to say if there was likely to be an election of guardians, but not otherwise.  He was told it was his duty to go round and see the occupiers, he should send the owners a form as usual, but certainly should not go poking his nose in amongst the people, and if he did they would not tell him.  Besides, it was on the 20th February this was brought up, and he was not liable to do it till the 26th March. – Mr. Saving said why was it not done in previous years. – Mr. A. Monk (overseer) said most of the names were already on. – Mr. Curtis said out of the 26 names there were 10 or 12 already on. – Mr. Archard – Why were the others left out? – Mr. W. Ingram (overseer) – There were only 7 names left out. – The Chairman said there were quite new duties imposed by the Act of Parliament, and no doubt it took some time to get into them. – Mr. Monk said did they mean to say the overseers had to go poking round to every house. – The Chairman said it had been well discussed and they might as well close it and get on with other business.

CONSTABLE. – Mr. Jennings was re-appointed constable.

WHERE WERE THE CHARITY ACCOUNTS?  - Mr. Neal said there was one thing he did not like.  The charity accounts had always been produced at this vestry, and at the last meeting he was at he understood they were to be produced as usual.  Now, by someone’s authority they were not produced, and he should like to make a proposal that this meeting be adjourned for their production. – Mr. Saving said he should second it on the grounds that the way some of the charity accounts were managed was causing great dissatisfaction. – Mr. Monk said he had never known the accounts produced to this vestry - they were always produced at a special Church meeting. – Mr. Hathaway said he was sorry the accounts were not produced; but it was quite wrong to say there was any influence keeping them back.  The only reason was that the coal was given away very late this year, and the accounts were not ready.  It first wanted a meeting of the trustees to audit the accounts, and if they gave him notice at anytime he would call the meeting directly.  Mr. Saving said it was understood that no accounts were rendered of certain charities, and to remove this it would be far better to produce the accounts, and show the rumour was unfounded. – Mr. Hathaway said there was no difference between the accounts this year and any other year – the only difference was in the balance. – Mr. Monk said he had been in Winslow a number of years, and never knew them produced at this vestry.  Who wanted them produced now? – Mr. Neal said Mr. Monk’s memory must be treacherous, for the accounts were produced at this meeting as far back as he could remember.  He could not see why they should not be produced now, but supposed he must put it on the shoulders of Mr. Hathaway. – Mr. Hathaway said he was in fault if anyone, but Mr. Neal insinuated that somebody else was at the bottom of it. – Mr. Saving said he supposed the next vestry would be as much in order as this one, and he would not object to their being produced then. – The Chairman said it was not obligatory to produce them till the first vestry after the 25th March. – Mr. Neal said it was not obligatory, but it was usual to do so.

A HORSE TROUGH FOR SHIPTON. – Mr. Bird on behalf of Messrs. Wroughton and Parrott, of Aylesbury, applied for permission to put a water trough in front of his house (The Nag’s Head).  There was not one between there and Whitchurch. – Mr. King proposed that it be allowed, provided it be done to the satisfaction of the surveyors. – Mr. Neal seconded.

GUARDIANS. – Messrs. H. Monk and James East were nominated for guardians.

The proceedings closed with a vote of thanks to the Chairman for the very able way in which he had presided.

See also:

Copyright 27 May, 2021