THOMAS ANDREW FITZGERALD REYNOLDS
This was the name of Buckmaster's (first) crooked lawyer (the second was Corsellis, of course)
September 2020
I told Keith, who got on with his own research, just as I did.
From John Buckmaster, A Village Politician:
A low, drunken, unprincipled lawyer, who had represented himself as a person connected with the aristocracy, very influential, with large expectations, began to interest himself about the parish charities; and nothing is so popular in a parish as doubts whether these charities go to the right persons. By corrupting the churchwardens and overseers and a few others he was appointed legal adviser to the parish. Everything was litigated, and his bills were cheerfully paid, and the man who questioned
[332]
them was threatened with a writ. Some of them were of the most shameful character, such as removals, making out summonses, advising as to rates, appearing before the magistrate to excuse certain defaulters. At last a few began to rebel; these he threatened with writs. He used to attend the vestry meetings half drunk with a horsewhip, and it was left to me to fight him. I knew he was a scoundrel, and I was not afraid of him.
I was at first in a minority, and could do nothing until I changed the minority into a majority, which I did at the next election, and which you can always do if you are in the right and will work for it. When he knew how the election was going he rushed into the room with five or six others and tried to take possession of the ballot-box, but they failed. He said, "That fellow," pointing to me, "has turned the parish against me by lying, and before I have done with him he and his children shall come to my house and beg a piece of bread."
I resolved to have my revenge. It is better to have a thief for your enemy than for a friend.
[333]
The late Board of Churchwardens and Overseers had to procure a piece of land for a cemetery. Their legal adviser ran up a bill of upwards of seven hundred pounds, which was paid at a public-house the night before they went out of office. This bill was the most extraordinary piece of parish robbery ever known. Charges for supplying ten copies of the agreement, to superintending the drains, to meeting the inspector, to advising as to suitability of the soil. At the foot of this bill was written, "I have examined this bill. — W. Anderson." And this was represented as a taxation.
I felt this was a robbery, but my colleagues were not disposed to take any steps. We had got rid of him, and why trouble further. But as long as he was in the parish there was danger. I suggested a meeting of the ratepayers, but this was not thought desirable because there was still a strong party in the parish who had profited in various ways by his companionship. At last I managed to have the bill referred to a well-known parish lawyer, who advised us to obtain an order for the taxation of the bill. The Vice-Chancellor hesitated because the bill was paid,
[334]
but we obtained the order. The lawyer said, as he left the court, "You can't get butter out of a dog's mouth," and more than half the charges were taxed off. Then an order was made for payment of upwards of three hundred pounds. He had previously sold his furniture and moved into another county and then there was further delay. Then he moved a long distance away, where he lived in grand style for a few months. Some of his old companions used to visit him.
I was determined to hunt him down for his insults, and, contrary to the advice of the lawyer and the Board, I put an advertisement in the Telegraph asking for information as to his whereabouts. As soon as the advertisement appeared his house was besieged with tradesmen from a near town who wanted their money. He returned to the neighbourhood of London, when by accident a friend who had heard me speak of him gave information as to his whereabouts, and in a few days he was in prison, and there I left him. The parish thought I had done a greater service in ridding it of their legal adviser than in
[335]
saving the common, and I was presented with a service of plate. All this was going on during the common agitation, and it was he who had frightened Wrigsby and told him to tell the court all I had said to him. Plausible in his manner, with a pleasant smile, those who knew but little of his inner character thought him a nice kind gentleman and wondered why I should be so spiteful. I had not forgotten his threat — that was why I followed him.
[PB: MY FIRST SPECULATION, which I shared with Keith: [Is it possible to find who this crooked lawyer was? "W. Anderson"? Was this his real name, or Buckmaster's creation? Where did I get the name "Anderson"? Surely it wasn't James Anderson Rose, who was a lawyer, but a stalwart of the campaign?] I later realised it was Reynolds.]
"... by a few gentlemen, in acknowledgment of services rendered in the parish during period of great trouble and difficulty "
West Middlesex Advertiser and Family Journal — Saturday 13 August 1864
[NEEDS EDIT]
Testimonial to Mr. Buckmaster.
The great parochial battles of Battersea are now ended. There will, however, lively discussions in the Vestry whether a lamp-post should be 8 feet or 8 feet inches, or whether it be more economical to use Purbeck or granite for kerbing footpaths, or whether it be possible to do things which are impossible. These vital questions will occasionally occupy the serious attention of men rated at £25 a year.
Happily no one now suspects the parish officers of any misappropriation of parish money, and the great man, before whom all small men were terrified, and parish officers worshipped, now in prison; but Mr. Buckmaster, against whom lawyers on both sides of the river have times sworn vengeance, has achieved a great victory. For years he exposed the chicanery, the deceit, and falsehood of a party now defunct.
Extracts from lawyers' bills were printed and circulated for the edification of the ratepayers; affidavits and opinions of counsel for a time defeated his efforts; but a man waits the truth and justice of his case will the end receive its proper and just reward; and although we cannot endorse all Mr. Buckmaster's opinions, we believe he deserves well of the parish, and this recognition of his services must be as agreeable as, we understand, was unexpected.
the anniversary of his wedding-day he received a polished oak box, containing the following inscription: "St. Mary, Battersea. — This box, containing 64 pieces of plate, was presented to Mr. Buckmaster, by a few gentlemen, in acknowledgment of services rendered in the parish during period of great trouble and difficulty. — August, 1864."
Keith
Thanks for the latest hare to pursue through the archives, Philip — a really interesting one.
His grandfather, Thomas Reynolds, one time tenant of Kilkea Castle in Co. Kildare, was a United Irishman whose life in an exhaustive 2-vol. biography (750pp plus) by his son Thomas (TAFR father; b.1798) was published in 1838 and is on Google Books if you've got the odd few weeks to spare!!!
To cut a long story short, TAFR was born while the family were in Copenhagen (1819), thence to Paris where the grandfather died of cholera in 1832. TAFR married Anne Raikes at Paris in May 1840 — she came from Yorkshire. He soon came to London and was indentured in Sept. 1840 to A Queen's Bench lawyer.
In 1851 he described himself as Solicitor's Fundholder and lived at Devonshire St. Finsbury. In 1856 his office was in Chancery Lane and home at 3 Farnborough Tce Westbridge Road (quite close to the "gothic villas) at the east end, north side. He dubbed the house "The Poplars" and was there in 1861, 'attorney-at-law' with his wife and adopted daughter Jessie.
[PB: Where was "The Poplars" — marked on any maps?
Anne Reynolds died in 1864 at Beaumont St Marylebone, leaving £7,000. The fact that her sole executor was her brother Robert Raikes of Crickhowell is suggestive to say the least. No trace of him in 1871 though he didn't die until 1/1/1878 at Milman Street (Chelsea??) leaving <£100.
Not surprised he got up the nose of a man like Buckmaster!!
[I replied with 3 successive long emails.]
I
Splendid, Keith — many thanks for following up
I'd got some of it myself — and I was just about to send you a summary & some links, because I knew you would find it interesting
I had downloaded the 2 vols about Thomas I by Thomas II, but yes they were too much even to skim — and of course, as the work of his son (i.e. our man's father) not entirely, er, objective.
On the other hand, nearly all the articles published in Ireland are committed to damning him — he's nearly always styled "Thomas Reynolds, Informer". Not surprising of course.
But my goodness how interesting ! My knowledge of the United Irishmen movement is sketchy, and sadly is likely to remain so.
I thought this summary looked good. It also helps explain how Thomas III (our Thomas) was born in Copenhagen and married his wife in Paris:
REYNOLDS, THOMAS (1771 — 1836), informer, was born on 12 March 1771 at 9 Park Street, Dublin, in which city his father, Andrew Reynolds (1742 — 1788), had acquired a considerable fortune as a manufacturer of poplins. His mother was Rose (d. 1797), eldest child of Thomas Fitzgerald of Kilmead, co. Kildare, and it was at Kilmead that Reynolds spent the first years of his life under the supervision of a Roman catholic priest.
At the age of eight he was sent to a protestant school at Chiswick, near London, where he remained till the beginning of 1783, when he was removed to a jesuit seminary at Liège.
He returned to Ireland in the spring of 1788, and, his father dying shortly afterwards, he inherited considerable property from him. But falling into dissipated habits, in consequence of which he became seriously ill, he went for the sake of his health by sea to Rotterdam.
From Rotterdam he proceeded to Paris, and in the spring of the following year he made a journey through Switzerland into Italy, returning to Paris in July. Becoming alarmed at the progress of the French revolution, he returned to Dublin, where he speedily relapsed into dissipation.
In March 1792 he came of age, and, according to his son's account, into the possession of a fortune of 20,000l., exclusive of his share in the capital and profits of his father's business. Living thus in affluence, he passed his time idly and agreeably to himself. He represented the city of Dublin in the catholic convention of 1792, and continued to be a member of the committee till its dissolution, after the passing of the relief act of 1793.
On 25 March 1794 he married Harriet Witherington (1771 — 1851), whose sister Matilda was the wife of Theobald Wolfe Tone [q. v.] But, in consequence of the dishonesty of a partner, his business had at that time so far declined that he found himself in serious pecuniary embarrassment. His principal creditor was a wealthy Dublin merchant of the name of Cope, to whom his firm stood indebted for 5,000l.
Hitherto he had avoided politics, but in January or February 1797 he yielded to the solicitations of his friends, and became a United Irishman.
Shortly afterwards he obtained an advantageous lease of Kilkea Castle in co. Kildare from the Duke of Leinster, through the good offices of Lord Edward Fitzgerald [q. v.], by whom he was in November induced to accept the post of colonel of the so-called Kildare regiment, and subsequently, in order to enable him to attend the provincial meeting, that of treasurer of the county.
On 19 Feb. 1798 there was a provincial meeting of the Leinster directorate at Oliver Bond's house in Dublin, and it was only then, according to his own account, that he became for the first time acquainted with the real designs of his fellow-conspirators, and of their intention to seize Dublin and to subvert the government by force of arms. In terror — real or feigned — at his discovery, he consulted his friend and creditor Cope, and, having disclosed enough to arouse Cope's curiosity, he was invited to play the part of informer.
Cope, who was subsequently rewarded with a pension, was authorised by Cooke, the under-secretary, to stick at no sum — not even 100,000l. — in order to induce him to turn approver. Reynolds was willing to assent on less exorbitant terms. His name was to be kept a secret, and he was to be substantially indemnified for any loss he might sustain. Whether his readiness to reveal the conspiracy was due, as his son and biographer argues, to a desire to save his country from the horrors of a bloody revolution, or to less honourable motives, it is beyond a doubt that he was at the time, except for his lease of Kilkea Castle, practically a bankrupt.
In consequence of information furnished by Reynolds, government was able to arrest the provincial committee at Bond's house on 12 March, and so practically to kill the conspiracy. That Reynolds had betrayed them was certainly the opinion of some of the United Irishmen, and it is said that only his coolness and intrepid bearing on being challenged with his perfidy by Samuel Neilson [q. v.] saved him from being shot dead on the spot. Others were not so credulous as Neilson, and more than one attempt seems to have been made to assassinate him; and, in order to disarm suspicion, he took an oath before a county member that he had not betrayed the meeting at Bond's.
For a time his secret was so well kept that his property at Kilkea suffered severely from the military, who were freely quartered there, in consequence of his supposed 'croppy' politics. On 5 May he was actually arrested on a charge of harbouring Lord Edward Fitzgerald, and it was not till he had been taken to Dublin, and his identity revealed to Under-secretary Cooke, that he was set at liberty. It was impossible to return to his house, and so, having promised to give evidence at the forthcoming trials, he was accorded shelter in Dublin Castle till the storm had blown over.
The terms of the bargain were arranged by his wife, and, in addition to a pension of 1,000l. a year, to commence on 25 June 1798, with 5,000l. in hand, it was agreed that he might settle in any part of England he liked, and receive from government letters of introduction, recommending him and his family to the particular attention of the gentry of the place. He was the principal crown witness at the trial of John McCann on 17 July, but it was said that under the fierce cross-examination of Curran, it was rather he than McCann who was on his trial. He was, again, the principal witness at the trial of William Michael Byrne on 21 July, and of Oliver Bond on the 23rd, and was on the last occasion scornfully denounced by Curran.
After the suppression of the rebellion and the restoration of the metropolis to some degree of tranquillity, Reynolds emerged from his quarters in the castle and took a house in Leinster Street. By the influence of government he was on 15 Oct. made free of the guild of merchants of Dublin, and on 19 Oct. received the freedom of the city. But the feeling of the populace was extremely hostile to him, and one night, when Major Sirr was dining with him, his house was attacked by the mob. The assailants were driven off; but Reynolds, not feeling secure, removed shortly afterwards to England, going in the first place to Allonby in Cumberland, and subsequently to London.
After a short time he was compelled, by his habitual extravagance, to retire to Usk in Monmouthshire; but, returning to London, he eventually, in 1810, succeeded in getting himself appointed postmaster or packet agent at Lisbon. The emoluments of the office during the four years he held it amounted to 5,600l., but on the withdrawal of the British army from the Peninsula they sank so low that he resigned it, and in September 1814 returned with his wife to London.
Early in 1817 he was offered the post of British consul in Iceland, and after some hesitation, and stipulating that he should not be obliged to reside there, he accepted it. The appointment occurred about the time of the trial of Wilson and others for high treason in connection with the Spa-fields meeting. True bills were found against the prisoners by the grand jury of Middlesex; but, Reynolds's name appearing on the panel, public feeling was greatly aroused against government. 'He should retire,' said Curran, 'from public view, hid beneath the heap of his own carnage.'
Lord Castlereagh, who suffered acutely from the untoward incident, evidently took this view of the situation, and in July Reynolds was quietly shipped off to Copenhagen to take up the duties of his consulship. The salary attached to the post was barely 300l., and after a brief trial, including a visit in the summer of 1818 to Iceland, he determined to resign it.
Returning for that purpose to London, he was allowed to transfer the consulship to his son, and to travel for his health on the continent.
After Lord Castlereagh's death in 1822 he was informed by Canning that government desired to have as little to do with him and his family as possible, and that the consulship would be abolished but an adequate allowance allotted him. He retired permanently to Paris, where he loved to parade his pompous person in the Champs-Elysées.
He is said to have undergone a religious conversion in 1831. In the following year he was attacked by cholera, to the effects of which he eventually succumbed on 18 Aug. 1836. He was interred in the family vault in Welton church, Yorkshire.
In 1839 his younger son, Thomas (d. 1848), undertook the task of vindicating his father's character; but the investigations of Madden, and more recently of Fitzpatrick, do not tell in Reynolds's favour. A more judicial and less hostile view is taken by Mr. Lecky.
[Reynolds's Life of Thomas Reynolds, to which is prefixed an excellent portrait; Madden's United Irishmen, vol. i.; Curran's Life of Curran; Fitzpatrick's Secret Service under Pitt, containing much curious information; Howell's State Trials, vol. xxvii.; Lecky's Hist. of England in the Eighteenth Century; Webb's Compendium of Irish Biography.]
[Source: Link]
Isn't it interesting how Thomas III always insists on his connection with Kilkea or Kilkee Castle — he's not embarrassed — even this brief death notice makes it central:
For example, in the report of his death in the London Evening Standard — Thursday 10 January 1878
Thomas Andrew Fitzgerald Reynolds, Jan 1, Thomas Andrew Fitzgerald Reynolds, Esq. aged 59, late of Kilkee Castle, Kildare, Ireland.
[Source: Link]
More in a bit...
All best
Philip
PS You really don't have to read let alone respond to all this stuff — but I really appreciate having the opportunity to just write it all down....
II
Hello again, Keith
Thomas III seems to have been a chip off the old block.
Stories about Thomas I often mention his dissipation as a very young man, how he blew ALL the fabulous money he was left etc
And Thomas III too seems to have been up to no good from the earliest age.
This is 1850!
Morning Advertiser — Friday 26 April 1850
(Before Mr. Commissioner Law.)
IN RE THOMAS ANDREW FITZGERALD REYNOLDS.
This insolvent, an attorney, who applied under the Protection Act, was heard a year ago. He had been to France, and was now in prison.
He applied for further hearing, when Mr. Dowse appeared for Mr. Nichols Alfred May hew, with whom the insolvent had been in partnership, and Mr. Cooke for the insolvent. The other parties in the matter were represented by Mr. (of the Chancery bar), and Mr. Wood and Mr. Cooke.
The case occupied several hours on the present occasion, and ended in an adjournment, with the view to settle some matters, rather than continue a suit in Chancery. All parties expressed themselves anxious to avoid proceedings in equity.
The Court refused to grant protection to the insolvent.
[Source: Link]
And just LOOK at what happens next, I.e. well BEFORE his Battersea days
Morning Post — Thursday 18 July 1850
(Before Mr. Commissioner Law.)
IN RE THOMAS ANDREW FITZGERALD REYNOLDS.
This insolvent, whose case had been before the Court on several occasions, appeared for his final order. In the course of the case he became excited, applied several offensive epithets to the parties before the Court, complained of his treatment, and expressed his determination to rot in prison rather than again apply.
Mr. Commissioner Law, who had bestowed great pains on the case, could not prevail with the insolvent to restore order, and he was remanded to prison for an indefinite period.
[Source: Link]
And yet and yet here is just 9 years later:
London Evening Standard — Wednesday 09 March 1859
Whitehall, March 2. The Lord Chancellor has appointed Thomas Andrew Fitzgerald Reynolds, of Battersea-square, Battersea, Gentleman, to be a London Commissioner to administer oaths in the High Court of Chancery.
[Source: Link]
Blimey!
Yet clearly he just can't help himself, so just a few years later:
London Evening Standard — Wednesday 26 October 1864
BANKRUPT. (To Surrender at the Bankruptcy Court London.)
Thomas Andrew Fitzgerald Reynolds, Cecll-st. Strand, solicitor, Nov. 14, at 12: sol. Mr. Aldridge, Moorgate-st ; off. assig. Mr. Cannan, Basinghall-st.
[Source: Link]
You couldn't make any of this up.
I've also got lots of material about the ding-dongs between Buckmaster and Thomas III in the vestry.
I'll send them separately.
All best
Philip
III
Hello, Keith
Just for kicks, here are some of the articles I came across re Buckmaster v Reynolds
I've yet to find out how/where Buckmaster tracked down Reynolds. Or the court case that led to his imprisonment (again).
Perhaps you've had more luck?
(Curiously there are FAR FAR more articles about Buckmaster v Corsellis — and even more explicit. I wonder why Buckmaster doesn't mention this civil war — or was he perhaps rolling both lawyers together?)
Anyway, for your sake and mine I'd better stop this self-indulgence straight away
All best
Philip
West Middlesex Advertiser and Family Journal — Saturday 29 May 1858
STORMY VESTRY MEETING AT BATTERSEA.
A public meeting of the ratepayers of Battersea, was held in the Infant School, Green-lane-road, Battersea, on Thursday evening, for the purpose of electing nine members for the Vestry, and five auditors of accounts....
[Source: Link]
London Daily News — Thursday 09 September 1858
WANDSWORTH.
[PB: I believe this and some other references may have been copied in full to the WC Database.]
London Daily News — Thursday 09 September 1858
WANDSWORTH.
William Wilcox, a labourer, appeared before Mr. Ingham, to answer a summons charging him with having used abusive and insulting language to Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, a solicitor, of Battersea, whereby a breach of the peace might have been occasioned, The defendant pleaded not guilty.
The complainant stated that there had been a great deal of excitement in the parish of Battersea, in consequence of certain proceedings at the vestry meetings. Witness, who was solicitor to the parish, had been carried about in effigy, ye and afterwards burned and buried.
On the afternoon of co Thursday, the 26th ult., he was walking along the High- C, street, with Mr. Smith (a late overseer), and another Ci gentleman was following behind, when he heard a person, who was identified by Mr. Smith as the defendant, call out, "There goes two rogues, and there is another P(?? words waco ceuplc d with most offensive H expressions,of the took no notice on that occatriccui, but on the Sc following Saturday evening, while returning home with his P mother and a large Australian dog, the defendant repeated I the language, — which was of worse description.
He then returned to where the defendant was standing with a number 2( ef other men, and upon getting his rame bie found that it Cc was the same person who had insulted him on the Thursday. 9id
The defence set up was that Mr.?? was under the I influence of liquor on the Saturday, cand that hi dog run against his (the defendant's) wifle, an,, frightened her. Mr. Reynolds denied that he Wats intoxicated, or that his 3" d,,g tan against the wife. It wccs frees these annoyances B that he wished to be protected, fir he did not know where l~ they would end. He had mcidog-with him on the Thursday. 4, Mr. S. Smith, the late overseer of Battersea, was called to prove the use of the insulting language on the Thursday, and a man named John Taylor was examined by the defendant to show that Mr. Reynolds was intoxicated on the bc Saturday, and that his dog frightened the wife. Air. Ingham asked the last witness if he assisted to burn B Mr. Reynolds in effigyF Taylor said he never saw it. at Mr. Ingham then asked if he saw Alr. Reynolds's effigy dragged about in a cart? Taylor answered that he did not help to do it, as he was b- in town that clay. Mr. Ingham said it was clear the dog had nothing to do 0 with the matter, and that fthe feeliicgs exhibited by the de- P fendant arose out of the Parish aff~ira This kind of conduct moont be put a stop to, but if the defendant promised not to ri repeats it, he would only order him to enter into his own recognisanee to keep the peace for six months. a The defendant consented, and was then bound over, but was lucked up in default of paying 4s. costs.
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000051/18580909/026/0007
[Source: Link]
West Middlesex Advertiser and Family Journal — Saturday 11 June 1859
BATTERSEA OVERSEERS' ACCOUNTS.
Startling Parochial Disclosures.
1859 REYNOLDS BUCKMASTER
West Middlesex Advertiser and Family Journal — Saturday 11 June 1859
Startling Parochial Disclosures.
BATTERSEA OVERSEERS' ACCOUNTS.
J. C. Meymott, Esq., the Poor Law Auditor, resumed his investigation into the accounts of Mr. Reynolds on Tuesday morning last, in the Board Room of the Union Workhouse, relative to the law charges made by him in connexion with the enge proceedings, which has for some time past created very great dissatisfaction in the parish. The Auditor, after a minute investigation of some of the late Overseers' receipt books, inquired whether Mr. Reynolds was present, when his clerk stated that he was unable to attend in consequence of illness, but that a gentleman would shortly arrive who would act as his representative.
Mr. Lvth wished to know bow long Mr. Reynolds had been unwell, had passed him that morning on the road, and he then appeared in perfect good health. This statement was corroborated by other ratepayeis who had also seen him. The Clerk — He has been unwell for some days, and I can vouch for the truth of it. The Auditor stated that it appeared that the sum paid, and that was the amount of the bills. very important communication had been, made to him, by Mr. Buckmaster, which contained an objection the accounts that must once decided. It slated that the terms made Mr. Reynolds was to the following effect undertake to carry on the action, and if succeed will make the legal charges, but if unsuccessful I will then only bring in a bill for costs out pocket."
Mr. Biet ley, the gentleman previously referred to, said that he had been suddenly requested by Mr. Reynolds to attend that occasion, and he would commence by reading an explanatory letter from him, which might also be considered au apology for his absence. The Auditor — But what do say is the cause of his non-attendance to-day?
Mr. Bierley had not seen Mr. Reynolds, and he could therefore only read the communication, as at that time he was almost entirely ignorant of the facts of the case. He proceeded to read the letter, which stated that such was the state of his health that he had been advised to avoid any excite.nent, and consequently he was prevented from attending the audit. It then purported to detail the whole of the proceedings connexion with the law-suit. He had been appointed solicitor to the Overseers, &c. and intimated that the course now pursued towards him was not fail or just. It likewise stated that he believed there had been some tampering with the minutes, and that there was some power at the Board which was inimical to him, hut the whole art'air viewed as intended to embarrass the late Overseers.
The Auditor — l cannot entertain the question in reference to the motives of individuals. Have you any documents? What you have read can only be considered as a statement or a speech.
Mr. Bierley — l have not any with me such as you require. Ihe Auditor expressed his willingness to hear any statement from those persons wdio were present when the a.leged conditions were made.
Mr. Hart said that Mr. Reynolds guaranteed the ratepayers that ho would not charge more than costs out of pocket if was unsuccessful. This declaration wa-. made in the open Vestry.
Mr. S. Poupart jemembered perfectly well the Vestry at which the agreement was made. There was a strong objection made to the Penge lawsuit, and a poil took place.
Mr. Reynolds distinctly made the conditions, as stated, and it was only on that assurance that he had voted for thi legal proceedings for otherwise he should most certainly not have acquiesced.
Mr. G. Bass confirmed the previous testimony.
Mr. Reynolds said it would be a great advantage to the parish if he succeeded, and, not, the expense would be but trifling.
Mr. Chadwin, the vestry clerk, spoke to the same effect as regarded the conditions made at the public Vestry. At a subsequent meeting the Overseers, Mr. Reynolds said that he should withdraw his former proposal. The Auditor — Was the subject then regularly brought forward? Mr. ( hadwin — It was conversational, and the Overseers replied that that was understood, and he (Mr. R ) added that there must be no interference with him.
Mr. Green gave similar evidence to the conditions, but he voted against the proceedings. The Auditor read aloud Mr. Reynolds' letter, and said it conflrmed the evidence given. Considerable discussion here took place respecting the taxation the bills, &c., which was stopped (he Auditor referring again to the letter, wherein it stated that the conditions were superseded in consequence of his having been prevented, by rule obtained, from acting as the attorney the Pengc proceedings. But the ratepayers were not to suffer on that account. Because there was another attorney that did not affect the original agreement, and the proceedings might have been continued.
Mr. Merriman, who appeared for the present Overseers, said that the difference in the amount would be very considerable. The parish documents relating to the proceedings were not now produced, nor was it known who possessed them.
Mr. Montague read a notice which he had sent to the Churchwardens and Overseers, intimating that he should appear at the next audit and oppose any further payment on account of the Penge lawsuit, but notwithstanding they had since paid £500 to Mr. Reynolds.
Mr. D. Jones referred the circumstance of the parish officers, after receiving the above mentioned notice, expending a sum of money to ascertain how they were proceed under such circumstances.
The Auditor said he should now go into an examination of the bills, and the sum of £56 at once disallowed an old account, with observation from the Auditor that Mr. Reynolds had received a great deal more than costs out of pocket on those bills.
Some other charges were reduced. ordered the other accounts to be amended, which the Clerk, with Mr. Bierlev, immediately did. The following was the result of the Auditor's decision:
The amount bills 17 8 Reduced auditor to .... 1448 0 Disallowed 17 Struck off on the Ist day of audit 22 16 6 Total amount disallowed 0
The next general meeting the Battersea Ratepayers' Protection Society will be held at the Lammas Hall, on Tuesday evening next, June 14, at seven o'clock, when the Committee invite all members to attend.
[Source: Link]
West Middlesex Advertiser and Family Journal — Saturday 14 April 1860
EXTRAORDINARY PAROCHIAL PROCEEDINGS AT BATTERSEA.
West Middlesex Advertiser and Family Journal — Saturday 14 April 1860
EXTRAORDINARY PAROCHIAL PROCEEDINGS AT BATTERSEA.
The proceedings in this parish on Easter Tuesday are very likely to engage the attention of the ecclesiastical or civil courts of law. The members of the representative Vestry met in the Lammas Hall, Battersea, at nine o'clock on the morning of the above day for the purpose of electing a churchwarden for the ensuing year.
Mr. Hart and Mr. Allen, both members of the Ratepayers' Association, were respectively nominated, but the choice fell on Mr. Hart by a majority of one vote. This Vestry, since the Metropolis Local Management Act came into operation in the parish, a period of about four years, have always elected the churchwarden. In the usual printed notice, however, which is annually issued by the churchwardens, calling an open or public vestry of the inhabitants, and which was held at half-past nine o'clock of the same day (Easter Tuesday), for sundry purposes, it stated, in addition, that the inhabitants were also, "according to annual custom, to proceed to the election ot churchwardens, sidesmen," &c, thereby repudiating the previous election of Mr. Hart by the representative Vestry in the earlier part of the morning.
Accordingly, at half-past nine o'clock, a numerous meeting of the ratepayers assembled in public Vestry, at the Evening School Room, Green Lane road. The first business was to receive the report of the Auditors on the Churchwardens Accounts for the past year, and to make a rate or assessment for and towards the necessary repairs and expenses of St. Mary's and St. George's Churches for the present year.
H. S. Thornton, Esq., the vicar's churchwarden, presided.
Mr. Buckmaster objected to two sum 3 in the churchwardens' accounts, and stated that one of them especially had been illegally placed there. He read a clause in the act showing the consequences or penalties attached to such a procedure.
The Chairman: If anything illegal has been done you have a remedy at law. After considerable discussion the accounts were passed.
Mr. Pariss moved that a church-rate be levied at 3d. in the pound.
Mr. Sellars rose to second the motion. He had no doubt it would appear strange that a dissenter from the Church of England should adopt such a course, but when he considered that church rates would soon be abolished, and kuowing the present need of repairs at both the churches, together w- r the fact that those holding minor offices had to paid their stipends, ha thought on the score justice a rate ought to continue for another year. After a stormy discussion a divi. ion took place, and the rate was only carried by the chairman giving his casting vote.
Mr. Paris* then rose to move that Mr. S Ncnfe he elected churchwarden for the "ensuing } v which being duly seconded produced considerable excitement.
Mr. Buckmaster protested against such a dUjhonoiable course of proceeding.
Mr. Reynolds, and other gentlemen who acted in concert with him, attended the Vostry held that morning at the Lammas Hall, and thus" admitted its legality, but. now came to the public Vestry, and declared the previous proceedings in the morning tc be illegal.
Mr. Reynolds here denied the inference drawn, and a very considerable altercation took place, when The Chairman stated that he could stop «° longer, and called on the meeting to appoint another cnairman, whereupon Mr, Alder was unanimous')' requested to occupy the chair, to which propositi 11 he consented. .
Mr. Buckmaster continued: "lt was the duty of the rateyayers to set their faces against this laid strategem. If the present motion was carried and the proceedings of the Vestry annulled, all the efforts they had made to obtain parochial reform for the last four years, would be rendered entirely nugatory.
Mr. Bridge vindicated the course be had pursued and denied that he had expressed any opinion on the subject as imputed to him. He contended that they were now acting legally.
Mr. Reynolds pursued a similar course of argument, and said that they had been acting under a mistake.
Mr. Juer wished to know how it was that Mr. Reynolds had for four years sanctioned the select Vestry in electing a churchwarden? The proceedings must have been illegal.
Mr. Reynolds explained that having been ecclesiastically admitted into the office the elections were? legal. He then said he should move an amendment,, which was that Mr. Allen be elected churchwarden. He did so to show that he was not actuated by party feelings.
Mr. Bridge would second the amendment for the same reason.
Mr. Buckmaster said (ironically), and I propose Mr. Reynolds for churchwarden, in consideration of the great services he has rendered to the parish. (Great laughter.) f A scene of the greatest confusion here ensued, and Mr. Juer moved an adjournment, which was lost.
Mr. Alder, as chairman, asked the Vestry Clerk which of the elections would be legal.
Mr. Chadwin, the vestry clerk, said he was incompetent to answer the question.
Mr. Juer referred to the second section of the amended Metropolis Local Management Act, July, 1856, and said he should most certainly gi v  in a written protest against the election.
Mr. Poupart considered the proceedings altogether illegal, and he should therefore protest against the course adopted.
The chairman put the motion in favor of Mr* Neate, but only two hands were raised. The amendment was next put and carried by a large majority of those present. He then officially declared that Mr. Allen had been duly elected, in open and public Vestry, as the churchwarden far the year ensuing. Thus terminated these extraordinary proceedings for the present.
[Source: Link]
West Middlesex Advertiser and Family Journal — Saturday 28 April 1860
BATTERSEA RATEPAYERS' SOCIETY.
An adjourned meeting of this society was at the Plough, St. John's Hill, Battersea?? Wednesday evening last. y .Mr. Hart, on taking the chair, said he was to observe that there had been lately a opinion amongst the members hope when they considered the great reduction rates which had taken place as the result "j* society's exertions, they would be again united. would be a sad affair to see the fall back to its former position. The elect 10 proper persons to fill the office of Vestrym ° the principal duty of the society. oll ]y Mr. Pemberton, the secretary, said ' ne business was the election of Vestryihcn. eS Mr. Allen considered that the election of men was a very important business and ?? it, to know the names those proposed. the chairman, had stated that he could not ' . her the names, which to him was very sU se He could not understand what was the list not being produced. The elect ?? near at hand, and it was clear that memories of those the Committee e 3 very bad, or else they had bean neglect's duty.
Mr. Poupart said, aa one of the .° ' that Mr. Finch had the list, but it was for him to recollect the names. c The Chairman assured the meeting \ xi&' Commntee felt the greatest desire to act cially for the interests of the parish. jjst- still sufficient time for the production of arr Mr. Allen continued — The time the ?? when the members had right to ?? from the Committee whom they had They were now told that Mr. Finch and he was absent from the meeting- ask whether the committee were thus to the society? ??
Mr. Poupart appealed to the em ?? whether they understood that the ?? produced that evening? he had t0 x would have seen Mr. Finch, and got ihe list. He should prefer to see earlier, so that the parishioners mit, 0 i 0 propriety of electing the names pudiated the charge of wishing to c the desire of the society.
[Source: Link]
Mr. Buckmaster as one of the committee, was ""ous to say few words on the subject. If could have had a fair fight, he should liked V Polished the list as early as possible. There,j re reas °ns unfortunately in this parish that reni SUc h a course injudicious. Had Mr. Finch e present he no doubt would have given the ' le was a^'a l^at otuer p y list len lave se ' ecteu some names from the ' ana ?? hat would have appeared to amount to a It was necessary that they should be wise as serpents and as mild as doves. The e at object of their opponents was to secure cerln individuals for overseers. They had selected J ast ear ?? one ?? and the present overseers would act equally *he benefit of the parish. reduction of rates, sistent with proper economy, was the great, J e of the society. If they thought there would opposition to their proceedings they would very much mistaken. He warned the ratepayrs that such would be the case. The great polar rith him was to keep Mr. Reynolds from Cc — He was willing to give Mr. Allen credit '"" the purity of his intentions, but he thought he na acted incautiously.
Mr. Allen replied at some length to the remarks by Mr. Buckmaster. — Captain Snow expres.eQ hope that all party feelings would now sub- J ld c. Both Mr. Allen and Mr Buckmaster had n« much for the parish, and he trusted that they ould unite and continue to promote its interests. meeting of the Committee took place last evening, and the list will be made public forthwith. There will he a special meeting held at Mr. flight's, the Swan Tavern, Battersea Bridge, on Wednesday evening next.
[Source: Link]
[BUCKMASTER HEADS THE "WHITE" PARTY v Reynolds's RED PARTY]
London Evening Standard — Saturday 15 November 1862
BUCKMASTER (APPELLANT) V. REYNOLDS (RESPONDENT.)
This was an appeal from the decision of magistrates. An information was preferred by the plaintiff, who was one of the inspectors of votes for Battersea, against the defendant, a solicitor, for interrupting and preventing the polling for the election of eight vestrymen for the parish of Battersea, and trying to get possession of the balloting-box.
It appeared that a poll took place for the election of eight vestrymen for the parish of Battersea, when there [sic] two balloting-boxes, one for the "red" party and the other for the "white" party. In the polling-room policemen were placed to prevent disorder, and it was alleged against the defendant that he being at the head of a number of persons in favour of the "red" party (who were losing the poll), broke into the room, declaring that it was after eight o'clock, sat on the table, tried to get possession of the balloting-boxes, and obstructed the voting for ten minutes.
The magistrate refused to convict, and the question now came before this Court. The Court were of opinion that the matter should be remitted back to the magistrate.
Mr. Watkyn Williams appeared for the appellant, Mr. Day for the respondent. Judgment accordingly. (Sittings at Nisi Frius, before Mr. Justice Willes and a Common Jury.)
[Source: Link]