The Wellingborough News, 21st October 1887, transcribed by Jim Hollis
Rushden - Important Vestry Meeting
An important parish meeting, convened by the overseers (Messrs. W. Wilkins and G. H. Skinner), was held at the Vestry Hall last (Thursday) evening. The subjects for consideration were – (1) How, and when the poll on the alteration of the date of the feast shall be taken; (2) a communication from the surveyor of the Highway Board relating to the condition of the wall round the Green; and (3) the proceedings of the Parochial Committee with regard to the proposed site for the cemetery. Mr. W. Wilkins was appointed chairman, and those present included Messrs. Geo. Denton, J. Margetts, F. Knight, C. Bradfield, T. Willmot, C. Barker, W. Claridge, J. Darnell, W. Callaway, B. Mortimer, H. Packwood, C. Perkins, A. Willmot, Hooper, C. Miller, J. T. Colson, A. Wright, W. Clarke, G. Fountain, Wm. Radburne, Woodward, J. Sargent, &c.
The Poll on The Alteration of The Feast
The Chairman, having read the notice convening the meeting, asked for suggestions as to the manner the proposed poll to be taken on the alteration of the feast should be carried out. – Mr. C. Barker proposed that the vote be taken on the same basis as the Board of Guardians elections, by leaving a paper at the house of every householder. – Mr. Bradfield strongly objected to this mode. In his opinion it was a left-handed, old-fashioned way. Although they might trust people’s honesty they could not tell who filled in the paper; it might be a child, or even a man’s grandmother for all they knew. – Mr. Denton proposed as an amendment, “That the vote be taken by ballot,” which was seconded by Mr. Bradfield. – In answer to a question, the Chairman said the cost of the ballot would probably be half-a-sovereign, whilst the voting papers might amount to 50s. (“No, no”, and “A sovereign.”) – Mr. Denton said it was not a matter of money either way, and as for the trouble he contended that those who took any interest in the question at all would not mind going a little out of the way. – The Chairman then put the question to the vote, when nine supported voting papers being issued, and six voted against. – Mr. Barker proposed that the vote be on the basis of Higham Feast or at the old time. – Mr. Callaway moved that “or bank holiday” be inserted, which was seconded by Mr. Skinner, the latter remarked that the bank holiday section ought to have a voice in the matter as well as the others. – Mr. Denton suggested that the vote be taken for an alteration or against, and Mr. Darnell proposed that it be bank holiday or the old time. – On being put to the meeting, 14 supported it being Higham Feast or the old time, whilst three voted against. – A lively discussion followed as to who should distribute and collect the voting papers. – Mr. Denton proposed that the duty be entrusted to the assistant-overseer. – On Mr. Hooper being proposed for the work, Mr. W. Clarke said he strongly objected to Hooper, and on his stating the nature of his objection, considerable uproar was caused, and there was a lively exchange of personalities. – Mr. Hooper, addressing the Chairman, said he should be prepared to do the work for half-a-sovereign. – After further discussion it was decided that the town crier distribute and collect the papers, the remuneration to be decided by the committee. – Mr. Colson humorously suggested that the poll should be taken previous to the 5th November, so that a bonfire might be made of the papers. – It was also decided to leave the date to the committee.
The Repair of The Wall Round The Green
The Chairman said the Surveyor of the Highway Board (Mr. Marriott) had written to the way warden, stating that he would not be responsible for the repair of the wall round the Green. It appeared to him (the Chairman) that Mr. Marriott was labouring under a misapprehension. It was his duty to look after the highways, and if part of a wall fell down, as in the present case, it was certainly his place to see that it was remedied. During the two years he had been way warden the Surveyor had not raised the question, and he supposed it was only because it was a more expensive job this time that he declined to bear the cost. – Mr. Packwood said the fact was that he, as way warden, seeing the wall was gradually falling down, had asked Mr. Marriott to repair it. Mr. Marriott, however, declined to do so, but said if he did he should claim the right to the receipts from the letting of the Green. He (Mr. Packwood) replied that he should bring it before the vestry meeting, and the question for them now to decide was who ought to keep the wall in repair. It would no doubt be brought before the next meeting of the Board, and he would be guided by the wish of the meeting. He should like to see the wall well done, for it was at present in a miserable state. – Mr. Skinner said the Board acknowledged their responsibility by repairing the wall up to this time. – Mr. Claridge said it seemed to him that as the Green was bringing in a little more than it use to, the Board wanted to take it over. – The Chairman thought they could safely leave it in Mr. Packwood’s hands to deal with at the Board, and for him to explain that the vestry declined responsibility.
The Proposed Site for The Cemetery
The chairman said the recommendation of the Committee was that six acres of Canon Barker’s glebe field should be purchased for the site of the cemetery, and that the small field of three acres should be purchased and used as a roadway. It was offered to them at £100 per acre, or, if they purchased the small field, they might have the nine acres for £800. The suggestions of the committee had been taken before the Sanitary Authority, and had also been sent to the Local Government Board. They might probably hold an inquiry, and then it would be possible for anyone who liked to raise any objections. The Committee wanted the opinion of the vestry, and he felt sure any objections they might make would be entertained by the Committee. – Mr. Barker, said it would be a waste of money to purchase the small field, and he did not see that Canon Barker ought to try to push it on the parish. – The Chairman considered Canon Barker had acted in a very liberal spirit, and Mr. Bradfield thought he had made a great concession to them, as he had been offered more money for the land than he was willing to let the parish have it for. – Mr. Knight said he was on the Committee, but he strongly opposed the purchase of the small field. It was an important question, when they were going to spend £200 more than was needful. The Chairman said the report of the Medical Officer stated that the six acres would last them fifty years, taking as the basis of the estimate that the population does not exceed 8,000. – Mr. Packwood said their six acres would practically cost them £130 per acre, as he understood they would not be allowed to bury on the three acres approaching the land. – Mr. Denton expressed himself in favour of purchasing the whole of the glebe field, and also the small field. He considered they would spend £2,000 before they had done. – Mr. Knight said that was the more reason they should not have the field. – After further discussion Mr. Denton moved – “That the vestry approved the site recommended by the Parochial Committee, including the narrow field as an approach. – Mr. Willmot seconded. – Mr. Knight proposed as an amendment – “That the Parochial Committee be requested to reconsider the question of site, the vestry being of opinion that the narrow field is unnecessary as an approach. – The amendment was seconded by Mr. C. Barker, and on being put to the vote was carried by fifteen to three.
The meeting then terminated, having lasted over two hours and a half.
|
