Election Scandal at Windsor

Published in Berkshire Old and New 33 (1998)

©1998, Berkshire Local History Association

In 1833 Windsor with Clewer was a small but lively town of some 8,300 souls. It lay between the castle and the two barracks, and Windsorians were always interested in the goings of these two establishments, on which many townspeople relied for their livelihood. Thus on 19th March 1833, they might have noticed in their local newspaper, the Windsor and Eton Express, a report about a soldier in the Sheet Street. or Infantry Barracks, which today we know as Victoria Barracks.

On Monday, a Guardsman in the Grenadier Guards stationed at the Sheet Street Barracks was drummed out of the regiment in accordance with the sentence of a Court Martial. The Guardsman was found guilty of a number of offences , including one of sleeping at his post and absence without leave. The drumming out was witnessed by the entire regiment who jeered and shouted as the buttons were stripped from his tunic and thrown to the ground. He was then pushed, carried and frog-marched to the barrack gates and left in the road. It is the first drumming out sentence in Windsor for a long time. (1)

It is true that soldiers were not dismissed lightly, and drumming out was indeed relatively rare. Recruits were not easy to come by in 1833, due to the unpopularity of soldiering. and the awful treatment and poor conditions soldiers had to endure. The army would prefer to flog a man to within an inch of his life, which was then the usual punishment for every misdeed, minor or major, rather than discharge him. Even a deserter was hounded down, returned to the regiment and branded with a later ‘D’, to show him how much the army wanted and loved him, and to make sure he would run away again! However. only a few months er the local paper had carried a story about Private R Hilton who was drummed out of the Grenadier Guards for desertion and robbing a comrade, He had been flogged three times before for different offences, each time receiving 500 lashes, and becoming more reckless as to what be did after each flogging.(2) What the paper did not report was that Private Hilton was at liberty to go home after his drumming out, but was transported to New South Wales for six years, after his final humiliation in front of his comrades.(3)

William Simmons, Service Record

So why was a Windsor guardsman just banished from the army? There is no evidence that he was punished in any way. Sleeping at his post or absence without leave were both serious enough offences, which were usually put with a hundred lashes or confinement in the ‘black hole’ (the lock-up cell in the guardroom), or both. There had to be wider implications to his catalogue of crime, or another reason altogether. Did most Windsorians know what was really going on, and were they impressed with the report in their paper?

Perhaps the answer can be found in an article published in a pamphlet called ‘The Working Man’s Friend‘, one of a number of radical news sheets that made their appearance in England at this time. The Windsor newspaper did the honest thing by publishing part of this article two weeks later, to give their readers the benefit of judging for themselves. The article also tells us more about the soldier, including his name and what he was like. We learn that he was not only literate but also interested in political and social reform. One must not that at that time common soldiers did not have the vote – they were enfranchised until 1918 – and were not allowed to express a political opinion; few of them could read and write. Here we seem to have an intelligent, thinking soldier, not the usual ‘scum of the earth‘ which was the general perception of enlisted men. We also get a completely new angle on the story:

William Simmons a tall young man about 24 years of age has been drummed out of the Guards for the glorious offence of reading unstamped papers. In consequence in reading the unstamped, he joined the Union of the Working Class and became a marked man! At least the Guardian and The Working Man’s Friend were found in his box, and it was resolved punish him. (4) Spies were employed in the regiment, an opportunity was sought to a quarrel: the scene succeeded and Simmons was imprisoned for 15 days longer.On the 2nd inst. on the day his sentence expired , he was detected with the Bonnet Rouge [an unstamped paper] in his hand. The Corporal who was acting as Sergeant carried the obnoxious print to the Sergeant Manor, by whom it was taken to Col. Lambert. The Colonel was ‘exceeding wrath’. He ordered Simmons back to the guardroom. He was detained a prisoner till the morning of Monday without being allowed to communicate with anyone. On Monday afternoon he was brought into the square of the barracks. Four soldiers tailors with a Drum Major surrounded Simmons and with the pen knives cut off the buttons and blue cloth from his coat.

The peak was then torn from his cap and in this ragged plight he was made to march with two men behind and two before carrying his box, the drummers following and playing the Rouges March to the top of Sheet Street in Windsor. He was left there in the middle of the street. A crowd immediately gathered round and after hearing the real cause of his disgrace – after learning he had not committed theft or other species of offence, but that his prosecution arose solely from his being a constant Poor Man’s Guardian and The Working Man’s Friend and recently of the Bonnet Rouge, they gave ‘three cheers his courage, some money for his necessities and bade him hold fast to his radical principles. He has now the satisfaction of knowing that in the town Of Windsor, under the very noses of Royalty he possessed more sincere fiends than the pampered ruffians who had tried to disgrace him. (5)

Extract from William Simmons Discharge Papers

Now we have two versions of the events leading up to Simmons’ dismissal. His army records simply state: ‘Discharged the 11th March 1833, with disgrace, by authority of General Lord Hill, the General Commander in Chief‘ They also tell us that Simmons came from Manchester where he had been a spinner and that he had joined the Guards in October 1829, but they do tell us the true reasons for his ‘disgraceful‘ dismissal. (6) No doubt military authorities were still shaken by the national outcry caused by the flogging of Alexander Somerville in Birmingham and did not want to cause another incident. Private Somerville had received 100 lashes in May 1832 for sympathising with political agitators and writing to a newspaper, although he was officially for a trumped-up charge of insubordination. (7) Simmons’ case shows certain similarities, but we need to look at the political situation in England at that time and the recent goings-on in the Royal Borough of New Windsor to get at the full truth of the story.

In June 1832 the Reform Bill had enfranchised a large number of the property-owning middle class, many of whom were liberals and voted for reform. The government termed them ‘radicals’. Thus the election of December 1832 turned out to be a lively affair. There was a great deal of unrest and reform agitation around the country; in Nuneaton and Sheffield the cavalry were called out to restore order during the elections. But soldiers in those days were not trained in the ‘gentle art‘ of crowd control; scuffles ensued and people were killed by the troops. The resulting enquiry gave a verdict of justifiable homicide.

In Windsor the elections did go off without incident either, but of a less violent nature. The town had been a ‘scot and lot‘ borough since 1690. This meant that householders paying poor rates had the right to vote. The reforms of 1832 only increased the electorate marginally, that is from 498 to 516, which was mainly due to the fact that voting rights had been extended to the parts of Clewer Parish which lay close to the town of Windsor. (8) The town also continued to return two candidates to Parliament.

Windsorians had a reputation for being on the radical side. They had supported Parliament rather than their King during the Civil War, and were often critical of the Crown and government. In 1780, George III observed that Windsor’s ‘Corporation had ever been adverse to the Government‘, and insisted on nominating the town’s candidates. (9) The struggle between the Court and the Corporation had been resolved by returning one candidate recommended by the town and one by the Crown. But the desire to be freed from nomination candidates remained strong in the town until Queen Victoria stopped Court interference in local elections in 1847.

Bribery, vote-buying and intimidation, however, remained a fact of life during elections for much of the nineteenth century. In 1802 a homegrown candidate, Richard Ramsbottom, challenged government nominee J Williams by accusing him of ‘bribery and, treating‘. (10) Williams was unseated on a petition but was replaced by Andrew Vansittart. Richard Ramsbottom was finally elected in 1806, the last contested election in Windsor until 1832.

Between 1802 and 1832 Court and town lived in relative harmony, with one candidate nominated by the government and the other one being a local one chosen by the town. In 1832 the two candidates were Windsorian brewer and banker John Ramsbottom and government nominee Mr E G Stanley. (11) Stanley was not very popular in the town. The local paper complained that he was an ‘entire stranger‘ to the inhabitants of the town, and had no connections with it, but he could command the support of Windsor tradesmen who relied on the Court for their livelihood. The problem of open voting was that it left the electorate vulnerable and exposed They could not afford to be seen voting with the ‘radicals‘, even if their inclinations were with them. However, Stanley resigned shortly before the elections.

Some Windsorians were hoping at this point to dispense with nominees, and called upon a Windsor citizen to come forward to represent their town. It was, however, rather late in the and the government already had their own man lined up, Captain Sir John Pechell of the Royal Navy. A group of electors made a last-minute effort to avoid another government nominee in Windsor. On the Wednesday, five days previous to the election, ‘a small but determined band, resolved to make a last struggle for the honour of Windsor‘. They, wrote to John E De Beauvoir, an independent liberal politician.

Sir,

We the undersigned Electors of the Borough of New Windsor impress with a strong feeling of absolute necessity of having the free choice of our Representatives in the ensuing Parliament, and as an attempt has been made to introduce a candidate, whose only claim for our suffrages is that of being a nominee of His Majesty’s Ministers we earnestly yet respectfully solicit you will be pleased to permit us to nominate you as one of our Representatives in conjunction with our respected and honourable candidate John Ramsbottom Esq. And from the assurance we have received of your independent and liberal political principles that you will in the event of success support of His Majesty so long as their efforts may be directed to uphold a liberal Monarch and enlightened people. And as a proof of our sincerity we assure you that is the determination of by far the greater majority of the Electorate of this Borough, that your Election shall be conducted free of expense, by which we shall prove to the Nation, that under a reformed Parliament, New Windsor shall no longer be a Nomination Borough.

There followed a few more niceties and the signatures of the electors. (12)

De Beauvoir readily accepted the invitation, took the next coach to Windsor and by the following day had up his committee room at the Star and Garter in Peascod Street. On the day of the election, the newspaper reported that ‘the town was in a state of extraordinary bustle and the most feverish excitement, owing to there being three candidates in the field. Political feelings were at their height with inhabitants on one side, and Corporation and Court influence on the other.’ The newspaper report was careful to stress that the elections went off ‘spirited but peaceful‘ and that the town was ‘by no means in an uproar, as is the at other places during contested elections‘.

De Beauvoir was obviously the people’s choice. but rumours were rife about Pechell’s canvassing methods. Some electors claimed he had used undue influences, promises and threats, and induced voters to vote contrary, to their wishes. After the first day of voting Pechell came in third. The town was jubilant. The newspaper published a poem which began,

My Dear Jenny Noakes

such a terrible thing

The Windsor tradesfolkes are opposing the king

Yes opposing the king or the same do you see

For Stanley sent down Mr Pea-Shell, how kind

On the very same day he himself had resigned

And yet as they declare it was no nomination

But ‘the Highest Authority’ own commendation

On the second day of voting Pechell began to catch up although each vote cast for him was greeted with groans and hisses. The result (14) on 15 December 1832 showed Pechell’s narrow win as the second Member of Parliament:

Ramsbottom408
Pechell231
De Beauvoir204

According to the newspaper. Pechell’s acceptance speech was drowned in yells. boatswains calls, whistles and hisses, and he withdrew to the castle after a final plea of ‘Gentlemen, for the last time, is it your pleasure to hear me?‘

A petition signed by 155 was sent to Parliament, There had to be an enquiry into allegations against Pechell. These also implicated a member of the Court, Sir Frederick Watson, the Master of the Royal Household, who was accused of improper interference in the elections in favour of Pechell. Heated correspondence between De Beauvoir and Watson was published in The Times and the Windsor and Eton Express, and handbills were distributed in Windsor with accusations and denials by all parties. The accusations were strenuously denied and eventually dropped, but the government instigated its own witch hunt. The civilian canteen keepers at the two Windsor barracks were identified as ‘notorious radicals‘. In a letter sent from Windsor Castle to General Sir James Kemp at the barracks, Sir Herbert Taylor wrote:

I think it right you should know that the canteen keepers here at the Cavalry and Infantry Barracks, Sanderson and Brown, are notorious radicals who not only gave their voles to Sir J De Beauvoir, their votes being in sight of the canteen, but signed the rascally petition against the return of Sir John Pechell in which they accuse Sir F Watson and others connected with the court of using undue influence. These men might vote as they pleased, but you will perhaps agree with me that they are not the most eligible keepers of canteen at barracks in these times. (15)

This is where Simmons comes into the story. The canteen keepers were no doubt dismissed. They were civilians employed by the military who had no other jurisdiction over them. The army could not possibly have tolerated them after this later from the castle. Simmons, on the other hand, was a convenient scapegoat, He was identified as a radical, possibly influenced or encouraged by one of the canteen keepers. His regiment had to be seen to make an example of him in a very public way and show their disgust and disapproval, especially as The Poor Man’s Guardian had just published an article boasting that the Grenadier Guards had been ‘republicanized’ by reading their paper. (16) As a potential political agitator Simmons had no place in the ranks of any regiment where he could possibly incite mutiny or perhaps insurrection, perhaps even ask for better pay and conditions. By drumming him out of the regiment he was publicly humiliated and disgraced and conveniently got rid of, and by refraining from inflicting further punishment on him the army avoided public outcry. The good people of Windsor, however, cocked a snook at the military by welcoming Simmons with open arms and giving him quarter where he had none in the army.

The pro-reform lobby used the events in Windsor to further their cause. A week after the election the following comment appeared in the Windsor and Eton Express:

The more the disgraceful facts connecting Captain Pechell’s return for this borough become developed, the more the public opinion tend towards our Point of view … the corrupt proceedings at the present election have made converts innumerable to the vote by ballot, which is now felt to be more than ever necessary to the proper working of the Reform Bill. (17)

The Ballot Act was finally introduced in 1872.

Brigitte Mitchell

References

  1. Windsor and Eton Express (hereafter WEE ) No 1079, 16 March 1833.
  2. WEE No 1944, 21 July 1832.
  3. Registers of service of the Grenadier Guards, Guards Archive, Wellington Barracks, and Muster Books of the Grenadier Guards 1832 – 33, Public Record Office, WO12/1627.
  4. The Working Man’s Friend was one of a number of unstamped newspapers, mainly of a radical political nature, which were in circulation at this time for a few pence and were of course quite illegal. Newspapers had to pay stamp duties which made them expensive for the labouring poor. The Windsor and Eton Express cost 7d until stamp duties were lifted in 1837 when the price was reduced to 5d.
  5. An article in The Working Man’s Friend, 1833. republished in WEE 30 March 1833.
  6. Registers of service of the Grenadier Guards, Guards Archives, Wellington Barracks, and Muster Books of the Grenadier Guards 1832-33, Public Record Office WO12/1627.
  7. Alexander Somerville, Autobiography of a Working Man (1848) pp 249 – 300.
  8. A Copy of the Poll for the Borough of New Windsor 1832, published by D. Oxley, Berkshire Record Office,
  9. Maurice Bond, The Story of Windsor (Newbury, Local Heritage Books, 1984) p 72.
  10. A Copy of the Poll for the Borough of New Windsor, July 1802, printed by C Knight, Berkshire Record Office.
  11. John Ramsbottom was the nephew of Richard. He was Member of Parliament for Windsor from 1820, after the death of his Uncle, until his own in 1845.
  12. WEE No 1064, 8 December 1832.
  13. WEE No 1065, 15 December 1832.
  14. WEE No 1065, 15 December 1832.
  15. Letter from Sir Herbert Taylor, Windsor Castle, to General Sir James Kemp, Windsor Barracks; Berkshire Record Office DI/EZ 100/4.
  16. The Poor Man’s Guardian, No 92, 9 March 1833, pp 74 – 5.
  17. WEE No 1066, 22 December 1832.