Published in Windlesora 35
© WLHG 2019
In 1833, Windsor was a small garrison town with some 8.300 souls, which included large numbers of army families. There were two barracks, and of course the castle, on which many townspeople relied for their livelihood. Windsor also had its own newspaper, the Windsor and Eton Express, established in 1812 by Charles Knight and Son. On 19 March 1833 the people of Windsor found the following report about a soldier in the Sheet Street, or Infantry Barrack, 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 was indeed relatively rare for a soldier to be drummed out of a regiment.
A court-martial would normally sentence a soldier to be flogged for most misdeeds, minor or major, rather than discharge him by drumming him out. Recruits were hard to come by, at a time when the military was very unpopular. Even a deserter was hounded down, returned to the regiment and branded with a letter D to show him how much the army wanted and loved him, and to make sure he would not run away again.
So why was a Windsor guardsman just banished from the army for offences which were usually punished with a few hundred lashes, or confinement in the ‘black hole’ (the lock-up cell in the guardroom) or both. There had to be another reason for his banishment. 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 crisis. Private Somerville had received 100 lashes in May 1832 for sympathising with political agitators and writing to a newspaper. He was put on a trumped-up charge of insubordination.(2) Private Simmons’ case shows certain similarities, as the people of Windsor found out when two weeks later their newspaper published an article copied from 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.
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 to punish him. Spies were employed in the regiment, an opportunity was sought to pick a quarrel: the scene succeeded and Simmons was imprisoned for 15 days. At the expiration of this time, he applied in the usual way to have his name erased: was sent back for 15 days longer! On the 2nd inst., on the day his second 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 Major, by whom it was taken to Colonel 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 forenoon he was brought into the square of the barracks. Four soldier tailors with a Drum Major surrounded Simmons and with knives cut off the lace, 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 Rogues 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 any other species of offence, but that his prosecution arose solely from his being a constant reader of The Poor Mans Guardian, and The Working Man’s Friend, and recently of the Bonnet Rouge, they gave him three cheers for 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 friends than the pampered ruffians who had tried to disgrace him. (3)
William Simmons was not only literate, but also interested in political and social reform. He came from Manchester where he had been a spinner, and joined the Grenadier Guards in 1829.(4) One must not forget that common soldiers did not have the vote – they were not enfranchised until 1918, and were not supposed to express a political opinion; few common soldiers could read and write. Here we have an intelligent, thinking soldier, not the ‘scum of the earth’ which was the general perception of enlisted men. We also get a completely new angle on the story, but there was more to it.
In June 1832, the Reform Bill had enfranchised a large number of the prperty owning middle class, many of whom were liberals, and voted for reform. The government termed them ‘radicals’. The election of December 1833 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, but soldiers were not trained in the ‘gentle art of crowd control, as we know from Peterloo”, and people were injured.
In Windsor the elections did not go off without incident either, but of a less violent nature. The town had been a ‘scot and lot’ borough since 1690, which meant that householders paying poor rates had the right to vote. The reforms of 1832 only increased the electorate of the town marginally, that is from 498 to 516. Windsor also continued to return two candidates to Parliament until 1886.
Windsorians had a reputation for being on the ‘radical’ side. They had supported Parliament during the Civil War and were often critical of the Crown and Government. In 1780, King George III observed that Windsor’s ‘Corporation had ever been adverse to the Government’, and insisted on nominating the town candidates. The struggle between Court and Corporation was resolved by returning one candidate recommended by the town and one by the Government. 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 local candidate, Richard Ramsbottom, had challenged government nominee J Williams by accusing him of ‘bribery and treating’.(5) 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 1833.
In 1833, the two candidates were Windsor brewer and banker John Ramsbottom (the nephew of Richard Ramsbottom), and government nominee E G Stanley. Stanley was an unpopular choice. The local paper complained that he was an entire stranger to the inhabitants of the town, and had no connection with it. The problem was the open voting system, many Windsor tradesmen relied on the Court for their livelihood. and could not afford to be seen voting with the ‘radicals’, even if their inclinations were with them.
Stanley resigned due to the hostile feelings in the town, and a group of Windsor electors resolved to make a last struggle for the honour of Windsor and invited John E De Beauvoir, an independent liberal politician: their letter was published in the newspaper:
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 His Majesty’s Ministers 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.(6)
De Beauvoir readily accepted the invitation, took the next coach to Windsor, and by the following day had set up his committee room at the Star and Garter Inn in Peascod Street. However, the Crown also had a candidate for Windsor lined up, Captain Sir John Pechell of the Royal Navy.
On the day of the election the local paper 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 of one side, and Corporation and Court influence on the other”.
But the town was “by no means in an uproar, as is the case at other places during contested elections“.
De Beauvoir was obviously the people’s choice, and after the first day of voting. Pechell came in third, the town was jubilant. On the second day of voting Pechell began to catch up, although each vote cast for him was greeted with groans and hisses. Rumours were rife about Pechell’s canvassing methods. Some claimed he had used undue influences. promises and threats, and induced voters to vote contrary to their wishes.
The result on 15 December 1832 showed:
| Ramsbottom | 408 |
| Pechell | 231 |
| De Beauvoir | 204 (7) |
Pechell’s acceptance speech was drowned in yells, boatswain calls, whistles and hisses, and after a final plea of ‘Gentlemen, for the last time, is it your pleasure to hear me?’ he withdrew to the castle.
A petition signed by 155 voters was sent to Parliament, asking for an enquiry into allegations against Pechell, which also implicated a member of the Court, Sir Frederick Watson, the Master of the Royal Household. He 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 Government now made its own inquiries into the De Beauvoir campaign following an open letter by Sir Herbert Taylor to General Sir James Kemp at the Windsor barracks, identifying two civilian canteen keepers as ‘notorious radicals”:
I think it right you should know that the two canteen keepers here at the Cavalry and Infantry Barracks, Sanderson and Brown, are notorious radicals who not only gave their votes 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.(8)
This is where Private Simmons comes into the story. The canteen keepers were instantly dismissed, the army had no power to punish them. Simmons on the other hand was identified as a radical, possibly influenced by the canteen keepers and was a convenient scapegoat. After the letter from Sir Herbert Tavlor, the Grenadier Guards had to make an example of Simmons in a very public way, and show their disgust and disapproval. Especially now that another article in The Poor Man’s Guardian boasted that the Grenadier Guard had been ‘republicanised by reading their paper.(9) As a potential political agitator, Simmons had no place in the ranks of any regiment where he could possibly incite mutiny or 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 another public outcry. The good people of Windsor, however, cocked a snook at the military by welcoming Simmons with open arms and giving him quarters 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 newspaper:
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.(10)
The secret ballot was finally introduced in the Ballot Act of 1872.
Dr Brigitte Mitchell
Notes
- Windsor and Eton Express (hereafter WEE) 16 March 1833
- Alexander Somerville, Autobiography of a Working Man (1848) pp.249-300
- An article from The Working Man’s Friend, March 1833, reprinted in WEE 30 March 1833
- Muster Books of the Grenadier Guards 1832-33, NA WO 12/1627 and Registers of Service of the Grenadier Guards, Guards Archive, Wellington Barracks.
- A copy of the Poll for the Borough of New Windsor, July 1802, published by
C Knight, Berkshire Record Office. - WEE 22 December 1832
- WEE 22 December 1832
- Letter from Sir Herbert Taylor, Windsor Castle to General Sir James Kemp, Windsor Barracks, BRO D/EZ 100/4
- The Poor Man’s Guardian, No 92, 9 March 1833, pp 74-5.
- WEE 22 December 1832