The Sun.
London, England, 1829-01-21 00:00:00

PRACTICE IN THE ELECTION OF CONSTABLE.

A practice has existed for a very great length of
time in some of the wards, which has been a subject
of animadversion repeatedly, but which until yester-
day was believed, like many other bad practices, to
be immortal. It is with considerable pleasure we
state that the abuse received a death-blow before the
Court of Aldermen, who expressed much indignation
at the existence of it. The following is a short his-
tory of what we allude to:—

Mr. Rogers, an inhabitant of the parish of St.
Andrew, Holborn, was at last precinct meeting of
the ward of Farringdon Without, voted to serve as
constable for the ensuing year,—a proceeding to
which he objected, inasmuch as there were several
other individuals of much older standing in the parish
than himself who had never served, and he thought
it rather unreasonable to require him to precede
those upon whom the precinct meeting omitted to
call. He accordingly made his objection, upon
which the precinct meeting did him the favour to
demand of him the sum of ten guineas, as a penalty
for refusing to serve.

Now, as Mr. Rogers by no means relished this
mode of disposing of his ten guineas, he refused to
pay one farthing., and of course the matter came
before the Court of Aldermen. His objection will
be collected from the following statement :—Six or
seven gentlemen had been elected constables before
he was called upon, and not one of them having any
fancy to the office, would not meddle with it.—
" Well, then," said the precinct meeting, "as that
is the case, pay us a fine of 10 guineas each of you,
and you shall be excused." This propesal was con-
sidered the less of the two evils, and they paid the
sum demanded, so that in a very short time the
precinct meeting had GO or 70 guineas added to its
feuds. A person who heard of such fines would na-
turally imagine that they were appropriated to the
payment of substitutes; but this has not been the
case. The moment one inhabitant would refuse to
serve, the fine was inflicted, and another was called
upon, so that the payment of a fine imposed the
disagreeable duty of constable upon several persons
years before any equitable liablity could be esta-
blished against them. Besides, several of the in-
habitants took it into their heads, but for what
reason he did not know, that the money collected
in this manner from refractory inhabitants found its
way in some shape or other down the throats of
some few of the persons who were foremost in en-
forcing this injurious custom, instead of being ap-
plied to the purpose above alluded te, or to the
truly legitimate use of feeding the hungry and
clothing the naked.
Mr. Rogers did not at all relish the suspected ap-
propriatice. He required to know in what manlier
the fines were disposed of—whether the poor of the
parish were henefitted by the imposition, and by
what authority the precinct put their hands into the
pockets of indisiduel.3 ; end the answers he received
by no means satisfied his notions of the hesitating
integrity of the managers of the business. He was
told that the precinct, which was composed of all
the inhabitants, had determined upon pursuing the
system, had made the rule for themselves, and that
the fines were not squandered in dinners or " blows
out," as had been calumniously asserted, but were
applied to defray certain contingent expellees for
the liquidation of which there were no funds in the
ward. He refused to pay, and was then required
to suppert his appeal before the Court of Aldermen.

The LoRD MAYOR asked Mr. Rogers why he re-
fused to serve the office of constable ?—Mr. Rogers
should not have the slightest objection to share in
the duties of the ward, if he thought himself called
upon in his proper turn ; but he had been called
upon out of his turn. Six or seven of those who
ought to serve before he should, had been tined ten
guineas each, and those fines imposed upon him, as
he had refused to serve the duty of constable some
years before be could in justice be called upon to
serve. •

The LORD MAyon asked what right existed for
demanding tines.
Mr. TAYLOR (one of the Common Councilmen
of the ward) said, in reply, that the ward precinct
had established the custom amongst themselves as
the most admirable in inducing individuals to serve.
The LORD MAYOR wished to know in what man-
ner the sums thus received were distril:Aed. Did
any of the produce of the fines go in dinners ?
(A laugh.)

.
Mr. TAYLOR (as well as we could recollect) said,
that no part of the tines had been appropriated to
the payment of dinner-bills this year. There were
expenses arising is the ward, from the necessity of
paying the collector of rates, and of defraying the
charges for advertisements; and those were paid cut
of the fines. _ _

The LORD MAYOR expressed his surprise at the
existence of such a practice as that of fining.
Some of the Court spoke of the practice as one
which must he immediately abolished: and it was
at once determined that Mr. Rogers should be ex-
cused from serving the office of constable ; that the
individual who stood higher on the list should be
called upon to serve ; and that six or seven persons,
who had paid the ten guineas each to be excused,
should forthwith receive back the same from the
hands of the fine-taker—an office to be considered
henceforward of no efficacy or avail. _

This decision gave the greatest satisfaction, when
it was made known outside the doors of the court.

Despatches were yesterday received at the Co-
lonial Office, from Major-General Sir John Keane, K.C.B.
at Jamaica ; from Barbadoes, St. Thomas's, and all the
Leeward Islands.

A man is now exhibiting at the Richmond
Arms, Basing, 100 live rats in a cage; and he intends
exhibiting himself among 200 of the same vermin, al-
loWing them to crawl over him ; after which his dog
Rover, cousin to the celebrated Billy, is matched to kill
100 rats in 12 minutes.—Lewes Paper.

MYSTERIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE.—A few (lays
ago a respectable looking female arrived in Ballyshannon,
and took up her abode in the port. On the following day
she was delivered of a son. In two days after the birth
the child was sent to Bundoran to be baptised by the Rev.
Mr. Nash ; but Mr. N. suspecting that all was not as it
should be, at first refused to christen the infant. The
woman, however, insisted on having it baptised, saying
that if be refused she would report him to the Bishop.
Mr. Nash interrogated the woman as to the particulars of
the child's parents, and in vain endeavoured to elicit any
information in that respect. He then baptised the child,
and the woman returned with it to its mother. Next day
the mother left Ballyshannon for the country, and in three
days after returned without the child, it having, an she
said, died the dAy she left town. She took her seat on the
Dublin coach, and, we understand, was dropped near Ca-
van ; but nothing further has been ascertained about her.
...DuLlitt Freeman's Journal.