Stevens 1884-10-02

A close up of text on a white background

Attended Guardians Meeting at Banbury.

Buried Mrs Stock, aet. 76.

Bell and I drove to Mr Mann’s this evening. She visited Adams junior taking his wife some garments for her children.

Visited Mr George Dix, also the Misses Dix. Miss Augusta Stevens daughter of the late vicar of Swalcliffe, and her brother Mr Henry Stevens were there on a brief visit.

I caught a severe cold.

 

Banbury Guardian, Thursday 9 October 1884, reporting on the Board of Guardians meeting of 2 October:

Union Workhouse, Neithrop, Thursday, October 2nd—Present—Mr R. A. Cartwright (chairman), Rev W. A. Ayton, Rev A. Short, Rev E. T. Stevens, and Messrs J. E. T. Loveday, O. Ommanney, j. Shepherd, E. Wall, G. Macklin, J. J. Chard, W. T. Warner, W. G. Thomas, R. Gardner, J. Pettipher, N. Stilgoe, J. Gardner, J. W. Page, B. Lord, G. H. Hall, and W. W. Heming (clerk).

THE UNION ACCOUNTS

It was decided that the pamphlet, just printed containing the accounts, names of paupers, &c. for the Union, be sent to the Gusardians, overseers, and clergy in the different parishes in the Union.

THE BOARD AND VACCINATION

The Clerk read a letter from tile Local Government Board ackuowledging the receipt of a commucation statiug that, under article 16 of the general order of 874, no instructions had been given to the vaccination officer in the Banbury district to proceed against persons who neglected or refused to have their children vaccinated; and stated that in the case of the Queen v. the Keightley Guardians, the High Court issued a mandamus against the Guardians to compel them to give the necessary instructions. Under these circumstances, the Board requested that the Guardians would give the officer instructions to proceed, and that a copy of such order be forwarded to them.

The Chairman : According to that, we are bound to give the officer orders to proceed against defaulters. When shall we do it ?

The Clerk : You may do it to-day or give each Guardian notice of it.

Mr Ommanney said they could not do it that day because the old resolntiou was on the books.

The Clerk: That is hardly a resolution. The original motion was negatived.

Mr Loveday: Does it require from the Board a motion that the officer take preceedings?

The Clerk: Yes.

Rev A. Short: Then if we are bound to give the order, why shouldn’t we do it to-day?

Mr Shepherd: Give notice of it for this day month or three months. (Laughter.)

Mr Ommanney : No, no. We shall find it an expensive thing if we get a mandamus against us.

Mr Chard: We can’t very well do it to day, and a fortnight to-day is the fair. I think we should fix it for a month to-day. If we’ve got to do it, we might just as well do it at first as at last.

Mr Ommanney said he could not help thinking that this had arisen through the fault of the Clerk. When the motion was put to the Board, Mr Page asked whether they could vote against it, and the Clerk told them they might, whereas it now turned out that they had no option in the matter.

The Clerk said he told the Board at the time that it was necessary to give these instructions, and if they were not given the guardians were liable to have a mandamus issued against them. Of course, when a motion was put to the Board, he could not say the Guardians could not vote against it.

Mr Ommanney : But I hold that after hearing that letter, we could not vote against it.

Rev E. T. Stevens : The question now is, shall we take it to-day or this day fortnight ? It is clear we shall have to give the order.

The Chairman: The act says so distinctly.

Mr Shepherd: It seems very absurd that if we must do it, the question should be put to the Board at all,

The Clerk: I can’t help that.

Rev A. Short: If it must be done, there is no good in postponing it.

Mr Ommanney : On questions like this, every member ought to have notice that it is coming on.

Rev. A. Ayton : Take it this day month.