The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1868-09-22 00:00:00

REVISION OF Lisrs OF VOTERS IN
WEYMOUTH.

On Tuesday morning last tbe revising barrister, Jobb
Eastbrioke HoHaworth, Esq., held • court at the
Guildhall, for in. revision of the list of voters entitled
to vote at the forthcoming election. The hall was
crowded by per,ons interested in the proceedings.
Mr. It. N. Howard and Messrs. Tizard and George
were for the Liberals, Kr. F. C. &mall and Mr.
Richard Hare for the Conservatives.
. .

_
Oct the opening of the Court Mr. Menai addressed
the revising barrister and said Mr. Joseph Grove', the
overseer for the pariah of Raeßeale, bad made • wrong
entry in the list of householders, which contained 63
nassea Oct of that number 46 were not properly
described, as it stated their qualification was £lO
occupiers instead of "house and garden." He did not
wish to take up the time of tba court, but simply
asked him the (reviling barrister) to correct the miatake.
Tisard said he represented • section of the
householders mentioned in the list, and he was per-
fectly satisfied with the proposition of It,. SteggalL
The Overseer WWI called and said he prepared the
list and affixed it to the church doors. He was not
aware that he had prepared the list incorrect until his
attention au called to the fact. In answer to the
revising barrister he said he had acted before as over-
seer but not of Isle years.
The Revising hamster said he had only one course to
adopt. The list before him had been published and
affixed to the parish church door according to law, and
therefore he would have to alter the original list by
watching out the words "AO occupiers" and insert
the words "house and garden." Alter referring to
the Act be said he found he bad • perfect right to
amend the list. . . .

Tisartl was quite agreeable to the alteration set
forth by the Braising Barrister. The whole of the
gentlemen whose 0•111011 were on the list were now
present excepting the gentlemsua whose name was first
on the list. . . . . .

Mr. J. Ayling, a magistrate, said he had attended
through the negligence of the overseers, at a great in.
cionvenience,and applied to the Revising Barrister for him
to make an order fur the overseers to pay the expenses
of those who had been brought there that day through
the gross negligence of the parish overseer.
The Revising Barrister declined making an order.
Mr. A7ling said he would go farther, and proposed
the expenses of the overseer should not be paid.
The Revising Barrister said he would give his decision
on Wednesday. Then, as there was no one to oppose,
he allowed his expenses.
The names of elsimants on the list were then pro
ceeded with and were all allowed.

A rather novel and important dial:union arose among
the legal gentleman and the Revising Barrister with
reterenoe to the nghts of women voting,,

Kr. Howard cla7med for Mrs. Charatte Kingston, to
have her name inserted on the list of voters who resided
in the parish of He'comb. Regis.
Mr. T. C. Steggall objected.
Yr. Howard stated the groundsof his making hisclaim,
were that in the Reform Act of 1E32, the words used
conferring • vote were "every male person" whilst in
the set of 1867 the words wire that "every man." In
the year 1850 an sot was passed for the purpose of
shortening the Language of other acts and therein it was
provided that in all statutes, "words imputing the
masculine gender should he deemed to include females."
This language was very clear, and as this act was in full
force the act of 1867, should be read with it, as if the
section had been written every man and every woman
should be entitled to vote, and that the words every
woman were loft out as surplusage, because the act of
1850 included in it the words "man" and there was no
express prevision to the oontrary.
The Revising Barrister overruled the claim, stating
that as he read the law, women bad not the right to
exercise the franchise, and he referred to the sections
of the act aud also Elliott on registration. The name
with two other female claimants were then struck off.

-
111 Ber claimed to have his name placed on
the list for the pariah of Weymouth.
mr„ staggell on the part of the Conservatives,
objected, as the rates for the house which Miller
claimed for had been excused by the magistrates.
Miller said be heal rented the house since 1865.
Some time sines be called upon Mr. Martin, the over-
seer for the parish of Weymouth, and asked him to
place hie name on the list of voters, which he ref used
to do, but replied that he was not • tt person to have
• vote. He bad previously offered to pay the last rate
but Mr. Martin would not take it. He field in his
possession 11 receipts for the payment of rent since the
death of his father in 1865.
Mr. Martin, in reply to • question from the revising
barrister said the house was rated in the name of
Widow kuter, who applied some few months ago to
the magistrates for them ts excuse the payment of her
last rate which they 'acceded to. Miller had offered
to pay the rates in hie name, but he refused to
Mks
Tbe Revising Barrister refund te allow the name to
be retained, saying that /Slider bad made his name too
late.
RESULT OF TILE REVISION.
111400XJ1111 MOIL Amok
o . retained.
Claims by Liberals a
Coneervatl yes 4
Lodger claims, Liberals
Conservatives .. 5
Independent daliss 3
Objection. by Liberals 0
Coussrvetivee .. 2 1 3
P.
iningOUTIL
Claims by Moab 2
Conservative* 3
,huns, Liberals
Conservatives .. 2
Indepgdant claims I 11 1
Objections by Liberals .. 1 I
„ Conservative. .. I 0
WTI& LOOM
Claims by Liberals .. 0 I
„ Coneervatives 0 1
Independent claims .. 4
Objections by Liberals .. 4 0
consenatives. 6 0
It cannot' he maid whet was the lose or gain to either
party sa there were TT new claims made by the rate-
payers without consulting either party, seven of which
were retained. During the whole time of the revision
there was not the slightest degree of party spirit shown
on either side.