The Express.
London, England, 1855-10-26 00:00:00

Insessi MA, mad el the

p•sr of sea wish spas •
rental of aft los that tarty
pouads pet mama.

. .
"The manifest point of difference is this—under
the former act, a person to be qualified must be a
resident householder; under the recent act, he need
not be resident. The object was to meet the eases
of those persons who occupied but did not reside.
Take, for instance, the cue of a large tradesman,
merchant, solicitor, wharfinger, drc. Bach persons
may pay heavy rates in a parish, and reside in the
suburbs instead of the more crowded parts of
the town where their basiness calls them daily.
Under the former act they were excluded from elec-
tion; they are now eligible for election. In other
respects the clause in the new act corresponds with
the clause in the old. Such being the case, if there
is any differeoce of opinion as to the construction to
be put upon the clause, the cause of such difference
has existed since the year 1831, when Hobbouse's Act
was passed. You reside in St.Pancru. Hobbouse's Act
has been in force in that parish since the year 1831
0r11432. and you were a vestryman elected under that
act. You must be, therefore, aware of the decision
of the judges of the Queen's Bench in Easter term,
1834, upon the very case which you set forth in your
letter. (Vide Adolphus and Ellis,' vol. 1., p. 80,
the Ring against the Churchwardens of St. Pan-

eras?" The point submitted in 1834 was that 'the pa-
rish is within the Metropolitan Police district. Some
of the persons elected as vestrymen were not in the
actual occupation of houses, lands, tenements, or he-
reditamente for which they were rated to the poor of
the parish on a rental of so much as 401. per annum;
but they were rated to the poor on that amount is
the whole, a part of the rate laid upon them arising
from tenements not in their actual occupation. Other
persons elected u vestrymen were in the actual occu-
pation of tenements for which they were rated, io the
whole, on the rental required by the act, but the
tenements were separately occupied and did not con-
stitute one entire tenement. It was objected that
under the 26'h section of the statute 1 and 2 Wm.
iT., e. 60, no person was qualified to act se a vestry-
men who wee not rated on a rental of 401. per annum
it one single tenement in his actual occupation.
Mlt was argued on the other side that the 26th
motto° specifies only two qualifications for the vestry-
Men of a parish within the Metropolitan Police dis-
, Wet—first, they must be resident householders;
neectedly, they must be rated or assessed upon a
rental of not less than 401. The vestrymen whose
titles are impeached by the third objection possess
both qualifications. The proviso does not say that
the rental shall be taken upon the house in which
they reside, nor that it shall not be made up of sums
awned upon separate tenements. No strew can be
laid on the use of the words, a rental.' A rental
may consist of separate sums constituting one whole.
'The provision made in the same section, with re-
testt to parishes not within the Metropolitan Police
lancelet, is very differently worded.
"Th. Judges discharged the rule which bad been
obtained. Mr. Indica Littledale said : *lt is smash
here, if the householder be rated to the poor on the
rental required. He must be a householder, and be
must be rated;' but it is not necessary that be should
be rated far the house which he occupies; it is enough
for him to have, for instance, a house on which he is
rated at a rental of 201., and land on which he is
rated at a natal of 201. Or, it is enough if he be
rated for part which he occupies, and for part which
he does not occupy, but of which he is landlord. It
is no matter how he is rated if the whole together
amount to the rental required.'
can see no reason for this madames going'
(Mr. Jostles Parke said). 'Now, by the words of this
section, it is sueloset if the householder ba rated in
any way; it is sot ercesstry that be should be rated
in respect of the subject of his occupation. I know
that in feet persons are rated for property which
they do sot occupy. and therefore I construe the
statute se coaspeehendieg 'rating upon any property.
I find no mines provision that the rate shall be is
respect of the property occupied; and I cannot lair
such an intention.'
" Mr.Justke Littledale concurred, and said ' I used
opinion that this rule ought to be discharged? ani
the role was discharged accordingly.
" If, therefore, such was the &auks of thejedgeela
the cue 'R. v. the Charchwardees of St. Panseele
es given is 1834. that decision meet hold gad sew,
unless it can be shown that the words alba now set
are different from the words of the farmer set.—
I Ste. (Signed) "B. HALL.
" B. Ste.,
Esq.'

A HINT roc LORD PaIMERSTOX.—Wo have sot
board who is likely to succeed ON iota lastuted Mr W.
Molotworth as Colseisl ascootat y. If, however. the ." Albs
mu is to be put in the right place," ad tw priaciplos .1
Administrative Reform ars to be sarriad out, then oe be
to issoitatha is fixing apes kw onssmosr. Mr. Robert
Law, M.P. for Ildiormiastor, is smplaticaily plated oat
by Ids alma sad ralossdasts as the sass.—Worcsator
CArcesiele.
Cumin seems by a raisin to parlisaest
Mt the aseand Judge of tho Nest of Quota's Bomb his a
' Wady fee" of 101. hr *barging dm Onad Jury, in M-
aks to hie salary of LOOK
This TILIGIAPIR ni INDIA,--A contract has bees
tateurd kus Mann the Pasha of Bt opt sad w guilt*
*sew. gas the etiallhisest et ea elsotris talsgraph from
0 to flms, So be oant plated idols des asstaN sad she
No. tsassuoothlab an to mark the thallereot obools sad
mobs ot tht Gamow of Otto Pert at Ahmodrio. will, it it
szycstsk be gimlet by ths sod fithe yow—Ovorfarsti