The Express.
London, England, 1847-09-21 00:00:00

THE REGISTRATIONS.

CITY OF LONDON.—On the court resuming its
sitting yrsterday, the J gents steed that having con-
ferred together according to arrangement, they had come
to an understanding that certain objections should be allowed
and others dieallowed, and that the agreement thus made
would have the effect of facilitating the progress of the reel-
sioo. . . . . . . .

Mr. bl'Clrri,tie took occasion to advert at length to the
provisions of the Registration Act as to coots in certain cues
of objection, and stated the course which be should pursue.
After citing the sections having reference to the mode of
giving notice of objection, and to the forms to be observed
previous to the holding of the court, ho said that by the 40th
section it was enacted that, " if in any cue it shall appear
to any revising barrister holding any court as &foresail, that
any person shall under this act have made, or attempted to
sustain, any groundless or frivolous and vexatious claim, or
objection, or title to have any name inserted, or re-
tained, in any list of voters, it shall be lawful for the
barrister in his discretion to make such order as
he shall think fit fur the payment by such per-
son of the costs, or of &ay part of the costs, of
any person or persons, in resisting such claim, or objection,
or title." It was then provided that such costs should not ex-
ceed 205., and " that whenever any reviving barrister shall
have made any such order for the payment of any sum of
I money for costs, by any person who shall have made any ob-
i jection as aforesaid, it shall not be lawful for the said bar-
rister to hear or admit proof of any other objection, or notice
of objection, made or signed by the said person, until the
sum of money so ords red to be paid by him for costs be paid."
He referred to the words of the act both on account of the
importance of the rule to be observed, and because his mean-
' ing, as expressed previously had been somewhat misunder-
stood. He bad felt great difficulty in laying down anything
like a general rule as to how groundless objections were to
be dealt • ith, as regarded the question of costs, while he also
felt the absolute necessity of doing so, because, from what
he had seen, he concluded that the number of
I utterly groundless objections before the court was enormous.
He had stated before, in the first place, that ho should do
nothing which he considered calculated to deter bond fide
objections from being made; secondly, that where ground-
less objections were brought forward he should give costs ;
and thirdly, that in cues of notices of objection which had
been given, if when thou cases were called on he should be
told that the objections were withdrawn, inasmuch u the
notices had paned through all the machinery and formali-
ties provided for by the set, if the parties objected to ap-
peared and informed him that they had received the notices
of objection, and if the handwriting of the objector were
proved or admitted, he should hold that under the act the
objections had been made, and in such cues he should give
costs. It had been contended by a gentleman before him
that when notices of objection were not attempted
to be sustained, he (the revising barrister) bad no
cognisance of them, and could not' deal with them.
He could not concede to such a proposition. A
notice of objection was 'given and published. If the
objector saw that the party objected to was not in court, he
proceeded to prove his notice of objection, and, supposing
the person objected to were not present to prove his qualifi-
cation, the act of parliament required him (the revising
banister) to eraso that person's name. It appeared to he
imagined that if the objector saw the person objected to in
court he had only to state that he had been misinformed by
somebody, and then to withdraw his objection. If such,
however, were the law, a party groundlessly objected to had
only the alternative of being disfranchised, or of making his
appearance simply to hear from the objector that, in conse-
quence of his appearance, there was no objection to him. It
had been urged that the rule upon which he had proceeded
might induce the objector in all cases to proceed to have the
objection fully discussed, though he might feel satisfied that
it was untenable. His answer to that was, that he should
endeavour so to regulate the amount of costs as to prevent
any unnecessary consumption of time.

The cases decided during the day were of an uninteresting
character.

The following is a summary of the reMaion for the three
days during which the court has already sat, up to its rising
yesterday —Liberal claims allowed, 3 ; disallowed, 1. Con-
servative claims allowed, 1 ; disallowed, 1. Liberal objec-
tions sustained, 77 ; failed, 29. Conservative objections sus-
tained, 47 ; failed, 67. Objections by both parties sustained,
35; failed, 0 ,

WEST RIDING OP YORKSHIRE. The revising
banisters for the West Riding of Yorkshire, Messrs. Bien-
shard, Boothby, and Temple, -held their courts at Bradford,
yesterday morning, for the revision of the lists of Riding
voters in that district. Though there were rather more
objections to be heard in that district than in any other of
the Riding, none of the cases raised any new point of im-
portance, and the business was got through at an early
hour. To-day the revision courts will be held at Halifax
and at beighley.