The Express.
London, England, 1847-10-20 00:00:00

THE REGISTRATIONS.

MIDDLEBEX.—The court sat yesterday at the Seem
Arms, Hammennlith when the lists for the parishes of
Chiswick, Fulham, Hammersmith, St. Luke, Chelsea, and
St. Mary Abbott, Kensington, were taken, the revision of
which concluded the business of the registzation.
In the Fulham lid, the name of the Rev. L. C. Bathurst,
described as of 12, Vale-place, was objected to by the over-
seers. It appeared that the residence given was the house
of the father, who was also on the register ; and, upon in-
quiry, the overseer was informed that the son diet net live
there, upon which ground the objection was taken.—Mr.'
Payne said this was one of the many cases during the present
revision in which the overseers bad exceeded their duty, by
objecting_ to persona whose qualification remained unchanged.
—The Barrister: But here the objection is that the party
cannot be found.—Mr. Payne was satisfied of the (edifice-
tion ; and would, if the case were adjourned, trove it by the
evidence of the father. At a later period of the day the Rev.
L. Bathurst, gen., attended, and proved that his son pos-
sessed the qualification ; and that when he was in town, the
father's house was the son's home. The vote was allowed.
In the same list, in the new claims, the name of J. Baxter,
of Deophan, Norfolk, farmer, was expunged, the calling of the
party, a farmer, being placed by mistake in the third column,
where the qualification should be described. A great number
of claims have been lost during the revision for the same
reason—the incorrect or insufficient description of the quali-
fication in the third column, as the omission of the word
" freehold," " copyhold," or " leasehold," when such was
the nature of the qualification. Several were struck off
who claimed on account of " ground-rent," without stating
the charge to be " freehold ;" others, who claimed merely
for " rental," were expunged in like manner; and in three
or four instances the holders of benefices have been disfran
chimed, their qualification being stated as " incumbency of
-- church," " rector of —," instead of " freehold
rectory," etc.; in one case a claimant described bis qualifica-
tion as " upon a house for eighty years," and was disfran-
chised for omitting the word " lease "
When the parish of Hammersmith was called, the Barris-
ter's attention was directed to the fact that the overseers had
neglected to prepare and publish a separate list of the new
delineate, as required by the Registration Act, and that in
consequence there was no list of claims to revise. It
appeared, on inquiry of the overseers, that they had
printed one list only, which contained the names
of those persons entitled to vote as well as
those who claimed to be entitled, the latter being
marked with a star to distinguish them.—The Barrister
reprimanded the overseers for the neglect, and relived to
take the parish of Hammersmith till all the others were dis-
posed. When the Hammersmith list was again called on,
Mr. Jones, an attorney, appeared for the overseers, and en-
deavoured to show that the list as published was sufficient
for the purposes of the act • and added, that the reason that
the new claims were inserted in the list of qualified voters
was to save trouble and expense.—Considerable discussion
took place upon the point amongst the agents ; when the
barrister observed that the Reform Act called upon the over-
seers to issue a notice requiring all county voters to send in
their claims ; and by another section they w,re required to
make out an alphabetical list of the persons claiming in the
year of the passing of that act, and in each socceeduig year
• list of persons on the register and of the new claims ;
but those provisions had been repealed by the Registration
Act. What he complained of was, that overseers would
' never uttend to the new act, which required that they
should now make out every year an alphabetical list of the
claimants, apart from the list of registered voters. He
must do in this case as he had done in the parish of St.
Clement Danes, take the list of registered voters, without
reference to the new claims.—Mr. Jones said that would be
very hard upon the overseers, who had acted on the best
motives. There were 23 new claims, and if the old list only
were taken, the 28 claimants would be thrown over, and
the overseers would be liable to so many actions.—The
Barrister: And I hope they will he all brought. —Mr.
Davis (who attended for Mr. James) observed that
it was • question whether, as the list containing
the registered electors and the new claimants to-
gether had been regularly published on the church
doors, the barrister could not deal with it ?—The Barrister :
That is not such a list as the act requires, and I cannot deal
with it. As to the overseers' objections, they must all fall
to the ground ; and, with regard to the new claimants, such
of them as attend and prove their qualificatioa will have their
names inserted. The first of the new claimants was Mr.
Cumming, a dissenting minister, whose alleged qualifica-
tion was his office as minister of a freehold chapel in the
Broadway, Hammersmith. On being questioned, Mr. Cum-
ming stated that he had been appointed to his office by popu-
lar election ; that he held • life interest in it, but was re-
movable for misconduct. He had been on the register some
peen ago, in right of the same qualification, and his vote had
tow received at the hustings.--The Barrister , But bow
me you • freeholder of the county? Does the chapel belong
le we? or is the ground on which it stands your property ?
—M. Cumming It has been held in the case of ministers
et proprietary chapels in connexion with the established
starch, who hold their office* on precisely the same tenure
es I do mine, that they are entitled to the franchise. The
chapel is in the hands of Vegeta—The Barrister: Have
you the deed of conveyance with you ?—Mr. Cumming :
There is a deed, but I have it not with me.—ln reply to
other questions the claimant said that his income was
derived from two sources, endowment and pew rents. If he
were to change his religion he supposed he would be
removable from his office, but that was a matter upon
which to give a positive opinion the trust-deed
most be referred to. Ultimately the claim was
refused, not upon the merits, but in the absence of the trust-
deed, the applicant being told that he had better renew his
claim next year, and come better prepared to support it.—
One or two others of the new claimants, who were in attend-
ance, had their claims inserted in the register; the rest, who
did not appear, were disfranchised.
In the list of St. Luke's, Chelsea, a long discussion took
plaw on the claim of a Mr. Hurst—whose qualification was
described as " ground rent," arising from a cottage in the
King's road, Chelsea—as to whether "ground rent " meant
freehold ground rent. Mr. Payne said he was ready to prove
that the claimant was the possessor of the freehold, but the
barrister said the description was insufficient as a qualifies-
Vs* and could not be amended; the claim must, therefore, be
reused. In the case of certain objections to new claims
toads by Mr. James, the question was again raised as to the
sufficiency of the service of the notices upon the overseer,
anti the overseer having admitted that all the notices had
been received by him, Mr. James argued that shot admission
was sufficient for the purposes of the act.—Mr. Payne
having been heard on the other side, the barrister said he
saw no reason for divurbing the decision he had given on
the previous day, that in the absence of the stamped dupli-
cate the service could not be proved.—ln the same list Mr.
E. R. Robertson, a barrister, attended to answer an objec-
tion signed by W. 11. Walker.—Mr. Shadwell intimated
that Mr. Walker having neglected to pay the casts awarded
' against kim in a previous ease, no other objection from him
could be entertained.—Mr. Robertson, however,
.urged
that as he had been brought there at great town-
' venience, and as his qualification was perfectly good,
he was entitled to costa. He had been objected to last year
by the same party, and had then proved his qualification,
the present objection, therefore, was evidently vexatious, and
he hoped the party making it would be punished by the in-
fliction of the highest penalty, in the shape of costs, the
court could award.—Mr. James, jun., and Mr. Davis
opposed the application, but the Barrister, after the appli-
cant had been examined as to his possession of the required
interest to qualify, made an order on the objector for 20s.
costs, and directed the attention of Mr. Robertson to the
' clause of the act which provides for the recovery of money
so awarded, recommending him to get some sharp attorney
to put it in operation.—Mr. Young, a claimant, who had
been objected to by Mr. James, and who stated he had
come up all the way from Shrewsbury to defend his vote,
after proving his qualification, claimed costa.—The Barrister
could not allow costs in the case of a new claim. During the re-
vision of the Kensington list a gentleman called the attention
I of the court to a grievance which Mr. T. More, of Grove-plan,
' Kensington, suffered in oensee,uence of some error in the
revision of the list last year. dlr. More had been for years
on the register, and on the last year's list, as published on
the church doors, his name duly appeared, and no objection
was made. On going, however, to the polling booth at the
last election, his vote was refused, on the ground that his
name was not in the large book—the register for the county.
The party applying produced the list of the previous year,
as published, in which the name appeared unobjeeted to. and
demanded from the Barrister such remedy as it wee in his
power to give, in order to restore Mr. More to his rights as
an elector. —The Barrister said, as the name of the party
was not on the list for the present year, the case was not
before him, and be could not entertain it —Mr. Payne then
recapitulated Um statement to the Banister, but added that
he feared the Act of Parliament gave no remedy in such a
case ' all that could be dery was for the party to send in a
fresh claim next year. Upon further inquiry, it was
ascertained that in the last year's list there were two
Thomas Mores, one of whom was objected to as being
disqualified, but by mistake the name of the qualified person
was struck out, and the non.qualified retained.—The Bar-
rister regretted that be had no power of remedying the evil
by inserting the name in the list, without a fresh claim being
made, which could not now be done till next year.
The formal business of passing the overseer's accounts was
then gone through, and the proceedings of the court termi-
nated. . _ _

The result of this revision alters in no material degree the
relative strength of parties in the county. The agents on
both sides say that they are reserving theirezertions fear next
year, when a determined attempt will be made on the one
side to overthrow, and on the other to uphold, tho majority
which the liberal party now possess.