The Express.
London, England, 1849-10-06 00:00:00

MIDDLE6EX.

Yesterday the Court was bald at the Sussex Arms,
Hammersmith. The lists revised were those of the parishes
of Chiswick, Fulham, Hammersmith, Chelsea, and Ken-
sington.
In the Hammersmith list Wm. AYRES attended to sup-
port a claim at out of four houses, held under an on-
ginal lease of 90 years, one being his residence, and estimated
by him of the annual value of 601., the others being small
houses, stated by the claimant to be worth 301. a year, the
ground rent on the whole being 601. The claim was ob-
jected to on the ground of insufficient value, and the rate
boole. were appealed to, and from them it appearing that the
whole of the property was rated at only 631. a year, leaving
a beneficial interest of only 31. a year, the barrister decided
that the name must be struck off the register, as the quali-
fication for the county vote, when arising out of leasehold
property, must be of the clear annual value of 101.
Two other inhabitants of the same parish, who stated that
they had for some years past possessed the electoral qualifi-
cation, complained that, although they had claimed to be
registered secordiag to the act of parliament upwards of two
years ago, their names did not appear upon the list of voters.
Oa inquiry, it was explained that the overseers for 1847
had not made out any separate list of new claims, but had
inserted the names of all the new claimants in the
old list, as was the practice previous to the pass-
ing of the Registration Act, and that the bar-
rister at the revision of that year decided that as he had
no list of new claims to deal with, he could only insert on the
register such of the claimants as were in attendance to prove
that they held the required qualification. Some few who
happened to be present accordingly had their claims allowed.
but the majority aot having been objected to were absent
and their names were struck off. The present applicants
were of thoes who had been thus disfranchised, and they now
urged that as they had been deprived of their electoral rights
without any fault of theirs, they having complied with all
the requirements of the Act of Parliament, they ought
to be restored. . _

The BLRIiISTIIR having ascertained that the parties had
not sent in any claim for the present year, said that the act
of parliament gave him ne discretion in the matter • he could
not place their name' on the mister ualess they had claimed
this year. They must send in their claims next year, and
then if the qualification was sufficient, they would be placed
upon the register.
The applicants inquired if they had no remedy against the
overseers.
The BARIIIBTER replied that they no doubt might have
brought actions against the overseers at the time.
The applicants said that they were not aware their names
were not on the register until lately.
In the Chelsea list,

Mr. PATER (the conservative agent) raised a point as to
the validity of a notice of objection made by the objector of
the liberal agent. against the name of E. W. Bachelor on
toe register, for a freehold house and land at Queen's Elms,
and described al residing at Laagridge, near Bath. The notice
was signed by " W. H. Walker," the name being followed
by the wends. " place of abode, 10, Southampton-
street, Strand." Mr. Payne contended that the form
of notice for objections from third parties, laid
down in the schedule of the act of parliament,
was required by the 7th section of the act to be literally fol.
lowed ; and that form required the name of the objector to
be followed by the word ' of," instead of " place of abode."
(A laugh.) The omission of the word "of" he urged was
tate], and this view had been taken by the Court of Com-
mon Pleas, in the case of Gadsby v. Warburton." Lord
Chief Justice Tindal, in that case, said, " I think the test
to which the sufficiency of the notice should be brought, is
to compare it with the form laid down in the schedule, and
see how far they correspond." In this instance they did
not correspond, and therefore the notice was insufficient.
The ruling of the court was clear in the ease he had quoted.
The BARRISTER having referred to the cue, said that the
court had not held that one particular word must be used
when an equivalent was substituted. In the present case,
Instead of the word " of," there were the words " place of
abode," which meant the came thing. He was never desi-
rous to favour the objector; but here there could be no
doubt that the notice was rod What the act required
was, that the name and address should be so connected that
the party objected to might satisfy himself that the objector
was the same party whose name appeared on the register as
of such address.. -

The esrvirgi of the objection was then proved; and the
party not being in attendance, the name was struck out.
Mr. Lome (the agent of the liberal party) subsequently
applied to the hamster to disallow certain of Mr. Payne's
objections, on the ground that he had struck out the word
" of," preceding the address, from the printed form of no-
tice, leaving the signature and address Julian Payne, 1,
Clifford's inn. _ _

The BARRISTER considered that the notice was sufficient
for all the purposes of the act, and refused the application.
In the case of John Batten, of Harker-street, Chelsea,
who had been objected to by Mr. Payne, Mr. James
contended that the notice was informal, the true place of
abode not having been given. The notice was signed JOHNS
Payne, 1, Cliffords-inn. Turning to the directory he found
that 1, Cliffsrd's.inn was the office of the Middles.% Con-
servative Association, of which Julian Payne was described
as the secretary—and he was also in a position to prove that
Mr. Payne's place of abode really was in Bermondsey. The
act of parliament distinctly 'squired that the objector
should give his bete place of abode, and this not haring been
done here, the objection must fall.
The BARRISTER—Is No. 1, Cliffords-inn, the address
given to Mr Payne's name in the register ?
Mr. PATKE—Certainly it is, and that is my place of
abode ; that is, it is my office, for which I pay rent and
tales, where I transact business, and where I am to ibe
found. I transact the business of the Conservative Associa-
tion there, it is true, as well SI other business ; but the
office is mine.
The BARRISTIR said this wee in effect the same caw
which he hcd decided on a previous day ; there could be
no doubt that the place of abode was properly described.
Mr. JANES argued that the legislature intended, by re-
Linking the place of abode to be stated, to give some security
to the voter for the costs which might be awarded to him by
the barrister, in the event of the objection being frivolous.
Those costs, if not paid, were recoverable by digress on the
goods of the party ; and, if costs should be given against
Mr. Payne and he did not pay them, it might lead to come
inconvenience, and probably to mime litigation, if the officer
proceeded to seise the stools and sticks of the Conservative
Association. (A laugh.)
Mr. Prawn assured the court that the stools and desks in
the °Biers in Cl.ff,rd's Inn were his own, and not the pro-
perty of the Corserrative Association.
The Breasturraa—Would not a letter addressed to Mr.
Payne, at I, Cliffsd's Inn, reach him ?
Mr. JAMES admi.ted that it might; w would a letter ad.
dressed to the Bank of England, tor one of the clerks in that
office, reach him; but surely it would not be said that that
would be the true place of abode of the party.
The BARRISTER saw no grounds for reverting the decision
he had previously given. The question was not one of law,

but of het—whether the address given was the true put. of
abode or not. It appeared to him that it was, for su the
purposes of the set.
The overseen of Chelsea intimated that some of the objcs.
jeatians t
eehy had made they wished to withdraw, es they bio,
tiered h parties possessed the regulate qualification.
Mr. PATN3 suggested that the overseers having made ote.
jections mild not withdraw them. The fact of the OTt
ryeA
objecting, prevented third parties from objecting.
The BAKUISTIII said that it would be gaiter open for third
parties to object if they chose, whether the overseers objected
or not.
Mr. Janes urea another reason why en overseer Gould
not withdraw an objection ; viz., that there were two Ind
sometimes three overseers to each partsh,and as the objtctioa
wee the joint act of all, one could not nado that act. ge
submitted that unites parties were present to prove thejt
qualification the objections of the overseen must prevail
The BAHRIBIIIB decided is accordance with 0a• •
the parties objected to not being ors.-- • 'new, and
mar were
oat of the La.
lins court will sit to day at the Now Gobe, Mile•ead.
road, for the revision of the hate of the parishes in the MA.
end polling diet:int.

PUBLIC BREAKFAST TO THE EXPELLED
WESLEYAN MINISTERS.

Baker,
offi
nao r
iVt.
tt
e o o
substantialr
se
.k aeblisl
eee mat eaehnnyi
manner
commented
nk
the
Yesterday morning, a breakfast, given by e relN
pious public, sympathising with the Reeds. Messrs. Entett,
Griffith., and Dunn, took place at the Freemascies'-hall.
Amongst those present were the following : The Itsv Me,
Brock, Baptist minister; the Rev. Mr. Hopkinson, Dr.
Hare. At
Aldteuthne. Ccoanitectrusinion'
Rev. Mr. SuMitinstom, of Helper, was called to the chair,
The CHAIRMAN, atter a few prefatory observati ex.
pressed gratitude as an individual, and on behalf of a late
it Vadondoeffethendrdretlighei°e"xppetillbedlicl
at lame length on the application of the terms "slander" aad
" calumny" by a large body of Wesleyan minister. to thcse
gentlemen; contending that there wag so zany indisputable
facts in the " Fly Sheets," that such language was altogether
unjustifiable. The Conference had foolishly committee reelf is
this matter, and after leaping over a precipice, the best that
could be hoped was that it would be raised up again, hum,
bled and broken on the wheel of public opinion. (Ch. en.)
He was no enemy to methodism, nor would he do anything
for the world which could in hie opinion injure its bog into.
rats ; but he considered the gentlemen with whom they
sympathised to have been injured, and he could not rest
eatistied until they had been restored to their former pod.
dons. (Cheers.)
The following letter from the Rev. W. Brock (who had
left the room) was read by the secretary :
" The last moment hes arrived that I can remain, and I
therefore time this means of saying a few words on b, halt of
the expelled ministers. There was an expulsion once at
Oxford which produced wonderful results, and may he the
expulsion at Manchester will produce results equally V/04.
dental. (Cheers) The first was the expulsion of Be,
Wesley, who organised Werieyanism -, the second, be hoped,
would lead to its re-invigoration." (Loud cheers.)
The following le:ter was then read from Mr. Odor, a as.
gistrate of the Tower Hamlets:—
My Dear S,r,—l am greedy obliged to you for the loaned
Mr. Jackson'. pamphlet. Believing that the W. [thyme have
done much valuable service to society, I was desirous of
learning from an authentic mince the cause of the pewee
agitation in that body and in the public mind, by the sudden
expulsion of three pi',us ministers of the gospel.
I have read Mr. Jackson's pamphlet, and deeply regret to
find 'it a flimsy and Jesuitical attempt to defend en unjus-
tifiable instance u f oppression and tyranny.
The legal instrument or deed upon which Mr. J sham
relies (p. 55) gives power to the Conference to mini Wain
ten for any cuu e which to them may seem fit. Sash large
powers must be equitably construed. In law a Mae II II
litigation. In this case no charges were made, no (aides*
produced, no cause is alleged or tried, but judgment is given
without trial ; and these three highly. respectable gentl-sma
are suddenly turned out of their linage, without the
blity of appeal, and are sent. disgraced and dishonoured, to
seek shelter in the sympathy of their fellow-Chrimituis. Had
they been poor men they, with their families, might hare
been driven into a union workhouse.
Mr. Jackson up sks of anonymous pamphlets "miudiem
ous and libellous," " in a tone of scorn and bitter *.limit.,,
personal hatred, and vindictiveness," "with a fearful die-
regard to truth," "vehicles of slander and defsmitione,"
"honoured ministers of Christ were recklessly ma tiled,"
" a sin of fearful magnitude and aggravation," "the sin
of slander reviling and defamation, placing upon publie
record!! (in an anonymous " Fly Sheet") &grim us-
trutlw," • the sin of promoting evil speaking, jealousy, sad
wrath," "deliberately planned and perpetrated through &
series of years with unabated malignity," "in all their
atrocity," " a triumph to infidel scoffer.," " biting and de.
yourieg," " this grievous system of immorality, ' " most
vile and malignant conspiracies," "a great sin, "wanton
falsehood and defamation." Them are Mr. Jackson's own
words, and they throw a serious doubt upon hit union
with Him who was "meek and lowly," and who, when
he was reviled, reviled not again, This is the character
he gives of cereain "Fly-Sheets,' and gravely puts the
question to every minister, " Are you the author whe
wrote these enormities ?" Why, my dear sir, hid my
man dared to ask me, Are you full of scorn and bitter-
nese, malignity and hatred I—are you a vindictive list,
slanderer, reviler, and defamer I—are you an atrocious,
malignant conspirator ?—I must have turned from him with
unutterable se .rn and contempt ; or have said to him,
" /Joni soil qui mat y petve ; are you one of those hypo-
crites described by the Saviour, beautiful outward, like a
whited sepulchre, but within full of all uncleanness? Yost
own heart is evil, and hence you think evil of no, and put
questions which are an outrage to common deceocy.
I have crdered a copy of the " Fly-Sheets," and will, if
possible, compare thorn with the original editions. Fifty
years' close observation leads me to doubt whether, instead
et all this slander and wickedness, they may contain ex-
posures of some hidden works of darkness, by the direl sure
of which these violent passions have been aroused—some
misapplications of the society's money, et that proper can
was not taken to prevent robbery and peculation in the funds
of the Connexicn.
Mr. Jackson says such charges might have been brought
before a committee ; but heaven protect the luckless Wight
who dared complain to such men as appear to lead the Coa-
ference.
The case is a melancholy exposure of much filly and is;
tolerance. The anonymous " ly. sheets " will now be reed
by thousands who otherwise would never have heard of
them. Mr. Jackson and his colleagues will become objette
of pitiable contempt, while the sufferers will receive cam
fessor's honours.
I cannot close my letter without remarking on the
puerile, if not imbecile, notion of Mr. Jackson, that there it
something analogous to this case in dissolutions of partner-
ship (p. 42)—the marriage ceremony—the examinations of
insolvent debtors—and the conduct of elders to their ene
rant' and children. For, first, partnerships are either dies'
solved by mutual consent, or by an appeal to a public omit
of equity. If six persons were in partnership, and five of
them tarn one out neck and heels, how short would he their
triumph I 2nd In the marriage service a solemn caution is
given to each party, that the ceremony will not cure say
legal defect which, if it exist, might plunge them into ex-
treme peril; if they decline to answer, the ceremony pro-
ceeds. Upon this principle, had the questions been put to
these gentlemen, 'Do you know any reason why yea
should not continue your ministry ?" and they had muds no
answer, they must have been honourably continued. 3rd.
Insolvent debtors, being convicted on their own voluntery
confession of their inability to pay their lawful debts, are
very properly bound to account for their creditors' property.
4th. It methodist ministers are degraded from all mealy
freedom to bee me the servants and children of Catila
elders or rulers, it does not justify those elders in tyranny re
oppression.
None of the eases as put by Mr. Jackson are in the.
slightest degree analogous to that of those three get:Memos;
but even if they had been, it is a poor plea for injustioe—
" Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." But this
case stands alone. Mr. Jackson has found no parallel. NOW,
he could have pleaded with truth that similar gumtrees
were put in that abomination of desolation—the dreary
courts of the Inquisition, where persons were put to fearful
tortures and death for refusing to answer questions; and
that he aad his coadjutor, acting under the influence of this
enlightened age, only turn their victims penniless upon the
world, to suffer the privations of distress or want.
ference any reason to be ashamed before either angels at
The question is asked (p. 33j, " Has the Methodist Coln
men of having thus acted 1" In reply may it not be ex-
pected that all impartial, sober, candid, and religious tsar
will answer " Yes." They ought to be ashamed, and repast
in sackcloth and ashes before God, angels, and men, for each
a violation of equitable, just, and religious principles.
I am, my dear Sir, yours most truly,
Hackney, Oat. 4. 1849. GEORGE OFFOR
P.S.—Tbe Rev. J. Lomas is wrong in supposing that
any man is put upon his trial before evidence has been heard
upon oath. When a grand jury on that evidence return the
indictment as a true bill, then, and not till then, the party
charged are to plead guilty or not guilty."
' The Rev. Mr. DUNN, in acknowledging the honour
conferred on him as one of the expelled, said it was thirty
years since he lest appeared in that hall, during which period
be had laboured at home and abroad as &Wesleyan minister.
Little did he think thirty years ago that the time would
arrive when Wesleyan ministers would be expelled for
meshing and writing the truth. The Conference had been
eonverted int ) an inquisition, and for himself, he must say
that he would never consent to abandon the principled
which had guided hie recent conduct. (Chem)
Mr. PEARSON stated that several months before the ex-
pulsion took place, he had been told that the offending par-
ties were to be thrown overboard.
The Rev. Mr. GRIFFITHS said, that one of the charge'
against himself was that he was a chartist. He had learned
his political principles from the Bible, and he should always
preach In a-cordance with the principle of doing unto others
se he would have others do unto him.
The Rev. Me. EVERETT said, the reason why he and
his brethren had been expelled was, that they had sought to
improve Werievaniam. History proved that society was
continually changing, and where improvement is
religious ad mirdstration was n , those 11110
sought it should not be punished. should novae
desist from pursuing the course which he had done. 114
had no desire to see Wesleyaniem departed front. On the
contrary, he urged the meeting to cling to it, while they
sought to correct its abuses. (Hear, hear.) Though ex-
pelled by the Conference, he eotertained no animosity
towards to members. (Cheers )
Dr. BURNS believed that what had occurred, though
painful to the individuals, would be of advantage to the
Wesleyan body, by leading ultimately to a reform of, abuses.
(Hear, hear.)
A vote of thanks to the chairman terminated the proceedings.