The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-10-10 00:00:00

MUNICIPAL REVISION

The revision of the list of municipal voters for the borough
of Liverpool commenced at ten o'clock yesterday morning,
before his Worship the Mayor, John Stewart, EFq., and Mr.
H. Bremner and Mr. W. A. Jevons, assessors, in the Sessions
House, Chapel-street. Mr. E. Harvey appeared on behalf of
the Reforniers, and Mr. Buckmaster for the Conservatives.
In Vauxhall-ward there was one claim which was allowed ;in
St. Paul's four, of which two were allowed ; in Everton three,
of which one was allowed ; and in Scotland-ward three, of
which two were allowed. The claims refused in St. Paul's-
ward were those of Mr. Daniel Warburton Kellet and Mr,
Thomas Kellet, stationers, Old Hall-street, who did not
appear on the rate books as having paid the rate of 1855. It
appeared that the premises which Mr. D. W. Kellet occupied
at the time the rate was laid, were pulled down before three
mon'hs of the year had elapsed, and that ho offered to pay the
proportion of the rate for that period. The overseers would
not accept a part, and when the matter was brought before the
magistrates they refused to interfere, on the ground that it
would be a hardship to exact the rate for the whole year. Mr.
Kellet paid the rates for the other premises which he occupied
for the remaining portion of the year. His Worship and the
assessors considered that the act gave them no power to allow
the claim. The case of Mr. Thomas Kellet was precisely
similar. Among the objections was one made by the Reformers
to Mr. John Higson, of the firm of Higeon and Shand. Mr.
Higson was qualified out of a warehouse in Queen
-street, but as
he did not appear, he was struck off. Mr. Harvey then applied
to have Mr. Higson struck off the list altogether, on the
ground that it was clearly the intention of the act that the
if a person was
objection was
objected name of a person should not ho in more than one ward ; for
though he might be rated, in respect of premises, in two or
more wards, he could not vote in more than one. He might
select the ward he would stand for, but he could not be in
mornb
Besides,not pe
abpytlater, andlBth tlia section,t t
proved as in this case, the Mayor was bound to
expunge the
name of such person from the lists. That would not ho
effected, if his name was merely struck off in one instance—it
i should be expunged wherever it appeared,
ee teld'an to, ono.
and
did
It being proved
that Mr. Higson was on the lists in respect
Exi of the warehouse
in Queen street, and an office in
ang,Ye-ward, his name
was altogether expunged from the lists. Richard Hartley, who
was was on the lists for a house in Union t Falkland street, was struck off the listssreuet,dandst foril
gr soothercircu m _
stances. In Exchange ward the Conservativesn under similar
objectedm right
and left to the Reformers, even William
to such men as Mr. lllthbo
, ne. At the last moment they withdrew these objec-
tions in the cases of influential gentlemen, but pressed them
against the poor and working men—a great hardship. The
business of the day closed after the list for Castle street-ward
had been gone through. This day the list for St. Peter's-ward
will be first taken up, and the revision will probably be brought
to a close.