The Sun.
London, England, 1836-10-21 00:00:00

CITY REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.

(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. MYLNE.)
Mr. MYLNE, on taking his seat this morning, stated, that in
order to ensure regularity, it perhaps might be better that
.11.
should go over what he had done yesterday. In the parill
of St. Vedast, Foster-lane, he had disallowed all the ob-
jections. In Whitefriars the name of Mr. Thomas Cooper
had been struck out. In St. Thomas Apostle nine objections
had been taken, seven of which had been allowed. Then, as
to the claim of two gentlemen in Greenhithe, of the names or
Hickson and Meeson, though the objections had been given ‘.ll3'e'
yet still, with respect to the latter gentleman, a very 11
question arose as to his right to be upon the list, nalneih
the question whether he was rated during his previous
occupation, and if he was, whether such rating l'?,
necessary ; that was rather a nice question, and he wouia
not, therefore, give judgment in it till he had seen the rate
book of the parish in which he formerly resided. There were.
also several cases in St. Stephen, Coleman-street, with re ere
to the correctness of the description contained in the poor-rate
book, and also as to the qualification given in the list of elec-
tors. In one of those cases the question was, What constituted
occupation ? With respect to all these Mr. Craig and himself
bad agreed, reserving their judgment for the present.
ST. SWITHIN, LONDON-STONE.
In this parish there were four objections on behalf of the
Conservatives, two of which, however, were withdrawn.
Upon the examination of the overseer of the parish, it ap-
peared that the list of persons claiming to vote bad been re-
gularly put upon the Church doors within the time specifieat
d
by the Reform Act, but the list of objections had not. Th
list, however, had been put up within the time specified by
the amended Act, and the question was, whether the Reform
Act having been complied with in one instance and not in the
other, the objections could be entertained ?
Mr. MYLNE thought the case that had occurred was not one
which was affected by the new Act, and he should, therefore,
disallow the objections.
Mr. Goodeve said it was not of much consequence, as he
understood that one of the parties objected to was dead, and
the other had left the parish.
Mr. MYLNE said that the Legislature in attempting to cure
a mistake, had caused many others to be made, and his only
surprise was from the manner in which the Reform Act and
its amendments had been framed, that a much greater nuMber
of mistakes did not take place.

EAST SURREY REGISTRATION•
(THIS DAY.)

Messrs. KNOX and LENNARD, the barristers appointed to
revise the lists of voters for the Eastern Division of the counti
of Surrey, held their first sittings this morning at the Horns
Tavern, Kennington.
It was arranged, with reference to this day's proceedings,
that Mr. Knox should take the lists for the borough of Lam
beth, and Mr. Lennard those of the different parishes.
(Before Mr. KNox.)
On the list of voters for the borough of Lambeth beiisg
handed in, Mr. Knox asked to have the lists of objections
handed in at the same time, and expressed his surprise oe
being informed that there were no objections in this extensive
district.
A list of twenty-eight claims was then put in, some
which were disallowed, in consequence of the notices not being
of
l
served on the overseers within the time prescribed by the Ae
of Parliament.

(Before Mr. LENNARD.)
Mr. LENNARD commenced with Camberwell parish, in which
there were ten claims, five of which were allowed and ev''
disallowed. There were twenty objections, all of which were'
on account of a wrong description of the parties in the lists'
and not involving points likely to give rise to any discussion•

PECKHAM.
In this parish there were 47 objections, many of sylncl2
were allowed, in consequence of the parties not attending t°
support their claims.