The Sun.
London, England, 1840-10-24 00:00:00

TtIPAPER VOTES.

(From the Stockport Chronicle.)

NORTH 61ESHILZE REVISION.-CHEADLE

BULKELEY.

Thomas Hornby Birley, Ford Bank, Didsbury ; Hugh
Birley, ditto ; Joseph Birley, ditto; Richard Birley,
ditto ; Hugh Hornby Birley, ditto ; Charles Cardwell,
62, Rodney street, Liverpool ; Edward Cardwell, 26,
Woburn-place, St. George's, Bloomsbury ; Samuel Flet-
cher, Birch Hall, Rusholme ; Robertson Gladstone, 24,
Abercrombie-square, Liverpool ; Stephen Heelis, solicitor,
Manchester; James Lord, Buile-hill, Pendleton ; George
Rainy, Exchange-buildings, Liverpool; William Slater,
solicitor, Manchester ; John Abraham Tinne, Brearley,
near Manchester • James llibbort Wanklyn, Crumpsall,
Manchester ; John Bradshaw Wanklyn, Crescent, Sal-
ford, were severally objected to by the Reformers, all ap-
pearing to claim for an undivided seventeenth part of a
chief rent of 36/. issuing out of lands and tenements at
Brinksway.
The first case taken was Mr. Thomas Hugh Birley.

Mr. John Speakman, managing clerk to Messrs. Slater
and Heclir, solicitor?, Manchester, being sworn, produced
a paper which was handed up to the Barrister, who opened
the same and perused its contents.
Mr. Coppock, of Stockport—May I, at this stage of the
proceedings, ask whether this is a paper or a parchment
vote.—( Laughter.)
Barrister—lt appears on paper.
Mr. Coppock—Mllay Ibe allowed to look at it. In this
manufactory of votes the minutiae of the trade are inter-
esting.
The deed being handed to Mr. Coppock, it appeared to
be a grant from Mr. neelis, the solicitor to the claimant,
of one.seventeenth of the 361. chief rent.

Mr. Speakman, examined by Mr. Coppock—Was pre-
sent when the deed was signed by Mr. Heelis ; ether
similar deeds were also signed to the other claimants;
each party's share is 21 2s. 6d. ; Mr. Heelis bought the
chief rent about a fortnight before the 29th of January
last ; it is conveyed to him on the 29th, and these deeds
were all signed on the 30th ; Mr. Heelis's deed is here
—(deed produced in parchment)—these deeds to the
claimants are all on paper ; has possession of all the paper
deeds ; were not prepared before the parchment one
was executed; all made after the 29th and signed on the
30th ; Mr. Heelis, the granter of the rent, has alone exe-
cuted the paper deeds ; the claimants have none of them
executed them ; the consideration money for each vote ap-
pears to be 47/ ; Mr. Heelis has signed the receipts for
this sum : has never received the chief rent of 361., nor
paid any money to the claimants; does not know whether
they have received any of the rent or not ; does not know
whether it has been paid or not; knows nothing further
than being a witness to the deeds.
Mr. Vaughan—That is my case.
Mr. Coppock—Will Mr. Vaughan allow me to suggest,
that as one of my objections to these votes will be the non-
possession of the parties, that if he intends to call any fur-
ther evidence of their enjoyment of this 21. 2s. Gd. fran-
chise it will be better to do so now.

The Barrister—Yes; I think that will be the proper
course ; have you any more evidence, Mr. Vaughan, to of-
fer? It not now; you will be heard in support of this vote.
Mr. Vaughan—l am not prep ired with any further evi-
dence. I have produced a decd granting a chief rent to
Mr. Heelis, and a deed from him granting a sufficient in-
terest for a county vote to Mr. Birlcy. The latter deed is
dated and proved to have been executed before the 30th
January last, and therefore as the execution of the latter
deed immediately by operation of law, vests the possession
in Mr. Birley, I contend that I have established a suffi-
cient case. Mr. Vaughan, at some length, and with a
good deal of vehemence of ;tanner, contended that this
was a bona fide qualification, and one which could not be
impeached. _ .

Mr. Coppock—Allow me, Sir, before I go into the
question of law in this case to make some few re-
marks on the extraordinary nature of the votes now
attempted to be foisted on the electoral lists of North
Cheshire. Seventeen gentlemen—men high in sta-
tion—proud of their politics, and vaunting of the wealth
and respectability of their party—Tories who decry the
humbler forty-shilling freeholders, and say that reformers
are supported by the lower classeS, and arc want-
ing in the means and appearances which betoken respecta.
bait), and affluence. These are the- men. Birley, (re-
peating all their names and addresses), Esquires, gentle-
men freeholders, clubbing their joint purses, not to buy
estates, but interests amounting to 2/. 2s. 6d. by the year ;
which though unseen, for it is a mere rent-charge, yet
they are here to contend, gives them the means of outvot-
ing thousands of acres, and of misrepresenting the interests '
of the bona fide freeholders of North Cheshire. Arc the
freeholders of North Cheshire to be swamped by such an
importation of outvoting partizans? I hope not, Sir. But
if such should be the case, it is a game we can play at with
the odds in our favour ; for, in a game of fabricated votes,
we, who have the majority in our favour, can only blame
ourselves if we arc beaten. If these votes can be allowed,
every artizan can have his county vote, and a paper fran-
chise will be one general humbug of universal suffrage.
lam glad the Tories have begun the game. I scorn their
means, but they must be met by their own weapons.
The Barrister—Mr. Coppock, I do not wish politics to
be introduced here ; and I am happy to say that this re-
vision has been conducted by both sides with an absence
of political discussion which has been very gratifying.
Should you-
11r. Coppock—l beg pardon, Sir, but really this is a
case where, irrespective of party, strong language may not
improperly be used, and I am sure you will find an excuse
for any little warmth I may have displayed. I will say no
mrrc, !R.: p err_ Q.,1 to deal with the legality of these votes
• -0.4.1nt._04,7 --. ' ---'..---,- ' 1- - 'l'2 ' af- 1': 1 ! r-“--t.
which -require,. all- annoities- and rent.etrargea to .., “..-
gistered, I find the following words :

" Whereas, annuities or rent-charges are of a private
nature, and therefore liable to fraudulent practices
in the election of Knights of Shires, to t',3e pre-
judice of candidates, and those who have just right
to vote at such elections." Now, Sir, could I in stronger
words than this Act supplies express my abhor-
rence of this paper constituency ? The Act goes on
to say, that fur the purpose of preventing fraud, all
these grants shall be registered twelve months before the
election, and the grantee of the rent is to declare that he
is bona fide possessed of the rent so registered. Now, Sir,
though former Barristers have decided that this registra-
tion is necessary, yet, as you have decided the contrary, I
am not now going to argue whether your position is cor-
rect, merely contenting myself with stating the fact, that
these rent-charges are not registered, so that should any
question thereon hereafter arise, I may not be debarred
from the advantage of such objection. But, Sir, if the
registration for twelve months with the Clerk of the
Peace be no longer necessary, surely the bona fide
possession must still be reqeisite. What evidence have
we here of possession ? A piece of :parchment and a
piece of paper—no rent received—no payment made to
these claimants—no tenant to prove he acknowledges
them as landlord. A mere scrawl, written in Messrs.
Slater and Heelis's office at Manchester, a fraud upon
the county constituency, proved by their own clerk—
the grantee in possession of original deed, and of all its
numerous splits—having, in fact, both his own deed and
the deed professing to give parts of his rent to others. He,
the only person executing the deeds, and not one grantee
being proved in possession of any document whatever to
show his title. Really, lam surprised that Messrs. Slater
and Heelis, gentlemen high in the profession of the
law, as they deservedly are, should have so condescended
to be parties to so direct and paltry an infringement on the
electoral rights of North Cheshire, as appears in this case.
I therefore, Sir, object to the bona fide of this transaction.
I object to their possession. They must have been in the
possession or receipt of the rents and profits thereof for six
months previous to the 31st July. There is no such evi-
dence. The evidence, if any, contradicts the paltry pre
sumption of law that the signing a mere piece of paper in a
lawyer's office confers a freehold vote in possession. They
cannot say they have had no notice of my objection. Since
the 25th of August they have had notice; surely therefore it
was incumbent on them to be prepared to prove their case.
But my friend Mr. Vaughan says you must presume pos-
session. Granted in a bona fide transaction. But what
right has he to ask for a presumption in his favour in such
a case as this. I appeal to you, Sir, where the avowed ob-
ject is the fabrication of votes to presume everything
against the vote. There may not be such a chief rent at
all. The only evidence is parchment and paper. No
rent received ; none proved to be paid. The make fides
of the whole case is so clear, and the evidence so deficient,
that I do most confidently expect your decision of to-day
will prove a salutary check to these electoral frauds. Let
us 'Ail vie are to have a property qualification for the choice
of knights of the shire have substantial freeholders and not
these invisible men—these paper freeholders. If other-
wise, I see nothing but an unsubstantial and despisable
lot of paper freeholders, making the Reform Bill a mockery
and the county franchise a mere matter of paper, ink, and
fraudulent deed-s.

Mr. Vaughan relied upon the law which vested the in-
terest the moment the deed was signed. Mr. Coppock
had not affected the validity of the vote. He ( Mr. V. )
depended upon the possession which the deed vested in
his clients. The interest was sufficient, and be left it in
the hands of the Barrister.
The Barrister—l am bound to say that much that Mr.
Coppock has urged is entitled to great weight on this ques-
tbn, and it would have been much more satisfactory to
me in giving my decision had some evidence however
slight been given that these gentlemen had received their
shares of this chief rent. Still in the absence of any evi.
dente to rebut their presumed possession, I cannot make
up my mind to expunge their names from the list. What
Mr. Coppock has said in reference to this mode of making
votes no doubt was intended not so much to influence my
judgment but for the public. I have nothing here to do
with that, and though I might have been better satisfied
with further evidence, still I must allow the votes. There
is nothing in the splitting act which will in my opinion
.n
invalidate these votes, for bothing is more difficult thaan
brig a case within the operation of that statute.—Vote
alowed.
Mr. VAA, ii
Mr. r, 13 an—Then that settles the other votes.
fActuring line. by thoeo
`-'ol,inhoectke-; Nt o, no—not so. Let us have each case
lumped. Let us see their '
proved. '
genii,. rgersepaetclao
belt; curiosity otsoi t ya i
lionwthe f
theirvot o - ni a n
beingu -
these
:men claims and have i Some o
form e of
them without their
t taken seriatim,
were thenthem proved.
may have had their claims sent
The votes
and three of them,
namely, Messrs. Tinne, Gladstone,
out, no proof being given that theirne, and Rainy, were struck
their own writing or sent in by their claims were either in
Mr. Vaughan objected to this authority.
strictness
nature or authority. of proof of sig-
Barrister—l think, Mr. Vaughan, in
lam bound to see that the gentlemen a case of this sort,
have fully
with the Act. complied

had there been forty, we might, in referenc
[Thus thirteen iren of property are retained on the
countythe d
frlaisuti;
on the bone fide freeholders, have properly
to
designated them by the name of " The Forty Thieves.-
We do not Fpeak offensively but merely in reference to
the franchise. Reformers may now know how to gain
a county te. 7