The Sun.
London, England, 1846-09-26 00:00:00

THE REGISTRATIONS.
CITY OF LONDON.

At the sitting of the Court on, Thursday morning the
lists for the parishes of ,t. Margaret Pattens and St.
Catherine Cree wtie taken, and when they had been
disposed of it was round that the overseers of the parishes
next in odor on the alphabetical list were not in atten
dance. It appeared that they had been summoned by
the Liberal agents to attend at half-past twelve o'clock,
en the supposition that the Court would be occupied till
that time in going through the lists for the parishes of
St. Margaret Pattens and St. Catherine Cree.
Mr. ARNOLD observed that, in consequence of the in-
convenience which had resulted from the absence of
overseers, he would in future issue summonses requiring
their attendance at the sitting of the Court; and he would
Inflict the full penalty upon any overseers who were not
present when their names were called.
In the course of a discussion which took place with
regard to proving the authenticity of signatures to the
claims,
_ _

Mr. Brown said, he believed that some hundreds of the
claims to be rated which had been made on behalf of
♦oters by the Anti-Corn-law League did not bear the
genuine signatures of the parties in whose names the
claims were made. He would certainly require strict
proof of the signatures to the claims made on the other
side, in all cases where he thought there was any doubt.
In some parishes claims to be rated had been made
quarter after quarter on behalf of persons who had
been dead two years. He could give evidence that this
bad been the case in the parish of St. Botolph, Bishops-
gate.
Mr. ARNOLD observed, that if any voter who was ob-
jected to on such a ground proved his claim, and if he
(Mr. Arnold) was not satisfied that the objector had
taken proper steps to ascertain that there was good
grounds for the objection, he would consider it his duty
to allow costs.
Benjamin Boyd, of No. 4, New Bank-buildings, was
objected to by the Conservatives.
It appeared that Mr. Boyd had been abroad since De-
cember, 1841 ; that he formerly lived with his brother
at the house for which he was on the register ; that he
still paid his proportion of the expenses of the establish-
went, and that he was expected to return in a few months.
Mr. ARNOLD said that Lord Denman, then Mr. Den-
tnan, in the course of a discussion in the House of Com-
mons, had expressed his opinion that a voter who left
this country and resided abroad even for a long period,
did not lose his right to vote for the premises in respect
of which he was registered, if they continued in the oc-
cupation of any portion of his family. He (Mr. Arnold)
fully concurred in this opinion, and he would, therefore,
retain the name of Mr. Boyd on the list.
Charles James Coates, who claimed to be placed on
the register for the parish of St. Margaret, Lothbury,
was opposed by Mr. Wansey, on behalf of the Liberals.
It was proved that the claim to be rated had been duly
served on the overseer, and that a tender of any rates
due by the claimant had been made on his behalf by
Sewell, an agent of Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown, in reply to questions from Mr. ARNOLD,
stated, that he had sent a lithographed circular to Mr.
Coates, asking whether he wished to be placed on the

register. He -sent, by the messenger who conveyed his
note, a form of claim, which was returned to bim with
irlr. Coates's signature. He considered that sufficient
authority to justify him in directing Sewell to tender the
rates due from Mr. Coates.

Mr. ARNOLD said Mr. Brown seemed to have volun-
teered a tender of money for Mr. Coates, but that tender
appeared to have been made without any authority from
the claimant. Mr. Brown did not show that he had any
authority to make the tender, and he (Mr. Arnold) must
disallow the claim.

Mr. Brown observed, that he (lid not think any inten-
tion existed on either side of paying the sums which had
been tendered.

Josiah Bates claimed to be placed on the register for
the parish of St. Margaret, Lothbury.
W. Aime proved that he had served a claim to be rated
on the overseer on behalf of Mr. Bates. He had tendered,
payment of the rates due from Mr. Bates, but the over-
seer informed him that he did not know whether any-
thing was due or not.
Mr. ARNOLD-At the time you tendered the money
did you intend, bond fide, to pay any rates that might he
due?—l don't know how far lam obliged to answer that
question, as the case has not arisen.

The witness, in reply to questions from the Revising
Barrister, said, I considered that, in making the tender
I was fulfilling the requirements of the Reform Act. I
had no instructions to do more than make a tender of
the money. I generally received my instructions from
Mr. Sidney Smith. If the overseer had told me what
amount was due from Mr. Bates, I should probably have
withdrawn the claim, but the case did not arise.

Mr. ARNOLD—Did Mr. Smith ever direct you, in
terms, to mkt; a payment?
The witness, alter fencing some time, replied—l can-
not say that he instructed me to do more than to make
a tender with the service of each claim.

The witness continued—l considered that I complied
with my instructions by producing the money. I have
made a good many tenders of the same kind—some in
every parish in the City. I never had occasion to make
a payment. I have withdrawn claims more than once,
when the overseers have told me what was the amount
due for rates. I generally informed Mr. Smith of these
cases, and ha approved of the discretion I had exercised.
The money I tendered was in all cases my own.
Mr. Vi nosey submitted that a sufficient tender had
Leen prayed.
Mr. ARNOLD observed, that in similar cases to the pre-
rent, which hart come before the Court on Monday, his
eattention Lad bei partieularly drawn to the terms of
iha authority then produced. Under the 30th section
of the lieform Act, persons whose names were en the
xates were entitled to claim to be registered ; but the
section rt(plired that they should actually pay er tender
the full amount of the rates then due or owing for the
lir.lnises in resfect of which they were rated. The Le-
rislature evidently cor..templated an actual payment, or
et bond fide tender of the rates. The authority which had
Leen given to Mr. S. Smith by a claimpt, and which was
!produced on Monday, did not adopt the words of the
oth sec. of the Reform Act ; it did net authorise Mr.
:Smith to "pay" or " under" the amount due, but merely
gave an authority to tender payment. He (Mr. Arnold)
.had given effect to that and similar authorities in several
cases, in consequence of the statements of the cla:mants,
that they considered they authorised Mr. Smith or his
agents to pay the rate on his behalf. What he had heard
to-day, however, had led him to regret that he had placed
those claimants on the list, for he feared he had regis-
tered a great many persons who were not entitled to the
franchise. It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Aime
that his intention was merely to make a tender, with-
making an actual payment, Mr. Aime had stated
that he probably would have withdrawn the claims
with respect to which he had tendered payment of rates,
if the overseers had informed him of the amount due ;
and he had also admitted that he had actually taken this
course on more than one occasi n. Under these cir-
cumstances, he (Mr. Arnold) could only come to the
conclusion that the tender was not made bond fide with
the view of paying the rates, if any had been due, but
that the tender was altogether fraudulent and fictitious.
lie considered that the 30th section of the Reform Act
had int been complied with—that a sufficient tender had
not been made by the claimant or any authorised agent
on his behalf. Ho would, therefore, disallow the

Mr. Wansey hoped the Court would grant a ease.
Mr. AnNoLD—Certainly not. If I did so, I should
state to the Court of Common Pleas that the tender was
fictitious and fraudulent.

After some unimportant cases had been disposed of,
Mr. Wanscy said, that on behalf of Josiah Bate!,
who expressed great dissatisfaction with the decision of
the Court in his case, he had to give notice of appeal.
(Mr. Wansey handed up a written notice of appeal to
the Revising Barrister.)
Mr. ARNOLD observed that he had already stated he
would not grant a case.
Mr. Wansey said, that unless the Court thought fit to
grant him a case, he would make an application to the
Court of Common Pleas. No justice could be had in a
court in which such decisions were given.
Mr. ARNOLD—I trust I shall never hear a❑ observa-
tion of that kind again. If gentlemen so far forget ,
themselves as to make observations of that kind, I shall
certainly make an order that they shall not be admitted
into this court. This is a court of justice, and the pro-
ceedings must be conducted with some regularity and
propriety. (Mr. Arnold afterwards returned the notice
of appeal to Mr. Wansey, observing that he had made a
note of it.)
The following is the result of the day's revision:—
Failed or
Sustained. Withdrawn.

Conservative objections
Liberals objections
_ _

Doublo objections
Liberal objections

The statement of the Liberal agents differs slightly
from the above. They state that only 29 of their ob-
jections were disallowed, and that the Conservatives
established 26 objections.

Mr. Arnold proceeded yesterday with the revision of
the lists for the parishes of St. Michael Bassishaw, St.
Olave, Jewry, and St. Stephen, Coleman-street.
In the case of Henry Hoste, of 76, Basinghall-street,
tvho claimed to be placed on the register,
Mr. Aime proved that he had served the claim on the
'overseer, to whom he had tendered payment of any rates
due. The overseer said he knew nothing about it, and
did not receive the money. If the overseer had taken
the money, witness would probably have asked for a re-
ceipt, and he would have looked to Mr. Sidney Smith,
his employer, for repayment.
By Mr. ARNOLD—In some cases, when overseers
have informed me of the amount of rates due from
claimants, I have not paid the rates, but have withdrawn
the claims.
Mr. ARNOLD believed that in this case Mr. Aime had
no intention to pay the rates, and that there had not
been a sufficient tender. He was willing to grant a case
upon the question of law, but if he did so, he would
think it right to state his opinion, that when Aime
offered the money to the overseer he did not intend to
pay the rates due by the claimant.
Claim disallowed.
Mr. Wansey handed in a notice of appeal on behalf of
Mr. Hoste.
Mr. ARNOLD observed that if Mr. Wansey would
state in writing the precise point of law on which he
wished to obtain the decision of the Court of Common
Pleas, he (Mr. Arnold) would grant a case.
James Griffin claimed to be placed on the register for
a warehouse, 13, Btisinghall-street.
Mr. Griffin stated, that he occupied a warehouse on
the first-floor, of the value of 301. a year. The remainder
of th 9 house was occupied by the landlord. The access
INci#less's warehouse, as well as to the portion of
thltouse-in ttbee landlord's occupation, from the street,
by this :§46 door, which was open, all day. The
landlord kept go key of the outer door. No one slept
ion thy pr•Wwear

i .'i

1.n.!
4?....".W NCI—,