The Sun.
London, England, 1833-10-23 00:00:00

NORWICH REGISTRATION.

(B fare W. ELMSLEY, Esq. and J. COLLYEK, Esq.)
The registration for this city, with its county,
terminated on Monday. It seems to have been the
inclination of the barristers, both on this and on
the last occasion, to uphold the franchise as far as
it was possible to do so, consistently with the pro-
visions of the Reform Act. It is probable, there-
fore, that many of their decisions would be disap-

proved of by the more strait-laced practitioners
of the law. The list of freemen, together with
•hat of the ten-pound occupiers in the Mancroft
Ward and in part of the Northern Ward, were re-
vised by W. Elrnsley, Esq., while his colleague,
Mr. Collyer, revised the lints of the occupiers in the
wards of Conisford and Wymer, and the remain-
ing part of the Northern Ward and the precincts.
The COURT was employed during a considerable
part of Friday morning in discussing the vote of the
Rev. R. F. Elwin, rector of St. Margaret's. The
reverend gentleman claimed as a freeholder by virtue
of his rectory ; but it appeared that the profits of
the rectory were derived entirely from burial fees,

within and without the church, there being no pro-

fits derived either from glebe land or tithes.

E., upon being questioned by the barrister, said
that he had more than 10s. a-year from each de-

scription of burial fees respectively; namely, more
than 40s. a•year from common burial fees, and a

like sum from fees from burials in the church, &c.

Mr. STAFF, in support of the vote, contended
:hat it was never doubted that the freehold of a

rectory was in the rector; and that fees for burials
were incident to the freehold, and consequently
were to be considered profits issuing out of the
freehold, so as to entitle the owner to a vote. As

a proof of this, he contended, that upon the mort-
gage of a rectory, fees are always included in the
premises mortgaged, and might, upon default of
payment of interest, be seized by the mortgagee.
After a long and able argument, he submitted that
the vote was good.
Mr. BECKWITH, on the other side, contended
that the case of the mortgage of a rectory was ir-
relevant on the present occasion, more particularly
as the mortgage of a living was void under the
statute of Elizabeth. That such a mortgage was
void had been decided in several very recent cases.
—(The Barrister here intimated that those cases
had chiefly reference to the form of the warrant of
attorney: such warrants of attorney being invalid,
If they appeared to have been given with a
view to perpetual sequestration, but not other-
wise.) At all events (Mr. Beckwith continued),
The case of a mortgage of a rectory did not apply
one way or the other. It could not be said that
these were profits issuing out of the land ; they
were annexed to the office of the rector in his per-
•onal capacity. At common law no fees were pay-
able in respect of ordinary burials. And with re-
spect to vaults, the parson had only the control of
them as being the fittest judge of the propriety of
their being made. It was laid down in Burn's
Ecclesiastical Law, as also in Gibson and other

books, that this was the origin of his right to de-
mand fees for burying in vaults, brick graves, &c.
Upon the whole, he thought it clear that these were
riot such profits as were contemplated by the law as
giving a freeholder a right to vote.
The Revising Barrister (Mr. COLLYER) said that
this was at least a case of novelty, if not of im-
portance, and therefore he would state his reasons
for the opinion he was about to give. He thought,
upon the evidence, that the burial fees in question
might be divided into three classes—namely, those
which were taken for ordinary burials of pa-
rishioners; those which were taken for the burials
out-parishioners in the churchyard ; and those
which were taken for burials in vaults and brick
graves. If the vote had been claimed in respect of
either of the two first classes of burial fees, he should
have been of opinion that it could not be allowed.
Fees of that kind were due only of custom, were
not incident to the freehold, and ordinarily went to
the curate amongst the surplice fees. The question
then was, whether this vote could be supported in.
espect of the last of these three classes. Now it
was true that the origin of the rector's enjoyment of
these fees was, according to the ecclesiastical law,
the discretion which it was supposed he had, rela-
tive to the situation of the vaults, arid the propriety
of burying such and such persons in them. The
common law, on the ether hand, looked at these
fees as incidental to the freehold, and he, the Re-
vising Barrister, would abide by the doctrine of the
common law. At this distance of time tt was un-
necessary to look to the origin of the fees in ques-
tion, more particularly when it was considered that
churches at the present day were constantly in the
care and charge of curates, while the rectors, never-
theless, retained in their own hands the profits of the
vaults. It might be a custom, in some places, for
the churchwardens and other persons to have those
profits, but, upon the whole, they were ordinarily
enjoyed by the rector. For this reason, therefore,
and adverting to the doctrine of the common law
upon the subject, he was of opinion that these were
profits incidental to the freehold, and that the vote
must be allowed.
On Monday, a short discussion took place before
Nlr. Elmsley, Esq., relative to the rating of persons
as partners. Two brothers were in partnership,
one of whom only was rated. It was urged in fa-
vour of the vote, that at the last registration vir-
tual rating was constantly admitted in the case of
partners. On the other side, it was said that such
virtual rating had been confined to cases where the
name of the firm appeared on the face of the rates,
as, for instance, Smith and Co., in which case any
partner in the firm had been considered as virtually
rated. In the present case it could not be contended
that the firm were rated, for the assessment was in
the name of one partner only, and that with his
Christian name. It was admitted that both part-
ners paid the rates.
The Barrister was of opinion that it would be
going too far to hold this a sufficient rating, and,
accordingly, held the vote bad.
In Hack's case, it was held, that a wooden build-
ing, standing on piles, without door or window, but
covered with tiles, and made for the reception of
horses feeding in a meadow, was not a building
within the Act.
Like decisions were made relative to a shed built
with faggots for the reception of cows ; and to a
tool-house built with brick and mortar, containing
a fire-place, over which was a summer-house be.
longing to an adjoining tenant. In the latter case,
the Barrister said the building contemplated by the
Act must be such as gives some value to the premises.
In the case of Thomas French Berney, Esq., the
distance of his house at Morton from Hellestlen
Church, which is within the boundary of the county
of Norwich, was proved to be six miles and a half
but the distance was disputed, on the ground that
the measurement had been made partly by a beidle-
way through Mr. B.'s own property. The Faarrister
was of opinion that the measurement was sufficient
for the purposes of the Act, and that the distance
might might he measured in any way in whieh the claimant
was not a trespasser.
Marty other cases were decided involving points
of law, more interesting, perhaps, to Revising
Bar-
risters than to any other class of community.theclai
ms and
Notwithstanding the late election, the
objections at this place were argued with consider-
able anxiety. Of course, however, the intetest
taken in the registration has somewhat abated.

MAYOR OF LIVERPOOL.—At the Cols'e of
the poll on Friday, at hall past three, t.e vote:, ate .r-_.
u";oriagbdtu ec Wright,
Bald, 304, AldermanWri
t,