The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-20 00:00:00

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.

(From the Preston Chronicle.)
On Monday last, at twelve o'clock, the Court for the
revision of the lists of voters for this borough, and the
hearing of objections and claims, was opened at the Court-
house, before E. E. Deacon, S. Temple, and H. S. Stan-
hope, Esqrs., the revising barristers,—of whom E. E.
Deacon, Esq., being senior, took the chair. There also
appeared on the bench, John Addison, Esq., Mayor, T. B.
Addison, Esq.. Recorder, James Dixon, and John Lawe,
Esqrs., and others. Round the Counsel's table were seated
a considerable number of attorneys employed to support
claims or objections ; and in one of the next seats appeared
Mr. Hunt and Captain Forbes, with some of their friends.
Owing to some mistake, the doors of the body of the Court
had not been thrown open to the public at large, and this
being observed by the Recorder, he ordered the constables
to apprize the people, and to offer no obstruction to their
peaceable ingress. This was no sooner announced than
the crowd rushed into the Court and the gallery with much
precipitation and noise, and in a few moments the whole
available space was occupied by a dense assemblage. This
was scarcely done, when a man in the gallery observing, we
suppose. Mr. Hunt in the Court. raised his hat and shouted
out, " Three cheers for old Harry !"—a call which was
met by three deafening cheers, slime led by loud clapping
of hands. The Chairman rose, and when the noise had
subsided, said, that after such conduct on the part of those
who had just been admitted, he must state, if any more
noise were made to disturb the business of the court, the
parties doing so should certainly be taken into custody.
Mr. Hunt rose, and addressing the chairman, said that.
with all due submission, the noise bad been made before

the opening of the court, and he did hope and trust that it
would not be repeated.
The business afterwards proceeded without interruption,
The Clerk having read the appointment of the barristers
by the senior Judge of the Ass;ze Court, Mr. Deacon
briefly remarked, that the business should proceed in three
distinct courts, and notified in which rooms the lists of
the three districts first to be revised should respectively be
proceeded with, No. 1 being to be heard in the Court
Room. Mr. Temple and Mr. Stanhope then rose and
went, the former to the Grsnd Jury Room, to revise the
objections, &c., of district No. 2, and the latter to the
office of the Clerk of the Peace, to revise that of district
No. 3.

The objected votes were first proceeded with, but no-
thing interesting transpired, owing to the simple nature
of qualification upon which the elective franchise is gene-
rally claimed in this borough—namely, a six months' resi-
dence, whether as housekeeper or lodger, before the 7th
of June. Several names having been called of voters who
did not appear, the barrister stated, that unless a good
reason was assigned for their non-attendance, after the
notice which had been given, their names must be struck
out. Mr. Hunt stated, with respect to John Anderton,
(the first name called), and one or two others, that they
were confined at their factories, and could not possibly
attend at that time. He and Captain Forbes therefore
requested that those cases should stand over till the fol-
lowing day. To this the barrister politely assented, and
other names were proceeded with.
fhe name of John Bamber being called, and as having
been objected to by Nr. Watkinson, on the ground that no
such person was to be found in his canvass-book of that
name, the Barrister said, that in the general list of voter
there appeared four parties of that name, and he called
upon the objector to state to which of the four he ob
jected. Mr. Watkinson could not point out which; all
he contended was that no John Bamber lived in No. 1
District. The Barrister said, that he looked to the general
list without reference to the district ; and he was of opinion,

:hat when there were several parties of the same name oh•

Xll

jected to, it behoved the objector, to state distinctly the re.
sidence and trade of the one objected to. He should on
this point, however, consult his colleagues, and the case in
tho interim might stand over.
On the cases of William Banks, who was objected to,
hut did not appear, Mr. Buck submitted, as attorney for
the objector, that if the party so objected to was not forth•
coming, it would not be necessary to call evidence, as his
non-appearance would disqualify him. The Barrister ruled,
chit the Judge ought, nevertheless, to hear the evidence
respecting the person objected to.
The Courts adjourned soon after sun-set, until the fol-

lowing day at ten o'clock.
On TUESDAY, the Courts were occupied by the same
routine business, the monotony of which was undisturbed,
s,ve by some occasional sparring between Mr. Hunt and
Mr. Haydock, the latter appearing for the most part as an
opposer of the disputed claims. These sallies were fre-
quetitly repressed by the barrister, with the greatest good
humour and urbanity. Several points of law were ag-tin
reserved, and a disposition was shown by all the barristeis
to give every possible indulgence, consistently with the
law, to objected voters who had neglected to come up ;
the names were twice called over in the course of the day ;
and if they st 11 failed to appear, it was agreed, as a final
chance, to hear thein on the following day, between
stated hours, when it was considered they could
most conveniently attend. This day the barrister in
Court No. 1, addressing Mr. Hunt, said, that as he
was a party int,rest-d, he should state the decision to
which he (Mr. Deacon) and his colleagues. had come, re-
lative to one of the points of law reserved on the previous
day. They had, he said, decided, that when (as in the
present goner il list ), there appeared two or more names of
voters, alike in christian and surname, it was necessary
that the person oijecting to any one of them should, in his
notice or objection, point out distinctly-which of them he
alluded to, by supplying their place of residence and trifle.
In the case of John Timber, yesterday, this was not corn-
plied with. There were four John Bamberg, and it was
quite preposterous to suppose that any one objection could
,pply to them all. The Act of Parliament had not there-
fore been complied with, and the objection consequently
could not be entertained.

Mr. HUNT, in the course of the proceedings, took oc-
casion to remark, on the Barrister expunging from the
list the name of a man, who had, after due time had been
given, failed to appear, that he thought it hard a man
should he disfranchised for non-attendance, when it was
well known that many of the voters were imprisoned in
the factories by their toasters, who would ❑ot allow them
to attend.
Mr. DEACON said, that it was too touch to say that men

who were at their work were imprisoned. On the same
principle, he, and anybody who had duties to perform,
might while executing them be called prisoners. He con-
-idered that it was casting an nudue reflection upon mas-
ters to employ such language, which he could not but
impute to a mistake in Mr. Hunt. if he (Mr. D.) were
satisfied, by evidence produced, that any person was de-
tained from appearing, at a reasonable time, to secure his
vote, he should take a memorandum of the fact, and per-
mit such voter to come up at another time.
There was nothing in the courts on Wednesday or
Thursday worthy of particular notice, hut on Friday, it
having been announced on Thursday that the argurnerrs of
the several advocates or agents in the respective interests,
would be heard on certain points, of law, affecting a consi-

deralt!e number of the claimants for votes, and a decision
would be pronounced on each, the Court was crowded,
and soon after 10 o'clock the three barristers took their
places on the bench. Previously, however, to hearing the
arguments, the case of George Hopkinson, a weaver,
which had been postponed from the day before, was heard
by the Court. The claimant and a witness contended
that he had arrived in Preston about Christmas last, and
was consequently entitled to a vote, but it was sworn to
that he had presented himself at a house, on the 3,1 of
February, with a bundle in his hand, and had there sought
lodging and work, stating that he had come from Bolton
and Manchester. His name was struck from the list.
Mr. DEACON then stated in effect, that the three points
' to be ar4ued were, whether the residence of 6 months re-
quited in the voter, as a qualification; the receiving of
parochial relief within one year; and the being of age,
were to be dated hack from the 7th of June, the day of
the passing of the Reform Bill, or from the 31st of July.
The barristers, he said, would hear the arguments of the
gentlemen concerned in the cases that would be effected
by a decision of these questions.
Mr. HAYDOCIC opened the argument. The whole
seemed to hinge on the construction of the 33d section of
the Act which as he should have occasion to refer to it in
the course of his address, he should read at length. Having
read the fitst clause of the section, he contended that so
far all the electors of Preston would thereby be disqualified
were it not for a saving clause that followed. He then
read the section to the end. The first inquiry was, who
were the persons whose rights were reserved by this Act?
and tais inquiry brought him to the borough of Preston.
The Learned Gentleman here went into a long history of
the elective franchise as possessed in the borough from the
earliest periods of history. He then came to the first
question at issue—namely, as to whether the residence was
to be dated hack from the 6th June or the 31st July. In
determining this question, they must consider the mean-
ing of the word now as having ref rence to the 7th June,
He contended that if the election had taken place on the
7th of June, no one could have claimed the franchise for a
five months' residence, and that, therefore, they were dis-
qualified by thu meaning of the word now, as so applied.
It was impossible to give any other construction to the
Act, and with respect to the other clauses there was no
difficulty in reconciling the declaration that a voter should
not be registered any year unless he were qualified as an

-{"k 2 J.. .4\
\

elppe on thkSiat July,--ifkuph were the day of election,
becaust if .qtaiified on the '7oll- June, there was no difficulty
in his retaining that qualification up to the 31st July.
Mr. STANHOPE inquired whether, if in this bolough a
person received rebel, his franchise was entirely destroyed,
or only suspended ?
The reply was, " only suspended."
Mr. DEACON said, it was the common law of Parlia-
ment that no person receiving relief could vote.
Mr. HA SMOCK continued—On the question of relief,
they were again brought to the word now, and he con-
tended, that no person receiving relief within 12 months,
ending the 7th of June, was qualified to vote.

Mr. BUCK' followed on the same side.
Mr. NOBLE, on the other side, said, that taking the
33d section, in conjunction with other clauses, and looking
to the whole Act as extending the enfranchisement, he
considered that the date to be taken was the 31st of July,
He then adduced some arguments referring to the qualifi-
cation, and contended that the clause, and, indeed, the
whole Bill, auth, razed the most liberal construction as it
was one of enlranchisernent.—(Mr. Hunt here exclaimed,
" Hear, hear," and was called to order.)
Mr. DEACON said, that such expressions might be
suitable in the House of Commons, but were not proper in
a Court of Justice.
Mr. HUNT stood corrected.
Mr. NOBLE continued—There were voters who might
be qualified, but were by some reason incapacitated to
vote on the 7th of June, and if between that time and the
31st of July that incapacity were removed, he considered
that the Act entitled them to vote. He concluded by
pointing out the distinction between incapacity and quail-
ficat ion, as evidenced by the 50th section.
Mr. HUNT then rose. He was willing to leave the
matt ,r to the decision of the Court, for as judges, and not
merely as advocates, they were more competent, owing to
their better acquaintance with the Bill, to come to a cor-
rect conclusion. He then referred to the preamble of the
Bill to prove that it was not intended as a measure of dis
franchisement, but " to extend the elective franchise to
many of his Majesty's subjects." It was intended, indeed,
to disfranchise freemen in small and inconsiderable

boroughs, but no one could say that Preston was a de-
cayed or inconsiderable place. Doubts might arise as to
the construction of the Act in some points, hut no one,
he conceived, who was without prejudice, could contend
that it was to be confined to the 7th of June. He re-
ferred to the 33d clause, which stated that no person
should vote but those who now have a right, &c. The
other side hitched upon the word now; but if that were
concluded to mean the 7th of June, how happened it that
all through the Act it was repeated that the person claim-
ing should have the qualification previous to the 31st of
July. In every clause, and even in all the amendments
before the House of Lords, the 31st of July was invariably
used, and surely the framers of the Bill would never have
intended that this little word " now" should annul all
these repeated dates. He (Mr. Hunt) was perfectly satis-
fied to leave the decision to the Court, without any

lengthened argument, for he, as well as every one who had
spoken, was but an advoc ite—indeed he was a partisan ;
and though the Court had thought fit to hear them, it
would be extreme vanity in him to suppose, fur his part,
that he could assist them in the judgment of the case.
With regard to the construction of the Act—and he
meant no disrespect whatever to the Court when he
cried " Hear, hear," which he admitted was improper in
such a place--
Mr. DEACON (politely)—Certainly not, Mr. Hunt, 1
did not suppose so. But the force of habit, you know—
(A laugh.)
Mr. HUNT—Upon all occasions when, during the dis-

missions in the House of CommAis on the Reform Bill,
freemen were to be deprived of their rights, the Tories
had stood up and defended the rights of the working
lasses, and particularly those of the people of Preston:
and whenever it was contended that it was oppressive to
deny those rights, Lord Althorp had always said that the
gentleme❑ of the law, or those who would attend to the
working of the Bill, would construe its provisions as far
as possible in favour of those rights, and that when there
was a doubt the Barristers would give the claimants the
benefit of that doubt, as it had for its object the enlran-
thisement of large towns, and disfranchisement of only
small and contemptible places. Here, in Preston, the
right of suffrage had been carried to the fullest extent, and
he considered the Barristers would only by complying with
the intention of the Legislature, and duing their duty to
them and to the country, by taking the most liberal con-
struction of the Act.

Mr. HAYDOCK replied--but first retorted upon Mr.
Hunt. That gentleman, he observed, a ter some prelimi-
nary matter which we could not hear, has stated be was
favourable to the extension of the franchise, and that, as-

sisted by the Tories, he had been all along labouring to
extend it. But what would these who heard him think,
when they were told that when the first Reform Bill was
introduced, Mr. 11. prised it to the skies, although by
that Bill the whole of the electors of Preston would have
been disfranchised? (Mr. Haydock was called to order by
the Court.) He had merely stated this to counteract the
effect which Mr. Hunt had hoped to produce by what lie
had said there, and also out of his inn window. The
Leaned Gentietuan then replied at some length to the
arguments on the other side.
The Barristers, after i brief consultation, retired for a
few minutes. 0n their return, Mr. DEACON stated that
he and his colleagues had fitly considered the arguments
NO ably adduced, and that it appeared to him that the
questions depended upon the 33d section. The Act was
not strictly either, as a whole, enfranchising or disfran•
chising. It destroyed and it created the franchise, and it gave
new rights. In the section alluded to tie alluded to the
words—those persons who now have the right, as implying
the 7th June,when the Act was passed. The Act subsequently
defines the time of registration, the 31st July, so that the
elector was not only to be qualified by the 7th of June, but
to retain his qualification up to the 31st of July. With
respect to parochial relief, the Bill fixed the disqualifica-
tion to be within tha year ending on the last date—the
31st July. 'With respect to cutting off rights he was
quite sure that that would not be done by them when the
slightest right existed ; and it was a great satisfaction to
them, that though they gave their opinion, the rejected
voters might still go to the hustings, and might insist on
their votes being registered, so that their right might be
decided before a higher tribunal. His colleagues nearly
agreed with him—and he regretted that the words of the
Act were in explicit as not to be got over.
The following is the result of the proceedings up to the
close last night