The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-17 00:00:00

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX.

The first Court. for the above purpose was held yester-
day by Thomas Coventry and Francis F. Martin, Esqrs.,
the revising barristers for the County, at the Castle Inn,
in the town of Brentford. At the appointed hour
(eleven o'clock) the revisinc, barristers made their appear-
ance, and it was, arranged that Mr. ,Coventry should ex-
amine the lists of Ealin:2;, Acton, and Isleworth, and that
those of Twickenham, Weston, Northolt, New Brentford,
Harwell, Greenfold, and Perrival should be revised by Mr.
Martin.

There were altogether ninety-nine votes objected to. Of
this number 85 objections were taken by the Conservatives,
and 14 by the overseers—sixty-two of them were sustained.
Amongst the persons objected to in the parish of Acton,
was Mr. E. L..Buliver, AI; P., who it was alleged had not
resided in the house out of which he claimed the right to
vote for the period of twelve months previous to the 81st
of July, as required by the Act. Mr. Bulwer did not ap.
pear to defend his right ; and
Mr. Ady (the agent for the Conservatives) observed
that it was most extraordinary that a gentleman, who bad
himself a hand in framing the Reform Act, should claim a
right to vote in consequence of inhabiting_ a house for three
months only, knowing, as he must have done, that it was
essential to the soundness of his qualification that he should
have dwelt in the house for twelve months previously to the
31st July.
Mr. Bulwer's claim was disallowed. Dr. Carpue's claim
to vote was also refused, because he could not s.vear that he
resided in the house from which he derived his qualification
as occupier, although be still held it for the purpose of con-
ducting there a great part of his professional business.
In the parish of Ealing several market gardeners, and
others, were objected to by the Conservative agent, on the
ground that they had put in their claim to be registered as
leaseholders, and that the Act required that all such per-
sons should be possessed of a beneficial interest of 501. and
upwards. As it appeared, however, that' these persons
paid a rent of over 50/. a year each, and were themselves
the occupiers of the grounds out of which they claimed the
right to vote, the revising barrister (Mr. Coventry) ex-
pressed his unwillingness to be bound down in his decision

Amongst the cases of objection which we consider
worthy of notice was that of Messrs. William and George
Ashby, who claimed each the right to vote out of pre-
mises which Viey, held by lease in partnership, being of Cc
value of 101/. a year. It was urged that George Ashby,
who was the son of William, was not entitled to a vote, as
there was no deed showing that a moiety pf these premises
had been conveyed to him. The revising barrister having
changed his description to that of " occupier," and having
ascertained that 101/. a year rent was charged for these
premises to the firm of the Messrs. Ashby, permitted the
names of both these gentlemen to be placed on :Ile register.
There was also a question of agency raised, which was
one of some interest, and elicited considerable discussion.
A gentleman named Field, who bad conducted the defence
on the part of the Liberals to the oljections put in by the
Tories, asserted his right to appear for an individual named
Leader, and establish by every means in his power a prima
facie case of qualification.
Mr. Ady objected to his doing so without special autho-
rity from the individual for whom he appeared, and added,
that Mr. Leader was a bankrupt, and would not by any
means be obliged to any individual who would endeavour to
prove him to be still in possession of property sufficient to
entitle him to vote, and which would subject ifin to fur-
ther claims from his creditors.

Mr. MARTIN gave it as his opinion (in which Mr. Co-
VENTRY concurred) that any Person wishing to make out a
prinui facie case in favour of the franchise should be allowed
to be heard, without requiring that he should produce special
authority from the individual on behalf of whose claim he
appeared ; but that when any vote was objected to, the
person urging such objection should be permitted to do
so only when he showed that he was especially autho-
rised by the person for whom he acted.
Mr. Field accordingly persevered, and succeeded in
proving that Mr. Leader was a person qualified to vote.
The case, however, which especially calls for particular
notice in the proceedings of the day, was that of a person
named John Stevenson, as it proves to what lengths the
Tories have proceeded in their drafts to diminish the
number of those entitled to vote, by urging such objections
as they could not hope to have decided in their favour, ex-
cept through the lukewarmness or inattention of these
against whom they were preferred. Of this class was the
objection to the elector to whom we have alluded, though
from the public spirit (unfortunately too little prevalent)
exhibited by him, the views of the Conservatives were, in
this instance, disappointed.
Mr. Stephenson resided in York, and claimed the right
to vote in-the county of Middlesex, by reason of property
which Le possessed in Brentford. There was not (as he
himself stated) the least doubt of his being properly quali-
fied in point of property, but it was expected that, if an
objection were taken to one who lived at such a- distance
from the place where the property intitling him to vote was
situate, he would never take the trouble of appearing to an-
swer it.. He, however, for one, avowed that he would not
hesitate to travel 500 miles in order to vindicate his right
of voting. when it was unjustly called in question, and he
appeared there for that purpose.
He was at once admitted ; and he declared his intention
of voting against those who had put him to so much unne-
cessary trouble.
AR the cases of objection wore disposed of, and the two
Courts adjourned at a little past four o'clock.