The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-29 00:00:00

itn+

THE ith,„7.I[STRATION.

COUNTY OF MIDDL'"A.•
-
The Revising Barristers met yesterda; to revise the
lists of Gray's Inn, St. Giles-in-the-Fields and st. George
(Bloomsbury), St. Andrews (Holborn), St. Geort;e:the"
Martyr, St. Sepulchre, the Rolls, Hatton-garden, Ely-ph.."!
Lincoln's Inn, Furnival's Inn, Staple Inn, Ely-rents, and
Saffron-hill.
OBJECTIONS TO THE RUSSELL FAMILY.
(Before Mr. MARTIN.)
In the parish of St. George, Bloomsbury, the Marquis of
Tavistock was objected to by the overseers, on the ground
that, as a Peer, he was not entitled to be placed on the list.
Mr. Sawray stated, on the part of his Lordship, that
though he did not give up his claim because he was of opi-
nion that he was not justified in seeking to be placed on the
list of voters, still (notwithstanding that there was no Sta-
iaic against his being registered or voting), he was unwilling
to assert Jiis right, because, by so doing, he should place
himself in oppOition to a vote of the House of Commons.
Mr. MARTI,' decided that the Marquess of Tavistock's
claim should be admitted, because he was not authorised
to expunge his name by consent.
The Tories objected to Lord John Russell, Lord
Wriotheslly Russell, Lord Edward Russell, Lord Charles
.Tames Fox Russell, and Lord William Russell, all of whom
claimed by right of a rent-charge on houses situate in Great
Russell-street. Mr. Sawray having proved that they were
really in possession of freeholds for which they claimed,
their Lordships' votes were at once allowed.
Lord George William Russell's vote was admitted, he
not having been properly served with a notice of objection.
BAD SERVICE OF NOTICES BY THE TORIES.
In the course of the proceedings it was discovered that
several notices of objections stated to have been served
upon the tenants in possession by Mr. Payne (an individual
very generally employed by the Tories as agent for that
purpose), were not, in fact, so given to the parties whom he
;mentioned. The first case in which this fact came to light
was that of a claimant named Chandlers.
In a short Lime after the disposal of that case,
Mr. Payne was again called on to prove totice o j
f od
tbec-
and tatehat
tion to a claimant named John Richardson,
he had served it on a man who had told him he WAs the
tenant of Mr. Richardson.
Mr. Richardson—The fact I understand is, that the no-
tice was served, not upon my tenant, but upon his wife.
The woman's evidence was taken, and Mr. Payne was
examined on oath. The testimony was of a conflicting
character.
Mr. MARTIN said that he felt bound to acquit Mr.
Payne of making any wilful mis-statement.
Mr. Field waived the objection to the notice, and the
claim was allowed.
The service of the notice of objection to a claimant
named Cooke, was also objected to.
Mr. Payne stated that he had served it on the tenant,
who told him his name was Abis.
Mr. Abis denied having ever seen Mr. Payne until that
day.
Mr. Payne said he was positive he had served a person
in the shop of Mr. Abis, who told him he was Mr. Abis.
Mr. MARTIN decided it to be a bad service. These ir-
regularities, he observed, in the service of notices, arose
from the adoption, in many instances (he must say by both
sides), of a system of wholesale objections, by which the
person employed to serve a notice was compelled to leave it
on the premises, without taking care that there was a per-
sonal service of the tenant when such was necessary.
The claim was allowed.
At the close of the day, the numbers in Mr. Martin's
Court stood as follows
IN ST. GEORGE, BLOOMSBURY.
By the Tories. .
By the Reformers
SAFFRON-HILL, AND ELY-RENTS.
By. the Tories lB Sustained
By the Reformers 2 Adjourned
I
ST. GILES.
By the Tories 33 Sustained ............... 8
By the Reformers
ST. SEPULCRE.
By the Tories 23 Sustained
Adjourned
By the Reformers
(Before Mr. COVENTRY.)
ST. ANDREW'S PARISH, HOLBORN.
---- Hasler, parish clerk, claimed the right of voting,
because of his occupying what he designated " a Parish
Clerk's Room," in which he had a life interest. He had
the key in his pocket ; had an exclusive right ; could ex-
clude any one from entering ; his predecessors had always
held the room in the same tenure, and he had voted on that
right on the two last elections. He was ready to prove up-
on his oath the Rector had offered to take it of him at
a rent of 101. a year.
Mr. COVENTRY said he would admit the vote, as the
claimant was ready to swear to that fact.
The Rev. Mr. Beresford, Rector of St. Andrew's, Hol-
born, claimed the right of voting, because the burying-
ground, in Gray's Inn-lane, was vested in him by Act of
Parliament, as a freehold, by virtue of his office.—The vote
was allowed.
John Henry Coleman, of No. 27, Bedford-street, Bed-
ford row, was objected to.
This was a case in which it appeared that at the last
election, some individual (a relative it was stated of the
present claimant) personated him. He voted for Mr.
Hume, and it was the opinion of that gentleman's friends,
that it had been a trick on the part of their opponents to
inveigle them into an illegal act done under their sanction.
The case was gone into, and the Court allowed the
-claim of James Charles Coleman, striking out the name of
John Henry Coleman from the list.
George Metcalfe's claim was admitted. It appeared
that this gentleman had been put to a considerable incon-
venience by the Tory agent. There are three houses in Ox-
ford-street of the same number (130), in one of which
only of course the claimant resided, but as he did not oc-
cupy all the three, Mr. Adey served notice of objection,
and,brought the claimant, an invalid, from the sea-side, to
substantiate his right.
Thpmas Martin, No. 70, Red Lion-street, was objected
to by the Tories.
It was proved that he had voted for the county for the
last twenty years.—Vote allowed.
LINCOLN'S-INN.
On the list being called upon, it appeard that the over-
seer had posted two lists on the church doors. One list
had been forwarded in the regular way to the clerk of the
peace, the other had been posted on the church doors as a
supplementary list, in which latter list was included the
names of eighteen gentlemen, in the offices of the Six
Clerks, accompanied with objections. These did not ap-
pear in the original list, nor had it been forwarded to the
clerk of the peace.
Mr. Coppock contended that, as it contained the names
of the Six Clerks, there was consequently an object in
keeping them back.
Mr. COVENTRY said the omission was fatal to the claim-
ants, and he would accordingly strike their names off the

list.
Mr. Adey said, overseers for such omissions were liable
to a penalty of 5001.
The COURT proceeded with the original list.
In the course of arguing the question of occupying cham-
bers, and not sleeping on the premises,
Mr. Adey said it was his intention to bring an action
against Mr. Craig, one of the Revising Barristers in the
city, for having deprived him of his vote for Barnard's Inn,
on that ground. He would bring the action for the pur-
pose of settling the question.
LIBERTY OF THE ROLLS.
Cases were also heard in this Court, but there was no
case of any interest.
At the close, the number of objections were :
ST. ANDREW'S PARISH.
Tory objections 20 Sustained
Liberal ditto 15 Sustained 6
Overseers 14 Sustained l3
LINCOLN'S INN.
Tory objections 4 Sustained
Liberal ditto l5 Sustained
I
Besides the eighteen gentlemen of the Six Clerks' Office,
who were claimed for by the Tory party.
GRAY's INN.
Tory objections None.
Liberal ditto 1 Sustained
I
LIBERTY OF THE ROLLS.
Tory objections.. .. 6 1 Sustained ...
Liberal ditto 1 1 Sustained
One of the Tory objections stands over for consideration.
It will be seen by our Report that the Reformers gained
considerably over the Tories on this day's registration.

The Mercantile Club of Lisbon has been encouraged
by one of her Majesty's Ministers to call upon its Members
to sign a petition to the Queen, requesting her Majesty to
prevent the renewal of any commercial treaty with Great
Britain, and it had already received about 113 signatures
those of several Bank Directors being of the number. This
thoughtless application to the Queen would not be carried
into effect, but on account of the jealousy existing between
the Lisbon and Oporto merchants towards each other, of
which very great advantage has been taken upon the present
occasion. Those of Oporto conceive it to be highly desir-
able that a mutually advantageous treaty should be forth-
with concluded with us, with one reserve—viz., that in pro-
portion as the manufactures of this country shall increase
and be enabled to supply to a great extent the articles o
consumption in the Peninsula, the Portuguese Govern-
ment shall be at liberty to lay a protecting import duty
STONE-BUILDINGS. upon such articles of British manufacture ; it is there
An important question arose relating to the tenure of made manifest, beyond , that if the amount of ex-
Stone-buildings, Lincoln's-inn, which involved the title of ports to England be compared to that of the imports from
Sir Charles Wetherell, and several of the most eminent the same quarter, which are consumed in Portugal, with-
gentlemen of the law, whose names stood upon the register. out taking into account those which merely pass through
It appeared in the evidence that the chambers in Stone- Portugal on their way into Spain, the balance of trade is
buildings are held for 99 years certain, or three lives, with in favour of this country ; but of course, taking both togc-