The Sun.
London, England, 1866-10-10 00:00:00

THE REGISTRATIONS.

CITY OF LONDON.
Yesterday morning Mr. Spencer Perceval, the
barrister appointed to revise the lists of voters for
'the City of London, held his fifth sitting in the
Court of Common Pleas at Guildhall, when the lists
for the parishes of thewards of Cheap, Cordwainers,
D o w
Without,
gate , Co w
r nhei llrtaken.
C riPPe
gate Within, and Cripple-
gate

Mr. Sydney. Smith and Mr. Ledger, appointed for
the City of London Liberal Registration Association
and Mr. J. Carlisle (of Nokes, Carlisle, and Francis,
of Finch-lane), assisted byMr. Cole, represented the
Conservative Association.

In the parish of St. Andrew by the Wardrobe,
Mr. George Webb and Mr. Henry Webb claimed to
be inserted on the list, in respect of successive occu-
pation at Earl-street from No. 10, Addle-hill.
The Revising Barrister asked why the claim was
objected to.

Mr. Ledger said that these gentlemen carried on
business at Earl-street as partners, and he believed
the value of the premises was insufficient to give the
qualification.

Mr. Carlisle, in support of the claims, called one
of the partners, who said that they paid £2O a year

sufficient, as they must in these cases allow £6.
The Revising Barrister thought the court should
have more direct evidence of the value.
Mr. Carlisle--Now, Mr. Webb, if it was a ques-
tion of having the tenancy determined, would you
and your brother not rather pay the additional
rental ?
Mr. Webb—l should think so.
The Revising Barrister—What is your tenancy ?
Mr. Webb—From year to year, and of course
subject to the six months' notice.
The Revising Barrister—ls it not a question
whether the owner would not give the notice if the
premises were worth £3O when only £2O was paid ?
Mr. Carlisle—But it must be admitted that all
City property has increased in value, and especially
offices and counting-houses, during the past three
years.
The Revising Barrister repeated that he must
have evidence of the value ;
and, after hearing Mr.
Webb, the karned gentleman said he was of opinion
that the holding was not of sufficient value to qualify
the two partners, and as there were two claimants
he must expunge both names.
The names were accordingly
expunged.
In the parish of St. Lawrence Jewry, Mr. D.
Miller, who was on the register in respect of pre-
mises in Guildhall-yard, was objected to, by both

parties.
Mr. Carlisle stated that Mr. Miller was the Secre-
tary of the Irish Society, and that he merely occu-
pied the premises in consequenceMn of his being a
servant of the society.
t his right to re-
the premises as the secretary of d
main on the register, and state that e occupied
the Irish Society,
tbuthemt that
though
hhoe was u
gh nroatt rated
tfor them,
his
owa:d paid the rent of
pocket. He did
not live on the premises, but he had a room and
bedroom which he could occupy whenever be
pleased.
Mr. Sidney Smith said that, so far as he was con-
cerned, he would withdraw his objection, as he
believed Mr. Miller to have a good claim. There
was the celebrated case of the Anti-Corn-law
League, where several gentlemen claimed to be put
upon the register in respect of the premises occupied
by that body. Those gentlemen did not pay the
rent of the premises,and he was not aware that they
were rated for then. They simply went there for
the purpose of writing their letters and reading the
newspapers, and yet it was held that they had a
sufficient qualification, and their names wero placed
upon the register.
Mr. Carlisle—But they were held to be tenants of
the premises.
Mr. Sidney Smith—They were not the tenants.
the Anti-Corn-law
held was what
TLheaeoper,emanisdesal
he
lweret h s p
or ec
cnut eda t by o
This casen wasthey therefore much
stronger than that, as Mr. Miller had a residence on
the premises, and was naturally rated for them.
He also paid the rent of them, and received the
receipt in his own name.
Mr. Carlisle said, after what had been said by
Mr. Sidney Smith and by Mr. Miller himself, he
should withdraw his objection.
The Revising Barrister said if both objections
were withdrawn, there was, of course, au end to the
matter, and be should retain Mr. Miller's name on
the list.
In the parish of St. Michael, Wood-street, Mr.
Price claimed to be put upon the list in respect of
premises in Wood-street.
A clerk attended, and stated that Mr. Price was
one of the five partners in Messrs. Morley's firm,
but he was not are
rental what wis about £2,as the rental or value.
r. Led aware
gerTooo, while
M
£5OO is sufficient.
Mr. Carlisle—We all know that Messrs. Morley's
is a great firm, but the act required the barrister to
be satisfied on the evidence.
After some further conversation,
The Revising Barrister expressed himself satisfied
that the qualification was proved, and therefore he
Bhould insert the name of Mr. Price on the register.
In the same parish Alr. George King was objected