The Sun.
London, England, 1844-10-09 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX REGISTRATION.

A court, for the registration of voters for the county
of Middlesex, residing within the City of London, was
held yesterday at the London Coffee-house, Ludgate-hill,
before the Revising Barrister, Mr. L. Shadwell.
Mr! Coppock and Mr. James appeared for the Liberals,
and Mr. Payne for the Conservatives.
Joseph Turnly, of the parish of All-hallows, Barking,
was objected to by Mr. Payne, and not appearing to
sustain his claim, his name was struck out.
Mr. James objected to the claim of John Garrett, of
All-hallows the Great.—The objection was disallowed.
Amos Losely, of the same parish, was objected to by
Mr. Payne.
Mr. Losely not having appeared, his name was struck
out of the list.
Henry Bettesworth, of Bank street, Dover, who
claimed out of property in All-hallows the Less, was
objected to by Mr. James.—The claim was allowed.
Jeffrey Joseph Shakerly was objected to by Mr. James,
but the objection was disallowed.
Charles Nix, who claimed from the parish of Under-
shaft, was struck out of the list.
Mr. James objected to Samuel Bell and Wm. Sharpe,
of the parish of St. Andrew by the Wardrobe.
The objections were allowed, and the names struck out.
Charles Hancock, of the same parish, was objected to
by Mr. Payne.—The objection was allowed.
Mr. James objected to J. Backlyton and George Tuff-
nel, whose names were struck out.
William Bonsey, who sought to register out of No. 2,
Copthall-court, was objected to by Mr. Coppock. It ap •
peared that Mr. Bonsey was rated for the house and oc-
cupied it. His claim was disallowed.
Mr. Horace Twiss came to support his claim to be
placed on the registry. He said he had now been sum-
moned to appear here for three or four years, and his
claim was always disallowed. He came forward to-day to
put an end to this vexatious proceeding. His object was
to have costs to put an end to this.
In answer to Mr. Payne, Mr. Twiss said he resided at
5. Park-place, and had a place at Paper-buildings in the
Temple, which he did not occupy.
Mr. Coppock said there was no objection to Mr. Twiss
on that ground. His right to be placed on the register
would depend upon an objection which included many
other votes besides Mr. Twiss's. The objection was
whether the Temple claimants claimed in the right
parish, and if Mr. Twiss's vote fell by the same objection
as the votes of others ho could not complain.
Mr. Twiss said that was all fair, and then left the
Court.

Mr. Coppock objected to the claim of Robert Cooper
Lee Bevan, who sought to be registered out of a freehold
in the parish of Allhallows, Lombard-street. It ap-
peared that Mr. Bevan let all the upper part of the house,
No. 51, Lombard-street, to Stuckey and Co. for 1201.
per amnum, reserving to himself and his partners the
lower part of the premises, with the exception of a pas-
sage, used entirely by Stuckey and Co. The question
was, whether the claimant could register out of a free-
hold house."

It was stated by a gentleman who appeared on behalf
of Mr. Bevan, that there was no difficulty felt by a for-
mer Revising Barrister to admit the claimant.
Mr. SHADWELL was of opinion that the claimant could
not register out of a freehold house whilst he retained a
portion of it.—Name expunged.
When the register of the parish of St. Dun stau's-in- the
West was about to be gone into,
Mr. Payne said, before the register was gone into, it
would be necessary for him to say a few words. He ap-
peared there at the special request of Mr. Baron Alder-
sun, and he wanted to have the list before him thrown
overboard. If that list was repudiated, the Revising
Barrister must go back to the register ; and having done
that, the question then was, whether an objection taken
to the parties in that list would reach to parties on the
old list ?

The REVISING BARRISTER said he did not know what
:he case was.

Mr. Payne said that the Inner Temple was an extra-
parochial parish, having no overseers of its own, and it
was provided by the Reform Act that it should be joined
to the nearest and least populous parish. That being so,
all the claimants in the Inner Temple should have
claimed from the parish of Whitefriars, which was the
nearest and least populous parish, having overseers and
a co-list of its own, and not from the parish of St. Dun-
stan's-in-the-West. But he contended that the present
list ought to be thrown overboard.
The REVISING BARRISTER asked what he was to do ?
Was he not to send in a list at all to the clerk of the
peace?
Mr. Payne said that it was decided in the City that
the list should be thrown overboard.

Mr. Coppock said that in the City the list was made
out by the overseers of the poor, but here the list was
made out by the parties themselves. The parties them-
selves originated the list, and not the overseers, and that
made the distinction. In the present case they were
agreed on both sides that the parish of Whitefriars was
the nearest least populous parish to the Inner Temple.
the number of inhabitants amounting to only 1,294 ac-
cording to the last census, whereas the population of St.
Dunstan's-in-the-West amounted to 2,296, and it was
clear from the 22d section that the claimants from the
Inner Temple should be from the precinct of White-
friars.
The REVISING BARRISTER said he could not throw
the list overboard. If those persons had gone into the
wrong parish, the question was, ought they not to suffer
for it ?

Sir Edmund Hall Alderson, Knight, one of the Barons
of the Court of Exchequer, and several other names,
were then expunged, amongst whom were the names of
Lord Abinger, Lord A. Harvey, M.P., Sir F. Pollock,
Sir F. Thesiger, M.P., Baron Parke, Mr. Horace
Twiss, &c.
Mr. Coppock then objected on the same grounds to
those who claimed from property in the Middle Temple,
but it appearing that the Middle Temple adjoins the
parish of St. Dunstan's-in-the-West, which is less popu.
lous than St. Clement Danes, the other adjoining parish,
the objection was overruled.
The result of the day was highly satisfactory to the
Liberal cause. The numbers stand thus :

LIBERALS. - St. Dunstan's-in-the-West—Took objee.
tions, 87 ; sustained, 56 ; failed, 31, Allhallows, Bark.

ing—Took objections, 37 ; sustained, 37. In the other
parishes—Took objections, 137 ; sustained, 90 ; failed,
47.—Total objections, 261 ; sustained, 183 ; failed, 78.

~ . . . .
CONSERVATIVES.-St. Dunstan's-in-the-West and All-
hallows, Barking—No objections. In the other parishes
—Took objections, 30 ; sustained, 21 ; failed, 9.
Majority for Liberals, 162.