The Sun.
London, England, 1842-09-28 00:00:00

iltpplied generally in aid of the parochial collection,
and those which, though distributed by the parish-
officers have been limited by the donor to a certain
specific purpose; the receipt of the fernier has the
same effect in working a disqualification as would the
receipt of relief from the ordinary parish fund, but the
latter has not that effect, except by the custom of
particular boroughs." Chambers could not, there-
fore, be disqualified as a recipient of parochial re-
lief." The next question was, whether he was in the
receipt of such " other alms," as by the law of Par-
liament would disqualify him from voting.. In dis-
posing of that point, the Learned Barrister referred
to the Taunton case, 1 Douglas, 370, in which a Com-
mittee of the Rouse -of Commons held that " alms
meant parochial collection, or parochial relief ;"
while charity meant " sums arising from the reve-
nue of certain specific sums which had been esta-
blished or bequeathed for the purpose of assisting the
poor." Now, according to those definitions it could
nut be said that Chambers was in the receipt of alms.
lie merely derived a charitable accommodation or
advantage from a grant established or bequeathed no
one knew how. The cases were numerous in which
person had received money, clothing, and food from
funds left by charitable individuals, and in which the
person receiving such relief has nevertheless been
held entitled to the exercise of the franchise. Among
others, the Learned Barrister cited cases referring to
the boroughs of Bedford and Sudbury, in which the
House of Commons haddecided such "aids" or " alms"
as those received by Mr. Chambers to be no disquali-
fication, and finally remarked that Mr. Rogers had
laid it down as a general principle, that " in old
boroughs, where the usage is not clear, and in all the
new boroughs, with regard to charitable foundations
'' and endowments, those only appear to disqualify
r;hoie funds have formed a part of the parish re-
sources for the relief of the poor, and have been
managed-by the overseers or other officers." Now
that 'description did not apply to the case of Cham-
bers;' and the Learned Barrister could not, therefore,
11Atiliai- the words of the Legislature, " or other
applied to him in a disqualifying sense; and
`''tle.llkmeth6uld consequently remain on the list.
list's' of householders were then received from 1
'• Vie. overseers and collectors. No point of interest
arose in the course of the proceedings.

------- ---
W ESTMINSTER REGISTRATION.
(THIS DAY.)
. The list of objections in the parish of St. Martin-
in-the-Fields was gone through, and a very long dis-
cussion ensued upon the names of William Jones and
Samuel Smith, who had been objected to by the
Liberals.
. It appeared that there were several persons in the
parish who rejoiced in th 3 cognomens of " William
Jones" and " Samuel Smith," and that the notice of
objeCtion to these parties did not distinguish, by
•
stating the residence or qualification of the parties
. objected to, as is the usual way, which of the William
-Joneses, or which of the Samuel Smiths, was intended.
In this dilemma the overseers were not able to pub-
lish the residence of the parties in their printed lists,
and the consequence was that the real Simons Pure,
not being aware that they were objected to, did not
appear to support their votes.
The REVISING BARRISTER said, the difficulty
which presented itself to his mind in thege cases was
Ilether or not he should at once expunge the names
the parties, as they had not appeared to support
.their votes. Such a proceeding would, no doubt, be
hard upon them, as they could not be aware that they
were the persons objected to. Blame could not
attach to them, nor could' it to the overseers, or to
the person making the objection, for the overseers
not knowing which of the William Joneses, or wlieh
of the Samuel Smiths was intended, could not do
~more than publish the names without any residence or
qualification. Nor did it appear that the notice of
objection was informal, for all that the Act required
was---" I ob.;ect to the name of - on the register ;"
not a word was said about residence or qualifica-
tion.. Under these circumstances he should not ex-
punge the . names ; but he thought that the parties
objecting should give notice to the persons objected
to, that they might attend to uphold their rights, and
in future when the overseers found themselves placed
in a similar position, by far the best thing they could
do, would be to publish the names of every person of
name objected to, and then there could be no
.mistake.
`li. Trott, as the objecting party, at once assented
to ";zend and inform the real William Jones and the
r'e'ad Samuel Smith that they were objected to; and
;heir cases were subsequently gone into.

EAST-INDIA HOUSE.-THIS DAY.
COURT OF PROPRIETORS.

The Quarterly General Court of the Proprietors
of Eat India Stock was held in the Court-room
at, the East India House, Leadenhall-street, this
morning at twelve o'clock.
Sir J. 1,. LUSHINGTON, Bart., the Chairman of the
tan -of Directors in the Chair.
7 frkii Secretary read the minutes of the last General
kedourto:' -
511 131i6ienAmmAN then informed the Court that cer-
tvtiethins -which had been ordered by. Parliament
119:'-i4e; made were laid on the table, for the information
ctt:the Proprietors. These returns related to the
ind..an revenue.

APFGHAN 'WAR.
MO CHAIRMAN then stated that the Court had
been made special for the purpose of considering a
motior„ of which an Hon. Proprietor had given notice,
relating• to the expenses of the Affghan war. He
therefor( called on that Proprietor to move.
Mr. S,ILOMONS begged to postpone the motion of
which he had given notice, relative to the expenses of
the Affghan war, until the next General Court.

THE RAJA OF SATTARA.
Mr. Ll:vas then rose for the purpose of postponing
the motion 'of Nvhich he had given notice, relative to
the case of the raja of Sattara. He was induced to
Postpone this motion until the next General Court on
account cf the absence of several of those friends by
whom he had hitherto been supported, but who would
be there cm some future occasion.