The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-11-05 00:00:00

ST. ANNE'S WARD.

The radicals were wofully disappointed in losing this ward,
of which they had vainly made themselves sure. Mr. Jones
took the lead at the commencement, and kept it throughout,
continuing steadily to advance upon his opponent. At twelve
o'clock he was a long way ahead, and at the close the num-
bers were-192 and 173 respectively, being a majority of 19
for the conservative.
WEST DERBY WARD.

From the deserved popularity of Mr. Smith, owing to his
efficient services in the council, the radical had no chance in
this ward, and their putting forth an opponent to that gen-
tleman was " frivolous and vexation." Before 10 o'clock,
Mr. Smith had polled 74 votes to his opponent's 19. The
latter rallied a little during the day, but was finally beaten
by a majority of 62, he having polled 102 votes to Mr.
Smith's 164.

SOUTH TOXTETH WARD.
Two seats being vacant here, the contest excited more
than ordinary interest. From first to last the parties kept
clsoe together, alternately passing each other by one or two
votes. The result was, that Mr. Gladstone was distanced,
that Mr. Jordan was at the head of the poll, and that there
was an equality of votes between Mr. M`Kee and Mr.
Sheppard. The mayor (as will be found below) has since
given the casting vote in favour of Mr. M`Kee.
NORTH TOXTETH WARD.
In this ward Mr. D. Mather took the lead from the be-
ginning, and maintained it to the close, when lie won by 34
votes, he having polled 267, and his antagonist only 233.

SATURDAY.
It was fully expected that they Mayor would declare the
election for the respective wards this day, at noon, or at
least by two o'clock,—allowing some time for the investigation
of the cases of Everton ward and South Toxteth ward, there
having been some disputed votes in the former and a tie in
the latter.

By two o'clock a large concourse of gentlemen had assem-
bled at the front entrance of the Town-hall, in anxious an-
ticipation of the Mayor and his attendants every moment
making their appearance, and declaring the final result.
The Mayor did not appear, no decision having been came to.
The Assessors held their court in a room in the front part of
the Exchange, which was crowded during the proceedings.
The disputed points regarding Everton ward were first
gone into. There live, it appears, in Prince Edwin-lane,
two housekeepers, named " John Davies," but the name of

them is on the Burgess Roll. Now one John Davies, deem-
ing himself the party meant, polled for Mr. Quayle : some
time after, the other John Davies came up to vote for Mr.
Shand ; butt the name having been marked off when the first
John Davies polled, his vote was refused. At the close of
poll, Mr. Quayle was, the first John Davies' vote being
counted in, in a majority of one over Mr. Shand. in whose
poll the vote of the-second John Davies was not included.
When the case came before the court, Mr. Shaw, the
Overseer of Everton, swore, that the John Davies who had
polled for Mr. Quayle was not the John Davies whose name
stood on the Burgess Roll. Mr. Quayle's friends ;then, by
the advice of the Town-clerk, consented to let the vote of the
first John Davies be struck out, and the vote of the proper
John Deakin entered upon Mr. Shand's poll. This decision
placed Mr. Shand in a majority of one. A scrutiny was now
demanded on the part of Mr. Quayle. It was immediately
entered into, when a burgess, named Ashton, was produced,
who deposed, that, though he was entered as having polled
for Mr. Shand, he was not near the hustings on Friday. A
second case was brought forward, where, as was alleged, the
burgess being in Ireland, he must have been personated, his
name appearing also for Mr. Shand. The decision was post-

poned.
In South Toxteth Ward the dispute hinged chiefly on a
point of law ; but as an article in a radical contemporary
would seem to imply that Mr. Lawrence had committed him-
self by attempting to vote in an improper manner, which was
far from being the case, we must in justice to that gentleman
enter also into that part of the subject. There were in that
ward, as our contemporary rightly states, two vacancies,—
one occasioned by Mr. Jordan's periodical retirement, the
other by Mr. Cropper's resignation before the period for
which he was elected. Mr. I'l'Kee was nominated by the
Reformers, as a candidate to supply the vacancey caused by
Mr. Croper's resignation. The conservatives nominated
Mr. Sheppard. So far the the account given by our con-
temporary is correct. But he then proceeds :—" The num-
bers for those gentlemen were equal at the close of the poll ;
but, in the course of the afternoon, Mr. James Lawrence,
who had previously voted for his brother-in-law, Mr. Robin-
son, the Tory candidate for Great George Ward, and tendered
his vote for Mr. Sheppard, which vote, on Mr. L. admitting
thrt he had previously voted at the election, was refused."
Now, the circumstances were these :—Mr. Lawrence, on
going up to the polling place, enquired of the alderman and
assessors whether he could legally vote or not, he distinctly
stating, that he had previously voted at that day's election.
He enquired whether he could vote, for a person to fill an
occasional vacancy, arising from resignation, as well as for
a person to fill an annual vacancy by retirement. Some
demur was made, and he was at first told that the question
was not decided. Mr. Holt, solicitor, then said it had been
agreed not so to vote. Mr. Lawrence, who had tendered
his vote, said, that in that case he should not press his vote.
Mr. Holt, the assessor, then said, that the agreement, to
which he referred, had not been entered into by the two
contending parties ' • whereupon Mr. Lawrence expressed a
wish still to tender his vote, inasmuch as the question was
not decided; and Mr. Alderman Holt then told him that,
under the circumstances, he had better tender the vote,
which Mr. Lawrence accordingly did. After stating these
facts, we have only to ask our contemporary, whether Mr.
Alderman Holt did not admit, in an open court of assessors,
that Mr. Lawrence tendered his vote in the most open and
honourable manner. In that court, it was contended by
Mr. Carson, on the part of Mr. Sheppard, that Mr. Law-
rence's vote ought to have been received, because, as Mr.
Cropper's resignation had made an occasional, and not a
regular election, the rule that a burgess shall have a vote in
one ward only, which was correct where there was an elec-
tion to fill up a vacancy by periodic retirement, did not ap-
ply, and that, consequently, Mr. Lawrence's vote was good.
The 44th section of the act was quoted in support of this
opinion. The town-clerk read portions of that section, and
gave a contrary opinion," to which he stated he was led by
the common sense and application of the language. No
voter could vote for a candidate in one day in more than in
one ward. The poll, therefore, stands as before stated.
The court then adjourned to nine o'clock on Monday.
EVERTON WARD.—YESTERDAY. _ _

"The Alderman and Assessors' Court this day resumed its
sittings at nine o'clock.
At the opening of the court this day, Mr. Venables ap-
peared as counsel for Mr. Quayle; Mr. Penington appeared
for Mr. Shand; and Mr. Carson for Mr. Miles Barton, and
other burgesses of Everton.
Mr. Penington stated, that he appeared there to request
that a protest, sent in by Mr. Shand, against any general
scrutiny of votes should be read, for, denying the legality of
such scrutiny, Mr. Shand had determined to be no party
to it.
_ _ _

Vv
•-•
The Alderman (Mr. Joseph Hornby) stated that he had
received this and several other protests, and as the court were
aware of their contents, it was unnecessary to occupy time
by reading them. It was admitted that Mr. Shand protested.
Mr. Carson stated, that he had been instructed to appear
on behalf of Mr. Miles Barton, and several other burgesses,
who had voted for Mr. Shand; they considered any general
scrutiny illegal, and they required to be heard against it, 'and
in support of the case of Mr. Shand.
The Town-Clerk—As Mr. Shand has not sent in any list
of votes objected to, we must proceed with the list delivered
upon the part of Mr. Quayle.
The first name called was John Formby, and,the objection
to his vote was, that in his voting paper he was described as
of Lodge-lane, whereasin the roll he was styled of Northum-
berland Terrace.
The Town-Clerk.—Unless you can show that he is not the
same person, this vote must stand.—Vote good.
The objection to all the other names on Mr. Quayle's list
being similar, Mr. Venables said he should not proceed, but
claimed the return for Mr. Quayle, on the decision of Satur-
day, namely ; that the name of John Ashton, who had been
personated as voting for Mr. Shand, should be struck off.
Mr. Carson contended that no decision had been given on
this case. The only case decided was John Davies, and that
on its own peculiar circumstances, and he was prepared to
argue in support of retaining the name of John Ashton on
the list.
A conversationhere ensued as to the proceedings of Saturday,
but it was finally admitted by the court that only the case of
John Davies had been decided, leaving Mr. Shand a majority of
one.
Mr. Carson was then heard in favour of retaining the name
of John Ashton on the list. He contended that the court
had no power to inquire into this vote, and assuming that
they had the power the evidence was not satisfactory. The
facts were these—A voting paper in the name of John
Ashton" had been delivered for Mr. Shand, and it remained
undisputed until after the election. As soon as the case of
John Davies was decided on Saturday, the opposite party
had produced a John Ashton, who was identified by :the
overseer as the person on the list, who declared that he had
not voted at all, but no corroborative evidence was produced.
He contended that under the 37th sec. of the act, the alder-
man and assessors had only power to examine the voting pa-
pers; this voting paper was unimpeached except by this bare
statement. The case of Davies was totally different, both
were received by 'the alderman at the election, the first vo-
ting paper was delivered for Mr. Quayle, by a person named
John Davies, but not the John Davies on the roll, the second
by the real John Davies. The doubt as to identity then
arose ; the second paper was received by the Alderman and
assessors for consideration ; it and the first paper were kept
by them for that purpose. An examination had been imme-
diately demanded by two burgesses. Both persons of the
name of Davies appeared upon that examination. The first
John Davies admitted he had voted under an impression that
he was the person on the roll. Mr. Shaw, the overseer,
however, identified the other John Davies as the party en-
titled to vote. Here was evidence full and complete—the
two voting papers to be examined and the two persons
proving the error—but how were the facts in Ashton's case ?
Om voting paper only and one party who merely stated, not
on oath, that he had not voted—and there was no corro-
borative evide4ce whatever—pould this then be said to he a

similar case to that of John Davies ? Would such evidence
be admitted to be complete before a committee of the House
of Commons ? And even if it were, it would be given under
the sanction of an oath, which this court could not adminis-
ter. If an adjudication against the vote took pla-ce on this
evidence no election would be safe ; any man or number of
men might prevent a correct return by coming after the close
of the poll and saying they had not voted. The case of John
Davies was a case fit to be enquired into under the act—the
case of John Ashton was not one contemplated under the
words " examine the list of voters," and moreover the evi-
dence was not such as to justify the court in striking the
name off the list.

The Town-Clerk then entered at considerable length into
the two cases, admitting the facts as stated to the court, but
contending that the decision in the one case should be the
same as in the other. Mr. Alderman Hornby, and Mr. Ni-
cholson, one of the assessors, said they could see no distinc-
tion in the cases, and decided (contrary to the opinion of Mr.
Roskell, the other assessor) that the name of John Ashton
should be struck off the list.
This decision left Mr. Shand and Mr. Quayle upon an
equality, and the mayor's casting vote was given of course
for the latter.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-YE STE RD AY.