The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-04-23 00:00:00

£0 10 0
5 5 0

WIGAN ELECTION COMMITTEE

The committee on Thursday met at eleven o'clock, and on
the counsel and agents appearing, . .
The Chairman announced that the vote of John Bu Alike
under consideration when the committee adjourned the pre-
ceding day, was bad.
It was then struck off the poll.
Mr. Thesiger then proposed to strike off the vote of Wm.
LTlcston, on the ground of removal.
Evidence was given showing the removal, and the votewas
accordingly struck off the poll ; as well as the 'vote of John
Dobbs, on the same ground. _ . .
The votes of Francis Ormanby and Mattliew Law were
both struck off the poll. . .
In the course of the 'investigation of these votes, a witneEs
named Acton, begged to know, before he gave.hi, evidence,
who was to pay him.
Mr. Cockburn—Who summoned you?
Witness—Mr. Gaskill.
Mr. Cockburn—Then Mr. Gaskill will pay you. (A laugh.)
Mr. Beare—On no, for you have. called him. (Laughter.)
The sitting member being in a minority, two votes were
assailed by Mr. Thesiger and proved to be bad. They were
accordingly struck off.
This again gave a majority of one to Mr. Kearsley.
The vote of Richard Proctor was then put up for investiga-
tion.

Edward Horsman stated that he succeeded Proctor last
November in possession of the house where he • lived in
Wigan-lane.
The vote was then struck off.
The next vote attacked was that of Peter Byrom, registered
for a house in Wallgate-street.
A person to whom the house belonged, stated that 'Byrom
quitted the dwelling in November last, and was succeeded by
another tenant.
This vote was also declared to be bad, and was consequently
struck off the poll.
Mr. Ewart was now again in a. majority.
Robert Naylor's vote, recorded for Mr. Ev,-art, was then
investigated.
James Taylor said he knew the house which Robert Naylor
occupied in Farryman's-row, a fortnight before the election.
It was then occupied by Joseph Naylor, his brother Two
days before the elntion Rebert Naylor came and direc-
tion to witness to put away some slates out of the house.
Witness then said, I see what you are .abirut: Upon
which Robert Naylor said, " Yes, I am determined to vote
at the election." On the Thursday before the election, wit-
ness was occupied in Farryman's-row. On Friday morning
witness heard Robert Naylor say, " I will go back and sleep
at the house where Joseph is." Robert was then living at a
house near, and had a place called Shipen._ He kept a beer-
shop.
Cross-examined—Robert Naylor told me that his brother
had no right to go on the premises. He said that his, bro-
ther had gone in unawares, and he had no right to be there.
Peter Byrom said that Robert Naylor was tenant to Mr.
Farryman in November last. The rent was £1 15s per (war-
ter. There were eight cottages of Mr. Farryinan, all at the
same rate. Robert Naylor removed in December froM this
house, and went to a house which he had previously occu-
pied. Another person also occupied a portion of the house.
Cross-examined—l voted for Mr. Kearsley.
Mr. COCKBURN—You were not always a friend to Mr.
Kearsley. Did you not sign the requisition to Mr. Ewart?
Mr. THESIGHER objected to this course, unless the requi-
sition was produced.
Witness, in continuation—The rent perquarter was £2.155.
hut there was an arrangement by which 1 was to return £l.
to his son. I cannot say whether I told Mr. Farryinan of
it. (A memorandum book in witness's handwriting, con-
taining items of £2. 15s. per quarter, as being paid to him,
was put into witness's hands). I will swear that I did not
receive the money. I signed the requisition to Mr. Ewart,
but I said at the time .I would not promise to give him my
vote—a laugh).
Re-examined.--The memorandum hook is' the tenants'.
I had another book. It was by the landlord's,order that I
made these entries. I was applied to by a 'person named
Potter to invite Mr. Ewart. I was urged by Potter to do so.
By the Committee—The entries in the memoranduin hook
of £2. 15s. were made at one time, and not. separately. They
were not made in the last year, but for 1837.
Evidence in support of the vote was then given:
Joseph Naylor examine--I went into the house which my
brether had occupied, unknown to my brother. Lpaid no
rent. I made no agreement with the landlord. I out
of the house again on the Bth of March, and my.brother went
in.

Cross-examined,-My brother threatened to put the bailiffs
in. lam not on very good terms with my brother. I went
in on the 2d of February. The bed and bedding were after-
wards removed to the house I had before occupied. The,
house had been empty for three or four weeks before I en-
tered. . .
Mr. CocawouN , then proceeded to sum,up the evidence,
contending that the voter had never given up possession, 'and
that his vote was good.
Mr. THESIGER argued on the other side, contending that
the evidence clearly established the invalidity of the vote.
The room having lean cleared, aud, atter some deliberation,
when counsel and agents re-appeared, they were informed by
the CHAIRMAN that the committee had decided the vote to
be bad, and it was accordingly struck off the poll.
The vote of John Robson was next investigated.
It appeared that the voter removed, on the 6th of January,
from his house, for which he was registered, in Wallgate, and
was succeeded by another person, named Acton. •
This vote being declared bad, it was struck off. .
Mr. Kearsley was again in a majority.
The vote of Mr. Cooper, recorded in favour of Mr. Kears-
ley, was then put up for investigation by Mr. AUSTIN.
It appeared that the voter quitted his house on the 15th of
October last, and it was let to Roger Bolton,.who took pos-
session in November following, and was now in the occupa-
tion of Bolton. • - . .
The vote was struck off.
The vote or Roger Bolton was next investigated.. Ile re-
moved to his present dwelling in November last, as before
stated. Before the evidence was, however, concluded, itv-ias
announced that the Speaker was at prayers.
The committee then adjourned. .
.ti.i, toe close of the inqutrll
yl-I.tn'is.-oily, the sitting
.itletiller
had a majority of one. ,-,-• 0/1
SATURDAY. . ' . " ''''k'fil is
The committee met at the usual hour; the sitting-int:4M
was in a majority. , • ..iiiii!....onoo is Tic-.
Mr. THESIGER, on the part of the petit.iatieq,i9hjestgtr.
the vote of William Fishwick, on the groun4. o kremo „., t.,
previous to the election.—Vote bad. - : , •
The learned counsel then objected to 'the iiiteciffitobePt'
11/.l`Loughlin. It appeared in evidence that in tho:Augiist
previous to the election, he sold his furnitc.A., and weitt to•
reside at Liverpool.—Vote bad.
The petitioner being now in a majority, .
.
Mr. COCKBURN, on the part of the sittingmember,
objected to the vote of Joseph Swift. Ile was rea-iqrred
for a house in Walgate-street, but previous to _the electicin
he removed to a house opposite, and was succeeded by his
brother, Robert Swift. In support of the vote
,it ytis,con.
tended that his residence at the time of election itinsWered:
the description on the register, but on the other 'side it *as
submitted that the removal from the premises previous to
election was fatal.—Vote bad.
On hearing ev'dence, the vote of George .Heselion was
given up.—Vote bad. .
The sitting member being now in a majority.
Mr. THESIGER, on the part of the petitioner, objected to
the vote of William Taylor, which on hearing evidence was
abandoned.—Vote bad.
Mr. BERE, on behalf of the petitioner, objected to the
vote of Benjamin Whitley.
It appeared in evidence that previous to the election the
voter went to reside on other premises than those out of
which he registered, but still retained a shed in the yard
where he used to dry his oilcloth ; the other part of the pre-
mises he had let to a corkcutter, still preserving egress and
ingress to the shed, also occasionally. having two: keys in his
possession.
The learned counsel against the vote contended, that the
shed did not come within the meaning of the reform act,
which stated that a qualification could only, be obtained.from
the possession of a house, shop, or warehouse, :and a shed:
did not answer the description of any of the three., --;••.. , ..,-
Mr. AUSTIN, in , support of the vote, observecl,,thaeithe .
committee were bound to give a most liberal cOnstriletiohtO
the 27th section of the act. It had been doneiriili6l.llllll
and other cases. And the fact of the voter retaining ipotsts-
sion of the keys, though he did not reside on amyl-00440y
was a retention of possession, and the committee were o
4
to give him the benefit of the liberal constructiOu,pf Ac
The room was cleared, and after 20 minutes' conga ton''`
the vote was declared to be bad. This left' Mr.
.1,14 4 4
let;'
the petitioner, in the majority. . . ~. --.;..;i wisi tiii
The committee adjourned to Monday. 711;;, lisLiio noi.w...
The inquiry seems to have caused gre#,A4p9ihn,Alc
room was crowded the entire day. _