The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-10-20 00:00:00

REVISION OF THE BOROUGH LIST OF VOTERS

The court for the revision of the list of persons entitled to
vote in the election of Members of Parliament for the
borough of Liverpool, commenced yesterday in the Court-
house, before Spencer Horatio Walpole, Robert Wharton,
and Joseph St. John Yates, Esq., the barristers appointed
for the purpose.
Two courts only were held, one before Mr. Walpole for a
short time, and the other before Mr. Wharton. Mr. Yates
did not sit, and in Mr. Walpole's court nothing of public in-
terest occurred. He proceeded with the lists for the town-
ships of Everton, Kirkdale, and West Derby, in the Ma-
gistrates' room.
(Before Mr. WHARTON.)
In this court the lists were taken from Ato E. Mr. Car-
son and Mr. Pennington appeared on the part of the Con-
servatives ; Mr. Maynard and Mr. Bretherton for the Re-
formers.

One hundred and forty-six objections, half on each side,
were withdrawn by consent.
On Mr. Hart, one of the overseers being sworn,
Mr. CARSON informed the court that the lists had not
been published according to the act, inasmuch as they had
not been posted on the doors of all the chapels and churches
in the town. _ _

Mr. WHARTON said the case had been so often decided
that it was useless to make any point of it on the present oc-
casion. It had been decided in almost every town the re-
vising barristers had visited, and they had always ruled that
the section of the act bearing upon the point was merely
directory, which, although it might not have been complied
with, did not invalidate the list.

Mr. PENNINGTON expressed himself perfectly satisfied
with this explanation from the court.

PAYMENT OF RATES BY THE PROTECTOR SOCIETY.
Joseph Maguire, Maguire-street, opposed by Mr. Carson.
It appeared that this person had never paid rates before the
20th July last, and that on that day he paid for three years.
He got the money from " a friend ;" it was not his own
money, but he had repaid it.
Mr. WHARTON.—Had you repaid the whole of it before
the 20th of July ?—No.
Mr. WHARTON.—Then I must strike you off.
Mr. MAYNARD apprehended that if the court would allow
him to argue the question, he could satisfy it that the notice
ought not to be allowed.
Mr. WHARTON said he had taken the man's evidence as
it stood. His colleagues and himself had made up their
minds, that the payments of rates must be Lona fide by the
party, and it was really wasting time to argue the question.
Mr. MAYNARD was so thoroughly convinced of the quali-
fication of the voter being perfectly unobjectionable, that if
the court would allow him he would argue the question, as it
would save time.
Mr. WHARTON trusted Mr. Maynard would have the
kindness to listen to him. His colleague (Mr. Walpole) he
was informed had so decided in the next room, and indeed
they had made up their minds before. When a question
arose upon which there had already been a decision in the
course of the same revising season, it was a great waste of
time to re-open it.
Mr. MAYNARD would ask the witness what he meant when
he said the money was not his own. He then asked the wit-
ness whether he denied the money to be his because he
borrowed it.

Witness.—lt was not my own because I borrowed it.
Mr. MAYNARD apprehended that it was his own to all
intents and purposes.
Mr. WHARTON could only say that Mr. Maynard's appre-
hension was not law. That was quite clear, and he would
just state the line of reasoning by which they arrived at that
decision. In the case of the King v. Cousins, which was a
case between the rate-payer and the parish, for the purpose
of gaining a settlement ; it was decided that the payment of
rates by another party was a good payment on behalf of
the occupier. But in the case of the King v. Bridgnorth,
the judges decided that such a payment was hot a good pay-
ment for the sake of obtaining the franchise. In the next
place, the reform act gave a new franchise, clogged with
certain conditions which must be complied with before the
franchise could be obtained. It being decided then, in these
two cases, that a payment of rates by a third party might be
good as against the parish, but not for the sake of getting a
vote, it is quite clear they must be guided by the meaning of
the act. In arriving at that they were guided by the dicta of
the judge, in the case of the King v. Bridgnorth, in which
they were all of opinion that the vote was not obtained pro-
perly—that there must be a payment of rates by the voter
himself. The strong expressions used by Lord Denman in
that case led him (Mr. Wharton) to the conclusion that a
mere borrowing of money was not sufficient, but that there
must be a payment by the actual party. That being the
case, and the judges having already decided that payment
by another person, not with the voter's money, was not a
good payment, he decided that payment by the voter with
another person's money, was not a good payment.
Mr. MAYNARD urged that the object of the law in re-
quiring the payment of rates with the voter's own money
was to take away from it that eleemosynary character which
it would have if they were paid with money not his own. But
this was a loan, for the purpose of paying his rates, to be re-
paid by the voter •, and a loan, he contended, was not suf-
ficient to disqualify him. There was no presumption that
he had not applied the money to the payment of rates.
Mr. WIIARTON trusted that if Mr. Maynard was allowed
to argue the question, after the strong opinion he (Mr.
Wharton) had delivered, he would confine himself to the facts.
Mr. MAYNARD observed, that payment of rates by a land-
lord, by agreement with the tenant, was equivalent to a pay-
ment by the tenant himself.
Mr. ,the
; but the landlord, as a matter
of course, obtained a higher rent from the tenant. In that
case there was a quid pro quo, but there was none here. It
was not a payment according to the act.
The discussion was prolonged for some time with great
perseverance by Mr. Maynard, on a variety of points, when
Mr. WALPOLE (who came to assist his learned colleague)
said, the court had come to the decision just given not with-
out mature consideration, and they should adhere to it. It
being quite a new point, there being so much difference of
opinion upon it, and their minds not being clearly agreed upon
all, although they were upon most,whatever decision they made,
they certainly did not wish it to be drawn into a precedent for
future years. If the money was given to the voter absolutely
to pay his rates the revising barristers were agreed that that
was a good vote ; if a third party paid the rates without com-
munication with the voter it was bad, but if the voter repaid
the money before the 20th of July it was good. Then came
the sole question, whether a person borrowing money for the
express purpose of paying his rates had a vote. That ques-
tion might admit of a difference of opinion, but at the same
time, if the loan was au absolute loan for any general pur-
poses, the court thought that was clearly a good payment.
The only doubt they had was whether a loan for the express
specific and sole purpose of paying rates was not a good pay-
ment.

Mr. MAYNARD.—Do you say it would be good if the pay-
ment were made with money given to him?
Mr. WHARToN.—Certainly. It must be an absolute gift.
Mr. MAYNARIL—SureIy there can be no impropriety in
the person who gives the money to the voter, saying—`' now
go and pay your rates with it."
Mr. WHARTON.—It will be a direct fraud on the act of
parliament.

Mr. CARSON.—Suppose a party gives money to a voter, I
apprehend that we may go into the bona fides of that gift.
Mr. WALPOLE.—That must follow, I think, at once.
Mr. MAYNARD iLquired what was to be the test of the
bona fides/
Mr. WH ARTON.—The same that would be submitted to a
jury in a case of a fraudulent purchase under the statute of
Elizabeth ; the bona fides would be left to the jury to make
up their minds upon.
Mr. MAYNARD.—What posssible fraud can there be in
paying a man's rates ?
Mr. Wu A lITON.—It is in direct opposition to the intention
of the legislature—that is all.
The vote was then sti uck out on the ground that the money
had been borrowed for the specific purpose of paying the
identical rate.
Mr. WALPOLE.—Money given for general purposes may
be applied in payment of rates ; but if money is borrowed for
the specific purpose of paying rates, it is the opinion of the
majority of the revising barristers that the vote is not good.
At a subsequent period, Mr. Wharton stated that the money
must be advanced as well as borrowed for the purpose ; and
that if the voter was not told what to do with it, it would be
a general borrowing.
Williiam Aiston, Pembroke-street, was the next voter
called, and he was supported by Mr. Maynard. In cross-
examination by Mr. Carson, he said that he paid his rates, on
the 18th July with money he borrowed from a friend whose
name he did not know. He was responsible to his friend
for the repayment. In answer to Mr. Maynard, he said he
was at perfect liberty to use the money as he chose, and he
told the barrister that he did not tell him for what purpose
he borrowed it. The following dialogue took place between
Aiston and Mr. Carson.
Are you a member of the Protector Society ?—I am.
Where did you see the friend that lent you the money ?—I
• saw him at Mr. Bretherton's office, in Union-court.
Did you go to that office as the office where the Protector
Society was distributing money ?—I went to that office to
borrow money.
Mr. MPLYNARD.—I object to these questions.
Mr. WHARTON.—Go on, we had better know once for all
what it is. .

The cross-examination was continued, and the witness
stated that he did not know the name of the man he saw
at the office; he merely asked his name and lent him £2 4s 6d.
When he had got the money he took it to the parish-office,
paid his rates, took the receipt to the office of the society,
where it was kept till last Saturday when he received it again.
Other questions were asked, the answers to which clearly
shewed that the money was advanced by the Protector
Society, and Mr. WHARTON in deciding the case said, that
Mr. Walpole agreed with him that whether or not the society
had other objects, it was manifest what was its object with
regard to this man. From his going there, and coupling the
whole facts together, it was morally certain that the parties
who acted for, the society knew what the purpose of the loan
was. The vote must be rejected.
Many other votes—in all of which the parties themselves
proved that the money was advanced by the Protector=
Society, and received for the purpose of paying the rates—
were struck off.
Michael Burke, Stockdale-street, was opposed by Mr.
Carson, on the ground that the Protector Society had paid

his rates. Mr. C. argued on this case that it was clear the
object of the society was to pay the rates of these parties.
Mr. MAYNARD contended that the society's objects were
general, and said he could prove it.
Mr. WHARTON.—If you choose to call evidence to prove
that. I shall use that evidence in all other cases.
After a consultation between Mr. Maynard, Mr. Brether-
ton, and Mr. H. T. Atkinson, it was stated that the secre-
tary of the Protector Society would be called to prove its
objects.
Thomas Macintyre was then sworn, and examined by Mr.
Maynard. He said he was secretary to the Protector Society,
and was perfectly well acquainted with its regulations, and
with the manner of conducting its business. The society lent
money to its members, but the loans were not confined to
any particular object. It did not, however, lend money for
any purpose. It lent money to its members for the three
objects, of relief in sickness, if they were distressed to pay
their rent, and to pay their rates. The society had often,
without inquiry, given to members what they had paid in.
Acknowledgments were taken from them where they received
more money than they had paid in. There was no limited
time of giving credit ; it was left to the discretion of the com-
mittee. Could not say what course would be adopted in case
a loan was not repaid within a considerable time, as there
had never been a case in which it had been refused. Could
not say what would be done in such a case, as it would de-
pend upon the committee. There was no regulation upon
the subject.
Cross-examined by Mr. CARSON.—How- long have you
been secretary to the Protector Society ?—I think eight or
nine months.

Are the rules of this society in writing ?—There are rules
in writing ; they are as originally drawn up, and we have been
waiting to see the working of the society before we printed
them.

Have you any rules which persons sign before they be-
come members ?—I believe a few have signed at one place of
meeting, but few altogether have signed any.
When was this society established ? Better than twelve
months ago.

How many members have you? I cannot tell you that,
because there are five different districts and five societies ;
the secretaries in each district keep the books, and I have
no return from them.

Mr. WHARTON.—Are you the general secretary ?—I am.
Mr. CARSON.—According to the returns you have re-
ceived, how many members have you ; have you a thousand ?
—A great many more. Have you 3000 ? I should say we
have.

You say you lend money to members ? Yes.
Did you lend a great deal of money in July last ? Yes.
Did you lend £lOOO ? I do not know what sum we lent ;
It was not I that gave the money, nor have I the cash-book.
Did you ever see any statement of what was lent ? No
sir.

Are you the treasurer also? No.
Were you ever at an office in Union-court last July? Yes.
Did you lend money there? We lent a good deal.
For what purpose was that money lent? I never made
inquiry.
Did you not know it was lent to the parties for the purpose
of paying their rates ? I might have my own ideas, but I
did not know that.

What is your idea? I was under an impression that it
might be ; it might be employed to some other purpose, and
in some cases it has been.

You are secretary, and do you not know that the money
was lent for the purpose of paying rates? That was distinctly
understood, that the men who had paid their money into the
society, were to come there in July last, for money to pay
their rates.

Did you confine your loans to persons who had an equal
amount of money in the society ? In the short time there
was, I could not tell, we were so hurried.

Why were you so hurried? Because, during the few days
we had, there was an immense number of them.
Where there as many as 300?-1 do not know how many.
You were so crowded you did not count how many there
were ?—Yes.

Mr. WHARTON.—Do you know any one instance in July
of your advancing money which was not for the purpose of
paying taxes ?—I do ; but I cannot now tell who the parties
were.

Did any one conic there in distress ?—Yes, there were per-
sons.

How many ?—I cannot tell you, but I know some.
Mr. CARSON.—At the office in Union Court ?—I am not
confident of that, but such things did occur during that pe-
riod.

How many ?—I cannot tell.
Mr. WHARTON.—Were yours the bands thad advanced
the money on that occasion ?—lt might or might not have
been.

Whenl was the office opened ?—I do not know ; it must
have been in July or immediately before.
The case, with several others, was postponed, in order to
enable further evidence to be given by Mr. Maynard as to
the objects of the Protector Society.
The court adjourned shortly after six o'clock.

CORONER'S INQUEST-WILFUL MURDER OF
AN INFANT BY ITS MOTHER.

On Friday morning an inquest was held before Philip F.
Curry, Esq., coroner, at the Coroner's-office, Lord-street,
on view of the body of a new-born female child. The fol-
lowing is the evidence of the several witnesses :
Anne Burton examined—She said : I am a single woman,
and in the employ of Dr. —, of Rodney-street. There are
three other female servants in the house ; the name of the
cook is Mary Jones. I slept in the same bed with her.
Yesterday morning, about four o'clock, I was awakened by a
noise, and found Mary Jones on the floor; she seemed in
great pain. I asked her what was the matter, and she said
she was in violent pain. I fell asleep again, and did not awake
until it was near daylight ; she was still on the floor. I got
up and dressed myself, and as she did not get better, I went,
at her request, and fetched the doctor (myjnaster) ; I went
and called him up. About eleven o'clock my mistress in-
formed me that Mary Jones had been delivered of a child. I
have not seen the child, nor was I aware that she was in the
family way.

The professional gentleman was here examined—He said,
I am a physician, and reside in Rodney-street; Mary Jones
is one of my female servants; yesterday morning I was'
called, and informed she was ill; I went up to her bed-room,
and, on inquiring what was the matter with her, she told me
she had violent pains in her bowels. I prescribed some castor
oil and a few drops of laudanum, and directed warm fornen-
tations ; she was then in bed, and I was not aware she was
in the family way. 1 then left her, and returned to bed.
Before I went out on my morning rounds I again visited her;
she was then apparently easier, and she mentioned that a
particular change, incidental to females, had taken place,
which I conceived might account for the symptoms she was
labouring under. Whilst I was standing at her bedside, in
company with my wife, she was seized with a paroxysm of
pain which struck me as suspicious, and which induced me
to call my wife out of the room. I asked her if it were pos-
sible she could be in the family way, and she answered me
that she could not possibly imagine such a thing. I returned
to her room afterwards, in consequence of a message from
het, and I then putthe question distinctly to her, " Are you
or not with child ?" to which she replied, " Oh ! no, it is
impossible." As she complained of great straining bearing
down, and a swelling which was gradually enlarging, I made
an examination to ascertain the cause ; 1 discovered a symp-
tom of such rare occurrence that I considered it right to ask
the opinion of another medical gentleman, and immediately
went across the street to the house of Dr. Nicol ; I rather
think there was no person with Mary Jones when I left for
this purpose. In about fifteen minutes I returned with the
doctor I had gone for, and found her apparently lying in the
same position in which I left her. On an examination with
that gentleman I found a very material change had taken
place during my absence, and which left no doubt on my
mind, and that of my friend, that she had been delivered of
a child. lam not sure whether it was the doctor or myself,
but one of us told her that she had borne a child, and that it
was no use of her denying it ; however, she still denied it.
(The witness here alluded to the state of the bed in corrobo-
ration.) I had occasion to leave the room for a minute or
two, and during my absence the other gentleman had disco-
vered the body of a full-grown female child, which had evi-
dently been just born. I remarked to her how culpable it
was to conceal thething, when she declared she was ignorant
of her situation. An examination of the body has been made
by the gentleman alluded to.
John Nicol examined.—l am a physician, and reside in
Rodney-street. At the request of Dr. I visited one
of his female servants yesterday morning, along with him.
We made an examination, the result of which was that I had
no doubt Mary Jones had recently been delivered of a child.
I told her I felt convinced she had been delivered of a child;
but she positively denied it. I made a diligent search in the
bed, but could not discover the child. The last witness had
occasion to leave the room for a few minutes, and I conti-
nued my search, and in an old trunk I found the body of a
full-grown female child, wrapped up in an old apron, and
covered over with some dirty clothes. The body was warm,
but quite dead : the umbilical cord had more the appearance
of having been cut than torn, but it was not tied. The last
witness and myself made an external examination of the
child, and found a swelling on the right side of the neck. A
post-mortem examination was made in my presence : the
swelling at the side of the neck had considerably subsided,
but the particular discolouration which I found on first dis-
covering the child still remained: on examining the lungs, I
found respiration had taken place, and I am quite satisfied
the child was born alive : the child may have died from the
violence used by the woman in delivering herself : I infer i
this from her not having spared herself iu her efforts to deli-
ver herself: cases sometimes occur in which, when the head
is expelled, the child may breathe before the body is expel-
led, and after respiration has taken place : in such a case the
child may have died from the force used to extract the body.
Mr. Edward Batty deposed as follows :—I am a surgeon :
I have made a post-mortem examination of the body of the
deceased, in the presence of Dr.:Nicol : the state of the child,
when I first saw it, was that of its natural appearance, with
the exception of a large suffusion of blood on the right side
of the neck : I then opened the chest, and found all the vis-
cera in the natural state of a child having breathed : I then
opened the neck, and found that great violence had been ef-
fected. From the history of the case, I learned that violence
had been done to the person of the woman, which rarely, if
ever, occurs in natural labour : the connexion between the
appearance of the child and the injury done to the woman
had been effected at one and the same time, during the ex-
pulsion of the child : no other appearance, upon dissection
of the child, could account for its death, and my belief is
that the child died in consequence of the extreme violence
used in delivery.
The coroner here summed up the evidence, and after the
jury had been in deliberation for about a quarter of an hour,
they returned a verdict of " wilful murder."