The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-09-28 00:00:00

such tenant at the election in '37 in the presence of this very
person, who now deliberately swears that he himself was

the tenant; but there is one fact which is quite conclusive,
the claimant has just sworn that he sent in a claim this year

to be put upon th'e register. Now, if he had been on the re-
gister before, this was quite unnecessary, but this he never
did until after-the death of his father.

The Revising Barrister, with some warmth, told claimant
that it was quite clear he was not, in the lifetime of his fa-
ther, tenant of the farm, and as he had not been dead twelve
months, he was not entitled to be on the register.—Name

struck off.
Mr. Peaeock.—This man was told before the last election,
that if he voted he would be indicted for perjury, and yet he
still had'the hardihood to vote; of course in favour of Mr.

Wilbraham, the liberal candidate. (A laugh.)
Benjamin Hancock claimed to vote hi respect of a farm at
Heswall. lie was objected to by the conservatives. He

stated that he occupied a farm jointly with Mrs. Mary Law

ton, at the rent of £l6B a-year. On his cross-examination
by Mr. Peacock, he said he had been the managing man for
Mrs. Lawton for 15 years. Two years ago he agreed to be-

come tenant along with Mrs. Lawton, and had since paid a
proportion of the rent. Mr. Edward Davies Davenport is
their landlord, thinks his name is not entered in the land-
lord's books as tenant, nor is it entered in the assesment-
book, would not swear that he had paid for half the stock,
but had left some money in Mrs. Lawton's hands, and would
swear that he had an interest in the produce of the land.
Mrs. Lawton's name was on the carts, he was still paid
wages as before (he refused to answer this question for some
time.)
Mr. Peacock.—This is an attempted fraud on the reform
act. Mrs. Lawton of course cannot vote, and no doubt it
occurred to Mr. Davenport, who is a liberal of the first
water, that Hancock should be nominally one of his tenants
for the sake of his vote, and but for the caution of Mrs.
Lawton, there would have been great difficulty in resisting
the claim ; it is admitted that everything is carried on just
as it was before ; he pretends to have become the tenant ; he
is still paid wages, the stock still belongs to Mrs. Lawton,
she alone is rated in the parish books, and her name alone
appears on the carts ; these facts are pregnant with fraud,
and prove to demonstration that he is not a bona fide tenant
of the property.
Mr. Mortimer made a rambling speech in support of the
claim, but the Revisinc, Barrister said he should strike the
claimant's name off the list, as he was not satistled that he
was tenant to Mr. Davenport—name expunged accordingly.
Thomas Ellis, (who was one of Mr. Davenport's workmen,)
claimed for a freehold cottage at Heswall; it appeared his
brother had verbally given him the property seven years
since. _ _ _

Mr. Peacock submitted that the claminant had no title to
the property, there being no conveyance made to him, it was
clear the brother could take back the property any day—
name struck off.

John Daniel Thorneley, of Liverpool, claimed for a free-
hold house at Heswall ; it appeared that the late Mr. Lomax
had by his will given his freehold property to trustees to be
sold, and the proceeds to be divided among his children :
Mr. Thorneley married one of his daughters, who was since
dead.

Mr. Peacock contended that Mr. Thorneley was not en-
titled to the property, for as his father-in-law had directed
his freehold property to be sold it must be considered as
personal estate, and would, therefore, not confer a vote, and
if it could be considered as real estate it would not belong to
Mr. Thorneley, but would go to his eldest son as the heir
at law of his mother. _ _ _

The Revising Barrister concurred in this view of the case,
and rejected the claim.
William Boumphrey claimed for a house at Heswall; he
was opposed by the conservatives. He said he was entitled
to the house in right of his wife, and that it was settled
upon her.
Mr. Peacock.—When you were in Chester Castle some-
time since, did you not omit this property in your schedule,
because it belonged to your wife?
Boumphrey.—Yes, I did.
Mr. Peacock.—Then you considered you had nothing to
do with it ? _ .

Bouraphrey.—l believe I cannot make away with it—claim
disallowed. _ _

John Williams claimed as occupier of a house and land in
Lower Bebington ; he was objected to by the radicals, on
the ground that his farm was situated in two townships.
Mr. Mortimer contended that the claim was bad, inas-
much as claimant stated that the land was in Lower
Bebington, whereas it was partly in that township and partly
in the township of Higher Bebington, which should have
been stated on the face of the register ; he also contended
that the claimant should have sent in a claim to the over-
seers of each township.
Mr. Peacock pressed the Revising Barrister to amend the
desription, which he contended, at considerable length, he
had power to do, under the 42 sec. of the Reform Act.
The Revising Barrister considered the claim bad, and that
he had no power to amend it, lie concurred in the view taken
of the case by Mr. Mortimer—name expunged.
John Hadley Bally claimed for freehold houses in Chester-
road, Tranmere, and was objected to by the conservatives,
on the ground that he had not 40s. a-year clear for his own
use after paying interest on the mortgage—name expunged.
Henry Simpson claimed as occupier of a house near the
Rock Ferry. He was objected to by the conservatives on
the ground that he had let his house ready furnished, and
thereby ceased to occupy the same within the 20th section of

the Reform Act. Name expunged.
George Law claimed as occupier of a house at Holt Hill,
and was opposed by the conservatives. Mr. Mortimer called
the overseer to prove that Mr. Law was rated at a sum 01
above £5O a year. Mr. Peacock objected to this loose way 01
proving a qualification.
M. Mortimer.—lt has been allowed in several cases with.

out objection.
Mr. Peacock.—Yes, Mr. Mortimer, but I am not to be
caught in this way. Last year and the year before I objected
to Mr. Law, and upon each occasion I made him prove that
he had no qualification. He first claimed as an occupier,
then I knocked him off; then he claimed as owner, and I
knocked him off again ; and now he falls back upon his first
qualification. My objection is this : The property is settled
upon his wife for her separate use.
The Revising Barrister.—lf that is the case, his claim
cannot be supported.
Mr. Mortimer admitted that it was the case, and the claim
was for the third time disallowed.
William John Harden, barrister at law, claimed, " As
occupier of house and premises at a rent exceeding £5O per
annum, in continuation of a similar qualitie.ltion in the
township of Liscard." He was objected to by the conserva-
tives on the ground that he bad not occupied the premises
twelve months. The Revising Barrister and professional
gentlemen present were much amused at this claim, which is
bad upon the face of it, inasmuch us successive occupations
will not constitute a county qualification; and as Mr. Harden
is a 2 evising barrister for one of the Yorkshire districts, it
was thought he ought to have been aware of his defective
qualification. His name was, of course, struck out of the
list.

The following gentlemen, all residing in Liverpool, at-
tempted to qualify for a dissenting chapel at Birkenhead ;
they were, however, objected to, and all their names were
purged from the list :—Samuel Blackburn, Thomas Baines,
Jeffrey Blackaller, James Howell, William Henderson,
Samuel Job, Charles Robertson, Henry White, and Reuben
Wright Davies.
Upon the revision being concluded, Mr. Peacock rose and
thanked Mr. Townsend (the Revising Barrister) for his
courtesy throughout the revision, and for the excellent ar-
rangements made by him for the despatch of business, and
above all, for his strict impartiality : he believed his decisions
had given universal satisfaction.
Mr. Townsend expressed his acknowledgments, and re-
gretted that he should not have the pleasure of meeting the
same gentlemen in other parts of the country, for he had
never seen better feeling than that exhibited on both sides.

PUBLIC MEETING IN BEHALF OF THE MITI
POOL DISPENSARIES.

In compliance with a requisition of the committee of the
dispensaries, Thomas Bolton, Esq., the mayor, appointed
yesterday, at the Session-house, for the public meeting of
the inhabitants, " to take into consideration and determine
upon effectual means to augment and extend the means of
supporting this charity, in consequence of its appearing that
the present resources will no longer maintain the institution
on the scale in which it is now necessarily carried on, to
meet the demand of the poor claimants upon its charity."
The meeting accordingly took place, and, though not very
numerously, was most respectably attended.
The M &YOB, on taking the chair, said that, agreeably to
the terms of the requisition addressed to him, he had called
the present meeting, to consider the finances of the dispen-
saries, an institution of so unobjectionable and beneficial a
nature, that he sincerely hoped something effectual would be
the result, to rescue it from its embarrassment, and render it
efficient for the benevolent objects in view. He regretted
that the subscriptions were not adequate to the demands of
the increasing claimants upon its assistance, and that there
was a necessity to raise a sum of £lBOO to relieve it from
debt, and also to enable it to go on with that usefulness and
advantage to the public by which it had for a number of
years been so eminently characterized. He then called upon
those gentlemen who were more intimately connected with
the subject than himself, and more competent to enter into
its details, to deliver their sentiments and submit the reso-
lutions that had been prepared.
Mr. Alderman FREME said, in effect, that it devolved upon
him to submit the first resolution to the meeting which his
worship had had the goodness to call in behalf of a charity of
which all classes must approve. Unfortunately it was not
the first time since its establishment that they had been
called upon to make a strenuous effort in its behalf, which
had, indeed, too frequently occurred. In 1826 a similar de-
falcation had arisen in the funds, as compared with the de-
mand of those for whose benefit it was originated ; but he by
no means despaired , if due exertion were made, of now, as then,
redeeming it to an extent commensurate with the wants of

the poor for when an appeal was then made to the public a
sum of £l9OO was raised, which not only liquidated the debt
contracted, but put into a state of comparative ease and
activity. They certainly laboured under peculiar circum-
stances of depression at present, in common with the other
medical charities of the town, which they had never felt be-
fore. The demand for relief was great, and the legacies and
donations were inadequate to meet it in the absence of in-.
creased subscriptions, more particularly as the parish con-
tributions had been reduced. But he hoped the means would
be found amongst their fellow-townsmen, when they became
aware of the facts, to overcome the difficulties that surrounded
them. From the prosnects of the crops and other causes,
disease and distress amongst a large portion of the people
were not likely M be diminished as the winter advanced ; and
it became therefore the more imperative upon all who had
the means to contribute liberally to the support of charity,
the object of which was the relief of the poor under the most
trying circumstances. He concluded by moving a resolution
(for which see the advertisement,) to the effect that it was
highly desirable that the dispensaries should be supported
by the public.
Mr. JAMES MULLENEUX, vice-president of the South
Dispensary, said that he entirely concurred in the sentiments
expressed by his friend who had just spoken. In proof of the
benefits of the Dispensaries, he might state that during the
past year medical assistance had been given to no fewer than
50.217 patients, at an expense of £4068 ; 26,674 patients had
been attended to at the north, and 23,513 at the south. The
expenditure of the former was £3143, and at the latter £1602,
or, in other words, at at an average expense of is Bd. for each
individuel. So much for the expenditure. He, noticed in
forcible terms, the great advantages of the institution, and
called upon the meeting, in eloquent terms, to support it. It
behoved his townsmen to consider whether it was wise or be-
nevolent not to uphold one of the oldest and finest charities
of the town. If some withheld their aid from not knowing
the real state of the town, he trusted they would come for-
ward when they were informed that a vast mass of the popu-
lation were in destitution. He would ask the rich, who en-
joyed themselves in comfort, whather they might not appre-
hend, in their neglect of such charity, that disease would
spread, and, eventually, enter ther splendid mansions? And
he would say that, little as they might regard the poor, there
were amongst them, as a class, feelings and virtues that dig-
nified and ennobled human nature. It was the duty of all to
wipe the tear from the eye of the distressed, and to pour oil
add wine into the wounds of the afflicted. He earnestly
called on the meeting to give its support to the motion.
DR. BANNER here stated that he thought it would be well,
before the motion was put, to consider the institution with
reference to the present system pursued, and its future pros-
pects. He was of opinion that if even the money stated
were raised, its benefits could not be fully developed without
some alteration in the present system. He alluded to the
number of patients that might now be recommended by a
subscriber as being unlimited iii proportion to the amount of
subscription, and that a committee should be appointed to
devise amendments.