The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-31 00:00:00

The poll was altered again
Shand..
Deduct J. Ashton.,

303 I Quayle
Evan Jones, a burgess, appeared and stated, that he had
tendered his voting paper for Shand, and that the vote bad
been recorded ' • alleged contra, that the third question pre-
scribed by the 31th section of the municipal act, viz., " Have
you already voted at the present election ?" had been put to
him at the time of voting, and that he had answered yes!
The vote had been recorded in the poll book thus :—Shand
339, Evan Jones 1, and had been afterwards struck out with
a pen.
The evidence as to the time when the question was put, and
by whom, was conflicting. Evan Jones had not in fact voted
before at this election ;.• he admitted that the question,
" have you voted before ?" had been put to him, and that he
had answered " yes," supposing that it referred to former
elections.—Vote disallowed.
The following is the 34th section : .

And be it enacted, that no inquiry shall be permitted at
any election, as to the right of any person to vote as a bur-
gess in any borough, except only as follows—(that is to say,)
that the Mayor or oilier presiding officer shall, if required by
any two burgesses entitled to vote in the same borough, put
to any voter at the time of his delivering in his voting paper,
and not afterwards the following questions, &c.
(The first and second have reference to identity of person

and qualification.)
3rd.—Have you already voted at the present election?
Some of the cases of errors, misdescriptions, &c., in voting
papers, of persons who had voted for Mr. Shand, mentioned
below, in stating the proceedings in the Queen's Bench,
were then adduced on behalf of Mr. Quayle, but were not al-

lowed.
Alderman Hornby, and Mr. Nicholson, assessor, under a
power in the municipal act, (Mr. Roskell, the other assessor,
not concurring,) then named Mr. Quayle to be councillor, as
there appeared an equality of votes.
Mr. Quayle was declared councillor accordingly by the

Mayor.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF QUEENS' BENCH, JANU.
Any, 1810.—Quo WARRANT° APPLIED FOR.
Substance of Affidavits in Substance of Affidavits in
support of the application.* reply.
1. In support of Evan That the questionshad been
Jones' vote for Shand—that put by Mr. Ledger (another
be had tendered his voting burgess also concurring) at
paper, which had been re- the time of voting, with the
caived, and that the question " consent and approval " of
had not been put to him till the alderman, and impugning
afterwards, and then not by Mr. Shand's right to be on
the.alderman, but by a Mr. the roll
Wilson Ledger.
2. Against Daniel Fox's
vote for Quayle by two de-
ponents—that they saw this
person in Moy, in Tyrone,
on Ist November.
3. Against John Furness'
vote for Quayle, by himself—
that he was in Birmingham
on Ist November.
4. Against John Agitt's None in reply
vote for Quayle— that this
person ought not to have been
on roll

None in reply

None in reply

-...
CLAIM TO HAVE POLL ALTERED THUS :
Shand ....... ... .. 303 Quayle
Add Jones 1 Deduct Fox. .. .. 1
Farness . 1
Agitt.... 1

304 300
AFFIDAVITS FILED DV MR. QUAYLE IN

APRIL, 1840

SUPPORT OF

COUNTER CASE

Substance of Affidavits in Substance of Affidavits in
support of Mr. Quayle's reply, but which theforms
case, and against following of court would not allow
votes for Shand. to be read. [This evidence
would have been given at
the trial.]
1. John Dixon—that he By John Dixon shewing
ought not to have been on his right to be on the roll.
the roll, not having been on
certain parliamentary lists of

rs during the period of
.ification.
2 William Maynard,—that No affidavit in reply, it
he had removed previous to being a question of law whe-
voting. tiler, being on the roll, he had

not a right to vote. The act
does not make removal a dis-
qualification.
3 John Formby, By the parties that they
4 C. S. Middleton, were on the roll for Nor-
-5 R. P. Buddicom, thumberland-terrace, and (by
6 T. B. Horsfall,—that themselves and others) that
these persons, described in Lodge-lane had been only re-
voting papers, as of Lodge- cently called by the former
lane, were not on roll, name, and that Northumber-
land-terrace and Lodge-lane
were identical.

7. William Jones Peachey, By voter that he was the
—that there was no residence person on the roll, and had
after his name in voting paper. voted for Shand, and not ob-
jected to at the time.
8 James Carpenter Halsall, By the voter that his name
—that there was no such per- was Halsall, and that he had
son on roll. voted for Shand, and that

• _
" Halsall on the roll was a
mistake.
9 Wm. Foulds, Great Me- That Foulds on the revised
sey-street,—that there was list was put down for Lower
no such person on roll. Castle-street, and that Great
Mersey-street had been tran-
scribed by mistake from a
preceding line in writing out
the roll.
10 Thomas Caesar, Col- That he was on the roll for
lingwood-street, Everton, not Collingwood-street, Liver-
on roll. pool, that part of Liverpool
being in Everton Ward.
11 That FrancisShand, the A very full affidavit by his
candidate, ought not to have brother, Alexander Shand,
been on the roll. sheaving that Francis Shand
had possessed all the qualifi-
cations for seveal years.

IN QUEEN'S BENCH

November, 1840.—Case argued. Attorney-General (for
Mr. Quayle) admitted that Fox and Furness had been per-
sonated, and that he must abandon these votes. Claimed to
go into counter case. Court refused, as they could not bear
the other side. Would not decide Mere whether the Roll
could be opened. Made.the rule for quo warranto absolute.
January, 1841.—Information filed and the pleadings duly
carried on till the question of Mr. Quayle's election was
ready for trial.
Ist July, 1841.—Application to a Judge to have cause
tried at Liverpool. Opposed by Mr. Quayle. Oider granted.
15th July.—Offer to resign by Mr. Quayle, each party to
pay their own expenses. 20th.—Refused. 27th.—Resigna-
tion. 14th August (Ist day of Assizes.)—Mr. Quayle con-
sented to judgment.
* Certain of the affidavits relating to points not now in
dispute—such as the fact of Mr. Quayle acting as councillor.
proceedings at the Town Hall, &c., are not stated, as they are
now immaterial.

MR. QUAYLE'S TESTIMONIAL

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

Satire 'a my weapon— *
I only wear it in a land of Hectors,
Rogues, sharpers, and directors.

SlR,—After reading the " Council Proceedings" on Wed-
nesday last respecting Mr. Quayle's resignation, &c., &c.,
I was not much surprised in noticing the second somewhat
POMPOU'S letter in Friday's Mercury, addressed to " John
Holmes, Esq.," concerning the very important " testimo-
nial" about to be " got up' doubtless by some disinterested
friends, to salve the " feelings" of the late member for Ever-
ton, who, according to his friend Mr. Holmes, " was not to
blame," and also the liberal " alderman," who gave the
" casting vote," admitted that he acted by the " advice" of
the worthy " town-clerk." It is true, however, that the
" case" is decided, and whoever was the " late member's"
adviser, the " quarrel" is a " pretty one" for the " reform-
ers" to digest, as well as the "disgusted conservative" to
crow about; but the " cat may mew, yet the dog will have
his day." Nevertheless, after the present opportunity, I
shall not attempt to gratify the " mercurial" writer's vanity
in further puffing this somewhat " untoward affair," being
satisfied that the respectable persons who constitute the
" committee"—and particularly the cunning " gentlemen "
who induced Mr. Quayle to become a " candidate," an d
advised the defence to the " action, if not the " resigna-
tion" of the seat his friend had undoubtedly usurped too long
—should HONESTLY " pay the piper" thernselv”, and not
allow the " spirited" and " independent" gent. 's " cause"
to go a BEGGING however, notwithstanding the paltry
vituperation of the amiable yet sensitive conservative. I
beg to call his attention to Mr. Carson's manly and straight-
forward expose'e of " facts," as stated in Friday's Standard,
respecting this truly " odious" MANX
"affair "—to say
nothing of " resignation"-4. undefended ,
case"—intended
" expenses"—ignorant " plot," ,
In conclusion, I opine the aff:i.rBics. Altogether NOT SO
" disgraceful" to the " conservative party ;" and although
" gentle dulness ever loves
.a joke," methinks it is by. tar
more, nay,'ratlch more, dagractful" to the whig-radical
individual who directed and sanctioned such " malicious