The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-10-23 00:00:00

IMPROMPTU

On the Deputy Town-Clerk being ejected from the
Amphitheatre.

Turn him out ! turn him out ! rung the shout, like a peal—
A Radical here we can't brook;—
So the dandy official was seized, neck and heel,
And shouldered out, hook and by CROOK
Amphitheatre

PARLIAMENTARY REVISION COURT.-TUESDAY.

The revision of the parliamentary burgess lists was resumed
this morning, at ten o'clock. The cases were principally of
a nature similar to those called on Monday, and were dis-
posed of under the rules then laid down. The cases were
generally destitute of interest, most of those on which any
discussion arose being on objections to members of the Pro-
tector Society, who, in the majority of instances, were struck
off. These decisions rested on the grounds that the parties
had borrowed money from the society for the express pur-
pose of paying their rates ; that they had drawn out more
money than they had paid in ; or that, holding ten pound
tenements, and having paid their rates, their water rents
were paid by their landlords. The cases were generally dis•
posed of very speedily, the rules being taken to be fixed for
the time being, and the nature of the Protector Society
proved.
A Mr. Cosgrove, who was objected to by the conservatives,
on being cross-examined by Mr. Carson, stated, that he had
paid his rates with money which he had borrowed from his
brother-in-law. He had since repaid his brother-in-law,
with money which be obtained from the Protectof Society, of
which he was a member, and to which he had contributed
some time. Mr. Maynard was proceeding to examine the
witness, with a view to ascertain if lie had put in as much
money as he had drawn out, when
Mr. Wharton interrupted the learned gentleman, saying
that the only question was, the intent with which the money
was borrowed from the brother-in-law. This question Mr.
Wharton put to Mr. Cosgrove, who replied that he borrowed
the money expressly to pay his rates.
Mr. Wharton.—Then the case comes within the rule, and
must be struck off.
Mr. Maynard said that this waa opening a very wide door
indeed, It was, in effect, saying that no man could have a
good vote who borrowed money from a friend ; because, if
this rule was carried to its extent, hernight have paid his
rates without that money. Such borrtiwed money was, to
all intents and purposes, a man's own money, for he was liable
for it in law, and this decision went to the extent of saying,
that a man who borrowed money for the express purpose of
paying his rate, though he paid such money again, was never-
theless to be struck off the list.

Mr. Maynard said he stood upon the decision of Lord
Denman, which had been so often alluded to, and to act
otherwise than by the rule laid down, would open a wide
door for corruption, for it would enable every wealthy indi-
vidual to put upon the register, by a sort of side-wind, as
many persons as he pleased. The vote was struck off.
Mr. Kearsley, of Wigan, was objected to by the reformers.
Mr. Kearsley said h rented premises 'for which he paid
£l4O. per annum. He did not reside in Wigan, but in Li-
verpool. He had resided in Liverpool, and occupied the
premises in question upwards of six months before the 31st
of July last, and continued to reside in Liverpool to this day.
The due payment of the rates having been proved, Mr.
Kearsley's vote was allowed.
Anthony Finlay, Brick-street, was objected to by the con-
servatives.

It was proved that Mr. Finlay was rated and had paid his
rates.

Mr. Wharton.—What rent do you pay ?
Witness.—Ten pounds eight shillings a year.
Mr. Wharton.—Do you ever pay your water rent yourself,
or does your landlord pay it ?
Witness.—My landlord pays it.
Mr. Wharton.—That won't do then.—Struck off.
James Gillespie, Mason-street, was objected to by the con-
servatives. The rating and payment were proved by Mr.
Hart.

Mr. Carson.—Where did you get your money to pay your
rates with ?

Witness.—l borrowed it from a friend.
Mr. Wharton.—Did you borrow it to pay your rates with?
Witness.—Yes.
Mr. Wharton.—lt won't do.—Struck off.
Thomas Hunter, Moorfields, objected to by the reformers.
Mr. Hunter proved his occupation, and the payment of his
rates.

Mr. Maynard.—Pray, Mr. Hunter, are you a native of
England ?
Mr. Hunter.—No, sir.
Mr. Maynard.—Have you ever been naturalised ?
Mr. Hunter.—Naturalised ! How do you mean, sir ?
Mr. Wharton.—Has anything taken place to naturalise
you ?
Mr. Hunter.—To naturalise me ! In which way, sir ?
Mr. Maynard.—Has any act of parliament been passed to
make you a denizen of this country ?
Mr. Hunter.—No, sir.
Mr. Maynard.—Pray what country do you belong to, sir ?
Mr. Hunter.—l was born in a British colony, sir. I was
born in Santa Cruz.
Mr. Maynard.—Santa Cruz is not a British colony.
M.r. Hunter.—lt was then, and my father was an English-
man.
Mr. Wharton.—Oh, your father was an Englishman !
Vote allowed.
Henry Lindon, Shawhill-st., objected to by the conserva-
tives, was called. Mrs. Lindon appeared on behalf of her
husband. It appeared that his rates had been duly paid.
Mrs. Lindon, on being questioned, said, her husband was
a member of the Protector Society. The rates amounted to
£1 10s, which sum she obtained at the office of the Protector
Society. Her husband bad contributed to that society, but
she did not know how long. He had paid by half-crowns,
but she could not say how much he.had paid.—The name
was struck oil'.

John Fitzpatrick, King-street, objected to by the conser-
vatives, statedthat he was a member of the Protector Society.
He had paid £4 3s 6d for taxes all at once.
Mr. Carson.—Did you get this money from the Protector
Society ?
Witness.—l got it from them that manages it, I suppose.
Mr. Carson.—Did you get the whole of it from them ?
Witness.—l got part of it, any how !
Mr. Carson.—How much did you get ?
Witness.—l got £4 3s. Gd.!
Mr. Maynard.—Did you contribute to tbe.sociely ?
Witness.—Yes.
Mr. Maynard.—How much have you contributed ?
Witness.—l can't say.
Mr. Maynard,—Dave you paid as much in as you have
drawn out ?
Witness.—No,—Struck off.
Bartholomew Kearney, Spitalfields, was objected to by
the Conservatives. It appeared that Mr. Kearney was a
member of the Protector Society, and had drawn from that
institution £1 Os., with which he had paid his rates. On
being questioned by Mr. Carson, he stated, that he had paid
as much in as he had drawn out. Mr. Wharton asked him
how much he contributed per week. He replied, fourpence.
Mr. Wharton.—How long have you contributed ?
Witness.—Twelve months.
Mr. Wharton.—You see, now, sir, you have told a wilful
falsehood before all your townsmen, and on your solemn
oath. You stated that you had paid as much money in as
you had taken out.
Witness—Well, I thought I had : I paid a long time.
Mr. Wharton—(in continuation)—and you have disgraced
yourself before all your townsmen, and I hope they will take
warning and not follow your example. Go away, sir. Your
vote is struck out.
The court adjourned at six o'clock.