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

THE QUEEN versus QUAILE

Much misapprehension appears to exist as to the facts of
this case, and as it seems the radicals are desirous of throw-
ing every sort of calumny on the proceedings which it has

Conservatives to

ho professional gentleman

employed by Mr Shand, a succinct narrative of the facts from
the day of the election to the period when judgment of "ous-
ter" was pronounced by the Court of Queen's Bench. We
agree with a contemporary, that the public ought to be made
acquainted with the circumstances of this affair, but it was
doubtless considered inexpedient, for obvious reasons, to
publish them before the trial. The subjoined detail of facts,
which would have been clearly proved at the trial, will
enable the public to judge for themselves whether the pro-
ceedings ware vindictive and harsh, and whether Mr. Quayle
was or was not justified in defending them so long, when he
must have been aware during almost the whole period, that
there was not the slightest ground for doing so. His defence
rested entirely on technicalities and on the chance of difficul-
ties in proof of qualifications, to be on the roll already
revised and considered to be final and unimpeachable.
We happen to know that Mr. Shand's legal adviser has
had many and almost insuperable difficulties to contend
with, in the performance of his arduous and protracted
duties, and he deserves the warmest thanks from the
electors of Everton Ward in particular, and from the body
of Conservatives in general, for having so efficiently and
successfully disharged the services required of him, more
especially as the result will have a most important influ-
ence in increasing the Conservative majority in the Council
in November next. We now proceed to make public the
following :

SHORT SUMMARY OF FACTS

Ist November, 1839.—Election of a Councillor for Ever-
ton and Kirkdale Ward; Francis Shand and George Quayle,
Esqrs., candidates.
State of the Poll at Four o'clock.

Quayle
Shand

Majority for Quayle

2d and 4th November.—lnquiry before Aldermen and
Assessors at the Town-hall. Two voting papers, signed
" John Davies," examined. Two persons of this name ap-
peared ; the one admitted, that not being on the roll he had
voted for Mr. Quayle under the name of John Davies ; the
other stated that he had tendered his voting paper afterwards
for Mr. Shand. Poll was accordingly altered.
Quayle
Deduct John Davies .. 1 Add John Davies...... 1

John Ashton, whose name was on Mr. Shand's poll, ap-
peared, and stated that he had been personated, and had not
voted.
The poll was altered again.
Shand..
Deduct J. Ashton , 1 I

303 I Quayle

Evan Jones, a burgess, appeared and stated, that he had
tendered his voting paper for Shand, and that the vote had
been recorded ' • alleged contra, that the third question pre-
scribed by the 34th section of the municipal act, viz., " Have
you already voted at the present election 7" had been put to
him at the time of voting, and that lie 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 auy person to vote as a bur-
gess in any borough, except only as follows—(that is to say,)
that the Mayor or other 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 iu 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-