The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-10-02 00:00:00

REVISION OF THE BURGESS LIST.

The revision of the list of burgesses entitled to vote in the
next municipal election commenced yesterday, in the Nisi
Wits Cdurt, before Sir Joshua Walinsley, mayor, and Peter
Wright and Thomas: Harvey, Esqrs., assessors.
The following table, says the Mercury, of the number of
objections in each ward, distinguishing those made by the
two parties, of persons on the list, and of claimants, may be
interesting at the present moment. We have taken some
trouble in the compilation, and believe it to be correct.

On the Bur- Objected Objected Total ° b
Ward gess List for to by to by . Claims
t d
1840-1 Reformers ToriesJe° to
893 179 100-- 279 2G
198 175 . 373 27
270 302. 572.. .... 37

Everton
Scotland 895
Vauxhall .. 689

St. Paul's
Exchange ..... 1226 384. 339 723.... .. 60
Castle-street 845
St. Peter's ..... 771 132 331. : 463 l4
Pitt-street 880 3lO 247 557 ' 62
Great George 852 395. 230 625 4l
Rodney-street 911 348 272 620 32
Abercromby .... 957.. 398 312 740 42
Lime-street ...1160
St. Anne's 683 163..
West Derby 485
South Toxteth . 647 295 168 463 ...... 71
North Toxteth..lo63 409 218 627 ...... 88

13,508

The court was excessively crowded. The conservatives
were represented by Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Pennington ; the
whigs by Mr. James, Mr. Snowball, and Mr. Bretherton.
The usual form of opening the court having been observed,
the overseers of the several townships constituting the
borough were sworn as to the rates: made in each since the
Ist January, 1838. It appeared that in Liverpool there had
been two, the first on the 3d November, 1838, and the other
on the 29th June, 1839; in Everton there had been two, one
on the Bth September, 1838, and the other on the 11th
November, 1839; in Kirkdale thee, the first on the 23d
June, 1838,• the second on the Gth July, 1839, and the third
on the 13th June, 1840; in West Derby there had been three,
the first on the 3d July, 1838, the second on the Bth June,
1839, and the third on 4th April, 1840; and in Toxteth Park
there had been two, the first on the 3d July, 1838, and the
other on the 24th June, 1839.
All the notice-servers were next sworn, and it was arranged
that the list of objections should first be gone through in
wards, and the claimants afterwards.
The deputy TOWN-CLERIC stated that a certain number of
objections had been presented in the list without having been
signed; They ought not therefore to have been printed, the
notices not having,been signed. Would Mr. James admit
these ?

Nr. JAMES replied that if he admitted them, he admitted
also that the notices had been duly served : therefore he could
not consent to that.

Mr. PENNINGTON said he had no objection, in order to
save time to strike out all these, if the other side would allow
the remainder of the list to be taken as proved.

Mr. SNOWRALL.—We will do that

Mr. DOVER on the part of the overseers of Liverpool, ap-
plied for leave for all the collectors except Mr. Hart to quit
the court on the ground that the overseers were sworn to de-
liver under a heavy penalty, all the certificates of assessed
taxes by the 17th inst. If all the collectors had to attend the
court, the overseers would not be able to perform that duty.
—A short discussion followed ; the application was opposed
by Mr. WILKINS and Mr. JAMES, and it was refused.

WimaNs had frequently found that fever in politics,
like fever in any other thing, frequently occasioned delirium.
He had no doubt that in the course of a long investigation it
would be discovered that both parties had been guilty of in-
judicious and not very creditable acts. He was free to con-
fess that there were two objections, one served upon the
mayor, and the other upon Mr. Harvey, which he felt him-
self called upon to withdraw, as there were no grounds for
supporting them. (Applause.)
Mr. JAMES perfectly concurred in the observations of Mr.
Wilkins ; and if there could be any arrangement made by
both parties to withdraw objections for which there were no
valid grounds, heshould be very glad. At present, however,
he could-not make any proposal.
Mr. WILKINS most sincerely. regretted that these exhibi-
tions should take place, not only here but elsewhere—he
meant exhibitions of a factious, frivolous, and unfair kind.
He was not so far the slave of party or faction himself as to
throw the whole odium upon the other side. Both sides
were equally guilty ; and he thought that the first day of this
inquiry could not be passed more beneficially than by a sort
of mutual examination deputed to some gentlemen upon each
side; by which all frivolous objections might be removed.
At all events let not the time of the public be thrown away
upon investigations that were really disgraceful;to every party
connected with them. (Hear.)
Mr. JAMES said he was willing to accede to that propo-
sition. He thought the examination might be gone into.
Mr. PRITCHARD stated that the chairman of the reform
committee in Everton, received a letter from the chairman
of the conservative association of the ward, offering to with-
draw the whole of the objections on both sides.- The chair-
man of the reforM" committee replied that it could not be
done, but if they the (conservative association) would appoint
from the reform committee, they (the latter) had agreed to
withdraw any unfounded objections. The worthy chairman
of the reform association, yesterday received a letter de-
clining that offer. Therefore they -had done everything in
their power.
Mr. WILKINS did not think the way to promote the ob-
ject in view was by recriminatory retorts, and therefore he
should not take that course. The proposition he had made
was a fair one.
Mr. SNOWBALL.—We have no authority to withdraw ob-
jections. Perhaps in the evening some arrangements may be
come to, but at present we must go on. '
The MAYOR.—Are we to understand then that at present
you decline the proposition ?
Mr. SNOWBALL.—Yes, at present:
Mr. WRIGHT suggested that, as Mr. Harvey had an en-
gagement at one o'clock which would probably detain him
for two hours, the court had better adjourn at that period.
Mr. WILKINS begged to make another proposition. As
Mr. Harvey was obliged to be absent for two hours, would
it not be advisable to adjourn at once, and in the mean time
let some of the most respectable men on both sides meet to-
gether and see if they could not spare the necessity of such a
long investigation as must follow unless some arrangement
was adopted. .

Mr. WRIGHT highly approved of the suggestion, and
hoped it would be adopted.
Mr. SNOWBALL opposed the proposal for an immediate
adjournment, on the ground that many gentlemen from
Everton were now in attendance, whose cases might be forth-
with decided. After that. there would be time to make any
arrangements which might be thought desirable.
After a few words from Mr. BRETHERTON,
Mr. Hugh Hornby applied for the objection raised by
the conservatives to his brother, Mr. Joseph Hornby, to be
withdrawn. There was no doubt of his qualification.
Mr. WILKINS immediately acceded to the request, and
observed that this was exactly a case that illustrated the ex-
pediency of his proposition.
Mr. John Holmes, also objected to by the conservatives,
made a similar application.
Mr. WILKINS said this application again illustrated the
remarks he had made. If his proposition were adopted,
such men as Mr. Hornby and Mr. Holmes might be saved
a great deal of time, and some degree of mortification which
was necessarily attendant upon being uselessly brought from
their business and then told in public that the objection was
frivolous. If the Mayor, with the weight of his situation as
mayor, and as the presiding officer of this court, would throw
out a suggestion that certain members upon each side should
meet together, it would be attended to on the conservative
side, and would relieve the learned assessors from a great
deal of unpleasantness and anxiety. He (the learned counsel)
made this proposition, not from any selfish motive, but be-
cause he wished this should be an example to be followed on
all future revisions. _

Mr. JAMES said, the only tendency of Mr. Wilkins' re-
marks was not to further the object, but to retard it. It had
already been stated, that at present the proposition could not
be acceded to, but that at the close of the day some measures
might be taken for that purpose. The whole of the objec-
tions, which seemed to be frivolous, might then be gone into,
and, no doubt, there were many of them. There had been a
proposal made by Mr. Pritchard, that two gentlemen should
be appointed now. The business of the court might now pro-
ceed, and these gentlemen left to settle what names should
be withdrawn. _

•• • •••••• • ••••
The MAYOR understood Mr. Wilkins' proposition to apply
not to any particular ward, but generally to the whole list.
Mr. WILKINS.—Yes.
The MAYOR had often public business to perform, which
would render it inconvenient for him to sit in court ; it
was his duty, and he was prepared to stay there froth nine
o'clock in the morning till six at night, till the /fist was gone
through ; but he trusted some arrangement would be made
whereby they might be able to get throughit within the 14
days. _

WILKiNs did not dispute the inclination or the ability
of the Mayor, but he bad an eye, not only to the arduous
duties to be discharged, but to the delicacy of his situation as
Mayor. He (Mr. W.) had no other proposal to make. If
his learned friend would accede to it, he (Mr. Wilkins)
would consent that every objection should be withdrawn on
both sides.—(Cheers.)

Mr. JAMES, after some remarks on the public expressions
of applause, of which he disapproved, said, he at once, with-
out consultation with any one, must say it was absolutely
impossible he should accede to it. There was no objection
for certain parties to meet, and go through the whole list ;
and if any arrangement could be made by which time might
be saved, he should gladly accede to it. But at present he
could not make ally.

The MAYOR—Then it is the determination of the court
to go on till one o'clock.
The objection to Mr. Holmes was then withdrawn.
Obadiah Arrowsmith, on the list for a house in West
Derby-road, Everton, was objected to by the whigs. The
contest was about the service of the notice ; it was held to
have been legal. M. ArTowsmith was then examined upon
his qualification. He proved that he had occupied the house
since the Ist of January last, but that be had previously
lived in Gill-street for five years. All the rates and taxes
were paid. The vote was allowed ; and an objection to the
same gentleman, in Exchange-ward, for a warehouse in
Cheapside, was withdrawn.
Wenman Abraham, house and shop in St. Domingo-road,
was objected to by the whigs. The service of the notice was
contested for some time by Mr. Wilkins, on the ground that
having been given to Mrs. Harris, the wife of a joint oc-
cupier of the house, it was invalid. The court, however,
decided that it was a good service. The question then turned
upon the point whether Abraham being a joint occupier of
the house, but sole occupier of the shop, was entitled to be
placed on the list. A long argument ensued between Mr.
WILKINS and Mr. JAMES, and the Assessors allowed the
vote.
__

Mr. WILKINS wished to make an application on the part
of his friend, Mr. James Aspinall. Mr. Aspinall was ob-
jected to, he was much indisposed, and he (Mr. Wilkins)
had a medical certificate in his hand, that if Mr. Aspinall
were detained in court any considerable length of time, it
would prove injurious to him. Under these circumstances,
would his learned friend state whether he had any, and what
objection to this vote.

Mr. JAMES said he would withdraw the objection to this
vote for Pitt-street ward. Vote allowed.
Mr. WILKINS than applied for the objection to Mr. Tho-
mas Sands' vote to be withdrawn, but Mr. JAMES declined.
Mr. Trotter Allen, house, Lowry-street, Everton, was op-
posed by the whigs. A man, named Humphries, proved that
he had left the objection in this case at Mr. Allen's house.
On being asked how he had left it there, he replied that
he had pitched a copy of it through the key-hole' of the door,
on the 15th September. Mr. NVILKINS contended that this
was not a regular service.
Mr. SNOWBALL in reply said it had been regularly put
through the key-hole of the door ; and that he apprehended
was sufficient.

Mr. HARVEY said there could be no regular service of an
objection through a key-hole. (Laughter.)—Vote allowed.
John Ashton, house Hygeia-street, was opposed by the
whigs. Proof having been given of the length of occupation
and the payment of rates, the vote was allowed.
John Aldersey, house Sackville-street, was objected to by
the conservatives. The principal question in this case was
the validity of the service of the notice. The objection was
signed by James Lycett, a burgess, in Portland-street, and
the allegation was, that his name was James Welsh Lycett,
and that he could not legally object, as no person of that name
was on the burgess roll. About 63 objections, it was stated,
had been signed by this individual, and consequently very
laborious and persevering efforts were made by Mr. JAMES
on the part of the whigs to establish the point. To accom-
plish this, the jean who had served the objections was sub-