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

SOUTH CHESHIRE REGISTRATION

The Revising Barrister (William Charles Townsend, Esq.)
began to revise the lists for the Wirral district on Wednes-
day last, at the Birkenhead Hotel, and the business of the
court terminated on Saturday.
The Revising Barrister, on opening his court, said he had
appointed lour days for the revision of the lists, and had ar-
ranged that certain townships should be taken on each day ;
had taken care to give publicity to this arrangement, and he
hoped it would have the effect of saving trouble and loss of
time to the overseers and parties objected to; it was a pain-
ful thing to see parties attending for several days together to
have their cases heard.
Mr. Peacock, assisted by Mr. More, attended on the part
of the Conservatives; and Mr. W. W. Mortimer and Mr.
James Gregory, attended for the Radicals.
The recent election, it would seem, had enabled the agents
of both parties to discover defects in the qualifications of
electors, and the consequence was an immense number of
objections was made by both sides ; hut as usual the ob-
jections made by the Radicals were much greater than those
made by the Conservatives.
The decisions of the Revising Barrister seemed to give
universal satisfaction ; in almost every case where he struck
a voter off the list, he gave a reason for doing so, in language
so clear and pointed, and in so conciliating a manner, that
satisfied the party that he had justice done him.
"41'

New Conservative claims...
Radical objections sustained

New Radical claims

Conservative objections sustained

The result of the revision gives the Conservatives a clear
gain of 170 over the Radicals.
Few cases of novelty occurred ; we subjoin a few of the
most interesting ones, and they will tend to illustrate the
practice resorted to by the liberals to obtain voters.
A preliminary objection was taken by Mr. Peacock to the
validity of the service of the notices of objection made by
the Radicals ; the notices, it appeared, were signed " John
Goulborn ;" the notice server admitted that he was not ac-
quainted with the handwriting of Goulborn, and therefore
could not swear that the notices delivered by him were
really signed by Goulborn. Mr. Peacock submitted that the
services of the notices were bad, inasmuch as it lay upon the
objector to prove that the notices of objection were signed
by a person on the register, in pursuance of the 39th section
of the reform act, the witness, it was contended, merely
proved that he had served certain notices, but not that those
notices were really signed by Goulburn.
Mr. Townsend, the Revising Barrister, said he was in-
clined to concur with Mr. Peacock, that an elector could not
be called upon to prove his qualification, unless it could be
proved that the notices were signed by a person on the list.
The Radicals were for some time in great consternation,
when a gentleman present said he was well acquainted with
Goulburn's handwriting, and he proved that the copies of the
objections then produced were signed by him.
Mr. Peacock still urged that this did not cure the defect,
because it was still a matter of doubt whether the notices
actually served were signed by the objector.
The Revising Barrister said the services were not very sa-
tisfactory, but as it had been proved that the copies of the
objections kept were actually signed by the objector, it was
but fair to presume that those served were also signed by
him—and, if it were not so, the party objected to should
prove it by producing his notice.
Several electors were objected to by the conservatives, on,
the ground that their description on the register was too ge-
neral ; some of them were described as of " Liverpool,"
without mentioning any street. Mr. Peacock stated that
this was generally done by parties who had no bona fide qua-
lifications, and with the view of throwing difficulties in the
way of being served with notices of objection to their claim ;
this, he contended, was contrary to the reform act, and, in
confirmation of his view of the case, referred to the schedule
of the act, in which the street was invariably given.
Mr. Mortimer contended that the description was suffi-
cient, and he instanced several cases where Mr. Peacock had
sent in claims with the description " Manchester" and other
large places.
The Revising Barrister said be was inclined to think the
objection good, but, as it would affect many votes, he would
consider the point. On the following morning he held the
objection fatal to the claim, and the claimants were struck
off

This is an important decision, and we trust that our con-
servative friends residing in Liverpool will examine the re-
gister to see that their description is not open to the
objection, with a view to its correction next year.
Thomas Gregory, of Birkenhead, claimed for leasehold
land in Church-street, Birkenhead; he was objected to on
the ground of insufficiency of qualification. It appeared that
the land would not produce £lO a-year, and he was conse-
quently struck off. This gentleman actually voted for this
qualification at the last election for the liberal candidate.
William Williams, of Sweeting-street, Liverpool, claimed
in respect of a leasehold house at Oxton ; he was objected to
by the conservatives. Claimant, on his examination, stated
that the house was worth £2B a-year, and was in mortgage
to a building society, in lieu of interest he paid (12 75.)
monthly for what is called redemption money.
Mr. Peacock contended that this qualification was insuffi-

cient, for it appeared clear that the redemption money ex-
hausted every shilling of the rent, and that consequently the
claimant had not £lO a-year clear of all charges.
The Revising Barrister held the objection fatal.—Claim
rejected.
Several other Oxton votes were struck off on the same

ground.
Randle Newby, of Birkenhead, Joiner, was objected to by
the Conservatives, he claimed for two freehold houses in
Brandon-street, Birkenhead. Mrs. Newby attended to sup-
port her hcsband's claim, she said her husband bought the
land several years ago, and built the houses himself, and he
was then the owner of them, and had voted at several elections.
Mr. Peacock.—Mrs. Newby, have you, yourself, any in-
terest in these houses ?
Mrs. Newby.—Yes, they were built with my money, and
they belong to me and my husband.
Mr. Peacock.—Just tell me, Mrs. Newby, what claim
you have to the house?
Mr. Newby.—Why, I tell you, I advanced money to build
them.

Mr. Peacock.—Yes, but do the houses belong to you, or
to your husband ?
Mr. Newby.—l have them now, and after my death he will
take them.
Mr. Peacock.—That is just what I wanted to know. I
suppose they are vested in trustees for you, during your life,
and, if your husband should outlive you, then he will take
them—is that it.
Mrs. Newby.—Yes, that is it.
Mr. Peacock.—Then your husband's claim is bad ; he has
only a reversionary interest in the property, which is not a
sufficient qualification.—Name expunged.
William Courter, who qualified as part owner of afield at
Seacombe, was objected to by the radicals ; he appeared and
established his claim.—Mr. Courter complained that he had
been objected to for five successive years, and upon every
occasion had been put to the inconvenience of attending to
prove his claim.
We sincerely trust that the Legislature will provide a
speedy remedy for the crying evil, of which Mr. Courter so
justly complained.
John Nevitt Hill, of Poulton, was objected to by the con-
servatives ; it appeared that the property for which he claimed
was the subject of a Chancery suit, and that the rents are re-
ceived by a receiver appointed by the Court.
The Revising Barrister said the claim could not be sup-
ported, as it was uncertain to whom the property belonged.—
Name expunged.
Peter Lowe, of Upton, was objected to by Mr. Peacock, on
the ground that he had omitted to comply to the 56 section
of the Reform Act by paying a shilling with his claim, that
section distinctly enacts " that notice of claim shall not be
deemed valid until such sum shall have been paid."—Name
expunged.
It subsequently appeared that Mr. Lowe, who is a warm
radical partisan, had sent in several claims for his friends,
but in all cases omitted to pay the shilling, and the claims
were consequently disallowed.
John Lowe, of Barnston, was objected to by the conserva-
tives, on the ground that he had not occupied his farm 12
months, on his examination in chief he stated that he had
occupied the farm seven years, and paid more than £5O a year.
—On his cross-examination by Mr. Peacock, he said his
father's name was " John," but he had nothing to do with
the farm, he was only a lodger with claimant ; his father
died six months ago; his neighbours might think his father
was tenant, but it was a mistake ; his father was rated in the
parish books for the farm.
Mr. Peacock.—Now man, I ask you upon your oath, did
you not bring your father to the hustings to poll at the elec-
tion in 37, for the very farm you say you have occupied foi

seven years?
Lowe.-1 don't know any thing about that election.
Mr. Peacock.—But I will take care you shall know some-
thing about it. I ask you again, did you not stand by your
father when he voted for George Wilbraham ?
Lowe.—lt was a mistake altogether, he voted instead of
me. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. Peacock.—A mistake ! What, when you stood by him
and heard him record his vote ?
Lowe.—l don't care for that, lam the tenant.
Mr. Peacock.—Did you send in a claim this year to be put
on the register ?
Lowe.—Yes, I did, and I paid a shilling with it to the
overseers ; he referred to the overseer, who confirmed him
in this statement.
Mr. Peacock (addressing the Revising Barristet).—This is
one of the most impudent and audacious claims that I have
met with, it is notorious that this man's father was the tenant
of the farm. The claimant admits that he (the father) was
rated to the poor as the tenant, and that he actually voted as