The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-10-13 00:00:00

REVISION 01? THE BOROUGH LIST.

The revising barristers opened their courts for the revision of
the lists of voters for this borough on Friday morning.
The objections to the freemen were heard by Mr. Greenwood
in the Civil Court.

The claims and objections as to the lists for the parish of
Liverpool.
As to collecting districts 1,2, 3, and 4, by Mr. Heywood, in
the Crown Court, and as to collecting districts 5,6, 7, and 8,
by Mr.'Elanshard, in the Grand Jiiry lioom, and as to the lists
for the township of Toxteth-park, West Derby, Everton, and
Kirkdale, by Mr. Abrahall, in the old Grand Jury Hoorn.

REVISION OF THE LIST OF FREEMEN.

The 'fown-clork stated that he wished -it to he understood,
that, in consequence of his uecessai y absence from Liverpool,
manynarnes had appeared upon thu lists which ought not to
have been there, as they had not appeared to state their preseut
residence.

No case possessing any particular interest occurred in tVs.
court. Upwards of 400 freemen who had been objected to ap-
peared and substantiated their claims. • In very few cases did
there appear the slightest ground of objection to these men, nod
everybody but their pertinacious opponents seem to unite in a
common feeling of iudignAtion at the political rancour which
induced these random objections. The barrister, with. the most
anxious desire to remedy, as far as lay in his power, this cruel
injustice, has afforded as 'ouch time as possible to these poor
men to come forward, although every attempt was made to shake
him from his purpose. Mr. Greenwood, • however, throughout
the whole of this •revision has shown that•ho can think and act
for himself.

Mr. Peter Wright appeared on behalf of the conservative as-
sociation, to support the freemen, and Mr. ®rook conducted the
case (if case it can be called) of the reform association.

PARISH OF LIVERPOOL.
Mr. Heywood sat in the Crown Court.
FIRST DAY. "

The list of claimants was first taken. The first claimant hav-
ing appeased to substantiate his claim, and been examined by
Mr. Atherton in support of his qualification, Mr. Carson was
proceeding to cross-examine him, when Mr. Atherton objected
to his right to do so.
Mr. Carson admitted that there was no clause in the act which,
strictly speaking, authorised him to cross-examine a claimant,
but he contended- that it was an omission in the act which should
be supplied by permitting any persob on the list of voters to ob-
ject at the hearing of the claim. if this was not allowed, a per-
son omitted from the original overseers' list was in a much bet-
ter phsition than a person who was inserted. The latter might
be objected to, and his qualification sifted, but the former had
only to claim and make out a prima facie case, and this claim
would be allowed, and in this view he was supported by Mr. Rus-
selljemn whose Work orfthe reform nct he quoted a passage in fa
-
your of his right (being on the list of voters) to examine the
claimant. _ .

Mr. Heywood decided against the general right, but said he
would take the evidence of any person who appeared as a wit-
ness against a claimant.
The list of claims was then proceeded with without opposition
from either party.
The .objections against the persons in the register for districts
5,6, 7, and 8, were taken in the Grand Jury linens before Mr.
Blanshard. Mr. Penington attended on behalf of the conser-
vatives, and Mr. Curry on behalf of the reformers. The cases
of objections against those parties who were in attendance were
gone into, after which, a part of the claims made by thoie pre-
sent were examined and decided, and at four o'clock Mr. Blan-
shard proceeded with the list of objections, striking out the
names of such as were not present. On Saturday the list. of
clailliaGlS was completed.
On Saturday morniag Mr. Abraball presided for Mr. Blan-
shard during a short time, and several persons claimed to vote
who had not paid all the arrears of rates for former years, which
bad been partly ex;msed by the overseers.
An objection was taken by Mr. Penington, that as the party
could only be discharged or appeal from their liability and 4g.
overseers had no power to excuse them, they still remained PS
gaily liable,and could not be held to have paid all the taxes
due front them. Mr. Abrahall concurred in this view and toe
• votes were struck off.)
A question having been put by Mr. Penington to John
Gerdes, a claimant as to the place of his birth, an objection
was made by Mr. Curry, that the onus probandi lay upon the
person objecting. After a discussion, Mr. Blanshard said that
he and his colleagues had considered the point, and were quite
satisfied that the party having been constituted a witness to
prove his own qualification of which his right as a natural born
subject was a material ingredient, he was subject to be cross-
examined. The examination was resumed, and it appeared
that the claimant was a German and had not been naturalized.
lie was' struck off. The right to elicit this evidence from the
claimant himself was insisted upon.hy Mr. Peniugton in many
other cases, and seine were struck off on the ground off on the
ground of their being aliens.
- -

SATURDAY.
The List of Objections taken,

The Rev. H. 0. Booth claimed to vote in respect of his occu-
pation of a house in Ray-street. It appeared that the house
was taken by,the trustees of the Wesleyan Methodist Chapel,
and that 'Mr. Booth's occupation was only permissive. The
claim was therefore (I.kallowed. _ _ _

Charles Graham claimed to vote for a house in Soho-square.
It appeared, that he had removed on the first of July to a house
in Great Nelson-street. Mr. Carson contended that he should
have claimed to be rated for the latter `house, and to have his
name inserted fur the two successive occupations ending on the
last day of July. Mr. Atherton contended that this was an
omission of the Overseers for which the claimant ought not to
suffer, and that the court had power to supply the defect by aclrL.
ing " Great Nelsen-street." Mr. Carson replied that there
was no clause in the act which gave the barrister such •power.
This was no omission or mistake under the 50th sec. It was no
part of the duty of the overseers, at least for the purposes of
this act, to ascertain the removals of every body in the town ; u
party leaving one house and going to another should send in a
claim to be rated for the latter. The Overseers had no other
guide than the rate-book in making out the lists, and such was
the intention of the legislature.
Mr. He weed said he could not add the other house as a part
of the qualification, and that the party should have claimed to
be rated. The claim was therefore disallowed.