The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-03-12 00:00:00

the court of revision,) it was their duty, if properly called
upon and notice of objection being given, to enter upon
such inquiry. But the revised list is conclusive evidence
of the right to vote, and in what ward.
2. " I think the list, as revised, is conclusive, and no error
not objected to before the Court of Revision can after-
wards be corrected.

"3. I am of opinion that Thomas Alderson and Isaac
Glenny Thom had a right to vote in South Toxteth Ward,
where the property appeared to be situated, and that their
votes were not rightfully disallowed on the examination
of the papers. Had the inquiry been a scrutiny, in the
usual election sense of that term, it might have been
otherwise ; but it ought not to have been a scrutiny.
"4. I am of the same opinion as to Ellis Farnworth.
The making or not making an objection at the polling-
booth is a matter of perfect indifference. The lists are
prepared and revised to prevent such objections : the
questions set out in the act may be asked, but NO OTEIERS,
neither of the voter nor of any one else. The great ob-
ject of having a revised list would be defeated if objections
could be made either at the polling-booth or at the ex-
amination of polling-papers.

" FRED. POLLOCK.

" Temple, 11th January, 1844."
Now, in the first place, let us see whether the

facts of the case are correctly stated. With the first
three paragraphs quoted, detailing the course taken
at the polling-booth, we have no quarrel. The facts,
we believe, are as stated. But with respect to the
next, as to the scrutiny and the grounds of the
decision, it is in almost every sentence erroneous.
A scrutiny, in the common acceptation of the term,
there was none. The "arguments of the different
candidates ou both sides" had nothing to do with

the matter. No " evidence" was admitted on either
side, although there was abundant tendering of
evidence and plenty of talk. This was, in fact, all
surplusage; it being distinctly explained by the
Town-Clerk that the Alderman and Assessors had
no power to receive evidence, and that they should
decide quite irrespective of any such evidence. Fi-
nally, the vote of Ellis Farnworth was not allowed
" on the ground that it was not protested against at
the time of voting, as was done in the other cases,"

(the italics are not our own,) but on totally different
grounds. So much, then, for the facts as stated in
the case for the opinion of the Attorney-General;
and now for the reconciling of the two opinions.
With the Town-Clerk, we perfectly agree with
the opinion of Sir Frederick Pollock upon the law,
with the facts as stated to him. With respect to
the first point, we admit that " the Alderman and
Assessors had no right, under the Municipal Re-
gulation Act, to enter into any inquiry on that
occasion (namely, when examining the voting paper)
as to the locality of the qualifications, or to attempt
to ascertain such locality by evidence"; and no
such inquiry was ever entered into. It was never
attempted to be disproved that the qualification of
Thomas Alderson was in Upper Hill-street, that of
Isaac Glenny Thom in Wesley-street, or Ellis Farn-
worth in Sefton-street, as declared in the revised
burgess-list. What the Alderman and Assessors
did, under the instructions of the Town-Clerk, was
simply this, and perfectly in accordance with the
Municipal Act. When their attention was called
to the vote of Thomas Alderson, claiming for a
house in Upper Hill-street, they referred to the
map containing the division of the borough into
wards by the Municipal Commissioners, and having
found that Upper Hill-street was in the North
ward, they rejected the vote, as they were bound to
do. The same test decided the vote of Isaac Glenny
Thom to be in the North ward ; and with respect
to the vote of Ellis Farnworth, who occupied pre-
mises in both wards, but who was simply registered
for Sefton-street, they declared it a good vote, be-
cause they found "Sefton-street" placed by the
Commissioners in the South ward as well as in
the North, a portion being in each, and they recog—
nised the law of the Attorney-General that they had
no right to go beyond the evidence of the burgess
list and the Commissioners' map.
The point upon which the two opinions differ
appears to be this. Sir Frederick Pollock, looking
only at the clauses brought under his notice and
the distorted facts alleged in the case, regards as
the register recognised under the Municipal Act a
register divided into wards by the Mayor and the
Revising Court. The Town-Clerk maintains that
the only register is a list of the burgesses with their
respective qualifications, and that the only authori-
tative guide, as to the wards in which those qualifi-
cations are situated, is the map as divided by the
Commissioners.. The law does not require that the

burgess-roll should be divided into wards. Such
division, as to the qualifications, has already been
made by the Commissioners ;. and by their autho-
rity alone the Alderman and Assessors in every
booth must decide. They are, in fact, in the eye
of the law, understood. to have such map and a
complete list before them in every booth, from
which to decide all disputed votes.

The second point decided by the Attorney-Gene-
ral, that " the list as revised is conclusive," we con-
cede, such list being what the law contemplates, a
register of names and qualifications. So long as
the parties retained these qualifications they could
vote in respect of them, but only in such wards as
the Commissioners had decided:

The third point is one which must stand or fall
with the two first; and the fourth has already been
admitted. The vote of Ellis Farnworth was not
disallowed, because it was not objected to, but be-
cause Sefton-street was both in the north and south,
part being in both, and the alderman and assessors
could not enter into an inquiry as to what was
the particular qualification.
That the lists have been divided into, wards by the
Town-clerk, for the convenient taking of the votes,
we are perfectly ready to admit. Nay, we even ad-
mit that in such, divided state they may have been
revised. But has it ever been deemed within the
power of the revising court to enter into the ques-

tion of such division, and to decide authoritively as
to the ward; to. which any particular vote belonged ?
It has not.. We believe it never was dreamt of.
And be it remarked that the question, as to the
power of the Town-clerk or the alderman and as-
sessors to. correct any errors in such division, al-
though referred to in the case, was never put to the
Attorney-General, and it is not referred to by him.
Had it been, we are confident that it would have
led that able lawyer to a more accurate view of the
whole question at issue,, and a total reversal of his
opinion upon the points put to him.. Even as the
matter stands at present, however, we are fully con-
vinced that Mr. Glansbrook is acting both legally
and honourably in retaining his seat, notwithstand-
ing the disappointed ravings of his opponents, and
the hostile opinion of the Attorney-General upon
their misstated case.

The financial measure announced by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer on Friday night must be
one of proud contemplation by the Ministry of Sir
Robert Peel. A reduction of taxation, by the remis-
sion of some duty upon imports, has ever been
received with gratitude by the people of Great
Britain, labouring as they do under a pressure
greater than that sustained by any other nation.
Such reductions, however, we have seen lead occa-
sionally, in times of depressed commerce and indus-
try, to serious embarrassments, and even to increased
taxation imposed in some other shape. But the
present plan proposes to effect a reduction of the
permanent debt of the country—to diminish the
necessity for taxation to the extent, immediately, of
£625,000 per annum ; and, after the lapse of ten
years, to the extent of £1,250,000 per annum : and
from the manner in which the proposal has been
received, both in the House of Commons and by