The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-11-07 00:00:00

SOUTH TOXTETH

Several of the votes given in this ward, at the recent
municipal election, having been objected to, and a scrutiny
of them demanded, the more immediately interested par.
ties on both sides appeared in the Mayor's room, on
Thursday afternoon, accompanied by many of their re-
spective friends,—so that the room was inconveniently
crowded throughout the investigation, which was long
and tedious. The alderman for the ward (Mr. Evans)
presided, and beside him sat the assessors—Mr. Leather
(for the conservatives), and Mr. Rogerson (for the re-
formers) ; also the Town-clerk. Mr. Snowball and Mr.
Berry appeared for Mr. Platt, and Mr. A. Lace and Mr.
North for Mr. Glazebrook. Mr. Evans stated that, with
the exception of some few disputed votes, there appeared
to be one vote in favour of Mr. Platt, the numbers in the
poll-book being for that gentleman 118, and for Mr.
Glazebrook 117. According to the Town-hall books, he
had learned that the votes appeared to be 118 for each.
He had to state that, while he and the assessors were in
the bootb, a vote had been tendered, and the name r oted
down, but he had forbidden the completion of the entry.
It was that of Mr. H. F. Leatham, and the dispute is
from the misnomer of the street. The figure 1, to indi-
cate the candidate for whom he voted, was not noted down
in the poll-book before him. A long and uninteresting
discussion took place with regard to this vote, which had
also been disputed with regard to time, as being tendered
after the closing hour ; but this was abandoned, Mr.
Evans stating that it was in time, that the only question
remaining was as to the misnomer in the street o❑ the
voting paper ; and that lie, as one of the returning officers,
had not sanctioned the entry. Mr. Leather said it was
entered in the usual way ; but Mr. Evans put the voting
paper in his pocket. After the evidence of the two poll
clerks had been received, the Town-clerk decided that the
vote had not been received by the whole of the returning
officers, or by a majority of the three; and it remained to be
shown whether, being tendered in time, it ought to have
been received. Mr. North contended that the error was
merely clerical, and did not affect its validity. It was
filled up for Park-street, to which the voter had removed,
while he had qualified for premises in Bedford-street,
where he had previously resided. The voter had, it ap-
peared, resided for the last six or eight months at Birken-
head. The voter himself appeared, and his evidence was
taken. The Town-clerk decided that the vote was bad,
the paper not being filled up according to the require-
ments of the act. The next case was that of John Brit-
tain, counting-house, Sefton-street, who voted for Mr.
Glazebrook. It was objected that there was no such
name as John Brittain on the burgess list, the only per-
son of the same surname being "Ambrose Brittain." A
long discussion ensued on this point between the solicitors,
and much tedious and irrelevant legal lore was emitted by
Mr. Bury in particular. It was, however, explained by
the overseer's clerk, that the name of " Ambrose" far
" John" had been inserted in the list by a clerical mis-
take of a previous clerk, and, the identity of the party
being shown, the vote was deemed good by the Town-
clerk and agreed to.—Objections were then taken to the
votes of Thomas Alderson, Upper Hill-street, and
Thom, Wesley-street, who had voted for Mr. Platt, under
protest, in South Toxteth. After a long discussion and
an examination of the plan of the borough, the Town-
clerk said that both streets were in North Toxteth Ward,
and that both parties ought, he thought, to have voted in
that ward.—The next objection was by Mr. Snowball to
the vote of Ellis Farnwerth, 13, Sefton-street, on the
ground that that part of the street was in North and not
South Toxteth. He bad voted for Mr. Glazebrook with-
out protest being made. The Town-clerk said he would
take time to consider the case, as it differed from the
others, and the court adjourned until Friday for the final
consideration of these last three votes, the decision on
which would be given at eleven o'clock. The inquiry
lasted till five o'clock.

The scrutiny was resumed on Friday morning, and,
after considerable discussion, it was decided, that the two
votes given in favour of Mr. Platt by Thomas Alderson
and Isaac Glenny Thom, whose qualifications were in the
North Ward, must be struck off, leaving Mr. Platt in a
minority of one. The vote of Ellis Farnworth, who
voted under similar circumstances, was allowed, on the
ground that it was not protested against at the time of
voting, as was done in the other cases. Mr. Thomas
Rogerson, the reform assessor, signed the return under
protest. He contended, that the alderman and assessors
had no power to amend the revised list ; their duty was
to receive the votes according to the number on the roll,
and that no alteration could be made except by a supericr
court.