The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-12-04 00:00:00

'fili','LlVitittio-01, 'll'lW..)Allis:

_that, howeVer, is a clumsy in )le' of Nridding yourselves of the
evil. Why, I ask, are not the Assembly and a governor suffi-
cient fur the government of the country
" gxctise me for thuS expressing myself, my anxiety for your
natiimal welfare will, I hope, be a sufficient apology. • Believe
me, sir, that I have the most perfect Consideration for the high
office which you hold, arid felt yourielf personally.—l am, your
obedient servant,
(Signed) "J. A. ROEBUCK."

"To the Speaker of the House of Assembly."
Alfihis is very good if not very grammatical. "The "high,
consideration" doubtless alludes to the £6OO per annu►n drawn
from the pockets of the "public people," Aile the fling at the
House of Lords, so judiciously and deliesgely introduced, is in
the happiest Roebuck vein. llow long,v,-111 common sense, or
even common nonsense, be gulled, seditionized, and juggled in
this way? Whether it be Greek Scrip, Canadian agencies, or
" lint," it is evident that the "liberals," from the Irish beggar-
man to the Middlesex booby, will do nothing for their fellow-
patriots without "a consideration."

REVISION Ui THE •BLTIWESS-ROLL-

Tuesday being the day appointed for the rerision of the kir-
gess-list under the umuicipal corporation au,
one of the revising barristers, took his -seat in this Sessions-
court, at ten o'clock. Hii learned colleague, Mr. Heywood,
was unavoidably absent, owing to alate afflictin,-, event which
has occurred in his family. We allude to the 'death of that
gentleman's father. Thu court was excessively crowded, in
consequence of the forthcoming discussion as to whether the
Choice olselectin,, the ward in which a burgess must vote,
when he pOSsessed qualifying property in more than one ward,
must. be made at that time, in that court, or lett to his own ulti-
mate discretion. The point at issue was raised by the heads of
the reform association, who served with notices of objection all
of the opposite party who were possessed of this plural qualifica-
tion. .The conservatives, iu self defence, followed their ex-
ample. The result of the discussion was, therefore, highly in-
teresting, as, in the event of the cmiservatives establishingtheir
opinion, viz., that the revising, barristers did not possess any
'punier under the act to require 'a
person to fix the particular
ward in which he would vote, the immediate result would be
thewithdrawal of an immense number of Objections. .

The argument was raised upon an objection taken to Mr.
James Byrne, who, it appears by the burgess-list, claims quali-
fication upon a house in F'alkner-street, and a warehouse in the
Goree.

. _
Mr. ATHERTON stood forWarct on the part of the objectors,
and commenced by directing the attention of the court to the
court to the twenty-second section of the act, wherein it is or-
dered that the burgess-list, having been revised, is to be- kept by
the town-clerk, and fairly copied into boOkS;the names being
numbered, " beginning the numbers from the first name and
continuing them in a regular series to' the' last name," such
book to be the roll of the burgesses entitled to vote. This regu-
lar series of numbering was greatly at variance with the idea of
names being repealed on the list. It was diatinctly stated in the
act, that a person shouldDbe entitled to vote in one ward and no'
more. Supposing then, that the name of the party objected to,
should 'continue as it was at present, it would then appear upon:
the list as if he were entitled to vote for two wards; whiCh
was directly at variance with the spirit of the forty-fourth sec-.
tion, which set tbrth that "if any burgess shall be rated inre-
spect of distinct premises in two 'or more wards, then he shall
'be entitled to be enrolled, and to vote in such one of the said
wards as he shall select, but not in more than one." It was
evident that some time must have been contemplated in which
a person must . make his selection, or these words would have'
been suiierfleouso-‘-and that time must be that of the 'revision of
the lists, inasmuch as the words, "he shall be entitled to be en-
rolled and to vote," had a clear reference to that point and to
the dependence of the one the other. The whole spirit of
this seetiongAit more especially the concluding words, shOweat
that on the revision of the list the revising barrister bad the.
power to put the person to his selection. It appeared that ac-
cording to the .ninth section, Mr. Byrne, he being directly
within the qualification clause, was entided.to remelt, on the
list, being, '• ditty enrolled in that year according to the-pro-
visions of the act." Mr. Atherton .explained to the effect that
he conceived the words " duly enrolled" to wean enrolled ac-
cording, to the ultimate revision. tie aimed at the consideration
that a man must some time ur other"be put to make his selec-•
Lieu, and it ..was now the revising barrister's duty to put Mr.
Byrne ,to sash selection according to the obvious intention of,
the legislature, as expressed in the forty-fourth section.- He
(the revising barrister,) was bound to put him to such selection
in order to revise his list,—in order to make a correct but gess-
roll.

Mr. PETRI: WRIGHT, one of the solicitors to the Conserva-
tive Association, said that he should be under the necessity of
commencing his reply by reading over the fort v-fourth clause
of the act, from which clause his antagonist had mainly drawn
his arguments. [Mr. Wright here deliberately read .over the
whole of.the forty4ourth sectiou•of the act.] He admitted that,
under that section, a person was bound to vote in one ward, and
no more; but he defied any man to show _that any time was
fixed as to when such selection should be made. It seemed to.
hint very clear that no such intention had existed on the part of
the legislature as that which had been stated. There was a di-.
rect oath prescribed it the third question to be asked of a per-
son about to vote, which was at variance with such an idea.
That pestion.was,—" Have you already voted at the present
election ?" Of what use was that question or that oath if the
person had previously been deprived of the power of making his
selection, or of presenting himself to vote for any other ward?
If they now compelled persons to make their selection of the
ward in which they must be hound to vote at a future period,
they might compel them to vote for a person whom they never
had the slightest intention of supporting ; for, though it-was
true that, at present, the candidates for the representation of the:
respective wards appealed to be fixed upon, yet they were not
by any means immutably so; they. might every individual of
teem be changed, and then, he would ask, of what value would
the choice be, supposing it to be made at present ? Mr. Wright
concluded by submitting that the revising barrister had not the
power of calling upon any party, qualified for more than one
ward, to select: that in which he would give his vote.

,
Mr. ATHERTON, in reply, said it wasperfectly* clear that the
legislature in this act had intended that there should be no
difference between the landlord and the tenant—between the
rich and the poor man. It was not intended, as had seemed to
be supposed, that one individual should be confined by circum-
stances to one ward, while another, because he happened to have
a qualification in several, *hould therefore have a choice-. Such
an interpretation was contrary to the whole spirit of the act,
which gave each party qualified, according to its provisions, an
equal right. It was therefore, then, the duty of the revising
barrister to place Mr, Byrne upon the same footing as any
other man.

Mr. A LIR AHALL said that ,the duties of the revising barrister
appeared to him to be as clearly defined as those required in
any other court. Ile conceived that the act had made theM
exceedingly strict and binding, and that it gave him no power
but to expunge or insert. It was not stated anywhere that he
should call upon persons to select their wards before him. I-1e;
therefore, gave it as his opinion that he had no power to do so.
Mr. \\Taint-yr stated that a great number of individuals were
present who had been served with notices of objection on the
above ground; it might therefore be well to go through the list,
and inform those parties that such uround of objection had been
removed by the decision: This was agreed to. In the course of
iii*Oatterlstotagedinig., howev-4441.,wras_suggested. that there-ti is
at-tether-disputed point which, had better be settled, iu which
case the Whole of the subsequent buSiness, whatever the decision
might be, would preceed,more:snitruthly..
The point in dispute arose -I'6M the. use of the word " build-
in,," by the overseas in deScribiug the
.qualifications of seve-
ral of the voters in the list. :These parties had been objected
to on the ground that this word was nut used in the act, the only
words used being "house, warehouse. countinghouse, or shop."
It was agreed that the question whether the barrister had toe
power to amend the qualification should be argued on the case
of Mr. Hottert.Ainseough, who stood on the list as follows:
" Robert,Ainscough—building—Banastre-street." It was ad-
initted-th4the building, though newly designated by that ge-
neral terth, did, iu fact, include a "house."
Mr. Carson contended that the qualification of the voter was
sufficient; and that the barrister should amend the descript ion in
the list. It was admitted that the party before the court had, in
fact, occupied a house for the requisite period—that the• house,
though included with other premises under this word, building
had been rated, and had-contributed in proportion to the rate,
and this.beirw merely a mistake in the description of the pro-
perty, eepieetrom the rate-book, could•be rectified by the cunt
under the 18th section. If the court considered the question
doubtful, he was of opinion-that the art should be construed' li-
berally, and in favour of the voter, and it it were oast), it would
be iu the power of any overseer to disfranchise as many persons
as he thought prpper by using the word "building," instead of
..
accurately describing the property.• . • • •
Mr. Atherton contended that the barrister had no .power to
amend, and that his powers. were very restricted, namely, to
correct mistakes or omissions hi the name or place of abode, or
local description of the property of the party, and that this case
was not included under any of those words.
Mr. Ahrahall said that it was the duty of the court to require
the qualification of the party to be substantially proved, and if
that was satisfactorily shown as in the present case he considered
that he had the power to amend any mistake in. the description.
He would therefore substitute the word "house" for build-
ing." This case decided many others of the same description,
and the court proceeded with the revision of the list.

TO THE "REFORMER" IN THE LIVERPOOL
CHRONICLE, IF "THE CAP FITS."

FRIEND lArtwAst,—So you have at length mustered sual-;.
cient 'flora courage to write a letter to that wretched -vehicle
the Chronicle of Saturday last, in which you choose to calum-
niate, in fiercest terms, a very 'worthy and respectable mer-
chant of this town. You have also deemed h expedient, in-
stead of the cognomen by which you are generally recognised,
to substitute the signature of "A Reformer." In this latter
respect I commend your prudebice; for as it has been said of
charity, that it "covereth a multitude of-sins," so of the title
" Reformer,". it may be with truth averred, , that in Many in-
stances it Conceals such an accumulation of hypocritical imp&
deuce that, .if unmasked, 'or unmantled, would subject the
bearer to universal and well merited contempt. The flimsy
Mantle, however. (inasmuch as you are discorered,) will not
save your devoted shoulders; for although it may not be coin-
, peten t fora gentleman to-notice you. by a corporeal castigation,
it shall not be my part to shrink from a declaration to the world,
that so far from being fit to occupy a seat in time council cham-
ber to which you• aspire, you are not capable of edifying your
"bear's paw" associates with a second idea, even on social sub-
jects. For the sake, therefore, of the character you
_Turmeric
poisessed of being an easy going, quiet "hog in armour," aban-
don the practice of bespattering your neighbours with your
Chronicled slander, retire from the contest for the representa-
tion of via*, for which it has beep. showU you are
entirely unfitted; return to the good old trade of •flour dealing
by which you (or somebody else jirr you) have amassed a consi-
derable quantity of coins. But if you .persist in your,present
disreputable, and downward career, recoiled, ere it: be too late,
the words of-the poet:-
7" ~2tcilis deseensus Arend,
SedrecOedlei, yradam, suPerasque eradere ad auras,
Ric Lbor: hoc opus ea."
For your benefit,- and that of your radical Mends, I will
hazard afree translation:—
To jump into a gutter
And there make a splutter,
Is much easier, I Weep,
Than to jump' out again clean.
. .
"Thine respectfully,"
A SCOTCH TERRIF.R,
- West Derby, St. Andrew's Day, 1835. .