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

THE LIVEIWOOL STANDARD.

promise such blessings and such abundance to arise
from free trade and cheap bread,—mark the follow-
ing consolatory conclusion !
" In the present state of the agricultural districts, it
would be found, that, whatever might be the average prices
of produce, the labourers would receive about the same
proportion of that produce as at present, leaving the pro.
portion to be divided between the farmer and the land-
owner unchanged in quantity, though diminished in
money-value."
NOT A LOAF MORE BREAD FOR YOU THAN YOU
HAVE AT PRESENT ! Think of that and judge
what free trade will do for you !

We have been amused—we should have said
amazed, if anything emanating from so thorough-
paced a renegade as Mr. Milner Gibson could have
amazed us—at the sneers which he thought it be-
coming in him on Thursday night to level against
the noble lord, the member for Liverpool, during the
debate on the sugar question.
Mr. Milner Gibson asserts, that the merchants of
Liverpool have forgotten all their past professions of
philanthropy. Lord Sandon, upon the question of
slavery, " has not at this moment any support from
the people of Liverpool." l We beg the honourable
renegade's pardon ;heis in error. He doesn't know
the people of Liverpool. That people have never
prayed for more than justice to the West Indian in-
terest, and wish for no more now. They despise,
moreover, such charlatans as Mr. Milner Gibson ;
and if that gentleman will offer himself as an oppo-
nent of Lord Sandon at any future election, they
will give him a lively proof of their opinions.
The renegade in question had the assurance to
say—as if the world had forgotten how he was
foisted upon the electors of Manchester—that " the
noble lord, the member for Liverpool, did not repre-
sent the merchants, the tradesmen, and the shop-
keepers of the borough for which he was returned;"
and he went on to libel the constituency of that
1 town by declaring, that "if the poll book of Liver-
pool were analised, it would be found that the noble
lord and his colleague only represented those who
paid the best." Now, we take the liberty to tell this
miserable driveller that Lord Sandon represents
better men than himself—purer minded men—and
is not the slave of a Whig-radical coterie, or any other
coterie—is not the nominee of a joint stock bank
directory, or of a band of conspirators under the
name of an Anti-corn-law] League or any other
league. Lord Sandon is the representative OF
LIVERPOOL, and not the representative of the jen-
nies, and mules, and steam-looms, or of men with
as little intellect as these senseless machines, of the
sensible town of Manchester. Lord Sandon has,
moreover, a political reputation to rely upon; Mr.
Milner Gibson has only a political reputation such
as any honourable or sensible man would be glad to
get rid of for half-a-crown, and its purchaser find
no advantageous bargain.

When the Whig-Radicals of Liverpool first
mooted the question of the disputed seat far South
Toxteth Ward, and intimated so boastingly that
they had the opinion of the Attorney-General in
favour of the claim of the defeated candidate, Mr.
Platt, we expressed a doubt that the case laid before
that eminent lawyer had been fairly stated—that the
really important points had been candidly and truly
placed before him : and the case itself, as laid before
the late Council meeting, proves that we were not
in error. That " case," we say boldly, is not the
case decided by Mr. Alderman Evans, under the
legal advice of the Town-Clerk. It does not shew
correctly—it misrepresents, in fact—the grounds of
the decision and of the opinion of the Town-Clerk
as well, with respect to the legality of thecourse
taken. It is a jesuitical shuffling with the question,
as indeed is sufficiently shewn by the fact, that the
Town-Clerk himself is quite ready to acknowledge
the law as laid down by Sir Frederick Pollock upon•
the case submitted to him, and yet maintains the
perfect correctness of his own law upon the facts,
as tendered to and accepted by the Alderman. We
shall endeavour briefly to place the facts of the case
submitted, and the groundwork of the two appa-
rently conflicting opinions, before our readers.

And first, as to the facts, we shall give them as-
stated in the case drawn up by the Reform party :
'• At the Municipal Election, held on the Ist of Novem-
ber last, at the borough of Liverpool, which is divided
into wards, the three following names appeared on the
burgess-roll for the South Toxteth Ward, and their quali—
fications were stated in it thus

Christian name and
No. surname of each per-
son at full length.

Nature of Pro-
perty rated.:

Street, lane, or other
place, in the extra
parochial place,where
the property is situate
for which he is now
rated.

8646IAlderson Thomas

894'2 Thom, Isaac Glenny'
8762 Farnworth, Thomas

House.
House.
Counting•hous

29. Upper Hill-street.
Wesley-street.
Sefton street.

The first of the three, namely, Thomas Alderson,
tendered his vote, for the Reform party, to the alderman
and assessors at the polling-booth, and thereupon it was
immediately objected to by the Conservative party, on the
ground (as the fact was) that his qualification, ' House,
22, Upper Hill-street,' was situate, not in the South Tox-
teth, but in the North Toxteth Ward.
" The second of the three, namely, Isaac Glenny Thom,
in like manner tendered his vote for the Reform party, and
thereupon it also was immediately objected to by the
Conservative party, on the ground (as the fact was) that
his qualification, House, Wesley-street,' was situate,
not in South Toxteth, but in the North Toxteth Ward.
" The third, namely, Ellis Farnworth, in like manner
tendered his vote fur the Conservative party, but his vote
was not at the time objected to, though the fact was that
the qualification, Counting-house, Sefton-street,' was
like the others situate not in South Toxteth hat in the
North Toxteth Ward.
" The alderman and assessors received all the three
votes at the poll, but afterwards, on examining the voting-
papers, as directed by s. 35 of the act, they entered into
a scrutiny, and, assisted by the Town-clerk, heard the
arguments of the different candidates on both sides, and
admitted evidence to show, that the several qualifications
before-mentioned were not situate in the South Toxteth
Ward, and that the votes of Alderson and Thom for the
reformers were objected to at the polling.hooth, and that
the vote of Farnworth was not so objected to. The alder-
man and assessors, upon these facts, decided, under the
direction of the Town-clerk, that the votes of Alderson
and Thom, whose qualifications were in the North Tox,
teth Ward, should not be allowed, and that the vote of
Ellis Farnworth, who voted under similar circumstances,
should be allowed, on the ground, that it was not pm-
tested against at the time of voting, as was done in the
other cases. The result was, that the conservative candi-
date was declared elected by a majority of one ; whereas,
had all the three votes been allowed, or all the three votes
disallowed, the reform candidate would have had the
majority."

Upon the facts as thus stated, the opinion of the
Attorney-General was requested with respect to the
following points :
" Ist. Had the alderman and assessors any right, under
the Municipal Act, to enter into any inquiry as to the
locality of the qualifications, or to attempt to ascertain
such locality by evidence? or, was not their power con-
fined simply to the examination of the voting-papers? v
as to this query section 35.
" 2d. Has the Town-clerk, or have the aldermen and'
burgesses any right, at, or before, or subsequent to, any
election, to vary or alter the division into wards,
should errors be discovered to exist in such division? or
is such division conclusive?
" 3d. Had Thomas Alderson and Isaac Glenny Thom
a right to vote in South Toxteth Ward, their qualifica-
tions appearing on the burgess-roll to be situate in that
ward, notwithstanding that such were, in reality, not
situate in that ward ? or were their votes, after having
been objected to at the polling-booth, rightfully dis-
allowed on the scrutiny ?
"4th. Had Ellis Farnworth a right to vote in the
South Toxteth Ward, his qualification appearing, on the
burgess-roll, to be situate in that ward, notwithstanding
that it was in reality situated not in that ward ; and was
his vote rightly allowed on the scrutiny, the objection to
it not having been taken at the polling-booth, but having
been taken only at the time of the scrutiny ?"

To these queries the answer of the Attorney-Ge.
neral is as follows :

"1. I am of opinion that the alderman and assessors
had no right, under the Municipal Regulation Act, to enter
into any inquiry on that occasion (namely, when examining
the voting papers) as to the locality of the qualifications,
or to attempt to ascertain such locality by evidence.
Their power was confined simply to the examination of the
voting papers and to declaring the result of such examina-
tion. On a different occasion (namely, on the holding of