19 SEPTEMBER 1835, Page 2

The Revising Barristers for Middlesex, Messrs. Thomas Coventry and F.

0. Martin, opened their Court at Brentford on Tuesday. We take the following account of the proceedings from the Morning .Chronicle report, which is substantially the same as that in the Times and Post.

There were altogether ninety-nine votes objected to. Of this number eighty-five objections were taken by the Conservatives, and fourteen by the Overseers ; sixty- two of them were sustained. Amongst the persons objected to in the parish of Acton, was Mr. E. L. Bulwer, 51.P., who, it was alleged, had not resided in the house out of which he claimed the right to vote for the period of twelve months previous to the 31st of July, as required by the Act. Mr. Ilulwer did not appear to defend his right ; and Mr. My (the agent for the Conservatives) observed, that it was most extra- ordinary that a gentleman who had himself a band in framing the Reform Act, should claim a right to vote in consequence of inhabiting a house for three months only, knowing, as he must have done, that it was essential to the sound- ness of his qualification that be should have dwelt in the house for twelve months previous to the 31st of July. Mr. Bulwer's claim was disallowed. Dr. Carpue's claim to vote was also refused, because he could not swear that he resided in the house from which he derived his qualification as occupier, although he still held it for the purpose of conducting there a great pact of professional business.

In the parish of Ealing several market-gardeners and others were objected

to by the Conservative agent, on the ground that they had put in their claim

to be registered as leaseholders, and that the Act required that all such persons should be possessed of a beneficial interest of 50/. and upwards. As it ay. peared, however, that these persons paid a rent of over 501. a year each, anti were themselves the occupiers of the grounds out of which they claimed the right to vote, the Revising Barrister (Mr. Coventry) expressed his unwilling- ness to be bound down in his decision by the word " leaseholder" taken in its strictly legal sense, and having altered the description of this class of voters to it occupiers," allowed their names to be placed on the list of voters. Amongst the cases of objection which we consider worthy of notice was that of Messrs. William and George Ashby, who claimed each the right to vote out of premises which they held by lease in partnership, being of the value of 101/. a year. It was urged that George Ashby, who was the son of William, was nut entitled to a vote, as there was no deed showing that a moiety of these pre- mises had been conveyed to him. Tile Revising Barrister having changed his description to that of "occupier," and having ascertained that 101/, a year rent was clanged for these premises to the firm of the Messrs. Ashby, per- mitted the names of both of these gentlemen to be placed on the register. There was also a question of urgency raised, which was one of some interest, and elicited considerable discussion. A gentleman named Field, who had con- ducted the defence on the part of the Liberals to the objections put in by the Tories, asserted his right to appear for an individual named Leader, and esta- blish by every means in his power a prima facie case of qualification. Mr. My objected to Iris doing so without special authority from the indi- vidual for whom Ire appeared ; and added, that Mr. Leader was a bankrupt, and would not by any means be obliged to any individual who would endeavour to prove him to be still in possession of property sufficient to entitle him to vote, and which would subject him to further claims from his creditors. Mr. Martin gave it as his opinion (in which Mr. Coventry concurred) that any person wishing to make out a prima facie case in favour of the franchise sheirld be allowed to be heard, without requiring that he should produce spe- cial authority from the individual on behalf of whose claim he appeared; but that when any vote was objected to, the person urging such objection should be permitted to do so only when Ile showed that he was especially authorized by the person for whom he acted.

Mr. Field accordingly persevered, and succeeded in proving that Mr. Leader was a pascal qualified to vote. The case, however, which especially calls for particular notice in the pro- ceedings of the day, was that of a person named John Stevenson; as it proves to what lengths the Tories have proceeded in their efforts to diminish the number of those entitled to vote, by urging such objections as they could not hope to have decided in their favour, except through the lukewarmness or inattention of those against whom they were preferred. Of this class was the objection to the elector to whom we have alluded, though from the public spirit (uudot fur. irately too little prevalent) exhibited by him, the views of the Conservatives were in this instance disappointed. r. Stevenson resided in York, and claimed the right to vote in the county of Middlesex by reason of property which he possessed in Brentford. There was not, as he himself stated, the least doubt of his being properly qualified in point of property, but it was expected that, if an objection were taken to one who lived at such a distance from the place where the property entitling him to vote was situate, he would never take the trouble of appearing to answer it. He, however, for one, avowed that he would not hesitate to travel five hundred miles in order to vindicate his right of voting when it was un;ustly called in question, and Ire appeared there for that purpose. Ile was at once admitted; and he declared his intention of voting against those who had put Lulu to 80 much unnecessary trouble. -

The Barristers sat at Bedfont on Thursday. The Tories made twenty-nine objections, and sustained sixteen of them ; the Liberals made twenty-six, and sustained only eight.

Yesterday the Barristers commenced the revision of the Chelsea and Kensington lists, to the claimants on which more than six hundred

objections are raised. close of the day—

By the Liberals

Sustained Failed in Postponed

In Chelsea

59 14 '38 7

the numbers stood as follows at the

By the Tories 156

Sustained 45 Failed in 52

l'ustponed 159

The claimants to which the Tories principally objected were sub- lessees not in occupation, vhorn Mr. Martin declared not to be entitled to be placed on the list.

The Tories objected to forty-five names on the Kensington list, but succeeded in removing only one. The Liberals made seven objections, and sustained three.

On Monday night, a meeting of the borough of Lambeth Reform Association was held at the Elephant and Castle, Newington; Mr. Samuel Palmer, President, in the chair. A gentleman was appointed to watch the interests of the Reformers before the Revising Barrister, and some other routine business was transacted. It was stated that the new registration gave 7000 electors to the borough, of whom up- wards of two-thirds were Reformers.