Sii tt ro pal .

Mr. Tamlyn continued the revision of the City of London con- stituency on Saturday. The names of all the partners in the firm of Whitbread and Co. were struck out of the het, except that of Mr. S. C. Whitbread, who was held to be rated in the parish-books accord- ing to the Act. Mr. Williams, a partner in the house of Morrison and Co., was also disfranchised for insufficient rating. The claims of the Judges having chambers in Sergeant's Inn were allowed. The proceed- ings in this court were closed on Tuesday; on which day, the name of Mr. De Mole, clerk to the Merchant Tailors Company, was struck off the register.

The revising of the lists of St. Pr.nems and Paddington parishes, in the borough of Marylebone, was completed on Saturday. The result, as far as relates to claims and objections, is as follows—Reform claims sustained, 84; Tory ditto, 96; Reform objections, none; Tory ditto, 132.

At Greenwich, on Saturday, a considerable na_mber of persons in the employ of Government were, on that account, disfranchised.

Messrs. Tamlyn and Craig commenced the revision of the West- minster list on Monday ; but no decisions that require to be mentioned were given on that day. On Tuesday, Mr. Craig decided that the shareholders of Exeter .Hall were not entitled to vote; for the follow- ing reasons.

" Ile should confine himself to but one point of qualification, namely, whether the premises were of a suflkient value to give a 10/. annual interest to eaeh joint occupier. These were 178 in number; and the Reform Act rendered it necessar.■• by the 2911i clause, that the property should be shown to be of an amount which, divided by 178, would produce the sum of 101. to each. There was no evidence to prove the affirmative of this. Mr. Crane had stated as his opinion that the value of the prieni:ws was nearer to 20001 than 150W.; but such evidence was too vague and general, more especially as there two facts in opposition to this belief,—namely, that it at present produced only an interest of 4 per cent, on a capital of 30,0001., or in other words an income of 12001. per annum, to be divided equally between 178 persons ; and next, that it was rated at 10001., on a calculation that such a rating was two-thinle of the estimated value. Even the largest estimate, namely, 1,5001, could not if' equally divided between the 178 pro prietors, afford to each an annual interest ef 101. • and he should therefore come to the conclusion that the claims had not been sustained As there was evidence to prove that the occupancy was vested in 178 persons. be could not consider the parties claimed for as the only joint occupants ; and though many of the occupants, namely, the Peers and the females, were not entitled to vote, they still sufficed to render the number of shareholders too numerous to afford a 101. qualification to any after an equal division of the property claimed from. On this ground, he could not retain Mr. Adney's name on the list.'

By this decision the Tories lose a large number of votes. Nothing of consequence occurred on Wednesday. On Thursday, Mr. Joseph Parkes appeared before Mr. Tamlyn,

and claimed to be registered as the occupant of the house, 21, Great George Street, late the residence of Sir Edward Stmcey ; for which be paid a rent of 230/. All the taxes had been regularly discharged by Mr. Parkes; but, owing to his having let the ground floor to the Cor- poration Commissioners, their names, not his, were b y mistake placed on the rate-book. Mr. Score, on the part of the Tories, ob- jected to Mr. Parkes's claim ; on the ground that he was not rated by name, and had not claimed to be rated, or at all events not according to the 30th section of the Act. Mr. Parkes replied— As regarded the first objection, he had distinctly shown, by the evidence of the Collector, that the demand for rates had been made upon him, and that they had been paid in his name. As regarded the second objection, he was at a loss to conceive what a claim to be rated meant, if the telling the Collector that lie had bought the lease of the house, and that he was the proprietor and sole occupier, did not amount to it. But beyond that, the evidence of the Col- lector distinctly proved, not only that he had claimed to be rated, but that he bad actually paid the rates. The Act did not set forth any particular manner in which the claim to be rated should be made ; but it did distinctly set forth that the party claiming should be an occupier. He had shown that he was an occupier, and that his rates were paid. As regarded the third objection' he contended that the 30th section of the Act, instead of weakening his claim, fully and completely substantiated it.

Mr. Parkes also produced two receipts for rates due April 1834; and said he could bring the others, when a person in whose charge they were returned from the country. Mr. Tamlyn postponed his decision.

Ninety-one shareholders in Exeter Hall claimed to be registered as scot and lot voters, having failed to substantiate their claims as freeholders; but as they had not been rated by name, the Barrister refused to place them on the register. Notice of a number of claims in respect of shares in Hungerford Market had been given in ; but they were unsupported, and were disallowed.

Yesterday, Mr. Molloy Westmacott claimed to be registered in respect of the house in Catherine Street, Strand, where the Age and the Athenteum are published. Mr. Westmacott proved that he had a key to the street-door of the house, and occasionally slept there ; so his claim was allowed. Before the legal part of the case was gone into, the gentleman appearing for the objection complained very loudly,

that Mr. Westmacott bad in the course of the morning come to him, thrust his fist in his face, and threatened to have him tried for perjury and transported.

Mr. Warburton, M.P., yesterday claimed to be placed on the Surry list of voters, as lessee of some houses in Streatham ; but it appeared that he was only a sub-lessee, and his claim fell to the ground. Mn, Warburton said, that he had taken the lease of the houses in lieu of a bad debt, and thought that his landlord had the freehold ; but that person, it appeared, was himself only a leaseholder. The number of voters in Finsbury has been increased from 9373, in 1834, to 12,805, in 1835: the Reformers have increased their majority by .54 votes.

Last week we inserted a paragraph from the Lincoln Gazelle, which stated, on "authority," that Mr. E. L. Bulwer had not claimed a vote for Middlesex; but a letter from Mr. Bulwer himself to the Morning

Chronicle sets this important affair in its true light. Mr. Bulwer writes— in to say that / never, directly or indirectly' authorized any such statement. The fact is, that on leaving town for the seacoast at the close of the session. I left at my chambers (with directions to be forwarded) a note withdrawing my claim as a voter for Middlesex; a claim which haul been entered, in the first instance, through a WI/take very easy, but now unnecessarily tedious to explain. 1 presume that by some negligence the note was not sent, or by some accident that it was not received. On seeing the case afterwards in the papers I did not deem it worth while to trouble the public upon a matter that seemed to we not very important—well assured that no

one could seriously suppose I meant wilfully to proffer an unjust vo:e. The paragraph in question, which imputes blame to other parties. obliges ate, in candour and in ju,tieu to them, to intrude upon you this short explanation.

"1 have the honour tube. Sir, your very obedient servant,