The Revising Barristers for the county of Middlesex held their
Court on Saturday, at Kensington. The first case they decided was i one of considerable importance: they decreed that Mr. George Bennett was entitled to vote, in virtue of his payment of a rent exceeding 50/. a-year, although he let part of his house in lodgings, thereby reducing the rent below that sum. It was not disputed that Mr. Bennett was liable for the whole rent.
The service of a notice of objection on Mr. James Nicholas Abdey was declared to be good, although the notice was directed to John Nicholas Abdey, as there was no doubt as to the person. There was some difficulty in proving Mr. Abdey's qualification, and Mr. Coventry said that he should put him on his oath, according to the Act. Mr. C. F. Arley, the Tory agent, said Mr. Abdey should not be put on his oath ! ( Cries of" Order" in the Court.) Mr. Coventry then struck out Atcley's name, as he declined to prove his qualification. Of the oblections la Kensington, the Tories put in 70, and sustained 14; the Reformers put in 49, and sustained 9. It is said that in Kensington the Reformers have increased their force by 300 votes. On Monday, Mr. Coventry, when revising the West Drayton list, said that he and his colleague, Mr. Martin, differed as to the right of
trustees to vote who were not in the actual receipt of the rents and profits of the property on which they founded their claims ; and they had therefore determined to apply to Lord. Denman for the appoint.. ment ot a third Barrister, by whose decisionof this point they would be bound. • On Tuesday, Mr. J. C. Prior claimed to vote, as proprietor of land on Finchley Common. He was objected to by the Tories ; but he proved that he let his land for 3/., and was kept on the register. He told Mr. Adey that lie had bought the property in question on purpose to vote against the Tories.
On Wednesday, the Barristers decided that notices signed in blank, but afterwards filled up with the approbation of the signer, were valid notices. Had this decision been reversed, most of the Liberal objections to the Hampstead voters would have been bad. When revising the Staines list, Mr. Coventry decided that the ownership of pews in a church did not confer the right of voting ; but an annuity secured on the church-rates did give that right. In the parish of Hornsea, a Mr. Sadler claimed to be inserted on the register, in virtue of a "freehold qualification ;" but, upon producing his deeds, it appeared that his freehold was a vault under the church : so his claim was rejected amidst loud laughter.. Yesterday Mr. Martin gave his decision, in which Mr. Coventry concurred, against the claim of Mr. H. James, of Hampstead, who had let his house for a short period previous to the day up to which the Act prescribes occupation. He had left his furniture in his house, but no servant. This was not the kind of possession intended by the Act. At Tottenham, the Tories advanced 48 objections and sustained only 4; the Liberals made 6, and sustained 5. At Enfield the Tories objected to 30 claimants, and succeeded against 14; the Liberals proved 9 objections out of 10.
The Revising Barristers have appointed Monday, the 5th of October, to hold their Court at the Guild of the city of "Westminster. There are between 700 and 800 objections, chiefly made by the Conservatives. For the city there are 17,300 rated houses ; but many of the occupants being females they have no vote. The present number of registered votes amounts to upwards of 15,000, being 3,000 more than the last registration.
Messrs. Knox and Lennard, the Barristers appointed to revise the lists of voters for the boroughs of Southwark and Lambeth, have appointed Courts for that purpose—the former on Monday next, at the Town-hall, St. Margaret's Hill, and the latter at the Horns Tavern, Kennington.
Previous page
