Messrs. Coventry and Mr. Martin proceeded with the revision of

the county of Middlesex lists on Saturday. In the parish of St. Luke's, two brothers, named Sims, were objected to by tire Tories. One of them was asked by Mr. Adey, if he had a freehold worth 40s.

per annum ?

Claimant—" 1 es, d—n you, I have." 31r. Adey—" You don't hold it as a trustee?" Claimaut—" No, d—n you, I don't."

Mr. Arley—" And you have a clear beneficial interest of 40s. dyear in it ?"

Claimant—" Yes, d—n you, 1 have."

Mr. Atley--,, We thought you were both not entitled ; and I am sorry you have been put to any trouble.

Claimant—" D—n you, I wish I could get at you; take care of your neck." In the parish of Hackney many claims were expunged on account of the property conferring the right of voting in a borough. The Tory objections were set aside in consequence of defective service.

All the objections in St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, fell to the ground, in consequence of the service on the side of the Tories being defective, and on the Liberals, because they had objected to votes of parties " in the Tower Hamlets, in the county of Middlesex."

On Monday, eighteen gentlemen and the Six Clerks claimed to be registered in the liberty of Lincoln's Inn ; but it appeared that their names had not been properly included in the Overseer's lists, and their

claims were disallowed.

In St. George's, Bloomsbury, objections were made to the Marquis of Tavistock and five other sons of the Duke of Bedford ; but it ap- peared that they were all possessed of rent charges of 40s. a year granted " in consideration of five shillings and natural love and affec- tion " by the Duke ; and the claims were admitted—although Lord

Tavistock as a Peer wished to waive his claim.

In the parish of Christchurch, all the objections were set aside on account of defective service. In St. George's in the East, Mr. H. L. Bulwer's name was expunged, as his attorney claimed for the same house. In all the parishes in the Tower Hamlets the Liberal objec- tions failed, in consequence of their having called upon the persons objected to, to prove the right to vote " in the Tower Hamlets.", On Wednesday, Mr. Martin decided an important case. Two gentleman resident in St. Mary's parish, Islington, claimed to be registered in respect of two freehold fields, detached from their residence, but in their own occupation. The houses held by these claimants conferred of themselves the right to vote for the borough, and now they claimed to be placed among the county voters as owners of the fields. Mr. Martin went into a detail of the reasons fun his decision, and concluded by saying- " I am of opinion that the intention of the Act is only to exclude persons from voting in respect of freehold land which actually confers a franchise for a

borough, which is not the case where the value of the house is of itself

sufficient. It was intended to prevent the same property being twice represented in the hands of one person, not to deprive a party of his separate votes for two distinct qualifications. I shall, therefore, retain the names of these two gentlemen on the list."

Two shareholders of West India Dock property claimed to be regis- tered. Mr. M'Dougall, of the Chancery liar, appeared to defend their claim ; but Mr. Martin decided that the Act prevented counsel from pleading in the Barristers' Courts ; and Mr. M'Dowgall then instructed Mr. Gregory on the point. The claims of the West India share-

holders were disallowed, as it could not be denied that for all purposes except that of securing the right of voting, the property in question was admitted to be personal property. In the course of this day Mr. Gregory, the Tory agent, bore testimony to the fairness and Impar- tiality of Mr. Martin.

On Thursday, the only point of interest decided in the Metropolitan Courts, related to the claim of the Reverend Dr. Wilson to be enrolled as a freeholder of Middlesex. Ile was opposed by Alderman Wood ; and it appeared that the Doctor bud been a bankrupt, and that his living had been sequestered, a portion of the income having, however, been

allotted for his support. He had again been put in possession of the living on the 6th of July. Under these circumstances his claim was allowed.

Yesterday, Mr. Henry L. Bulwer applied to Mr. Coventry to have his name reinserted in the registry, in virtue of possessing a freehold house in the parish of St. George in the East. It appeared that a Mr. Beavan stood on the list as claiming a right to vote. Now Mr. Bulwer held in his hand a letter from Mr. Beavan, in which be dis- owned having made any such claim ; and consequently, if any one had made such claim for him, it must have been done fraudulently. The property had been in Mr. Bulwer's ownership since the year 1832. Alr. Adey said, that the name of Mr. Beavan_ appeared in the old list, and it would seem to have passed over without objection, and had been reprinted in the present list. Mr. Coventry, after hearing the case at considerable length on both sides, corrected the list, and inserted the honourable gentleman's name in the register. This was the only case occurring yet terday that requires particular notice.