Some Selected Reports from The Windsor and Eton Express
7th October 1837
Registration for Bucks
On Tuesday and Wednesday Messrs. Preston and Perry, the Revising Barristers for Bucks, sat at the Christopher Inn, Eton, to revise the list of voters for the County, in Eton, and the several adjacent parishes.
The Tories determined that nothing that legal skill and ingenuity could effect towards propping up their cause and decreasing the strength of the Liberals, were represented by a host of professional men, there being no less than eight attornies, viz., Mr.Lucas, of Newport Pagnel; Mr.Chapman and Mr.Parrott, of Aylesbury; Mr.Charsley (County Coroner), of Beaconsfield; Mr.Walford, of Uxbridge; Mr.Long and Mr.Voules, of Windsor; besides their respective clerks; and Mr.Thomas Batcheldor, the very active and ready man of all-work for Eton College, was also in waiting. On the part of the Liberals, appeared only two solicitors, viz., Mr.Woodbridge, of Uxbridge, and Mr.Darvill, of Windsor. Besides the phalanx of lawyers and other Tory partizans, these two Gentlemen had to contend against, they were seriously inconvenienced by the Barristers holding two Courts, when it was the general opinion that the business could have been got through with much more ease and comfort to all concerned, and in as short a time, if both Learned Gentlemen had sat together.
We cannot help noticing the fact, that the Tories, ever ready to bribe and treat (upon both of which means they always mainly depend), had engaged an adjacent room as a "Conservative Committee Room," for so it was called, but which was only used for the purposes of supplying refreshments gratis, to their own voters.
We have not the space to give the whole of the cases, but the following are the most worthy of notice that came under our observation.
The vote of Joseph Johnson was objected to by the Tories.
It appeared that there were two Joseph Johnsons on the list, and the notice of objection did not state which Joseph Johnson was objected to.
The Barrister decided that the notice was insufficient , and consequently the vote was retained.
Major John Bent, of Wexham Lodge, was objected to by the Liberals.
This case and another arising out of the same property excited considerable interest. It appeared that Major Bent had been on the Registry, and had voted in respect of Wexham Lodge, and the land belonging to it, as a freeholder. He now claimed as an occupying tenant of �50 a year. The property of which he is in the occupation formerly belonged to the late General Roberts, who, dying without issue bequeathed it to the lady of Edmund Granger, Esq., her husband being appointed by the will the trustee. The Major being the nearest male relative to Mrs.Granger's, she put him in possession of it in 1831, at a rental of about �80 a year, but after two or three years an alteration was made in that arrangement , by which the Major was to use the property as his own (Mrs.G having made her will bequeathing it to him after her death) and in lieu of rent he was to pay certain annuities to old servants, and labourers, which amounted to close upon �50 a year, and certain sums occasionally to the poor. This family arrangement had existed for some time, and was still in force. He also discharged all the rates and other charges upon the property, and he considered his interest in it worth �200 or �300 a year; and in fact he used it entirely as his own, felling timber, and making any alterations, &c., that he pleased.
Each of his poor's rates was �9 18s 9d. He admitted that Mrs.Granger could certainly remove him if she thought proper, upon giving him notice to quit; but there was no agreement for notice, nor was there any deed or document respecting this family arrangement. Nearly all the furniture, and all the horses, carriages, &c., were his own.
Mr.Woodbridge said the question would arise whether Major Bent was legally liable to a rent of �50 a year, and whether he could be distrained on for that rent. He submitted that he could not.
Major Bent : If my relatives required a payment of rent I would cheerfully pay it. I did pay it for some time, but it is now understood between us that I should pay the annuities and sums of money to the poor, which I do. It is not long ago that they wished me to build a new vestry for the church, and I was about to do it but I was told that the authorities would not allow me to do it.
Mr.Woodbridge: But my point is, that you are not legally liable to pay a rent.
Mr.Long, in support of the vote, said that Mrs.Granger allowed the Major to live on the property which she intends leaving to him; but if she were to die, her executors might call on him for the rent; therefore he was an occupier of �50 a year.
The Barrister said, he could not see Major Bent was in the character of a tenant. There was no contract, and a party to claim as a �50 voter must be in the character of a tenant, and not be a mere permissive occupier.
Mr.Long urged that the annuities and the payments to the poor were in the stead of rent, and they amounted to more than �50 a year.
The Barrister held that it was not a tenancy within the meaning of the Act, and expunged the vote.
The vote of Edmund Granger, Esq., was objected to by the Liberals.
This case arose out of the proceeding. The notice was proved to have been served on Major Bent as the occupying tenant, and the Major admitted receiving it.
Mr.Long submitted that the service was not good, inasmuch as the Barrister had decided that Major Bent was not the occupying tenant of the property.
Mr.Woodbridge said, Major Bent might be a tenant and yet not to the amount of �50 a year.
The Barrister held the Major to be a tenant for this purpose.
The circumstances are already told in the preceding case. Major Bent said that Mr.Granger was the trustee for his wife, whose property Wexham Lodge was, and in right of which he claimed a vote, he being in the receipt of the rents and profits of his wife's property. When the Major used to pay rent, he paid it to Mr.Granger.
Mr.Woodbridge submitted, that as for several years Major Bent had paid no rent to Mr.Granger in respect of the property, that gentleman was not entitled to vote; besides, he claimed the property was his own, whereas he was only trustee for his wife.
Mr.Long said, that all the annuities and other payments made by Major Bent were in the shape of rent, and in paying them to the persons who received them, he was only acting as Mr.Granger's agent.
The Barrister said it was a case quite distinct from the usual cases of trustees, and adjourned his decision until the following day, to consult his colleague upon the subject. On that day (Wednesday) he gave his decision against the vote, which was accordingly expunged.
The vote of the Rev.Mr.Dupre, of Eton, was objected to by the Liberals.
The qualification, which was a tenancy of upwards �50 a year, was held to be a good one, but a question arose on the construction of the section of the Act which requires the claimant at the time of registering to pay one shilling to the overseer. Mr.Dupre, it appeared, did not pay the shilling at that time, but he desired the overseer to pay it for him, and he afterwards repaid him.
Mr.Darvill contended that this was not a compliance of the Act, for the claimant was bound in the strict words of the Act to pay the shilling at the time he registered, or he was