|
Thanks very much for replying. Yes.
|
|
For clarification - is Richard Brimson the relative you refer to?
If there was an objection to his being on the list of voters in that area, and the barrister upheld the objection, then his name wouldn't be added to the list of voters, and he wouldn't be allowed to vote.
Info here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_registration_in_the_United_Kingdom
Registration Process from 1832.
In 1832 the overseers of the poor in each parish, who at that time compiled information relevant to electoral qualifications in order to collect local taxes, were given the additional task of compiling the electoral register. The new Act of Parliament required that on 20 June in each year in the counties, the overseers publish a notice calling on prospective voters to make a claim and prove their eligibility to vote. Once an elector had done so, he would be re-listed every time unless his circumstances or eligibility changed. In July, the overseers in the counties would compile a draft register for elections to be held in the coming year. If any elector's eligibility was challenged, the objection was recorded and the elector was given notice to appeal. The list of objections was published during the first two weeks of September.
In the boroughs, the rate-book—which the overseers already compiled—provided a natural basis for the electoral register. An elector who had paid his rates up to the start of the registration period did not need to make a claim, unless there had been a change of address or qualification. By 20 July the assessors and collectors of taxes had to report to the overseers the names of those who were in arrears with payment of their rates. The overseers then compiled a draft electoral register of all those they considered as being qualified to vote. Separate lists of people qualified to vote by virtue of their status as freemen of the borough were prepared by the Town Clerk. The combined lists of all prospective voters were published by the last day of July. Anyone else who claimed to be qualified to vote or who objected was required to give notice to the overseers.
From this point onwards the process for finalising the electoral register was the same for all areas. Barristers (who became known, collectively, as Revising Barristers) were appointed by senior judges to hold courts which sat from mid-September to the end of October, to revise the lists of voters.[4] These barristers reviewed statements from the officials who had drawn up the lists, from claimants, and from objectors in order to produce the final list of qualified electors. The procedure involved strict compliance with the law and even minor clerical errors could invalidate a claim. A well-qualified person could be put to the time and trouble of defending his vote, even against a worthless objection, because if he did not appear his claim was automatically rejected. This system was difficult and expensive to operate. It encouraged the development of party organisation, as legally qualified agents were needed to defend the claims of party supporters and challenge the eligibility of those supporting opponents. The office of Revising Barrister was abolished in 1918[5] when the duties were entrusted to the Registration Officer.
|
|
I know nothing of politics. Can anyone hazard a guess as to what this means for this relative....
"The Frome Times, 5th October 1870.
The Registration.
The Hon. Greville Howard, the barrister appointed to revise the lists of voters for the Borough of Frome and for East Somerset, held his court at the George Hotel on Monday last. The revision for the Borough was fixed for half past 11, but owing to a misunderstand that the Borough court was to take place on the 10th the learned barrister did not arrive til 1, and which hour the county list was advertised to be taken. Mr. Cruttwell attended on behalf of the Conservative interest in the Borough, and Mr. Dunn and Mr. Amos represented the Liberal party, 129 objections and 52 claims had been made by the Conservatives, and 103 objections and 69 claims by the Liberals. By arrangement, however, these were reduced to 9, and only one point arose calling for the barrister's decision. The point was a model one. Richard Brimson was objected to by the Conservatives, and the service of objection was served on Brimson, of Wiltshire's buildings. The overseers, on receiving the notice, inserted it in their list as against Richard Brimson of Keyford Cottages. Mr. Cruttwell contended in effect that as the person really objected to have been served, the overseers were not justified in selecting which of the two names should be inserted in their list. Mr. Dunn contended that, on the face of it, the notice was bad, as it did not supply the particulars required by the statute. After some discussion the Barrister decided that the notice was informal, and the objection was disallowed. This decision affected four other cases. Mr. Bendle of Wallbridge gate, was objected to by Mr. Dunn, but established his claim. - When the Borough list was closed, the Barrister took the County lists. Mr. J. Williams of Bath represented the Conservatives and the Liberals were practically unrepresented. In the Frome list, Mrs. Haley was on the Borough list for York Villa, he has entitled to a county vote for his foundry and premises at Keyford and the Butts. Mr. Williams submitted that as Mr. Haley was the occupier of both premises he was entitled only to vote for the Borough. The Barrister held the objection to be fatal. In the county lists there were only a few necessary amendments."
Grateful for enlightenment...
|
