Yorkshire Almanac The (Whig) Leeds Mercury reports the attempt of its proprietor and editor, Edward Baines Jnr, to qualify for the electoral register on the basis of shares in accommodation for the dead

26 September 1835: The (Whig) Leeds Mercury reports the attempt of its proprietor and editor, Edward Baines Jnr, to qualify for the electoral register on the basis of shares in accommodation for the dead

Leeds Mercury. 1835/09/26. West-Riding Revision. Leeds. Get it:

Excerpt

Edwin Eddison [Liberal lawyer]: “In the spring of 1833, a number of gentlemen subscribed for the purpose of making a general cemetery to inter the dead [now St George’s Fields]. The shares were divided into 1,000 of £10 each. By the consent of the shareholders at large, a plot of land was purchased for £4,000, on which they proposed to erect buildings, which they did erect, and which now, with the ornamental parts of the undertaking, cost them £11,400. Mr Baines subscribed for ten shares, and, having paid up his subscription at the latter end of 1833, now claimed to be entitled to vote for the county. It being thought desirable that the whole of the building should be completed before the trust deed was made, the committee prepared that on the 1st of July last, and it had been signed by every one of the parties with the exception of one, and that was on account of the person’s illness. There were from time to time certain resolutions declaratory of the terms on which the undertaking was to be conducted, and those resolutions were entered in their committee book.”
John Cottingham, Revising Barrister: “The title in law was not complete till the trust deed was executed.” Eddison: “We prove Mr Baines’ right of equity by virtue of the payment of his money and the resolutions.” Mr Eddison read from the trust deed various extracts showing the conditions on which the undertaking was vested in the different shareholders. There had been no dividend declared because the cemetery had only just been opened. Mr Sangster [Tory lawyer] said he was not prepared to argue the question, as he had never seen the deeds. Barrister: “The entire case had better be postponed till tomorrow morning.” [Baines Jnr added to the electoral roll.]

Order the book

Subscribe to the free daily email

To facilitate reading, the spelling and punctuation of elderly excerpts have generally been modernised, and distracting excision scars concealed. My selections, translations, and editions are copyright.

Abbreviations

Comment

Cottingham’s ruling came the following day (Leeds Mercury 1835/09/26).

No time to include the rest of the article, but the Tory objection to Edward Baines Senior, included here is amusing. The addresses given by them in an 1837 borough poll book are on King Street and Park Place, with offices on Briggate (Perring 1837):

In 1838 the Leeds Mercury proposed a solution:

In the borough of Leeds, where there have never at any election been found at the poll more than about 4,000 voters, there are at the registration of the present year, no fewer than 3,400 objections! It is true that the number of objections made by each party is nearly equal; and no doubt both parties justify their conduct on the ground of self-defence; but if the bill of the last session had passed, by which it was provided that the grounds of objection should be stated in the notice, and that the persons making objections without any reasonable and probable cause, should be obliged, on the order of the Revising Barrister, to pay costs to the party objected against for the trouble and loss of time consequent upon attending to support his vote, it is highly probable that, instead of three or four thousand objection, the number would not have amounted to half that number.—Leeds Mercury.

Something to say? Get in touch

Original

Edward Baines, objected to by Mr. Sangster. Qualification, freehold house, inserted in the list York-street-place. Mr. Baines stated to the Court that there was an error in the description; the proper description was, York-place, and not York-street-place. Mr. Sangster said that in this case Mr. Baines was to be considered as an humble individual, and one of themselves, and therefore he contended that the description on the list was, in fact, no description at all; for there happened to be a York-street as well as York-place, and a person wishing to make inquiry as the name stood on the list, might either go to York-place or he might go to York-street, a distance of half a mile.
The REVISING BARRISTER asked Mr. Baines when and how he made his claim, to which that gentleman replied that he made it at the first registration in 1832, and, to the best of his recollection, he described his qualification as being in York-place.
Mr. SANGSTER supposed Mr. Baines could not state positively whether he had described his qualification as being in York-place or not?
Mr. BAINES certainly could not state that positively. He lived in the house adjoining the one for which he claimed his qualification, and it was hardly likely that he should describe the situation as York-street-place, instead of York-place.
The REVISING BARRISTER inquired of Mr. Evers where the claims for 1832 were, to which the latter replied that he did not know, and that he had not seen them since the time they were made. The Learned Gentleman said that it was a very great omission on the part of Mr. Evers that the claims were not forthcoming, as the claim then made by Mr. Baines formed now the very title of his right to vote, and the loss of it might deprive him of his vote. The Learned Gentleman said it appeared that the claim was lost, and, under those circumstances, they must take the next best evidence, which was that of Mr. Baines himself, who stated, that, to the best of his recollection, he described his qualification York-place. Mr. Baines did not take upon himself to say positively whether that was so or not, and it was impossible, at that distance of time, that any conscientious man could say so. He believed that the description would have been York-place, and not York-street-place, and that the latter description was a mistake of the overseer. Under these circumstances he should disallow the objection.

Edward Baines, Jun.-Objected to by Mr. Sangster. – Qualification, ten freehold shares in buildings and land, called the Leeds Cemetery. Mr. Baines having stated the fact of his being a shareholder,-
The REVISING BARRISTER asked Mr. Eddison on what grounds he supported the vote?
Mr. EDDISON said that the company bought the land for the purpose of a general cemetery, in 1000 shares, of £10 each, and Mr. Baines claimed a right to vote on the ground of a freehold interest in that estate.
BARRISTER.This vote is so very specially stated that I should like to see the original trust deed.
Mr. EDDISON said there was a similar case in the Lakelock Railroad Company, where the only point was, whether the shares were freehold.
BARRISTER. How can I say from this evidence whether these shares are freehold? Did the title-deed assume that the land was conveyed to certain trustees in fee? If that was not the case, it was no use his taking it.
Mr. EDDISON replied in the affirmative. Mr. Baines had an equitable share in the property in 1833, and he claimed for ten freehold shares, as being entitled to an equitable share, by virtue of his subscription to £100 of the capital.
The BARRISTER called upon Mr. Eddison again to state the grounds on which he defended the right to vote.
Mr. EDDISON said that in the spring of 1833, a number of gentlemen subscribed for the purpose of making a general cemetery to inter the dead. The shares were divided into 1000 of £10 each. By the consent of the shareholders at large, a plot of land was purchased for £4000, on which they proposed to erect buildings, which they did erect, and which now, with the ornamental parts of the undertaking, cost them €11,400. Mr. Baines, as one of the shareholders, subscribed for ten shares, and having paid up his subscription at the latter end of 1833, now claimed to be entitled to vote for the county in respect of it. It being thought desirable that the whole of the building should be completed before the trust deed was made, the committee prepared that on the 1st of July last, and it had been signed by every one of the parties with the exception of one, and that was on account of the person’s illness. There were from time to time certain resolutions declaratory of the terms on which the under. taking was to be conducted, and those resolutions were entered in their committee book.
The BARRISTER. The title in law was not complete till the trust deed was executed.
Mr. EDDISON. We prove Mr. Baines’s right of equity by virtue of the payment of his money and the resolutions. Mr. Eddison read from the trust deed various extracts showing the conditions on which the undertaking was vested in the different shareholders. There had been no dividend declared because the cemetery had only just been opened.
Mr. SANGSTER said he was not prepared to argue the question, as he had never seen the deeds at all.
The BARRISTER.The entire case had better be postponed till to morrow morning. The claimant has a right to call upon me for my decision now, because he is prepared now to claim his right to vote.
Mr. EDDISON thought his friend would be quite as competent to argue the question then as he would be the day following.
Mr. SANGSTER said if the opposite party did not grant them that favour, which was nothing more than reasonable, he for one would have no more terms with them.
Mr. EDDISON said that was very hard talk, but he would leave it to the decision of the Court. It should be understood that one case should decide them all.
BARRISTER-Certainly: I will insist upon that.
Mr. SANGSTER.I am quite willing to agree to that. Of course if if any person is disqualified from any other cause, it will not prevent our going into it.
The BARRISTER thought the proposal of Mr. Sangster was a very reasonable one. The case was very important, and he supposed Mr. Eddison would not do injustice to his client. The learned gentleman then ordered the case to stand over til Thursday morning, and in the mean time he should peruse the deeds.