§ On the Motion of Lord John Russell, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
§ The Chairman having read the 57th Clause,
Lord John Russellwished to propose an alteration in this clause. As it at present stood, it provided that the voter, on coming to the poll, should reply to certain interrogatories put to him by the returning officer respecting his identity, and the validity of his qualification; but no elector was required to take any oath in proof of his freehold, residence, age, or other qualification to vote. Upon re-consideration, it appeared to Ministers that this process would give rise to very considerable delay, and they had, therefore, determined, in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. and learned member for Louth, made on a former day, to render the English Bill, as far as this clause was concerned, similar to the Irish Bill. The effect of the alteration which he should propose would be, to require that the voter, in case of any dispute relating to the points in question should make oath as to his identity with the party registered, and to the validity of his qualification.
§ Mr. Huntobjected to the introduction of a long oath, as calculated to create most injurious delay in elections. If each candidate could demand that the voters for his opponent should take this oath, and also the oath against bribery, it would be utterly impossible to take the poll in the time contemplated by the Bill.
§ Sir Edward Sugdenopposed the alteration. The clause had been brought into the shape in which it then stood after a very full consideration, and, in his opinion, it should not be changed. He thought, that the effect of the alteration proposed by the noble Lord would be to create, rather than to prevent, delay.
Lord John Russellwas not at all satisfied that there should be any examination subsequent to that at the time of registration; but if inquiry were to be permitted, this mode would, he thought, simplify and shorten it. The proposed course would be, to take the registry as containing the complete right of voting; and if, on the day of election, there was any dispute as to the identity of the elector, all doubts would be removed by his taking an oath that he was the person named, and that he had not before polled.
Mr. Sheilthought that the alteration was a very wise one. There was a provision of a similar nature in the 23rd clause of the Scotch Reform Bill, and the same practice had been found to work well in Ireland.
§ Mr. Crokerthought, that the clause had much better be allowed to remain as it then stood. In his opinion, the three short questions which it provided could be asked by the returning officer in much less time than the proposed oath could be administered. He stated this independent of the objection urged upon all occasions to the multiplication of oaths, which had a tendency to weaken their obligation.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that undoubtedly, in clear cases, the simple questions which the clause provided might be put, in less time than the proposed oath could be administered. But, as difficulties would frequently arise, he thought that the oath, in the long run, would be found to be the speediest and most convenient mode.
Mr. Goulburnwas of opinion, that, by adopting the noble Lord's Amendment, they would take from the candidate the means essential to the success of his election, by preventing him, in case any necessity for it should arise, from putting a question to remove any difficulty that attached to an election. If, instead of this, he was compelled to require the electors to take an oath, the consequence would be his own unpopularity. It ought also not to be forgotten, that, in the heat of a contested election, when the feelings of parties were strongly excited, oaths might be taken without a sufficient consideration of their serious nature. He had himself, when he had required the bribery oath to be administered, seen it taken by bodies of twenty electors at a time, in a manner which proved that they were not sufficiently aware of the importance of the proceeding.
§ Mr. Crokerwas convinced, that great confusion and delay would be occasioned when an ignorant man commenced taking the oath, and found that he was about to swear to that which was not true, from some alteration that had taken place in his qualification, although he might still be legally entitled to vote.
An Hon.Memberthought an affirmation, with penalties annexed to a conviction of 235 its falsehood, would be preferable to an oath.
§ Sir Edward Sugdenprotested against any plan calculated to diminish the influence of an oath, especially among the class of persons who would, for the most part, form the constituency under the Bill. It was known, that in many places, the bribery oath was considered a mere form, and he feared the same result from the oath relating to qualification.
Mr. Blackneythought the hon. Member's doctrine was an attack upon every elector in the kingdom. He seemed to imagine the constituency did not know the nature of an oath, nor the obligation that attached to that one they were about to take at elections. He considered the objections made were unnecessary, and only calculated for delay.
§ Mr. Crokermaintained, that the present discussion was not unnecessary. The point under consideration was of considerable importance, involving the moral effects of the Bill and the morals of the country. The oath proposed by the noble Lord embraced a variety of difficulties, some of which might be removed by explanation, but that was forbid. He feared the electors might unintentionally commit perjury.
Lord John Russellthought, there were three cases which required consideration in relation to this oath. The first was, to provide security that a person presenting himself at the poll was not fraudulently personating a voter. The second inquiry would be whether a voter had polled previously at the same election. No one could perform either of these acts, without being guilty of a moral offence; but the process of an oath would, in both cases, provide a security against the commission of the crime. The third question would have reference to the qualification, and he was ready to admit, that inquiry might be made before an oath was administered. For instance, a man might have sold a portion of a field which had qualified him to be inserted in the register, and then it would be proper to know whether the property remaining would be sufficient to form a qualification. The great object, however, was to avoid delay in polling, and an oath would be desirable, at least in the two previous cases. With reference to the difficulty said to be attached to the proposed plan, he had reason to believe that, at the late Dorsetshire election, up- 236 wards of 200 persons refused to prove their qualification, in consequence of the trouble attendant on the proof. He thought, therefore, that some process of the sort suggested was necessary to render the register effective. As the clause at present stood, the inquiry might extend to an indefinite period, to the great inconvenience of the voters, and even to the destruction of one of the main objects of the Bill. He had no very decided preference, however, on the subject; and, if the Committee wished it, the questions might be put in the first instance. For this reason, he supported the Amendment.
§ Sir Edward Sugden, alluding to one of the questions which had been described by the noble Lord, viz., "Have you the same qualification that you had?" suggested that a better form of question would be, "Have you the same interest that you had?" An elector who had changed his interest might be erroneous in considering that he had the same qualification.
Lord John Russellsaid, that it would be necessary to frame the questions so that they would not have the effect of disfranchising any person really entitled to vote. No person was more competent to draw up the questions than the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, and he was perfectly willing to leave the task in his hands, if he would undertake it.
§ Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that this was a matter of some delicacy, but if the noble Lord had no objection to his preparing the questions, there certainly could exist none on his part, in undertaking the task.
Mr. Sheilhoped he should be pardoned if he trespassed on the attention of the Committee for one moment. It appeared to him that this part of the clause, which was one of great importance, was not properly worded. The question was, "You swear you are in possession of the freehold which is described in the Register, by virtue of which you now claim to vote." Very well: if the voter answered in the affirmative it was all right; but as it was not left in any way to the discretion of the returning officer to put the necessary questions, what was to be done in the event of an unsatisfactory answer being returned? If the questions were put, of course answers were expected; and though the House might dictate the question, it could not dictate the answer: it might be 237 either a simple negative or affirmative; but if it be neither, if it be something; more, the returning officer must be invested with the exercise of some discretion upon the subject. But the least discretion in the returning officer would constantly cause mistakes, owing to his ignorance or negligence. Suppose a person is registered of particular lands, and that, after being registered, he mortgages these premises, here clearly, in point of law, there would be a change of circumstances. The question would be asked, "Did you not mortgage these lands?" "Yes," says the elector, "but I possess a 10l. qualification besides." Now, how was the returning officer to decide in this case? Why, if no discretion was left to him, what could he do, having dictated the questions which were prescribed to him? Some reference had been made to Ireland in the course of these discussions, and he would just beg to call the attention of the Committee to the delay, expense, and inconvenience which arose there. When an objection was taken to a person tendering his vote, the matter went before another tribunal. What, was the consequence? Why, the candidate, if he were so inclined, directed his agent to put in an objection to every person who claimed the right of voting, and the whole machinery of the election was thus stopped. A ludicrous scene then took place at the Sheriff's, where every one of these voters was obliged to attend for three, four, or five days, in order to substantiate his vote. It was needless to say, that this was productive of enormous delay and expense; and if the House admitted anything of the kind into this country, it would be found utterly impracticable to conclude an election in anything like two days. There were two objects sought to be gained by this measure—celerity and economy. The clause would fail to attain those objects, and would be the cause of a much greater evil, namely, perjury. Suppose the returning officer put the questions, and received no satisfactory answers, was he, in that case, to proceed to administer the oath? There would be several districts in which, when a candidate wished to defeat his adversary, he would object to every vote. Thus the election would be stopped at once. The consequence of this proceeding would be, that in every district all possible skill and dexterity would be exerted; Counsel, Attornies, Agents, and Inspectors, must be employed in every district. It was clear, 238 therefore, that there would be a considerable increase of delay and expense. Having split the counties of England, having broken down the barriers which heretofore existed—let them not substitute a system which would not only be productive of all the evils sought to be avoided, but of some a great deal worse. Instead of putting the questions first, and swearing the individuals afterwards, it would be much better to let them take an affidavit at first. Look at the Scotch form, how superior it was in every respect. The words of the oath administered in Scotland were these, "I (A, B,) do solemnly swear that I am the individual described in the Register for such and such a place [here insert the description in the same words as are contained in the Register]." In Scotland, therefore, it was necessary that the description should be exactly the same as that contained in the Register; but here the returning officer was to be allowed to insert what description he pleased; he might indulge in any latitude of phrase; whereas, in Scotland, the description must be in the very words of the Register. Was it to be presumed that the English freeholder was so utterly ignorant of his own language, that when he swears he has the same qualification, he means the same for which he is registered? If this only took place once in eight years it would be a different thing; but, under the operation of this measure, it would occur once every year, and, therefore, the evils to be anticipated would be greatly augmented. It certainly appeared to him that it would be much better to provide that the fact should be clearly and distinctly set forth, than to rest the matter upon the very loose interrogatories of the returning officer, to which vague and indefinite answers might be returned. He cautioned the House against holding out a temptation to perjury; and, above all, of leaving this matter to the bias, ignorance, or, perhaps, corruption of the returning officer.
§ Mr. Shawfeared that if the questions were asked before the oath was administered, an inducement to false-swearing would be held out. A man might answer untruly not expecting an oath would follow; but, if it did, the chances were that he would commit perjury. It would be better, therefore, that an elector should be sworn in the ordinary way as to the truth of the answers he should give.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, it was notorious that perjury was committed at elections, and 239 the Bill would increase it. As to oaths being taken on the hustings, the voters were often brought up to the poll so drunk as not to know what they were about. If oaths were necessary, they should be taken beforehand when men were cool, and not during the heat of a contested election.
Clause postponed.
The 58th Clause, which provides, that "persons excluded from the Registry by the Barrister may tender their votes," read,
Colonel Woodwished the House to reject the clause altogether. He contended, that a candidate who felt himself weak n a particular district, might create great delay and embarrassment by tendering false votes, and that a man of fortune might, in a contest with a man of limited circumstances, obtain a nominal majority, and retain his seat in consequence of his opponent's inability to sustain the expense of a petition.
§ Lord Althorpthought the clause necessary for the protection of voters. Fraudulent votes could be investigated after the election without much expense to the unsuccessful candidate.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ The 59th Clause read.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, this clause, by which the House of Commons was to inquire into all disputed votes in the last resort, was one of the most important in the Bill. Any petitioner could impeach the return by affirming that fraudulent votes had been taken, or that good votes had been rejected; but no votes whatever could be brought under the review of the House but those which had been tendered before the Barrister. If, therefore, any man was absent, and his name was omitted inadvertently, he had no other remedy but a Committee of that House.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that those whose names were casually omitted by the Overseer would justly lose their votes by their own laches, if they were so indifferent on the subject as not to be at the trouble of having the error corrected. If everybody who might have a right to vote, but would not take the prescribed steps to acquire it, were permitted to bring his complaint before the Committee, the expense would be enormous, and the delay might be interminable.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellmaintained, that the vote of every man ought to be allowed, if he could make a bonâ fide case before the Committee.
Mr. Goulburnanimadverted on the clause on account of the unjust severity with which it would operate against Barristers, whom it would place in a state of uncertainty. It appeared that their decisions were dependent on the approval of a Committee of that House, which might mulct them in a heavy penalty; and that, too, unheard, should that tribunal adjudge even by a majority of one, that they had wrongfully decided a single vote, and the party injured could bring an action against them afterwards. No man of honour and character would subject himself to such an ordeal for the paltry pittance of 5l. a-day. He should, therefore, propose that the clause be omitted.
§ Lord Althorpobserved, that the Committee ought to have a control over the Barrister; but he was willing to modify the clause in such a manner as only to empower such Committee to report cases of corrupt and wilful misconduct to the House.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that no man of honour and professional reputation would allow himself to be made liable to so degrading a contingency, whereby he could be made a scapegoat between two violent political parties under a bare majority of one. It was unprecedented thus to give a Committee power to make a Special Report against a Judge without even hearing an argument in his defence. If Government desired to deal on fair and equitable principles, they must assimilate the practice to that of returning officers; but that also would derogate from the dignity of those who presided in the character of Judges.
§ Mr. Crokerthought it would be advantageous to withdraw the clause altogether. It would operate most unfairly and unjustly against the Barrister.
Lord John Russellsaid, he was of opinion that the Committee ought to have the power given them of reporting to the House with respect to any corrupt conduct on the part of the Barrister. He should, therefore, have no objection to words to that effect being added to the clause.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, that according to the existing laws, the Committee possessed that power already in respect to returning officers. As the noble Lord, however, had consented to place the Barrister in an improved situation, he would make no further objection, if such an amendment was introduced.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ The 60th Clause, directing the Sheriffs to cause proclamation to be made in the divided counties, of the day fixed for the election, and to preside at the same by themselves, or their deputies, being read,
§ Mr. Crokerthought, with respect to this clause, that the Deputies of the Sheriff, in divided counties, should, as far as related to election purposes, have the same powers as the Sheriff had now. There was another objection to the clause, and that was, that it gave the Sheriff the power to appoint two Deputies. He thought this was wrong, as it would enable the Sheriff to absent himself altogether from the election. Now, in his opinion, the Sheriff ought to be present at one of the elections.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that it might happen to be necessary for the Sheriff to leave the Court altogether, and it was requisite to give him the power to appoint two Deputies.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that this clause made no difference in the law; for, as it at present stood, a Sheriff might absent himself, and leave the duty of attending to the election in the hands of his Deputy.
§ Mr. Crokerthought, that in all instances it would be better for the Sheriff to appoint Deputies for the purposes of elections, and to attend himself to the preservation of the peace of the county.
Mr. Goulburnwished to add some words, by which the Sheriff in divided counties should be obliged to make proclamation of the ensuing election in the chief towns of both divisions of the county.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ The Clause 61st, limiting the polling to two days, was then read.
Colonel Woodsaid, that the object of this clause was, to diminish election expenses; but he was confident that if any such hope was entertained, it would prove most delusive. The chief expenses would be incurred between the day of nomination and the day of commencing the poll. From the variety of polling places allowed, it would be impossible to know the state of the contest, and therefore every exertion must be used to bring up voters, whether necessary for one candidate or not. This again would enhance the expense. Besides, he very much doubted whether any county could be polled out in two days. A popular candidate and his friends might get 242 possession of the hustings—a mob could be collected—and his opponent's voters be so much embarrassed in their way to the polling place, as would deter all the weak and aged from attempting to tender their votes. By these means many of the most respectable electors would be prevented from polling. The idea that the expense would be small would induce many candidates to start, with no other object but to create a contest, and put their successful opponents to additional charges. He had no wish to lessen the wholesome excitement which prevailed at contested elections, but he was afraid the Bill would have that effect by dividing counties into parcels, by which old attachments would be broken up, and the straight-forward character of the freeholder be materially deteriorated. From the time of nomination to the completion of the return would be four or five days, and these would occasion much expense. Besides when the election was over, there would, of course, be the usual expense to the successful candidate of giving a dinner to the freeholders.
Lord John Russellthought the objections of the gallant Colonel were inconsistent with each other. Upon the question of expense, he wished to make one observation. He had taken the trouble of consulting two persons who were well acquainted with contested county elections, and they had made calculations, in which one of them stated, that with regard to a large county that was divided, the expense would be 500l.; and with regard to one that was not divided, the expense would be 1,000l. They both agreed, however they differed about details, that the expense under the Bill would not exceed one-fifth of what used to be incurred under the former system. When he heard that, and when he recollected the declaration that the Committee had heard made in that House a short time since, that a noble Lord who had incurred the expense of a contest for the county of Dorset, did not feel himself justified in making a further inroad on his fortune by defending the return which had seated him in that House, he trusted it would be found, that, under the new system, no such amount of expense would be incurred, and that even supposing they should double the amount calculated by the two Gentlemen he had mentioned, they would be much below the sum that was now usually spent at a contested election. Compared to the fif- 243 teen days' poll, and to the 35,000l. expended in contesting so small a county as Dorsetshire, or the 300,000l. required for contesting Yorkshire, the sums he had mentioned were so small that he thought the Committee would come to the opposite conclusion of that adopted by the gallant Colonel, and would think that the Bill would much diminish the amount of expense at an election.
Colonel Woodsaid, that perhaps it was intended to contract for the expense. An hon. Member had already engaged to contract for the Barristers, and probably somebody else would be found to contract for the return.
Lord John Russellbelieved, that the Bill would effect a complete alteration of the present system. At present the candidates gave dinners to the electors, but they, being Reformers, thought it better that the electors should give a dinner to the candidate; and some electors, also, he was happy to say, were of the same opinion. He had the honour of partaking of a very handsome dinner with the electors of the county of Devon, and was not allowed to pay anything for it, which he thought a great improvement on the former system.
§ Lord Granville Somersetsaid, that perhaps the noble Lord would introduce a clause to that effect,
§ Mr. Crokersaid, such a clause would pass unanimously he had no doubt. But to revert to the noble Lord's argument relating to the diminution of charge, which, he said, would be the consequence of the present Bill, he feared Gentlemen who suffered themselves to be deluded by that declaration would very soon find their error. He could perceive no other charge but the travelling expenses which was likely to be reduced. All the remaining expenses would continue, and even in some cases, be increased. If, by the existing system, elections were sometimes continued for fifteen days by the proposed alteration they would have eight or ten places for polling at two days each, with the certainty of a contest at each election. The candidates must have a much greater number of agents and polling clerks employed, and the day of nomination would be no trifle, for it would be the object of each candidate to bring as many supporters as possible, whose expenses must be paid. As elections were now managed, very frequently there was no contest, and the affair was over at once. This was 244 generally known before the day of nomination, but by the new system it never could be known, and every one who was brought tip on that day would have to travel back again to his place of residence, and then to travel a second time to the district poll-booth, to record his vote. But even granting that there would be some small saving under the head of travelling, the other expenses would, over and over again, exceed that saving. The great expense would be the completion of the Registers; and he really thought that annual Parliaments would be nothing in the comparison. At those annual scenes of confusion every person interested would attend with his counsel, his agents, and his witnesses. And would there be no expense in all that? He was not talking of the moral effects that would be produced on the minds of the people; but the sitting member would be kept in continual expense and turmoil; he would have to find out what was the probable intentions of each voter as he came to be registered—what his connexions were—which way his landlord was likely to vote—together with a thousand other ramifications which would lead to endless inquiry. He assured the Committee, that he wished heartily well to that part of the Bill which applied to registration. He had before declared that opinion; and, therefore, when the present measure was proposed, he much regretted that it was not divided into two parts, in order that he might be able to give his support to that which referred to registration, because he had always been ready to pay a moderate price to separate the fictitious voter from the real, and to get rid of that system of perjury which had so long existed, but he could not consent to pay so dear a price for this advantage as that proposed by the noble Lord.
Lord Miltonwas convinced that the taking of the poll in two days must necessarily occasion a great diminution of the expense at elections, particularly in the event of contests. He could speak with some confidence on this head, as though the expense of the great Yorkshire election had been much exaggerated, both by his noble friend (Lord John Russell), and the public in general; yet it was, no doubt, very great, and the chief portion of that expense was caused by the necessity of conveying voters to the poll. By taking the poll in districts, and finishing in two days, that expense would be much lessen- 245 ed; there would be no jobbing and carrying up voters two or three times before they would poll, as was common at present. As to the expenses of the day of nomination, he did not believe any candidate would make any further display than having his own friends about him who would be willing to pay their own charges. He was ready to admit, that the registration of electors would be an additional charge, but it had the advantage of being an annual one, and it never could be to such an extent as to injure a candidate's fortune.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyanagreed with his right hon. friend (Mr. Croker) that taking the poll in districts would add very much to the expense of elections, particularly when it was recollected that the candidate would have, in addition, to convey the electors to the place of nomination. By the Bill the election was to take place in two days after the nomination—an interval evidently much too short to prepare for the contingencies of a contest. He would suggest the expediency of having seven days' interval between the days of nomination and election.
§ Lord Althorpdid not see any possible benefit that could ensue from adopting the hon. Baronet's suggestion. If a contest were probable, it would be known before the day of nomination, and all its contingencies therefore anticipated, so that a two days' interval would be sufficient for every practical purpose. The hon. Baronet was in error as to the expense which nomination days occasioned to the candidate. The candidates were never on those days put to the cost of conveying the freeholders; at least, if they were, it was a very gratuitous and unnecessary outlay of money. He had himself been returned nine times for the county of Northampton, and had never paid for the conveyance of a single voter to the place of nomination.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyandid not think that the expense would be increased by allowing an interval of seven days, instead of two.
§ Mr. Portmanagreed with the noble Lord. He conceived it was a great improvement not to leave the interval between the day of election and nomination at the option or caprice of the sheriff, as it was at present.
Sir John Johnstonealso concurred with the noble Lord as to the non-necessity of paying for the conveyance of electors on 246 the day of nomination. It would be useless in Yorkshire, for example, to incur the cost of conveying electors on the day of nomination, for a sufficient number of persons was always to be had in the Castle-yard to hold up their hands at half-a-crown a head, and nobody could tell whether they were freeholders or not.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, that the noble Lord proposed to throw the expense of a dinner upon the voters, and now it was proposed to make the electors pay their own expenses on the day of nomination. He hoped the hon. Gentlemen who advocated these improvements, would find their expectations realized, but he had great doubts on the subject.
§ Mr. Gore Langtonthought the effect of the clause would be, to prevent bonâ fide county nominations. There would be great temptations for candidates to hang back, in order to take their opponents by surprise. There would be a vast deal of underhand manœuvering among those who were conversant in the management of elections.
§ Lord Granville Somersetsaid, that whatever might be the effect of this particular provision, it was impossible that gentlemen who intended to stand for counties should not be put to expense annually in seeing that the lists of voters were correctly made out. With respect to the time between nomination and election, he was of opinion that the sheriffs should have a discretional power to a limited extent.
Lord Miltonthought, that it would be improper to vest a discretional power in the sheriff's, and conceived that putting off the day of election would increase the expense.
§ Lord Granville Somersetagreed with the noble Lord, provided the candidates were previously known, but he wished to guard against the manœuvering of a secret candidate.
§ Mr. John Campbellsaid, that the less that was left to the discretion of returning officers the better, as they might be influenced by friendship in the exercise of their functions.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyansubmitted whether an interval of two days would not be insufficient in case of a contested election unexpectedly arising; it would be then carried by trickery.
§ Mr. Sanfordthought two days a sufficient time, as it was well known, that between the day of nomination and the day of 247 election, the great struggle was made. In the case of a pending contest, therefore, the shorter the interval the better, as the most unworthy means were often used lo influence voters.
§ Mr. Charles Rosswas of opinion, that a longer interval would be more convenient, in the event of a surprise, there would be no time for the surprised candidate to recover his ground.
§ Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that the clause, like the Bill itself, was a gross delusion.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, that by a man holding back to the last day, and then suddenly retaining the attornies in the different districts, a surprise might be effected, and the person using that unworthy advantage, which he might do from the shortness of the interval of two days, with impunity, would be almost sure of being elected.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, that the employment of attornies in canvassing was a most disgraceful system. The mode in which Members of that House talked of "bringing up electors to the poll," was something like driving up pigs. If there were real purity of election, there would be no five guineas a day to attornies and three guineas a day to their clerks. These persons were employed in the most disgraceful of all disgraceful processes. He had stood several contested elections, and never hired an attorney nor asked any man for his vote. He could not afford to pay attornies, and, if he had hired them, he must have acted like some other hon. Members, who promised, but never paid. The attornies of the county of Somerset boasted that they could return any Member they pleased, and he believed that after the passing of the Reform Bill, the power of their body would be so far increased, that the first Parliament elected after it, might be called the attornies House of Commons.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ The 62nd clause, respecting the division of counties into districts for polling by justices in sessions, was read.
Mr. Estcourtrose to move an amendment under this clause as it stood in the Bill. The Justices assembled at the Quarter Sessions were to fix the places for taking the poll, and his objection was, to imposing such a duty upon the Magistrates. Nothing was more desirable than that when the Justices of Peace assembled at the Sessions, they should not be called 248 upon to mix their magisterial functions with local and party politics, and should not have any duties imposed on them which did not strictly belong to their offices as Justices. Every one must see that fixing the places for taking the poll in the county might be of material importance to a candidate; and leaving this to be determined by the Justices was laying them open to a charge of partiality. What he would suggest as a remedy was, to specify the places at which the poll should be taken in the first instance; which, he contended, might be done easily and consistently in the Bill which was to be brought in, to fix the boundaries of counties, cities, and boroughs. There could be no difficulty in the House fixing the particular places in each county at which it was fit the poll should be taken, and the Commissioners appointed by the Government would be able to furnish his Majesty's Ministers with such information as would render the arrangement perfectly easy and satisfactory. The hon. Member concluded by moving an Amendment to the effect that the particular places in which the poll should be taken in every county should be hereafter specified.
Lord John Russellsaid, that an amendment in the spirit of that proposed by the hon. Member should be prepared before the next sitting of the Committee.
§ House resumed—Committee to sit again on Monday.