HC Deb 04 May 1840 vol 53 cc1199-208
Lord J. Russell

rose to ask leave to bring in a bill for the Registration of electors, and it would be necessary that he should explain to the House the genera principles upon which that bill would proceed, leaving many points to be afterwards explained, if the House should consent to its being brought in. The Government had tried, on various occasions, to frame a bill on the subject of registration, containing at one time provisions as to the rights of voting, in which they had felt that abuses had taken place, and for which amendments were required, and also other bills which had been confined to the subject of registration alone; but in none of these bills had they been successful—it had either been objected to them that they contained and introduced matter irrelevant to registration, or that registration ought not to be mixed up with questions as to disputed rights of voting. He conceived, that the best course for him now to pursue was to state generally, after the experience of the House and the country had had of the present system, what improvement or plan he thought desirable, and which would be embodied in the bill he sought to introduce, and then to leave it to parliament to decide upon its provisions. It appeared to him, on looking back to the provisions made for registration at the time of the Reform Bill, that, perhaps, they had been then too much impressed with the objections raised by the opponents of the Reform Bill in general—namely, that it was a bill which would inundate the country with an immense number of small and poor voters—in other words, that the Members of this House would be elected by persons not worthy by their intelligence or property to have so great a share of the power of the country placed in their hands. That was an objection which it would be remembered had not only a great effect upon those who took a decided part in opposition to the Reform Bill, but upon many who gave that mea- sure their support, expressing much doubt and hesitation as to the extreme length to which its principles of reform and the extension of the franchise were carried. He was quite convinced, upon seeing what had since taken place, not only that these apprehensions were entirely unfounded, but that in the provisions of the Reform Act, with respect to registration, too much pains had been taken to fix restrictions, and that the mode in which the elective franchise was to be secured was too lax. Whatever might be the amount of property—whatever might be the period of residence—whatever might be the nature of the occupation which should entitle a party to vote for a Member of Parliament, still in his opinion, the registration would do nothing more than ascertain by the simplest means possible whether any person who claimed to be registered as having that property, possessing that right of occupation, or whatever other ground or qualifications Parliament had declared to be necessary, had those rights and qualifications. Everything, which went beyond this—anything that placed an unnecessary impediment in the way of a person, having a real claim was in itself an evil which the Legislature ought to remove. If, then, the House was agreed in that principle, he thought also it would likewise agree that as it would be for the benefit of the country that all those persons to whom it was intended to give a right to vote, the easiest possible means of having their rights ascertained, and their votes allowed, ought to be provided; that it was for the general good of the country that persons so claiming, claimed that which was advantageous to the country, and not claiming a right against which any bar or impediment ought to be placed. These were the general principles upon which he sought, if the House would give him leave, to introduce this bill. But if regard were had to the mode in which the registration of electors had been carried into effect in this part of the empire, it would be seen that there were many evils which it was the duty and business of Parliament to remedy and remove. In the first place, there was at present uncertainty as to the manner in which questions, as to the right of voting were decided. There were no less, he believed, than 114 revising barristers, not the same individuals each year—who were called upon to decide upon rights of voting which required a great deal of consideration, it might happen that a person who established his right to the satisfaction of one revising barrister, was decided against another year. That uncertainty, of itself, deterred many persons from claiming that vote which it was for the benefit of the country at large they should establish. Added to this, there was the penalty of being liable to be called before the court every year with respect to the same franchise. For instance, a person whose residence was at Hull, and had a freehold in a distant part of the county of York, had taken the journey to establish his claim, and yet had been summoned again year after year to travel that distance, not because any rational doubt existed as to the sufficiency of the property, or the sufficiency of the right to vote according to the plain words of the statute, but because there was a sufficient pretext to call upon that individual to re-register, and a sufficient object on the part of some person to summon the party every year all that distance to substantiate his vote. But, in reality in such cases there was nothing more than a pretext, that which appeared substantial at a distance, vanishing into a shadow when the elector arrived at the place of registration. Speaking the other day, with a gentleman who had for some time acted as a revising barrister, he had told him (Lord J. Russell) that he and his colleague having in the course of the discharge of their duties received from a small town very many objections, he had decided with his colleague that they would hold a court at the place; but, when they arrived there all the objections were withdrawn. That showed a defect in the statute. If the objection were made to the vote of a person who resided at a distance, he might, either from dislike of the expense of contesting the claim, or say in ill humour, think it better to lose the vote altogether, than be at the trouble of defending it, though there might be all the while no real objection. He (Lord J. Russell) might go through many more objections to the present state of the law, but he was desirous not to take up the time of the House unnecessarily. He would, therefore, proceed to explain the alterations which he thought necessary. He proposed, then, to substitute a fixed and permanent and limited number of revising barristers, instead of the present fluctuating and excessive number. He proposed to make the number fifteen. The principle of the bill was, that they should make a small number of revising barristers; that those barristers should hold their situations permanently: and that they should go through their districts every year, not taking the same districts every year, but so as not to go through the same districts more than three years together. By this plan he looked to get gentlemen for those situations who would become accustomed to this part of the law, and by this means he should secure uniformity of decision. But this was not the only security that he took, for he found another in the small number of barristers, who would be constantly attending their courts and recurring to the adjudication of the same questions; and this, he considered, would be a great improvement on the present plan of a fluctuating number of barristers. Then, as to the salaries of the barristers. A sufficient salary ought, undoubtedly, to be given, to secure a person fitted for the proper discharge of the duties of the situation. Perhaps, hitherto, they had had both too large a number of revising barristers, and too small salaries to secure an adequate discharge of the duties from men on whom were devolved duties which must be considered of much importance, since to them in the first instance it was intrusted to decide on the franchises of their fellow-countrymen. Another question was with respect to the mode of claiming the franchise, and with respect to the time for which the vote should be made to enure. Now the voter put in his claim, and if it were not objected to before the court, he was put on the register; but any person making an objection might still bring him on any future occasion before the court, and so he was no better off than if he were an original claimant. In Scotland, before the Reform Act, the voter was put on the roll, find remained there if it could not be shown that there was any objection to his claim. In Ireland, if the vote was allowed by the assistant-barrister, the vote remained good for eight years, at least that was the principle, though in certain contingencies other regulations took place. What he proposed in this bill was, that the county voter might claim, as now if he pleased, that was to say, he might state the nature of his claim, as whether it were in respect of freehold or leasehold property, or from a 50l. tenancy, but without bringing evidence to support such claim. If, however, he should choose this course, and were left on the register, then that his claim should be liable to be questioned next year. But in other cases he proposed to place the claimant in a more advantageous situation than at present, for he gave the right, as in Ireland, to the voter of giving notice that he should prove his claim before the revising barrister, or that, being objected to, he shall establish his vote. If he did establish the vote to the satisfaction of the revising barrister, then the name should remain on the register, unless in case of a change of circumstances or of death. He had once intended to propose, that if the voter established his claim, his vote should remain good for three or four years, and he was not sure that that was not the better system; but he saw no good reason why, if the claim were made good before the revising barrister, he should not be allowed to remain finally on the register, unless in case of change of circumstances or of death. He thought that much would be gained by no longer exposing the voter every year to all the evils of contesting his claim; and he thought that they might safely allow the voter to remain on the register after the contention through which his claim must pass, and after having established it to the satisfaction of a person learned in the law; they might at least safely leave it on the register until some superior tribunal should decide upon its validity. As to the right of appeal, if the question in dispute were a question of law, he would allow an appeal, but not in the case of a question of facts. He followed the bill of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) with respect to the courts of appeal; he followed, too, in this respect, the practice of the Court of Queen's Bench on appeals from the Courts of Quarter Sessions. There the statements with regard to facts sent up by the Quarter Sessions were held to be decisive of those facts. The Queen's Bench then decided whether the law was as had been held by the Quarter Sessions or not. He proposed to constitute a court of appeal by taking three of the fifteen revising barristers whom the bill would create, and that they should sit for a certain part of every year to consider these appeals. That would secure uniform decisions, he thought, At first, of course, whoever might be the persons appointed, they would have on intricate points of law differing decisions, but when they made courts of appeal, they would before long obtain a very considerable uniformity of decision. He might be asked how far would these appeals be conclusive. He answered, that he would not by this bill seek to limit the present power of committees of the House of Commons; he would not break in upon the powers which the constitution had committed to them; nor would he give that power to the court of law, because he considered it plain from what the House had themselves seen, from what they could not but see if they only looked to the books, that the tendency of courts of law was to construe all practice strictly, and indeed generally so to construe it as to depart from the original intention of the framers of the laws. He should not, therefore, give the power to the courts of law; neither would he exclude the House of Commons from the right of final interpretation of the laws as to who were elected and who were the parties to vote, and therefore he would not restrain that power by any legislative words; but he would say, that if they had a body of fifteen persons who devoted themselves to this occupation, and had presiding over them persons who were, therefore, conversant with the practice of reserving, the decisions of such a body would probably have very great weight with committees of the House of Commons, and that that circumstance would tend materially to secure uniformity of decision on the part of the committees, and to diminish the number of questions of disputed elections. Next, as to the means by which he proposed that these barristers should be named. One of the modes which had been proposed was to confide the selection to the Lord Chancellor. He did not apprehend any great evils from such a course, because he did not think that any chancellor would use the power improperly, but he preferred the following mode: he proposed that each of the judges should in future name three persons, and that out of the forty-five so named, the Speaker should appoint fifteen. He considered that the mode of proceeding in such a case, by analogy, ought to have reference to the House itself; and it being very objectionable to give patronage to the majority of the House, he could not think that they could do better than give to the Speaker, who was the organ of the House, and spoke its voice on ordinary occasions, the nomination of these officers. With respect to costs, he proposed that persons who made objections which were not reasonable, should be chargeable with a moderate sum in the shape of costs. He might add, that his bill followed in general the bill which had been brought in by the Attorney-general two years ago. Now, with respect to the other bill, namely, that for making further provision respecting certain rights of voting in the election of Members of Parliament, as had been proposed in a former bill, he intended that the right of voting in boroughs should require that at least 5l. out of the 10l. should arise from property in a house. With respect to joint occupancy, where two occupiers held property to the amount of 20l., each should be invested with the 10l. qualification; and where two persons possessed 100l., each should be considered as a 50l. tenant. There was another point which was of still more importance. He proposed to do away with some of the restrictions by which the right to vote was at present fettered. For instance, he proposed to do away altogether with the restriction which rendered necessary the payment of the assessed taxes. Such a restriction was unknown before the passing of the Reform Act; it was an unnecessary fetter upon the franchise, and he should therefore propose its abolition. With respect to the payment of the poor-rate, he would only require that it had been paid up to six months previously to the time of claiming to be registered. He made this proposition, because it frequently happened that persons who were perfectly competent to pay up their rates, and who were equally willing to do so, might, through some oversight, neglect to comply with this provision. The doing away with the present provision would afford greater facilities to persons who had bonâ fide claims. That they had paid the rate up to a certain time, together with the fact of an eighteen-months' occupancy, was sufficient security for their solvency. He also proposed to remove the disqualification which attached to persons no longer residing in the houses out of which they first claimed to vote. The third answer, as the law at present stood, required that the elector should state that he claimed to vote out of the same qualification, A man who happened to remove in the course of the year from one 10l. house to another, perhaps in the next, or it might be in the same, street, was surely as well entitled to a vote as he was at the time when he first qualified. There was, perhaps, a worse evil in the existing system, arising from doubt as to the manner in which the law at present operated. Some persons thought they possessed the right of voting notwithstanding their removal, and others again looked upon it as a disqualification. This led to great irregularity, and, in many instances, to a violation of the law. It would be better, therefore, when the bonâ fide right was ascertained, and when the name was placed upon the registry, that the vote should stand good for that year. He had now stated the main provisions of the two bills which he proposed to bring in. It was not necessary just then to go into all the details, and he should therefore content himself with the outline which he had given to the House. It was his duty to state that he had consulted his hon. and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, and also his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General for Ireland, as to the points in the measure which were likely to affect those countries. Into those points he would not just then enter, further than to say, that those Gentlemen, as well as his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-general, agreed with him as to the main principles of the bills. Facility, and not restriction, was the rule which he kept in view, with variations suited to the circumstances of the different countries. He thus hoped to be able to effect an amendment in the registration of the three parts of the empire.

Mr. G. Palmer

was equally desirous with the noble Lord to remove any difficulties which might lie in the way of bonâ fide voters; but, as the registries were to take place every year, he did not see how the business could be done by fifteen barristers, or how they could make sufficient inquiry into the qualification. He did not mean to throw any imputation on the Speaker, but it was well known that that officer was elected by a majority of the House.

Sir G. Sinclair

thought the statement of the noble Lord ought to have been made before proceeding with the estimates, and at a time when the House was full. It should not have been delayed to so late an hour of the night. He did not mean to follow the noble Lord through his statement, nor did he mean to take objection to it, as there were many propositions of which he approved. He willingly admitted that no unnecessary obstacle should be thrown in the way of the registry, and he also approved of the fifteen barristers and the court of appeal, and he was sure that no person who occupied the chair of that House could be suspected of a partial bias. He would throw no obstacle in the way of these bills, though their introduction appeared to be at variance with the assertion that the Reform Bill was a final measure. When the bills, however, came to be discussed, there might arise many objections with respect to details which it was impossible at present to foresee.

Leave given.