REGISTER OF ELECTORS—HERTFORDSHIRE. (Hansard, 7 June 1841)

Mr. Storey
stated, that he had received an order from that House for a copy of the register of electors for the county of Hertford for 1840 and 1841; that he had not complied with the order, because the register was not in his possession, nor under his control; that he had no access to it; that by the 55th section of the Reform Bill, the sheriff of the county, not the clerk of the peace, was made the custos of the register; and that the register of the electors of the county of Hertford was accordingly in the possession of the sheriff of the county of Hertford. He was aware, he said, in reply to Mr. T. Duncombe, that under the 55th section of the Reform Bill he was bound to give a copy of the register to any one applying for it. He could not say what was the date on which he received the order of the House. The magistrates of the county of Hertford had constantly refused to print the register, and unless they allowed the expense there was no other way of defraying it. He (the witness), had, from his notion of respect for that House, refused to give that which would be but the copy of a copy of the register. The witness, in continuation said, that he had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the copy in his possession. He refused to make a copy of a copy, because the order of the House required him to make a copy of the register itself. Did not send the copy in his possession because it belonged to the county.

§ Mr. T. Duncombe
said, it was quite clear to the House that this order was sent to the clerk of the peace. The hon. Member for Ripon had been decidedly of opinion, that it was the duty of the clerk of the peace to furnish a copy of the register. It was quite clear, after the statement of the witness, that he was in possession of the register, and that it was his bounden duty, as clerk of the peace, to furnish a copy of it to the House. An hon. Member had asked him if it was an authentic copy, and he replied that it was. It seemed that his only object, as an individual; in not furnishing this copy, was to 1259 create delay, in order that the House might not be able to place it in the hands of the electors. It was for the House to say, whether it would have its order evaded for such a purpose. He thought it was quite necessary that this order should be enforced, and he would therefore move that the Clerk of the Peace, attend tomorrow with a copy of the register of the electors of Hertfordshire.

§ Sir E. Sugden
said, that his opinion coincided with that of the majority of the House, that if the House made an order it must be obeyed, but this was a matter independent of an Act of Parliament. He thought the orders respecting this Gentleman were rather hard. The House did not appear to pay anything for the copy ordered, but, on its own authority, ordered a copy to be returned. Such an order must sometimes operate harshly on an individual. This Gentleman could not make a copy himself, but must pay to have it done; and though this was no reason why the power of the House should not be vindicated, it was a reason for not pressing harshly against an individual who had not transgressed against the order. The House required a copy of the register, and he had not the means of furnishing a copy, for the register was not in his possession. The hon. Member was aware this gentleman had a copy of the register in his possession, and asked him if he did not know that it was a faithful copy, to which the witness answered in the affirmative. He was then asked why he did not send that, and he answered, because it belonged to the county, Could there be a better reason? If he had the register in his possession he (Sir E. Sugden), thought he ought to have obeyed the House, and afterwards appealed to its justice for payment, but it struck him that this gentleman had not the power of obeying the order. There had been a trial of legal skill between the hon. Member for Fins-bury, and the witness; but it appeared to him that the witness had the best of the argument.

Mr. O'Connell
thought, that the witness acted under a mistake. He did not say he was to blame, for a more gross mistake, than that of the magistrates he was at a loss to imagine. According to the act the expense of furnishing copies of the registry was to be defrayed by the treasurer of the county, and it was also required by the act that the Clerk of the Peace should 1260 have several copies of the registry, to be delivered on payment.