§ Mr. Simeon,pursuant to notice, rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend certain parts of the said act. He was willing to yield every tribute of just praise to the act in question, which went in some measure to immortalize its author; great, however, as were unquestionably its merits, it was yet, like all other things human, not perfect. The object of the proposed bill would be, to remove perhaps its only imperfection. In a late case (the Maldon petition) the chairman of the committee had not only a casting voice, but a double one. In mentioning this, it was far from his wish or intention to insinuate the slightest reflection upon the gentlemen who composed that tribunal, but what occasioned a double vote in that committee, might produce the same effect in any other. The unavoidable absence of one of the 15 members might produce a parity of voting, and thus involve the committee in this dilemma; they must decide upon, the issue before them, or they must not; if they did not decide, justice slept; if they did, one of the 14 had a double vote. Besides, as the chairman of such committees was generally a man whom the rest of the committee had preferred for some superiority in certain qualifications, for talents, good sense, address, arising from habits of business, &c. there might be found in some committees men of that diffident cast of mind that would induce them to look rather to the decision of that chairman, than consult the suggestions of their own under- 696 standings. The rules that circumscribed the authority of the Speaker in that house, and precluded him from a double voice, and a casting voice only in the case of a parity of votes, were, he thought, in direct analogy, though he admitted the difference of that house being a legislative, and the other merely a judicial tribunal. It was to be remembered, however, that it was the only court in the empire in which the presiding member had a double voice, He left it to the house to form its own judgment on the circumstances of the case, and decide upon the propriety of the bill he now moved for. He then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to alter and amend the Act of the 10th of the king for the better Regulating the Trials upon Controverted Elections.
§ Mr. Bankessaid, that the cause of complaint was of such a kind, and the mode which the learned gent. meant to propose for its redress, was such, that he thought the law was preferable as it now stood; he should therefore oppose the motion upon the present occasion, as he thought it was needless to encourage a bill to be brought in, which was so likely to be thrown out in some future stage. The case stated, was one which very seldom occurred. The act had put it into the most convenient of all forms, because the decision was left to be determined by the casting or double vote of the chairman; who was naturally looked up to on account of his abilities, integrity, and other qualifications which distinguished him. The learned gent. seemed to imply, that this very man who was so held up to notice, on account of the necessary qualifications, should be the only one who should be deprived of the ability to give a double vote, should it happen to be necessary. He saw no remedy in thus taking away the vote of the chairman. The general maxim of law was, that there should be an end put to a dispute by the judicature to which it was originally submitted, and therefore it was better to take the decision of the committee as at present constituted, than that it should be suspended altogether. The chairman was bound Jo perform the same duties, and to take the same oath, as other members of the committee were; and why should not the decision depend upon his vote, as well as upon others, the more especially as he was the one who paid the most particular attention to the subject?
§ Mr. Simeonexplained. He never meant that justice should be asleep by the decision being suspended. He meant only, that in no case should the chairman vote, except in cases of equality, where 7 of the other members bad voted on each side; and that in no case should he have a double vote.
Mr. C. Wynneconcurred entirely with the hon. gent. who had spoken last, and who had anticipated almost every thing that he had meant to say on the subject. The analogy between the practice of that house and that of the committee did not seem to him to apply. It was essential to the dignity of the house, that the opinions of their Speaker should not be known, as his interference must thereby possess far greater weight and authority. The committee appointed their own chairman; he as well as the rest, being sworn to a faithful discharge of the trust reposed in them; and he believed, there was no instance for the 30 years that the act had existed, of a charge of partiality being even alledged against any one committee. He could not, therefore, see any propriety, in altering the law, or in, saying that the person best qualified to judge on such an occasion, as the chairman must naturally be presumed to be, should alone be precluded from speaking and voting equally with the rest of the committee.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that he conceived the election laws to be of such very great importance, that the house should hear some very cogent reasons indeed urged, before they even allowed a bill to be brought in. He believed his learned friend's motives were pure and sincere; but as the subject had engaged much of his (the Attorney-General's) attention, he found himself to be of a very different opinion. In courts of law, the judges were frequently equally divided in opinion, and consequently not able to decide; but ancient usage had been so much respected, that nobody had ever thought proper to propose any alteration in their constitution. In the year 1775, Mr. Grenville brought in that act, which gave the casting vote to the president of committees, and even where the numbers were equal, no case of unjust or improper partiality had occurred. His learned friend seemed to aim at theoretical and unattainable perfection. He appeared inclined to render the very person who was likely to be most intelligent amongst that committee, 698 a mere nonentity. Supposing that a committee were to be reduced to 14, by the indisposition of any one of their number, would his learned friend propose to have the matter decided, by giving a casting or double vote to one of those 7, with whom the chairman was not united in opinion, in preference to having it determined by the others, with whom he agreed? Why not give a double vote to the chairman, as well as to any of the other members of a committee, when found necessary?
§ Mr. Simeonhere rose, and said, that as he plainly saw the opinion of the house was different from his own, he should withdraw the motion he had proposed—It was accordingly withdrawn.
Lord Folkestonehoped, that the fate of the motion which had just been disposed of, would not have any influence upon that which he rose to make. The object of his motion was to make the notices at present required by an order of that house, respecting the entering into recognizances, a part of the law. The house would be more disposed to agree to his bill, as the effect of it would be to put an end to its interference in such cases, on applications for extending the time for receiving recognizances. He therefore moved for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend so much of the act of the 28th of his majecty, as relates to Recognizances.
Mr. C. Wynnedid not think the object of the noble lord's measure corresponded with its title. It would not alter nor amend the act of the 28th of the king, because there was no mention of notices in that act, neither was there any provision in it, respecting the time for presenting petitions. These matters were settled by the regulations of that house, which all parties who came before it as petitioners, were bound to make themselves acquainted with. As there did not appear to him to be any necessity for an act of parliament on the subject, or to make the other house of Parliament a party to the orders by which the proceedings of that house were to be regulated, he should oppose the motion—The motion was then negatived without a division.