PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—TWENTY SEVENTH DAY. (Hansard, 19 August 1831)

§ Lord Althorp
said, that the noble Marquis had, at his request, not pressed the insertion of the words agreed to last night, as an Amendment on the 16th clause. He had made this request in order that he might have an opportunity of re-wording the clause, which was necessary, because the terms of the amendment of the 298 noble Marquis included farmers, and farmers only. Now he apprehended, that it was not the intention of the noble Marquis, and he was sure it was not the intention of the House, to omit tenants at will of other property, and confer the franchise only on tenants at will of farms. That, of course, would be very unfair, and he had no doubt that it was not the intention of the noble Marquis, or of the supporters of the Amendment, to reject the tenant at will of houses and garden-land, while they admitted farming tenants at will. With this view, then, of the intention of the House and of the noble Marquis, he had drawn up the words which he proposed to be inserted in the place of those which it had been agreed to leave out. He would first of all read the words which were to be left out, in order that the words to be inserted might be better understood. The words to be left out were these:—"or demised for any term not less than seven years (whether determinable on a life or lives, or not), whereon a yearly rent of not less than 50l. shall be reserved, or for which a fine or premium of not less than——pounds shall have been paid." Before he came to the words which he proposed to insert in the place of these, he must observe, that the amendment of the noble Marquis would render other alterations in the clause necessary. The regulation respecting leases for seven years was intended to apply to the occupying tenant, and the principle which he wished now to follow out was, to make a provision for the cases of those who should under-let to others. The value of the property held by such persons would be easily ascertained by deducting the rent which they received from the rent which they paid. The value, therefore, of the property held by such persons would be the rent which they received, minus the rent which they paid, and the product would decide a man's right to vote. Then, again, the wording of the amendment of the noble Marquis was not in conformity with the general provision of the Bill, because, throughout the Bill, occupation was in all cases made referable to the time of registration. Every part of the intention of the noble Marquis was, however, included in the manner in which the Amendment was now re-worded. He would now read this part of the clause as he proposed to amend it, but he must go 299 a few words back. Beginning just after the enactment respecting copyholds, the clause ran thus:—"or who shall hold as lessee or assignee any lands or tenements, demised for any term net less than sixty years (whether determinable on a life or lives, or not), of the yearly value of not less than 101. above reprizes;" then the clause would go on, "or who shall hold any lands or tenements, demised for any term not less than seven years (whether determinable on a life or lives, or not), of the clear yearly value of 501. above reprizes; or who shall have occupied or farmed land on his own account for twelve calendar months next preceding the first day of November in the present year, or next preceding the last day of August in each succeeding year, for which land he shall be liable to a bonâ fide rent of not less than 50l. a year: or who shall have occupied as tenant for twelve calendar months next preceding the first day of November in the present year, or next preceding the last day of August in each succeeding year, any lands or tenements for which he shall be liable to a bonâ fide rent of not less than 50l." These alterations, he thought, would meet the views of the Committee, inasmuch as they included the amendment of the noble Marquis, and added to the farmers mentioned in that amendment, such occupiers of lands and tenements as were on the same footing, with regard to rent, as the farmers. These, therefore, were the words which he should now propose to be inserted in the clause, in the place of those which it had been agreed to leave out, observing only, that he had mentioned the 1st of November, merely because it was necessary to mention some day.

§ Colonel Sibthorp
took credit to Members on the side of the House on which he was sitting, for the vote they had given last night, as it showed, that they were attentive to all the bearings of the case, and were anxious that all classes in the country should be duly considered. He felt regret himself, that he had not been the leader, as he had a claim of precedence, but it often happened that one man had all the brunt of the battle, and another all the honour. He hoped, at least, that it would go forth to the public, that he was the first to call attention to the propriety of including farm tenants at will.

Mr. Estcourt
wished to call the attention of the noble Lord to another part of 300 the clause. It was that which enacted, that the possession of lands for terms of seven years, on which a fine of 300l. (for so it was proposed to fill up the blank) had been paid, should confer the right of voting. Now this would not cover those leases for twenty-one years, renewable every seven years, which were liable to a peppercorn rent, and on the renewals of which, smaller fines than 300l. were paid. Such leases were constantly granted under corporations. He should therefore move, when the time came, that after the words "300l." the following words should be inserted—"or of which the clear annual value shall be equal to 50l. a-year."

The Attorney General
said, that the words to which the hon. Member had alluded, had been struck out of the clause—so that the Amendment which the hon. Member proposed would be unnecessary. His noble friend had read the wording of the clause, which, so far as regarded the view of the hon. Member, was this—''or who shall hold any lands or tenements demised for any term not less than twenty years, which shall be of the clear yearly value of 50l." This would include the leases of which the hon. Gentleman had spoken, because their renewability made no difference in their term.

Colonel Wood
said, that it seemed to him some words were necessary for the regulation of the registration of votes. As the matter of registration would be a great expense to the candidates, as well as to the country, he should take an opportunity of expressing his opinion upon it.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
thought, that it would be found, that the dates now mentioned by the noble Lord would be productive of inconvenience, and he believed it would be necessary to alter them.

§ Mr. Cresset Pelham
begged to inquire if the clause, as now worded, would allow parties who had a house and a small parcel of land, the privilege of voting.

§ Lord Althorp
replied, when they were together of sufficient value.

§ Sir James Scarlett
wished to know the reasons for fixing on November and August as the periods for registration in this clause.

§ Lord Althorp
said, that the last day of August was fixed upon for every succeeding year after the present one. He had fixed the first of November for the present year, as it was necessary to name some 301 distant day, though he certainly was not able to say, that the present Bill would be passed by that time. The last day of August was fixed upon for succeeding years, as the period for making up the lists of registration, and the first day of July was fixed upon as the day up to which persons should pay the rates to qualify them to vote, and those days had been selected on those grounds. After the 1st of July, the Overseer would make his report, and as it was necessary that whatever objections to that report should be decided by a barrister, the last day of August was fixed on as the most convenient one for requiring the services of a gentleman of that profession. The object of the registration was, that when the poll came to be taken, there should be no delay whatever interposed in the way of polling, and that there should be no question then except as to the identity of the voter and his registration. The registration, besides, secured the respectability of the voters, for when a man had registered as an occupant for a year, it was more than probable that he would be nearly two years an occupant before he would have an opportunity of exercising his franchise.

§ Sir James Scarlett
thought, that this Bill would furnish more business to the profession of which he was an humble Member, than any previous act of the Legislature, and that a vast number of petitions to that House on disputed questions with regard to elections would be the consequence of it for many years to come. Under the arrangement proposed by the noble Lord, a man who had ceased to occupy a tenement, might, through the accommodating disposition of an Overseer, still have the power of voting, since no questions would be put to him at the poll, except as to his identity and the fact of his registration.

Colonel Wood
said, the registration would have the contrary effect to what was intended. It was proposed to save but it would most assuredly increase expense.

§ Mr. Praed
said, that it seemed to him that farms which were held under a corn rent, would not be included in the words "yearly rent of 50l.," and that the fixing the registration in August, would have the effect of extending the antecedent period of occupation contemplated in the amendment introduced by the noble Marquis From the time that farms were usually 302 let "Michaelmas," the shortest term at which the elective franchise could be exercised, would be a year and a half.

§ Lord Althorp
admitted, that such would be the case. It was necessary, however, to specify some particular time for registration. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's observations as to money, or corn rents, it would not matter how the rent was paid, provided the value of the farm was sufficient—although the corn rent for the year, by a reduction of price, would not amount to that sum.

Mr. Denison
said, that this clause, in its Present amended shape, as well as he could understand it, would have the effect of making a great difference in, and increasing to a great extent, the number of voters in counties. A shop-keeper in a town, renting a house at the value of 20l.,by having a small quantity of land adjacent, would have a vote for the county.

§ Lord Althorp
said, that they now came to the proviso of the clause, which stood originally thus in the Bill—"Provided always, that such person so seized or holding, shall be in the actual possession of such lands or tenements, or in the receipt, for his own use, of the rents and profits thereof, from the person actually occupying the same." He proposed to omit those words, and to insert another proviso, which was calculated to attain more effectually the objects which the framers of the Bill had, in this instance, in view. He ought to apologize to the Committee for endeavouring to make this proposition intelligible to them. As this was a question of mere law, he feared that, as he was no lawyer, he was not competent to make them understand the proposition, as fully as a person skilled in legal matters would be able to do. The object which the framers of the Bill had in view in this instance, was simply this—that the original lessees, holding lands or tenements of the value already specified, and for the terms already mentioned, should have the 303 right of voting (for he looked upon such long leaseholders as quasi freeholders), and that, at the same time, the occupying tenant, holding immediately under them, should also have the right of voting, if his holding should be to him of the annual value already specified in the clause. The proviso which he proposed to substitute for the one which had been originally introduced into this clause had, then, this object in view—to render it necessary that the lands or tenements from which the original lessee derived his right to vote, should produce to him the annual value, above reprizes, specified already n the clause, in order to entitle him to that right, and that the immediate under-tenant should also derive the same value from it, to give him that right; and this proviso was further intended to guard against the right of voting being extended to any number of under-tenants, beyond the tenant immediately under the original lessee. Having given this explanation, he begged to propose, that instead of the proviso which he had just read, the following proviso should be inserted:—"Provided always, that the only persons who shall have a right to vote in such election, in respect of any leasehold interest under the authority of this Act, for the term of sixty years or seventy years, as herein-before mentioned, shall be persons who shall be lessees or assignees, of the original term granted of the premises demised, whether such lessees or assignees be or be not in the occupation of the premises demised, and also persons who shall be lessees or assignees of derivative terms, or under leases, provided such last-mentioned lessees or assignees, be in the actual occupation of the premises demised."

§ Sir James Scarlett
said, that the mode of ascertaining the value was expressed in rather ambiguous terms.

The Attorney General
thought, that the words "annual value" were quite sufficient. However, on the bringing up of the report, they could add the words "above reprizes."

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, that the first-named lessee might derive a vote from a tenement from which he did not derive any thing like the amount of value specified in the Bill.

§ Lord Althorp
said, that such would not be the case, for that the clause provided expressly against such a contingency. If A should assign over or let to B a lease- 304 hold interest, of the annual value of 101., for 10l. yearly, A would derive no value from it, and he could not vote under this clause. If he should, however, let it for 201. or upwards, then he would, under this clause, possess the right to vote.

§ Mr. Cutlar Ferguson
said, that it was most important, that there should be no ambiguity in this clause. He thought, that the amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer removed any ambiguity that had previously existed in it.

Mr. Evelyn Denison
asked, whether a person who occupied a tenement and land, of the value of 501. a year, together or separate, for a term of years, or for one year, was to have a right of voting, whether the holding should be under one and the same, or under different landlords?

§ Lord Althorp
said, that any person who occupied a house and land of 501. annual rent, would have a vote, according to his proposition. It would be a most extraordinary decision, if he were to state, that a person occupying to the value of 501. a year land, should vote for the county, but that a person occupying house and land should not have a vote.

Mr. O'Connell
said, that the question seemed to be, whether continuity formed any part in the proposition. For his part, he did not think, that continuity should make any difference, so that a person had a bonâ fide holding, for which he paid 50l. annually.

§ Sir James Scarlett
asked, whether, if a person had a house of the value of 301., and a farm of the value of 201., it was intended he should vote for the county?

Mr. Evelyn Denison
believed, his question had not been understood. What he wished to know was, not whether a man having a house worth 501. a year in a town, and land worth 50l. a year in the country, was to be entitled to a vote—but, whether a man having a house in a town, and land in the country, which amounted conjointly to 501. a year, would be entitled to vote?

§ Lord Althorp
said, what was certainly meant was, that if a man rented a house and land, worth 501. a year, though one should be in a town, and the other out of it, he should be entitled to vote out of the joint holding.

§ Sir James Scarlett
wished to know, whether it was intended, that a man having a house worth 20l. a year in a town, which was to send Members to Parliament, and land worth 30ls. a year in a county, might vote for the county, and for the borough likewise?

§ Lord Althorp
replied, that his observations related entirely to towns of counties, and not to boroughs. A man having a 20l. house in Leeds, for instance, and renting land to the amount of 301. in the county, would not be entitled to vote for Yorkshire.

Mr. Davies Gilbert
rose, to bring forward the amendment of which he had given notice, "to restrict the right of voting on the qualification of 40s. freeholds to persons seized of an inheritance." His object was, to draw a strong line of distinction between those who had real freeholds, and such as had votes arising out of grants, or leases for lives, and thereby prevent votes being manufactured for election purposes—a practice which already prevailed in Ireland, and, he believed, in some parts of this country, to an injurious extent, causing lands to be much sub-divided. There should be some restraint upon such practices, and he thought that would be obtained by rating the qualification at 101. on the right of voting on behalf of life annuities, or leases for lives. He therefore begged to propose as an amendment, "that no person be entitled to vote, by virtue of any freehold, the annual value of which does not amount to 101. above all reprizes acquired after the passing of this Bill, unless the said freehold shall be an estate of inheritance."

§ Lord Althorp
had no great objection to the Amendment, as it regarded leases for lives; but, if a man acquired an actual freehold estate of 40s. per annum, he should greatly object to his being deprived of the right of voting.

Mr. Davies Gilbert
did not mean, that his Amendment should have any such effect, he only desired to increase the qualification upon the life estate, and not touch any one acquiring a 40s. freehold of inheritance.

§ Mr. John Campbell
said, the Amendment well deserved consideration. It would only affect those who acquired a right to vote under a lease for life or lives. He was of opinion no one ought to be allowed a vote, from a qualification, of a 306 freehold of 40s. for life. The right of voting for an estate of that value, was created so far back as the reign of Edward 6th, but 40s. a year then was as much as 20l. in the present times. He wished the Amendment was carried further, and that no freehold of any description of a less value than 10l. a year should give the right of voting.

Mr. Baring
said, that the proposal now before the Committee did not affect existing interests, but had for its object to prevent life freeholds from being created for election purposes. It was necessary to introduce some restriction of this sort, or such kind of freeholds would be so multiplied as to become a serious grievance. The Amendment left the right of 40s. freeholds of inheritance precisely as they stood. He thought, supposing the anxiety to obtain seats in Parliament to continue, that, as the counties would be divided, leaving a smaller mass to be acted upon, every trick would be resorted to in order to create qualifications for voting for county Members. This might be done with the greatest facility, unless some restriction was interposed like that suggested. He had himself a small estate in Wiltshire, on which, by a slight alteration in the leases, to which the lessees could not object, he could make 200 county freeholders. The property consisted of large farms, on which were many small tenements, with two or three acres attached. The same facilities, he knew, prevailed in other places. He was convinced, therefore, that, unless the Amendment were adopted, or something to the same effect, the abuse would prevail in all parts of the kingdom to a great extent.

§ Mr. Cutlar Ferguson
thought, a freehold depending on lives could not be considered in any point of view as of equal value to a freehold of inheritance. The distinction was very obvious. The principle of increasing the qualification had been already recognized by the House; and, if a county Representation was now to be established for the first time, no one would think of fixing the qualification so low as 40s. All the abuses of the Scotch system arose out of the facility of creating qualifications for life. It was a very great abuse, and loudly called for remedy. Most jobs had their origin in this source. He feared, that the same abuses would prevail in England, unless care was taken to prevent them, by increasing the difficulty of manufacturing 307 voters. He trusted the hon. member for Bodmin would persevere in his Amendment, which had his cordial support. He hoped it would be carried unanimously; but, if a division took place on it, he should vote for the Amendment.

§ Lord Althorp
misunderstood the nature of the Amendment in the first instance. He thought it would disqualify any person who should hereafter purchase a real freehold of inheritance to the amount of 40s., which he should object to. As he found, however, that it merely went to increase the qualification to those who had freeholds under leases for lives, he had not the slightest objection to adopt it; indeed, he had contemplated a provision of a similar nature himself. As some difficulty might arise in the arrangement of the clause if the Amendment were now introduced, he would suggest to the hon. Mover to withdraw his Amendment for the present; and he (Lord Althorp) would undertake, on the part of his Majesty's Government, that an amendment to the same effect should be introduced hereafter.

Mr. Davies Gilbert
was ready to withdraw his Amendment on this understanding.

Lord Milton
said, he hoped this Amendment would operate advantageously. In some parts of the country, votes were manufactured to a considerable extent by granting annuities, an abuse which this clause would materially check. His noble friend would, perhaps, go still further, and prevent any but real 40s. freeholders of inheritance from voting at all. Such a clause, however, might affect marriage settlements, unless that were guarded against by a proviso.

§ Mr. Cutlar Ferguson
believed there could be very few people whose marriage settlements would be affected injuriously by this clause. They must be under 101.; and he suspected it would be very rare to discover one of this description.

Mr. Wilks
inquired, whether the operation of the Amendment would be prospective; or whether it was to affect existing interests.

Mr. Davies Gilbert
intended, that the Amendment should have only a prospective effect.

Mr. Wilks
said, it appeared to him wrong, that intermediate interests, under leases to the value of 101., should give the right of voting, and that a rent-charge to the same amount, and thereby an equal interest, should not confer the same right 308 A rent-charge should entitle the holder to vote the same as 10l. beneficial interest under successive leases.

§ Lord Althorp
said, in reply, that land, on which there was a rent-charge, would not give a vote to the original lessee, unless its yearly value to him was not less than 10l.

The Chairman
said, the question now was, that the sixteenth clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. James L. Knight
said, the noble Lord, in alluding to the right given under the Bill to the original lessee, said, "unless the yearly value to him is not less than .10l." There was some difference in this expression and that in the Bill, and he thought the words "to him" ought to be inserted in the clause.

§ Mr. Serjeant Wilde
said, that whenever there was any doubt as to the language to be used in a legal document, the parties had better refer to the existing law, and adopt that language and meaning which had been already established. That course appeared to have been pursued in framing the Bill before them; the words of the clause were—"the yearly value of 101. above reprizes." Now, it was clear, that, under these words, a rent-charge must be deducted, or else the freeholder will not have a clear interest "above reprizes." This language and meaning appeared to him perfectly clear and intelligible, and in no respect liable to the objections that had been made to it.

Mr. James L. Knight
said, if it was the intention of the framers of this Bill to remove all doubts as to their meaning, the proposed words should be added. On a recent occasion, it had been admitted, that the words used were so indefinite as to make it possible for a man to obtain a vote who had no beneficial interest whatever in land. In his opinion, the words used in the clause had two distinct meanings in law, and it ought to be amended before they were called on to pass it.

§ Lord Althorp
said, those who were acquainted with the forms of the House must be aware, that the time was passed for moving an amendment. The clause must either be adopted or rejected altogether. It might be altered on bringing up the Report.

Mr. James L. Knight
was aware of that, but he objected to the whole clause, and wished that it should be withdrawn and 309 reprinted, for the purpose of being reconsidered. If that were not done, he should certainly oppose it.

Mr. Baring
said, that after this Bill had passed through the Committee, it must be reprinted, and then, if any hon. Member required an alteration in any of the clauses, it would be competent to him to move, that the Bill be re-committed for that purpose. The whole object of the clause was, to form a county constituency; and he wished to make a few remarks upon its details. Every hon. Gentleman who had listened to the debates must have heard, that the greatest law authorities in the House differed in the construction they put upon the clauses, and when they remembered who was to carry them ultimately into effect, they must entertain considerable doubts whether the whole arrangement was not so complicated as utterly to defeat the intentions of the Ministers. The Overseers of the poor were to fulfil all the provisions of a clause which had puzzled the greatest lawyers in the House to understand it. The mode of Registration was altogether too complicated. In fact, it was impossible to conceive a more complicated and antiquated system of registration than that which would be produced by that clause. It was, however, of the utmost importance, considering who were the parties to be called on to execute its details, that it should be made as simple as possible, in order to prevent the numerous appeals which would otherwise undoubtedly arise. Such appeals were to be decided by a Barrister appointed by the Judges of Assize; and upon a person of this sort, therefore, would the duty of deciding the right of voting in counties chiefly depend. By the provisions of this clause, the right of voting would be invested in leaseholders of 501. a year and upwards, copyholders of 101. a year and upwards, and persons holding beneficial leases for certain terms of years. These persons would form, in common with the 40s. freeholders and upwards, the new constituency. He had never been an advocate for unnecessarily and wantonly interfering, or breaking through old established rights and privileges, but when they were about to adopt such extensive alterations as was contemplated, why engraft new rights upon old customs, weaving such a complicated web of franchise, as would defy the ingenuity of man to unravel it? On the contrary, 310 the object ought to be, to make the most simple arrangements possible, in order to prevent the litigation that must ensue from the Assessors being called upon to judge who were seized of property, who held property, who were copyholders, leaseholders, or freeholders, and entitled to vote under the Bill. If, instead of all this patch-work, they had made occupancy, to a certain amount of rent, the qualification for a county vote, nothing would have been more simple, easy, or just, and they would, by this means, have been able to dispense with the complicated machinery which was chiefly valuable on account of its antiquity. If any persons thought distinctions ought to be drawn between freeholds and leaseholds, he would ask them, whether it was not worth while to make some little sacrifice to prevent the evils he had detailed, which would certainly result? A little county election would be got up every year at the time of registration; and, where party and political spirit ran high, justice would not at all times be impartially dealt. He would not propose an amendment, because he saw the House was opposed to him; but he must enter his protest against a clause which made the constituency for counties so complicated, and which put the chief power of elections in the hands of attornies. The plan he had suggested would simplify the whole business of elections, and reduce the expense, whereas this Bill created the most ill-judged complicated machinery possible, multiplied difficulties and embarrassments, and increased the expense.

§ Lord Althorp
said, that many amendments had been proposed by hon. Members, which had been well considered, and several of them adopted; but he was convinced that, if such a proposition as that hinted at by his hon. friend were carried into effect, it would render the difficulties of elections ten-fold greater. He was glad, however, to hear he was so fond of simplicity in registrations, for they should certainly have his support when they came to the arrangements for boroughs. He could not concur with his hon. friend in saying, that much power would be given to attornies. On the contrary, parochial officers would be found competent to make out a list of persons in their own parishes qualified to vote for the county. He had had some experience in elections lately, and he could therefore state, from his own 311 knowledge, that the lists were generally made up in such a way that little room would be left for appeals to barristers or attornies. Every respectable farmer, in fact, was so well acquainted with those who had a right to vote, that there was seldom any occasion to appeal to an attorney.

§ Mr. Hunt
said, that the old system of freehold qualification was well understood, but now that such a variety of rights had been introduced, no person but an attorney would be able to explain them. He was happy to observe, that the hon. member for Thetford had proposed a simple plan, which was infinitely preferable to the antiquated modes which had been so tenaciously adhered to. Certainly these must ultimately be abolished, and after what had last night taken place, he thought his favourite system of the Ballot would ultimately be adopted.

Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, that the Committee was not in possession of that full information which was essential before a clause of such vast importance as that under consideration was adopted, and he hoped it would be postponed, as had been the case with preceding clauses. It was impossible to have a subject of greater practical consequence to the country than the present, and as a variety of amendments had been introduced by all parties, while several hon. Members had suggested alterations, the bearing of which ill-under stood as the clause was, could not be comprehended, he thought it required further consideration. It was not, therefore, going too far to ask, that the clause should be reprinted with the amendments, before the Committee were called upon to accede to it.

§ Sir Edward Sugden
observed, that by altering one clause, it might possibly cause a necessity for alterations in other clauses of the Bill; nay, it was possible, that the Bill would require to be recommitted in consequence of these alterations. The clauses would not dovetail into each other.

§ Lord Althorp
said, that it was competent for any hon. Member to move the re-committment of the Bill on bringing up the Report, but he trusted that such a course would not be necessary.

Mr. Baring
was no otherwise a Reformer than that he wished, when the whole Representation of the country was 312 to be broken up to make the new system as complete as possible. He complained that there was not that simplicity in the qualification of voters for counties which there might, and ought to have been, when the borough constituency had been simplified, and on that ground he must object to the clause. The Bill would be found to disarrange and destroy all that proper balance which ought to be preserved between every part of the national interests.

§ Sir George Clerk
wished to be informed, whether it was intended to make any provision in the Bill to prevent the evil of making nominal and fictitious freeholds in cities and boroughs?

§ Lord Althorp
said, a clause was preparing to remedy that evil.

§ Sir Edward Sugden
suggested, that this clause was unnecessary, and might do mischief, inasmuch as it merely re-enacted that which was law already; and such re-enactment might lead to a suspicion, that such parts of the present law relating to elections as were not re-enacted were repealed by this Bill.

The Attorney General
stated, that he could not coincide with the suggestion of his hon. and learned friend, and entered into some explanations of the reasons why he thought that it would be safer to retain this clause in the Bill.

§ Mr. Mackinnon
submitted, that this clause, if not amended, would, of necessity, lead to much inconvenience. In those boroughs, for which no persons were mentioned in the third column of schedule C and D as returning officers, it was enacted by this clause, that the Sheriff for the time being of the county in which such boroughs were situate, should have the power of nominating and appointing the 313 returning officers. There were twenty-five boroughs, he believed, in this situation. Thus there would be fifty Members returned to that House by individuals acting as returning officers, under the appointment of the Sheriff. But it was notorious, that it was not the Sheriff, but his Under-Sheriff, that conducted the business of his office; and the Under-Sheriff, who was in general an Attorney, might be liable to improper influence. For instance, if A and B were rival candidates for the same borough, and A had any influence with the Under-Sheriff of the county, great favour might be shown to candidate A, to the great prejudice and detriment of candidate B. Some alteration, therefore, ought to be made in the clause, and the best alteration which he could suggest was, the taking away from the Sheriff the right to appoint the returning officers. The returning officers in the existing boroughs generally acquired their situation by being Lords of the Manor, or Tithing-men, or Mayors, or officers of Corporations. In the close boroughs, as they were called, of schedules A and B, the Sheriff had, almost without exception, no authority whatsoever to appoint a returning officer. By the Reform Bill, however, which professed to do away with all patronage, the Sheriff was made the patron by whom the returning officers, who had to return fifty Members, were appointed. He was of opinion that the returning officers should not be appointed by any single individual. He should therefore move, that the words, of which he had already given notice, giving power to the Sheriff to nominate the returning officers, should be struck out of clause 8, and that in their stead be inserted—

§ Lord Althorp
begged to inform the hon. Member, that the time had not yet arrived at which he could propose his amendment.

§ Mr. Mackinnon
declared his intention to wait till the proper time arrived at which he could propose his amendment.
The Chairman then read the first part of the clause as follows, viz: "And be it enacted, that the persons respectively described in the third column of the said schedules C and D, shall, after the end of this present Parliament, be the returning officers at all elections of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament for the boroughs in conjunction with which such persons are respectively mentioned in the said schedules C and D."

§ Sir Edward Sugden
said, he objected to this part of the clause, and thought this a proper opportunity to consider the whole of it.

Mr. Stuart Wortley
would avail himself of this opportunity to ask the noble Lord, whether he had made inquiry as to the propriety of appointing the Master Cutler the returning officer for the newly-created borough of Sheffield. The Master Cutler, he believed, had no magisterial authority.

§ Lord Althorp
replied, that inquiry had been made, and it appeared to him that the Master Cutler, from the respectability of his station, was a very fit person to be appointed returning officer for Sheffield.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
wished, for the sake of giving respectability to the office, and in conformity with ancient custom, that the returning officer should have some authority as a Magistrate. He believed that was generally the case in almost all cities and boroughs. Sheriffs were, under this Bill, to appoint returning officers, who were to perform a laborious duty without compensation, and who were to be subject to a heavy penalty if they acted improperly. That was not right. It was well known, that Under-Sheriffs claimed fees for making returns to all counties and cities. He wished to understand what arrangements were to be made to meet these circumstances.

§ Lord Althorp
stated, that it would be compulsory on the persons appointed returning officers by virtue of this Act, to serve the office which it imposed upon them. This compulsory service of public offices was not a novelty in this country. Persons, who were much disinclined to the service, were often compelled to serve as Constables, Churchwardens, &c., and were obliged to act, as these returning officers would do, without remuneration. The duty of these returning officers would not be severe, as the elections in these boroughs would not last more than two days. If it should be thought necessary that the returning officer should have magisterial authority during the election, there would be no difficulty in framing a clause to meet that necessity.

§ Mr. Charles Ross
could not agree in the propriety of not giving any remuneration to the returning officer. In the old boroughs the returning officer was generally a leading member of the Corporation, or the principal municipal officer of the place. Thus the honour of his station was, 315 to a certain extent, a remuneration for the labour of his office. That would not be the case under this Bill. At Brighton and Wolverhampton the returning officer would be the Constable, who was not, in general, either a very dignified, or a very high Magistrate. In the newly-created boroughs, the returning officer would have nothing but trouble and expense. Besides, it appeared to him, that several of the persons appointed returning officers in the third column of schedules C and D, were incompetent to discharge the duties of such a responsible situation. He, therefore, hoped, that the noble Lord would reconsider this clause, and give some remuneration to the returning officers of these new boroughs.

§ Sir John Wrottesley
defended the selection of returning officers which had been made in the third column of schedules C and D. He did not know much of the Constable of Brighton, but he understood that he was not a common constable. As to the Constable of Wolverhampton he was the constable of the manor, he presided over all public meetings, he was chosen at the Court Leet, and was a respectable and responsible person. As to the office being compulsory, he wished to observe, that the office of Sheriff, which always put the holder to considerable expense, was a compulsory office. It was often imposed upon men against their will, and in London and Middlesex heavy fines were inflicted on such individuals as shrunk from the task of performing it. If, then, the Sheriff could be compelled to act, and did act without remuneration, he saw no reason why the returning officers, appointed by the Sheriff, should not be compelled to act, and to act without remuneration.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
observed, that as forty Members would be reared up under the presiding care of these new returning officers, it was incumbent upon Ministers to see that they were respectable and responsible persons. Of all the returning officers appointed in the third column of schedules C and D, not one could be compelled to act. If such were the case, as he maintained it was, they might, at the opening of a Reformed Parliament, find that though they had created twenty-five new boroughs, they had got no Members returned for them, from the non-existence of returning officers in those boroughs. Some stringent words were required in the clause, to compel persons 316 named in the third column, to throw themselves into the situation of returning officers. This clause had been amended twice already, and as it was still totally deficient, would require amendment a third time. He concurred, too, in the objection of the hon. member for Lymington (Mr. Mackinnon) against the appointment of the returning officers by the Sheriff. Under the old Constitution of England, the Sheriff was never the returning officer of any borough; on the contrary, he had a direct control over all the returning officers within his bailiwick. It might be difficult in the new departmental districts of Ely-rents and of Saffron-hill to get a respectable returning officer, but that was not a difficulty of his creation, it was the creation of the Bill. It appeared to him almost self-evident, that if the Sheriff had the power of controlling all the returning officers within his bailiwick, he ought not to have the power of nominating them. He wished to ask the noble Lord opposite, whether he had any new proposal to make upon this clause, and if he had not, whether he would agree to adjourn it for further consideration. If any Gentleman would move the adjournment of this clause, he should have great pleasure in seconding such a motion.

The Attorney General
was of opinion, that upon every principle of law this clause was a compulsory clause. He would repeat what he had before stated, namely, that if, on the termination of this Committee, any Gentleman should entertain reasonable doubts as to the construction of any clause which had been under the consideration of the Committee, he would give a candid consideration to those reasonable doubts; and if they appeared to be well-founded, would use his utmost exertions to have them removed. In repeating that declaration, he did not mean to insinuate, that he entertained any doubts in his own mind as to this clause being a compulsory clause. It was drawn up in the same terms with those clauses in other Acts of Parliament which made the service of the office of Constable, Bailiff, and churchwarden compulsory. The first part of the clause enacted, "That the persons respectively described in the third column of the schedules C and D shall, after the end of the present Parliament, be the returning officers" for the boroughs mentioned in those two schedules. Could 317 words be framed more compulsory than the words "shall be?" The next part enacted, that for those boroughs in the said two schedules, for which no persons were mentioned in the third column as returning officers, "the Sheriff for the time being shall, by writing under his hand, nominate and appoint for each of such boroughs a fit person, being resident, therein, to be, and such person so nominated and appointed, shall accordingly be, the returning officer for each of such boroughs respectively." Now he wondered how any man, acquainted with the earliest rudiments of the law, could assert, that these two parts of clause eight were not compulsory. He said, that those persons so appointed would be, and must be, in spite of themselves, the returning officers; and that if any of them refuse to serve, he would be liable to an indictment for his non-compliance with the provisions of this Act, and, in all probability, would be called to the bar of that House for a violation of its most important privileges. As to the alleged incompetency of many of these returning officers, it ought to be recollected, should it be found to exist, that a barrister was appointed to assist them, who would make their duty merely ministerial, and by a clause which they would find at page twenty-five, it was provided, that if any returning officer, barrister, or any person whatsoever, should misconduct himself in the election, he should be liable to heavy penalties. His hon. and learned friend's mention of Saffron-hill was intended only as a passing joke on the Bill, for his hon. and learned friend knew, that in that district there were a great many persons qualified to fulfil the duty of returning officers.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, that either he or the Attorney General was wrong; but if he were wrong he was wrong with the Attorney General himself. Last week his hon. and learned friend stated, that the Sheriff nominating the returning officer did not confer on his nominee the responsibility of the Sheriff. He had then argued that the Sheriff's responsibility involved his nominee, in which he had been contradicted by the Attorney General, who now said, that the common-law obliged the inferior officer—that a mere enactment that an officer shall be a returning officer was sufficient, and unless he assumed the office, he would be liable to the consequences of a breach of the law; 318 but he must resist that proposition. The Attorney General also said, that if the officer was not indictable at common-law, he might be committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. He would not say whether this were so or not, but he was sure the Journals of that House did not afford any case so tyrannical as that supposed by the Attorney General, of summoning a returning officer to the bar, who had been only made a returning officer by the Act, without being compelled by it, and punishing him for neglecting his duty. Yet the Attorney General said, "We will soon tell him what a returning officer's duty is; we will call him to the Bar of the House, if he refuses to do his duty, and punish him." He should be glad if any learned Gentleman, if any of those who cried "Hear" to the Attorney General, would produce a case in which the House had assumed the authority of imposing a, most responsible and onerous office on an individual, without distinctly telling him that he would be civilly responsible for the consequences of refusal, or treated criminaliter. The doctrine of his learned friend was neither law nor privilege, and it was necessary to add some bond requiring these officers to do their duty.

The Attorney General
said, that he was at issue with his learned friend as to this clause. As the clause stood before, there had been a different form of words, which did not make a compulsory enactment. But the words of the Bill now were, "such person shall be the returning officer;" and he apprehended that he became so immediately on nomination, and could be compelled to execute the duties of the office.

§ Mr. John Campbell
said, the clause enacted, that the person shall be the returning officer, and the moment the Act passed, the persons described in the schedules became the returning officers, and were liable to indictment if they neglected or refused the duty. The Act said, the Mayor of Kendal, for example, was to be the returning officer, and he would incur the same penalties as the Mayor of Stafford or any other returning officer, if he neglected his duties.

§ Sir George Clerk
said, that the Attorney General had admitted, that the clause, as it originally stood, was imperfect. This might be a convenient argument for the Attorney General, but what said the noble Lord to it, when he had contended that the clause, as it originally stood, was com- 319 pulsory? The opinions of the Attorney General, and of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the clause, were at variance with one another, and he asked to have this discrepancy reconciled.

§ Lord Althorp
said, he had given no opinion of the clause as a lawyer; he only spoke from a knowledge of its being the intention of the Government that it should be compulsory.

Mr. Wason
referred the Committee to clause fifty-five, where it was said, that "if any returning officer shall wilfully contravene or disobey the provisions of this Act, or any of them," and contended, that refusing to execute the duty of returning officer would be a disobedience; he apprehended, therefore, that the effect would be, that the returning officer would be liable to any penalties the House might think proper to inflict for the nonperformance of his duty.

Sir Robert Peel
thought there was a distinction between the returning officers whose names were in the Bill and those to be hereafter named by the Sheriff. The former were already responsible officers—the latter might be anybody whom the Sheriff pleased. It would be competent for the Sheriff, under this Bill, to compel any man he pleased to select, who resided in any borough, to perform the duties of a returning officer. There was no example of any one man having such a power; and therefore it was necessary that this power of appointment should be regulated in detail. To propose to prop up the defects of the law by calling in the aid of privilege, was one of the most strange pieces of legislation he had ever heard of. In order to render the clause complete, some words and some additions were necessary, to prescribe the duties, both of the returning officer, and of the Sheriff with regard to him. It was monstrous to give such a power to any one person as this Bill would give to the Sheriff under its provisions. A Sheriff might prevent any man from leaving the country. This was so unjust, that it was plain the clause required to be reconsidered; and he implored the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to re-consider the clause.

§ Mr. Serjeant Wilde
argued, that there was no charter of any city or borough in which the duties of the returning officer were specified; but however they might vary as to the extent of those duties or methods of appointment, all returning 320 officers were supposed by the law to be answerable for the discharge of the ordinary business of their office, either as it was regulated by custom, or occasionally controlled by particular statutes. These were the known and acknowledged principles under which returning officers acted, and any departure from them would render these officers liable to punishment. He could not see, therefore, why they were to adopt the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and make such alterations as would render that doubtful which the law had rendered clear. Undoubtedly there was some force in the argument of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), that the power vested in the Sheriff of appointing the returning officer at his discretion, was a very extraordinary and dangerous power. That was undoubtedly worthy of the consideration of the House. But if the Bill passed into a law, the individual nominated was bound, like any other appointed to a public office, to perform his public duties, however they might interfere with his private concerns. He would be compelled to take on himself the office—to discharge its duties, and answerable, like any other public officer, to be punished by indictment for neglect. He could not see what good objection could be made to the Sheriff, more than to any other officer, having the power of appointment, or in what other hands it could safely be placed. In what officer, indeed, could the appointment be placed with greater propriety than in the High Sheriff? The appointment must rest somewhere, and the Sheriff, who was in a greater or lesser degree the presiding officer in all the elections of his county, must be considered the fittest person to be intrusted with the appointment of the officer who was to preside at elections under the Bill.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
asserted, that the clause did not render it imperative on the Sheriff's nominee to perform the duties, or make it a legal obligation upon him to accept the office of returning officer; and as to the instance cited of the Mayors of boroughs, or other officers standing in the condition of returning officers by virtue of the office they held, why there were many places to which Members were given, where no such officer, nor any similar authority, existed, and it was to cases such as these that the arguments against the giving such power to the Sheriff applied.

Mr. Bonham Carter
said, that either the 321 clause did or did not compel the person nominated by the Sheriff to accept the office. There was a case in point in the Act of Elizabeth, which said, householders "should be nominated and appointed by the Justices and Overseers of the poor." This provision very closely resembled the enactments of this Bill, and the facts growing out of it were, that the Magistrates appointed certain persons to be Overseers; by virtue of that appointment they held the office, and were compelled to act, and were responsible for their conduct. Again, the statute said, the Churchwardens should also be Overseers of the poor; they were not appointed by the Magistrates, but elected by the parishioners, and in virtue of that became Overseers of the poor. Now, whether these persons chose it or not, they were bound to accept the office, and the nominees of the Sheriff would be placed in a situation in nowise differing from that of Overseers.

§ Sir Edward Sugden
contended, that the clause did not either compel the individual appointed, to act, or punish him for refusing. If it did so, why was it, he would ask, that in page twenty-five there was another clause specifying the penalties incurred by returning officers for offences in discharge of their duties? Was not this a plain admission, that the offence was not provided for in the clause under consideration. The Attorney General had, indeed, on a former occasion, admitted that the clause was defective, and he could not understand why they should continue to object to an Amendment of the wording, so as to do away with all doubts on the subject. The only reason he could find for the proposal to give such extraordinary power to the Sheriff as the appointment of returning officers was, that the Government had neglected to make inquiries into the nature of the duties of those officers in different places, and as to the persons who ought to be named to fulfil them. In London the Sheriffs would have the privilege of naming the returning officers for the metropolitan districts, and the noble Lord (Althorp) knew well, that they would possess on such occasions a very extensive influence. That the noble Lord did think so at one time was evident from the fact, that he proposed that the returning officer should not be permitted to offer himself as a candidate for one year after he had ceased to fill the office. He thought, on the whole, that the clause was open to 322 very great objections, and that the suggestions of the right hon. Baronet deserved the best consideration of the Committee.

The Attorney General
assured the hon. and learned Gentleman, that Government had made a strict investigation as to what persons were the fittest to fill the situation of returning officer, and the result of their inquiry was, that they thought it best to leave the appointment to the Sheriffs of the different counties, and in the course of the present discussion no one had suggested any amendment to that proposition.

Sir Robert Peel
said, that the main question was, whether the Sheriff ought to have the power of appointing returning officers, and whether the person so appointed would be under an obligation to perform the duties of that office. The duty of the returning officers was, to revise the list of borough voters, insert and expunge names, and rectify mistakes. This was a very extensive power; and he thought it would be admitted, that committing irresponsible power to any person without appeal was extremely dangerous. That irresponsible power was, however, given by the present clause to the Sheriffs of counties; and it might so happen, that a particular Sheriff had a son or a brother a candidate for the Representation of a borough, while he had the uncontrolled appointment of the returning officer. He also observed, that the returning officers would not be chosen from a class of persons much elevated in life, because any one who could show, that he was qualified to represent a borough would be exempted from filling the office of returning officer. And there was hardly any person liable to be called on to serve, who might not in some way or other obtain a nominal rent-charge or some other qualification, to exempt him from the office. It was true, that the Sheriff was selected, on the recommendation of Judges of Assize, by the Privy Council, and that one of his ditties was, to be returning officer for a county; but there was a great difference between such an appointment and the appointment of the returning officer to a borough by a single person. It used to be the case in Ireland for the Lord Lieutenant to have the unrestricted appointment of Sheriffs; but so much inconvenience was found to arise from this practice, that an alteration was made in the system, and the Judges of Assize were directed to nominate three 323 individuals, from whom the Lord-lieutenant chose, one as Sheriff. Upon the whole, he thought the power given by this clause to the Sheriff was likely to lead to great abuse. There was another part of the Bill which he wished to bring under the notice of the noble Lord opposite. It was provided, that in case of the Sheriff being-incapacitated from doing his duty by sickness or other similar accident, a successor should be nominated, but no provision was made for the case of the Sheriff being imprisoned for debt.

§ Mr. Crampton,
in answer to the observations of the right hon. Baronet, observed, that the clause was compulsory on all persons appointed to discharge the duties of returning officer, or they subjected themselves to the penalties of a refusal. This was apparent from the words of the clause itself, which enacted, "that the Sheriff shall nominate and appoint a fit and proper person, resident in each borough, to be the returning officer." He took it to be a clear position, that the authority of Parliament made it imperative on officers nominated by the Sheriff to discharge the duties of the office, to which they were appointed, in the same manner as Sheriffs themselves were responsible for the due performance of the duties imposed upon them.

§ Mr. George Bankes
contended, that the case was a stronger one than even that which had been put by his right hon. friend, the member for Tamworth. His right hon. friend, adverting to the important duties of the returning officer—duties judicial, and calculated to influence an election—had represented the danger of vesting the appointment of that officer in a Sheriff, who was chosen annually. But his right hon. friend had omitted to observe, that it might be vested in an individual who would hold the authority for life. It was true, that the Sheriff was annually appointed; but the Under Sheriff, although by law he was annually appointed, yet practically, as was well known, he held his situation for life. He had even known counties, Oxford for instance, in which the office descended from father to son. Now, no man could doubt, that it would be the Under-Sheriff, and not the Sheriff, who would nominate the returning officer. The Sheriff coming into office in February, and having to make his nomination of returning officers in March, whom could he consult, in whose hands could he 324 place himself, but the Under-Sheriff? He had a great respect for Attornies and Solicitors; but they were not persons, agents as they were to so many parties, whom he wished to see returning officers. Yet they were the precise persons who in general would be appointed, He acknowledged, that there were difficulties in the case, but these difficulties ought to have been foreseen in the outset; and the authors of the Bill had no right to call on the opponents to it to suggest an expedient.

Lord Allhorp
said, that Government had considered the question carefully, and it occurred to them, that there was no person to whom the power of appointing the returning officers could so properly be confided as to the High Sheriff. The reason why Government considered the Sheriff the most proper person to exercise this power was that stated by the hon. and learned Member—namely, that he was, in fact, the responsible returning officer for the whole county. The writs, and all communications respecting boroughs in the county, passed through his hands. Two objections which had been made to the Sheriff having the power of appointment were applicable to any person having that power. He had heard no objection peculiar to the high Sheriff which would not apply to any other person. The right hon. Baronet assumed, that nobody would accept the office of returning officer who could avoid it. He could see no ground for that assumption. It did not usually happen that persons refused to fill a responsible office to which no emolument attached. The person who should be appointed returning officer would consider it as a feather in his cap, and he would be raised, during the continuance of his office, above those who were his equals before. The Government had selected the High Sheriff, because he was a person as independent of Government as could be found. It was said, that he might be connected with the persons likely to become candidates; but so might any other individual. He had heard another suggestion made, which, however, it was supposed, would not answer. This was, that the returning officer should be elected, but his election would be made a party matter. Upon the whole, he was of opinion, that the power of appointing the returning officer could not be placed in better hands than those of the Sheriff.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
complained, that the 325 clause contained no provision for compelling the person appointed as returning officer to discharge the duties of his office. He wished to know where the power of appeal was to rest in the case of a disputed vote. In other cases, officers might be compelled to perform these duties by a mandamus, but no remedy of that nature was provided in the case of returning officers, who might refuse to execute the office. It would not be known whether a person appointed as returning officer intended to execute the duties of the office until the writ should come down. The person appointed might have the most valid excuse for not executing the office, but the clause did not provide for his making it. He objected to the Sheriff having the uncontrolled power of appointing the returning officer. He ought to be subjected to the ordinary checks imposed in similar cases. It would be more satisfactory if the Sheriff were to select one individual out of three, to be nominated by other persons. He would earnestly recommend Ministers to take into consideration the propriety of granting charters to the new boroughs created by the Bill, and establishing municipal officers in them, who might be responsible for all the duties necessary to complete the elections.

§ Mr. Hunt
did not feel any objection to this power being exercised in counties or boroughs; for the Sheriffs were so carefully appointed, that they could be rarely guilty of misconduct. But he thought it would be very unwise, and to the public very unsatisfactory, that the power of appointing the returning officer under this Bill, should be vested in the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, for the important districts of Holborn, the Tower Hamlets, and Marylebone. The Sheriffs themselves were chosen by the Livery of London, and the office was sought after by persons who had obtained wealth, and had no other means of getting noticed. A case recently occurred, in which a man, who had amassed riches as a Knacker, was a candidate for civic honours; by accident it was discovered, that this person had had the misfortune, upon a former occasion, to steal a horse, and he was, consequently, not elected Sheriff. His object in making these observations was, to show that the appointment of returning officers, who would have most important duties to perform, could not, 326 with propriety, be placed in such hands near London, and the same might be the case in other districts.

Sir George Rose
said, whoever had remarked the nice and subtle questions which were frequently submitted to the returning officers at contested elections, must be anxious to know what sort of persons the returning officers would be. Attornies were the only persons competent to perform the duties; but in the case of general elections, all the attornies of any eminence would be engaged on one or the other side, and as their time was property, they must be paid for their labours. Now, he wished to ask, where the means of payment were to come from? As they were generally connected with party, particularly if they had been long established, the chances were, that their opinions would be warped and partial.

§ Mr. Charles Calvert
said, that as allusion had been made to the Sheriffs of London, he would inform the Committee how they were appointed. On a certain day in the year, the Lord Mayor drank the healths of nine persons, who were usually the most unfit to fill the office. They were selected, because it was hoped that they would pay the fine of 500 marks rather than serve. Some of them, however, occasionally took upon themselves the office. If those persons had to choose the returning officers for the metropolitan districts, he thought that they would select improper persons.

§ Mr. Daniel W. Harvey
said, the duties of the returning officer under the Bill would be wholly ministerial. The names of the voters would be upon authorized lists, which would have only to be referred to; but, after all, there might be some difficulty in obtaining proper persons to fill the office. Under existing circumstances, the High Sheriff was the most proper person to appoint the returning officer, as he was presumed to be acquainted with all the persons in his county. When they gave boroughs the privilege of returning Members, they ought surely to point out the mode of conducting the election, and the person who was to preside over it. He saw no objection to create a Mayor, or other municipal officer, for each case, and that would be much better than the temporary appointments of accidental persons. He was, therefore, of opinion, that the suggestion which had been thrown out by the 327 right hon. Member (Mr. C. W. Wynn), was deserving of serious consideration. With respect to remunerating the returning officer, he believed it was generally practised by the candidates. He had been expected to do so, and he saw no reason why the practice should not be continued.

§ Mr. Hunt
said, no such practice prevailed at Preston. He had not paid anything to the returning officer, nor did he believe he expected any gratuity whatever.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
said, there were several Acts of Parliament expressly prohibiting the practice, and inflicting penalties to the amount of 500l. upon the receivers. Any authorized mode of payment (and he regretted the Bill did not contain some such in favour of the returning officers of the new boroughs) would be preferable to a violation of the law.

§ Mr. Daniel W. Harvey
had never heard an instance of a demand being made on a Member returned, that was not admitted. Nor could it be otherwise. In the case of an Assessor, appointed by consent of the candidates to assist the returning officer, the successful party could never object to pay a portion of the charges.

Mr. Charles Culvert
said, such a practice had never prevailed in Southwark. During the twenty years he had had the honour to represent the borough, he had never paid a farthing, nor received an intimation that such a thing was expected as a fee or gratuity to the returning officer.

Sir Robert Peel
regretted the hon. member for Colchester should have called on other hon. Gentlemen to disown what he said was a custom. The House ought rather to consider that the hon. Member had made a mistake, than call up other hon. Gentlemen to defend their own purity.
The Chairman read the 8th clause. On coming to that part which says, "Provided also, that no person qualified to be elected to serve as a Member of Parliament for any such borough, shall be compellable to serve as returning officer for such borough, if, within a week after he shall have received notice of his nomination and appointment as returning officer, he shall make oath of such qualification before any Justice of the Peace, and shall forthwith notify the same to the Sheriff,"

Sir Thomas Fremantle
said, he objected to any person being exempt from 328 serving the office, merely because he had the qualification necessary for a Member of Parliament. If the office was a hardship, and was disagreeable, no exceptions should be made; and the very persons here exempted, were the most proper to fill the office. If, on the other hand, the office was considered one of honour, or likely to put a feather in a man's cap, as the noble Lord had said, then, no person unwilling to serve should be compelled to do so.

§ Lord Althorp
said, the principal reason for making the exception was, that persons might be called on to serve the office, who were desirous, at the same time, to come forward as candidates to represent the place. Persons in that rank of life would feel the office disagreeable, and to subject them to it, might prevent them from sitting in Parliament.

§ Mr. Houldsworth
begged to ask the noble Lord, if he thought it reasonable, that persons whose time was of value to them, should be called upon to undertake an office which, the noble Lord said, was likely to be disagreeable to men of a certain rank of life, without some remuneration being provided for them. On the Bill first coming into operation, as the bearing of its clauses were, in many respects, complicated, the returning officer must be a lawyer, or he must have a legal adviser and assessor; and were these to be paid out of his own pocket? No provision was made in the Bill for the payment of such persons. Further, the returning officer should have so much authority delegated to him, as to enable him to keep the peace, and the place of election clear and free of access; and in large towns, during a time of excitement, some considerable force would be required to effect these objects.

§ Lord Althorp
replied, the duties of the returning officer would not be so onerous as hon. Gentlemen seemed to anticipate; the voters' names would be all previously registered, and, therefore, he would not be called upon to decide questions relating to the right of voting, but would have merely to identify the voters with their names upon the registry. Consequently, he could have no occasion for an assessor or legal adviser, and it was the duty of the several parish authorities, as well at elections as at other times, to keep the place of election free of access, and they would be responsible if this duty were neglected.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
said, the returning officer would be called upon to determine the question of an incorrect insertion of a name or place of residence, whether voters had obtained parochial relief since the insertion of their names in the registry, and a variety of other points, which the quibbles of party would create at the time of an election. These must be all heard and determined by evidence, and, therefore, it would neither be prudent nor safe for the returning officer to act without the assistance of an assessor.

Colonel Davies
said, if the name of a person was in the register, he would be entitled to vote, whether he had received relief or not. The mere insertion of his name would be sufficient, though having received parochial relief would operate against him at future elections, and prevent his name being registered.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
begged to inquire of the noble Lord, whether a sale of property, which gave a right to vote, previous to the day of election, but after the registration, would disqualify a person from voting?

§ Lord Althorp
said, certainly, the right accompanied the property.

Mr. Hughes Hughes
begged to suggest to the noble Lord, that by a subsequent clause in the Bill to that they were now discussing, fifteen polling places might be appointed for each county, at each of which the Sheriff must attend by deputy. It was too much to expect any man to be at all this expense. Although the elections for boroughs would not be so expensive as this, yet there must undoubtedly be some considerable cost attached even to them, and he therefore hoped the noble Lord would think of some measure to insure a proper remuneration to the several returning officers, and particularly to those to be created by this Bill.

§ Lord Stormont
begged to ask the noble Lord, what remedy there was in case a person refused to act after being appointed returning officer?

§ Lord Althorp
said, the remedy would be to bring the offender to the bar of the House, in the same manner as if the Sheriff of the county himself had refused to act.

An Hon. Member
Suppose a man, after having accepted the office, refused to act, what was then the remedy?

§ Lord Althorp
said, he would answer that question by another. Suppose the 330 Sheriff himself refused to discharge his duties, how was he to be dealt with?

§ Mr. George Bankes
said, the Sheriff was bound to take an oath, immediately after his appointment, to discharge the duties of his office well and truly.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
suggested the propriety of dividing the Bill into two parts. If the principle and the details were separated, much time would be saved in discussion. At present they were so mixed up, that it was impossible to argue the one without touching on the other.