§ Lord John Russell moved the second reading of the Registration of Voters' Bill.
§ Mr. Warburtondeprecated the enormous expense attendant upon re-opening the registers before Committees, who, under that Bill, if it should pass into a law, would have the power of doing so. He should oppose that Clause of the Bill.
Lord John Russellwould not press the Clause to which the hon. Member for Bridport objected, if the sense of the House were against him.
§ Mr. H. Bulwerthought there were some regulations in the present measure more unfair than in the former.
§ Mr. Bernalwas decidedly opposed to the Clause for opening up the lists before a Committee, but he admitted that the present was not the proper time for going into a discussion on the subject.
§ Sir Henry Hardingeapproved of the Bill, and thought it a great improvement. He was in favour, too, of the clause which was censured, as he thought that the House could never give up its right to revise the decisions of the registering barristers.
Mr. W. Ordhad no objection to a reference to a Committee as a Court of Appeal against decisions by the revising barrister, but he had a strong objection to sending original cases for their judgment.
§ Mr. Praedcould not understand why, because voters had been put to one expense in obtaining a decision on their claims, they should be exposed to have the expense doubled.
§ Mr. Grotesaid, that if he understood the object of creating revising barristers, it was to settle disputed votes cheaply and expeditiously on the spot; but the country would be deprived of that great benefit if a Committee of that House were allowed to have an original jurisdiction on the subject. This would have the effect of giving a certain victory to the rich at the expense of the poor.
Mr. Goulburndoubted whether, if an original jurisdiction were denied to the Committee, it would not greatly increase the expense to the voter; for if it were known that no votes were to be open to discussion but those which were questioned at the time of registration, the number of objections to votes would greatly accumulate.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the Committee would be the proper place to go into the details of the measure. He would add, that it could not have been intended by the Reform Bill, to deprive a Committee of that House of the power of questioning the validity of votes. He objected to sending the Bill to a Select Committee, the only effect of which would be to have their Report pulled to pieces when it was presented to the House. He would prefer sending the Bill in the usual way to a Committee of the whole House; but to give time to consider the subject, he would defer the Committee till after Easter.
§ Bill read a second time.