HC Deb 27 June 1836 vol 34 cc970-2

On the motion of Lord John Russell, the House went into Committee on the Registration of Voters Bill.

Sir James Graham

adverted to the clause which he had brought forward on a former evening as declaratory of the meaning and intention of the 25th Clause of the Reform Act. His noble Friend had stated on a former evening that he would consult with the Attorney-General as to whether such a Clause were necessary to give effect to the original design and intention of the Reform Act; he wished to know whether the noble Lord would now support the clause?

The Attorney-General

said, that he had considered the clause to which his noble Friend had drawn his attention, and it was extremely difficult to say what construction should be put upon it. It was a question upon which the Revising Barristers had differed, and it was one upon which much might be said on both sides. He was not prepared to say what was the intention of the framers of the Reform Act, as he was not then a member of the Government. The interpretation of the Clause must be considered a questio vexata.

Sir James Graham

said, he should then press the declaratory clause of which he had given notice, as he considered it consistent with the spirit of the Reform Bill, and calculated to prevent the increase of mushroom votes. The hon. Baronet moved, a clause to the effect that no lease or assignment of a term of sixty years or twenty years respectively, or any unexpired portion of such terms which confer a right of voting for a city or borough, shall confer a right of voting for the county in which such city or borough is situated.

Mr. Warburton

was inclined not simply to negative the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, but to extend the right of voting as at present possessed by leaseholders, if such a matter could be introduced into the Bill before the House. He contended, however, that in a Bill of this kind no clause of such a description could be introduced. The clause of the hon. Baronet, he had heard, would in one county disfranchise 1,000 electors, and anxious as he was to see the present Bill pass, if the right hon. Baronet's clause were to be carried, he would rather see the Bill thrown out altogether.

The Committee divided on the question that the clause be inserted. Ayes 100; Noes 133:—Majority 33.

On that part of the Bill which vests the appointment of the Revising Barristers in the Crown,

Sir Robert Peel

said, that on the bringing up of the Report he should call the attention of the House to the clause which gave the appointment of the Revising Barristers to the Crown. He felt a very strong objection to enactments which delegated a power of legislation to persons out of that House. With regard to the appointment of those gentlemen, he would infinitely prefer that the selection should vest in the Lord Chancellor, and not in the Home Secretary, because he entertained a conviction that, were such the case, the appointment would be freer from political bias, and consequently a smaller extent of political effect would arise at elections.

Sir James Graham

thought, that the proposition of the hon. Member (Mr. Warburton) would lead to very unnecessary extravagance. He thought that, instead of creating a new court of appeal to revise the decisions of revising barristers, they might be referred to the Court of Review in Bankruptcy, and thus a saving of 5,000l. a-year be effected. The Court of Review had at present nothing to do, and with the additional business which they would get as a court of appeal they would still be but partially occupied. He would move a clause to that effect on the third reading of the Bill.

Mr. Warburton

did not consider his plan justly liable to the charge of ex travagance. As far as his own opinion went, it was decidedly in favour of having but one judge to sit on appeals, but let that one be fully competent to perform the duties that would be imposed on him.

Sir Robert Peel

said, that at present they had three Judges in the Court of Review, who were but very partially occupied, and they were about to create three more, who would have but very little more to do; he really did not think that such a multiplication of judicial authority was necessary.

The Attorney-General

admitted, that at present the Court of Review was very im- perfectly occupied, but he hoped that before long, by the alterations that were intended to be made in the law of debtor and creditor, the Court would be fully and usefully occupied. With respect to the proposition of having but one Judge sitting in the Appeals, he must say, that in the Courts of Common Law the determination of one single Judge was not treated with very much respect; if, however, the majority of the Committee were in favour of having but one Judge, whatever his own opinion might be, he would offer no opposition to the proposition.

The clause was agreed to, as were the other clauses and the schedules.

The House resumed, the Bill to be reported.