Commons Sitting of 17 May 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. D. BROWNE, from several places in Sligo and Mayo, expressing confidence in his Majesty's Government.—By Sir J. GRAHAM, from various places in Cumberland and Westmoreland, for alterations in the New Poor-laws.—By Lord C. MANNERS and other hon. MEMBERS, from various places, against the plan for the abolition of Church-rates.—By Mr. WILKS and other hon. MEMBERS, from various places, in favour of the Ministerial plan for the abolition of Church-rates.—By Mr. HINDLEY. from Hythe, Ashton, and other places, in favour of the Sabbath Bill, and for the introduction of a ten hours' Factory Bill.—By Mr. S. BARRY, from various places in Ireland, for the total abolition of Tithes, and expressing confidence in his Majesty's present Government—By Mr. GROTE, from the Chamber of Commerce, Madras, to be put on the same footing as Calcutta in regard to the Duty on Sugar.—By Mr. WAKLEY, from Worthing, in favour of the Dorchester labourers—By Mr. DUNLOP, from places in Scotland, in favour of the Burghs of Barony Bill.—By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, from Edinburgh, that the punishment of death should be abolished for every crime except murder.—By Lord SANDON, from Liverpool, in support of the Bill for the better Observance of the Sabbath.

GLASGOW AND AYR RAILWAY— TRAVELLING ON THE SABBATH.
On the Order of the Day being read, that the Report of the Glasgow and Ayr Railway Bill be taken into further] consideration,
Dr. Bowringopposed the clause which the hon. Member for Wigtonshire had had inserted into the Bill, preventing the use of the railway on the Sabbath.
Mr. Dunlopsaid, that as an Act] of Parliament prevented canal boats and stage coaches from being worked on the Sabbath, he hoped the House would extend the same principle to railways.
Mr. Roebucksaid, the matter was merely an affair of pounds, shillings, and pence,

857
and that the Sabbath had really nothing to do with the question. He hated hypocrisy, and, above all, religious hypocrisy. The Canal Act contained no such clause as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dunlop), and it was the will and feeling of the people only which prevented travelling on the Sunday in Scotland. It was his intention to oppose the Sabbath Bill of the hon. Member for Wigtonshire on going into Committee, on the ground that Christianity had nothing to do with it. That House had nothing to do with the religion of the people. He did not wish to charge the hon. Baronet with inconsistency, but maintained that the hon. Gentlemen opposite were no better observers of the Sabbath than any other persons.
Sir G. Clerksaid, the promoters of the Bill had no objection to the clause, and he congratulated hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House on their not having adopted the religion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath.
The Attorney-Generalopposed the clause. It was unnecessary, inasmuch as the present law of Scotland was sufficient to prevent any desecration of the Sabbath, and not only prohibited the carrying of goods on that day, but travelling also. It was injurious, inasmuch as it extended to the whole of the Sabbath, and might even have the effect of preventing persons who lived at a distance from their place of worship from going there, as such persons might choose to go by the railroad.
Mr. C. Bullersaid, that although he could not charge hon. Gentlemen opposite with much hypocrisy, yet he thought there was a pretty considerable deal of humbug among them. He begged to state, that if the Bill of the hon. Baronet opposite should ever get into Committee, he should move the insertion of a clause to shut up the Carlton Club on the Sabbath—as he had been very much shocked of late by observing, as he passed by on his way to church, several eminent Conservatives reading, not their Bibles or Prayer-books, but the John Bull or the Age.
Mr. Borthwicksaid, he would vote against the clause, as he did not consider it calculated to promote the object which the hon. Baronet had in view. He begged, however, to disclaim all participation in
858
the language of the opposite side of the House
The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 1; Noes 47: Majority 4.

List of the AYES.

Alsager, Capt.

Hardy, J.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Hawkes, T,

Ashley, Viscount

Hope, hon. James

Balfour, T.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Beckett, Sir J.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Bonham, R. Francis

Law, hon. Charles E.

Campbell, W. F.

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Chapman, Aaron

Mackenzie, T.

Chisholm, A.

Mactaggart, J.

Clerk, Sir G.

Nicholl, Dr.

Conolly, E. M.

Palmer, George

Dillwyn, L. W.

Pelham, John C.

Dunlop, J.

Polhill, Captain F.

Estcourt, T. G.

Richards, Richard

Estcourt, T.

Ross, Charles

Fector, J. M.

Sandon, Viscount

Fielden, W.

Sinclair, Sir George

Ferguson, Sir R.

Somerset, Lord G.

Forester, hon. G.

Stanley, W. O.

Forster, Charles S.

Tooke, W.

Fox, Charles

Welby, G. E.

Gladstone, Wm. E.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Gordon, hon. W.

Wodehouse, E.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Young, J.

Halse, James

TELLERS.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Agnew, Sir A.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Bruce, C.

List of the NOES.

Angerstein, John

Lennox, Lord G.

Baines, E.

Lowther, J. H.

Belfast, Earl of

Lynch, A. H.

Bentinck, Lord W.

Marsland, Henry

Bewes, T.

Molesworth, Sir. W.

Blake, M. J.

O'Connell, J.

Blunt, Sir C.

O'Connell, M. J.

Brocklehurst, J.

O'Connell, Morgan

Brownrigg, S.

Oliphant, L.

Buller, Charles

Parrott, J.

Buller, E.

Pease, J.

Chalmers, P.

Roebuck, John A.

Clive, Edward Bolton

Thompson, C. P.

Denistoun, A.

Thomson, Colonel

Divett, E.

Tulk, C. A.

Donkin, Sir R.

Wason, R.

Dundas, hon. T.

White, Samuel

Ellice, E.

Wilbraham, G.

Elphinstone, H.

Williams, Sir J.

Evans, G.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Ferguson, G.

Wrottesley, Sir J. Bt.

Fort, John

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Grote, G.

TELLERS

Hawes, B.

Borthwick, Peter

Jervis, John

Bowring, Dr.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. C. Buller,in moving in Committee the postponement of the first clause observed, that the dissatisfaction with Election

859
Committees was not confined to one side of the House, but was general. They were considered as mere trials of party skill, the only question being, whether in the Committee, the majority was favourable to the sitting Member or to the petitioners. He thought it very disgraceful that such a state of things should exist, and that nothing could be more calculated to lower the House in the estimation of the country. It was a general opinion, that partisanship in Election Committees was not very objectionable. The judges in those tribunals, however, having nothing to guide their judgment, were likely to decide in favour of the party they espoused, and this he thought was an evil which ought, if possible, to be guarded against. He fully agreed, that it would be too much to impugn the impartiality of a man because he listened to the suggestions of his own party, but still the present system, in his opinion, called for some alteration. The first change which the Committee recommended was, that at least one Member of each Election Committee should be a person who was well conversant with law. In the first place, it was proposed, that there should be on each Committee a person who was not a Member of that House, but who, having a competent knowledge of law, could preside as judge in explaining the law, and acting in all other respects as chairman, without, however, possessing the power of voting. This would render the alteration less objectionable than it otherwise might seem. The number of assessors proposed to be appointed was three, and it was intended that they should be nominated by the Speaker, and that the House should be entitled to exercise a veto on his nomination. This was the first great change which was proposed, but not content with this, the Committee went still farther, and the next feature in the way of alteration, which he would notice was, the reduction which was recommended to be made in the number of the Committee, from eleven to five. They proposed to abolish the present system of striking, and to adopt instead the plan of peremptory challenge, which was found to work so well with respect to the formation of juries in the courts of law. The whole list should contain fifteen names, and these might be challenged, as they were called out by the Speaker, until they came to the last five, who, being unchallenged, would form the
860
Committee. It was also intended to avoid the necessity which at present consisted of collecting Members, by either party, for the formation of Election Committees. With this view, they proposed, that in the first week of each new Session of Parliament, a list should be made out, on which the names of those Members only who were liable to serve for this purpose should be placed, and that a limited number, say sixty, should be obliged to attend on the days fixed for appointing Election Committees. This number would be quite enough, and the alteration which such a panel would effect, would be the principle change which was intended to be made in the whole law. Another object kept in view was, to give all possible publicity to the proceedings of the Committee, by allowing the presence of strangers until the chairman had concluded his charge or summing up, and having the names of the Members voting for each resolution read in public. There was also a provision for ascertaining the validity of a vote before it was known for whom it was to be given. Now, for this purpose the three assessors would form a proper tribunal, as they would, of course, be the highest authorities in points of law of this description. They were all aware of the imperfect state of the law with regard to costs in election matters. That law was at present much too severe. Unless a petition, or the opposition to it, were reported to be frivolous and vexatious, no costs were allowed to either party, but it was now proposed, that the assessor should be armed with the power to decide all questions relating to costs, and to determine whether either party was or not entitled to costs from the other. Having made these general observations, he would defer all further explanations until the particular clauses came before the Committee.
Lord Granville Somersetsaid, that although he had been a member of the committee on this subject he could not concur in the recommendations made in their report, because he did not believe the alterations which they proposed were either practicable or wise, or that they would remedy the evils complained of. Of what advantage would the judge be? He might lay down and explain the law, but if the committee were not bound to abide by his judgment it was obvious that he would be placed in a very awkward position, as he would be little better than

861
a mock judge. It was clear that none but men of high standing at the bar would be competent to fill such a station; and even supposing that such parties could be induced to accept of it, then it was anything but probable that they would have sufficient professional business to enable them to keep up such a knowledge of law as would render them suitable to the satisfactory discharge of the duties of their offices. He thought, also, that the mode of nomination proposed was objectionable, because the Speaker was as likely to entertain a political bias, especially at the commencement of a new Parliament, as any Member of that House. He would pass by the anomaly of they being such children as not to be able to preside over their own tribunals. He must say that a diminution of the number of the Members, should be of all other things the most objectionable, because it was quite possible that the opinion of an assessor would have greater influence over a larger than a smaller number. With these views he certainly could not concur in the proposition of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Poulterthought that the inconvenience complained of arose less from the state of the law than from the objectionable constitution of election committees. He did not think that the present Bill would afford a suitable remedy. The result of the present mode of striking election committees was, that eleven men, though otherwise, perhaps, highly accomplished, were sent to decide on questions of a difficult nature—questions on which the Judges of the land might find it difficultt of decide. He despaired of seeing justice done unless they found men of judgment, and of the special knowledge that was requisite to enable them to determine the intricate and difficult questions which were often submitted to them for decision.
The Attorney-Generalthought the House much indebted to the hon. Member for Liskeard for the attempt which he had made to improve this species of tribunal, which stood in need of improvement, for it neither possessed the confidence of the House nor of the country. The practice of whipping for ballots had a bad effect upon the mind of the country. He doubted, however, whether the Bill before the House was calculated to improve the present state of things. With respect to the appointment of the assessors,
862
he thought his hon. Friend had either gone too far or had not gone far enough. With a salary of two thousand per annum, proposed under this Bill, they would hardly be able to get men of sufficient ability to undertake the duties of an office which would shut them out from their profession. It was questionable too, whether the assessors would possess the respect of the committee. He would be in the capacity of a Judge-Advocate. He would have no vote, and the country gentlemen who were Members of the House might not feel disposed to yield much to the opinions of one whom they would look upon as a paid lawyer. With respect to reducing the numbers of the committee, he thought it objectionable, and calculated to lessen the confidence of the House in their decisions. There was another plan, however, which he did not propose, but merely threw out, and that was, lessening the number of Revising Barristers, and, instead of the 147 Judges they had at present, appointing six or eight Judges, who, if it was necessary, might form a Court of Appeal, and who would conduct this business much more expeditiously, usefully, and satisfactorily than it was done at present. He believed that an election petition, which it now took six weeks to decide, might, before a regular judicial tribunal, be determined in less than so many days. He believed it the most convenient course that the committee should be content with the progress they had made for the present, and he should move that the Chairman should report progress,
Mr. Williams Wynn,wished to make a few observations. He doubted very much whether many of the inconveniences at present complained of would not take place under any tribunal, however constituted. He did not think that, under any circumstances, business could be dispatched with the economy of time which had been just now stated. He had entered a committee room recently, and heard one set of witnesses prove that land was only of the value of 17 s., whilst other witnesses declared it to be worth 1l. 17 s. Now, unless the committee were to determine on hearing only one side they must take time to determine between conflicting evidence. Notwithstanding all that had been said he did not think that the decisions of election committees were influenced by motives of party. He believed that a

863
greater evil than any complained of would arise from changing the present course of proceeding, and shaking the law which had been established by those decisions. He thought the best course would be to pass a declaratory Act, setting at rest as many points at present disputed as could be brought together, and thus leaving untouched the law which had arisen out of a number of sound and established decisions. He agreed in the objections that had been offered to the appointment of the assessors. He believed it would be difficult to get men of the requisite ability to separate themselves from their business. Besides this, there was another objection, namely, in the first session of a new Parliament there would be a number of petitions to be tried, yet there would be few the next year, and fewer as the Parliament advanced, so that the office of the assessor, under these circumstances, would be to a great extent a sinecure. It appeared to him that the plan proposed in the Bill before them as well as that suggested by the Attorney-General, afforded no prospect of curing the evils complained of.
House was counted out.