§ Lord J. Russellrose for the purpose of asking leave to bring in a bill for the Registration of Parliamentary Electors in England. He had brought in a bill for this purpose in the last Session and he did not think that there was any essential alteration in the present bill. He proposed, in the first place, to alter the system by which there was a great body of revising barristers in England. Many of these gentlemen, as it was well 322 known, had little experience, and the consequence was, that in many cases there were conflicting decisions, so that under the present state of the law a vote might be allowed by one barrister in the first year, it might be disallowed by another barrister in the next year, and perhaps, the same voter, for the same qualification might be again put on in the third. Such a system was exceedingly vexatious, and gave rise to serious evils. His learned Friend, the Attorney General, and himself, had, in a former year, thought it better to have a permanent body. His hon. Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) had afterwards brought forward a plan, which was adopted by the Government, and which was engrafted on the bill introduced last year, but which did not pass that House. He proposed, as he did in the bill of last year, that there should be fifteen revising barristers, to be named in the first instance by the Speaker out of a list of forty-five to be returned to him by the judges, but that afterwards the nomination of persons to fill the vacancies caused by death or resignation should rest entirely with the Speaker; and he proposed in the present bill that the office should be held till death or resignation, or until displaced by an address of both Houses of Parliament; for if they were a permanent body, he thought it desirable that they should be made as independent as possible. He proposed also to establish a court of appeal, to be composed of three barristers, to whom questions of law should be referred. He then proposed, instead of a revision founded upon the facts taking place each year, that after the first decision of the revising barrister should have taken place, the elector should be placed in the situation of an established voter, and should not be liable to removal from the register upon the same facts. He found, by the speech of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), in introducing his measure for Ireland, that he was opposed to any such provision. It was a matter for discussion in the committee, and any opinion to which the House might come, he should be willing to adopt. Still he hoped that the House would not leave the county electors to be longer placed in their present situation; that they would not allow a non-resident elector to be called upon year after year to submit to precisely the same examination of facts, till in some year, either in consequence of 323 a press of business elsewhere, not being able to appear before the court, or from being willing to incur this continued annoyance for the sake of his vote he should absent himself, he should find, that his vote was struck off, although he at that very time had a perfectly good right to be registered. He would not longer detain the House, but would simply move for leave to bring in the bill.
§ Mr. Liddellwould be glad to see the noble Lord's bill, the leading provisions of which he for one would certainly support. It was necessary that the county voter should have protection from the present vexatious and harassing system; and that he should not, after his right had been allowed, be obliged to appear, year after year, before the revising barrister, perhaps to have the decision in favour of his franchise reversed, and certainly always experiencing and keeping up vexation. He wished, however, to ask one question of the noble Lord: he would like to know whether, in the present bill, there would be any clause for the purpose of preventing at contested elections the fraudulent personation of electors? That seemed to be the proper opportunity of introducing some more stringent enactment to prevent that which was not only an audacious violation of the law, but also a gross breach of the privileges of that House. It was a common practice, especially in sea-port towns, to represent electors who were absent from the borough and could not vote, and he believed that it would be a great improvement in the law, and by no means a grievous infringement of the liberty of the subject, if, upon the oath of any respectable individual in the polling booth, it should be sworn that the person tendering his vote was not the party he represented himself to be, the returning officer should have the power of handing over such party to custody till proofs should be given whether he was the person registered or not. There was a very recent instance of these practices, for he found in the address of the new Member for Walsall, thanking the electors for their support, that "the Leagueites polled nine dead men, three of whom were considered decided Conservatives," at the manifest risk of disturbing the repose in their graves of the three Conservatives, whose representatives were found voting for the Liberal. He hoped that the noble Lord would take notice of this great evil; but 324 if the noble Lord did not, he should feel it his duty to endeavour to frame a clause to meet it.
§ Leave given, bill brought in and read a first time.