HC Deb 12 June 1841 vol 58 cc1480-3
Sir G. Clerk

moved the second reading of the Controverted Elections Trial Amendment Bill.

Mr. V. Smith

said, he would not object to the motion, though there were many parts of the bill which he should much like to see changed. He was the less disposed to object to it, because he looked upon it as an experiment which would be tried in the first Session of a new Parliament. He however, must take the opportunity of saying, that no trial of a controverted election could ever be satisfactorily tried, until the jurisdiction was removed altogether from the House.

Sir G. Clerk

said, that the observations of the hon. Gentleman did not apply to the immediate question before the House. It would be impossible at the present period of the Session, to discuss the general subject to which the hon. Member had referred. The object of the present bill was merely to introduce some alterations in the existing law, particularly as regarded the Committee of Selection. It was desirable, that the bill should be made as complete as possible, and the provisions now proposed to be introduced in it were merely intended to remove certain difficulties which had occurred. One of the alterations proposed, was to make the attendance of the Chairman of the committee compulsory. He agreed entirely with the hon. Gentleman who recommended that change. Some such enactment was necessary, for it would be impossible to secure their attendance without it. Another alteration was for the purpose of removing difficulties which had occurred with regard to the serving of notices. Another difficulty had arisen as to cases where more than one petition had been presented against a return. It was proposed to consider all such as one petition, and refer them to the Committee of Selection. His right hon. Friend proposed to re-enact the whole of the former bill, and the alterations proposed to be introduced would be printed in italics, so that hon. Members could see at a glance the alterations intended.

Mr. Ord

did not think the law had totally failed; on the contrary, he thought it a great improvement on the old law. He objected to giving to any tribunal out of the House the power of trying election petitions.

Viscount Mahon

would not oppose the bill, though he still adhered to the opinion he had already expressed—that neither the present nor any other measure for the trial of election petitions would be successful which left the jurisdiction in that House in all such cases. The House was now so divided by party, and hostile political collision between those parties so frequent, that he considered the House quite incompetent to give that calm and impartial consideration to election ques- tions which they required, and which, in his opinion, could be expected only from the high judicial authority of the land. In saying this, he meant to cast no imputation on any Member or body of Members, and he considered his observations applied to himself with the same force that they did to any other Member.

Mr. C. Buller

thought the bill had introduced a great deal of practical good, and he considered it still more valuable as a step to further improvement. He thought the plan of the right hon. Baronet had had the effect of increasing the intelligence of election committees. He thought the mode of selecting the Chairman a great improvement, and he thought it desirable to have as permanent a Chairman as possible. The question whether such Chairman should be of the House or out of the House, was a very grave one, and required much consideration. He was not prepared to go to the extent of making the service of the Chairman compulsory. No set of men would be harder worked than they would be during the' next Session, and it would be a monstrous injustice to the Chairman, and doubling the difficulties of the Committee of Selection. He therefore, hoped, that no such clause would be proposed.

Mr. Pryme

did not think this a very valuable measure, but he must admit, that it had not yet had a fair trial. One thing he thought deserved notice. He thought the Committee of Selection exercised too little care and caution in seeing that the persons chosen as chairmen of committees had no local connection of any sort with the matter which the committee had to try. Want of sufficient caution in that respect tended to bring back one of the great evils of the old system which it was intended to get rid of. He did not mean to impute any intentional partiality in the selection of chairmen of election committees. What he wanted to impress on the House was the necessity of due caution in such choice.

Lord Eliot

said, that no Member was ever chosen Chairman who was known to be in any way locally connected, however remotely, with the county, city, or borough, the return for which he had to try. One thing he thought would be an improvement in the selection of committees. It was, that they should be reduced from seven Members to five. The responsibility would be greater in the case of each Member, and greater attention would be paid. This was the opinion of many eminent counsel who were in the habit of practising before election committees.

Bill read a second time.