§ Viscount Melbourne, in moving the Order of the Day for the second reading of the County Elections Polls' Bill, said, that he did not consider it necessary to trouble their Lordships with much of comment or of argument on the subject, but would content himself with very briefly stating the objects which the Bill had in view. This Bill was founded upon recommendations contained in the Report of the election expenses of the Select Committee of the House of Commons which sat in the year 1834, and its object was twofold: first to afford additional accommodation to the electors, by the erection of an increased number of polling places; and, secondly, to limit the taking of the poll to one day. With regard to the utility of the former proposition, very little difference of opinion, he thought, could exist; and with regard to the latter, he considered that the shorter the time in which the votes of the electors could be taken, consistently with general convenience, the better. It was notorious that whatever unfair bargainings for votes, and other unfair proceedings of the kind, accompanied an election, generally took place during the interval between the first and second day's polling. It was also ascertained by experience that, in most cases, by far the greater number of electors who voted at any particular election were polled on the first day. The Committee of the House of Commons, who reported upon this subject, were unanimous in the opinion that the borough elections should be terminated in one day, and a majority of them considered, that in the counties the same measure could with great propriety be adopted. The bribery that occurred, it was observed, generally took place between the first and second day's poll, and many electors refused to poll upon the first day, in order that they might make better terms as the contest became closer. If, then, there would be no other advantage to follow the proposed change this would be a great one, that it would effectually put a stop to many corrupt practices. The advantages of the change, he considered, were sufficiently plain and obvious. He did not say that it would be unaccompanied with disadvantages, but the question for their Lordships to consider was this—did or did not the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? As to the disadvantage of one or two persons being detained by the pressure of 916 business, or being precluded from recording their votes in two contiguous counties; although these were, certainly, disadvantages, yet they were by no means sufficient to counterbalance the great advantages to be derived from this measure. He did not mean to quote the Report of the Committee of the other House, to which he had already alluded, for more than it was worth. He wished to state, that the Report particularly referred to borough elections, and the evidence received before the Committee especially referred to boroughs. All the evidence received with respect to counties, was that given by two witnesses. Mr. Palmer, one of these witnesses, was the under-sheriff for Kent, and he stated that he conceived the whole of the county of Kent could be polled in one day, if they worked at the election as they had done in Canterbury. Mr. Terrell, the other witness, a solicitor in Exeter, stated, that in Devonshire, in the general election in 1833, the poll could have been concluded in one day. These were the principal persons concerned in county elections who had been examined, and the opinion of both was, that the elections could be terminated in one day if proper arrangements were made. With respect to one clause in the Bill, an error in it had been pointed out to him which could be corrected in the Committee. He trusted he had stated sufficient to induce their Lordships to give the Bill a second reading.
§ Lord Wharncliffesaid, that he could see no reason for agreeing to the measure now proposed. It was a curious fact, that the title of this Bill was "A Bill for shortening the time of taking the Polls at County Elections," whereas upon reference to the preamble, it would be found that there was no allegation as to the inconvenience of the present mode of taking the polls, but that there was an allegation as to the necessity of increasing the number of polling places. Now, for his own part, he really did not understand that there was any inconvenience in the present practice; but he confessed that he did not look upon the mode proposed as equally free from that charge. There were two objects in the Bill—one to increase the number of polling places; the other to shorten the time for polling. Now, suppose the House was to agree to enter upon the consideration of the first of those objects, but was to reject the last clause of 917 the Bill, which provided for the other object, what must they do with the Bill after that? The title must be wholly altered; it would no longer be a Bill for shortening the time of taking polls; but it would be a Bill for increasing the number of polling places. He confessed that he could not but look with great jealousy at this Bill. It was a Bill that went to give an advantage to the voters in towns over those of the agricultural districts, and it did appear to him to be an attempt, by a side-wind, to get rid of the effect of the Marquess of Chandos's clause in the Reform Bill. In the first place the voters in the rural districts were farmers. Now suppose the poll was to be limited to one day, and it happened that a neighbouring fair was held upon that one day, the extreme inconvenience to the farmer was evident. Again, in county elections, there was an absolute necessity for some conveyance, and that very necessity would render it in the power of any candidate altogether to prevent the electors from exercising their franchise, supposing the proposed limitation of the time to take place. Such means had been resorted to. He knew that impediments had been placed in the roads in order to prevent electors from polling within a certain period. How was it possible that that could be remedied by this Bill? Would the increase in the number of polling places remedy it? He thought not. But there was still another objection. The returning officer would be in the central part of the county; the polling places and the deputies would be at a distance. Suppose a riot should take place, he would be glad to know whether it was advisable that the whole proceedings should be closed at five o'clock upon that day in all cases but those in which the riot proceeded to such an extent as to induce the officer to prevent the poll from proceeding? He maintained that the cases of towns and counties were as perfectly distinct as possible, and that the arguments which applied to one were wholly inapplicable to the other. He saw no inconvenience in the present system, and he would, therefore, be glad to know the reasons for substituting in place of the present a mode of proceeding in which he did see very great inconvenience. As to the other part of the Bill, for increasing the number of polling places, he thought that the power should not be given to the Privy Council; they ought to proceed exactly as they had 918 done with the Boundary Bill. But if they consented to the principle of that part of the measure, but did not consent to shorten the duration of the time for taking the polls, what would the House of Commons think of the measure when it was returned to them—a Bill for increasing the number of polling places, they having sent it to that House a Bill for shortening the time for the taking of polls? Under these circumstances he was inclined to think, that the better course would be not to enter upon the measure, and he would accordingly move that it be read a second time that day three months.
§ Lord Hathertonhad, upon coming down to the House, not the least expectation that such a course as was now proposed would be adopted with respect to a measure which so immediately affected the interests of the constituency, and respecting which the House of Commons had expressed so strong an opinion. He was perfectly aware that such a measure as this was greatly desired. This measure, it was to be observed, was one which, by increasing the number of polling places, must greatly benefit the small voters now living at a distance of ten or fifteen miles from a polling place, and who could not proceed there unless conveyed at the expense of the candidate. In 1832, he had been employed by the Government in forming a list of the polling places. That list had been passed unanimously by the House of Commons. He had, before submitting that list to the House, consulted all classes of persons who could give him information upon the subject. He knew from all these that the complaint was that the number of polling places was too few, and that it would be a great economy of time and expense if they were increased. The Government did not increase them because the whole arrangement was a novelty, and they were afraid of proposing it on too large a scale. Elections that had already taken place proved that all the voters could be polled in one day. In 1832, in ten counties, 33,181 were polled in one day. In thirty-four counties there were polled, in 1834, on the first day 115,141 electors, and on the second day 25,122. There could be no doubt that all these could have been polled in one day, and if the polling places were increased, the contest would have been over at an early hour. He could not, then, but express the sincere disappointment he felt at the opposition 919 now offered to the contests at these elections being terminated in one day. He regretted too that in a matter affecting the feelings of the constituency and the wishes of the House of Commons, their Lordships would not so far defer to the feelings of the one and the wishes of the other, as to give the Bill a second reading.
The Marquess of Salisburyhad, he said, left the House of Commons long before the noble Baron, he could not, therefore, speak with such certainty of its wishes; but if he were to judge from the letters he had received, there was a strong feeling against the extension of the number of polling places. As to the county elections terminating in one day, he really regarded this Bill, which had such an object in view, as offering a premium upon riots, for the purpose of preventing the voters coming to the poll. The only argument offered in support of the Bill was the evidence of Mr. Palmer, who stated they could poll the county in one day, if they worked at every other place as they had done at Canterbury. A very poor argument, in his opinion, to support such a Bill as this.
§ The Duke of Richmondsaid, it was undoubtedly most desirable that those scenes which took place at all contested elections should be as short as possible—that the scenes of drunkenness and riot, quarrelling and fighting, should be confined to one day, and one day only. His noble Friend (Lord Wharncliffe) felt that this measure was prejudicial to the 50l. tenants; but who were the 50l. tenants? Why, they were farmers, and, of course, had carriages to convey them to the place of polling; and if they multiplied the places of polling, so as to fix them in the large villages as well as the towns, the convenience to the farmer would be increased. As to rioting or barricading a town, the noble Lord must remember that the sheriff had the power of putting off the poll for a day, and also, if he thought fit, of holding it in the neighbourhood of the town. Whilst he stated that, he was strongly in favour of the principle of the Bill, he would at the same time confess that there were several matters of detail to which he entertained objections; he should, however, vote for the second reading, hoping that those parts might be altered in Committee.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, there could be no doubt as to their Lordships' right to interfere with this or any other measure; 920 and most fortunate was it that their Lordships had that constitutional right, for when they saw the motions which were placed upon the order book of the House of Commons with respect to their Lordships' House, no man who loved the Constitution could regret that the consent of that House to those measures was constitutionally necessary. As to increasing the number of polling places, he doubted exceedingly whether that would save any expense. In the present times there were some gentlemen who appeared to desire to verify the saying, "that it never rains but it pours," for they were not contented with the good they had already received; and he did consider the increase in the polling places to its present extent one of the best provisions of the Reform Bill, but they now wanted that ultra-multiplication of polling places which was proposed by the present Bill.
§ Lord Wharncliffeexplained. He was not anxious to press his motion, if the noble Viscount were willing to give up the one subject of the Bill—the limitation of the poll to one day—to which they objected, for the sake of preserving the other object, to which they were not, on principle, opposed.
§ Viscount Melbournesaid, that undoubtedly he did consider the first part so important, that he should be ready to sacrifice the latter part, in order to obtain it. He must confess, however, that he thought noble Lords opposite were in the habit, of late, of considering all measures as directed against their personal interests—as if the object of every measure was to overthrow their power; so that they looked at the measures whilst under the operation of fear and terror—and it was known that persons under the influence of such feelings, were not generally very clear-sighted—and he thought that was the case with regard to the present Bill.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that they would have to draw largely upon the memory of the noble Baron (Lord Hatherton), as it would be expedient that the polling places should be specifically named in the Bill.
§ Lord Wharncliffewould, if that were to be the case, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Lord Lyndhurstremarked, that if they struck out the last clause, they would alter the title, which had been objected to so much in another Bill.
Lord Hollanddid not think it necessary 921 to alter the title of the Bill, for by increasing the number of polling places, they shortened the time of the elections.
§ Viscount Melbournereplied to the noble and learned Lord, that the alteration in the title of the Bill was objected to, because it proved the alteration in the substance of the Bill. If the House of Commons sent up a Bill with an improper title, there could be no objection made to its alteration.
§ Bill read a second time. Amendment withdrawn.