§ Viscount Melbourne moved, that their Lordships should go into a Committee on the Registration of Voters' Bill.
§ Lord Wharncliffesaid, before he moved the first of the amendments to this Bill which he had proposed, he should state the general nature of those amendments. The subject had now been discussed in the House of Commons during three Sessions; last year a Bill was sent up from the Commons, and referred to a Select Committee; the present Bill had been long under the attention of the other House this Session; and now, on the 12th of August, at half-past nine o'clock, the House of Lords was called upon to consider a Bill containing eighty clauses, and intended to alter and effect that great measure, Parliamentary Reform. Perhaps the circumstances under which this Bill was introduced would furnish a sufficient reason for that House to say it could not be entertained there. But, considering the importance of the subject, he must admit, that it was not the business of the House of Lords to stop the further progress of the Bill. With respect to the Reform Bill, he, as well as many of his noble Friends, had objected strongly to the extent of that measure—some to the 1173 whole, and others only to certain parts of it. That Bill, however, affecting as it did the whole constitution of the country, was one which it must be admitted was carried by the sense of the great majority of the people in these realms; and from that moment, he had considered it was not their business to meddle with it. He took it, therefore, as a right hon. Friend of his had said, as the settlement of a great national question; and he received it, almost, as a new constitution of the country. By that view of it, it was his intention to stand, and to avoid everything that might destroy that portion of democratic influence which had been called into operation by that Bill; if any alteration was made, it must come from the people themselves, and not from that House. This was a question of immense importance to the country, and it was the duty of their Lordships to see that the regulations proposed to be made by the Bill came within the meaning and intention of the Reform Act, and that the franchises established under that Act were neither diminished nor increased; but that those regulations were kept within the scope which it was intended they should take, namely, to make registration more easy, and to make it more easy to every party to exercise the franchise. That being the object of the Bill, and seeing the great democratic influence which had been given by that Bill, he must say, that he thought it became the duty of their Lordships to watch with jealousy any measure on this subject that came up from the House of Commons. It might be said that the Commons were most interested in this question, because the Bill concerned the election of Members to sit in their House, and that, in point of fact, the House of Lords was not concerned in it. But, at the same time, he must observe, that the House of Lords formed one part of the constitution of the country, and it was most important for the people of England that they should exercise their legitimate functions, and watch, even with jealousy, the Bills which came up from the House of Commons. Noble Lords had been attacked on the previous evening by the noble Viscount opposite, and they were told that they always viewed with jealousy, and treated with contumely and contempt, any measure which came up from the House of Commons, having for its object an increase of the rights and privileges of the people. 1174 He would leave his noble Friend to defend his own words; he left it to him to say whether, now, in his calmer moments, he would justify the language he had used, and whether it might not be said, with some truth, that the noble Viscount himself was, on that occasion, rather contumelious. He must say, that for the first Minister of the Crown to come down to the House, and use that sort of language, merely because noble Lords had said they were jealous of certain proceedings, appeared to him to be conduct that little became one who filled that high station which the noble Viscount filled. He admitted that he was jealous, and not a little jealous, but the noble Viscount seemed to be blind to his situation; he had no power whatever in the House of Lords, and in the Commons his power existed only by the support of persons who professed to require an organic change in the constitution. But for that party the Government would be in the minority, and a very slender minority they would have. He was jealous, then, of the Ministers, because they had no power in the House of Commons without the support of that party. They had a right, in fact it was their business, it was perfectly constitutional, for the House of Lords to interfere with every act of legislation for the country. It was their duty to stand between the people and the Crown, to see that the Crown, on the one hand, did not tread on the heels of the people, and that the people, on the other hand, did not infringe on the prerogatives of the Crown. He knew that there were persons in the House of Commons who made no secret—he was not accusing them of anything which they would deny; on the contrary, it was language which they boldly used—they made no secret of saying that they desired an organic change in the constitution of the country, and how often had measures been brought before that House, measures which had been introduced by the Government, which became so altered by clauses foisted in by that party, that even the Government itself was ashamed of them? Now, when a measure of that sort came up to the House of Lords, was it not their duty to look closely into it? Were they not justified in watching it with jealousy? Had not the very Bill now before them been considerably altered? Clauses had been introduced which would sufficiently 1175 clear up every doubt as to the views of the party to which he had alluded, and it was a fact that some Ministers of the Crown had actually voted in the minority in the divisions upon those clauses. Upon these grounds, then, he felt jealous; and he should continue to watch with jealousy every Bill which emanated from the other House, knowing, as he did, that there was a strong party in that House who were desirous of producing certain organic changes which they thought would promote good government, but which, he was sure would be most injurious to it, and destructive of the best interests of the country. In the course of the changes which he proposed to make in this Bill, he was willing to go so far as to give every reasonable facility to the proper registration of the voters, and every reasonable facility also to those voters to exercise their franchise. But he would also add some amendments with a view to clear up those doubts which had arisen in consequence of the conflicting decisions of the Revising Barristers. All that he would do; but he would not, as far as his opinion went, and he trusted the House of Lords would support him in this, suffer the franchise to be tampered with in any degree. He would not allow the franchise to be contracted on one side, or extended on the other. This was not a Bill intended to bestow, or to take away the franchise, and the course he meant to pursue was to bring it back as far as possible to the Bill which was introduced in 1835, and again brought forward by Government in 1836, except in one instance, and that was to strike out the clause which tended directly to alter the franchise. He alluded particularly to that clause which provides that no land with a building upon it should give a vote unless it were worth five pounds. That appeared to him to be narrowing the franchise contemplated by the Reform Act. To that he should certainly object. There were also two great cases of doubt which had occurred before the Revising Barristers in respect to the votes of trustees and mortgagees. There was a clause in the present Bill which went to the extent of saying, that no mortgagee should have a vote unless he received the rents and profits for his own use. Now he meant to carry this principle still further. He meant to provide that no trustee should have a vote for the property he held in trust, the rents and profits of which 1176 he did not receive for his own use and benefit. That was, he conceived, the spirit of the Reform Act. It was quite a mistake to suppose that property per se was to be represented. He contended that a vote was a personal right, and that property was the qualification only which conferred that right; that was to say, that only persons who possessed a certain amount of property should be entitled to a vote, but it was never intended that every piece of property should have a Representative. The other doubt to which he wished to allude was with respect to persons holding leases in towns for sixty years. The intention of the Reform Bill, undoubtedly, was to give a vote to leaseholders under certain circumstances. Suppose A, for instance, held a lease in a town for sixty years, and suppose he built a house upon the property, of the yearly value of ten pounds, and inhabited it, he would be entitled to a vote for the town; but cases had arisen where a person who had so qualified himself had also built two stables, which he let off to other persons, and did not at all retain them in his own occupation. The question then was, whether the land and the buildings which were not occupied by the leaseholder did not give him the right to vote for the county, and he believed that it had been decided in both ways. Now, it was clearly the principle of the Reform Bill that leaseholders in towns should have a vote for the town, but not for the county; and the doubt had arisen through the use of the word "occupier," instead of the word "leaseholder." Now, he proposed to introduce a clause to settle that question, and to make it clear that persons possessing such property should have a vote for the town, but that the other portion of the property sublet should not give a vote for the county. The principle of the clause which he proposed to introduce had been, he knew, very much opposed, so strongly indeed, that it had been said, either that or the Bill must be thrown out. His noble Friend said, "If you put, this clause into the Bill, it will have that effect;" but he would ask their Lordships whether they would suffer impropriety and injustice to remain upon the face of any Bill because they were told, that if they did not suffer it the Bill would not be accepted by the other House? He entreated their Lordships not to suffer the injustice in this Bill to 1177 remain, and not to allow it to run counter to all the intentions of the Reform Bill, because persons chose to use such language as that to which he had alluded. The other alteration which he proposed to make was in the mode of revising the lists of electors. By the Bill now before the House, the revising barristers were not to be chosen by the Lord Chief Justice in the Middlesex district, and the senior Judges of assize. There were to be eleven revising barristers, three of whom were to constitute a court of appeal, and the other eight were to go the circuits constantly. They were named in the Bill; one of them was the Chief Judge of the Court of Review, Mr. Erskine; he was to have 1,000l. a-year as the chief of the court of Appeal, and every succeeding one 2,000l.; the other two members of the Court of Appeal were to receive 1,500l. a year each. The barristers who were to go the circuits were to have 1,000l. a year each. Here, then were eleven places created by this Bill, of from l,000l. to 2,000l. a-year each. To that plan he had a very great objection; but he should also observe, that they were named in the Bill now, but subsequently they were to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. That patronage to the amount of 13,000l. was to be given to the Lord Chancellor; but he did not think it right that that quantity of patronage should be so bestowed, because the Chancellor was a political person and one of the Ministers of the Crown, and there was too much patronage attached to the office already. But there was another reason why he objected to the plan; he had a great respect for the independence of the bar, and he wished to encourage that independence. He must say, that these multiplied places seemed to be created by the Government for the express purpose of getting possession of that bar. He should, therefore, propose to restore the appointment of the revising barristers to the Lord Chief Justice and the judges of assize. As to the Court of Appeal, he proposed, that when any cases of doubt arose, an appeal should be made to a judge in the ordinary way. There could be no doubt that the conflicting decisions of the revising barristers had been productive of very great mischief, and therefore, perhaps, it would not be right to have no mode of appeal open; but it was his firm belief, that before a few years were over, the cases of doubt that would arise 1178 would be exceedingly few and rare, and unless it was for the purpose of giving the Chief Judge of the Court of Review something to do, which was not the case at present, he did not know for what object this new office was proposed to be created. He would conclude, as he had begun, by telling the noble Viscount opposite, that he must make up his mind to have the measures which were brought up from the House of Commons viewed with jealousy in the House of Lords—a jealousy which, if he could see a Government who had a real command in the House of Commons, he might be induced to forego in some measure; but so long as he saw a Government carried on with a majority against it in the House of Lords, and supported only in the other House by a party that professed to desire organic changes, and declaring that the Lords had not gone far enough, he for one would always view with jealousy those measures which came up from that party, and he did not care who knew that such was his determination.
§ Viscount Melbournethought the noble and learned Lord might have saved himself the trouble of stating, that it was his intention to look with jealousy on every measure which came up from the House of Commons, for he could very easily perceive that, without the aid of the information which the noble Lord had given him. That noble Lord had set out with declaring, that he did not feel it to be his duty to stop the progress of the Bill, and then he went into all the arguments he had collected together against it; it would have been more consistent for the noble Lord to have reserved his arguments until each particular portion of the Bill to which they applied had been brought under the notice of the House in regular order; it was hardly worth while, he thought, for the noble Lord to waste their beauty and freshness all at once. It was not his intention to go into the consideration of the debate which took place on the previous day, "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." He did not, in any respect, wish to go again into that debate; he did not defend, neither was he prepared to defend, every expression which he might have used in the heat of argument. It was not always easy to find every proper expression that was suited to the occasion, and it was possible that sometimes words which were a little over-rated or exagge- 1179 rated might be used; but with respect to the general import, the general meaning, and the substance of what he had said on the occasion alluded to, he begged to say, that he would stand by it, and that he meant to stand by it; he would not retract any part or title of it. He must say also, that it was not the way to produce cordiality and union between the two Houses of Parliament, or to establish a good understanding, or to promote the public service, to be continually expressing jealousy of sinister designs and intentions to overreach on the part of the Commons. Whatever jealousy the noble Lord might choose to entertain, he would say, that there was no real ground for any such jealousy and suspicion on the part of that House. And when the noble Lord told him, that he did not understand his situation, he must retort the same upon him, and say, that the noble Lord did not understand his own position and the position of those noble Lords who acted with him. After all, that point must be decided by the fact of which was in the right; but he felt confident, that there was much blindness on the other side of the House amongst some noble Lords, who did not know the position in which they stood with the House of Commons and the country. With regard to the Bill, it was quite true, that it had now been in the House of Commons for three Sessions, that it was referred to a Committee last year, and that it had been under discussion in a Committee of the whole House of Commons three times during the present Session. It was equally true, that the main principles of the Bill, and many of its most important provisions, had been agreed on by those who sat on different sides of the House of Commons; and that the names of the barristers had been settled by agreement between Gentlemen who generally sat on opposite sides of that House. The noble Lord had stated the alterations which he proposed, but he would reserve his reply to them until they came regularly before the Committee.
§ House went into Committee on Clause 1.
§ Lord Wharncliffeobserved, that this clause would open the whole question of the appointment of the revising barristers. Perhaps the noble Viscount was not aware, that under the present system 175 barristers were occupied during 3,800 days in revising the lists. Now, if the barristers were to go the circuits to revise the lists, 1180 they would, according to that calculation, be occupied 470 days each, being more days than there are in a year. The noble Lord proposed an amendment on the clause to the effect which he stated in his opening speech.
§ Viscount Melbournethought this was a subject which required further consideration. Under the present system so much time was consumed through the inexperience of the revising barristers; for it must be remembered, that only men young at the bar would undertake the duty, and they were scarcely competent to decide difficult questions relating to title and real property, and therefore their proceedings had not only been tedious, but their decisions had been unsatisfactory, and had not carried that weight and importance with them which was desirable. Moreover, their decisions had been conflicting; each successive barrister had overturned in many instances the decisions of his predecessor in the same district. Young lawyers were not only subject to a defect of experience, but also to the defect of vanity, having an inclination to seem to know better than others and to strike out something new. He need scarcely represent to their Lordships the great advantages to be derived from having, as far as possible, uniformity of decision, which he conceived would be insured by having a settled number of gentlemen of experience to act as revising barristers. They would, besides, to a great degree, cure the evil at present arising from the great length of time required to carry on the business of a revising barrister's court. The gentlemen intended to discharge this duty were named in the Bill, which took off the objection, at least for the present, that had been made respecting the patronage of the Government; and as regarded the future, he did not think it could be placed in safer or better hands than those of the Lord Chancellor. With regard to the present appointment of the Revising Barristers by the judges, he could not avoid saying, that besides its making the bar so far dependent upon the judges, it left them (the judges) to a certain degree open to imputation respecting the persons they promoted. It would, in fact, be difficult to place patronage where it would be entirely free from objection, but he thought there was less objection to its being placed in the hands of the Lord Chancellor than elsewhere. By this measure, which the 1181 noble Lord had admitted he was prejudiced against, in consequence of the quarter from whence it emanated, he (Lord Melbourne) conceived they would be much more likely to secure uniformity, steadiness, and regularity in its operation than by the present existing system which he understood it to be the object of the noble Lord to preserve. By the proposed measure there would also be a very considerable saving of expense. It was not possible to make a very accurate calculation, but as nearly as it could be done, it stood thus:—The present estimated expense was 33,085l. By the proposed measure, the salaries would amount to 11,000l., and the travelling expenses, as far as they could be computed, to 8,0001., making a total expense of 19,000l., by which their Lordships would observe a saving of 14,000l. would be effected. It was not certainly a matter of very great importance, but it showed that the advantages of the system were on the side of economy.
§ Lord Wharncliffeobjected to the patronage which by the Bill would be given to the Lord Chancellor, by placing at his disposal thirteen appointments. There was also another scheme to which he (Lord Wharncliffe) had a very great objection. Those barristers were prohibited, by this Bill, from practising in the Courts of Law, by which they would lose all their legal habits, and all the advantages to be derived from mixing with their fellow barristers. They would be necessarily employed during the whole year with the business of their immediate avocation as Revising Barristers, and they would be deprived of the advantages of attending Courts of Law.
Lord Hollandhad never known before to-night, that it had been the habit of that House to regard with jealousy the proceedings of the other House of Parliament; but he had often heard it said, that it was the duty of both Houses of Parliament to regard with a degree of jealousy all kinds of patronage; and so far as that went, the noble Lord (Wharncliffe) had brought before their Lordships' consideration a matter which was perfectly usual and perfectly Parliamentary. He could not help thinking that it was fortunate for his noble Friend near him, that patronage was a common ground of reproach, but he also thought, that the course pursued by the noble Lord, in alluding to the subject, 1182 was, in his eagerness of declamation against certain parties in the House of Commons, both unconstitutional and unparliamentary. The noble Lord, had, however, acquitted his noble Friend of any great avidity for patronage, for he said that his noble Friend had no command over the House of Commons. He had heard that it was right that the Government of this country should have the confidence of the House of Commons. And what made the confidence of the House of Commons but the agreement of the majority in the acts and their approbation of the persons and characters, of that Government. What else made the confidence of the House of Commons? And the noble Lord, in his eagerness to declaim against and arraign this party and this House of Commons, had told their Lordships, that this part of the Bill was not in the original Bill proposed by the Government to the House of Commons; so that, after all, the patronage and expense consisted of no more than this—that the Representatives of the people of England had chosen to increase a number of places, and to assign and annex certain salaries and emoluments to those places. That at least was not a very heavy charge against the Government, and he thought it was not the peculiar duty of that House to regard matters of that kind, especially when they were connected with the constitution of the other House of Parliament and the franchise of the people, with a peculiar degree of jealousy or anxiety. It was, in fact, so far, in his humble opinion, from being true, that it was a part of the Constitution that one of the Houses of Parliament should regard with jealousy the conduct of the other, that he had always understood it to be a point, at least of courtesy, to consider with great favour and great anxiety, any Bill sent from one House to the other, particularly any Bill affecting the constitution of either House. The noble Lord had pointed to the time of night, and the period of the Session, but he believed that their Lordships would find that Bills, which had been under the consideration of that House, affecting its interests and constitution, through the elections of two portions of their Lordships' body, after having been under the consideration of Committees of that House, and after having undergone great inquiry and great deliberation, and sent to the House of Commons—on those occa- 1183 sions, their Lordships would find that the House of Commons had generally conceived it to be a matter of delicacy not to be eagle-eyed in finding fault with such Bills, but to pass them as speedily as possible; and he confessed, he did not see under what policy it was, that the noble Lord, now that they had agreed to go with the subject, and at the very moment they were attempting to give—and he trusted they were bona fide attempting to give—effect to the wishes of the House of Commons upon this subject—he did not see under what policy it was, that the noble Lord had read them a lecture upon the necessity of being jealous and apprehensive of a popular Government.
§ Lord Wharncliffeobserved, that the noble Baron could not suppose, when he spoke of the Government not having any command over the House of Commons, that he meant that the Government of the country should have such a command over the House of Commons as a master had over his servant. The command he alluded to, was such as should arise from confidence; and he certainly would repeat, that the present Government had not, in point of fact, the confidence of the House of Commons. They had the majority certainly, but he asserted they had not the confidence of that House. They continued and existed by the support of a party, who knew that they could, at any moment, put an end to that existence. They had the power to do so, and it was perfectly optional with them to exercise it.
Lord Hollandobserved, that the noble Lord stated he had used the word "command" in the sense of confidence, but while he (Lord Holland) gave him credit for so doing, he wished the noble Lord to recall the sentences in which he used the word "command" to his mind, to place the word "confidence" in its stead, and then see what kind of reason he had been making use of. The noble Lord says, then, that the Government has not the confidence of the House of Commons. Was that a proof that the House of Commons commanded the Ministers? He said also, that the measures they produced were not their own. Well, then, they were the measures of the House of Commons. He would assert that measures regarding the interests of the people and the internal constitution of the other House of Parliament, whether direct or indirect, ought 1184 to be the measures of the House of Commons, not the measures of any party or set of men, or even of any officers of his Majesty's Government. They had gotten into a sad lax, unconstitutional, and unparliamentary way of late, in talking of legislation as if it belonged to the executive of the country, and in viewing with jealousy the conduct of that man and this man, and inquiring who did this and who did that? and who supported this and who supported that? and with what view he so supported it? All this he considered to be unconstitutional and unparliamentary. On some few occasions, for the sake of triumph in debate, such allusions might be made, but it was not till this very Session of Parliament he had heard it gravely and constantly alleged, as a reason against measures proposed for their consideration, that this man was a Whig, that that man was a Radical, and the other a Tory; or that this man was a Catholic, and the other man a Protestant. They, in fact, examined the constitution and the ingredients of the House of Commons as if indeed they had any command or control over them. Now he would say that that was not the way to bring about a good understanding between the two Houses of Parliament. No man would lament more than he should, any real difference between the two Houses take place, but he could not help saying, that it was not by crimination and recrimination, or by storing up in the mind every unlucky, untoward, or angry expression, that might happen to fall in the course of debate, for the purpose of quoting it as a reason, forsooth, for judging with severity, and recording with jealousy the deliberate acts of the Representatives of the people—it was not by such means as these they could hope to prevent a difference between the two Houses of Parliament.
Lord Fitzgerald and Veseysaid, he was extremely sorry he felt himself compelled to protract this discussion by offering a few observations to the House. He was glad, and he was sure their Lordships were also glad, to hear the opinions which had been expressed by the noble Lord who had just spoken respecting a good understanding between the two Houses of Parliament, and he could only wish that other noble Lords would follow so good an example. Their Lordships, however, would be able to judge; for it must be within their recollection whether the language of 1185 the noble Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Government had been in accordance with these sentiments to which he had just referred or not. He apprehended that the instance his noble Friend (Lord Wharncliffe) had quoted respecting the progress and origin of the Bill then before the House, and his allusion to the shape in which it had been originally framed, introduced, and adopted by the House of Commons, were perfectly justifiable on the part of his noble Friend, for he was thereby professing his intention of bringing back the Bill to that state in which the colleagues of the Ministry had approved of it; and, however they might have deferred to the House of Commons in the adoption of the amendments that had been afterwards made in the Bill, it was neither unbecoming or unexampled in those who thought it unfitting to admit these amendments into the Bill, to quote the authority of the Government themselves, by referring to a measure that had been introduced by them, and to the labours of a Committee of the House of Commons in the two successive Parliaments, who had produced it to that House, and recommended it to the Government, who accordingly had adopted it. That was simply the course which had been pursued by his noble Friend. It was in that sense he had alluded to and quoted the authority and sanction of the Government, as a just recommendation of the proposition he was about to make to the House. He would not follow his noble Friend through the other topics of his speech, because he did not deem it wise to quote expressions of individuals, or to refer to what had fallen from Members of the other House of Parliament, respecting measures they might have either supported or opposed; but he had heard at no distant time the expressions of individuals in that House quoted as proofs of misconduct, and made the ground of charging their Lordships, as a legislative body, with having acted contumeliously and insultingly towards the Commons House of Parliament, because they exercised their unquestionable right in dealing with certain measures and propositions which had been submitted for their consideration. At first it had not been stated, that their conduct was objectionable, the objection having been confined to the expressions of individuals in their Lordships' House; and yet those expressions which had been used in the 1186 freedom of debate, which at the time had been unquestioned, unobserved upon, and unarraigned, were afterwards used as a taunt, and constructed into a charge against that House of having contumeliously insulted the other branch of the Legislature. This, at least, was not in accordance with the expressions which had fallen from the noble Baron opposite. If there was one expression which he deemed more fitting than another to hail as coming from a Minister of the Crown, it was that expression of the noble Baron's, in which he declaimed upon the importance and necessity of maintaining a good correspondence between the separate branches of the Legislature, each treating the other with that respect which was due to both; for, if properly maintained, they would not have a Minister of the Crown, after assenting to a great and important measure, throwing obstacles in the way of its adoption. But in other times they should have had Ministers who would have concurred in the proposed amendments, and allowed the Bill to pass from that to the House of Commons with their sanction, expressing their regret that they had been controlled by the sense of the other House of Parliament, or recommending to that House, for the sake of harmony and good feeling, to meet the proposition of the Commons in the spirit of conciliation and mutual good will, instead of calling upon the other House of Parliament not to lose six days, not to lose six hours, nay, not to lose six minutes, in the rejecting a proposition to which he (the speaker himself) had been a party. So far from his wishing to meet the proposition, he was himself the very first to raise the standard of rejection, and then let it go forth that they were insisting on what he could not give his consent to. He would not have made any observation upon this subject were it not for the lecture which the noble Baron had treated them to, and the rebuke he had been pleased to apply to his noble Friend, he must say not quite fairly; and also for the purpose of expressing the satisfaction he felt at hearing the sentence with which the noble Baron concluded, as well as to declare his participation in the sentiments it contained—sentiments which he was sure would meet with the approbation of at least the majority of their Lordships.
§ The Lord Chancellorsupported the clause, and said that the evils resulting 1187 from the inconsistent decisions of 170 Revising Barristers were seriously felt, and required to be remedied, and the plan proposed by the clause was calculated to obviate them. He apprehended that the noble Lord would not deny the existence of those evils. Nay, the very proposition of the noble Lord assumed, that there was something which required correction, for he proposed that all the questions arising out of the decisions of the Revising Barristers should be referred to the judges of the land—that was to say, that the right of voting for Members of the House of Commons should be referred to the judges. [Lord Abinger: and why not?] Why not! Because it was a direct political question. [Lord Abinger: It was a question of law.] So were all questions of political franchise questions of law in one respect; but were they not questions also of politics? From whom were the judges to take their law? Would it not be from the Committees of the House of Commons, who, after all, would have a paramount jurisdiction? Was this a task which the judges ought to be required to perform? To refer to them questions involving the interests of political parties was most objectionable in principle; for, decide as they might, it would subject them to the reproaches of one party or the other. It had been objected that the new Revising Barristers were required to abandon their professional pursuits at the bar. He saw no ground for that objection. The experiment had been already tried with respect to the Commissioners of Bankrupts, and it had succeeded. Besides, the barristers would have ample employment, so that if they were not required by this Bill to confine themselves to their own especial duties, yet, in point of fact, they would not have time to practise at the bar. Then the evil of contradictory decisions, which, under the new system, would, no doubt, occasionally happen, was provided for by having a court of appeal. What could be more wholesome or convenient than the establishment of a Central Court in London, to which all the various decisions of the barristers might be referred? The noble and learned Lord concluded by saying, that the proposition of Lord Wharncliffe admitted, that the present system required a remedy; but he trusted their Lordships would feel, that the proposition itself was objectionable in principle and ought not to be adopted.
§ Lord Abingersaid, that his noble and learned Friend had assumed that the judges could have no jurisdiction over the right of voting for a Member of the House of Commons. [The Lord Chancellor, No, no.] He was glad to hear that disclaimer, as his noble and learned Friend must remember the decision in the case of Ashby and White, which the House of Lords confirmed, by which it was decided that the question of a right of voting was a proper question to be tried at law. His noble and learned Friend said, that it would place the judges in a delicate position to determine the right of voting: but why should he suppose that the judges would be affected by political motives, because the question they were trying concerned political men? The question the judges would have to try was a question of law only, of which they must necessarily be the most competent judges. His noble and learned Friend had said, that the decisions of the judges would be guided by the decisions of the Committees of the House of Commons. For his part, he had never known any judge receive, as authority, any decision of a Committee of the House of Commons; he had never heard any such decision quoted, or any such citation encouraged. He had always understood it to be the opinion of the most sensible, learned, and constitutional men, that it would be desirable to have a separate tribunal to decide the difficult questions arising out of the decisions of the Committees of the House of Commons. He did not approve of the system of registration, but the true objection against that system was the urging on of registration after registration every year without any interruption. The proper course to adopt would be to have the voters once registered by the overseers, and then allow them to remain on the register till a certain period had elapsed, when the registration might again take place. But this perpetual registration year after year kept the country in a state of excitement most injurious to the quiet and peace of society. He had always thought that the present system of registration never could succeed by the means of any machinery that could be adopted. With respect to the differences of opinion amongst the Revising Barristers, nobody knew better than his noble and learned Friend that differences of opinion among professional men became the subject of constant conversation among 1189 themselves, and that, at last, the better opinion prevailed. Many contradictory decisions had already become settled; and he was satisfied that the differences of opinion would diminish every year, and that, as the experience of the barristers increased, their decisions would finally become uniform. With respect to the appointment of the Revising Barristers, he disclaimed anything like patronage. He was not aware of any change having been made except in cases of resignation or death. On the home circuit he had not made a single change, and the only new appointments made were to supply vacancies occasioned by death. He believed his predecessor had acted upon the same rule; and all the appointments were originally made by Lord Denman. If there were any mode by which more uniform decisions might be obtained, it was that which his noble Friend had suggested, namely, that written cases should b prepared by the barristers where any question of doubt arose, and these cases submitted to the judges. He was quite convinced, that after a year or two such cases would be very few indeed; but when such questions arose, why should the judges be supposed to know for what candidate or for what party, the persons whose votes were in question were going to vote? If any person should have the audacity to tell the judge, "Your Lordships will have the goodness to consider, that if this register be decided so and so, it will be favourable to so and so," would any judge submit to it? He had not, therefore, the least doubt that the plan of his noble Friend would be most efficient, and he did not believe that twenty cases in a year would be brought before the judges after the first year. Another objection to having this tribunal was, that as the barristers would have nothing else to do for a great part of their time, in the course of a short time they would not be competent to do even that; they would lose all their connection with the profession to which they belonged, and would, by confining their views to one class of cases, have their attention so narrowed, that they would lose all knowledge of general questions of law. He therefore thought, that upon principle they would constitute the most objection-able tribunal that could be established.
§ The Committee divided on the amendment.
§ Contents 57; Not-Contents 21: majority 36.
1190| List of the NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| Lord Chancellor | Sefton |
| DUKES. | VISCOUNTS. |
| Leinster | Melbourne |
| Argyll | Duncannon |
| MARQUESSES. | BARONS. |
| Lansdowne | Mostyn |
| Headfort | Ducie |
| Queensberry | Say and Sele |
| EARLS. | Hatherton |
| Minto | Holland |
| Scarborough | Langdale |
| Leitrim | BISHOP. |
| Ilchester | Bristol |
| Albemarle |
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Lord Wharncliffeproposed a clause, the object of which was, to prevent persons possessing property in a borough from voting both for borough members and knights of the shire. He had proposed a similar clause in the Reform Bill, and he believed the framers of the Bill intended this by the 25th Clause of that Bill.
§ Viscount Melbournesaid, that the question was not what the intention of the framers of the Reform Bill had been, but what the Legislature had enacted, if any doubt should arise, let it be settled by the new tribunal that was intended to be enacted. He opposed the clause, on the ground that it went to destroy the balance of interests settled by the Reform Bill.
§ The Committee divided on the motion:—Contents 54; Not-Contents 20: Majority 34.
| List of the CONTENTS. | |
| Lord Chancellor | VISCOUNTS. |
| DUKES. | Melbourne |
| Argyll | Duncannon |
| Leinster | Falkland |
| MARQUESSES. | BARONS. |
| Lansdowne | Mostyn |
| Queensberry | Ducie |
| Headfort | Foley |
| Westmeath | Hatherton |
| EARLS. | Holland |
| Minto | Langdale |
| Leitrim | Saye and Sele |
| Albemarle | BISHOP. |
| Ilchester | Bristol. |
| List of the NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| Lord Chancellor | Sefton |
| DUKES. | VISCOUNTS. |
| Leinster | Melbourne |
| Argyll | Duncannon |
| MARQUESSES. | BARONS. |
| Lansdowne | Mostyn |
| Headfort | Ducie |
| Queensberry | Say and Sele |
| EARLS. | Hatherton |
| Minto | Holland |
| Scarborough | Langdale |
| Leitrim | BISHOP. |
| Ilchester | Bristol |
| Albemarle | |
| List of the NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| The Lord Chancellor | Ilchester |
| DUKES. | VISCOUNTS. |
| Leinster | Melbourne |
| Argyll | Duncannon |
| MARQUESSES. | BARONS. |
| Lansdowne | Holland |
| Queensberry | Ducie |
| Headfort | Langdale |
| EARLS. | Hatherton |
| Albemarle | Mostyn |
| Leitrim | Saye and Sele |
| Minto | BISHOP. |
| Scarborough | Bristol |
§ Clause inserted.
§ The Bill went through the Committee.
§ The House resumed, Bill to be reported.