Sitting of 3 July 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—30 Labourers' Cottages; Metropolitan Police Force Pensions; Tramways (Ireland) Act Amendment.
UNIVERSITY ELECTIONS BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Electors to vote by means of Voting Papers),
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would propose to omit the words "nominate any elector or electors." In the Select Committee on the Bill he (Mr. Ayrton) had proposed that a voter might give his vote without going to the poll by going before a magistrate, and making a declaration as to the candi date for whom he voted. The Committee, however, did not adopt that suggestion, but allowed the clause to stand, by which any person entitled to vote at an university election, having filled up his voting paper, was authorized to send it to another elector by whom it should be presented to the returning officer. The effect of that provision would be to introduce a system of voting by proxy, because the voter might send a number of papers filled up with different names, and leave the recipient to use which of them he pleased. He would put it to the Committee whether it was expedient to sanction so wide a departure from the principle on which English elections were conducted, as that one elector should have the control over another's vote? In this view, the proper course to follow in the case of non-resident voters was for each voter to vote at the place where he resided, and that some machinery should be arranged by which the vote should be transmitted to the returning officer of the University to be properly recorded. It seemed to him that it would be better to disfranchise the University altogether than to sanction the principle adopted by the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, to leave out the words "nominate any other Elector or Electors of the same University."
  MR. DODSONsaid, that the principle of the Bill had been already sanctioned by the House upon the second reading, and was to the effect that provided the voting paper had been signed before a creditable
  254
  witness it should be received at the poll. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets treated that as a vote by proxy; but the essence of proxy was that a man empowered another to do something for him at the discretion of that other man. But in the case contemplated by the Bill the person who handed in the voting paper was simply a vehicle. He merely took the place of the postman, and if he wrongfully tendered the vote he would expose himself to the same penalties as an elector who voted twice. He did not think the alteration proposed was either important or necessary, and as its introduction would involve the re-casting of the Bill, and thus preclude its passing during the present Session, he must oppose it.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the Bill was one which would require very careful consideration. The Bill provided that after the proper officer had made a declaration that the election was to take place on a certain day, up to that time the voter might sign a peper before a magistrate and hand it over to some gentleman resident in the university to tender it in his behalf to the returning officer, but no provision was made for successive candidates coming up. Was there any provision for withdrawing the papers when once given; and might a man give two, three, or more of those papers to be made use of according to circumstances? It was said that it was not proxy, but it appeared to him worse than proxy.
  MR. DODSONexplained that the voter might change his mind up to the time the paper was handed in. If a fresh candidate came into the field, unless the paper was actually handed in it would be in the power of the voter to withdraw it.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that when the voting paper was given in cadet questio; but when A had sent his voting paper to B to be delivered to the returning officer, had A the power of withdrawing it?
  MR. DODSONsaid, that it was like sending a letter by one's servant—once it was put in the post it could not be withdrawn; so, once the paper was banded to the returning officer it could not be withdrawn, but up to that time the voter might do so.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the proposition was one of considerable importance, not only because it introduced a new system of voting in the Universities, but because, that system once established on the statute book, it would be regarded as a

  255
  precedent for counties, and also possibly for boroughs. The objections raised to the Bill were by no means satisfactorily or conclusively answered. In the first place, it had been shown to depart from the established principle that a man was master of his own vote; the person to whom duplicate and possibly triplicate proxies were to be forwarded having an entire discretion as to the candidate for whom the vote of the absent elector was intended, and even a power of withholding it altogether. He would be in the position of a Peer in the other House of Parliament, to whom, according to the established doctrine as laid down by Mr. May, was delegated "the absolute right of decision, without any reference to the opinion of the absent Lord, expressed even after the signature of the instrument." But Members of the House of Lords were limited to a small number of proxies, while in the Bill there was nothing to prevent an indefinite number from being placed in the hands of one individual. The principal of a large college, the leader of a religious body, anybody with considerable influence among the mass of the electors might easily get fifty or sixty votes, or even more, placed in his absolute discretion, and, by withholding these till the last moment, he would practically become arbiter of the fate of candidates, and by exercising a power almost resembling that of nomination, which it had always been the object of the House to put down, where parties were evenly balanced, he might almost convert one of the Universities into a rotten borough. If these were not objections to the Bill, they were certainly consequences necessarily flowing from it, which ought to be very carefully considered by the House before sanctioning this measure. Again, the holder of the proxy might altogether suppress the vote of the elector whom he represented, for it was the essence of a proxy that the holder was put into the shoes of the donor, and might give or withhold the vote as he pleased. But let the principle be extended to counties, and let an active political agent collect the votes of 500 or 600 nonresident freeholders, and it would soon be evident what a new and formidable power the House was invited to sanction. There was another consideration, not of equal importance, but which ought still to have some weight. In the case of ordinary elections candidates met their constituents in the shire or town-hall, and were liable to be questioned and called to account for
  256
  their opinions; moreover, during their canvass they were to a great extent brought into contact with the electors, who, by a sort of rude yet wholesome process, acquired an insight into the opinions of their representatives before their election. The pursuit of canvassing was useful rather than pleasant to most Members, but he should look with great disfavour upon any change in the electoral system which would tend to diminish the intercourse between a candidate and his constituents. In Universities, on the contrary, it was the etiquette for candidates not even to issue addresses to their constituents; they made no public declaration of their opinions, and did not canvass the electors. The consequence was, particularly in a highly-educated constituency, that many of the voters were likely to be influenced by arguments, by re-presentations, and explanations as to facts; and it was, therefore, highly desirable that they should be allowed the benefit of reflection. But a voter in Truro or Carlisle who had to sign his paper and send it off was practically called upon to antedate his vote by several days, during which explanations might be afforded, or possibly a change of opinion effected.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the law at present was that a man could vote by going to the University. What the hon. Gentleman now proposed to do was, to save the voter that trouble by enabling him to record his vote without going to the University. The difficulty with regard to a plurality of voting papers might be got rid of by enacting that the voter should only be allowed to sign one paper, and if he wanted to revoke it that he should come up and vote in person. If the holder of a proxy were compelled to put it in he would not enjoy any objectionable discretionary power; and even if he collected a number of proxies he would have no more influence than was at present exercised by a man who got a number of his friends round him and induced them to vote as he desired.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, if voting papers were to be used at all the only safe plan would be to cause them to be sent direct to the Vice Chancellor. If influential private individuals were allowed to collect proxies the result would be that "that dons" would return anybody they pleased. He denied that those upon the spot were better judges of the merits of a candidate than the out-voters who mixed the world. On the contrary. when he had gone up to record

  257
  voting, and he should, therefore, give his his vote, he found the persons residing in the University not only not in advance, but very much behind the rest of mankind. In the present day there was but little difficulty in voting at a college election. Formerly it was necessary to go up by coach, and sometimes to sleep on the way. Now, but little more than an hour was required to run down by railway from London; and the dinner in the hall, where old friends met, was one of the most pleasant reunions which could be wished for. The change contemplated by the Bill was not introduced for the sake of the voters residing in London, but of those who used to be called "Fen parsons." During French revolutions, it was said, a class of men came to the surface who were never seen except in troubled times. In the same way at University elections, parsons came up in brown cord-breeches and topboots to give their votes, and had an opportunity of mixing with the rest of the world, but should this Bill become law and enable them to vote by proxy they would never be seen except by their parishioners in the Fens. It was desirable to continue the present system, if only to afford these clergymen the occasion for meeting the ordinary class of human beings. He had heard no answer given to the objection that had been urged that the recipient of the papers might record the vote or not as he pleased. He looked on proxy voting as a perfect abomination, and he wished to warn hon. Gentlemen opposite that if introduced the bulwarks of the Constitution would be broken down; for if the House adopted the principle with regard to the Universities it would be attempted with respect to other constituencies.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he had not been a member of the Committee to whom the Bill was referred, but as he knew probably as much of University elections as most Members of that House, having been engaged in three contested elections, he wished to confirm the statement made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, that papers would be sent up in duplicate and triplicate, with instructions to proxy holders to exercise a discretionary power in using them. When the contest lay between two candidates for a single seats, no difficulties with regard to proxies were likely to arise; but where there were three candidates for two seats, there would always be a struggle to obtain split votes, and the electors would seek by
  258
  their papers to act in the same way as they now did with their votes, which they were willing enough to split, providing their favourite was safe; but if his seat were endangered they plumped in his favour. If the Bill passed they would send up two papers, one filled up as a plumper, and the other with a split vote, with instructions to use one of them according to circumstances. Whatever might be said in favour of the general principle of the Bill, he should certainly object to anything which would encourage proxy voting. He should, therefore, give his vote in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he thought the precautions which the Committee had introduced into the Bill had been rather lost sight of. It was thought that if the holding of proxies were limited to those who would be able solemnly to declare that they were personally acquainted with the absent elector, and that they believed the paper correctly represented the vote which he intended to give, a satisfactory limit would be imposed to the accumulation of proxies. The 5th Clause provided that any person fraudulently withholding a voting paper should be held to have committed a misdemeanour, and be punishable for that offence; and to meet the objections which had been raised in the course of the discussion he proposed to add these words—
  "Provided that no person shall be entitled to sign or to vote by more than one voting paper at any election, and shall declare before a magistrate that he has not signed more than one voting paper."
  He, likewise, thought the personal vote of the elector ought to supersede the authority of the voting paper, and, therefore, he would suggest the addition of these words,
  "Every elector shall be entitled to vote in person, not with standing that he has duly signed and transmitted his voting paper to another elector, if such voting paper has not already been tendered at the poll."
  The Bill so altered would then contain every reasonable security and would afford a very great relief to a large class of University electors.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it was no doubt possible to amend the Bill in the way suggested, but taking it as it stood, which was the only form in which it could be dealt with, it did not seem to offer sufficient securities in relation to proxy

  259
  vote in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets, which, he understood, was directed against that part of the Bill which affirmed the principle of proxy voting. His objections to the plan proposed were these—first, that the Bill admitted a duplicate and triplicate vote; secondly, it allowed the elector to withhold the vote at his discretion; and thirdly, it allowed a person to hold a plurality of proxies. The personal experience of the hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) ought to have great weight with the Committee, and it was, on the whole, a question whether the system which it was proposed to introduce would not contain more evils than the one which it was sought to amend.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he would admit that it was possible to take objection to the Bill in its present shape, as well as to the shape in which it was first introduced. The right hon. Gentleman had very clearly pointed out the objections to proxy voting, and he might, likewise, have pointed out the objection to voting papers. But it must be recollected that the question referred to the Committee for decision had reference to the best mode for carrying out the object which the House, by entertaining the Bill, appeared to approve. It was difficult to decide a question which had to be determined by a preponderance of evidence. The Vice Chancellor of Oxford was invited to give his opinion on the very question at issue, and he declared himself in favour of voting by proxy, and gave his reasons. A witness from the University of Dublin suggested that to prevent fraud these proxies should be tendered by an elector, who should be prepared, if required, to state on oath that he was acquainted with the voter from whom he had received the proxy paper, and that it was in his handwriting. The Vice Chancellor of the University of Oxford declared that if a vast number of voting papers were received pending an election there would be great difficulty in verifying them. That that was no idle objection was proved by a fact which came within his own knowledge, where for a Poor Law election, apparently of minor consequence, some hundreds of fraudulent voting papers were sent in. Had the safeguard been required in each case that proxies should be sent to persons in whom the voters had confidence, such an occurrence could never have taken place. He entirely objected to the duty being thrown
  260
  on the returning officer of scrutinizing hundreds of voting papers as best he might. The Bill appeared to have so many opponents, and so few friends, that he was afraid the clergy in the country would be compelled to go on voting in the present troublesome and expensive manner; and that the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) would continue under the painful necessity of seeing Gentlemen as enlightened as himself coming up at intervals to inform the University how much they were behind the intelligence of the age.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he should support the Bill, as he thought non-resident electors who still formed part of the Universities ought not to have difficulties thrown in their way in exercising the franchise. The course which the Committee ought to pursue was to go on with the clause and afterwards amend the Bill in other respects, if they should arrive at the conclusion that it needed Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he felt that the question was involved in difficulty; but he thought that the plan of sending written papers by post was open to greater objections than those which would exist in case of voting by proxy. There was hardly one of the objections to voting by proxy which would not apply to papers sent by post; and, in additiion, there would be, in the case of the latter, fresh difficulties arising from uncertainty in the carriage of these papers. If doubts and mistakes arose, they would have, for the first time, petitions in the case of University elections. He thought, therefore, that if the plan could be safely worked at all it could only be by employing persons as provided by the Bill as it then stood, to act as proxies, and as little more than messengers to deliver the votes at the elections. At the same time he was bound to say that he could not answer some of the objections of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary; and, under these circumstances, he would suggest whether it might not be well to let it stand over for another year, in order that it might be more fully considered?
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he was not surprised at the difficulties raised by the Members for the Universities, because when the mode of voting in that House was being altered the same doleful cries were heard. They were told that the new system would never work; that they were departing from the safe course laid down by their

  261
  ancestors, and, in fact, that they were going headlong to perdition. Well, they changed their mode of voting, and the functions of the House had been as well performed since then as they had before the change. When the hon. and learned Member for Southwark talked on parsons in the Fens it was to be remembered that while a journey to Cambridge might be a matter of entertainment to him it might not be regarded in the same light by gentlemen with large families and small means. He would give the right of voting in all cases in which it could with safety be conferred, and have it attended with the least possible difficulty. It had been found that since voting papers were used in parishes a much larger number of persons took part in the voting than had previously done so. Though he did not agree generally with the clergy of the country, he thought them an honourable and intelligent body. The whole difficulty arose from the possible variety of votes that might be given by the same individual; but if there were only one paper given, and if that could be revoked only by the person himself, no danger could result.
  MR. AYRTONexplained that, in moving to omit the words he did not do so with the view of proposing any plan of his own. He did so, because he thought the plan proposed by the Bill an objectionable one, and one which ought to be rejected.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that having taken a part in the proceedings of the Select Committee, and supported his hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), he was anxious to explain why he approved the form in which that hon. Member wished the Bill to pass, rather than that in which the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets admitted he wished to put it. The difficulties of the case were very great, though in the object of the Bill the Committee generally seemed to be agreed. It was conceded that, when constituencies were scattered over the country, it was unreasonable to deprive them of the right of voting except at a great expense and inconvenience. The difficulties of allowing those constituencies to vote without such expense and inconvenience arose when they came to consider the machinery by which effect was to be given to the leading principle of a Bill of this kind. Serious objections existed to voting by paper without sufficient checks. Who was to ascertain whether the voting paper was that of the person from whom
  262
  it purported to come? It might be answered, "There would be witnesses to that effect." But, supposing that to be challenged, the result would be that for the first time they would have scrutinies in the Universities to see if the votes were correctly given. Canvassing would be going on, and they would have all kinds of—he would not say frauds—but mistakes. Now, they were bound to provide against that as far as possible. His opinion was that they could guard against such evils only by requiring some person to appear and be responsible for the vote tendered, and who should then and there tender it. It had been suggested that under the Bill one man might hold 100 proxies. That might be a reason for limiting the number to be held by any one person, but it was none for supporting the Amendment. On the whole, he had arrived at the conclusion that no plan was so safe, practical. and good, as that which the Select Committee had adopted. He thought that the Members for the Universities were much indebted to the hon. Member for Northamptonshire; and he had much pleasure in supporting him in the form in which he had cast the Bill.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that the object of the Bill was to relieve the voters of the Universities from that inconvenience to which they, in common with other non-resident voters in the country, were subjected in coming up to vote at elections. It was very desirable that should be done, if it could be done without creating a greater inconvenience than the one which it was proposed to remove; but there was no obligation on that House to a adopt any plan by which a greater difficulty might be introduced than that which they desired to get rid of. It must be remembered that the inconvenience sustained by the non-resident voters of the Universities had been much mitigated by the establishment of railways throughout the country. They were much better off than they were thirty years ago; still, if greater facilities for voting could be given to them, without introducing any serious difficulty, he should be glad to assist in affording it. It must, however, be remembered that the Bill now before the Committee had never been read a second time. The proposition contained in the Bill which they had read a second time had been negatived by the Select Committee, because it seemed to them impossible that Parliament could adopt a scheme by which any

  263
  one might send up his vote in a letter without some system of attestation. In order to relieve the class to whom the measure applied, the Committee had adopted a new principle. They had submitted, as a substitute for mere voting by paper, something like a system of double election; and their scheme was one under which individual residents might obtain enormous influence in University elections. While he was at Oxford he had something like 200 pupils; and had he kept up communication with them for election purposes, under a Bill like the one before them, it would have been possible for him to wield a power at the elections of that University which it would be quite improper for any one to exercise. The change which it was now proposed to make was a most serious one; and, as men of the world, the Committee would see that the Bill would not act in the manner proposed, but would react on the constituencies throughout the country. The residents of Universities would write to non-resident voters and request them to send their proxies. In that way power might get into a few hands, and a sort of oligarchy might be established which would exercise an influence over the University very like that assumed by the caucus meetings in America over some of the institutions of the United States. Should any such thing take place, it would make the at present distinguished position of University representatives one to which gentleman would not be so anxious to aspire. Considering that the principle of the Bill was one which had never been submitted to the test of a second reading, and that on the face of it there was a practical objection to the manner in which it was proposed to effect the object in view, would it not be better to adopt the course referred to by the hon. baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir William Heathcote), and put off the further consideration of the question for a year? Common sense suggested that they ought rather endure the evils they had than adopt a principle of which they had no experience, and which might produce evils such as none of them had contemplated.
  MR. LEFROYsaid, that he preferred to support the Bill in its present shape to adopting the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he could not admit that the principle of the Bill now before the Committee was not that which they
  264
  had sanctioned on the second reading, that principle was voing by papers. The constituents of the University of Oxford were 3,600 in number, out of which 260 were residents. Of the residents, from 80 to 90 per cent voted; of the non-residents only about 50 per cent voted; and it was, therefore, clear that the representation of the University was unduly in the power of the residents. It was, then, desirable that a scheme should be adopted which would enable the non-residents to take their fair share in the selection of the University representative. He had no fear of the evils suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe). Did he believe that, under any circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman would become a "boroughmonger" he certainly would not trust him with his voting paper. As to the safety of the voting papers in transitu and their arriving in time, it would be for the voter to adopt the same precautions as those which he at present practised when having himself conveyed by railway to the place of polling. If the Bill were passed, instead of having the voting for University Members confined, as at present, to two-fifths of the electors, they would as fairly vote out the whole of the University constituencies as they now did the other of the country; and he believed that under the altered system the Members for the Universities would be listened to with even greater attention than they at present commanded.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 74: Majority 46.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that as the clause stood the electors would have to send in their signed votes before it could be ascertained who were the candidates. He would, therefore, propose the omission of the words, "Every such voting paper shall bear dare subsequently to notice given by the returning officer of the day for proceeding to election," in order to substitute the words, "Every such voting paper shall bear date subsequently to the day on which the election commences." The voter would then be in a position to know who were the candidates.
  Line 13, Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out the words 'subsequently to notice given by the Returning Officer of the day for proceeding to Election,' in order to insert the words 'on a day subsequent to the day on which the Election is to commence.'"
  MR. DODSONsaid, he did not see any need for the Amendment, because if a voter had any suspicion that a new candidate might be started at the last moment, he might delay signing his paper. The effect of the Amendment would be to concentrate all the voting papers upon the last day or two of the poll, which he thought would be very prejudicial.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, that the arguments for the Amendment might apply to Dublin University; but there was nothing at all in the elections at the Universities of England which would make such an Amendment necessary. At any rate, at the University of Oxford he thought the time afforded would be sufficient for all purposes.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he understood that the objection was not that the time was not ample enough, but that it was too ample. But the Bill as it stood, a person might give his vote after notice of the day of proceeding to election; or, in other words, a person might give his vote before he could know who were the candidates. That certainly was giving ample time, and the Amendment was to reduce it. It was not easy after the different explanations which had been given to understand the exact principle of the Bill, but as far as he was capable of forming an opinion on so fluctuating a measure, he should support the Amendment. By the clause a day was named for giving in votes, which actually preceded the election. At Oxford there was a meeting of the Convocation for the nomination of candidates. Votes were taken on the occasion, and the pollings afterwards were only adjourned meetings of the Convocation. Now, it seemed very absurd that, before the Convocation met, and before candidates were nominated, absent members should be allowed to send in their votes.
  MR. STEUARTsaid, he should oppose the Amendment. Voters in Scotland would not have time to send their voting papers if the restriction was adopted. Besides, the Amendment would have the effect of keeping open the election for five days, whereas it might often be closed in three days by mutual consent.
  SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, all that the clause proposed was to empower a person named in the paper to vote in favour of some particular candidate. It would be perfectly competent for that person to vote for some one who might not have been proposed or nominated at all.
  266
  At Cambridge there was no nomination. At Oxford there was a nomination; but, if any elector, after the election had begun, chose to vote for A or B, who had not been previously proposed, the very fact of his sending in a signed paper voting for him would have the effect of putting him in nomination. He apprehended that, under any arrangement that would be made, persons residing at a distance would always have a difficulty in ascertaining who were the candidates at any precise moment while the election was going on. That was a difficulty which could not be avoided.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the clause would not allow an elector to vote before the election began, as had been represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. Its only effect would be to give power to some person to vote for the elector when the time came. He could see no harm in that.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the signed paper was not a paper giving power to another to vote, but was actually a vote given. On the very day on which the notice of the election was given a voter might send in a vote for a particular person, though it was impossible he could know who the candidates were to be. Was the House prepared to allow candidates to be nominated by proxy in the way stated by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford?
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he would remind the Committee that the Bill was not a compulsory one; and that voters might come up to the last day of the poll and vote in person.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that there was no provision enabling them thus to cancel their voting papers.
  MR. COLLINS:The right hon. Baronet might, at all events, bring up a clause giving voters that power.
  MR. HASSARDcontended that the signed paper would be no vote. The elector was not bound to stand by the paper.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that at the last moment a new candidate might be proposed, and if any person were to give his proxy beforehand he did not see how it could be done except upon the principle of entrusting one's conscience to a third party. He thought that voters ought to wait until they saw who the candidates were.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he agreed that the final act of voting was in the delivery of the paper; but if the Committee

  267
  took their stand upon that, they must admit that the proxy had complete authority over the vote, and power to mould it at his will. ["No, no!"] Then the final act was the signing of the paper; and if it was done before the nomination, it would be voting on speculation—merely firing the vote into the air.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that any man might now fire his vote in the air; for the Vice Chancellor had mentioned a case in which a gentleman had come up all the way from Cornwall and insisted on voting for Sir Robert Inglis, who was already Member for the University, and whose seat was not in question.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that if A. B. got a sufficient number of votes, he would be elected, whether he had been nominated or not.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he could not agree to the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman. If a candidate had not been proposed and seconded by two electors, he would not be elected if all the constituency voted for him.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) was entirely mistaken as to the law of the land. He believed he was correct in saying that the law was, that even after a nomination had taken place and a poll had been demanded a voter was entitled to vote if he chose for a fresh candidate, and that fresh candidate would be duly elected if he had the majority of votes. All the legal witnesses examined before the Committee on the Bill said that was the law, and it was accepted as such by the Committee.
  SIR GEORGE GREYwas surprised to hear what had fallen from the hon. Member. The law of the land, as he had always understood it, was that the election took place at the time of the nomination, and that a poll was resorted to to decide on whom the election had legally fallen. In other words to verify the result of the show of hands.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that what the right hon. Gentleman had stated about the nomination was perfectly true, if no poll was demanded; but if there was a poll it was open to anybody to vote for any candidate he pleased, and such a vote operated as a new nomination.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he could confirm what had fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Hunt) as to what took place before the Committee. It was clearly stated before the Committee, and held to be the
  268
  law, that any voter might go to the poll and vote for a candidate, whether that candidate had been nominated or not.
  MR. WALTERsaid, he thought the real question before them was one which the Postmaster General would be the right person to settle. That question was wheather, in the case of a non-resident elector living in a remote part of the country, sufficient time was to be given him to avail himself of the privilege of voting. He had voted in the minority at the last division, because he was not in favour of the particular machinery laid down in the clause; but it apeared to him that they would render the Bill nugatory as regarded voters residing in the extreme west of Ireland or north of Scotland if they were to be restrained by the conditions laid down in the Amendment, and only allowed to exercise the privilege of sending in their signed papers after the nomination of candidates.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 86: Majority 52.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 (Voting Papers to be read, and Votes recorded),
  MR. HUNTsaid, he would move to insert, after the word "entitled," in line 26, the words "to sign or." His object was to provide that no person should sign or vote in respect to more than one voting paper. If he should sign a paper, and then determine to vote for some one else, in order to cancel the voting paper the voter would have to go the University in person.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he thought that a declaration of personal acquaintance with the voter on the part of the person tendering the voting paper would be in many cases very inconvenient. An unscrupulous person would think nothing of it, while to a conscientious man it might be very embarrassing. He moved that, instead of a declaration that the person offering the vote was "personally acquainted with the voter," he should declare that he "verily believed this was the voting paper of such a person."
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, that a committeeman might, under the Bill. hand in a mass of fraud and forgery. He was not to be asked if he knew the handwriting of the voters, which would be some security for the authenticity of the voting papers.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that the voting paper would be filed, and every one would have access to them. The poll-book of the University would always be published, and it would be easy to prove the forgery fore an election Committee if any voting paper were forged.
  MR, CONINGHAMsaid, the Bill was calculated to throw an amount of power into the hands of certain resident members of the University which was most objectionable. It was a monstrous proposition to introduce the system of voting by proxy in the election of a Member for any one of the Universities.
  MR. WALPOLEremarked that the vote would be signed in the presence of a justice of the peace, who would forward it. The object of the declaration was not to test the validity of the signature, nor was it, properly speaking, a voting by proxy. The elector voted as he pleased, and his paper was intrusted in confidence to some person to deliver.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought that if these words were omitted from the clause it would be necessary to restrict the number of proxies which any elector might hold.
  SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he was in favour of retaining the words in the clause.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Devizes, that these words would be no restraint to some members of election committees, whose eagerness might be great at the moment of contest, and a very slight acquaintance would be considered as sufficient ground for making the declaration. He doubted whether it was desirable that the words should stand. The Bill, in his opinion, would diminish and increase the power of the resident electors. It would increase the power of the few and diminish the power of the great body of the resident members. It would enable a few members to exercise an undue influence upon a contested election. Nevertheless, he saw no disposition on the part of the Committee to counteract the evils which, in his opinion, would arise from no limit being fixed to the number of proxies that a person might hold.
  MR. ROEBUCKobserved that the Committee were generally agreed that it was not desirable to limit the number of proxies any person might hold.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the Vice Chancellor was, under the clause,
  270
  obliged to receive and record every vote that was brought to him duly signed. The clause ought to provide that no person should vote in person and also by voting paper.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he intended to move a proviso to effect that object.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, that as a provision against the forgery of the signature to a voting paper, he would move as an Amendment to insert, after the words "personally acquainted with A. B." to add "and that I know his handwriting, and believe this to be his signature."
  MR. WALPOLEthought the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked the fact that the voting paper had been already authenticated by the justice before whom the document was signed. The voter was sufficiently identified when the instrument was tendered by the party who stated that he believed it came from the voter. No other words were necessary.
  Amendment negatived
  SIR GEORGE GREYmoved the following proviso:—
  "Provided that no such voting paper shall be received and recorded if the person signing the voting paper shall have already voted in person at the said election."
  Proviso agreed to.
  The following proviso was also added:—
  "Provided also that every such elector shall be entitled to vote in person, notwithstanding he has duly signed and transmitted the voting paper to another elector, if such voting paper has not been tendered and received at the poll."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 and 4 were also agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Penalty for falsely signing Voting Papers),
  MR. HUNTsaid, that when they came to the schedule he proposed to make the voter declare that he had not signed any other papers at that election. He proposed to make a false declaration on that point a misdemeanour equally with the other false declarations in the Bill, and moved the introduction of words to effect that object.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 6.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he proposed to introduce into the schedule a declaration on the part of the voter that he had signed no other voting paper at the election.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, that they should have security that the signature was attached to the paper in the presence

  271
  of the justice; and, therefore, he proposed to insert the words "in my presence."
  MR. DODSONassented.
  The Schedule and Preamble were then agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, as amended; to be considered of Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 221.]

INDICTABLE OFFENCES (METROPOLITAN DISTRICT) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he rose to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which had come down from the Lords, and he should have thought it was one which would not have met with any opposition, but it appeared it was likely to be opposed in some quarters, and one hon. and learned Gentleman had given notice of a Motion for the Bill to be read that day six months. The Bill had received the sanction of the late Lord Chancellor and all the law Lords. A few of the provisions it first contained were objected to, but after it had gone through a Select Committee they all acquiesced in it. The whole of the principle of the Bill might be said to lie in the first and second clauses. The first clause provided that charges were not to be tried at the Central Criminal Court, or at any General or Quarter Session of the Peace within the City of London or the Metropolitan Police district, without previous investigation by a magistrate. In other words, it was provided that no charge should be preferred against a person by going behind his back to a grand jury in the first instance, when there was an opportunity of going to a trained professional magistrate, who could understand the charge, and see whether it was of such a nature and supported by such proofs as rendered it proper that the person charged should be sent to trial. The second clause enacted that when a charge was investigated by a justice of peace, in open court, it should no longer be necessary to go to the grand jury, who sat in secret, before whom witnesses were not confronted with each other, and who were not professionally trained, so as to be able to give that judicial opinion on the subject which a trained professional person was competent to pronounce. The main objection which was urged against the Bill was that it tended to supersede the grand jury system; and in that case, it was asked, what was to be done with a class of
  272
  offences called political offences, in respect to which the grand jury system had acted as a shield of protection, and as a barrier between the Crown and the subject? His answer to that objection was that the 8th Clause of the Bill provided that the Bill should not apply to that class of offences, and if the clause should not be deemed sufficient for the purpose it could be amended in the Committee. It was said, and truly said, that the grand jury system had been a great protection to the people of this country against improper accusations, and against the undue exercise of power on the part of persons in authority. Nobody felt that that had been the case more strongly than he did; and if there was anything in the Bill which could supersede that system, he for one would not move the second reading. But what ground was there for such an apprehension, when in fact the grand jury system would, under the present Bill, be as complete in the country as now, and when political cases in the metropolitan district were by the 8th Clause excepted from the operation of the present Bill? Surprise was expressed that a Member of the Conservative party should introduce a principle leading, it was alleged, to the extinction of the grand jury system, which had proved so valuable not only in protecting the subject against the Crown, but in bringing the Judges of the land into constant intercourse and association with the landed gentry. His answer was that the Bill did nothing of the kind; and whoever considered the subject would see that the grand jury system was introduced for purposes for which at the present time it was no longer applicable in the Metropolis, though it might be very advantageously kept on foot in other parts of the kingdom. Fifteen years ago the Criminal Law Commissioners considered this subject, and directed questions to be put to a vast number of persons—Judges, magistrates, barristers, recorders, solicitors, and other persons acquainted with the practice of the criminal courts, and there was scarcely an answer given which did not amount to an acknowledgment that in the Metropolis the grand jury system was in almost all cases superfluous, and in many cases was very mischievous. One of those who gave an opinion at that time was the late Lord Denman, who, when referring to an article in the Edinburgh Review, said it contained an opinion he had formed some years before, that no benefits were produced by the grand jury system but the co-operation of

  273

  the higher and middle classes in the administration of justice. In 1846 a presentment was made by the grand jury at the Middlesex Sessions, in which they stated that in their experience grand juries in the metropolitan district were a positive impediment to the administration of justice, and they went on with these significant words—
  "Though they were perfectly aware that the court had no power to accord them any relief, and that it was only by reiterated representations that any consideration could be expected from the Legislature, they were the more induced to this step from a consideration of the nature of the cases which occupied the time of the jury, cases of so frivolous a character that the intervention of a grand jury seemed to have no possible object but the detention of the prisoners and the lengthening of the proceedings of the court, and did not as far as they conceived tend to any possible good."
  In 1847 a remarkable observation fell from a Judge whose recent death they had had to deplore, who was not inferior to Lord Denman—he meant Mr. Justice Patteson—who, addressing a grand jury of Middlesex, said—
  "It was not in his power to give them any information as to the cases which would be brought before them, because he had really no means of knowing what those cases might be, nor indeed was he aware that that would be troubled with any cases at all. They might think it strange that they should be brought together to hear this, but still it was a tribunal before which any of Her Majesty's subjects might prefer any charge. It was the law that they should be thus called together, and they must obey it".
  In 1848 another presentment of the grand jury was made to the Central Criminal Court to a somewhat similar effect to that of the grand jury of Middlesex which he had already read. These matters were pressed so much on the consideration of the Government, that in 1849 the then Attorney General brought in a Bill to amend the law in respect to the grand jury system within the metropolitan district. The Bill was sent to a Select Committee, the witnesses before which expressed views similar to those he had just detailed to the House, one of them declaring the grand jury to be the hope of the thief. Before the Bill passed a new Government succeeded, and then he, as Home Secretary, together with the Attorney General of that time, (Sir Frederic Thesiger), introduced a measure for the amendment of the law. They had not an opportunity of passing all the measures they desired, but he believed that history would hereafter say, that there had been no Session during the last twenty five years in which so many
  274
  laws were passed for the improvement of the legal and social system as in the Session of 1852. Again, in 1853 the matter was brought before the attention of his right hon. Friend opposite by a memorandum drawn up by the Middlesex magistrates, who made three divisions of the subject:—First, where the magistrate sent the case for trial; second, where he refused to do so; and third, where the parties went before the grand jury without a preliminary investigation before a magistrate. In regard to the first they were of opinion that there was no necessity for a further investigation before the prisoner was subjected to trial. In regard to the second, they said there ought to be a further opportunity for investigation; and in regard to the third they said, the power of going before the grand jury in the first instance was oftener a means of enabling parties to get up cases for the purpose of extorting money form persons against whom they made accusations. The latter practice had to a certain extent been got rid of by the Vexatious Indictments Bill, and the present Bill would have a further effect in the same direction. In 1857 another Bill was brought in on the subject of grand juries, but it was lost in consequence of the lateness of the Session. A Bill had also been in 1860 introduced on the subject in the House of Lords, but the business of the Session had not admitted of its being proceeded with in the House of Commons. He had now stated fairly the nature of the case, but he might, perhaps, before resuming his seat, be allowed, in reply to the objection that there were no stipendiary magistrates in the City of London, or in those districts subject to the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, to observe that from all he could learn, the clerks who assisted the mayor and aldermen in the discharge of their magisterial duties in the City were men of so much ability and experience that there would be in their case no greater risk of a miscarriage in the administration of justice under the operation of the Bill than in those instances in which the stipendiary magistrates were the persons presiding; whereas, so far as the outlying districts which were under the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court were concerned, the Bill removed all difficulty by providing that the cases with which it dealt should be investigated by two justices sitting in open court. He should simply add, that he did not think the Bill would be found

  275
  practically to interfere with the working of the grand jury system throughout the country generally, inasmuch as it merely set forth that forty juries should not every year be summoned for Middlesex and the Metropolis, but that there should instead be three for the Central Criminal Court and four for quarter sessions. Having made these observations, he begged to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time".
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he could not but express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought it necessary to submit the Bill to the House at that period of the Session, because it was quite impossible to discuss it with the care and attention it deserved, and he regretted it the more because the hon. and learned Member for Wexford, who had given notice of his intention to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months was not present. It was also extremely undesirable to proceed with the Bill at a moment when there was no opportunity of learning with respect to it the opinions of the law officers of the Crown. There was, he added, another very good reason why he was opposed to the course which the right hon. Gentleman asked the House to take, and that was that the Committee which had during the present Session been appointed to inquire into the government and taxation of the Metropolis, and which had evidence adduced before it which might tend materially to alter the views even of the right hon. Gentleman himself on the question at issue, had not yet been able to lay that evidence before the House. While admitting, therefore, that the number of grand juries summoned in the Metropolis might be looked upon as a great evil, he could not concur with the right hon. Gentleman as to the expediency of asking hon. Members to assent to a measure which was calculated entirely to subvert the existing system of administering justice as that which was now proposed. He was also prepared to maintain that, however much the right hon. Gentleman might endeavour to separate the Metropolis from the rest of England, yet the principle which he advocated was in the main applicable to grand juries throughout the country at large. The Bill, indeed, as it stood extended to the City of London, and those districts which might be called rural, where justices of the peace exercised the functions of their office in the same way as justices of the
  276
  peace did in other parts of England. The right hon. Gentleman, it was true, said that he did not propose to abolish grand juries for all purposes, and that its provisions were not intended to apply to charges of treason, misprision of treason, or any offences against Her Majesty, the State, or the Government; but he might remind the House that in times of great political excitement a simple charge of assault might involve considerations of a political character, and that under the operation of the Bill there would always be the difficulty of deciding what was to be regarded as a political offence, and what as merely a private wrong. He looked upon it also as a very strong objection to the Bill, that while, in accordance with the existing law, any person committed for an offence within the police district possessed the advantage of having his case brought to trial within a short period, any person prosecuted by the Crown might, if grand juries were abolished, as proposed, be kept in prison for three times the period which he would if the prosecution were instituted at the suit of a private individual. It was, however, said that the system of grand juries gave rise to a considerable amount of collusion and fraud, and they, no doubt, like all other human institutions, had some imperfections; but a similar objection might be urged against the existence of every grand jury in every county in England, and even against petty juries themselves, as the experience derived from our courts of justice abundantly proved. He could, of course, very well understand that many persons in the Metropolis who wished to lead a life of ease, and did not like to be troubled by being called upon to discharge the duties of grand jurors, might support the views which the right hon. Gentleman advanced; but if those Gentleman were informed that they would be called upon to sit on petty juries he thought it not improbable that their opinions on the subject might undergo a material alteration. The right hon. Gentleman did not state that the observation of Mr. Justice Patteson which he quoted was made to the grand jury in the Queen's Bench, where the grand jury in the had really nothing to do. He (Mr. Ayrton) saw no objection to the abolition of a mere nominal grand jury. The question was not whether it would be convenient to this man or to that to have the grand jury system abolished, but whether a man should be put on his trial for felony unless his case had undergone a preliminary ordeal, and

  277
  twelve men of repute had declared it to be one which demanded fuller investigation; and to those who contended that it did not, after all, matter to a man who was innocent whether such was the case or not, for that he might feel confident his innocence would, under the proposed system, be made equally manifest, he would simply say that the ordeal of being placed in the dock was not one to which they themselves, however innocent they might be, would like to be submitted. He must further observe that the right hon. Gentleman had not given due weight to the fact that great changes had been made in the law since the agitation on the question at issue stood at its greatest height, and he must remind him that since that time Lord Campbell had introduced into the other House of Parliament a Bill, which had been passed into a law, by means of which many of the evils complained of were obviated. That being so he thought he had said enough to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the inconvenience of proceeding with this Bill. He trusted it would be withdrawn for the present Session. He (Mr. Ayrton) must remind the House that the Bill was not confind to the Metropolis either in principle or practice. If the principle were a true one, why did not the right hon. Gentleman come forward and frankly propose a general measure applicable to the whole country? At least, until that was done, the Metropolis ought not to be placed in an exceptional position and deprived of the benefit of an existing legal institution.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had in more than one previous debate in that House had occasion to observe that the views of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken with respect to the time necessary for the due discussion of Bills were of a most comprehensive character. Indeed, he could not help imagining that the hon. Gentleman's idea of Utopian perfection in a legislative assembly must be that at least twenty of its Members should speak upon every question which came before it, and that each of those twenty Members should occupy at least two hours in the delivery of his speech. The hon. Gentleman contended that there was not, at that period of the Session, sufficient time for the discussion of the Bill under the notice of the House, which consisted of only eleven clauses and some formal schedules, and had then proceeded to say that the Bill ought not now to be dealt with for the additional reason that there was a Committee
  278
  sitting upstairs on the subject of the government and taxation of the Metropolis. The first of those objections appeared to him, he must confess, to have but little weight; while, so far as the second was concerned, he should merely remark that in assenting to the appointment of the Committee he had distinctly stated that he did not look upon it as calculated to preclude the House of Commons from discussing any legislative measure with respect to the Metropolis which might be brought under its consideration. If the contrary were the case the legislative operations of the House would, he could not help thinking, be very considerably narrowed. He was prepared to give his vote for the second reading of the Bill, which had been considered in former Sessions and appeared to be founded on a just principle. He dissented from the doctrine that there was no distinction between the Metropolis and country districts with respect to grand juries. In the country a grand jury was composed of the principal persons of the county, and the committals were made by the magistrates sitting in petty sessions, whose decisions were not as a rule reported in the public press. A grand jury in London could not be considered as corresponding in point of social position to a grand jury in the country, and the committals in London were made either by professional magistrates or by aldermen, assisted by professional clerks. Both magistrates and aldermen sit in the presence of the public, and their decisions were reported by the newspapers. He thought, therefore, that there was sufficient ground for the establishment of a distinction between the Metropolis and the country with respect to grand juries, and he saw no reason why the House should not at once agree to the Bill. He admitted that there was a difficulty in drawing a line between political and other offences; but that was a question of detail which might be amply discussed in Committee.
  MR. H. B. JOHNSTONEsaid, he was satisfied that there were cases in which the working of the grand jury had been highly detrimental to the well-being of the community and to the welfare of individuals. He could mention an instance within his own knowledge of a gentleman who, while travelling on the Continent, had an indictment preferred against him by a low attorney, for having made a mistake in an affidavit. As soon as the indictment was preferred the attorney made overtures for money

  279
  to suppress the case; but the overtures were rejected and the case was abandoned. The gentleman against whom the charge was made being of a nervous temperament, the charge had such an effect upon him that he died in a fortnight. Now, that was not a solitary case. The cases of extortion had been very frequent, and it was the duty of the Legislature to provide protection to the public.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he would deprecate the passing, almost sub silentio, of a Bill which proposed to disturb an integral part of our criminal jurisprudence. The Bill provided that in the metropolitan districts a person should be sent to trial for felony without the intervention of a grand jury. That was an entirely new principle, and one which he hoped would never receive the sanction of Parliament. It was a mistake to suppose that the publicity given in London to the decisions of the aldermen and stipendiary magistrates rendered the intervention of a grand jury unnecessary; at all events, there was no difference in that respect between the Metropolis and the rest of the country, for all the principal decisions of county magistrates were reported in the local papers. But what were the stipendiary magistrates of London? They were persons holding office at the pleasure of the Crown, and in troubled times what was to prevent a tool of the Government from sending a man to trial without just cause? If such a case were to occur the country would regret the abolition of the grand jury system—a system which might be regarded as a great bulwark of liberty between the Crown and the subject. The Bill proposed that a grand jury should interpose in certain cases; but he should like to know how political offences were to be defined. Not long ago a man was tried for stealing a despatch. It was a case of simple larceny; but many foreign papers treated it as a political trial. He could not help thinking that the Bill was fraught with the greatest danger to the liberty of the subject and the cause of justice. At the time of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill and the Durham Letter no Roman Catholic Bishop would have had the slightest chance of getting a fair trial if, without the intervention of a grand jury, he could have been sent by a stipendiary magistrate before a Judge who was a strong partisan. The grand jury system had come down to us from our forefathers, and he had no fear that it would be parted with lightly as long as the names of Jeffries
  280
  and Scroggs were remembered by the English people. The hon. Member moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would move the adjournment of the debate, as he felt that at that hour (20 minutes to six o'clock) it was impossible to proceed with the discussion of the Bill.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

CHURCH RATES LAW AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL [MR. CROSS].

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CROSSsaid, he wished to appeal to the Government whether they would not assist those hon. Gentlemen who wished to bring about a settlement of the question by fixing some morning for its discussion—possibly next week, on Thursday?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he believed the noble Lord at the head of the Government, when a similar appeal was made to him, had stated that he was not prepared to fix any Government night for the discussion of the Bill. The hon. Member had mentioned a morning sitting for Thursday; but Thursday was a Government day, and at that time of the Session it was not usual to have a morning sitting on Government days. He was, therefore, afraid it was out of his power to assent to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. He would further add, that a large portion of the Session had been already occupied with a discussion of this question, and one morning probably would not suffice to dispose of it.
  MR. CROSSsaid, that in order to secure the first available day for a discussion, and in order that it might be clearly understood that a discussion would take place, as Wednesday. the 17th, was already occupied, he would put down the second reading for Wednesday, the 24th of July.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 24th July.
  House adjourned at Ten minutes before Six o'clock.