Date: 1855
Nevertheless, the proposal was met by a strenuous opposition.  None, indeed, had the assurance openly to disparage a measure which provided for the trial of a simple issue of fact, by judicial machinery, instead of leaving it to a party vote of the House, influenced, of course, by the minister of the day; but now that the upright and able author of the Bill was no longer spared to vindi cate the honour of Parliament and the free exercise of the elective franchise, the friends of corruption made a vigorous effort to defeat this wholesome measure of reform.  But though no man was found openly to defend the old system of trying questions of disputed seats at the bar of the House — a mode of trial which was happily described as a tribunal where there were few to hear, but many to judge — still there was no want of pretences, more or less ingenious, for getting rid of the law.