The Sun.
London, England, 1838-04-03 00:00:00

SLAVERY.

Mr. JAMES STEWART gave notice that he should in
Committee on the Negro Apprenticeship Bill move a clause
for the total abolition of Negro apprenticeship in
.the island
of Jamaica on the first of August 1838.
Mr. WARBURTON inquired whether there would be any
objection to lay •n the table of the House, the correspondence
that had taken place between parties in New South Wales and
the Colonial Department for permission to import Hill Coolies
into New South Wales.

Sir G. GREY said a proposition of that kind had been
made, but was discountenanced by the Governor and the Go-
vernment.

Mr. G. PALMER gave notice, that he would to-mouro w
move for certain returns connected with the old Bankrupt
Estates.

CHURCH LEASES.

Lord DUNGA NNON wished to ask the Noble Lord the
Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was
his intention to introduce, during the present Session any
specific measure relative to Church Leases?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was about to state when the
Noble Lord put the question to him what he proposed to do
with respect to the recess. On\Vcdnesday the 11th of April he
proposed to move the adjournment of the House till the 24th,
and he now begged leave to give notice to that effect.
On moving the adjournment he would state the day on which
be intended to more the appointment of the Committee on
Church Leases, and he would give notice of an early day
after the Easter holidlys.—( Hear.) There were other
questions with respect to which he deemed it right to
inform the House of the course which he proposed to pursue.
With respect to the Irish Poor-law Bill, he had been asked
whether it would be read a third time before Easter. That
was not the intention. He would have it reported between
this and the recess, and propose the third reading after the
vacation. With respect to the Irish Municipal Bill, he would
not bring it forward until a general discussion had taken place
on the subject of Irish Tithes.—(Opposition cheers.) By
this proceeding he did not mean to make any concession to
the Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel)—(Ministe-
rial cheers)—but merely because he was desirous of prevent-
ine: any long debate upon the question whether one measure
should take precedence of the other. With respect to the
Slavery Bill, which he was anxious to push forward, he would
bring it on again on Friday, so that it might be carried up to
the other House before the recess.
CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the further consideration
of this Bill take the precedence of the other Orders of the Day.

The motion was agreed to.
Sir R. PEEL said—l some time since expressed an opi-
nion, and it was an opinion which had the concurrence of
other Members of the House, that it would be prudent be-
fore proceeding to consider the details of this measure to esta-
blishit somerspr,
respect
principle
anycip l
e amendmentwhic shouldof the p
gev errne s oureh t system
which
deliberations
wh e
may be proposed. I shall avail myself of this opportunity,
and submit to the House my general view, not so much of the
details as of the principle by which it appears to me desirable
that we should be guided. In the first place, it is of the
consequenceut-
tmostihai of any h
thatt we n
g like party character.—(
e should
rot all inour p
Cheers.
ow er t o di v
he trhh
I apprehend that I may take it for granted that the general
impression on both sides of the House with respect to the pre-
sent system is that it is a bad one. I gave an opinion the
other day, in which I said that it would be highly desirable
to discuss the question as to whether we should or should not
transfer the adjudication upon questions of controverted elec-
tions from this House. I said I would, in the interval, apply
myself diligently to the consideration of the question. I have
done so, and the result of my determination is, that this
House should not part with its jurisdiction.—( Hear, hear.)
With respect to controverted elections, I shall now state the
grounds upon which I have come to the conclusion why I
hold that it would neither be for public or for private advan-
tage of the House at once to divest itself of this jurisdiction.
For the conclusion to which I have come to I have double
grounds. First I see a constitutional objection to the transfer
of the privilege from the House, and next I find the utmost
difficulty in conceiving any other appropriate tribunal. —( Hear,
hear.) When I look to the early history of the proceedings
of this House, I find it asserting this claim as one of the most
important of its privileges.--( Hear, hear,) At a very early
period of our constitutional history the House of Commons
came into conflict with the Crown on this point, vindicating it
as one of most vital importance. The first instance in which
the right of the House to decide upon the return of its Mem-
bers was questioned, occurred in the reign of Elizabeth.
The case occurred with respect to the county of Norfolk,
and the following is the account given of it in .‘ Hallam'a
Constitutional History." The Hon. Member then quoted the
passage in question. The claim thus set up was not aban-
doned. It was insisted upon in the time of James the First:—
The practice of making the House umpire in all disputed
questions of return has been followed by every popular assem-
bly which has followed and adopted the form of the British
Constitution. In the Chamber of Deputies in France the pri-
vilege of the House of Commons, with respect to these deci-
sions has been arrogated for the popular Assembly, and they
claim the exclusive privilege of trying every question relating
to the returns of their own Members. Indeed it appears to me
that nothing but direct proof of the inability of the House to
act justly between party and party, would warrant us in relin-
quishing the power which we at present possess.—( Hear,
hear.) We should not lightly part with a privilege acquired
in opposition to the claim of prerogative.—( Hear, hear.) If
it is deemed advisable that the House should part with the pri-
vilege I perceive the utmost difficulty in finding out a tri-
bunal to supply its place. Now, let us ask to what
tribunal the adjudicature with respect to controverted
elections should be handed over. I apprehend that you would
not refer them to any tribunal inferior to those which adjudi-
cate upon life and property.—( Hear, hear.) Well, then, let
us say that they are referred to the Judges of the land. For
my part, I have a strong objection to seeing these functionaries
mixed up with political questions of a party character.--( Wear. )
The universal conviction at present is, that the laws are ad-
ministered with the utmost impartiality—( Hear, hear)—and
it is almost as important as the pure administration of justice
' itself to have the public think that those appointed to adminis-

ter it are placed beyond the possibility of prejudice or party.
—( Hear, hear.) This, therefore, is an insuperable objection
to the placing of such decisions in the hands of the Judges.
Now, suppose this objection be overruled, let me ask, would
you give the power of decision to a single Judge? If you do
not this—if' you resort to the intervention of a Jury to inquire
into the facts—how can you assume to yourselves that such a
Jury would be more free from party bias than a Committee of
the House ?—( [lsar.) By what law would the Judge be
euided in such cases ? Would you require him to adhere
strictly to those laws which govern the decisions in the Court
of King's Bench ? If you do this, you will shut out
those equitable constructions which practically prevail on in-
quiries of this nature. The Judge must be bound either to
adhere to the Parliamentary law, or to make his decisions on
strictly legal principles.—( Hear.) Now, either of these
two modes of proceeding is open to objection.--( Hear, hear.)
On the double ground, then, first, that it would be a depar-
ture from constitutional principle; and, next, because of the
extreme difficulty of finding a competent tribunal, I feel my-
self obliged to come to the conclusion that nothing short of a
perfect demonstration that it is necessary for the ends of jus-
, lice should induce this House to depart from its jurisdiction.
—( Hear, hear ) Though I say this, I still say, at the same
time, that if justice cannot be done by this intervention of the
House, I hold the doing of justice to be of such paramount
importance that if it cannot be done whilst the House holds
this jurisdiction, that will be a greater reason—sufficient
to overrule every objection.—( Cheers.) But, as I do
not despair of finding in the House a tribunal better qualified than
any other to adjudicate in controverted elections, and so
constituted as to afford general satisfaction, I still hold it de-
sirable that we should retain our jurisdiction. There are fre-
quently on Committees of the House persons very little expe-
rienced in the law of Parliament. Their adjudications have
rendered the law with respect to elections full of doubts, and
it would be highly desirable to have some declaratory enact-
ment to clear up the doubts which have arisen frem adverse
decisions. This I hold to be an important preliminary in any
course which we may pursue. For instance, take the question
of distance, upon which so many difficulties have arisen. What
would be more easy than for the House to make some distinct
enactment upon this point.—( Hear, hear.) Then, again, there
is a question with respect to trustees of charities. Barristers
have taken quite opposite views of this question, and when
discussed by eminent lawyers nothing is more likely than that
two Committees may come to opposite decisions upon the
point.—( Hear, hear.) Again, with respect to overseers. It
is not unlikely that an overseer, by some neglect or careless-
ness, might disfranchise one hundred bona fide voters.—( Hear,
hear.) What could be more unjust than that persons in every
way qualified should thus, by the neglect of a public officer,
be at once disfranchised I know that there is much diffi-
culty in dealing with the question, and I am not inclined to
overrate the advantages of the plan which I am about to pro-
pose. I grant it is impossible to foresee all the objections
which will arise. With respect to bribery, there will always
be extreme difficulties in ascertaining the fact, and doubts will
arise on that point in every honest and conscientious mind. I
do not flatter myself with the hope of obviating all necessity
for future legislation, but I do hope that much may be done to
do away with the great expense which is one of the most cry-
ing evils attached to this question. Let us see as a beginning
whether we cannot diminish the ruinous expenditure which at
Present attends the prosecution of an election petition. As an
essential preliminary, let a Committee be appointed to consi-
der of all the doubtful points which have already arisen.—
(Hear.) I have endeavoured to ascertain what is the course
persued with respect to the constitutional point by the dif-
ferent assemblies of other countries which stand in the relation
of this House. They all seem to have followed our example,
and appear to think that it is necessary for their integrity
and independence to retain this jurisdiction. The countries
which have in this respect modelled themselves upon our Con-
stitution are France and the United States. In France
the ultimate decision rests in the Chamber of Deputies just
as it was in this country in 1770, previously to the passing of
the Grenville Act. The power of final adjudication is vested
in the Honse. The following is the French mode of pro-
ceeding. The Right Hon. Baronet then proceeded to ex-
plain this mode. This is no rule for our decisions, as by the
Grenville Act the adjudication by a Committee is considered
as binding as a decision of the whole House. In the United
States the course pursued is different. The following is the
mode there adopted. The Right Hon. Baronet then entered
into details illustrative of the American mode. I do not refer
to those as matter of precedent, but merely to show what is
the course pursued in other countries. Now, assuming that
we keep the jurisdiction in our own hands, what is the prac-
tical mode of proceeding ? The first thing to consider is,
what are the most prominent defects of the present sys-
tem ? It my earlier remembrance of the House the same
complaints were not made which are made at present.
The chief defect at present, as it appears to me arises
from the preparatory proceeding. When the day
fur the Ballot is fixed each party tries to assemble
in the greatest number possible, and the deepest
interest is manifested for the result. At this large attendance
the utmost eagerness is displayed as to what the chances will
be. This initiatory anxiety taints the whole course of the pro-
ceedings.—( Hear, hear.) What is more likely to influence
the opinions of those who are to sit as Judges upon the ques-
tion than this initiatory excitement t—( Hear.) The two
things, then, which are principally to be guarded against are,
first, the doubtfnl cases which have been decided, and next,
freedom from party bias. Another objection to the present
system lies in the unlimited operation of chance in the forma-
tion of the tribunal. If the House wishes to get rid of party
feeling, why will it permit so much to depend on the opera-
tion of chance ?—( Hear, hear.) Does it not constantly occur
that ten Members entertaining the same set of political opinions
happened to be on a Committee with only one of the opposite
party ?—( Hear, hear.) I know of two such cases which have
occurred in the present Session. There is another objection
to which the House should turn its attention, namely, the
practice of striking off from the Committees the names of per-
sons whose opinions are entitled to some weight, and who aro
acquainted with the law of Parliament. The object hi doing
this is to get upon the Committees inexperienced persons,
who, in doubtful cases would be likely to be won over by
the speeches of clever Barristers. This appears to me to
be the three main points of objection.—( Hear, hear.) The
course then I should be inclined to propose is this. I should
be desirous entirely to exempt parties front the onus of sum-
moningmd also
the be d
decisiones i r.
opinions would
oinucsluo df
ne,xc Membersplue(rlisiol gthe
n fnr ttihhneet influence eoicimeoemmi ofmt
tect.eh
easnlleveshboof
srueol
in cases of Committee; and I should be desirous likewise of
have weight in the House in all instances. The mode I
should adopt to secure these desires would be this. After
every general election the first act of the House of Commons
in my mind should be to call over the names of all the
Honourable Members, pith the view of directly ascertaining
those who were liable to serve on Election Committees. I
should be very much disinclined to leave the exemption of any
gi
and
a extenttio s s
Members to the actmigohf the t
hecHise itself, and I think anyommetesimuldspecifythen reatur;
lo'fiebthe necessary attendance. It might be left an
oaen matter to the
affair Mi
intersaddition of he
toCrtohwonse decideto
themselves whether the, would choose to undertake the
whichcon-
ductthey
r
have on their hands. The first thing, then,
t
sk e e od
ar this
e a d weighty
which should be done in my opinion would be to call over the
House, to ascertain who were liable or who were not liable to
serve on election committees. I much doubt, however,
whether or no I should object to those who had petitions
pending against their own return.—( Hear, hear.) The next
course I should propose to take would he this—it is one
founded ins part on the practice of the United States of North
America, and partly on the suggestions of my own experi-
ence. I see a very great objection in calling in too
frequently the interposition of the Speaker in such cases.
I think that the Judge in this House should not be per-
petually subjected to the too severe interpretation of the
motives of his actions by parties without. All I should
therefore require of the Speaker vs ould be the performance of
one act—an act which I am sure he would perform with im-
partiality and strict justice—in such a manner as to give the
fullest satisfaction to all parties as well as to the country. I
should leave to him the nomination of a Committee from the
•
of elections. This Comm have have composed of a
body of the House, which I should call the General Committee I
would i
very few Members, four or six, not more ; and I should trust
implicitly to the Speaker to make such a selection for it as
would satisfy the House and fee country. If, however, it were
deemed necessary the House should have the sanctioning of his
choice, or he might, perhaps, have only the power of proposing
the names of all those he deemed moat eligible for the House
itself to snake the selection. On that Committee—thus se-
lected by the Speaker I shall suppose or I take it for granted
that it would be formed with the greatest impartiality—on that
Committee, then, acting under the solemn obligation of an oath,
should devolve, by my plan, the selection of all Committees
to try controverted elections. You might, in sanc-
tioning the selection, either appropriate a Committee
specifically to every petition, or you might, if vou so
chose, apportion one to several petitions of the Fame
class; or you might make it by lot which Committee should
have the trial of each petition. But I have such a decided
objection to the introduction of chance into the decision of any
question of this nature that I should much rather leave the
appointment to the Committee itself. I would next have the
Committee thus selected for the trial of election petitions
limited in the number of its members. In my opinion seven
members would be quite sufficient for all useful purposes. At
any rate, I think nine should be the greatest number on any
of them. If you thought mistakes might still arise from the
adoption of this portion of my plan you might require the Ge-
neral Committee of Elections to return, instead of the abso-
lute and limited number of seven, the reducible number of
eleven or thirteen : and then, to prevent any cavilling, give the
parties interested on both sides a
power of striking off one or
two Members each until they were reduced to seven, which
number I hold to be quite sufficient. Suppose, then, you have
determined to make this number of seven the ultimate number
of the Committee, and suppose the Committee formed either
absolutely, or by reduction from thirteen or eleven to that
amount, I would then give it the aid of a legal assistant or
assessor, t
w-Lceeyee you choose to call it. This you might do
in two ways. In the first place you might compose your Com-
mittee of six Hon. Members, and make the legal assistant or
assessor the Chairman, his office to be to dispose of all points
of law which might arise in the course of the inquiry, and to
give, by his authority, the weight of a judgment to the deci-
sion of the Committee; in fact, to give him the power and
invest him with the authority of a Judge equal in this respect
to any other Judge in the land ; or you might, in the second
place, constitute your Committee of seven Members as be-
fore, giving them the aid of an assessor. Of the two I most
incline to the latter, inasmuch as it has the greatest ten-
tency to preserve the judicial authority to the House it-
self.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) I should propose to ap-
point these assessors thus :—I would desire all parties who
considered themselves competent to act as assessors from the
extent and variety of their legal knowledge and acquire-

'acres to signify the same to the Speaker, and their willing-'
ness to undertake the duty. This done, I would have the
Speaker to certify their application to the General Committee
of Elections, and leave the further selection of the parties to
them. I would make ample provision for the payment of those
assessors, but I would do no more. I would give no man
erelong them a permanent appointment. I would create no-
thinglte a standing staff of lawyers at an enormous expense.
I should, howevee, make that allowance so ample, that it ;
would be sufficient to tempt men to serve us whose opinions I
as Judges would have weight With all parties, whose learning
as lawyers was tintittestiernable in the country. I should, as I
have said, give the tipeaker the main power to appoint. the
General Committee. I should gird the General Committee
the power of selecting Election Comteittees, and I should give
the Speaker the presentment and the General Committee_ the '
appointment of assessors. None in regard to 831eNSON. Sup-
pose, for instance, any leffal point arose in the trial of a case
before an Election Committee, which the assessor did not oe-
cide to the satisfaction of the parties on the Committee,
nothing could be easier than to constitute a general Court
of Apocal from all the assessors of all the Committeee ict
determine it. My plan would then have these general
principles :—lt would require no attendance of Members
previously to their appointment to Committees, as is the case
at present—it would altogether exclude the Ballot—and I
trust that it would present to the House a tribunal, not
alone constituted to do justice without favour or impartiality,
but to give satisfaction to the House and the country. It
would also secure a competent number of Members of expe-
rience and knowledge of the business of the House and
the country as regarded election petitions. Ido not consider
myself at liberty to trouble the House any further on the
subject.—( Hear, hear.) The suggestions which I have yen-
, tured to offer are exclusively my own ; no one but myself is
accountable fur any defect which they may possess in the
minds of Hon. Members. I object to the Bill of the lion.
Member for Liskeard, because it is etill open to the radical
derect of commencing initiatory proceedings under the influ-
ence of party feeling and party excitement—because for that
reason it gives an interest to as many Members to attend as
possible. lam afraid that the challenge which it gives will
have no useful tendency, because I still think that the same
motives may influence parties then, as at present, in striking
off good experienced names and keeping on those of young
and inexperienced Members. Unless we adopt some mode
which is fundamentally different from that proposed by the
Hon. Member I see no hope of advantage from the Bill ;
for it is only applying a partial and local remedy to an evil
which is generally diffused over the system. That is my
chief objection to the Honourable Gentleman's measure ;
and that, in my mind, is fatal to it. With respect to the
appointment of assessors, however, I must say one word
which I have omitted in its proper place. What I
would wish to observe is this—such is the advantage of a
mutual agreement between contending parties that I would
do all I reasonably could to promote it. I mean in respect to
unanimity in the choice of an assessor. When we recollect
how often parties at issue elsewhere on other matters have
agreed on the appointment of an arbitrator, 1 am of opinion
that there can be little or no difficulty in getting them to agree
in the appointment of an assessor here. It is a sound principle
in the jurisprudence of a country which not alone permits par-
ties to agree as to the settlement of their difficulties out of
Court, but even promotes that agreement by sanctioning and
even inviting the choice of their arbitrator. These are the
suggestions I have to offer to the House. They are entirely
my own—they are not those of others.
Mr. O'CONNELL now rose to propose the appointment
of a Select Committee for the consideration of the Grenville
Act, and for the purpose of providing a remedy for the evil
complained of. The Right Hon. Baronet had said that there
were two kinds of law by which to try the validity of elec-
tions—the common law and the statute law. Now, by the
latter Hon. Gentlemen held not alone their estates but their
seats in Parliament; and of all the clumsy tribunals that had
ever been imagined for its administration, there was none more
clumsy than a Committee of eleven Members of that House.
The Right Hon. Baronet objected to the law of elections as
being of an indeinite nature. Why not define it then ? Why
leave it to the interpretation of Hon. Members, who might be
altogether ignorant of law ? Why constitute them the sole
judges of law and of fact ? He (Mr. O'Connell's) !proposal
was, that a Committee of five should be selected by
the Speaker for adjudication upon cases in petition; and
that that Committee should have the power of sending the
issues on them to be tried by the Court of Queen's Bench se-
parately, and as near as possible to ;the place where the facts
in question arose, and could be decided on with impartiality.
In Ireland, for instance, the Irish petitions to be tried in the
nearest county to that where the witnesses resided, always
subject to the opinion of the Judge as to the possibility of ob-
taining a fair trial. But these were only details which it
would not be advisable to discuss further. He might be told
that the plan of trying issues by Juries was open to the objec-
tion of great expense and great diversity in the decisions.
But what was the case at present ? The last Dublin Elec-
tion Committee sat for 92 days, and entered into 735 cases of
disputed votes. For eighteen months it was occupied in the
examination of witnesses. All that might be done in a fort-
night, and the enormous expense to which the parties were
put would be spared, if some such system as that which he pro-
posed had then been adopted. The gentlemen of England
were accused in the strongest manner by the Press on both
sides of acting in a manner regardless of their oaths. They
were Magistrates and Judges too, in their own counties, and
would be fining and confining, and pronouncing judgments
on criminals ; but of what weight would their sentence be if
the Press still proclaimed, as it did at present, the voice of
public opinion, that the sanctity of an oath was held as nothing
in their eyes, and that their decisions were governed only by
party bias? They ought on both sides to join to get rid of it.
Take this session the decisions of the Committees, and they
would find that the majority of them were given in favour of
the individual whose political opinions accorded with those of
the majority of the individual Committees. Much that had
been suggested by the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, might
be effected with advantage. His remark as to the Irish re-
gistry was perfectly true. Gentlemen of respectability on one
Committee had, on their oath, declared that the registry was
to be opened, while others, equally respectable, declared on
oath that it was not He saw great difficulty in the arrange-
ment of any special code of laws on this subject. It was not
the law the people complained of, but the Judges. The fran-
chise ought, by all means, to be defined and settled as a pre-
liminary step.—( Hear.) He would move accordingly that the
whole subject be referred to the consideration of a select
Committee, with instructions to report to the House.
Mr. C. BULLER said that the amendment of the Hon.
Member for Dublin was one of the most extraordinary that he
had me. r I ©:rd of—no less than that a Select Committee should
sit to do over again the work which another Committee had
already done at the desire of the House, and whose report was
now before them. The Hon. Member for Dublin's plan was
very simple, but very expensive ; it was merely to transfer from
that House to the tribunals of Westminster Hall all the ques-
tions of controverted elections that came before them. But
he was glad that the Right lion. Baronet opposite had come
forward and successfully opposed the Conservative strength of
his principles to one of the most rash, fallacious, and unconsti-
tutional plans that had ever been suggested.--( Cheers.) The
House was highly indebted to the Right Hon. Baronet for the
example he had set them of commencing the debate.—( Hear,
hear)—and in the business-like and gentlemanly tone he had
adopted throughout—an example which he would be happy to
see followed on all occasions, and which he (Mr. Buller
would endeavour to imitate on ;his.—(Hear.) The Hon.
Member for Dublin told them what Judge he intended should
preside in his proposed tribunal ; but he did not tell them in
which class or county he hoped to find an impartial jury. [lobed
not, in fact, told them the working details of his plan. Asto the
plan of appointing a Committee to select the issues to be sent
for trial at Westminster Hall, that was the most inconsistent
of ante for it presumed that Members were incapable of try-
ing what they were to have the power of deciding whether it
should be tried or not.—(lean) But the mail question,
after al', which the Hon. Member for Dublin's proposal ob-
liged them to ask was—what Jury could they get in England
that would be above party bias or above the suspicion of it ?
(Hear.) That Hon, Member had not always been used to
speals in sueh high terms of Judges, Juries, and ordinary tri-
bunals.—( Hear.) Since he (Mr. Buller) had been engaged
in the legal profession he had never heard any political case
brought forward in which the Judge and Jury had not been
made the subject of as flagrant observations as any that he
had ever heard uttered by the Honourable Member for Dub-
lin throughout that discussion.—( Hear, hear.) At the bar,
and among the profession generally, there was as much dis-
cussion of good or bad Judges and Juries as there was in
the House of good or bad Committees.—( Hear, hear.) Had
his party forgotten their own opinions of the law of libel in
former days, before they became a majority, and their com-
monly expressed conviction that the Tory Judges stretched
the law against the subject whenever they could? Again, in
Ireland at the present day they have a power of appeal from
the Registering Barrister to the .Judeg of Assize, which is
constantly exerted. The Hon. Member for Dublin had cha-
racterised these Judges as being ten Tories and two Liberals.
Now it was the general opinion that it was the interest of the
firmer party to narrow the franchise, and of the latter to ex-
tend it; and it was currently said that wherever the ten Tory
Judges went, they did narrow it accordingly, and wherever
the two latter appeared, they extended it. —(" Hear," and
laughter.) They might be certain that whatever plan they
adopted, the individuals engaged in it would immediately be
accused of partiality by the public ; the purity of the ermine
was, however, too sacred to be lightly exposed and sullied by
popular odium.—( Hear, hear.) lie repeated that a more un-
called-for, chimerical and dangerous plan than that of the
Honourable Member for Dublin had never been brought for-
ward. —( Hear, hear. ) His opinion, he was happy to say,
coincided with the ideas developed by the Right fionournble
Baronet respecting the three great defects ie the present con-
stitution of election Committees. Fist, as to selecting the
Members, or, as it was vulgarly called, " striking tl e]Com-
rnittee." He had also proposed in the select Committee
of which he was the chairman that the selection should not
depend on the presence of the individual, but that if called
he should be obliged to serve. However, this was left out of
the present Bill (together with a proposition that panels of
sixty should be chosen each day) in consequence of the diffi-
culty of pleasing individuals aho quarrelled with his Bill in
detail, composed as it unforametely was of several uncoil-
eected parts. He could not agree cs ith the Right lion. ila.
ronet that the chance system was bad ; indeed it seemed ae
indispensable quality in the Jury systena—( A laugh.) lie
did not think that it was better to select a Committee than to
have the Committee appointed by chance. The beet plan
would he a peremptory challenge, without assigning cause.
He did not see much difference between his own plan and that
of the Right lion. Baronet, but he did object to the present
mode of trying controverted elections, because it often hap-
pened that the Committee knew nothing about the matter
they had to try. He objected to the assessors being a fluc-
tuating body.—(Hear.) He thought it would be better

to have a permanent Judge, because he thotight ayt, 7!,,,,
12gal knowledge was necessary in a legs,' tr;411,14 F:,
,-i_, .----,--L:::‘,:!:
would be best, in his opinion, first to s;mp/ity -.dm iftw,,y. 041,..-,,,:4----,...\‘'
liament before any change was made, and in :hilt, freilaes34,,'::::.A:w..%,. )
with the Noble Lord the Member for North Lanc 'iliko.la,v:::4-ti,;',-:71
\02,..._t
right of voting was a paramount right, and ought ‘6, ',....311i.0ur..-t,..--__'
Oiled. If the Ballot were adopted nine-tenths of V.'s -fes, i ---1___,,,,c.„-
tions that came before Committees would be done a - ' vii-14:-,--.1... ~....."
As to the number of the Committee, he thou 0117 fly atitNed.S,llaNl
number than seven, as proposed by the Right' Hon. Baronet
opposite. His opinion was that the smaller tie nurn'Jer the
better. He did not believe the charge that lit'd bee:. made.
against Members serving on Committees when they were ac-
cused of having a total disregard for oaths; but he thought
all men were liable to be biassed by circumstances. On the
whole, he thought his own plan sufficient to cure all the exist-
ing evil ; but if this were not adopted he should be contented
with the adoption of any other that would operate as a re-
medy to the existing evils of which the public so loudly com-
plained.

Mr. GIBSON did not think it right to invest a Barrister of
seven years' standing as an assessor with so extensive an autho-
rity as was proposed, as his station would not give him a sail-
dent m0f.21 controul. He denied that the reduction of the
members of the Committee would be any great advantage,
for their integrity could not be increased by reducing their
numbers.

Sir W. FOLLETT confessed that be was not at that
moment competent to form an opinion practically upon either
of those plans. There were now several distinct propositions
before the House. There was the plan of the lion. and
Learned Member for Liskeard, and there was the proposition
of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, to have the
whole subject referred to a Committee, with a view to con.
sidering a plan of its own ; and then, again, there were
the suggestions of the Right Honourable Baronet the Mem-
ber for Tamworth. He hoped, also, that the Noble Lord
the Member for North Lancashire would bring forward
his proposal for an improved alteration in the law of Par-
liament. He would now proceed to offer some observa-
tions on the plan of the Hon. Member for Liskeard, who
deserved much credit for the attention he had paid to
the subject. He believed there was now no Member of
that House who did not feel that some alteration was neces-
sary to remove the universal dissatisfaction that prevailed in
the public mind upon this subject, and the belief that at pre-
sent justice was not fairly administered under the system that
now prevailed. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then pro-
ceeded to say that he did not feel the same objection in a con-
stitutional point of view with regard to removing the jurisdic-
tion in Election Committees from that House which had been
expressed that evening by the Right Honourable.. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth.—( Hear.) With respect to the Bill
before the House, he would ask to what extent did they in-
tend to carry it ? He unde-vetood that it was the wish of Ho-
nourable Gentlemen opposite ta, make the decisions of the
Assessing Barristers final and cuoeslusive.—(Hear, hear, from
the Chancellor of the Exchequer.) But was not that aban-
doning a principle?—( Hear.) He, " as at a loss to see why
there was a distinction in the present tll between that which
related to the qualification of voters and tel'at which related to
bribery. And, with respect to sendieg the : nal of a contro-
vertedforesaw the
election before a Judge or a jury,
greatest possible difficulties. As far as the judge. 3 of the land
were concerned, they might trust and place confiden"ee in them
:o the fullest extent ; but in his opinion they would fits d it next
to impossible to get an impartial jury. He did not think that. t elec-
tion petitions were of such a nature that they could be settled
by a mere trial of an issue before a jury ; he did not think
such a plan by any means practicable ; and, even if it were
practicable, it would, he thought, lead to greater evils than at
present resulted from the existing tribunals. He had not, ne
fact, heard any suggestion from any quarter of a tribunal out
of that House that would not be liable to very great objec-
tions.—( Hear, hear.) It was for the I;ouse, then, to consider
what sort of tribunal there might be established. With this
view it must first be considered what it was that rendered the
present tribunals so bad and so objectionable, He would at
once broadly state that the mode in which the exise.'ng tribunals
decided upon election petitions was not the result of any cor-
rupt wish on the part of the Members composing them to decide
with any reference to party feeling, but that it was the vatural
effect of that House having appointed tribunals to try masters
for which they were wholly incompetent.—( Hear, hear.) An
election petition was got up at an enormous expense, and the
first thing for the Committee to decide was whether they hada
jurisdiction or not, and one thing was decided in one room and'.
another in an adjoining one.—( Hear.) That was not, in his
opinion, the fault of the Committee—( Hear)--and it was the
imperative duty of the Legislature, where so many doubts as
to what was really the law existing, to remove those doubts
at once, and then to set about some means of carrying into
effect a further remedy for existing evils, and to see justice
eff_.ctually administered. The same objections were applicable
with reference to the Reform Bill—one Committee came to one
decision and one to another. Now all this might be set Tight
if a body of competent persons were to decide what
was right and what was wrong by means of a declaratory Act.-
-( Hear, hear.) But he could not help saying that he was,
not sanguine that any:declaratory Act whatever would have
the efr et of doing everything that was wanted—of removing
every difficulty. A declaratory Act might certainly prevent
the difficulties which had arisen from arising again, and go so
far as to remove from their proceedings much of that scandal
which had hitherto attached to them. On that account be
should give his support to the proposition of his Noble Friend
near him ( Lord Stanley ), that a declaratory Act should be
adopted.—( Hear.) The objections to the present system were
chiefly twofold—the incompetency of the tribunal, and the party
bias suspected to prevail; and with respect to the Bill of h is Hon...
and Learned Friend the Member for Liskeard he could not
say that he seas prepared to adopt his provision with reference
to a diminution of the number of the Committee.—( Hear.)
There Nvero also several other provisions in the measure of his
Hon. and Learned Friend, to which he could not give his
assent. With respect to that part of the Bill in which his
lion. and Learned Friend had embodied portions of the Re-
port of the Committee of 1836. he thought that the best part
of that Report was that which he had omitted to adopt. With
respect to the assessors, the Hon. arid Learned Gentleman
appointed three, at a salary of 2.5001. each, and he (Sir W.
Follett) thought that he must have lost sight of his own Bill,
when he attacked the Right Hon. Baronet's (Sir R. Peel's)
proposal to have judges for the nonce. He much doubted
whether this part of the Bill was correctly known to the House.
The Speaker was to have the appointments, and if the House
disapproved of the names of those who were appointed, after
they were laid on the table of the House, they had no remedy,
but must still go on the same way and continue dissatisfied.
And, after all, these assessors would have no real power what-
ever. llis Hon. and Learned Friend's Bill said they should
have the same powers as was now exercised by the Chairman
of Committees, except as to voting. Why, the Chair-
man of a Committee had no power now but the power of
voting.—( Hear, hear.) But how was this provision to act ?
It required that the assessor should state hie. own opinion ateer
the Committee should have come to a decision upon the casso
How would that work? He was, in fact to 'nave no power,
but was only to act in verecundiant, as it were, over the Com-
mittee. He had attempted to show to the House all these
essential alterations of the system, and he trust say that his
opinion was, thit instead of tendiag to remove the evils; they
would very materially add to them. One word more, how-
ever, as to the appointment of these assessors. He had
thought his Hon. and Learned Friend bed intended that they
should be a body of competent men, understanding the ques-
tions of law likely to come before them, and have the power
to lay down or sum up to the Committee what the law was.
It was his opinion that such a power would be well conferred
and good, but then according to the plan proposed, it Was to ho
t power without authority, whereas the assessors ought un-
doubtedly to have the powerof stating their views openly, and
in the face of the public. With respect to the amendment of
the Hun. and Learned Member for Dublin he trusted he would
persist in it, and it was in every way objectionable.
Lord STANLEY said that all the evils of the present
system were admitted, and, according to the doctrine of the
chances on which all their proceedings went, be might assert
that, supposing on the occasion of an electi,n ballot the House
were so nearly divided that there should be 170 Members on
one side, and 160 on the oil), r, there was almost a certain
m-,jority to be made in favour of the side our which there was
the largest number of Menthers.—( Hear.) On one side they
would have 17, and on the other 16, and, in the same propor-
tion, with 11 strikes, they would have six on one side, and five
on the other.—( Hear.) He was not saying this in defence
of the system, but as showing hew the chances ran, and that
a party bias under the present system must almost inevitably
be found on a Committee. The Committee which he ( Lord
Stanley) wished to propose was not a following up of the mu-
tioe of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, but was r ther a
superseding of it. The Noble Lord then said that an iustruc-
tion was intended to have been moved by the Honourable
Member for Lancaster, to divide the House into bodies
of sixty each, from which the panels were to be struck.
But that part of the recommendation of the Committee the
Honourable Gentleman would exclude altogether. It was
part of the recommendation of the Committee of 1836, but
still it was rejected by the Hon. Member for Liskeard,
although he confessed that. his Bill was composed of various
parts, each of which was founded on the suggestions of those
is hem he consulted on the subject rather than on his own in-
dividual opinion. The lion. Gentleman's Bill, there fore, was
no better than a piece of patchwork—( Hear)—and as to the
striking of the panels of sixty Members it would be no strike
at all, but a mere matter of chance. With regard to the as-
sessors which the Hod. Member for Liskeard proposed, be
(Lord Stanley) could only say that he objected to that pro-
posal, both with reference to the appointment of those asses-
sors and as to the duties which they were intended to dis-
charge. Committees now consisted of eleven Members, but
when they were redieted to ten all questions were decided by
the c istiug vote of die Chairman. Now bow would the Corn-
wince of five proposed by the Hop. Member for Liskeard
stand in the event of being reduced to four ? The Chairman
would have no casting vote, and consequently two on each
side were opposed to any resolution it v.oald follow that it
could net pass. Pessing however, by the Bill of the
Honourable Member for Liskeard, he would now offer for
the consideration of the House a suggestion ef his own,
and that was, the pr priety of appointing a Select Cord- -
mince to enquire into the conflicting, decisions of KI dims
Cemmittees in point; of late, and also how far it would
possible, by a declaratory enactment, to simplify the duties of
these tribunals in future, wi h a view to rendering their de-
o'sons more uniform a tel cero i i. There were a considerable
number of difficulties which might be obviated by a declara-
tory enactment. For example, the opening or closing the
registry, and the question as to the test of qualification in
Irish elections. were instances of this kind which mi4lit be
mentioned. The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin was
for getting rid of the test of qualification ; but how was that to
be doge ? There was hard swearing on both sides, atel thee
Committee had to decide the question as a matter of fact.
This was a difficulty which not unfrequently embarrassed a

rCommittee but then that was not the fault of the tribunal, but
Hof the technical arrangement or the law. He did not deny
that a legal gentleman as an assessor would be a useful apperm
dare to an Election Committee ; but. 'darn he would define the
Allies of that officer and of the Committee. With respect to
all questions of practice and mf law, he would have the aseeso
roe
isabsonoloute ; but then, he would give him no power bVer the
decif the Comroktee, and impose upcn hint no other
duties than those of explaining the law ard summing u
the facts. He shtiuld propexs that the decisions of p
the assessors should i.n all cans be reported to that House,
and that if th?se, decisions were affirmed, either actually or
tacitly, thee enoseid become precedents or ateh guidance of future Commi ority for the
trees. The great ohjaction to
the P, sent Comn,ittee.s was, than. their decisions were not
precc'Jents ; but this was a matter for which the Honour-
able. Member for Liskeard had not provided. On the con-
leery, be had ingeniously introduced into his own plan two
attliorities which might in turn he cited against each other.
if the House should he of opinion that the propesitien of the
i-lon. Member for Liskeard was sufficient to meet the case, he
(Lord Stanley) would not interrupt the Bill in its progress;
but being convinced that it was insufficient, that it exaggerated
both the evils and the remedies which ought to be applied to
remove them, he should, after the motion of the Honourable
and Learned Member for Dublin was disposed of, move the
postponement of the progress of the measure for six months,
and then take the liberty of submitting as a proposition that a
Select Committee be appointed to investigate the cases of
conflicting decisions of Election Committees, with a view to
al!cring the mode of proceeding with respect to points of law
and practice, and seeing how far these matters could be sim-
plified and renderoai more fair and certain.
Mr. SHE IL said, that with respect to the assessors it was
a matter of no consequence at present whether their appoint-
ment was to be permanent or not. The Speaker, being the
person of highest character in that House, was the party who
ought to be entrusted with their appeintment. Se far, then,
he must say that the plan of the Right Honourable Baronet
'seemed to him the mcst practicable and feasible.—( Hear,
hear.) There was an observation of the Hon. and Learned
G, ntleman the Member for Exeter on which he (Mr. Sheil)
wished to make a single remark. The lion. and Learned
Gentleman had alluded to the litigation which had occurred
since the passing of the Reform Bill, but this was not an
attack upcn tt.e Reform Bill, but on the machinery by which
its provisions were carried out. Parties, it should be recol-
l"eted, were now more nearly balanced than formerly, and this
fact increased the eagerness to go before these tribunals.
There was a clause in the English Act with regard to scrutiny
which was omitted in the Irish Act, bus, he pressed the
anomaly on the attention of the Government at the time, and
said that whatever their intention was tivey ought to declare it.
The question with respect to qualificetion was another point
which had led to great difficulty, and he knew of an instance
where a party had to swap an estate held by him for
years for one which wool?. give him a qualification.—
( Hear, hear.) These were three cases which would be
met by a declaratory Act. but the difficulty remaining was,
how to get such an Act passed through the House of Corn-
mons—( Hear)—or rattier he should say through another place.
He should like the itight lion. Baronet to have suggested or
explained how a 'declaratory Act was to be got through the
House of Lore,,shen(Hear, and cries of "Oh !") They con-
tended that t'tie registry should be closed ; that was their epi
nion, and Qie Government would not bring in a Bill when they
insisted, evhen Government insisted--( Loud cries of " Hear"
from the Opposition benches)—as he supposed.---( Laughter. )
At all events if the Government were to bring in such a Bill,
he for one would oppose it ; he was satisfied nothing of
the kind would be done.
Sir R. PEEL said the suggestion of the plan which he had
proposed, and the remedies Welch be thought would remove the
present defects, preceded fa om his own consideration, but is hen
he mentioned it to a M'.mber of the House of Lords he said
it was precisely wb`st they were going to do with respect
to private Bills. They felt the same inconvenience that
was experienced ;Tri that House from Committees on private Bills
being compose.'a of those who were personally interested. And,
wishing to k.now exactly the course the Lords had taken, he
wrote to Lord Shaftesbury on the subject, and received from
that No'ele Lord a copy of the regulations which their Lord-
ships ',iad adopted with respect to private Bills. The Right
Hoe. Baronet then read the regulations, frcm which it ap-
peared that it was ordered by the Lords that private Bills
should in future be referred to an open Committee, and that
they should select a Committee of five, not ono of whom could
have any interest in the matter.
Mr. WARBURTON conceived that no proposition could
be worse than that of fluctuating Judges. This was a matter
which should be well considered'. They should attend to the
state of the law as well as to the Court of primary jurisdiction
and the Cour'c of Appeal. The Noble Lord would have been
right if he 'earl begun at the right end, but, if the law were
certain, what became of the finality of the Reform Bill ?
Lord J. RUSSELL would proceed to state the views
he 'entertained with respect to the general question before
the House. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-
worth, who had addressed the House in the commencement
of the debate, had stated, with great ability, a plan of con-
siderable novelty, and involving considerable extent of de-
tail. The details of the plan were stated as clearly as it
was possible to state them, yet their extent precluded him
(Lord J. Russell) from offering any opinion upon them at the
present moment. All that he could say just now was, that he
thought the plan eminently worthy of the best consideration
of the House, and lie sincerely hoped that they would have
that plan before them in a more regular shape, and that it
would receive the most deliberate consideration of the House.
For this reason, he certainly thought it better that they should
postpone, for some little time at least, the going into Com-
mittee upon the present Bill. With respect to the general
question, and of the manner in which the evils of which they
complained might be remedied, without meaning to offer an
opinion on the several points that bad been urged that night
whether with respect to the constitution of the Committees and
to the assistance which should be afforded to these Committees,
he thought their object ought to be first to enable the Commit-
tees to see more clearly what their duty was, and then to •
afford them the best protection in their power in the discharge
of that duty. The Members of Committees were at present
exposed to censure in the discharge of their duties. Every
person was supposed to be more or less influenced by the
opinions of those with whom he mixed, by the opinions of the
society in which he lived, and to be more or less influenced
by the opinions (as we understood the Noble Lord) enter-
tained by the party with which he was identified. There
were opinions entertained with respect to Committees at pre-
sent constituted of various descriptions, and running in oppo-
site currents. One of these opinions was that these Commit-
tees did not deal impartially with Members who sat at a dif-
ferent side from themselves, and so much did this opinion
prevail that a Member who failed to attend the House on the
occasion of a ballot was considerel guilty of a neglect of duty
to the party to which he belonged. With respect to the plan
of hi; Hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard, of striking
the names in the presenee of the House, without giving
any opinion as to the plan of the Right Hun. Gentleman,
he was desirous of seeing that plan fully considered. He
thought it worthy of consideration whether Hon. Members
ought not be cbliged to come to the House and serve on
Committees if called upon to do so. But lie thought the
other question still more important_namely, in what manner
they would enable Committees to have a better knowledge of
the law which they were celled upon to administer? The
Noble Lewl opposite, his Noble Friend the Member for
North Lancashire, had insisted ea the advantage of passing _a
declaratory law with respect to the disputed points.
He
(Lord John Russell) admitted that it would be highly de-
sirable to possess a declaratory law with respect to these
points; bur, as to the propriety of appointing a Committee to
inquire into these he very much doubted, for he feared there
were not many of these points en which both sides of the
them e mild be likely to come to an agreement ; and, sup-
posine that a declaratory Bill was carried with respect to
these points by a majority of that House, he did not think it
highly probable that such a Bill would be 'likely to meet
the concurrence of a majority of the other House of Parlia-
ment. Now there was, for instance, the question of the
trustees, and many other questions which might be liable to
be viewed with reference to their party effects, hy ens' Side
or another, with reference to their tendency to increase or
diminish the power of what was called the popular party in
.the country. Now, if in that House a proposal was made
to curtail any privilege which the popular party in the
country thought they had a right to et.joy, a ma j ority in that
House might be found ready to oppose tacit preposi-
tion, and a Bill calculated to increase detneeratit power, even
tho4gli it should remove many doubts of the interpretation
vi the law, might not he very fiwourahly received by the
tther House of Parliament. They would. conaisier tl:et though
it set the law clear, yet, as it in:reassei the tienserratic power,
they would much rather lis.hve the IttW in the state of doubt in
which it ex
sod
.at present. If his rcasonirg so Car was cor-
rect, he feared '..nat they were not likely to make much pro-
gress in see'sving any doubts that existed with respect to the
conqrsaation of the Reform Bill. There was another point
with• respect to the assistance to Committees as
.pt‘oposed by
pe Right Hon. Gentleman and by his Noble Friend. He
ifhaught there 'A ere many points on which it might be desir-
able. There were many points respecting which Counsel
sis,Juld raise points, and endeavour to take advantage of the
ignorance of the Committee or. ;fiatter3 of law. In such eases be thought it would be /7.S.ighly desirable to have an assessor
whose knowledge of ono law would enable him to say that
there was no f ::ece at all in the objection raised, and that
it ought not .co be entertained at all. He admitted that he
gal' that there would be considerable difficulty in the mode
tsf tpp6inting those assessors, but if they could so far be ap-
pointed !le thought it would be a great advantage. And, with
relPerat to qualifiretions, there were several Election Com-
mittees who had to decide questions of qualification. He
knew nothing, of the decisions of those Committees. lie had
4 right to know nothing of those decisions, and be did not
take upon himself to say whether those decisions were right
ex wrong. But those who had been held to be disqualified,
As well as those who had succeeded, were, lie had no doubt,
all of them persons who, if they had a good law on the sub-
ject of qualification, would not be deemed unfit to have a
seat in that House. He thought the mode of excluding
persons who had been elected by a majority of their fellow
citizens was a mode by the practice of which Parliament lost
more than it could possibly gain. He hoped the time would
come when the defects in this respect would be properly
remedied. He would not allude to the proposal of his Noble
Friend opposite. Ile (Lord Stanley) had proposed that the
Bill before the House should be wholly set aside, and that
a Committee should be appointed. This plan was open to
considerable objection. He saw no objection to have a Com- •
mittee to coesidcr many of those decisions, but he thought
that such a Committee should be quite independent of the Bill
before the licnse, and lie did not think that to have a Com-
mittee to consider the decisions of Election Committees would
be a fair course of proceeding whilst those Committees were
sitting. He thought that while a Committee was sitting