The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-20 00:00:00

..*cvel,.. , atiappg-:.,
i'
,-.1:
r..,ti,
et ,,-.-- 7...,.: .
.,,, ,' ,, , :-., . ,„ .
a should (re a saint cer um not 'mirage the dude's
. f that office on hits?! " The Journals of that House did
ati
.fot afford any case so-tyrannical as that supposed by the
Attorney-General 1.4(sueuttioning a returning officer to
the bar who had been only made a returning officer by the
. A -without being compelled by it, and punishing him for
ng his duty. The doctrine of his Learned Friend
-.,44"c: ' ether law nor privilege. It was necessary to add
.1:.3
'111(nciii-ie bora requiring these officers to do their duty. lie
'. wished those who cheered him could produce a case of
that House bringing a man to the bar for not undertaking
en office that the law dial not compel bins to undeetalse.
He again contended that the clause is it now stood was in-
complete.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL adteeitted that he and
Lis Learned Friend were at issue about the law. Ills
opinion last week was formed on the chute :ben different
from what it now was. The clangs had not then the
words " The returning officer appointed by the Sheriff
shall be the returning officer.'" Those who by any Act of
Parliament were appointed returning officers must take
that duty on themselves.
Mr. J. CAMPBELL, being called on by his Learned
Friend (Sir C. Wetherell), contended that the Act (lid
snake the people mentioned in the schedule returning
officers. The Act made them so without adding penalties,
or saying that they violated privileges, and these returning
officers would be liable to all the penalties of other re-
turning officers for neglecting their duty. The Mayor
of Stafford was the returning officer. The Bill made the
Mayors of several of the towns now to receive Members
returning officers, and they would, by this Bill, be placed
on the same footing as the Mayor of Stafford.
Sir G. CLERK stated that the opinions of the Attorney
General and of the Noble Lord, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, as to the clause, were at variance with one
another, and he asked to have this discrepancy reconciled.
Lord ALTHORP had only stated what wart the inten-
tion of the Government, not what was the legal meaning
of the clause. He meant the clause to be compulsory in
the first instance, and he supposed it was so.
Mr. WASON showed by the 55th clause of the Act,
that all persons mentioned in the Bill were made subiect
to the ordinary punishments for neglecting any duty they
were ordered to perform.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought there was a distinction
between the returning officers' names in the Bill and thews
to be hereafter named by the Sheriff. The former were
already responsible officers—the latter might be anybody
whom the Sheriff pleased. It would be competent for
the Sheriff, under this Bill, to compel any man he
pleseed to select to reside in any borough and pee form
the duties of a returning officer. There was no example
of any one man having such a power ; and therefore it was
necessary that this power of appointment should be regu-
lated in detail. To propose to prop up the defects of the
law by calling in the aid of privilege was one of the
most monstrous pieces of legislation he had ever heard of.
In order to render the clause complete some words and
some additions were necessary, to prescribe the duties
both of the returning officer and of the Sheriff' with regard
to hint. It was monstrous to give such a power to any
one person as the Bill gave to the Sheriffs. They might
prevent any man from leaving the country. This was so
monstrous that it was plain the clause required to be re-
considered ; and he implored the Hon. and Right Hon.
Gentlemen opposite to re-consider the clause.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE argues], that there was no char-
ter of any city or borough in which the ditties of the
returning officer were specified; but that, however, they
might vary in their extent of those duties or methods of
appointment, all returning officers were supposed by the
law to be answerable for the discharge of the ordinary
business of their office, either as it was regulated by cus-
tom, or occasionally controuled by particular Statutes.
That these being the known and acknowledged principles
under which returning officers acted, and for any depar-
ture from which they were open to punishment, he could
not see why they were to adopt the suggestions of the
Hon. Gentleman opposite, and make such alterations as
would render that doubtful which the law had rendered
clear. Undoubtedly there was some force in the areu-
silent of the Right lion. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) that the
power vested in the Sheriff of appointing the returning
officer was a very extraordinary and dangerous power;
tut if it proved that in point of law the person so
appointed was compelled to take on himself the office
—to discharge its duties, and answerable like any
other public officer to be punished by indictment
for neglect, be could not see what good objection
could he made to the Sheriff having the power of
appointment, or in what other hands it could more
safely be placed. In what officer, indeed, could the ap-
pointment be placed with greater propriety than in the
High Sheriff? The appointment must rest somewhere,
and the Sheriff, who was in a greater or leaser degree the
presiding officer in all the elections of his county, must be
considered the fittest person to be entrusted with the ap-
pointment of the officer who was to preside at elections
under the Bill.
Sir C. WETHERELL repeated his objections to the
clause to be, that it was not compulsory enough, and that
it did not state that the individual named as returning effi
cer was either under the necessity of acting, or punishable
by fine or otherwise for refusal to act. lie contended that
tire clause (lid not specify this, and he was at issue with
the other side respecting its necessity, for in his opinion the
person appointed might refuse to act.
Mr. CARTER likened the case under discussion to
that of churchwarden(' or overseers, who, when appointed,
were bound to take on themselves all the duties of these
offices without any formal specification of what the duties
were. So he apprehended that returning officers would
be bound under penalties to fulfil the duties imposed by
their appointment.
Sir E. SUGDEN contended that the clause did not
either compel the individual appointed to act or punish
him for refusing. If it did so, why was it, he would ask,
that in page 25 there was another clause specifying the
penalties incurred by the returning officers for offences in
discharge of their duties ? Was not this a plain admis-
sion, that the offence was not provided for in the clause
under consideration. The Attorney-General had, indeed,
on a former Occasion, admitted that the clause was defec-
tive, and he could not understand why they should con-
tinue to object to an amendment of the wording, so as to
do away with all doubts on the subjects. The only reason
he could find for the proposal to give such extraordinary
power to the Sheriff on the appointment of returning
officers was, that the Government had neglected to make
inquiries into the nature of the duties of those officers in
different
.!places, and as to the persons who were fit to be
named to fulfil them.—(Hear, hear.) In London the
Sheriffs would have the privilege of naming the returning
officers for the metropolitan districts, and the Noble Lord
(Althorp) knew well that they would possess on such
occasions a very extensive influence. That the Noble Lord
did think so at one time was evident, from the fact that he
proposed the returning officer should not be permitted to
offer himself as a candidate for one year after he had ceased
to fill the office. He thought, on the whole, that the
clause was open to very great objections, and that the sug-
gestions of the Right Hon. Baronet deserved the best con-
siderations of the Committee.
The ATTORNEY-GFNERAL, in answer to the
lion. and Learned Member for St. Mawes, said that di
ligent inquiry had been made as to the most proper persons
to whom to entrust the power of appointing the returning
officers. The result was that the High Sheriffs were
those persons ; and none of the Hon. Members opposite
had suggested any other.
Sir R. PEEL begged the House to consider the exten-
sive power which the returning officers would possess. To
them was to be entrusted the authority of revising the lists
of the voters and of expunging the names of those whom
they might consider nut qualified. To the Sheriffs was to
be given the irresponsible power of appointing these re-
turning officers ;—to the Sheriffs, annually appointed
themselves in Febru ivy, and who might be called upon in
March to make these appointments. The Sheriff himself
could not be a candidate at an election ; but his son or his
brother might be as. By the Act, whoever was qualified
to be a candidate was exempt, if he chose to be so, from
discharging the duties of a returning officer. How easy
, would it be far any man to obtain a nominal qualification,
called a rent charge, of three hundred pounds a year, for
the purpose of claiming exemption. There was no re-
semblance between the appointment of Sheriffs and the ap-
pointment by Sheriffs of returning officers The Judges
of Assize nominated annually three individuals, of whom
the Privy Council selected one as Sheriff. But the caution
thus used was no reason why the Sheriff should appoint
the returning officer. Ile strongly recommended the ex-
punging of that part of the Bill which empowered the
Sheriff to appoint the returning officers.
Mr. CRAMPTON, in answer to one of the observa-
tions of the Right Hon. Baronet, observed that the clause
was compulsory on all persons appointed to discharge the
or to subject themselves to the
duties of returning officer,
penalties of a refusal.
Mr. G. BANKES contended that the case was a
stronger one than even that which had been put by hiS
Right Hon. Friend, the Member for Tarritiavorttdh.uties ofHis
Right Hon. Friend, adverting to the imporn
the returning officer—duties judicial, and calculated to
influence an election—had represented the, danger of
vesting the appointment of that officer in a Sheriffwh
o
was chosen annually. But his Right lion. Friend
bad omitted to observe, that it might be vested in an indi-
vidual who would hold the authority for life. It was true