The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-21 00:00:00

STAMP ACTS.

On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL (in the temporary
absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer), the House re-
solved itself into Committee, pro forma, on the Stamp Acts.
Certain verbal amendments were made, and the Bill, as
amended, was ordered to be printed.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the further consi-
deration of the Report on this Bill.
Mr. W A RBURTON rose for the purpose of moving that
it be an instruction to the Committee to add to the Bill cer-
tain clauses of which he had given notice. His object was to
deprive the Judges of the power of nominating the Revising
Barristers, arid to vest the nomination in other hands. At first
he had entertained the intention of proposing that it should
be intrusted to the Lord Chancellor for the time being ; but
after mature reflection he had arrived at the conclusion that it
could be confided to no better authority than to the Speaker
of the House of Commons. He proposed that their number
should not exceed twelve ; and allowing a sufficient salary to
each. It appeared to him that the whole business could be
transacted at an expense to the public not exceeding 16,0001.
a year. The question having been put that the Bill be re-
committed, the Hon. Member moved his first resolution—
" That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have
power to make provision for a permanent Court for revis-
ing the lists of voters, and for a Court of Appeal from the
same."
Lord J. RUSSELL regretted that there was so thin a
House upon this occasion, for he was most desirous to learn
the sentiments of the House at large upon a proposition so
important as this. His own impression was, that the object
proposed by the Hon. Member was a most desirable one.
—( Hear, hear.) He bad, in fact, stated to the Attorney-
General before the Bill came into the House, that he thought
there ought to be a permanent court of revision, with a smaller
number of revising barristers, in order that there might be ob-
tained a uniformity of decisions.—(Hear, hear.) A diffi-
culty had at that time presented itself to his mind in the
way of the alteration; but the Hon. Member had succeeded
in obviating that difficulty. The advantages of the proposition
before them appeared to him very considerable, and he there-
fore hoped the House would cmicur with him in facilitating
its being carried into effect. Among all the rights of indivi-
duals which were brought into dispute from time to time, he
had not the least lamented the disputes which arose in refer-
ence to the rights of individuals to vote for Members of Par-
liament. These disputes arose for the most part from the va-
riety of franchise which formerly prevailed throughout the
country. The House had within the last few years corrected
this evil to a certain extent, by establishing nearly a uniformity
of franchise throughout the kingdom, but still doubts re-
mained in various places and counties. There was not now a
greater variety of decisions than formerly; but the fact was,
that decisions being now made in public by the revising bar-
rister, where they were formerly made in private by the
assessor, the discrepancies of opinion now came more before
the public. It was most desirable, for the sake of all parties,
that there should be a certainty and uniformity as to the
right of voting, and that when the decision upon a doubtful
point was made, that the decision should extend to all parts of
the country, so that a voter in Yorkshire might not be dis-
franchised upon a point which established his right to a vote
in Cornwall. He, therefore, considered that there would be
a very great public advantage derived from the establishment
of a court of revision, and of a court of appeal from that re-
vision. The proceedings of these courts would, in the course
of a year, form a body of decisions which would fix the law
and remove all doubts upon the subject at present existing.
He also thought that the doubts which arose from the con-
flicting decisions of election committees of that House would
be removed by the establishment of these courts of appeal;
for the members of committees would, no d6ubt, avail
themselves of the decisions of the courts of revising bar-
risters when placed upon the improved system. There would
thus be effected certainty where there was now doubt, and
they would also get rid of that expensive litigation which
arose out of the present system. He had before stated that a
difficulty had at one time occurred to him upon this subject,
and this difficulty was as to the parties by whom the members
of these courts should be appointed. He agreed with the
Hon. Gentleman that there was a great objection to the ap-
pointment of Revising Barristers by the 'Judges, because he
thought •it not advisable that any such patronage should be
placed in the hands of persons holding the rank and station
which Judges in this country held, lest it should render them
liable to charges which, however unfounded, could not be
escaped from in the existing state of party animosity on one
side or the other. He objected to the appointment being
vested in the Crown, but he did not see the same objection to
the appointments being vested in the Speaker. It was no
doubt true, that however impartial the Speaker was properly
assumed to be in his purely official character as Speaker, yet
he could not be called upon to be neutral as to his private
political opinions ; as the Speaker of the House had for
many years past been selected from the ranks of one or
the other party in the House, it was not to be expected
that he could be perfectly impartial in his political..sen-
timents. It was therefore, more than probable, that if the
appointment were vested in the hands of the Speaker of the..
House, that he would appoint to the office men whose
cal opinions were of the same character with his own, rather
than men whose opinions were adverse. But even supposing
this to be a disadvantage, he (Lord J. Russell) could not see
that, under all the circumstances, the House could do better
than to vest the appointment in the Speaker. He thought,
however, that the clause was one of such importance that it
ought to receive the serious consideration of the House at a
future period.
Mr. WYNN could have
wished this clause had formed
part of the original i
Bill, in order that t might have been
regularly discussed. He had long been satisfied of the neces-
sity of establishing a court of revision and also a court of

athPepekailr,
is extreme
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL expressed b
gindoomrd. er to procure uniformity of decisions throughout
n.
rseatoiesifvaecdtiobnyatthethme
omuasne.nerTinhewphriocphostihtiios pnproofpotshietiolniohadmb_eemen.
had been
ber for Bridport was nearly the same with one which s
Noble
suggested to him (the Attorney-General)
Friend, with the exception, indeed, that the Hobny. Able
found means to obviate the only difficulty which bad b
felt by the Noble Lord. The present system had given greatt.s
dissatisfaction throughout the conntry, though in saying hoi.,
he did not mean to throw any reflection upon his brethren
the bar who had officiated as revising barristers ; but the mere
a.
fact of there having been 172 revising barristers, even h
mber had
each of them united in himself the wisdom and experience
ioe
all the fifteen Judges, was sufficient to explain why there I..icte
been such a discrepancy in the decision. By reducini„,_ tels
number of Revising Barristers, and securing the highest
available talent, the result would be such an uniformity of
cisions throughout the country as would command the icspe.a
of the public. The business would be done, if not more sans.
factorily, at any rate more efficaciously. If they then went
into Committee pro forma, the amendment could be intro-
duced, and the Bill could be re-printed, and afterwards con-
sidered.
Mr. C. BULLER did not object to the appointment of a
Court of Revision on the decision of Registration Barristers.
He objected, however, to the vesting the appointment of t
e
Barristers in the Speaker of the House of Commons, becaus
he was not conversant with the legal profession, but would ra-
ther have it placed in the responsible Minister of the Crown;
namely, the Secretary for the Home Department. His gre
objection to the Court of Appeal, as suggested, was, that it,
would be a constantly fluctuating body, and some members et
it would have great authority in it, while,others had little or
none, and the consequence would be, that great confusion
would arise.
Mr. BERNAL observed, that as the House appeared to ap-
prove of the principle of his Hon. Friend's motion, it would be
better to abstain from discussing it until they went into Corn"
mittee. Whether the appointments should rest with the
Speaker or the Secretary for the Home Department would be
a proper matter for the Committee to decide.
Mr. C. VILLIERS did not disapprove of the nomination,
of the Speaker to appoint the functionaries for theirevision
votes. He felt strongly the defects of the present system, and
agreed that it was absolutely necessary to make some change.
He was sorry, however, that his Hon. Friend the Member for
Bridport did not agree in the appointment of a Court of
Revision.
Mr. WARBURTON would prefer that the appointmen"
should rest with one individual rather than with manY,
there would be more responsibility. He should prefer that
the Speaker had the appointment of the revising barristers-
' rather than the Lord Chancellor. He only wished at present
that his proposition should be agreed to pro forma, and it could
be introduced into the Bill in Committee, and considered on a
future occasion.
The SPEAKER said that the first intimation which heliati
of the intention of the Hon. Member for Bridport to give to
himself the appointment of these judges, was from reading it
in the printed resolutions. He must own that he read it with
regret, and subsequent reflection had not diminished that re-
gret. He thought it would in some degree combine the eat`
cutive with the legislative power, to which latter he thought
the functions of the House ought to be confined ; still, if it
was the pleasure of this House to fix this duty upon him, be
would acquiesce in it. It 'would, he considered, be placing an
appointment which ought to be responsible, in the hands of the
only Member who could not stand up in his place and defend
bis conduct when questioned.
The House then resolved itself into Committee on the Bill.
Mr. WARBURTON brought up his clause, which was put
traoenlclAcwoinm tagreeduhmmtihbtteeartluooon.
ffdoettrhhseetainßcdliialnlug:
tshTsav
tieireteh
eatilsoosuhsboeruolutdhgelbinte urepeosnausnmi agreed'considered
tot
Bill was reported and ordered to be reprinted.
Mr. HUME gave notice, on the re-commitment of the 8111,
thatpoio ttmh ee Secretary e
thet ar yr
eovfi thesngHome barristers
Dep Department should sohfoutillde h.sa,vpeeathkeerapo-f
the House of Commons.
Mr. V. SMITH gave notice that he should on the 7th
of July, move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the,
appointment of justices in corporate towns of England an
Wales.

Mr. G. PRICE gave notice that whenever the House W"t
into a Committee of Supply, he should move that the notice
the Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny had given that
night be rescinded from the notice book of the House, as being ,
adverse to the principles of the Constitution, as derogatory to
the dignity of Parliament, and as an abuse of the privileges or
that House.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and ';be
House adjourned at a quarter past ten. •

COURT CIRCULAR.

The Landgravine of Hesse Homburg visited the Duke
of Sussex and the Princess Augusta yesterday,
His Serene Highness the reigning Duke of Saxe Co-
burg Gotha, the Hereditary Prince, and the Prince Albert,
called yesterday at the residences of their Royal Highnesses
#
the Princess Augusta, the Landgravine, the Duchess 01
Gloucester, the Princess Sophia, the Princess Sophia Ma-
tilda, and the Dukes of Sussex and Cumberland.

...
The Princess Augusta honoured Viscount and Vises
countess Beresford with her company at dinner yesterday
The Landgravine of Hesse Homberg visited the Viscotuit
and Viscountess in the evening.
A deputation from the united committee of Protestant
Dissenters, consisting of Mr. \Vaymouth, the Rev. Messrs.
Burnet, Mench, and Tideman, and Messrs. Baines, 73rowTh
Mills, and Fletcher, had an interview on the present posi-
tion of Dissenters' disabilities, with Lord John Russell yes'
terday, at the Home-office.

Viscount Melbourne took an airing. yesterday in a car
riage for the first time since his recent indisposition.
The Marquis of Lansdowne had a dinner party last eV'.
ing at his residence at Richmond.