The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-05 00:00:00

tion was susceptible of, and to lay before the House
a all containing such of those improvements as
they might think it desirable to effect, and
afterwards to leave it to Parliament to decide upon the
matter. 'lt appeared to him, in looking back to the
Provi ions made with regard to registration at the time
of the passing of the _Reform Bill, that they were then
perhaps rather too much impressed with the objections
that wet e stated by the opponents of the Bdi, and which
were to the effect that it would inunOate the cluntry
with such an immense number of small and poor
voters, that the class by which Members of Par-
liament would Le elected would be composed

of persons who were not worthy by thei r
intelligence, or the amount of their property,
to have so great a share of the power of this country
placed in their hands. That was the objection which,
it might be well remembered, was urged at the time
with great effect, not only by those who took a decided
part in opposition to the Bill, but by many even of
those who, though they had given their support to the
Reform Bill, expressed their doubts and hesitation as
to the extreme length to which, in their opinion, the
principle of Reform, and of admission to the
franchise, might be carried.—(Hear, bear, hear.)
He was quite ccnviuced, however, on seeing what had
since taken place, not only that those apprehensions
were entirely unfounded, but that in their provisions
with respect to registration they had rather taken too
much pains in restricting the mode of ascertaining the
qualifications of voters, than left too lax and undefined
the manner in which the franchise was to be obtained.

—( Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that when Par-
liament had once decided on what should be the
amount of property—what should be the period of
residence, if they required a residence what
should be the occupation, if they required occupation.
which should entitle a person to vote for Members of
Parliament registration should do nothing more
than enable them, by the simplest means in their
power, to ascertain that the person who claimed to be
registered was one who had the right of occupation, or
property, or whatever else it might be which Parlia-
ment had declared to be necessary.—(Hear, hear.)
Everything that went beyond that was throwing un-
necessary impediments in the way of •btaining the
franchise. He (Lord J. Russell) thought, that having
settled the particulars constituting a right to vote, the
claimant should have every just facility for establishing
it—(Hear, hear)—and that it was highly desirable to
have it understood that such claimant was not claiming
that on which the Legislature looked with suspicion
and distrust, but that, on the contrary, they considered
he was seeking to obtain >i privilege, the exercise of
which would be a benefit to his country.—(Hear, hear.)
Now, looking to the system of 'registration at present
existing, it would be found that restrictions were inter-
posed to the .obtaining of the franchise which ought
not to remain.—(Rear, hear.) First, he would advert
to the uncertainty of the manner in which the right of
voting was decided upon,--(Hear, hear.) There
were a great number of revising barristers—some
174—scattered through the county, not always the
same—continually changed, and thus deciding ques-
tions of the
,greatest difficulty and importance ; and it
frequently happened that a claim allowed by one was
rejected by another barrister.—(Hear, hear.) Adda
to this, was what he must call the penalty of being

liable to be called before those barristers every year to
establish one's claim. He knew of a gentleman, who, re-
siding in Hull, had been regularly summoned to establish
his right to a freehold vote in a distant part of the
country, in the hope that thus he would be worried
into relinquishing it—( Hear, hear)—and a revising bar-
rister had stated that having observed that a great
number of objections issued from a particular district,
he with his colleagues decided on holding a court
there, which having done, all the objections were with-
drawn ; thus showing that their design was only to dis-
franchise persons, by deterring them, through dread of
expense, from coming forward to prove their claims. He
proposed, to meet this first objection, to substitute a
fixed, limited, permanent number of barristers, instead of
the present excessive and fluctuating number.—( Hear,
hear.) Perhaps fifteen would be the best number.
He was in hopes that this would lead barristers
to be selected who would devote their undivided
attention to this especial branch of the law, and
this would tend to promote regularity and uniformity of
decisions.—(Hear, hear.) The salaries, without being
too large, must be so liberal as to procure the services of
respectable members of that profession.—( Hear, hear.)
Then as to the mode of substantiating the claims—at
present a claim would be objected to as often as any one
chore to put the voter to the trouble of proving his
right. In Scotland it was formerly the custom that a
vote once established remained on the roll until a total
change of circumstances took place ; and in Ireland,
where a voter could not be registered, even if
not objected to, without proving his right,
the registry was then final for eight years. Now (es
to county voters) ho proposed that they should be re-
gistered, if they chose, on their statement of their qua-
lifications, and those objected to should be liable here-
after to question. But it' they chose, on registry, to
go into and prove their claims, or in case they were ob-
jected to, and so proved them, they should not be liable
again to the trouble of proving them unless the state of
circumstances utterly altered.—( Hear, hear.) He had
intended certainly, and he had stated his intention last
year, that when the voter established Iris vote, it should
remain good for three or four years. He was not sure
that that might not be on the whole the better system.
But he could not see *any objection to the vote, when once
established, remaining on the registry until a change of
circumstances should be shown—( Hear)—whereas by
the present mode the voter was, in some cases, sub-
jected every year to all the difficulties of a contested
election.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that when the
right had been proved to the satisfaction of a compe-
tent person, the voter could with safety be left upon the
registry, unless a change of circumstance should occur
to affect the right.—( Hear, hear.) He proposed that
there should be an appeal, when questions of law arose,
but not with respect to questions of fact. When ap-
peals were made in the Court of Queen's Bench from
the Quarter Sessions, the facts were taken as esta-
blished, and the Court judged only of the question of
law.—(Hear, hear.) Now ho proposed that the
Court of Appeal should consist of three out of
the fifteen barristers—and that they should sit
a certain period of the -year to hear those pe-
peals. That arrangement would secure uniformity of
the law. There would, of course, be some occasional
difference of opinion, but not to the same extent as at
present, and he thought that there would be in no long
time a very great uniformity. He would not do any
thing, by this Bill to circumscribe the power of the Com-
mittees of the House of Commons. He would be afraid
to limit by any words of a Statute the powers of the
Committees, and he would be very unwilling to give
the Courts of Law a control over the franchise. lie
thought there was a tendency in the Courts of Law
to construe the franchise too strictly.—( Hear.) He
would not by any Act of Parliament take from the
House of Commons (as had been proposed in some
measures that had been suggested to the House) the
power of deciding on elections—a power which the
House of Commons had on several occas:ons declared
to belong by the Constitution to itself alone.—
(Hear, hear.) But at the same time, he thought if
there existed a body, such as that of the fifteen bar-
risters whom he proposed to appoint, devoted to the
study of the points of law connected with the exer-
cise 'of the franchise—the decisions which would be
made, and the record of those decisions, would have
great weight with Committees of the House, and
would tend very much to establish uniformity, and
thereby to diminish the number of cisputed elections.
—(Hear, hear.) He would now state the mode in
which he proposed the barristers should be named. It
had been proposed that the barristers should be named by
the Lord Chancellor, and although there might be an
objection to give the appointment altogether to the Lord
Chancellor, on constitutional grounds, yet it did not
seem probable that the Judge would abuse the trust.
But the mode which he (Lord J.. Russell) would propose
was, that as the Judges now, appointed the barristers,
each Judge should have the power of naming three
gentlemen (if he thought fit), and that nut of the
forty-five thus named the Speaker should select fifteen.
An objection had been made to that plan by the pre-
decessor of the Right Honourable Gentleman who
now filled the chair. The objection was, that if
any charge was made against the Speaker for the
mariner in which he exercised that power of
selection, he could not enter into a defence of
himself, as a Minister of the Crown would be expected
to do under similar circumstances. But there was a
much greater objection to leaving the patronage in the
majority of the House—( Hear)—and it could scarcely
be doubted that the gentleman appointed to the chair
by the majority of the House would take such care in
his selection of the barristers, that his appointments
would not be open to objection, much less to any
charge of factious motives.—( He tr, bear.) In the
case of a person registered being objected to, and the
objection not being made good, he (Lord J. Russell)
would propose that there should be a moderate sum
allowed in the way of costs ; for it should be considered
that the franchise was held not for the benefit of the
voter, but for the public good.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
With regard to the registry and other provisions of the
Bill, he would follow generally the Bill brought in by
his Right Hon. Friend, the Attorney-General, two
years ago. With respect to the other Bill which be
proposed to bring in with respect to voting, he proposed
before a party should have the right of voting, that it
should be shown that he had 5/. out of 10/. in house
property, and he proposed also that joint occupiers in
counties should have the same right as the hoNers
of borough property had. With respect to the
right of voting, he proposed to take away some restric-
tions which existed at the present moment. lie pro-
posed to take away the restriction of the assessed takes
altogether(Hear, hear)—and with regard to the poor-
rates, he proposed to take no other security but that the
voter 'should have paid up any poor-rates to which he
was liable within six months of the time of giving his
vote.—(Hear, hear.) He proposed also to take away
the disqualification that existed at to tehe r
time
.of
ded po
nlling
with respect to persons vvlio no ng resi i the
These were the pfin.
same house. (Hear, hear.)