THE QUESTION OF ELECTION COMMITTEES, ETC.
The necessity of an alteration in the mode of trying controverted elections under the Grenville act had been for some time recognised. A committee had been appointed to examine into this subject in 1837; and Mr. Charles Buller, who had been chairman of that committee, had, on the 21st of November last, obtained leave to bring in a bill similar in its provisions to one which had been in the hands of members in the preceding session, though it had not been discussed. This bill, in its original shape, provided that three assessors, barristers of seven years’ standing, should be appointed by the speaker to act as chairmen of election committees for the session only, and as a court of appeal from the revising barristers on matters of law. Subsequently, when this bill was in progress, it was thought better that the first assessors should be named in the act, and that the future appointments should be placed at the disposal of the speaker, subject to the confirmation of the house. On the same day Mr. O’Connell said that he also had devised a plan, which he was anxious to submit to the consideration of the house; and he likewise obtained leave to bring in a bill for a similar purpose. Mr. Buller’s bill came on for the second reading on the 27th of November, when it was opposed by Lord Stanley, who moved that the second reading be postponed till the 12th of May, in order that the question might receive a fuller consideration. Mr. Williams Wynn approved of the bill; and Mr. O’Connell abandoned his own in its favour. Lord John Russell recommended that the bill should be read a second time, thinking that it at least provided some remedy for the evils complained of. On a division the second reading was carried by a majority of two hundred and fourteen against one hundred and sixty. Nothing further was done, however, before Christmas, except that there was much discussion on the subject of election committees.
The house of commons was again occupied with the subject of controverted elections on the 2nd of April. On the motion for the recommittal of Mr. C. Buller’s bill, Sir Robert Peel rose for the purpose of bringing the subject generally before the house, and of submitting to their consideration a proposition of his own. Sir Robert’s scheme was, that the speaker should nominate a committee, which should be called “a general committee for elections,” and which should consist of four or six, or some such limited number. To this committee he would leave the duty of appointing select committees, by whom election petitions were to be tried. These last committees might consist of seven or nine members, and each was to have the aid of an assessor who should be its chairman, and in all respects on an equal footing with the members of the committee. These persons were not to be permanent, but employed as occasion might demand. There was to be no attendance of members at a ballot and the operation of chance was entirely excluded. Mr. O’Connell still thought it would be advisable to take the adjudication of these contests out of the present hands, and to transfer it to the judges. He moved as an amendment, that Mr. Buller’s bill should be referred to a select committee, who might report on the subject at large. Lord Stanley moved that Mr. Buller’s bill be considered that day six months; and proposed that a committee should be appointed to examine the conflicting cases, and to report on a mode of giving uniformity to the law. Mr. Shiel approved of Sir Robert Peel’s plan; but he thought that party spirit would stand in the way of their obtaining a declaratory act, since on some questions the two parties in parliament were systematically opposed to each other. Mr. O’Connell’s proposition was negatived, and Mr. Buller consented to withdraw his measure. On the 10th of May, therefore, Sir Robert Peel moved for leave to bring in his bill, dropping that part of his scheme, however, which established assessors. Leave was given to bring in the bill; but the attorney-general thought that all that was necessary was to repeal the Grenville act. They might then go on making one experiment after another, until they arrived at some plan that would give universal satisfaction.
Before the Christmas recess, the freemen and parliamentary electors’ bill, which had been dropped in the preceding session, had been re-introduced. The two grand objects of this bill were to relieve householders entitled to the elective franchise, by extending the time fixed by the reform bill for payment of rates and taxes; and to remove the stamp-duty payable by freemen on their admission. The former part of the bill met with much opposition; and Mr. T. Duncombe moved an amendment, tending altogether to repeal the rate-paying clause of the reform act. This amendment, however, was rejected, and the original clause carried by a large majority. The third reading of the bill came on on the 19th of February, when it was condemned by Sir Robert Peel as involving a serious infraction of the great principle understood to be settled when the reform bill was passed. The bill was finally passed by the commons, by a majority of one hundred and eighty-nine against one hundred and seventy-two; but it was rejected in the house of lords on the second reading, on the 8th of March. The house of commons passed another bill, conceding tire desired relief to freemen alone; but the session closed before the lords were called upon to take it into consideration.