the absolute control over the result out of the hands of the mere numerical majority, are-That it would introduce greater moderation into the proceedings of Committees. That it would make it the interest of all parties to settle disputed points of election law. And, that whilst any point remained unsettled, the benefit of the doubt would always be given in favour of the franchise. We have avoided, as much as possible, all allusion to many obvious alterations which might be made in minute details, and mere matters of practice, (1) in settling questions of election law, (2) and in the system of registration. There are a variety of improvements in these subjects, which might easily be introduced, and would tend greatly to facilitate the execution of the duties, and lessen the trouble, to which members of Election Committees are liable. We would willingly have entered fully into these matters, but the object of this introduction is to shew how the tribunal for trying Controverted Elections may be re (1) The difficulty of obtaining the costs of a petition which has been voted frivolous and vexatious are such as to render the vote almost nugatory. The cases of Bruyeres v. Halcomb, 3 Ad. & El. 381; Ranson v. Dundas, 3 Bingh. N. C. 556, and Fector v. Beacon, not yet reported, shew the intricacy of the law on the subject. Another thing urgently requiring remedy is the practice of sending in lists of hundreds of objected voters with twenty or thirty objections against each vote, in cases in which there are not twenty objections which can be supported in the whole list. (2) The following is one of a vast number of instances of the insecurity of the franchise under the present system. It has been decided in the Bedfordshire case, 2 Luders, 542, and in the Middlesex case, 2 Peck. 116, that collectors of window duties are not disqualified. At the time of those decisions such collectors were appointed by the land-tax commissioners, and it was held, that they came under the exemption in 22 G. III. c. 41, s. 2. A few months after the decisions in Peckwell, statute 43 G. III. c. 99 and c. 161, came into effect which vested these appointments in the assessed-tax commissioners. At the revision of 1837, window-tax collectors were objected to on the ground that the statute on which the decisions in Luders and Peckwell turned was no longer applicable, but the votes were held good. At the revision of 1838, window-tax collectors in the same county were objected to on the same ground, and their votes held bad. The only mode of preventing this insecurity of the franchise is to establish an efficient Court of Appeal. lieved from the charge of party spirit, and any digression into other subjects, however important, must necessarily have interfered with this object. We shall consider that our time and exertions have been well employed, if the present work should be found materially to contribute to remove any imperfections which may have heretofore tended to disparage the House of Commons in public estimation. The success which crowned the exertions of Mr. Grenville may well animate and encourage those who are now seeking to carry on the work which he so nobly begun. In his day the administration of election law was incomparably more defective than anything which has been witnessed in more modern times. The abuses had grown intolerable, yet he succeeded in removing them, and established in their stead a tribunal which has existed during the greater part of a century, and which for upwards of half that period gave universal satisfaction. Can it be wondered at that he should have earned for himself the gratitude of his cotemporaries and the admiration of posterity? Instead of being disheartened at the discovery of defects which time has engrafted on a system so auspiciously commenced, it becomes us resolutely to detect and remove them. May those who embark in this laudable undertaking aim at permanent improvement rather than momentary applause; may they take no step to compromise the dignity and importance of the House of Commons, and above all may they be deeply impressed with the belief, that the best security for its privileges and its powers consists in the possession of the moral influence of character and of the respect and confidence of the people. 10, Crown Office Row, Temple, 14 Feb. 1839. THE Committee refused to enter into an examination of a voter's qualification where his name stood on the register. John Allen's Case, p. 3. Where a voter's name had been struck off the register, in obedience to the Speaker's warrant, the Committee refused to question the legality of the erasure.-John Coady's Case, p. 38. Poll books of a former election admissible, when produced from the proper depository, without rigid proof of safe custody.-p. 44. What a sufficient specification of an objection in heading of list.-William Brennan's Case, p. 47. What sufficient evidence to identify a voter as the person directed to be struck off the register by the Speaker's warrant.-Thomas Bulmer's Case, p. 48.-Patrick Byrne's Case, p. 52.John Kelly's Case, p. 56. An objection paper received in evidence, although not signed.—John Kelly's Case, p. 55. Evidence not allowed to contradict the description of a voter on the poll book.-William Kelly's Case, p. 58. In the statement handed in by the petitioners the name of the barony was not added to the description of a voter Held immaterial. Hugh Nowlan's Case, p. 59. Where a vote which the assessor had decided to be bad, had been placed on the poll by mistake, and had been subsequently removed from the poll by the sheriff after its final close, the Committee refused to replace it on the poll.-Hugh Nowlan's Case, p. 62. Statement in the heading of a list, that a voter's qualification did not continue the same, without showing how it was varied. Held sufficientJohn Nowlan's Case, p. 70. Declarations of a voter received in evidence against the sitting Member, although they related to the title to lands, and there had been no notice to produce the tit'e-deeds. - John Nowlan's Case, p. 72. - Insolvency subsequent to registration disqualifies a leaseholder from voting for a county, although he remains in possession, and the assignee has not in any way interfered.-Patrick Ryan's Case, p. 75. When a voter is registered on an alleged freehold, the Committee will not inquire whether the lessor who granted the voter's lease had himself a freehold estate in the lands at the time of the grant.-p. 79. The Sheriff was not allowed to interfere in striking the Committee, although the petition contained charges against him.-App. p. 83. COUNTY OF CARLOW. The Committee was chosen (1) on Tuesday the 25th of April, 1837, and consisted of the following Members: Francis Thornhill Baring, Esq. (Chairman) Portsmouth. Thomas Thornely, Esq. Petitioners-Electors in the interest of Thomas Bunbury, Esq. Counsel for Parties admitted to defend, and for Returning Officer- Agents-Mr. Baker and Mr. Fitzgerald. THE petition was by electors in the interest of Mr. Bunbury. It contained allegations of bribery and intimidation, and of improper conduct on the part of the Catholic (1) Before the Committee was balloted for, an application was made on behalf of the sheriff, for him to be allowed to join in striking off from the list of members drawn by lot. A report of the arguments of the counsel and the decision of the House of Commons on this question, will be found in an Appendix to this case, for which we are indebted to Mr. Rushton. See Appendix, p. 83. B |