ELECTION COMMITTEES.
MR. CHARLES BULLER'S Bill to amend the law for trying Contro- verted Elections was mentioned last week as affording the minimum of reform. In a pamphlet by " A Member of the Last Three Par- liaments," just published by RIDGWAY, all merit is denied to Mr. BULLER, and his plan is denounced as positively mischievous. It is understood that Mr. RIGBY WASON is the Three-Parliament Member : and if so, the opinion carries this weight with it, that Mr. WASON'S experience in Election Committee contests is well known. The main objection to Mr. BULLER'S tribunal, composed of five instead of eleven Members of the House of Commons, is that it leaves questions to be decided by interested judges. This is true ; but the Three-Parliament Member is scarcely the right man to make the objection ; for, on referring to a previous pamphlet,* written by him to develop a plan of his own, it is recommended that the House of Commons shall retain its jurisdiction, when an election is souelit to be in- validated on the ground of bribery and intimidation, " false returns, riot, destruction to poll-books," &c. In cases only of scrutiny is it proposed to remove from the House the power of adjudicating on challenged returns. The reason alleged fordoing away with the power of decision on the latter and retaining it in the former Class of cases, is that the privileges of the House are broken by bribery, intimidation, riot, false returns, and destruction of poll-books, but that no breach of' privilege is committed when an illegal vote is given. Admitting the force of this shadowy and worthless distinction, it may be remarked, that parties who imagine that it favourable tribunal will be afforded by the House, can seldom be at a loss to frame their petition so as to impute bribery, intimidation, or any of the offences which come under Par- liamentary jurisdiction ; and that where the object is to terrify a Member by the expense of defendine, his seat, a scrutiny will also be demanded ; in which case, according to the plan, it would seem that he would be dragged before two tribunals, and have the cost and anxiety of two battles. Even in the scrutiny cases, which it is proposed to try by Judges—who are to supersede the Revising Bar- risters, and go annual circuits for the purpose of revising the lists—the House is to have the final jurisdiction; for on receiving the report of the Judges, "the House is to amaud the return if necessary." Now, seeing that the Three-Parliament Member himself" proposes to leave so much of its original power in the House, he might have been a little less severe on Mr. CHARLES BULLER for allowing honourable gentlemen to be judges in their own cause. He does indeed propose to alter the constitution of the Election Committees; but it is after this fashion-- - "I propose that, at the beginning of each session, the Speaker should name 100 Members, whom he shall consider the best qualified to sit upon such Com- mittees; that the House afterwards reduce such list to 50, in the following manner,—each Member to deliver at the table a list of •..)..5 of such names to which he objects ; and the 30 tu whoa; there are the greater ?dumber of oljec• lions to be struck off the list of 100. The lists of objections not to be signed, but to be delivered to the Clerk filled up; and the tonic of the party voting to be entered in a book. Upon any election petition which the House intends to try, the remaining 50 names to be put in a glass, and the first seven drawn to try the petition."
The simplicity of this proposition, by so great a stickler for an impartial tribunal, is marvellous. It might either not work at all, (for there might be more than the prescribed 30 without objection,) or it might work in the following fashion. The Speaker would select 50 Liberals and 30 Tories; and then the majority of the House, if strong enough, would strike off all their political opponents ; thus leaving the stock from which each of the tribunals of seven is to be balloted entirely composed of' one party. And this is the scheme of one who cannot endure the idea of Members having an interest in the questions they are called upon to decide! Mr. CHARLES BuLLER'S Bill is very defective ; but, assuredly, his censor has not suggested any better mode for the trial of petitions.
The Three-Parliament Member is averse to giving the Judges of the land any authority in election matters. He says-
" I have just heard a proposal to let the question be tried before the Judges of the land. I seriously trust that our judicial bench will never be polluted with such cases. Who has forgotten the charge of , in the
bribery caws tried before him at ?
Tim blanks, we suppose, must be filled up with the words " Lord Abinger" and " Norwich." It seems, therefore, that" our judicial bench" has jurisdiction over sonic election cases ; so the proposal to extend its jurisdiction would not introduce any new species of pollution. " Laws are explained by men " in every case ; and it is a fuir presumption that the Judges of the land would, on the whole, act as honestly as any other persons in the few points arising out of elections which (Aisle to be referred to them.
Further consideration of this subject, confirms the opinion ex-
• " A Letter to Lonl.h.lia Russell, on Registration, awl Ole Trial uf Coutruvertod pressed by the Spectator some weeks since,* that it is waste of time to meddle with the election tribunals, until, by a simplifica- tion of the franchise, disputable points are reduced to few, and bribery and intimidation are rendered useless by the secret vote. It will then be time enough to constitute a new tribunal for the trial of such questions as remain. In the mean while, there is this evil in small patehings or tinkerings of a fundamentally vicious system, that such abortive measures, being passed, may furnish the Peers with an apology for rejecting mere substantial improvements. There is danger that they will make Mr. BULLER'S minimum answer this purpose. It will be but the natural Lien- Hurter extension of the RUSSELL excuse—" the Reform Bill was passed only five years ago."
• Spectator, 18th November; page 1088.
Previous page
