'provision as to certain rights of voting,' brought in by Lord John Russell. Those bills, although abandoned for the present, deserve the serious attention of all Reformers; for, if passed into laws, they would add strength and power to the friends of the people. Lord John cuts at the roots of the two first causes of complaint, by providing, that no one once registered as an established voter, shall be liable to objections so long as he continues to hold the same qualifications; and that a person objecting must give notice to the person objected to, stating the grounds of objection, and must also give notice to the overseer, accompanied with an affidavit that he believes the objection to be true. The two latter regulations are extremely judicious. A man has certainly a right to know beforehand, what the objection or objections against him are. What would the world think of the justice of bringing a man to trial without allowing him a copy of the indictment preferred against him? Again, if a man does not believe that an objection is true, and yet brings it, he is actuated by improper motives: if he does believe it to be true he can have no objection to swear that he does so. We never could comprehend the meaning of those who urge that a ten pound householder removing from one house to another in the same county or borough, should be disqualified from voting. If a man is in the actual possession of a legal qualification at the time of election, we think it is injustice to prevent him from voting. Lord John Russell has introduced a clause to meet such cases, which is in the terms following: 'And be it enacted, that so much of the last-recited act as authorizes or requires the returning officer or his deputy, at any election of a member or members to serve in parliament, to put to any voter at the time of tendering his vote the following question (that is to say), 'have you the same qualification for which your name was inserted in the register of voters now in force for the county of, et cætera, [or, for the riding, et cætera, or for the city, et cætera, as the case may be, specifying in each case the particulars of the qualification, as described in the register], shall be repealed; and that after the passing of this act, no person shall be excluded from voting at any such election by reason of its appearing to the returning officer or his deputy that the person claiming to vote has not the same qualification for which his name was originally inserted in the register: provided always, that this enactment shall not be construed to authorize any person to vote at such election who is subject to any legal incapacity, or to prevent the vote of any such incapable person from being void. It is also proposed to do away with the payment of the shilling which is now required from claimants. A man ought not to have to pay for a right of this nature. The Edinburgh Review, in the early part of 1833, very properly condemned this exaction; ob serving that it doubted if any thing so absurd, and, indeed, paltry as the saving in this matter, effected by the landed interest, was ever before attempted or imagined. We know it is said by the Tories, O! the sum is so trifling.' But many Englishmen won't pay it, because they cannot see the reason why they should pay for that which is their right. By s. 54 of the Reform Act it is provided that every elector whose name shall be on the register of voters for any city, &c., shall be liable to the payment of one shilling annually! It has been decided, however, that the nonpayment of this tribute in cities and boroughs, does not disqualify a voter; but in counties it is expressly provided that the claim shall not be valid till the shilling is paid.* Lord John Russell's registration bill provides also for the removal of this improper imposition : And be it enacted, that, notwithstanding any thing in the said act contained, it shall not be necessary for any such claimant to pay or cause to be paid to the overseers the sum of one shilling, or any other sum of money, upon giving notice of his claim.' The law, as it stands at present, requires four provisions in addition to proof of the nature of premises, before a voter acquires a perfect right, viz.: 1. Occupation for a sufficient time. 2. Rating to the poor. 3. Payment of rates and assessed taxes. 4. Residence. The provision relative to residence and occupation for a given time before voting is a useful and unobjectionable one; but the clause requiring proof of the payment of poor rates, is one of a very different character. If the law does not facilitate the collection of rates by overseers, it must be admitted that the regulation is a vexatious one. We have no hesitation in averring that it affords them no facility. The assessment in parishes does not all depend upon the fact of registration. Houses that do not qualify a man to vote, are assessed for poor rates. But it is still thought by some good folk who never trouble themselves by inquiring into such insignificant matters, that the clause in the Reform Act is an inducement to persons to pay their rates. Where the law is imperative, and where payment is inevitable, the inducement is unnecessary. We object to the law, because it imposes a troublesome and a tedious task upon voters, whereas every difficulty, as far as practicable, should be removed out of their path. The proof of payment of rates is not so very smooth and easy a matter * See Rogers on the law and practice of elections. referred ap ! #biection inpronar motives: i rahuchon to swear never could com thep ter pound househ And be it enacted, that reires the returning o member or members to serve time of tendering his vote the you the same qualification for register of voters now in force fo riding, et cætera, or for the specifying in each case the particul Ir the register, shall be repealed: Se non shall be excluded from e of its appearing to the returning cimming to rate has not the same weer was criminally inserted in the register ment shall not be construed to authorize tatar who is subject to any legal incapacity such incapable person from bragg void. 1 so proposed to do away with the payment wher & non required from claimants tight of this nature. a 1883, very properly condemned this exact A man as it seems at first sight. Frequently overseers appoint assistants, and in the confusion between the principal and deputy, disputes on the subject of payment often take place, which not unfrequently place the franchise of some in jeopardy. being bound to serve as overseer only for one year, there is, of necessity, a constant succession of unskilful and unpractised men in office, who on entering upon their duties, know as much about the mysteries of parish business' as they do of logarithms, and just begin to understand the matter-when the year expires! Yet a man's vote is at the mercy of this class! There are many tricks, too, played off; such as misdescription, erasure of names, &c., &c., most of which operate against the Liberal interest, for a very obvious reason. The overseer is associated with the churchwarden, and the churchwarden is the nominee of the rector, who of course is a Tory. The parish meetings are held in the parish church; and hence there is a constant Tory surveil lance over the books; and a constant acting of Tory influence upon the parish officers. The parish books must be produced in court-time is consumed, if no flaw is detected. Yet all this is done for no useful or constitutional purpose; for the obstruction of registration cannot be constitutional. It is impossible for any man who continues to occupy a house to evade the payment of rates. The law is peremptory both with the overseer and the rate-payer. It enables the overseer readily to compel payment from his parishioners and again enables the Board of Guardians to exact punctual payment from the parish officers. The law empowers justices of the peace to issue a warrant for the sale of the overseer's goods in case of his failing to pay the sum required by the guardians. To assert after this, that the clause in the Reform Act, requiring proof of the payment of poor rates, is necessary as an inducement to such payment, is to defend a piece of glaring injustice and palpable absurdity. Lord John Russell proposes to repeal the clause requiring proof of the payment of assessed taxes, which is liable to objections similar to those we have just urged, but does not provide for the removal of the clause affecting poor-rates. We pass by the consideration of details which may be considered tedious, and come to the seventh of the evils enumerated. The uncertainty as to the decisions of the revising baristers is a subject of grave and well-grounded complaint. One barrister decides one way, another decides in quite a different way. What is right in Exeter is wrong in York. Nay, the decision last year is reversed this year: and what between lawyer and objector one is in a constant state of doubt and anxiety! The noble secretary for the Colonies has taken the matter up; having introduced a clause into his registration bill for the purpose of remedying the evil which is deprecated. The bill provides that the judges shall |