said, he wished the hon. and learned Member for Weymouth to explain the nature and object of this clause.

said, the present law in respect to the election for counties was that of the 25 Geo. III., c. 84, passed in the year 1785. By that Act it was provided that the sheriff of any county, within two days after the receipt of the writ, should make proclamation for holding a county court for proceeding to an election not later than the sixteenth, nor sooner than the tenth, day after the proclamation. The alteration which he, by this Bill, proposed to make was, that the county court should be held not later than ten days, nor sooner than six days, after the proclamation; thus substituting for sixteen days ten days, and for ten days six days. That, he presumed, would be a sufficient explanation to the right hon. Baronet.

said, that this clause appeared to be re-enacting that which was already the existing law of the country. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman ought first to repeal the existing, and then enact the proposed, alteration; otherwise there would be two existing laws upon the same subject. He thought the alteration for diminishing the time between the proclamation and the day of election for counties was very reasonable, and that there would be a great advantage in adopting it.

said, he had not carried the Bill to the full extent of his own views on the subject, because he considered that the matter must come under the consideration of Parliament again when the Parliamentary Reform Bill, which was expected from the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, should be introduced.

said, he was of opinion that the sixth day after issuing the writ was too soon for the election to take place, except in case of a general election, as the time was not sufficient for the consideration of the constituency. He should move an Amendment to that effect.

said, he would submit to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite whether the reason he had given for not going as far as he thought proper—namely, the expected introduction of a Reform Bill, was not a reason equally good for postponing the Bill altogether. He put it to the House, and to the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether it was right to make such small changes, and to introduce piecemeal schemes of legislation, the only effect of which must be to create perplexity and confusion.

said, he could not assent to this view of the subject. He did not see any immediate prospect of a Reform Bill, and still less of any that would he satisfactory. The best way would be to pass small measures when it was possible. The Bill was brief certainly, but beneficial.

said, he was sorry to see the small confidence placed by hon. Members opposite in the promises and professions of the leaders of their party. He was of opinion that the alteration now proposed could better be carried out in a general Bill.

said, the clause had met with the approbation of the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) so long ago as before the Easter recess, and it had then been suggested to him to introduce a distinct Bill on the subject. He had done so, and had stated the nature of the measure on the proper occasion. As to there being no complaints against the present system, he could say he had received a great many communications to the effect than the change he proposed was desirable, and that the old law of 1785 required alteration and amendment.

said, he did not object to the principle but to the form of the change, and thought the clause ought to be limited to simply reducing the number of days in the old Act. It would be better, in his opinion, to repeal the old Acts altogether, and then to bring in a new Bill, than to incur the risk of confusion by amending the words of the clauses of former statutes.

said, that it appeared to him, if the sheriff of a county fixed a county election at the shortest period after the receipt of the writ named by this Bill, and the mayor of a borough at the longest, the two elections might clash.

begged to explain that the Bill so reduced the number of days within which a borough election must take place, that it would render this impossible.

said, that he would not press the Amendment of which he had given notice, but would move that the blank should be filled up with twelve days instead of ten.

said, he thought it would be better to postpone all legislation on this subject until Her Majesty's Government introduced that general measure of electoral reform which they had promised. If, however, that did not meet the assent of the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee, he thought it would be better to repeal the present Act, and then enact another, dealing with the whole subject, than merely to amend the present law, and thus have one Act referring to another, which would very likely lead to difficulty and confusion.

said, he must oppose the postponement of legislation on this subject. The measure of general electoral reform promised by the Government might not pass, or, at all events, without a general election; and in the latter case it would be of great advantage that this Bill, which would save much expense, should have been passed previously.

said, he also would press the withdrawal of the Bill, as it was clearly the opinion of the Committee that the whole of this subject should be treated in one Act. If the Bill was pressed, there would be still greater objection to the second clause than to the first. The second clause proposed to diminish the notice to be given of a borough election from three days to two—a piece of infinitesimal legislation at which he was certainly surprised.

said, he could not consent to withdraw the Bill. It would be of very great importance to pass the clauses in it, and he did not think this was the way to treat a measure to which there was no specific objection, and which every one acknowledged would introduce a very beneficial alteration in the law as it now stood. He had pledged himself to Members for counties, and other hon. Gentlemen, to bring in the Bill, and, after having done his best to make it a perfect measure, he trusted the Committee would be of opinion that there was no reason why they should not, without waiting for future legislation on the subject, pass a short law, which would limit, as he proposed to do, the expense of elections in counties, and which would confer a great benefit with respect to the Universities. Being ready to make any and every alteration which would improve the Bill, he must therefore respectfully press upon the Committee that it was his duty to go on with the measure.

said, the Committee were agreed as to the principle of the measure; but, if they were to keep to the old Bill, they ought to keep to the old words, as otherwise great confusion might arise. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member would not object to postpone the clause for the present, with the view to bring it up in an amended shape.

said, he was ready to accede to that suggestion.

begged to ask the hon. and learned Member, whether it would not be bettor that the writ for a borough should be sent direct to the returning officer instead of being first sent to the sheriff of the county, the only effect of which was to render necessary the payment of certain fees to the sheriff or his deputy?

said, he had intended to introduce a clause in order to meet that objection, and would attend to the suggestion of the noble Lord.

said, it was against the principle ordinarily laid down that the writ should not be sent to the sheriff in the first instance. He thought the borough writs should be sent to the sheriff of the country, because there might be different borough elections in one county, and the sheriff should be enabled to make arrangements in such a way that no inconvenience should arise in holding the different borough elections. With regard to the expense, the sheriff was not warranted in charging a shilling; and nine-tenths of the charges made by the sheriffs were altogether illegal.

said, it was the returning officers of the different boroughs who appointed the day of election, and not the sheriff, and therefore it would be an advantage that the writ should be sent at once to the returning officer.

then brought up the following new clause:—

"That the nomination of a Member or Members to serve in any future Parliament for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge respectively, shall take place on such day as shall be fixed by the Vice Chancellor thereof, being not sooner than six nor later than twelve days after the writ shall have been received by such Vice Chancellor."

said, he objected that the clause did not give sufficient notice of polling. He would suggest, therefore, that on the day of nomination notice should be given of the days of polling. He would also recommend that, instead of twelve days, the time should extend to fourteen days, in which case it would be impossible for the Vice Chancellor to make his arrangements so that the nomination should not interfere with the duties of any particular week—when the senate-house, for instance, might be otherwise required.

said, he would now beg to introduce the following clause:—

"That at every contested election of a Member or Members to serve in any future Parliament for the said Universities respectively, the polling shall commence on such day as shall be fixed by the Vice Chancellor thereof, being not sooner than six nor later than twelve days after the day of nomination; and such polling shall continue for five days only, such five days to be successive days in one week, and shall open at nine of the clock in the forenoon, and close at five of the clock in the afternoon of each day; provided always, that if Christmay-day or Good Friday shall happen to fall during the week fixed for such polling, such day shall not be reckoned as one of the five days for such polling; but the poll shall be adjourned from the day preceding to the day following such day, and shall then proceed as if such, day had not intervened."

said, he wished to call attention to the great length of time that might elapse before the election was concluded. Twenty-six days might pass over before the election began, and the five days for polling would extend the time to a month, so that if a Member for the Universities took office, an entire month might elapse before he could again take his seat in the House.

said, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman, that under the existing law the polling might be kept open for fifteen days; and he begged to say that if the Committee would take into consideration that the constituent bodies of Oxford and Cambridge Universities were dispersed over every part of the Queen's dominions—some of them residing at a distance of 300, 400, and 500 miles—it would not deem that too great a latitude had been extended to them.

said, that they had had a recent instance of the extent to which proceedings of this kind might be protracted, and he thought that a fortnight, instead of a month, would be sufficient time; but if the Members for the Universities did not object to the proceedings being protracted, he would not press his objection.

said, he would suggest that the Vice Chancellor should have the power to keep open the poll beyond five o'clock, in order to meet the convenience of barristers and other parties resident in London, whose business detained them from appearing early at the poll. The last time that he had exercised his privilege as an elector of the University of Cambridge was on the occasion of the contest for the Chancellorship; and were it not that the Vice Chancellor kept the poll open until half-past eight o'clock, neither he nor many other persons residing in London would have been able to exercise their right.

said, he thought that if the Vice Chancellor was vested with a discretionary power, that it might very frequently place him in an awkward position, as he might be subject to imputations of acting under party influences; it would be much better, therefore, to substitute a fixed hour.

said, he must complain that on the last election for the University of Oxford, he had gone down from London to register his vote, but on his arrival he found the polling adjourned, or the Vice Chancellor had gone to luncheon. Now, though he should be sorry to put the Vice Chancellor to any inconvenience, he would suggest that the poll should, on the occasion of a contested election, be always kept open.

thought that if power were given to the Vice Chancellor to close the poll at a particular hour, it might give rise to a good deal of ill-feeling and imputations.

said, after the experience of the late election for the University of Oxford, and after the great disgrace and detriment which had accrued to it in the eyes of moderate men of all parties, from the protraction of the contest, it was quite evident that there was great weight in the observation of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey), and there was also great weight in the objection that the Vice Chancellor should not he subjected to the imputation of having been influenced by party tactics. He would suggest, therefore, that the words "not earlier than four or later than six," should be substituted.

said, he was quite sure that on one occasion he as well as many others would not have been able to exercise the franchise at Cambridge, if the poll had not been kept open until half-past eight o'clock. He had no apprehension that injurious consequences would follow from giving the discretionary power to the Vice Chancellor.

said, he believed that the difficulty of the case would be met by giving the Vice Chancellor a discretionary power to order that on certain days of the week, to be mentioned on the nomination day, the poll would be kept open up to a later hour than five o'clock, for the convenience of barristers and others who could not attend earlier.

said, he would suggest the introduction of a provision by which the returning officer would be authorised to close the poll at any previous time in the day, on the consent of the candidates and their agents. It was quite possible that in some cases before the first day of polling was over, one of the candidates might desire to withdraw altogether; and unless such a proviso as he proposed was introduced, the Vice Chancellor would not feel himself at liberty to close the poll.

then proposed the addition of the following clause:—

"That at every such election the Vice Chancellor shall have power to appoint any number of pro-Vice Chancellors, any one of whom may receive the votes and decide upon all questions during the absence of such Vice Chancellor; and such Vice Chancellor shall have power to appoint any number of poll clerks and other officers, by one or more of whom the votes shall be entered in such number of poll hooks as shall be judged necessary by such Vice Chancellor: provided always, that no vote shall be entered in more than one poll book."

said, he wished to call attention to the concluding lines of the clause, "Provided always that no vote shall be entered in more than one poll-book," and submitted that if the object was to prevent voters in the Universities from voting several times, it could be attained by substituting for those words the question now put to the voters in other places, namely, "Have you polled before at this election?"

said, he would suggest the omission of the words, "unless by consent of all the candidates, expressed in writing."

said, though approving of the clause, there might be this difficulty arising out of its adoption— that in some cases, of which he knew, where the poll wa3 at present taken at a town-hall, the lower part of which was actually used as a public-house, the town-hall could no longer be used as a polling place.

said, he thought inconvenience might arise in many cases by the omission of the words in question.

said, if those words were retained, the clause would be entirely inoperative, for he could fancy candidates giving their consent to the poll being held in almost every place intended by the clause to be prohibited.

said, he rose to order. He begged to submit that this was a Government Bill to all intents and purposes, and it had, therefore, no right to take priority of the Bills of independent Members. The Bill had been introduced by the Attorney and Solicitor General of the late Government. Their names, together with the name of the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland under the late Government, were on the back of the Bill. He believed that the present had adopted it. He, therefore, maintained that it should be postponed until the other Bills of independent Members were disposed of. As he should like to have the opinion of Mr. Speaker upon the question, he should move that the Bill be postponed until the other Orders of the Day were disposed of.

said, he would have cheerfully admitted that this Bill was a Government Bill, if to him had belonged the great credit which was eminently due to his right hon. and learned Friend opposite, the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Napier), for the great labour and pains which he had bestowed on its preparation. But he denied that it was a Government Bill in the ordinary sense of the term.

said, he had projected the Bill long before he had had any connexion with the late Government. When he became connected with the late Government, he felt, no doubt, the same interest in it. He thought that the measure should be treated as one that had been substantially projected by a private individual.

said, he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whether, if he were still in office, he would persevere in pressing forward this Bill on a Wednesday?

said, that in as much as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin could not now command any of the Government days, he (Sir G. Grey) would advise him to give up the Bill altogether if he were prevented going on with it on a Wednesday.

said, he should like to have the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker, as to whether this should be considered a Government Bill or not?

said, that he would give the hon. Member an answer if he put a question directly to him. But the hon. Member had put a question to the House in the shape of an Amendment.

said, he would prefer taking the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman upon the question as to whether this was or was not a Government Bill.

said, his opinion was, that the Bill, though at first introduced by a Member of the late Government, should now be considered as one belonging to a private individual.

said, he objected to the power given to the receiver under the Court of Chancery to make leases without the consent of the owner, or some one acting for him. He proposed, therefore, that there should be given the consent of the owner, or of the next in remainder, or guardian duly authorised to act for them in cases of lunacy or infancy.

said, by the clause as it then stood, a creditor who got into possession of an estate which had been mortgaged or incumbered, might, by virtue of an elegit or otherwise, saddle the property with a lease, although he might be paid off the very day after. He would, therefore, beg to move the addition of a proviso with the view to prevent such an event taking place.

said, he would suggest, that, as he had had no notice from his hon. and learned Friend that he would move such a proviso, it had better be deferred until the Motion for the third reading of the Bill.

said, he was ready to accede to the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, he thought a distinction ought to be drawn between the owner and the receiver acting on the part of the owner.

said, there was this restriction in the case of a receiver, that he was subject to the control of the Receiver Master in the Court of Chancery.

said, he did not see the use of the clause at all. It was on the part of the owners of property that he made this objection. They had the Encumbered Estates Act at work; and now the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed that the receivers in the Court of Chancery should be competent to give leases, when it was universally admitted that they were totally incompetent for the discharge of such duties.

said, he took a different view of the question to that of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French), and in doing so he thought he was representing the interests of the community at large.

said, the clause ought, in the first instance, to have been well considered by persons who were acquainted with the management of property in Ireland, where usually the greatest difficulty was experienced in managing it by guardians or receivers. For his part, he was disinclined to entrust to any receiver of the Court of Chancery the powers which the clause under discussion proposed to confer. He was certain he could not do so without inflicting incalculable injury.

said, that upon the Committee to whom the Bill had been referred there were noblemen and gentlemen of great experience in the management of property in Ireland; and it must not be forgotten that every lease to be executed under the powers of the Bill would be granted upon the best value that could be obtained without a fine. The object of the measure was to provide for an emergency, and to work out a great public good; and the receiver master would act but as the agent of the parties most interested.

said, he approved of the suggestion made to omit the clause, which he regarded as being in direct opposition to the policy and practice of the Encumbered Estates Court. In his opinion, it would be better to carry out the law, and force every encumbrancer, not only to go into the Encumbered Estates Court, but to convert his encumbrance into a greater or lesser number of acres of the estate, thus giving him a legitimate power to make leases of the property. His objections to the clause were—first, that very frequently the receiver was a person of no station; and next, that the machinery for procuring the grant of a lease from the Court of Chancery was of a very complicated nature.

said, there might be objections to the clause, but he hoped it would not be omitted. There was no doubt that receivers in Ireland had often acted ruinously to estates, but that was from want of the power given by this clause.

said, the Bill was framed on the principle that the person in possession should make the lease, whether it was 'the encumbrancer or the receiver. The receiver could only make the lease with the consent of the Receiver Master; and it was proposed, also, to limit, in some way, the power of the encumbrancer. He was not surprised at his right hon. and learned Friend's attention being called to this point; and he thought the Committee should be satisfied with the promise that it would receive his consideration.

said, that if the clause were retained in the Bill, it ought to be very much modified; for, as it stood, it would tend to introduce a system of tenancy which could never be approved of by the real owner, and would act very prejudicially to the estate.

said, he was of opinion that the owner of the property ought to have a voice in the matter, and that where a lease was granted, it should be done with the joint consent of the owner and the person in possession.

said, it was true that under the clause a lease could not be made at less than the best rent that could be received. But let the Committee see what discretion was to be vested in the person making the lease. For agricultural purposes, he might grant a lease for any term not exceeding thirty-one years; improvement leases for sixty-one years; mining leases for forty-one years; and building leases for ninety-nine years. And it struck him that this was a power which ought not to be given to an encumbrancer entering into possession. Why, any person who obtained a judgment against the owner of an estate for but one year's value of it might enter into possession; and what might he then do? He might grant a mining lease for forty-one years; a building lease for ninety-nine years; an improvement lease for sixty-one years; or an agricultural lease for thirty-one years. And was it right, he asked, that such discretion should be placed in the hands of a man who could not by possibility be more than one year in possession? Unfortunately, too, there would be no power in any Court to control him; and the owner would have to stand quietly by and see all this done without the means to prevent it. In his opinion it was a most objectionable principle of legislation. In conclusion, he would beg to move the insertion of words restraining the encumbrancer from granting a lease, except with the consent of the owner.

said, he did not see why the encumbrancer, in receipt of the rent and in the position of owner, should be deprived of the power of dealing beneficially with the property. He expressed his readiness, however, to consider all suggestions, with the view of deciding whether something might not be done to meet the objections entertained to the clause in its present state.

said, as the clause at present stood, it conferred leasing powers upon any encumbrancer, however small in amount, or short time in possession; and the owners of land would very naturally look upon such powers with very grave apprehension. Now, if an encumbrancer had been in possession for a considerable portion of time, it would afford this evidence—that the owner of the estate was either unwilling or unable to redeem. If unwilling, it showed that he considered the property of no value to him; and if unable, the encumbrancer ought to be looked upon in the position of owner; and the interests of society required that the person in possession of an estate should have all the incidents of ownership in the management of that estate. He begged, therefore, to suggest, whether a qualification might not with advantage be introduced into the clause, to the effect that the powers proposed to be conferred upon the encumbrancer should be exercised only where he had been in possession for the space of, say three years.

said, he was convinced that in those cases where the owner had so encumbered his property as to retain a merely nominal interest, the power of withholding his consent would be abused. He preferred vesting the power in the Court of Chancery.

said, if they waited until the owner and encumbrancer concurred in granting a lease, he feared that, in a great many cases, which they desired to provide for, they would have to wait a long time. He would take the liberty of suggesting, that the encumbrancer in possession, who wanted to grant a lease, should give notice to the owner, with all particulars, and that at the expiration of six months, if the owner had not in the meantime taken steps either to pay off the encumbrance or prevent his making the lease, the encumbrancer should have full power to grant it. In that case, he conceived there would be no ground for complaint on the part of the owner.

said, he saw great difficulties in the way of deciding what was an improvident lease, and he considered the clause destructive to the rights of the owner.

said, he wag anxious that hon. Members should have the opportunity of discussing the question fully; and if the clause were negatived, they would not have that opportunity on the third reading. To pass the clause as a matter of form now, with the understanding that the opportunity should be given of moving an Amendment, if necessary, upon the consideration of the Report, was, he thought, the most convenient course to be adopted. And if that were the understanding, he should withdraw his Amendment.

said, he should support the clause, which he thought had been well considered by the Committee that had sat upon the Bill. He was for passing the clause as it stood, for if they went on talking at this rate, they would never pass the measure through the House at all.

said, he must protest against the decision of the Select Committee being taken to bind him for a single moment. He had no confidence in that Committee, and should assert his right to discuss the question, even at the risk of detaining hon. Gentlemen; but he could not help that.

said, he was quite ready to consider the suggestions which had been made, and to take the discussion upon bringing up the Report.

said, the principle of the clause was this—that, under certain conditions, an encumbrancer should have the power of granting a lease; and to that principle there could be no objection. But the clause as it stood was, in his opinion, highly objectionable; for the power it conferred upon the encumbrancer was an unqualified power. He understood, however, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) wag ready to bring up hereafter, upon the Report, certain conditions and modifications, which should operate to place some limitation to the power of the encumbrancer. And subject to such a provision, the power was a very desirable one to give.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, upon the understanding that the discussion should be taken upon the bringing up of the Report.

moved an Amendment in the first section of the clause, as regarded the retention of certain covenants in leases granted under the Bill.

said, the Amendment pertained more to conveyancing than to common sense; and therefore it would be more for the convenience of the conveyancer if the clause were left as it stood.

was of opinion that all leases under the Bill should include the covenants in question.