View report page

119
"And it shall be competent for the prescribed local authority to
ascertain the opinions of the majority of the ratepayers by the issue
of voting papers, and by subsequent collection and scrutiny of such
papers." It is contended that this election is void because the
determination is not come to within the meaning of the Act,
because a voting-paper has not been delivered to each ratepayer.
The contention, therefore, is that if one single ratepayer has not had
his voting paper, the election is void. I don't think that is the
intention of the Act at all. It is said that the proper persons did
not issue the voting papers, and that there was not a proper ascertainment
of opinion, because the scrutiny was refused. And certainly
that is not the thing which I thought I should have to decide. I
thought the point was this, whether the voting-paper was delivered
and collected properly; not as to the proper authority for issuing
and collecting. But they contend that, even if it was the proper
authority, the work was not properly done. I am to consider
whether the determination was or was not properly arrived at.
First of all, let us look at the general features of the case. There
were 7,222 voting-papers issued. Of these 7,222, 3,500 voted.
This is not taking into account the blanks. Out of the total
number, there were 1,025 spoilt papers; therefore 3,500 and 1,025,
about 4,500 either recorded or endeavoured to record their votes.
Now, I am not to say these papers were not delivered or collected;
I am only to say it was improperly done. For the purpose of doing
that, we must consider what the nature of the enquiry was.
The question was that public opinion on the desirability of a
free library in Clerkenwell should be ascertained. It may be a
very burning question in some places. But it is not a very burning
question everywhere, and you would not expect to find everyone
taking an interest in it. The state of the poll, if I may use the
expression, showed that a number of papers had been delivered and
collected, and I am asked to say that the return indicates to my
mind that there were such irregularities that I ought to come to
the conclusion that the determination was not properly arrived at.
From statements in the affidavits put forward, I am asked to say
that the Free Libraries Act in Clerkenwell has been adopted by
unfair and improper means; and the matter so carelessly carried
out that the true sense of the ratepayers was not ascertained. I
have looked carefully into this case, and if I had seen traces of fraud,
or attempts to get rid of the true sense of the ratepayers in any
particular way, I should be able to follow them. But if the report