View report page

121
such a matter as the non-delivery of voting papers to ratepayers of
Muswell Hill; although, of course, if there had been other grounds
against the poll, I would have been obliged to do so by the necessity
of the case. We have two affidavits here. One by Alfred Coker. He
was in favour of the library; and he spoke of what he called
irregularities. There were eight people, who were said to have had
no voting-paper, and with regard to some of them, explanations have
been given. I won't go through any one case; but I cannot see
in all—assuming that the charges made are correct—anything to
indicate anything more than an honest attempt to get a fair expression
of opinion from the ratepayers. In a collection such as this
of a large number of voting papers some few omissions of necessity
happen ; but if we were to hold that this election was void none
could be said to be valid. There were men who went from house
to house with the papers and a book, and I am not at all surprised
that we should find mistakes on the part of such men. Indeed, it
would be almost impossible to find otherwise. I know that no poll
could be taken which would be entirely satisfactory to any large
body of persons. This question indicates to my mind that this
election has been properly conducted according to the Act of
Parliament, and therefore, I shall refuse the motion.
Mr. Justice Wills:—The judgment which my brother Field has
just given has expressed my views, although my judgment has been
formed quite independently of my learned brother. The rule or
notice of motion raises five grounds of objection, three of which are
matters of fact, and two matters of law. One of the objections
in law we disposed of the other day, viz , that the proper party
had not taken the initiative in this Free Library matter, and
put the machinery in motion to ascertain the feelings of the
majority of the parishioners on the subject in Clerkenwell. The
other objection was that there was no scrutiny. Now what does
the Act of Parliament mean by scrutiny ? At first I thought there
was something in that scrutiny point; but when I came to consider
the matter more carefully I think Mr. Channell gave me the proper
answer, viz , that under this Act of Parliament it does not mean
anything more than an examination of the voting papers by the
returning officer and his clerks. It is a short Act of Parliament
which is singularly wanting in legal phraseology. It is an attempt,
I have no doubt, to get away from that very definite and intelligent
manner which lawyers have of expressing themselves; although I
cannot help thinking that there have been omissions. Whatever the