papers (see the Act of 1890 above) upon a request by ten voters, or by the Town Council, to the Mayor. A bare majority is sufficient. There appears to be no time limited before which the Mayor must take the poll after the request, nor any provision in the event of his refusal or neglect. (6) i.e., voters. See Section 1 of the Act of 1890, ante page 19. (7) This is an important provision, and should be noted. (8) See the Interpretation of Terms in Section 1 of the Act of 1890, page 19. (9) e.g., if a Parish has adopted the Acts, a Local Board District in that Parish will require the sanction of the Local Government Board before it can adopt the Acts for its particular District.

PRACTICAL POINTS AND CASES.

THE MAJORITY OF MORE THAN ONE-HALF.-Reg. v. Mayor of Portsmouth (1876). A meeting was convened to consider the adoption of the Act. The Mayor, not acquainted with the fact that the old provision requiring a two-thirds vote had been repealed and the decision of a simple majority substituted, certified that the Act had not been adopted; whereupon a rule absolute was made for a mandamus commanding him to vary his certificate and declare that the Act had been duly adopted.—(Times, Jan. 25, 1876.)

RIGHT TO DEMAND A POLL.-Reg. v. St. Matthew, Bethnal Green Vestry (1875). A poll may be demanded by the party defeated on the show of hands on the question whether the Act shall be adopted. The right to demand a poll is a necessary incident to the mode of election by show of hands whenever it is not excluded by special custom; and a mandamus was refused to compel the Vestry to carry out a resolution passed after refusal of a poll.—(32 L. T. 558 [Donovan v. St. M.] 39 J. P. 502.)

Reg. v. Wimbledon Local Board (1882). Any qualified person present at a meeting convened under Section 6 may, after a show of hands, demand a poll, and the common law right to do this is not affected by the Public Libraries Amendment Act, 1877 (which provided that voting papers might be used to ascertain opinions of voters).--(51 L. J. Q. B. 219; L. R. 8 Q. B. D. 459; 46 L. T. 47; 46 J. P. 292.)

The Act of 1877 is repealed by the Amending Act of 1890. These two cases have now been rendered, practically speaking, inoperative so far as regards the adoption of the Acts, since in all cases the opinions of the voters are to be ascertained by voting papers under the last-named Act.

POLL TAKEN BY VOTING PAPERS.-Reg. v. Morris (1888). Public Libraries Acts adopted. Application for two warrants to question the election of Commissioners on the ground (1) that the Vestry and Guardians were not the prescribed local authority, (2) that voting papers were not issued to each ratepayer, (3) that those issued were not properly collected, (4) that a scrutiny lawfully demanded had been refused, (5) and, generally, that the result of the voting had not been conclusively ascertained. Application refused.--(Times, June 13, 1888.)

In view of the provisions of the Act of 1890, under which voting papers are to be used in all cases in future, the judgments of the Court in this case are here set out.

Mr. Justice Field: This is a rule which was obtained by Mr. Jelf on behalf of the relator, Mr. Ross, calling upon certain gentlemen connected with the Authority or Vestry to show cause why a quo warranto should not be issued to show their authority why they exercised the office of Commissioners for the carrying out of the Free Public Libraries Act in Clerkenwell. We have it stated that the authority who adopted the Act, or who appointed those Commissioners, was not the proper one; and that the feeling of the Parish, because the voting papers were not properly issued and collected, was not properly ascertained within the meaning of the said Acts dealing with Free Libraries. The argument came before us on a former occasion, and then it was argued that the Vestry and Guardians or Governors of the Poor of St. James and St. John, Clerkenwell, were not the authorities to act, or at least that they should act simultaneously. The case appeared to be one of very considerable difficulty. At one time I tried to get a clear solution of the matter; and I thought, and I think my brother Wills entertained the same opinion, that, whilst the Commissioners might not have had the means of meeting the case, it was a pity such an inquiry as this, which seems to me to have a very important bearing, should depend upon the technicality of who was the proper authority; and, after some discussion, Mr. Jelf agreed to give the go-by to that portion of the question as to who was the proper authority, we undertaking, on our part, to hear the remaining portion of the case so far as regarded the ascertaining and deciding whether the determination was come to by a properly constituted authority, and by a valid vote of the ratepayers. There is no difficulty in this part. The question to be decided is one of mixed fact and law. The first thing to see is what the Act of Parliament prescribes as to how the determination upon the Free Libraries Act is to be arrived at. The first Act provides (Section 8) that, upon the request, in writing, of a certain number of ratepayers, a time is to be appointed for a public meeting, and that public meeting is to determine whether or not the Act shall be adopted by the parish. This is what the public themselves have to determine. Then certain notice has to be given as to how the determination is to be arrived at. “And if at such meeting two-thirds of the persons shall determine in favour of the adoption of the Act, the same shall come into operation in that parish." That is, the "public meeting, and the majority then present". Not the "whole of the parishioners," but "the majority then present". I am told that the parish of Clerkenwell in this poll issued 7222 voting papers; to all and not a majority of the ratepayers. Now, as to "the majority of the ratepayers then present". What does that point to? Clearly this: that on the subject of the Free Libraries it did not want the majority of the whole body of ratepayers, but the majority of those persons who were willing to attend a public meeting to discuss the matter. There might be 500 or 1000 persons present, probably less in a case of this sort. I don't know who it was

that promoted and carried this Bill of 1867, but it was thought proper to alter this majority to "more than one-half". And now we come to the Act of Parliament with which we have to deal. It recites that a public meeting is a most unsatisfactory and incorrect mode of ascertaining public opinion, and the Legislature thought the same; and it was resolved that the Act was to be adopted by the general opinion of the ratepayers. The Legislature, no doubt, thought the adoption of the Free Libraries Act a most proper matter to consider in regard to the education of the people and the progress of civilisation. They thought places might be provided. where poor people might go and be recreated and instructed. They thought the public meeting, however, an unsatisfactory mode of dealing with the matter, and, therefore, instead they substituted: "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 7222 voting papers issued. Of these 7222, 3500 voted. This is not taking into account the blanks. Out of the total number there were 1075 spoilt votes; therefore 3500 and 1025-about 4500 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 inquiry 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 1 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

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 of the Clerk or Returning Officer, setting forth that 7222 voting papers were delivered, and 4500 returned, &c., is correct, there is a good working majority left in favour of the Free Library. My brother Wills drew my attention to the number of spoilt papers and the number returned blank, which shows that a total of 4500 persons attempted to record; that a very large number of persons in proportion to percentage had taken an interest in the matter by filling up, or endeavouring to fill up, their voting papers. There may have been some who did not care how it went, who did not wish to express an opinion; but the question now comes, Has there been any unfair dealing in getting votes? It might be that Mr. Ross and his party had got an unfair number of votes. I would be willing to secure purity of election in this or any other case; but I must come to the conclusion, upon the evidence, that there has been no improper dealing in this case by which this expression of public opinion or majority has been arrived at. The affidavits also alleged gross carelessness. Mr. Ross's affidavit this is made; and about the only practical illustration is with regard to one man who put the voting papers into his pocket instead of into the box. If he had been acting improperly and incorrectly, if the votes had been spoilt or in some way or other destroyed, I should have had to take cognisance of it. But what is the explanation of it? It was a wet day, the papers were limp, and the collector could not get them to force each other down into his box. I don't know whether such was the case or not, but there it is in the affidavit, and I must deal with it. He says he borrowed a knife to force the papers down into the box to make way for others; but because he did this I cannot say there has been less general want of care or accuracy, or an attempt to set aside the wishes of the people which I should have to consider when dealing with an election petition, because these acts of the collector did not affect the general result. I don't say I adopt all the charges against these people ; and, that being so, I must proceed on general grounds. Now, let us look at the particulars. It is stated that the people of Muswell Hill should have had voting papers delivered to them; and that was a point considerably depended upon at first, although it did not affect our mind a great deal. Because, looking at the geographical position of Muswell Hill in regard to Clerkenwell, I cannot think that that is a point upon which the election should be declared void. I think it would be a very unfortunate thing for Clerkenwell if this poll had to be taken all over again because of 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 framer of the Act meant, I cannot think the words with regard to the scrutiny convey more than that there shall be a scrutiny of papers after collection; because a scrutiny is not a thing which is sufficiently definite in its description to speak for itself as to the manner in which it shall be carried out. And it seems to me that the scrutiny which comes after an election must have proper machinery, or it cannot possibly be carried out. But in this Act no provision is made for such; and for that reason I don't think the word "scrutiny" could bear