Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

(b) Except the City of London (Section 21, page 32) and any District where the limit, if any, is prescribed in a Local Act (Section 29, page 39).

(c) This Sub-section does not absolutely set at rest the difficulty as to whether or not the amount realised by the rate must be expended in the year for which it is levied. Probably the maximum rate may be levied in addition to any surplus remaining from the previous years, for there is no provision in the Act corresponding with Section 2 of the repealed Act of 1866 (limiting the amount to be paid in Boroughs in the year) or Section 3 of the repealed Act of 1871 (limiting the amount to be expended in Local Board Districts). And it is conceived that proceedings could only be taken against an Authority for an infringement of this Sub-clause when it levied more in one year than the amount prescribed. The side-note (which forms the head-line in this edition), however, refers to limitations on "expenditure," but it may be reasonably argued that this does not affect the clause itself.

It would appear that the amount to be levied is not to exceed the amount which a penny in the pound would realise after allowing for empty property, deductions, and allow. ances, i.e., the amount which the rate actually yields. In Expte. Brown In re Liverpool Corporation where the rate, under a local Act, was limited, the justices having refused to issue a distress warrant against the Overseers, it was held that the justices were right, and that a penny rate means a penny rate on the nominal rateable value, although part of it is unproductive, and that a deficiency thus arising cannot be supplied out of the productive part. (31 L. J. M. C. 108 [Reg. v. Liverpool J J.] 6. L. T. 241.)

Whether the cost of collecting the rate is (except in Parishes) to be deducted is very doubtful, and especially where a separate rate is levied. At Chelsea the Commissioners were charged by the Rating Authority (in that case the Board of Guardians) for collecting the Library Rate when the Metropolitan District Auditor surcharged the amount, being evidently of opinion that the charge for collecting the rate was not properly payable by the Commissioners, but quære whether it should not be deducted in ascertaining the actual yield of the rate where the maximum is levied. The matter was dealt with by the Public Libraries Amendment Act, 1889, which provided that in a Parish the expenses should be paid out of a rate "to be raised with and as part of the Poor Rate". This provision is now incorporated in Section 18 (1) (c), page 23; but the phrase "with and as part of the Poor Rate" does not make it clear that the cost of collecting the Poor Rate is not to be deducted so as to ascertain the actual yield of the rate.

The Local Government Board have stated that they were advised that in a Parish the Library Commissioners were not themselves to make the rate, but were to call upon the Overseers to make it under Section 13 of the Act of 1855. The new Act following the Act of 1889 expressly provides that the rate is to be raised "with and as part of the Poor Rate".

(d) See definition, Section 1 (2), page 2.

(e) Not the actual rate to be used, but the maximum rate to be levied.

(f) Query whether it might be held to be legal to take the vote in one part for the full rate and at the same time for a reduced rate in another. The voting paper does not appear to provide for this-unless separate voting papers may be used in each part.

(g) As to alteration of any maximum prescribed by the voters, see Section 3 (6), page 4. Other clauses as to rating are: As to mode of collection and deductions, Section 18, page 23; as to exemptions by Local Acts, Sections 25 and 29, pages 38 and 39. Observe that in a Parish by Section 18 (2) the Vestry must sanction the amount to be expended.

PROCEEDINGS FOR ADOPTION OF ACT (1).

3. With respect to—

(a) the adoption of this Act for any Library District (a); and (b) the fixing, raising, and removing of any limitation on the maximum rate to be levied for the purposes of this Act (b); and

(c) the ascertaining of the opinion of the voters (c) with respect to any matter for which their consent is required under this Act (d);

the following provisions shall have effect: that is to say, (1) Any ten or more voters (c) in the Library District (a) may address a requisition in writing to the authority hereafter in this Section mentioned requiring that authority to ascertain the opinion of the voters (c) in the District with respect to the question or questions stated in the requisition: Provided that where the Library District is a Municipal Borough the requisition may be made by the Council of the Borough :

(2) On receipt of the requisition the said authority shall (dd) proceed to ascertain by means of voting papers (e) the opinion of the voters with respect to the said question or questions; but the said authority shall not ascertain the opinion of the voters on any question with respect to the limitation of the rate unless required to do so by the requisition, or with respect to any limitation of the rate other than the limitations specified in this Act:

(3) The procedure for ascertaining the opinion of the voters shall be in accordance with the regulations contained in the First Schedule to this Act (f); and those regulations shall have effect as if they were enacted in the body of this Act (g):

(4) Every question so submitted to the voters (c) shall be decided by the majority (h) of answers to that question recorded on the valid (i) voting papers, and where the majority of those answers are in favour of the adoption of this Act the same shall forthwith, on the result of the poll being made public, be deemed to be adopted (j):

(5) Where the opinion of the voters in any Library District (a) is ascertained upon the question as to the adoption of

this Act, or upon a question as to the limitation of the rate, no further proceeding shall be taken for ascertaining the opinion of the voters until the expiration of one year at least from the day when the opinion of the voters was last ascertained, that is to say, the day on which the voting papers were collected:

(6) The authority to ascertain the opinion of the voters for the purposes of this Section shall be in a Municipal Borough the Mayor, and in any other Urban District (k) the Chairman of the Urban Authority, and in a Parish the Overseers (1).

NOTES.

(1) This Section is repealed so far as it relates to an Urban District. See the Act of 1893, p. 158, with respect to adoption of the Act in such a District.

(a) See Section 1 (2) for definition, page 2.

(b) See Section 2, page 2, as to what maximum may be fixed. The "authority" may not take the opinion of the voters on this point unless required to do so by the requisition. See Sub-section (2) post.

(c) i.e., County Electors or Burgesses. See Section 27, page 38.

(d) Such as agreements under Sections 9 and 10, pages 13 and 14, for the combination of neighbouring Parishes or the annexation of a Parish adjoining or near a Library District for the purposes of the Act, or agreements by Library Authorities for joint use of Library. Section 16, page 21. See also question 3 in the Form of voting paper, page 43.

(dd) In the event of neglect or refusal, the only remedy would be by mandamus. (e) See Schedule I. Part II., page 43, for form of voting paper.

(ƒ) Page 40.

(g) This is an important provision, necessitating strict compliance with the regulations which will be judicially noticed if necessary.

(h) See Rule 14 in the Regulations, page 42.

(i) See Rules 10 and 11, page 42.

(3) A form for announcing the result of the poll is set out on page 45.

(k) i.e., Improvement Act or Local Board District. As regards the City of London and the Metropolis, see Sections 21 and 22, page 32.

(1) POLL TAKEN BY VOTING PAPERS.-Reg. v. Morris (Times, June 13, 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.

In view of the provisions of the Act of 1892, 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 1025about 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 every one 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 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. In 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

« ZurückWeiter »