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 66 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

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 minds 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 the more precise indication which Mr. Jelf and Mr. Stokes wanted it to. There was an attempt made by Mr. Stokes, certainly with the assent of his learned leader, to impart something more into the case than could fairly be discussed. This was with regard to the appointment of the Commissioners. It was sought to be shown that they were not properly appointed, because appointed prematurely, having regard to the other objections to the poll, &c. I would be sorry to see people going away from this Court saying they. have not been heard, but until these objections which have been relied upon for the upsetting of the poll had been heard other matters could not be introduced. It seems to me that to raise that objection now is to raise the other objections and the other matters of fact, and group them all together, when the election has been so satisfactorily carried out that no one could come to the conclusion that the sense of the majority has not been ascertained-at least, the sensible majority-and by that I mean those who would go and vote in the same way as the majority would go to the meeting-and this means the majority of those who take the trouble to deliver their voting paper and express their opinion. There are, undoubtedly, thirty-two votes which ought to be added to the list of opponents' votes before we can say that the results are satisfactory. This refers to the votes at Muswell Hill. But the non-delivery of papers there appears to be accounted for reasonably enough. It has been accounted for in this way: that they were no part of the general system, but an area of the people living away and not supposed to have any real interest in the place. Although this was clearly wrong, because all ratepayers should have had notice, it does not in this instance affect the character of the election. Now, with regard to the other objections, I have weighed very carefully the character of the evidence adduced, and if there was anything indicating a system of fraud, misconduct, or even carelessness, I have failed to see it. There is nothing in the evidence pointing to a likelihood of the relators being able to go far beyond what we have before us, and, therefore, likely to seriously affect the election; and we have paid great attention to the case. Now, let me enter into a very brief analysis to show that the facts do not bear the construction which the relator puts upon them. Of the cases cited, certainly two people did not get voting papers; but if you had a hundred elections carried out throughout the kingdom in the same way as this has been, ninety-nine would be carried out on the basis of the rate-book. With regard to the case of Parsons, it would have been a very bad case to my mind if the collector had really crumbled up the voting paper. If there was any serious ground for believing that such a thing happened, one would pause considerably; and one would go a very long way in giving effect to such a piece of misconduct as that, because one would not know how far the system had gone. But the evidence on the point is very unsatisfactory to my mind; and, if the thing occurred at all, somebody else was mistaken for the collector, and, therefore, the returning officer was not responsible. There are no less than ten cases upon which it is obvious that the affidavits of the respondents have very much the best of the case: they giving explanations which are verified by the counterfoils on the collectors' books. Reasonable explanations are given in each case. Taking the allegations and comparing them with the replies and the counterfoils, taking them at the highest and the utmost of their alleged worth, they seem to come to nothing more than the inevitable human errors which would occur on the one side or the other. It seems to me that they really come to nothing more than

illustrations of those classes of mistakes without which nothing like a poll of a large parish like this could ever be taken. The reasonable address of Mr. Jelf would not say that I am taking an unreasonable view of the facts. It seems to me I have avoided very carefully a partiality, and tried to assume the allegations of the relators to be worth what they purported to be; and yet it seems to me that everything points to exactly what you would expect to find in such a poll, and the impression upon my mind is in favour of the thorough honesty of the whole proceeding. And the success which has attended the whole operation is shown by some of the larger figures connected with it. I don't profess much experience in this kind of election; but still I have lived in the world a long time, and I know the probabilities of the case. With regard to a poll such as this, it is difficult to come upon any body of men at any given time of the day. This is a middle and workingclass population, who are mostly away at their businesses from morning until night. Nearly 8000 voting papers were distributed; and I cannot help thinking it was a great feat to have collected 4500 of them. And then it is said that 880 blanks and spoils was a large number. And, intrinsically, it is a large number; but I cannot help thinking that it is nothing more than might have been naturally expected. See how many of these people are imperfectly educated; how many there would be who would not care so much about the election as to take the trouble to sign the paper or even to tear it up, but who left it to be fetched away again or left at pleasure. I cannot help thinking it is a natural proceeding that the working man going to his work would leave the paper without thinking anything about it, and when the messenger called for it on behalf of the Vestry, the wife or child would say: "Oh, yes; you want the voting paper? Here it is," and forthwith hand it over just as it was delivered. The number of papers returned blank certainly, to my mind, indicates an absence of pressure to get people to fill up their papers either one way or the other. And, therefore, I cannot help thinking that this large number of blank papers is, on the whole, an indication of the honesty with which the operation was performed by Mr. Paget and his staff. With regard to the spoilt papers-as I pointed out to my brother Field-1900 voted one way and 1600 another, and the spoils were almost in exact proportion, viz., 68 and 62. That did not look as though the whole thing had not been honestly done. The objections fail in doing anything more than showing that the work was well done; and, therefore, it is impossible for the application of the relators to succeed.

ACT WHEN ADOPTED TO BE EXECUTED BY LIBRARY AUTHORITY.

4. This Act when adopted for any Library District (a) shall be carried into execution, if the Library District is an Urban District (b), by the Urban Authority (c), and, if it is a Parish, by the Commissioners appointed under this Act (d); and any such Authority or Commissioners executing this Act are herein-after referred to as a "Library Authority".

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

NOTES.

(b) This includes a Borough as well as a Local Board or Improvement Act District,