The Sun. — London, England, 1841-02-24 00:00:00

r. ference to thi Report of that Association which bad been eluded to by the Noble Lord, that he hal never read a more ai>le and comprehensive document on the whole question of,reg*.straeiln. He would add, that if the Noble Lard followed the recornrrendatisns it contained, he could not be much attvarianee ivith the opinions entertained by Hen- Members on his (Or. S. O'Brien's) side of t::e Huu e. He regretter', however, that the Bill of the Goe vehement did not abolish the necessity for the payment of rates and taxes, with the exception of the poor-rater. With regard to the regitation clause?, they bad his entire concurrence, as they went on the fair principle of re- movieg from the regist et all those who ha& ceased to pos sess t-e right to be there, and to facilitate the acquisi tion : f the franchise by those who had a right to it. The [lon. Geatleman proceeded, at consilerable length, to make observations on the several clauses of the Bill, stating the grounds on which he assented to some, and diffcrel trom others. With regard to the clause which related to po'lir.g he thought that the Bill did not go far cnougle He would wish to see all elections coneloe3, if possible, in one day. Sir R. I3AT E SON &cid, after the speech of the Noble Lord (Stanley) last rveaiag, it would ill become him to trespass long upon the House ; but he could not sit silent and hoar tLe easstituency r f Ireland se misrcpre en:ed as hid heard them last night.—( Hear, hear.) • He did not understand the Noble Lord to wish that the la'idlords should control the votes cf their tenants in at uncon stitutional manner, but that they should only exercise the legititnat infleen c of property. The tenants in In I Ind had the greatest repugnance to register. Because, if tl ey did tiiey would be compere]. to vote against t,.eir 1 cedlordF, under terror of remorseless persecu tion fur themselves and farei is in this wreld, and the threat of eternal punishment. in the next.—( Weir, Le.ir.) That aas the intia.idet on under which the people sufferee, and that was the cause of the f .11ing off is the registry. It heal beet said that all parties in Ireland were oppose I to the Bill of Lord Stanley. But the contrary was the fact in the wealthy and iseelligent province of Ulster, al most the entire uopulation of which was in favour of that Bill. This was shown by the petition presented last night, with 91 000 signatures, every one of the petiti mere has leg written his own name, and ridded his place of rei cienec.—(Elesr, boa-.) In the ether province a large part of the weAchy and intelligent inhabiter-As were friendly to the mcasur e As to the proposed qualification ef 5/. r i•el value, it would be in many ca es practically lower than the fa--famed 40:. freeholders, who were con- soldered in 1829, evea by the grea'est Liberal, a body cf voters whom it was doeirablu 6,4) pct rid .f He bPg;',le the independent gentlemen of England not to treat this a party question, but to look upon it soLly as . one of vAil importance to the ihterests cf Ireland. As a resident Irishman be supp rted the Bill of the Noble Lord near bill, considering as he did, that the system of mibdiviiing land was the source of the raek-i eats, and of many of the cal unities of Ireland. Ho believed,, therefore, that if the 51. rating proposed by the Noble Lord opposite spt adopted, it would destroy all the good produced by the est .blishmeat of the 101. franchise, and that it would lead to ti e misery and Lelgary of the Irish people. The Noble Lord bad appealed to the it fears of the repeal saitatioe, but ie fe t that no fe.r heed be entertained on the subject —none, at least, need be felt as regarded the province of Ul ter. He believed that matter had been fettled by what eccurred at the late visit of the Hon. and Learaed Me -fiber for Dublin to Belfast. On that occr.- sion, in spit.: of the pomp of tie preparations, tie attempt to etiPst Vie people of Ulstirr in favour of the repeal agi tati in had proved a total failure. The Hon. B tronet cor ciuded by expressing a hope that tie Bill r f the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland would be reje.t.icl by the House, and that the Bill of the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire would soon become the I.lv of the Mr. CAREW did not mean t) eri s t-or into any detail• with regard to the Bill of toe Noble Lord. It was ad mitted on an hands that there were many ahu,es in the pre;eat system of registration, and none were greater than those arising from the vexatious procoe-li gs to which those who claimed a right to be on the register were ex posed. Such persons acre kept in many instances for a verek waitir.g about the Registration Courts, and losing their valuable time, and were often reje::ted on mere technical grounds, which could not but appear to the voter to be a most vexatious proceeding.—(Cneert.) The o:nsequence of these vexatious proceedings bad been that there was growing up among Cse constituency of Ireland an apathy and a disinclination to exercise the franchise. The Bill of the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland was calculated to remove those evils and that apathy, and the:efore it should have his lit d.rty support. Is was cal. culated to extend the right of voting—that every one would look upon the possession of the fran chise as indispensable to his personal comfxt.— ( Hear), lie had received a letter from a clerg,- man of the Church of England, residing in Queen's County, in which he described the evils of the present state of re gistration ; thA letter staoi th:t the p:ao of Lord Mor pcth had Leen h_iled ith universal satisfaction ; and the writer went on to say that he hid tecently attended a Re gistration Cotrt, wLizh appeare l to him to be nothing mere than an arena of hard swo.ring, in which the man who swore the h trdest was the most succ2ssful.—( Chee r s from the Opposition)—that the honest voter, who had sworn to the value of his property, and who was in a con ditias to he better acquainted with its value than any other person, was sit aide upon the bard swearing of some hired valuator.— (Loud cheers from the :Ministerial side of the House.) He would ask if such proceediegs were not revolting to all persons possessed of religious feelings 2-.IP hoped the House weuld consideL tie pr frAtr-titti.-ifro-A- .IpOSlte, he coulcrilure lei] House that fire-eixths of the people of Ireland were 4,p -posed t., Lord Stanley's .41'.—(Loud cheers ) If ever an opportunity had occurred for the House to conciliate the good feeling of the': people of I eland, it was on the present occasion ; and by hoped they would embrace it, 11 passing the Bill of the Governmeot, which was calcu late] to remove the evils of the registrati m system, and to enlarge the franchise, while toe Bill of the Noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, was one calcu lated entirely t destroy the franchises of the people of Ireland.—( Cheers. ) Lord HOWICK would remind the House that the question they were elle t) decide aa , , whether in attempting to amend the system of registration in I/el at e-I, they should olio endeavour to give a clear definition of the electoral franchise. —(Cheese.) The question was not whether they should adopt all :be details c f his Noble Friend's Bill, not whether they shculd determine that a 5/. rating should bestow the cinalification for the franchise, not whether it would be ads isable to apply the test of rate, for the purpose of ascertaining the fr.irchise, in any given anannet, bus • simply whether. in amending the sys tem of registration, it would be desirable at the same time to introduce some method of making the feitnehi:e depend upon the assessment to ae Peor-rates.—(Chcerr.) That wise the question which wes really before the Houle. Now, putting aside all recollections of the angry discussions of last year, and of the party feelings whims had been then excited, he thought that he might assume tle,t wi h rega.d to the oece eity for alteration the system of registration all parties were agree', and b-t'a sides of the House were also to:erably egreei as to the alterations to be made ; for wheth r he looked at the Bit of his Nob'e Friend opeoti c or at that of his Noble Friend on that side of the House, the differences between the two systems were not so great, but that one Bill might be made perfectly to - resemble the other without undergoing greater altera tions in Committee than almost every other important measure had undergone in the course of its progress through that Ilouse. Be would now address himself as briefly as po.- slide to what he considered to be the real question before the llousc, and in so doing he should not quote from - any docu lwent, or go into any statistical details of whch he thought the House had had more than suffic'ent during the debate. The' simple question was, in a measure for amending the system of registration, ought they or ought they not to attempt some improvement in the definition ofthe franchise? W,thout going so far as to sty, that they were bound under all c'reutn stances, in a measure for amending the registration, to in troduce some provision f,r a better definition of the fi anchise, he would express his decided opinion that such a provision was in th) highest degree desirable and expedient, and that it was also in the highest degree desirable and expedient, that both subjects should be included in the same Bill. Throughout the whole course of the debate no one had denied the existence of great evils as connected with the unsettled state of the f, an •chisein Ireland. The Hon. Member who had just sat down,and \who had given as a r.ew Member such promise of his future ex ecllence—( Hear, hear)—had read a letter to the House de scribing the proceedings that took place in the Registration Court.. They hadon the one hand the tenant brought up to sewar that his land was of the value required, and on the other the landlord to swear that it was pot,--41sey had, in short, men sioieging up one after the other to do all they could to defeat the voter. Then, by the present system, the Revising Barrs tar is to /decide whether the wee is good orma, wad thena.th ey bare the Jude,es called upon to deckle whether the Revis n.' Barrister was right, and very often the whole subject had to be gone over again before a Committee of that Hou,e. Now, was not that a state of things discreditable to a civilized coun try?—(Hear, hear.) Was not that a state of things which Parliament ought to put an end to, and was it not a state of things calculated to sap the toundations of all order in Ire land-4 Hear, hear) —and to place one portion of society in opposition to the other? He thought that no man in that House would deny that such was the case, and no person could deny that those evils were closed by the uncertainty of know ing what was the rate of value on which the voting in Ireland depended.—(Bear.) It was this difficult . / in ascertaining the value that was the cause of all that he had described, and such being the case, the question was how were they to clear up those doubts ? Could the difficulty as to the construction of the words of the Act be cleared up ? Should they take the construction put upon it by the Hon. Member for Dublin, reckoning all the labour of the tenant, and thereby giving him a beneficial interest ; or were they to take it as a 10/. beneficial interest beyond the rent ? If it were possible to make the former the proper construction by a declaratory Act, he should not approve of that course, because he believed it would have bad consequences in Ireland; it would, in fact, lead to the consequences which the Hon. Member for Cavan had , told them would flow from the measure now before the House. But then should they introduce a declaratory Act to say that the tenant must be enabled to pay 101. more than the occupa tion rent, perhaps his Noble Friend oppoSite would tell him there was no necessity for that declaratory Act, because there was such an Act already; but what would his Noble Friend say with respect to the decision of the majority of the 'Juts !es binding the minority ? He had heard with di•may the opinion Tut forward that the minority of the Judges were not bound by the majority. If such an opinion were given any weight to there would be an end of society altogether. But then came the question, had the House the power to compel others to act according to their views on the subje c t? H e f eared that that was tot the case ; but that was not all, the swearing at tie registration was most contradictory, and had they _got rid of the root of that evil ?—( H ear, h ear.) Had they yet got rid of the real cause of that contradictory swearing of which they had all complained? In his opinion they had not. Did this contradictory swearing begin when the dispute arose as to the proper construction of the term beneficial interest? Why, notoriously this complaint existed previously to 1829, during the system of the 40s. freeholders. It existed between 1829 and the passing of the Reform Act, under the system of the 10/. freeholders. So notorious was the abuse, that it was made use of as an argument for the change. And he thought th e argumen t was w e ll founded ; he thought that the change did get rid of a great deal of perjury. Under the words as they now stood he believed that an Irish peasant, who felt that his whole existence depended upon his maintaining possession of his farm—that he had'no other means of obtaining a livelihood—he believed that that man, according to what he conceived to be the real interpreta• tion of the law, might conscientiously take the oath imposed upon him with the very smallest holding. Even were the con struction which required the peasant to be capable of paying 101. in addition to the rent universally recognised, that could not get rid of the contradictory swearing which then existed. It would not do so for this simple reason, that after all, value of this description was a matter upon which opinions might honestly differ. All experience proved that they could not expect oaths to be taken in what they might believe to be a proper manner. He for one would never repeat those changes against the Irish people and against their religion—(Hear, hear)—which upon former occasions he had heard with great disgust, and he was happy not to have heard repeated in that debate. He for one would never at tribute the false swearing which avowedly had taken place in Ireland, to any disregard of veracity peculiar to the Irish, or to any sanction which was given to falsehoods of this description by the religion which the majority of that people professed.— (Hear, hear.) Such illiberal opinions he disclaimed with the utmost disgust. But he must say that not only in Ireland but in England, and not only in England but in all countries and in all times, in those cases when the passions and interests, not of individuals but of large classes and bodies of men were at stake, oaths and promises the most stringent that could be devised were barriers easily overleaped or broken through. All experience proved that this was the case even amongst men in other respects of the highest character, honour, and integrity. Was there any class of men who stood higher in the estimation of the whole world for their veracity and up ightness than the British merchants ?—( Hear, hear. ) Was not their character for these virtues recognised from one end of the globe to the other ? Did not even barbarian nations rely upon the good faith, the honour, and integrity of British merchants ? Yet even this body of men, when, by a mistaken policy, they imposed absurd restrictions upon their trade, which were only to be got rid of by false oaths being taken at the Custom-house, broke through the' trammels of those oaths, so that the Custom-house oaths came to be a bye wcrd of all that was worthy of discredit. Those ill-judged oaths, were, he believed, now dispensed with ; and no oath was required at present, either from an exporter or importer, where it was his direct and palpable interest to swear a false-, hood. He might illustrate this by a still stronger case. There was no class of men amongst whom a high sense of honour was more universally prevalent—perhaps that sense of ho nour carried them almost to excess—than the officers of the British army ; and yet, was not every gentleman aware of the fact, that when officers of the British army, purchasing commissions, were required to decltre upon their honour, that neither directly or indirectly had they given more than the regular price for those commissions, it was found that the imposition of the oath did not check the prac tice against which it was directed, that the practice still con tinued, and the wiser policy was adopted of endeavouring, by other means, to put an end to the evil. With these examples before their eyes, how could they desire to rest the right of voting in Ireland upon declarations with respect to the 101. PropQrty ? Was itnot clear, that even if they returned to the test which formerly existed, the man would be thought not a perjurer, not a person disgraced and to be avoided, but a patriot standing up for the rights and liberties of his country men, who should swear with an easy conscience as to the value of his own and his neighbour's occupation? If they arrayeal political interests and party passions against the sanctity of the oath, they could not be surprised if its sanctity were destroyed. Of this they had an illustration in that very House. Did they not know that Election Committees, though sworn solemnly to do justice between party and party, were not to be trusted where their own party was at stake, and that they viewed the facts and evid.nce brought before them through the medium of their political partialities ?—( Hear.) If the arguments he had addressed to the House were good, then it clearly followed that they must find out some more easy and more simple test of fitness for the franchise. He knew that he would be told that the law in Engiand was found to work well enough. But the circumstances of the two coun tries were so very different, that that was no argument against his position. In England the pleat majority of the consti tuency, derived the franchise from occupation, and that was measured by the amount of rent paid. When the franchise was obtained upon a leasehold qualification, It was generally upon a lease for a period of time, or upon lives, when it was well known that the holder had a beneficial interest. It was then admitted that it was absolutely necessary to get some more easy and yet efficient test. The question then arose, what ou.:1 t that test to be? No one had been proposed or even suggested, which could be so little liable to abuse as the Van of coupling, under certain restric ions, the right to the franchise to the assessment to the Poor-law. By that means a person claiming the franchise, showed the grounds upon which the franchise arose, and that he was bearing corresponding burdens. When he stated that the principle was the most simple and obvious one which had been pointed out, he felt bmind at the same time to state, that with - the information before them the House was not in a position to adopt the measure as proposed.—( Tory cheers.) He had read the Report which had been laid on the table, and he confessed that he had been much disaapointed—it was very unsatisfactory.—( Hear, hear.) But although he made that admission, he did not think that they ought not to give the Bill a second reading.—(Hear, hear.) It was perfectly true that upon data so vague he could not support the Rill. Suppose, it were agreed to, the right of voting would be very different - in different parts of Ireland—it would be very diffe rent in the union of Scarrig to what it would be in those of Lurgan and Longford. —( Hear, hear.) There was scarcely two of the valuations in conformity with the law of the land ; they migl.t, therefore, be set aside, and the result would be that while they had given the right to the franchise on the assumption that it would be more .widely extended, they might find by an alteration in the valuation a very great change had taken place which they had not intended. But still he did not think that was a reason for not reading the Bill a second time, for it was in the power of Parliament to obtain a fair valuation throughout the whole country. If they agreed upon the principle, then it would be the duty of the House to introduce clauses for the purpose of causing a new valuation in all flip unions of Ireland, and upon one universal principle. He would have such a valuation conducted by the sanction and under the authority of the Poor-law Commissioners ; he would not allow the local authorities to interfere, because they had shown that they were not fit to be trusted with the duty. They might take Advantage of the provision in the Irish Poor law E s ': - , hieh regul a ted th e manner i n w hi c h the b ur d en of 014.6:7 -rate was to be divided between the landlord and the tient of a Cer i tairfpbt.,Pe voting i reicrht elaaw,94 landlord. But the present was not the time to discuss the manner in which, if they agreed to the principle of coupling the right of voting with the payment of poor-rates, that plan was to he carried into effect. He for one saw no reason why in the present Session they should not carry that principle into effect. He was convinced that Gentlemen on both sides of the House, if they were going to apply their minds to the subject, would have no difficulty in devising the means by which that object might be carried out. The object should be to maintain as nearly as possible the number of voters at the same amount as at the passing of the Reform Bill, and he thought it essen tially necessary that they should do so at the present mo ment. Last night he had, heard with great pleasure from the Noble Lord opposite that he was not one of those who wished to restrain within very narrow limits the right of voting in Ireland. It was only what he expected from his Noble Friend, when he recollected that for three years, during which he had sat with him (Lord Howick), he had been the strenuous advocate and supporter of the principles of the Catholic Relief Bill, and of the Reform Acts :or England and Ireland. When he recollected that, he never doubted that the Noble Lord would be averse to any great restriction or nar rowing of the franchise. The Hon. Member for Cavan in a speech, in most of which he (Lord Howick) concurred, showed that nothing could be more detrimental to the prosperity of Ireland, as so to narrow the right of voting as that it should be possessed by the class who held property in Ireland ; and that, in the present state of the country, nothing could be more dangerous than to allow the franchise to fail into the hands of the owners of the soil only, and not take in such a proportion of the occupiers as would enable the Irish represen tatives to express the real feelings of all the inh ibitants. If they were agreed that it was desirable fo avoid restricting the franchise, and that they were of opinion that the most substan tial of the tenantry should exercise the right of voting, and that the Honourable Member for Cavan only dif fered as to the- extent to which that should take place— if that were the only question between them, he could not avoid the conclusion that the time had at length arrived when that remedy must be applied. His Noble Friend in trying to prove that the time had not arrived had referred to returns which had been laid upon the table of the House on the motion of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, and had shown from them that there were a considerable number of voters on the registry in Ireland. If that were really so, and that there had been no abridgement of the franchise, he for one would be satisfied. He adhered to the opinion he hadformerly expressed of the impolicy of disturbing the franchise as conferied by the Reform Bill. If the number of voters on that paper were really to be found there, he certainly should not advocate any change in the franchise as at present established. B u t w h at were the facts ? His Noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland had shown that the number was by no means so large as was represented, and that several of the names were twice en'ered, having lapsed on the old registry of 1832, and that a large deduction was to be made on that account. It was distinctly shown last night that in the county of Corkthenumber entitled to the franchise did 'not exceed one-half of that on the face of the paper. As the leases fell in they were not renewed; the consequence was a considerable reduction of the number of persons entitled to claim the franchise. He was only stating what was noto rious to every man, when he said that the first appearance of those causes creating an indisposition to grant relses was in the year 1826. It was at the general elections that year that the first great stand was made by the tenantry against what he considered the improper influence of the landlord. The shortest period for which . a lease could be granted, that gave the elective franchise, under the existing law was 14 years— hir...o'CONNELL--Fourteen years by the present Bill, but twenty by the existing law. . Lord HOWICK—WeII, the existing law required leases of considerable duration to confer the right of •voting. It was of course perfectly obvious that the vast number of those leases which were granted before the year 1836, could not yet have fallen in ; they were in process of falling in, but that process could not have reached its fullest extent. But more than that, the first appearance of those causes which created an indispo sition on the part of landlords to grant leases, though com mencing from the year 1826, did not, till after the:pas.ing of the Reform Bill, about nine years ago, acquire the strength which they now possessed. It was not till after that period that the feeling became so strong and so general as it had lately shown itself to be. It was comparatively only within a few years that that feeling had gained its present strength. —(Hear, hear.) That being the case, when they considered how long theprevious system was in ope ration, and when they also considered the length of the leases necessary to grant for the purpose of conferring the franchise—. when they considered these two things, it was obvious and palpable to the most cursory observer, that they were only at the very beginning and outset of that process of diminution which, under the influence of that feeling on the part of the landlords, must necessarily take place. Every year that went by—he might say every month that passed —every life that th ß at ut e t x i y a ir t e N d vas , ibnycriemasmedeatnhge the etewnht whole f the dropped—every lease disfranchisement. of the case. Under the operation of any good system of registration—under the operation of the system pro posed by his Noble Friend on that side of the House, or of that proposed by his Noble Friend on the opposite side of the House—under the operation of any good system of registra tion, he would say that it was perfectly obvious, on the face of the papers laid before Hon. Members, that there must be a vast diminution in the number of persons entitled to the right of voting. It was perfectly clear that, admitting the valuations which were lately made upon the Poor-law unions, to be ever so imperfect—admitting them to be even more be low the true value than they were represented to be by the gentleman who conducted the examination—even admitting hat it was perfectly obvious that a vast proportion of the tenements in respect to which the right of voting was now en joyed was of such a description that under a more effective sy stem of registration the right of voting would, to a great extent, cease to exist (Hear, hear, hear) —at the end of a given number of yeas, according to the pro posal of his Noble Friend, these cases would all come for re. consideration or revision. Acccrding:to the plan of the Noble Lord opposite they would be immediately subjected to reinves gation. But it was perfectly obvious that under the operation of a really effective scrutiny of the right of voting by any good machinery cf registration, tbcre must be a very large deduction to be made from the number of persons entitled to exercise the right of voting in Ireland. But if that was the case, if the direct and necessary effect of passing a measure upon that •übject would be to reduce the number of voters—if there•was also to be taken into account the feeling on the part of the landlords which induced them to withhold leases—if all these various circumstinces were to be taken into consideration and to be coupled with that which they knew to be the state of Ireland from all the most authentic information before Hon. Members —from the information contained in Reports upon the subject, and from previous Reports of Mr. Nicholls, written without any reference to the subject at present under discussion—if that, he (Lord Howick) said, was clear, surely it was perfectly obvious, in justice to the people of Ireland and in sound policy, with respect to the interests of the empire at large that theyought at they same time that they established a stricter and severer system of scrutiny of the right of voting in Ireland they ought at the same time to make the definition of that right clearer and plainer, and also so shape it that it would prevent the diminution in the numbei s of voters, which was to be ap • prehended. That appeared to him to be the course which it became them to adopt, and he must, before he brought to a close His observations, which had already run to a greater length than he had intended—before he drew those observa tions to a close he must refer particularly to one of the argu ments which he meant to advert to, and which it was most im portant the House should consider. In speaking of the incon venience and mischief which resulted from uncertainty in the right of voting, and from the difficulty of applying a test of value according to the existing law, even if the con struction were more clear and more certain than it was—in speaking of that he meant t o have called the attention of the House to that fact, that in applying that test by means of the Assistant Baristera they produced very serious evils in Ireland. His (Lord Howick's) argument was, that if they continue to have, as in time past, extremely conflicting evidence on the subject of value on every occasi .11 of re g istry in Ireland, to call on the Assista n tß ari i s t er t o d ec id e upon his own judgment, or on the evidence so tendered to him, —to call upon him to pronounce a decision which might materially affect the political interests of the contending parties was attended with this disadvantage, that it threw supicion upon his character, and upon the due administration of justice.—( Hear, hear.) Every man knew how important, in the administration of justice in Ireland, had been the system of Assistant Barristers. This institution he believed well cal culated to provide for the satisfactory adjustment of all those disputes which in every country arose b• tween man and man. It would, therefore, be the foundation of improved order and tranquillity in Ireland. But if they threw ,a doubt on the impartiality of the Assistant Barrister,—if they mixed him up in politics, by imposing on him the duty of eeciding on the right of persons to vote, they would do all they could towards going back to the state of thi ngs th a t b e f ore existed, and de stroying the benefits of valuable institutions. And this was not his ( Lord Howick's) opinion only. Those Gentlemen on the other side of the House who were Members of the Committee on fictitious voters in Ireland, could not fail to recollect that the Assistant Barristers who were examined on that occasion, and had also been employed .in registration, expressed the strongest opinion, derived from their own experience, of the inconvenience and mischief of uniting in their persons these duties. They said, that if they were to perform the duties of registration it was necessary, for the satisfactory administra tion of justice, that they should not be called upon to do so upon an indefinite title of voting.--( Hear, hear.) The estab lihment of the clear right of voting, therefore, was coincident with the due ad m i n i s t ra ti on o f j ust i ce. Hi s Noble Friend had said that he had a great objection to impose the task upon them. Could it be imposed upon the Judges? In his (Lord Howick's) opinion, still less. Upon the executive Govern ment ? Hon. Gentlemen had stated distinctly, No ; and as he was willing to admit, with every appearance of justice. Could they allow the right of deciding upon matters so vague and uncertain as the value of property to be given, without appeal to any Bar ister, let him be chosen by whomhe might? Could they give such an extent of power, so liable to abu , e, to any man in such a situation ? In his (Lord Howick's) opinion, decidedly not. On this question of value, to chat tribunal was to be their appeal ,from the decision of the Bar rister ? To what other authority were they to refer this question? Were they to give it, as at present, to the Judges and Juries ? He was sure no friend to Ireland would recommend such a course. Party political animosities had al catty, in that unhappy country, gained too mush admission within the sanctuary of justice.--( Hear, hear.) But no man who had the slightest regard to the interests of Ireland would ag gravate and extend so injurious a system. Was it a Court of Appeal, such as was proposed by the Bill of his Noble Friend, now before the House ? Such a Court might by possibility decide, as proposed by that Bill, on disputed questions of law, but on questions of value, which turned on the nice balance of conflicting evidence, which, to justly estimate, must be heard and not t sad, such a tribunal would be utterly inefficient ; it would be_impossible for it even to attempt to perform such a task. Were they to leave questions of value open for the con sideration of a Committee of that House ? Were they in every case of contested election to allow a person to be brought over, at a vast expense, before a Committee of that House, to give evidence whether the property of a person in Kerry or Cork was worth ten pounds a year beyond what a solvent tenant would give for it? Could any man continue a system of this kind by the effect of which, when parties were equally divided, the representation was virtually placed at the command of the longest purse?—( Hear, hear)—for that was the effect of leaving those questions to be decided by Election Committees. He had now nearly concluded what he had proposed to be addressed to the House. He had stated the grounds oil which it ap peared to him, that it was in the highest degree expedient, they should endeavour, if possible, to couple the right of voting with the assessment for the Poor-rate.—( Hear, hear. ) In stating the grounds of his opinion, he was aware that he was making admissions which would be greatly disapproved of by gentlemen around him, and that the conclusions to which .he had arrived, would be equally disapproved of by the oppo site side. It was a painful position for any man to be placed in, to Snd that in no quarter of the House, could he look for approbation of the course which he had adopted. Yet, although it were ea'ier to go with the stream, and vote with a party, that should never be his course of conduct. On a question like this, on which the peace, happiness, and stability of the empire de pended—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. O'Connell)—he would act on the dictates of his own independent judgment.—( Hear, hear.) He appealed to those Gentlemen opposite who agreed with him in wishing this question to b e se ttl e d on a f a i r basis for ail parties, and he entreated them t o ask them se l ves , whe ther this Bill did not hold out a prospect of arriving at such a settlement ? ' was not their duty to sup mar lot propose Utopian v iews own opinion. the nature of popular assemblies, no great object could be car ried out without the co-operation of many minds; which could only be obtained by sacrifices of one's own opinion to that of others upon minor points. He knew that was the case, and he had always acted on that conviction. Bat there were cases of too deep an importance to allow that rule to be acted upon. That co-operation and that sacrifice of opinion of which he spoke were always understood, with air§ reservation, that they can only be required on questions not of vital and paranrunt importance.—( Hear, hear.) On all questions, when great interests of the country were at stake, every man should act on hii own independent judgment ; and he asked, was not such the case of the present Bill ?—( Hear, hear.) Let any man look to the present state of Ireland—( Hear, hear)--and say was it consistent with the safety cf the empire—.(Cheers)—that this question should be any longer left the subject of a3itation and of angry and acrimonious discussion ?—( Cheers.) If they looked not only to Ireland, but to Foreign affairs, would any man say that the importance of this question was not greatly increased by the aspect which they bore ?—(Hear, hear. ) Was not the temper of men's minds in other countries such as lo lead to doubts of the permanence of that peace, which had already lasted longer than any other, per haps, which this country had ever enjoyed ?—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") He feared that its length added to the danger; for he believed that a generation was arising, by which the miseries of war were to a great extent unknown and f irgotten, and that the animosities which in• former times de solated the world with war and bloodshed might again lead to similar results. If they looked to the state of the country at home and abroad, could they reconcile themselves to re.. and this question as one of minor importance, and one on which they could vote for party purposes ?—( Cheers.) For himself, he gave his vote under a sense of the highest responsibility, but without the slightest hesitation, that it was his duty to support the Bill. Dr. LE FR OY said, that if the Bill were calculated to put an end to doubt and uncertainty, it should have his most cor dial support. But it would do no such thing ; and its honest title ought to be, " A Bill to abolish all the honest country voters e-tablished by the Reform Bill." It wa such a mea sure as they ought to take the first opportunity of putting. out of the House. If the Parliamentary qualification were reduced to 51. the municipal qualification could not be maintained at IN. and the question of corporations would be agitated anew. The main provision of the Bill was one which had never been heard of in the House, except from the Hon. Member for Kilkenny and those who acted with him ; and it was melancholy to find the Government going so far with that party. The fact was, that the qualification under the proposed law would be less than that of the 40s. freeholders, for those were required at least to have some profit in their holdings. In England a 101. tenantcy was the qualification which entitled a pauper to parish relief, while in Ireland a 51. tenement.was to entitle its possessor to a vote for the county —(Hear, hear.) He found that, before the passing of the Reform Act, the voter, in Ireland amounted to 70,408, while they were now raised to the number of 154,687, showing an increase of more than two to one. There was, therefore, no grounds for saying that the constituencies of Ireland had been so diminished by the pre sent system al to render it necessary to have recourse to the de perate expedient then proposed for the purpose of keeping it up to a reasonable proportion. Previous to the Reform Act, the Liberal party in Ireland returned 63 Members to Parlia ment, and the party opposed to them returned 33;_ while the Liberal party now returned 75, and their opponents 35. That was another reason for inducing him to think that the power of the party opposite had not of late years been unduly Aid: nished. It wee a serious objection to the measure that i' would tend to the subdivision of property, and the general im poverishment of the country. The Hon. 'and Learned Mem her for Dublin himself had expressed that opinion on aneirami nation before a Committee of the House. The Hon. and Learned Member on that occasion recommended the establish ment of a 101. constituency, stating that such a measure would tend to raise the condition of the Irish farmers, and to give the country, what it so much wanted, a substantial yeomanry. ' The measure would tend to corruption of the cons ituency I itself, by creating a pauper constituency. The measure was not only an infringement of the Reform Act, but a breach of the compact entered into in 1629. The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had been a party to that compact, as was proved by his evidence, which he had before quoted, a n d , o lately as the month of February, 1539, had admitted that a measure for the abolition of the 101. franchise would be a vio lation both of the Reform Act and of the Catholic Emancipa tion Act, and yet he was now advocating such a measure. Should this measure be carried the constituency of Ireland would be so thrown into the hands of the Repealers as to make it exceedingly difficult for the House to resist such a measure. He would therefore conclude by giving his hearty concurrence to the amendment of the Noble Lord that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. PIGOT said that as the discussion had proceeded it appeared to him that it had been gradually narrowed to what appeared to him the essential part of the project of legislation which had been submitted to the attention of the Home. That question was whether the franchise in Ireland ought to be con tinued on the basis on which it rested at present—and to the consideration of that question all the topics which had been Urged in the litter part of the debate seemed to converge. The main question for consideration was this, whether they should retain that props rty qualification, leaving the test of value what it was at present in law. He would ask the House to consider what was the present state of things with rtferenee to the test of value in relation to the franchise. He was now speaking peculiarly with reference to the county frinchi.e, and on that ques'ion they had not only to combat wi h the difficul ties which must always arise when a question of value at as .to be discussed, but there was this additional difficulty, that they had to contend with a contested question of law. Some differ ences might arise even with respect to a question of fact, but with respect to a question of value there must necessarily b e subjects of difference. The elements of qualification were three—the title, the occupation, and the value of the tenement. All these questions had to be discussed merely as a question of fact, with the exception of the element of value. The ques tion of title was proved by a production of the lease, the question of occupation was also a matter of fact, and ad mitted of clear proof, but when they came to the considera- tion of %eke, that was decidedly not a question of fact but a question of opinion—(Cheers)—and on all matters of opinion the evidence would always be so conflicting as to lead on the consideration of the subject to the greatest perplexity. They 1 knew that on questions relating to matters of fact, to what . ?—and if so, whether it Hear hear.) He did t n. No. From the f 37 had passed before our senses, to matters which parties might have seen or heard, prejudice or passion would frequently so warp men's minds as to make them gi-e versions of the same occurrence perfectly different the one from the other— and if this were the case as to matter of fact what must it be as to matter of opinion ; why, the diff erences i n t h at case caused by interest or puss:on were so great, that in many cases of matter of opinion it eves impossible to rely on human testimony. This was the case in all matters of opinion, more particularly must it be so in questions of opinion af fecting the franchise, where there must necessarily be so much conflicting testimony, and this was more par ticularly the case with respect to the Irish franchise, than to the English one, because the Irish franchise was prin cipally a 10/. leasehold one, while in England the greater part of the constituency consisted either of freeholders or tenants at will, the leaseholders constituting but a small portion of the electoral body. With respect to the 4('s. freeholder, the free hold must indeed be of little value if it was not greatly above that required by law, but in Ireland the Legislature had thought proper to give a 101. leasehold franchise instead of a 40s. freehold one, and the 101. leasehold franchise, which was not a common one in England, was the most common one in Ireland, and that was the reason why the defects inherent in the nature of the franchise itself appeared so much more glar ingly in the one country than in the other. That was in itself an evil, but to that evil was superadded the still greater mis chief of an ambiguity in the law.—( Cheers.) By the Act of 1829 the test of the franchise had peen determined to be what a solvent tenant could afford to pay over and above what the tenant paid. By the second clause of that Act, and by the oath in the third schedule of the Act, that definition of the test had been distinctly laid down by the Legislature : amongst the tests which Parliament in its wisdom had at that time thought right to apply to the investigation of the franchise, was a form of oath to be administered to the Jury appointed at the As&zes to try questions of appeal relating to the franchise. That oath was altogether omitted from the Reform Act, and all clauses relating to it were withdrawn from the body of the Bill. A question then arose not only with respect to the free hold franchise but with respect to the leasehold franchise, which hied not existed under thq former statute, but which owed its existence entirely to the Reform Bill.--( Hear, hear.) The question was raised before the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench ; he had previously ruled that the oath ought not to be put. Other Judges had held a different opinion, and orepedby their authority he had permitted the administration of the cats, but at the same time reserved the question frr consideration with his brethren. The Judges met and considered the questions submitted to them. The first question raised was whether the oath was lawful. On that question four of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench and one Baron of the Exchequer, five out of theeleven, were decidedly of opinion that the oath was unlawful. six were of opinion that the oath had been properly admini stered, and one other Judge, who was absent from the consul tation, was unders'ood to agree with them in opinion. An other question was, whether it was proper to direct the Jury to apply the test ? There were ten to two in favour of the test. If it stood thus alone, and he could show the House that a difference in opinion existed amongst the Judges, on such an important question as the mode in which they should appeal to the consciences of a Jury, he thought he should be enabled to call upon them to pass some legislative enactment to remove all doubt upon the subject. But it was not a difference of sto7oroflo to 2 ; the practical result had been that the two Judges who differed in opinion from their brethren still retained their own opinions, and declared that they felt bound by the solemn obligations under which they were acting to state the law on both subjects acc wding to their own opini o ns, and against the o pi n i ons o f t h e majority, and to act in accord ance with the opinion of the law. Such hid been the case in 1837, but what was it at present? Two of the Judges belonging to the majority had since been replaced by two holding opinions in accordance with those of the minority ; so that on the question of the administration of the oath the minority had been converted into a majority of 7 to 5, while on the other quesion the minority had been increased to 4, and at that moment one third of the Judges of Ireland felt that they were bound by the solemn sanction of their oath, to administer the law as they believed right, in opposition to the opinion of their brethren. Now, how was this question to be determined ? were they to have the question renewed, the Judges again to be tailed together, and to wait until those discussions should be renewed ?—(Hear, hear.) It was a state of th'ngs calling loudly for legislative interference ; The Legislature was called upon to settle the question, and remove the doubt altogether. If such a difference of opinion had taken place upon the smallest question relating to pro perty, upon an individual right of the smallest possible value, the Legislature would be bound to interfere. It was the business of Parliament to review the laws, to see where they were defective, and to take care that they were rendered clear and unambiguous. Was it not, therefore, essential that they should in some way remove the doubts that at present existed in those parts of the law. There were two protects now before the House, and be tween them the House must choose. He would assume that some alteration must be made, and would now addrese himself to the main features of the measures before the House. The Noble Lord opposite said his Bill was a Bill for registration merely; now, if ever that was so, he considered it a sufficient ground for the House not to enter into its consideration, as it only aggravated and exasperated the evil, because its very vital pnnciele and essence was to give an appeal against the the franchise to the Judge, to settle a question—of what ? Net to sett'e a question between parties, according to the law as it was known and acknowledged, but to give them an opportunity of adding further question, and making the doubtful law more doubtful.—( Hear, hear.) Now, what was the consequence of such a state of things? He would suppose that an Assistant Barrister had admitted five hundred votes—or rather, he would suppose that he had rejected them. There was an appeal to the Judge, and he, acting according to his interpretation of the law of beneficial interest, placed those 500 voters on the register. An election then took place ; an intervening registry afterwards occurred, and the same voters were objected to as being improperly left on the registry, and the Revising Barrister left them on the registry. Now he would suppose another Judge had gone that circuit holding different opinions to the previous one—what would be the result ? Why probably those very electors would be re moved by the Judge holding different opinions. Such would be the effect of the provisions of the Noble Lord's Bill, and he would leave it for the House to say whether that was a remedy for the evil or an aggravation of it.—(Hear, hear.) He would meimtinu another • -_ s•s1; 3 11. i sten iL, tlhe eAurse, -of Friend the Secret ary a t W ar , w i t h referenee uonouralele in Dublin. In Dublin the appeal was to any one of the Judges who sat at Nisi Prius : he would suppose the Lord Chief Baron entertaining one opinion in ac cordance with the minority of the Judges, and the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, holding another opinion in accordance with the majority of the Judie.. Now, was it not plain in such a case, that if the party appe a l e d, h e must succeed, because he had only to choose the Judge before whom he would go ? Was it not indispensable, therefore, that in some way or other, the question should be settled that was tried in 1835, 1838, and 1840, and it was then found that, upon the mere definition of the words of the Reform Bill, the difficulty could not be removed. He would appeal to every reasonable man, whether, adopting the plan to remedy these evils—whether it was not necessary to consider what would be the qualities that were required as a test, and whether that test should not prevail in the whole Island. Such was the case in the Poor law ; there the test pervaded the whole Island. The next thing to consider would be, whether they could obtain a test that would comprise every species of property ; and with refer ence to that he thought, with very few exceptions, that the Poor-'aw test would be applicable to every species of property that would give the franchise. It was not necessary that the test should be uniform' over the whole Islands it was quite sufficient that it should be uniform in large districts ; but then it was said that there - must be some check to fraud ; he thought that check was given under the system of the Pcor laws. Now what was the case With reference to the Poor-law ? Why, before it was tried, so Satisfied was Parliament of its adequacy as a proper test, that they adopted it for the purpose of establishing the municipal franchise.—(Hear, hear.) Had any other mode been suggested by which this difficulty could be got over, or had any other mode been suggested by which they could get a better test? He had heard of none in that debate or in former discussions, and he owned that it appesrod to him if they were to retire from that experiment, without fairly trying it, the case might be looked to as utterly hopeless. But then it was said that the valuation was not uerferm ; if that argument was to stand good, and if it was to be urged that the tested valuation must be uniform— that they must abandon al notion of ohtaining any test whatever, l'ecause to suppose that they could obtain an uniformity of value was utterly out of the question. If they were to take rating as a test at all by which the fran chise was t0.1.e made statue, it was impossible to suppose Chet in some parts there would be a difference to what took place in other. It was enough to be certain that they could never ex ceed the real value of the property, becau-e, if the rating was too high, the party had an opportunity of appealing against the rate. It appeared, therefore, to him that the great and essential quality which was required, in -the first place, was that the basis of the test should be ascertained before the parties went to the conflict in the registry ; and next that there should be a uniformity of that test as near as possible. The question of the amount of the franchise was ono that would require great consideration fr•m the House, but that was a more tit subject for the Committee then the second ;ceding. Tte exact amount of the franchise was not now the question, and if he was asked why Si. had been taken as the test, he would refer to the statements of his Noble Friend who introduced the Bills. He begged the House to recollect that they were not nowdea'ing with a recent question—they were not now deal ing with men that for the first time came forward to claim that which was the subject of doubt—but they were dealing with a mass of men who had acquired the franchise, and who had enjoyed it for eight yea re . I n the pig/int-Bill the rights of all parties were defined, which, was - not the ease under the provisions of the Referin Bilh-L(Pleflredrear.) He had incontestible witnesses to prove that in 1832, when the the Barristers went about administering the law, they ap• plied it in the manner in which the people now understood it —( Hear, hear.) He would just call the attention of the House to the state of things which existed prior to and under the Reform Act. Ihe Act of 1829 required ,that all the 101. freeholders of Ireland then created should be registere d ) under that Act. By a return which was made' to the House of Commons in May, 1831, it appeared that there were then registered 20,109 voters. It was said that the freehold euatification was not intended to be altered by the Refor m Bill. Now what was the operation of dal; law ? In 1832 the 101. franchise was registered under the Reform Act. What was the number of freeholders registered under that Act? If the law were the same—if it was administered in the same manner—ought that franchise to have been enlarged ? should it have been considerably i n c rease d? Why, he found that, in the summer of 1831, the freehold constituency of the counties was 20,000 ; in the autumn of 1532 there were regis tered under the Reform Act 37,732, making an addition to the freehold constituency of 17,000. He mentioned that sim ply for the purpose of showing how the Reform Act worked, and upon what principle it was administered. He con tended that the Reform Act was administered upon the extended construction, and he proved the fact by showing- that the constituency, which according to the allegation, IA as left unchanged, was nearly doubled under the Reform Act.—( Hear, hear.) At this time the Noble Lord was secretary for Ireland, and it was proved upon the evidence that the B ,rristers were in constant communi::ation with him, .. and that he gave them all the information which they required upon Cke construction. An election son afterwards took plat aid after that the attempt was made t'► in!roduce an opposiie ►onstruction. The Longford Committee, which was com posed chiefly of Meneers the other side of the house, de termined in favour of the more e:eendod construction. Anothi r ....—.. , electi. n took place in 1835, and another in 1837. Upon. t' ese "three cccasions men who had acquired the franchise also ex ercised it upon that construction, and until the last. Session of Parliament its propriety had never been called in question. There was one point upon which he felt anxims that the House should be set right. It was important to look at the inten- , tions of the framers of the measur , in introducing it to Parlia __ ment. Now what was the fact in reference to these intentions ? What were the people of Ireland entitled to understand from their language The Hon. Member then proceeded to read - a passage from a discussion in 1829, the effect of which was that the best coune would be to demand proof of a bona fide 10/. interest and no' more. Thi4 , , said the Hon. Gent], man, was the language of the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial Benches.) The Noble Lord on that oceas'on had used the very expression beneficial interest. But he had gone further, he had said that it should not be tested by the good and sol vent tenantry. The argument was applied against those who contended for the adoption of such a test. —( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord was in favour of a beneficial interest, but not a good and solvent tenant test. That was what the Reform Act had done, and they were bound to take that Act according to the intention of i's framers. He called upon Parliament to give its sanction to a d stinct and intelligible measure . for the purpose of settling the franchise upon a sure and solid footing. He called upon them not to look upon this question under the influence of .party feelings or political excitement.—(Hear. ) He called upon those who desired the future peace and tran quillity of Ireland, who desired to see it progress in that rapid career of improvement which was now unquestionably developing so much of the resources of Ireland, who wished to eetend to that country the blessings which distinguished this country, to come to the consideration of this question with unprejudiced minds, and for that purpose to go into Commit tee on this Bill.—( Cheers. ) Sir W. FOLLETT said he quite agreed with the Hon. Gentleman, that the - details of this measure would •be best dealt with when discussed in Committee. It was upon the prin ciple involved in these clauses respecting the elective franchise, that the question now arose, and he ould not avoid express ing his surprise that the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Atto:ney-General for 'lreland, under whose auspices - this Bill was mainly introduced into Parliament, should have con cluded his speech without addressing a single word to the House upon the great and sweeping change which these clauses introduced in the elective franchise of Ireland. . He could not but' suppose that the Right Hon. Gentleman was quite aware of the full scope of this Bill; and yet the Right lion. and Learned Gentleman had treated it as if the whole principle which they were discussing was the application of a par ticular test. Did the lion. Gentleman suppose that Hon. Members on that side of the House were opposed to the ap plication of a test? He (Sir Wm. Follett) perfectly agreed with the Hon. Member for the county of Northumberland that some test arising from the relief of the poor, or some other putlic burthen, should be applied, and that they should not rest solely on the oath of the claimant ; and he was surprised that it should be supposed that any opposition would be offered to the application of a proper test. But then, under the pretence of applying the Poor-rate as a test of value, there was an attempt to sweep away the existing franchise in Ireland. Acting entirely contrary to the princi ple laid down by the Reform Bill, it was thought to substitute another constituency, based upon a different - principle and upon a different qualification.._( Hear, hear.) It was a violent interference with the very principle of the Reform Bill. Be fore he proceeded to speak of the general principles of the measure, the House would allow him to say one word upon the difficulties which it was supposed to meet. He perfectly agreed with the Right Honourable Gentleman that the scenes now existing in Ireland were a scandal and reproach, and no one could more regret that state of things. But he was not prepared to admit that the blame of those scenes was to be attributed to some deficiency in the Reform Act. As an English gentle man and an English lawyer, he could not understand the doubt or the difficulty. The elective franchise in Ireland was given in precisely the same terms as in England ; the two great classes of voters, the freeholder, and the 101. occupier, were the same. With respect to the term " beneficial inte rest," he was satisfied that no English lawyer could rise in his place, and say that the introduction of those words created the slightest doubt.—( Hear, hear.) They had heard of discord ant decisions. He (Sir W. Follett) never heard of a Revising Barrister in any part of England entertaining the slightest doubt at to the meaning of those words ; that part of the Re form Bill ha 1 in this country been carried into effect without doubt and without difficulty.—( Hear, hear.) Now, what had occurred in Ireland? 'I he Right Hon. Gentleman said that the Barristers gave a large and liberal construction to the words. Did he know how far those Barristers went—nut as regards freeholds, not as regards leaoehulds, but as regards oc cupiers of lot. tenements? It had been proved, before Com mittees of the House •of Commons, that in some ewes the occupier of a cellar had been admitted on account of his trade, or something else, which was called a beneficial inte rest, to be placed upon the register.--( Hear, hear. ) • They took the same fanciful mode with regard to the freeholds. It doubts and difficulties existed, there was an easy mode of set tling them. There was an appeal to the Judges; and he could conceive no course more prop er , than to assemble the, Judg• s of Ireland, that the matter might be properly discussed, and when !hat tribunal had -made its decision, he could not conceive how any further doubts could exist. But what had actually occurred? Why, ten of the Judges of Ireland had given the construction to the Act which had been put upon . it in England. There were two dissentient Judges, and they had advised the Barristers to act upon their own authority.• He hoped that the House would not suppose that he meant to impute improper motives to those Learned Judges. He believed that there was no Member of the English bar, who had obtained a seat on the beech, who once allowed himself to be influenced by political feelings; he believed the same of the Irish bar ; but, for this leason, he the snore deeply regretted the course which the Learned Judges in question had pursued. It was said that the opinion of the majority was not binding. He admitted that it was not, but he would ask what man's life or fortune would be safe if the Judges of England were to choose to act upon their individual opinion, instead of y fielding their opinion to the Courts of- Appeal. The Judges invariably yielded to the majority. They knew that even the .Govern ment acted upon the opinions of the majority of the Judges. They had, in a recent' case of high treason, carried into effect the decision of the majority •of the Judges, He could -not help thinking that it would have been much bet ter for the two Judges to have conformed to that of their ten brethren. He would have said so in any case of a nun-politi cal nature--4low much more so, then, in a case relating to the franchise.—'(Cheers.) Ile called upon the Right Hon. the Attorney-General for. Ireland to look again at, and compare the provisions of the 10th George IV., with those contained in the Reform contended they were identically the same. Well, they introduced a Bill into the House, but not containing the same provisions as the Bill which had formerly been intro duced by the Right Hon. Gentleman. It was quite clear that if that Bill had passed the only effect of it would have been to increase the evils now existing in Ireland ten-fold. Had it passed the same difficulties would have existed now. But what was the Bill of the Noble Lord ? Why was it rendered neces sary under a pretence of removing doubts and difficulties? Were they going to introduce such a clause as the 5/. rating one ? (Cheers. )He could not characterise that as fair--he had al most said not honest. The effect of the clause would be not only to destroy the franchise introduced by the Reform Bill, but it would introduce quite a new one. Under that Bill the 10/. • ..Iders, - lea.eholders, would have a beneficial interest for certain terms of 60, 20, and 14 years, the beneficial interest • The franchise was so given to copy lo era ; le believed none of that class existed in Ireland. That was the franchise, as settled by the Reform Bill; but what was the principle of it? Was it not that the right of - voting in counties should be based upon property. —( Loud cheers.) And that in burghs the right of voting should be founded on occupation. The Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies objected strenuously to the in sertion -of the 50/. clause to the Reform Bill, upon the very ground that it was an interference with the right of voting in counties, which was distinctly based upon property, and not on occupation.—(Cheers.) What then did the Government propose to do by this Act ? In effect they would take away the necessity for any property whatever being pos sessed by a county voter.—(Cheers.) He repeated it, that no party would be bound under thus Act to have any property whatever, to entitle him to vote under this Act. He was re quired to be an occupier for 14 years of a tenement rated to the poor at 51.—(Cheers.) Was not that a complete altera tion of the principle of the Reform Bill ? The effect of it would be, that every occupier of any -coaage, stable, tenement, or hovel in Ireland, paying even more than the full value of the' cottage, garden, or other possession, if he held it for 14 years, at a rack rent under any and every restriction by his landlord still he would be entitled to vote for any county in that country. Was not this, he would ask, almost admitting the principle of Universal Suffrage in the counties of Ireland?—(Cheers.) The Hon. Member for Kilkenny had said that he expected soon to see the principle of the Bill applied to England; and supposing that, the House were now to agree to the Bill then before them, how were they to refuse such a demand upon the part of the people of England, supposing it to be made ; and if it were agreed to, let them sweep away all Revising Barristers and Courts of Appeal, because there would be no property qualification to inquire into. He contended it was not only an alteration of the principle contained in the Reform Bill, but it was a direct violation of the conditions which accompanied the Catholic Relief Bill of 1839—(Cheers)—which required the franchise to be lodged in the hands of the let. freeholders of Ireland. The Noble Lord cheered him, but did he not only last session strenuously oppose the sec•ind r, ading of the Bill, on the ground that it would intei fere with the settlement made by that Bill. It was true they did not intend to restore the 40s. freeholders, but they were about to establish a much worse franchise. The great objecti n made to that class of voters was that the system led to a division and sub-division of tre land to a degree which was most destructive to the welfare of the population, and detrimental to the landlords. Many serious attempts had been made to counteract the evils of that system, but the Bill under consideration would bring them all back in their ful malignity. They would again have the land lords dividing and sub-dividing their lands into 5/. holdings for fourteen years. —(Hear, and cheers.) The Bill provided no check upon the landlord whatever; he would grant a 14-yea r lease, but he could require any rent he pleased; he could put his tenant under any restrictions he thought proper; yet under the provisions of the Bill he would be enabled by that Bill to enforce that rent, and enforce those restrictions which he could not do when he made 40s. free holders ' • it was putting an i mmense power i nto the hands of landlords who were of an exacting nature ; as long as the te nant vo ed as he desired, he might retain his lease, but the moment that he thought proper to vote in opposition to him, that moment he could he removed. These were the consti tuencies which the Noble Lord proposed to introduce into Ireland, by means of a Bill which only -professes to clear up doubts and remove difficulties.—(Loud cheers.) But where were they to rest ? how resist a demand of the same ue/hire if made ley'life per)* of England ?- - (Cheers.) They (*ad not lookefit what. was now taking place out of doors with-, out seeing that there was a large party in the coun try who haled this Bill as the first step to House hold if not to Universal Suffrage.—(cheers.) '1 he Noble Secretary for Ireland as well as the Attorney-General for that country stated .that the information upon which they called upon the House to legislate was both meagre and unsatisfac tory. In lis opinion it was much 'worse. It was founded ups n direct violation cf th e di ec ti ons o f an A ct o f P ar li ament. Ile lion. and Learned Gentleman here read a section of the Poor-law Act for Ireland, and in contradistinction a passage from the Report upon which the Bill was founded, in order to show that the valuations taken proceed upon a different prin ciple from the clause contained in the Act. He would ask was there no mode of compelling obedience to as Act of Parlia ment in Ireland,?—( Cheers. ) Were there no Courts in Ire land ? These Gentlemen state that the parties who hail rated under the Poor-law have done so most imperfectly and im properly, and in direct violation of the terms of the Act ; and yet the Noble Lord came down and called upon the House to legislate upon that which even the Assistant Commissioner stated was altogether wrong and illegal. He objected to the principle of the Bill because neither the Noble Lord nor the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had shown the slightest reason why its provisions should be extended to hue •holders in towns. Last session he had fixed the municipal franchise at WI. upon a rating to the poor-rate ;he had now voters for Memb.rs of Parliament whom he proposed to be reduced to a ra t g of only 5/.; nor had any reason been shown why die fran chise should be reduced to Si. in Ireland and retained at lot in Scotland and England. Such was the Bill of the IsT, We Lord, and he would ask the House whether he had not redeemed the pledge he gave—(Clierrs)—wheri lie said that he would show that neither the Attorney-General nor the Nobles Secretary had at all alluded to the material part of the Bill, which would lilt r the provisions of the Reform and be, guided by the prii ciple of the Bill of 1829.—(Loud cheers.) He would ap pail to Gentl men s tting on both sides of the House—he would appeal more particuhrly to her Majesty's Government, whe ther when they had so frequ en tly opposed wild and visionary schemes which had been the production of a seal oi of the supporters o' her Majesty's. GGvernmint—(Loul ebeerine)— he asked if they were prepared to 'support a Bill mere oljee tionable than any that had ever been introduced? He would venture to hope that whatever might be the motives and ob jects of the Government in introducing the present Bill, that a majority of the House that night would show them and the country that they would net attempt, under the guise of a Bill for amending the registration in Ireland, to set aside the Re form Bill for the three countries, and allow new claimants in the constituencies of the empire, which innst be etterided with danger to all the Pr-ablished institutions of the country, if not to th e C onst i tut i on itself.—(Lout[ cheering for some minutes.) Mr. MA CA UL AY—Sir, if this were a legal question purely, I Should think it ino:4 presumptuous in me to inter ere, or intrude myself between the Hon. and Learned Member who hat,iust sat down and my Right Hon. Ffien'l behind me. If flits were a ques!ion to be decided by local knowledge, .I should be equally disposed to leave it to the numerous Representatives of the Irish constituencies, who 'had shown an inclination to address the House. But as it appears to me that at this stage of the Bill, at least, it is pos sible, from one who pretends to neither legal nor local knowledge to form an opinion, I shall venture to state what appears to me to be the grounds on which a representative in this House, bringing to the subject no knowledge beyond that general in-' formation which is common to every Hon. Member, may feel himself justified in supporting the second reading of the Bill. Sir, in what I have to say, I shall attempt to follow the pre ceßt rather than the example of the Hon. and Learned Gen timber): who has just sat down. The Hon. and Learned Men - - ber began by declaring his intention to go into none of the questions which might, with more advantage, be regularly discussed when you had left the chair ; but I must say that it appeared to me that the greater part of his observations did relate to queotions of detail—(oh !)—to important ques tions of details I admit ;S but I never can consider that whether the time be fourteen years, or whether the sum be 51. are other than questions of detail.—(oh, oh, from the Opposition benches.) Sir, I do conceive, however extraor dinary that avowal may seem to Hon. Gentlemen opposite— I do conceive that if any Hun. Gentleman in this House was c :minced that the test of my Noble Friend was the best test—then, , although he might be disposed to think that the_ sum of 51. was too low—then although he might be disposed to fix it at 61., 71. 81., or 101., he s h ou ld st ill be acting in a reasona bl e and Parliamentary manner if he voted fur the second reading.—(oh, and loud cheers.) For my own part I believe, for I had not then the honour of a seat in this House, that this was the case in discussing the Irish Municipal Bill—that the general principle of the Bill being ap proved of, it was brought in, although several divisions were subsequently taken upon its details.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I have no hesitation in stating that I do apprehend that the evi's which are to be apprehended from the re striction of the franchise in Ireland are greater than those which are to be dreaded from its extension.--( Hear, heir.) Sir, I think it best that the test of my Noble Friend should be adopted, that a greater proportion of votes should be given to the large counties of Cork and Louth. I think it better that they should have 8,000 rather than 2,090 voters, but whether they are to have 8,000 or 2,000, still I prefer the test of my Noble Friend near me.--( Cheers.) Sir, I shall at present, upon the question of the amount of the fran chise—l shall confine myself to the principle of the Bill, and it will be necessary for me to follow the example of the Noble Lord, and look not at it alone, but also at the other Bill that accompanies it on the table of the House. The case is cer tainly a grave and important one. Serious evils are admitted to exist with regard to a precious and important right ; both par ties in the State admit the existence of those evils, and . both have come forward with remedies which are now lying on your table, and it is for the House to decide between them. Sir, I cannot disguise from myself the fact that it is not on these two Bills we are sitting in judgment.—(Hear, hear.) I say that each of these Bills appears to me to be strongly marked by all the great and characteristic features of the party from which it proceeded. Those who with so much zeal and perseverance support the Noble Lord near me will not be disinclined to ad mit that his measure involves those great principles upon which the legislation of the country should be carried on.— ( Hear, hear.) Now what is the end and object of legisla tion ? If there he any person who thinks that a Bill of Regis tration should be a Bill of Disfranchisement in disguise —( Cheers for the Ministerial benches)—if there be any person who thinks that we ought so to frame the law as to take away from the people as much as possible of that power which the liberality of the law has given them, there are many who may think fit to act upon that suggestion, but there are few who will avow it.—(Loud cheering.) I shall, therefore, in what I have to offer to the House take the proposition for granted, that the object of a Registration Bill is to keep out bad voters and let in good ones.—(Cheers.) This is not a simple object—it aims at two things quite distinct, and which may be incompatible. It is possible to conceive that there may be a law giving, ample facilities for the ad mission of honest voters, but at the same time permitting a erowd of dishonest voters to press in. It is equally obvious that there may be a law enacting such severe scrutiny that the dishonest voters cannot pass muster, but that such a law will keep out many honest voters.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") Sir, it is the severest t r i a l o f legislat i on to deal with such cases. When there is only a single object, the case is comparatively easy ; but when there is a double object, both cannot be enjoyed in perfection. Now, if the Bill of my Noble Friend was superior in any respect to that of the Noble Lord opposite, it consists in giving facilities to the re gistration of voters. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the danger is greater from an undue extension of the franchise, hut I think the danger is greater from an improper restriction of the franchise.—( Hear, hear.) Argument upon that sub ject is almost unnecessary; but it is clear to me that in both :resPects the Bill of my Noble Friend is superior to the Bill of the Noble Lord, and more efficient for keeping out bad, and letting in good, voters.—(Cheers.) Take the machinery provided for keeping out dishonest voters. My Hon. Friend's machinery is this : he employs a test to ascertain the franchise, _which is inseparably connected with a check, acting without any object to put it in motion, and without any sum mons, subpana, assistant barristers, or judges of assite. He strikes at the motives—he attacks the principles upon which men seek the franchise—he dives into the nature of things in the heart of man, at the same time without in the smallest de gree impeding the honest voter • without dragging hi m from his home, without. cau s i ng hi m the :lightest anxiety, levying on him no pecuniary charge. Now I say that such a test as that ap proaches as nearly as possible to that at which we should aim. Sir, when I turn to the Noble'Lord's Bill, what is the check, to keep out dishonest voters: ' I have looked through the Bill, and I find absolutely only this one against the intrusion of frau dulent voters—eternally trying men over and over again at the same question ad infinitum.—(Cheers. ) Now if the object be to reduce the constituency—if the object be to leaveit only the mere name and shadow of a constituency—C.-.en I say that this plan has been well concerted for its aim, and it is worthy of the abilities which no man has denied to the Noble Lord.-- (Hear, hear.) If, on the other hand, I look at it as a measure presented in good faith to prevent fraud and perjury, then I can designate it by . no other name titan childish--(" Oh," and laughter)—as childish, for it is a system of preventing fraudu lent registration, but making the ,registration of good voters in she highest degree impossible. No doubt it will keep some- impo4ors out of the registry, 'and if we = se• .toubt _I at some rogues would be punishea. But I call that childish legislation. Sir, Ido not call that a preventive of fraudulent registration which is nut directed against the fraud, but which is directed against all voters, the long and short, the blue-eyed and black-eyed, honest and dishonest.— (Great laughter and cheering.) Sir, the Noble Lord's test is one which has no reference either to honesty or dishonesty: I speak in the presence of many eminent lawyers, in the presence of many men well acquainted with the law of this country and of Scotland, with our civil law and our Oriental dependencies, and I ask them what they think of this system, of eternal revi sion ? I ask the Honourable and Learned Gentleman who has just sat down, and I should be glad to have his opinion upon the point, what does he think of this as the only check upon fraud ? What does he think of a system, in which, every year, objections may be brought before the Ascs-ant B ‘rrister, and if the Assistant Barrister approves of the vote, len appeal may be had to the Judge of Assize ; next year, precisely the same objection may be taken in the very same words, he may be again compelled to go before the Judge of the Assize, and so on for ever and ever. In order to keep his franchise during one Parliament, in order to give one vote the elector . is exposed to this vexation that he may be seven times compelled to go before the Assistant Barrister, and seven times before the Court of Appeal, and if a man requires the franchise when he comes to the years of discretion, and lives to the aga 70, he may have 100 law-suits to keep his name on the register ; he may spend 1,000/., and not less than six months of his time in pursuit of his tote.—(Cheers. ) Unless gentlemen could by that interruption remove the words from she Bill of the Noble Lord, or distort those words out of their plain - Meaning, I conceive they may as well give up the subject. These are the words—that is their meaning. If it be said that the right or power which the Noble Lord gives the objectors—if it, be said that it will not be . abused, I answer that I believe it will. I again ask men of both sides of the House—men of eminent legal know ledge—such men as the Honourable and Learned Gentle man who has just sat down ; I ask him what he thinks of such a principle as this, and what he thinks of those arguments, by which the Noble Lord has attempted to vindicate his measure, and which he repeated whenever the subject was discussed, and which lie repeated last night? He (Lord Stanley) said, I will never agree to part with this portion of my Bill, for if I ci a o then the person who has once established himself upon the register, by fraud or perjury, can never be removed. Does the Noble Lord say that that argument will hold good in all cases ? (Hear, hear, hear.) What says the law of England ? "If a man is once tried for a crime and ac quitted, then, although he be acquitted through perjury or any fraudulent cause—although you may have evidence by which you can bring the matter home to him —you can not again put him i n j eo p ar d y f or t h e same case. What says the law of England in civil cases ? "If a man bring an action for debt or damage—if in that action judgment goes against him from any such cause as that a witness breaks his leg, and is, therefore, unavoidably absent, he shall not be again suffered to bring an action in the same case." If that be the law of England in criminal matters—if that be the law of England in civil matters, on what principle ought we to depart from it in the elective franchise? 7he Noble Lord is bound to make out distinctly such a case, and tell us why we should not proceed the same way in the one instance as in the other.—(Hear, hear, hear.) When we do not go on in this manner, hearing and re-hearing in the case of the fraudulent debtor, who has ob tained an estate to which h e h as no t i t l e, why should we go on hearing and re-hearing for ever in, the elective franchise If lam asked why the law of England is framed in a different manner from that in which the Noble Lcrd proposes in his Bill for the registration, I answer, that the law was framed in that respect by men who took general views of the subject on which they legislated—who did not fix their eyes pertina ciously upon individual cases that might happen at times to arise in the course of events. They say it may be an evil that the a - ssassin should go about the streets bearding the family and friends of his victim with impunity; but it would be a vastly greater evil that all the families in the community could nut live in peace and security. It may be a great evil that the fraudulent debtor should keep possession of the estate which he has unjustly acquired, but it would be iy far a greater evil that all honest .men should be insecure in their Property, and that a ll soc i e t y s h ou l d be kept in a ferment of litigation. So you bear with the felon and the debtor, who is dishonest and successful in the Courts of Law. and who has resisted just claims, and even so ought you to • bear with him while the system remains a; itis—while the voter, if he has got on the list.of voters by perjury or fraud, is to be tried again and again. If your object be , to prevent crime, you must know that this litigation is a fertile source of crime—a fertile source of perjury. This litigation would produce more inconvenience in a single year than all the wrong decisions pronounced according to law would produce in a century.— (Ministerial cheers.) As, then, thus stands the case,' I con ceive my Noble Friend has proposed a remedy for existing abuses, which will certainly keep out those who have not a right 'to vote, and let, in without trouble or inconvenience those who have the:right. I con ceive that the Noble Lord (Stanley) has' proisosed a system which will not have the effect of keeping out those who have not .a right to vote; but every body without distinction who• dislike; vexation, and expense, and trouble, aid anxiety— who dislikes feeing Counsel—who dislikes irscuring the risk of having topay costs—these perso: s the Noble lord s Bill will dit franclase. That the Noble Lord's hi:l will iisfranchi,e whole sale m , n who have a right to vet s, Ido not at all doubt. One reason why I believe his system will disfranchise many whe, have a right to vote is this, that I am certain it Iv u la .isfran chise myself. I possess a vote f or t h e U sovers.t:: of CamhvicLe ; now the vote of an elector of an Iri=ll co'anty is not, I think, as important as that of an elector of theVniversity of Cambridge. His vote is given for two Members of Parliament. He also votes for dignities and situations wFich are objects of im portance to great men, and even to Princes of the Blood. A vote then in an University is sure:y a more valuable posses.' sion than a similar one in any Irish county. The member of the Senate of a University is generally more able to assert hi s right than an Irith voter. Yet, I declare that if a system like the Noble Lerd's were established to register my vote in Cambridge—if I were liable by any Master of Arts, who differed from me in politics, to he compelled to go down to Cambridge and dance attendance on the Senate House for two days, how long think you should I retain that vote? Indigna tion mi g ht support me under such:an insult for some time. I might ing occasion, go ch elci;s:tvsntaoonecee to o r e t o he for ß t i h g e h p t uiripones.e,oenouttlienindeLd soi;il,endt; (Air. goulburn)—l might go ,down on some prsssing but disgust would. soon weary me out. And now, what ti ara, the Irish farmer do, who is much more helpless than I when he finds himself exposed to these great and obstacles, which the Noble Lord's Bill throe's .n 7 way of his acquiring the franchise.—(Ministerial I think, Sir, however imperfectly I have explained myseu tn a Obect it il l my duty to give areason for my belief that the great of a Reeistration Bill is the keeping out of voters that ou e titeu . be kept out, and the letting in of voters who ought to be let n The Bill of my Noble Friend is decidedly supsrior to Billthe t.ere of the Noble Lord opposite for this purpose. But is whichh anything in the means employed by the Noble Lord d ß o t s l . l s , s a e o r d v e tt ! h h t e eh u so ought vexations and to l eave .n tPutorPhoeseaudfopmtlekdfu?g amsyaluNtaort% the e es htahretehfst,,aenchtuisidee. undefined. Is Nlsobilte possible Lord proposes to that is anything more imortant in this subject than es. definition of the Irish franchise? I will not go into the me. tion whether - the minority of the Judges ought to be bound by the majority.--( - Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Ido es ! pretend to speak of it as a lawyer. I might ask some Me n , ie lf F rg riC t n r d t n iiu e: - tions ; I might make some distinctions which I would be glad to hear solved ingenuously by the Hon. and Learned Gentl . man who has just sat down. But will not go into the qu re e , . , doubt there tion. We have the plain fact that eight Judges at e for one presentative system, and four for aiaother ; twelve or fourteen Assistant Barristers are for one representative system , ) o eighteen or t wen t y f or ano th er . Wh a t was the law i " is not the law in 1841 ; what is the law on one 5 side of th e stream, is not the law on the other side ; what. is the law bef ore th e Chi e f J ust i ce, i s no t t h e l a w before the r. Chief Baro n . I s it poss ibl e to conce i ve a s t a t e o f things me; scandalous than thi s ?-(Mi n i s t er i a l c h eers .) Why resist . 2. attempt that should be ma d e t o se ttl e th ese difficulties. Is there any more sacred debt from a Legilature to a 1 - Top's', give definite laws? Is there any part of the law more impel_ ant than that upon which the making of all law depends? Ireland this part of the law is in a state utterly u ndefinede n a n , you' leave it in that undefined state, and then you cow tlfose'very offences for which you yourselves are resP°ns be , e Well, under these circumstances come forward two branches of the Legislature, the Noble Lord on the one in! . and my Noble Friend on the other. The latter l a; certains' the franchise lie fixes the law. The of procedure becomes simple and efficient—there is no vexa tion caused to the rightful claimant—the wrongful clainlan',,, • at once removed. He (Lord Morpeth) guards against pee , Jury. The Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) comes forward , , 11 he leaves the substratory law in the state of perplexity , 1 0,. than to. which he finds it. He then sets to work on the law of P' cedure, and makes it ten times more embarrassing than i d t: ees before, and the effect is what we might suppers—it P t :11101' Phenomena i n hi s Bill; so strange as was hard l y eve r pa ._ be , in all legislation. One of these phenomena was aludedteenee. the Right. Hon. and-Learned Gentleman the Attorn e Y -u ee rat, and it is even more exti avagant then it was rep i r tn, sented him.—(Heer, hear.) In the county of e u s _ re if there is an .objection established against a vote tried b lo ne the Assistant-Barrister there lies an appeal from him to 2 2, one of three Courts which the rejected claimant re_bs). chocee, each of which Courts take different views of the sub ject, ject. The fact is, the Court of Exchequer always deeid i e s the • favour_ of. the beneficial interest class of claimants, anu i at s. .Court of Queen's Bench in favour of the solvent-tenant in 4.1,, The effect of this system is, that whoever is objected to i Court below se e k s f or victory in the Court above, and t he g. n; cision of the A ss i s t ant -Barrister fur Dublin must tak e n by . the rule of contrary.— (H ear , h ear .) It w e7id • t be a curious an d, s t range case of casu i stry to b o un d out how the A ss i s t an t-B arr i ster for Du bli n ,s to to decide on thi s ques ti on. If h e d ec i de a ccorditl eet , his opinions and the dictates of his conscience—and h is be sion will probably be reversed in the Courts a bove--w de , then decide co n t rary t o hi s op i n i ons in order to h av e that t , cision rev er s e d, an d • t h e e ff ect i produced that he felt This. ' duty to bring about? Is this a mere oversight? No. -sub is one of the effects of the attempt to proceed with the eive , stantive law undefined: All the objectiees resolve thern e s „ se e into one—,the principe of finality. The question is, teni t i a t ' disturb the Reform Bill ? I will not at present go int° ra t subject generally.L4 Opposition cheers.) I wi ll I go into that subject generally, I say, becatise ee , propose to reason on this question upon those P''` d & ciplos whi c h are h e ld b y all those Conservative Gen e men that . I have the happiness of knowing. I PI; to reason on th ose C onservat i ve principles, and if on t og , principles I cannot command the assent of Gentlemen °Per;sl site, 1 will n o t appea l to t h e pr i nciples of popular rlghtts., popular lib er ti es . I w i ll admit that the Reform 13i11 ouenres be continu e d i nv i o l ate, t h at it ought to be in full force tr s i t he land. Is it in force i n I re l an d? C erta i n l y no t. f iad meaning of th e R e f orm Bi l l be that the benni- is interest t es t be applied, then the Reform - 131. , te st not in force, f or th ere are count i es where the solvent We an: is applied. I s t h e mean i ng of the Reform Bill that t h e tenant test be applied? Then also is the Reform Bill not ill f t test for there are c ou n ti es w h ere t h e b enef i cial i nteres t applied. These things are changing backwards and fon fa t: o and the counti es i n w hi c h t h e b enefic i al interest tes t wss i `t; applied last y ear are diff erent f rom the counties i n which h applied this y ear . N ow, if any person would de fi ne sun e ,?. .; principle, is it by leavin g a ll thi ngs as t h ey wer e befdr ' Such a state of thin s amounts to fi na lit y .— ( Ministerial elle,er,-1 'From an exceeding- aversion to change, yo u u phold a s), e 0 0 with a principle which is ever c h ang i ng —("llear, hear, ' r so S the Ministerial b enc h es. ) I speak t'o'reasonable advoca te in finality—to gentlemen who use the word only e in the sen:l e o which any ma n , C onservat i ve or Whig, ever used it. e ",,,,e1 they talk of finality, is it not th a t a certain Act Sjwid stand unrepealed in the volume of the Statute 131 it e This then is th e c ourse pursue d , to g i ve to fluctuation sns.aeis was never known among a c i v ili zed people, the name of sawl, lity—( Cheers)—and then if th e f r i en d s o f fi na l i t y come e " g o to close this eternal whirl of revolution, to cry out that we st , unsettling the stability of our institutions.—(Ghee . s.) bee bility! When your. representation may vary from Septeerao to May, and one system be upheld in the Court of Q, n i y! Bench, and another in the Court of Exchequer ! S ta " e t te e or When, whether the constituency of a county shall be 2, " 130 . 0 0 4,090,. depends upon such a fact, as whether Mt' f 113 6 This or Mr. Justice That shall have a fit ° s;te) gout before the next assizes ! (Cheers and 13 , 14- ee -se The question is not between change and no en s ! t fi y„, of the question is between unchange and eternal sueee s t e erti. changes-,(Cheert}-eberteweeliwthe Legislature and the ets vor e mace ft r ceeaetrvi.ng acknowledge )althlet - aci g . t o o . rL n . np oee e e l gi change tdihsei.labila. tteiuer_ ihrt . eaol t ;n, o ihgma b aetai e l l i gat i i b i ns e e nie t t tuo -t h at 'U e n : yii Co lt nto lh tin 6a i n t l i n hy e s goe t a i t- t_ in h C U:t u o l o i l 'u oa o s re n ce dre e r tbsto,, % o : : . . d ug fe l h v , ,. u o any person of just feeling, than that when the Jud, , g n e ', --1 ,01. to settle what circuit they shall take, they determine whl e "„"t ° tea ties shall have a 'democratic franchise, and which a r es- h c o dY one ? It is impossible but that it must deprive the judicial of the respect of society.—( Hear, hear, from Mr. S haw e .) e t am glad to hear the Right Hon. Gentleman cheer wet a te fear I shall find him opposing the only efficacious tens. 0; •' (Cheers.) Ido say I can conceive no system more per nt i 13- than that a G overnment s h ould depend on the feelings o.fieel dividual Judges, a n d t h at w h en a new Judge was aelin'-ere it should be said _o We have got a new Judgee o . have lost Kerry, b u t s h a ll h ave a change in Sligo. " Is r nt • sible to conceive a system so opposite to morality an- e town good feeling? Vote for my Noble Friend's Bill, and n e sy be out of this situation in three months.—(Cheere. ) o r the necessary effect of such a sys t em i s t hi s, that our f r c e ; g erss stitution and the a d m i n i stration of justice is alike in e bet You hive on the one h an d t h e Constitution quibbled awailase the subtlety of th e b a r , ' and on the other hand, you bal.,,egs. judicial tribunal agitatedwith all the violence of the lln e sl7 ol —(Cheers.') The greatness of this evil is not disput e '', for; how does th e N o bl e Lo rd deal with it? My Noble Frienu it is nishes a measure which will at once put an Ind to it• e' t i o n (P impossible after m y N o bl e F r i end ' s Bill passes, that the i,ord , • can divide the B enc h o f I reland longer. The Noble nY (Lord Stanley) l eaves t h e question unsettled. 111 e?teee plunges the J u d ges deeper and deeper into the mire, and b re them a grea t er num b er of questions to try to whic h tbe,P o f , rise difficulty applies. Of all the persons who can coraP latn „ ' the Noble Lord's Bill, there are none who can contPia'''' r much as the Judges. The situation. He addressed you in words to the feeling of ‘t w a nd Noble Lord, Sir, can feel fo r g e tt li every gentleman of both sides of the House will iesP sn '' s anle which I would attempt to repeat, could I give them the ir, se grace and propriety ; b u t i n t hi n ki ng of your situation. ° Co _ forgot ,the situation of the Judges. —( Hear, hear.) fia l e s eider how different the cases. The Noble Lord, who se : r e qieei to give to a person who ought to be impartial the tionl at f e to of the persons who are to decide our causes, has no scr n i . e r give the power of deciding political cases to persons wh ns c i t ee putation, of all others, should be the least unsullied, avi d least subject to suspicion.—( Cheers.) To me it seems n ' t i t - he all doubt t hat if the Noble Lord's Bill passes there will 1 1 1 0 , ens , in a sheet time, a Judge in Ire) snd, however pure his "; 40 tions, or however great his sagacity, who will not be called r oppressor by the one party, and a disgrace by the ntl i t 3 r „ij . of (Cheers.) Now, to sum up, it appears to Inc that the • 0, t my Noble F r i en d w ill exc l ude those who, under the new s P te es will not ha ve a r i g h t to vote, while it will admit t h e g reat to facility to those who will have that right—that it &ft subein u t o calamitous position in which they are lacert.. ° certainty instead of doubt, and rescue the Judges from the in he Noble Lord will not do this. It provides P r sure security affs i . t e .the intrusion of wrong claimants, and throws every m i l r ee n able difficulty in the way of the rightful claimant, and it ne n ; --- doubt, and change, and revolution where it found th e— in g (Clie,rs.) Instead cf telling the Judges what is the w e lt, of the 11w, it leaves it unsettled, and only gives them an° t ' e set of questions to decide, . I think whatever parts al te , evil system the Noble Lord has touched is only to aggt ay3 he He has left it uncertain that it may be made orptess ive; e•S has &puled the Judges that he may disfranchise the Pe° be has provided a machinery which, where it detects oneP n t i e The Bill of t jury will inteoducelwdnty. I hardly know 'on what prieeirthe • Noble Lord can %indicate his Bill.—(Cheers,) This 1- ee s • Bill which the Noble Lord places side b• side - with otb and this suggests to rite a topic on which I will say threCt i t o i e four words. The Noble Lord misrepresented yesterdreiy whole n a t ure o f hi s Bill, and of it s relation to ours, P.nd their e s relathe relations to the franchi se. H e sa id h i s and V ie, considered as Bills of Registr a ti on, were not essertially " ms , cot, but then, says he, " comes the franchise as a tac k 1" It • • that. I utterly and alt oge th er deny. I say the, rule laid d owns with respect to the f ranc hi se, is the essence of our -Bill ; te (Loud cheers from th e O pposition.) And I say, a l ien e Noble Lord b r i ngs f orward a number of clauses of my sf Friend's Bill analagous to clauses of his own, and say s there were oppressions in my Bill wh place them in spur own? the answer i s, that having that la f • nchise clean ! • ascertained in th e G overnment Bill from one end to t h e ot he r' ee it turns that which in the Noble Lord's Bill would be a se nr od of litigation and mischief into that which may be e ffi cient ae. useful. As to the feeling, Sir, 'with which these Bills are _ r i t h garded in Ireland, though I may regret the warmth with which persons in that country have sometimes expressed I: or. selves, I think it right to make the most ample allo"' nne hate e this, because I am satisfied the question is, Shall Ireland tie the reality, or only the name of an electoral system ? i r e decision of that question, Sir, public order is as deeply terested as public liberty.—( Loud cheers ) And I v w; .. glad to observe th a t t h e H on. Mem b er for C a expressed the opini on t h at any grea t restriction or diminution of the number possessing the elective franc V' in Ireland would b e a miens calamity to the coun tr y have lessons eno ue h t o prove i t to uee-lessons are not forgotten. It is unnecessery to state, after the t ait ings we have had, that great bodies of nee", that ti nations, when debarred from the e organs which the e for tutioo gives them , 'will certainly find other organs mor r _ t; e, . It is unnecessary to look back aie r g_7 e ll ... 'cunt of time for the effect that would be produced , if L i me' rick', Cork, or Mayo, 'were represented in this House b y r e . ries • of the Orange society, or by the so of the old Dubline(net lew es ticn. —(" Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) Some 'ficketerteat who make that cry may remember 1629; tl.ey may rev" „ •• rlia when there was not a may Catholic in either House n 1 , r, eict wti" sent, even the Duke of Wellington shrunk from co lesson the excited Population of Ireland. We might learn that from oth er ti mes. Th e t i me w h en t h e C a tholic r ,ittes e l an v settled was a time of peace. There have been time s dill _ from that —times when England has ben forced to struggle with formideb'e enemies to maintain lice place among the n 3..., .ointtotv tions of E urope . I t , as so during the, American libt'oth and the French Re v olutionary war. During ed pre' endeavoured to govern Ireland like a conquered Arne., vince, - an d w h a t was the r: stilt ? During t h e rican war 'they wrung from 3ou in your " 1: dence de'Pieg an an acknowled g ment of the tosernerciel =ler, dt Ireland. During the Frersh tear, they engaged in a fa tal 1 I I t i PIIE ON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1841. MORNING EDITION• ..... ... -