The Sun. — London, England, 1840-05-19 00:00:00

EV, ING EDITION. C ommittee, as this Bill would settle that question—they A are bound at a ll events t o go i n t o Committee on the till. Th e twelve Committees which opened the Regis tries _ had s t ruc k o ff no l ess t h an 1,4 9 3 votes , b e ing an av erage of 124 in each case, not one of whom had a right to t oe on th e R eg i ster at all. I t m i g h t b e sa id th a t these ere the decisions of Tory Committees—if that e ere said , 11 ,e Would only answer that several of them seated hie sitting Members, who were Liberals as they desired t o be called —but more, when the Noble Lord the Secre tary for Ireland brought in a Bill for amending the Re gistration in Ireland, he excluded every one of those votes Whichieh had b een struc k o ff t h e reg i s try by a Committee of the House of Commons. Yet this Bill, which was called s disfranchising one, actually retained them on the regis ter, and only subjected them to objection. The Order to w atch he had re f erre d was i ss ued on the 11th of June, ° 33 , and w as amen d e d i n th e year 1835, to the effect t hat the S pea k er s h ou ld i ssue hi s warr ant to the Clerk of the Peace to strike off the register all those who were de tided by a Committee of the House of Commons to have Leke,ll improperly placed thereon. In the debate which place on that occasion the Hon. Member for Lis cud said the system originated in their not having an an nual registration in Ireland. These were also the opi *isms of the present Hon. Member for Kilkenny, who then sat for Kilkenny. He believed the Attorney - General for En gland expressed the very same sentiments , and he now e, moted the vote of the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen for *Measure which carried out that principle. If there were *4 objectionable clauses in the present Bill, all that was %li ed was to allow the Bill to go into Committee, in order that they might be modified or altered. In the last debate upon the present Bill it was stated by the Ho ll.ourable an d Learnd Member for Dublin that the num_ uer of pers ons ent i t l e d t o vo te for the county of Long fOrd tk was 1,297, while the number of persons on "ue registry was 2,731. He found also that the &ether in th e reg i s t ry f or B e lf as t was 6,000, while there "ere only 1,900 entitled to vote. So long as the present systemlasted these evils would be continued, because although it was admitted on all hands that those parties Who were disqualified or dead ought to be struck off, no Pester existed until the period came round for revising the registry, No less than six Bills had been introduced on t ie present subject, all of them, with the exception of the use under consideration, having emanated from the Go true:lent or its suorters. Now he had looked carefully thr ough these Bills pp , and he could say, without fear of con tradiction that the present was identical with those sup- Parted by the Government in species and principle. The teat objection to the Bill, and the great difficulty in Ire. retrained Was said to be the question of qualification, which still unsettled. He (Dr. Letroy) denied that, be ve use the t we l ve J u d ges h a d d ec id e d that question some t i me ago, and although the Hon. and Learned Member for th u hlio might express his dissent from that statement, yet e House would not be influenced in its decision by his d l l et uro. Another argument against the Bill was, that ti ere existed such a disproportionate paucity of voters in Ireland. B u t wou ld th a t j us tify eve ry abuse in the regis- L system ?—( H ea r, hear.) If the constituency of Ire '. d was to be increased, let it be fairly and honestly and '°wedly increased, not by retaining all the vices of the resent system•—( Hear, hear.) All the minute objec• , h 'ens, as to the form of the notice, had better be urged C ommittee. The residence of the voter was necessary, r eser, to identify the voters, of whom there were many () t he Same name. Unless the House were prepared to tees_ on the registry all the glaring abuses by which votes Were retained on the registry without the slightest ground ? 1 title, he trusted that the House would be willing fairly to consider the Bill in Committee.—( Hear.) As to the ttitions w hi c h h a d b een presented, those in favour of the ill were equal in number to those against it.—( Hear, w ea r.) But had the petitions against the Bill come in eggen loads, they would not have been entitled to the T14,1,t1 lest weight.—(Hear, _ hear, from Mr. O'Connell.) i had been got up under a system of the grossest delu -1,1°4 on the people—( Hear, hear)—a system which he z ( nlid boldly expose in that House.—( Hear.) Mr. O'Con hell bad sent it through Ireland on his authority that the admitted by L or d St a nley himself that the object of e Bill was to d estroy t h e I r i s h f ranc hi se— ( H ear , h ear , fr u c4 n Mr. O'Connell.) Why ! did the Hon. Member per -44,11,t in that stat emen t?—( L ou d c h eers f rom t h e Opp os iti o n. ) Re Learn e d G ent l eman on t h a t statement procee d e d t o ro use all the people of Ireland against what he called the plan of the most active and energetic foe of Ireland.— Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell, and Cheers from the _.o i nisterialists.) He did not envy the feelings of those w no could concur in such a resolution.—( Opposition de ers.) He trusted that the House would not now stultify Itself, but would go into Committee.—(Hear, hear.) Lord CLEMENTS followed, and declared that he bad presented many petitions against the Bill, with which Pr. O'Connell h a d not hi ng to d o . Th e p ar ty opposite etad given up thei r f or ty- s hilli ng f ree h o ld e rs, and now they wanted to get th em b ac k.—(H ear , hear.) When ''°„eY bad the m , th ey regu l ar l y b re d t h em like cattle— lLaughter, and Hear, hear)—and drove them in herds to the Hear, hear.) They were sorry that they had oat them no w ; and because they had lost them, they treated the poor p eop l e w i t h the greatest tyranny—all on this account, that they would not vote for their landlords. Hear, hear.) The object of the Bill was to disfrair chise the people, and give the franchise into the hands of th e landlords..—(Hear, hear.) The people were quite Under the sway of their landlords in too many cases, and that was often the secret of perjury in the Registr .Lion Courts. A great deal was said about the Noble Lord (Stanley's) talent ' • but this he (Lord Clements) would l ay, he wished to God the Noble Lord would take his talent t o some ot h er pl ace th an I re l an d, to " pave " With his good intentions.—( Loud laughter.) 44 B is R. BATE SON warmly defended the Bill, and ebt t ilY defended the Irish landlords f i om the b e "te of tyranny. The petitions which had d.ll:it. got The persons up against the Bill had been got up in the whoa igned it knew nothing of their 441 Jeet, and in answer to an inquiry by a friend of his some or the persons who had signed a petition against the Bill said they believed it was something about Mr. O'Connell. —(Cheers and laughter.) Of the two Belfast meetings, the one from which the petition against the Bill had ema hated, had been held with closed doors, while the one at Which the petition in its favour had been agreed to was an ?Pen meeting. The Bill of his Noble Friend was popular to Ireland—it was approved of by the wealth, the respecta bility, and the intelligence of Ireland. It was certainly not popular with the mob, with the unfortunate peasantry Who had been driven headlong to the commission of acts they were innocent of by bad advisers. If the Bill were r eally s) disastrous, it should be opposed by argument, and w z ot by the use of language which the inhabitants of Bil lingsgate themselves would be ashamed of using, but bette r Which bad been used by those who ought to have known . Mr. H. GRATTAN rose to order, he wished to know whether the Hon. Member was alluding to Members of that House, he wished the Hon. Member to name those Wh om, he a ccuse d o f us i ng suc h l anguage .—( L ou d c r ies of Order. Sir R. B ATE SON should continue until the Speaker t°l4 him he was out of order. He was not bound to name the individ ua l s to w h om h e a ll u d e d . If the cap f i tte d any 1(34 . Me m b er h e cou ld not h e l p i t . — (Ch eers. ) Minis ters of the Gospel had been assailed in the most dreadful 11leaner for the support of this Bill, and one of them, Dr. tuart, had been called a brutal monster because he had ared to attend the Belfast meeting, and give expression to the feelings of his congregation, that this Bill would be 43 fadvantage to Ireland. The N o ble L or d hi m self, w hose Yihole life, pubc and rivate, bade efiance o calumny, had been assailelid in the p most shameful manner, t but he was sure the Noble Lord would only despise such attacks.— (Cheers.) The cause must be bad which bad recourse to such weap ons . I n f act t h e B i ll was on l y oppose d by that faction which wished to enslave Ireland, and he _ tr usted he r M a j esty ' s Mi n i sters woul d not suffer them 7,elves to b e d ragge d capt i ve at t h e c h ar i ot w h eels o f suc h a esPotism. He wished to see an independent constituency :4 Ireland, one that should go up to the hustings not voting by Ballot, but in the face of day, boldly stating who they v oted for ; and it was because he thou g ht th e p resen t Bill 46114161 y calculated to produce such a constituency that it should have h:s support.—( Cheers.) Mr. LYNCH admitted that a Bill calculated really to get rid of the evils attending the present system of re gistration would be a boon, but he thought by accepting the present Bill they would be payirg much too great a price for that boon.--(Cheers.) The case of Belfast had been referred to, and it had been stated that 6,000 names Were on the register, whereas the number of really quali fied votes did not exceed 2,000; he had expected, after hearing this complaint, to have found that 4,000 at least had polled at the last election, whereas, on reference to the report of the Committee, he found that the whole number polled did not exceed 1,840. Again, in Longford it was said there were 2,700 names on the register, while the number who had a bona fide qualification amounted only to 1,23. The number polled at the last election did not exceed 1,200, so that the real evil was not so very great.--( Cheers.) The duties of the registering officer ought to be as purely ministerial as possible, Whereas the jurisdiction was in reality left so undefined, that Assistant-Barristers di ff ered fr om eac h o th er . 'Judges differed from each other, and neither party paid any attention to the decision of the other. The trouble ad expense consequent upon t hi s was enormous, b ut f ortunat e ly it now only happened once in eight years ; W hereas by t h e Bill o f t h e N o bl e L or d i t was proposed `, 4 , 1 . make this a ma tt er of annual occurrence. —(Ch eers .) Gentlemen opposite were continually saying that agita cPn was the bane of' Ireland—(Cheers)—and y e t i n ad _Won to all th e o ther agitations they were go i ng t o a dd a nother agitation of annual occurrence—an electoral agi tption.--(Cheers.) He would put it to the landlords of Ireland whether they thought it was for their interest rthat this should occur.—( Cheers.) Whether they F ° ' 4 ght it would afford them increased facilities „" r the collection of their rents, and whether it would in crease the value of their property, to have the whole c ountry agitated in this manner every year—a country in Which political strife rages more than in any part of creas e United Kingdom. and in which its rancour is in.. " re ased by religious differences ?—( Cheers.) He did not wish t o see the franch i se d epen di n g on the caprice of the la ndlords—h e wished to see it established on a solid basis. "ear, hear.) it should be recollected t hat the p erson aeeking to exercise the franchise was o nl y seekin g to Zelerelse a duty imposed upon him by the St ate— ( Hear, ar • hear) and therefore every facility sh ould be afforded t - those duly qualified ; but so great was the anxiety of that Noble Lord to exclude the disqualified, that he abso 9tely forg o t t h e ot h er o bj ect , an d threw so many obstruc "' in the way that he was absolutely sow in g the seeds f or the annihilation of that elective franchise.—(Cheers.) IN ° quiet, retiring, independent man would ever o ff er him elf to such an ordeal as that imposed by the Noble Lord. rhis notice of claim he w ou ld h av e to set forth twenty t erns. the omission of any one of which would be fatal. he could not draw up the notice without going to the ex• pease of l ega l ass i stance , w h ereas t h e o bj ect i on nee d me ntion no particulars whatever. Again, why compel him to I go to the Assistant-Barrister to give his notice ; why no t e t him give his notice to the Barony Constable ? Lord STANLEY intended to introduce a provision to that effect. Mr. LYNCH—The claimant would then have to ttea °e+'hint-sea' fur examination, and, if lequired, w ou ld :, ave to prove that each of the tLlee lives in Ills lease were in existence. Some of these might be public persons, or abroad ; and although the landlord might be satisfied of the fact, yet they all knew how difficult it was to prove in a Court of Justice. But suppose he succeeded, and that ,he Assistant-Barrister had:deeided in his favour, he might be dragged up to the county town before the Judge of Assize, and have to bring his witnesses there. The Judge might differ from the Assistant. Barrister, revise his deci sion, and mulct the unfortunate claimant in costs for seeking, not his own advantage, but to execute a duty which he conscientiously believed his country had imposed on him. He would not say that the object of the Noble Lord was the obstruction or the annihilation of the franchise, but he would say, that the effect of the present Bill would be both its obstruction and aunihila- tion. He objected to the actual revision, as proposed by the Bill, and for this reason, that the claimant would be called on yearly to defend his title. The Bill was still more unjust with respect to the question of value, and there was a great difference between the proposed mea sure, as regarded that subject in Ireland, and as the law existed in Scotland. When the value was once settled in Scotland, that settlement was held good during the whole time the lease continued. Why should they, however, have one form of value in Ireland and another in Scotland ? The effect of all these clauses would be, either great excitement throughout the country, or that the electors would retire altogether in disgust from the prosecution of their claims. He did not think, however, that the landlords themselves would find that their permanent in terests could be promoted, by creating among the electoral body a spirit of sullen discontent.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the double appeal, he should object to it, on the principle that it would mix up the Judges with questions of politics. He thought such a circumstance would be a great misfortune, and especially in a country where, he was sorry to say, the opinion enter tained of the impartiality of the Judges was not so great as to allow of that new experiment. He should not forget to mention another inconvenience of an annual appeal, and that was the length of time which it would occupy. He had been informed by a friend, on whose accuracy he could 'rely, that with such an appeal it would take six months to go through the registry in the county Cork, With all these embarrassments, and all these objections to the mea- sure, he would call on the House to pause before they agreed to go into Committee on the Bill. He believed that by it the elective franchise would be annihilated in Ireland, and that the Members sent to that House would be nothing more than the nominees of the aristocracy. Mr. LITTON said that if the Bill were such as some Hon. Gentleman opposite had represented it to be, he should be the first to vote against it. He believed, how ever, that many errcrs prevailed upon the subject, and he heard nothing which could fairly militate against the prin ciple of the proposed measure. It was admitted on all hands that there were evils in the present system of regis• tration in Ireland, and that those evils required some re medy. The speech of his Hon. Friend the Member for Galway was, from beginning to end, full of objections on points of detail only. And yet his Hon Friend would not consent to the passing of the Bill, merely because it did not define the franchise, which was not its object. That franchise was already defined by ten out of the twelve Judges. Those ten Judges had decided that the true con struction of the law was, that persons claiming to register should have such an interest as that a good and solvent tenant could afford to pay them 101. a year beside the rent. It had been said, however, that the decision of the ten Judges was not binding ; but he (Mr. Litton) considered it, on the contrary, as part of the law of the land. The case was a reserved one, and every lawyer knew that the decision in such a case was as binding as in a Crown case reserved. Chief Justice Bushe had written to Lord Chief Justice Denman on the subject, and the an swer of the Lord Chief Justice was that " he had no dif ficulty in stating that each of the Judges in England held himself bound by the decision of the majority, whether his own opinion agreed or not with that of the majority, or whether or not the case had been argued by counsel." The question of the franchise was, therefore, settled by the twelve Judges, and one advantage of the Bill was, that the Assistant-Barristers would be i bound by their de cision. As long as the Assistant-Barristers register on the principle of beneficial value, instead of actual value, it is an error on which there ought to be an appeal, and to deny one is, in effect, to deprive him who has a claim to it of the franchise. If it be established, so that those gentle men would accept the evidence of the party claiming in preference to any other, on the ground that he was best ac quainted with his own property, what protection was there for the bona fide voter? Undoubtedly by the Reform Bill the claimant was allowed to be examined with others, but to receive his evidence in preference to any other was no thing less than a mockery of the franchise. They had heard much of the impropriety of making an appeal to the Judges—but, in fact, they possessed it already. It had al ways been given to them, and was the best tribunal that could be or ever had been had for such a purpose. He begged to refer Hon. Gentlemen to the evidence that had been given that the Assistant-Barristers acted on the principles he had stated. When on the Committee he maintained there was ample time for these Gentlemen to have disclaimed the charges brought against them, but they had not done so, and therefore he said they ought to have the power of appeal, and the Judges, from their knowledge and station, were the proper persons to appeal to. He held in his hand two letters from Gentlemen who informed him they had heard Assistant-Barristers say they would not be bound by the decisions of the Judges—not that he accused them of political corruption, but he did of political bias, and therefore again he claimed the right of appeal. He now came to the second grievance of which they com plained—the number of fraudulent votes. Wily, upon every scrutiny and Committee were numerous names struck off, because the Committees decided that there had been perjury—be it upon both sides. He still complained of it, and was he to be told because the machinery of this Bill was onerous, the principle was to be rejected, while the proportion of a shilling to a pound would be the expense of revision, as compared with scrutiny? Was he then to be told, when the constituency was swamped with fraudulent voters, they were to have no revision ? With respect to the decision of the Judges, would the House believe a Bill brought in by Mr. Justice Wolfe, was en titled a Bill to explain do u bts r e sp ec ti ng th e iranchise ? and it was said by Gentlemen opposite to be the redeeming feature of that Bill, that it defined the franchise. lie asked the Government whether they admitted that the fair constituency was liable to be encountered by a vast num ber of fictitious votes ; and if they did, he asked the Noble Lord ( Morpeth) if this was the gratitude which he professed he owed for the support of the Irish people ? but he told the Noble Lord, instead of having the support of the Irish people, he had it not ; he was not supported by 9:loths of the wealth, the intelligence, or respectability of Ireland. (Cries of " Question, question.") I wish to know whether it is their intention to support him in his agitation for the repeal of the Union—an agitation which every old woman in Ireland—every man in Ireland with an ounce of sense, knows to be merely a pecuniary agitation ? All the meetings for opposition to this Bill were failures.---( Cheers and laughter.) He concluded by asking the Government, if, upon being beaten upon this amendment, they would support the Learned Member for Dublin in the several amendments of which he had given not ice ?—( Cheers. ) Lord JOHN RUSSELL said—Sir, It has often been my fortune to resist in this House motions, which, as I contended, had the obvious tendency of unsettling the franchise which was thereby given. —( Hear, hear, hear.) But I must declare that, of all the motions which went to unsettle the principles of the Reform Bill, the pro position of the Noble Lord is the most formidable.— ( Cheers.) Arid I say this, because I think that, with re gard to other propositions, they generally had this argu ment in their favour, that they partook of the general spirit of the Reform Act—(l , er, hear)—that they were in favour of a larger extension of the franchise—and of the votes to be given by the people of this United, kingdom, for their representations in Parliament.— ( Cheers.) So far, with some excuse and colour, they claimed to be in accordance with the objects and intention of the Reform Bill.—( Hear, hear.) But the object of this tneasure is to begin a retrograde course—(Cheers) — by slow degrees to diminish, to restrict, and abridge the franchise of the whole people. You begin with one part of the United Kingdom—and you show that you will hereafter endeavour to bring all back to the state from which we have advanced, and to take away the franchise as far as you can.—( Cheers.) You show that you con sider the man who asks for it a public enemy.—(Great cheering.) You show the intention to diminish by slow degrees, and ultimately to destroy, the franchise, which the Reform Bill (as I contend) liberally bestowed.—( Very great cheering.) It gives me little satisfaction in this alarm that it is only in one portion of the United Kingdom you are going back from the principles of the Reform Bill—( Hear)—because I see, in all parts, evils arising, which have attracted the attention of the Government, and which have caused matters to be originated by the Govern ment in this House, some of which have been agreed to in the other House of Parliament. It is acknowledged, that in our portion of the United Kingdom, bribery and perjury have been proved. We have had instances of persons who themselves were not perfectly free from the charge, and who might not themselves take the oath with a free con science, putting the oath to others.—( Cheers.) There is in this country the evil of an annual registration—there is fictitious voting in Scotland.—( Hear, hear ) Now, I ask, Sir, to which of the evils have Hon. Gentlemen opposite directed their attention ?—( Cheers.) To none whatever. —(Repeated cheers.) But when there is a case in which we can quote instances of bribery, intimidation, and cor ruption, upon which they can diminish the franchise, upon that alone they are ready to attempt any remedy, and that alone they deem worthy of their peculiar legislation. Before I enter upon the consideration of this Bill, intro duced as it is, with far different intentions and larger ob jects than it professes, viewing it as I do, as not only con nected with Ireland, as meant not solely to deprive a great portion of the people of Ireland of their participation in the franchise, but as tending to abridge and destroy the franchise of the three kingdoms.—(Cheers and laughter from the Tory benches.) Sir, the attempt has been ma naged with great skill ad adroitness; because, Sir, it is not difficult to raise a prejudice on Irish questions, which you could not excite in the discussion of a question relating to other parts of the United Kingdom.—( Hear, and cheers, from both sides of the house.) I must here call the attention of the House to what is the present state of registration in English counties, to which I brought the attention of the House last year, arid which is the subject of a Bill which I have introduced this session. In an Eng lish county the freeholder has nothing more to do than to claim his vote ; for the officers are bound to take care of the claim, and the Revising Barrister has nothing to do with it unless an objection is made. If no objection be made the Revising Barrister has nothing to do but to put down the vote on the register. The freeholder is, however, sub ject to this vexation, that in the following year his vote may be again and again objected to.—( Hear, hear, hear.) I have proposed a remedy for what I think the vexatious nature of this mode of registration. I have proposed a pro vision that if the freeholds has proved his qualification he shall not be obliged to answer objections unless a change has taken place in the circumstances of that qualification during the following year. That is what I have proposed, but he has even now one advantage, that when he makes his claim he has not to prove his title. But what does the Noblc L or a pro p e ,c tliake rne.aus of proving the title in ,- .14,! iastalce far more difficult than THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1840. it now is—rspccially to those who are unlettered.—( Hear.) But when the Noble Lords adds those ❑ew disadvantages, does he leave the freeholder the advantages which in Ireland he has for eight years ?—( Hear.) By no means. He not only takes from him the advantages which he has, but brings him also into the disadvantages and vexations of the English system.—( Hear, hear.) He tasks the freeholders in both ways. He leaves him subject to the disadvantages under which he labours at present, but wherever disadvantages do not exist, he invents them for Cheers.) I ask the Noble Lord is this or is it not the system which he designs for England ?—( Great cheering from both sides of the House.) I ask is the House prepared to have the system as it is—to accept the alterations which I have proposed, or to introduce into England the restrictions which the Noble Lord proposes to apply to Ireland? The Noble Lord proposes that the voter having made good his claim shall not only be liable to question in the following year before the Assistant-Bar rister, but shall also be liable to answer an appeal against his vote before the Judge at the Assize,—( Hear, hear.) Do you propose that this shall be the case with the Eng lish freeholder? Ido not know what the answer may be, but I shall not be dissatisfied with either side of the alter- native. If the Noble Lord says he does not intend this measure for England, then I say he departs from those principles of impartiality upon which we have professed to act.—(Cheers.) If he says he intends to extend this measure to England, then I warn the people of England that this is a plan not merely to destroy the franchise of the people of Ireland, but to deprive the people of England of theirs.—( Loud cheering on both sides of the House.) There are some things very remarkable with regard to this Bill, and I first wish to call the attention of the House to two statements which have been made on two several oc casions of importance. The passing of the Catholic Emancipation Bill in 1829, and of the Reform Bill in 1832. Great and important, more than any other mea sures in our time as these were, the greater is the weight which we must attach to the declarations of those who took part in carrying them through Parliament. In 1829 the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth, brought forward two measures —the one a large concession to the Roman Catholics, both as to office and to seats in Parliament—the other a measure of disfranchisement and disqualification. But with regard even to this latter, the Right Hon. Baronet was careful in showing to the House that what he wished really was to establish an indepcndeut and respectable yeomanry in Irel and, and although he disfranchised more than 200,000 of those who held the franchise before, yet to those to whom he preserved it he would give every means of exercising their rights. —( Hear, and cheers.) When it was objected that the Revising-Barrister might arbitrarily reject the claim, the Right Hon. Baronet said that the appeal to the Judge of Assize would remove every objection on the part of the freeholder. The right of appeal was given to the freeholder alone upon the ques tion of fact, the value of his freehold, in which appeal he would have the advantage of a Jury. There you have the principle that those who have a right should have the power of claiming before the Assistant-Barrister, but should also have the right of appeal to the Judge of Assize and a Jury. It must be confessed that here, so far, there teas a popular spirit in the Bill, and I confess that I do not regret that I gave my support to the Bill. But what does the Noble Lord do?—( Cheers.) In the 31st clause he proposes that if the claim be objected to, the Judge of Assize shall investigate in the same manner as that of a person whose claim had been rejected by the Assistant Barrister, save and except that there shall be no Jury whatever. By that clause the Noble Lord destroyed the protection which the Right Hon. Baronet had given, and he shows in this and iii other clauses, teat he at least had confidence in that popular body—the Jury.—( Cheers.) When this Bill was brought in it was said that there was to be nothing in it at all to affect the franchise, and this brings me to the question that has been urged by the gea tleman who spoke last. The Hon. and Learned Gentle man said that the twelves Judges had come to a decision upon the franchise, and that their judgment would now be come the law of the land by the Noble Lord's Bill, that the Judges at Assize were alone to have the power to decide. It is proposed that you should go from the Revising-Bar rister to the Judge, and that the Judge should decide on the question. If you do that you might as well put a clause in your Bill enacting what the franchise is to be. The Judges may reverse the opinionlof any Assistant- Barrister wherever they think it is erroneous, and in that manner the franchise would be affected and decided upon by the Bill. But I would beg to call the attention of the House to the declarations made in the House of Lords at the time of the Reform Bill, by the Duke of Richmond and the Marquis of Lansdowne, who formed part of the Government of Lord Gicy. They declared that the oath contained in the Act of 1829 was to be altered, and that certain words in which a question had arisen relative to the solvent tenants of 10/. should bo omitted, so that there might be a clear meaning given to the franchise.—( Hear, bear.) We have proposed in conformity with that opinion several times to introduce into the Irish Reform Act cer tain words with regard to the ,franchise, but the Noble Lord proposes no such thing, because if he did it would be supporting his former colleagues.—( Cheers.) Ho leaves that out of the Bill, but he leaves it quite certain that it is this Bill that shall be the interpretation of the franchise—that the restrictive interpretation, and no other, shall prevail.—(Cheers.) Sir, I do not think that Mr. Baron Richards is to be treated with that contempt which the lion. and Learned Gentleman opposite has poured upon him ; but when Mr. Baron Richards and an other Learned Judge gave their opinion contrary to the ten, and their reasons for that opinion, it is a question of doubt—(Hear, hear)—and being a question of doubt, I prefer that we should have a Bill that would settle the matter according to the opinions and declarations of the members o f Lord Grey's Cabinet at the time of the Re form Bill, than that you should agree to a Bill which covertly and indirectly, but most effectually, upsets all their declarations.—(Cheers.) If you with to legislate primarily upon this subject, you must clear up those doubts that exist with regard to the franchise, and not endeavour to restrict it. I object, last of all, to this power given to the Judges, which is to be a supreme power over Parlia ment, and especially over the House of Commons.— ( Hear, hear.) The Honourable and Learned Gentle man who list sat down stated, to my great surprise, that the appeal had always been given to the Judges. Appeal given to the Judges Why this House, more than a cen tury ago, was indignant because a Court of Justice, at the head of which sat no less a man than Lord Holt, pre sumed to give an opinion on the right of sending Mem bers to this House. This House passed a resolution de claring that it was the sole judge, and yet after this the Hon. and Learned Gentleman says the Judges are to be the sole Court of Appeal, and always have been with re pcct to the right of voting.—(Cheers.) It is very diffi cult to say how far a register, which has been once made and examined by a competent authority, should be revised. If you propose to give this power generally to Courts of Justice, you will find, before any very long time, that their interpretations will be so restrictive of the franchise, that they have such strict legal definitions—such modes of refining on former decisions—such modes of ad vancing by degrees, so as to exclude the claimant and nar row the body in whom the franchise is vested.—( Rear, hear.) I say that you will find that you have entirely destroyed the spirit of the Reform Act, and that that which we were most careful to preserve—namely, the power and authority of this House, having been parted with, the power of the people will be gone, and with it the power of their Representatives.—: Cheers.) The provi sions of this Bill, as they were stated by the Noble Lord, consist first in the necessity of an annual Court of Registration; secondly, in the appeal to the Judges; and thirdly, in excluding an appeal to a Committee of the House cf Commons. With regard to the first ques tion I think I have shown that the necessity of applying annually, even after the vote has been established, creates great mischief and vexation. I have proposed, therefore, that with respect to England, you should not continue that vexation. Let us see how it is carried on in England, where there are the greatest facilities for registration. Why persons of wealth of the same political opinions form themselves into associations and combine together, and pay large sums of money for attend ance in the Registration Courts. That system is most expensive—do you imagine the expense will be more easily borne in Ireland ?—(Cheers.) As the law stands with regard to England, the Revising-Barrister may sit in various places, and if there is a place at which there are a greater number of votes objected to, he can go to that place, and decide them on the spot; and I mentioned an instance the other day as having occurred, and I will now name the place—Saddleworth; the Revising Barris ters had not intended to go to Saddleworth ; there were a great many objections on the list, and on becoming ac quainted with that fact they immediately gave notice that they would sit at Saddleworth, and the consequence was that every objection was withdrawn.—( Cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite by the Bill of 1829, gave power to the Lord Lieutenant to appoint the places. But the Noble Lord does not give any such power—he gives him a power to comply with the requisition and request made by certain Magistrates—or a majority of a meeting of Magistrates. Why the poor freeholders who wish their cases to be tried within four or five miles of their dwellings, might petition the Lord-Lieutenant, but accord ing to this Bill ten might go to the Magistrates and ask them to meet, but I can imagine the probability of the Magistrate saying we have no interest in these votes, and therefore so far from petitioning the Lord-Lieutenant, we will let the Revising-Barristers go where they went before, and let these freeholders seek their remedy as the) may —( Hear, hear, hear.) I believe that will be the case ; and therefore the Noble Lord in every instance, not only gives the Irish the vexations of England but gives them full measure.—( Laughter.) He gives them something over, some addition of torment, difficulty, and vexation, in order to show that whatever we have in England that is mis chievous and objectionable, of that at least he is ready to impart to Ireland her full share. In 1829 Lord Farn ham objected to sending the freeholder to the assize town, and stated that it would cost him half his freehold to go there. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite had stated that the people of Ireland do not understand this measure. I think the first year it came into operation the voter would understand it pretty well.—( Laughter and cheers.) We have heard much of the agitation in oppo sition to this Bill, and of false representations, and we are told that a great mass of the people are for it—th at a ll t h e character, respectability, and i ntell igence of the country are for it—but, somehow or other, the Hon. and L earne d Member for Dublin by his magic art imposes on the people.—( Cheers and heighten ) What ! are th ere not Associations in Ireland—Conservative Associations of Registration who have the power to explain to the people what the object of the Bill is ?—(Cheers .) It seems to me they are giving extraordinary credit to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman when they say that any repr - sentation of his would be believed, while any re p ress 4 tation against what he said, would be disbelieved.— ( Hear, h ear .) That is their representation, and there may be some truth in it.—(Cheers.) Why ? Because the people of Ireland believe that the Honourable an d Learned M em b er f o r Dublin, whatever his course of policy may be, is animated by a sincere love and affection for the people of Ireland.—( Cries of " Oh, oh," on the Oppo sition, and cheers on the Ministerial benches.) You may de pend on it that that influence, which I certainly at many times have thought excessive—(lrenical cheers from the Con se•or?Aives)—whieh at times I have thought danzcrous.—. (Cheers and laughter from the same party.) You may depend upon it that it is founded more than any thing else upon the belief which you have helped to propagate — j (Loud cheers from the Ministerialists)—that there is a party in this House who are determired to diminish the franchise, the rights and privileges of the people of Ire land, and that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman shall stand forward in defence of them.__( Hear, hear.) Have not the people of Ireland seen on former occa- sions that that has been the case ? Have they not seen it with regard to the Roman Catholic question ?—( Hear, hear.) Did we not see that those who declared their greatest hostility to the conces sion of the Roman Catholic claims yielded their opinions, not to Mr. Pitt, not to Mr. Fox, not to Mr. Burke, not to Mr. Canning, not to Mr. Ponsonby, but that they did yield to the power which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman pos sessed ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Why, seeing that, I say is it woridertul that there should be this belief in the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's representation—is it wonderful that there should be that distrust in your representations? —( Cheers.) Is it wonderful that if you wish Ireland should remain tranquil, that if you wish not to see agitation prevail in Ireland, your course should be not to introduce mea sures of the kind, but to allow the fair operation of admi nistration, the fair operation of equal laws in that country, and not to attempt to rouse the people of Ireland again on questions of this exciting nature.—(Cheers.) The time has not so long passed since you were opposed to every franchise the people of Ireland have got. If you wish that they should entirely forget those days, the better course for you to pursue, if you mean to have any influ ence in Ireland, is to abstain for the present from measures of thiskind, and to rest satisfied with that tranquillity, with that peace, and with that maintenance of good order, which the gradual progress of wealth and improvement will effect ( A cry of " Oh, oh.") An Hon. Gentleman seems to doubt my assertion, but I will bring no other evidence than the assertion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who spoke last. He told us we need Rot fear repeal agitation. I remember when repeal agitation was formidable, and when Lord Althorp said he was ready to encounter civil war rather than consent to the repeal. Did he make that declaration when there was no agitation to be feared, or when there was nothi ng f orm id a bl e ? On the contrary, he gave it as the strongest declaration which a Minister could make when perils arose from repeal agitation.— ( Hear, hear.) I believe repeal agitation at this moment would not have the least success, and I, opposing repeal, certainly feel entirely at my ease with respect to any success that that agitation may have. I believe it would not ; and I believe so on this account, that the Administration of Ireland for some years has induced the people to think the Government of this country will give them fair and equal laws. Being a people as easily governed as any on the face of the globe, they are ready rather to trust to the bene fits they now derive from that Administration, than to run the danger of repeal.—( Hear, hear.) Therefore I agree with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite, that we have nothing to fear. But let this Bill pass—show that you are determined, step by step, to take away the fran chise—deprive them of sending Roman Catholic Members to this House—obtain that supremacy in Ireland which you have not had for many years—indulge in the tone of triumph—insult, villify, arid abuse the Roman Catholics —tell them they are a people that are ignorant, degraded, and priest-ridden—speak of their priests in terms of con tumely and contempt—do all this, and you will have done more to forward repeal agitation—(Tremendous cheers) — you will have done more to forward the repeal agitation than any thing the Hon. and Learned Gentleman has been able to do in the course of his late agitation on the subject. —( Loud cheers.) Sir, I have stated my opinion with regard to this Bill, both as affecting the general subject of registration, and as affecting the tranquillity of Ireland. I now beg to state that having already explained my opi. nions in the course of the last year, that the whole system of registration ought to be revised. I repeated that decla ration a few nights ago, and my Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Ireland will redeem the pledge I gave last year, of revising the whole system of registration, and that he will introduce a Bill regarding the registration of Ireland, following as much as he can the system of re gistration pursued in England.—(Cheers.) Sir, I con sider the system of registration a matter of the utmost im portance. You may construct a system of registration which will give little trouble and perfect security, and you may construct it in such a way as to give the greatest vex ation and annoyance, and diminish the constituent body. Therefore it has occupied much of my attention. In former years we have been content to propose such a measure as would be acceptable to the other House of Parliament—adopting many things that were almost objectionable, and forbearing to press many things which we thought of importance. But, Sir, I think a better plan will be to propose a general measure for Scotland, England, and Ireland.—(Cheers.) With regard to Ire land there is a very considerable defect in the mode of striking votes off the registry, and it appears to me that there should be a security to bona fide voters which they do not at present possess. With regard to persons who have . died, and who, as the Noble Lord has said, have afterwards come and voted—(A laugh)—and those who have totally lost the franchise, there should be a means of revising the registration at certain periods. I think, Sir, that with regard to the former class it should be more un frequent, but where they have parted with the fran chise, wholly or in part, it should not be more unfrequent than three years. I conceive that with respect to the Bar risters the power should be left as at present, and that there should not be an appeal to the Judge. But in order to complete this, it would be necessary to introduce two Bills, one involving the principles I have men tioned, and the other respecting the franchise. With regard to the perjury and fraud complained of, I believe that nine-tenths of it has arisen from there being no satis factory test of the franchise.—( Hear, hear.) It is en tirely a matter of opinion, and one man may say that his holding is worth 10/. over the rent he pays, and produce a neighbour to swear to that effect ; while another party on the other side starts up and says he thinks it is not, and it goes merely to the discretion of the Barrister as to which way he is to decide. I think, Sir, if we could define the franchise, as was proposed in the Bills we introduced into this House, it would be most desirable.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord has omitted this, which was the most valuable part of the Bills we brought in ; and he says, because his Bill contains certain details of the measures introduced by Sir Michael O'Loghlin and Sergeant Woulf, that we are bound to adhere to these principles. Sir, I hold myself bound to no such details—(Cheers) —it is enough for me that the Noble Lord's Bill leaves out that which was the most valuable part of the Bill.—(Much cheering.) Many of the provisions of these Bills might now be most objectionable, and the Noble Lord has no more right to ask me to be bound by those Bills than he would have a right to bring in his own Arms Bill, and say that be cause it was a measure of Earl Grey's Government I am bound to support it. Among the many measures which the Government may feel it their duty to introduce, there may be some which. in considering the whole question, certain objections subsequently taken may be considered valid ; and they may determine to withdraw the Bill, and not introduce it in the same shape again. Sir, it is not only in the power, but it is the duty of a Government to do so ; but to say to a Government " because you have intro duced a similar measure in a former measure you are bound to vote for it now," is as inconclusive a species of reasoning as I have ever heard adopted.—( Laughter and loud cheering.) Sir, such an argument may be ex ceedingly good by way of taunt, arid although that course has not been adopted to-night, every provision of these former measures have been referred to by way of taunt. Sir, I say in the first place that the Bill does not contain what was most valuable; in the next place, what it does contain I feel to be most objectionable ; but I say above all that the Noble Lord has combined what would be whole some food with so much poisonous matter of his own com position—(Vehement Ministerial cheering)—that I must reject the whole, and most heartily and sincerely give my vote against the Bill, being convinced that the Bill is not only mischievous, but that the cause of pure and sound re gistration will be best served by its rejection.—(Loud and continued cheering.) Lord STANLEY said—Sir, there is no course more usual in Parliamentary practice than to suffer a Bill on its second reading to pass by general consent, and subsequently to take the discussion on the principle of the Bill, on the question that you, Sir, do leave the chair. But it is at least unusual that after a Bill has been the subject of two nights' "'debate in very full Houses upo n th e prin ciple a the measure, and after that principle, notwithstanding the arguments and opposition of the Go vernment, has been asserted by no inconsiderable majority of the House—it is unusual again to discuss the principle of the same measure, and again to renew the objections, 'and call upon the House to repudiate its decision upon the former occasion.—( Loud cheers.) But, Sir, I don't com plain of the course that has been taken—l shrink from no discussion either of the principle or details of tha Bill , least of all do I complain of the manner in which the Hon. Baronet the Member for Drogheda introduced his opposi tion to the measure—the mode in which he met it, or the speech in which he introduced his opposition. Sir, it was a good, straightforward, frank, and manly opposition to the Bill, and the whole Bill.—(Cheers.) There is no en deavouring to get off by shuffling into Committees, which are never intended to report, on Bills which are never in tended to be introduced.—(Vehement cheering.) It is an honest, straightforward demand upon the House to rescind the resolution to which_ they have _come, within one month of the time; and be the evils of the system as great, as enormous, and as unrefuted—( Oh, and cheers) —as they are, and as un denia l b r l e e lan as d, t , h , ey w a e re, ofF h e e r you nothing" — h e frankly tells the peoplet of the people of Engl an d, " There shall be no remedy, for this Bill, which was intended to remedy those abuses, and which by the confession of H on. Gentlemen on the other side does remedy these abuses—(Cries of .. M " No, no," and cheers)— which by the confes sion of the Hon. e m Ga lway does for does remedy them--this Bill shall be rejected without discussion of its details —we shall repudiate the principle of the Bill altogether, and perpetuate these gross and ac. knowledged evils." Sir, I thank the Hon. Baronet for the manner in which be met this motion, and I rejoice that it will so go forth to the people of England, and Scotland, and Ireland. It is now necessary for me, as we have been drawn into the discussion of the principle of the Bill--it is necessary for me, with as little of circumlocution, and also with as little of heat as under the circumstances— ( Loud laughter, which drowned the remainder of the sen tence.) Sir, it is necessary for me in entering upon the discussion of this question to consider the leading objec tions to this Bill, and to meet them with fair and legitimate argument. And now, Sir, allow me to say that in the course of the observations I have been compelled to address to the House on a former occasion I have studiously ab stained from saying a single word that might be pro ductive of heat or violence..—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") Let me ask whether I have been met in fhe same spirit ? Whether I have been encountered with fair argument, or whether prejudices have not been created against me, and personal abuse employed in vituperation of the Bill,— (Cheers.) No, Sir; ever since the last stage of this Bill, I have been personally the subject of the most vi o l en t an d unscrupulous abuse on the part of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin in every place in which be has met the people of Ireland. Of that abuse I will say nothing more than that I am cure no Gentleman in the Elouse ex pects that I should pay to it the sli ; :fhtest attention.—: (Cheers.) But there are some of the statements made by the Learned Member as the ground for re jecting this Bill, which contain misrepresentation so gross and palpable of fact, that it is impos sible, I should pass by without adverting to them here, in the only place in which the Hon. Member and I are likely to meet in discussion.—( Cheers.) Sir, the main objections I take to have been raised to this Bill are first—that the franchise in Ireland was unjustly restricted by the Reform Bill as compared with England—that by the present Bill it will be still more restricted, and that the points of the Bill which are chiefly objectionable are the annual registration, the appeal both ways, that appeal being to the Judges—the granting costs; and as a last objection to the Bill, that it does not include any defini tion with regard to the franchise. These, I think, are the main objections to the Bill, and I proceed to deal with the first—namely, the allegation of the restricted franchise, as compared with England. Now, there are three sentences of a Report, signed by " Daniel O'Con nell," as Chairman of the Committee, which states a comparison of the franchises, and is the basis of the whole opposition to this measure ; —" By the Scotch Reform Bill the Scotch obtained an extension of electoral rights and lost none—by the English Reform Bill the English ob tained additional parliamentary franchises and lost none— by the Irish Reform Bill the Irish obtained substantially one additional franchise and lost several." This is his statement. The Noble Lord who has just sat down, in formed us that in all the assanits that had been made on the Reform Bill, be had no more painful duty than of restoring from time to time these formidable violations of the Reform Bill, and the more so, because, in a retrograde measure, I sought the restricting and withdrawing the franchise conferred on Ireland. Now, Sir , on this point let me join issue with the Noble Lord, who at the same time that he talks abuut the inviolability of the Reform Bill has now such an horror of annual registration, which, as a member of Lord Grey's Government, I was led to believe an im portant part of the system of the Reform Bill. The Noble Lord is desirous that it should be maintained in its integrity, but I think I could point the Noble Lord's attention to a Bill which is at least as formidable an invasion on the franchise as the present. I bold in my hand a Bill which purports to be a Bill to ascertain and define the right of voting in Scotland. That Bill consists of eleven clauses, and of these, with the exception of two about the end, there is not a clause from beginning to end which is not a clause of absolute disfranchisement of the people of Scotland entitled to vote under the provi sions of that Bill.—(Cheers.) " No person can be regis tered in any county of Scotland, unless a resident." " No person shall vote as joint tenant, unless he have a personal interest." "No person shall vote unless in possession of rents to the value of 10/. previous to the last day of July." "No person shall continue to vote on a real vested interest unless ho possesses these. above all, heritable debts." I do not say whether these are wise provisions or not.—( Hear, hear.) To some of them I might be prepared to accede—to some to offer the most decided resistance ; but certainly it is singular this Bill contains no single clause except a disfranchising one. Yet it bears upon its back the names of the Lord Advo cate, Mr. Fox Maule, and Lord John Russell.—(Cheers.) But now as to the facts, or rather the assertions of the Honourable Member for Dublin. I do not wish to quibble with regard to the Scotch Reform Bill, but 1 admit, by that, a large addi tion was made to the constituency and rights given they never enjoyed before, though I strongly suspect he is not warranted in saying that no franchises were taken away. Yet I admit that no franchise, in a popular sense, was taken. Now listen—By the English Reform Bill the peo ple of England gained several franchises and lost none. I ask the Hon. and Learned Member, who states this to the people of Ireland, by whom, according to the Noble Lord, he is to be considered as so-safe a guide—so infallable a mo nument that they may follow him without the least danger of being led astray—(Cheers)—l ask what has become in England of the renident freemen—of the 40s. annuitants of counties—of the scot and lot voters—of the burgage tenure—of the pot wallopers, and of the resident house holder inhabitants of cities, without other qualification ? ( Cheers.) There are six or seven franchises swept off by the Reform Bill. The Hon. Member tells the people of Ireland that the English lost no single fianchise by Cheers.) What did Ireland lose by the Reform Bill ? Has England lost the forty shilling annuitants ? Ireland lost, with a saving for existing rights, those of the county, of city and towns.—( Hear, hear, hear. ) The Honourable Gentleman, when that proposition waa first made was not so strenuous an opponent of it. I do not mean in the year 1829, but in 1831, when the Re form Bill was introduced. These are the words of the Hon. and Learned Memher for Dublin ;—" I approve of the plan laid down for voting i n count i es , b ecause i t a ff or d s a prospect of forming a better c l ass o f voters . I approve of the 101. point of exclusion, being of opinion that the mass of householders under that sum are not entitled to vote."—( Cheers.) And then, Sir, next year, the Hon. Member changed his mind, and unsaid what he had said in 1831. But, Sir, with all respect to the Hon. Member, I must confess these sudden changes have not been the effect of impressing upon my mind the infallibility of the Learned Gentleman's advice. But I say the people of Ireland lost the 40s. freeholders. I admit they lost, as England lost, the pot-wallopers, the scot and lot voters in three or four counties of towns, the .5/. householders, but I challenge the Hen. Member to say what other franchise she has lost beside those small ones; and when he says that Ireland obtained but one franchise, I ask whether he means the leaseholds, granted to Ireland in the counties in a larger extent than in England, as I proved in the Hon. Gentleman's presence, and which he has not yet denied ; or whether he means the household franchise given to Ireland as fully as to England? The Hon. Gentleman stated that no franchise had been taken away, but I have shown that six or seven were taken away He says that several were granted to England, and but one granted to Ireland; I have shown that the leasehold and household franchise had been granted to Ireland. He states that many were taken away. I have pointed out two, and challenged him to point out more. and that is the statement of the restricted franchise of the Reform Bill, with which he agitates the people of Ireland on the subject. —( Cheers.) Now I say that whether these evils exist or not the motion before the House says that the remedy shall exist. Is it disputed that evils do exist? Is it disputed that the lists are overloaded with fictitious voters? Is it disputed that the chief ways of qualification are closed?—(Cries of " No, no.") Is that disputed Cries of " Yes, yes," and loud cheers.) If this is disputed I must state the facts. Now I find that in the city of Dublin there are 18,000 voters upon the register. and there are not more than 9,000 bona fide elec tors.—( Cheers.) In the county of Dublin the number of electors borne on the books is 4,000, and there is not a real constituency of more than 2 900. In the county of Longford there are borne upon the books 2,900, while the real constituency amounts to not more than 1,400. In Waterford there appears upon the hooks 2,654, while the actual constituency does not exceed 1,143 —(Cheers.) Not only is this so, but it must be so as long as voters can be put upon the registry every quarter of a year, and those who have become disqualified, either by death or by losing the qualification, cannot be struck off. As long as the system of certificates continues, as long as there is no power to strike the name of a voter off the register, even should be be dead, so long as this system continues, so long will it hold out temptations to perjury—so long as it enables a man to register half a dozen times, and procure half a dozen certificates to distribute among his friends.— ( Cheers. ) I will state cases of gross abuse which have come under my own knowledge—not my own personal knowledge exactly, but I will give the authority on which I make each statement. The first case to which I will direct the attention of the House occurred in Queen's County. In a letter which I have received from Mr. Hamilton, of Round-pond, two persons, named Timothy Carroll and J. Carly were registered in October 1832 for lands which they held from Mr. C. White ; Mr. C. White died in 1833. At the election of 1834 these two persons attended and voted against Mr. Vigors, and took the oaths.—(Cheers ) The next case which I will relate to the House was a case that occurred in the county of Longford ; and I state this on the authority of a gentle man who was fora short time a Member of this House.— ( Cries of " Name, name.") Mr. Cox. Mr. Cox states that at the death of the late Lord Forbes, in December 1836, a vacancy occurred in the representation of the county; that he stood, and was opposed by Mr. Luke White, and that Mr. Luke White was returned; however he petitioned against the return, and on his petition was seated ; that there was a tenant of Mr. Maloney's, who held his land on a lease on the life of Lord Forbes, or for twenty ene years. But he was registered in 1832, and had voted. Now the death of Lord Forbes was matter of notoriety, —it was that which had created the vacancy—yet this ma. bad been told, I will not say by whom, that his vote was good, because the time mentioned in his lease had not expired, and he had actually voted. He further stated, that ho had had bills engrossed to go before the Grand Jury, but that he had not gone on with the matter.—( Cheers.) Has the Honourable Gentleman who asked for facts had enough ?—( Loud cheers from the Tory benches.) I will give one more case, and that shall bo from the county of Tipperary. The case was stated to me in a letter from Mr. Kteman ; he is, I believe, the registering agent of the Conservative party in the county of Tipperary.—(Checrs from the Ministerial benches.) I have no personal know ledge of him, having never seen him, but I believe him to be the agent of the Conservative party. He states that there was an old man named Patrick Quinlan, who was a tenant of Mr. Faucit ; this old man was seventy years of age, and he held forty-two acres on lease; he was registered in 1832, he became unable to pay his rent and surrendered his lease in 1834. His landlord, Mr. Faucit, gave him a house and an acre of ground, for which he was to pay a guinea a year, but he had no lease, and yet at the contested election he came to the poll and voted for Otway Cave and Shiel. There was another of Mr. Faucit's tenants, Roger Mara, who had been registered in 1832. Mara was murdered in 1837, and a man named G. Dalhunt had been convicted and transported for the murder, and yet in 1840 the agent had applied to re gister this man's freehold, he produced the original certi ficate, swore he got it from Roger Mara, and the As sistant Barrister admitted his right to register.—( Loud Opposition cheers.) Now I would ask the House, is it proper that cases of this sort should be left without a remedy.—( Hear, and loud cheers.) Is it not time that this system should be changed, and yet, because I pro pose this change, the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin comes forward and attacks me as the enemy of Ireland, and as desirous of restricting the franchise and de stroying the liberties of his country.—(Loud Ministerial cheers.) But I have high authority in favour of an annual system of registration. In the debate on the 6th of July, 1832, I find an Hon. and Learned Member stating that unless they had an annual scratiny into the registration they could have no self-protection—(Cheers)—that Eng land bad an annual scrutiny, and that Ireland ought to have one also.--( Loud cheers.) That if an annual Scru tinye were refused , then it was im p ossible the s ystem could laste u ayear—because, in the first Reformed Parlia ment,r , com mon sense of the English plan must pr eva il- - the annual scrutiny must be granted, and Ireland must b e ta aboven thea placed upon the sa me footin g as England,.—(«Ha hear," from Mr. O'Connell, followed by loud cheers. The Honourable Gentleman seems pleased with my quo t a tions; I will gn on with them.-.-(Loud chserinft.-) In the Committee on the Irish Reform Bill on the bring ing up of the 29th clause, I find the Hon. and Learned Gentleman saying, that unless an annual scrutiny took plate, the registry would be overloaded with persons who had no right to vote if the production of the certificate were sufficient. " And here I beg the House to recollect who it was that taunted me with speaking lightly of the regard of the Irish for a vote, provided the person could only swallow a single oath." The House will forgive me for using the arguments of the Learned Member; lie puts the case in the strongest possible light. In ono of his illustrations the Hon. Member mentioned John Mahony, and he said on that occasion, " I use the words John Ma hony on account of a case which happened to myself. I was once sitting as assessor, and a man came to claim as John Mahony. He swore he was John Mahony, and produced his certificate. It is very well John Mahony, write your name. He immediately took up the pen, and, without hesitatien, wrote " Dennis O'Brien." —( Loud cheers and laughter.) " This is only one in stance out of many," said the Hon. and Learned 111,-mber, " which could be produced." "Is it too much," said the Hon. and Learned Member on that occasion, "to ask that the list of claims should be published—that the ob jections to the claims should be lodged with the Clerk of the Peace, and that the list of objections should be pub lished, so that all may have a complete opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the list of claims and the list of objections, and that there should be an annual scrutiny ?"_( Loud cheers.) So that the whole scope and plan of the present Bill was seconded by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, at the time of the proposal of the Reform Bill. Ido nut object to the Hon. and Learned Member having changed his mind. I know and admit that he had a perfect right to do so. The Learned Member for Dublin should not have formerly denounced Lord Grey's Government for not having adopted a system, which he now denounces me as the enemy of Ireland for adopting.—( Hear, hear.) It may be very convenient for the Noble . Lord the Secretary for the Co lonies, at once to throw over the whole of those Bills which he has introduced himself in 1835, 1836, 1837, and 1838—it may be very convenient for the Noble Lord to say that he does not choose to be bound by these Bills at all; but it is singular that now, for the first tme,! the Noble Lord says that his provisions are bad, and that there is but one past in the Bill of 1832 which is good, and that part I reject. It was, however, unworthy of the Noble Lord, to come down as he did at the close of his speech with that miserable pretence about a new mea sure to be brought forward at a future period of the pre sent Session—( Hear, hear)—and that the Learned Member, the Solicitor for Ireland, would take into consi deration the whole system of the franchise, and that he would shortly introduce a Bill on the subject.—(Opposi tion cheers.) Now it is rather singular to see the pre cise time at which this announcement was made.—( Hear, hear.) On the 6th of March I think it was that I in troduced a Bill for the purpose of amending the laws relating to the Registration of Voters in Ireland, and at that time I certainly was led to believe there was no intention, on the part of her Majesty's Govern ment, to introduce any measure on the subject. The Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies distinctly told me he admitted the taunts against the Government for not going on with any measure, but that they found, from the opposition their measures met with in another place, that it was hopeless to introduce them, and that was the ground on which he declined to press them on the House of Lords.—( hear, hear.) When we discussed the second reading of this Bill, would it not have been competent for the Noble Lord to say, " I admit your principle, but postpone your Bill. It is our in tention to bring forward a measure for the registration of voters in Ireland, and we will leave it to the House of Commons, and the country, to decide between them." On the second reading of the Bill was any such intimations put forth ? There was not a word about it—(Cheers) — until they were beaten on the second reading.—( Renewed cheers.) But when the Learned Member for Dublin had expressed his gratification that the Noble Lord the Secre tary for the Colonies, by introducing a Bill relating to the franchise in England, had furnished a convenient excuse for not proceeding with this measure—then it was found convenient to promise that at some future time a Bill should be brought forward to regulate the franchises in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) Why wait till that last moment ? Why wait till the present Bill was brought for ward? Nay, even to-night, why has not the Solicitor- General for Ireland stated fully what is the plan he intends to propose, even at this late hour, for the registration of electors in Ireland? But no; it so happened that the Noble Lord had announced his intention of introducing a Bill for England just two days before that for which the Committee for this Bill was fixed, in the hope of catching some stray votes of those who felt that the power of truth and argument was too strong to be contended against, and the existing evils of the Irish registry required a remedy.—(Cheers.) But the Noble Lord has an nounced the intention of the Solicitor-General for Ireland to bring in a Bill for tLe registration of voters in that country, and yet it happened, from a melancholy and alarming occurrence, that the committal of this Bill was postponed for nearly a fortnight, so that the Solicitor- General for Ireland had still full time, if he had any bona fide intention of proceeding with such a Bill, to ask for leave to bring it in, and place it on the table of the House ; and he need not thus have indulged in vague hints of this and that, but he might have proceeded with his plan, and while dealing with the difficulties of the case, he could have met me on fair grounds before the House and the country.—(Cheers.) Nothing of the kind, how ever, has been done : and when the Solicitor- General had met with a refusal to go into Committee, then came the Noble Lord, who tells the House of Commons that if they will throw out the present plan they may expect to see some general tneaaure which the Government intended to make as perfect as possible, but they bad hitherto ccn sidered how they might best maintain the ascendancy of the other House. "We will be fettered," they say, "by no such consideration. Now that is to say if you reject this Bill, which is a practical one, however, and which would effect the objects they had in view—( Ironical cheers on the Ministerial benches) " I will bring for ward," says the Noble Lord, " at some future time a measure without the least reference to a hether it will pass in the other House or not," but which I ( Lord Stanley) will assert is but a peg for hang ing up the whole question.—(Cheers.) But I thank the Noble Lord for the little light he has given with regard to the objects he has in view. He says he is now considering a plan fur amending the registry in England and in Ireland. What, however, are the points most contested on the subject? Arc they not the annual re gistrations, the annual revision for the purpose of striking off fictitious votes—those of dead teen or of those who had parted with the franchise? The Nuble Lord means, however, to adhere to annual registration and annual revision; nay„ more, he meaas fur the first time to introduce into the English system what is the principal objection against Inc, namely, an appeal from the decision of the Revising-Barrister to a higher tribunal, whether in favour of the franchise or against it. But lam told that the Judges are not proper persons to make the appeal to. Why not? Have they not been found proper persons hitherto? The appeal has been always to the Judges, and I have never heard that that lowered the Judges in public estimation. The inter pretations of the franchise would thus be left to the highest law authority, and it was proposed to give the appeal both ways. The Noble Lord says that the Bill proposes to give the entire adjudication to the Judges, but I have copied that provision from the Bill of the Noble Lord. But it is said I propose to define the franchise. The Hon. and Learned Member for Coleraine, has said that the Judges have already decided it. Suppose the decisions of the ten Judges binding on the Judges themselves, is it not equally binding on the Barristers, and if not binding on the Judges it still remains unsettled? Then it is said, my Bill gives the costs on an appeal. Do Gentlemen opposite wish to give an appeal, which may be made the moans of vexation, without costs ? Do they mean that costs are only to be given to claimants? Does not the man who objects to a fraudulent vote as much per form a public duty as the man who claims a good vote?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Is not the man who claims a vote to which he has no title, a nuisance to the constituency, and ought he not to be removed?— ( Hear, bear.) Should an appeal be given without any costs ? Does any man think that this would be favourable to the poor claimant, and not to the rich objector?— ( Hear, hear.) Ought not the poor man to be protected by the infliction of the costs incurred, in vindication of his 1 rights, on the groundless objector?—(Hear, hear.) It is said this provision for costs should not apply to groundless claims. Why not ? It would only apply to frivolous claims. The Judge would not reject claims, unless based on fraud or collusion.—( Hear, hear.) " Costs against a person claiming the franchise !" it is cried, " never was heard such an enormity I" Yet, Sir, this principle has been sanctioned by some Bills brought in on very high authority. In one brought in on the recommendation of a Committee, presided over by the late Mr. Carter—and in a Bill, on the back of which appeared the names of the Attorney-General and the late Solicitor-General, the pre sent Baron Rolfe—nay, in that Bill the amount of costs was double that proposed by this—( Hear, hear, hear)—and that Bill was read a second time, committed, and re committed.—( Hear, hear, hear.) This provision still was retained. Now, the Noble Lord has misrepre sented another provision of the Bill. Really these are no matters for discussion now, but as they have been brought up against the Bill, I cannot but notice them here. The Noble Lord says, we have in England a great con. venience in the Revising-Barristers being able to appoint circuits and fix districts, and, says the Noble Lord, this Bill only restrains a power now existing in Ireland, to fix such places. Sir, the Lord Lieutenant possesses in Ire land (or I am much in error) no power of fixing places for the revision, unless by appointing quarter sessions—( Hear, hear)—and I introduce a provision analagous to the power now existing in England, for appointing places on the recommendation of the Magistrates. Is that provision in substitution of the English power ? No I If the Noble Lord had read the Bill he would have found it is additional to, not substituted for, that power.—( H ear, hear.) Si r , the Hon. Member for Galway rais e d many minor objections to the Bill, which certainly h a d b etter be cons ide red Committee. One of the m ost prom i nent of theemwaisn, the form of the notice, whi c h h e says is too full. No w, really, objections to th e f ram i ng of a sch edule h are more fitted for the discus s i on o f a Committee —( Hear , hear)— in point of fact, h owever, the notice requires not h ing state which the claim an t i s not now required to ; seven the only difference is, th e p art i cu l ars are now put int o von o luums, and I s p rea d t h em into eleve n.—(Hcar e , hear.) Sir, I do most sincerely declare, that upon all these points of detail I am prepared to go into Committee, and as fairly and frankly to consider all the arguments which may be urged on any one of the provisions of the Bill, as though it had never encountered any opposition whatever.—( Hear, hear.) But then, Sir, it is said 4 , How hard that all a person has to do is to object to a vote and throw on the claimant the onus of proving it ?" Why, what was the pro vision of th e English Bill in that respect ? ( Hear, hear,) The only notice required is, " Take notice that you will b 3 required to prove your qualification at the revising of the list" --and then the voter must establish his claim.— ( Hear, hear.) Yet it is said lam treating Ireland with injustice.—( Hear.) Sir, the Noble Lord complains that I have not introduced a elause defining the disputed ques tion of the franchise. 1 admit it. I ant as anxious a:: any maa for the settlement of that question. But if I intro- EVEN ING E D IT . ' ON._ i t s duced a clause conveying any sense of the law upen,ik:, what would be the result? Why, that the Noble 49rtg' would directly come down with the power of the Goverric:l 41%. meet to declare the very reverse to be the la w, t‘....&1, 4 , e , 0 . dare that to be the law which tlle Judges of Ireland 4i4f declared not to be the law.—( Hear, le ar.) Moreoter,., e ‘ren„ the Noble Lord is aware that the other House would neittatt''Vgi,ilC . )" ; ., consent to such a declaration as he would propose—.-' , ....: - 1 161:3 (Ironical eheers)—and that therefore, tile proposal of that .1 4 , " declaration would be a more mockery of legislation.-- (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The Noble Lord's own example furnishes me with a better precedent than his precept. The Noble Lord has Bills before the anise in respect to the English registration and the English franchise. But the Noble Lord studiously separates the question of the registration from that of the franchise, and he has stated that it is his intention to recommend his Learned Friend the Attorney-General, in the Bill which he has so often threatened to bring in, but perhaps never will, to exclude all prisoners from the registration or the franchise.—(Cheers.) Sir, I shall not undertake to an swer the imputations which have been made respecting my motives.—( Cheers.) Once for all, I dieclaim them in toto.—(Cheers.) I cannot prove to the satisfac tion of the Noble Lord what my motives are, but thought it would have been more in accordance with Par liamentary practice not to impute motives to me. --(Loud cries of" Hear.") But this Ido state, that seeing a system of fraud, of perjury, and of fictitious votes over whelming the bona tide voters in Ireland—(Cheers) —seeing the Government from time to time bringing in measures which would have the effect of removing those evils, if those measures were not encumbered with other provisions, which made their rejection certain—(Cheers) —I was desirous of following out the principles of Lord Gray's Government.—( Hear, hear.) I have proposed to have an annual registration and scrutiny, and believing that it would protect the bona fide voters, ai.d exclude those who have, at present, the power to vote, and to give scats in this House, without the slightest right to do so.—(Hear, hear.) By these motives alone I have been actuated in proposing this measure, with great inconvenience and annoyance to my self. Whether on this occasion the House of Commons will refuse to entertain the measure further, or will not, upon the principle which it adopted a month ago—( Hoar, hear)—l shall at least be satisfied that I have done the best, I could to purify the constituency of Ireland. and to carry into effect—not to violate—the principles of the Reform Bill.—(The Noble Lord sat down amidst loud and long continued cheering from the Tory benches.) Major MACNAMARA moved that the debate be now adjourned.—(Loud cries of " No, no"—" Go on, go on," and " Divide, divide.") Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that as the matter had been discussed in the second reading, he did not see an reason why the debate should now be adjourned.—( Hear.') Mr. BROTHERTON and Major MACNAMARA rose at the same time, and amidst great confusion from the conflicting cries of " Go on, goon"—" Divide, divide," Major NIACNAMA RA was at length understood to say that he would divide the House.—( Loud cries of " No. no, no"—" Go on, go on.") Lord HO WICK begged leave to say, before the House took the trouble of dividing on the adjournment, that he would request his Noble Friend (Lord John Russell), and Gentlemen opposite, not to oppose the adjournment, be cause the question had assumed a character different from that in which it might have been viewed before, and he, and others who had taken no part in the previous discus sion, were desirous of explaining the reasons upon whicu they should give their votes. Lord STANLEY said he would not oppose the ad journment, upon the understanding, that after the discus sion upon the second reading, be thought it would be trifling with the question if it were postponed longer than to-morrow.—(Cries of " This day.") He hoped his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Berries), who had the first notice on the paper for to-morrow, would give way, and that other Gentlemen would allow the adjourned debate to have precedence. Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say, that it would be necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take precedence of the other orders, by bringing up the Report of the Committee of Ways and Means. Mr. BERRIES said that he would give way, so far as his notice of motion was concerned. Lord STANLEY said, as it seemed to be understood that Gentlemen who had motions on the paper for to-mor row gave way, he would have nothing more to say but that the Learned Member for Dublin, and the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, had also motions, and he supposed that they would give way.—(Cries cf " Hear.") After some pause, Mr. O'CONNELL said, it is utterly impossible that I should facilitate a Bill like this.—(Cheers and laughter.) Lord STANLEY then regretted to say that, as that vas the case, he must divide the House. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared-- For the adjournment of the debate 262 Against it Majority —l9 On our return to the gallery we found Mr. O'CONNELL moving that the House do now adjourn. Mr. OSWALD was sorry to disagree with many Hon. Members who had voted against the Bill. He conceived that upon principle, continued motions for adjournment, if persisted in, tended to stop all manner of business, and though reluctantly, yet he felt himself called upon to de clare, that he would be no party to it.—( Opposition cheers.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not vote for the mo tion for the adjournment of the House.—(Laughter and cries of "Oh, oh.") But be begged to state, in conformity with the vote he had just given, that there had been a ficient reason, and was sufficient reason for the adjourn ment of the debate.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord the Member for Northumberland declared there were se veral Members, and he among others, who considered the question as different from that which had been do bated on the second reading. That statement was a suf ficient reason for the adjournment of the debate, but he did not consider it was a sufficient reason for an endea vour to de , ay proceeding with the Bill. Sir ROBERT PEEL begged to recall to the reco'ler tion of the Noble Lord (Bissell) that it was the Noble Lord himself who intimated that as the question had un dergone three nights' debate, there was nu reason why the House should not pronounce an opinion upon it that night. —( Hear, hear, hear.) He could bear witness that before the Noble Lord made that declaration his Noble Friend ( Lord Stanley) was ready to have acceded to a propos:- tion that the debate should be adjourned. The N obi e Lord interfered, and expressed an opinion that there was no reason why the House should not proceed and conclude the debate ; and in consequence of that sug. gestion the Solicitor-General was about to rise. The Noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland said, that the question was in a new position, and he hoped the me tion for adjournment would be acceded to. His Noble Friend was ready to accede to that pro position, but he attached to it the reasonable condities that the House should proceed with tit: , discussion this dry. —( Hear, hear.) That course was puisued in the debate on the Corn-laws, and the occasions were very rare incited when the debate was not taken continuously. The Hon ourable and Learned Member for Dublin, however, said he would give 'no conditions, but surely it must be almost the unanimous opinion of the House that the debate should be proceeded with this day. Mr. O'CONNELL did not mean to divide on the mers question of adjournment, but he stood in a peculiar posi tion. He had been directly instructed by his constituents to take any advantage the forms of the House gave him to oppose the progress of the Bill.—(Oh, oh.) Under these circumstances, if he were to waive his right, he would be violating the command given to him.—(Laughter from the Opposition benches.) Hon. Gentlemen might laugh at the idea of a command from his constituents. They might have given valuable consideration for their seats —(Loud cheering)—but he was bound to obey their commands, and he could not facilitate the Noble Lord's plans in any way. He had no objection to an adjourn ment till Wednesday.—( Cries of " Go on.") Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought the proposition of silo other side to continue the discussion that day was a very reasonable one. There might be some very important motion of the Hon. and Learned Member's which he would not wish to give up. but he believed the motion of the . Hon. and Learned Member merely referred to some re turns which would not be opposed. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman seemed to think he had some undoubted right and was bound to exercise it. He could assure him that be had only that right which the orders of the House gave him, that notices of motion should take precedence on Tuesdays. Mr. O'CONNELL understood his motion would not be opposed ; what difficulty, then, was there in his making his motion, and allowing the debate to go on afterwards. Lord J. RUSSELL thought there could be no objec tion to that course. Mr. O'CONNELL did not want to make a speech, Mt merely to move the returns. Mr; HUME said it being understood that there would be no debate on these returns, he thought there could b• no objection to adjourn the debate till that day. The SPEAKER—Does the Hon. and Learned Memher withdraw his motion? Mr. O'CONNE LL did not mean to divide upon it. The amendment was then put and negatived, and the question was put and mirrisd that the debate be adjourned till this day. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of,stad the House adjourned at a Quarter after One o'Clock. The extraordinary pianist, M. Liszt, is, we find, engaged for Mrs. Anderson's Morning Concert, wliich takes place at the Opera Concert Room, on Wednesday, the 20th instant. Besides this wonder of the day (who is to per form two grand fantasias alone, and a grand duet on two pianofortes with the Beneficiare), this lady has secured the services of Herr Molique, the great violinist; the delightful harpist, Mdlle. Bertucat ; anti the constellation of singers i.t.tw enchanting the London public, Persiani, Grisi, Stockhausen, Mdlle. Bildstein, and Miss M. Hawes ; Rubini, Tamburini, and last, though not least, Signor Lablache. Deaf persons will experience the most incalcu lable benefits from the use of Mr. E. Solomons' Voice Con doctors. Although they are formed on a scale so small as to measure only a quarter of an inch in diameter, yet no instre ments hitherto invented have proved so efficacious and power- NI. When placed in the ears persons are enabled to hear with distinctness the voice of a distant speaker in church, theatre, or public assembly. They are indeed beautiful specimens, and ao one could have supposed that anything so perfect for relieving deafness could have been produced. Great praise is due to Mr. Solomons for his invaluable invention of the amber spec tacles, which was the only improvement effected in this part of optics for the last twenty years. They are far superior to all those in modern use, being lighter in construction, and convey a beautiful coolness to the sight when engaged at any Inissute employment by day or candle-light. They seem, indeed, from their exquisite finish, to complete the triumph of this depat t ment of ?tics. They have received the patronage of the Royal Family, Nobility, and the principal medical authorities in Europe. All persons wishing to avail themselves of Mr E. Solomon's invention, should mark particularly his addiess; Le being no way connected with parties of the same name, 1, Old Jewry, City, and 36, Old Bond-street. The ships bound to China, namelsi Blenheim, Blemie, 42, and corvette, Nimrod, 'have been spoken with in March, a ll we ll, in l a t, 1 N., lon. 19 W.-1./cetxpe/tire Ad. vertiser. at~r•._~ -