The Sun. — London, England, 1840-03-27 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION. seem, that he (Sir James Graham) did not think it would be fair to look upon that Hon. and Learned Gentleman as the exponent of her Majesty's Govern ment on the present occasion. He had hoped that some other Member of the Cabinet would have infer Iw-A the House of the course of policy intended to be pursued by her Majesty's advisers in a matter which had been admitted on all hands to he of such great and para mount importance—(Hear, hear.) As he still thought it would be necessary to extract some opinion from the Government before they went to a division on the question, be would presume to address the House, and to state his opinions on the subject then before them. He understood one Honourable Gentleman opposite, to have complained of the great hardship imposed on the Irish voter, by the new Bill, viz, that of obliging him to specify all the circum stances attend an t on t h claim on which lie considered himself to be registered. That objection had been made in particular to the provision respecting lives and leases ; but as he (Sir James Graham) understood tl.e law, evco at present the voter was obliged to produce the lease itself, o r , in its absence, he was obliged to make an affidavit of the existence of one of the lives at least. All that his Noble Friend proposed to do was, to put that enactment in - a more specific and tangible shape. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, had also objected to the clauses awarding costs. But what could the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, say to such an objec. t i° 4 ? The Noble Lord must be perfectly aware that , in two Bills introduced in 1831 and 1836, a similar clause had been introduced. The Honourable and Learned Member for Armagh, had shown by his hypercriticism how frivolous were the objections which Could be made to the Bill. The Hon. and Learned Membe r had objected to the seasons of the year at Which the assizes were to be held ; he had objected to th e appeal being given to the Judges at Assize : all those objections, however, would be open to discussion i .,,u Commit tee , an d di d not em b race t h e pr i nc i p l e o f th e 141 - His Noble Friend would be quite ready to enter .reeiatim into those objections in Committee ; and if t hey should be found valid ones, lie should be ready t ° remedy th em . B ut t h e ev il o f w hi c h t h ey com hined, and which they sought to remove, was one Which had b een a d m i tte d on a ll s id es t o ex i s t—i t was this, that as the law now stood in Ireland, a voter with On ly the colour of a claim, and without any real right t o the franchi se , m i g h t , t i me a f ter t i me , app l y to an Assi stant ssist ant Barrister tor a certificate, and be refused— heA might, even on t h at re f usa l , appea l to the J udges of Assize, and be again refused ; and yet, on a change of Assistant Barristers, a new Barrister, from "evicti on , or from less worthy motives, might P l ace on the registry a voter so rejected by the highest authorities as having no legal title whatever to a vote ; besides, when the claim bad once been acknowledged, ev ery redress was unavailable, except on appeal to a Committee of the House, and if the Committee should decid e , , as had often happened, against opening the -e gi s trY, that vote, thus colourable, fictitious, and in defensible might be renewed and perpetuated by certifi cates for the life of the party whose claim had been unjustly admitted.—(Hear, hear.) They wished to put an en d t o ev il s suc h a s these. Gentl emen o pp os i te ha d said, that in seeking for a remedy, their obje c t was to 'knit th e f ra nchi s e in Ireland; but he (Sir J. G ra h am ) I should say, that that was a gross misrepresentation of their objects, which they repudiated and denied. Their ' O bject was certainly to establish a proper system of oration,re gi and, at the same time, to determine qualification of claimants—to put an end to Per jury, f and to vindicate the law.—(Hear, hear.) It Was said that the Noble Lord, by his Bill, was d °jug an act that was monstrous, for that he was seek ing for a scheme of registration to adopt the same prin ciple which was applied to England, and which had turned out to be a perfect failure. There was great fal lacy., in th e f oundat i on of the argument. The Noble t he did not attempt by the present Bill to assimilate lave with E ng l an d. I t was true t h at hi s H on. an d L earned Friend, the Member for Bandon, had at tenapted to effect th at o bj ec t, b ut h e f oun d t h ere was 1 :: little c h ance of success that he gave it up altogether. ,r Noble Ho n . M em b er for Bridport had stated that the the Lord soug h t to g i ve to Ireland the defects of L l', ° English syst em . N ow, w h at were t h ose d e fe cts ? T he Hon. Member had said want of uniformity of de- Z ieion, and in consequence of the character of the tri . 11 °4 Now, what was the object of his Noble Friend in this Bill? Why to give to high and Learned Judges i n each town, stationary and not ambulatory, the Power of d ec idi ng i n all cases o f reg i strat i on. The Hon. Member for Bridport had stated that he was not prepared to give to any fixed Judge the decision of Political rights. If such were to be the case, the next question would be was there to be any registration at ' till ? So much for the first objection of the Hon. and ELearned Member. What was the second ? That the nglish system, which was bad, should be introduced into Ireland. His Noble Friend had no such intention ; 1 w hat he p ropose d was t o g i ve i n I re l an d an a pp ea l t o th e highest tribunal, both as to the vote and to the voter. Did the Noble Lord opposite ebject to that Principle ? If he did, he must have greatly altered his opinion since the year 1835. He was disposed to think, with his Honourable and Learned Friend the Mem ber for Exeter, that the Judge of Assize was the best appellant tribunal, but he would not Pledg e himself to that, neither did his Noble i Friend who had introduced the Bill, for he was willing to adopt any b etter suggestion which might be made in Committee. He then came to the third objection of the Hon. Member for Bridport, which was, that vexatious proceedings would arise in consequence of the annual revision of frivolous objections. What wa s to prevent that, he would ask, but the power of awarding costs, which was given by the Bill of his Noble Friend, who was anxious—not as had been stated to transfer to Ireland all the evils of the English sys- tem—but to establish in that country a system of re gistration in which all the evils to which the English system was subject had been carefully omitted.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman the V ice -President of the Board of Trade, had said that all this mi g h t b e very well, but the giving to the Judg e of Assize the power of awarding costs, would, i n his opinion, be most injurious and expensive. He (Sir J, Graham) was most astonished at the new doctrine with regard to annual revisions. An immense change must have come over Hon. Gentlemen oppo 'ite, and particularly the colleagues of the Noble Lord, °Pon that subject ; for he recollected the time when t he subject of annual revision was the constant day dream of Lord Althorp. He had never heard it ob jected to by the Noble Lord the Member for Stroud, a nd, in fact, he had not heard a word said against it until the s t atements made b y t h e H on. Mem b er f or Bridp ort.—(Hear, hear.) It was said that the adop t .;!,m of thi s system would limit the right of voting. 4- le aeserted that it would do no such thing ; but this it Y n ald do —it would strike at the root of fraudulent and ° octitious votes -_(H ear , h ear .) If th e reg i stry were Pened by a Committee of the House of Commons, the ex pense would b e enormous, b ut it on t h e ot h er h an d i t 7 1 4 not re-opened, then, according to the evidence taken _e.e f ore the Fi ct i t i ous V otes Committee, the power de r th ived un d er certificates perpetually received, would cause e t r u‘lt i greatest frauds to b e comm itt e d, w hi c h wou ld re i gn de Phant thr oug h ou t t h e w h o l e o f I re l an d , an d wou ld il st roy not o n ly th e const i tuency o f I re l an d , b ut that of he vrhol e empire. All arguments failing upon the sub ject of th e Bill i ntro d uced by h i s Noble Friend, resort ha d ti been h a d to personal attacks. He had been called ° enemy o f I re l an d, b ut h e rem i n d ed those who called h ;to so of t h e c h aracter of the proceedings of his Noble Friend with respect to that country. From his earliest Youth he had been the strenuous supporter of the claims of the Roman Catholics.—(Hear, hear.) He supported t hem at a time when public opinion was opposed to the c oncessions, and when the advocacy of those claims w its not the high road to popularity or power.— Hear, hear, hear.) What had his Noble Friend on e when in the possession of power? Why, he Must remind the House that Church-rates were re- Pealed in Ireland by the largest measure of Ec clesiastical Reform that had ever passed the Legisla ture.—( Hear, hear.) That measure was introduced by his Noble Friend. Was that all ? No, he had acted up to the principle of the Catholic Emancipation, and he had introduced a scheme for the education of the Irish people. He it was who, on the passing of the Refor m Act, extended the franchise of Ireland. He left the freehold franchise as be found it, and he put t he household suffrage on the same f oo ti ng as th at o f Ogland an d S cot l and, but he gave to Ireland besides t his t a spe c i es o f l ease h o ld tenure, which was not given ° England or Scotland.—(Hear, hear.) It still re mained to be urged for what reason the second reading of this Bill h a d b een re j ec t e d. H e k new that the Honourable and Learned Memb er f or D u b l i n 4 ,_d denounced this measure, and h e h a d said that her Majesty's Government would not dare to s uPport it after that denouncemeDt. He (Sir J. Gr aham) was afraid that that denouncement would be found strong enough to decide her Majesty's Ministers its to the course t h e y s h ou ld pursue, bec ause , if t h ey did not yield to this a repeal was threatened. Such W O5 the boast of that hollow peace that existed in Ire and, and such were the means by which her Majesty's Go vernment sought to prolong it.—( Hear, hear.) • Lord MO RPET H was rather astonished at the open 14g Of th e speec h of the Ri g h t H on . B arone t w h o h a d J u st sat do wn , b ecause h e seeme d to thi n k it a s t ra n ge ' t r act prep osterous thing that upon a B ill w hi c h went to e s e t t .," (l2l the whole of the registration of Ireland, and h ich, in the opinion of the great body of the em en' On .1 . fret . tnat side of the House, sought vitually to t dis . - p nebis e the people of Ireland, he seemed to think it nigh t that an adjournment of the debate for one ig e ht should have taken place. He had stated rightly that !Lneveatljournment was demanded upon its being stated that . ral Members on that side of the House wished to dc liver their sentiments on the Bill, and then he sought It a: on trovert the j ust i ce o f that demand by stating a divisi on was on the point of taking place, when, not,ut a fter spee c h es f rom t h e other side of the House, n after one from the side on which he (Lord Morpeth) s at, which had taken at least an hour in delivery, and tv t h ich nob o d y on the other side of the House had ven turedto off er any o b servations on, till the field was aken by the Hon. and Gallant Membe r for Sligo— "i_ (Hear, hear, and laughter)—what was the remaining course that was taken ? Did Members on this side of the House show themselves slack in coming forward ? No ; four Hon. Members on that side had spoken against the Bill, and it was not until the Noble Loro's faithful Achates, the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke, came forward to rescue the Noble Lord's maltreated Bill, that any Hon. Gentleman spoke from that side of the House. The Right Hon. Baronet had expressed great anxiety as to the line that would be taken by the Government with respect to this measure, and that anxiety, he stated, was shared by several Hon. Members on his side of the House. Now he (Lord Morpeth) thought that that anxiety must have been in a great measure allayed, by the ;clear and definite statement of his Honourable Friend the Solicitor- General for Ireland, last night.—( Hear, hear.) But when his Noble Friend, the Member for North Lan, cashire, representing an English caunty, but connected with Ireland, not only in consequence of the place that he held there, but as a landed proprietor, and he hoped that that connection would be of long duration, for the benefit of those who lived under him—(Cheers) — when he brought forward a Bill for the purpose of re modelling the system of registration in Ireland, he must have been primarily anxious to ascertain the views of the body of the Irish representatives and Irish people on the subject. Abundant light had been thrown in the course of the present discussion, on his views and sentiments, and there was nothing in the talent or temper of these speeches to which the most fastidious could object. With respect to his own views on this subject, the Right Hon. Gentleman had refer red to what he had said when ha stated that he should be guided by the course proposed by the Bill, and by the tendency it would have to obstruct or contract the legitimate exercise of the franchise in Ireland. Whe ther the Right Hon. Gentleman referred to his own dis passionate views of the tendency of the Bill now placed in the hands of the House, or to the impressions con veyed from the various quarters of the Ho-use, he must say that that he had no doubt or hesitation in at once declaring that he was prepared to give his most down right opposition to the further progress of the Bill.— (Hear, hear.) There were many points connected with the Bill which belonged to legal detail and professional practice, which would be much more compe tently disposed of by professional persons, and those points he would gladly leave in their hands, other points would be more advantageously treated by those who had had personal experience of the working of the Irish Registration ; and those topics he would leave to be dealt with by them. His own course in this matter was mainly decided by a few leading considera tions. When he on a former occasion had the honour of addressing the House, he admitted that previous at tempts bad been made to legislate on this subject, and that they had failed in those attempts. He had then frankly stated the reasons which had deterred them, in subsequent years, from bringing measures forward. Perhaps they might have been in the wrong. He did not blame his Noble Friend for making the attempt, but it was only upon the success of that attempt that he would admit the fallacy of his own opinion.—(Hear, hear.) Having admitted the unsuccessful attempts, it was not necessary for him to say that he did not stand up to deny or defend any of the irregularities, imperfections, or abuses which might have been charge able upon the present system of registration in Ireland. He believed that a great proportion, if not the main pro portion, of such imperfections and abuses were chiefly referable to the hurry and inexperience in which the original registration took place under the Reform Act of the Noble Lord himself. He thought it always ne cessary to his argument to contend that the present sys tem of registration in England required no alteration, and he was far from contending that the present system of registration in Ireland was the best that might be ; but he did question whether the Bill of the Noble Lord was calculated to amend the evils which might exist or not. He doubted whether it would not introduce other and greater evils, if it removed some of the inconveniences which were said to exist. The provisions which went to protect the registering tenant would, in some in stances, operate against the tenant. As Gentlemen opposite were so clever in laying down principles, he wished to bring their attention to the principle of this Bill, that in every year the registering voter should be obliged to prove his qualification before the Bar rister, and that he should be called upon himself to appear in person, and that he should pass through the same ordeal before the going Judge at the Assizes. If the enactment passed into a law, he (Lord Morpeth) would take upon himself to say that what were desig nated in the Bill as annual revisions, would cause a ne cessity for half-yearly registrations. When the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) was himself' in power remedies were suggested. Sir M. O'Loghlen, now the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, and Mr. Woulfe, who was then Solicitor General, proposed measures which were from time to time postponed, and ultimately defeated. In this respect the Bill of the Noble Lord differed entirely from every measure that had before been proposed to the House for an improvement of the modes of regis tration. The Bill would introduce, for the first time in Ireland, a revival de novo in every case. In looking to the modes of registration in England, he came neces sarily to this conviction, that the practice in the Courts of the Barristers was vexatious and burdensome.— ( Hear, hear, hear.) He was doubtful whether, when it was proposed to assimilate the registration in Ireland with the English registration it might not be more advisable to give England the advantage of the Irish system.—(Cheers.) He admitted that in this Bill there were some details which, if introduced in a better spirit, might be beneficial.—( Hear, hear.) On the 26th of March, 1829, the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had contended that the people of Ireland were entitled to an influence in the representation equal to that which was exercised by the English people—(Hear, hear) — and in a subsequent year, when the Reform Bill for Ire land was under discussion, he proposed that the qualifi cation should be 101. and no more.—( Hear.) But the only effect of this Bill would be to restrict the franchise of the bona fide voters. The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) bad said that the Noble Lord was the father of the Municipal Reform Biil ; but in fact he showed himself this night much more in the character of a step-dame.—(Cheers and laughter.) It had been said that in respect to copyhold tenure the Bill would be a boon to Inland, whereas it was well known to every one connected with Ireland that there was very little property there held upon that tenure. Again, in the case of costs. In England the costs were limited to 10s., but in Ireland, by the tender mercies of the Noble Lord, it was proposed to give the Barrister the power of imposing a penalty of 101. With respect to the sche , doles—what he had to complain of was the accumula tion of their multifarious heads. The Right Honour able Baronet (Sir James Graham) had compared the Bill of the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire with the English Corporations Reform Bill. —(Hear.) He might better have contrasted them.— (Cheers.) The Reform Bill was short and simple, but in the Bill of the Noble Lord there were eleven columns—( Hear, hear) —in which the name, surname, parentage, age, street, lane, road, or alley—together with the nature of the tenure, and all the particulars of the lease must be set forth. The battle of Hercules with the Hydra was nothing to the difficulty which beset the poor Irish voter under the complicated notice the Noble Lord had imposed upon him.—(Cheers and laughter.) If any alteration were required to do away with the evasions, the dishonesty, or the ambiguity of the present system of registration—evils which he (Lord Morpeth) deeply regretted—he would nevertheless not consent to remove them by a measure which would in troduce others of a more serious nature—(Cheers) — and he doubted whether a really satisfactory solution of the difficulties of the case could be arrived at, unless the whole matter of ascertaining the franchise,were taken out of what he might call the province of opinion, and every question, whether of beneficial interest, or of the value set by a solvent tenant upon a holding, was fixed upon sonic definite basis, such as a standard set- tied on some authentic rate or valuation—(Hear, hear) —which, however, could not be effected without serious consideration—(Hear, hear)—and which could not be attempted till more experience had been had of the operation of the Poor-law.—( Hear, hear.) But, as the whole tendency and results of this measure, he did think that in a country situated as Ireland was—with in every Registry Court two antagonist parties pitted against each other—on the one side the wealthy pro prietor anxious to extinguish the right of voting in te.• nants not entirely subservient to them ; and on the other hand, small and comparatively dependant lease holders or farmers, to whom the loss of a single day, or expense of a journey to the Reviaing Court, and then again of a journey to the Appeal Court, must be matters of serious moment—(Cries of " Hear, hear") — in a country like this a measure like the Noble Lord's must have the effect of wheedling or worrying, and finally exterminating the franchises of a great portion of the Irish people.—(Loud cheers.) The Bill did not contain one solitary glimpse of an attempt to ascer tain, to secure, or to facilitate the attainment of the franchise—(Cheers)—while on the other hand it was framed with studied and elaborate care to limit and fetter its attainment.—(Cheers.) What must be the result of such a measure ? and this, perhaps, was his (Lord M.'s) chief argumer.t against it—the effect of it must be to rouse the popular party in Ireland to look about for some means of exciting a stimulus adequate to the emergency—(Hear, hear)--and thus to meet the new difficulties thrown in the way of the franchise, there would be created the necessity for a violent and unintermitting agitation on every political topic of the day.—(Hear, hear.) Considering conscientiously that this would be the probable operation of the Bill—that it would fetter the franchise—th a t it would excite po pular discontent, and arouse dangerous agitation, he should give his determined opposition to the further progress of the measure.—(Loud cheers.) Lord STANLEY said in the first place he must express his unfeigned thanks for the kind and ready courtesy with which the House had listened to his re quest for an early close of the debate, and he should en deavour to repay that kindness by restricting himself as much as possible to the provisions of the Bill itself ; he should not defend himself from any imputations of a hos the animus towards Ireland ; those gentlemen who ha requested him to undertake this measure well knew how studiously, in framing it, he had guarded against fetter ing the franchise, and the Learned Member for Tippe rary had last night declared that little value was to be set upon political protestations in that House; so that as on the one hand lie hoped it was superfluous, on the other hand he found it would be unavailing, to disclaim a hostile feeling towards Ireland.—(Hear, hear, hear.) But he must be permitted to say that he approached the discussion of this question with unmitigated surprise—surprise not that the Bill was opposed, for that he had reason to expect, but of the arguments with which, and the persons by whom it had been op posed.—(Hear, hear.) The Learned Member for Dublin had on Saturday last, before the meeting at the Corn Exchange—where his proceedings resembled those of the late Mr. Mathews in plays, in which the first part was played by Mr. Mathews, and the second part was played by M. Mathews, and the third part was played by Mr. Mathews, and every part was played by Mr. Mathews— (Loud laughter) -- the Learned Gentleman had, on Saturday last, told his audience that he had not had time to prepare the report upon Lord Stanley's Bill. On the following day the Report was presented, and directions having been pre viously circulated throughout all Ireland that any Bill should be opposed which Lord Stanley introduced— (Hear, hear)—a petition was agreed to founded upon the Report, stating that the petitioners had, with the utmost anxiety and care, considered the provi sions of the Bill, and were sincerely desirous that the subject should be fairly treated.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") There was one consolation in con sidering this Bill, that none of its opponents bad ven tured to deny or palliate the monstrous abuses of the present system.—(Hear, hear.) And if the principal features of the Bill were so utterly repugnant to the feelings of the Government, why had he (Lord Stanley) been allowed the mockery of introducing it merely to be so bitterly opposed ?—(Hear, hear.) He had been charged with wishing to introduce into Ireland the in conveniences of the English registration, the advantages of which he had formerly refused to extend to Ireland. Whereas the fact was that he had refused to introduce into Ireland that system before it had been tested in England, and he was astonished to hear that the exist ing system of annual revision in England had worked vexatiously.—(lronical cries of " Hear, bear.") it now seemed, indeed, that the Noble Lord opposite wal inclined to think the English system of certificates the best. A new light upon this subject seemed to have broken in even upon the Hon. Member for Bridport, who had now found the registration of counties inconvenient, and annual revision expensive.—(Cheers.) But in 1837, there .tias an article in the Law Magazine (to which the Solicitor-General for Ireland referred last night), re ferring to a Bill introduced by the Hon. Member for Bridport, and proposing some amendments, but by uu means doing away with the annual revision. —( Hear.) The House of Commons passed that Bill, and the Law Magazine commented on it. The writer in that Magazine stated that "the Lords, on the motion of Lord Wharn ciao, struck out so much of the Bill as related to the new tribunal, and made some judicious improvements in the rest. The Commons refused to pass it, and it failed. The object of the following remarks is to show that the Lords were entirely in the right, and the Commons en tirely in the wrong."—(Tory cheers.) An HON. MEMBRR on one of the Ministerial benches exclaimed, " Who writes for the Law Magazine," Lord STANLEY—The Solicitor-General for Ireland will probably tell the Hon. Gentleman that no counsel is at liberty to impeach his own witness,—( Great cheer ing and laughter.) The Law Magazine was introduced into this debate by the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General, and when I prove his own witness upsets his own case, up starts a gentleman on the other side, and says, " Pray, who is the Law Magazine ?"—( Renewed laughter and cheers.) The Noble Lord then went on to say that an attack had been made on him for endeavouring by his Bill to assimilate the system of Irish Registration to that of England. He repudiated that attack. The Hon. Baronet, the Member for Yorkshire, had said the Bill was full of defects, but that he would approve of it, if be could only obtain a similar system for England. The Hun. Member for Limerick agreed that legislation was required, and ac knowledged that the system of certificates led to abuse, and that the present system of registration altogether was highly objectionable. Yet they both came to the conclu sion that they were bound to oppose the principle of the Bill.—( Cheers.) He bad been asked by the Hon. Member for Tipperary, last night (Mr. Shiel) if he could prove that the granting of certificates bad led to abuse. The Hon. Member for Belfast had that morning put into his (Lord Stanley's) hands a statement. of the registry, which he had only received that day, otherwise he would have made use of it last night. That statement showed that out of the 6,000 or 7000 registered voters the real number qualified to vote was not 2,ooo—that there were no less than 197 who appeared registered three successive times—fourteen were registered four times—two persons registered five times, and that one person was registered no less than six times—(Loud cheers)—and that upon the whole, those 197 electors just held among them 618 certificates—they held separate certificates, and could make use of those 618 certificates at any election.—(Hcar, hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin bad said, the other night, " Don't you kno IV it is the practice of every Assistant Bar rister to write reregistered when he hands back the certi ficate?" That might be so, although there was no law to require it should be so; but that mark could very easily be effaced.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Yet it was said there was no abuse. He would give a case • it was one that oc curred before the Hon. and Learned Member for the University of Dublin at Granard A man came up to be re-registered in 1837. He looked so young, and the certificate bearing date in 1832, that the Hun. and Learned Gentleman suspected all was not right: He found the man's Christian name was the same as his father's, and the certificate be pro duced was the certificate of his father, who since he had obtained it had died. After that gross fraud was discovered the counsel wanted to register him as a new claimant, but that failed, as he had no qualification.— ( Loud cheers.) The Noble Lord then read the evidence of a Mr. Kirman, given before the Committee on Ficti. tious Votes, who took a very active part in favour of Mr. White, at his election for the county of Longford, which stated that there were persons on the register, on both sides, who had long lost their qualification— that it would be a measure of justice to the fair constituents that there should be a new register, and that the system of registering on certificate, without the attendance of the claimant, tended to produce fraudu lent sad fictitious votes, and that he knew of instances in which certificates had been taken out for parties who had long ceased to exist.--( Cheers.) But then it was said the party had to make an affidavit at the poll. The Hon. Member for Cashel had said it was a hardship to strike off any man who by accident had no longer his franchise in June 1840, but who still had an indefeasible right to go to the poll. An indefeasible right to go to the poll ! Why, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman himself forgot the affidavit.—(Loud cheers.) Did any gentleman stand up for the present system of certificates ? If they were not to have certificates, what were they to have? In what manner, except by a practical revision, was it possible to obtain a purgation of the register, and to do away with fictitious votes ?_( Hear hear. ) In dealing with this question he had considered not only the evils they had to meet, but the mode that would be most convenient for the; purpose, and which was most likely to obtain the concurrence of both sides of the House in the principles of the Bill. He had thought that he could not be mis taken when he founded his Bill upon the principle of an nual revision, appeal to a Judge against the franchise as well as for the franchise, and in consideration of that ap peal rejecting the jurisdiction of the House of Commons, and making that register final and conclusive. Why had lie thought so ? Because those were the principles contained in every Bill that had obtained the concurrence of the House. But the Hon, and Learned Member for Dublin had said that, although in 1836 lie had supported such a Bill, yet he had now changed his mind, and if the Government dared to do now—( Loud cheers)—that which they proposed, assented to, eulogized, and declared to be essential to the welfare of Ireland in 1835 and 1836, up would go a cry for a repeal of the Union.—(Cheers.) And thereupon, forsooth, the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland had new impressions—( Renewed cheering)—and he too thought the principles were not quite so clear as they for merly were, and that there were fundamental objections to double appeals—the giving of costs was monstrous—and that the principles of the Bill altogether were such that the House of Commons could not for a moment assent to them. Would the Noble Lord deny that in 1835 Sir M. O'Loghlen brought in a Bill nearly similar? He acknow ledged that in the Bills that were brought forward by the Government there was not an alteration of the franchise, but there was a declaration of what the law was. In 1836 a similar Bill was introduced. But, oh ! said the Solicitor- General, those Bills of 1835 and 1836 were not to be looked at. It might have been very convenient to put up the Soli citor-General early in the debate. He said he knew nothing about Mr. Perrin's and Mr. Woulfe's Bill, and it must have been very painful to the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland to hear his present Solicitor-General condemn his late Attorney and Solicitor-Generals—(Cheer and laughter)--and it must have been still more painful for him to know that later in the debate he himself would have to get up and support his present legal adviser in condemning the course which his former legal adviscrshad taken. But the Solicitor-General for Ireland had said that from 1831 downwards it became to be seen how very expensive and inconvenient an annual revision was, and that Ministers then altered their minds. Did they ? No very great impression had been produced on the mind of Mr. Woulfe, who introduced a Bill in the following year. Mr. Woulfe said. " According to the present law, if the decision was in favour of the claimant, there was no appeal, but if against him he must bring his appeal to the Judge of Assize, who had power to reverse the decree. This arrangement I consider calls for revision, and my ob ject:is to give appeal, as well as upon one side as the other." Mr. Woulfe had also proposed an annual re vision. He ( Lord Stanley) admitted fairly that in the Bill brought in by the Government they provided only for eases that had arisen subsequent to the last registration ; the principle of the Bill was to revise the names registered for the Year next to come. He had been anxious to limit the revision, so as to effect the object which the Noble Lord had sought in his former Bills, but he had come to the conclusion that if he were now to limit the revision, it would be impossible to prevent cases of the grossest fraud. He supposed it would be admitted that Assistant Barristers, like other persons, were fallible mortals—that they might be deceived, and that a person might get an the regis vr who had no proper claim. What was to be done with such a person, if, within 12 months, it should be found he was a fraudulent voter? He (Lord Stanley) proposed to do away with Committees of the House of Commons. Did any one desire to retain the revision of the House of Commons ? ( Lord John Russell nodded assent.) The Noble Lord, then, desired that the House of Commons should have the power of checking the registry ?—( Cheers from the Tories,) The 1-I , nourable Member for Limelrick 183 m THE SUN, LONDON. FRIDAY, MARCH 27, 840. brought in a Bill for the purpose of correcting the regis try in Jreland. That Hon. Member had agreed with him, not only with respect to what they shoeld adopt, but what they should reject, for he found it convenient to reject el together clauses respecting the polling—he found it ad visable not to interfere with the franchise—to introduce no declaratory enactment with respect to the right of voting, hut to deal simply and solely with the law as it affected the registration of voters. In fact, that Bill was almost exactly similar to his ( Lord Stanley's). yet the lion. Member for Limerick, with whom he ( Lord Stanley) concurred, not only in the abuses to be remedied, but in every provision and detail by which those principles were to be carried into effect, with the single difference of the constitution of the Appeal Court, said that, on principle, and upon the second reading, he must oppose the Bilk— ( Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the Tories.) The Hon. Member said that he did not object to the leading ' principles of the Bill, he did not object to annual revision, he did not object to giving costs, but that there were other provisions upon which he differed.—( Hear, hear. from Mr. O'Brien.) Let the House see that those differences were.. The Hon: Member said the provision in the Bill for ap peals was an unpopular provision, and that the Bill of 1835 was not accepted on account of the introduction of that clause, and that he knew it would lead to great dis satisfaction. That Bill was rejected in the House of Lords, not on the ground of its providing for al) . - peals, but because the Noble Lord opposite thought fit to tack to the Bill other provisions wholly unconnected with the system of registration, and introduc ing a declaration of the franchise contrary to the law, which the House of L or d s wou ld not assent to—( Hear) —an d th e Solicitor_General went over to Ireland in that same year, end at a popular meeting poured forth the most unmea eared abuse on the House of Lords for having rejected that very Bill which the lion. Member for Limerick said the people of Ireland would not aceept.—(Loud cheers.) In 1835 and 1836 Mr. O'Loghlen and the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, introduced a Bill with similar pro visions, and yet those Gentlemen who now opposed the rate paying clauses —who opposed the giving of costs—who were opposed to vexation and annoyance, and to the drag ging to the assizes and disfranchising three-fourths of the bona fide eleetois—never uttered a word of objection to those Bills. The declaration merely gave i.i seven columns .shat was formerly given in four, and he would be glad to know if there was any man residing in Ireland who could say that there would be any difficulty in giving the infor mation required by these forms. With regard to inserting the names of the lives in his lease in the declaratioe, if the elaimant could not tell them how were the objectors to prove that these lives had dropped, and that the party had eo longer a right to vote ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) It was unnecessary for him to state the case of persons coming up and claiming to vote in the name of parties who had been long since dead. The Honourable Member for Armagh had stated that the parties who voted after the death of the late King had done so through ignorance, riot knowing that the Duke of Clarence had become Laughter.) But he had said enough with re gard to these points, arid it really appeared to him that the form of the declaration was almost the only difference between his Bill and that of the Hon. Member fur Lime rick.—(:Mr. S. O'Brien, " A great many others.") Then the Hon. Member should favour the House with them. Ho believed that was the only one of any magni tude, and yet notwithstanding the agreement between them, the Hon. Member was going to vote against him. Objections had been taken to many minor points of de tails, which on all former occasions had formed subjects for discussion in the Committee. Such was the point of ihe Hon. and Learned Solicitor_General, that there was a deep design in the Bill, from the studious wording of one of the Clauses—that there must be some hidden in tent to do away with the beneficial interest of tile tenant, and because the word " Acts" was used, instead of re ferring to the Reform Act alone. Now, he would venture to suggest, that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was setting up a monster of his own creation, and if the Bill was al towed to go into Committee, he ( Lord Stanley) would allow him to knock it down in any way he pleased. He would, nowever, tell the House why the word Acts was intro duced—the Reform Act conferred certain new franchises, and reserved to the people of Ireland all the franchises conferred by any previous Acts; consequently it was neces sary to specify that the Assistant Barrister should refer to the franchises, as conferred by Acts referred to. That was the plain statement of his reasons for introducing the word •‘ Acts."—(Hear, hear.) It was said that it was a great hardship to deny the power of obtaining a summons to any party who claimed to be put upon the registry. He was sure the clause could not bear that construction—the framers of the Bill did not mean it, and on all examina tion of the Bill, it turned out that any person on the re gister could apply to the Clerk of the Peace for a sum mon* to compel the attendance of any one he required. Where, then, was the hardship complained against ? A case might happen, in which a person being only a claimant, had no friend or agent to attend on his behalf, but if there were such a case when the Bill went into Committee, let the words "any claimant" be introduced, and it should have his ( Lord Stanley's) cordial support. It was said that the additional polling places would not afford facilities but impose restrictions. Noiv, what lie proposed was, that according to the English system there should be registration districts, each of which should b.: assigned to a particular polling place, and that the Revising Barrister, when he received a list of claimants, should fix the registering places, and a sign the districts, so as to bring them as nearly as possible into the centre of the greatest number of claimants.—( Hear, hear.) He felt that he had addressed the House more at length than he had intended ; but there was one other point to which he must refer. The appeal to the Judge was condemned, and it v,as still more strongly condemned because it took away the appeal from the Jury. The Noble Lord (Morpeth) says., " you not only give the appeal to the Judges, but you take away from the claimant the advantage of a Jury." If he did that, he had the precedent of the Noble Lord himself. ha the de bate upon a Bill introduced by a Noble Lord, the late Mem ber for Leitrim, whose loss the House must deeply regret, tin said he proposed to take away the right of appeal, because he thought that a great deal of inconvenience arose front the contradictory deci s ions of juries, who were generally composed de circurnstantibus. He pro posed, therefore, to leave the question entirely to the de cision of the Judges. Upon which Lord Morpeth said, " I think it desirable that all the decisions should be on as uniform a scale as possible, and I have no objection to the adoption of the amendment." Whereupon Lord Clement's amendment was agreed to without a division. —( Loud cheers from the Opposition benches.) Now, the Noble Lord came down, and charged him (Lord Stanley) with a gross violation of the rights of the people, because he transferred the eppeal from the Juries to the Judge, There was one point, which, however deirous he might be to spare the time of the House, it was impos sible for him to be silent upon, more especially after the allusion that had been made to him by the Noble Lord opposite. But he warned the House and the Noble Lord against one of the most dangerous principles that had ever been introduced into legislation, namely, not to adopt what all persons admitted to be beneficial, unless they attach to that something not only different from it, but upon which there was a wide difference of opinion. He warned the Government against another Appropria tion Clause.—( Cheers.) Let Ministers recollect for how many years they declared they placed their reputation upon the immediate settlement of the tithe auestion by introducing the appropriation clause, and let them look to the issue of the decision, and the step they were ultimately compelled to take.—( Cheers.) But the Hon. Member for ...oseornmon in the first place laid down this doctrine, which lie regretted to see confirmed by the Noble Lord who had just sat down. " I will not admit," said the Noble Lord, " and my objection to this Bill is as the Hon. Gentleman has said that the alteration will work a restric tion of the franchise, unless at the same time you settle the doubtful points of the law which still remain at issue." Did any one doubt his anxiety to have these settled? He had omitted these studiously and sedulously. The Noble Lord knew well he proposed and gave notice of motion for a Committee of the House, comprised of the leading Members of both sides, for the purpose of examining what wero the doubtful points of the law, how many they might be able to get rid of, and how many they could settle. The Noble Lord knew well he would have moved for that Committee if he (Lord Stanley) had not re ceived from him a distinct intimation on the part of the Cabinet that they would net consent to such a Committee, and would take no part in it, because it would be abso lutely useless to attempt to settle these points of the law in the present state of parties. Was the Noble Lord still of the same opinion ? The Noble Lord did not deny the abuses of the present system, but insisted upon his tacking these to his Bill before he would assent to it, though he knew it would be impossible to obtain the assent of the conflicting parties in the House ; and this was the Government's desire of settling existing abuses. They told him (Lord Stanley) at the same time, no such Bill should pass unless he introduced that, to which he knew he would not be able to obtain assent. Now, these bene ficial interests he regretted he was compelled to refer to them, and the Noble Lord cited in proof of what was his intention in the Reform Act, with regard to the beneficial interest, some speeches of his made in 1829, in which he rejected the doctrine that what a so l vent tenant could afford to give was the basis o f the existin g franchise. He was not in the h abit of l oo k ing b ac k to his former speeches.—( Ironical cheers.) The NohleL Lord said he looked back to this w hen he was treatin g sub ject of the registration of voters in lre land. _ l the le had a right to look back a period of three or four years, to see what were the principles they themselvesintro duced, who avowed an obje ction to that of hi s Bill , but he was not in the habit of l o oking back to f ormer speeches of his own, nor was he nice in loo king b ac k to sec whether on this or tbat s ub j ect he had ma de any alteration prov e d, in opinion. He was not aware in what cases 110 could be he charged witl.having made that alteration . mans ready to admit that he Fa wrong, and had changed his mind with no dishonest m o t ive, w hi ch he hoped no man impute d to hi in - 7(Cheers)—but from " later impressions," which he believed wa s t h e modern phrase; but he took care these later impressions" were not foreted under the influence of any violent feelin gs .— (Cheers.) So far as l ie could collect from the Noble Lord's Lord's version of it, in his spe ech in March, 1837 , h jected to the introduction of the words quoted as the test of the Reform Bill, because he thought nothing was so abominable as that a party, under colour of those words—(Hear) —should come and swear that he was willing to give 10/. snore than the party had given, and therefore he had a beneficial interest to that amount, and an oath was consequently given for propping up fictitious votes. He thought it a much more proper test that the Revising Barrister should judge of the value for himself, and not upon the oath of any other party, but by examination of the facts of the case. But to quote a speech of his in 18'9 as his intention in the Refor m Bill in 1832 was a proposition rather extraordinary. H e would not deal with his speech of 1829, but of 1832, and show what was the animus of the House with regard to the beneficial value at the time it passed the Reform Bill. In the first place, it was then universally admitted that there was no inten tion in Ireland to alter the existing franchise as belonging to freeholds, and the Duke of Richmond stated distinctly, , in the House of Lords, that the Goverrintent had not the of altering the qualificatiou as it then existed, and that he thought the mode of ascertaining the amount was the best calculated to effect that object ; and Lord Melbourne star e d it was un d oubtedly the desire of the Government to retain the present qualification, and o that he cm adered it would be secured be the oath pro posed.inat awd,easb yt 'That hteh p ,:.k intentionini : o i tohfethde Richmonde G ela o rvaeatrinio, and Lord Government r not oh.Ateii Melbourne, ha o ol v ,t)l e ,r r nr a ee r ,s e pt e he e c:, t rt , to deal with or alter th e qua lifi cat i on as it stood previous to the Reform Act. But it was contended that a lease hold property fur a term of years was as good a quelifica t!onas freehold, and th a t i t s h ou ld b e placed on the same footing with freehold of the same amount of value. The lion. Member for Tipperary said that the constituents of Irish counties, consisting of a 16/. profit above the rent, must be of necessity small. Suppose a freehold passed in cee what was a beneficial interest in that land ? If let for 101. he had a beneficial interest to that amount. In intro ducing the Irish Reform BAI he made the followin g statement :—" It is proposed th a t a l ease o f 60 years shall entitle to vote, as in Ireland the apparent amount of rent was not always a just criterion, it proposed to grant in Ireland as in England, with reference to the beneficial interest of the tenant." The Noble Lord proceeded to state that the conditions oft he Irish and English Reform Bill, as far as regarded the benefice' interest, were the same. He had been directed to the s ject of the benefi cial interest by hi s N o bl e F r i en d o p site, who se eme d j t anxious to p o i n t out some i ncons i- ency on his ( Lord Stanley's) part to compensate for the inconsistencies into which her Majesty's nnisters had fallen. In reply to the charges brought forward against him, he believed the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite (the Member for Tipperary) would do him the justice to say i that he had never in any way sought to limit the franchise ea the part of others. He was himself a constituent of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, though he did i not mean to say he had ever given a vote in his favour— ( Hear, hear)—neither did he, however, ever vote against Lim. He did not know whether any of his tenants had registered or not, and if they should register, he would never ask fur whom they had voted, nor had he ever inter fered with them on such a subject.—(Hear, hear.) If tenants voted against his wishes at an election, they would not, for his part, meet with those frowns of a landlord which they had heard so much of. When he came to this question, and while he was proving that the franchise is Ireland was not unfairly restricted as compared to that of England, whether they looked to the leasehold or the household qualification —he owned that while discussing :lime questions, lie should not go the length of the Hon. Baronet the Member for Drogheda, in talking of a univers sel and organised conspiracy of landlords to prevont the registration of voters. He (Lord Stanley) could not go so far. There we r e, he believed, circumstances in the social and political condition of Ireland. which made a great difference between the number of persons entitled to he registered, and those who were actually registered in that country. An lion. Gentleman opposite had talked, on a former occasion, of the small number of voters in Ire land as compared with England, and he had told them to contrast Cork with Yorkshire, and Tipperary with Rut land. He had also told them that in Rutland there existed an immense number of independent, respectable, and un purchaseable tenants--( Hear, hear)—whereas in Cork and Tipperary an unfortunate voter had to meet with the frowns of landlords, the threats of agents, and the multi. plied expenses of registering ; and no one could be sue. prisednf, under the circumstances, there was a difference in the constituencies of Rutland and of Cork. He (Lord Stanley) was of opinion that property should command an influence, to a certain extent, both in England and in Ireland, and every man who had property was naturally desirous of availing himself of it for the advancement of his opinions. But there was this difference between the t No countries, that in England the landlord might feel tolerably certain that without going to these extremi ties. which he (Lord Stanley) should certainly condemn—in England, in the majority of counties at least, the landlord had a confidence that his tenants would be guided by his judgment and influenced by his views. That principle might be carried to an extreme he would not deny, and that might happen in the county of Rutland it self.—( Hear, hoar.) A very singular change had cot tainly taken place of late in the views of the electors of that county, and a peculiar and appropriate opportunity had been given them of testifying that change.—( Cheers.) The fact was that in England the landed proprietor felt confident that h;s tenants would go along with his judg ment and follow his views, but in Ireland he had no such confidence as th ere was i n t h at country, a constant , act i ve, and industrio us i n fl uence at wor k , sett i ng tenants aga i nst their landlords, and extinguishing those kindly feelings which subsist between landlord and tenant in England. The landlord in Ireland was not, as in England, desirous of availing himself of the influence of property in forwarding his own views, but he was desirous that that property should not be directed against himself. So strong was that feeling in Ireland that he did not hesitate to say that it had operated in inducing landlords in Ireland to give their tenants such leases as might not qualify them for the suffrage—(Hear, hear)—and he believed that such an arrangement was for the interests of the unfortunate tenants, harassed as they were between the fear of the vengeance of their landlord on the one hand, and their dread of excommunication on the other.— ( Cheers from the Tory benches.) Let him not be open to misconstruction on the subject of that last word. He meant by excommunication bring put out of the pale of society--( Hear, hear)—he meant by it, being denounced in the chapel—( Hear, hear)—he meant by it, being held up to opprobrium in the market place—he meant by it. being threatened with danger at night, and denounced by political agitators.—(Tory cheers.) He said that it was no wonder that the unfortunate tenant, harassed between those contradictory fears, did not come up to register and press his claims.—( Hear, hear.) It was such causes as those, arising from political agitation, that produced the disproportion between the numbers of electors in England and Ireland. " And now," (concluded the Noble Lord) " I leave this Bill—brought forward to correct acknowledged abuses—with no party view_ (Ironical cheers)—l trust I have not treated it so—l ieave , it in the hands of the House—with perfect indiffmenee so far as I am personally interested—but with feelings of the deepest anxiety, for what I believe will be of the greatest benefit to Ireland and the empire—and with the fullest conviction that no case has been made out against the second reading of this Bill."—( Loud and long con tinued cheering from the Opposition.) Mr. O'CONNE LL—Sir, the Noble Lord has con. eluded by saying that this is no party measure. I suppose it was by accident entirely, by pure chance, that such creeds of Gentlemen opposite came down here to-night.—( Hear and laughter.) I was astonished at the length of time for which the Noble Lord kept up the tone of moderation so alien to his nature—but he broke out at the word " ex communication"—(Cheers)—there was no party spirit in that !—(Cheers)—no taint of bigotry.—( Cheers.) De. eunciations in the Chapels too—never was calumny more unteunded.—( Shouts of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) I defy you to point out instances.—(Oh, oh.) There was certainly one case before the Intimidation Committee. —( Hear, hear.) But I defy you to prove it as a prac tice, and as such, I utterly and contemptuously deny it.— " Oh, oh.") Well, having passed over that matter— ( Ironical cries of " Hear, hear,") I proceed. I am not in (Allied • to go into the usual arguments the Noble Lord founded on matters personal to myself. He read a passage from a speech of mine at Dublin, in which he said I had (1, fled the Government to pass the Bill. When I first saw that passage I was en my transit to this country, and tile first thing I did on coming into the House was to As sure the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland that the report was ,incorrect —that the right account would be found in the Freeman's Journal.—( Ministerial cheers.) I defied the enemies of Ireland to pass the Bill—and the most malignant of them—and I named some of then!. The Noble Lord was out in his chronology—he wanted to make out that the petition was before the report—that was not true, it came alter the report, which cost me 16 hours labour, and which gives a detailed account of the objec t tions to the measure, none of which has the Noble Lord met.—(Cheers.) A Bill showing such vicious inge nuity to annihilate the franchise, I never heard of. Sir, the situation of Ireland is pitiable.—( Loud cheers.) Ili the other House the interests of that country are put off, because one Learned Lord is ill, and another fantastical Lord—(Laughter)—is absent—because the one is ill who called us " aliens in blood, in language, and religion"— ( Cheers)—and as to the other, he has much wit, and no wisdom—(Laughter)—and the Corporation Bill is to wait for them—a greater insult could not be offered to the people of Ireland.—(Cbeers.) Sir, at the period of the Irish Reform Bill, I tried hard to get as low a franchir,e as in England, and when I could not get that, I divided the House on a 5/. instead of a 101. franchise.--( Hear, hear. r l The Noble Lord ought to look back to that time with re gret.—(Hear, hear.) Had he been as good a statesman as he is a ready debater, he would not have let slip that golden opportunity for attaching Ireland to this country with an effectual union —the union of equal rights.-- ( Cheers.) But, unhappily, the Noble Lord (then the leader and director of the Government) did all he could to limit and restrain the Irish franchise, and in every Cabinet I found him Ireland's bitterest foe.—(" Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) No wonder the people of Ireland shudder at the very idea of a Bill brought in by him. England received effectual Parliamentary Reform; and Scotland, by enlarging the constituencies, and increasing the number of representative s—Scotland had eight additional Members. Even Wales, with 800,000 inhabitants, had four additional; while Ireland, with more than 8,000,000, had five.—( Hear, hear.) The Learned Recorder for Dublin said the repeal cry was a bugbear to old women and boys. I ant glad he does not enter into either category—( A laugh)--but can any one wonder that with such inequalities and injustice, Ireland should clamour for repeal ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) It had been asserted that the Noble Lord wished to place the Irish constituency on the same footing with the Eng lish. It was said that by his extending to Ireland the IN. franchise he augmented the Irish constituency by 8,000 voters. But l oo k to th e effect of the la franchise in England and in Ireland. Look to Manchester and 'l'ralee —to Bristol and Portarlington.—( Hear, hear.) The Bill was calculated to deprive Ireland of what . the Noble Lord hki boasted of giving to that country, that is, the leasehold franchise.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord earl there re when it would be more pleasant to him to be else: . t iv; shame. ( Loud groans and cries of " Shame, groans, and great interruption.) I wi l l oh," , ~ Shame, O'Connell proceeded to say--I admire that cry.— no ( t ) C ic h e ee t e h s e . , brutal exclamations.--(Cries of " Oh,n ana disgraceful shame.") I say those brutal exclamations are t d o o t y h o o n se want me to adjourn the debate.—(" Laughter_ , i on i, who utter them.—( Renewed interruption.) I f ask, r the Tories, and cries of " Hear, hear from th e inimical s. j I r k el n a o n a c i f thatfrom 1 nothingn carrying their plans into execution.. They shout at me, but delicacy prevents me , from stating why any one of them ought to be absent. —( Great Interruption, in tne midst of which Mr. O'Connell stood with his arms folded across his breast, and , a fter some,Tinutes, said, " Do you want me to adjourn the debate . —Cheers from th e Li beral benches.) I don ' t want to adjourn it.—( Ch eers. ) I say the objec t of the measure is to enable th e l an dl ords to prevent the t enants from voting according to their own w in,—(Loud cheers.) Does any men in the Howe deny that the effect of this Bill is ill be to diminish enormously the constituency in I se n si „t ? ' If you meant to diminish the constituency, why don't you t say so ? You say that the Bill would diminish fictitious 1 voters; you know very well it would diminish the real voters—let there be no hypocrisy about the thing—tell us what you mean to do. The Noble Lerd compares the state of the registration in England and Ireland—l will show you how the registrations should be compared. I will show you the poor and paltry proportion of the consti tuency in Ireland to the population, but I am afraid it will be interrupted by the same cry—( Cheers from the Liberal benches, and a cry of" Oh, oh,lfrom the Opposition side.) [The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then went into a com parative statement of the population and constituency in the counties of Westmoreland, Bedford, Hereford, and Rutland, and of the Irish counties of Cork, Antrim, and Galway.] These illustrations are powerful for my pur pose ; they ought to be powerful in showing the people of England bow little regard there has been shown to the rights of the Irish people. The Noble Lord hag not brought this measure before the House upon his own im- Ipulse, but be has been prevailed upon by others, perhaps by the Honourable Member for Belfast, who does his best to supply him with law as well as with evidence. I suppose he came reeking from the last Orange dinner. — (Hear.) He came to the Noble Lord and put his name on the back of the Bill. 1 see the Bill is printed with the name of the Noble Lord and the Hun. Member for Belfast upon it. The Isle of Wight, with 27,000 inhabitants, had upwards of 10,000 votes, while in Mayo, with 366,328 in habitants, there was only 1.350 votes ; in Protestant Ty rone, with a population of 310,000, there was only about 2,000 voters. Is this a state of things that ought to con tinue? Is this d o i ng justice to Ireland?—(Cheers.) Now I will take th e two largest counties in England and Ire lard—York and Cork. York has a population of 913,738, and it has 33,154 voters; while Cork, with a population of 703,000, has only 2,385 voters_( Hear.) Are all these proportions to remain? Ought you not to struggle to give the people of Ireland an equal proportion of votes with you? Now I will dwell very shortly upon the cities, but there the same proportions exist. I ought, however, to have stated, that in the cities the Noble Lord 'refused to give votes to joint tenants, which you enjoy in England, and I understand that Exeter Hall alone furnishes 85 votes.—( Hear, hear.) In Exeter, with a population of 27,000, there were 3,426 ; while in Waterford, with a population of 2,600 there were only 1,278 voters. In Wor cester, with a population of 11,313, there arc 2,268, voters; while in Limerick, with a population of 58,000, there are only 2,250 voters. In Cork, with 110,000 inha bitants, there are only 3,650 voters; while in Newcastle upon-Tyne, with only 43,000, there are 2,252 voters. Does not that show a miserable defalcation of votes in Ireland? And if you succeed in attaching the adjuncts you propose by this Bill of fictitious votes, you will succeed in stripping Ireland of voting altogether. Now, I have thought it my duty to make these preliminary observations. I object to this Bill upon principle, independent of de tail. My first objection is to that which the Noble Lord called one of its merits. I object to it because it is purely and singly a Registration Bill, and not a Bill to define 'the franchise, and remove the doubts and difficulties that now exist. It ought to be first an exposition of the doubts in the franchise before we go to registration. At the registration, nine-tenths of the swearing necessarily Arose because the franchise was not defined; you ought, therefore, first to define the franchise, and then extend it; but to take the registration without the definition of i the franchise was an absurdity.—(Hear, hear.) Well then, the Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter comes out upon me—a more able lawyer is not in or out of the House, nor is there a more complaisant and fascinating debater—but I am sorry to say, if any attacks are to lie made against Ireland, the Hon. and Learned Member is ale ays to be found in the van. When the Spottiswoode gang was for turning out all the Liberal Members in the House, who was found their great advocate? Why the Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter I It is very fit, therefore, that ho should be chosen as one of the sup porters of the Noble Lord.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Member has talked a great deal of the Judges meeting, but he has not pointed out a single Act authorizing that meeting.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Recorder opposite, and the Hon. and Learned Member for Bandon, tell me there is no such thing as a political Judge. I think a man who is a violent politician at the Bar will be a politician, although perhaps„more mild, on the Bench. I have refused a high judicial office, because I would not let the name of justice ne polluted in my person.—(Laughter and cheers.) I be lieve there are among the Judges five to seven against the beneficial clause, there were Judge Perrin, Judge Burton, Judge Richards, and the Chief Baron of the Exchequer. The Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench had upon this subject, in the case of Pratt in the Queen's County, put out of view the Solvent Tenancy Test, and in 1832 the Noble Lord struck out of the Reform Bill that very Test. At the instance of Sergeant Lefroy, he put into the Reform Bill the Test 110 of George the Fourth. The Noble Lord then said he conceived it was sufficient for a freeholder to have a beneficial interest of 10/. on his lease, without showing that a solvent tenant could afford to pay 101. more. The Earl of Roden, when the Bill was brought up to the House of Lords, agreed at I once to the test of beneficial interest, and said, " I hold in my hand a letter from an Assistant Barrister of an Irish county. He is a gentleman on whose integrity and expe rience I place the fullest confidence, and be states that the clause in the Irish Reform Bill relating to the benefi cial interest was passed over without any discussion. This was effected by a manoeuvre of Mr. O'Connell's." He gives me too much credit. The Noble Lord said its operation would be to enlarge the constituency cf Ireland much beyond what was contemplated by,the Bill in its original form, and lie moved to alter that clause. He was opposed by the Duke of Richmond and,the Marquis of Lansdowne, who said the effect of the clause would be to make the value of the property 20/. and not 101. Can you take up this question, and send it to Ireland undecided and undeter mined? Every other Bill brought in contained two clauses, one declaring that joint tenants and tenants in common should vote in cities and towns and counties, as it is in England—the other defining the beneficial inte rests, as that which was the tenant's profit, and not the l.indlord's rent. But the Noble Lord leaves the litigation where he found it, and yet we have a final and conclusive registry, and an unfixed and undefined franchise. All this arises from the struggle to preyert as many as possible from enjoying the franchise. kis dbad principle- The Char tist violence has now beer, somewhat subdued. But I would remind you of this, that wheu it was at its height and vigour the people of Ireland.refused to join in it. Their franchise was limited—they were tempted by the prospect of Uni versal Suffrage—but they scorned to obtain any advan tages. I need not boast of this, the fact is hist r,cal. They refused to join the Chartist insurrectio How does the Noble Lord show his gratitude? Why, he turns round upon them and says ‘' I find your franchise al ready stinted and miserable, and although you refuse to join the Chartists, yet I will give you such a measure as will render uncertain what you have, and make it impos sible for you to realise your vote." I may be taunted that I have already agreed to annual registration, and to ap peal both ways. I ought certainly to be allowed to change my opinion as well as the Noble Lord. I pressed for an nual revision at the time of the Reform Bill, but I was de feated. Who spoke against me and defeated me ? The Noble Lord. We have changed sides. There has been much experience since, and I find that the annual registry tails. How does it fail? Why, in this way. M e find the organized opposition against the registry has increased to such a pitch, that it is no longer possible to have an annual registry, and there fore I give it up, and therefore the Noble Lord adopts it. The next objection 1 have to the Bill, is that it disfran chises all Ireland. Every man that did not register by the 20th November, would be disfranchised. The Noble Lord has issued his fiat, and by chance there may be a majority in the House to support him. Would any body say, that by the former Bills the franchise was swept away in that manner ? ( Hear, hear.) There was no such sweeping enactment in 1835. And there were' in this Bill of 1835 those redeeming clauses, which, if you insert in this Bill, I would consent to going into Committee upon it. By the Noble Lord's Bill voters are to be treated just as if they were never in the register. They are to be served with notices again, they are to be examined as to the title and the value of the pro perty, everything is to be tried over again that was tried in ' the present year. Was there ever greater injustice tried ? Will'you commit this gross, this glaring, this palpable in ' justice ? My next objection is to matter apparently of de tail, but is of the essence of this Bill—l mean the notices that are required to be served. Ido not to wish to weary the House by going into particulars, but there are two or three things that seem to me exceedingly preposterous. The notices will have to be sent thirty or forty miles— the names must be written in full length—the particulars must be given of the nature of the qualification—the local description of the property—the name of the tenant or tenants—the names of all the lives in the original or the renewed grants. The best franchises in Ireland were those which had passed through a century of renewals, yet the lives in every one must be specified, or the party, by the omission of any one of them, would be defeated. Where the party is an assignee, he must state how he is an assignee, he will have to state:that which it will re quire a competent lawyer to ascertain.—(Hear, hear, hear.) One of the first things to be do ne before an h As sistant Barrister is the proof of every one of those circum- . stances I have stated. Another singulardeee n entitles a party circumstance is this—At present twelve months' to vote in England. The twelv em i e months'rseas e parish disqualifi e s him from voting. residence on dif. ferent premises in ,Ireland in h reside for twelve months in the same place—that will account unt for the statement given the Noble Lord by the Hon. Member for Belfast, b ecause parties may have new c ertificates for the same premises. I , it at once that the sy stem of certificates is on e that a d i,rl se ' rves consideration, and I think I could easily devise a plan which would obviate all these difficulties. The next objection has been canvassed at great length—it is to the appeal both ways—an appeal which I thought might be us, ful in 1835 ; but the great leading objection is to the annual registry. At present every matt has to be registered d: noco—no man can be inserted on the registry without no n ce . The insertion on the registry is one thing, the r:vising the registry is another. If there be an objection, the slightest evidence need only be given in support of it, and the party will no longer be retained on the register. Another objection which ma m y be extended to some length e ill show the measure in a mot ludicrous light. In Dublin there were 9,000 registered voters.' and even without so c .mplicated a notice the Revising Barrister registers about 26 per day ; the highest number is 30 per day—take it at 40, and it will require 225alays to register the constituency of the city of Dublin. Take it at 30 and it will require 300 days ; but take it at 28 - and it will require the whole year.—( Hear.) We maybe told that in Committee addi venial lawyers and new machinery may be provided, but as it stands it proves the Noble Lord's utter ignorance of the real state of I re l an d. I h a ve gone through as much of the Bill as is necessary for my purpose at this late hour, ia but I deceive myself very much if I have not Showni oft this Bill will be practically a diminution of the fra nchise that which the Irish people.—(Cheers.) It goes to make VC-13 little, less ;it goes to diminish that w h hic n h should be Bill, and augmented; and, in short, it is a disfranc another blow at the liberties of Ireland.—( cheers.) ; this Bill, The I conjure the House, therefore, to rej Noble Lord taunted the Hon. Member for liridport with °. ejecting to annual 'revision ef countt . L ~ b tu . a use. to the system was unfavourable v tle t i c s ' l! siue l of the tlouee ; lint EVENING I may reply with the same taunt to the Noble Lord. I toil him that he is dissatisfied with the Irish registration cause it is unfavourable to his side of the House.— ( Hear, bear.) The Reform Bill has almost eatinguivh cd the franchise in Ireland, while in the English counties it has doubled the number of Members. The smallest autibn. ti es have three, and the larger ones have four Members, while Cork, with its 713,000 inhabitants, has only two Members, and Tyrone, with its 300,000, has only two. All these injustices you arc disposed to perpetuate. Ilear, Sir, it is in vain for m e to ask either side of the House to dojus tice to Ireland.—( Hear, bear.) But the people of Ireland are too numer o us an d too powerful not to be aide to obtain, peaceably and loyally, but firmly and constitutionally, their rights, and this attempt to scorn and spoil them will be. met with firm and manly indignation.—( Cheers.) They are carried away now by no unnatural excitement. It is another instance of their high excellence, that they have been among the most faithful of the nations of the earth to whet they believed to be the true creed, amidst war, Plunder, desolation, and blood. They are now rising in might of a great morality, avoiding every species of intoxicating excitement, with prudence marking every step of their conduct. Indiscreet marriages, another fault or blemish in their character, have ceased. Despise thesnl insult them !—in my humble opinion, they are your equals in any constitutional right, and I believe them to be your superiors in morality and political integrity.—( Cheers.) Strangers were then ord , red to withdraw, and the House divided, when the numbers were_._. For tho second reading 250 Against it Majority -- 16 The announcement of the ❑umbers was received ►sith loud cheers from thejorybenclies. _ Culoncl SIBTHORF" hoped that, after the division Ilinisttrs would not humbug the country any longer. The House adjourned at Half-past One o'Clock. PARLLIYIENTARY DI VISION. (From the Pates and Proceedings of the House of Cointnor.4.) THU RSDAT, 11IA RCH 26. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS' (IRELAND) BILL. Order for Second Reading read ; Motion made, and Ques tion proposed,—" That the Bill be now read a second time :" —Amendment proposed, to leave out the word, " now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months :"—(Mr. Freneh :)—Question put, " That the word now' stand part of the Question :"—The House divided MAJORITY - A eland, Sir T. D.--.N Devonshire ft eland, T. D.—West Somerset t 'Court, Captain —Tainworth Ad .rc, Lord —Glamorgaushire Ainswort b, P.--Bolton A iturd, Viscount—Bedfordshire Alsager. IL—Surrey Arbuthnot, General—Kincardine shire Ashley, Lord—Dorsetshire Attwood, M.—Whitehaveii 13agge, W.— West t , it:rfolk Bagot, Hon. W.—Denbighshire Bailey, Joseph—Worcester Bailey, J. D.—Sudbury Millie, H. D.—lioniton Baker, Edward—Wilton Caring, thetford Baring, W. B.—N. Staffordshire Barrington, Lord—Berkshire Bell, Matthew—S. Northumber land Bentinck, lord G.—Lynn Bernell, Richard—Yorkshire B:ackburne, Ireland—Warrington Blackstone W. S.—Wallingford Blair, J.- Blackstone, Bknnerhassett, A. —Kerry Bolden), Henry G.—Chippenham Bolling, W.—Bolton Bradshaw, James—Canterbury Branaston T W.—E_ssex . South Br wadwd, Henry—Bridgewater oad . ley . ;Henry—Eastlork slir il Brownr gg, J. S.— Bcaton Bruce, Lord E.—Marlherough Bruges, Vs. H. L.—Bath Buller, Sir J. Yarde—Devonshiri Barren, Sir C.—Shoreham Burroughes, H. N.—East Norfolk •Caleraft, John Hales—Wareham Castlereagh, Visct—Down Co. Chehnoaueley, Hon. Hugh—Den bighshire Christ..pher, It A.—Lincolnshire Chute, W. L. W.—West Norfolk Clem, Sir G.—Stambord Clive, it. H South Shropshire Cochrane, Sir T. J.—lpswich Codrington, C. W.—Gloucestersh. Cole, Viscount—Fermanagh Colquhoun, John C —iienfrew Cempton, H. Combe—Hampshire Cooper, E J.- Sligo Co. Coote, Sir C.—Queen's County Corry, Hon. H. L.—Tyrone Cu. Courtenay, P.—Bridgewater Crewe, Sir George—South Derby Cripps, Joseph—Cirencester Dalrymple, Sir A.—Brighton cr, Hon G.—Portarlington Derby, George—East Sussex Darlington, Earl of—Shropshire De Horsey, S. H.—Newcastlio under Lyme Dick, Quintin—Mahlon D'lsrami, B.—Maidstone Dottie, A. R.—Southampton DO, 4 1.. s Sir C. E.— Warwic k Douro, Slarquis—Norwich Dowdeswell, W.—Tewkesbury Drummond, H. H.—Perthsnire Duffield, Thomas - Abingdon Dugdale, W. S.'—Warwickshire Dunbar, George—Belfast Duncombe, Hon. W.—Yorkshire Duncombe, Hon A —East Retford l)u I're, George—Buck East, James huller— Winchester Eastnor, Viscount—Reigate Eaton, R. J.—Cambridgeshire Egerton, W. Tatton—Cheshire Egerton, Sir P.—Cheshire Eliot, Lord—East Cornwall Ellis, Jno.—Newry Estcourt, T. U. B.—Oxford Univ., Farnham, I:B.—N. Leicestershire Fector, John Minet—Maidstone Feilden, W. J.—Blaekbnrn Fellowes, Edw. Huntingdonshire Fiiiner, sir E.—West Kent Fitzroy, Hon. Henry—Lewes Fleming, John—Hampshire Follett, Sir W.—Exeter Forester, Hon. G.— Wenlock Pox, Sackville Lane—Beverly Fre .h field, James Win.—Peoryn Gasket', James Milnes— Wenlock Gladstone, W. E.—Newarx-on- Trent Glynne, Sir S. R.—Flintshire Gosdard, Ambrose—Cricklade tiordon, Hon. \V.—Aberdeenshire Goring, H. D.—New Shoreham Uoulburn, Right Hon. H.—Cam. bridge University Graham, Right Hon. Sir J. R. G Bt.—Pembroke Granby, Marquis of—Stamford Greene, T. G.—Lancashire Grimsditch, T.—Macclesfield GrimstoY, VlSCOunt—Hertford. shire Grimston, Hon. E. H.—St. Al. ban's Hale, B. R.—Gloucestershire Raiford, Henry—Leicestershire Hamilton, Charles J. B.—Ayles bury Hamilton, Lord C.—Tyrone Harcourt, G. G. V —Oxfordshire Harcourt, G. s.—Bucks liare.ingc, Right Hon. Sir H.— I Aunceston Hawkes, Thomas—Dudley Heneage, G W.—Devizes Henniser, Lord—East Suffolk Hepburn,S:r T. --Haddirigtonshir t Herbert, Hon. S.—South Wilts 'ferric% lit. 11014. J. C.—Harwici, Hill, Sir Rowland—Shropshire iiillshorough, Earl of—Down Hodgson, Frederick—Barnstapl, Hodgson. Ild. — Berwick-on.'rweec Hogg, James Weir—Beverley AYES, 250. Holmes, Hon. W.—lsle of Wight Holmes, W.—Berwiek-onTweeti 'Hope, Charles—Linlithsowshire Hope, H. T.—Gloucester Hope, G. W.—Weymouth ET:tham, Lord—Leomluster ouldsworth, T.—Nottinghamsb. Houston, G. J.—Renfrewshine Hurt, Francis—South Derby Ingestre, Viscount—Staffordshire Ingham 1' obert—South Shields Inglis, Sir R. 11.—Ox. University Exton, Samuel—Cumberland Irving, John—Antrim Co. a , ,kson,lllr. Serj.—Bandon Bridge James, Sir W. C.—Hull Jerilyn. Earl—Bury, Suilblk Jones, John—Carmarthenshire Jones, T.—Londonderry Co. Kelburne, Lord—Argyleshire Kemble, H.—East Surrey 0. Knight, H. G.—Nottinghamshire Knightley, Sir C.—Northampton shire Knox, Hon. Thomas—Dnngannon Lascelles, Hon. W. S.—Wakefield Law, Hon. C. E. Cambridge U n v. Lennox, Lord A.—Chichester Liddell, Hon. H.—North Durham Lincoln, Earl of—Northampton. sh.re, South Lockhart, A. M.—Lanarkshire Long, W.—North Wiltshire Lowther, Colonel—Westmoreland Lowther, J. H.—York Lucas, Edward—Monaghan i.ygon, Major-Gen. Hon. H. E.— W orcestershue Kest. Mackenzie, Thomatz—Hess-shire Mackenzie, W. F.—Peeblesahire Mackinnon, W. A.—Lymington Maclean, Donald—Oxford Mahon, Viscount— Hertford Maidstone, Visct.—N. Northamp tonshire Manners, Lord C.S.—Leicestersb. Marsland, Thomas—Stockport Marton, Geo.—Lai.caster Matthew, G. B. —Shaftesbury Maunsell, T. P.—Northampt.nsh. Maxwell, Henry—Cavan Meynell, Captain H.—Lisburne Miles, Philip W. Skynner—liristol Miller, W. a—Newcastle-under. Lyme Morgan, C. M. R.—Brecon Neeld, John—Cricklatte Strad, Joseph—Chippenham Sicholl, J "vorreys, Sir Denham—Mallow ossulston,Lord—North North urns. bcrland Owen, Sir J.—Pembrokeshire Packe, C. W.—Leicester, South t'akington, J. S.—Droitwich Palmer, Robert-13erks Parke, it. T.—Preston Patten, J. Wilson—Lancashire Peel, Ht. Hon. Sir R.— Pam worth Peel, Col. Jonathan—Huntingdon Pemberton, Thomas—Ripon Perceval, Colonel—Sligo C.. Perceval, J. G.—West Surrey Pigot, Robert —Bridgnorth Planta, Joseph—Hastings Polhill, Frederick—Bedford Pollen, Sir J.—Andover Pollock, Sir F.—Huntingdon Powell, Colonel—Cardiganshire Powerscourt, Viscount—Bath Praed, W. Ives Pringle, Alexander_senthkshire Pusey, Philip—Berkshire Rae, Bight Hon. ,Sir Wm.—Buts Reba, Sit J. Rae—Dover Richards, Richard--Merionethsh. Bickford, W.—Aylesbury Rolleston, Col.—h. Nottilignam Rose, Sir George—Christchurch Round, Charles Gray —Essex N. Round, John—Maklon ltushbrooke, Colonel—Sunblk Rushout, Geo. llowl,s-I•.:vesharo St. l'aul, H.—E. Worcestershire Sandon Lord—Liverpool Scarlete, Hon. J. Y.—Guildford Shaw, Bight Hon. F.—Dublin Un. Sheppard, Thomas—F., Shirley, E. .1 —Warwickshire Sibthorp, Colonel—Lincolu Sinclair, Sir George- Caithness Smith, Abel—Hertfordshire Smyth, Sir G. H.—Colehest‘r Somerset, Lord G.—illontneuthsh• Spry. Sir S. r.—Bodinin btanley, Edward—Cumberland Stanley, Lord—North Lancashire Sturt, Henry Chasi—Dorsersbir. Sutton, J. H. T. M.—Cambridge Teigninouth, Lord —Marylebene Tennent, J. E.—Pelfast Thesiger, F.—Woodstock Thompson, Ald_s,„ hicriand I hornbill, G.—Huntiagdonshire Trench, Sir F.—Scarborough Tyrrell, Sir J. T.—North Essex Vere, Sir C. B.—East Suffolk Verner, William—Armagh Co. Vernon, G. I - L —East Retthrd Villiers, Viscount—Weymouth' Vivian, John Ennis--Truio Waddington, H. S.— Worst Suffolk Walsh, Sir Jehn—Sudbury Glynne Earle—Grantham Whitmore, T. C.—iirolgenorth Wilbraham, Hon.',.R. B.—Lancs. shire Williams, Robert—Dorchester Williams, T. Peers—Marlow Wood, T. J.—Middlesex Wyndham. W.—Salisbury Young, John—Cavan4Co. Young, Sir W.—Bucks TELLARe. Fremantle, Sir Thomas—Bucks Baring, H. B.—Marli.orough 31INORITY. Adam, Rear-Adm. Sir C.—Clack mannan Aglionby, H. A.—Cocker mouth Aglionby, Major F.—Cumberland Alston, Rowland—Hertfordshire A Risen, Colonel—Staffordshire Anson, Sir G.—Lich ti eld Archbold, Robert—Kildare Bainbridge, E. T.—Taunton Baines, Edward--Leeds t;annerman, A.—Aberdeen Baring, F. T.—Portsmouth Barnard, E. G.—Greenwich Barron, H. W.—Waterford City Barry, G. S.—Cork Co. ileamish, F. B.—Cork Bellew, B. M.—Louth Berkeley, Hon. F, H.—Bristol Berkeley, Hon. C.—Cheltenli..m Bernal, alph—Rochester Bewes, T —Plymouth Blake, Wm. J.—Newport, Isle d Wight tones, John—South Durham itrabazon, L , rd—Dublin Co. Bridgernan, Hewitt—Ennis Briscoe, J. I.—Westbury lirocklenurst, J.—Macclesfield Brodie, W. B.—Salisbury Itrotherton, Browne, Robert Dillon—Mayo Charles—Liskeard Duller, E.—North Staftbrdshire Busficld, W.-13radford Butler ' Hon. P.—Kilkenny Co. Bytig,,George —Middlesex Brng, Right Hon. (I. S —Chatham Callaghan, I).—Cork City Campbell, Sir John—Edinburgh Campbell, W. F.—Argyllshire Cavendish, Hon. C. C.—E. Sussex Chapman, Sir M. L.—Westmeath Clay, William—Tower Hamlets Clayton, Sir William—Marlow Clements, Visc.—Leitrim Co. Clive, Edward B.—Hereford Collier, John—Plymouth Collins, W.—Warwick Corbally, Matthew Elias Cowper,__Hon. W. F.—Hertford Craig, W. G..—Editiburglishire Crawford, :W.—London Crawley, Samuel—Bedford Currie, Raikes—Northampton Curry, William—Armagh Dalmeny, Lord—Stirling Dashwood, G. H.—Wycombe Denison, W. J.—West Sussex D'Eyneourt, Right Hon. C. T.— Lambeth Divett, Edward—Exeter , Dun; James—Bantnhire Duke, Sir James—Boston Duncombe, T. S.--Finsbury oiiiidas, C. W. D.—Flint Dundas, Frederick—Orkney Dundas, Hon. J. C.—York Dolmas, Sir Robert—Richmond Eastliopa, J.—Leicester lion. J. E.—Roxburghshire, Ellice, Capt. A.—Harwich EEll i llice, Right r H d min- Evans, sir G. De Lacy— on. ster w t t. E. A — St. Evans, George—Du Ewart, NVilliarn— Wig _ t —Rosttaic Evans, William—N_ b F i t i n: imEe. " — Y Fe lieu, o Fitzalan, w _Queen's Co. iirpatrick, c._ Bury St. Edm. Fielden, litztoY, 1-°r , bolas —King's Co. jehn Z-A ld ru harn ndel Fitzsimon, h H —P reston Clit e G,4,o;ne, 'Thomas—Carioca Gordon, Robert—Windsor Co. Froleret,7.—°a' roe G re g, a i — a n ‘ Cl i i ck ester Grey, Sir Charles Edwara—Tyne. mouth Grattaik Grey, Sir George—Devonport Grosvenor, Lord R..—Chester Grote, George—London Guest, J. J.—Merthyr Tydvil , Hall, Sir Benjamin—Mar ylebone Handley, Henry—Lincolnshire Harland, William C.—Durham Hsstie, Archibald—Paisley Hates, B. -Lambeth wkins, J. IL- ceport, islcof ight Raster, (4.—Wc:l -NOES, 234. Hill, Lord A. M. C.—Evesham Hindley, Charles—i,...hton Hobhouse, Right Hon. Sir J. C.— Nottinghana Hobhouse, T. Benj.—Rochester Hodges, T L.—West Kent Horsinan,Bdward—Cockermouth Hoskins, K.—Herefordshire Howard, Hon. E. G.— Morpoth Howard, F. J.—Youghail Howard, P. H.—Carlisle Howick, Viscount—NorthuMber. . land North Hume, Joseph—Kilkenny Hurst, R. H.—Horsham Hutchins, E. J.—rear;n Hutt, W.—Hull Hutton, Robert—Dublin James, William—Cumbrian* Labouchere, Right tLcn. Henry— Taunton Lambton, H.—North Durham Langdale, Hon. C.—Knareaba. roue) Lennox, Lord J. G.—West Susaec Lister, E. Conlifie—Bradford Loch, James—Kirkwall Lushingtob, Charles—Ashburton Lushington, Rt. Hen. S—Tower iia m ie.: Lynch, A. H.—Galway Slacauiey, T. B.—Edinburgh IPTaggart. John—Wigton, die. Marshall, Wm.—Carlisle Marsland, Henry—Stockport Martin, John—Tewkesbury IMaule, Hon. Fox—Elgin Burghs ,Melgund, Viscount —liythe Nliktmay, I'. St. John— Vr imams. to Milton, Lord—Mallon Morpeth,• Lord—Yorkshire Morris, D. —Carmarthen ,Morrison, James—lnverness Monts, G. F.—Brmingllgns Muskett, George A.--str A lban't Noel, William M.—Rutland t O'Brien, W. a—Limerick Co. O'Callaghan, Hon.C.—Dungarvan O'Connell, Daniel- Dublin O'Connell, John—Athlone O'Connell, M. J.—Kerry C'Oonnell Maurice—Tralee • O'Connor Don—Roscommon Co. O'Ferrall, R. M.—KiL,are t o. Ord, W.—Newcastle-upon-Tyre Oswald, .amen—Glasgew Paget, Lord Alfred—Lichfield Paget, Frederick—lkauiliaris Palmerston, Viscount—Tiverton Parker, John—Sbetlield Parnell, Sir H. - Dundee Pattison, James—London l:e en ch d e a l r l z.e l , ; . Eialta W.—N Captain—Brighton ighton iCornwall Philippa hi il t m . ,Sir Mark — m l a, l i .a c r i e , r s i te ord r w est p Philips, G. R.—Poole 'Phillpotts, John—Gloucester 1 Pigot, David Richard—Clontnell Pinney, W.—Lyme Regis Ponsonby, Hon. John—DerN Power, James—Wexford Co. Price, Sir IL—Herefordshire Ptleroe, Edward—Halifax Mme, George—Cambridge Redington, 'l'. N.—Dandalk Rich, H. Knaresbotough Roche, William—Limerick Itundle, John—Tavistock Russell, Lord John—Stroud Rutherford, Rt. Hon. A.—Leith Salwcy, Lieut,Col—Ludlow Sanford, E. A.—Somersetshire Scrope, Poulett—Stroud Seymour, Lord—Totness Sharpe, General—Dumfries Shell, Richard Lalor—Tipperary bhelborne, Earl of—Caine aney, R. A.—Shrewsbury Smith, Hon. R.—Wycombe Smith, R. V.—Northampton Somers, J. P.—Sligo Speirs, Alexander—Richmond Stanley, E. John—North t. heshlrc Stanley, W. o.— . Anglesca Stansheld,W. R. C. —Httddersfield Steuart, Robert—Haddington, &c Stewart, James—lioniton Stock, Dr.—Cashel Strickland, Sir, Q.-=W , Yorkshiao Strutt, Edward-Derby Stuart, Lord IL-Ayr Style, Sir Citaries—,,,horoui.:ii .' iiurc , , Earl of--West Sua.ex iriltiui, J. H.— , NeW Ross ,John—Pe- tersfieat