The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-05-06 00:00:00


Russell and LorcrSlmerston, Mr. Disraeli said he was
authorised by her Majesty to make a statement to the
House.

Some objections were made on the Opposition side to this
statement beinemade ; but the Speaker ruled that, as the
name of the Sovereign was not to be introduced to influence
the opinion of the louse, the communication Mr. Disraeli
proposed to make was not out of order
The Prime Minister then went on to say that there was
not the slightest foundation for Mr. Lowe's story, and that
the Queen had authorizA him to state that at no time had
any proposal to introduce suds a measure been made to any
Minister. The story, therefore, wits a piece of calumnious
gossip of the kind which would always be circulated, but
which no one would expf ct from the mouth of a Privy
Councillor and an ex-Caoinet Minister.

After some observations from Mr. Reed, Mr. Lewis pro-
ceeded to say that, having attaihed his object in showing
that the statements attributed to Mr. Lowe had no truth in
them, he would withdraw his Motion; but this was obk3eted
to by the Opposition, and, a division Leing takyn, the Motion
was carried by Otto 37.
The House was engaged in discussing the Second Reading
of Mr. Mulbolland's Tenant Right at the Expiration of
Leases (Ireland) Bill when it was counted out at ten minutes
to eleven o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF COMIONS, May 3, Mr. MeldOD, in moving
the second reading of the Registration of Voters (Irel.lnd)
Bill, said he asked the House to extend to Ireland the pro-
visions of the 28th and 29th Victoria, cap 36, that was the
Registration of County Voters Act, 1865. The first few
sections of the Bill simply asked that the law which
had proved so eminently satisfactory in England,
and which, so far as he knew, had not been disap-
proved by a single human being, should be extended to
Ireland. The Bill would amend certain defects in the
registration law, and alter the procedure in the registration
courts, and would also extend to Ireland the provisions of
the Act of 1873. He stated that in several counties, Dublin
amongst them, the percentage of persons on the register,
as compared with those who were entitled to be on it,
was comparatively small; and this arose from the fact
that every person was objected to, and unless they came
up in person their names were expunged. In England, on
the contrary, personal attendance was not necessary, and
what was sought by the Bill was to assimilate the registra-
tion laws ef the two countries. The low percentage of voters
on the list showed that there was something wrong that
needed a remedy, and this would be provided by applying
the English law, and making the agent responsible for
frivolous objections.
Mr. Gibson opposed the Bill, and moved its rejection on
the ground that it would establish quite a different registta-
tion in Ireland to that which existed in England. 'There was,
in fact, no necessity for any such change as that proposed by
the Bill, and the committee of 1874 had reported against any
change in the existing law. The whole question had been
very much exaggerated, and at the present time the Irish
voters were in just as good a position as voters in England,
if the advantages they possessed were not even more sub-
stantial.

Mr. Downing supported the Bill. Mr. Bruen opposed the
Bill, and remarked that it proposed to deal with what was
only a visionary grievance.

Captain Nolan strongly supported the Bill. He contended
that it was the duty of the House to encourage men to vote,
whereas the present Bill placed obstacles in the way of their,
placing their names on the register. Mr. Fay also supported
the Bill.

Mr. Marten contended that the grievances complained of
were exaggerated, and that the remedy proposed would go a
great deal too far.
Mr. It. Smyth believed that the abuses which existed in
Dublin and Carlow counties were caused by the faithful ap-
plication of the present law.
Mr. C E Lewis opposed the Bill, believing that there was
no Irish grievance on the subject to redress, and that the
Irish voter was placed on a much more favourable footing
than the English voter.
-

---
The Solicitor-General for Ireland opposed the Bill, believ-
ing that it had not sufficient merits to commend it to the con-
sideration of the House. He did not fora moment deny that
there were anomalies in the present system, but no alterna-
tive system had yet been proposed which would remove them
in a satisfactory manner. While in some respects the Bill
went too far, in other respects it did not go far enough.
Mr. Law said he regarded the opposition to the Bill as
another proof of the dread which haunted the Conservative
party lest a few improper persons should get their names
on the register, this view being held altogether irrespective
of the fact that thousands of persons entitled to vote were
systematically prevented from doing so.
The House then divided, when there appeared for the
second reading, 168; against, 23i; majority, 66. The Bill
was therefore rejected.
The House then adjourned.