The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-10 00:00:00

soe .
of the peace of any borough, city, or county in
tl.e name of any voter off the register."
I:l'l,,Z'
Lord CLIME, as Chairman o the Longford Eli eft*7 •
mittee, begged to say a word or two on this subject.
tion of the Hon. Member involved the consideration of whe-
they the Ceremittee had taken the proper course for bra:ging
the result of their deliberations under the notice of the House.
It was perfectly obvious, from the course taken by the Cein_
mittee in striking off the names of ninety-three vote:, feoni the
poll, that they considered those names ought un the
register. The resolution was come to by the Cenneitiee iu
its present shape, and it vets for the House to consider whe-
ther, under the circumstances, the course taken by the Cio,
mittee brought it within the jurisdiction of the House. IL,
must fairly admit that. he was not aware of the reselutiso of
the flouse of 1835, until after the Committee had seeartded.
—(Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not rise to impugn
the conduct of the Noble Chairman of the Longferd Com-
mittee, whose conduct he fully believed to have been as con-
scientious on that as on every other occasion.—(Bear. hear )
But lie rose to express his strong objection to the motion of
the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, which sought for a
resolution of the House to disfranchise ninety-three electors
of the county of Longford.—(Hear, hear.)
.It appeared to
him that this would be a stretch of power greatly beyond the
authority of the House, and that it would be a clear violation
of the law.—( Hear, hear.) The House must go by the Re-
solution of the House of June, 1835, and not by that of June,
1833. The Noble Lord said he was not aware the Resolu-
tion was rescinded, therefore the Longford Committee had
made this blunder, they had supposed the Resolution of June,
1833, was in force, whereas it had been withdrawn. The Re-
port of the Committee, then, rested on a Resolution which was
no longer a Resolution of the House of Commons. therefore it
was impossible that the House of Commons could uct on that
Report. This House had, no doubt, the power on the peti- •
tion of an elector, to determine whether a voter had a right
to vote; but this House had by law no right to disfranchise
a voter—it had no such right at common law, arid the right it
had was given to it to be exercised only in a particular case.
The English Reform Bill gave an express power to reform the
register, or, rather, to add those to the register who had been
improperly left out of it, or to take off those who had been im-
properly placed upon it. With regard to Scotland, the 25th
section of the Scotch Reform Bill gave a similar power. he
these cases, then, they saw that a Parliamentary power was
given to. this House, which it might lawfully exercise ; but it
was not given by the-Irish Reform Bill—therefore, so far as
Ireland was concerned, the law remained as it was before the
Reform Bill passed—it remained the eame as before the Gren-
ville Act passed—in short, it continued what it was by the
common law. They were not now considering what the law
ought to be, but what it was.—( Hear.) He must say, how-
ever, that if he were called on to decide what the law ought to
be, he should hesitate considerably before he determined that.
the fate of these voters should depend on the capricious deci-
sions of an Election Committee—(Cheers)—he should desire
to see the system of Election Committees reformed and im-
proved, before he consented to their decisions being final as
regarded the franchise of the electors.—( Hear.) He contended
it would be the usurpation of a power not belonging to this
House—it would be assuming a power which could not be law-
fully exercised by Parliament, if they were to disfranchise elec.-
tors. Under these circumstances, he could not agree to the
motion of the Hon. Member for Knaresborough. His grour.ds
of dissent were two-fold : first, this report of the Longford
Committee did not come within the resolution of the House
which was on the Journals ; secondly, if it did, so far as that
resolution extended to Ireland, it was contrary to law, and they
had no power whatever to act on it.—(Hcar.)
After a few words from Mr. CALLAGHAN,
Lord STANLEY should vote against the motion of the
Hon. Gentleman behind him, because he conceived the. House
whs fettered by the vote of the Committee; and if he halt any
doubt on the subject, it would be removed by the stringent terms
of the resolution of 1835, which limited the power of the
Speaker conferred by the resolution of June, 1833. He so
far differed from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the At-
torney-General, that he thought it unfortunate that the Com-
mittee, whether intentionally or not, had not made a further.
declaration that they thought it expedient that these rotors
should be struck off the register; because he apprehended
that they came to their decision on no such possible grounds
as those suggested by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, but
the conviction on their minds was, that the voters in ouestion
were not, and never had been, possessed of the qualification.,
—( Hear, hear.) The effect of adopting the amendment
would be, not that they did not disfranchiso persons reho
had no right to claim to vote,' but that in coasenyeence
of the omission (for an omission he believed it was'', they
would leave on the register of the county 91 votes whom
the Committee had declared to be disqualified. lie did not
pretend to discuss the legal pont ; hut he thought it was open
to grave consideration whether the House hr. the power, lie
must say he should hesitate before he agreed to the proposi-
tion that the Speaker had not the power of doing that which
he found had been done uninterruptedly in so many instances.
He thought the more convenient course would be for the Hon.
Gentleman behind him, seeing that the sense of the He.a
was against affirming his motion, to withdraw it, the Hor.
Gentleman opposite withdrawing his amendment,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought there was sufficient
ground for not proceeding with the Hon. Gentleman's mo-
tion. He must say, with respect to another point, that the
resolution as now settled by the House was still defective, and
he did not think that, the Irish Reform Act having included
no provision for striking out voters by the authority of this
House, it was competent to the House by resolution merely to
give that authority to strike out voters. He was prepared to,
vote against the motion of the Hon. Gentleman opposite, and,
though he agreed with the view of the Hon. Member for
Meath, he was not disposed to support his motion at present.
After a few words from Mr. Shaw, Mr. Wynn, Sergeant
Jackson, and Mr. Grattan.
The motion and 'amendment were withdrawn.
POST-OFFICE DUTIES.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL begged the Hon. Member whoa
had a motion standing for this evening respecting the Pos t-
office to postpone it, to enable the Government to proce sd
with some important measures which stood upon the order r ;
he referred more particularly to the Irish Poor-law Bill. 11e
trusted that the Hon. Gentleman would not prevent him from
moving the Committee on that Bill. Should the Hon. Get ,-
Oman proceed with his motion, he should feel it his duty t a
move the previous question.
Mr. WALLACE said no man was more desirous that tho
Irish Poor-law Bill should proceed than himself ; but lie •;13*,
plainly that unless the private Members who gave notices ,er
motions persisted in bringing them forward, notyvithstaridin
the entreaties of the Government to put them off from time t>
time, they would sacrifice an important privilege, and athandont
their duty to their constituents and the country. fie bad
made up his mind that he would no longer yield to many such
solicitations. The Noble Lord said he would endeavour, br
a vote of the House, to set by his motion; he felt that this
was a matter affecting the private Members of this House.
He was ready at all times to bow to a vote of the House ;
but he thought that, being ip possession of the House,
at present, his better course would be to proceed with. his mo-
tion. The Honourable Gentleman then moved that a Select
Committee be appointed to report on the present rates of
postage, and especially to examine the improvements reccms
mended, and the mode of •charging postage proposed, in a.
pamphlet by-Mr. Rowland Hill, with a view to the generali
reduction of the postage duties. He highly approved of the,.
suggestions in the pamphlet, particularly of the principle that
distance should not regulate the charge, but that there should
be one uniform rate. The rate recommended by Mr. Hill
was very low, lower than it could be if the present amment of
revenue were to be derived ; but the 'principle was unex.cep-
tionable. In the United States the charge for the letter was
not more than the actual cost of conveying it. The advane-
tnees to be obtained from cheap postage was manifest fee rye
what occurred with respect to soldiers, who, having 0n17.• a
penny poeteee to pay, could easily communicate with 11 ieir
relations, and instances had been known of persons who I vent
into the army unacquainted with penmanship that in a !short
time became constant writers to their friends. It wee he
was told, observed by officers in the army, that the best sol-
diers had the most correspondence. Upon this poir ,t be
begged to say that he had received very valuable info rnaa-
tionfrom Captain Bentley. Having been a constant are ~port-
er of the Poor-law Bill, he asked of the Metal), 5 re of
Government whether it would not be advisable to allow • those
whom they compelled to go into the workhouse to hay a 3 the
opportunity ef communicating with their relations on tb a same
terms as soldiers and sailors did—that is, that they shoe it I only
pay a penny postage. If they did so, it would be. in h .4- opi-
nion., the-best way of putting an end to the slanders . l ca-
lumnies that were circulated respecting the working f the
new system.—(Hear, hear.) He barged to say elw .t his
opinion was, that as soon as statoped. -papers were alto A ed to
be sold for envelopes, a great saving would be effecte d , the -
Chancellor of the Exchequer wovid be able to get his a ioney
in advance, nodding would be lost by the country • post-
masters, and ultimately- the Post-office, he believed, would
be merged in tho Stalep-orifice. Ile wished to obser that
there was one point which was felt to be exceedingly ii Icon-
venient thro'aghout the .country. It was in the atr ay in
which additional postage was charged. Neither a 1 ,envy'
nor a twopenny postage ought to be charged upon 1 etters
that had :Arcady paid postage. Such had been, aa I still
v.as, the practice in the Post-office, and that prat it ice be
believed to be illegal. . He objected, secondly, to postage
being superaddeel iu any case. As to newspapers, t' sey_ ware
assured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that t'
would no logger be made. He had to codeplain the a
to the present system, letters were tarried for ty
o
miles, and a charge was made for their being so corriccl,r-vheoii
the real distance that the letter pednaps Lad to ft;o was trot
more than seven.or eight ndles. In England there 71aed not
less than 1,137 penny-posts, in Ireland 211, and 165 in scct .
land. In his opinion London ought to be assimilated to. •l th e •
towns—like Dublin, Liver cool, and Manchester, :men,
to be several deliveries ie. the course of the day. In ',sheen )00l
and Mene'nester there were deliveries six times a day, a in I in
Dublin four times *la the day. He complained of Idle late -
deliveries of letters on Mondays ; this was a fault that
could be easily remedied. Another change that was
greatly required . in order to enable the merchants and I ma.
nufecturexe of this country to keep pace with
,toe at • of
America„ yeas to have their letters only charged I er dud
weight. The last pert c.f his notice referred to t e-
tention of letters. A most stringent Act had been pas- a 1 re-
lative to this subject in the reign of Queen Anne ; r that
Act it was declared that letters should not be detained. The
Postmaster-General was lean,' to take an oath that
thi
Iris should not be violated. A similar oath was t ikon
by all in the Pest office. He did not .say that
such an oath was intentionally violated, but
he r rust
complain of the detention of letters
of itnhe
unaet
offices. He believed that tire great cause
letters was the detention of letzersn the edu.i.itredui,nt9.1% 0 eorf
that there ht not by a delivery ui on