The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-26 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION,

revision ; and to that, provided proper protection were
given to the elector, he (Mr. O'Brien) could have
no objection ; although, if it was intended to carry
. .

out the English system of revision, he should de-.
cidedly oppose it. The English system was one of
great vexation and expense to all parties, and the
Noble Lord had certainly got rid of one of its

most objectionable features, inasmuch as he threw upon
the party objecting to the vote the onus of making good
his objection. But, in getting rid of that, he had intro-
duced another objection, which was most absurd and un-
justifiable namely, the imposing a penalty upon
a man for seeking a constitutional right.—(Hear.)
The Noble Lord bad been so good as to say that he ap-
proved of his (Mr. O'Brien'sY Bill. But it did somehow
happen that the Noble Lord had altered or"omitted some

very important provisions in that. Bill. For instance, the
Noble Lo:d had not copied the provision for protecting
voters who bad once acquired the franchise from ob-
jections upon it. As the law stood, the Irish
voter was liable, at any revision, to be called
on to make out his distinct title to the franchise.
Nothing could be more vexatious, than that a man
who had registered for a 101. house in 1840, should
be liable to be called on in 1841 to prove that
the house was worth that sum yearly. And therefore
he (Mr. O'Brien) had introduced a. clause enacting
that when a man continued in the same prelnises, and
in the same;occupation as he had before, he need
not support his franchise again at subsequent revisions.
1.14 is assent to the principle of an annual revision was

grounded entirely on an admission of that proviso.
Again, his (Mr. O'Brien's) Bill enacted that the registry
should not be more than len miles from any freeholder.
The Noble Lord by his Biil proposed to adopt a
form of appeal, which he must know the people of
Ireland had grc.at objections to. It would be at-
tended wth enormous expgnse, trouble, and vexation.
He could not understand how, with the present number
of Judges, it would be possible for them to hear the ap-
peals contemplated by the Bill. He could not sit down
without expressinr, a hope that her Majesty's Govern-
ment would not despair in bringing forward a measure
on this subject at some future period. His opinion was
that her Majesty's Government was quite right in re-
sisting this measure, which was apparently shaped for the
purpose of limiting the franchise. As to the Noble
Lord, he thought they might safely consign him to his
own constituents, because if he was prepared to apply
himself to the subject of registration, he thought
h.: ought first to grapple with the English rogistra-
tion.' Let him do that, and then let him extend to
Ireland the same principles of legislation which he had
found effective in this country.
Lord G. SOMERSET thought the latter observa-

tiona of the Honourable Member opposite totally
uncalled for. English Members had often been
reproached for not taking sufficient interest in the
affairs of Ireland, and now they were to be blamed
for interfering with them, and told to look to Eng-
land before they attempted to legislate for Ireland.
He had found that there was but one opinion upon the
Commiitee, that the irregularity in the registration re-
quired some immediate and stringent remedy, and he
thought that the gentlemen connected with Ireland, so
far from complaining of the measure, ought to be grate-
ful to his Noble Friend, the Member for Lancashire,
for bringing the subject under the consideration
of the House, and giving the Legislature an opportuity
of correcting any practical defects in the 'exist-
ing system. It might be a very good argurrient
for the Hon.and Learned Member for Dublin, to say
that the name of the Noble Lord, the Member for
Lancashire, on the back of the Bill was suf-
ficient to condemn it ; but the House
was to consider whether the Hon. and Learned
Member himself had correctly stated the fact, when
he said that the present mode of registration was bad.
and whether it was necessary to adopt some means for
remedying the evil. The present question did not impli-
cate the House in an approval of the details of the Bill.
wo
uld
only the motion was agreed to the House
only pledge itself that the present mode of
registration was defective, and required alteration.
The Hon. Member for Roscommon said he objected
to the Bill, because it assimilated the system of Ire, •
land with that of England. Bat this was not the case ;
but it was no reason because the system in England was
not always applicable to Ireland, that there might not be
cases in which it might be beneficially assimilated.
The Hon. Member taunted Hon. Members on that
side of the House for not applying themselves
to the improvement of the English registration. Did he
recollect that two or three Sessions ago a Committee
was appointed, composed equally of Members on each
side of the House, to consider the system of English
registration, and to propose alterations in it, and that
they had instructed the Chairman to bring in a Bill,
but it was abandoned by Gentlemen on that side of the
House because it was sought to be the medium of fur-
thering party objects? The Hon. Member objected that
persons should vote who had not a certain qualification.
That was the object of the persons who supported this
Bill, and a great advantage was introduced in it by pro-
viding that, instead of dragging persons before a Com-
mittee of the House, means should be taken to prevent.
improper persons being placed upon the registry; but,
when they were so inserted under legal authority they
should not be impugned by a Committee of that P °use.
The Hon. Member stated great objections' te, the ap-
pellate jurisdiction of tte Judges, because. they would
not have time sufficient for the purpose ; but he 'hoped
care would be taken to allow suffl'Cient time, and if' it
should be found the number we so great that it was
impossible for them to discharge their duties, the House
would, doubtless, as in other similar cases, provide
a remedy. He objected to their going into these
minor - matters of detail on. the second reading' of
the Bill, because when they went into Commit-
tee. there could be no objection to the modifi-
cation of these points. There was one principle of
the Bill which had been approved of by all, namely
making the revision annual instead of four times a year.
The Hon. Me.mber for Roscommon admitted that some
change in the registration was necessary, and therefore
he and all those who thought with him were bound
to go into Committee. It was on these grounds that
he should give his decided. support to the second
reading.
Mr. M. BELLEW thought that the Noble Lord,
in his anxiety to effect a uniformity in the franchise of
the two countries, 'would not produed the same results,
but would materially injure the franchise of the Irish
constituency. A degree of ingenuity had been em-
ployed upon the Bill, that would, under one or other of
its clauses, render popular election in Ireland a perfect
farce.—(Hear.) The Noble Lord, in his anxiety to
legislate for Ireland, proposed to give them the ma-
chinery of the English Reform Bill, but had omitted to
give them the English franchise.—(Hear, hear) As to
the annual revision proposed by the Bill, he would
ask, was an annual revision found so bene-
field, even in this country—or was it not
very justly complained of on account of the great
expense, and the inconvenience to which voters were
put ? But in Ireland objections existed to an annual
revision totally apart from the question of expense.
Even now, when the re-registering took place only once
in eight years, the hardship and difficulty which the
Liberal voter had to endure was of the most frightful
description. It was the practice among Tory landlords
not to grant the renewal of a lease to a tenant who
dared even to register his vote. It had been the prac-
tice to dispossess Catholic tenants ever since the Re-
form Bill. That system was still acted on, and was
productive of the most serious injury. The present Bill
would very materially aggravate the differences that
already existed. It would encumber the franchise with
embirrassina° forms and delays, and it appeared to
him, (Mr. Bellew) that the rejection and not the
admission of voters had been the great object of the
legislative care of the Noble Lord.—(Hear, hear.)
Both in its general principles and details the Bill evinced
that hostility to the rights of the Irish people which was
to be expected from the quarter from whence it ema-
nated.—( Cheers.)
Mr. ItEDINGTON thought that a Bill more stu-
diously invented to impede and obstruct the franchise of
Ireland had never been brought forward, even by the
Noble Lord himself.—(Hear, hear.) It was anything
but a Bill to amend the system of registration of voters
in Ireland. He (Mr. R.) was opposed to an annual
registration in Ireland, and he did not conceive that the
Noble Lord himself could say the system of annual re-
gistration had worked well in England. Every election,
under tne present system, had to pass through a very
severoordeal. The Noble Lord had disclaimed any
intention of interfering with the franchise, and yet, on
referring to one clause of the Bill, it would be found
that the Nolk Lord had distinctly declared there was
to be more than one Act by which the franchise was to
he regulated. The Noble Lord the Member for Mon-
mouthshire (Lord G. Somerset) had said it was an un-
fair argument to say that the individual support of
of
therid yet it
was pretty we Members
was
gkrtaiouwadn ftolriartejt.eheetinsgupapoßrtillo,
a made use of as an argument for its rejection.—(Hear,
liear, and laughter.)
nd Learned Member for Dublin to a Bill was often
He would tell the Noble Lord
the Member for Lancashire (Lord Stanley), that the
Irish people had never expected anything from him that
would tend to their advantage, and in this instance
they bad certainly not been disappointed.—(Hear.)
Mr. LUCAS understood the usual course in that
House was, when no objection was made to the
principle of a Bill, to allow it to go into Committee, in
order that they might be better able to consider and
agree upon its details. Now no objection had been
taken to the principle of the present Bill, and, indeed,
from the objections dot had been made on the other
side of the House, he doubted whether any two of the
Hon. Members who opposed it could state what the
principle of the Bill was. It was distinctly stated by a
Noble Lord, formerly a Member of that House, that
one-third of the votes standing on the Registry in Ire-
land were fraudulent. Now the present Bill sought to
apply a remedy to the evil, an evil which all would att;
mit to be of_ very great magnitude. If Hon. Members
objected to a scrutiny into the claims of voters in their
own parishes or districts, where they had' all the mi.'
deuce at hand which might be required to Isutbrs
stantiatc their votes, how much more "obk.se-
tionable must the present system be_ under

~~• 'a
.~~~.