The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-24 00:00:00

had passed before our senses, to matters which parties might
have seen or heard, prejudice or passion would frequently
so warp men's minds as to make them gi-e versions of the
same occurrence perfectly different the one from the other—
and if this were the case as to matter of fact what must it
be as to matter of opinion ; why, the differences in that case
caused by interest or puss:on were so great, that in many
cases of matter of opinion it eves impossible to rely on human
testimony. This was the case in all matters of opinion, more
particularly must it be so in questions of opinion af-
fecting the franchise, where there must necessarily be so
much conflicting testimony, and this was more par-
ticularly the case with respect to the Irish franchise,
than to the English one, because the Irish franchise was prin-
cipally a 10/. leasehold one, while in England the greater part
of the constituency consisted either of freeholders or tenants at
will, the leaseholders constituting but a small portion of the
electoral body. With respect to the 4('s. freeholder, the free-
hold must indeed be of little value if it was not greatly above
that required by law, but in Ireland the Legislature had
thought proper to give a 101. leasehold franchise instead of a
40s. freehold one, and the 101. leasehold franchise, which was
not a common one in England, was the most common one in
Ireland, and that was the reason why the defects inherent in
the nature of the franchise itself appeared so much more glar-
ingly in the one country than in the other. That was in itself
an evil, but to that evil was superadded the still greater mis-
chief of an ambiguity in the law.—( Cheers.) By the Act of
1829 the test of the franchise had peen determined to be what
a solvent tenant could afford to pay over and above what the
tenant paid. By the second clause of that Act, and by the
oath in the third schedule of the Act, that definition of the test
had been distinctly laid down by the Legislature : amongst the
tests which Parliament in its wisdom had at that time thought
right to apply to the investigation of the franchise, was a form of
oath to be administered to the Jury appointed at the As&zes
to try questions of appeal relating to the franchise. That
oath was altogether omitted from the Reform Act, and all
clauses relating to it were withdrawn from the body of the
Bill. A question then arose not only with respect to the free-
hold franchise but with respect to the leasehold franchise,
which hied not existed under thq former statute, but which
owed its existence entirely to the Reform Bill.--( Hear,
hear.) The question was raised before the Lord Chief
Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench ; he had previously
ruled that the oath ought not to be put. Other Judges had
held a different opinion, and orepedby their authority he had
permitted the administration of the cats, but at the same time
reserved the question frr consideration with his brethren. The
Judges met and considered the questions submitted to them.
The first question raised was whether the oath was lawful. On
that question four of the Judges of the Court of Queen's
Bench and one Baron of the Exchequer, five out of theeleven,
were decidedly of opinion that the oath was unlawful.
six were of opinion that the oath had been properly admini-
stered, and one other Judge, who was absent from the consul-
tation, was unders'ood to agree with them in opinion. An-
other question was, whether it was proper to direct the Jury
to apply the test ? There were ten to two in favour of
the test. If it stood thus alone, and he could show the
House that a difference in opinion existed amongst the
Judges, on such an important question as the mode in
which they should appeal to the consciences of a
Jury, he thought he should be enabled to call upon them to
pass some legislative enactment to remove all doubt upon the
subject. But it was not a difference of sto7oroflo to 2 ;
the practical result had been that the two Judges who differed
in opinion from their brethren still retained their own
opinions, and declared that they felt bound by the
solemn obligations under which they were acting to state
the law on both subjects acc wding to their own opinions,
and against the opinions of the majority, and to act in accord-
ance with the opinion of the law. Such hid been the case in
1837, but what was it at present? Two of the Judges belonging
to the majority had since been replaced by two holding opinions
in accordance with those of the minority ; so that on the question
of the administration of the oath the minority had been converted
into a majority of 7 to 5, while on the other quesion the
minority had been increased to 4, and at that moment one
third of the Judges of Ireland felt that they were bound by
the solemn sanction of their oath, to administer the law as
they believed right, in opposition to the opinion of their
brethren. Now, how was this question to be determined
?
were they to have the question renewed, the Judges again
to be tailed together, and to wait until those discussions
should be renewed ?—(Hear, hear.) It was a state of
th'ngs calling loudly for legislative interference ;
The Legislature was called upon to settle the question, and
remove the doubt altogether. If such a difference of opinion
had taken place upon the smallest question relating to pro-
perty, upon an individual right of the smallest possible value,
the Legislature would be bound to interfere. It was the business
of Parliament to review the laws, to see where they were defective,
and to take care that they were rendered clear and unambiguous.
Was it not, therefore, essential that they should in some way
remove the doubts that at present existed in those parts of the
law. There were two protects now before the House, and be-
tween them the House must choose. He would assume that
some alteration must be made, and would now addrese himself
to the main features of the measures before the House. The
Noble Lord opposite said his Bill was a Bill for registration
merely; now, if ever that was so, he considered it a sufficient
ground for the House not to enter into its consideration, as it
only aggravated and exasperated the evil, because its very
vital pnnciele and essence was to give an appeal against the
the franchise to the Judge, to settle a question—of what ? Net
to sett'e a question between parties, according to the law as it
was known and acknowledged, but to give them an opportunity
of adding further question, and making the doubtful law more
doubtful.—( Hear, hear.) Now, what was the consequence
of such a state of things? He would suppose that an
Assistant Barrister had admitted five hundred votes—or
rather, he would suppose that he had rejected them.
There was an appeal to the Judge, and he, acting
according to his interpretation of the law of beneficial interest,
placed those 500 voters on the register. An election then took
place ; an intervening registry afterwards occurred, and the
same voters were objected to as being improperly left on the
registry, and the Revising Barrister left them on the registry.
Now he would suppose another Judge had gone that circuit
holding different opinions to the previous one—what would be
the result ? Why probably those very electors would be re-
moved by the Judge holding different opinions. Such would
be the effect of the provisions of the Noble Lord's Bill, and he
would leave it for the House to say whether that was a remedy
for the evil or an aggravation of it.—(Hear, hear.) He would
meimtinu another • -_ s•s1;311. isteniL,tlhe eAurse, -of
Friend the Secretary at War, with referenee uonouralele
in Dublin. In Dublin the appeal was to any one of
the Judges who sat at Nisi Prius : he would suppose
the Lord Chief Baron entertaining one opinion in ac-
cordance with the minority of the Judges, and the Lord
Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, holding another opinion
in accordance with the majority of the Judie.. Now, was it
not plain in such a case, that if the party appealed, he must
succeed, because he had only to choose the Judge before whom
he would go ? Was it not indispensable, therefore, that in some
way or other, the question should be settled that was tried in
1835, 1838, and 1840, and it was then found that, upon the
mere definition of the words of the Reform Bill, the difficulty
could not be removed. He would appeal to every reasonable
man, whether, adopting the plan to remedy these evils—whether
it was not necessary to consider what would be the qualities
that were required as a test, and whether that test should
not prevail in the whole Island. Such was the case in the Poor-
law ; there the test pervaded the whole Island. The next
thing to consider would be, whether they could obtain a test
that would comprise every species of property ; and with refer-
ence to that he thought, with very few exceptions, that the
Poor-'aw test would be applicable to every species of property
that would give the franchise. It was not necessary that the
test should be uniform' over the whole Islands it was quite
sufficient that it should be uniform in large districts ; but
then it was said that there-must be some check to fraud ;
he thought that check was given under the system of the Pcor-
laws. Now what was the case With reference to the Poor-law ?
Why, before it was tried, so Satisfied was Parliament of its
adequacy as a proper test, that they adopted it for the purpose
of establishing the municipal franchise.—(Hear, hear.) Had
any other mode been suggested by which this difficulty could
be got over, or had any other mode been suggested by which
they could get a better test? He had heard of none in that
debate or in former discussions, and he owned that it appesrod
to him if they were to retire from that experiment, without
fairly trying it, the case might be looked to as utterly hopeless.
But then it was said that the valuation was not uerferm ;
if that argument was to stand good, and if it was to be
urged that the tested valuation must be uniform—
that they must abandon al notion of ohtaining
any test whatever, l'ecause to suppose that they could obtain
an uniformity of value was utterly out of the question. If
they were to take rating as a test at all by which the fran-
chise was t0.1.e made statue, it was impossible to suppose Chet
in some parts there would be a difference to what took place in
other. It was enough to be certain that they could never ex-
ceed the real value of the property, becau-e, if the rating
was too high, the party had an opportunity of appealing against
the rate. It appeared, therefore, to him that the
great and essential quality which was required, in
-the first place, was that the basis of the test should
be ascertained before the parties went to the
conflict in the registry ; and next that there should be a
uniformity of that test as near as possible. The question of
the amount of the franchise was ono that would require great
consideration fr•m the House, but that was a more tit subject
for the Committee then the second ;ceding. Tte exact
amount of the franchise was not now the question, and if he
was asked why Si. had been taken as the test, he would refer
to the statements of his Noble Friend who introduced the
Bills. He begged the House to recollect that they were not
nowdea'ing with a recent question—they were not now deal-
ing with men that for the first time came forward to claim
that which was the subject of doubt—but they were dealing
with a mass of men who had acquired the franchise, and who
had enjoyed it for eight yeare. In the pig/int-Bill the
rights of all parties were defined, which, was -not the
ease under the provisions of the Referin Bilh-L(Pleflredrear.)
He had incontestible witnesses to prove that in 1832, when the
the Barristers went about administering the law, they ap•
plied it in the manner in which the people now understood it
—( Hear, hear.) He would just call the attention of the
House to the state of things which existed prior to and under
the Reform Act. Ihe Act of 1829 required ,that all the 101.
freeholders of Ireland then created should be registered) under
that Act. By a return which was made' to the House of
Commons in May, 1831, it appeared that there were then
registered 20,109 voters. It was said that the freehold
euatification was not intended to be altered by the Reform
Bill. Now what was the operation of dal; law ? In 1832
the 101. franchise was registered under the Reform Act.
What was the number of freeholders registered under that
Act? If the law were the same—if it was administered in the

same manner—ought that franchise to have been enlarged ?
should it have been considerably increased? Why, he found
that, in the summer of 1831, the freehold constituency of the
counties was 20,000 ; in the autumn of 1532 there were regis-
tered under the Reform Act 37,732, making an addition to
the freehold constituency of 17,000. He mentioned that sim-
ply for the purpose of showing how the Reform Act worked,
and upon what principle it was administered. He con-
tended that the Reform Act was administered upon
the extended construction, and he proved the fact by
showing- that the constituency, which according to the
allegation, IA as left unchanged, was nearly doubled under the
Reform Act.—( Hear, hear.) At this time the Noble Lord
was secretary for Ireland, and it was proved upon the evidence
that the B ,rristers were in constant communi::ation with him,

..
and that he gave them all the information which they required
upon Cke construction. An election son afterwards took plat
aid after that the attempt was made t'► in!roduce an opposiie
►onstruction. The Longford Committee, which was com-
posed chiefly of Meneers the other side of the house, de-
termined in favour of the more e:eendod construction. Anothi r

....—.. ,
electi. n took place in 1835, and another in 1837. Upon. t' ese
"three cccasions men who had acquired the franchise also ex-
ercised it upon that construction, and until the last. Session of
Parliament its propriety had never been called in question.
There was one point upon which he felt anxims that the House
should be set right. It was important to look at the inten-,
tions of the framers of the measur, in introducing it to Parlia-
__

ment. Now what was the fact in reference to these intentions ?

What were the people of Ireland entitled to understand from
their language The Hon. Member then proceeded to read
- a passage from a discussion in 1829, the effect of which was
that the best coune would be to demand proof of a bona
fide 10/. interest and no' more. Thi4,, said the Hon. Gent],
man, was the language of the Noble Lord the Member for
North Lancashire.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial
Benches.) The Noble Lord on that oceas'on had used the
very expression beneficial interest. But he had gone further,
he had said that it should not be tested by the good and sol-
vent tenantry. The argument was applied against those who

contended for the adoption of such a test. —( Hear, hear.) The
Noble Lord was in favour of a beneficial interest, but not a
good and solvent tenant test. That was what the Reform Act
had done, and they were bound to take that Act according to
the intention of i's framers. He called upon Parliament to
give its sanction to a d stinct and intelligible measure. for the
purpose of settling the franchise upon a sure and solid footing.
He called upon them not to look upon this question under the
influence of .party feelings or political excitement.—(Hear. )
He called upon those who desired the future peace and tran-
quillity of Ireland, who desired to see it progress in that rapid
career of improvement which was now unquestionably
developing so much of the resources of Ireland, who wished to
eetend to that country the blessings which distinguished this
country, to come to the consideration of this question with
unprejudiced minds, and for that purpose to go into Commit-
tee on this Bill.—( Cheers. )
Sir W. FOLLETT said he quite agreed with the Hon.
Gentleman, that the - details of this measure would •be best
dealt with when discussed in Committee. It was upon the prin-
ciple involved in these clauses respecting the elective franchise,
that the question now arose, and he ould not avoid express-
ing his surprise that the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman,
the Atto:ney-General for 'lreland, under whose auspices-this
Bill was mainly introduced into Parliament, should have con-
cluded his speech without addressing a single word to the
House upon the great and sweeping change which these clauses
introduced in the elective franchise of Ireland. . He could
not but' suppose that the Right Hon. Gentleman was quite
aware of the full scope of this Bill; and yet the Right lion.
and Learned Gentleman had treated it as if the whole principle
which they were discussing was the application of a par-
ticular test. Did the lion. Gentleman suppose that Hon.
Members on that side of the House were opposed to the ap-
plication of a test? He (Sir Wm. Follett) perfectly agreed
with the Hon. Member for the county of Northumberland that
some test arising from the relief of the poor, or some other
putlic burthen, should be applied, and that they should not
rest solely on the oath of the claimant ; and he was surprised
that it should be supposed that any opposition would
be offered to the application of a proper test. But then, under
the pretence of applying the Poor-rate as a test of value,
there was an attempt to sweep away the existing
franchise in Ireland. Acting entirely contrary to the princi-
ple laid down by the Reform Bill, it was thought to substitute
another constituency, based upon a different-principle and
upon a different qualification.._( Hear, hear.) It was a violent
interference with the very principle of the Reform Bill. Be-
fore he proceeded to speak of the general principles of the
measure, the House would allow him to say one word upon
the difficulties which it was supposed to meet. He perfectly
agreed with the Right Honourable Gentleman that the scenes
now existing in Ireland were a scandal and reproach, and no one
could more regret that state of things. But he was not prepared
to admit that the blame of those scenes was to be attributed
to some deficiency in the Reform Act. As an English gentle-
man and an English lawyer, he could not understand the
doubt or the difficulty. The elective franchise in Ireland was
given in precisely the same terms as in England ; the two
great classes of voters, the freeholder, and the 101. occupier,
were the same. With respect to the term " beneficial inte-
rest," he was satisfied that no English lawyer could rise in his
place, and say that the introduction of those words created the
slightest doubt.—( Hear, hear.) They had heard of discord-
ant decisions. He (Sir W. Follett) never heard of a Revising
Barrister in any part of England entertaining the slightest
doubt at to the meaning of those words ; that part of the Re-
form Bill ha 1 in this country been carried into effect without
doubt and without difficulty.—( Hear, hear.) Now, what
had occurred in Ireland? 'I he Right Hon. Gentleman said
that the Barristers gave a large and liberal construction to the
words. Did he know how far those Barristers went—nut as
regards freeholds, not as regards leaoehulds, but as regards oc-
cupiers of lot. tenements? It had been proved, before Com-
mittees of the House •of Commons, that in some
ewes the occupier of a cellar had been admitted on account of
his trade, or something else, which was called a beneficial inte-
rest, to be placed upon the register.--( Hear, hear. ) • They took
the same fanciful mode with regard to the freeholds. It
doubts and difficulties existed, there was an easy mode of set-
tling them. There was an appeal to the Judges; and he
could conceive no course more proper, than to assemble the,
Judg• s of Ireland, that the matter might be properly discussed,
and when !hat tribunal had -made its decision, he could not
conceive how any further doubts could exist. But what had
actually occurred? Why, ten of the Judges of Ireland had
given the construction to the Act which had been put upon.it
in England. There were two dissentient Judges, and they
had advised the Barristers to act upon their own authority.• He
hoped that the House would not suppose that he meant to impute
improper motives to those Learned Judges. He believed that
there was no Member of the English bar, who had obtained a
seat on the beech, who once allowed himself to be influenced
by political feelings; he believed the same of the Irish bar ;
but, for this leason, he the snore deeply regretted the course
which the Learned Judges in question had pursued. It was
said that the opinion of the majority was not binding. He
admitted that it was not, but he would ask what man's life or
fortune would be safe if the Judges of England were to choose
to act upon their individual opinion, instead of y fielding their
opinion to the Courts of- Appeal. The Judges invariably-
yielded to the majority. They knew that even the .Govern-
ment acted upon the opinions of the majority of the Judges.
They had, in a recent' case of high treason, carried
into effect the decision of the majority •of the Judges,
He could -not help thinking that it would have been much bet-
ter for the two Judges to have conformed to that of their ten
brethren. He would have said so in any case of a nun-politi-
cal nature--4low much more so, then, in a case relating to the
franchise.—'(Cheers.) Ile called upon the Right Hon. the
Attorney-General for. Ireland to look again at, and compare
the provisions of the 10th George IV., with those contained in
the Reform contended they were identically the same.
Well, they introduced a Bill into the House, but not containing
the same provisions as the Bill which had formerly been intro-
duced by the Right Hon. Gentleman. It was quite clear that
if that Bill had passed the only effect of it would have been to
increase the evils now existing in Ireland ten-fold. Had it
passed the same difficulties would have existed now. But what
was the Bill of the Noble Lord ? Why was it rendered neces-
sary under a pretence of removing doubts and difficulties? Were
they going to introduce such a clause as the 5/. rating one ?
(Cheers. )He could not characterise that as fair--he had al-
most said not honest. The effect of the clause would be not
only to destroy the franchise introduced by the Reform Bill, but
it would introduce quite a new one. Under that Bill the 10/.
• ..Iders, - lea.eholders, would have a beneficial interest
for certain terms of 60, 20, and 14 years, the beneficial interest
•
The franchise was so given to copy lo era ; le believed none
of that class existed in Ireland. That was the franchise, as
settled by the Reform Bill; but what was the principle of it?
Was it not that the right of-voting in counties should be based
upon property. —( Loud cheers.) And that in burghs the right
of voting should be founded on occupation. The Noble Lord
the Secretary for the Colonies objected strenuously to the in-
sertion -of the 50/. clause to the Reform Bill, upon the very
ground that it was an interference with the right of voting in
counties, which was distinctly based upon property, and not on
occupation.—(Cheers.) What then did the Government
propose to do by this Act ? In effect they would
take away the necessity for any property whatever being pos-
sessed by a county voter.—(Cheers.) He repeated it, that no
party would be bound under thus Act to have any property
whatever, to entitle him to vote under this Act. He was re-
quired to be an occupier for 14 years of a tenement rated to
the poor at 51.—(Cheers.) Was not that a complete altera-
tion of the principle of the Reform Bill ? The effect of it would
be, that every occupier of any -coaage, stable, tenement, or
hovel in Ireland, paying even more than the full value of the'
cottage, garden, or other possession, if he held it for 14 years,
at a rack rent under any and every restriction by his landlord
still he would be entitled to vote for any county in that country.
Was not this, he would ask, almost admitting the principle
of Universal Suffrage in the counties of Ireland?—(Cheers.)
The Hon. Member for Kilkenny had said that he expected
soon to see the principle of the Bill applied to England; and
supposing that, the House were now to agree to the Bill then
before them, how were they to refuse such a demand upon the
part of the people of England, supposing it to be made ; and if
it were agreed to, let them sweep away all Revising Barristers
and Courts of Appeal, because there would be no property
qualification to inquire into. He contended it was not only an
alteration of the principle contained in the Reform Bill, but it
was a direct violation of the conditions which accompanied the
Catholic Relief Bill of 1839—(Cheers)—which required the
franchise to be lodged in the hands of the let. freeholders of
Ireland. The Noble Lord cheered him, but did he not
only last session strenuously oppose the sec•ind r, ading of the
Bill, on the ground that it would intei fere with the settlement
made by that Bill. It was true they did not intend to restore
the 40s. freeholders, but they were about to establish a much
worse franchise. The great objecti n made to that class of
voters was that the system led to a division and sub-division of
tre land to a degree which was most destructive to the welfare
of the population, and detrimental to the landlords. Many
serious attempts had been made to counteract the evils of that
system, but the Bill under consideration would bring them all
back in their ful malignity. They would again have the land-
lords dividing and sub-dividing their lands into 5/.
holdings for fourteen years. —(Hear, and cheers.) The
Bill provided no check upon the landlord whatever;
he would grant a 14-year lease, but he could require any rent
he pleased; he could put his tenant under any restrictions he
thought proper; yet under the provisions of the Bill he would
be enabled by that Bill to enforce that rent, and enforce those
restrictions which he could not do when he made 40s. free-
holders ' • it was putting an immense power into the hands of
landlords who were of an exacting nature ; as long as the te-
nant vo ed as he desired, he might retain his lease, but the
moment that he thought proper to vote in opposition to him,
that moment he could he removed. These were the consti-
tuencies which the Noble Lord proposed to introduce into
Ireland, by means of a Bill which only
-professes to clear up
doubts and remove difficulties.—(Loud cheers.) But
where were they to rest ? how resist a demand of the same
ue/hire if made ley'life per)* of England ?--(Cheers.) They
(*ad not lookefit what. was now taking place out of doors with-,
out seeing that there was a large party in the coun-
try who haled this Bill as the first step to House-
hold if not to Universal Suffrage.—(cheers.) '1 he Noble
Secretary for Ireland as well as the Attorney-General for that
country stated .that the information upon which they called
upon the House to legislate was both meagre and unsatisfac-
tory. In lis opinion it was much 'worse. It was founded
ups n direct violation cf the di ections of an Act of Parliament.
Ile lion. and Learned Gentleman here read a section of the
Poor-law Act for Ireland, and in contradistinction a passage
from the Report upon which the Bill was founded, in order to
show that the valuations taken proceed upon a different prin-
ciple from the clause contained in the Act. He would ask was
there no mode of compelling obedience to as Act of Parlia-
ment in Ireland,?—( Cheers. ) Were there no Courts in Ire-
land ? These Gentlemen state that the parties who hail rated
under the Poor-law have done so most imperfectly and im-
properly, and in direct violation of the terms of the Act ; and
yet the Noble Lord came down and called upon the House to
legislate upon that which even the Assistant Commissioner
stated was altogether wrong and illegal. He objected to the
principle of the Bill because neither the Noble Lord nor the
Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had shown the slightest
reason why its provisions should be extended to hue •holders in
towns. Last session he had fixed the municipal franchise at
WI. upon a rating to the poor-rate ;he had now voters for
Memb.rs of Parliament whom he proposed to be reduced to a
ra t g of only 5/.; nor had any reason been shown why die fran-
chise should be reduced to Si. in Ireland and retained at lot
in Scotland and England. Such was the Bill of the IsT, We Lord,
and he would ask the House whether he had not redeemed the
pledge he gave—(Clierrs)—wheri lie said that he would show
that neither the Attorney-General nor the Nobles Secretary
had at all alluded to the material part of the Bill, which would
lilt r the provisions of the Reform and be, guided by the
prii ciple of the Bill of 1829.—(Loud cheers.) He would ap-
pail to Gentl men s tting on both sides of the House—he would
appeal more particuhrly to her Majesty's Government, whe-
ther when they had so frequently opposed wild and visionary
schemes which had been the production of a seal oi of the
supporters o' her Majesty's. GGvernmint—(Loul ebeerine)—
he asked if they were prepared to 'support a Bill mere oljee-
tionable than any that had ever been introduced? He would
venture to hope that whatever might be the motives and ob-
jects of the Government in introducing the present Bill, that
a majority of the House that night would show them and the
country that they would net attempt, under the guise of a Bill
for amending the registration in Ireland, to set aside the Re-
form Bill for the three countries, and allow new claimants
in the constituencies of the empire, which innst be etterided
with danger to all the Pr-ablished institutions of the country,
if not to the Constitution itself.—(Lout[ cheering for some
minutes.)

Mr. MA CA UL AY—Sir, if this were a legal question
purely, I Should think it ino:4 presumptuous in me to inter-

ere, or intrude myself between the Hon. and Learned
Member who hat,iust sat down and my Right Hon. Ffien'l
behind me. If flits were a ques!ion to be decided by local
knowledge, .I should be equally disposed to leave it to the
numerous Representatives of the Irish constituencies, who
'had shown an inclination to address the House. But as it
appears to me that at this stage of the Bill, at least, it is pos-
sible, from one who pretends to neither legal nor local knowledge
to form an opinion, I shall venture to state what appears to me
to be the grounds on which a representative in this House,
bringing to the subject no knowledge beyond that general in-'
formation which is common to every Hon. Member, may feel
himself justified in supporting the second reading of the Bill.
Sir, in what I have to say, I shall attempt to follow the pre-
ceßt rather than the example of the Hon. and Learned Gen-
timber): who has just sat down. The Hon. and Learned Men--
ber began by declaring his intention to go into none of the
questions which might, with more advantage, be regularly
discussed when you had left the chair ; but I must say that it
appeared to me that the greater part of his observations did
relate to queotions of detail—(oh !)—to important ques-
tions of details I admit ;S but I never can consider
that whether the time be fourteen years, or whether the sum
be 51. are other than questions of detail.—(oh, oh, from the
Opposition benches.) Sir, I do conceive, however extraor-
dinary that avowal may seem to Hon. Gentlemen opposite—
I do conceive that if any Hun. Gentleman in this House
was c :minced that the test of my Noble Friend was the
best test—then, , although he might be disposed to think
that the_ sum of 51. was too low—then although he
might be disposed to fix it at 61., 71. 81., or 101., he should still
be acting in a reasonable and Parliamentary manner if he
voted fur the second reading.—(oh, and loud cheers.) For
my own part I believe, for I had not then the honour of a seat
in this House, that this was the case in discussing the Irish
Municipal Bill—that the general principle of the Bill being ap-
proved of, it was brought in, although several divisions were
subsequently taken upon its details.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I
have no hesitation in stating that I do apprehend
that the evi's which are to be apprehended from the re-
striction of the franchise in Ireland are greater than those
which are to be dreaded from its extension.--( Hear, heir.)
Sir, I think it best that the test of my Noble Friend should be
adopted, that a greater proportion of votes should be given to
the large counties of Cork and Louth. I think it better that
they should have 8,000 rather than 2,090 voters, but whether
they are to have 8,000 or 2,000, still I prefer the test
of my Noble Friend near me.--( Cheers.) Sir, I shall
at present, upon the question of the amount of the fran-
chise—l shall confine myself to the principle of the Bill, and
it will be necessary for me to follow the example of the Noble
Lord, and look not at it alone, but also at the other Bill that
accompanies it on the table of the House. The case is cer-
tainly a grave and important one. Serious evils are admitted to
exist with regard to a precious and important right ; both par-
ties in the State admit the existence of those evils, and. both
have come forward with remedies which are now lying on your
table, and it is for the House to decide between them. Sir, I
cannot disguise from myself the fact that it is not on these two
Bills we are sitting in judgment.—(Hear, hear.) I say that
each of these Bills appears to me to be strongly marked by all
the great and characteristic features of the party from which
it proceeded. Those who with so much zeal and perseverance
support the Noble Lord near me will not be disinclined to ad-
mit that his measure involves those great principles upon
which the legislation of the country should be carried on.—
( Hear, hear.) Now what is the end and object of legisla-
tion ? If there he any person who thinks that a Bill of Regis-
tration should be a Bill of Disfranchisement in disguise —( Cheers
for the Ministerial benches)—if there be any person who thinks
that we ought so to frame the law as to take away from
the people as much as possible of that power which the
liberality of the law has given them, there are many who
may think fit to act upon that suggestion, but there are few
who will avow it.—(Loud cheering.) I shall, therefore, in
what I have to offer to the House take the proposition for
granted, that the object of a Registration Bill is to keep
out bad voters and let in good ones.—(Cheers.) This is
not a simple object—it aims at two things quite distinct,
and which may be incompatible. It is possible to conceive
that there may be a law giving, ample facilities for the ad-
mission of honest voters, but at the same time permitting a
erowd of dishonest voters to press in. It is equally obvious
that there may be a law enacting such severe scrutiny that
the dishonest voters cannot pass muster, but that such a
law will keep out many honest voters.—( Cries of " Hear,
hear.") Sir, it is the severest trial of legislation to
deal with such cases. When there is only a single object, the
case is comparatively easy ; but when there is a double object,
both cannot be enjoyed in perfection. Now, if the Bill of my
Noble Friend was superior in any respect to that of the
Noble Lord opposite, it consists in giving facilities to the re-
gistration of voters. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the
danger is greater from an undue extension of the franchise,
hut I think the danger is greater from an improper restriction
of the franchise.—( Hear, hear.) Argument upon that sub-
ject is almost unnecessary; but it is clear to me that in both
:resPects the Bill of my Noble Friend is superior to the Bill of
the Noble Lord, and more efficient for keeping out bad, and
letting in good, voters.—(Cheers.) Take the machinery
provided for keeping out dishonest voters. My Hon.
Friend's machinery is this : he employs a test to ascertain the
franchise,
_which is inseparably connected with a check, acting
without any object to put it in motion, and without any sum-
mons, subpana, assistant barristers, or judges of assite. He
strikes at the motives—he attacks the principles upon which
men seek the franchise—he dives into the nature of things in
the heart of man, at the same time without in the smallest de-
gree impeding the honest voter • without dragging him from his
home, without. causing him the :lightest anxiety, levying on him
no pecuniary charge. Now I say that such a test as that ap-
proaches as nearly as possible to that at which we should aim.
Sir, when I turn to the Noble'Lord's Bill, what is the check,
to keep out dishonest voters: ' I have looked through the Bill,
and I find absolutely only this one against the intrusion of frau-
dulent voters—eternally trying men over and over again at the
same question ad infinitum.—(Cheers.) Now if the object be
to reduce the constituency—if the object be to leaveit only the
mere name and shadow of a constituency—C.-.en I say that this
plan has been well concerted for its aim, and it is worthy of
the abilities which no man has denied to the Noble Lord.--
(Hear, hear.) If, on the other hand, I look at it as a measure
presented in good faith to prevent fraud and perjury, then I can
designate it by. no other name titan childish--(" Oh," and
laughter)—as childish, for it is a system of preventing fraudu-
lent registration, but making the ,registration of good voters in
she highest degree impossible. No doubt it will keep
some- impo4ors out of the registry, 'and if we = se•

.toubt _I at some rogues would be punishea. But I call
that childish legislation. Sir, Ido not call that a preventive
of fraudulent registration which is nut directed against the
fraud, but which is directed against all voters, the long and
short, the blue-eyed and black-eyed, honest and dishonest.—
(Great laughter and cheering.) Sir, the Noble Lord's test is
one which has no reference either to honesty or dishonesty: I
speak in the presence of many eminent lawyers, in the presence
of many men well acquainted with the law of this country and
of Scotland, with our civil law and our Oriental dependencies,
and I ask them what they think of this system, of eternal revi-
sion ? I ask the Honourable and Learned Gentleman who has
just sat down, and I should be glad to have his opinion upon
the point, what does he think of this as the only check upon
fraud ? What does he think of a system, in which,
every year, objections may be brought before the
Ascs-ant B ‘rrister, and if the Assistant Barrister approves of
the vote, len appeal may be had to the Judge of Assize ; next
year, precisely the same objection may be taken in the very
same words, he may be again compelled to go before the Judge
of the Assize, and so on for ever and ever. In order to keep
his franchise during one Parliament, in order to give one vote
the elector . is exposed to this vexation that he may be seven
times compelled to go before the Assistant Barrister, and seven
times before the Court of Appeal, and if a man requires the
franchise when he comes to the years of discretion, and lives
to the aga 70, he may have 100 law-suits to keep his name
on the register ; he may spend 1,000/., and not less than
six months of his time in pursuit of his tote.—(Cheers. )
Unless gentlemen could by that interruption remove the words
from she Bill of the Noble Lord, or distort those words out of
their plain-Meaning, I conceive they may as well give up the
subject. These are the words—that is their meaning. If it
be said that the right or power which the Noble Lord gives the
objectors—if it, be said that it will not be . abused, I
answer that I believe it will. I again ask men of
both sides of the House—men of eminent legal know-
ledge—such men as the Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man who has just sat down ; I ask him what he thinks of such
a principle as this, and what he thinks of those arguments, by
which the Noble Lord has attempted to vindicate his measure,
and which he repeated whenever the subject was discussed,
and which lie repeated last night? He (Lord Stanley) said,
I will never agree to part with this portion of my Bill, for if I
ciao then the person who has once established himself upon the
register, by fraud or perjury, can never be removed. Does
the Noble Lord say that that argument will hold good in all
cases ? (Hear, hear, hear.) What says the law of
England ? "If a man is once tried for a crime and ac-
quitted, then, although he be acquitted through perjury
or any fraudulent cause—although you may have evidence
by which you can bring the matter home to him—you can-
not again put him in jeopardy for the same case. What
says the law of England in civil cases ? "If a man bring
an action for debt or damage—if in that action judgment
goes against him from any such cause as that a witness
breaks his leg, and is, therefore, unavoidably absent, he shall
not be again suffered to bring an action in the same case."
If that be the law of England in criminal matters—if that
be the law of England in civil matters, on what principle
ought we to depart from it in the elective franchise? 7he
Noble Lord is bound to make out distinctly such a case, and
tell us why we should not proceed the same way in the one
instance as in the other.—(Hear, hear, hear.) When
we do not go on in this manner, hearing and
re-hearing in the case of the fraudulent debtor, who has ob-
tained an estate to which he has no title, why should we go on
hearing and re-hearing for ever in, the elective franchise If
lam asked why the law of England is framed in a different
manner from that in which the Noble Lcrd proposes in
his Bill for the registration, I answer, that the law was framed
in that respect by men who took general views of the subject
on which they legislated—who did not fix their eyes pertina-
ciously upon individual cases that might happen at times to
arise in the course of events. They say it may be an evil that
the a-ssassin should go about the streets bearding the family
and friends of his victim with impunity; but it would be a
vastly greater evil that all the families in the community
could nut live in peace and security. It may be a great evil
that the fraudulent debtor should keep possession of the estate
which he has unjustly acquired, but it would be iy far a
greater evil that all honest
.men should be insecure in their
Property, and that all society should be kept in a ferment of
litigation. So you bear with the felon and the debtor,
who is dishonest and successful in the Courts of Law. and who
has resisted just claims, and even so ought you to • bear with
him while the system remains a; itis—while the voter, if he
has got on the list.of voters by perjury or fraud, is to be tried
again and again. If your object be ,to prevent crime, you
must know that this litigation is a fertile source of crime—a
fertile source of perjury. This litigation would produce more
inconvenience in a single year than all the wrong decisions
pronounced according to law would produce in a century.—
(Ministerial cheers.) As, then, thus stands the case,' I con-
ceive my Noble Friend has proposed a remedy for
existing abuses, which will certainly keep out those
who have not a right 'to vote, and let, in without
trouble or inconvenience those who have the:right. I con-
ceive that the Noble Lord (Stanley) has' proisosed a system
which will not have the effect of keeping out those who have
not .a right to vote; but every body without distinction who•
dislike; vexation, and expense, and trouble, aid anxiety— who
dislikes feeing Counsel—who dislikes irscuring the risk of
having topay costs—these perso: s the Noble lord s Bill will dit-
franclase. That the Noble Lord's hi:l will iisfranchi,e whole-
sale m,n who have a right to vet s, Ido not at all doubt. One
reason why I believe his system will disfranchise many whe,
have a right to vote is this, that I am certain it Iv ula .isfran-
chise myself. I possess a vote for the Usovers.t:: of CamhvicLe ;
now the vote of an elector of an Iri=ll co'anty is not, I think, as
important as that of an elector of theVniversity of Cambridge.
His vote is given for two Members of Parliament. He also
votes for dignities and situations wFich are objects of im-
portance to great men, and even to Princes of the Blood. A
vote then in an University is sure:y a more valuable posses.'
sion than a similar one in any Irish county. The member of
the Senate of a University is generally more able to assert his
right than an Irith voter. Yet, I declare that if a system
like the Noble Lerd's were established to register my
vote in Cambridge—if I were liable by any Master of Arts,
who differed from me in politics, to he compelled to go down to
Cambridge and dance attendance on the Senate House for two
days, how long think you should I retain that vote? Indigna-
tion might support me under such:an insult for
some time. I

might
ing
occasion,
goch elci;s:tvsntaoonecee
to
or etoheforßtihgehpt uiripones.e,oenouttlienindeLd soi;il,endt;
(Air. goulburn)—l might go ,down on some prsssing
but disgust would. soon weary me out. And now, what tiara,
the Irish farmer do, who is much more helpless than I
when he finds himself exposed to these great
and obstacles, which the Noble Lord's Bill throe's
.n 7
way of his acquiring the franchise.—(Ministerial
I think, Sir, however imperfectly I have explained myseu tna
Obect
it ill my duty to give areason for my belief that the great
of a Reeistration Bill is the keeping out of voters that ouetiteu.
be kept out, and the letting in of voters who ought to be let n
The Bill of my Noble Friend is decidedly supsrior to Billthet.ere
of the Noble Lord opposite for this purpose.
But is
whichh
anything in the means employed by the Noble Lord
dßotsl.ls, saeordv ett!hhteehu so
ought
vexations
and
to leave
.n
tPutorPhoeseaudfopmtlekdfu?g amsyaluNtaort%
the
ees
htahretehfst,,aenchtuisidee.
undefined. Is
Nlsobilte
possible Lord proposes to
that
is anything more imortant in this subject than
es.
definition of the Irish franchise? I will not go into the me.
tion whether-the minority of the Judges ought to be bound by
the majority.--(-Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Ido
es!
pretend to speak of it as a lawyer. I might ask some Men,
ielfFrgriCtnrdtniiue:-
tions ; I might make some distinctions which I would be glad
to hear solved ingenuously by the Hon. and Learned Gentl.
man who has just sat down. But will not go into the quree,.,
doubt there
tion. We have the plain fact that eight Judges at e for one
presentative system, and four for aiaother ; twelve or fourteen
Assistant Barristers are for one representative system,)
o
eighteen or twenty for another. What was the law i"
is not the law in 1841 ; what is the law on one
5
side of the stream, is not the law on the other side ; what. is
the law before the Chief Justice, is not the law before ther.
Chief Baron. Is it possible to conceive a state of things me;
scandalous than this ?-(Ministerial cheers.) Why resist .2.
attempt that should be made to settle these difficulties. Is there
any more sacred debt from a Legilature to a 1-Top's',
give definite laws? Is there any part of the law more impel_
ant than that upon which the making of all law depends?
Ireland this part of the law is in a state utterly undefinedenan,
you' leave it in that undefined state, and then you cow
tlfose'very offences for which you yourselves are resP°ns be, e
Well, under these circumstances come forward two branches
of the Legislature, the Noble Lord on the one in!.
and my Noble Friend on the other. The latter
la;
certains' the franchise lie fixes the law. The
of procedure becomes simple and efficient—there is no
vexa-
tion caused to the rightful claimant—the wrongful clainlan',,, •
at once removed. He (Lord Morpeth) guards against pee ,
Jury. The Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) comes forward, ,11
he leaves the substratory law in the state of perplexity
,10,.
than to.
which he finds it. He then sets to work on the law of P'
cedure, and makes it ten times more embarrassing than idt:ees
before, and the effect is what we might suppers—it Pt:11101'
Phenomena in his Bill; so strange as was hardly ever pa
._ be,
in all legislation. One of these phenomena was aludedteenee.
the Right. Hon. and-Learned Gentleman the AttorneY-u ee
rat, and it is even more exti avagant then it was repirtn,
sented him.—(Heer, hear.) In the county of
eus_re
if there is an .objection established against a vote tried b lone
the Assistant-Barrister there lies an appeal from him to 22,
one of three Courts which the rejected claimant re_bs).
chocee, each of which Courts take different views of the sub-
ject, ject. The fact is, the Court of Exchequer always deeidiesthe •
favour_ of. the beneficial interest class of claimants, anuiats.
.Court of Queen's Bench in favour of the solvent-tenant
in 4.1,,
The effect of this system is, that whoever is objected to i
Court below seeks for victory in the Court above, and the
g.n;
cision of the Assistant-Barrister fur Dublin must take n
by
.the rule of contrary.— (Hear, hear.) It we7id
• t
be a curious and, strange case of casuistry to
bound
out how the Assistant-Barrister for Dublin ,s to
to decide on this question. If he decide accorditleet,
his opinions and the dictates of his conscience—and his be
sion will probably be reversed in the Courts above--w de,
then decide contrary to his opinions in order to have thatt ,
cision reversed, and •the effect i
produced that he felt This. '
duty to bring about? Is this a mere oversight? No. -sub-
is one of the effects of the attempt to proceed with the
eive,
stantive law undefined: All the objectiees resolve thernes „see
into one—,the principe of finality. The question is, tenitiat '
disturb the Reform Bill ? I will not at present go int° rat
subject generally.L4 Opposition cheers.) I will I
go into that subject generally, I say, becatiseee,
propose to reason on this question upon those P''`
d &
ciplos which are held by all those Conservative Gene
men that. I have the happiness of knowing. I PI;
to reason on those Conservative principles, and if on t
og,
principles I cannot command the assent of Gentlemen °Per;sl
site, 1 will not appeal to the principles of popular rlghtts.,
popular liberties. I will admit that the Reform 13i11 ouenres
be continued inviolate, that it ought to be in full force trsi the
land. Is it in force in Ireland? Certainly not.
f iad
meaning of the Reform Bill be that the benni- is
interest test be applied, then the Reform -131., test
not in force, for there are counties where the solvent Wean:
is applied. Is the meaning of the Reform Bill that the
tenant test be applied? Then also is the Reform Bill not ill f t
test
for there are counties where the beneficial interest
applied. These things are changing backwards and fonfat:o
and the counties in which the beneficial interest test wssi`t;
applied last year are different from the counties in which h
applied this year. Now, if any person would define sun e ,?. .;
principle, is it by leaving all things as they were befdr '
Such a state of thins amounts to finality.— ( Ministerial elle,er,-1
'From an exceeding- aversion to change, you uphold a s),e 00
with a principle which is ever changing —("llear, hear, 'rsoS
the Ministerial benches.) I speak t'o'reasonable advocate in
finality—to gentlemen who use the word only e
in the sen:leo
which any man, Conservative or Whig, ever used it. e",,,,e1
they talk of finality, is it not that a certain Act Sjwid
stand unrepealed in the volume of the Statute 131 ite
This then is the course pursued, to give to fluctuation sns.aeis
was never known among a civilized people, the name of sawl,
lity—( Cheers)—and then if the friends of finality comee"go
to close this eternal whirl of revolution, to cry out that west,
unsettling the stability of our institutions.—(Ghee .s.) bee
bility! When your. representation may vary from Septeerao
to May, and one system be upheld in the Court of Q,niy!
Bench, and another in the Court of Exchequer ! Sta"ettee or
When, whether the constituency of a county shall be 2,"130.00
4,090,. depends upon such a fact, as whether Mt' f 1136
This or Mr. Justice That shall have a fit °s;te)
gout before the next assizes ! (Cheers and 13,14-ee -se
The question is not between change and no ens!tfiy„, of
the question is between unchange and eternal sueeesteerti.
changes-,(Cheert}-eberteweeliwthe Legislature and the etsvor
e
mace
ftrceeaetrvi.ng acknowledge
)althlet-aci
g.too.rLn.np
oeeeelgi changetdihsei.labila.
tteiuer_
ihrt.eaolt;n,oihgmabaetaiell
igatiibinseenietttuo-that'Uen:yiiColtntolhtin6aintlinhyesgoetait-t_inhCU:tuoloil'uoaosrencedreertbsto,,%o::.
.dugfelhv,,.
u
o
any person of just feeling, than that when the Jud,,gne',--1,01.
to settle what circuit they shall take, they determine whle"„"t° tea
ties shall have a 'democratic franchise, and which a res-hcodY
one ? It is impossible but that it must deprive the judicial
of the respect of society.—( Hear, hear, from Mr. Shawe.)et
am glad to hear the Right Hon. Gentleman cheer wet ate
fear I shall find him opposing the only efficacious tens. 0; •'
(Cheers.) Ido say I can conceive no system more pernti
13-
than that a Government should depend on the feelings o.fieel
dividual Judges, and that when a new Judge was aelin'-ere
it should be said _o We have got a new Judgee o.
have lost Kerry, but shall have a change in Sligo." Is rnt •
sible to conceive a system so opposite to morality an- e town
good feeling? Vote for my Noble Friend's Bill, and nesy
be out of this situation in three months.—(Cheere. ) or
the necessary effect of such a system is this, that our frce;gerss
stitution and the administration of justice is alike in e bet
You hive on the one hand the Constitution quibbled awailase
the subtlety of the bar, 'and on the other hand, you bal.,,egs.
judicial tribunal agitatedwith all the violence of the llnesl7ol
—(Cheers.') The greatness of this evil is not dispute'', for;
how does the Noble Lord deal with it? My Noble Frienuit is
nishes a measure which will at once put an Ind to it• e' tion
(P
impossible after my Noble Friend's Bill passes, that the i,ord , •
can divide the Bench of Ireland longer. The Noble
nY
(Lord Stanley) leaves the question unsettled. 111
e?teee
plunges the Judges deeper and deeper into the mire, and b re-
them a greater number of questions to try to which tbe,P of ,
rise difficulty applies. Of all the persons who can coraPlatn„ '
the Noble Lord's Bill, there are none who can contPia'''' r
much as the Judges. The
situation. He addressed you in words to the feeling of
‘tw and
Noble Lord, Sir, can feel for gettli
every gentleman of both sides of the House will iesPsn''sanle
which I would attempt to repeat, could I give them their, se
grace and propriety ; but in thinking of your situation. °Co_
forgot ,the situation of the Judges. —( Hear, hear.) fiales
eider how different the cases. The Noble Lord, who se:reqieei
to give to a person who ought to be impartial the tionlatfe to
of the persons who are to decide our causes, has no scrni.e r
give the power of deciding political cases to persons whnsci tee
putation, of all others, should be the least unsullied, avid
least subject to suspicion.—( Cheers.) To me it seems n'tit- he
all doubt t hat if the Noble Lord's Bill passes there will 1110,ens,
in a sheet time, a Judge in Ire) snd, however pure his ";40
tions, or however great his sagacity, who will not be called r
oppressor by the one party, and a disgrace by the ntlit3r„ij. of
(Cheers.) Now, to sum up, it appears to Inc that the • 0, t
my Noble Friend will exclude those who, under the new sPtees
will not have a right to vote, while it will admit the great
to
facility to those who will have that right—that it &ft subeinuto
calamitous position in which they are lacert..°
certainty instead of doubt, and rescue the Judges from the in he
Noble Lord will not do this. It provides Pr
sure security affsi.te
.the intrusion of wrong claimants, and throws every milreen
able difficulty in the way of the rightful claimant, and it nen; ---
doubt, and change, and revolution where it found the—ing
(Clie,rs.) Instead cf telling the Judges what is the welt,
of the 11w, it leaves it unsettled, and only gives them an° t'e
set of questions to decide, . I think whatever parts al te,
evil system the Noble Lord has touched is only to aggtay3 he
He has left it uncertain that it may be made orptessive;e•S
has &puled the Judges that he may disfranchise the Pe°
be has provided a machinery which, where it detects onePntie
The Bill of t
jury will inteoducelwdnty. I hardly know 'on what prieeirthe •
Noble Lord can %indicate his Bill.—(Cheers,) This 1-ees •
Bill which the Noble Lord places side b• side- with otb
and this suggests to rite a topic on which I will say threCtitoie
four words. The
Noble Lord misrepresented yesterdreiy
whole nature of his Bill, and of its relation to ours, P.nd their
es
relathe relations to the franchise. He said his and Vie,
considered as Bills of Registration, were not essertially "ms,
cot, but then, says he, "comes the franchise as a tack 1" It • •
that. I utterly and altogether deny. I say the, rule laid downs
with respect to the franchise, is the
essence of our -Bill;
te
(Loud cheers from the Opposition.) And I say, alien
e
Noble Lord brings forward a number of clauses of my
sf
Friend's Bill analagous to clauses of his own, and says
there were oppressions in my Bill wh place them in spur
own? the answer is, that having that la
f • nchise clean!
•
ascertained in the Government Bill from one end to the other'
ee
it turns that which in the Noble Lord's Bill would be a senrod
of litigation and mischief into that which may be efficient ae.
useful. As to the feeling, Sir, 'with which these Bills are_rith
garded in Ireland, though I may regret the warmth with
which persons in that country have sometimes expressed I: or.
selves, I think it right to make the most ample allo"'nnehatee
this, because I am satisfied the question is, Shall Ireland
tie
the reality, or only the name of an electoral system ? ire
decision of that question, Sir, public order is as deeply
terested as public liberty.—( Loud cheers ) And Ivw;..
glad to observe that the Hon. Member for Ca
expressed the opinion that any great restriction or
diminution of the number possessing the elective franc V'
in Ireland would be a miens calamity to the country
have lessons enoueh to prove it to uee-lessons
are not forgotten. It is unnecessery to state, after the t
ait
ings we have had, that great bodies of nee", that
ti-
nations, when debarred from the e organs which the
e for-
tutioo gives them , 'will certainly find other organs mor
r_t;
e,.
It is unnecessary to look back aierg_7ell...
'cunt of time for the effect that would be produced, if Lime'
rick', Cork, or Mayo, 'were represented in this House by re .
ries •
of the Orange society, or by the so of the old Dubline(net
lew es
ticn. —(" Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) Some 'ficketerteat
who make that cry may remember 1629; tl.ey may rev" „
•• rlia-
when there was not a may
Catholic in either House n 1 ,
r, eict wti"
sent, even the Duke of Wellington shrunk from co
lesson
the excited Population of Ireland. We might learn that
from other times. The time when the Catholic r ,itteselan v
settled was a time of peace. There have been times dill _
from that—times when England has ben forced to struggle
with formideb'e enemies to maintain lice place among the n 3...,
.ointtotv
tions of Europe. It, as so during the, American libt'oth
and the French Revolutionary war. During
ed pre'
endeavoured to govern Ireland like a conquered
Arne.,
vince, - and what was the r: stilt ? During the
rican war 'they wrung from 3ou in your
"1: dence
de'Pieg
an
an acknowledgment of the tosernerciel =ler,
dt
Ireland. During the Frersh tear, they engaged in a fa tal 1