The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-25 00:00:00

ME

:0

li
I 0
of
ze
to
a-
n•

the

any
had
Poll
ade
law

;rd.
itle-
big

be
sens

„pa
bich

,ive•
'0 of

rtioll
tbis

king
oniu
:do°

stig"
Ind•-•
t ths •
leer
%WI

to °
ly
roux'
I el'

plea,
It
chi':
rson"

f tb°
la ?

'I, or,

3 re'
'Car')
pOr''

__
;~;

_EV NING EDITION

sflitueecy was established by the Act 10 George IV., the
tr,r(rst ch°l'ls'heirq bound to rave that he posse-Led an in-
-
charges/ the year'y value} of 10/. above the rent and
~hic to which he was liable ; and in the oath
' he was required to take ho w as called upon
It° state that he verily believed that a solvent
Ilee4all_t Could pay 10/. over and above the rent with which
~ ..as elisrged, Matters continued so until the
',vc:l'lg of the Reform Bill in 1832 ; and no one
. dreamt of disturbing that system
ever th
franchise
no one
• ought of restoring the 404. freehold . ia Ireland,
the Reforna Bill,
The Hon. and Learned Member for Dohlin,
is!l the course of the discussion which had taken place on
a the 40 y raised his
bad occasional! voice in favour
t},e ~, s. freeli lders, but had found no echo whatever in
_ House ; and no one till the present moment bad ever
t.eil,ouohtf e
or disturbing the settlement that bad been cometoe
ably rbc violating the pledge which had most uu i
the been given. It remained for the Noble Lord, under
. reurnstances which had been so frequently brought
pi et I y
Lntler the attention of the House, to introduce this most
destroy the
Ite, Portar,t , d .
n most startling measure, which would com-
pletely corn-
present system, and which wou .
, violate the pledge that had been given at the time
Ireland' Would not restore the 40s. freehold franchise to
;l but would establish a constituency of a very info-
-I:ir, description, and which would place matters. on an in-
Datim,i3' "Verse footing than they were at the time of the
ite-41,g„...0f the Roman Catholic Re;ief Bill.—Hear,
,g-*/ He would ask whether it were jest and proper that
at Members who had voted for that measure, uncle r the
uran .
of t, nuance that it was to be accompanied by the esti • ac ion
be the 403. freeholders, and that the t wo systems were to
established togetherand ain perma.lently
attached
were to real .
de,din ..0 each. other—he would ask whether it was
desergalrly with them to introduce a measure. . of that
le, ?tPtfce, and to call upon the House to pass
it into a
the
It had been said that doubts existed with regard to
t e proper construction of the freehold and leasehold in-
tj,rettit: under the Irish Reform Act ; and his Hon. Friend,
? wentber for Shrewsbury, stated that he had made
telsate ; •
alquiries on that (the Opposition) side of the
a :lc,. and that he did not find any one who. could give
thaa,raitt opinion on the subject, and who (11.(1 not express
4. he e.ntertained some doubts of the propriety of the in-
eetretation_
3 which he bad given. He (Mr. S.) should
f n Jess that Le was astonished to hear that observation
ern-tart the Hon. Member, for he bad unquestionably never
• rteised
d b . I
of of , oy ou t wit I regard to the proper construe-
Vers„ the words in the Irish Reform Bill. He had con
stieL'faMiliarly and freely with lawyers on the subject,
VI „,"` had never heard that they entertained any doubt on
lieeh-atter• All of them—at least all of them with whom
tii„,' ad
"-. • • • " hear, hear," from the
.e . In
in communication—(..
hitse's_t rial in
of the same opinion. lt was
he en
certain opinion, and he was not afraid to avow that
,h-
Oaor,r(1,00 doubt whatever that the statutes of the 10.
the Ifergt, with regard to freeholds, and the statut .s ofd
*ere „-rtu, Act with regard to freeholds and lea.sebol s,
of narrecfsely the same, and that the interest required was
to
rep! illailar description. He should beg leave to observe,
that II to the Hon. Baronet the Member for Drogheda,
ae!" °Pinions of Members of that House, or of the other
be „-e,,,„ex pressed in the discussion on any Bill, shoul I not
itersTed for the purpose of interpreting ir, because if that
they ""e they could always get the construction for which
11‘Ivere contending. But when a Bill had passed both
sese-testa the Leeisla tore, and had received the Royal
if ih4ell b+lt „thee became a subject for judicial decision, and
faiesi.,7, not expressed this meaning so as not to be mis-
‘"Y onee'edt it we their fsult ; but ho had never heard
moat, to arguing the construction of an Act of Paelia-
in
slut! quire what were the arguments urged at the tender
1e 1 1855 Under discussion in either House; that would
48% -vtt improper course to adopt, and he should, there-
of enter histi protest against ant part of the observe ions
! verea a''')". Baronet the Member for Drogheda. It was
let 4'l great mistake, which his Hon. Friend the Member
aers, trewsbury had fallen into in common with other Morn-
tetins°,4ll3poSe that they were opposed on that (th 3 Gp-
ler the) side of the House to a certain test being applied
alel a"' purpose of ascertaining the franchise. They
Iho 14 tue ali ht t 'objection that the poor-rate te.st . 4 d b g es
Is
e applied, provided it were under certain cir-
thfy ;knee% (and with such securities as would sad-
klbsta,7,sle, that they would obtain the real an i
tertai,; isif eualification.—( Hear, hear.)
hisßu.t hew as
%in,' that his Hon. Friend, if he applied mind to the
44 1,-; Would see that it was impossib.le, with a poo.r-1
tliailielastion alone, that they could obtain that substantial
raent cration which the y had a right to demand in a settle--
I'lo,4°h', the eluest'on. Let that House just consider. for. a
Ilia If ' what it was the Noble Lord proposed by his Bill.
had, ,t,°,11: and Learned Friend, the Member for Exeter,
fte'e;',",llUSual clear and lucid manner, shown that from
So h-rliegt period of our Parliamentary history, a di t.nc-
hi „„tp.al
th, waYa existed between the qualification for voters
141rot,,alt-ss. and the qualification for voters in towns and
ight 47 8 that the one had been based on proper.ty,
lial si et other on inhabitantcy or some corporate or munici-
lehut• That distinction had been preserved at the time
tn,,ithet retes."ing of the Reform Act; because, however they
Imo le duffer with regard to the nature of the interest which
"'lra Teholder was required to possess in order to qualify
dlvil'eli"°), vote, they must all agree that the into eat
4141 -••a had was to be of a superior and different
!id bP,tll°4 from that which the voter in towns
iuey :tughs was required to possess; and whether
4 -°' as a beneficial interest the profit to which
tightehet succeed in making out of his property, or
teh theY took the solvent tenantcy test. till property
'lea, ''sfor the foundation of the qualification for coon-
see whereas • h h and town a th-sy had nothing but
p .npati_in oorougas
and
Learned
fleed u;'• That distinction which his lion,
'sat s„' the Member for Exeter, had so forcibly pointed
qv/. the reserved at the time of the Reform Act ; hut un-
N 4 Noble Lord's Bill it was altogether swept away.
:.'atlesa;hile Lard levelled everything—he removed (very
t'l say-L."4e made no distinction whatever, and, strange
;Nen" his Bill were carefully ciamined it would be
70tinactuall laced the county voter on a lower
gelte-,g thaa the vot y Pf
towns and bcroughs.—( Hear,
hiR .) Let ers
inor
first _ .
p'`cetis„ them see, the place, what was the qua-
latiti;" which the Noble Lord rt quircd for the voter
who
't,etipil; The Noble Lord proposed that persons
:0414 ess" under a lease for fourteen years any premises
;:ient'''oetititled to vote, provided he were rated to the
i",,(1 iltr,'' 61. Now let he House just see how unreal
-op -w illthis substitution for the
-openly
._, . illusory was ,
dirired ,weich county voters had hitherto been
N les "° Possess. r •Vhat was the interest which
of the
~,t)h. Lee might have under the proposal
la
-q114,1:" ? Whs nothing would be easier than for a
s'rainai te ipt his land for a lease of fourteen years at
.a
i,BlO 1, rent of f,/ , 101. or °O/. arid to enter into a pri-
'st tsr'ement '•- b '.
' h t h would
introduce
jai with tae tenant t a.
, 0 hithe land would clear, w . hi.° ho could
'lilts myth
,Ili eond't• that if the tenant did
would hive a
:40 taeapeuter and take possession. Now Hon. Members
:s re thatcciestomed to this subject were perfectly well
old 4 lease of that description with such conditions
id I.- rated
, for the same term if years as if it were
le, tell„aukhtee and unconditional ; and then let the House
~_% til„" sit tee
in which that which was to be the basis
"rty ca.uutY const't and the substitute for the pro-
w which i uency,
li 'Apia, the county voters were now supposed to possess,
litti did
nnte the tenant. Why,refractory —if
if ho were
frehis
pe,tetild, u"te according to the wishes c . ,
landlord,
d 1 bets
ottression niter the process for re-entry, be deprive o .
t rfornf ' The tenant might agree with his landlord,
*ea 'ng hit • 1,
agreed on be-
-1„„ a the_ wishes, and paying the rent .
le. b
tea" 4114 th but let him dieobey *- e the wi4hcs of his laed-
pn,tfce aat moment he might be deprived of his sub-
- . -dthat expedient which bad been
taikiti tied by Yet was the expeeicat
4( int the Noble Lord as a substitute far the hem-
,,,s4 tin "st, and f
trd. -yr re or the proper , ty which a county voter
in
she terit i goired to possess. But there was another-
Old h 4 the qualification, and that was that the party
'a it 0 rate," r_
44,1,4ir th - to tne amount of Si, Let the House just
tOord C effect of the provision. If the voter and the
4rtir siereepoUld find a Board of Guardians favourable to
rat:,: )t the',,tlleY might easily procure the insertion of a
tte'l to th 'ltent of 51., and if the patty should have been
et.ttll ford t attount although the holding might not be
IN oY shillings, or one shilling, no person could
4111:rrtioll the r
~, ate, as no pet son was aggrieved by the
Of :tillg cn a higher rate for another than the
kia';'' itnpisaa worth.—( Hear, hear.) The grievance
Vtlelf o,"Per rate would only be felt when a party was
fiOn„whetter,nrated, or where another party was underrated :
rlth-„ to others Was overrated, there was no grievance
to 4 tlit:z-urs under the came rats., because it would
fpm, if an wiish their burthens. Under the proposed sys-
ha tact', It 00 should happen to be improperly put on t r
theajltelleae mune provision would continue in force ; and
1101),,jeet? lawyers and to gentlemen familiar with
,tea,l eye')." he were not right in saying that in England
eses"4 of ~--„ dreamed of making objections to a rate by
mere- ee an Party beii.g overrated, and that it had never
ewe,
4 to, rtuered by others as a grievance. Now, if that
Nall of etast be very easy indeed with a favourable
as r in the eardi
1 -ans. fur a party who bad no interest wbat-
iliakie to be arid which he merely occupied, to cause his
Bill
~ Nit upon the rate ; and once there, so long as
hpilitti3O jtkdoi,..l
oh, , ,t., so long must it continue on it, for the
?irha.,rlt.l"o„;••,,"at'ne'l that most extraordinary provision. If a
tai fru of -`` have been placed on therate for 5/. although the
ikelte di GUardians appointed the very next year should,
trek itbrrharg* a their duty, feel satisfied that he had
14111:114 or hi placed there, and should reduce the
tt4te 4,04 a rating, still he would have a right, on paying
Ns kr the at °f Sit—( Hear)—and he would not be remove
is tt trb Whole time that his lease would continue to
I'ifie that was put forward s the principle which was
tittl ti, r,?re in establishing as eal and substantial quail-
1114tt he 111‘'oeuld, anything be more illusory ? Could any-
to 4411 a tetrte,bftut d, as under the circumstances to apply
'At,/ thet,ei,Tr the right of voting ? How was it possible
44 , whiejner in respect to property, or in respect to the
ktkithitied, u,the amount of property was supposed to be
li,k„!alt thoseWs systena afforded any security whatever
tte4tta te the frauds, and these admissions of improper
‘rae Ilftlie ; franchise, which it was admitted on both
th Imi, ouse had rendered some means necessary for
. ste g VI
111 4 e
badeta tuv t ksystem of registration in Ireland ? La
4 -010. a o the case of the household suffrage voters
~,q0 Nok, uoroughB. He would show that not only
140'11410a "Le Lord made no distinction between voters
the Peet. arid voters in withto any
0,,tt.!. ejamine.s., n
in boroughs, regard
thats e
ar:ldly r,1.".:e1? voters for counties, but h
Nay rill inrce d the county voter en a lower footing
'tic,' noidi uorough. The borough voter was to in-
k ed b ng as Wellthe - He was to be
t Y tit y sin as county voter.
tries egaer,, Ile of a rate of 5/. but he was required to
oa lsi """ jury cc. d the ' • . l cess rates and
to,. Tow, that 'St an municipal s
14',1 ratter. Poor- did not apply to the poor-rate value-
it man 'son,
...rate was not a municipal cess or rate,
t'elle, 'son, 4111,F, Was a rate peculiar to Certain towns,
,tkatt, The at' Learned Member for Dublin very welli
Alt in ad wast jury cess extended all over.
.t the
said , that distinguished from the municipal
Ito oe . Paitieul
tt atutt tequired ar. All that the county voters
et, Nit' t how 4,. to do would be to pay the poor-rate, and
lio' ile ed to theuirect Might be his poverty, he would then
tp
et% the
slightestra Nobody supposed there had
*'etat voter doubt witl
te • InR alteration bore ph i regard to the qutaolifis epaa-
nbltel„ 1 bothuo sr Iliad yet the-c was. be
short
wh Nib whereas :, .11 qua rfications. After this
ere ,SC the r,u,,,!", ut expedient to assimilate the mode of
wag the'l2,lllC!itloas in boroughs to tbat of countie.,"
vaPedleneY3 and what would become of the

beneficial interest of 'which the county voter was now to be
possessed? The con=sequence of the measure woul Ibe
quite alarming, and ii would be impassible that they could
introduce a Bill of abut description into Ireland, without
cxpcctir.g that them -e-ould be a demand made for the
same privileges in Eeogland.—( Hear, hear.) They had
alrea.ly been pressed evith that argument by the lion.
Member for Kilkenny. The mischief which would follow
from the introduction could never be realized ; and the
hopes which they had raised, and which he was quite
certain could never be realized, would only serve to give
a new rallying cry to Ireland, and a new pretext f
Hear.) He was astonished, therefore, to find
the Government introduce such a Bill, and that their
most distinguished Member, the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for the Colonies, had become a disciple of that move-
ment party, whose sentiments, in 1839 and 1840, he had
disavowed. Ministers might rest satisfied with this, that
if they endeavoured to purchase a short and feverish ex-
istence by sacrifices of this description, they must have
recourse to furClacr concession in order to prolong it, and
that this was only lane step in advance in an indefinite
progress in which 'they must yield claim after claim.
The measure was so fraught with dangerous consequences
that he could not be satisfied with giving a silent vote on
the question ; and he would use his humble, but firm en-
deavours, in evury stage Pf the Bill—if it should have any
future stage, which he trusted it would not—to defeat it
by his most determined and decided opposition,
Mr. C. BULLER felt it peculiarly agreeable to be
cal'ed cn to address the House, when it had been brought
to the cairn temper to which it must have been brought
by the speech which they had just heard. The Hon.
Member fin. Shrewsbury had very properly called upon
the House to discuss the question in a spirit of candour,
and to endeavour to make out seine measure which should
be for the benefit of the country. He was inclined to re-
gret that a good deal of personal acrimony had been ex-
hibited during the course of the debate, and ho must, in
fairness, admit that a great deal of it had been exhibited
by Hon. Gentlemen on his own side of' the House.—
(Hear, hear.) lie thought that the Noble Lord the
Member for North Lancashire had really been hardly
treated. Tharo were defects acknowledged on all hands
as existing in the Irish system of registration. The Noble
Lord had called the attention of the Government to these
defects, he had asked them if they would bring in a Bill
to remedy them. They did not bring in a all. Some
remedy was required—(Opposition cheers)—and under
those circumstances certainly the Noble Lord, who was he
must city the cause of all the mischief and confusion which
had happened in relation to the subject—(Cheers and
laughter)—.was certainly justified in bringing his Bill be-
fore Parliament.—( Cheers from the Opposition.) He did
not find fault with the Noble Lord for bringing in a Bill
on the subject, but he did find fault with him for bringing
in so very bad a Bill as the one brought in by him.—
( Cheers and laughter.) There was, however, ore great
advantage which had accrued from this bad Bil of the
Noble Lord's. It had compelled the Government to
bring in a very good Bill.—(Loud cheers.) They were
not now in the awkward position they occupied lai-t year,
that whilst opposing the Bill of the Noble Lord opposite
as being a remedy that was rather worse than the disease,
they had no remedy of their own to bring forward. They,
had now the satisfaction of being able to oppose the Go-
vernment Bill to the Bill of the Noble Lord. The
Government Bill was complete in its essentials,
and contrasted in its dwells most completely with the
measure of the Noble Lord. It was prudent where the
Noble Lord was rash—it was bold where lie was timid—
it was explicit where be was obscure—it was straightfor-
ward where he was indirect—it was liberal where he was
restrictive.—(Loud chccrirg.) The question for the
House to decide was, which of the two they would choose.
No doubt there were peculiar defects and peculiar evils at-
tending the Irish system of registration. But these evils
were only the natural result of the Irish Bill, and if the
Irish voter had been guilty of personation, of fraud, and of
perjury, it seemed really to have been the intention of
the Legislature to have induced him to the commission of
these offences. Such provisions, so disgraceful to the
Legislature, he bad never seen ; they seemed actually in.
tended to tempt people to commit personatier. In the
first place, all persons might register at a place at the great-
est distance from their own residence, and consequently
where they would be least likely to be known. Then there was
the system of certificates. Why, who had ever heard of sach
a mode of evidence of the right of voting? It must have
been invented by a pawnbroker or a turnpike-keeper.—
( Cheers and laughter.) Was it to be wondered at when
this certificate gave the right of voting, and might be re-
newed year after year, that they should have fifteen per-
sons with fifteen certificates, all voting from the same
property.—(" Hear, hear," from Lord Stanley.) " I
like that cheer from the Noble Lord," continued the Hon.
Gentlemen, because it shows his candour, fir observe it
was an act of his own which has caused all these evils.—
( Cheers and great iaughter. )
Lord STANLEY—Oh no, it was an Act of George
the Third.
Mr. C. BULLER would tell the Noble Lerd, that
when he. brought forward his Irish Reform Act ho
undertook to give a good system of registration. Now
the detects of the system under the Act of George
were as obvious to the eye of reason before as after the
Reform Act.—(" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.)
What on earth did they mean by that cheer? He admitted
that that system had existed before the Reform Act, but
when the Noble Lord brought in the Reform Act, by not
altering but continuing the evils of the old system of re-
gistration, and incorporating them in his own Bill, he
made himself responsible for them.—( Loud cheers.) It
was not an usual fault with the Noble Lord that his Bills
did not go far enough, bet the charge against him here
might probably be made. He was reedy to admit that
sonic of the remedies proposed were sufficiently well calcu-
lated to obviate many of Vie evils, lie approved of an an-
nual revision, at least so far as to enable them to i emove
from the list the voters who had died, or who had lost their
qualification. Because, ;f they did not do that, they would
depend upon the open voters, and be inciting to perjury all
those who chose to go up and personate dead voters, or
who, having lost the qualification, chose to go up and vote.
The Noble Lord's Bill was good so far as that went, but
the Noble Lord went much farther than was necessary, be-
cause he attempted to introduce into the Irish system the
English system of an annual registration of all the voters,
which had been tried in England and found so bad.—
( Cheers.) lie had never heard as yet any argument why
a man's elective franchise should be put upon a different
footing to any of his other rights; and why when once it
was established to the satisfaction of a Court of Justice it
should again be called in question.—( Cheers.) lie must
now advert to a part of the argument of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Bandon. He had interrupted that Hon. Member
by a cheer. Ile had not meant to occasion him any ina
terruption. lie knew how unpleasant such interruptions
were, and he considered them exceedingly ill-bred ; but
lie had been astonished at a statement which the lion. and
Learned Gentleman had then been making. That state.
merit in itself was decidedly true, but it did not convey a
true irnp:.ession ; of course he meant to impute nothing to
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, but such was the case.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman was observing upon
the argument of the Right lion. Member for Edinburgh
last night, that in England a man was not liable to have
the same right tried twice over in a Court of Justice.
Yes, said the Hon. and Learned Member for Bandon, he
is—for actions of ejectment the same rights may be tried
over and over again. Now, that was true ie fact ; but it
was not fair in argument, because it lad always been
acknowledged that this power of repea•edly trying eject-
ments was a deviation from the great principles tf Eng-
lish laws, and that it had arisen solely from the artificial
manner in which the question was raise:] by the pleadings
—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) He was not now
stating his own opinion as law—( Cheers, and laughter)—
but he was stating what he had scee kid down in law
books of authority. It was in them acknowledged that
this was a defect in the law, and he had always under-
stood that a Court of Equity would not hesitate to grant
an injunction to prevent the trial of vexatious actions of
ejectment. It was therefore not a fair argument against the
general principle. A second objection was the enormous ex-
pense which would be incurred, and the great waste of time
which would be occasioned by the introduction of this sys-

tern, and the great chance that by repeating objeciiJits
year after year the legitimate voter would be tired out, and
give up his right altogether. The granting costs provided
some remedy for that evil, but it was not an adeqaate one,
and it was much better to adhere to the sound principles of
English law, and not to suffer a right which had been once
established in a Court of Justice to be again called in gins-

ee _
tion.—( Cheer,. ) Another objection to this annual revi-
sion was, that it was attended with at least ha'f the ev is of
an annual election. It might be very amusing and satis-
factory to some gentlemen to see recorded every y ear that
at such a place the Conservatives bad succeeded in esta-
blishing so many on the register, and in such another place
the Liberals had succeeded in doing the same thing. But
this annual fight in the Registration Court was a great
mischief in itself.—( Loud cheers.) Another argument
against an annual revision was that it would make every
man get his vote through the medium of a party. He
must be entered in the register as a Liberal or Conserva-
tive, and must owe his vote to the party who had paidithe
lawyer to defend him. Now put,ing all there evils toge-
ther, and taking the argument of the Noble Lord, that
without such revision some persons might get upon the
register who were not entitled to be there—he would put
it to the House whether it was not a greater evil that the
people should be exposed to this annual litigation with all
its expense, waste of time, and other evils, than that a few
persons should get upon the registry who were not entitled
to the franchise. But the great point bef oe the House was
another; it was the question of the determination cf the
franchise. That was the really important question for
their consideration.—( Cheers.) It was idle to deny that
that was really the question, and that as long as that remained
unsettled the other questions were of minor importance.
Nobody could deny that that question was unsettled at
present—the Revising Barristers were divided upon it—
the Judges were divided upon it, and both Bills, he would
admit, would equally remedy the evil. The Government
Bill would give a clear definition of the franchise; the Bill
of the Noble Lord also went to the settlement of the ques-
tion of the franchise, but it did so in a roundabout and in-
direct manner, and, without meaning anything personal to
the Noble Lord, he must be excused for adding, by as little
creditable a trick of legislation as he had ever seen in any
measure introduced into that House. He would say that if
the Noble Lord's Bill passed, the question of the franchise
would be sot at rest in a restrictive sense. The Bill gave
the appeal in both cases. Now, at first sight, this might
not appear to be connected with the question, because. it
appeared that the Judges were divided in opinion, one part
of them being in favour of the beneficial interest test, and
the other in favour of the solvent tenant test ; but when
they considered the opinions which had been given by all
the Gentlemen on the other aide of the House—opinions to
which he doubted not they would be willing to give the
force of a law the moment they could command a ma-
jority, that in all cases the minority of the Judges were
to be bound by the opinion of the majority
(Cheers from the Opposition.) It would at once be seen
that the decision of the franchise was placed in the hands
of the majority of the Irish Judges. —(Cheers.) Now,
was the opinion of that majority unknown ? Could there
be a doubt which way they would decide ?—and would
not such a :node of legislation be equal to saying, that
I henceforth the solvent tenant test was to be the test of the

Irish franchise ?—( Chet rA. ) It was not credit able to the
House to legislate in such an indirect way; what they did
they ought to do ()Feely, and not to shift the difficulty of
settling the question of the franchise from their own
shoulders to the shoulders of the Irish Judges.—(Cheers.)
The Noble Lord grounded this provision on general ane-
logy : the appeal was given in the one way at preterit.
it ought to be given the other way also; but such an im-
portant point as the definition of the franchise ought not
to be settled by implication ; and if they put rll the ques-
tions together connected with the registration that could
come before the Judges and Revising Barristers, the
whole of them would not be so important as the
one of the definition of the franchise. It ought not to
follow as an indirect consequence of the double appeal.
He protested against giving the Judges the power of decide
ing questions relating to the elective franchise. He won-
dered the Member for Montgomeryshire did not almost
start from his scat when the Noble Lord had proposed
such a proceeding. He should like to hear what
reason the Right Honourable Baronet the Member
for Tarnworth could give for assenting to such a
proposition. That Right Hon. Baronet had taken a great
interest in the question of the trial of election petitions ;
he had introduced a Bill on the subject, and he had utterly
epudiated the principle of allowing any interference in
matters 'elating to the elective franchise out of that
House. He would ask him, how it was that he was found
among the supporters of a Bill which robbed the House of
all power of deciding on the Irish franchise, and transferred
tint power to the J.:signs ? How could he consent to de
volve on officers appoietedby the Crown the decision of ques-
tions relating to the elective franchise? How could
that be done consistently with maintaining the independence
of the Judges. It had always been the wise policy of our
ancestors to keep the Judges aloof from all questions re-
lating to election matters. Far he it from him to utter any
reproach against the Judges. The Bench was no ss much
purified, but he would ask every one who heard him whe-
ther, after any political trial, the character of the Judge
who presided was not called in question ? Was it not con-
stantly asked before a political trial what were the politics
of the Judge who would pre'side ? What was it that t ar-
nished the character of almost all the great Judges of for-
mer times? The imputation of political corruption. Ile
did not me in to say it was just ; but it had been made ;
it had been imputed to Lord Mantssld--it had
been imputed to Lord; Kenyon"—it had been imputed
to late Judges. He would not now enter into the ques-
tion of the justice of such imputations, but as long as po-
litical questions should be brought before Judges for their
decision, that imputation would be made against them, and
therefore it was their duty to keep all those questions
connected with the decision of the elect franchise
apart from those Judges who were to decide on
our liberties, our lives, and our proeerties. )
Would anybody venture to say that the only exception
they intended to make to that wise rile was Ireland—that
Ireland was the only country in which political feelings
were so moderate, and that therefore they might safely
leave the Judges open to suspicion ? Now what was the
case ? Why, in that country nothing could be kept nure
from party ; the laws in Ireland had never been an) thing
but a means for the rich man to oppress the poor.—( Hear.)
Lord Redesdale had given that account of the administra-
tion of justice in Ireland. Could anybody come forward
and say gravely that there was no notion of political par-
tiality in tie-s Judges in Ireland ? There was no doubt the
Judges were equally honourable on both sides, but did they
suppose the"public would believe it? Now what had been
the language of the Hon. and Learned Member for
Exeter and the Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire?
The Member for Exeter, who was as calm and plain a
speaker as he had ever spoken to, had talked about
the clearness of the franchise, and about majorities
and minorities, and he had laid the thing down
so clearly that no lawyer could deny it ; and
after that, he could not understand how .any
person could think otherwise than that the minority of the
Li h Judges were the most foolish persons alive. —( Hear,
hear.) He only mentioned this as pointing out to the
House that men speaking in the place where they usually
spoke with decorum, had ventured to justify imputati.ns on
the Judges. The Noble Lord the Member for Ncith
Lancashire had said there could be no doubt about the
franchise, and there was an end of it ; and his Learned
Friend the Member for Exeter had said it was quite
dear, but he (Mr. B ) would venture to say that his
Friend had made his statement intelligible to the Home
by leaving out the most important clement, namely, the
authority of the House of Commons,—( Hear,) In
all cases where there was an appeal to the
Judges, the Judges had the power to enforce their
authority, but here the tribunal of appeal was the House
of Commons itself.—( Hear, bear.) He would suppose
the Judges of the Exchequer Chamber were to decide
against a Judge on some point he had ruled, and he
would suppose that the decision of the Court of Queen's
Bench was against him also ; he was not bound by that if
the House of Lords was with him. He would put the
thing more plainly. Ho would suppose a Judge going
the Circuit in which Longford was, and he would sup.
pose that a question came before him as to the right to
vote, and that the opinion of the ten Judges deciding
against the right was produced; and, on the other hand,
that the decision of the Longford Committee, which
placed the man on the registry, was also produced, by
whom could that be decided but by the Appellant Tri-
bunal, which was that House, and which would continue
to be till the law sail otherwise ? Gontlemen might say
that the decisions of Committees were conflicting, bet
they were the constituted Appellant Tribunals; and he
would ask, was it in a Judge to decide in the
face of that tribunal ? If it was not a good
Appellant Tribunal, let it be alt.ried ; but he must
dept ecate such rash measures as the one introduced
by the Noble Lord. He was sorry to sec his Learned
Friend the Member for Exeter joining in sneering nosy
the roverence due to the constituted authorities of the
country. His Le arned Filen I had soil no English
lawyer could stand up in that House to decry the provi-
si ins of the Bill of the Noble Lord the Member for North
Laic :side,. Now he ( Mr. Buller) did not a'tach much
weight to the opinions ( f English lawyers, as hen stated
in that House; nor should he, until ho saw a lawyer get
up and state opinions contrary to his party.—( Hear, hear. )
His Learned Friend had said that no English lawyer, of
any ieputation, would venture to throw any doubt upon
the question. Now he (Mr. Buller) had talked to an
English lawyer that day, and he had sail that he did
not believe that any candid lawyer could get up from
the reading of the Irish R.:firm Act without
being in the greatest bewilderment, and whose fault
was that ? Why the Noble Lord's. They had therefore no
right to cast imputations on the Irish Judges and Bar-
risters. lie objected to the double appeal to the Judges,
because he thought it bad, and secondly, he thought im-
portant questions ought not to be brought forward in an
indirect way. The Bill of the Noble Lord the Secretary
for Ireland decided the question in a direct way. On this
account it was said the Government entertained opinions of
a revolutionary character. His had never supported the
doctrine of the finality of the Reform Bill. He thought
the Reform Bill, like all other human measures, contained
imperfections ; and those imperfections ought t r be ewe
rected as much as possible ; but he thought they should not
touch lightly the distribution of the elective franchise ; they
should not be constantly tempting with it. He did not
say that no changes should be made, but the changes that
were made should be settled and distinct ; that they should
be demanded by a large portion of the peopl s, and should be
based upon some common principle. This was the rational
doctrine of finality, and having adopted it, the question was,
how it was to he deett with s',then the pros ision of the Re-
form Bill would not work? How would they fix a ieei
test? He would say, the Reform Bill comernpl ated such
a right of voting, and let thorn try to obtain the constitu-
ency which the Refirm Bill intended ; and if he under-
stood the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, after
much inquiry, they had found that the el. franchise would
give such a constituency.—(Hear, boa-.) He bee treated
this question as a simple question of the registration of
voters, and the sole question they had to decide was
the simplest and most convenient mode of registraden.
He was using no exaggerated language when he declared
his belief that in 1688 that House had not been cello 1
upon to give a decision that was pregnant with graver con-
sequences than were involved in this decision upon that
Bill. The House would not suppose that he was induced
to make these remarks by a desire to support the present
Ministry, because he felt perfectly sure that if the Bill
should turn out the present Ministry, it would bring them
or a very liberal .Ministry back before long.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) They had seen enough of the fate of great po-
pular measures to convince them that a Bill like that when
once taken up by the great parties who bad pledged
themselves to it, would become the banner of a
great popular movement, which must eventually carry it.
But he dreaded the policy to which the House must com-
mit itself by adopting the line chalked out for them by
the Noble Lord. It would be a retrograde policy,
marked by all the worst features, attended by all the
most horrible consequences of a counter-revolution.--
( Hear, bear.) He was not one of those who had hitherto
anticipated anything very terrible from the accession of a
Conservative Ministry. He did not suppose that it would
be guilty of the madness of a retrograde policy, enforced
by violence as it must be.—.( Hear, hear.) He thought
they might trust to the discretion and prudence of the
Right Honourable Baronet, the Member for Tam-
worth; and much as he had heard in reproach of that
Right Hon. Baronet, and the Noble Lord the Member
for North Lancashire, he thought that he had always
seen in their contuct traces of feelings and opinions which
raised them far above the Tories of old.—( Flear, hear.)
But he said that it was the fate of those gentlemen to be-
come, like many bodies of parties, the instruments of the
worstpurposes of the worst por inn of their party. " For, what
is your purpose now," said the Hon. Gentlemen, address-
ing the Tory side of the House, " why, simply and plainly
that of re-establishing the old Orange ascendancy.—( Hear,
hear, from the Liberal benches.) I am using no mere
terms of abuse, I merely am using the words that explain
my own meaning in the amplest manner. Your object, (con.
tinned the Hon. Gentleman with great emphasis) is not
registration "—( Hear, hear,) That was not the object on
either site of the Holise. It was ridiculous to talk of it
as registration. They had not been brought down there
by an abstract lye of registratien.--(Hear, hear.) It
was not registration which crowded those benches, and suf-
focated them all till the hour of division ; it was because
those Bills must decide a great question as to the
destruction of political power in Ireland. " You came
down, (addressing the Conservative benches) to support
your Bill, which, by restricting the franchise, va ill place
the electoral power in the hands of a small body of gentry,
and will re-establish the old ascendancy party in Ireland ;
and we came here to support a system which by keeping
the elective franchise where it now is, will leave with the
Irish people the choice of their representatives." He had
said that he did not mean to use any terms of abuse, but he
declared that he did not know of any other mode of desig-
nating the two parties in Ireland. Until the generation
that had suffered, and that which had flourished under the
old ascendancy party, had passed away, there never could be
buttwo parties ; the one, which was called the Orange or as-
cendancy party,striving by such measures as the Noble Lord's
B.llto get back the power of which the Reform Bill had de-
prived it; the other, the popular or Catholic party, endea-
vouring to keep and to extend the rights whirls they had.
This was the real purpose, however it might be concealed.
" You tell us (said the Hon, Gentleman, addressing the