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

passing of the Reform Bill. Although Registration
Bills had been introduced by her Majesty's Government
Session after Session, they never objected to the system
of annual revision ; and if they objected to it now, it
was merely for the purposes of the present Bill. When
the Bill for amending the registratio❑ in England
and Wales was introduced, which also contained
a proposition for annual revision, no objection had been
made, and he could not help thinking that it was be-
cause the Bill came from his Noble Friend, and from
his (Sir W. Follett's) side of the House, that the dis-
covery of that objectionable principle had been made.
—( Hear, hear.) Now, if there were any objections to
these details of the measure, they could be more pro-
perly discussed in Committee. Unless they were pre-
pared to say that the annual revision was bad in prin-
ciple, there could be no valid objection to the second
reading of the Bill. If it were bad in principle, every
one of the Government Bills contained the same ob-
Fetionable principle.—( Hear, hear.) He could not see
the hardship which some Hon. Members attached to
that provision. In England, when a party was ob-
jected to, he must appear and prove his qualification,
although he may be already on the registry. But such
was not the case in Ireland. There the objecting
party had the onus thrown on him of establishing his
objection.—(Hear, hear.) If there was a fraudulent
vote on the registry, any person had a right to object
to it, but, if he failed, he must pay costs.—( Hear.)
Surely there was nothing objectionable in that, and it
could not be considered too severe a test if the registry
was to be made final. There was no Irish Member
who had addressed the House who had not admitted
that it would be a great boon to Ireland, and that it was
calculated to put an end to the expensive and harassing
contests that had taken place before Election Com-
mittees. Now, objections had been urged against the
appeal to the Judges, but it appeared to him that they

were the proper persons to whom it should lie—that,
however, was a point which might be better discussed
in Committee. The Hon. Members for Limerick and
Roscommon, and the Hon. and Learned Gentleman

opposite (Mr. Pigot), had stated that they would not
object to the Bill, provided there was introduced into
it a certain definition respecting the term "beneficial
interest." That, however, was an intereference with
the elective franchise with which a Bill having for its
object the amendment of the registry, had nothing what.
ever to do.—(Hear, hear.) Besides, it would be intro-
ducing a definition of a disputed question on the elec-
tive franchise, which, it appeared to him, would be
altogether uncalled for and out of place. If the Go-
vernment would consent to no Bill except one which

contained a clause defining the meaning of the term
"beneficial interest," in direct opposition to the ma-
jority of the Judges in Ireland, it was a mockery for
them to say that they were desirous of amending
the present system of registry.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
It must be known they could not pass a Declaratory
Act in the teeth of the Judges. He remembered when
the present Lord Chief Baron for Ireland, then Attor-
ney-General, brought in a Bill for amending the regis-
tration in Ireland, and stated at the time that it had
these clauses in it, that he (Sir W. Follett) took
the liberty of stating he was quite satisfied he never
would pass that clause through that House, for he was
sure there was no English gentleman that would not
at once dissent from such a definition of the beneficial

interest. Surely the value of freehold land was what it
w,uld sell for, and if it it were let, the rent that was got
for it. If they wanted to know the worth of a man's
leasehold interest, and were told that it was worth 1001.
but let for 1501., then be had a beneficial interest in the

lease of 501. When he took the quotation with regard
to ele rating under the Municipal Corporation Act, and
stated there would be great difficulty i❑ the mode of
estimating the value in Ireland, the Hon. Member for
Dublin said those decisions i❑ Ireland had set been well
considered, and he thought the proper way of estimating it
was by the rent it would fetch—now, what had occurred
in his own experience ? A house was not rated
when it was under 51., but if he occupied a cellar in
one at the rate of, perhaps, 1/. per annum on the notion
that he was occupying a tenement at 101. a-year, he
was put on the registry, and it was made out thus—he
carried on a trade in that house, and got by that 101.
or ?01. a-year, and it was the Irish habit to say the
house was therefore worth that sum.—(Hear, hear.)
He did not at the present moment recollect what

the dispute was respecting joint occupiers in
Ireland, but, he believed, the Government
was pleased to object to such a clause in a Bill for
altering the registration, because it was altering the
elective franchise. He would tell very shortly why he
voted for the second reading. Because he believed no-
thing was worse than the present system, and the Right
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had rested his opposition
to the second reading on the mode in which the present
system was working, because his whole argument went
to point out that the present Bill was a check on the
voters, and that the present system was sufficient. He
(Sir William Follett) disagreed with the Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman. If the House should
think the Right Honourable Gentleman right, then
he could understand his objecting to the second reading
of the Bill, but he knew that her Majesty's Govern-
ment were of a different opinion, and the great majority
of that House. He voted for it on that ground, and
also because he approved of two great principles in-
volved in it—that of not allowing fraudulent votes to

remain on the register, and becauie they got rid of ap-

pealing to that House, which he thought was a great
benefit and advantage to that country. With regard
to the details, he would not like the Hon. Gentleman,
pledge himself to them, but would go into Committee
on them unbiassed. If, he would repeat the ex-
pression of his Hon. Friend, the Government were
earnest in wishing to improve the state of the country,
he could not understand their objection to the second
readmg of the Bill.
Mr. SHIEL said the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman said he approved of the Bill because it
assimilated the system of England and Ireland, and
that it gave a double appeal. Was it not a remarkable
circumstance that when he selected a double appeal as
a ground on which to rest one moiety of his sup-
port of the Bill, he intimated to them that he was
not pledged to support the appeal to the Judges ?
Not one of the Gentlemen on the other side had sug-
gested what he would substitute in lieu of such
an appeal.—(Laughter from the Opposition.)
The Hon. Member for Bandon declared that he was a
strong advocate for an appeal to the Judges, and it
was manifest that it was on an appeal to the Judges
they mainly relied, for, with a single exception, no one
on the other side had suggested that the appeal should
not be to the Judges of Assize. Now with respect to
what the Hon. Gentleman had urged with reference to
revision, miglit he ask Gentlemen who said the system
established in Ireland was the worst possible system,
whether the English system offered any remedy
for the evil—whether there was no objection to
the English system of revision ? He asked Hon. Gen-
tlemen if the evils pointed out by his Hon. and Learned
Friend, not as the suggestions of his own spirit of con-
jecture, but on the authority of a book which would
not be disputed, were not founded in fact ? He was
ready to admit that he had heard complaints of the
system of registration. Had they never heard ti LA the
English system of revision was faulty ? Had it not
been stated that there were great evils in the English
system of revision ? Had the Noble Lord himself, in
calling on them to adopt that system of revision as
practised in England, ventured to state that no evils
existed in the English system ?—(Cheers.) Was it
not attended with an enormous expense ?—(Cheers.)
Did it not require the exercise of the most constant
and watchful vigilance? Did not the result of every
election depend on the result of the registration.—
(Loud cheers) --was there not consequently an annual
struggle of parties ?—(Loud cheers.) Did not the
newspapers give every year the results of the registra-

.
dons as if on the result of the annual revision the result
of the next election depended ?—(Loud cheering.) Were
there no evils here, and would the Noble Lord seek to
cure Ireland of the distemper with which he said she
was afflicted by inoculating her with the evils under
wnieh England was at present suffericr, ? He had
watched to see if the Hon. Gentleman who had been so
anxious to give to Ireland the English system of revi-
sion would say that that system was not attended with
defects—he had not said so. Would he venture to say
so now ?—(Loud cheers,) Now what had the Hon.
Member for Belfast stated ? That Hon. Gentleman
who had moved that the Irish Corporation Bill be read
a second time that day six months—the Hon. Member

tor Belfast, who was so anxious to destroy the Municipal
Institutions of Ireland—(Loud cheers) and who he
supposed now would do his best to abrogate the Parlia-
mentry Franchise—(Continued cheering)—that Hon.
Gentleman who had been so appropriately selected as
the coadjutor of the Noble Lord in bringing forward
this Bill.—(lmmense cheering.) That Hon. Gentleman
who, despite the declaration of the Noble Lord, that he
felt himself bound in good faith and political honour to
support the Municipal Bill—(Loud and continued
cheers)—had yet refused his support to it.—( Loud
cheers.) That lion. Gentleman had stated that Bel-
fast presented a specimen of the evil of the present
system of revision. Now, what were the facts that
had been stated by the Hon. Member for Belfast?
That Hon. Gentleman had stated at a venture, that
there were many thousand certificates existing in Bel-
fast of voters who were dead. But had the lion.
Gentleman ventured to state a single case?—( Hear.)
Had he mentioned a single instance in which tiles,
certificates had been used for a fraudulent purpose?
Did that Hon. Gentleman feel any evil result from this
at the hustings?—(Cheers.) Had a single case of these
certificates being fraudulently used been brought for-
ward before the Fictitious Votes Committee, of which
the Noble Lord was Chairman ?—(Cheers.) Could he
put his finger upon a single case—(Loud cheers)—in
which it had appeared that these certificates had been
used for purposes of fraud ? He could not do so—
(Loud cheers.) It was a mere suggestion—there was
ntwhoaes evidence3evl:li evidence
ncaendiaod
of
to
partythat
dilated
effect, ttli a that
great
bhadu been practically da-
maged. He saw the Member for Pembroke referring
to the Noble Lord, as though he had said that there
remembered
bythatp
opossibility when
bi
thyea
occur Noble
underord led
present introduced
ss_
which might t
length he
upon(l\ir. the