The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-03 00:00:00

natures against the Bill. It was true that in a House
of 604 Members the Noble Lord had got a majority of
four—(Loud Opposition cheers)—but he would ask if
with such a majority a measure should be passed which
would go to the disfranchisement of the people of Ire-
land. For his part he hoped that Ireland would never

submit to a measure of so stringent a nature passed
under such circumstances. He would tell the Noble

Lord it was not with Ireland his legislative measures
should have begun ; the Noble Lord should have first
turned his eyes to the scenes which had been witnessed

at Ludlow and at Cambridge, and be should have en-
deavoured to apply a remedy in those cases. The

Noble Lord would pardon him if he would tell him he

should now change his name, and that he should no longer
he called the Noble Lord the Member for North Lan-
__ .

----
cashire, but the Noble Captain Rock.—(Laughter.)
The Bill was nothing else than a Rockite notice which
the Noble Lord wished to fix to the doors of the

Liberal voters of Ireland. But the people of Ireland
would not consent to have their rights invaded by such
a measure, and he would call on the gentlemen of Eng-
land to aid them in resistance to a Bill so fraught with
evil. The liberties of eight millions of men could not be
easily immolated. The people of Ireland had before
triumphed over Hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he would
then say that if the struggle were renewed they would
again be victorious. The Hon. Gentlemen then pro-
ceeded to read, amid loud cheers and laughter (parti-
cularly at the n :mes of the unfortunate ladies, as the
lion. Member termed them), a list of the subscribers and
subscriptions to the " Spottiswoodg conspiracy," and al-
luded to the case of one of those fair malignants, who
character of matrimony
gentleman, that she
statedoti!d
muchwith
arpepprecest, e toot.
hai
me
in
nr ttahien
but refused to have any political connexion with him.

But notwithstanding these exertions their opposition pe-
titions had oral} succeeded in three cases, But Lord
Mu!grave had come and gone, Lord Ebrington had suc-
ceeded him. Tne Tithe Act had passed. Tracy had
robbed him of 4001. by that—(Cheers and laughter)
but he did not mind that. They might rob them of
their money but they should not rob them of their

liberties. they might abuse them : their spirit might
break forth ; it might mount at Conservative tables ;
it might insult the Queen ; but it would only seat her
more firmly in the hearts of the people.—(Laughter.)
Gentlemen might laugh, but what would they do when
the hour of trial came, and it would come. Could
Ireland then forget her duty to her own character—to
her name, and to her love of liberty, which, if she
ever forAot, she would deserve to be sunk to the bottom
of the sea ?Cheers.) He would conclude in the
words of a poet he would not name
Oh, it grieves me to think how destroying thou art;
What a frenzy of passion thy temper betrays.
How the mountebank head, and the renegade heart,
Have diverted their victim from liberty's ways."
Lord STANLEY said he had listened to the
Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, with a great
deal of amusement, but not with a great deal of con-
viction. Whatever might. have been the opinion of the
_ _

seven wise men the HoO. Member had adVerted to, he
did not think the Hon. Gentlemen had followed their

example.—(Cheers.) The question they were now met
to discuss was, whether the House, having now, for the
fifth time, acceded to the proposition of going into
Committee, would accede to the instruction moved
by the Hon. Member for Dublin, for the purpose of in-
troducing that very element of discord and disunion, in

consequence of which the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man himself had said it would be impossible to come to
a conclusion.—(Cheers.) The subject was not new.
It had been introduced on a former occasion by the
Hon. Member for Mallow, when he (Lord Stanley)
had taken the liberty of stating why this definition of
the franchise ought not to
-be introduced into this Bill,
and it was then withdrawn. But the Hon. Member
for Dublin was not satisfied, but when the Bill came into
Committee moved that the House should resume for
the purpose of going into Committee, to deprive the
the beneficial franchise which was debated in Commit-
tee and rejected ; and now the Hon and Learned Mem-
ber brought it forward again to prevent their making
any progress with the Bill.—( Hear.) He did think it
would have been more convenient and satisfactory, if,
at an early period of the evening, the Noble Lord (J.
Russell), on the part of the Government, had stated
that, if the Hon. Gentleman made this motion, the
Government could not consent to it—(Loud cheers)—
thet they were determined to give a fair and manly op-
position to this Bill, but that they would not prevent
its fair discussion in Committee.—(Loud cheers,) He
(Lord Stanley) had come down prepared to meet the
" instruction" of the Hon. and Learned Member, but
not that on which he had moved the House. The
Hon. Member had given notice of a motion, that the
Committee should have power to define the amount of
the permanent municipal cess and taxes, but the motion
now appeared to be altered, and " franchise" stood
written in pencil on the paper instead of municipal cess
and taxes. That was not an honest and open way of
meeting the details of the present Bill in argument ; it
was a course that might probably be successful in
staving off the Bill for another day, but if the Hon.
Member for Dublin supposed that the people would go
along with him in this he sadly miscalculated.—(Hear.)
He would not argue the case of this instruction, as he
considered it was put forward for no other purpose but
that of delaying the measure.—(Hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had come down
to the House that evening like the Noble Lord, ex-
pecting the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin was
about to move an instruction with respect to cess and
taxation a different course had, however, been pur-
sued. With respect to the charge of the Noble Lord
as to no Member of her Majesty's Government speaking
in the earlier part of the debate, he did not see how
he could have done so, for, looking at the manner in
which the law had been laid down by several Hon.
Gentlemen on the other side of the House, he did not
see how he could have interrupted them. With refer-
ence generally to the Bill, he certainly felt no difficulty
in saying that he was convinced although the re-
gistration and franchise were connected under
the Reform Bill, the more convenient course
was to separate them, as had been done in
England and Scotland. Ho was, therefore, not pre-
pored to vote for the instruction of the Hon. Gentle-
man. He did not think, however, that the Noble
Lord, who had refused to discuss this instruction, had
as good a case as they had ; they had separated regis-
tration and the franchise. It bad hitherto been held
by the greatest authority that in that House rested the
power of deciding upon the election of Members of
Parliament, but the present Bill gave that power in
effect to the Judges, for it said this, that if the vote was
refused by the Assistant Barrister, the elector might
appeal, and during that time, before the appeal came
on, he might tender his vote at an election, and it
was not until that vote had been decided bad by
the Judge that it was to be considered invalid.
He thought the author of the Grenville Act would have
been shocked at the introduction of an Act so subver-
tive of the constitution of the House of Commons, for
it left it to the Judges to decide upon the seats of Mem-
bers. That was not the only bad effect that would be
produced by the Bill. They had heard in that House
that evening language unbecoming a Member of that
House with respec. to the decisioas of Mr. Baron
Richards. That had been already the effect even of
the modified interference given by the Act of 1829 to
Judges in cases of this kind ; but what would it be when
parties were equally divided, and it was referred to a
Judge seated on the bench to decide which Member should
take the scat ? Was it not obvious, whichever party he
decided against would say it was a political and party
decision, made, not with reference to law, but
with reference to the party to which the Judge
might be said to belong?—(Cheers.) Although,
therefore, he should vote against this motion of the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, yet it was
his intention strenuously to oppose, when they came to
that part of the Bill, those clauses which related to
that subject, If those clauses were not struck out of
the Bill it would be necessary to proceed with another
Bill with respect to the franchise.—(Cheers.) He
should think it to be his duty to see that the franchise
was fixed on some clear basis. The Bill of the Noble
t
Lord would in the first place put the people of Ireland
in a condition in which a man honestly claiming
e franchise
and In iglt
of the franchise ; and, in the second place, the seats of
Members would be taken from them by a Committee of
that
House; thus,i be ruined by the uncertainty
while the iodependence and autho-
•
rItY of that House were undermined on the one hand,
the purity and independence of the Judges would fall
into suspicion on the other.—( Loud cheers.)
Sir E. SUGDEN said a few words in explanation.
Sir R. PEEL must say the course that had been
pursued that night with respect to the Bill before the
House varied from any course lie ever saw pursued
with regard to any Bill.—(Loud cheers.)
After re-
peated trials of streegth, and after the opinion of the
House had been taken upon frequent discussions in
favour of the principle of the Bill, the Noble Lord
himself declariiie he would be no party to any unfair
obstruction to proceeding with the Bill, the House
event into Committee upon it.—(Hear.) Small progress
indeed was made in that Committee. What course
had been pursued? A notice had been given to move
an instruction to the Committee to make provision with
respect to municipal rates and taxes—
Mr. O'CONNELL—That's the notice in the paper.
—(Hear, hear.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL bad began by saying the
course that had been pursued upoa the Bill was dif-
ferent from any adopted in his experience. The Hon.
Gentleman in .1 low tone of voice said it w:ls the notice
that appeared in the paper. Why what indication
could they have of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's
intention excrpt by the notice in the paper ? The
notice was " Mr. O'Connell to move an instruction to
the Committee on the Registration of Voters (Ireland)
(No. 1.) Bill to"—to do what ? " to define municipal
cesses and taxes."—(Cheers.) No indication of a
change of intention was given, either pub-
licly or privately ; but at five o'clock the Honour.
able and Learned Gentleinan rose, abandoned
the original notice, and proceeded upon a perfectly dif-
fetent•subject, in respect of which the- decision of that
Ho.ltse had been before taken.—(Hear, hear.) The