The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MAY 2L 1840

was a mistake, but I remember that be said he did
not recollect my words, but he took them from the
record—that the Mirror of Parliament. But
here it is now brought in Judgment against me. I think the
Noble Lord will not read it again. I think if he does he
will do me the justice to look to the report of what I said
on the former occasion. There is another point between
the Noble Lord and me before I go into the merits of the
case. He accuses me unjastly and—l do not mean it dis-
Courteously—untruly of stating that no franchise in Eng-
'land was annihilated. The Noble Lord is not a lawyer,
and Ire is not to be blamed for not being accurate.—( Hear,
and a laugh.) Why, one of the franchises was the burgage
tenure, but that has, in fact, been preserved by the 31st
clause of the Reform Bill.,—[Here Mr. Thcsiger made
some observations to Lord Stanley. Mr. O'Connell pro-
ccededs]—lf I thought the Noble Lord had so ready refe-
rence to professional men, I wculd have given him the
dates.—( Laughter.)
Lord STANLEY made some observations which were
not beard in the gallery, but occasioned a laugh in the
House.

Mr. O'CONNE LL--.What I said was, that no fran-
ebiae was struck off, the freemen were preserved; what was
struck off was the nuisance of non-resident freemen.
Lord STANLEY—The scot and lot votes, the pot-
wallopers.—( Laughter.)
Mr. O'CONNELL—We shall talk of all this the next
opportunity.—(Laughter.) I shall show him what the
lass was, and the extent of the loss. I shall go on now
to show him what it was, if he pleased. Sir, I now rise
with this assurance, that this a Bill to annihilate the fran-
chise to the extent of nine-tenths of the voters.—( Hear.
How is it to do this ?—by unceasing trouble—by vex_
aticms—by unnecessary expenses--by accumulated costs—
and by increasing the power of the landlords to intimi-
date—(Cheers)—by all the power the law's ingenuity can
give to a dexterous barrister, and all the power that wealth
has over comparative poverty. Who is it that will
. Jake up this Bill, and tell me that it does
not give these means? The Right Hon. Member for Ha-
lifax admits that he is not satisfied even with the title of
the Bill, and yet he does not object to go into the Com-
mittee. Many others who support the Bill say that they
are opposed to almost all its provisions—(Hear)—yet they
will go into Committee, and bring it out the same Bill,
on the principle of the identity of the honest citizen's
knife, who said that it sometimes had a new blade and some-
Clip a new handle, but still it was the same knife. There
ar/Plome English gentlemen in this House who are ignorant
of the length 6- Which persons go to prevent electors from
registering in Ireland. I have two documents which I
• would wish them to attend to, and which I think will show
the real obstacles that are thrown in the way of the
electors. The first of these is a circular signed by Mr.
Nettles, and dated from Nettleville—( A laugh)—loth of
March, 1839. Mr. Nettles says--" Sir, I have bean di-
rected to state to you that a person, whose name is on the
other side, has given notice to register for the next session
—and as our being able to return Conservative Members
for this ccunty, entirely depends upon the power to pre-
vent the re-registry of our own tenants"—l ask, do the
gentlemen of England now know why the Noble Lord's
,tell has received so much support from these Gentlemen ?
" The Committee first recommend that you will exert
;ourself to forward that object, and that you will be so
good as to inform me whether a certificate has been given
to our opponents, or any authority to produce it, at the
Sessions, as in such case it will be necessary to serve a
notice on him at the Sessions, where if he does not ap-
pear, the re-registering cannot take place. I remain, &c.
Robert Nettles, Hon. District. Secretary."—(Loud cries
of " Hear, hear.") You wish to give the Hon. Secretary
fresh means of worrying the voter by compelling him to
go to the Sessions again. Does the Noble Lord not
know that the voter would have to travel twenty or thirty
miles, and in Cork even sixty ? but if he dares to re-
register give him notice.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Oh im.
prove the machinery of the Reform Bill, and tell the
Irish that you are friends to Ireland, and enemies to the
disunion. But is this the only artifice ? I will
give you another Conservative specimen. I was going
to say it would do for the Conservatives of England, but I
don't believe that any English Gentleman would deal with
an English voter in this way. The Hon. aod Learned
Gentleman then read a report of a case at the Westmeath
:Sessions, where a witness who had been called in support of
an objection to a claimant stated, on his cross-examination,
-that he had an annuity, a rent-charge, which was paid by
the Conservative gentlemen of the county, and on being
asked what for ?" he replied " for this which lam doing
—swearing against votes."—(Cries of " hear, hear.")
In the ease of another claimant a witness--one of the per-
manent staff--swore he knew the value of the claimant's
farm, and that it was not worth 10/. a year above the rent.
On cross-examination, and being confronted with the
claimant, he said, " I don't swear positively, because I
don't know it."—(Loud laughter.) Is this a system
that you wish to encourage ? Is this a system
which is to uphold honour, morality, and religion ?
and we shall come to religion presently. Is it for this that
you ought to pass the Bill ? I suppose you think the Bill
is necessary in order to keep the permanent staff employed ;
otherwise, like the huntsman, their sport would be over
when the fox was caught. I read these things in order
that there may not be a shadow of excuse for your passing
this Bill. 1 protest against this disfranchisement-_I
protest against it with as much solemnity as I think will
be listened to ; and I am determined that the people of
Ireland shall know you have heard what their grounds of
opposition to the Bill are. If you succeed in this disfran-
chisement, you repeal the Reform Bill for Ireland—that is
clear ; you repeal the Emancipation Act, not as it relates to
the wealthy Catholic, but as it relates to the middle classes.
They bid me tell you that they impute this Bill to two
distinct principles—the first, national antipathy to the Irish
people_—(Cries of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition)—then
I suppose it is out of smypathy to the Irish people that
the Bill is brought in. However, I will tell you what ttiey
say—you can disprove it afterwards--they say it has also
originated from the vilest violence of malignant bigotry.—
(Laughter.) lam bound to show you on what grounds
they oppose it. If these grounds are satisfactory you ought
to affect the Bill; if they are not, then my argument goes
for nothing, arad you will pass the Bill with the grater
alacriey.—(Hear, hear.) Have they not a right to say it
has originated from national antipathy 2 Are there not, I
was going to say, multitudes on the other side of the House
who have in their specches,in their electioneering addresses,
in their after dinner harangues—in vino veriiss —talked in
the most vile way in disparagement of the Irish people? I
have a bundle of them here, but I won't disgust myself nor
tire you by reading them. You may say you were
misreported, or that you meant no such thing; but what
say you to your pampered press—that press which is
wealthy because you patronised the vile Times and the
rest of the gang ?—( Laughter.) Is there a man among
you that in private life would assert it is not the vile
ietes?—(" Order.") Does not that paper invariably
tali our priests surpliced ruffians, and our people shoeless,
shirtles-i, vagabonds, and yet in the House of Commons
I am told it is a matter of ridicule to call it vile ?—( Hear,
hear.) You cannot suppress your protection of it.—
(Cheers.) They have reason to suspect your natioaal
antipathy ; but if they had any doubt on that subject, could
they have any as to the matter of religious bigotry ? The
lion. Member for Londonderry county selected one indi-
vidual for his praise, the Rev. Dr. Stewart.—(" Hear,
hear," from Sir R. Bateson.) Let me read the speech
of this eulogizer of the Hon. Member for Londonderry.
I am not now ransacking the stores of other atrocious ca-
l'sinnies against the Catholic people of Ireland. I am
confining myself precisely to the mode in which this Bill
has been brought forward. At a meeting at Belfast, this
gentleman stated that " he believed one great difference
with regard to the Bill was, that it was alleged its opera-
tion would be unequal between the Protestant and Ca-
tholic. He admitted that might be case ; but, if so,
it did not arise from the principle of the measure,
but other causes. One wits that there was a greater regard
for an oath among Protestants than Catholics."—( Hear,
hear, from Sir IL Bateson.) Does the Hon. Member
cheer that in the presence of the Catholic gentry of Ire-
land? Does he presume to do that ?—( Loud cries of
Hear, hear.") I have near me same of the first landed
propri. tors ih Ireland, some of her most ancient gentry,
and am Ito be told, in their presence, by any miserable
bigot—(The remainder of the sentence was lost amidst the
Jowl cheers that followed, in the midst of which Sir R.
B itesen rose to snake some observations, but was persuaded
• by an lion. Member near him to sit down.) I think the
Ilan. Member behind him is a wise man for suggesting to
him that he had better hold his tongue.—(Laughter.) Did
the Hon. Member ever lose any advantage by refusing to
take an oath that would have admitted him to station,
power, and dignity ? He never did.—(Cheers.) There
is not one of these Catholic gentlemen, except the young
gentleman before me (we believe Mr. B. Roche) that has
• not been excluded for years from a seat in Parliament
because they would not perjure themselves.—(Hear,hear.)
Yet these were the bigoted Tories who honoured and
• applauded the man who called for support for the Bill upon
such grounds. Ile went oft, "If a Catholic committed
perjury in aid of his Church, it is tact held to be perjury. "
(neer, hear.) And is this language which you cheer I
thank you for it. He continued, And when the Catholic
is driven up to the hustings by the priest, he feared not
to commit perjury, because he had the priest at his elbow,
and he would be sure of absolution."—( Cheers.) Whz
cheered again when quoting such vile, bigoted lane gt'
fieeen the man who was so praised and lauded by the'lulare ne
Gentleman opposite I The Noble Lord may ask me how;
I connectalim with this. I shall show him. I brine it
home alearlY to him. Who was the upholder and loudest
applauder of Dr. Stewart? Who but the lion. Member
for 3eifastealid the names on the back of the Bill, were
Lord Stanley, Lord G. Somerset, and Mr. E. Tennent,
the upholder of; and the chief actor in, such scenes was
Mr. E. Tennent, and be was the was the man selected by
the Noble Lord to assist him in taking away the franchise
from the people of Ireland. I wrong then in attri-
buting
sto them these motives, that this Bill is the
produce of feelings of atrocious bigotry. The names
on the back of the Bill, reminded him of the three French
boys who had only one horse among them—whether the
Noble Lord rode foremost, nr on the crupper, I know not.
—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") The man selected by the Noble
Lord for his coadjutor, is the same man who at Newry
gave as a toast the shibboleth of party—the man who, at
his own instance, was appointed to give that toast. Have
Ino more instances to give you? Oh yes ; many. The
other evening the two Men-hers for Liverpool appeared at
the bar, and paraded a petition which was too large for
either of them, and, like the figure of Castor and Pollux
in the school-books, they stalked with it up to the table—
(A laugh)—up the Gemini marched, and the Noble Lord
went out of his way to eulogize the signers of that peti.
ion, and boasted that every one gave their address. 'That
may be so ; I looked into the petition, and the first name I
~net was that of the Rev. Hugh M'Ncile. Again it may be
asked what of that petitioe? The Noble Lord vouched for
the respectability of the petitioners—the petition was
agreed to at a public meeting, the principal speaker a t
which was this Hugh M'Ncile, of Jezebel notoriety.
(Cheers, and (irk* of " Oh.") What was the language
-used by him at that meeting ? aaid—" The Catholics
hold that an oath administered by a heretic is not perjury,
and that was a part of the system of Catholicity itself."
'Yes, this was said of the Catholic religion—of the religion
vff .English Ca.tholics—of your first Duke--of some of the
b ,et of your ggerig.e., and the most accomplished of your
yet. Ire, the reprreM-atves of the most ancient families on
:

t! a face of the earth! Ycs, this was said of all of them ;
and such was the language from which resulted the peti-
tion which the Noble Lord the Member for Liverp, of
went out of his way to transcribe, in order that the House
might be put in full possession of all the bigotry it con-
tained. Teen followed a ludicrous story of Tom Cassidy,
in which the Rev. Gentleman suggested that the C oho-
lies were guilty of multiplied perjuries. At first
this atrocious speech was received with laughter in derision,
but afterwards as the Rev, calumniator went on, he was
received with loud shouts of applause. All joined in this
strain—even the Hon. Member for Caithness, amidst all
his ludicrous capers wan quite up in this.—(Cheers and
laughter.) He called the priests assassins, abettors, and
promoters of perjury. Yet the Noble Lord would be
pleas
He met his deserts
pleased enoughtoget thevoatt the
eofthheandHos of his n.Member to-
night. Hon.
Friend the Member for Meath, so I will do no more than
refer thus slightly to him. The petition from that meet-
ing is here, and I appeal to every gentleman who hears
me, whether he will give confidence to it founded upon
such language used toward one of the largest persuasions
of religionists in the British Isles?--(Cheers.) I believe
I am right, but at all events, they form a very large por-
tion of the Queen's subjects. Yet this language was used
to them before England ; they are to be calumniated, and
by men whom you employ to earry your Bill through.
Some of the gentlemen in the front row opposite may call
them vagabonds—it may be very well and politic to
do so, but it will be well understood, for you will
still look to them for support against the Irish people. I
cannot believe that the Noble Lord, the Member for
Northumberland saw the Bill in the light in which yon in-
troduced it. No : there is too much honour—too much
love for Ireland in him—too much liberality for him to
have given any support at all to such a Bill as it is under-
stood by you.—(Cheers.) When M'Neile said, " There
never will be peace while the woman Jezebel lives ?"
( Loud cheers, and cries of " Oh, oh.) lam speaking, let the
followers of Jezebel be silent.---( A laugh.) I will not say
he meant the Queen in using such language, for he has
denied it ; but, in his denial, what did he say he meant by
the woman Jezebel—the Catholic religion; and he was the
man lauded by the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool,
and the leader who got up the paraded petition. Such
language is applied to our religion in the face of England
—in the hearing of America, almost before the Catholic
multitudes of the Continent, and language which receives
your sanction and approbation, and the men using it your
confidence.—(Cheers.) Have I not established then
that the people of Ireland are right in saying
that the Bill is the produce of vile malignant bigotry ? I
now respectfully call upon the House to discountenance
the effort of the Noble Lord brought forward in this way,
and supported by such instruments. Will the Noble Lord
bring in such a Bill for England? If he does I will believe
him to be sincere. Will he dare to make the people of
England go so far to establish his franchise, to make
out their own notices will he dare to make
him walk many a weary mile to sustain his title by the
production of his deeds ? I know him to be a bold man—
politically bold ; but I say that he is not bold enough to
make such an attempt on the liberties of Englishmen.
No. The Noble Lord reserves all his spite—h's
kindness I would say—for the people of Ireland.
It has been said that I have stated if the present measure
be carried it will lead to a repeal of the Union between
the two countries. Sir, lam not here to hold out that
either as a threat or a taunt, for if I did you would
only laugh at it, but I do say that those who maintain
that the connexion between the two countries can be pre-
served by violence and injustice—that such a system has
any binding power, are bad statesmen, bad Christians,
and no better citizens.—( Hear and cheers.) What is the
real state of the question? England and Ireland have
been for forty years united. Did not that union, forced
as it was--(for contracts arise sometimes from crimes as
well as from bargains)—did not that union give to the
people of Ireland rights—did it not give them equal
rights and perfect equality with the people of England?
—(hear, hear.) Ought thee then to be a difference
between the franchises, the rights, the powers, and the
privileges of the men of Kerry and the men of Kent,
the men of Cork, and the men of Yorb. For twenty-
nine years we struggled for religious equality—for twenty-
three years you suspended the Constitution in Ireland, and
gave us in lieu of it peace preserving bills as they were
called, and gills for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus
Act. From that period to this we assisted you in carrying
the Reform Bill, and the Noble Lord now gratefully turns
round on us, and instead of giving us the same franchises
as the people of England, would deprive us of a great por-
tion of what we at present possess. The Union having
provided that we should possess the same rights as the
people of England, let us see if we enjoy them. If Ire-
land be the poorer country of the two, the principle of
franchise applies in a lesser ratio to that country. The
man in Ireland who is less wealthy than his English neigh-
bour still stands in the same relative position—each level
of rank is at the same average distance above or below the
others, as well as in the richer country.---( Hear, hear.)
Our rural population was 7,127,509 by the last census,
while our registered votes amount to only 60,607. We have
not one registered voter for every 117 inhabitants.--
( Hear, hear.) Sir, this point is of the more importance,
and cannot be passed over lightly, when we come to consider
other parts of the subject. Before the passing of the Reform
Bill up to January 1829, there were 216,871 electors in Ire-
land, being about one for every thirty-five of the population.
This is the Parliamentary return, and I now call upon the
House to bear in mind that there are but 60,000 electors
in all Ireland, while in the West Riding of Yorkshire
there are 33,000 registered voters—that is five per cent.,
more than half the entire number of registered voters in
Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) They talk of the swamping of
constituencies and the introduction of fraudulent and ficti-
tious voters, and yet. there they are, less than half the
number in a single Riding in England.—( Hear, hear.)
I ask, Sir, is this union ? Are these the rights of union ?
Instead of this we hear the Noble Lord coming forward
with his complicated machinery of spring-guns and man-
traps, to catch men looking for the franchise. Sir, I
call upon the House to repudiate this Bill, and place us
on an equal footing with the people of England.
Before the passing of the Reform Bill, in the county of Ar-
magh, the number of registered voters was 8,746; atnpre-
sent they are 3,042; so that Armagh lost upwards 615,000
voters by that measure. Galway the constituency
amounted to 29,000, and it appeared that altogether, in six
counties in Ireland, the number of voters that had been
lost by the change was 83,379. I will now take the Eng-
lish counties, and it is my duty to show the House the
great disparity between the two countries in this respect.
The population of Hertfordshire is 95,000, and the number
of voters is 5,015. The population of Galway is 381,000,
and the number of voters 3,000. The population of the
Isle of Wight is 28,731, and the number of voters 1,167.
The population of Tyrone is 310,000, and the number of vo-
ters is 1,164, being three less than the number in the Isle of
Wight. Now I say that your business ought to be to re-
medy this evil, and to consider how you could best restore
to the Irish people the franchise, instead of proceeding to
annihilate that franchise by new devices which you would not
dare to talk of in England. What is the principle of this Bill?
You may pay no regard to the inferiority of Ireland
—you may pay no attention to her claims upon your justice,
but do you mean to assert that the present number of voters
is too many ?—( Hear, hear.) I hear of frauds and I am told
of perjuries—why, Sir, there's the entire number, not twice
as many as in a single riding in England, and what be-
comes then of your complaint of the bona fide voters being
swamped? Why, the 101. franchise is but a casual qualifi-
cation added to the voter, to be respected only so long
as it remained law, and to be derided and laughed at
so soon as the law is altered, and which, as
a principle of political economy and expediency, is
to be derided and laughed at for being law.—( Hear.)
But we are taunted with committing perjury, and the
Noble Lord has done the House the favour of reading
letters relative to undue registrations. He has read six
letters on the present, 4nd only one, I believe, on the
former occasion, which referred to a Mr. Stevens of the
County Dublin. The statement was, that Mr. Stevens
had registered in October, 11832, and, consequently, it
would expire In October next ; that notwithstanding that
Mr. Stevens came in the month of March last, before the
the Assistant-Barrister at Kilmainham to get a renewal of
his certificate for eight years, although his title would ex-
pire on the very day the Noble Lord was reading the letter,
or the following day. Teat certainly was a statement of
a case of gross fraud, and I do not accuse the Noble
Lord of the suppression of a fact, but I do accuse him of
not being more cautious as to his correspondents. Sir. I
have looked at the case, and I tied it to be this :—Mr.
Stevens is a tenant of the Marquis of Lansdowne--
he is a Protestant, and he came forward on that occasion
to re-register. The Barrister having told him that his
lease expired in March, Mr. Stevens then showed him
a letter from Mr. Robert Franks, the agent of the :Jar-
quis of Lansdowne, giving him a fresh base of twenty-
years, at the original rent.--( Cheers.) Now, there is an
express clause in the Reform Act for that very case, it
being expressly stated that any renewal or fresh lease
should bin considered as a continuation of the original
qualification. The man had a strictly equitable, if not a
legal title, and you may register upon one as well es the
other, for if the contrary were the case, many of the Irish
gentry would at the picsent moment be disqualified, as
the mortgages on their estates have left them only an
equitable, instead of a legal, title.—( Hear, and cheers. )
Now, the Assistant-Barrister who registered the man's
vote was Mr. Maxwell Blacker, a gentleman «ho cer-
tainly cannot be supposed to have had any undue leaning
to tae Liberal interest. Does the Noble :Loyd think
his correspondent behaved fairly to him in that par-
ticular?—(Hear, hear.) I do not wish to use any
unnecessarily harsh expression, but this at least I may say,
that it will show the House the necessity of being a little
more cautious in giving credit to the statement of such
correspondents.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord also re-
ferred to a case in Tipperary, of a man named Mara, whose
fatherortgi
o a had acc been
elrtifieatemurTdchree
agent,d, a n and
it
waswlio
said,
ad re-registeredprt3d ueed
theth e
ciztLti,coaotem, aanndeoreoirdegheistreer.erdegitshteerseodnwinhohdisidfantehtere'osmneamfoer:
ward and swear to the certificate. I
wesiameteree.
AllnAssistant_ot
theseaa o Barristerpp thingsort
u le mtoust cthoeme beforer
opportunity
yoduld swbeearbelieved if "here
of contradictinga them.
But it is said the object is to prevent fraut nperjury,
and oar object is to protect it. Sir, there a
at which a Mr. George Latcher made this
a'assseartimone,eti and
my answer to it was, that it was an incarnate lie. But I
have cautioned the house against attending to the asser-
tioas of the Noble Lord's correspondents. Now, I ask if
there was not an investigation before the Fictitious Votes
Committee, nominated by the Learned Recorder, and at
which the Noble Lord, whose name is on the back of this
Bill, presided. That Committee sat nearly two ears,
but they made no Report, except of the evidence. And
why ? Because the case of fictitious votes was not made
out. Occasional errors
slovenliness
wcred
of the first e
discovered,
rthgeiystrayrewains
every system. The
fid
ei
toi
ov eu rsevdo, t
es butw aasti ythi
never ng
found, like aorsytshteemNaotbiekr e los
Lord
dr a tsihoonu
lodf
ennott hwaivteh osmeoitttleadnd.to
reported. The Noble Lord is aware that Report showed
maThe Rep.
on ItthWatascoduiffnetrry.
fraud to an extent that was terrifying. 4,000 votes made
out of a small property, without a single shilling rentl or
annuity being possessed-800 similar ones in another
her
tEer dis-
trict.
hero
Why does not the Noble Lord try his hand

He is ready enough to attack Ireland. But the Scotch
have friends, and their friends are true to them, and they
are true to themselves ; but Ireland is divided, and there-
fore the Noble Lord attacks Ireland. The Hon. Member
for CaitLness made a droll speech, at which the House
laughed, and I laughed with them. Ile talked a great
deal of fictitious votes in Ireland ; why did he not speak
of the fictitious votes in Scotland ? lam glad the Hon.
Member is listening to me. He knows well I have high
authority for saying, " Hypocrite, take the beam out of
thine own eye, before thou complain of the mote
that is in thy brother's eye."—(Hear, hear, hear.) Then
the Noble Lord says, on the subject of certificates, " Is it
to be doubted that frauds may be committed with the cer-
tificates?" I admit it; but was not the Noble Lord
cautioned that it would le so, when discussing the ques-
tion ? Was it I proposed the certificates, and he who op-
posed them ? No. The Noble Lord read several pas-
sages to show I had, and had many cheers while doing
so. Did he read of my approval of certificates ? He
certainly did not. I opposed them then; but the Noble
Lord overruh,sl me, and having introduced them in spite of
me makes use of my opposition in order to turn it against
the fair franchises in Ireland- It is worth while (the
quotations are short) to see how the Noble Lord dealt
with me on that occasion. In the first place, when asked
to introduce the English system into Ireland. the answer
was brief—" I cannot consent to introduce the English
system of registration into Ireland so long as doubts exist
as to whether it will work well in England." He finds
it works badly in England, and thereupon he seeks to in.
troduce it into Ireland. If it worked well in England it
would have been hard for us to get it—of that there is no
doubt--but it works ill, and therefore is to be imposed upon
us. At that time every body imagined the annual system
of registration an extraordinary improvement. The No-
ble Lord read passages to show this was my opinion, but
time has shown the fallacy of that opinion, and I aban-
doned it. The Noble Lord also abandons his opinion
which was then against annual revision, but is now
in favour of it, because it is found to be a check upon
the English voter. But that is not all. When
I pressed the subject against him, he gave me this answer,
I think the House will; perceive it has not the ordinary
modesty and diffidence of the Noble Lord--" It (certifi-
cates) is a subject of great discussion out of the House
(I presume he meant among the Ministry), and I feel per-
fectly satisfied it is the best plan that can be adopted."
This was his answer respecting certificates, curt, I won't
say contumelious, but brief enough. "He was perfectly
satisfied." I never knew him come forward with any pro-
position of which he was not perfectly satisfied.—( Hear,
and laughter.) And he overruled me by a large majority
—the evils of the plan are now admitted, and he comes for-
ward with it for Ireland, and uses the mischiefs of his plan
for extinguishing the franchise of Ireland. But a
remedy is wanted. There are faults in every system—
the certificates are capable of being abused—no man has
suffered more from them than I have. It has become a
black lesson. In Dublin they take out two, one as a
householder, and one as a freeman. " This is liable to
mischief," says the Noble Lord, " and therefore is it
I propose in this Bill a difference." Now my logical
conclusion is—pass a short Bill to do away with certi-
ficates. I could draw it up in five minues. That is one
remedy. There is another, Extend and define the fran-
chise. The population of Ireland is two-thirds that of
England, give us the franchise in the same proportion.
Extend, and above all define it. A struggle is made to pre-
vent its being defined. We are told it is settled, but
one Judge, at least, refuses to consider it as settled. An
Hon. Member spoke rather harshly of him, and of the
Assistant-Barristers with great disparagement—let it not
be imagined I am one of those who think it disgraceful
to speak condemnatory of the Judges—they require to be
kept in curb. I have heard much unfounded insolence
from the Bench, and this is the constitutional tribunal to
correct the Judges ; therefore I think it a duty and not
a crime in a Member of Parliament to speak what he
thinks of the Judges. But what reproach can the Hon.
Member cast on that excellent man (Mr. Baron Richards)
who has raised himself to the highest station, not by being
a paltry partisan or a dependent parasite on the attornies
of a county, but iry the force of talent—who never at-
tended a public meeting, or made a political speech—who
never showed his politics in any other way than when a
petition from the members of his profession was to be
presented in favour of,emancipation, to go and sign it, and
without controversy return to his professional duties.
The Learned Gentlemen has no right so to speak of a
man inferior to him in no respect—superior to him in
many respects. I never heard men ask, of Richards—
" How could such a man get on at the bar ?" I've heard
the question asked of others I could name.--( Hear, hear.)
Yet, that is the man the Learned Gentleman traduces in
this House. A better Judge, an abler lawyer, a more
amiable man, never lived than Baron Richards.—(Hear,
hear.) Oh, but, said the Learned Gentleman, he did, as
to the beneficial interest question, what no other Judge
did or ever will do. As to the solvent tenant test, the
Learned Gentleman says that question has been quite set-
tled. How ? Why the twelve Judges met—ten were for
the solvent tenant test--two for the beneficial interest.
Now, there slipped from the Learned Gentleman this sin-
gular expression—I hope the gentlemen on his front rank
marked it—he said the two Judges who decided for the
beneficial interest were appointed by a Liberal Administra-
tion.--(Hear, hear, hear.) Who were the ten, then—the
tender-hearted ten ?—( Hear and a laugh.) Oh, they
were adopted in the palmy days of Toryism—seven
of them when no man at all leaning to Li-
beralism was elevated to the Bench, and two were Attor-
ney and Solicitor-General under the Tory Government,
elevated to the Bench by Earl Grey, with more generosity
than wisdom.—( Hear.) The other was Judge Crampton,
who drew the Bill with the beneficial interest, and who, as
Judge, was induced to bold that as Solicitor-General he
had erred; but, in fact, only seven to five held this solvent
tenancy part, and even now Chief Justice Bushe, at the
last Assizes, still held out for the beneficial interest ; yet the
Learned Gentleman says the question has been settled ;
on the contrary, never was a more thorough ve.rato quail()
in the world. It a question, moreover, on which the
Judges have no jurisdiction, and, therefore, Baron Richards
acted as he did. Why do Igo into this part of the subject ?
Simply to show that this is a question debateable by law-
years, differently decided by Judges—one on which the
decision, some say is founded by political bias—certainly
on which there is the greatest diversity of opinion.--
( Hear, hear.) Now, why not tell us distinctly what the
franchise is ?—( Hear, hear.) If the House shall decide
to go into Committee, I will move an instruction to settle
this question—( Hear, hear)—to define what the Reform
Bill really meant to give us—(Hear, hear)—but which
will not suit the motives of the supporters of the Bill, for
Their motives (I speak, of course of those out of doors—it
would not be Parliamentary to speak of the mo-
tives of those in the House) are uncongenial to
Ireland and Ireland's rights. —( Hear, hear, and " Oh, oh.")
their motives arc, to make distinctions between different
classes—to effect a transfer of political power from one to
the other.—( Hear, hear, and " Oh, oh.") The Noble
Lord opposite—the Great Reformer—in his zeal for the
purity of Irish electors, leaves out the greatest frauds of
all those of the freemen.—( Hear.) Ile favours them, as he
favours the 501 freeholders. He finds in the English
Reform Bill—that a man residing twelve months in a
borough can register, and that the residence need not be
in the same house, if in one of the same value. If the
Noble Lord meant to do anything for Ireland, why did lie
not introduce that into his list? But no. The residence
in Ireland must be on the same premises, and often for
thirteen or fourteen months, before the man can register.
If he enters in March, he cannot register till September
twelvemonth following—a year and a half. The notice
must be served in July, and he must register in Septem-
ber. But now as to freemen. The Noble Lord requires
this residence from householders—men known in the bo-
rough. Oh, but the freemen are Protestants.—( Hear.)
Nothing can equal the frauds which have been committed
by the freemen.—( Hear.) What does the Noble Lord do
with them ? He leaves them as they are. Does he re-
quire the twelve months' residence ? No such thing. Is
there no'hing of religious preference in that ?—( Hear.)
Let me give the House a case. George Kirkshaw, a car-
penter in London, went over and worked in Dublin—now
in a situation of confidence there—an Englishman—( Hear)
—his mother's name I know—l have the certificate of his
birth in my pocket. I have, moreover, the certificate of his
admission to an Orange Lodge—(Cries of " Question !"
" Order !" and " Hear, hear, hear")—dated, too, in
I S3S, notwithstanding the pretended suppression of the
Orange institutions_( Hear, hear)—Mr. Stephen Lett
being the Master of the Lodge. Now the Rev. S. Lett,
said to him, " Why you are a good Protestant, why should
you riot be a freeman in Dublin ?' " Oh," was the reply,
" I was borne in England." I may mention the lodge
was called the Royal Hanoverian."—(Cheers.) " Never
mind, we can get you a certificate." He proceeded to the
Guild of Carpenters, and proposed the man as the grand-
son of his ( Mr. Lett's) own father, or the son of his sister.
( Hear, hear, and laughter. ) The name of the
man's mother was then changed from Collison
to Lett, and his claim was admitted as that
of the son of a freemen. He registered under circum-
stances, every one
.4, which was false"; and four others,
whose names were gftren tome, registered also on the same
occasion by a similar fiction. I asked the person who
made these disclosures to me the reason for his doing so,
and he told me candidly that his only motive was this, that
he was an Englishman, and that, as such, he liked fair
play.—( Hear, hear.) I have reason to know that in the
city of Dublin fabrication of votes of freemen take place to
the extent of thousands, and no one can now obtain the
freedom of the city without the permission of the Corpora.
tion. I must also observe, that since the passing of the
Reform Bill marriage is held as a right to the freedom of
the city, which formerly was not the case. Does the Noble
Lord hovrevercome forward and require that freemen should
be examined on oath as to all the particulars of their title as
he requires of the unfortunate householders? I will do the
Noble Lord the justice to say, that I do not believe he
himself' understood many parts of the subject ; but those
who framed the Bill must have been perfectly well ac-
quainted with them. I will appeal to the Right Hon. and
Learned Member for Ripon, whose experience in the
Court of Chancery is unequalled, whether he knows of
sa,sny ueasrinhig.ecotf osnurwv•ehyieh orstbhyerveaaluree. so
Imuanny differences
derstandth as
e Rightthe
Hon. and Learned Member to say that he does not, and
that circumstance will, therefore, add to the other objections
to the Bill of the Noble Lord. I will now ask the Noble Lord
why ho did not lessen the amount of the franchise, and
thus take away the temptation to perjury, and add to the
elective power of the people, who were already too little
supplied with it ? I must observe, that in the artful fram-
ing of his measure, the Noble Lord appears to have
had had somebody's luck besides his own.—( Hear, hear,
and loud cries of " Name, name.") Oh ! you know him
very mell.—(Laughter, and renewed cries of " Name.")
No, I will not. I put before you the case of Ireland, and
you have at present an opportunity of generously dealing
towards her, but that you have never done, and I defy you
ot of prove
her h
iasnt irnys.t a nsc eh
co f
bas
towards
centuries her
the scene in thepageso
f
thea: lr
onctrg ioa
le blms
etopnctoiovryneeotdrui n:ohutf
he
atdohupei
though
jsohyupsslttelie.cme fear—oyl
to ufi
ins rho faoyiwen o,htuiittlmoeh st violation of
mtreeantaes, and of everything that could disgrace a Govern-
eeitiaonnpgt uhe
re
yyu
oee
uar
r
policy towards Ireland, and to deal with that country U
you do with England. If you want to assimilate the two

countries, give us your privileges and institutions, and do
not attempt to do to Ireland what you would not have done
to England, and after that you need not taunt me with
attempting violent changes.—(Cheers.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL then addressed the House as
follows:—Sir, it is a source of great satisfaction to me to
find that the time I will occupy at this advanced period of
the debate, will be exceedingly limited.—( Hear, hear.)
I do not intend to enter into any consideration of the
clauses of the Bill, for the whole progress of this debate
has convinced me that that rule and practice of the House
which reserves the consideration of the Bill, separated for
a Committee, is a nice one. Ozi the great question of the
principle whether we will make any attempt to improve the
system of Irish registration, I find that so far from dis-
cussing the propriety of making that attempt, four-fifths of
this debate have been occupied with minute consideration
of the clauses of the Bill.—( Hear, hear.) That consider-
ation has been necessarily a desultory one. Gentlemen
having points to make on a clause, and receiving an im-
perfect reply with regard to it, and the attention of the
House having been diverted to other circumstances, so that
the discussion has been perfectly useless.—( Hear,
hear, hear.) I therefore give my assurance to
the House, that I will not trouble them
on the details or clauses of the Bill. I will merely ad-
vert to this great consideration—l 3 it fit, or is it not, to
make an attempt to cure the admitted evils of the present
registration system.—(Hear, hear.) You have two al-
ternative propositions before you. The policy of making
an attempt to reform existing evils, or the definite post-
ponement of the question, or its abandonment as suggested
to you by her Majesty's Government. I ask the decision
upon the matter of those who are not most accurately con-
cerned in party politics. I have the strongest conviction
that their decision will be in favour not of this Bill—not
of any of its clasuses, but that their decision will be in
favour of the principle that an attempt should be made to
remedy acknowledged evils. My reliance is not on the
strength of party connections.—( Ironical cheers.) My
reliance is on that portion of the House who have proved
by their absence on a former occasion, their conscientious
conviction that an attempt should be made to cure those
evils, and I do hope they will have the courage and the firm-
ness to resist the appeal which has been made to them,
and the attempt made to induce the House, to revoke the
decision to which it has already come. They had certainly
the examples of the Noble Lord and the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin to forget former engagements.
—(Cheers.) The House has the example of men whose
principles are favourable to every measure of a liberal
nature, supporting the Bill—of men who tell you they do
not approve of many of its provisions ; but we are not
now discussing the provisions of the Bill—we are merely
discussing this point, whether the House of Commons
will retract or not the decision it had come to on a for-
mer occasion.—( Cheers.) Now, I will ask that portion
of the House who possess the power of coming to a fair
conclusion, unbiassed by party feelings, and who have the
firmness to act upon their own convictions, to compare
the advantages and disadvantages of voting for the
motion of my Noble Friend, or of permitting the Go-
vernment indefinitely to postpone any alteration in the
present system of Irish registration. I know well what
were the intentions of my Noble Friend in proposing this
Bill.—(Hear, hear.) I know that he has been unjustly '
assailed.—( Cheers, and counter cheers.) It is not my
belief only, but my perfect and sincere conviction.—(Loud
cries of " Oh, oh," and laughter from the Ministerial
benches, answered by cheers from the Opposition.) These
intcrruptions do not put me out at all ; I never interrupt
Hon. Members.—( Cries of " Hear, hear," from the Mi-
nisterial benches.) It does not disturb me, but it
prolongs the time uselessly.—(Cheers.) I was going to
say that it was not only my belief, but my perfect convic-
tion that my Noble Friend has been unjustly assailed. I
know that he never intended any unfair restriction of the
franchises of Ireland.--( Ironical cheers from the Minis-
terial benches.) I know that he recognizes the principle
for which I myself contend, that there ought to be every
facility afforded for the establishment of the legitimate
franchise—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and cheers)—while every
obstruction should be thrown in the way of the illegitimate
franchise.—(Cheers from the Opposition.) This is the
principle on which I am prepared to go into Committee on
this Bill. If it can be shown in Committee that any re-
striction proposed ; ,to be placed on the legitimate
franchise could be safely dispensed with, my Noble
Friend has already expressed his intention of his
perfect willingness to attend to any suggestions
on the subject; and is it not evident that it is the opinion
of the majority of this House that we should go into Com-
mittee ? What risk will you run by doing so ? You, who
suspect us on this aide of the House of a desire to tamper
with the franchise, tell me if we go into Committee, even
if your accusation be just, wbat power can we have against
the sense of that portion of the House who are not actuated
by party motives, to carry such intentions into effect? If
we go into Committee depend upon it you who are jealous
of this Bill will have the power of placing an effectual curb
upon any intentions of this nature which we might enter-
tain.--( Cheers.) You object to the annual registration--
you object to the appeal to the Judges--and the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman who spoke last contended that this
gave such evidence of national antipathy, and of religious
bigotry, that that was quite ground sufficient for refusing
to go into Committee. Now I will appeal to the unpreju-
diced portion of the House if this is a legitimate ground for
refusing to go into Committee? I will prove that it is
not—l will prove that so late as in 1835 the Honourable
and Learned Gentleman did not think those
propositions any proof either of national antipathy
or of religious bigotry.—(Cheers.) Not only did he not
come to any such conclusion, but he actually commenced
a proposal of a similar nature for the reform of the Irish
registration, when it was made by a gentleman on the
other side.--(Cheers.) In 1835, Sir Michael O'Loghlin
introduced a Bill for the improvement of the Irish regis-
tration. In that debate the Hon. and Learned Member
for Dublin said that he approved of not leaving the ap-
pointment of Assistant-Barristers in the hands of the
Judges ; that he also advocated the making the registra-
tion complete for one year, and not dependent upon a
Committee of that House; and that he also approved of a
final appeal as to the right of voting to the Judges.
The complaint of 1835 was, that the Committees of this
House did not do justice; that they forgot the obligations
of their oaths, and set aside the rights of the electors
of Ireland.--( Cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man then thought it would be a great improvement ; now
my Noble Friend proposes the introduction of this very im-
provement, which was approved of by the Honourable and
man
p Learnedron
oGe edne tdl
saidß,
a ißd the Ho
—lie that
tsnno. and
an d m
eLnesaurrnee
wasd Gentle-
abso-
lutely necessary, and that he approved of the revision of the
appeal being given both ways."—(Cheers.) Such was the
opinion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman in 1835 ; yet
when my Noble Friend proposes a measure, the three great
principles of which arc the preventing a Committee of the
vaHinsoi
appealou
ls of Commons
le
annual,
übaolt,btiwi
esy s
floe,fromto the
o andi
Lnein
a Learned
the
Judges,n
da 11Gdr
Gentleman
ls
et
makingmr registry, then
thinks gh ievirneigi
decent to call on the House not to reject the Bill, but to
prevent its being proceeded with further, because he sees in
these enactments proofs of national antipathy and religious
bigotry.—(Loud cheers.) I know well the distinction
there is between the Bill of Sir :lichee' O'Loghlin and the
present measure as to the annual revision. A proposal was
made to that effect in 1835, and was it rejected with con-
tempt and indignation by Sir M. O'Loghlin ? No such
thing. Allthat Sir M. O'Loghlin said on the subject was
that he did not think it advisable to introduce vuch a pro-
vision into his Bill, but that if it should be the opinion of
the House that such a provision should be introduced, he
should not persevere in opposing it.—(Loud cheers.)
Such was the manner in which Sir Michael O'Loghlin re-
ceived a proposition for making the revision annual. Every
Gentleman who has spoken on the subject has admitted
that the present system is indefensible. It was felt that
this qualification was necessary to be given to the opposi.
tion to this Bill. nut then it was said that it was objec-
tionable to give an appeal to the Judges on questions con-
nected with the franchise. Now that question is left per-
fectly open. If it should be felt feat it is important
to divest the Judges of political functions, that matter
can be discussed in Committee, and the Committee, if
they should be of opinion that it would be desirable to
divest the Judges of these functions, may, if it think pro-
per, adopt measures for the establishment of another
tribunal. Do not, under the pretence of entertaining this
objection, sanction the present abuses of the Irish regis-
tration.—(Cheers.) The House has before it these two
alternative propositions, either to consent to go into Corn-
, mittce on this Bill, or to consent to the indefinite post-
ponement of any attempt to reform the present system of
Irish registration. The Government say they are about
to bring in a Bill, but when did they say so ?—( Cheers.)
Last Session the subject was faintly alluded to—l well re-
member the occasion. The Noble Lord was threatened
with a schism in his party ; a Bill had been brought for-
ward by the Hon. Member for Preston, giving the fran-
chise in counties to 101. householders. The Noble Lord
then stated his opinions generally on the subject of reform,
and gave some general idea of his intention to introduce
some measure for the general improvement of the system
of registration. He did not say one word on the system
of Irish registration particularly.—( Cheers.) There
was nothing more said on the subject during the
remainder of the Session. The Government had the wholes
of the recess to consider on the subject, but not one w
said at the beginning of the present Scssion d was
said My. Noble
_ Hon. Friend Members
mentioned broug
It
hisin hisintention l3i thel,
of
opposing
nLgo
the
es spoke inb reply,ut
said
not one word as to any intention of the Government to
take up the question. The second reading of the Bill
of
and
was carried by a majority composed
and
alteration in the present system should
notice of
that the Noble Lord, finding it convenient to give
d the law of regis-
tration intention to bring in a Bill to amen
Gentleman
who admitted the principle that it wasnecetasksaerypltshoaet, some
of that House for
an excuse to independent Members
tra t
returnsion bis generally,thanks
ttoh et
NobleeHo n. a and
Lord Learned
for l)
riend. (Cheers.)
voting against the Bill of my Noble F_
Now, Sir, if gratitude be due toth
account, his proposal was a dishonest avingafford_ed
not introduced with the intention o
an excuse for
rcgiatratioe, but to give Hon.
Members • d—( Cheers)--
Noble Frien
,13
reef L—o
becauseor
ms dinogin.t thatwthaes
voting against the Bill of my
con-
tingent upon the passing of
they adopt the entreat the House to recollect, that if
these abuses in
pro-
position of the Noble Lord (J. Russell),,h have spoken
Friend—(Cheers)—
and it moreover makes the reform of the Irißshlla.busLesetmethe Irish Registration—admitted
on the other side—must be maintained
Lord avows that he
period —( Cheers.) For the Noble
bYeael id"foro an indefinite
Gdooevsernnomt pernotp, ofoser
tahmateasheurweilwl
the views of the
(Hear, hear.) He
the English loiNsnhfoe
will
)oppßosuitticw)nhoatf
re n
avowsee o ft
that
tt
his Housesm eas
no
.fe Parliament.
embody
te
oe
attempt
101mrpectetivoectohneccaoianiceur.
t
in the Irish
thetb a
willt
bLheoecrodwins be perfectly
ohrey ch
meantime,e
c indefinitely. Tho
a separate Bill
that he will introduce
Noble Lord says
Why, one of the ob.
for the alteration of the franchise. registration ? They will continue
with the franchise. Let it be recollected
they
doubt about the terms of the qualification—whether
jections to my Noble Friend
the property would
mean the value to the tenant, or what
cheering i regardless
andof t h l a u
abuses
bh
u t thees
er
s.
Bill that i
tt
hat doesth
there
ot
is deala
let for to a solvent tenant. Now, one of the objections to
the Bill is that it dots not attempt to settle the franchise.

Bat the Noble Lord does not attempt to settle the question
by his Bill. I think he pursues the proper course ; but if
he is right, is it possible that any nne can admit so futile an
objection to the Bill of my Noble Friend that it does not at
the same tine include a regulstion of the registry, and a
settlement of the disputed question of the franchise ?
( Hear, hear. Here is the admission of abuses—here is
a repeated attempt of the Government to remedy them ;
and it was not until my N'sble Friend brought in the Bill
to remedy the evils, the objection of national antipathy was
conjured up, hollow and frivolous as that objection is.—
( Cheers.) And when does the Noble Lord expect that
the Bill of the Attorney. General will be carried ?—( A
laugh.) He says that year after year he will send up
Bills to the House of Lords. He says he knows they
will beaejected, that years will pass before the Lords are
sufficiently intelligent to adopt them, but that in time his
Bills will be passed —( Laughter.) Will it be by the
creation of new Peers ?—( Cheers.) No; but when the
hairs apparent, who have at present seats in the House of
Commons, will take the places of their more bi-
goted progenitors.—( Renewed cheers, and laughter from
the Opposition.) The Noble Lord says that they
being embued with Liberal principles will introduce new
feelings into the House of Lords—(Laughter)—and then
the Lords will pass those Bills. Let us calculate when that
will come to pass, and from the heirs apparent now in the
House sF Commons let us deduct those who not being
imbued with Liberal principles will vote with my Noble
Friend on this occasion.—(Laughter.) In the mean
time the Solicitor-General will be perfectly happy and
content. He will say, " I hare not attempted to concili-
ate opposite opinions—l will persevere with this 13i11."-
-( Hear, hear.) I hope the next time the Bill comes on
for consideration the Hon. and Learned Gentleman will
have read it. But he would be perfectly content in
the meantime to establish the independence of his own
character, and to maintain his own opinions regardless of
their adoption by either Ilouse of Parliament.—( Cheers. )
Let me ask what in the meantime becomes of the Irish
registration ? I appeal to Hon. Gentlemen whether they
think it fair and decent after the universal admissions
made, and necessarily made, of the existence of gross
abuses—after the House of Commons has, by a con-
siderable majority adopted the principle of the Bill—they
think it fair and decent to revoke the decision, and
leave the revision of the Irish registration to the
Government, who for the last seven years have made
ineffectual attempts to reform the Reform Bill, and
were now content to postpone the reform until
the House of Lords shall not only have carried the
measure for the improvement of the registration, but shall
have also adopted some other measure upon which the
Government resolved. Have you not heard of the abuses?
Have you not heard of persons taking an almost indefi-
nite number of certificates ? Do you not know the effect
of them ?—( Cheers.) Do you not know that notices in-
numerable are served, not for the purpose of establishing
the vote, but for the purpose of confounding inquiry ?
With all this before you, do you think it right that you
should abandon the attempt at remedy and leave it in the
hands of the Government, who, it appears to me
have taken it up, not for the purpose of amend-
ing the registration, but of preventing the improve-
ment ?—(flear, hear.) Now, compare the positive evil
of indefinite postponement with the risk which you run by
entering upon this question. lam in favour of every faci-
lity for the real elector, and of every obstruction in the
way of those which have no right. The Noble Lord fully
explained the details of the messes° in his opening speech;
there was a full attendance of Members, and the conse-
quence was that there was a decision by a considerable
majority in its favour.—( Cheers.) There hare been abun-
dant admissions of abuse, and admissions of the
necessity of Reform, and yet the House of
Commons is called upon to retract its decision.
I cannot consider that that course will be con-
sistent with the honour and character of the House of
Commons.—( Cheers.) I must answer an appeal that
was made to me by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Vice-
President of the Beard of Trade (Mr. Shiel) on the
second reading of the Bill. The Right Hon. Gentleman
appealed to me, as the person who introduced the Roman
Catholic Relief Bill in 1829, and the measure connected
with it, and asked me whether I did not think there were
portions of the present measure which which would be a
violation of the compact entered into on that occasion ?
The measure he was then particularly referring to was the
Bill that established the 101. right of voting, and annihi-
lated the 40s. franchise. In that Bill an appeal was given
to the Judge in favour of the 101. elector rejected,
but there was not an appeal against the admission. The
Right Hon. Gentleman said that was a secret compact,
and that if an appeal be given against the admission of the
voter, it is a violation of that compact. I must say I hear
for the first time the argument that the correction of abuses
with regard to the registration in Ireland, while abuses are
admitted to prevail, can be the violation of a secret corn-
pact.—( Cheers.) The question is, whether or no there
be an abuse or a tendency to abuse, and if there be I can-
not think there is anything in former obligations imposed
by the 10th Goo. 4, which should prevent the application
of a remedy to such an evil.—(Cheers.) But if I have
violated the compact I have violated it under great autho-
rity, because two gentlemen of the legal profession, each
a Roman Catholic, each holding high situations under Go-
vernment, and bound to take care that Roman Catholic
interests were not injuriously effected, introduced precisely
the same clauses in principle as those introduced by my
Noble Friend. Those two gentlemen were Sir Michael
O'Loghlin: and the Attorney-General Woulfe.—(" Ques-
tion.") I consider this is the question, and I should have been
charged with indecorum if I had declined to notice the ap-
peal made to me by a Catholic Gentleman. In each of
' tho Bills brought in by Sir M. O'Loghlin and the At-
torney-General Woulfe, the double appeal was admitted ;
so that this is only a specimen of the frivolous objections
made to the Bill, and there would be an end to the correction
of every abuse if such objections were admitted. But if he
holds me to that compact, he will admit the obligation was
not on one side only. If the Act of the 10th Geo. IV.,
which abolished the 40g. freeholders, and constituted
the ten-pound franchise is so sacred that you cannot
permit an appeal against the admission of a voter
the Right Hon. Gentleman will admit the franchise then
conferred, ought not to be annihilated. The franchise
given by that Bill was clearly defined to be the franchise
which was determined by the sum which a solvent tenant
would give to the existing tenant over and above the rent
he paid to his landlord.—(Hear, hear.) Consequently, if
I am bound by the Bill, or to minor regulations, the Right
Hon. Gentleman cannot deny that he, and those with
whom he acts, have no right to contend that the lead-
ing principle of the Bill should be violated, and that a
new franchise should now be instituted.—( Hear, hear.)
If you think the franchise in Ireland ought to be ex-
tended, submit a proposition to the House for the pur-
pose.—( Cheers.) It is important enough for separate
discussion. You have the example of the Noble Lord op.
posite for separating the question of the franchise for the
question of registration. A higher authority than his you
cannot have. It is no argument to say that Irish fran-
chises are already too limited, and, therefore,
you must improve the registration. If Irish
franchises are too limited, make a proposition to the
House for the extension of them. If you think 51. ought
to constitute the franchise, let us have it before the House
in a separate Bill, and let us have the opportunity
of combating it; but do not make it as an argument
against this correction of notorious abuses and the regis-
tration, that the Irish franchises are already too limited.
Can any man seriously contend that the proper way of
correcting the reduction of Irish franchises is to permit
gross abuses?—(Cries of " Divide, divide.") I pro.
mised the House that I would not enter into details.
am attempting only to show that the House ought not, in
consistency and in justice to its own character, refuse to
enter into the consideration of them, and that there will
be no risk of failure in your objections, for in Committee
you can demand a majority to prevent any improper re-
strictions.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) yYou have, on
the other hand, the prospect before you of an indefinite
postponement of any opportunity to amend the franchise.
The Hon. Baronet who moved the amendment spoke of
necessity of kindness and forbearance towards Ireland. I
do not contest the propriety of that statement, but this I
must say, that it is the reverse of kindness to encourage
corruption.—( Hear, hear.) It is not kindness towards
Ireland to permit the real legitimate voter to have his
power in the State paralysed by the admission of fraudu-
lent voters.—( Cheers.) It is not true forbearance tc-
wards Ireland to forbear from the suppression of forgery
and corruption; and you will yourselves gain no credit in
Ireland—you will gain no true credit with every sincere
well-wisher to that country, if you abdicate your proper
functions of encouraging the legitimate franchise and dis-
couraging fraud, through the vain hope of conciliating
false popularity by mischievous indulgence and forbearance.
You say that Ireland has for a long time been kept out
of the exercise of political franchises, and that she is now
in possession of them. That may be so; but if it be so,
teach her to estimate properly the value of political fran-
chises—teach her to estimate tie value of the real fran-
chise, and do not set the example of encouraging corrup-
tion, through your unwillingness to incur the clamour and
unpopularity that are unjustly attempted to be excited
against the earnest attempts at reformation.—(Cheers.)
Whenever there is a proposal made that is palatable to
your own party, you willingly accept it—if, on the other
hand, there arc some fictitious votes in Scotland, supposed
to be in favour of the Conservative cause, then an instant
cry is raised against them.—(Cheers ) When you think
by reforming the Corporations you assist your own cause,
corruption is at once proved.— (Hear, hear.) Now away
with this ; do not show that your desire for reforma-
tion is insincere, and is a mere contingent
upon its serving your own purposes.—(Loud cheers.)
Hero is an admitted abuse—an abuse admitted by every
man who has spoken on the question. I say it would
indeed be an injustice, nay, more, it would he dishonest,
to attempt, by pretended reform in the registration, to
curtail the legitimate franchise-4 Hear, hear)—but at the
same time, at this present time at least, as unjust, and
as dishonest, to prevent the amendment of proved cor-
ruption and of admitted abuse because the reformation
would be unpalatable to your supporters and injurious to
your party.—( Loud cheers.)
Lord NIORPETH rose amidst some cries of " Divide,
divide," and interruption from some Tories in the gallery,
which were continued throughout his speech. He said if
the Right Honourable Baronet, at the commencement of his
speech, thought it fitting; to assure the House that he
should not long detain that attention which is always so
willingly given to him, I trust that I do not so far
miscalculate my position in the House, coming after the
Right don. Baronet at this hour of the night, and espe-
cially after so long a debate, and more especially
iy o
consideringiivn
that I have already had an opportunity of stating
l
views upon the subject under discussion.—( Hear, hear.)
In intimating the course I shall think myself bound to
pursue with respect to the further progress of this Bill,
need not tell the House that I will not trespass upon their
time at any great length. I shall advert very shortly to
the circumstances of the case, and the general tendency of
the measure as viewed as an imperial question—a view of
it which has been almost carefully kept out of view by all
who have spoken from the other side.—( Cheers.) No
doubt the Ris,sht Hon. Baronet had at length been drawn
h o
out—late, coy, and reluctantly—to allude slightly to
subject. Last night he appeared to he willing to allow
the debate to close without stating his views—he appeared
to Le willing to afford the spectacle of running from--he

who had involved them—he was about to give the
idea of one leaving his Noble Friend, who was
much in need of his wise and cautious counsels.
However, he seemed to have felt that in the continued
war carried on by the Trojans, it was time for the Ulysses
of the opposite benches to come to the relief of the Ajax.
—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") I have little doubt that it is his
firm conviction that his more hot-headed ally has felt the
great want of cautiousness, and that the Right Hon. Baro-
net deeply laments that that hot-headed ally has drawn the
whole party into the turbulent whirlpool of Irish politics.
—( Cries of " Question, question.") I can assure the
House that my own feelings will most cordially co-operate
with its will ia making my address a very short one ; but,
connected as I am with the Government of Ireland, I have
a right to be heard on this question—( Loud cheers)—and
that right I will assert; and if it is denied to me, that asser-
tion will be made upon another evening.—(Loud cheers.)
The Noble Lord the mover of the Bill, followed, probably
to a less extent, by the Right Honourable Baronet,
filled their speeches with references supposed to have been
made on former occasions by Members on this side of the
House, and with various small points of that kind. In-
deed, the Bill of the Noble Lord, upon his own showing,
as illustrated in his own speech, consisted of a selection of
whatever he could find arbitrary and coercive in the pro-
visions of former Bills —(Loud cheers.) The Bill seems
to be made up of old Irish Bills—new Scotch Bills, and
pending English Bills. Like the painter of old, who took
the different lovely features of different beautiful women,
in order to make a perfect picture of female loveliness, so
the Noble Lord had levied his contributions upon those
classes of Bills, in order to make out his hideous
whole (Loud cheers and much laughter) —such
as it now appeared. The Right Hon. Gentleman has
certainly more than once made an appeal to what he was
pleased to term the independent portion of the House.
He evidently laboured hard to spread his chaff before some
new game, which he was in hopes of ensnaring.—(Loud
laughter.) With that view he said a vote was to be con-
sidered purely as a vote to check abuses, and could not be
taken as in favour of the particular Bill. Now, Sir, this
seems to me to be a novel way of considering a Bill laid
upon the table of this House.—(Hear, hear.) How the
Hon. Gentleman opposite would apply that principle
when Bills were brought forward to which they had
not so great a predeliction, I should like some of them
to inform us. Not one of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite
will dare to stand up and deny that intimidation is a great
evil. Yet, when the Hon. Member for London brought
forward his measure for the Ballot—(Cries of " Oh,
oh I")—with a view of checking and suppressing intimida-
tion, would they then admit that no one would give his
vote for the Bill en the table, but that he might
vote for that Bill, and his vote would only go to
check an admitted abuse. No later than last week, the
Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, on the Ludlow ques-
tion, said he did not mean to defend those practices which
there prevailed, they shocked and horrified him ; but he said,
do not call upon me to support those measures which you say
will get quit of them. The zeal of the Hon. Gentlemen
opposite is exceedingly strong against all abuses, but it is
very much like the loyalty of the Jacobins, who, in drink-
ing the health of Majesty, used to drink to the " King
over the water ;" so it is with the zeal of the Gentlemen
opposite against corruption. It is very laudable no doubt,
but that corruption which excites their zeal must be over
the Channel.__( Loud cheers and laughter.) I have ob-
served that in this debate some good humour and merri-
ment has been excited when mention has been made of the
Bill to be introduced by my Hon. and Learned Friend the
Solicitor-General for Ireland. I am glad of any thing
that would be likely to produce good humour in sach a dis-
cussion. But stress has been laid upon the circumstance
that the Bill has not yet been introduced; and if it were
not wrong to state what one thinks and feels in this House
(and if there,was less party spirit it might be done), I
I must say, that I, for one, join the Noble Lord in
lamenting that that Bill has not yet been introduced.
My Hon. and Learned Friend has bad it prepared for
some time past.--(0h, and cheers.) But he feels it to
be of so much importance to ensure as much correspond-
ence and analogy as is attainable between it and the Bills
to be brought forward for the other parts of the empire,
that he has hitherto refrained from placing it on the table
of the House. Sir, lam conscious of the delay that has
taken place. I admit the difficulty of legislating on the
subject, but I am most anxious to see a Bill introduced
correcting the worst abuses of the present system and pro-
viding that all persons disqualified should, in the speediest
possible manner, be removed from the registry. If such
a Bill is not carried into a law in the course of the
present Session, it will be the fault either of this
or the other House of Parliament, but certainly
not the fault of the Government.—(Loud cheers.)
And I can assure the House, that in framing that Bill,
it has been at least our study to create no unnecessary
opposition from any party. I must say, that when the
Right Hon. Gentlemen criticises the line of argument
pursued by my Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor,
General, the alternative he leaves the House is, that no
Bills should be introduced which is not sure of being
passed through the House of Lords, and, if so, we must
bid a final adieu to the hope of passing any measure which
would define the franchise, or give substantial facility to
registration. Sir, even if my Hon. and Learned Friend
was not prepared to introduce such a measure, still, I for
one, would not purchase the advantage of removing
from the registry a certain portion of the
voters who were not, in point of law, strictly
qualified, by the universal and formidable restric-
tions which the Bill of the Noble Lord—l will not
say in his mind, but in my opinion—is calculated to raise
up against the elective franchise in every class of voters.—
(Cheers.) I will not now enter into the discussion, al-
though it has been largely dwelt upon, of the distinction
which might be drawn between the Bill of the Noble Lord
and the former Bills of the Government. These distinc-
tions are great and manifold. The Right Hon. Baronet
has omitted a broad distinction between the liability to
annual revision in the two Bills, because that of Sir Michael
O'Loghlin confined the revision to new claimants. That of
Chief Baron Woulfe did not—the Government having seen
reason to alter their opinion—the working of that system
in England and Ireland having been found objectionable.
Sir, I have yet to learn on what plea of propriety we are
bound to assert that proposition now that the Noble Lord
has seen reason to take it up? But even if they had intro-
duced the self-same Bill, and had seen the universal
disgust and reprobation with which it had been
received through the length and breadth of the land to be
principally affected by it, and the risk and danger of con-
tinuing bad blood in an easily wrought-upon and excited
population, then indeed we might have been induced
to borrow a leaf from the opposite benches, and as the
Right Hon. Member for Cambridge had done with regard
to the stamp duties, and as the Noble Lord had done with
regard to the Arms Bill, we might have thought it
right to come down and withdraw the Bill. With respect
to the agitation on the subject, although I regret its re-
vival, and although I may condemn its form and lan-
guage, yet I own I feel no surprise at that re-
vival. On the contrary, it was as clear to me as
daylight that it would be revived, and it is equally
clear that if by continued perseverance the House should
unhappily consent to this measure, it will grow and ex-
tend, and which can only be finally repressed and extin-
guished, if it does not happen to-night, it must, sooner or
later, by the Bill receiving it final defeat in Committee.--
( Cheers.) The Bill would encumber the claimants with
new and greater difficulties, and if they think they can
do this with safety to the best interests of the country, of
Ireland, and of the Union, on which they set so just a value.
I admire their spirit, I refrain from questioning their mo-
tives, although that is a very large admission ; but I must ex-
press my disbelief of their statesmanlike qualities, or their fit-
ness to govern. It was only in the course of last year
that we had an admission from the Right lion. Baronet,
when he was on the point of receiving the reins of Go-
vernment, that Ireland formed his great difficulty. I
only wish further to advert to that in which seemed to lie
the whole question, that is, the consideration whether the
Bill has any tendency to impede and obstruct the legiti-
mate attainment and maintenance of the elective franchise,
or whether it is an exaggeration to impute to it such an
object. The great argument from the Opposition is, that
this Bill will disfranchise corrupt pretenders to a franchise
which they have no right to enjoy. I have every
wish to see that accomplished; but I do not
wish to see it carried into effect against the
honest, legitimate claimant.—( Hear.) In my view of it,
of all the hollow and vain sophistries that could be pro-
pounded, this is the hollowest and vainest.—(Loud
cheers.) If all men were what they should be—if political
parties had not a tendency to impede their opponents—if
i landlords had not an object in coercing and controlling
those under them—if agents, solicitors, and witnesses, were
not always anxious to promote the views of their employers
—and further, if all Assistant-Barristers and Judges were
wholly influenced by party predilections—l feel that we
might leave the Irish constituency in all the meshes
and checks of the Bill which the Noble Lord proposes
to place around them. Even then I have some misgiving
as to the eleven-headed form of the notice, and I cannot
but apprehend that some link in the chain might occa-
sionally be forced to give way. A landlord might be
found here and there to be disposed to coerce and control
his tenant ; agents may co-operate with them, and even
Assistant-Barristers and Judges; and if any of these
things happen, that circumstance arises which seems to me
the chief objection to this Bill, which is, that not
merely fraudulent and corrupt voters are disc
franchised, hut, on the contrary, such persons
seem to tine more easily induced, and to have
a kind of natural propensity to encounter, all diffi-
culties placed in their way, but in their stead the honestly
qualified and well-intentioned person is led easily to be
deterred from running the guantlet or any of the hazards
to which the provisions of this Bill, either by the authority
of superiors or the activity of partisans, will contrive to
subject them.—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet ob-
served that the question of the number who at present
enjoy the elective franchise was quite unconnected with
this question. I admit that there is no direct depend-
ence, but when it is stated, as it was, and, I be-
lieve, on authentic grounds, by the Hon. Member
for Cork, that in that county there are, on computation this
ye2r, out of a population of 800,000, but 2,000 would
enjoy the elective franchise there. I much question whe-
ther the present system has so encouraged the undue pre-
tensions of unqualified voters, and whether it does not
rather prove the inconvenience of the present system is
displayed in keeping out those who are qualified to vote.
—( Cheers.) I concur in the proposition laid down by
several Hon. Members, and particularly by my Noble
Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, that the object
of all registration ought to be to give every possi-
ble facility to the attainment and defence of
public rights, and not to pleee any impediment in
the way which was not absolutely called for, and if I must
choose between the two evils. I think it would be better
that an unqualified person should 'cote, than that a person
duly qualified should be prevented from voting.—( Cheers. )
We have, Sir, a limited elective franchise in the three
countries, and certainly not to the least extent in Ireland.
I am not prepared, at present to give consentjuot I
a
anYr_
at
position for further encouraging its extension,
least prepared, with some anxiety, to watch
any attempt further to limit, fetter, and obstruct
and it is because, Sir, I believe that
thisadopted in
its entirety, is eminently calculated so to fetter,
lancestter in the,obstrut,
and impair the franchise, and to plac ta hind Billagainst
l