The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-19 00:00:00

existence. Some of these might be public persons, or
abroad ; and although the landlord might be satisfied of
the fact, yet they all knew how difficult it was to prove in
a Court of Justice. But suppose he succeeded, and that

,he Assistant-Barrister had:deeided in his favour, he might

be dragged up to the county town before the Judge of
Assize, and have to bring his witnesses there. The Judge

might differ from the Assistant. Barrister, revise his
deci-
sion, and mulct the unfortunate claimant in costs for

seeking, not his own advantage, but to execute a
duty which he conscientiously believed his country had
imposed on him. He would not say that the object of the
Noble Lord was the obstruction or the annihilation of the
franchise, but he would say, that the effect of the present
Bill would be both its obstruction and aunihila-

tion. He objected to the actual revision, as proposed by
the Bill, and for this reason, that the claimant would be
called on yearly to defend his title. The Bill was still
more unjust with respect to the question of value, and
there was a great difference between the proposed mea-
sure, as regarded that subject in Ireland, and as the law
existed in Scotland. When the value was once settled in
Scotland, that settlement was held good during the whole
time the lease continued. Why should they, however,
have one form of value in Ireland and another in Scotland ?
The effect of all these clauses would be, either great
excitement throughout the country, or that the electors
would retire altogether in disgust from the prosecution
of their claims. He did not think, however, that the
landlords themselves would find that their permanent in-
terests could be promoted, by creating among the
electoral body a spirit of sullen discontent.—(Hear,
hear.) With respect to the double appeal, he
should object to it, on the principle that it would mix up
the Judges with questions of politics. He thought such a
circumstance would be a great misfortune, and especially
in a country where, he was sorry to say, the opinion enter-
tained of the impartiality of the Judges was not so great as
to allow of that new experiment. He should not forget to
mention another inconvenience of an annual appeal, and

that was the length of time which it would occupy. He
had been informed by a friend, on whose accuracy he could
'rely, that with such an appeal it would take six months to
go through the registry in the county Cork, With all
these embarrassments, and all these objections to the mea-

sure, he would call on the House to pause before they
agreed to go into Committee on the Bill. He believed
that by it the elective franchise would be annihilated in
Ireland, and that the Members sent to that House would

be nothing more than the nominees of the aristocracy.
Mr. LITTON said that if the Bill were such as some
Hon. Gentleman opposite had represented it to be, he
should be the first to vote against it. He believed, how-
ever, that many errcrs prevailed upon the subject, and he
heard nothing which could fairly militate against the prin-
ciple of the proposed measure. It was admitted on all
hands that there were evils in the present system of regis•
tration in Ireland, and that those evils required some re-
medy. The speech of his Hon. Friend the Member for
Galway was, from beginning to end, full of objections on
points of detail only. And yet his Hon Friend would not
consent to the passing of the Bill, merely because it did
not define the franchise, which was not its object. That
franchise was already defined by ten out of the twelve
Judges. Those ten Judges had decided that the true con-
struction of the law was, that persons claiming to register
should have such an interest as that a good and solvent
tenant could afford to pay them 101. a year beside the rent.
It had been said, however, that the decision of the ten
Judges was not binding ; but he (Mr. Litton) considered
it, on the contrary, as part of the law of the land. The
case was a reserved one, and every lawyer knew that the
decision in such a case was as binding as in a Crown
case reserved. Chief Justice Bushe had written to
Lord Chief Justice Denman on the subject, and the an-
swer of the Lord Chief Justice was that " he had no dif-
ficulty in stating that each of the Judges in England held
himself bound by the decision of the majority, whether his
own opinion agreed or not with that of the majority, or
whether or not the case had been argued by counsel."
The question of the franchise was, therefore, settled by
the twelve Judges, and one advantage of the Bill was,
that the Assistant-Barristers would bei bound by their de-
cision. As long as the Assistant-Barristers register on
the principle of beneficial value, instead of actual value, it
is an error on which there ought to be an appeal, and to
deny one is, in effect, to deprive him who has a claim to it
of the franchise. If it be established, so that those gentle-
men would accept the evidence of the party claiming in
preference to any other, on the ground that he was best ac-
quainted with his own property, what protection was there
for the bona fide voter? Undoubtedly by the Reform Bill
the claimant was allowed to be examined with others, but to
receive his evidence in preference to any other was no-
thing less than a mockery of the franchise. They had
heard much of the impropriety of making an appeal to the
Judges—but, in fact, they possessed it already. It had al-
ways been given to them, and was the best tribunal that could
be or ever had been had for such a purpose. He begged to
refer Hon. Gentlemen to the evidence that had been given
that the Assistant-Barristers acted on the principles he
had stated. When on the Committee he maintained there
was ample time for these Gentlemen to have disclaimed
the charges brought against them, but they had not done
so, and therefore he said they ought to have the power
of appeal, and the Judges, from their knowledge and
station, were the proper persons to appeal to. He held in
his hand two letters from Gentlemen who informed him
they had heard Assistant-Barristers say they would not be
bound by the decisions of the Judges—not that he accused
them of political corruption, but he did of political bias,
and therefore again he claimed the right of appeal. He
now came to the second grievance of which they com-
plained—the number of fraudulent votes. Wily, upon
every scrutiny and Committee were numerous names struck
off, because the Committees decided that there had been
perjury—be it upon both sides. He still complained of
it, and was he to be told because the machinery of this
Bill was onerous, the principle was to be rejected,
while the proportion of a shilling to a pound would be the
expense of revision, as compared with scrutiny? Was he
then to be told, when the constituency was swamped with
fraudulent voters, they were to have no revision ? With
respect to the decision of the Judges, would the House
believe a Bill brought in by Mr. Justice Wolfe, was en-
titled a Bill to explain doubts respecting the iranchise ?
and it was said by Gentlemen opposite to be the redeeming
feature of that Bill, that it defined the franchise. lie
asked the Government whether they admitted that the fair
constituency was liable to be encountered by a vast num-
ber of fictitious votes ; and if they did, he asked the
Noble Lord ( Morpeth) if this was the gratitude which he
professed he owed for the support of the Irish people ?
but he told the Noble Lord, instead of having the support
of the Irish people, he had it not ; he was not supported by
9:loths of the wealth, the intelligence, or respectability
of Ireland. (Cries of " Question, question.")
I wish to know whether it is their intention to support him
in his agitation for the repeal of the Union—an agitation
which every old woman in Ireland—every man in Ireland
with an ounce of sense, knows to be merely a pecuniary
agitation ? All the meetings for opposition to this Bill
were failures.---( Cheers and laughter.) He concluded
by asking the Government, if, upon being beaten upon this
amendment, they would support the Learned Member for
Dublin in the several amendments of which he had given
not ice ?—( Cheers. )
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said—Sir, It has often been
my fortune to resist in this House motions, which, as I
contended, had the obvious tendency of unsettling
the franchise which was thereby given.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) But I must declare that, of all the motions which
went to unsettle the principles of the Reform Bill, the pro-
position of the Noble Lord is the most formidable.—
( Cheers.) Arid I say this, because I think that, with re-
gard to other propositions, they generally had this argu-
ment in their favour, that they partook of the general spirit
of the Reform Act—(l,er, hear)—that they were in
favour of a larger extension of the franchise—and of
the votes to be given by the people of this United,
kingdom, for their representations in Parliament.—
( Cheers.) So far, with some excuse and colour, they
claimed to be in accordance with the objects and intention
of the Reform Bill.—( Hear, hear.) But the object of
this tneasure is to begin a retrograde course—(Cheers)—
by slow degrees to diminish, to restrict, and abridge the
franchise of the whole people. You begin with one part
of the United Kingdom—and you show that you will
hereafter endeavour to bring all back to the state from
which we have advanced, and to take away the franchise
as far as you can.—( Cheers.) You show that you con-
sider the man who asks for it a public enemy.—(Great
cheering.) You show the intention to diminish by slow
degrees, and ultimately to destroy, the franchise, which the
Reform Bill (as I contend) liberally bestowed.—( Very
great cheering.) It gives me little satisfaction in this
alarm that it is only in one portion of the United Kingdom
you are going back from the principles of the Reform
Bill—( Hear)—because I see, in all parts, evils arising,
which have attracted the attention of the Government, and
which have caused matters to be originated by the Govern-
ment in this House, some of which have been agreed to in the
other House of Parliament. It is acknowledged, that in
our portion of the United Kingdom, bribery and perjury
have been proved. We have had instances of persons who
themselves were not perfectly free from the charge, and
who might not themselves take the oath with a free con-
science, putting the oath to others.—( Cheers.) There is
in this country the evil of an annual registration—there is
fictitious voting in Scotland.—( Hear, hear ) Now, I ask,
Sir, to which of the evils have Hon. Gentlemen opposite
directed their attention ?—( Cheers.) To none whatever.
—(Repeated cheers.) But when there is a case in which
we can quote instances of bribery, intimidation, and cor-
ruption, upon which they can diminish the franchise, upon
that alone they are ready to attempt any remedy, and that
alone they deem worthy of their peculiar legislation.
Before I enter upon the consideration of this Bill, intro-
duced as it is, with far different intentions and larger ob-
jects than it professes, viewing it as I do, as not only con-
nected with Ireland, as meant not solely to deprive a
great portion of the people of Ireland of their participation
in the franchise, but as tending to abridge and destroy the
franchise of the three kingdoms.—(Cheers and laughter
from the Tory benches.) Sir, the attempt has been ma-
naged with great skill ad adroitness; because, Sir, it is not
difficult to raise a prejudice on Irish questions, which you
could not excite in the discussion of a question relating to
other parts of the United Kingdom.—( Hear, and
cheers, from both sides of the house.) I must here
call the attention of the House to what is the present state
of registration in English counties, to which I brought the
attention of the House last year, arid which is the subject
of a Bill which I have introduced this session. In an Eng-
lish county the freeholder has nothing more to do than to
claim his vote ; for the officers are bound to take care of
the claim, and the Revising Barrister has nothing to do
with it unless an objection is made. If no objection be made
the Revising Barrister has nothing to do but to put down
the vote on the register. The freeholder is, however, sub-
ject to this vexation, that in the following year his vote may
be again and again objected to.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
I have proposed a remedy for what I think the vexatious
nature of this mode of registration. I have proposed a pro-
vision that if the freeholds has proved his qualification he
shall not be obliged to answer objections unless a change
has taken place in the circumstances of that qualification
during the following year. That is what I have proposed,
but he has even now one advantage, that when he makes
his claim he has not to prove his title. But what does the
Noblc Lora prope,c tliake rne.aus of
proving the title in ,-.14,! iastalce far more difficult than