The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-06 00:00:00

LAW AMENDMENT BILL

Sir W.- JOLLIFFE wished to ask the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment whether he had received any communications
from the presidents of the three medical colleges with
respeet to this Bill, and whether it was the intention of
the Government to oppose or support it?
Sir G. GREY said he had received communications
from these bodies, requesting to be allowed to wait upon
him as a deputation ; and if the Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) had been in his
place, it was his intention to have asked him to postpone
the second reading of this Bill, as it had only been
printed that morning, and as the President of the Col-
lege of Physicians, and others, had not had an opportu-
nity of stating their objections to it. He had also re-
ceived communications from persons connected with the
medical profession, and as he was as yet ignorant of
their objections, the postponement of the second reading
of the Bill was indispensable. No doubt the Hon.
Gentleman would be in his place in the course of the
day, and he should endeavour to induce him to consent
to its postponement.
DRAINAGE OF LANDS BILL. _ _

On the motion for going into Committee on this Bill,
Colonel SIBTHORP rose and inquired if the Noble
Lord ( Lincoln) would have any objection to intro-
du...= a clause into the Bill for the protection of copy-
holders, who, without the insertion of such a clause,
would be materially injured ? He disapproved of the
machinery by which the Bill was proposed to be carried
out, as it would lead to the appointment of commis-
sioners and others who would have nothing better to do
than going about the country, without conferring any
real good upon property.
Lord LINCOLN certainly should object to the in-
sertion of such an amendment in this Bill, which
referred simply to property, and not to the mode in
which it was held. It was an amendment which would
more properly find a place in a Bill having direct refer-
ence to copy holders. He, however, at the same time,
fully admitted that the laws relating to copyholders re-
quired amendment, and he should be happy to
lend his assistance to the Gallant Colonel, or
to any other Honourable Member who might
bring forward a Bill for the purpose of amending those
laws. It was a mistake to say that new commis-
sioners would be appointed to carry out the Bill, as the
Enclosure Commissioners would be entrusted with the
carrying of it out: it certainly would not add to their
emolument, but it would add materially to the labour
which they were now called upon to perform.
After a few words from Sir G. STRICKLAND, the
House went into Committee on the Bill.
The clauses up to 17 were agreed to.
Sir G. STRICKLAND moved an amendment in the
17th clause.

After a few words from the Earl of Lincoln, Colonel
Sibthorp, and Mr. Hume, the original clause was
agreed to.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to.
The House then resumed, and the report was ordered
to be brought up on Friday next.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS. _ _

On the order of the day for the second reading of the
Registration of Voters Bill being read,
Mr. WALPOLE called the attention of the House to
the reckless manner in which objections were taken to
voters, not in the hope that the votes will be struck off the
roll, but that the voters may be deterred from coming up to
the hustings. A number of persons were paid to make
these objections, and he would ask the House, ought
there not to be some guaranteee for the bond fide
character of the objector? He thought that it was abso •
lutely necessary that the objector to a vote should be
resident in the same district as the person to whose vote
the objection was made. It would also be of great
benefit to the country, and the means of saving much
trouble, if the objector and the voter had an opportunity
of communicating with each other before they came
before the court. He thought also that a certain
sum of money should be paid into the court by
the objector, and, in case of his succeeding in his
objection, it should be returned to him, but if he failed
it should be handed over to the party to whose vote the
objection was made. In conclusion, he ought to men-
tion that there was one of the suggestions made by the
Committee that was not inserted in this Bill. That was
with reference to what was called the system of splitting,
namely, the plan of dividing a house into so many
compartments, giving a vote for each. He should
venture hereafter to call the attention of the House
to the subject, but as it was likely to cause much
party discussion, he had for the present omitted it.
The subject was one of immense importance, and de-
serving the most serious attention of the Legislature.
The other suggestion of the Committee was that there
should be paid public officers to investigate these ob-
jections. He thought that under the present system the
business was hurried over much too quick. That was,
however, a question for the Executive Government. Ile
hoped that the Government would discontinue the practice
of placing persons in the anomalous position of judges
for one part of the year, and in their places advocates
for the remainder. The one (ace was not compatible

with the other, and he hoped that the system would be
altogether changed. These were the observations he
had to make to the House upon this measure. It would
remedy the reckless and indiscriminate manner in which
these objections were taken to the best and most un-
doubted voters, and save much serious and unnecessary
expense in defence of their votes, which were
attaked year after year on the same grounds, and with
the same chances of success.—•(Cheers.)
Sir G. GREY said that he did not rise for the pur•
pose of following the Hon. Gentleman through all the
clauses of the Bill, but merely to express a hope that
the House would permit the second reading to take place
without any objection. The Bill was one which em-
bodied many valuable suggestions made by the Com-
mittee, and was very likely to prove most beneficial in
its effects.

Mr. BRIGHT said he rose for the purpose of calling
the attention of the House fur one moment to the
statements which were made on moving for this Com-
mittee by the Hon. Member for Warwickshire. It was
stated that choice was made in serving these objections
to persons whose ♦otes were been known to be legal, and
who resided at the greatest distance from the courts. The
report of the Committee did not bear out this statement.
There were 400 different definitions of copyhold tenants,
250 of leasehold, 50 of occupying, and 576 of free-
holders, making a total of 1,276 different definitions of
these voters; and therefore, when such a state of.tbings
existed, it was absolutely necessary to Lave great freedom
allowed for the making of objections.—( Hear, hear.)
He had the same objection, however, as the lion. Gentle.
man—namely, to increase the number of voters, and
although he did not approve of the whole of the
measure, he should be happy to aid the Honourable
Gentleman or any one else in placing properly qualified
persons upon the register. He considered that the
Anti-Corn-law League had acted fairly and openly in
Warwickshire.

Mr. NEWDEGATE said the Committee appointed
to consider the existing state of registration, in accord-
ance with whose recommendations this Bill had been
framed, consisted of members of all shades of political
opinions. He contended that the charges were true,
which he had on a former occasion brought against
Mr. Wilson, the Chairman of the Anti-Corn-law League,
with respect to his proceedings relating to the regis-
tration in Warwickshire, Staffordshire, and other coun-
ties, and quoted registration returns to show that the
League had improperly interfered with the registration,
In proof of this, he stated that fifty persons claimed to
be registered in Barnsley for a few houses, called
" Bright's Buildings," the whole value of which was not
more than 1,5901.
Mr. V. SMITH should vote in favour of the Bill, but
he considered that the Bill did not make sufficient pro-
vision for preventing persons who had had their names
properly placed on the register from being harassed by
frivolous objections to their votes year after year. He
trusted, therefore, that the Bill would be considered in
Committee.
After a few words from Mr. ADDERLEY in favour
of the Bill,
Mr. G. lIEATHCOTE said he considered that
parties sustaining objections, and persons objected to,
who sustained their votes, should be entitled to costs for
the trouble to which they were put.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER dwelt
upon the fact that the Committee .from whom the Bill
emanated represented all shades of political opinion, and
that they were unanimous in all their recommendations.
Mr. GISBORNE thought that by one of the pro-
visions of the Bill there was a limitation of the franchise;
in other points he thought the measure unobjectionable.
The Bill was then read a second time.
HOSIERY MANUFACTURE BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this
Bill being read,
Sir H. HALFORD presented a petition from his con•
stituency in favour of the Bill, and praying that it might
be passed into law as soon as possible. Two other peti-
tions were presented in favour of the Bill.
Mr. GISBORNE presented a petition from Leicester
against the Bill.
S'r H. lIALFORD felt bound to move the second
read of this Bill. In 1844 a Commission was ap
I::.,:ed to inquire into the distress that prevailed,
which t !;t he producedvuld b
ae g mtoos t r
eaabdl e
to r etphoer t,H
oaansde fro
somem
extracts. (The Hon. Atember read from this document
several passages, which stated that there was a gra hal
reduction in t,hefrohlwagels of those eraployei in the
hosiery trade
nquiz
twhBeaslf4 down to the _me at
instituted, and that the
gwehniechral appearancetbeiworkers was extremely
wretched, while demoralizatrioancT t pace with the misery
of this class of the community
the
ehe report also
demandaha
thatfor
stated that the increase
affording
labour led to no increase in the wages,
the parents were totally incapableageosf
their children, not only education, but the actual meansg
of existence. Such having been the result of this
Com-
mission, he would ask the House whether they should
refuse to redress these evils. He believed the provisions
of this Bill would meet the circumstances of this case,
but in erder that it might be rendered as effective
as possible, if the House would grant him the second
reading he would move that the Bill be referred
to a Select Committee. What was the case with re-