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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1840.

it now is—rspccially to those who are unlettered.—( Hear.)

But when the Noble Lords adds those ❑ew disadvantages,

does he leave the freeholder the advantages which in Ireland
he has for eight years ?—( Hear.) By no means. He not
only takes from him the advantages which he has, but
brings him also into the disadvantages and vexations
of the English system.—( Hear, hear.) He tasks the
freeholders in both ways. He leaves him subject to the
disadvantages under which he labours at present, but
wherever disadvantages do not exist, he invents them for

Cheers.) I ask the Noble Lord is this or is it
not the system which he designs for England ?—( Great
cheering from both sides of the House.) I ask is the
House prepared to have the system as it is—to accept
the alterations which I have proposed, or to introduce
into England the restrictions which the Noble Lord proposes
to apply to Ireland? The Noble Lord proposes that the
voter having made good his claim shall not only be liable
to question in the following year before the Assistant-Bar-
rister, but shall also be liable to answer an appeal against
his vote before the Judge at the Assize,—( Hear, hear.)
Do you propose that this shall be the case with the Eng-
lish freeholder? Ido not know what the answer may be,
but I shall not be dissatisfied with either side of the alter-

native. If the Noble Lord says he does not intend this
measure for England, then I say he departs from those
principles of impartiality upon which we have professed to
act.—(Cheers.) If he says he intends to extend this
measure to England, then I warn the people of England
that this is a plan not merely to destroy the franchise of
the people of Ireland, but to deprive the people of England
of theirs.—( Loud cheering on both sides of the House.)
There are some things very remarkable with regard to this
Bill, and I first wish to call the attention of the House to
two statements which have been made on two several oc-
casions of importance. The passing of the Catholic
Emancipation Bill in 1829, and of the Reform Bill in
1832. Great and important, more than any other mea-
sures in our time as these were, the greater is the
weight which we must attach to the declarations of
those who took part in carrying them through
Parliament. In 1829 the Right Honourable Baronet

the Member for Tamworth, brought forward two measures
—the one a large concession to the Roman Catholics,
both as to office and to seats in Parliament—the other a
measure of disfranchisement and disqualification. But
with regard even to this latter, the Right Hon. Baronet
was careful in showing to the House that what he wished
really was to establish an indepcndeut and respectable
yeomanry in Irel and, and although he disfranchised more
than 200,000 of those who held the franchise before, yet
to those to whom he preserved it he would give every
means of exercising their rights. —( Hear, and cheers.)
When it was objected that the Revising-Barrister might
arbitrarily reject the claim, the Right Hon. Baronet said
that the appeal to the Judge of Assize would remove every
objection on the part of the freeholder. The right of
appeal was given to the freeholder alone upon the ques-
tion of fact, the value of his freehold, in which appeal he
would have the advantage of a Jury. There you have the
principle that those who have a right should have the
power of claiming before the Assistant-Barrister, but
should also have the right of appeal to the Judge of Assize
and a Jury. It must be confessed that here, so far, there
teas a popular spirit in the Bill, and I confess that I do
not regret that I gave my support to the Bill. But what
does the Noble Lord do?—( Cheers.) In the 31st clause he
proposes that if the claim be objected to, the Judge of
Assize shall investigate in the same manner as that of a
person whose claim had been rejected by the Assistant
Barrister, save and except that there shall be no Jury
whatever. By that clause the Noble Lord destroyed the
protection which the Right Hon. Baronet had given, and
he shows in this and iii other clauses, teat he at least had
confidence in that popular body—the Jury.—( Cheers.)
When this Bill was brought in it was said that there was
to be nothing in it at all to affect the franchise, and this
brings me to the question that has been urged by the gea-
tleman who spoke last. The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man said that the twelves Judges had come to a decision
upon the franchise, and that their judgment would now be-
come the law of the land by the Noble Lord's Bill, that the
Judges at Assize were alone to have the power to decide.
It is proposed that you should go from the Revising-Bar-
rister to the Judge, and that the Judge should decide on
the question. If you do that you might as well put a
clause in your Bill enacting what the franchise is to be.
The Judges may reverse the opinionlof any Assistant-
Barrister wherever they think it is erroneous, and in that
manner the franchise would be affected and decided upon
by the Bill. But I would beg to call the attention of the
House to the declarations made in the House of Lords at
the time of the Reform Bill, by the Duke of Richmond
and the Marquis of Lansdowne, who formed part of the
Government of Lord Gicy. They declared that the oath
contained in the Act of 1829 was to be altered, and that
certain words in which a question had arisen relative to
the solvent tenants of 10/. should bo omitted, so that there
might be a clear meaning given to the franchise.—( Hear,
bear.) We have proposed in conformity with that opinion
several times to introduce into the Irish Reform Act cer-
tain words with regard to the ,franchise, but the Noble
Lord proposes no such thing, because if he did it
would be supporting his former colleagues.—( Cheers.) Ho
leaves that out of the Bill, but he leaves it quite
certain that it is this Bill that shall be the interpretation of
the franchise—that the restrictive interpretation, and no
other, shall prevail.—(Cheers.) Sir, I do not think that
Mr. Baron Richards is to be treated with that contempt
which the lion. and Learned Gentleman opposite has
poured upon him ; but when Mr. Baron Richards and an-
other Learned Judge gave their opinion contrary to the
ten, and their reasons for that opinion, it is a question of
doubt—(Hear, hear)—and being a question of doubt, I
prefer that we should have a Bill that would settle the
matter according to the opinions and declarations of the
members o f Lord Grey's Cabinet at the time of the Re-
form Bill, than that you should agree to a Bill which
covertly and indirectly, but most effectually, upsets all
their declarations.—(Cheers.) If you with to legislate
primarily upon this subject, you must clear up those doubts
that exist with regard to the franchise, and not endeavour
to restrict it. I object, last of all, to this power given to
the Judges, which is to be a supreme power over Parlia-
ment, and especially over the House of Commons.—
( Hear, hear.) The Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man who list sat down stated, to my great surprise, that
the appeal had always been given to the Judges. Appeal
given to the Judges Why this House, more than a cen-
tury ago, was indignant because a Court of Justice, at the
head of which sat no less a man than Lord Holt, pre-
sumed to give an opinion on the right of sending Mem-
bers to this House. This House passed a resolution de-
claring that it was the sole judge, and yet after this the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman says the Judges are to be
the sole Court of Appeal, and always have been with re-
pcct to the right of voting.—(Cheers.) It is very diffi-
cult to say how far a register, which has been once made
and examined by a competent authority, should be revised.
If you propose to give this power generally to Courts of
Justice, you will find, before any very long time, that their
interpretations will be so restrictive of the franchise, that
they have such strict legal definitions—such modes
of refining on former decisions—such modes of ad-
vancing by degrees, so as to exclude the claimant and nar-
row the body in whom the franchise is vested.—( Rear,
hear.) I say that you will find that you have
entirely destroyed the spirit of the Reform Act, and that
that which we were most careful to preserve—namely, the
power and authority of this House, having been parted
with, the power of the people will be gone, and with it the
power of their Representatives.—: Cheers.) The provi-
sions of this Bill, as they were stated by the Noble
Lord, consist first in the necessity of an annual Court of
Registration; secondly, in the appeal to the Judges;
and thirdly, in excluding an appeal to a Committee of
the House cf Commons. With regard to the first ques-
tion I think I have shown that the necessity of applying
annually, even after the vote has been established,
creates great mischief and vexation. I have proposed,
therefore, that with respect to England, you should not
continue that vexation. Let us see how it is carried on
in England, where there are the greatest facilities for
registration. Why persons of wealth of the same political
opinions form themselves into associations and combine
together, and pay large sums of money for attend-
ance in the Registration Courts. That system is most
expensive—do you imagine the expense will be more
easily borne in Ireland ?—(Cheers.) As the law stands
with regard to England, the Revising-Barrister may sit in
various places, and if there is a place at which there are
a greater number of votes objected to, he can go to that
place, and decide them on the spot; and I mentioned an
instance the other day as having occurred, and I will now
name the place—Saddleworth; the Revising Barris-
ters had not intended to go to Saddleworth ; there were a
great many objections on the list, and on becoming ac-
quainted with that fact they immediately gave notice that
they would sit at Saddleworth, and the consequence was
that every objection was withdrawn.—( Cheers.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite by the Bill of 1829, gave
power to the Lord Lieutenant to appoint the places. But
the Noble Lord does not give any such power—he gives
him a power to comply with the requisition and request
made by certain Magistrates—or a majority of a meeting
of Magistrates. Why the poor freeholders who wish
their cases to be tried within four or five miles of their
dwellings, might petition the Lord-Lieutenant, but accord-
ing to this Bill ten might go to the Magistrates and ask
them to meet, but I can imagine the probability of the
Magistrate saying we have no interest in these votes, and
therefore so far from petitioning the Lord-Lieutenant, we
will let the Revising-Barristers go where they went before,
and let these freeholders seek their remedy as the) may
—( Hear, hear, hear.) I believe that will be the case ; and
therefore the Noble Lord in every instance, not only gives
the Irish the vexations of England but gives them full
measure.—( Laughter.) He gives them something over,
some addition of torment, difficulty, and vexation, in order
to show that whatever we have in England that is mis-
chievous and objectionable, of that at least he is ready to
impart to Ireland her full share. In 1829 Lord Farn-
ham objected to sending the freeholder to the assize town,
and stated that it would cost him half his freehold to go
there. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite had
stated that the people of Ireland do not understand this
measure. I think the first year it came into operation the
voter would understand it pretty well.—( Laughter and
cheers.) We have heard much of the agitation in oppo-
sition to this Bill, and of false representations, and we are
told that a great mass of the people are for it—that all the
character, respectability, and intelligence of the country
are for it—but, somehow or other, the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin by his magic art imposes on the
people.—( Cheers and heighten ) What ! are there not
Associations in Ireland—Conservative Associations of
Registration who have the power to explain to the people
what the object of the Bill is ?—(Cheers.) It seems to
me they are giving extraordinary credit to the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman when they say that any repr -
sentation of his would be believed, while any repress 4
tation against what he said, would be disbelieved.—
( Hear, hear.) That is their representation, and there
may be some truth in it.—(Cheers.) Why ? Because
the people of Ireland believe that the Honourable and
Learned Member for Dublin, whatever his course of policy
may be, is animated by a sincere love and affection for the
people of Ireland.—( Cries of " Oh, oh," on the Oppo-
sition, and cheers on the Ministerial benches.) You may de-
pend on it that that influence, which I certainly at many times
have thought excessive—(lrenical cheers from the Con-
se•or?Aives)—whieh at times I have thought danzcrous.—.

(Cheers and laughter from the same party.) You may
depend upon it that it is founded more than any thing else
upon the belief which you have helped to propagate—
j (Loud cheers from the Ministerialists)—that there is a
party in this House who are determired to diminish the

franchise, the rights and privileges of the people of Ire-
land, and that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman shall

stand forward in defence of them.__( Hear, hear.) Have
not the people of Ireland seen on former occa-

sions that that has been the case ? Have they
not seen it with regard to the Roman Catholic
question ?—( Hear, hear.) Did we not see that
those who declared their greatest hostility to the conces-
sion of the Roman Catholic claims yielded their opinions,
not to Mr. Pitt, not to Mr. Fox, not to Mr. Burke, not to
Mr. Canning, not to Mr. Ponsonby, but that they did yield
to the power which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman pos-
sessed ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Why, seeing that, I say is
it woridertul that there should be this belief in the Hon.

and Learned Gentleman's representation—is it wonderful
that there should be that distrust in your representations?
—( Cheers.) Is it wonderful that if you wish Ireland
should remain tranquil, that if you wish not to see agitation
prevail in Ireland, your course should be not to introduce mea-
sures of the kind, but to allow the fair operation of admi-
nistration, the fair operation of equal laws in that country,
and not to attempt to rouse the people of Ireland again on
questions of this exciting nature.—(Cheers.) The time
has not so long passed since you were opposed to every
franchise the people of Ireland have got. If you wish
that they should entirely forget those days, the better
course for you to pursue, if you mean to have any influ-
ence in Ireland, is to abstain for the present from measures
of thiskind, and to rest satisfied with that tranquillity, with
that peace, and with that maintenance of good order, which
the gradual progress of wealth and improvement will effect
( A cry of " Oh, oh.") An Hon. Gentleman seems to
doubt my assertion, but I will bring no other evidence than
the assertion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who
spoke last. He told us we need Rot fear repeal agitation.
I remember when repeal agitation was formidable, and
when Lord Althorp said he was ready to encounter civil
war rather than consent to the repeal. Did he make
that declaration when there was no agitation to be feared,
or when there was nothing formidable? On the contrary,
he gave it as the strongest declaration which a Minister
could make when perils arose from repeal agitation.—
( Hear, hear.) I believe repeal agitation at this moment
would not have the least success, and I, opposing repeal,
certainly feel entirely at my ease with respect to any success
that that agitation may have. I believe it would not ; and
I believe so on this account, that the Administration of
Ireland for some years has induced the people to think the
Government of this country will give them fair and equal
laws. Being a people as easily governed as any on the face
of the globe, they are ready rather to trust to the bene-
fits they now derive from that Administration, than to run
the danger of repeal.—( Hear, hear.) Therefore I agree
with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite, that we
have nothing to fear. But let this Bill pass—show that
you are determined, step by step, to take away the fran-
chise—deprive them of sending Roman Catholic Members
to this House—obtain that supremacy in Ireland which
you have not had for many years—indulge in the tone of
triumph—insult, villify, arid abuse the Roman Catholics
—tell them they are a people that are ignorant, degraded,
and priest-ridden—speak of their priests in terms of con-
tumely and contempt—do all this, and you will have done
more to forward repeal agitation—(Tremendous cheers)—
you will have done more to forward the repeal agitation
than any thing the Hon. and Learned Gentleman has been
able to do in the course of his late agitation on the subject.
—( Loud cheers.) Sir, I have stated my opinion with
regard to this Bill, both as affecting the general subject of
registration, and as affecting the tranquillity of Ireland.
I now beg to state that having already explained my opi.
nions in the course of the last year, that the whole system
of registration ought to be revised. I repeated that decla-
ration a few nights ago, and my Hon. and Learned Friend
the Solicitor-General for Ireland will redeem the pledge I
gave last year, of revising the whole system of registration,
and that he will introduce a Bill regarding the registration
of Ireland, following as much as he can the system of re-
gistration pursued in England.—(Cheers.) Sir, I con-
sider the system of registration a matter of the utmost im-
portance. You may construct a system of registration
which will give little trouble and perfect security, and you
may construct it in such a way as to give the greatest vex-
ation and annoyance, and diminish the constituent body.
Therefore it has occupied much of my attention. In
former years we have been content to propose
such a measure as would be acceptable to the other House
of Parliament—adopting many things that were almost
objectionable, and forbearing to press many things which
we thought of importance. But, Sir, I think a better
plan will be to propose a general measure for Scotland,
England, and Ireland.—(Cheers.) With regard to Ire-
land there is a very considerable defect in the mode of
striking votes off the registry, and it appears to me that
there should be a security to bona fide voters which they do
not at present possess. With regard to persons who have
. died, and who, as the Noble Lord has said, have afterwards
come and voted—(A laugh)—and those who have totally
lost the franchise, there should be a means of revising the
registration at certain periods. I think, Sir, that with
regard to the former class it should be more un-
frequent, but where they have parted with the fran-
chise, wholly or in part, it should not be more unfrequent
than three years. I conceive that with respect to the Bar-
risters the power should be left as at present, and that
there should not be an appeal to the Judge. But in
order to complete this, it would be necessary to introduce
two Bills, one involving the principles I have men-
tioned, and the other respecting the franchise. With
regard to the perjury and fraud complained of, I believe
that nine-tenths of it has arisen from there being no satis-
factory test of the franchise.—( Hear, hear.) It is en-
tirely a matter of opinion, and one man may say that his
holding is worth 10/. over the rent he pays, and produce a
neighbour to swear to that effect ; while another party on
the other side starts up and says he thinks it is not, and it
goes merely to the discretion of the Barrister as to which
way he is to decide. I think, Sir, if we could define the
franchise, as was proposed in the Bills we introduced into
this House, it would be most desirable.—( Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord has omitted this, which was the most
valuable part of the Bills we brought in ; and he says,
because his Bill contains certain details of the measures
introduced by Sir Michael O'Loghlin and Sergeant Woulf,
that we are bound to adhere to these principles. Sir, I
hold myself bound to no such details—(Cheers)—it is
enough for me that the Noble Lord's Bill leaves out that
which was the most valuable part of the Bill.—(Much
cheering.) Many of the provisions of these Bills
might now be most objectionable, and the Noble
Lord has no more right to ask me to be
bound by those Bills than he would have
a right to bring in his own Arms Bill, and say that be-
cause it was a measure of Earl Grey's Government I am
bound to support it. Among the many measures which
the Government may feel it their duty to introduce, there
may be some which. in considering the whole question,
certain objections subsequently taken may be considered
valid ; and they may determine to withdraw the Bill, and
not introduce it in the same shape again. Sir, it is not
only in the power, but it is the duty of a Government to do
so ; but to say to a Government " because you have intro-
duced a similar measure in a former measure you are
bound to vote for it now," is as inconclusive a species
of reasoning as I have ever heard adopted.—( Laughter
and loud cheering.) Sir, such an argument may be ex-
ceedingly good by way of taunt, arid although that course
has not been adopted to-night, every provision of these
former measures have been referred to by way of taunt.
Sir, I say in the first place that the Bill does not contain
what was most valuable; in the next place, what it does
contain I feel to be most objectionable ; but I say above all
that the Noble Lord has combined what would be whole-
some food with so much poisonous matter of his own com-
position—(Vehement Ministerial cheering)—that I must
reject the whole, and most heartily and sincerely give my
vote against the Bill, being convinced that the Bill is not
only mischievous, but that the cause of pure and sound re-
gistration will be best served by its rejection.—(Loud and
continued cheering.)
Lord STANLEY said—Sir, there is no course more
usual in Parliamentary practice than to suffer a Bill on its
second reading to pass by general consent, and subsequently
to take the discussion on the principle of the Bill, on the
question that you, Sir, do leave the chair. But it is at
least unusual that after a Bill has been the subject of two
nights' "'debate in very full Houses upon the prin-
ciple a the measure, and after that principle,
notwithstanding the arguments and opposition of the Go-
vernment, has been asserted by no inconsiderable majority
of the House—it is unusual again to discuss the principle
of the same measure, and again to renew the objections,
'and call upon the House to repudiate its decision upon the
former occasion.—( Loud cheers.) But, Sir, I don't com-
plain of the course that has been taken—l shrink from no
discussion either of the principle or details of tha Bill ,
least of all do I complain of the manner in which the Hon.
Baronet the Member for Drogheda introduced his opposi-
tion to the measure—the mode in which he met it, or the
speech in which he introduced his opposition. Sir, it was
a good, straightforward, frank, and manly opposition to the
Bill, and the whole Bill.—(Cheers.) There is no en-
deavouring to get off by shuffling into Committees, which
are never intended to report, on Bills which are never in-
tended to be introduced.—(Vehement cheering.) It is
an honest, straightforward demand upon the House to
rescind the resolution to which_ they
have
_come, within
one month of the time; and be the evils of the system as
great, as enormous, and as unrefuted—( Oh, and cheers)
—as they are, and as undenialbrleelanasd, t,h,eywaere,ofFheer
you nothing"—he
frankly tells the peoplet of
the people of England,
" There shall be no remedy, for this Bill,
which was intended to remedy those abuses, and which
by the confession of Hon. Gentlemen on the other side does
remedy these abuses—(Cries of.. M" No, no," and cheers)—
which by the confession of the Hon. em Ga
lway
does for
does remedy them--this Bill shall be rejected without
discussion of its details—we shall repudiate the principle
of the Bill altogether, and perpetuate these gross and ac.
knowledged evils." Sir, I thank the Hon. Baronet for the
manner in which be met this motion, and I rejoice that it
will so go forth to the people of England, and Scotland,
and Ireland. It is now necessary for me, as we have been
drawn into the discussion of the principle of the Bill--it is
necessary for me, with as little of circumlocution, and
also with as little of heat as under the circumstances—
( Loud laughter, which drowned the remainder of the sen-
tence.) Sir, it is necessary for me in entering upon the
discussion of this question to consider the leading objec-
tions to this Bill, and to meet them with fair and legitimate
argument. And now, Sir, allow me to say that in the
course of the observations I have been compelled to address
to the House on a former occasion I have studiously ab-
stained from saying a single word that might be pro-
ductive of heat or violence..—(Cries of " Oh, oh.")
Let me ask whether I have been met in fhe same spirit ?
Whether I have been encountered with fair argument, or
whether prejudices have not been created against me, and
personal abuse employed in vituperation of the Bill,—
(Cheers.) No, Sir; ever since the last stage of this Bill,
I have been personally the subject of the most violent and
unscrupulous abuse on the part of the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin in every place in which be has met
the people of Ireland. Of that abuse I will say nothing
more than that I am cure no Gentleman in the Elouse ex-
pects that I should pay to it the sli;:fhtest attention.—:

(Cheers.) But there are some of the statements made
by the Learned Member as the ground for re-
jecting this Bill, which contain misrepresentation
so gross and palpable of fact, that it is impos-
sible, I should pass by without adverting to them
here, in the only place in which the Hon. Member and I
are likely to meet in discussion.—( Cheers.) Sir, the
main objections I take to have been raised to this Bill are
first—that the franchise in Ireland was unjustly restricted
by the Reform Bill as compared with England—that by
the present Bill it will be still more restricted, and that
the points of the Bill which are chiefly objectionable are
the annual registration, the appeal both ways, that appeal
being to the Judges—the granting costs; and as a last
objection to the Bill, that it does not include any defini-
tion with regard to the franchise. These, I think, are
the main objections to the Bill, and I proceed to deal
with the first—namely, the allegation of the restricted
franchise, as compared with England. Now, there are
three sentences of a Report, signed by " Daniel O'Con-
nell," as Chairman of the Committee, which states a
comparison of the franchises, and is the basis of the whole
opposition to this measure ; —" By the Scotch Reform Bill
the Scotch obtained an extension of electoral rights and
lost none—by the English Reform Bill the English ob-
tained additional parliamentary franchises and lost none—
by the Irish Reform Bill the Irish obtained substantially
one additional franchise and lost several." This is his
statement. The Noble Lord who has just sat down, in-
formed us that in all the assanits that had been made on
the Reform Bill, be had no more painful duty than of
restoring from time to time these formidable violations of
the Reform Bill, and the more so, because, in a retrograde
measure, I sought the restricting and withdrawing the
franchise conferred on Ireland. Now, Sir, on this point
let me join issue with the Noble Lord, who at the same
time that he talks abuut the inviolability of
the Reform Bill has now such an horror of
annual registration, which, as a member of Lord
Grey's Government, I was led to believe an im-
portant part of the system of the Reform Bill.
The Noble Lord is desirous that it should be maintained
in its integrity, but I think I could point the Noble
Lord's attention to a Bill which is at least as formidable an
invasion on the franchise as the present. I bold in my
hand a Bill which purports to be a Bill to ascertain and
define the right of voting in Scotland. That Bill consists
of eleven clauses, and of these, with the exception of two
about the end, there is not a clause from beginning to
end which is not a clause of absolute disfranchisement of
the people of Scotland entitled to vote under the provi-
sions of that Bill.—(Cheers.) " No person can be regis-
tered in any county of Scotland, unless a resident."
" No person shall vote as joint tenant, unless he
have a personal interest." "No person shall vote unless
in possession of rents to the value of 10/. previous to the
last day of July." "No person shall continue to vote on
a real vested interest unless ho possesses these. above all,
heritable debts." I do not say whether these are wise
provisions or not.—( Hear, hear.) To some of them I
might be prepared to accede—to some to offer the most
decided resistance ; but certainly it is singular this Bill
contains no single clause except a disfranchising one.
Yet it bears upon its back the names of the Lord Advo-
cate, Mr. Fox Maule, and Lord John Russell.—(Cheers.)
But now as to the facts, or rather the assertions
of the Honourable Member for Dublin. I do not wish
to quibble with regard to the Scotch Reform
Bill, but 1 admit, by that, a large addi-
tion was made to the constituency and rights given
they never enjoyed before, though I strongly suspect he is
not warranted in saying that no franchises were taken away.
Yet I admit that no franchise, in a popular sense, was
taken. Now listen—By the English Reform Bill the peo-
ple of England gained several franchises and lost none. I
ask the Hon. and Learned Member, who states this to the
people of Ireland, by whom, according to the Noble Lord,
he is to be considered as so-safe a guide—so infallable a mo-
nument that they may follow him without the least danger
of being led astray—(Cheers)—l ask what has become
in England of the renident freemen—of the 40s. annuitants
of counties—of the scot and lot voters—of the burgage
tenure—of the pot wallopers, and of the resident house-
holder inhabitants of cities, without other qualification ?
( Cheers.) There are six or seven franchises swept off
by the Reform Bill. The Hon. Member tells the people
of Ireland that the English lost no single fianchise by
Cheers.) What did Ireland lose by the Reform Bill ?
Has England lost the forty shilling annuitants ?
Ireland lost, with a saving for existing rights, those of
the county, of city and towns.—( Hear, hear, hear. )
The Honourable Gentleman, when that proposition
waa first made was not so strenuous an opponent of it. I
do not mean in the year 1829, but in 1831, when the Re-
form Bill was introduced. These are the words of the
Hon. and Learned Memher for Dublin ;—" I approve of
the plan laid down for voting in counties, because it affords
a prospect of forming a better class of voters. I approve
of the 101. point of exclusion, being of opinion that the
mass of householders under that sum are not entitled to
vote."—( Cheers.) And then, Sir, next year, the Hon.
Member changed his mind, and unsaid what he had said in
1831. But, Sir, with all respect to the Hon. Member, I
must confess these sudden changes have not been the effect
of impressing upon my mind the infallibility of the
Learned Gentleman's advice. But I say the people of
Ireland lost the 40s. freeholders. I admit they lost, as
England lost, the pot-wallopers, the scot and lot voters in
three or four counties of towns, the .5/. householders, but

I challenge the Hen. Member to say what other franchise
she has lost beside those small ones; and when he says
that Ireland obtained but one franchise, I ask
whether he means the leaseholds, granted to Ireland
in the counties in a larger extent than in England, as I
proved in the Hon. Gentleman's presence, and which he
has not yet denied ; or whether he means the household
franchise given to Ireland as fully as to England?
The Hon. Gentleman stated that no franchise had
been taken away, but I have shown that six or seven
were taken away He says that several were granted
to England, and but one granted to Ireland; I have
shown that the leasehold and household franchise
had been granted to Ireland. He states that many were
taken away. I have pointed out two, and challenged him
to point out more. and that is the statement of the restricted
franchise of the Reform Bill, with which he agitates the
people of Ireland on the subject. —( Cheers.) Now I say
that whether these evils exist or not the motion before the
House says that the remedy shall exist. Is it disputed that
evils do exist? Is it disputed that the lists are overloaded
with fictitious voters? Is it disputed that the chief ways of
qualification are closed?—(Cries of " No, no.") Is that
disputed Cries of " Yes, yes," and loud cheers.)
If this is disputed I must state the facts. Now I find that
in the city of Dublin there are 18,000 voters upon the
register. and there are not more than 9,000 bona fide elec-
tors.—( Cheers.) In the county of Dublin the number of
electors borne on the books is 4,000, and there is not a
real constituency of more than 2 900. In the county of
Longford there are borne upon the books 2,900, while the
real constituency amounts to not more than 1,400. In
Waterford there appears upon the hooks 2,654, while the
actual constituency does not exceed 1,143 —(Cheers.)
Not only is this so, but it must be so as long as voters can
be put upon the registry every quarter of a year, and those
who have become disqualified, either by death or by losing
the qualification, cannot be struck off. As long as the
system of certificates continues, as long as there is no
power to strike the name of a voter off the register, even
should be be dead, so long as this system continues, so
long will it hold out temptations to perjury—so long as it
enables a man to register half a dozen times, and procure
half a dozen certificates to distribute among his friends.—
( Cheers. ) I will state cases of gross abuse which have
come under my own knowledge—not my own personal
knowledge exactly, but I will give the authority on which
I make each statement. The first case to which I will
direct the attention of the House occurred in Queen's
County. In a letter which I have received from Mr.
Hamilton, of Round-pond, two persons, named Timothy
Carroll and J. Carly were registered in October 1832 for
lands which they held from Mr. C. White ; Mr. C.
White died in 1833. At the election of 1834 these two
persons attended and voted against Mr. Vigors, and took
the oaths.—(Cheers ) The next case which I will relate
to the House was a case that occurred in the county of
Longford ; and I state this on the authority of a gentle-
man who was fora short time a Member of this House.—
( Cries of " Name, name.") Mr. Cox. Mr. Cox states
that at the death of the late Lord Forbes, in December
1836, a vacancy occurred in the representation of the
county; that he stood, and was opposed by Mr. Luke
White, and that Mr. Luke White was returned; however he
petitioned against the return, and on his petition was seated ;
that there was a tenant of Mr. Maloney's, who held his
land on a lease on the life of Lord Forbes, or for twenty-
ene years. But he was registered in 1832, and had voted.
Now the death of Lord Forbes was matter of notoriety,
—it was that which had created the vacancy—yet this ma.
bad been told, I will not say by whom, that his vote was
good, because the time mentioned in his lease had not
expired, and he had actually voted. He further stated,
that ho had had bills engrossed to go before the Grand Jury,
but that he had not gone on with the matter.—( Cheers.)
Has the Honourable Gentleman who asked for facts had
enough ?—( Loud cheers from the Tory benches.) I will
give one more case, and that shall bo from the county of
Tipperary. The case was stated to me in a letter from
Mr. Kteman ; he is, I believe, the registering agent of the
Conservative party in the county of Tipperary.—(Checrs
from the Ministerial benches.) I have no personal know-
ledge of him, having never seen him, but I believe him to
be the agent of the Conservative party. He states that
there was an old man named Patrick Quinlan, who was a
tenant of Mr. Faucit ; this old man was seventy years of
age, and he held forty-two acres on lease; he was registered
in 1832, he became unable to pay his rent and surrendered
his lease in 1834. His landlord, Mr. Faucit, gave him a
house and an acre of ground, for which he was to pay
a guinea a year, but he had no lease, and yet at the
contested election he came to the poll and voted for
Otway Cave and Shiel. There was another of Mr.
Faucit's tenants, Roger Mara, who had been registered
in 1832. Mara was murdered in 1837, and a man named
G. Dalhunt had been convicted and transported for the
murder, and yet in 1840 the agent had applied to re-
gister this man's freehold, he produced the original certi-
ficate, swore he got it from Roger Mara, and the As-
sistant Barrister admitted his right to register.—( Loud
Opposition cheers.) Now I would ask the House, is it
proper that cases of this sort should be left without
a remedy.—( Hear, and loud cheers.) Is it not time
that this system should be changed, and yet, because I pro-
pose this change, the Hon. and Learned Member for
Dublin comes forward and attacks me as the enemy of
Ireland, and as desirous of restricting the franchise and de-
stroying the liberties of his country.—(Loud Ministerial
cheers.) But I have high authority in favour of an annual
system of registration. In the debate on the 6th of July,
1832, I find an Hon. and Learned Member stating that
unless they had an annual scratiny into the registration
they could have no self-protection—(Cheers)—that Eng-
land bad an annual scrutiny, and that Ireland ought to
have one also.--( Loud cheers.) That if an annual Scru-
tinye were refused, then it was impossible the system could
laste u
ayear—because, in the first Reformed Parlia-
ment,r
,
common sense of the English plan must prevail--
the annual scrutiny must be granted, and Ireland must be
ta aboven thea
placed upon the same footing as England,.—(«Ha
hear," from Mr. O'Connell, followed by loud cheers.
The Honourable Gentleman seems pleased with my
quotations; I will gn on with them.-.-(Loud chserinft.-)

In the Committee on the Irish Reform Bill on the bring-
ing up of the 29th clause, I find the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman saying, that unless an annual scrutiny took
plate, the registry would be overloaded with persons who
had no right to vote if the production of the certificate
were sufficient. " And here I beg the House to recollect
who it was that taunted me with speaking lightly of the
regard of the Irish for a vote, provided the person could
only swallow a single oath." The House will forgive me
for using the arguments of the Learned Member; lie puts
the case in the strongest possible light. In ono of his
illustrations the Hon. Member mentioned John Mahony,
and he said on that occasion, " I use the words John Ma-
hony on account of a case which happened to myself. I
was once sitting as assessor, and a man came to claim
as John Mahony. He swore he was John Mahony,
and produced his certificate. It is very well John
Mahony, write your name. He immediately took up the
pen, and, without hesitatien, wrote " Dennis O'Brien."
—( Loud cheers and laughter.) " This is only one in-
stance out of many," said the Hon. and Learned 111,-mber,
" which could be produced." "Is it too much," said
the Hon. and Learned Member on that occasion, "to ask

that the list of claims should be published—that the ob-
jections to the claims should be lodged with the Clerk of
the Peace, and that the list of objections should be pub-
lished, so that all may have a complete opportunity of
making themselves acquainted with the list of claims and
the list of objections, and that there should be an annual
scrutiny ?"_( Loud cheers.) So that the whole scope and
plan of the present Bill was seconded by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Dublin, at the time of the proposal
of the Reform Bill. Ido nut object to the Hon. and
Learned Member having changed his mind. I know
and admit that he had a perfect right to do so.
The Learned Member for Dublin should not have formerly
denounced Lord Grey's Government for not having adopted
a system, which he now denounces me as the enemy of
Ireland for adopting.—( Hear, hear.) It may be very
convenient for the Noble
.Lord the Secretary for the Co-
lonies, at once to throw over the whole of those Bills
which he has introduced himself in 1835, 1836, 1837, and
1838—it may be very convenient for the Noble Lord to
say that he does not choose to be bound by these Bills at
all; but it is singular that now, for the first tme,! the
Noble Lord says that his provisions are bad, and that there
is but one past in the Bill of 1832 which is good, and that
part I reject. It was, however, unworthy of the Noble
Lord, to come down as he did at the close of his
speech with that miserable pretence about a new mea-
sure to be brought forward at a future period of the pre-
sent Session—( Hear, hear)—and that the Learned
Member, the Solicitor for Ireland, would take into consi-
deration the whole system of the franchise, and that he
would shortly introduce a Bill on the subject.—(Opposi-
tion cheers.) Now it is rather singular to see the pre-
cise time at which this announcement was made.—( Hear,
hear.) On the 6th of March I think it was that I in-
troduced a Bill for the purpose of amending the laws
relating to the Registration of Voters in Ireland, and
at that time I certainly was led to believe there
was no intention, on the part of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, to introduce any measure on the subject. The
Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies distinctly told
me he admitted the taunts against the Government for
not going on with any measure, but that they found,
from the opposition their measures met with in another
place, that it was hopeless to introduce them, and that
was the ground on which he declined to press them on
the House of Lords.—( hear, hear.) When we discussed
the second reading of this Bill, would it not have been
competent for the Noble Lord to say, " I admit your
principle, but postpone your Bill. It is our in-
tention to bring forward a measure for the registration of
voters in Ireland, and we will leave it to the House of
Commons, and the country, to decide between them." On
the second reading of the Bill was any such intimations
put forth ? There was not a word about it—(Cheers)—
until they were beaten on the second reading.—( Renewed
cheers.) But when the Learned Member for Dublin had
expressed his gratification that the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for the Colonies, by introducing a Bill relating to the
franchise in England, had furnished a convenient excuse
for not proceeding with this measure—then it was found
convenient to promise that at some future time a Bill
should be brought forward to regulate the franchises
in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) Why wait till that last
moment ? Why wait till the present Bill was brought for-
ward? Nay, even to-night, why has not the Solicitor-
General for Ireland stated fully what is the plan he intends
to propose, even at this late hour, for the registration of
electors in Ireland? But no; it so happened that the
Noble Lord had announced his intention of introducing a
Bill for England just two days before that for which the
Committee for this Bill was fixed, in the hope of catching
some stray votes of those who felt that the power of truth
and argument was too strong to be contended against,
and the existing evils of the Irish registry required
a remedy.—(Cheers.) But the Noble Lord has an-
nounced the intention of the Solicitor-General for Ireland
to bring in a Bill for tLe registration of voters in that
country, and yet it happened, from a melancholy and
alarming occurrence, that the committal of this Bill was
postponed for nearly a fortnight, so that the Solicitor-
General for Ireland had still full time, if he had any bona
fide intention of proceeding with such a Bill, to ask for
leave to bring it in, and place it on the table of the House ;
and he need not thus have indulged in vague hints of this
and that, but he might have proceeded with his plan, and
while dealing with the difficulties of the case, he could
have met me on fair grounds before the House and
the country.—(Cheers.) Nothing of the kind, how-
ever, has been done : and when the Solicitor- General
had met with a refusal to go into Committee, then came
the Noble Lord, who tells the House of Commons that if

they will throw out the present plan they may expect to
see some general tneaaure which the Government intended
to make as perfect as possible, but they bad hitherto ccn-
sidered how they might best maintain the ascendancy of
the other House. "We will be fettered," they say, "by
no such consideration. Now that is to say if you reject this
Bill, which is a practical one, however, and which would
effect the objects they had in view—( Ironical cheers on
the Ministerial benches) " I will bring for-
ward," says the Noble Lord, " at some future
time a measure without the least reference to
a hether it will pass in the other House or not," but
which I ( Lord Stanley) will assert is but a peg for hang-
ing up the whole question.—(Cheers.) But I thank
the Noble Lord for the little light he has given with
regard to the objects he has in view. He says he is now
considering a plan fur amending the registry in England
and in Ireland. What, however, are the points most
contested on the subject? Arc they not the annual re-
gistrations, the annual revision for the purpose of striking
off fictitious votes—those of dead teen or of those who had
parted with the franchise? The Nuble Lord means, however,
to adhere to annual registration and annual revision; nay„
more, he meaas fur the first time to introduce into the English
system what is the principal objection against Inc, namely,
an appeal from the decision of the Revising-Barrister to a
higher tribunal, whether in favour of the franchise or
against it. But lam told that the Judges are not proper
persons to make the appeal to. Why not? Have they
not been found proper persons hitherto? The appeal has
been always to the Judges, and I have never heard that
that lowered the Judges in public estimation. The inter-
pretations of the franchise would thus be left to
the highest law authority, and it was proposed to
give the appeal both ways. The Noble Lord says
that the Bill proposes to give the entire adjudication to the
Judges, but I have copied that provision from the Bill of
the Noble Lord. But it is said I propose to define the
franchise. The Hon. and Learned Member for Coleraine,
has said that the Judges have already decided it. Suppose
the decisions of the ten Judges binding on the Judges
themselves, is it not equally binding on the Barristers, and
if not binding on the Judges it still remains unsettled?
Then it is said, my Bill gives the costs on an appeal. Do
Gentlemen opposite wish to give an appeal, which may
be made the moans of vexation, without costs ? Do they
mean that costs are only to be given to claimants? Does
not the man who objects to a fraudulent vote as much per-
form a public duty as the man who claims a good
vote?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Is not the man who claims
a vote to which he has no title, a nuisance
to the constituency, and ought he not to be removed?—
( Hear, bear.) Should an appeal be given without any
costs ? Does any man think that this would be favourable
to the poor claimant, and not to the rich objector?—
( Hear, hear.) Ought not the poor man to be protected
by the infliction of the costs incurred, in vindication of his

1 rights, on the groundless objector?—(Hear, hear.) It is
said this provision for costs should not apply to groundless
claims. Why not ? It would only apply to frivolous
claims. The Judge would not reject claims, unless based
on fraud or collusion.—( Hear, hear.) " Costs against a
person claiming the franchise !" it is cried, " never was
heard such an enormity I" Yet, Sir, this principle has
been sanctioned by some Bills brought in on very high
authority. In one brought in on the recommendation of a
Committee, presided over by the late Mr. Carter—and in
a Bill, on the back of which appeared the names of the
Attorney-General and the late Solicitor-General, the pre-
sent Baron Rolfe—nay, in that Bill the amount of costs was
double that proposed by this—( Hear, hear, hear)—and
that Bill was read a second time, committed, and re-
committed.—( Hear, hear, hear.) This provision still
was retained. Now, the Noble Lord has misrepre-
sented another provision of the Bill. Really these are
no matters for discussion now, but as they have been
brought up against the Bill, I cannot but notice them here.
The Noble Lord says, we have in England a great con.
venience in the Revising-Barristers being able to appoint
circuits and fix districts, and, says the Noble Lord, this
Bill only restrains a power now existing in Ireland, to fix
such places. Sir, the Lord Lieutenant possesses in Ire-
land (or I am much in error) no power of fixing places for
the revision, unless by appointing quarter sessions—( Hear,
hear)—and I introduce a provision analagous to the power
now existing in England, for appointing places on the
recommendation of the Magistrates. Is that provision
in substitution of the English power ? No I If the Noble
Lord had read the Bill he would have found it is additional
to, not substituted for, that power.—( Hear, hear.) Sir,
the Hon. Member for Galway raised many minor
objections
to the Bill, which certainly had better be considered
Committee. One of the most prominent of theemwaisn,
the form of the notice, which he says is too full. Now,
really, objections to the framing of a schedule h
are more
fitted for the discussion of a Committee—( Hear, hear)—
in point of fact, however, the notice requires nothing
state
which the claimant is not now required to ;
seven
the only
difference is, the particulars are now
put into von o
luums, and I spread them into eleven.—(Hcare, hear.)
Sir, I do most sincerely declare, that upon all these points
of detail I am prepared to go into Committee, and as fairly
and frankly to consider all the arguments which may be
urged on any one of the provisions of the Bill, as though it
had never encountered any opposition whatever.—( Hear,
hear.) But then, Sir, it is said 4, How hard that all a
person has to do is to object to a vote and throw on the
claimant the onus of proving it ?" Why, what was the pro-
vision of the English Bill in that respect ?
( Hear, hear,)
The only notice required is, " Take notice that you will
b 3 required to prove your qualification at the revising of
the list"--and then the voter must establish his claim.—
( Hear, hear.) Yet it is said lam treating Ireland with
injustice.—( Hear.) Sir, the Noble Lord complains that I
have not introduced a elause defining the disputed ques-
tion of the franchise. 1 admit it. I ant as anxious a:: any
maa for the settlement of that question. But if I intro-