The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-24 00:00:00

ere, or intrude myself between the Hon. and Learned
Member who has just sat down and my Right Hon. Ffiend
behind me. If this were a filiation to be decided by local
knowledge, I should be equally disposed to leave it to the
numerous Representatives of the Irish constituencies, who
had shown an inclination to address the House. But as it
appears to me that at this stage of the Bill, at least, it is pos-
sible, from one who pretends to neither legal nor local knowledge
to form an opinion, I shall venture to state what appears to me
to be the grounds on which a representative in this House,
bringing to the subject no knowledge beyond that general in-
formation which is common to every Hon. Member, may feel
himself justified in supporting the second reading of the Bill.
Sir, in what I have to say, I shall attempt to follow the pre-
cept rather than the extimple of the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman who has just sat down. The Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber began by declaring his intention to go into none of the
questions which might, with more advantage, be regularly
discussed when you had left the chair ; but I must say that it
appeared to me that the greater ptart of his observations did
relate to questions of detail—( Oh li—to important ques-
tions of details I admit ; but I never can consider
that whether the time be fourteen years, or whether the sum
be 51. are other than questions of detail.—( Oh, oh, from the
Opposition benches.) Sir, Ido conceive, however extraor-
dinary that avowal may seem to Hon. Gentlemen opposite—
I do conceive that if any Hon. Gentleman in this House
was convinced that the test of my Noble Friend was the
best test—then, although he might be disposed to think
that the sum of 51. was too low—then although he
might be disposed to fix it at 61., 71., 81., or 101., he should still
be acting in a reasonable and arliamentary manner if he
voted for the second reading.—(Oh, and loud cheers.) For
my own part I believe, for I had not then the honour of a seat
in this House, that this was the case in discussing the Irish
Municipal Bill—that the general principle of the Bill being ap-
proved of, it was brought in, although several divisions were
subsequently taken upon its details.--(Hear, hear.) Sir, I
have no hesitation in stating that I do apprehend
that the evils which are to be apprehended from the re-
striction of the franchise in Ireland are greater than those
which are to be dreaded from its extension.—( He ar, hear.)
Sir, I think it best that the test of my Noble Friend should be
adopted, that a greater proportion of votes should be given to
the large counties of Cork and Louth. I think it better that
they should have 8,000 rather than 2,000 voters, but whether
they are to have 8,000 or 2,000, still I prefer the test
of my Noble Friend near me.—(Cheers.) Sir, I shall
at present, upon the question of the amount of the fran-
chise—l shall confine myself to the principle of the Bill, and
it will be necessary for me to follow the example of the Noble
Lord, and look not at it alone, but also at the other Bill that
accompanies it on the table of the House. The case is cer-
tainly a grave and important one. Serious evils are admitted to
exist with regard to a precious and important right ; both par
ties in the State admit the existence of those evils, and both
have come forward with remedies which are now lying on your
table, and it is for the House to decide between them. Sir, I
cannot disguise from myself the fact that it is not on these two
Bills we are sitting in judgment.—(Hear, hear.) I say that
each of these Bills appears to me to be strongly marked by all
the great and characteristic features of the party from which
it proceeded. Those who with so much zeal and perseverance
support the Noble Lord near me will not be disinclined to ad-
mit that his measure involves those great principles upon
which the legislation of the country should be carried on.
( Hear, hear.) Now what is the end and object of legisla-
tion? If there be any person who thinks that a Bill of Regis-
tration should be a Bill of Disfranchisement in disguise—( Cheers
for the Ministerial benches)—if there be any person who thinks
that we ought so to frame the law as to take away from
the people as much as possible of that power which the
liberality of the. law has given them, there are many who
may think fit to act upon that suggestion, but there are few
who will avow it.—(Loud cheering.) I shall, therefore, in
what I have to offer to the House take the proposition for
granted, that the object of a Registration Bill is to keep
out bad voters and let in good ones.—(Cheers.) This is
not a simple object—it aims at two things quite distinct,
and which may be incompatible. It is possible to conceive
that there may be a law giving ample facilities for the ad-
mission of honest voters, but at the same time permitting a
crowd of dishonest voters to press in. It is equally obvious
that there may be a law enacting such severe scrutiny that
the dishonest voters cannot pass muster, but that such a
law will keep out many honest voters. --( Cries of " Hear,
hear.") Sir, it is the severest trial of legislation to
deal with such cases. When there is only a single object, the
case is comparatively easy ; but when there is a double object,
both cannot be enjoyed in perfection. Now, if the Bill of my
Noble Friend was superior in any respect to that of the
Noble Lord opposite, it consists in giving facilities to the re-
gistration of voters. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the
danger is greater from an undue extension of the franchise,
but i think the danger is greater from an improper restriction
of the franchise.—( Hear, hear.) Argument upon that sub-
ject is almost unnecessary ; but it is clear to me that in both
respects the Bill of my Noble Friend is superior to the Bill of
the Noble Lord, and more efficient for keeping out bad, and
letting in good, voters.—(Chee s.) / Take the machinery
provided for keeping out dishonest voters. My Hon.
Friend's machinery is this : he employs a test to ascertain the
franchise,_ which is inseparably connected with a check, acting
without any object to put it in motion, and without any sum-
mons, subpoena, assistant barristers, or judges of assize. He
strikes at the motives—he attacks the principles upon which
men seek the_franchise—he dives into the nature of things in
the heart of man, at the same time without in the smallest de-
gree impeding the honest voter • without dragging him from his
home, Without causing him the slightest anxiety, levying on him
no pecuniary charge. Now I say that such a test as that ap-
proaches as nearly as possible to that at which we should aim.
Sir, when I turn to the Noble Lord's Bill, what is the check
to keep out dishonest voters. I have looked through the Bill,
and I find absolutely only this one against the intrusion of frau-
dulent voters—eternally trying men over and over again at the
same question ad infinitum.—(Cheers.) Now if the object be
to reduce the constituency—if the object be to leave it only the
mere name and shadow of a constituency—then I say that this
plan has been well concerted for its aim, and it is worthy of
the abilitibs which no man has denied to the Noble Lord.--
( Hear, hear.) If, on the other hand, I look at it as a measure
presented in good faith to prevent fraud and perjury, then I can
designate it by no other name than childish_(" Oh," and
laughter)—cs childish, for it is a system of preventing fraudu-
lent registration, but making the registration of good voters in
the highest degree impossible. No doubt it will keep
some impo,tors out of the registry, and if we were
to select every tenth man in London there is no
doubt that some rogues would be punished. But I call
that childish legislation. Sir, Ido not call that a preventive
of fraudulent registration which is not directed against the
fraud, but which is directed against all voters, the long and
short, the blue-eyed and black-eyed, honest and dishonest.—
( Great laughter and cheering.) Sir, the Noble Lord's test is
one which has no reference either to honesty or dishonesty. I
speak in the presence of many eminent lawyers, in the presence
of many men well acquainted with the law of this country and
of Scotland, with our civil law and our Oriental dependencies,
and I ask them what they think of this system of eternal revi-
sion ? I ask the Honourable and Learned Gentleman who has
just sat down, and I should be glad to have his opinion upon
the point, what does he think of this as the only check upon
fraud ? What does he think of a system, in which,
every year, objections may be brought before the
Assistant Barrister, and if the Assistant Barrister approves of
the vote, an appeal may be had to the Judge of Assize ; next
year, precisely the same objection may be taken in the very
same words, he may be again compelled to go before the Judge
of the Assize, and so on for ever and ever. In order to keep
his franchise during one Parliament, in order to give one vote
the elector is exposed to tkis vexation that he may be seven
times compelled to go before the Assistant Barrister, and seven
times before the Court of Appeal, and if a man requires the
franchise when he comes to the years of discretion, and lives
to the ago of 70, he may have 100 law-suits to keep his name
on the register ; he may spend 1,0001., and not less than
six months of his time in pursuit of his vote.—(Cheers. )
Unless gentlemen could by that interruption remove the words
from the Bill of the Noble Lord, or distort those words out of
their plain meaning, I conceive they may as well give up the
subject. These are the words—that is their meaning. If it
be said that the right or power which the Noble Lord gives the
objectors—if it- be said that it will not be abused, I
answer that I believe it will. I again ask men of
both sides of the House--men of eminent legal know-
ledge—such men as the Honourable and Learned Gentle=
man who has just sat down ; I ask him what he thinks of such
a principle as this, and what he thinks of those arguments, by
which the Noble Lord has attempted to vindicate his measure,
and which he repeated whenever the subject was discussed,
and which he repeated last night? He (Lord Stanley) said,
I will never agree to part with this portion of my Bill, for if I
do then the person whollas once established himself upon the
register, by fraud or perjury, can never be removed. Does
the Noble Lord say that that argument will hold good in all
cases ? (Hear, hear, hear.) What says the law of
England? "If a man is once tried for a crime and ac-
quitted, then, although he be acquitted through perjury
or any fraudulent cause—although you may have evidence
by which you can bring the matter home to him—you can-
not again put him in jeopardy for the same case. ' What
says the law of England in civil cases ? "If a man bring
an action for debt or damage—if in that action judgment
goes against him from any such cause as that a witness
breaks his leg, and is, therefore, unavoidably absent, he shall
not be again suffered to bring an action in the same case."
If that be the law of England in criminal matters—if that
be the law of England in civil matters, on what principle
ought we to depart from it in the elective franchise The
Noble Lord is bound to make out distinctly such a case, and
tell us why we should not proceed the same way in the one
instance as in the other.—( Hear, hear, hear.) When
we do not go on in this manner, hearing and
re-hearing in the case of the fraudulent debtor, who has ob-
tained an estate to which he has no title, why should we go on
hearing and re-hearing for'ever in the elective franchise ? "

lam asked why the law of England is framed in a different
manner from that in which the Noble Lord proposes in
his Bill for the registration, I answer, that the law was framed
in that respect by men who took general views of tke subject
on which they legislated—who did not fix their eyes pertina-
ciously upon individual cases that might happen at times to
arise in the course of events. They say it may be an evil that
the assassin should go about the streets bearding the family
and friends of his victim with impunity; but it would be a
vastly greater evil that all the families in the community
could not live in peace and security. It may be a great evil
that the fraudulent debtor should keep possession of the estate
which he has unjustly acquired, but it would be by far a
greater evil that all honest men should be insecure in their
property, and that all society should be kept in a ferment of
litigation. So you bear with the felon and the debtor,
who is dishonest and successful in the Courts of Law, and who
has resisted just claims, and even so ought you to bear with
him while the system remains as it is—while the voter, if he
has got on the list of voters by perjury or fraud, is to be tried
again and again. ' If your object be to prevent crime, you
must know that this litigation is a fertile source of crime—a
fertile source of perjury. This litigation would produce more
inconvenience in a single year than all the wrong decisions
pronounced according to law would produce in a century.—
(Ministerial cheers.) As, then, thus stands the case, I con-
ceive my Noble Friend has proposed a remedy for
existing abuses, which will certainly keep out those
who have not a right to vote, and let in without
trouble or inconvenience those who have the right. I con-
ceive that the Noble Lord (Stanley) has proposed a system
which will not have the effect of keeping out those who have
not a right to vote ; but every body without distinction who
dislikes vexation, and expense, and trouble, and anxiety—who
dislikes feeing Counsel—who dislikes incurring the risk of
having to pay costs—these perms the Noble Lord's Bill will dis-
franchise. That the Noble Lord's Bill will disfranchise whole-
sale men who lave a right to vote, Ido not at all doubt. One
reason why I believe his system will disfranchise many who
have a right to vote is this, that I am certain it would disfran-
chise myself. I possess a vote for the University of Cambridge;
now the vote of an elector of an Irish county is not, I think, as
important as that of an elector of the University of Cambridge.
His vote is given for two Members of Parliament. He also
votes for dignities and situations which are objects of im-
portance to great men, and even to Princes of the Blood. A
vote then in an University is surely a more valuable posses-
sion than a similar one in any Irish county. The member of
the Senate of a University is generally more able to assert his
right than an Irish voter. Yet, I declare that if a system
like the Noble Lord's were established to register my
vote in Cambridge—if I were liable by any Master of Arts,
who differed from me in politics, to be compelled to go down to
Cambridge and dance attendance on the Senate House for two
days, how long think you should I retain that vote ? Indigna-
tion might support me under such an insult for some time, I