The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1841.

. he persevered with the siege of Herat, it would be war
, with England, and upon that ground it was that the Shah
of Persia abandoned that siege of Herat, and retired from
, it. But the state of the case at present was, that, upon
all the minor subjects of difference—with respect to the
courier, and so on—ample satisfaction had been afforded,
and there was only one point which remained un-
settled between the two countries, and which pre-
vented the establishment of a diplomatic in-
tercourse, and our sending out an Ambassador.
That remaining point of difference between the two coun-
tries was that relating to the fortress of Gourcal—that was
a fortress belonging to Herat. It was most important to
Herat as a military station, and also most important in a
financial point of view. The Shah of Persia had said that
he would restore Gourcal to the Shah of Herat ; but until
the restoration should have actually taken place it had not
been thought right to direct the return of our Ambassador
to the Court of Teheran. We had sent out an officer to
see the restoration of that fortress—as soon as that fortress
should be restored Col. Sheil would proceed to Teheran,
and the diplomatic relations would be restored between the
two countries. No one could feel more than he did the
importance of the subject, and the necessity there existed
of securing peace in Central Asia. He could also state
that he had every reason to hope that the Emperor of Rus-
sia was actuated by the same feelings as ourselves, and that
his aid and assistance would be rendered in composing the
differences which had taken place between this country and
the Shah of Persia. He had no objection to the produc-
tion of the papers.
Tho motion was then agreed to.
THE CANADA ORDINANCES.
The Bishop of EXETER wished to draw their Lord-
ships' attention to a question which he considered of im-
portance, as affecting their Lordships' House. It would
be recollected that certain ordinances relating to Canada
had been laid on their Lordships' table, on the 29th of
January, and were ordered to be printed. Now, if before
the lapse of thirty days from this period those documents
had been laid on the table, an address were presented,
praying the disallowance of any of them, such ordinance
could not become law--the thirty days would elapse on
Sunday, the 28th of February. Now, although those or-
dinances had been ordered to be printed on the 29th of
January, they had not been printed until the 26th of
February. This delay was most extraordinary and on
asking the Queen's printer the reason for the delay, the
reason given struck him as being still more extraordinary
than the delay itself. It was that one of the ordinances
had been sent to the Colonial-office for revision, so that
their Lordships were to wait the pleasure of the Colonial-
office. He would put it to their Lordships whether they
would have the printer to the bar of the House, to question
him on the subject.
After r few words from
L-rd DUNCANNON, which were inaudible in the
gal It ry,

ThO Bishop of EXETER said he should ask the Ne-
ble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government fur
all explanation before he presented the petition of which
he had given notice for to-morrow.
Their Lordships then adjourned at a Quarter past
Six o'Clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FRB. 22.
Tile SPEAKER took the Chair a few minutes before
Fcur o'Clock.
The Strangers' Gallery was crowded.
NEW MEMBER.
The Hon. WENTWORTH FITZWILLIAM, the newly-
elected Member for Richmond, Yorkshire, took the
oaths and his seat. The Hon. Member was introduced
by Mr. Dundas and Mr. Byng.
PRIVATE BILLS.
The South Western Railway Bill, the Eastern
Counties Railway Bill, the Manchester and Salford
Waterworks Bill, and the York and London Assurance
Company Bill, were severally read a second time and
referred to Committees.
Colonel BAILEY presented a petition against the
Poor-law Amendment Act.
Colonel BRUEN presented a petition from Carlow
in favour of Lord Stanley's Irish Registration B 11.
Sir CH ARLES COOTES presented petitions from
several places; in the Queen's County to the same effect.
Mr. SOMERS presented a petition from the Bo-
rough of Sligo, signed by 2,700 inhabitants, in favour
of the Governmeat Bill for the Registration of Voters
in Ireland, and against Lord Stanley's Bill.
CORBALLY presented a petition from a place
in Meath, praying that the Elective franchise in Ire.
land might be placed on a more clear and extended
basis.

Colonel VERNON presented a petition from a
place in Armagh, in favour of Lord Stanley's Bill
(on Irish Registration), and against the Bill of Lord
Morpeth.
Colonel RAWDON presented a petition from
Newry, Carrickfergus, and various places in the county
of Dow❑ and Armagh, in favour of Lord Morpeth's
Registration Bill.
Colonel PE RCE VAL presented petitions from Mel-
lingar, and other places, in favour of Lord Stanley's
Bill.

Mr. LUCAS presented a petition from a place in
the county of Monaghan, against the B:11 of Lord Mor-
peth, which the petitioners stated would alter the
elective franchise as established by the Reform Bill.
The Earl of LISTO WELL presented a petition in
favour of Lord Morpeth's Irish Registration Bill. We
could not, however, hear from what place, in conse-
quence of the noise which prevailed in the House.
Mr. FORTESCUE presented a petition with a
sitnil it prayer.
Mr. TOWNELY PARKER presented three pe-
titions from places in Lancashire against the Poor Law
Amendment Act.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS presented petitions from the
Manchester and Birmingham Railway Company, pray-
ing that the duty upon passengers on Railways might
be reduced.
Mr. LITTON presented petitions from Ennis-
corthy, and several other parts of Ireland, hgainst the
Ministerial measure for the Registration of Voters in
Ireland, and in favour of the Bill introduced by Lord
Stanley.
Mr. DARBY presented a petition from the Guar-
dians of a Union in Sussex, against the Poor•law
Amendment Bill.
Mr. PHILLPOTS presented a similar petition from
Gloucester.
Mr. HALL presented a petition from Monmouth
i❑ favour of Lord Morpeth's Bill for the Registration
of Voters in Ireland.
Sir R. BATESON presented petitions from Dun-
: garvon and several other parts of Ireland, in favour of
Lord Stanley's Bill for the Registration of Voters in
Ireland.
Mr. AINSWORTH presented a petition in favour
of Lord Morpeth's Bill, from Bolton.—(Loud cheers
from the Ministerial Benches.)
Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL presented a pe-
tition from Stourport, praying that the rate-payers in
vestry assembled, might have the power of ordering out-
door relief to able-bodied labourers in certain cases, and
that if such provision were not introduced into the New
Poor-law Bill it might not pass into a law.
Mr. E. ROCHE presented petitions from Kanturk,
and two other places in the county of Cork, against
Lord Stanley's Bill.
Mr. E. TENNENT presented petitions from Rath-
down, and some other places in Ireland, against Lord
Morpeth's Bill, and in favour of Lord Stanley's.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON presented petitions from
Bandon, Clonmel, and other places in Ireland, against
Lord Morpeth's Bill.

Mr. O'CONNELL presented petitions from the
counties of Antrim, Westmeath, Cavan, and other
places, praying that the House would not support the
Bill which had been brought in for the extinction of the
franchise in Ireland, but, on the contrary, support that
which had been brought in for tho extension of the
franchise.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS presented petitions from
places in the counties of York and Norfolk, praying for
Church Extension.

Mr. CLAY presented a petition from Shoreditch,
praying for the repeal of the Window-tax.
Lord CLEMENTS presented a petition from the
county of Antrim, signed by 12,241 persons, in favour
of Lord Morpeth's Registration Bill.
Mr. KELLY presented petitions from Manchester
and Kidderminster praying for the liberation of Frost,
Williams, and Jones.

Sir F. TRENCH rose to put a question to the
Speaker as to the regulation which made it necessary
for Parliamentary papers to be posted in the House of
Commons. His principal object in rising was to ask
whether Members residing at a considerable distance
might not be permitted to send papers instead of at-
tending personally ?

The SPEAKER said that members were required
to post the papers in the House, to prevent other per-
sons from availing themselves of a privilege which was
only intended for Members.

Oa the motion of Lord STANLEY the Liverpool
Gas Bill was read a second time. The Noble Lord pre-
sented a petition signed by 27,000 inhabitants of theitown
of Liverpool, expressing his gratification at finding the
House were determined to legislate upon the sub-
ject ‘f the abuses of the rc,;istration of Ireland, but
th© petitioners objected to the alteration of the franchise

proposed. by Lord Morpeth, and considered that the

. .
lovwring of the qualification would lead to practices as
corrupt as those which it was the object of the Noble
Lord's Bill to prevent. They therefore hoped that
the House would reject Lord Morpeth's Bill, and
give its assent to that of the Noble Lord the Member
ior North Lancashire.

Mr. F. SHAW presented petitions from Dublin and
other piirts'of Ireland, in favour o:1 Lord Stanley's Re-
gistration Bill

Major MACNAMARA presented three petitions
from Clare, in f.tvour of Lor d Alorpeth's Registration
Bill.

COLONEL STO- DDART.
Mr. MILNE, seeing the Nobl c's Lord, the Sceretary for Foreign. Affairs, in his place, w, )uld take that oppor-
tunity of asking him a que, stic qa relative to the
imprisonment of Col. Stoddart. Ti le House would re-
member that last year the Noble Lo. 'II was good enough
to state that Col. Stoddart had been unjustly detained
at Bolchara, and that the Governmer \t would use all
the means in their power to obtain repa ration and the re-
lease of Colonel Stoddart. He would be glad to know
whether these objects had been attained. •
Lord PALMERSTON was sorry t 9 say that the

exor!ions or Ler Majesty's Government to obtain the
liberation of Colonel Stoddart had not as yet been suc-
cessful. Still he had hopes that they would eventually
succeed in obtaining it. Colonel Stoddart had been
subjected to very severe and unjustifiable treatment
during his confinement. He would not- now go into
the details, but he might state generally that he had
reason to believe that during the time he was confined,
Colonel Stoddart might have obtained his release at
the intercession of the agent of a foreign power, but
Colonel Stoddart not knowing that the intervention of
that agent was sanctioned by his own Government
very honourably and nobly declined to avail himself of
that offer. He said that he was employed by the
British Government, and that it was only to his own
Government he would be indebted for his release.
Meantime the Government was employing all the means
in its power to effect his liberation.
Captain HAMILTON gave notice that, on Wed-
nesday, he would ask the Noble Secretary for the Co-
lonies a question respecting, the Assistant Poor-law
Commissioners, in taking evidence of witnesses in
private.
Mr. LABO UC HERE gave notice, that on the Bth
of March he would move that the House resolve itself
into Committee upon the Customs duties of the pro-
duce of the West Indies and our North American
Colonies.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL moved for an account of
all sums of money paid to the Poor Law Commis-
sioners in the years 1836, 1837, 1838, 1839, and 1840,
and also an account of all suits to which the Poor-law
Commissioners were parties, the costs incurred, and
the results of such suits.—Ordered.
Lord MAHON begged leave to renew a question
which he formerly put to the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs. He wished to know what progress had been
made in the negotiations with foreign countries respect-
ing an international copyright law ?
Lord PALMERSTON said that propositions had
been made to the Government of France, the United
States, the Germanic Confederation, Saxony, and
Prussia ; but not one of those efforts had led to any
satisfactory result.
Lord ELIOT begged to ask the Noble Lord whe-
ther he was aware of a document lately published
in a newspaper purporting to be a communication
from the Austrian Minister to the Diet of Switzerland,
respecting the suppression of convents in the latter
country.
Lord PALMERSTON would not undertake to
pledge himself to the accuracy of any documents which
might appear in a newspaper, but he had reason to be-
lieve that a note had passed between the authorities
named by the Noble Lord.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND).
Lord MORPETH presented petitions in favour of
the Bill introduced by his Lordship, and against that
brought iu by Lord Stanley, from Dunderry, in the
county of Antrim; from Arderry, in the county Down ;
from Balcurry, in the same, and from several other
places in the counties of Antrim, Down, London-
derry, and the greater portion of the counties in Ireland.
Lord STANLEY presented petitions in favour of
the Bill brought in by his Lordship from places in Ire-
land, and said that he took that opportunity of stating
that one of the petitions which he then presented in
favour of the Bill which he hat the honour to
introduce into that House was signed in conse-
quence of a public meeting held in the town of Bel-
fast about a month ago. That meeting was at-
tended by 40,000 persons convened by a requisition,
signed by 1,607 individuals, which 1,607 individuals,
he was instructed to state, represented the commercial
and landed proprietory of that part of the country to
the amount of one million one hundred and sixty thou-
sand pounds.
Lord MORPETH then moved the Order of the
Day for the second reading of the Registration of
Voters (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said he would defer a
question to the Attorney-General for Ireland, of which
he had given notice, until to-morrow.
Lord STANLEY then rose and said—Sir, if the
objections which we on this side of the House entertain
to the Bili which has been introduced by the
Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, were confined
to matters of mere detail, if agreeing in the main ob-
jects to be sought for, and in the principles with which
these objects were to be followed, we differed as to the
machinery by which those principles were to be carried
into effect, or the subordinate provisions by which they
were accompanied, should on my own part, however
wide the difference between us, or however important
the points on which we differed, have been well content
to have given to the Bill of the Noble Lord a more fair
consideration than was given to my Bill last
Session, and, reserving all discussions for a subsequent
stage of the proceedings, have offered no opposition
to the second reading of the Bill, but have
reserved the opposition which I felt it my duty to
make, and to have discussed seriatim and tem-
perately the different amendments I felt disposed
to suggest in Committee.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
But the course the Noble Lord has pursued has ren-
dered it impossible for those who feel with me, and I
should have thought would have rendered it impossible
for many of those who habitually act with the Noble
Lord—(Hear, hear, on the Opposition benches)—
to assent to the second reading of a Bill which tacks
to the Registration—a subject important enough in
itself—which tacks to that, by way of postscript,
a subject of infinitely more importance than even the
system of registration, which tends to alter the whole
principles on which the representative system of these
countries was based so lately as the year 183=2—(Op-
position cheers)--which does not aim at any slight
modification or alteration in the machinery of the
Reform Bill, but which, with regard to Ireland, and
Ireland alone, of all parts of the empire,
applies a principle altogether new, at variance with
that which we have applied to other portions of this
great empire.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, with regard to the
details of the Registration Bill, the points on which the
Noble Lord and myself differ, I mean the material
points, are not very numerous. They are of more or
less importance ; but I see with satisfaction that though '
there is still a considerable difference between us,
the Noble Lord in his Bill of this year has approxi-
mated in no inconsiderable degree to those principles
which I introduced last year, and which were made the
subject of so much vituperation against me on the other
side of the House. Sir, in the course of last year
the leading objection taken by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, the then Solicitor-General for Ireland, was stated
by him to be, that he frankly and plainly objected to an
amended revision at all. The Noble Lord, however,
has consented, in the course of this year, to introduce
an annual revision of voters ; but, at the same time, the
Noble Lord has coupled with that annual revision,
which I propose to associate with an an:nual registration.
The Noble Lord proposes to couple that an-
nual revision, considerably restricted also, with
a provision not for an annual but for a quarterly re-
gistration. The Noble Lord thus, instead of applying
the system pursued in England and Scotland to Ire-
land, while he allows the annual opportunity of purging
the register of claimants who may have ceased to
have any right of vote, keeps up a quarterly machinery
of registration, and renders it impossible that any per-
fect registration as a test and criterion of votes should
exist from year to year, mixing up the business of the
registry in a most inconvenient manner with the or-
dinary business of the Quarter Sessions in Ireland,—
(Hear, hear,)—and by the introduction of perpetual
notices of claims and notices of objections, and attend-
ance to substantiate claims, and attendance to substan-
tial objections, in point of fact makes the whole year,
from the commencement to the end, one continued
scene of registration and election, leaving no single
month, and hardly a single week, of breathing time
from Session to Session, keeping the whole country
perpetually engaged in election conflicts and disputes.
The Noble Lord has consented to annual revision, but
he has clogged it with restrictions which will open a
wide door for fraudulent and fictitious voters. Because
the Noble Lord tells you he will admit annual re-
vision, yet if a voter shall at any time, or under
any circumstances, succeed in getting his name
placed on the registry, it shall not be sufficient
for the registrar to show that he has no qualification
at all, but he is bound to prove that the man bad that
qualification when he was placed on the registry, but
circumstances had taken place since by which he had
lost it. The consequence therefore is this, to give a per,
petual immunity to fraud,where a party has had his name
once placed upon the registry.—(Great cheering.)
Now I proposed last year that an appeal should be
given as against the claimant who might be admitted,
and also as against the claimants who might be re-
jected. But this was decreed a great hardship. It was
said it was inconsistent with the franchise, and that
it was throwing obstacles in the way of the political
rights of parties ; and yet notwithstanding all this, in
the present year that principle has been adopted, for
by the ' Bill of the Noble Lord an appeal will lie
to the Appellant Tribunal in favour of the admis-
sion to the franchise, as well as against it. The
appellant tribunal which the Noble Lord proposes, s'if-
fess, howe%er, from that which I have suggested. I
confided in the Judges of the land, but the Noble Lord
thin ks itexpedient to t ake the power away from the Judges
and give it to threa Barristers of the Irish Bar, whose de-
cision is to be checked only by the Speaker of this House.
yhoavuer per-
sNonoawceShiarr,acthteer,gartnadt t respecta i c
inh
wI
hbiee ahr
youfer
per-
formed your duties—(Great cheering)—in the situa-
tion to which you were elected by the votes on one
side ®f the House, but in which you have suc-
ceeded by your dignift d conduct in gaining
the esteem of both sides of the House, impose upon
me the duty, if possible, of taking away from you that
arduous duty.—(Great cheers.) he more I think
upon this subject, the more strong are the objections
which I entertain to impose upon you a duty which
almost subjects you to misconstruction, misapprehension,
and suspicion of the feelings of parties, because however
impartially you may act, you will be subject to that
species of suspicion which I should be most unwilling
to subject one in your high and dignified station to.
But. upon the Bid which I proposed last year a very
great objection was taken to the provision of which I
suggested the introduction, with regard to the costs to

E VENING EDITION

ss given by the appellate tribunal, as well against
.so
person seeking to substantiate as against the Peas,
seeking to overthrow the franchise. There, as
nothing to which so much of objection was taKe.Pfea.
to that provision, and I recollect wel the Right 1-I,e
and Learned entleman the Vice-President of tue
Board of Trade, having represented upon one occasioa,
that the apre'late tribunal was bound to
against the party claiming the franchise, being correct.
tid.
from this side of the House, and being told
th:
it was only left to his discretion to do so i cc
eani
cases—l recollect the Right Hon. and Learned (31
,„
tleman taking up that answer, and saying, " Ydejs,
that is to say, you are to confide it to the
t. a
cretion, or " pardon me for saying," added
Learned Gentleman, " the caprice of the Jed,
whoever he may be whether he will or will not inTn,
pose costs." Sir, I believe the Right Honourable ai,
Learned Gentleman is not in his place.—(Hear, heti:a
give costste,
from the Ministerial Benches.) Well, then, I hope „.
Right Hon. Gentleman has turned his attention tootl;
two clauses upon that subject in the Bill of the Nita
Lord the Secretary for Ireland, because if he has,
will find that whereas in the appellate tribunal 1 7,,
stricted the costs to the amount of ten Ivu°
i1)00
whereas I restricted it to the amount of incurs
the party might actually have rho
red, whereas I imposed the obligation upen_eici
s
Judges only to give costs where the petition "
manifestly appear to have been of a frivolous character
the Bill of the Noble Lord follows up this year
same principle which last year he so much repudiatded
(Laughter from tie Opposition benches)—be ()•Pest
my practice of giving costs to the respondent agaltbe
the appellant, whether that appellant be
ss
claimant of the franchise, or the succe all
objector to the franchise ; but he rern°rtes bad
those restrictions as to amount which snot,
imposed upon the granting of costs by an aPPe•fajog
tribunal, and the Noble Lord, after sPeel loos
n the 60th clause that the Assistant-Barris
shall endorse the name of the appellants to
the party whom he shall be directeuvides
treat as respondent, in the 67th clause Pro , of
that it shall be lawful for the said Court%
of
Appeal to make such, or, respecting the Pernenf say
tl.( costs of the respondent in any appeal, art° shall
part of such costs as to the said
seem meet." The principle of costs upon appeal agf the
the claimant of the franchise, which was one %oda
points upon which the strongest objections wererioble
to my Bill of last year, is affirmed by the ffinned
Lord in his Bill of the present Session, but I the
without any restrictions by which I sought el/fiest,
exercise of the right and to protect it from abused plod
hear)—and that power which the Noble Lor re AO
to entrust to judges appointed by the Crowe, _ 001
holding their office for lila, the Noble Lord doeisthaut
hesitate to entrust—much more ample power o'l%oo
the same restrictions—to three Barristers, who su°--f the
appointed under the authority of the Speaker jot
House of Commons. Now, Sir, I am not stirPs:Cos
Co aitio
that the Noble Lord did not at all notice this cle`eigie
of costs in his opening speech. Dealing with the 'dos
tration subject, the Noble Lord never mentippeoral
subject of costs at all, and I think this elaugeribele
perhaps in some degree explain that omission. , the
might be some l•ttle hesitation upon the part
Noble Lord as to the provisions which he real Yhe,
tended to introduce upon the subject of e°stnso'telf
cause upon looking at these marginal Lord,
which so much disturbed the Noble ,igbt
the Secretary for the Colonies, I find the other thot
the marginal note to the 4od clause providesaded
double costs should be given in cases of will Ole,
charges of' fraud, but the note is altered since' 2'loo
no double costs are to be given.—(Hear, beat' ratioi
Now, Sir, I have contented myself with enemeatabla
the principal points of difference between the
°'f 008
Lord and myself, with the exception, however' nose
which I shall state to the Noble Lord now, bee
of it,
hope he will be able to give me an explanation:ooS
and because I really cannot with it uncljerbopecl
the Bill after careful examination. Sir, 1 "'lns ee'
that the abolition of certificates was absolute e"isbed
tire, and that no Hon. Member on either sicle;• ii
to keep up a system of certificates vit,r ajole'
admitted to be the fruitful parent Of
-test el,
The Noble
n beforeL or d
theabolishes
returning
officer,
the
qualification but 'Or( bin
Clerk of the Peace he can claim a certificate°B/1 be
entry upon the registry ; and this certificate silo Its
conclusive evidence of the right of that Isersond the
placed on the registry, in any proceeding ega'niapee
Clerk of the Peace. Now, Sir, I cannot understan.
what ground that is to be considered conclusireeecol
dente The possession of the certificate is evidel:losl!';
his having been on the registry some time Prep peal
but the fact of his being challenged, and all .!,`bt4
lodged against his right to vote must be taken "-efore
proof that he had lost his qualification. And °II% ties
the certificate will only prove that at some tithed per
on the registry, and that he had been regularly suriah the
perly struck off. Sir, I have gone shortly thr:,.-;raal
points without arguing them, on which there "w-bich th
differences between us, but in the mange! t. of 11°
had the honour to introduce on the sabieicli, enees,;
alteration of the registration there are other u"—rtastr'
Sir, I have already stated that if my objectiet3s t Orr
upon the subject of' the revision only, I should of
any opposition to the second reading of the Noble!, more
Bill ; but I shall now proceed to another and Mee, whid
important branch of the subject. So the tael3illo(
the Noble Lord has affixed to the Registration dealt
the purpose, as I believe, of defeating thet/uie
which is now making by both sides of the .":"trotio°
amend the existing evils of the 114'9-01i
system.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Without Lord,
ing anything disrespectful to the Noble it for,
my first objection to the Bill is that he has brought(Losi
ward under false colours and false pretenees""iine°l
cheers)--and I see in this Bill another step in thakoiars'
policy which has been adopted by the present Adindl
tion, which has been in a manner peculiar to. it, il
Obienb
has never been followed by any Government, basB ke
has never characterised any other, but which „701$1";
studiously pursued by the present Government ei hstevej
jests from the first moment down to this period, war, so
this period may be of its political existence.---jjeja 6();
a laugh.) In 1635, when my Right Hon. Frienos
vernment was thrown out of office,
on he
not that there 001°1
difference as to the measure to be introduced for tbs
the vexatious question of tithes in Ireland (En'. 'in'to n' t-a
subject both sides of the House were agreed,
minutest details of the measure), but because revs,
!hebe
to admit a tack to the measure—(Loud nossdPei
of a distinction to which, as honest men, it tva's use
that we should accede.—(Cheers.) That, j'a 0-000-
declared by the Government of the Noble Lord
to be a sine qua non, without carrying which it vg9"
Tbsß
sible they could, as honest men, hold their situations•et of
then, was the commencement by the Gev,e,ll;l,rbolstenr;
system which I trace again in the present Bill, "s but
ing up their credit, not on that they had achievehicb the!
some unattainable and imaginary performance wroopon'i/
;
professed their determination to carry, on thehieb the 'l
bility of the Government attempting to carry umber
maintained a precarious existence for a certain _ckoolr':
years ; but at the end they were compelled to usioe
qya
ledge they were unable to carry their inestimabled. fr
non.—(Cheers.) These two results follow e_ lar;
remedy of acknowledged abuses and grievances;oooo
lieve, in the tithe question ; and if the Gilo.vistrsti°Po
shall be successful, will be in the re" year
system ; and the remedy will be delayed from take
year, while the plausible ground which will beso-
• be, aCe
the Government towards their supporters wt..
rtuSt -to
what we are disposed to give you. If you dese •11
whet a prospect you will lose."—(Chests') they gill
the more reflecting portion of the community, bacebee
say, " We would have remedied these evils, butbe {,toile
compelled to abandon the hope of doing so by t cheer! ,
and pertinacious opposition ofour opponents."
ci-what
Why, Sir, that pretext has been held out, a" tie, it bas
ben the result ? Why, that in the Tithe (I'l cistrati°o
happened, and I trust and believe that on the rteConiseler t
Question it will happen, that they have Ma A (0 aClS-
compelled to abandon this sine qua non, Be"..,ate re
in
those very measures which, but for their olostlua tbefead
tance, we, their opponents, would have Pi" „..(1.4000,
enabling them to carry some four years anti, blicy
cheers.) And now let me ask what has been 'the r
of this registration system, and how far differs ~aononha
pursued upon the Tithe and Appropriation 'fri in
For four long years the Government have bee..eoisters
habit, Session after Session—the abuses
tion system being forced upon them until $ll
unable to resist any longer—of introdueige 0)111'1:
but with no other object than that of preventisLoreraeal,
of other sentlemen unconnected with the uuo, systeon.
of the.bie7
who had felt the inconvenience of the pr set beiog the
ao
Why, one Bill which they brought forward,
scot t
posed by any member of this House, WaS sionfr-the
oust
House of Lords; at what period of the Se sthia fl e
29th of August—having been introduced int°,oat tbe
on the 11th of August for the first times introduciog
course which the Government have pursued 111__ wino
an-
Registration Bills, keeping others out from touvisof
until the end of the Session, and then as regsaav ' lop
cloning them as they had introduced then'. ast Sesslsy
as I was concerned, I was determined that e_tto of
of Parliament should not pass without an encia'ay
overoe
those grievances, and accordingly, at an
ce
the G.!).,
the Session, the Noble Lord having told
istratioll
lerit had no intention of introducing
iitroduced a Bill which appeared to the P"gPrae
majority of this House also, to hold out sy,te
existmsi tr,
of remedying the grievances of the cots'
• to r /rot
and how did the Noble Lord determineeL ware inl
Bill? Not by resisting principles %Vb.', were
reading 13,
included, but by resisting principles vvn f the .11
eluded in it; and on the second re fling
not a word fell from the other side condeirtln of the co
on account of its not containing any -more than t`"-,''tbe
isting system—( Loud cheers)—nay, n.
account tb.cc..
second reading, the Solicitor-General - ~ Acts ti
tar from this being any objection on thia,tated his o
lions to me, that by the inser,ion of the w v"
intrOdUeingtaof
meg, se'grid to the gre:,
I
stead of " Act," I was not defining, butthe judretne,..
expression which might tend to influence franchi'e "al that
other parties as to the definition of the
_as fan a
ists at the present moment. But when lt wthis Fietisfet,he
vd,i,ffrieimreenitltcobeard that the but
heard ° Go-
amhys e ncßille owfaas sdueefieneistsiofjol,' then awboeutfirts:
e, sot one,
1.0,
two hills were introduced, one for the penri.,nother
rt bill on the subject of Registration, a nur'_os, of roilfsa..
had taken dsiuluprsuthede. question, nWtPCle6s:ote" of mee hie'
then Solicitor-General for Ireland, for the oheP
't eleeti°,e,
ing the onscurity 0f the law respecting
chile in Ireland. Here is the 13111 introduced by t".