The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-26 00:00:00

lification, but this was not the provision of the Bill of
the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord boasted, the other
night, that he had extended the franchise, but on re-
ferring to returns, he found some strange proofs to the
contrary. He did not think this was a time for the
Noble Lord to take away the nominal right, when he
had long contended for giving the people of Ireland
the actual exercise of the real right. He would give
the Bill his most decided opposition.
Mr. FITZPATRICK was opposed to the Bill.
Sir G. STRICKLAND was desirous that the law
of registration, in both England and Ireland, should
undergo a revision. He thought it was not fair to say
that the present mode of registration in England was
imperfect ; and that, therefore, an improvement in
that mode should not be introduced into Ireland.
The English registration required much alteration, but
that afforded no reason for leaving the registration in
Ireland upon its present footing. He wished that the
laws for both countries should be assimilated as much
as possible, and in this matter of registration he wished
them to be put upon the same footing.
Mr. Serjeant. JACKSON rose amidst cries of "Di-
vide, divide," and said that the necessity for the measure
had not been disputed. It had been admitted oa all
hands that the present mode of registration in Ireland
was perfectly intolerable. It frequently happened that
a man might have his name upon the registry for eight
years, during seven of which be had no connection with
the tenantcy for which he voted. He hoped that if her
Majesty's Government succeeded in defeating this Bill,
they would at all events introduce some measure to cor-
rect the acknowledged evils of the present system. He
thought the Bill was one of the most bona fide charac-
ter, and he could not conceive upon what grounds it was
opposed by Gentlemen who asserted that its objects were
insidious. In 1836 another Bill was brought in by
the present Master of the Rolls in Ireland and the Noble
Lord opposite. The Government did not make much haste
with that Bill, for it was brought in on the 10th of
March, on the 29th it was read a second time, and on
the 16th July the House resolved that they would go
into Committee on that day two months on the Bill,
that measure containing exactly the same provisoes as
the Bill of 1835. No Bill was introduced in 1837. He
(Mr. Sergeant Jackson) adverted to these things for
the purpose of showing that the Government was not
acting bona fide on this subject. In 1838 the history
of legislation on this subject was curious. The House
assembled before Christmas in that year, and on the
14th February the then Attorney-General for Ireland
gave notice that he would bring in a Bill ; that motion
was delayed till the 13th of March. On the 7th
of March he (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) gave notice that
he should move for leave to bring in a Bill on the 20th
of March. On the 13th the then Attorney-General
for Ireland obtained leave to bring in his Bill, but it was
not till the 9th of May that the Bill was brought in.
On the 22(1 of May he (Sergeant Jackson) obtained
leave to bring in his Bill, which he did on the day fol-
lowing, but which he was not able to follow up. In
that Bill, he (Sergeant Jackson) professed to assimilate
the law of Ireland with that of England ; but the
Noble Lord had not done so in his Bill. During the
last year nothing was done by the Government on
the subject. It was true an Honourable Mem-
ber had brought in a Bill, but he had met with
so little encouragement that he withdrew it. In this
state of things the Noble Lord the Member for North
Lancashire had brought in the present Bill, and for
doing so had been thought guilty of precipitate legislation.
The Hon. and Learned Member, after deprecating the
attacks which had been made by Hon. Members on
the Judges of Ireland, stated that he considered a
clearer case had never been made out for the introduc-
tion of a measure than the one brought forward by the
Noble Lord. He believed that the Bill was calculated
for the welfare of Ireland, and that any attempts to
frustrate it were unworthy of any Member of that
House.

Mr. PIGOT entertained sueh strong objections to
,he second reading of this Bill, that even the arguments
of the Learned Sergeant who had just spoken had not
removed them. He objected to the Bill, because he
thought he saw in it plainly developed principles of le-
gislation injurious to the franchise ; he objected to it,
because he conceived that it was impossible, if it became
law, that the franchise could long continue. He ob-
jected to the principle of annual revision, and in that
objection he would not be fettered by any proposition
that had been made formerly—propositions which had
been made when the present system of the franchise
had been little tried in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) He
believed the fact to be, that for some time after
the passing of the English Reform Bill little attention
was paid to the business of the registers, and the result
had been the mischiefs that had since ensued. Much
had been said by Hon. Members with reference to the
Bills that had been introduced in previous Sessions.
Was the present Bill anything like them ? Certainly
not. What was the annual revision allowed under the
Act that had been introduced ? Why, that the re-
vising barrister was to revise the list of the names, pro-
vided it was clear that some mistake had taken place ;
but such revising barrister was not to be at liberty to
allow any objection which existed at any prior registra-
tion. The present Bill was the very reverse of the
Bill brought in in 1838, because that Bill repu-
diated annual revision, and the present one enacted it.
The present Bill proposed annual revision and adverse
appeals, and did so in the most objectionable way. For
a century before 1829 the registration held good for
eight years. But in 1829, when the great settlement
took place, by which Roman Catholics were admitted
to the honours of the State, 197,000 electors were
swept away in Ireland; and then there was an appeal
from the Assistant Barrister to the Judge, but the
Judge was not to take into consideration the question of
value. In Ireland no person's name could be placed on
the register without undergoing a strict examination.
The voter had to produce his lease, deed, or test .ment,
which must be duly stamped ; he must submit to an ex-
amination as to the nature and value of the
franchise, and it was the duty of the As-
sistant Barrister himself, to examine the claimant,
and, in the absence of all objection, to see that the
party had a strict right to the franchise.—(Hear, hear.)
Was it to be said, therefore, that new light could be
let in by this Bill—( Hear, hear)—when the most strin-
gent examination that could take place was effected
under the present system ?—( Hear, hear.) But the
principle of this Bill was not merely an annual revision,
but a half-yearly recision, for the constituency were to
be brought to the assize towns in March or April, to
re-establish that franchise which they had established in
the preceding September. The Bill, instead of afford-
ing facilities for registration, tended to increase the
difficulties, and it was, in fact, a Bill not for the
purpose of effecting registration, but for the purpose of
extinguishing it.—(Cheers.) By the Reform Act, the
Assistant Barrister was called upon to decide upon the
property qualification according to the provision of that
Act. But one of the clauses of this Bill referred to
Acts, and could anybody doubt the object of that
clause ? If the Bill was not intended to make any at-
tack upon the franchise, those who drew it, having the
Reform Act before them, and seeing the expressions of
that Act, would have adopted its phraseology in defin-
ing and prescribing the franchise, instead of endeavour-
ing, by a side wind, to restrict and fetter it, and to in-
troduce difficulties that it would be impossible to contend
against.—(Hear.) Let the House consider the difficulties
that %vei e thrown in the way of persons seeking the fran-
chise even under the present system. Let them look
to the objections that were taken in this country. Why,
in the county of Middlesex, where the constituency did
not amount to more than 1,100—J)11, oh, and a laugh)
—not more than 1,100 or 1,200, the number objected
t in 1835 was 2,234.—(lmmense laughter.) He
ought to have stated the constituency amounted to
10,000 or 12,000. In 1836 the objections were 1,485,
in 1837 3,191, in 1838 1,568, and in 1839 2,000.,
Let the House consider the numbers that would con-
gregate together at the assize towns under this Bill,
;he hundreds of cases that would have to be investi-
gated at enormous expense, trouble, and vexation, and he
would ask how was it possible that any good end could
be attained by it?—(Hear, hear.) Therefore, upon
principle he did object to any such appeal as was con-
templated by .his Bill, and he objected to the Bill because
he thought it won d tend to abridge
lateh,elfrafulnicehtiinsoe,aarenids
to bring in•o disrespect those high
who ought to be free from all suipieion in the adminis-
tration of justice.—(Cheers.)
stain
StirgWthleLrLealsAonNslwhich ind FOLLETTueedrosheimfotrothgeivpeuiriipsosveootef
in favour of the second reading of the Bill. He was
satisfied it was utterly impossible that any system of re-
gistration could be more defective, or could lead to more
fraud or prjury than the present. Indeed, until he had
heard the sp:ech of the Right Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman who had just • at down he had not thought there
was any Member either English or Irish who would have
attempted a defence of the existing system of registration.
The existing system had been condemned most empha-
tically by her Majesty's Government, both by their
speeches and by their votes.—( Hear.) It had been
Hon.barlol brought
tt e
isLn
ientaort nheadt
Hik
correctl
oe
umis
teb..e r
TBfloi4eri
condemnedapf tuebr lndlbanydd etebhdecebay
Government did not reserve their objection to the de-
tails of the present Bill, but thought fit to object to it
at the outset, and to oppose its second readingßut
upon what grounds did they object to the
principle.
of the Bill. Ho would ask the Noble Lord the
Secretary for Ireland, or any Member of the Govern..
ment, whether they objected to the principle of the
Bill ? Indeed it was known that under the present
system parties had come to a compromise rather than
allow the votes taken at elections to be made a contest
before a Committee of the House of Commons. Had
they not proposed, by every Bill that had been intro-
duced, that instead of having a registry to be in force
they should have a registry to be re-
By the present Bill, it was proposed
vfoisreedi
to the House of Commons,
to give
' up the appeal .
ght
annually
and to make the registry ;
conclusive and the ques-
tionto a Bill that
would object
was, whether they
would prevent the expense
of Election Committees. It
was said that the working of the registration system
was only known of late years, but to none of them
were the objections so numerous, or the evils so great,
as that which had taken place immediately after the