The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-26 00:00:00

Lord ALGERNON CHICHESTER seconded the motion.

COl. VERNER, M. P., proposed the adoption of the Ad- 1
dress, and the presentation of it to the Queen lait the Mar-
quis of Downshire.
S. AastsTitosio, Esq., High Sheriff of Fermanagh, se-
goaded the resolution.
Sir Robert Bateson, M. P., Lord Loftus, and Mr. Bates
addressed the meeting, expressing a hope that they would
forward a petition to Parliament worthy of the North, in
favour of a measure which, in spite of every opposition,
world, he was certain, shortly become the law of the land.
Loud cheers.)
E. TENNENT, Esq., seconded the resolution. He com-
municated to Lord Stanley the feeling which pe•vaded
Ulster with regard to his Bill ; he also availed hlmself of
the opportunity to forward to his Lordship tbs report of
the Ulster Association. To this letter he received an al-
most instaat reply, the substance of which le would place
before the meeting. With regard to the re-introduction
of the Bill, he (Mr. Emmerson Tennent) was happy to
tell them, that he bad Lord Stanley's own authority for
stating thlt he was perfectly prepared to go on with it.—
Ile would read the letter itself, with the permission of the
meeting. The Hon. Gentleman thee proceeded to read
extracts from the following letter from Lord Stanley :
" As to the time and manner of the introduction of the
Bill, lam in the hands of our friends. lam ready, at any
hour that may be most desirable with a view to success.
" As to modifications, you know—no one better—that
the task of introducing the Bill was not of my seeking;
that, having undertaken it, I most carefully considered its
provisions, and with the concurrence of our friends, put
it into a shape in which we thought it both a just and an
effective measure. I see no reason to alter the view which
we then took from anything that has since passed in Par.
liament or elsewhere; but lam not only ready—l shall be
thankful—to receive and consider with respect the sugges-
tions of those who have more practical experience than
myself, and too happy to adopt them ; if, on the one hand,
lam satisfied of their justice, and if, on the other, they
will not throw additional obstacles in the way of passing
the Bill. No doubt there are some of its provisions more
essential than ethers ; and I do not think that I can more
eoz.veniently, though I may more shortly, answer your
questions, than by going through the manifesto which em-
'oodles the views of the Ulster Association, so far as they
relate to registration.
I hail with satisfaction their admission (p. 30) that,

in order successfully to oppose any future attempt to carry
a. Bill similar to Lord Stanley's, it is necessary to be pre-
pared to propose such amendments of the present law as
are imperatively required to remedy its many objection-
able provisions and ;4laririg defects ; and I rejoice to find
also, that in many oi the leading provisions of my Bill,
4snd sortie of 'snick were the most decried, they arc com-
pelled to concur.
" In. speaking of tic annual registration—the Associa-
tion take no Twice of the great additional facilities given
to all parties, whether claimants or objectors, by the pro-
visions cf my Bill, which multiplied the places of holding
f.egistratiou Courts and assigned a district to each, as in
England—a facility which could not be given with a quar-
terly registrati..n.
NOTICES—See. 2. We both agree that the claimant
should give ti.stice of his claim ; and I concur with them
that the description given sh, old be of such a nature only as
is necessary ler the identification of the claimants, and
such general description of the property as will prevent
fraudulent registra:ion. Perhaps I should add, and they
might admit, as will enable the property to be identified.-
Adopting this principle, the necessary forms are matter of
detail and fair subject for discussion. So also as to the
pubi'cation of die notices of claims.
" NOTICE OF OBJECTIoNs —The Association would
admit any person to object, but limit the objections to those
of 'which specific notice fi,al been served on the party, and
on sonic public officer, as in Scotland.
" I restrict the right cf objecting, as in England; to
voters or claimants, or their agents, but require no notice
(except as against pi rsons already on the registry) nor any
specification of objections. Indeed if, as they admit, the
claimant is its the fi. ct instance to prove his title, he must
be prepared to prove it against any and every objection
that can be raised.

" The Associatn,n are compelled to admit that the sys-
tem pursued i❑ Scotland, of requiring specific objections,
is liable to abuse, as it contains no provision against an ob-
jector including in his notice every possible objection, and
the remedy they propose is to compel the registering barris•
ter to saddle the objector with the cost and expenses for every
objection not gone into, or nut requiring rebutting evidence.
Tiles every objection stated must be gone into by the ob-
*cctor, though tine claimant may have been rejected on the
very first, on pain or being visited with costs to be paid to
the rejected claimant, and a penalty is imposed on an °h-
ector, though it be distinctly admitted that at the time of
giving the notice he had every reason to believe his objec-
tion well founded. I propose to authorise the Assistant
Barrister to give costs where he shall judge the objection
frivolous, which is the most rational and most practical
*OIIrSC.

" Sec. 6.--Oecue.tTioN AND POSSESSJON.—The Asso-
ciation purpose th ,t claimants shall, in all cases, be allowed
to register at the first sessions after coming into possession,
and of voting at the expiration of the same period, which
would entitle the Englith voter!, of the same class, to put
in their claims.

" In England, freeholders and copyholders, with some
exceptions which extend to Ireland, must have been in
possession six months previous to the last day of July
before the annual registration ; and all other claimants,
welee months—that is, eight months, or fourteen months,
at least, before registry, My Bill proposed to give in Ire-
land the right of being registered at the end of six months.
" What ground can there be for a still greater difference
in favour of Ireland ?
" POLLING. —Upon this subject I will only say, that if,
as I understand, you agree with the Association in desir-
ing an assimilation to the English law as to the multipli-
cation of polling places, and the duration of elections, I
atrong)y recommend that that question should be kept se-
parate from registration, and be made the subject of a
distinot 1111. If Irish Members, without distinction of
party, are generally of opinion that the adoption of the
English law in this respect will tend to diminish expense,
and will also provide effectually for the peaceable and im-
partial exercise of the franchise—l think I may say with
confidence that they will meet with no opposition on the
part of the Representatives of England and Scotland.
" Rzeislos.—We agree that the Irish law should be
adhered to, which requires the claimant to prove his title
in the first instance ; but the Association require that he
should then be protected from any future infringement of
his right to vote, except on account of some circumstance
occurring subsequently to his having been placed on the
register, and not previously adjudicated upon.
" I
admit that a voter once on the register should be
protected against vexatious re-investigations ; my Bill re-
quires that the objector in such case should prove his ob-
jection (not show a prima facie cause but prove it) before
the, pter is ever called on for a defence—that he should
pro4Te it, subject to costs for a frivolous objection ; but we
contend that the extent of protection demanded by the As-
sociation will tend to keep on the register fraudulent votes,
provided they can afterwards be proved to have been frau-
dulent when first put on : further, that in the difference
which unfortunately prevails in the decision of different
barristers, a claimant successively rejected by a dozen bar-
risters,
and having put the objectors to the expense of sub-
stantiating their objections a dozen times consecutively, if
be cars at last succeed in persuading one barrister to re-
verse the decisions of the other twelve, is irrevocably placed
on the register. Again, a claimant having been placed on
the register by the over-ruling, on appeal, of the objection
on which he was first rejected, is protected against objec-
tions which might have been urged at his first claim, and
which could have been urged had they not been
Imight
rendered
unnecessary by his rejection on other_ grsoutiff?d
multiply cases, but I think these will becisent to show
that protection to this extent palses the legitimate bounds,
and tends to the introduction for life of fraudulent votes.
" APPIAL. (Quotation from the report of the Ulster
A mei ation )
" Your Committee consider it an object of the first im-
portance, that an appeal to a Committee of the House of
Commons, on the right of voters, should be rendered, as
far as possible, unnecessary. They cannot, therefore, ap-
prove of the English system, because it gives no means of
redress, either to a claimant or to an objector, against an
erroneous decision of a registering barrister, except by a
reference to such a Committee ; nor of the Irish system,
because it confines the right of appeal to the claimant ;
your Committee would therefore recommend that the right
of appeal on all points of law (the final decision on ques-
tions of fact having been already provided for in sec. 4 )
should be conferred both on the claimant and on the ob-
jector ; and that a court of appeal should be constituted
hefore which appellants might have such points decided.'
(p. 10).
" I am happy to have the assent of the Ulster Associa-
tion to the three main principles et my Bill. Ist—That
it would be of great advantage to obviate the necessity of
appeals to the House of Commons. 2d—That for this
ptrpreee a Court of Appeal is necessary. ad—That the
right of appeal should be conferred both on the claimant
and on the objector. hi fact, these, together with the no-
tice to be given by claimants (to which the Association
assent), the abolition of certificates and affliavits (which
they also recominen,i), and the annual revision (and they
propose a quarterly revision) constituted the essence of the
Bill which was so acrimoniously opposed last Session.
I think it doubtful how far questions of law and of feet
can be enoarlted in the appeal as proposed 1)y the Associa-
tion. They do not suggest any new constitution of the
Court of Appeal. I found the Judge of Assize already
the authority referred to on the one-sided appeal, anti I
preserved the name authority when the appeal was extended
to the objector. If any other tribunal tan be established
of as high legal attainments. as far removed from tempta-
tion, and as free from the suspicion of partiality, I see no
that the appeal shall be to the Judge of
reason for insisting
Assize.
The substiLulien or tie authority of a Judge for that I '

of a jury, in cases of value, was suggested by the late
Lord Clement; sanctioned by the present Government,
and adopted by the House of Commons.
The Association think that here again the objector
should be subject to ;costs, in every case where his objec-
tions are not sustained ; the claimant to none in any case
whatever. I was of opinion that both parties should be
liable to costs, if there were no legitimate grounds for
bringing the appeal, or defending the vote. The course
recommended by the Association appears one-sided and
unjust ; and, if I understand rightly, gives costs against
the objector whenever unsuccessful, and relieves the
claimant where he frivolously puts the objector to expense
in substantiating an objection already affirmed by the
Barrister.
" I have nothing to say to the remaining sections
which support the vote by ballot, the shortening of the
duration of l'arliament (in the practical adoption of
which principle, at the present moment, I apprehend
they will meet with but little countenance on the part
of her Majesty's Ministers),.the qualification of represen-
tires, or the proportion which ought to be established_ be-
tween the number of representatives from Ireland and from
the rest of the empire ; but, after all that has
upon the subject of the comparative franchise
been said
in the three
franchise.couatri es I
Tmust
tablesay a
furnished few word s
in o n
this section
12th
com-
parative
as proving that Ire-
parative view of the franchise is a rivet useful document,
and I gladly avail myself of it—first,
land has not been unjustly dealt with; and, second, as fur-
nishing, together with the commerts, a strong argument
in favour of our interpretation of the existing franchise.
" The table of tho Association shows that, in two in-
stances as compared with Eegland, and one as compared
with Scotland, the Irish freehold franchise is more re-
stricted ; while, as relates to the leasehold franchise, not
only does Ireland possess, to an equal extent, every fran-
chise enjoyed by either country, with the exception of the
50/. tenancy at will (which is repudiated by the Associa-
tion), but, in almost every instance, a less term of years,
and a lower amount of value will qualify in Ireland, than
either in England or Scotland.
" First, as to the restriction. In England, a freehold
of inheritance in any case, and freehold not of inheritance,
provided the party occupy to the amount of 405., entitles
to vote ; whereas, in Scotland and in Ireland, the amount
is 101., and in Ireland for a freehold below 201., occupa-
tion is superadded as a condition. For the amount, it is
needless to advert to the grounds which led to the aboli-
tion of the Irish 40s. franchise. At the peried of the Reform
Bill the Legislature found the 40s. franchise existing in
England, and did not abolish, though it restricted it, and
where the restrictions applied, it fixed the minimum at
101. In Scotland it found no such franchise, and did not
introduce it, but fixed the minimum at 101. In Ireland
it had been recently abolished, the Legislature did not
restore it, but found the minimum fixed at 101. and left
it so. Indeed, the Reform Bill did not, in any way,
deal with the freehold franchise of the counties of Ire-
land—it conferred no new one—it altered no old
one, but it added the leasehold to the previously
existing freeholds, and in so doing, conferred
the right mere extensively on Ireland than either
England or Scotland. On the same ground the law re-
quiring occupation remained unaltered ; and it may be
well for the " Liberal " Association, who select this point
of comparison with Scotland as a grievance, to bear in
mind, that so far from extending popular rights, the very
want of this restriction in Scotland was found practically
to give so much power to large landowners to grant " fic-
titious" freeholds, that the Select Committee on Scotch
fictitious votes, presided over by Mr. florsman, recom-
mended that in Scotland occupation should be required of
the smaller freeholders, and that two successive Lords Ad-
vocate, with the sanction of the present Government, have
gone so far as to advise that residence should be enforced
as a condition.
" And now let us turn to the leaseholds, and, adopting
the plan of the Association, place side by side the fran-
chises:possessed respectively by the three countries, leaving
a blank in each case where no corresponding franchise
exists."

Leasehold Franchises in England. Scotland. Ireland
Original lessee or assignee
of a term of 60 years (57
in Scotland
Original lessee or assignee
of a term of :20 year.,
Ditto, ditto, 19 years
Ditto, ditto, 14 years
Franchises requiring Occupation.
Sub-lessee or assignee of a
term of 60 years (57 in
Scotland
Original lessee or assignee
of a term 20 years
Ditto, ditto, 19 years...
Ditto, ditto, 14 years
Tenant at will, liable to a
rent

X X X
10 10 10

50 50 20
- 50 20 -'
- - 20