The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-27 00:00:00

IREL AND.

MEETING IN ULSTER.
BELFAST, Tnueseav, JAN. 21.
The grand demonstration of Protestant feeling in Ulster
t )ok place to-day, in Belfast, in the Circus. The aLsem-
wage was immense, composed of some of the most distin-
guished and influential men of Ulster. Upon the platform
I observed the Marquis of Downshire, Lord Hillshoroogb,
Lord Viscount Nowry and Marne, Mr. Emerson "ferment,
M. P., Sir Robert Bateson, M. P., Lord Loftus, eldest son
of the Marquis of Ely, Dr. Cooke, and several other dis-
tinguished laymen and divines.
The Marquis of Downshire was called to the chair.
GEORGE ROBERT DAWSON, Esq.. proposed an address of
congratulation to her Majesty and Prince Albert upon the
birth of the Princess Royal. He alluded to the recent
events which occurred in Belfast. He said he could not
express one-twentieth part of the indignation he felt at that
"ruffian" O'Connell coming down to Belfast on his buca-
neering crusade, to oblige country gentlemen to come from
their peaceful homes in order to prevent, by a counter-de-
monstration, the impression going abroad that Belfast was
deceived by the impostor.—( Cheers.) Mr. Steele, his
satellite, had sworn, in an information before a Magistrate,
that he was afraid an Orange mob would molest him. All
England would resound with plaudits of the bravery of the
men who turned O'Connell out of Ulster.—(Cheers.)
Lord ALGERNON CIIICIIESTER seconded the motion.
Col. VERNEIi, M. P., proposed the adoption of the Ad-
dress, and the presentation of it to the Queen by the Mar-
quis of Downahire.
S. ARMS TRONG, Esq., High Sheriff of Fermanagh, se-
conded 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,
would, 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 pervaded
Ulster with regard to his Bill ; he also availed himself of
the opportunity to forward to his Lordship the report of
the Ulster Association. To this letter he received an al-
most instant reply, the substance of which he 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 had Lord Stanley's own authority for
stating that he was perfectly prepared to go on with it.—
He would read the letter itself, with the permission of the
meeting. The Hon. Gentleman then 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 cf 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 net 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,
I am 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 others ; and I do not think that I can more
conveniently, though I may more shortly, answer your
questions, than by going through the manifesto which em-
bodies 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 glaring defects; and I rejoice to find
also, that in many of the leading provisions of my Biil,
and some of which were the most decried, they are com-
pelled to concur.
" In speaking of the annual registration—the Associa-
tion take no notice of the great additional facilities given
to all parties, whether claimants or objectors, by the pro-
visions of my Bill, which multiplied the places of holding
Registration Courts, and assigned a district to each, as in
England—a facility which could not be given with a quar-
terly registration.
" NOTICES—Sec. 2.—We both agree that the claimant
should give notice of his claim ; and I concur with them
that the description given shculd be of such a nature only as
is necessary far the identification of the claimants, and
such general description of the property as will prevent
fraudulent registration. Perhaps I should add, and they
might admit, u 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
publication of the notices of claims.
66 NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS.—The Association would
admit any person to object, but limit the objections to those
of which specific notice had been served on the party, and
on some 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 persons already on the registry) nor any
specification of objections. Indeed if, as they admit, the
claimant is in the first instance to prove his title, he must
be prepared to prove it against any and every objection
that can be raised.

The Association are umpelled to admit that the sys-
tem pursued in Scotland, of requiring specific objections,
is liable to abuse, as it contains no provision against au 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 fotr,Fygy
TstßSobjection not gone into, or not requiring reu
iirieetee Cm the
o6b3c? the o b
,e_yery objection stated mustkgtonc.
very first, on pain of being visited with costs to be paid to
the rejected claimant, and a penalty is imposed on an ob-
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
course.

" Sec. B,—OCCUPATION AND POSSESSION.—The Asso-
ciation purpose that 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 English voters, of the same class, to put
in their claims.
" In England, freeholders and copyliclders, 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,
welve 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,
strongly recommend that that question should be kept se-
parate from registration, and be made the subject of a
distinct Bill. 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.
" ReetstoN.—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, arid 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 shore a prima facie cause but prove it) before
the voter is ever called on for a defence—that he should
prove it, subject to costs for a frivolous objection ; but we
contend that the extent of protection demanddd 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
he can 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 wlich might have been urged at his first claim, and
which could have been urged had they not been rendered
unnecessary by his rejection on other grounds. I might
multiply cases, but I think these will be sufficient to show
that protection to this extent passes the legitimate bounds,
and tends to the introduction for life of fraudulent votes.
" APPEAL.—(Quotation from the report of the Ulster
Association.)
"' 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
before which appellants might have such points decided.'
(p. 10).
" I am happy to have the assent of the Ulster
Ist—'That
it Associa-
tion to the three main principles of my Bill.
it would be of great advantage to obviate the necessity of
appeals to the House of Commons. 2d—That fur this
purpose a Court of Appeal is necessary. 3d—That the
right of appeal should be conferred both on the claimant
and on the objector. In fact, these, together with the no-
tice to be given by claimants (to which the Association
assent), the abolition of certificates and affidavits (which
they also recommend), 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 fact
can be separated in the appeal as proposed by 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, and I
preserved the same authority when the appeal was extended
to the objector. If any other tribunal can be established
of as high legal attainments, as far removed from tempta-
tion, and as free from the suspicion of partiality, I see no
reason for insisting that the appeal shall be to the Judge of
Assize.
" The substitution of the authority of a Judge fyr that

MORNING EDITION.

of a jury, in cases of value, was suggested by the L
Lord Clements, sanctioned by the present Gosernmei
and adopted by the House of Commons.
The Association think that here again the object
should be subject to:costs, in every case where his objc.,
tions are not sustained ; the claimant to none in any
whatever. I was of opinion that both parties should
liAble to eats, if there were no legititoate grounds 1'
bringhlg the appeal, or defending the vote. The couit
recommended by the Association appears one-sided
unjust ; and, if I understand rightly, gives costs agab
ti
the objector whenever unsuccessful, and relieves t t
claimant where be frivolously puts the objector to eXPet,
in substantiating an objection &ready affirmed by t
Barrister.

" I have nothing to say to the remaining seetio
which support the vote by ballot, the shortening of t
duration of Parliament (in the practical adoption ,
which principle, at the present moment, I apprchei,
they will meet with but little countenance on the pr,
of her Majesty's Ministers), the qualification of represe
tives, or the proportion which ought to be established b,
tween the number of representatives from Ireland and fra •
the rest of the empire ; but, after all that has been se
upon the subject of the comparative franchise in the thr
countries, I must say a few words on the 12th section—t,
franchise. The table furnished in this section as a col,
partitive view of the franchise is a most useful docurne
and I gladly avail myself of it—first, as proving that Ir
land has not been unjustly dealt with ; and, second, as ft
nishing, together with the comments, a strong argumq
in favour of our interpretation of the existing franchise.
" The table of the Association shows that, in two
stances as compared svith England, and one as compar'
with Scotland, the Irish freehold franchise is more r'
stricted ; while, as relates to the leasehold franchise, r,
only does Ireland possess, to an equal extent, every fra'.
chise enjoyed by either country, with the exception of t
501. tenancy at will (which is repudiated by the Associ,
tion), but, in almost every instance, a less term of yea ,
and a lower amount of value will qualify in Ireland, th*
either in England or Scotland.
" First, as to the restriction. In England, a frecho.:
of inheritance in any case, and freehold not of inheritane
provided the party occupy to the amount of 405., entith
to vote ; whereas, in Scotland and in Ireland, the amour
is 101., and in Ireland for a freehold below 201., occap.
tion is superadded as a condition. For the amount, it
needless to advert to the grounds which led to the abel
tion of the Irish 40s. franchise. At the period of the Refor •
Bill the Legislature found the 40s. franchise existing
England, and did not abolish, though it restricted it, a 1
where the restrictions applied, it fixed the minimum
101. In Scotland it found no such franchise, and did e
introduce it, but fixed the minimum at 101. In Irela #
it had been recently abolished, the Legislature did n 4
restore it, but found the minimum fixed at 101. and 1, k
it so. Indeed, the Reform Bill did not, in any ws
deal with the freehold franchise of the counties of Ir
land—it conferred no new ono.—it altered no s
one, but it added the leasehold to the previou'
existing freeholds, and in so doing, confers
the right more extensively on Ireland than cith
England or Scotland. On the same ground the law r
sluicing occupation remained unaltered ; and it may
well for the " Liberal " Association, who select this poi
of comparison with Scotland as a grievance, to bear ."
mind, that so far from extending popular rights, the ve.‘
want of this restriction in Scotland was found practical
to give so much power to large landowners to grant " fi
titious"freeholds, that the Select Committee on Scot(
fictitious votes, presided over by Mr. Horsman, recent
mended that in Scotland occupation should be required ‘.O
the smaller freeholders, and that two successive Lords A.
'locate, with the sanction of the present Government, ha' .
gone so far as to advise that residence should be cnforct f
as a condition.
" And now let us turn to the leaseholds, and, adopt': k
the plan of the Association, place side by side the fra,
chisespos4essed respectively by the three countries, leavii
a blank in each case where no corresponding franchi
exists,"
Leasehold Franchises in England. Scotland. Irelar
Original lessee or assignee
of a term of 60 years (57
in Scotland
Original lessee or assignee
of a term of 20 years
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 of 20 years
Ditto, ditto, 19 years... .
Ditto, ditto, 14 years

X £ X
10 10 10

50 50 20
- 50 20
- - 20

Tenant at will, liable to a