The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY,

ton Cotterel, in the county of Gloucester, paying for
the repeal of the Corn-laws.

Sir T. ACLAND presented petitions from 26 pa.
rishes in North Devon, against any alteration in the
Corn-laws,

Sir CHARLES GREY presented a petition from
the Anti-Slavery Society of North Shields, against the
importation of Hill Coolies.
Mr. ELLIOTT presented petitions from places in
Fife, in favour of Universal :Suffrage, Vote by Ballot,
and Annual Parliaments.
Mr. MACKENZIE presented petitions from places
in Peeblesshire, in favour of the principle of Non-in-
trusion.

Mr. GROTE presented three petitions from
places in Lancashire, Dumbartonshire, and a place near
Glasgow, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. KEMBLE presented a petition from the
Guardians of a Poor-law Union (we did not hear
where) against any alteration in the Corn-laws ;
also a petition from a parish in London, praying for
Church Extension.

Mr. HAWES presented a petition from the Three
Denominations of Dissenters in London against an 3
grant for the purpose of Church Extension ; also a peti-
tion to the same effer't from a congregation in Oxtord.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented seven petitions
for the total repeal of the Corn-laws, viz, from Salford,
Manchester, and Entwistle, in the county of Lancaster,
and Heversham, in the county of Westmorland ; also a
petition from the widows and starving mothers of starving
families in Salford. This last petition was read at length
by the Clerk from the table of the House, and was as
follows :

" That your petitioners are widows, and starving
mothers of starving children, and cannot tell how to
live from one day to another, it being almost impossible
to obtain any work, and the price of bread being so very
high.___

That your petitioners place a humble but trembling
trust in the providence of a gracious God, who cares
for the cry of the widow and orphan, and listens to the
cry of the poor and needy ; but at the same time are
much moved with grief and astonishment, not to say in-
dignation, on learning that the rich and great have made
a law to tax the bread of the poor, which appears to
your petitioners so hard-hearted and unjust an enactment,
that they venture to appeal to those feelings of huma-
nity of which it is hoped your Hon. House is suscep-
tible, and they earnestly implore your Hon. House to
abolish this cruel law."

Mr. HARLAND presented three petitions against
any alteration in the Corn-laws.
Mr. \VAKLEY presented thirteen petitions from
Glasgow and various places in Scotland, praying for
Universal Suffrage.
Sir G. STRICKLAND presented four petitions
from Kirby Lonsdale and three other places in the
County of York, in favour of the repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. REDDINGTON presented a petition from Gal-
way, praying the House to adopt measures for the
introduction of railways into Ireland.
Mr. ELLIS presented a petition from Armagh,
against intrusion of ministers.

Mr. E WART presented petitions from various dt,-
,ricts in the metropolis, in favour of a repeal of th.
Corn-laws. Also similar petitions from parishes in
Derby. The Hon. Member also presented a petition
from the retailers of beer of Stockport, praying to
he placed on the same footing as the Licensed Victuallers.
The Hon. Member also presented a petition in favour
of Vote by Ballot.

Mr. PATTISON presented petitions from Norton
Folgate and other places, in favour of a repeal of the
Corn-laws.
Sir R. PEEL presented a petition from Rippington,
in Staffordshire, against any alteration in the Corn-
laws.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from the Jus-
tices of the county of Middlesex, praying that a cum-
munication might be opened between Paddington-street
Ind the Sessions House, Clerkenwell.
On the motion of Mr. W. Attwood, the London and
Greenwich Railway Station Bill was read a second time.
Captain PECHELL presented a petition from Mr.
Matthew Phillips, Geographical Engineer, begging for
bread and beef for the nation, and stating that
he knew the House would supply beer and bacon,
and hoping that, instead of A's and No's, B's
would prevail namely, bread, beef, beer, and
bacon, and begging the House to refer to the Journals
of the House of Lords, for the evidence he had given
on the 4th of July, 1814. The Hon. Member stated
he believed the object of the petitioner, who was a very
scientific but eccentric gentleman, was the better em-
ployment of the poor.
Mr. G. W. WOOD presented petitions from the
County of Worcester, praying for the repeal of the Corn-
laws, and free trade in all the necessaries of life.
Mr. PEMBERTON presented several petitions
from the county of York, praying for Church Extension.
Mr. LAMBTON presented a petition against the
Corn-laws.

CRACOW.
Mr. J. ELLIS postponed the motion about Cra-
cow till after Easter.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND)
BILL.
Lord STANLEY moved the Order of the Day for
the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. F. FRENCH said, this Bill being professedly
to assimilate the law as to registration in England
and Ireland, it was important to see whether the law
in England had worked well. He believed it had
not. Objections had been urged against it so
strongly and frequently that measures had been
brought in for amending the law in 1833, 1834,
1835, 1836, 1837, 1838. In 1836 a measure had
passed this House, and had gained the sanction of the
Upper House, with some alterations introduced la
Lord Wharncliffe, which had not met the concurrence of
the proposers, so that it did not pass into a law.
The Noble Lord, in his objection to the Bill of 1837,
said that the system of registration in England was
insufficient, and did not provide for a prevention of
the evils, which were well known and under-
stood in England. The Noble Lord proposed
to legislate for Ireland upon principles suited
to that country, but he was now attempting
to assimilate the system of registration in Ire-
land with that which he had himself condemned
as having entirely failed in England. In anothez
House a Noble Duke had objected to an inconsiderat,
and precipitate proceeding with Bills sent up from this
House, and although there was little connection be
tween the two subjects, there was certainly a decided
parallel ; and before they came to any discussion on the
registration, they ought to consider the modes of tenure.
But what he considered a most important objection re-
lated to the mode of estimating the beneficial interests
which persons claiming to register out of 101. freeholds
had in their premises. The House must be aware
that persons claiming to register 10/. freeholds had
been called upon to prove that a.responsible and solvent
tenant could afford to pay them as additional rent 101
over the sum for which they were liable.. Now, it
must be obvious that no responsible tenant would pay
the utmost value of the land, leaving no profit to him
self for his time and labour. It appeared to him, therefore,
that the Bill of the Noble Lord the Member for Lan-
cashire would be a measure for curtailing the elective
franchise instead of extending it. There were numerous
other objections to the Bill—such, for instance, as the
onus being thrown on the elector, twice every year, of
defending his franchise ; another objection was,
the large amount of costs to which a freeholder
was liable who was unsuccessful in establishing his
franchise. He thought the Bill also would produce a
clashing with the present October Quarter Sessions,
cartictentrly if the Noble Lord adhered to his plan of
placing the revision of the lists in the hands of the
Assistant- barrister, at the October Registration Sessions.
The Hon. Member proceeded to say that he should
protest most earnestly against the onerous and objec-
tionable duties of deciding in disputed cases which
it was proposed to give the judges by the new
law—duties so objectionable that no person ever
thought of subjecting the judges in this country
to them ; on the contrary, they were prepared to
establish at a considerable annual expense a Court of
Appeal in order to provide against the necessity of
Judges being so called on. He believed that it
would be impossible for the Judges to discharge
those duties, as they would come before them at the
Spring Assizes, when they could not be supposei
to have sufficient time at their disposal to perform such
a task. He would read extracts from a letter which
he had received from a friend in Sligo, in proof of the
assertion he had made. The Honourable Member
ead extracts from the letterrs in quetion,
stating that the time at the disposal of the Judges in Sligo
was insufficient for the duties they had to discharge, and
that for the last three years two-thirds of the registry
cases which came before them remained untried,
If they now gave them, the Judges, the power of a
double appeal, they would in effect quadruple their
duties, and render it impossible for them to
.attend to
He would. briefly recapitulate his
way. present Bill. Ho was opposed
proposed to assimilate
in Ireland to anEnglish enactment
the Registry Laws d
the .
totohbjeemeitt,iionnfisarsntty,o
because he believed that
he was opposed to the measureh
because it
L. aws in Ire-
land, under
which
thhaecipallemaousft
ruegnaunlaimtinogustlyeconnegeimstnryed Secondly,
d to the measure
too small. And thirdly, he was oppose
franchiselan, i t would
in a
chnenfaoturnydw
hmateriallyere that
franchise
limit
wasthe electivealready
becausephysically it would
impossible throw upon
theyt
the Judges
could
which it was politically objectionable that they should
undertake. For these reasons he begged to move as an
discharge,d ut
ies
which
i e
andh
it
amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day
six months.
Mr. HAWES seconded the amendment.

The SPEAKER having put the question,
Mr. SHAW said that he could not conceive how it
was possible that Gentlemen apposite should oppose the
second reading of this Bill consistently with their former
declaration. He believed th, sk'leeted hk Hon.
Friend the Nieniber tor Roscinnoion ( Mr. French ) be-
cause his name was not to be found on a Bill similar to

;~~;.~.

the present, but he believed that Hon. Gentlemen had
supported such Bills. In some of the details objections
might be made, but how Hon. Gentlemen opposite could
oppose the principle of the sill he was at a
loss to conceive. In 1835 he (Sir M. O'Loghlen) and
(Sergeant Perrin) introduced a Bill containing pre-
cisely the same prineiple. In 1836, Sir M. O'Loghlen
and the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, intro'
duced a similar Bill, as did Mr. Woulfe and the same
Noble Lord in 1838. Li 1839, the Hon. 111-tuber for ;
Limerick (Mr. Wyse) i..troducecl a similar Bill. The
Hon Member for Limerick's Bill, was as like the 8.11
then before the House, as it was possible for two Bills
could he. It contained all this Bill did, but nothing
more. Some of the Bills that had been introiuced, did
contain more, but they did not all contain all those
provisions, which the Hon. Member for Roscommon
thought essential to ensure the second reading. He
thought his Hon. Friend, in the objections he had
made to this Bill, had gone upon most mistaken notions.
His Hon. Friend had said that this Bill did tot
contain any reference to corporate rights, neither did the
Bids introduced by Sir M. O'Loghlen or Mr. Justice
Perrin. Then as to the beneficial interest, that was a
great object in other Bills, but itwas omitted in this.—
(Cheers from Mr. O,Connell.) He (Mr. Shaw)
would, from the w3rds used by the Honourable
Member for Dublin ',in 1835, show that at that
time he was favourable to a Bill like the present,
tor, according to the Mirror of Parliament, that Ho-
nourable and Learned Member said that such a Bill as
the present would be not only beneficial, but absolutely
necessary, because it provided for an annual revision.
That was' what the present Bill did. The present Bill
provided for all those things which the Hon. and
Learned Member extolled at one time, but which he
now deprecated. The Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman, in 1835, supported the Bill, because
it gave an appeal to the Judge; but he
objected to the present measure because it did so.
A, the principle of the Bill had been appio% ed of by
both sides of the House the Bill ought to be allowed to
go into Committee. The same reasons which
carried the former Bill to its second reading
were precisely applicable to this. The great objection
which the Honourable and Learned Member for
Dublin made in his late speeches in Ireland to
this Bill was, that it originated with " Stanley,"
with whom everything since the accession of the
Nhig Ministry that was at all mischievous,
to Ireland had originated. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) then read extracts from a news-
' paper report of Mr. O'Connell's speech at the
Corn Exchange, Dublin, in which Mr. O'Con-
nell was reported to say that he was wroil
in advocating an appeal to both sides,—that he had
originally thought thought that both parties ought to
nave an appeal, but from what he had observed
in the practice of the House and Commit-
tees, he was convinced there ought to be no
such appeal. The Hon. and Learned tirentltin:in (Mr.
O'Connell) in that speech strongly reprobated the
motives of Lord Stanley, and condemned his measure—
nor did he spare the House of Commons. He said,
" I dare them to pass such a measure."—( Cheers.)
The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin might say
" Hear, hear," and others might echo the cheer ; but
he (Mr. Shaw) would recommend the Noble Lird
who was now Secretary for Ireland to listen and to
hear. The Honourable and Learned Member said.
" They dare not pass such a Bill ; if they
attempt it, I shall move that it be read a second time
that day six months ; and if that fails, I shall then use
every means which the forms of the House of Commons
allow me, to prevent the Irish people from being
crushed"—( Hear, and a laugh)—and that was by a mea-
sure which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had himself
advocated. The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin
went on, according to the same report, to say : If I tan
in that I shall then restore the Repeal Association.
(Cheers)—ann then (said Mr. Shaw) the Hon. Gentle-
man went on to revert to the old bugbear, exhibited only
o women and children, of the repeal of the union.
Could any person doubt there were a great number of
traudulent voters on the registry, or that great perjury
was resorted to to place them there ? To put an end
to this and to the vexatious opposition to the bona jute
voter was the object of his Noble Friend's Bill. He
sincerely believed his Noble Friend had no other
object. Let it be recollected that whenever a
fraudulent vote was established, it remained for
a period of eight years, after which a certificate might
be obtained, perpetuating it for eight years longer,
with no other remedy, however fraudulent it might be
proved to be, than the very serious and expensive one
of applying to a Committee of the House, and then
the forgery of certificates, of which duplicates were
frequently given, since at the end of seven
years it was necessary to renew the registry,
or the party would not be entitled to vote.
Ho would repeat that objections might be urged to
details in the Bill, which lion. Members might make
in Committee ; but, as regarded the principle of the
measure, which had been already so frequently
a contained in Bills brought forward by Honour-
I able Members opposite, and which had so often
received their support, he did not see any principle of
fairness or consitency on which Hon. Members oppo-
site could oppose it. Under those circumstances he
confidently hoped the House would consent to the se-
cond reading of the Bill.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said that he could not support
the present measure. He agreed with the Noble
Lord that the present system of registration in Ireland
was a very imperfect one, and he regretted that Govern
merit had not hitherto been able to bring forward any
measure for its remedy. The objects of a system
of registration should be to determine who
were the persons qualified to vote at elections
and to protect those who possessed such qualifications.
He believed that the Bill of the Noble Lord would
fulfil the first of his conditions, but he was persuaded
that it would only tend to the subversion of the other.
He could well conceive the reason why the Noble Lord
did not attempt to legislate for amending the Regis-
tration of Ungland. The Noble Lord fou d that the
system in England was advantagious to his party, whereas
the system prevailing in Ireland was adverse to it.
It was entirely unnecessary for the Liberal party in
Ireland to have recourse to fictitious votes, because if
every freeholder in the country were at liberty to give
his vote according to his conscience, the Liberal ma-
jority would be much greater.---(Cheers.) Every one
.vas partial to his own ; probably he was so, for he
hought the Bill introduced by himself gave facilities to
the acquisition of the Franchise, while it would effec-
tually prevent the manufacture of fictitious votes.
On the contrary, the Bill of the Noble Lord had
broken, if not the letter, at all events the spirit
of the promise made at the passing of the Re-
form Bill, for undoubtedly it imposed upon the
person wishing to acquire the franchise many more
difficulties than existed at present.—( Hear, hear.)
There was another point with regard to which the
Noble Lord had not kept the promise he had made to
the House. The Noble Lord had stated that the
measure would not be one of ex post facto legis-
lation—that he would maintain the rights of exist-
ing electors, and allow their claims to remain un-
questioned. Now the Bill appeared to require a new
system of regulation altogether, because the new form
of registry required a greater number of particulars
than were contained in the schedule of the Reform
Bill. The Noble Lord adopted the system of annual
revision ; and to that, provided protection was given
to the elector, he (Mr. O'Brien) could have
no objection, although, if it was intended to carry
out the English system of revision, he should de-
cidedly oppose it. The English system was one of
;Teat vexation and expense to all parties, and the
Noble Lord had certainly got rid of one of its
most objectionable features, inasmuch as he threw upon
the party objecting to the vote the onus of making good
his objection. But, in getting rid of that, he had intro-
duced another objection, which was most absurd and un-
justifiable namely, the imposing a penalty upon
a man for seeking a constitutional right.—(Hear.)
The Noble Lord had been so good as to say that he ap-
proved of his (Mr. O'Brien's) Bill. But it did somehow
happen that the Noble Lord had altered or omitted some
very important provisions in that Bill. For instance, the
Noble Lord bad not copied the provision for protecting
voters who had once acquired the franchise from ob-
jections upon it. As the law stood, the Irish
voter was liable, at any revision, to be called
on to make out his distint title to the franchise.
Nothing could be more vexatious, that a man
who had registered for a 101. house in 1840, should
be liable to be called on in 1841 to prove that
the house was worth that sum yearly. And therefore
he (Mr. O'Brien) had introduced s. clause enacting
when a man continued in the same premises, and
in the same occupation as he had before, he need
not support his franchise again at subsequent revisions.
His assent to the principle of an annual revision was
grounded entirely on admission of that proviso.
Again, his (Mr. O'Brien's) Bill enacted that the registry
should not be more than ten miles from any freeholder.
The Noble Lord by his Bill proposed to adopt a
form of appeal, which he must know the people of
Ireland had great objections to. It weuld be at-
tended wth enormous expense, trouble, and vexation.
He could not understand how, with the present number
of Judges, it would be possible for them to hear the ap-
peals contemplated by the Bill. He could not set down
without expressing a hope that her Majesty's Govern-
on this subject at some future period. His opinion was
that her Majesty's Government was quite right in re-
smisetnintgwtohuld this
smneoat dsurees,
which
ppair in bringing forward a measure
forNo theble
purpose of limiting shapedtothe
Lord, he thought they might safely consign him to his
own constituents, because if he was prepared to apply
himself to the subject of registration, he thought
the:ract apparently
sea. As
h? ought first to grapple with the English rogistra-
tion. Let him do that, and then let him extend to
Ireland the same principles of legislation which he had
found effectual in this country.
Lord G. SOMERSET thought the latter ohserr
c! the Honourable Member (Tpositis
uric cllecl for. English Members hail often been
reproached tar not taking suilicier,L interest le Coe