The Sun.
London, England, 1840-06-20 00:00:00

would go so far as to call for its being altogether rescind-
ed. But his victory was one which would cost him dear.
—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet opposite had said
that Ireland presented the greatest difficulties which his
Government could encounter ; but would the Bill of his
Noble and formidable Friend—( Hear, and laughter)—
tend to diminish that difficulty ? He belie'ved that by
that policy it was then proposed to adopt the country would
be brought to a state almost as frightful as that which
preceded the passing of the Emancipation Act. Hon.
Gentlemen opposite smiled, but the excitement of Ireland
ought net to be contemned. They should have been
taught by experience—painful, if he could not say humi-
liating—riot to hold it in disregard. It was by that agita-
tion that Emancipation had been carried ; and he would
tell them that it they encountered it again, they would
again be vanquished. For the consequences they should
be responsible. If calamities were to follow—if the rights
of property were to he endangered—if religious animosity
were awakened, and if the public mind should again be
ready to explode, they alone, by consenting to per-
severe with that measure, would be responsible. —( Cheers.)
It was not entirely to Ireland the evil operation of the
Bill would be confined. The fierce democracy that bad
arisen in this country would derive new strength from it,
and in the foreign relations of Britain it would be felt—
( Hear, hear)—and Foreign Cabinets would avail them.
selves of uur dissensions to enforce the meat humiliating
conditions.—( Hear, hear.) He asked the House would
would it, for the sake of maintaining a miserable ascend-
ancy in a distracted province, sacrifice the interests of this
great country—( Hear, hear).—for which he felt as deeply
interested as if his first breath was drawn in the same air
with the Hon. Members around him ?—( Hear, hear.)
For that reason he implored the Committee not to sacri-
fice perhaps the best means of conciliating the affections of
millions of high-minded men. The great moral bulwark of
a government was justice to the people ; it was cheap, it was
easy, and impregnable. The Right Hon. and Learned
Gentleman concluded amidst much cheering.
Mr. D'ISRAELI supported the clause. He had not
heard one single argument against it,
Dr. STOCK said the Hon, Member who last addressed
the House had exhibited no small degree of moral courage
in rising after the splendid speech of the Right Hon Mem-
ber for Tipperary. The Bill was nothing more than a
Bill of disfranchisement. [The Learned Gentleman spoke
in so low a tone as to be nearly iueudable in the gallery.]
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said, that in the eloquent
speech of his Right Hon. and Learned Friend the Mem-
ber for Tipperary, there had not been from beginning to
end a single argument against the clause. The Right
Hon. Gentleman had read' the margined note of the
clause, and against that directed his warm declamation.
But that note was totidern verbis the same with that
of the Bill introduced by Mr. O'Loughlin, in 1835.
The Hon. and Learned Gentlemen then again went
through the case of Mr. Quinlan, whose lease depended
upon lives—one of them died, and yet he went up and
polled for Mr. Shiel, although the landlord to whom the
lease had lapsed was present and protested against the
vote. In Cmk there were 6,700 names upon the register,
while only 4,400 were entitled to vote, after deducting
deed men and others who had no right to the franchise.
Upon that register there were the names of 49 men who
canto forward to re-register, but the Assistant- Barrister
refused to put 33 of them on the register for want of value,
and the others for sonic other want, yet not one of them
but might tender his tote at any election. He would pro-
duce his certificate, and the returning officer would have
no power to reject the vote. Again, in the city of Cork
there were upwards of 8,100 names upon the register, but
not more than 4,000 had a right to vote. In 1832 there
were hundreds who swore they were worth more than la
in order to get upon the register, and within three months,
in order to save them from being rated, positively swere
that their houses were not worth 3/. That was in evidence
before the Fictitious Votes Committee. The Learned Ser-
geant then cited a great number of eases, to prove the
extent of fictitious voting in Ireland.
Mr. G. ROCHE controverted his statements as to
Cork county. •
Mr. PO WE RSCOURT repeated some statements ha
had made on a former night of fraudulent votes in Wick-
low, and said he could give 40 cases—naming two.
Mr. JAMES GRATTAN repelled the charge of per-
jury, made in a petition presented to the House against 47
electors of Wicklow. The Hon. Gentleman entered into
explanations for the purpoae of showing ,that the charge
was wholly unfounded.
Mr. CALLAGHAN supported the amendment.
After a few words in explanation from Mr. Sergeant
JACKSON,
Sir MONTAGUE CHAPMAN denounced the readi-
ness with which strong expressions were used in the
House, reflecting on the Irish constituencies.
After a few words-from Mr. Sergeant LEFROY,
Mr. PIGOT said that there were a few points con-
nected with the question then before the Committee, on
which lie wished to make some observations before they
proceeded to a division. The question then before them
was not as to the propriety of abolishing certificates,
but whether or not the amendment of his Noble Friend
involved a principle which it was their duty to adopt. The
question was not merely whether or not the first clause was
to be agreed to, but whether the main principle of the Bill,
'the investigation cf the claimant's right, should receive the
sanction of the Committee: The Bill involved a violation
of vested rights ; it introduced an ex post facto system of
legislation, and it did so, not to the extent of a single in.
vestigation, but to that of annual re-investigation. There
was nothing in the nature of the elective franchise to justify
such a provision. They were bound to provide for the
investigation of claims the beat tribunal which they could
devise, ,ind when such a tribunal was constituted, it was
their duty to repose confidence in it, and not to subject its
decisions to re nested litigation. He agreed with what had
born stated by a high authority, that the exercise of the
franchise would, by allowing those repeated investige-
tions, hold out increased temptations to perjury. Any
man who considered what was the nature of the investigation
must see that the Bill would excludeas many good votes from
the registry, as it would put bad ones upon it ; and no one
could doubt that the result of the Bill must be to disfran-
chise the people of Ireland to a great extent.—(Loud cries
of " Divide.")
Sir E. SUG DEN supported the Bill in the belief that
it would not inflict any such injury as had been represented
on the odier side. He would not propose any measure for
Ireland which he would not accept for England.—
( Cheers. ) He wished it to be distinctly understood that
under similar circumstances he would accept this Bill for
England.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man opposite (Mr. Pigot) 'had admitted that the section
upon which the Committee was tatted upon to divide was
one which must in some form or other find its way into
every Bill upon the subject.—( Hear, hear.) In the Bill of
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman himself there was a simi-
lar provision nearly word for word.—(Cheers)—the only
difference was that the clause of his Noble Friend was
brought forward in a plain and honest manner.—(Hear,
hear.) By voting for the amendment of the Noble Lord
opposite the Committee would be continuing on the rem
gistry men who had originally no right to be placed there,
and who had only been so by means of fraud and per-
jury.e...( Hoer, hear, and loud cries of " Divide, divide.")
Whet his Noble Friend proposed, and what was objected to
with so much warmth arid declamation, was precisely, in all re-
spects; the eliiuse which Was found in the very last Bill of her
Majesty's Government, introduced by the present Baron
Woulfe, and the Noble Lord, the present Chief Secretary for
Ireland. There was nothing contained in the present Bill
that was not in the Bill of her Majesty's Government, except,
indeed, that it did not contain the villanies and the hardships
of that measure.— (Cheers. ) The Right 'Hon. Gentleman
concluded by expressing his determination to oppose the
amendment.
Mr. 'MACAULAY then rose to address the Howe. He
entertained such great and unfeigned respect for the learning
and great legal knowledge of the Right Hon. Gentleman who
had just sat down, that it was with some'pain, and groat diffi-
denve, that he ventured to oppose his opinion to that of the
Right llon. Gentleman, as to the construction of the clauses
in the present Bill ; but the Bight Honourable Gentleman
hail asserted to the House, that the question on which they
had to ,decide was—whether a person now upon the register
was to remain there all his life. Now, all that he couldsay with
respect to that was, that the words did not bear out the Hon.
Gentleman's statement. It was not to continue for his life,
but for eight years. No want of candour could be brought
against his friend on this subject; it was a question of the
greatest importance—it was a question of investigation or no
investigation. It was a question which it was competent for
any Member to bring forward, and therefoiw it could not be
reasonably asserted, considering the history of the Bill, and the
manner in which it had gone into Committee, that any want of
candour had been shown. How had the Bill been read a
second time? Why by a majority of three, two of that number
declaring themsel7es against the principle of re-investigation,
and asserting that if (lett principle was not struck out of the
measure in Committee, they would vote against the third read-
ing. Such being the ease, were they not right in asking
whether that defect was to remain. When it was first proposed
to go into Committee, it was the intention of the Government
to go into it fairly, although they entertained little expectation
of doing any good by the Bill, as it was elaborately bad. At
present he could not designate the Bill by any other name than,
that of taking away the tight of voting upon the pretence of ascer-
taining it. It was to no pui-pose to say theßill did not directly deny
dthi
reereitglyh.t_o(f
Cyhoethiergs.,
)fo r
It ei tndeoi du
inaogt dedo
vexatious proceedings,
it did i in
and was, in truth, a Bill of disfranchisement under the name of
registration. He had no doubt that the Bill would
be there,
some names from the register that ought not
difficultiestbt in,
bthuet tv,h.aeyqoute
jsutisotnsvas
claimants.whether
sa-
tisfy him that the impedimeinftsthteheNßolill le
-oald go wit him,
claimants was only as to improper ones, he es ,„,ie
but he asserted fearlessly that he could do no such thing. e
line
Bill, as he said before, would encourage vexatious proceedings,
tLhorredwwinoutlhde.owni lay;of
and under its provisions parties who were not satisfiedhe with
the
s
Ex-
chequer, and if it should happen that a new Chief Justice
had opinion
then
nthe b
e revisingcn mme barrister caontdi I d
thengo bthefeorecotur.Ceoflufe
sEe t
l hear,
r such
He would venture to say that there was no parallel hbraidngbeietn
bazroeinttehdattocotuhret Queen'sagain_ again.—(Hear,
iithrey
hceoaru.ll
ad
if stratteprdo.iwneranoyf ootbhjeecrtaiotnpr,evsaesnntoetxgisitvienig,
Did the NobleP
the registry who had no legal right to be
e
Lord imagine that there are no persons in possession of pro-
pertyin that country the judgments in whose favour were by
no
of Law, were sanctioned by truth and
gmnel means justified?—( jar
allt fi etdh?e—d(alntl
damn
ga Hear, laiemaard)ed,
tlloidplatihnetiffNs
by
Juries,
and and that all the large sums which hail been paid by the Co-arts
(wHh
teeallr ,
tvheeraer
n)
Did he not believe that there were estatesmajnuysti
personshep
the possession of wrong owners ? But the Courts of Law could
not and ought not to set these matters right by eternal re-in-
w would be impossible vestigation.—(Cheers.) Suppose an injured man had come
and said that the cured
ent obtained against him was erroneous
—that he had projeured the evidence—that he had found in the
ce?
bottom of a chest an oldpaper which would establish his claim
—that he had been takenibyPsurprise ; the Court might natu-
rail;' say that they
_regretted the hardship of the ease, but it
on hearing and re-hearing
the case twenty or thirty or fifty- times ; that the Noble
ble for them to go
Lord's Bill admitted, and it respired no great stretch of irnagi-
nation to suppose a case in which the voter might be objected
occasionally to 120 or 130 times in the course of his life. He had not the
smallest doubt that if they went on hearing criminal case,
over and over agsin they
e
h al
ruffians. He had no doubt that if a man brought an action
over again for the same cause, some cases of importance might
tyat would
some at
vo.oiri length hang some great
be set right; but it had beenruled over and over again that it
was better (sea
• g should be endured
than that the rights` of society should be constantly interfered
with; and why should they depart from that principle in the
single case of the frane,hist;? No doubt the Bill would ex-
clude many dishonest voters, but the question was, what would