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

CRACOW.

Mr. J. ELLIS postponed the motion about Cra•
pow 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 bad 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
Upoer House, with some alterations introduced by
Lord Wharneliffe, which had not met the concurrenceof
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 another
House a Noble Duke had objected to an inconsiderate
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 10/.
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
franch;se 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,
particularly 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 roost 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 dischaigc
those duties, as they would come before them at the
Spring Assizes, when they could not be supposel
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
read extracts from the lettcrrs in quction,

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
them in any way. He would briefly recapitulate his
objections .to the present Bill. He seas opposed to
it, first, because it proposed to assimilate the Re-
gistry Laws in Ireland to an EngliSh enactment which
had been almost unanimously condemned. Secondly,
lie was opposed to the measure because he believed that
under the plea of regulating the Registry Laws in Ire-
land, it would be found materially to limit the elective
franchise in a country where that franchise was already
too small. And thirdly, he was-opposed to the measure
because it would throw upon the Judges duties which it
was physically impossible they could discharge, and
which it was politically objectionable that they should
undertake. For these reasons he begged to more as an
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 opposite, should oppose the
second reading of this Bill consistently with their former
declaration. He believed they had selected his Hon.
Friend the Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) be-
cause his name was not to be found on a Bill similar to
the present, but he. believed that Hon. Gentleman had
supported such Bills. In some of the details objections
might be made, but bow Hon. Gentlemen opposite could
oppose the principle of the Bill 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 principle. In 1836, Sir M. O'Loghlen
and the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, intro-
duced a similar Bill, as did Mi. Woulfe and the same
Noble Lord in 1838. Li 1839, the Hon. Member for
Limerick (Mr. Wyse) i,troduced a similar Bill. The
Hon Member for Limerick's Bill, was as like the Bill
then before the House, as it was possible two Bills
could be.' It contained all this Bill did, but nothing
more. Some of the Bills that had been introduced, 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 not
contain any reference to corporate rights, neither did the
Bills 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 it was omitted in
(Cheers from Mr. O'Connell.) He (Mr. Shaw)
would, from the w.rds used 'by the Honourable
Member for Dublin in 1835, show that at that
time he was favourable to a Bill like the present,

for, 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 183.5, supported the Bill, because
it gave an appeal to the Judges; but he
objected to the present measure because it did se.
As the principle of the Bill bad been apptoved of by
both sides of the House, the Bill ought to be allowed to
go into Committee. The iarne 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 bad 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'Cor.-
nell was reported to say that he was wrong
in advocating an appeal to both sides,—that he had
originally thought thought that both parties ought to
haye 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 Gentleman (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 Lord
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 more 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 bad himself
advocated. The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin
went on, accordik to the same report, to say : If fail
in that I shall then restore the Repeal Association

(Cheers)—and then (said Mr. Shaw) the Hon. Gentle-
man went on to revert to the old bugbear, exhibited only
to women and children, of the repeal of the union..
Could any person doubt there were a great number of
fraudulent voters on the registry, or that great perjury
was resorted to to place them there ? o put an end
to this and to the vexatious opposition to the bona fide
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 tedious 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 Hon. Members might make
in Committee ; but, as regarded the. principle of the
measure, which had been already so frequently
contained in Bills brought forward by Honour-
able Members opposite, sad which had so often
received their support, he did net see any principle of
fairness or consistency on which lion. Members oppo-
site could oppose it. Under those circumstances he
confidently hoped the House rveuld 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 ill Ireland
was a very imperfect one, and he regretted that Govern-
ment 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
qautaliteliceacttii°oit:.
and to protect those who possessed such
Ho 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 England. The Noble Lord fou d that the
system in England was advantageous to his l
twhereas
the system prevailing in Ireland was Padverse to it.
It was entirely unnecessary for the Liberal party in
Ireland to have recourse to fictitious rotes, 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
was partial to his own ; probably he was so, for he
thought 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
t• 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 corm
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