The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-05-22 00:00:00

~~~

\k.

t•„:
• c
•
\`•\\ "*ltll'Ortqals Varliaintitt.


HOUSE OF LORDS.—MONDAY.
Lord LYNDHURST gave notice that he would, on Tuesday,
move for copies of the correspondence between the Neapoli-
tan government and Mr. Macgregor, on the subject of the
sulphur monopoly.—Adjourned.

1~

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MONDAY:
An immense number of petitions was presented for and
against Lord Stanley's bill.
Lord MORPETIS presented a petition against the bill from
Belfast, sigined by more than 8,000 inhabitants ; and another
from Liverpool, signed by upWards of 16,000 persons, also
against the Registration Bill of the noble lord. (Cheers.)
_ Mr. W. BmtuoN presented a similar petition from Water-

ford.
Lord SANDON presented a petition from Liverpool, signed
by 23,137 persons in three days, in favour of the bill of the
noble lord. (Cheers.) Of these 20,000 had added their
professions and residences. He believed this petition was
the most numerous and respectable that had ever proceeded
from that town. They prayed the house at once to go into
committee on the hill, and, disregarding factions opposition,
to carry it to a third reading. (Cheers.) He begged leave
to read a passage from the petition. The petitioners said
the objections to the bill were of a threefold character—viz.,
personal, fraudulent, and mistaken : personal, because not
founded against the principles of the bill, but against the
noble lord who introduced it, and therefore unworthy of the
attention of the house ; fraudulent, because, under the pre-
tence of keeping up an extensive franchise, the real design
of the opposite party was to keep on the registers persons !
not legally qualified to vote, or persons to vote in lieu of
dead men, whose names were still retained (laughter),—and
it was the duty of the house to resist all such dishonest and
disgraceful attempts (" bear, hear," and laughter) ; mis-
taken, because they proceeded upon misrepresentations of
the bill ;—and the pet►t►oners bad no doubt that, if the house
went into committee on the measure, all honest and reason-
able objections would soon he satisfied. (Cheers.) The
noble lord and Mr. Cresswell then carried up the bulky
petition to the table, amidst general laughter.
BUSINE33 OF TIIE HOUSE.
Mr. GOULBUUN wished to know when Lord J. Russell
intended to move his proposed alterations in the Poor-law
Amendment Act.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not name the -time, but would
state the course wh►ch he intended to pursue. He would
first go into committee on the Canada Government Bills ;
he would next proceed with the Ecclesiastical Duties and
Revenues Bill ; he would then propose the bill for continu-
ing the poor-law .commission; and after that proceed with
the measure for altering certain provisions of the Poor-law
Amendment Act.

IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.
At half-past five o'clock, the order of the day having been
read for the committee on the Irish Voters' Registration
Bill, •
Sir W. SOMERVILLE rose to resist the further progress of
the measure. He contended that the lower class of voters
were not, as many seemed to suppose, a body so numerous
as to overbear the £2O and the £5O electors, and admonished
the house to proceed with caution and Lrbearance. He
thought every sine le clause of the bill objectionable; but he
proposed, in moving that it should be committed on that day
six months, to dwell only on its two main features. The
first was the cost of the annual registration; £5 would be a
ruinous mulct to a poor cottager. though it would be nothing
out of the funds of the Carlton Club. It was to him incom-
prehensible how any man could support this bill who lived
in Ireland, and knew how much that country required tran-
quillity. The other great evil was the appeal. Were the
registration appeals to be heard before or after the civil and
criminal business ? In either case, one or other class of
suitors must be mischievously and even indefinitely delayed.
Instead of throwing an invidious duty on the judges, he
should like to withdraw it even from the assistant barristers,
and remove that apprehension of political bias which must
always prevail among the people, while their juaicial officers
are invested with political functions. The real object of the
present bill was only to remove the Irish liberal members.
In general, tba noble lord was the obstructor; but he was
himself obstructed by those Irish representatives, and there-
fore he was anxious to disseat them.
Mr. JAMES GRATTAN seconded the motion. He thought
the bill peculiarly injurious to the Roman Catholics, because
the electors whom it would disfranchise happened to be
chiefly of that faith.
Mr. Lzertor observed. that, unless this bill should give
the means of revision, there was no way of correcting the
• registration, except through an election committt e ; but com-
mittees perpetually refused to open the registry. The last
Longford committee, on which sat eight of the present sup-
p3rters of the ministry. had refused to open it ; but, aware
of the inconvenience of their own refusal, they had passed a
strong resolution, asserting the necessity of some immediate
remedy for the want of revision. Surely those eight gentle-
men would vote at least for the speaker's leaving the chair.
Another Longford committee had opened the registry, and
struck off a great number of votes as fictitious; but there
had been no means of taking them off the registry ,• and, at
the next election, they had all been ready to poll afresh.
Twelve committees had opened the registry ; and the total
of the fictitious votes disallowed by them was between 1400
and 1500, not one of whom could be prevented, under the
present law, from voting again. The learned member then
cited opinions pronounced in former debates by various of
the present opponents of the bill, in favour of its leading
provisions ; and among them were Mr. O'Connell and the
Attorney-General. it had been said, that the franchise
wanted clearer definition. The judges of Ireland had already
defined it. Legislation, therefore, on this head was not
requisite ; but; if it were, why not introduce a clause for that
purpose in the committee? Gentlemen said, there ought to
be an increase of the Irish constituency ; but if so, let the
increase be a fair, not a fraudulent one. As to the petitions
against this bill, they would have been entitled to no weight,
ad they come in waggon loads, when it was considered by
what delusion they had been got up; Mr. O'Connell having
told the Irish people it was actually admitted, that the object
of the bill was the profligate one of destroying the franchise
of Ireland, and transferring the elective power to the land-
lords.
Lord CLEMENTS said that the real fault of the people was
only that they did not vote with their landlords.
Sir R. BATESON regretted that this should be now made
a party question. Its leading provisions had theretofore
been fully approved of on the other side of the house, but
now it was made a political matter by a section, who feared
IG would area their 4.; interests. As to the petitions, they
had indeed been numerously signed, because orders had come
down that on the Easter and following Sundays each priest
should, from the altar, direct every man of his congregation
to sign at the door before he quitted the chapel. He had
himself asked a little party of them what it was they lied
signed ; and their answer was that they did not exactly know,
but they believed it was something about Mr. O'Cutmell.
The language, too, of intimidation and abuse employed by
some part of the Irish press had been so gross, that Billings-
gate would have been ashamed of it.
Mr. LYNCH complained, that there was already much un-
certainty as to the franchise, from the discordance between
the decisions of assistant-barristers, and the want of unifor-
mity even among the judges. To reproduce this evil every
year would be a great aggravation. He would prefer a fran-
chise of which the test should be the poor-rate ; but though
he might be unable to carry that, be had at least a right to
require that the existing franchise should be defined. The
true object-would be, not to multiply exclusions from the
franchise, but to afford facilities for obtaining it. What man
of timid, retiring character, would brave the obstacles set up
by this bill ?
Mr. Lirroer said the franchise was already defined. For
a considerable time there had been some uncertainty whether
the £lO clause of the reform act did or did not require that
there should be an interest for which a solvent tenant would
give a clear value of £lO a year. All the judges, except one,
did, after an argument of two days, decide that there must
be such an interest. The one dissentient judge ventured, on
his next circuit, to act on his own opinion, thus opposed to
that of all his brethren, and some assistant-barristers fol-
lowed him. Upon this Lord Chief Justice wrote to Lord
Chief Justice Denman, requesting to be informed whether,
in crown cases reserved (which are precisely analagous,) the
judges hold themselves bound by the opinion of the majority,
as they are where the judgment is given on matter of record;
and Lord Chief Justice Denman's answer was, that they do
hold themselves so bound. This proved that the franchise
was no longer undefined ; and Mr Litton added, that he un-
derstood the one dissentient judge to have since acted on the
opinion of the majority. But, as some of the assistant-bar-
risters still held out, and decided votes on the principle de-
clared by the majority of the judges to be illegal, there was
no security to the constituency, without an appeal to a tri-
bunal whose judicature would be uniform. It had been said
that the franchise was to have been legisiative!y defined in the
bill introduced by Mr. Attorney-General Woulfe -•that is,
an attempt was made by that bill, under pretence of removing
doubts, to declare the law in direct opposition to what it had
been declared to be by the judges in their construction of the
reform act. And now the house was to be told that no bill
should pass for the prevention of the grossest fraud and per-
jury, unless this repeal of the reform act were included. The
learned gentleman closed his speech by assuring the house
that Mr. O'Connell's efforts against this bill and against the
union had become wholly powerless in Ireland, where every
old woman now understood that his movements were a mere
pecuniary speculation.
Lord Joliet RUSSELL began by describing this as the most
cortnidable attempt ever made against the reform act, as tend-
ing, no, like former motions, to follow out the spirit of the,
act by extending the franchise, but to retrograde by an ef-
fort at contraction, and treat manhe much con who demanded the fran-
chise as a public enemy. Nor the
was soled to find
that the attack was only on one part of the United Kingdom,
because in all parts lie could see evils requiring equal
ctitious atten-
tion—the annual vexation of registry in England, fi
votes in Scotland, intimidation and bribery in all the three
kingdoms. To none of these evils did gentlemen opposite
apply themselves, but only to the one instance in which a
party purpose was to be answered. In England the voters
were not troubled to prove their title unless objected to,
though they certainly were exposed to the vexation of annual
question. He had himself proposed a bill for removing this
annoyance in England. The present bill gave no relief to the
Irish • it left them all their own disadvantages, and invented
for them others in addition. Was the system of this bill to
be introduced into England ? It' not, Ireland was treated
with inequality and injustice; hut if yes, he would warn the
people of England against so monstrous a change. In the
statute of George IV. which gave the appeal against the re-
jection of the vote, a jury was to determine on matter of fact ;
but in the present bill, which gives the appeal against the ad-
mission of the vote, the jury, that is the popular principle, is
wholly struck out. The 'franchise is not directly defined by
the bill ; but the bill sends the appellant to the 'judges, who
have already defined it just as the authors of the bill desire.
It would have been more consistent with good faith to define
the franchise directly. Lord John proceeded to object to the
absolute power which the bill proposed to give to the judges,
making them supreme not only over the law, but over the
House of Commons. He disliked to see power so bestowed,
because the judges had always exercised such powers in a
narrow spirit. Now as to the annual revision. In England
it was managed by associations on a very expensive system.
How was that expense to be borne in Ireland, a country so
much poorer ?
Lord. STANLEY observed, that though it had been very
usual to take the second reading of a bill by consent, and re-
serve the discussion until the motion for going into commit-
tee, it was not at all customary to make a fresh opposition on
that motion, after a contest of two nights and a division on
the second reading. The mover of the amendment, how-
ever, had dealt fairly ; he had attempted no shuffle, and
talked of no hills which were never intended to be brought in.
Lord Stanley then adverted to the personal attacks which had
been levelled against himself. Mr. O'Conneli's abuse he was
sure no gentleman would expect him to notice at rill, but some
of that member's perversions of fact were too gross not to re-
quire refutation in this, the only place where he and Mr.
O'Connell were likely to meet upon this conflict. He then
dissected some cf Mr. O'Connell's statements to the people
of rreland, and showed, passage by passage, the misrepre-
sentations contained in them. The present amendment went
to declare, that to theexisting evils of fictitious voting no remedy
should be applied. In proof of these evils be cited the regis-
tries of Dublin city, Dublin county, Longford, Waterford, and
other places, where he alleged that the nominal constituency
on the roll amounted to two, sometimes to three, times as
many persons as actually remained alive and qualified to vote,
and he referred not only to various cases of votes given in the
names of dead men, and ti‘tr. oTu
n leases
ofnorellil, madeves
whiienh
IhBa3d2' ex-
pired,io but to a speech of
which Mr. O'Connell himself foretold all these very frauds,
and contended for an annual registration as the only effectual
means of preventing them• Among other illustrations then
given by Mr. O'Connell had been a story of a man who came
.up to vote as John 'Moran, and being desired to write his
EMOO, took up the pen without any hesitation and wrote

_ ,

" Dennis O'Brien." When the levglito rabieli by this story
iad subsided. Lord Stanley went on to My. " I find no fault
with the learned member for having abandoned all his old
opinions, but I do complain of his vituperating me beoause
I adhere to them." Then addressing himself to the speech
of Lord J. Russell, he condemned the petty trick pf announc-
ing government bills to defeat his. And at what period had
these bills been announced !—not at the beginning of the ses-
sion ; no, not till after the defeat of ministers on the second
reading of the present measure. Even the Solicitor-Ge-
neral for Ireland had not opened ,the outline of the promised
bill. But Lord John had intimated that it was to be madeas
perfect as possible, without reference to the facility of passing
it in the other house. In other words, the government was
preparing a hill which should serve both as an excuse for not
supporting the present measure, and as a peg for banking up
the subject altogether. The exclusion of the jury, which
Lord John had represented as so anti-popular, had actually
been borrowed from one of the former bills on this very sub-
ject, sent up to the lords by this very government. Tin! prin-
ciple of costs was one of justice, proposed not for the vexation
of the poor voter, but for his protection ; and the clause
enacting it teas borrowed from another bill, prepared by the
law officers of the present ministry, and sanctioned by Lord
John Russell himself.—Lord Stanley vindicated some other
details which had been attacked, protesting, however, that
these objections should have been reserved for the committee.
Finally, Lord J. Russell had called on him to declare the
franchise. Was this fair dealing, from a government who
would undoubtedly agree to no declaration of the franchise,
except such a one as they knew the other house would reject
—such a one as they expected would defeat this bill? Lord
Stanley concluded with a vindication of his own motives in
proposing the bill.
Mr. CALLAGHAN then moved an adjournment of the de-
bate. A discussion on this point arose, and the house then
divided on the question of the adjournment of the debate,
when the numbers appeared—For the adjournment, 262 ;
against it, 281 ; majority, 19.
Some further discussion took place, but eventually the ad-
journment of the debate was agreed to, and the house ad-
journed at a quarter past one.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—TUESDAY.
The royal assent was given by commission in the House of
Lords to several bills, public and private.
In answer to Lord Westmeath, on the subject of the per-
secution 6f the Jews at Damascus, Lord MELBOURNE said,
that what was reported in the journals as having been stated
by him on the occasion referred to was precisely the reverse
of what he said. His negative answer was, that he did not
know whether instructions hed been actually sent out to the
consuls at Damascus and Syria, but he knew that it was the
intention to send out such instructions, and he might now
say, that at the time the question was asked distinct instruc-
tions had been sent out to our consuls to interfere.
It appears that his lordship uttered only one syllable on
the occasion alluded to, which, as his lordship never speaks
very plainly, was misunderstood.
Lord ABERDEEN stated that his bill on the church question
of Scotland had been well. received—far *beyond his expec-

tation.
Lord MELBOURNE postponed the Iriah corporation bill to
the 2nd of June.
After a .conversation ending in nothing, on the state of
Ireland, the Archbishop of DUBLIN brought forward his
motion for the abolition of the punishment of transportation.
His Grace went over the same topics which were urged by
Sir W. Molesworth, and with a Manly simplicity of style
well worthy of imitation.
Lord Non.maNnvimoved the previous question, but after
some discussion the Archbishop declined to divide the house.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUESDAY.
The New Zealand company bill was read a second time
as was the Weaver churches bill.
In answer to Mr. Cresswell, Lord PALMERSTON stated
that within the last few days he had received despatches
from Mr. Mandeville, the British minister at Buenos Ayres,
and that active negotiations were now proceeding between
Mr. Mandeville, and the representatives of the French go-
vernment, with a view to effecting an arrangement. A war
was going on between Montevideo and Buenos Ayres, and in
these hostilties the French forces took a part. Into these
events it was net necessary for him at present to enter more
fully than to state that French ships of war had sailed up the
river, and had an engagement with one of the batteries. In
'short, there had been several acts of hostility besides the
blockade.
Lord PALMERSTON, in answer to Lord Sandon, stated that
the legal authorities he had consulted upon the question of
certain duties forcibly levied on English merchants by the
authorities at Bilboa, sustained the opinion which he had
entertained as to the illegality of those duties ; and for this
view he contended in his communications with the Spanish.
government. The Bilboa authorities would, however, be
entitled to continue to levy the duty until prevented by the
result of the negociation ; should it prove unfavourable to
them, subject, however, to repayment. The last communi-
cation was from him to the Spanish government, stating the
reasons why he thought the duty ought not to be levied, and
to this no answer had been as yet received.
A bill founded on the resolutions in the Committee of
Ways and Means last Friday, was brought in, but the dis-
cussion was postponed.
IRISH REGISTRATION BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The adjourned debate on Lord Stanley's bill was then re-
sumed. .
It was begun by Mr. D. BRowNE, who expressed his per-
suasion that the justice of the cause would supply all defici-
encies of argument and eloquence in its advocates. His own
speech was an exception from his theory. The only material
fact he stated seas one for which his constituents will hardly
thank him, viz., that this bill, should it pass, would leave
but about 400 electors in Mayo. Until this authentic as-
surance of its representative, we had no notion that the
genuine electors of that country bore so very small a propor-
tion to the fictitious voters who return the hon. gentleman.
He concluded with a Latin quotation, which a little knot of
tail liberals greeted with a cheer, probably as evidence that
they had learned the language.
Mr. YOUNG made a short and temperate speech in favour
of the bill, which he was sure would take away the franchise
from no man who was justly entitled to possess it.
Mr. V. STUART admitted that there were evils to be re-
dressed, and professed hiS willingness to redress them ; but
not by this-bill, which he thought would close a necessary
vent for public opinion, and drive the Irish people into poli-
tical associations and movements of a dangerous kind.
Mr. ROCHE said there was much less corruption and chi-
canery in the Irish than in the English elections. (It is pro-
bably true enough that less money is spent.in Ireland than
in England. The Irish. Whigs have a cheaper way of ma-
naging the matter with their poor electors, by religious inti-
midation, and bodily force.) Mr. Roche objected to go into
committee, and observed, that as another' gentleman had
quoted Shakspeare, he might be permitted to say that such a
proceeding would be " a wounded snake, dragging its slow
length along."—Shakspeare !
Sir G. SINCLAIR, while he confessed that the rejection of
a bond fide elector is an injury to him, desired to have it re-
membered that the admission of a fictitious vote is a griev-
ance to the whole constituent body. This was not merely
an Irish, but a British question. The whole object was to
overbear the House of Commons, and give indefinite conti-
nuance to bad government. The member for Dublin had
erected a political papacy, and held a certain portion of the
Irish representatives in complete slavery. The hon. baronet
the member for Mayo, whose only offence had been absence
from the division on the second reading of this bill, had been
dealt with in the most summary style of punishment ; " Off
with his head, so much for Brabazon.' Ministers them-
selves were in the same bondage, and the Colonial Secretary
had in this verydebate assumed the office of Mr. O'Connell's
trumpeter.
Sir G. SINCLAIR then gave a very hnmourous sketch of
the speech which he himself would make if he had an oppor-
tunity of addressing the " hereditary bondsmen" in the Corn
Exchange of Dublin ; and this highly amusing and sarcastic
episode. in which the delusions practised on the people by
Mr. O'Connell and the priests were broadly exposed, pro-
duced a great deal of laughter on all sides. The hon. baro-
net concluded his ingenious speech by vindicating the policy
and applauding the conduct of Lord Stanley.
Lord C. RUSSELL rose to oppose this bill, prompted, he
said, by the desire to follow up the principles of the great man
whose name he bore. The noble Lord proceeded a little
while in good language, but being interrupted by an unex-
pected cheer, which threw him out of his track, was, from
want of experience in debate, unable to recover himself, and,
though very kindly treated by both sides of the House, was
obliged to sit down.
Mr. H. GRATTAN, with great heat, attacked the speech of
Sir George Sinclair. He inveighed in unmeasured language
against the bill, and talked in terms still more violent against
some whom he supposed to be its authors, and whom he
passionately accused of the worst malignity and fraud. He
thought the passing of this bill would increase the chances
for repeal of the union.
Lord POWERSCOURT supported the bill, and mentioned
gross instances of fictitious votes given at the last general
election, amounting, in the single county of Wicklow, to no
fewer than 46.
Mr. C. Woon expressed his regret that be must concur in
the vote for the committee, against the opinion of those with
whom he usually acted. He would not vote for finally passing
the bill in its present form, nor sanction any measure which
should throw difficulties in the way of the legitimate fran-
chise, but he felt that there were gross evils to be redressed,
which he saw no means of redressing, except through the
medium of this bill, when properly modified in committee.
The omission of any enactment as to the franchise seemed to
him no sufficient objections though he wished to see the
franchise settled in opposition to the construction given by
the Irish judges. The similarity of this to the former bills
on the same subject, which had been sanctioned by the go-
ternment, was in his mind conclusive against the imputation
that the present measure was designed to destroy the liberties
of Ireland. The objections which hdd been made to its de-
tails were such as might be easily obviated.in the committee.
He had voted indeed against the second reading, but he had
not then had an opportunity of maturely considering the
notN inro.wmc.o
jn.seont,ctooNrziqsLe
btheasot
udgelei its ieovneryof tmheemhobue
matter, and, the second reading having been carried, he could
i, v e
there t
voters
0 bt
eer s appliedo f
Halifax to sr
con-
sider how he would deal with such a bill as this, if the ordeals
eio
ipt.r,otpoorseindsbtaynictehi(sthoewhnocroonusgthitureenptrse.;
sented by Mr. C. Wood) were obliged, before they could
acquire their franchise, to serve the complicated notice which
this bill prescribed. Where enfranchisement was to be
granted, as in the case of municipal corporations, the boon
was given to England and to Scotland before it was extended
to Ireland, where, indeed, even now it was not actually esta-
blished ; but where disfranchisement was the object, it was
applied to Ireland the first. When Lord Stanley came as
Secretary to Ireland in 1830, the repeal cry was a slight one.
Before his administration ended it was loud and general.
The hon. member, in conclusion, endeavoured to charge the
Protestant landlords in their turn with an attempt to create
fictitious votes, and entreated the house not to let those
landlords obtain, through this bill, the' control of the Irish
elections.
Colonel CONOLLY vindicated the Irish landlords, and jus-
tified the provisions of this bill. If an increase of the Irish
constituency had been necessary, still it would not have been
warrantable by such means. It would be just as allowable
to increase a country's circulation by an infusion of base
money. He must now adopt the common cry of the other
side, and call fot%:` Justice to Ireland."
Mr. PILOT, the Irish Solicitor-General, objected to the
bill chiefly on account of what he considered its main priiriad-
pie, that of revision, or rather re-investigation. Much
been said of the evil of certificates. He was prepared to be-
come a party to a measure for the cure of that evil, a measure
which had already been announced by the Colonial Secretary.
(This repetition of that paltry shift was received with loud
contemptuous cheering.) What property would any man he
content to hold on condition of being subject to perpetual
attacks upon his title ? In other kinds of property possession
was settled by a fair trial—the franchise was to be the single
exception. (Is not the learned gentleman aware that there
is no limit to the number of successive ejectments which may
he brought to take any man's estate from him, except by ap-
plication to the Court of f Chancery or a perpetual injunction ?)
He had also a strong objection to the devolution of political
duties upon the judges, and to the vexation, expense, and
multiplied litigation, which he apprehended must be the con-
sequence of an appeal to them against the admission of the
vote.
Lord Howicsc said, be had voted against the second read-
ing to mark his confidence in the Government, though even
then be had thou*ht that the bill ought to go into committee,
and that the resistance of Ministers was highly impolitic !
But he could not.now consent to reverse the vote by which
the second reading was carried. lie had no great confidence
in the intimation that Government meditated a bill of their
own, an intimation which had been given somewhat late, and
which was by no means hopeful in the present state of the
session, and of the feeling between the two houses of Parlia-
ment, Indeed, even now it was not stated that any such bill

waa in actual ealatence. As to the complaint againat per.
petually renewed revisions, it would be removed by the sim-
ple amendment, that a vote, once established and registered,
should not be again questionable, except for matter having
arisen since the registration. So as to the double appeal, the
objections might be obviated by easy amendments. It had
been said, but he could not believe it tq be really meant, that
the house ought to leave gross abuses in operation, because
their honest removal would diminish the Irish constituency.
He would do all in his power to prevent that diminution
fairly ; but he would not, eves with this view,.keep up a ma-
chinery for the fabrication of illegal votes.
Mr. GISUORNE, in his character of an Irish representa-
tive, thought himself bound to .oppose the bill. The house
by divers cries of " Question," intimated that they did not
feel the duty of making a speech to be at all imperative upon

him.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL contended that to go into com-
mittee on this bill would be to impair the efficiency of the
Reform Act. Annual registration existed in England, and
was loudly complained of. The people had been long expect-
ing measures from the government to reform it (satirical and
repeated cheers); and nothing had prevented the governMent
from maturing such measures, except the understanding that
no measure would succeed in the other house which did not
go to impair the Reform Act. The learned gentleman then
went over the often-repeated objections of detail, with
reference chiefly to what had fallen from Lord flowick. In
this part of his speech be fell into an error as to one of the
clauses of the bill, which occasioned a great deal of laughter
at the expense of this acute and usually accurate lawyer ;
but the house gave him no quartet, and indeed were now be-
coming generally impatient. The learned gentleman, how-
ever, travelled on into other topics, not all of them very
relevant. If our readers should be surprised at the absence
of his usual talent, their wonder will perhaps be relieved by
the intelligence that he was speaking against time, for the
purpose of getting the debate carried over to another even-

ing.
Lord MILTON who had paired, was not come up, and his
pair was. Mr. O'Connell expected to be beaten on an im-
mediate division, and issued his commands therefore that
the debate should be adjourned, in order to take the chance
of Lord Milton's arrival, and of the chapter of accidents.
Accordingly, when the Solicitor-General sate down, Mr.
HOME moveti, and Mr. O'CONNELL seconded, the adjourn-
ment of the debate. A division took place, the motion was
defeated, and another motion of the like nature met the
same fate.
Strangers having been re-admitted, Mr. HUME, seconded
by Mr. O'CONNELL, made yet another motion of adjourn-
ment.
Lord STANLEY then rose, and said it was time for the
house to determine how far this system of impediment should
be pursued. He had expected that the learned member for
Dublin, who had come over burning with resentment, would
have seized the earliest Moment for meeting him face to face;
that member, however, bad not once offered himself to the
chair, and yet the house was now desired again to adjourn,
in order that he might have an opportunity of being heard.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—WEDNESDAY.
The House of Lords did not assemble this day.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.—Wednesday.
Among a great heap of petitions presented last night in the
House of Commons by different members was one by Lord
THIGNMOUTH from certain inhabitants of Marylebone, com-
plaining of the system of the centralization of the police by
Lord John Russell, and praying that an impeachment might

be instituted against him.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL gave notice, that in the com.
inittee on the Poor Law Amendment Act he should intro•
duce a clause to exempt stock in trade from being rated.
Mr. HUME gave notice, that he should move as an amend-
ment on the motion of Sir R. Inglis to-day a humble address
to her Majesty on the appropriation of church property.
The orders and notices which stood on the paper were then
disposed of seriatim, previous to the resumption of the debate
on the Irish Registration Bill.
THE IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The dull debate, worn threadbare on Tuesday night, was
then opened by Mr. HUM a, who opposed Lord Stanley's
bill in a tiresome speech on Irish affairs in general. He
compared the number of Irish with the number of English
electors, complaining that the proportion of Irish is too
small. He repeated the often-disproved allegation that the
object of the bill was to disfranchiese the people of Ireland.
He entered upon the Catholic question, and condemned the
opinions of a party who, he said, were trying to restore the
obsolete penalties against the Papists. During thc, whole of
this speech a large body of conservatives, with truly patriotic
patience, sat fast on their benches, and defeated the object
of those radicals who had hoped, not perhaps without some
reasonable ground, that the speech of their Kilkenny com-
rade would reduce the house to a state in which it might be
counted out.
Mr. LUCAS observed, that the reason why Ireland had
fewer electors than England in proportion to the population
was not that any party sought to withhold from Ireland the
franchise allowed to England, but that Ireland comprised a
much smaller number than England of the persons possess-
ing the requisite qualification in property. But he would
rather reduce the qualification from £lO to £5, computed on
any ktzei fide test (little as he should be disposed to such a
reduction), thin continue a fictitious franchise at £lO. At-
tempts had-be-en-made to mystify the English members about
vexation practised by the conservatives. He had to complain
of vexation on the other side of the question. There was
now a quarterly registration ; and he mentioned an instance
where 800 notices of registration bad been given, and only
about 200 of the parties giving them had appeared to sub-
stantiate their votes. Under the present system this sort of
feint might be practised four times in every year. Yet the
bill before the house, which would reform the registration by
changing the process from a quarterly to a yearly one, was
earnestly resisted by men professing to be the opponents of
vexation, the very men who, for the most part, were the
zealous champions of annual parliaments.
Mr. REDINGTON uttered a loud and voluble declamation
against the bill.
Mr. GASKELL, though not surprised that after the signi-
ficant demands of a certain party in Ireland the ministry
should have opposed the second reading of this bill, was yet
astonished that they concurred in the present attempt at
interposing vexatious delay, and still more that they bail
found no better reasons to justify their conduct than the
arguments advanced by the English Solicitor. General, or
the panygerics pronounced on Mr. O'Connel by the leader
of the ministry. When the existence of gross abuses was
not denied, not by thb government, not by those adherents
of theirs who had already introduced bills of their own
against those very abuses, why this sudden hostility to the
remedy ? It looked as if the discovery had now been made,
that the removal of those abuses Would affect some' party.
interest, and that, bad as such abuses might be, they yet
were not so bad as the loss of office. The bill was talked of
as a measure of disfranchisement. He knew not why, for
it did not even touch the real franchise ; it disfranchised only
fictitious voters. Were the fictitious voters .then so very
numerous that to get rid of them would work a serious dimi-
nution of the whole constituency? If so, that afforded him
the strongest possible argument for going into the committee,
when he should be prepared to vote for every clause of this

Mr. ROCHE, of Cork, opposed the measure, which he re-
garded as having been introduced for mere purposes of party.
'Wales was a poorer country than Ireland, and yet possessed
a larger proportion of electors.
A lung pause now ensued, during which no attempt was
made to address the chair by any of those who on the pre-
ceding night had clamoured for adjournment, to give an op-
portunity to the numerous candidates bursting with the ges-
tation of their speeches. But
The SPEAKER having directed strangers to withdraw, in
order to a division, and the conservative party being obviously
a majority of the members present, the opponents of the bill
did not venture to let the debate conclude ; to avert which

consummation,
Mr. CALLAGHAN rose, and after a sketch of the history of
registration in Ireland from the date of the reform bill, re-
curred in the usual terms to the standing libel, the alleged
hostility of Lord Stanley to the Irish people.
Mr. SOMERS spoke on the same side, as the vindicator of

the morality of the Irish. •
The O'Connellites were now relieved from all further ap-
prehension of a premature termination to the debate by no
less durable an interposition than that of
Sir. C. GREY, who oceupie 1 his first quarter of an hour with
a general dissertation upon the reasonableness of the adjourn-
ment., with reference to the various questions which were,
or might have been; under consideration on the Tuesday and
on the Wednesday, including copyright and China, and with
reference to the advantage conferred on the house by the op-
portunity of hearing his speech. Nor did he forget, in passing,
to censure the absence of Lord Stanley ; not, perhaps, per-
ceiving that among the absentees at th.t moment, were also
every one of the cabinet ministers—Lord IVlorpech only ex-
cepted, and, greater than all—the great agitator himself. He
then announced, that he was coming to the discussion of the
main question, but instead of doing this, he launched into an
illimitable discourse upon the very subject which the bill had
been the most roughly censured by other members for avoid-
ing—namely, the definition and construction of the franchise
with respect to beneficial value. He contended, that as the
franchise was mere matter of election law, the opinion of the
majority of the judges was not binding on the minority. The
legislature had referred the decision to a single judge of assize,
not to a tribunal of many judges. The exemplary patience
of the house, which had now been exercised in the learned
gentleman's favour for upwards of an hour, was not proof
against such a strain of argument as this, and he at last gave
way to the general uneasiness of the house.
Mr. THESIGER animadverted upon the strange irrelevancy
of the foregoing discourse, and on the unsatisfactory nature
of the speech delivered on the preceding night by the Attorney-
General. That learned gentleman had objected to the want
of convenient places for registration ; but the 36 and 17th
sections of the bill had fully provided for bringing home the
registration to the very doors of the voters. Objection had
also been made to the annual revision. It could not be
doubted, that if there had not been an octennial system of
registration pre-existing when the reform act passed, that
act would have assimilated the Irish to the English and
Scotch registrations, which were both of them annual. Then,
as to the double appeal, which was the only mode of expelling
a fraudulent vote from the registry, the question respecting
the tribunal to which such appeal should be referred was one
the discussion whereof belonged not to this stage of the bill,
but to the next. Mr. Thesiger then availed himself of his
experience before election committees to illustrate in a very
lucid manner the monstrous hardships and difficulties im-
posed on those who seek, under the present system, to
expunge a bad vote from a poll—hardships and difficulties
which some such enactments as those of the present measure
were indispensable to redress.
Mr. O'CONNELL rose. He admitted that the bill was
was good for members.of parliament, for the £5O freeholders,
and for the clergy of the established church, but it was a bad
bill for the poorer voters. His quarrel with Lord Stanley
he would adjourn till the bill should be in committee. It
was a bill for annihilating nine-tenths of the constituencies
in Ireland. He read a circular from a district secretary of
the conservative party, stating that the success of the party
" depended wholly on preventing the tenants from re-
registering their votes ;" not fraudulent votes but any votes.
lie read also an admission from a witness, that he received an
an annuity of £4O a-year, " for swearing against votes."
(That is, the witness was a surveyor employed to make valua-
tions of electioneering properties, and depose to the particu-
lars of them.) The Irish peopleproceeded Mr. O'Connell,
attribute this bill to two causes—national antipathy to them,
and malignant bigotry. The antipathy is proved by your
electioneering addresses, and your after dinner speeches, and
your press, your vile Times (This phrase thrice repeated,
produced as many bursts of laughter.) The member for
Londonderry had cheered, ataiublic meeting, the assertion
that a Catholic was less mindfulof his oath than a Pro-
testant. He would not venture to repeat that cheer in this
place. Such a cheer had been
et raised,il too, at Belfast,
by Mr. Emerson Tennent, one of those
whom Lord Stanley had selt:eted coadjutors in
the preparation of • this bill. The subscribers
great Liverpool petition then shared the nrattoerr'ss NoNfi attir
and he railed very roundly at. various other classes,',
who, he said, were calumniators of the great Catholic body.
The union had given Ireland a right to equality. She was
the poorer country, and therefore a poorer class in Ireland
were entitled to take the same level ith a richer class in
England. She had but 60,000 electors w
in all, yet there were
33,000 in one riding in Yorkshire. He then went through a
series of parallels between various districts of England and
of Ireland; after which he made a laboured argument, for
the purpose of showing that the fictitious votes now existing
were the mere accidents of the carelessness natural to thehave
first registration, not the results of any systematic fraud.
The bill should contained a provision for ing the
franchise, which he could not consider as settled by the deci-
sion of the judges. He would move, if the bill slaould go into
committee, an instruction for the insertion of a clause which
should settle the franchise in the opposite direction, in the
direction really contemplated by the reform act. Let the