HC Deb 07 May 1805 vol 4 cc618-9

—On the question that the Irish Election bill be read a second time.

Colonel Bagwell

said, he had no objection to the principles of the bill, and hoped, therefore, it would then be read a second time.

Mr. Lee

said, that although he should accede to the second reading, he did not mean to exclude himself from objecting to some particular parts of it.

Mr. George Ponsonby

said, that if the principle of the bill was to ascertain accurately those persons who had a right to vote at elections, and to make that right known to those who were candidates, he approved of the bill; but still there were many clauses to which he meant to object in the committee.

Mr. Richard Martin

objected to the bill going into a committee. By one clause in it, any person has a right to enter a traverse against the title of every 40s. freeholder, and it would take fifteen years value of it to pay the expences of defending his right. Besides, the bill vilified the country; for it says that all vice was attributable to the poor and all virtue to the rich; he therefore objected to it, on the ground of unseemliness. He thought the election law of the two countries should be assimilated as nearly as possible, and this subject should not be taken up on such light and flippant grounds as it had been. He thought a committee should be appointed to take the matter into consideration.

Colonel Bagwell

said there was no duty on freeholders, except on leases, and that was necessary, in order to ascertain the right to the freehold.

Sir John Newport

thought he saw several objections as to the traverse and other points, but these might be modified, altered, or done away in the committee.

Earl Temple

said a few words in favour of the bill going to a committee. After which the bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Thursday.

Back to