REFORM (IRELAND) ACT. (Hansard, 1 July 1837)

Dr. Lefroy
objected to proceeding with a measure of this nature on a day when it was understood no Bill likely to be contested was to be brought forward. The Bill was one of a grave and serious nature requiring mature consideration, and likely to lead to a protracted discussion. The House had understood from the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that no measure of importance was to be introduced at this late period of the Session; and he hoped, therefore, the Government would feel this measure to be a violation of the message which the noble Lord had brought down from her Majesty to the House.

§ Mr. Sergeant Woulfe
said, the principle of the Bill was of so simple a character that he did not think there would be any objection to it. It was simply to remedy an obvious error in the Reform Act as it related to Ireland. By that Act it was directed that the different constituencies in Ireland should be so divided that not more than 600 electors should poll at one polling-booth. But the Act also provided that there should be no division of the electors in any constituency whose names began with the same letter. The consequence of this last provision was, that in some cases the number of electors polling at one booth was considerably below 600, while in other cases many voters were prevented from voting at all, as the names beginning with one letter were, in some instances, too numerous for the time for polling allowed by the act, which had been limited so as to accord with the first direction regarding the number to poll at one booth. In many constituencies in Ireland the names beginning with the letter M, for instance exceeded 600, and 1744 the greatest inconvenience resulted where such was the case, and in some instances a portion of the voters had been left unpolled in consequence. To remedy this error the present Bill had been brought in, and he thought its object so obviously just and reasonable that he could not see how any man could object to it.

Mr. Sergeant Goulburn
thought that it was improper to proceed with such a measure on a day when the House met simply for the dispatch of formal business. The principle of the Bill, was contained in the third clause, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had not alluded, and by that clause a most important alteration was made regarding the votes of freemen. Why had the Bill been postponed to so late a period of the session, and why should it be hurried through the House in the manner proposed?

§ Viscount Howick
agreed, to a considerable extent, with what had been said about not bringing forward any measure on a Saturday likely to give rise to discussion, but he thought the necessity for some measure of this kind to remedy the error in the Reform Act was so obvious, that on the eve of a general election he could not see how any one could oppose it.

§ Mr. Shaw
thought the Bill was an attempt on the eve of a general election to legislate in favour of one particular interest. In regard to the first clause of the Bill, he thought it highly improper immediately before an election to change the provisions of the Reform Act as such a course was likely to lead to confusion, from the difference betwixt the old and the new system of proceeding. In regard to the third clause, he admitted that the votes alluded to by the noble Lord (Howick) had been decided against by a Committee of that House, but the judges had not given an unanimous opinion in favour of that decision, one of the most able holding an opinion different from the rest. If, however, the principle of the clause was really-good, it ought to be extended to the whole of Ireland, and should not be confined to Cork. There were no particular circumstances in the case of Cork which demanded a special measure, and whatever legislative measures affecting the right of voting was applied to that city ought to be extended to every other borough in Ireland. In his opinion this was the most monstrous attempt ever made by Parliament to interfere with a general 1745 election, so as to make the result favourable to one party. Such a Bill could not pass, and its introduction could only be considered as one of many attempts to throw odium on the other House of Parliament, by obliging it to reject such an iniquitous measure.

§ Sir George Grey
trusted the country would be made acquainted with the nature of the objections urged against this Bill. The object of the Bill was to give due facility for the exercise of the elective franchise, and hon. Gentlemen opposite were not willing to grant the electors that facility on the eve of an election, from feeling that it would be injurious to their own party. This Bill was applicable to every other part of Ireland as well as Cork.

§ Colonel Perceval
considered the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down to be admirably calculated to tell at the election for Devonport, but not in that House. He would oppose the Bill as exceedingly partial.

§ Sir E. Knatchbull
thought, if the principle of the Bill were right as regarded Cork, it ought to be applied to every other place. If the measure had been enlarged, so as to embrace every case of a similar kind, and brought forward at a proper time, he would not have objected to the Bill. But the present was a partial measure, and involved a principle of the greatest importance, requiring the fullest discussion; and, its introduction was a violation of the understanding that no important measure involving a contested principle should be brought forward during the remainder of the Session.

§ Mr. Callaghan
thought he could put an end to the debate by stating, that this Bill was not to affect the next elections at all.

§ Sir G. Sinclair
said, that if the House should divide, he should vote for going into Committee; because, having voted for the Reform Bill, he felt bound to vote for any measure which was calculated, and he believed this was, to give effect to that Bill. He hoped, however, that hon. Members opposite would not refuse to support any reasonable amendments proposed on his side of the House.

§ Mr. Estcourt
, in reply to the observations of the noble Lord, read that part of her Majesty's message which stated, that "it was inexpedient to recommend to the House of Commons any new measures for 1746 its adoption, with the exception of such as might be necessary for carrying on the public service from the close of the present till the meeting of the new Parliament," in which recommendation he said that House had expressed its full concurrence. Now, no one could assert that this Bill was essential for the public service, or, if it were thought so, why had it not been made general? It was not a Bill in progress through the House when her Majesty's message was delivered, for that occurred on the 22nd of June, and this Bill had not been introduced until five days after, at 2 o'clock in the morning; so that it was a new measure, and as such they were called upon to proceed with it contrary to the recommendation contained in her Majesty's message, and in violation of the assurance of that House, as conveyed in their answer to her Majesty.