HC Deb 26 March 1840 vol 53 cc90-157

The order of the day read for resuming the adjourned debate upon the second reading of the Registration of Voters (Ireland) bill.

Mr. Sergeant Curry

said, having from my attendance at several registries and elections held under the provisions of the Irish Reform Act, acquired some knowledge of the working of that act with regard to the proceedings at such registries, I hope the House will permit me to make a few observations on the very important subject to which the bill now under discussion relates, and to state shortly the reasons why I feel myself obliged to oppose the second reading of it. I freely admit that the present system of registration is not free from imperfection, that it is open to some serious objections; and if the provisions of the present bill were calculated to remove those objections, or were to remove any of them, without at the same time introducing evils of greater magnitude, I should feel it my duty to give it further consideration. But being fully satisfied that such is not the object of this bill, and that, on the contrary, its provisions, if passed into a law, must materially impede the acquisition of the elective franchise in Ireland, I am compelled to oppose it. I have stated, Sir, that the present system of registry is open to objections, and I think the principal objecttions are, first, the difficulty and expense to which persons are exposed who seek to have their names placed upon the register; secondly, the doubtful construction of the words used in the Reform Act to designate the amount of the qualification which is to entitle persons to the elective franchise; thirdly, the continuance in force of the registry for eight years, without any means being given of removing during that period from the registry, those who have died or become disqualified; and fourthly, the impossibility (arising from the last cause) of having a correct list of persons entitled to vote prepared for an election. It is only to the two latter objections that the present bill applies, or for which it proposes to provide a remedy. It leaves the other evils untouched, or rather, it adds to and increases the first of them, by the additional difficulties it imposes on persons wishing to obtain the franchise. Those evils or objections are, in my opinion of greater magnitude, in a public and constitutional point of view, than those which the present bill proposes to remedy. They are the causes to which is to be attributed the small number of registered electors in Ireland—a number comparatively insignificant, whether we compare it with the population of that country, or with the number of electors in other parts of the United Kingdom. By the appendix to the report of the select committee on election expenses, made in 1834, it appears that the proportion of electors to the population in the several counties in England is 1 in 24; while in the several counties in Ireland it is only I in 120. The county of Norfolk, with a population of 288,143 inhabitants, has 11,437 registered electors, being 1 in 25; while the county of Tyrone in Ireland, with a population of 304,468, has only 1,151, registered electors, being 1 in 260; and showing that Norfolk, with a population less by 16,000 than that of Tyrone, has nearly 10,000 more registered electors. What, then, are the causes of this comparative inferiority? If it does not arise from those I have mentioned, I would ask, to what it is to be attributed? The mere difference in wealth and property will not sufficiently account for it. The noble Lord had stated in his speech on introducing this bill, that under the Reform Act for the two counties, the power of acquiring the elective franchise had been given more liberally to Ireland than to England. If so, why has not this power been more fully exercised? Why have not the people of Ireland more generally availed themselves of this greater liberality on the part of the Legislature? It is because they have been prevented by the causes I have mentioned, and so long as those causes exist, many persons in Ireland, whose right to be placed on the register of electors is as good and indisputable as that of any hon. Member of this House, will not come forward to claim that right, or subject themselves to the delay and expense, to the annoyance, and sometimes to the insults, they are exposed to in doing so. To state a few of those difficulties: The claimant must serve a notice of his intention to register; this notice, though more simple than what is required by the present bill, is still sufficiently complex to give rise to many objections as to its form and requisites. The claimant must attend in person at the registry, sometimes at a distance of many miles from his own residence. He is there opposed by counsel and attorneys employed and paid by his opponents. He must prove his title to be registered by evidence applicable to the particular right in which he claims to be registered. If his title be founded on a lease or deed, he must produce it; if it be not properly stamped, he is rejected, though he was in no way blameable for that defect, as the leases are always procured and prepared by the agent of the landlord. He must next prove that his property is of the value required by the Reform Act, and it is here that the serious difficulties arise. The parties opposing him have employed persons to view and value his farm; they are produced as witnesses against him, and though he himself may swear that the produce of his farm, after payment of rent and all other charges, and the expenses of cultivation, yields him a profit of 15l., 18l., or even 20l. a-year, yet if those hired valuators will swear that a solvent tenant could not afford to give him 10l. a-year for his property, over and beyond the rent he pays, his claim will be rejected, and his opponents will hoot him out of court, as a person regardless of an oath, and as having attempted to place his name on the register by fraud and perjury. Should he appeal to the judge at the assizes, he must go through the same trial. He must attend himself and bring his witnesses to the county-town, a distance in some counties of fifty miles from his residence. He must pay his and their expenses — he must employ counsel and attorney to plead for him, and may possibly, after all, be rejected. But I will suppose he succeeds; and I ask how many of the class of 10l. voters are, with the prospect of success, able or willing to bear the expense, the delay and loss of time to which they are thus subjected, in their endeavours to have their names put upon the registry? I have thus stated a few, and only a few, of the difficulties which the claimant has to encounter. I have been anxious to bring before the House only those of a more striking character, and for this reason—that by the present bill not only is every one of those objections and hardships continued, but additional obstacles are created; and further, the unfortunate voter, or person claiming to be a voter, is obliged to pass through the same ordeal, not once in eight years only, as required by the Reform Act, but once in every year, and if appealed against, twice in every year, so long as his name continues upon the registry. One of my objections to the present bill is, that it does not attempt to remove those evils—its object is by annual revision, and the double appeal, to produce a more accurate register; an object certainly desirable, if it could be attained without introducing new or increasing existing obstacles to the acquisition of the elective franchise. But, after an anxious and careful perusal of the provisions of the present bill, I am bound to declare my firm belief and conviction, that if carried into a law, it will be an encroachment on the constitutional right of the elective franchise in Ireland. The arguments used in its favour are that the retaining the name of the elector on the register for eight years, though he may have died or lost his qualification, creates such evils that it leads to the multiplication of certificates of registry, which may be used for fraudulent purposes at elections; and that it tends to encourage perjury. But have we ever heard, or has any hon. Member on the other side been able to discover any case in which a third party has been guilty of falsely personating a person to whom a certificate had been granted, and of voting upon that certificate? No instance of such a case has been brought forward, and I think we may fairly infer that no such fraudulent attempt has ever been made. Next, as to perjury. I do not exactly understand how the provisions of this bill are calculated to diminish that crime, supposing a tendency to commit it exists, as is alleged, upon cases of registry more than in those of any other description—an allegation which I do not coincide in. If it does exist, what effect will this bill have in preventing it? Does it diminish the number of oaths? Not at all. But then it is said, there will be fewer Irish witnesses examined before committees on election petitions, and of course less opportunity to commit the crime. True, there will be less opportunity to commit it in England; but by the double appeal you increase the opportunities of doing so in Ireland. You change the scene from the House of Commons to the assizes, but you do not thereby diminish—on the contrary, you may give greater opportunities of committing the crime, if witnesses are disposed to be guilty of it. It has been further staled, in support of the present bill, that there are now the names of some thousands of fraudulent and fictitious voters on the register, which cannot be removed under the existing law. I confess, Sir, I was surprised at tin's statement: I could not have believed that any person acquainted with the manner in which the assistant barriers in Ireland—a body distinguished for their talents and legal acquirements—discharge their duties at the registry, the patience with which they investigate the several claims, or who had ever been present when the rights of the claimants were investigated and scrutinised by their opponents, would have ventured to affirm that any considerable number of fraudulent or fictitious voters have, since the first sessions which were held under the Reform Act, been placed on the several registers throughout Ireland. Cases of that kind did, I am aware, occur at the first registry, at a time when the provisions of the act had not received that construction which has since been given to them; but this mischief will in a few months be at an end. In November next that first registry will expire, and the present bill, so far as it seeks to correct that evil, will be useless and unnecessary. Having stated the evils in the present system which this bill proposes to cure, let me for a few minutes call the attention of the House to the stringent nature of the remedy. This bill puts an end to the existing registry, and it introduces a system of registering essentially different, and, in many instances entirely new, replete with difficulties to every new claimant of the elective franchise. It will be objected that these observations apply to the details of the bill, but not to the principle of it. But I say, Sir, that the principle of this bill, if it have any, is to be found in its destructive details. If they are so objectionable that no modification of them can remove their injurious tendency, then, I say, a case is made against the second reading of the bill. The objections to its details have already been so fully and powerfully stated, that I will not trespass on the time of the House by repeating them. The notice requiring ten particular matters to be stated, and making the omission of any one of them a decided bar to the admission of the claimant on the register—the annual revision with the double appeal, thus subjecting the voter whose name may have been placed on the register by the registering barrister, after a careful and minute examination into the nature of his claim, to the expense and annoyance of appearing before the judge to support the decision of the barrister, and at the additional risk of having costs awarded against him, if he should fail in doing so—the principle introduced for the first time into this bill, of empowering the barrister or judge to award costs against the claimant of the franchise, and against a voter whose name may be on the register—these are a few of the mischievous provisions of this objectionable bill. It has been stated, that the former bills on this subject, brought in by Sergeant O'Loughlen, and by Mr. Woulfe, Attorney-generals for Ireland, contained clauses, giving an annual revision and the double appeal. But it has been already ably shown by the learned Solicitor-general for Ireland that the bill of Mr. Sergeant O'Loghlen was in no other respect similar to the present, that it contained clauses facilitating the acquisition of the franchise, and also clauses which would have prevented any evil or mischievous results which might have attended the abuse of the power of objecting given by that bill. The bill of Mr. Woulfe did not give an annual revision, but it gave one annual registration, instead of the four periods of registration, which are, under the Reform Act, given in each year; and it provided, that when the claimant was placed on the list of voters, his right of voting should continue for eight years. His bill also gave the double appeal, not to the judge at the assizes, but to a court of appeal, to be held at the same places where the courts for the registration had been held, and thus guarded against the mischiefs which the double appeal might otherwise have produced. And I beg to add, that giving the appeal to another tribunal than the judge at the assizes, was a wise and salutary alteration of the existing law. The hearing of those appeals by the judge necessarily occupies a great portion of the time that should be devoted to the discharge of his other duties at the assizes; but any objection to making the judges the appellate tribunal, arises from a different and a better feeling. Entertaining, as I do, the deepest veneration for the judicial character, and the highest respect for the individuals who now occupy the judicial seats in Ireland, it is those feelings of respect and veneration, and my desire that they should pervade the breast of every one of my countrymen, that lead me to approve of any measure which would relieve the judges from the duty of deciding questions affecting political rights, and which would refer the decision of such questions to a different tribunal. I have now, Sir, in conclusion, to thank the House for its indulgence, and to add, that as the present bill only partially corrects the evils of the present system of registration in Ireland (and in correcting those which it is its object to remove, it introduces provisions directly tending to encroach upon the important right of the elective franchise, by rendering the attainment of it more difficult and expensive than it is under the present law, and thus to diminish just, popular influence, and eventually destroy every feeling of independence in Ireland) I feel it my duty to vote against the second reading of the bill.

Colonel Perceval

expressed his astonishment that not one of the many Members who supported the Government, and him who ruled it, had addressed the House. For his own part, he found it utterly impossible to catch two consecutive sentences of the long and tedious speech of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat clown. Tedious, he would call it, because, however eloquent it might be, tedious it must also be when it could not be heard. However, he was able to glean one or two of the objections of the hon. Member—the annual revision of the registry roll, and the appeal to the judges, as well as that the principle of the bill was to be found in its detail. The object of the bill of the noble Lord was to amend the law with regard to the elective franchise. The hon. Member said, that fictitious votes were few. There were one or two facts respecting fictitious votes in Ireland which were known to himself as well as to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In the county of Sligo, which he had the honour to represent, there were certain parties, tenants of that noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) who had registered in 1832. Though their freeholds had expired on the death of William 4th, yet, in 1837, those persons whose names continued upon the registry roll from 1832, came forward, and voted against him. They could not plead ignorance of the death of the King, because he took care to inform them of the fact, and also to state their in competency to vote on that occasion. They persevered, however, and he had written to the noble Lord upon the subject, who, with his usual courtesy, informed him, that his agent would give him every facility by the production of deeds and papers for prosecuting these fictitious voters for perjury. A similar case had occurred with tenants on the estate of the Earl of Kingston, who recorded their votes against him at the election of 1837. There was a third instance at the very same election of the most flagitious perjury; this was in his neighbourhood, within three miles of his town house—a landlord, who died in 1834, and upon the insertion of whose life into their leases, a number of tenants had become entitled to be placed upon the registry roll of 1832. Some of these tenants came forward to vote in 1837, upon a qualification which had determined three years before, and persevered in going to the poll. He (Colonel Perceval) informed them of the fact, and absolutely brought forward the son of the deceased landlord, who read to them the counterpart of the lapsed lease in his possession. Notwithstanding all that, these tenants came forward, and voted against him. There would no difficulty arise as to the judges, because those learned persons would, if it were necessary, find time sufficient to hear the appeals. The greater part of the time was occupied by the lengthy arguments of counsel. As to expenses to which voters were said to be subject, he could say, that claimants on the Liberal side were amply furnished with counsel, attorneys, agents, and solicitors, at the expense of the Liberal clubs; and as for the interference of the magistrates with the assistant barrister, he had not, during a constant attendance at these tribunals, known a single instance where a magistrate had interfered, except one in his own case, when he was instantly silenced by the presiding barrister. He viewed the opposition given to this bill as entirely factious, and founded upon no principle.

Mr. Dennis O'Conner

When the gallant Colonel said he could not hear the speech of his hon. and learned Friend, he was afraid he exemplified the truth of the maxim that—"There were none so deaf as those that would not hear."—The assertion of the gallant Colonel, that the electors he alluded to were guilty of perjury, was rather too sweeping; for it might have happened that their interest in the premises continued, though the life by which they held it dropped. In order to show that his view was a correct one, he could state, that a tenant of Lord Lorton was allowed to vote against him, though the life in his lease had expired, on the grounds of occupation and of continuing interest. The gallant Colonel asserted that the opposition to this bill was to its details and not its principle. He, for one, protested against its principle, because it tended to injure the franchise, by rendering its attainment more difficult, and its enjoyment far less secure. It was said, that the voter would not be obliged to prove his qualification a second time, unless objected to. But every body knew it would be objected to. Besides, the claimant was subjected to such an annoying examination, as to deter the bystander similarly situated from attempting to register, and himself from repeating the experiment. He entirely objected to the judges of assize being constituted a court of appeal. It was, indeed, said that the present bill would obviate the necessity of an expensive appeal to this House: but it should be remembered that such expenses did not generally fall upon, the voters, but upon the applicants. He objected in toto to the bill, because he conceived that it tended to obstruct the present liberal policy which had worked so well for Ireland. It would generate excesses and disturbances in that country, by inducing those who were excluded from the franchise to take measures for preventing others from exercising that privilege—thus leading to violence and turbulence at the elections. He would decidedly support the amendment—that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. Warburton

said, that before the noble Lord brought forward this measure, he ought to have demonstrated the good effects that had resulted from annual registration in England. That should have been his first course. All the bills that had been introduced upon the subject had been upon the principle of annual registration, both in England and Ireland; but there was a growing opinion that the benefits that had accrued in England from that system were not so great as it was originally conceived they would have been —that parties were put to a great annual expense—that, in fact, there was an annual election going on in the counties under the name of an annual revision. He believed he might, with truth say, that there was a growing desire, on the part of both parties, that the registration, so far as the counties were concerned, should not be annual, but that the revision of the objections to votes already on the registry, should not take place at a shorter interval than three years. So far as regarded boroughs, the general impression was, that the system of annual registration was beneficial. He conceived that the appellate jurisdiction was founded on false principles. The character of an appellate jurisdiction, as laid down by an authority which he was aware was not popular in this House, namely, Bentham, was, that, It was an established maxim, that an Appeal Court should receive, as ground for its judgment, no other documents than those that had been submitted to the court below. That was not the case in the present bill. He next objected to the constitution of the Court of Appeal. He did not think that the judges at common law formed the proper materials out of which a court of appeal from the revising barristers should be formed. He considered, in the first place, that the judges should be free from even the taint of a suspicion of being engaged in the decision of political cases. In the next place, if you wished to uphold any institutions, it was necessary that they should be entrusted to the hands of parties who had a zeal for their maintenance, and when he looked at the recent decisions in a certain class of cases—he alluded particularly to grammar schools and corporations—he could not conceive that the decision of election cases could properly be intrusted to common Jaw judges. What already had been their decision in cases of the beneficial interest of tenants in Ireland? He could not think it safe to intrust the protection of the popular part of our constitution to such a tribunal as that proposed by the noble Lord. His last objection to the bill was that its effect would be most materially to reduce the number of voters in Ireland. At a time when complaints of the narrowness of the suffrage and prayers for its extension were pressing upon the House, should the voice of the people be met by a measure for still further reducing it. If the House sought to restrict the number of voters, could they expect acquiescence to their authority? Would they not strengthen the arguments annually made use of by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, to convince the people of Ireland that justice was not done to them by that House. For the reasons he had stated he should vote against the bill.

Dr. Stock

denied that the objections made to the bill had been confined to mere details, for they had been substantial and bona fide objections against its principle. He asserted, that while the bill professed one object, it was covertly directed at another. The concealed but real object of the measure was a blow aimed at the universal body of the electors of Ireland—a blow in violation of the national faith solemnly pledged at the passing of the Reform Bill. The inevitable effect of the bill would be to create a feeling of dissatisfaction, and such, it appeared to him, was the policy that had dictated the measure. At the same time, he did not wish to be understood as imputing unworthy motives to the noble Lord. But he was bound to say, that in his (Dr. Stock's) opinion, the bill would tend to derange the happy state of tranquillity in which Ireland now was, to destroy the fair prospect of peace and harmony, and in place to substitute that state of violence, immorality, and wretchedness, which a happy-order of things had now nearly put an end to. The effect of the bill would be this. After throwing every difficulty, every vexatious impediment in the way of the claimant of the franchise, it would make his tenure of it, when he had once the good fortune to obtain it, hazardous and uncertain. His main objection to the bill was, that it would subvert the existing well-known and well-established system of registration in Ireland, and substitute in its place what would not only be troublesome and vexatious to the great body of electors, but would have the immediate effect of disfranchising a very considerable portion of them. For these rea- sons he should give it his decided opposition.

Sir James Graham

thought that the character of the discussion that evening afforded a striking instance of the inconvenience of unnecessarily adjourning debates. He understood last night, that the adjournment was asked upon the ground that a vast number of Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House were anxious to express their opinion before the question went to a division. Yet an hour had scarcely elapsed since they had that evening been upon the point of dividing, no Gentleman on the ministerial side of the House rising to speak upon the question. This would certainly appear as if there was no great anxiety on the part of the Government, who procured the adjournment, to prolong the discussion, now that they had an ample opportunity. At all events, it was plain that there was no such desire on the part of her Majesty's Ministers. He had waited with great curiosity to hear what was the decision of her Majesty's cabinet with respect 10 this question. He had heard, indeed, the opinions of one of her Majesty's advisers —the Opinions of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, who had addressed the House on the previous evening with his accustomed ability. But he could not forget that that right hon. Gentleman had been so mixed up with Irish politics—had been in the habit of taking such extreme opinions— had been so decidedly the champion of passive resistance to the law itself—so warm an advocate of the repeal of the Union, and of a very large extension of the suffrage upon the most radical scale, that he did not think it would be altogether fair to take him as the exponent of the united government—for united he supposed it was—unless, indeed, the present question was to be considered as an open one. He had, therefore, hoped that some Member of the Government would long ago have risen to address the House, and to pronounce some decided opinion, or point out some decided course of policy to be adopted by her Majesty's advisers upon a matter admitted on all hands to be of such great and paramount importance. But having waited in vain, and still entertaining an opinion that upon a subject of such importance it was necessary, if possible, to extract some declaration from her Majesty's cabinet, before the House went to a division, he ventured very shortly to address himself to the attention of the Government, in the hope that some one of its Members would follow him when he brought his observations to a close. In the first place he should allude to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman who opened the debate that evening—the hon. and learned Member for Armagh. It was far from his intention to speak of that hon. and learned Gentleman in any other terms than those of respect. The reputation which the hon. and learned Gentleman bore in his own country, and in that House, would render it unbecoming on his part to pursue any other course; but as far as he could hear the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he appeared mainly to rest his opposition to the bill upon the great hardship which it would entail upon the Irish voter, by requiring him to specify all the circumstances under which he considered himself entitled to vote; and if he mistook not, he dwelt particularly upon the hardship which would result from the enactment, with reference to the lives on leases under which the voter claimed to be placed upon the list. Now, unless he was greatly deceived, the law, as it at present stood, required that the voter should produce the lease itself, or, in the absence of the lease, that he should make oath to the existence of at least one of the lives specified in it. Upon that point, therefore, the hardship imposed by his noble Friend's bill was no greater than the hardship that existed under the present law. In point of fact, according to the showing of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, all that his noble Friend's bill did upon this score was to require the voter to give, in a tangible and specific shape, the same proof that he was now compelled to give as to the nature of his qualification, prior to his being placed upon the list of electors. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to talk of the extreme injustice and hardship of the clause awarding costs. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that such a clause was unheard of until this extraordinary production of his noble Friend. What did the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland say to that? Was not the noble Lord perfectly cognisant that at present costs were awarded on both sides—to the claimant, if he established his claim— to the objector, if he maintained his ob- jection. Then it was said, "We object to this bill, not so much on account of the principle as of its detail; but the detail and the principle are so involved with each other, that we cannot discuss the one without considering the other. "We will proceed, therefore, to point out certain objections which we entertain to some of the details necessary to carry the measure into execution, and if we succeed in establishing these objections, that will be our reason—our only reason —for voting against the second reading of the bill." The hon. and learned Member for Armagh had shown how weak these objections to the details of the bill really were. First of all, the hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the season of the year—the months of September and October—at which the revision was to take place. Then he objected to the mode in which the appeal was to be made, contending that it should be made to the judge himself. In the next place, he maintained that the specification of the title was too elaborate, and would throw unnecessary difficulties in the way of the voter. Every one of these were mere matters of detail, which would be freely open to discussion in committee, but had no reference whatever to the principle of the measure, and were consequently quite out of place when introduced as arguments against the second reading. If the bill were allowed to go into committee, his noble Friend would be prepared to consider every point of detail seriatim, and to make such amendments as should appear to be consistent with the principle upon which the measure was founded. The evil to which his noble Friend sought to apply a remedy—an evil admitted on all sides of the House—was this:—As the law now stood in Ireland a voter with only a colourable claim, and without any real qualification or right to the franchise, might, time after time, apply to the assistant-barrister for his certificate and be refused; nay, upon the refusal of the assistant-barrister he might apply to the judge of assize, and be again refused; but at last, upon some change of the assistant-barrister, either from ignorance, or some less excusable motive, the new assistant-barrister might place him upon the register, though, in point of fact, he had no legal title whatever to vote. Once placed upon the register, there he must remain, because against the decision of the as- sistant-barrister, right or wrong, there was no appeal. Once admitted upon the list, having no title whatever to be placed there, no redress was to be obtained except by an appeal to a committee of the House of Commons; and if the committee of the House should decide, as many committees had done, that the register should not be opened, this bad vote would be perpetuated, if not for the life of the voter, at any rate for a very considerable number of years. This was an evil that prevailed to some extent in Ireland: it was the evil of which his noble Friend complained, and to which he proposed to apply a good and efficient remedy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said, that in proposing this remedy the real object of his noble Friend, and of those who acted with him, was to limit the franchise. He asserted that that was a gross misrepresentation of their object. Their object was to register every good vote; but, at the same time, to test the qualification—to prevent perjury — to detect fraud—to Substantiate the qualification, and to vindicate the law. That he declared to be their object, and their sole object. But then it was said, "You seek to effect your purpose by a scheme of registration similar to that of England, which has proved to be a failure." There was a great fallacy at the foundation of that argument. It was not proposed to assimilate the scheme of registration to be applied to Ireland to the scheme of registration that now existed in England. It was proposed to have an annual revision of the lists of voters; but in all other respects the plan introduced into Ireland would be an improvement upon the plan in operation in England. It was true that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bandon had last year attempted to assimilate the registration law of Ireland to that of England; but in working out the principle, he found so many difficulties both in law and practice as to render it impossible for him to proceed with it. But the bill of his noble Friend was not intended to assimilate the law between the two countries. Having made that remark, he would now proceed to offer a comment or two upon what fell from the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) with respect to the defects—the notorious defects, as he described them—of the English system of registration. What were those defects? First of all, there was a want of unifor- mity in the decisions upon disputed claims, arising out of the ambulatory character of the tribunals. That would not be the case in Ireland under his noble Friend's bill, because it was there proposed, to have a fixed judge of high character, who should be stationary in each county, and not ambulatory, like the revising barristers in England. But, then, the hon. Member for Bridport advanced a new argument. He said he was not prepared to entrust to any judge the decision of political rights. Then, how was there to be any system of registration at all? At all events, it was plain if no judge could be entrusted with the decision of political rights that there could be no revision. In the next place, the hon. Member complained that in England there was no appeal from the decision of the revising barrister. That was a defect which his noble Friend proposed to avoid by giving an appeal to a high tribunal, and this was no new invention on the part of his noble Friend. By the law, as it now stood in Ireland, there was an appeal on the one side to the judge of assize. A voter, whose claim had been unjustly refused, might appeal to the judge of assize. His noble Friend proposed to give to the same judge the power of deciding upon appeals made on both sides—appeals from objectors to votes, as well as from the claimants of the votes. Did the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland object to that on principle? It would be some new discovery if the noble Lord did; for in 1835, if he mistook not, the noble Lord distinctly supported it. In 1836, Mr. Sergeant O'Loghlen introduced a bill involving that principle, and the noble Lord supported it. Mr. Sergeant Perrin also introduced a bill involving that principle, and the noble Lord supported it. Nay, in 1838, the principle of allowing the appeal on both sides, was distinctly admitted by the noble Lord. As far, then, as the principle was concerned, there could be no doubt that his noble Friend would have the support of the noble Lord opposite; and all points of detail, such as what the character and constitution of the appellate jurisdiction should be, might be discussed in committee. He had enumerated the first two objections taken by the hon. Member for Bridport. What was the third? The vexatious proceedings arising upon the annual revision of the lists from frivolous objections. How did his noble Friend meet that difficulty? By giving the power of awarding costs—a power which did not exist in England. His noble Friend, therefore, instead of proposing to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England, with all its defects, proposed to introduce a bill that should give to Ireland all the advantages, with none of the disadvantages of the English law. There was a fourth objection, or rather he should say a fourth argument—that a system of registration to be satisfactory ought to be final; that after it had undergone all necessary scrutiny before a competent tribunal whose decisions should be checked by the power of appeal, it should be final and conclusive as against a committee of the House of Commons. In the bill now before the House, his noble Friend had adopted that principle. Taking advantage of the experience obtained by the operation of the English law, his noble Friend offered to Ireland a system of registration in which all the evils that had been pointed out in the English system were studiously and carefully avoided. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade stated that all this was vastly well; but then he objected to the provisions of the bill with respect to costs. It was proposed that the power of awarding costs should be vested in the judge of assize. But "oh!" said the right hon. Vice President, "what comfort is that? The most vexatious proceedings will often take place under this bill, and the only check provided against them is the power of giving costs, which power is to be left to the caprice of a judge." Why, really, if the judges of Ireland were not to be trusted with the power of awarding costs in cases of this kind, then he should say that the cry of "Justice for Ireland" was a mere phantom, and that the law in Ireland must be a cheat. If it were true that the system of registration proposed by his noble Friend would entail a greater expense upon the country than that which was now in operation, he still thought, that the fact of its being made final after appeal, even against a Committee of the House of Commons, was a boon of such immense importance to the voter, and to all parties concerned in elections, as to render the slight difference of expense a matter unworthy of consideration. He owned he had been much astonished at the new doctrine advanced in the course of the debate upon the present occasion—that the annual revision of the lists of voters was an evil. Upon that point an extraordinary change must have come over the minds of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. Annual revision was the constant day' dream of Lord Althorp—one of the principal objects of those who framed the Reform Bill — it was even insisted upon by the noble Lord, the Colonial Secretary, in his letter to his constituents at Stroud. But now, without previous hint or indication of change, they were told by the hon. Member for Bridport, that annual revision had lost all its virtue in the eyes of its supporters, and that it was regarded by them only as a monstrous evil. Then hon. Gentlemen came to talk of the tendencies of the bill. The noble Lord said, he should watch with great jealousy the tendencies of the bill—amongst those tendencies, he ranked this; that the bill might operate to limit the right of voting. Undoubtedly, the bill would operate against fraudulent and fictitious voting; and if hon. Gentlemen opposite relied upon such votes, they would, no doubt, suffer from it, but it could not operate in any way to limit the right of the bona fide voter. No one who had read the evidence taken before the Fictitious Votes Committee, could fail of perceiving that under the existing system, such a degree of fraud and falsehood obtained, as, if left uncorrected, must in a few years, debase and destroy the character of the constituency throughout the whole of Ireland. To correct that evil was one of the objects of his noble Friend's bill; and, where it limited the right of voting, by striking at the root of fraud and falsehood, every one who did not benefit by either, or both of those vile accessories would admit it achieved a positive good. All other arguments failing, recourse had been had to personal attacks upon the character and conduct of his noble Friend. He was said to be the enemy of Ireland. When that assertion was made, he begged to remind the House of the character of his noble Friend's proceedings with respect to Ireland. He would remind the House, that from his earliest years his noble Friend had been a strenuous supporter of the claims of his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects to be admitted to an equality of civil rights, and that he supported those claims at a time when public opinion in this country was opposed to the concession; and when the advocacy of them was not the high road to popularity and power, And what was his noble Friend's conduct, when he was in possession of power? He would remind the House that by a measure of his noble Friend, church rates were repealed in Ireland, and the largest measure of ecclesiastical reform carried, that ever yet passed through the legislature. His noble Friend laid down the principles, and all but carried, that greater measure, which relieved the Catholic occupier from the payment of tithe, and placed it upon the Protestant landlord; he provided the scheme of education now in force for the great body of the Irish people, and he was the organ by which the Reform Act was passed, and which greatly extended the franchise in Ireland, notwithstanding all that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin might say to the contrary. He left the freehold franchise as he found it, and he put the household franchise upon the same footing as in England and Scotland, as he was ready, point by point, to prove; and while his noble Friend gave to Ireland the household franchise, he also gave to the owners of two or three particular species of leasehold tenure in that country, privileges which were not enjoyed by the owners of property in all other respects identical in England or Scotland. For there was this variation— that the time for which the lease was held was shorter, and the sum to be paid by the tenant was less in amount than in any other part of the United Kingdom. It still remained to be heard for what reason the second reading of this bill was opposed. He knew, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had denounced the measure. He had said, that her Majesty's Government durst not dissent from him in that opinion. He feared, in the absence of stronger reasons, that that declaration on the part of the hon. and learned Member would be found strong enough to decide the policy of her Majesty's Government. If it should not so decide them to oppose a measure, just in principle, necessary on account of the admitted defects in the existing system, for purifying that which was the very essence of popular government, the constituent body; if they should not yield, then there was the threat of the repeal of the union. This, after all, was the peace, the hollow peace, that existed in Ireland, and these were the means by which her Majesty's Government sought to prolong it.

Viscount Morpeth

confessed that he was rather astonished by the opening observations of the right hon. Baronet, who had just addressed the House. He seemed to think it was a strange and preposterous thing, that upon a bill, which even in the intention of its authors, went entirely to remodel the present system of registration in Ireland, and which, in the opinion of the great body of those who sat on his side of the House, would virtually disfranchise the great mass of the Irish people—that upon such a measure, and so important in its consequences, an adjournment of one night's debate should have been demanded. The right hon. Gentleman said, and rightly said, that that adjournment was demanded upon its being stated that several Members on the Ministerial side of the House, wished to deliver their sentiments upon the bill. And how did the right hon. Baronet seek to controvert the truth and justice of that demand? By declaring that, a division was on the point of taking place. When? Was it after the House had heard a speech from the other side, so full of argument, that it was in vain to attempt to controvert it? No: but when the most able and argumentative speech on this (the Ministerial) side of the House, which took at least one hour in the delivery, and to which nobody opposite arose to offer a single observation in reply, till the field was taken this evening by the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo. What had been the subsequent course of the debate to-night? Did hon. Members on his (the Ministerial) side of the House show a disposition to shrink from the argument, and refuse to speak? No; on the contrary, several had spoken against the bill; while it was not until the fidus Achates of the noble Lord—the right hon. Member for Pembroke—stood forth, that any Member on the opposite side of the House was found ready to come forward and defend his much-abused and maltreated bill. The right hon. Baronet had expressed his anxiety that some Member of the Government should state their sentiments, and declare the line which they were prepared to take on the matter now immediately awaiting the decision of the House. That anxiety must have been very much allayed by the clear and able statement of his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-general for Ireland last night. But when his noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley), representing, indeed, an English county, but connected with Ireland, both by the situation which he formerly filled there, and by his still conti- nuing connexion with that country as a landlord (and he was sure that that connexion would always be to the great advantage of that country, when that noble Lord brought forward a bill for the purpose of entirely re-modelling the system of registration, he thought he must have been primarily anxious to ascertain the views and sentiments of the great body of the Irish representatives upon the principles and details of that measure. Abundant light had been thrown already, in the course of his discussion, upon their views and sentiments, and he need not refer to the speech of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sheil), for those who heard it would bear him out in saying, that there was nothing either in the talent or temper of that speech which the most fastidious could regret. With respect to his own views on this question, the right hon. Baronet had referred to the test, by which he stated, when the noble Lord moved originally for leave to bring in this bill, he should mainly be guided in the course he should think himself called upon subsequently to pursue; that was, as to the tendency he thought it might, or might not, have to obstruct and contract not any fraudulent and fictitious right of voting, but the legitimate exercise of the elective franchise in Ireland; and whether he referred to his own dispassionate views as to what was the tendency, and what would be the probable results of the bill, as now placed in their hands, or whether he referred to the impression generally conveyed to him from various quarters in Ireland; and which had also found such eloquent and emphatic expression in this House, he must say that he had no hesitation whatsoever in at once declaring that he was prepared to give his most strenuous opposition to the further progress of this bill. There were many points connected with the bill which had reference to legal details and professional practice, and which would be much more completely disposed of by those professional persons who had already given them their consideration. Those points he would gladly leave in their hands. Other points also would be inadequately treated by those who had personal experience of the working of the Irish system of registration, and who had given their personal attention to the laborious inquiries instituted by the Fictitious Votes Committee; and these topics he certainly should willingly leave to them. His own course was mainly decided by a few leading considerations, which he hoped he could distinctly, at all events, briefly, submit to the House. When he had on a former occasion the honour of addressing to the House a few observations upon the subject, he readily admitted the previous attempts which had been made by the Government to legislate on this subject, and the failure of those attempts; and he frankly stated the reason which deterred the Government in subsequent years pressing forward any measure on the subject, was, the hopelessness they thought they saw of inducing the two great parties in this country, or the two Houses of Parliament, to concur in any practical measure. Perhaps they had been in the wrong; and he could not blame his noble Friend in making this present attempt, but it was only when he should see the actual success of that attempt, that he should be prepared to admit the fallacy of his own conclusion. Having admitted the more than once repeated and unsuccessful attempts on the part of the Government to legislate on the subject, it was not necessary for him to say that he did not stand up to deny, and far less to defend, any irregularities, imperfections, or abuses, which might be chargeable upon the present system of registration in Ireland. He would not stop to inquire how far many of those irregularities, imperfections and abuses, were inseparable from any system of registration in any country, and which would attach to the system now proposed to be substituted in common with the present system, and where the right to the franchise was to be decided as a matter of opinion by any party. Neither would he stop to inquire whether, as he believed was the case, a very great proportion, if not the main portion, of such imperfections and abuses were not chiefly referable to the circumstances of hurry, the inexperience, and the neglect under which the original registration of the voters in Ireland took place under the Reform Bill of the noble Lord himself. That registration, it must be well remembered was not entirely carried on by the present assistant-barrister of the time being, but by the registering barristers specially appointed for that purpose, and without that zealous control and watchfulness of competing parties, which was now found to operate as art effectual check upon the conduct of each other. Therefore, it was obvious that any abuses or imperfections which might have arisen from these circumstances would not be likely to occur now. That original registration was now drawing to a close, and a total re-registry must soon take place, and that under circumstances not only widely different, but totally opposite to those which formerly prevailed. He conceived, that it was not in any wise essential to his present purpose and argument to contend, that the existing system of registration was in all respects a sound and satisfactory one. The question with which he had now to deal was, whether the system proposed to be substituted by the noble Lord would be calculated to amend it; whether it would render it more satisfactory—whether it would make it more conducive to the due representation of the people, or whether it would not, even if some of the present defects were removed, introduce evils of a more serious magnitude in their stead, and fetter, embarrass, and contract the elective franchise, and turn out to be a clog, a burden, and a mockery. Now, the main provisions of the bill he look to be (and what he supposed the Gentlemen on the opposite side, who were so clamorous about fixed principles, would call the principle of the bill)—annual revisions, and the double appeal, both an appeal for as well as against the franchise. That was to say, a provision that every registered voter should be liable in every year to be objected to, to have his qualification revised, and to be called upon to appear to make good his claim, in the first instance before the assistant barrister at the registry court, and to be further called upon to appear personally to make good his claim at the assizes, and there to undergo the same ordeal before the going judge. Now, he took it upon himself to say, if they might judge from past experience, that if this might be done in Ireland, to a very great extent it would be done. Were the provision good or bad—were the effect upon the franchise salutary or otherwise—yet if this provision passed into a law, he would take upon himself to say, that this annual revision of the voters before the revising barrister, and this annual appeal before the judge, being in fact no less than an half-yearly registration, might be confidently expected to take place. Now it was said, and it was the main gist of everything that had been ad- vanced on the other side, that these provisions for the annual revision and for the appeal were contained in the bills introduced by the law officers of the Irish Government to which he (Lord Morpeth) had the honour to belong. The first bill was introduced by Sir Michael O'Loghlen, the present Master of the Rolls, and the subsequent measure by the now Lord Chief Baron Woulfe in connexion with himself. But he denied the assertion, that these provisions were contained in either of those bills. The representation was entirely incorrect. Neither of those bills applied the annual revision to any but new or fresh matter. In the bills of 1835 and 1836, which were brought in by Sir M. O'Loghlen, it was enacted, that the barrister should not be at liberty to advert to or allow any objection whatsoever, which existed or might have been made against the vote at any prior registration. The circumstances therefore remaining the same, the voter, by those bills, would not have been liable to be called again before the revising barrister till the expiration of the period for which he had been registered—that was, for the period of eight years. In this particular—this most important particular—this diving and pervading particular, the bill of the noble Lord differed essentially and directly from those previous bills. The bill of the noble Lord introduced, for the first time, universally throughout Ireland, the annual opening of the registry, and the revision of every case de novo. The bill of 1838, which was brought in by himself in conjunction with the Lord Chief Baron—and to which, perhaps, it would have been more candid for hon. Gentleman opposite to have referred, as containing the latest provisions and decisions of the Government upon this matter—that bill contained no provision whatsoever for the annual revision of the votes. The fact, then, stood thus—that in the two bills brought in by Sir M. O'Loghlen, the provision for an annual revision was confined to fresh, voters; and the bill brought in by Chief Baron Woulfe contained no provision at all upon the subject. When reliance was made upon the precedent established in England in favour of the annual revision of the votes, he must say, that from all the representations which had been conveyed to him from those parts of the country with which he was most familiar, and from those who, having given their personal at- tention to the subject, were more cognizant of its bearings—he was led to doubt whether this practical annual revision, even without any appeal, was not found in this country—increasingly found every day— to be vexatious, expensive, and burthen-some to all parties; and whether it was not found that, as to many persons who were really qualified to vote—persons, therefore, whom the Legislature ought to encourage to make and not to deter from making their claims; and to supply them with facilities and opportunities for authenticating their right—whether this system did not inspire them with a growing distaste to appear annually before the primary tribunal of the revising barrister. If this were so he was very much led to doubt whether the Government acted wisely and judiciously in proposing so great an assimilation to the English practice as was proposed in the two bills which were first brought in, but from which they receded, and abandoned in the bill which they last brought in in 1838. It was also a question with him whether it would not be far more wise and salutary to introduce a somewhat longer period of registration in England, more after the fashion of the Irish law in this respect, than to saddle the Irish with the annual revision system of England. The right hon. Baronet was pleased to remark, that this was quite a new notion on this (the Ministerial) side of the House. Now, it had not escaped his (Lord Morpeth's) memory, that when the subject of registration was discussed last Session his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) distinctly stated that such was his opinion, and that he could not support a bill which did not contain a provision of that sort, and he suffered the bill to drop. But he (Lord Morpeth) certainly did admit that there were portions of the present bill which were contained in the previous bills brought in by the Government. But those bills, also, as the House had been frequently reminded in the course of this discussion, contained other enactments declaratory of what the Government contended was the intention of the framers of the Reform Bill, but which hon. Members opposite contended as being not declaratory of those intentions, or as containing matter which, in any event, it was not salutary or wise to confirm. He admitted that the point of joint tenancy, and what went by the name of beneficial interest, that the present bill did correspond with those to which he alluded. With respect to the question of beneficial interest, upon which so much had been said, he did not himself wish to enter into a discussion. He was quite content to let that question rest upon what, the noble Lord himself had said in the debate on the Irish Qualification Freeholders Bill, on the 26th March, 1829. The noble Lord, on that occasion, in answer to a question put by Mr. Leslie Foster, said— That it was quite sufficient for the freeholder to show a beneficial interest of 10l. without calling on him to show that a solvent tenant could afford to pay 10l. more." "The hon. Member for Louth had put a question which had been frequently put from his side of the House, that if they did not adopt the proposal before them, he saw no middle course that could be taken. Now he (Mr. Stanley) did see a middle course. The objection made was not that the franchise had been raised from 40s. to 10l., but that it was raised to a much higher sum, and that a new rule was established for ascertaining the real value. The middle course which he (Mr. Stanley) saw was to demand proof of a bonâ fide 10l. interest, and no more. Upon this view of the case, and which he believed had in some of the tribunals in Ireland been acted upon, the noble Lord had acted most consistently when he introduced this measure to the House to enforce that view of the question of beneficial interest. But whatever might be the merits of the enactments which this bill contained with respect to beneficial interests, it must be confessed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the bill which was introduced in 1838 by the Government, contained provisions that went to secure and to ascertain, if not to extend, the elective franchise in Ireland. It might have been a doubtful policy so to extend the franchise; but at all events, it did in some measure go to expand, and not to limit the elective franchise, while the present bill contained no clauses which were calculated to have that effect. Therefore it was plain that a bill containing no such enactments could not hold out the same temptation to the more ardent friends of the popular franchise than a bill which did contain them. At all events of this he was sure, that neither any Member of the Government or any of their Friends would have supported a bill, such as was introduced in 1838, if it had not the recommendation of those enactments which might have been looked upon as mitigating and qualifying the other more restricting provisions of the bill. But the bill of the noble Lord threw an abundance of difficulty in the way of the acquisition of the franchise. It contained abundant checks, and guards, and restrictions, and displayed abundance of jealousy against the popular franchise in Ireland; but what he contended was, and what he complained of was, that there was not one page, not one line, or syllable, or letter, in any of its provisions, which had any possible tendency to facilitate or to help the voter to, or remove obstructions, or lighten difficulties in the way of the acquisition of the franchise. If the noble Lord was to be looked upon according to the statement of the right hon. Baronet, as the parent of the Irish Reform Bill, he was sure that a measure which could more wear the impress of a step-dame than the present measure, it was quite out of his power to conceive. Then the right hon. Baronet undertook to explain for the noble Lord the favour which he had shown to Ireland in the provisions of the Reform Bill. He stated that the noble Lord left the freehold franchise as he found it. That was no doubt true, but that he gave in respect of copyhold and leasehold tenures. [Sir James Graham: I never mentioned copyhold.] No, but with respect to leasehold tenure, he gave more liberal terms than had been extended to that description of property in England or Scotland. The right hon. Baronet did expressly omit copyhold tenure, but the subject was mentioned by the noble Lord himself, though the right hon. Baronet had the best reason for not naming it, inasmuch as there was barely such a thing as copyhold tenure in Ireland. With respect to this line of argument, he believed that the stoutest friends for the extension of the franchise were ready to meet the noble Lord on this ground, and that if Parliament were disposed to confer the English franchise on the people of Ireland, they would be willing to receive either the registration system established in England, or even the system proposed by the noble Lord himself. Some of the clauses of the bill had undergone considerable revision by those who had preceded him in this debate. There was one clause which proposed to give to the Lord-lieutenant the right of appointing additional places for holding the registry in Ireland, and this was held out by the hon. Member for Monaghan as a boon conferred upon the voters and people of Ireland. Now, so far from its being a boon, he contended that its only operation was to limit the power now entrusted to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. He had now the unshackled power of appointing any place for holding the registration, but this bill made it necessary that there should be a previous application to him to exercise that power by no fewer than five magistrates. Was it likely that there would be found in every county in Ireland such a number of magistrates possessing a sufficient fellow-feeling with the exigencies and wants of the voters as would induce them to make this application? He did not see why the magistrates (who, in a matter in which they had a most direct concern—he meant the appointment of places for holding the Quarter Sessions—had no power to interfere with the Lord-lieutenant) should be required to make this application, thus shackling the authority and discretion of the Lord-lieutenant on a point with which they, as magistrates, had no particular connection. Then, with respect to costs, he thought the provisions relating to them would be found extremely burdensome and oppressive in their operation. The right hon. Baronet had quoted the provision in the English bill, to show that costs might be awarded against the claimant by the revising barrister; but in England the declaration of the claimant was held to be in itself sufficient to support the claim; whereas in Ireland he must produce all his title deeds and documents. But what was the measure of the costs fixed by the noble Lord? The difference between the amount in England and that proposed for Ireland showed the animus of those by whom this measure was prepared. In England the cost to be awarded could not exceed ten shillings; whereas the tender mercy of the noble Lord for the poorer country had induced him to run up the sum to 5l.. and 10l.; 5l.. before the revising barrister, and 10l. in the subsequent instance when he came before the judge at the assizes; and this, although he might have been duly registered, in the event of the judge not concurring in the opinion of the revising barrister who registered him. With respect to the schedules, the right hon. Baronet seemed to think that he had an answer to the complaints which had been made to this part of the bill, because the Solicitor-General for Ireland had admitted that many of the matters contained in the schedule were now made use of for the purpose of substantiating the proof required before the revising barrister. But what was complained of was, not that subsequent proof should be required before the revising barrister who had to go through the merits of the case, but it was the accumulation of these multifarious heads which the noble Lord had made it imperative on the claimant to put into his notice, the omission or non-proval of any one of which would subject the claimant to have his claim rejected. In England all that was required to be set forth was the name and residence of the claimant, the right in respect to that value, and the nature of the qualification which entitled him to be registered. These were very short, simple, and plain requirements, whereas, if they turned to schedule B of this bill, there would be found a laborious division of eleven columns. Why, the battle of Hercules with the hydra would be nothing to these multiplying and germinating heads which the noble Lord had proposed to introduce into every claimant's notice. If they wished to effect an alteration in the present system of registration in Ireland, with the view really of removing what, according to the grave representations of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, were the evasions and the impositions of the present system, and to remove the doubts and ambiguity that already existed, he for one would not consent to remove these errors by introducing other provisions which would give rise to counter ambiguity. For himself, he doubted whether they would be able to arrive at a satisfactory solution of the case, unless they took the matter of the ascertainment of the franchise from what he would call the influence of opinion; unless they took as a criterion for the beneficial interest some authentic rate or valuation; if the rate or ascertained valuation should show that the person rated had a right to vote, it would make the matter of registration simple, and would remove all doubt and ambiguity. But this was a new principle, and it could not be adopted till after serious consideration; nor could it be carried into effect, or the results accurately ascertained till the valuation under the Poor-law bill, which was going on, should be completed. But as he viewed the tendency of the bill of the noble Lord, he did think that in a country situated as Ireland was, where they had a registry court attended by two opposite political parties, having on one side the agent of a powerful and wealthy landlord, who was anxious to establish the right of voting in such tenants as would not act except in submission to his wishes; and on the other side, the smaller leaseholder and farmer, to whom the expenses of a day's journey to the revising barrister's court, or to the assize town, was a matter of great moment, particularly in connection with a subject that did not touch his pecuniary and personal interests, but was only to procure the exercise of a right with which the Legislature had thought fit to invest him, and which might easily be represented by the landlord as likely to be nothing but an incumbrance—he said, that in such a state of society, a bill which involved an annual revision, which involved an appeal both ways to the judges without the intervention of a jury, and thus virtually making the judges the revising barristers, and which gave the costs at the option of the judge, would have the effect of wheedling away, or worrying out, or extirpating the franchise with a great part of the people of Ireland, who were not prepared to square their views in entire accordance with those of their landlords. The motives from which he opposed the noble Lord's bill were strengthened by the fact that he did not see in it a glimpse of any thing that could give security, or facility, or extension to the elective franchise, and that it contained nothing from beginning to end but apt contrivances to fritter, to impede, and to diminish that franchise. And what constituted his greatest objection to the bill, it could scarcely be denied that the operation of the bill would increase the difficulty of acquiring the franchise, because it would deter many by the expense and the vexation attending an appearance at every revision court and every assizes, from incurring the displeasure of their landlords; because many would, on this account, object to register at all; and because, if this were so, it would, in the present state of party warfare, drive and compel the popular party in Ireland to look for some stimulus commensurate with the emergency. If hon. Gentlemen opposite should increase the difficulty and the expense of acquiring the franchise, they would drive the opposite party to stimulate those passions by which alone they would be capable of counteracting these difficulties; they would give rise to constant pressure and to violent political agitation, on whatever popular topic might arise. Considering, then, that the operation of the bill would be to limit the franchise, that it would throw increasing difficulties in the way of obtaining votes, that it would lead to much evil, that it would excite deep political discontent, and that it would foster political agitation, he should give his most unhesitating opposition to the further progress of this bill.

Lord Stanley

must, in the first instance, beg leave to return to the House his most unfeigned thanks for the readiness with which, from motives personal to himself, they had consented to depart from the usual order; and, when they considered an adjournment necessary, they had permitted the discussion to come on at that early period of the evening, and had enabled them finally to dispose of the bill that night. He should ill requite the courtesy which had been shown to him if he trespassed upon the time of the House, more than to take up so much as was necessary for the purpose, not of recriminating, nor of vindicating the motives with which he had introduced the bill, or of vindicating himself from the imputations that had been cast upon him, but for the purpose of vindicating the bill which he had introduced, courting as he did the utmost strictness of inquiry, from the charges which had been brought against its provisions. He would defend himself from no imputation of an animus hostile to Ireland, or to the franchise which existed in that country, because those Gentlemen who were connected with him, those who had afforded to him most valuable assistance in preparing the measure, and those who had pressed him to undertake the conduct of the bill—for he did not seek to introduce the measure of his own mere will—sufficiently knew what were the views with which he had entered upon the discussion of the details of the bill, how studious he had been in framing those details to avoid anything which should restrict or fetter, or impede the franchise of the voters in Ireland. He agreed with the right hon. and learned Member for Tipperary that to political pro- fessions of candour and of good intentions, the House was indisposed to listen, and he would therefore proceed at once to discuss the principles of the bill. But he must be permitted to say, that he had attended to the discussions on this bill with unmitigated surprise; not of surprise that the bill was opposed, for he had good reason to expect opposition, but of surprise at the grounds and at the arguments on which that opposition had been based, and of surprise most of all at the persons by whom those arguments had been used. He had understood that on Saturday last, at the Corn Exchange, Dublin, the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, whom he had hoped to have heard before that time in the course of that debate, made a long speech to a large body of his constituents there assembled; and after going at great length into the details of the bill, ended by stating that he was utterly unable to fathom all the details so as to prepare a report for the committee appointed specially to investigate the provisions of this bill, and who ought to have submitted such report. The hon. and learned Gentleman formed a sort of monopologue. He remembered that some years ago an ingenious gentleman, Mr. Mathews, gave such a performance, and they saw in the play-bills of the day the part of so and so by Mr. Mathews, the part of the second character by Mr. Mathews, the part of the third character by Mr. Mathews, and in fact, every part in the play was by Mr. Mathews. So the hon. and learned Gentleman on Saturday last stated that the time had not been enough, and that he had not had sufficient leisure to prepare the report for the committee on the bill, the provisions of which he was still investigating. On Sunday, however, he appeared in the second part—he produced an elaborate report to the committee, the committee produced it to the meeting, the report was read, it was unanimously adopted, a petition was put forth, and then the hon. and learned Gentleman came forth in his third character—of a petitioner. The petition was at once adopted, it was to be circulated throughout Ireland, and these were the professions which were set forth by the petitloners:— Your petitioners most respectfully inform your honourable house that they have with much anxiety considered the provisions of that measure; they implore your honourable house to believe that they have done so with the sincerest desire to form a just judgment upon it, and with the truest intention, and the hope of being enabled, even if they could not approve of all its details, to suggest any alterations which might fairly carry out the true spirit of the Reform Act, and fulfil the just expectations of the people. That very meeting, before the bill had been introduced, had issued their instructions that any bill proceeding from him should be opposed. He believed that the Gentleman who presented that report, had said that it was a sufficient ground for repudiating this bill, that it was introduced by him, and afterwards, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the name of himself, in his character of the committee that presented the report, and again in the name of the people of Ireland in his character as petitioner, said We have considered the provisions of this bill with much anxiety; And they who had condemned the bill, whatever it should be, because it came from him, staled further, that they had the Sincerest desire to form a judgment upon the bill, and with the truest intention, and with the hope of being enabled to suggest alterations that might render it a bill that would fairly carry out the true provisions of the Reform Act. Now, after reading this petition, he would only ask the House, whether it could believe what the petitioners said; and whether it ought not rather to place this allegation in the report, and in the petition among that class which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tipperary called political professions, and to which, as he said, no great credit attached. But there was one satisfaction to him in discussing this question, that no single Member who had got up at any time, repudiating, as they all did, the principle of the bill, all agreeing to reject the bill because of the principle, and all refusing to enter into any consideration of the details of the bill in committee, denied or palliated the monstrous abuses which he had demonstrated when he had asked leave to bring in this bill, and on demonstrating which to the House, and on stating the remedies which he proposed, the House had felt that they could not refuse their assent to the introduction of this measure. They had been told that they had better make short work of the bill; and so it might be better for hon. Gentlemen to make short work of the bill than to discuss it. But if, when he first stated the principle of the bill, it had at that time appeared so repugnant to the feelings of the noble Lord and of her Majesty's Government, it would have saved much personal trouble to himself and would have economised the time of the House, if the House had then, at the very first stage, made short work of the bill, and have stopped it before it had come to the mere mockery of a discussion. No one denied the evils that existed—no one denied that the mode which he adopted would palliate or remove the greater part of the evils to which the present system was liable; but, on the contrary, the bill was met with the most contradictory objections, although every one agreed in this, as the noble Lord called it, their downright opposition to the further progress of this bill. The main objection of the hon. Member for Roscommon was, that this was an assimilation of the law of Ireland to the law of England. The hon Member set out with making an assertion, which, with all respect, he must call a complete misrepresentation, that the principle laid down in this bill was an assimilation to the law of England; and indeed both the statements of the hon. Member were misrepresentations, for he said that when he (Lord Stanley) thought that he was about to found a good system of registration in England, he had refused to extend it to Ireland; but that now, when there existed a system in England which had been proved to be vexatious, and which was universally condemned, he was about to force it upon Ireland. Now he had refused to sanction the introduction to Ireland of A new system before it had been tried and tested in England; but at the same time he had said explicitly that if he found the system of an annual revision or registration in England to work well, he would introduce it into Ireland with such modifications as should be necessary to meet the difference in the Irish franchise. He admitted the test of the hon. Member for Bridport. He had waited till the system had been tried in England: the system had been tried, and be had heard for the first time that night that the existence of an annual revision in England had been looked upon as vexatious, and as annoying. He said, on the contrary, that although bill after bill had been brought into that House, altering constantly the details of the registration in England, in no one bill that had been brought forward, in no single speech that had been made, had a hint been dropped on any side of the House that an annual revision was one part of the registration that ought not to remain. Had any one asked them to get rid of it? Had any one asked them to go back to the former system, or to adopt the substance of the Irish system of certificates? He was not sure, indeed, that the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland in his very last change might not have thought that a system of certificates such as existed in Ireland ought to be adopted, and that it was preferable to the system of annual revision. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-general for Ireland last night quoted a passage from the Law Magazine, a publication on which he passed a high eulogium for the talent with which it was conducted, contained in an article written in 1837, in proof of his assertion, that the able men writing this magazine were opposed to a system of annual revision. He was not sure that he had the same number as that referred to by the learned Gentleman; but in a number for 1837 he found an article on the provisions of the bill of the hon. Member for Bridport, who proposed to substitute a new system of registration in England, not doing away, however, with an annual revision, for that was a fresh thought, a new light that had broken in upon the hon. Member for Bridport, who had just found out that an annual revision in counties had become very inconvenient of late; and so the hon. Member, who was, he believed, a friend to annual elections, thought an annual revision too expensive to suit his views, and he who would have annual elections now said, that it would be better to have a registration only once in three years. In 1836, however, he did not go so far in his views; he then proposed an "ambulating tribunal," going round and round a circuit. By some strange fancy the House passed his bill, and it was upon that bill that the Law Magazine commented. After stating that the bill had passed the Commons, but that the Lords had struck out much that was bad, for which they were of course blamed—that the Commons had rejected this amended bill, and that the Lords were entirely right, and the Commons entirely wrong, as they always were, that was literally in the very article which the learned Gentleman produced as an article written to show the objections to an annual revision. [Mr. T. B. Hobhouse: Who writes the Law Magazine?] The Solicitor-general for Ireland would probably tell the hon. Gentleman that no counsel was at liberty to impeach his own witness. The Law Magazine was introduced into the debate by the learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-general; and then, when his own witness upset his cause, up jumped an hon. Gentleman behind him and asked, "pray who writes the Law Magazine?" First an attack was made upon the bill because it did assimilate the Irish to the English system; he repudiated that assimilation altogether, and then the hon. Baronet, the Member for the West Riding of the county of York, admitting that it was quite different from the English system, which was full of faults and defects, said that he was willing to adopt for Ireland a bill that he meant now to oppose on principle, if he could only obtain a similar bill for England. It was so much better than the English system, that if the hon. Baronet could get a similar bill, he would much, like to take it; but no such good measure could be expected to be adopted in England, and so he would vote against the principle of the bill, and not allow it to be for one moment discussed in committee. The Member for Limerick (Mr. S. O'Brien) next said, that the abuses under the old system were not denied by any one, and that abuses existed under the present system of certificates no one doubted. The hon. Member for Limerick said, that be agreed with him that it was a question on which legislation was required. He agreed that the present system was objectionable, that under it there might be double and treble and quadruple certificates, which he held must induce perjury—he agreed that many persons were left upon the register after losing their qualifications—he agreed that this led to subsequent contests for the seat before committees, and the hon. Member agreed in a great many more things, to which he would afterwards refer, and then the hon. Member came to the conclusion to oppose the bill. But although nobody denied that old certificates might be produced, yet he was asked to produce any instance of a fraudulent use of the old certificates. [Mr. Sheil: Numerous in- stances.] It was numerous instances now. He did not attend the registration courts in Ireland; he saw, however, the hon. Member for Wicklow present, and he admitted, with great pleasure, that he had heard of no county in Ireland in which there was so little abuse of the registration, so few fictitious votes, and so few double certificates, as in the county of Wicklow. And the hon. Member for Drogheda (Sir William Somerville), who opposed what he rightly described as the principles of the bill, the annual revision, the double appeal, and the doing away with the inquiry before the House of Commons, seeing that abuses existed, was prepared to join with him in doing away with the double certificates, but the hon. Baronet doubted whether the abuse existed to any very great extent. The hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. E. Tennent) had just put into his hand a statement which he had received that morning from Belfast with respect to the double certificates there. He thought that his hon. Friend had stated, that the number of persons having certificates of registry were between 6,000 and 7,000, but that the number really capable of voting was about 1,900 or 2,000. The number of persons who had more than one qualification, would appear best from the number of double registrations which were very large. It appeared, that no less than 174 persons were registered three successive times, that twenty were registered four times, that two were registered five times, and that one elector was registered no less than six times; so that, for the whole 197 electors, 618 certificates were held, which, by a judicious distribution, might all be made use of at any election for the town of Belfast. The hon. Member for Dublin asked them the other night whether they did not know that it was the practice of the revising barristers to write "re-registered" at the back of the former certificate? He did not know that such was the practice; it might be, but there was no law requiring it; and even if they did put the word at the back, was it not a mark that might be easily effaced? The barrister handed the new certificate to the claimant, and he gave back at the same time the old certificate, so that there was little difficulty in using every one for different persons. There might be abuse; and when it was said that there were no instances of such abuse, he would give the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Tipperary, an instance, which, although it rested on the statement of a Gentleman opposed to the hon. Member in politics, was one which he would readily admit having taken place in the writer's presence. It was a statement of the son of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, not then present, (Dr. Lefroy), of what took place before himself at Granard. A claimant came up to be re-registered; he looked so young that it seemed hardly possible that he could have been originally registered so many years before, as the certificate would indicate, for it was dated in 1832. On a strict examination, it turned out that the young man's Christian name was the same as that of his father, and that the certificate had been given to the father, who had since died. After this discovery, the agent attempted to register the son as a new claimant, but the attempt completely failed, for it appeared that the claimant had not any right. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would object to this as a single case, coming from a Gentleman of opposite politics; the right hon. Gentleman would not, however, object to the evidence of Mr. Ternan, given before the committee on fictitious votes, and who introduced himself to the committee as having taken an active part, as the friend of Mr. White, in the county of Longford. He was asked— You have no doubt that there are names upon the register of persons who have long since lost their qualification?—I think there are. On both sides?—I think there are. And that, therefore, it must be very desirable to have a review of the register?—Yes, I think it would be desirable. Would it not be a measure of justice to the fair constituency, under such circumstances, that there should be a review of the register? —I think it would be useful. Do not you think it would be a measure of justice towards the fair constituents?—Yes if it would be useful it would be just. That was the principle which he (Lord Stanley) wished the House to establish by the passing of that bill; he wished to give a measure that would be useful to the fair claimants; and if the House pleased, a measure to disfranchise those who should not have any right to be upon the list. Mr. Ternan said, in continuation. Is not there a practice of re-registering upon certificates?—There was in 1832. Men came up and registered upon the mere production of certificates of former registries?—The agents upon both sides had the certificates of former registries, and produced them, and got them renewed. Without the claimant appearing or being examined?—Yes. That necessarily must have left an opening for unqualified voters?—Yes; there were certificates taken out for men that were dead long before. And those all remain upon the register to this hour?—Yes, they do. When once the name is put on, it remains?—It does. Do not you think the system of registering upon certificate, without the attendance and examination of the claimant, very much calculated to introduce fraudulent and fictitious voters upon the register?—I know that certificates were taken out for persons that had long ceased to exist That was the evidence fairly given by a Liberal, and an active friend of a Liberal, and that was the remedy which he suggested. But he would give yet another instance. At last Hilary Sessions at Kilmainham (county of Dublin), Thomas William Stephens demanded and obtained a new certificate, though on cross-examination he admitted, that his lease would expire on the 25th March following (that is yesterday), and the certificate he procured was valid to October next, The claimant's certificate which he had previously held was valid till the month of October next, and yet he re-registered just one month before his lease would expire. He obtained a double certificate, and his vote would be good at any election that might take place for the next eight years. He sought to do away with this system. But then hon. Gentlemen opposite said, that the voters had to go through the ordeal of the affidavit at the poll. So they had, but he would now proceed to consider in what light that had been viewed, and that by a very learned Gentleman, the hon. civilian, the Member for Cashel, who talked of the extreme hardship of doing away with the qualification and the right which were given by the Reform Bill. He said, What a hardship it is to strike off any man who by accident had no longer his franchise in the year 1840, but who still had an indefeasible right to go to the poll! Why, the hon. and learned Gentleman forgot the affidavits. He treated a man who had had a qualification, if he had for- feited it, as if he still had an indefeasible right to go to the poll—a right of which he said this hill would deprive the voter, but which, he appeared to have forgotten, must he supported by perjury, in such a case as he suggested. But, who stood up for the present system of certificates? Who would defend their unmitigated abuses? Who would say that the system was one which should not be altered in Ireland, but which should be introduced into England? But if they were not to have the certificates, what were they to have? If it was desirable to purge the registration of all those dead men, to whom he had referred—to do away with all those fictitious votes, which undoubtedly remained on it —how was it possible to obtain those objects? The hon. Member for Armagh said, that he did not so much object to reduce the number of the dead men on the registry, as to reduce the number of the votes of those who had lost their qualification; but how were they to ascertain who had lost their qualifications, unless they allowed a revision of the lists, for the purpose of bringing forward and substantiating their objections? In dealing with this question, he considered not only the evils which they had to meet, but the mode which, in his judgment, looking to what had passed, would he most effectual in obtaining the concurrence of both sides of the House, at least on the principle of the bill; and he had thought, that he could not be mistaken, when he founded his bill on those leading principles of an annual revision of the list of voters —an appeal to the judges, or any court of appeal which might be determined on, against as well as for the franchise, and a rejection of the jurisdiction of the House of Commons, making the registry final and conclusive; and he said, that he had thought that he was not mistaken, because those were the principles adopted in every bill, which obtained the concurrence of this House, and which had been proposed by the Government, which had been never contested, which had been uniformly assented to, and which in one case had gone so far as to have gone through all its readings in that House, and to have been sent up to the House of Lords. But the hon. and learned Member for Dublin said, "I was wrong in what I before did. I supported an annual revision; the double appeal; in 1835 and 1836, I supported those provisions, but I have changed my mind since, and if the Government dare to do now that which they proposed, and I assented to, and supported, and eulogised, and declared to be essential to the welfare of Ireland in the years 1835 and 1836— because I have changed my mind, up goes the cry of ' Repeal of the Union,' on the the ground that they have followed my advice and my opinion." Therefore it was that the noble Viscount had "new impressions;" and he too, thought that the principles were not quite so clear as they were—that there were great objections to the annual revision — that fundamental objections existed to the double appeal—that giving costs was monstrous, and that not only the details of the bill, but that which he asked the House to adopt—its principles—was objectionable, and that the principles were such as that the House of Commons could not for one moment assent to them. Did the noble Viscount deny those principles, that Mr. O'Loghlen brought in a bill in 1835, which provided for an annual registration; for the publication of lists of voters, and of claimants; for district sessions to be held for claimants to attend and prove their cases, under all the restrictions which he now proposed to impose, which directed the collector to be called to prove any default, and which required the revising barrister to correct the registry, with an appeal to the judge of assize, but which otherwise left the existing law unaltered? These were the provisions of the hill introduced in 1835. [Viscount Morpeth: There were other provisions.] Oh, there were other provisions undoubtedly, which, however, were not in truth enactments, but which were called declarations of what the law was with regard to beneficial interests and cases of joint tenancy. Those provisions were not put forward as creating any alterations in the existing law; but, no doubt, as very valuable adjuncts in the view of the noble Viscount, and the professed object was to correct objectionable principles; but before the noble Viscount could avail himself of that argument, he must prove that the principles which he then supported were objectionable. In 1836 a similar bill was introduced; but, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-general for Ireland, "You must not tell us what took place in 1835 and 1836. I, for example," said he, "know nothing of Mr. Sergeant Perrin, Mr. O'Loghlen, or Mr. Sergeant Woulfe. I am not to be hound by their opinions;" and it must, indeed, have been unpleasant for the noble Viscount to sit by to hear his present legal adviser attack his late legal advisers, knowing that at a later period of the debate it must be his fate to support the present Solicitor-general for condemning those who had preceded him in his office. But, said the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, The Soliciter-generals of 1835 and 1836 did not know what we do now. We had not then all the mischiefs produced by annual revisions before our eyes: we have from that time seen how very inconvenient those revisions have been—how great the expence which they have created, and we have in consequence altered our minds. It did not appear, however, that those effects of the system had made any very great impression on the mind of Mr. Sergeant Woulfe, the Attorney-general for Ireland in 1838, who brought forward a measure in that year, which he had introduced in a speech, the terms of which he would read to the House, and he hoped that he should be forgiven for presenting an extract of so great length, which the necessity and the importance of the case alone induced him to read. He said, in speaking of the position of a voter under the existing law, When the decision was in his favour there was no appeal from it, but when against him he might bring his claim before the judge of assize, who, under the Act, had power to reverse the barrister's decree. This arrangement, he considered, called for revision, and accordingly one of the objects of his bill was to give the power of appeal as well on one side as the other. There was then another part connected with the Irish registration system with which he proposed to interfere. As the law now stood in Ireland, a party once registered, notwithstanding that he might have parted with his freehold, changed his domicile, or done any other act whereby he parted from his qualification, continued on the register for a period of eight years, and on producing his original certificate of registry, and taking an oath that he had not parted with his qualification, might vote at an election. This, he thought, was highly inconvenient; and, therefore, he proposed by the present bill, that a party registered might be, at any subsequent registration, struck off the registry, on receiving proper notice of the fact, for any reason growing up subsequent to the original registry. He proposed that the Registration Court, instead of being held four times a-year, as those which were now in existence were held, should be held only once in the course of each year; for there was a certain degree of excitement consequent upon the sitting of the courts to decide upon matters of this description, which ren- dered the recurrence of such an event as seldom as possible highly important."* He begged the attention of the hon. Member for Wicklow to this last paragraph; he said that the annual revision would convert the peaceable places in Ireland into a Pandemonium; but so far from that opinion being entertained by the former Attorney-general for Ireland, he actually sought to introduce a measure for the purpose of doing away with the perpetual excitement which had been apprehended from the constant recurrence of these meetings. He admitted freely, that in the bills brought forward by the Government on all occasions, they had provided for a revision only of such cases as had occurred subsequent to the last registration, but this did not interfere with the principle of his bill. The principle was, that the registration should be made for the next year, and whether they struck off the names of those who were dead, or who had lost their qualifications, or whether they extended it further, and struck off the names of all those who should never have been put on the registry, but who had been placed there upon erroneous decisions, were subjects which should not be discussed now, upon a motion for the second reading of the bill, but should be reserved for consideration in committee, and which should not be decided upon, with the general principles of the measure. He would admit, that he had been anxious, if it were possible, so to limit the revision as to effect the object which the noble Viscount had thought to attain in his former bills, but he had come to the conclusion, that if they were so to limit it, it would be impossible to prevent those cases of gross fraud, which had been practised, and instances which had already occurred would be without remedy Mr. Sergeant Woulfe, in his last bill, was so convinced of the mischief of such a state of things, that he did not propose to continue the vote during life, but he provided that the vote should be obtained for eight years only, and that at the expiration of that time, the voter should come forward again to support his claim. He hoped that he was not trespassing too long upon the attention of the House, but the question was one of the greatest importance, and it was his duty to show on what grounds he sought to interfere, and that he had no intention or desire to trifle with the franchise, or to clog or impede its free exercise in any way. He * Hansard, Vol. xli Third Series, p. 876. supposed that it would be admitted, that revising barristers, like all others, were subject to err; and the case might arise that a person might be put on the registry, who possessed no good right or claim to vote. What was now done with him in case it was found that an actual fraud had been committed, that he was a fictitious voter, and that he never had any qualification? They barred everything except new matter. Why the man might laugh in their faces. He said— To be sure, I have no qualification; I never had; I will prove that I had none when I was put on the register; but my name is on the list of voters, and I defy you to strike it off. No committee of the House of Commons shall remove me. By this bill he proposed to do away with this; and he also desired to do away with the appeal to the committee of the House of Commons. Was there any man who desired continuance of that appeal [Lord John Russell, hear?] Did the noble Lord opposite desire it? Then he desired the House of Commons to open the register and investigate it, but for the noble Lord to cheer him when he asked whether any man desired that the committee of the House of Commons should inquire into the register, was to tell him that he would give with one hand and take away with the other—and it was in point of fact to support what was the very mockery of an appeal. The bill which he had introduced had been objected to, on the ground that it would subject voters to annual revision, and the inconveniences attending it,—that it gave an appeal both ways, that was against, as well as in favour of the franchise. Had not the same provision been introduced into every bill promoted by the Government, and brought forward under the immediate auspices of his noble Friend opposite? He had already referred to the effect of those bills—a reference which sufficiently answered the arguments which had been produced on the other side of the House. But much as he might have expected support from his noble Friend and the Government on this occasion, more especially as the bill which he had brought forward was founded entirely on the principles advocated by them, there were some others from whom he had supposed that he should have received support, but from whom he had received an intimation that it was their intention to oppose him. The hon. Member for Limerick (W. S. O'Brien) said that he should oppose his bill upon its principles. "That hon. Member, continued the noble Lord, brought in a bill in 1838 for the purpose of correcting the registry in Ireland. He then agreed with me not only on what should be adopted, but on what should be rejected, and he found it expedient to omit altogether any clause with regard to the polling, and all declaratory enactments as to beneficial interest, or the right of voting, and to go simply and solely to the law with respect to registration. Now, to go step by step through the hon. Member's bill—he proposed an annual revision, and so do I; he proposed that an assistant-barrister should be the person to register, so do I; he proposed that notice of all claims should be published in the districts to which the parties belong, and so do I; he proposed that notice of all objections should also be published, so do I; he proposed that no new claim should be admitted without notice being given, so do I; he proposed that the person registered should have a prima facie case in his favour, so do I; he proposed that all new claimants should attend to prove their title, so do I; he proposed to appeal both ways against the decision of the barrister, so do I; he proposed that the appellant should be liable to costs, so do I; he proposed that a committee of the House of Commons should not inquire into his right to be put on the register, so do I; but that it should into all matters subsequently arising, so do I;—and these were the provisions of the bill of the honourable Member. I conceive, therefore, that we agreed not only on the abuses to be remedied, but on the principles on which we should act, and on every little detail, with one single difference as to the constitution of the appeal court. The hon. Gentleman, however, tells me that he is prepared to oppose my bill on principle on its second reading. I believe that the names of the hon. Member for Waterford and of the hon. Member for Mallow were on the back of the bill introduced by the hon. Member; and I conceive that I may confidently rely on the support of those Gentlemen, notwithstanding the opposition which I receive from the hon. Gentleman to whom I have alluded; for the measure is absolutely in point of fact their own." The noble Lord went on to say, that the hon. Member did not object to the annual revision, to the payment of costs, to doing away with the committee of the House of Commons. These were the leading principles of the bill, but he said that there were other provisions. Now he would see what they were. First, he said that the appeal was a most unpopular one provision, and he said that the hill introduced in 1835 was not well received in Ireland, in consequence of the introduction of that appeal. When he said so, however, he professed to know a great deal more than appeared on the face of things. The bill was rejected in the House of Lords, not on the ground of the appeal, but, as the noble Viscount well knew, because he had thought fit to tack to it other provisions wholly unconnected with its real object, relating to an alteration of the franchise, to which the House of Lords would not consent. But the hon. Gentleman said, that the bill was rejected on account of the appeal, but did he know that the Solicitor-general for Ireland went over to that country, and at a public meeting spoke in a strain of violent abuse of the House of Lords for having rejected it? "But." said the hon. Gentleman, "there are some other provisions—there are the rate-paying clauses." Let the House look at them. Similar provisions had been introduced in the bills of 1835 and 1836, and he never heard until now the hon. Gentleman or any one else offer one word against them. Then an objection was made to the form of the declaration of claim required to be made by the schedule. That declaration need not be made by persons already on the register, and there was nothing required to be stated in it which was not already necessary under the existing law, save that four columns were divided into seven, for the purpose of giving in seven what was now given in four; and that it was made necessary for the claimant, if he held a lease for a life or lives, to state the names of the persons during whose life it was to continue; or if he held a lease for years, to state how many years it had yet to run. In the event of the weight of proof resting upon the party objecting to the qualification, how was he to obtain information of the number of lives in the lease? How were the objectors to prove a negative where the tenant himself did not know the number of lives in his lease? If he entertained any doubt of the difficulty to which the objector was exposed, and of the evils which the existing system engendered, it would be removed by the case which had been stated on the other side—of persons who had come up to swear to their right to the franchise in virtue of leases on the lives of persons well known to have been dead for some considerable period. He would refer also to the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Armagh of a person who, on the occasion of the death of the late king, came up to claim the franchise in virtue of a lease determinable with the life of his late Majesty. It was assumed that this individual did not know the fact at the time that he so attempted to perpetuate his right to vote, and it was just possible that persons might be found in Ireland who, at the time when they came up, on the occasion of the death of King William 4th, were not aware of the death of the Duke of Clarence even although the election which rendered their exercise of their franchise necessary was in consequence of the death of the king; but this was clear, that if the plan which he suggested were adopted, such cases could not occur as had been referred to by the hon. Member on the other side. These were the only differences between his bill and that of the hon. Member for Limerick. [Mr. O'Brien There are many others.] Perhaps the hon. Member would take an opportunity of stating what those other differences were. Yet, notwithstanding the agreement between them on the subject, the hon. Gentleman was going to vote against him on the second reading of this bill. There were many other minor points of detail which were better fitted for discussion in committee, but which had been brought forward in support of the objections to the second reading. For instance, the hon. and learned Solicitor-general for Ireland, discovered from certain expressions in one of the clauses of the bill, that there was a deep-laid design in it to compromise the "beneficial interest" as far as related to the right of voting. This he inferred from the use of the word "acts" instead of the word "act," in one of the columns. Now this was a monster entirely of the hon. Gentleman's own creation, and he (Lord Stanley) could assure him, that if he would allow him to go into committee, he would let the hon. and learned Gentleman take that monster, and knock him down in any manner that was most convenient to himself. But he would tell the hon. and learned Gentleman why the word "acts" had been used instead of "act." The 22d clause of the Reform Act introduced a certain franchise, and having conferred that franchise it proceeded to reserve to the people of Ireland all rights and franchise conferred by any previous acts that were not interfered with by that act. This being the provision of the Reform Act, in drawing up this present bill it was thought to be the more safe plan that the assistant-barrister should inquire into the nature of the franchise held under the "acts" so referred to in the Reform Act. Such, and such only, was the motive for introducing into this bill the expression under which the hon. and learned Gentleman had discovered concealed so deep-laid a scheme against the right of voters in Ireland. Another of those matters of detail which he would have preferred to have argued in committee, was referred to by an hon. Member last night, who complained of the great hardship to which the claimant was put, because, according to the terms of the clause, he had not the power of summoning witnesses in support of his claim. But on looking at the act, how did the case turn out? Why, that any person in the register might apply to the clerk of the peace to summon any other person, on whatever side he might be. The case might be supposed, however, on the other side, of a claimant, who was so utterly cut off from the rest of his fellow-creatures, that he had not even a friend or an acquaintance on the register—one who would proceed in making his claim for himself alone and wholly unsupported—and who, therefore, would not, according to the terms of the clause, have the power to issue a summons to compel the appearance of any person whose evidence might be necessary to the support of his claim. He was perfectly ready to provide for the exigencies of such a case, supposing that it could exist, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman would let him go into committee, he would agree to an amendment, giving the power of summoning witnesses, not only to persons on the registry, but to persons claiming to be put upon it. To such an amendment he would give his most cordial assent. It was also alleged against this bill that it did not give additional registering places, but on the contrary rather narrowed the means of registering which at present existed. The object of introducing that provision was, that the magistrates alone should not have the power of appointing additional registering places. It was proposed to adopt the English system of apportioning the registering districts, as much as possible, to the different polling places, and that the registering barristers should fix the registering places, and assign the districts, for the purpose of bringing those registering places as near as possible to the greatest number of persons who would be required to be placed on the register. The bill pro- vided that the Lord-lieutenant, on the application of the magistracy, should have the power of appointing additional registering places, as the Crown in England had the power of appointing them, on the recommendation of the magistracy. One other point he must refer to—the objection which had been raised to the appeal to the judges, on the ground that it took away the appeal to the jury. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, touched on this point, and urged, that not only did this bill give the appeal to the judge, but it deprived the claimant of the existing advantage of having his claim tried by a jury. If it was so he was not without a precedent for the adoption of this principle. This very question was argued upon the point of "beneficial interest," and after that question had been discussed, a noble Friend of his, now no more, and whose early loss that House and the country did most deeply deplore—he alluded to the late Lord Clements, then Member for Leitrim —moved an amendment, the effect of which would have been to take away the right of appeal from the jury, and transfer it to the judge. The words of the noble Lord were these:— I think, that in cases of appeal, great injury is done by the contradictory opinions of juries, who generally had some direct or indirect interest one way or other in the question on which they had to decide. It is, therefore, desirable to remove all appearance of partiality, and the only mode of preventing it is, by taking the right of appeal out of the hands of the jury. In order to obtain uniformity of practice, I propose to leave all to the judge. The noble Lord opposite, the Secretary for Ireland, then rose, and said, I think it is desirable that the decisions should be on as uniform a scale as possible, and I have, therefore, no objection to the adoption of the measure recommended by the noble Lord. The consequence was, that Lord Clements's amendment was afterwards agreed to without a division, and yet the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, was now the person to come down to that House and charge him (Lord Stanley) with an attempt at a gross violation of the rights of the people of Ireland, by transferring the right of appeal from the jury to the judge. No doubt the noble Lord did not lay very great stress upon his charge, and no wonder. But if the noble Lord did not mean to make against him the accusation to which he had referred, it was somewhat susprising, that the noble Lord did not add that the transfer of the appeal was an alteration to which he agreed in common with some others, although he had never swerved from his declared opinions on the subject of the registration system in Ireland. One other point there was on which he felt it utterly impossible for him to be silent—he alluded to what had fallen from hon. Members opposite on the subject of incorporating, in a measure for the regulation of registration, same alteration in the franchise. He would here warn the House and the Government against the adoption of one of the most dangerous principles ever introduced into legislation—that they were justified in refusing to adopt some specific measure, which all parties agreed to be likely to be productive of positive benefit and advantage, unless there was tacked to it some other measure or provision of a totally different nature, and on which great differences of opinion might exist among all parties. He warned the Government against another appropriation clause. Let hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite recollect for how many years they had declared that they were prepared to peril place, reputation and character, in not admitting any settlement of the tithe question in Ireland, without the introduction of a provision for the appropriation of the surplus property of the Church in Ireland. Let them recollect the years of turmoil, anxiety, confusion, possibly of bloodshed, which ensued in Ireland in consequence of their determination not to admit a positive benefit without the admission, at the same time, of a principle doubtful in the extreme, and on which there was the utmost possible difference of opinion. Let them go farther, and look at what had been the result of their determination, and at the step which they had at last been compelled to take in spite of it. The hon. Member for Roscommon it was who first laid down the doctrine which he here so much condemned, and which he regretted to find had been confirmed by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland. The hon. Member said, he would not admit an alteration which might work an alteration in the franchise, unless they consented to settle those disputed points. He had, however, studiously omitted those disputed points. The noble Lord well knew that he gave notice of a motion for a committee of that House, composed of the leading men of all parties, to examine those doubtful points in the law of elections, as to how many could by consent be got rid of, and as to how many declatory acts should be introduced, so as to set all doubt at rest. The noble Lord also knew well that he would have proceeded with that committee, had not he received an intimation that Ministers would not consent to such a committee, because they considered it absolutely hopeless to settle those doubtful points in the present state of parties. The noble Lord seemed to be still of the same opinion; he did not deny the abuses of the present system, but he insisted on tacking on to a bill, the object of which was to remedy those abuses, a declaratory enactment on those very doubtful points, as to which he confessed he considered it impossible that the consent of the two great parties could be obtained. Yet the noble Lord and the Government declared themselves sincerely desirous of remedying existing abuses, at the same time that they refused their assent to a practical measure for their reform, because it did not contain an enactment to which the House could not agree. He must again revert to the subject of the beneficial interest. He regretted to have to do so, but he was compelled by the reference which the noble Lord, in proof of what were the intentions of the framers of the Reform Act, had made to a speech delivered by him in 1829, in which he rejected the doctrine that what a solvent tenant could afford to give, should be the basis of the franchise. "I am not," continued the noble Lord, "in the habit of looking back to my former speeches—I repeat I am not in the habit of referring to my former speeches. The noble Lord says I can look back to the speeches of others. I say I have a right to look back to the speeches of noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, in order to see what were the principles on which they introduced a measure similar in its objects to that which they now oppose. I am not aware why a charge is made against me on account of my having altered some of my opinions. I am quite ready to admit that on former occasions I was wrong, and I do not hesitate to avow that my opinions on some subjects have undergone a change. But I hope—nay I am quite sure—that no one will for a moment suppose that that change of opinions has proceeded from any other than an honest conviction. Oh, I see what it is you are thinking of. You allude to the observations I made on the "later impressions" of hon. Gentlemen op- posite. Our opinions may undergo change, but we must take care that these "later impressions are not adopted under the influence of any pressure or any violence from without." As far as he (Lord Stanley) could collect from the noble Lord's version of the speech delivered by him on the 26th March, 1829, he objected to introducing as a test of the franchise what a solvent tenant could afford to give. For he had been told that nothing was more common in Ireland than for parties, under colour of that provision, to bring a party before the assistant barristers who would swear that he was ready to give the tenant 10l. per annum more for the property. Such a system led to constant and universal fraud and perjury. He was of opinion that it would be much better for the barrister to judge, not on the oath of any individual, but on an examination of the real value of the property, as to whether the claimant was in possession of the value required to constitute his beneficial interest. To come, however, to what occurred in 1832, he observed that, in the discussion on the Reform Bill, it was universally admitted that there was no intention to alter the existing franchise as related to freeholders, and the Duke of Richmond stated distinctly in the House of Lords, that the Government had not the slightest intention of altering the qualification as at present existing, but merely of adopting the best mode of ascertaining it. Lord Melbourne made a similar declaration. But it was considered that a leaseholder for a term of years had as good right to exercise the elective franchise as a freeholder, and the hon. Member for Tipperary expressed himself strongly to that effect at the time. If a landholder could let his land at a clear yearly advance of 10l. upon his own rent, he thereby became possessed of a clear beneficial interest, and was as much entitled to vote as a freeholder. The subject was not left in doubt when the Irish Reform Bill was introduced in 1832. He, as the organ of the Government on that occasion, declared that the intention of the Government was that the beneficial interest of the tenant should be the test of the right to vote, as the apparent rent was not always a just criterion of the right of the tenant to the exercise of the franchise. What was then contemplated as entitling the Voter to his franchise was, that the tenant should have a clear beneficial interest to the extent of not less than 10l. a-year. It was intended to put the English an d Irish bills on the same footing, and it was proposed originally, that the beneficial interest, which had been so much alluded to, should have exactly the same interpretation in each. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin then stated, that he received without alarm the proposition which reduced the qualification to 10l. The hon. Member for Wicklow said, that he approved of giving the franchise to lessees for terms of years, instead of for lives, for by this means, the tenant would have a beneficial interest in promoting improvement, and that it was desirable, that those who thus improved the holdings in their occupation should have the franchise. Then how came the words "beneficial interest" introduced into the Irish Reform Bill. These words were identical with those in the English Reform Bill. The Words were inserted in the Irish Reform Bill "of the clear yearly value of 10l;" they were struck out of the English bill in the House of Lords, and they were struck out of the Irish bill by the Government. When the English bill was brought down, it was stated that the words had been struck out, not because it was supposed, that they would give a latitude for fictitious votes, under the pretence of their being profitable holders to the value of 10l., whereas they might not be holders to the value of one single halfpenny. On. that occasion the right hon. Member for Ripon (Sir E. Sugden), objected to the omission of the words, and the hon. and learned Member for Dublin then declared, that he was satisfied that if they were continued, they would open the door to fictitious votes, and to the grossest frauds. The matter led to some debate, and the words were altered in the way in which he had just described. The hon. Member for Tipperary, he was sure, would say that he had not cramped the franchise, as he was a constituent of the right hon. Gentleman, although he certainly had never voted for or against him. [An hon. Member: But you canvassed] He begged pardon; he had never voted, and had never interfered with his tenantry as to those votes; indeed, he did not know whether they ever registered or voted or not. For his own part, his tenantry might do as they pleased with respect to going up to be registered; for they might depend upon it, in respect to himself, that they would never meet with those formidable frowns of their landlord which had been so much dwelt on. They had been told that when they looked to the constituency of Ireland, it was much more restricted there than it was in England, and that the numbers of the constituency in the latter country, were of much greater proportion than in the former. He would not go the length of the hon. Member for Drogheda, that there was an universal and organised conspiracy of the landlords of Ireland to prevent the registration of voters; but there were circumstances of a domestic and local nature in connection with that country, that a number of persons entitled to be registered might not be placed on the registry, and that their landlords might not be disposed to aid them in having their names inserted on it. The hon. Member for Dublin had talked of the independency and the extent of the constituencies of English counties, and had contrasted the small number of voters for the county of Cork, as compared with those for Yorkshire, and of Tipperary, with Rutlandshire. He stated, that the constituency of Rutland was incapable of being influenced by their landlords, and that they had never attempted to interfere with them in the exercise of the elective franchise. This influence had never been known in Rutland, but it obtained to the greatest extent in the counties of Cork and Tipperary. In the latter unfortunate land, the landlords prevented the tenantry registering unless they went with them to the full extent, and this was the cause that there was such a deficiency in the number of the constituency in Ireland. He believed, that human nature was the same in England as in Ireland, but it happened, that property could not command exactly the same influence in the latter, as in the former. There was this difference in the state of things in the two countries—the landlord in England had a tolerable certainty, that without resorting to extremities, which he, for one, would never vindicate—which he should be the first to condemn—the great majority of his tenants would place so much confidence in him as to be guided by his judgment, and influenced by his opinions. That feeling might no doubt be carried to an extreme; witness the recent example of Rutlandshire. A very singular change had lately taken place in the views of the constituency of that county, and they had been allowed a very prompt opportunity of evincing it. In Ireland, on the other hand, a a landlord had no such confidence that his tenantry would pay deference to his opinions, because he knew there was an organized influence; constant, active, and indus- trious, setting tenant against landlord, and ever on the watch to prevent that kindly feeling which existed between the parties of that relation in England. What was the natural result? The landlords of Ireland were desirous that the influence of their property should not be used against themselves; and so strong was their conviction, that if they did not interfere it would be so used, that it was not surprising that many of them should give leases under such conditions as would not entitle to the elective franchise, rather than under those terms which would confer that right. There was no wonder that the unfortunate tenant should hold hack, harassed between the fear of offending his landlord on one side, and the dread of excommunication on the other. He would not for a moment lay himself open to misconstruction: by that term he meant being driven from the pale of society —he meant being denounced in the chapels —meant being held up to opprobrium in the market-place—he meant being threatened by midnight legislators, and denounced by political agitators. He said it was no wonder if, exposed to such a penalty, and harassed by conflicting forces, the unfortunate tenant did not come to be registered, and gladly accepted from the landlord a lease for a term of years, which, by not entitling him to the franchise, would at least protect him from persecution. He said that the necessary re-action arising from the unnatural excitement kept up by agitation against the landlords for political purposes, would fully account for the disproportion between the number of voters registered in Ireland, and the number registered for the same amount of population in England. The bill by which he proposed to remedy the acknowledged abuses and defects which existed, was now in the hands of the House, to deal with as they thought proper. He had no personal motives in bringing it forward, other than a sincere desire to do his duty as a Member of Parliament, and to act his part in removing abuses which were admitted. He hoped that this would not be treated as a party question, and he hoped that hon. Gentlemen would not say that it was so. Having, however, done his duty in bringing the measure forward, he would not say without great anxiety as to its result upon the welfore and prosperity of Ireland, he left the matter in the hands of the House, confident that no ground had been made out for the rejection of this bill upon the second, reading.

Mr. O'Connell

remarked, that the noble Lord had concluded by saying that this was not a party question. He supposed that it was mere accident that brought together such a crowded assembly. There was no intention of treating the question as a party question; it was accident, of course. Passing from that, he was really astonished at the length of time during which the noble Lord kept up his tone of moderation, and kept down the disposition supposed to be natural to him. But at length the noble Lord came to excommunication. There was nothing of party in that; there was no bigotry in that; no, nor in the sneer about the chapel. Never was there a calumny so unfounded. He defied the noble Lord to prove it. There was one assertor of it, and one only—he meant in the evidence given before the Fictitious Votes Committee, or the Intimidation Committee, he did not know which; but as a practice which could be traced as prevalent in Ireland, that he utterly and contemptuously denied (Cheers.) He was not to be put down by mock cheers. Having disposed of this preliminary matter, he would proceed, if the House would condescend to listen to him; if not, he would take some other opportunity. He would now proceed. It was scarcely worth while to notice some arguments employed by the noble Lord, founded upon matter personal to himself. Those arguments first came from the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of Dublin, who read a speech of his from one of the Dublin newspapers, in which he was made to say, that he defied the Government to pass the measure of the noble Lord. Now, he had never said so, nor did he see the report in which this language was attributed to him, until he was on his way over from Ireland, and the first thing which he did when he arrived was, to go to the noble Lord, and assure him that he said no such thing, referring him at the same time to the newspaper which contained an accurate report of what he did say. That paper was the Freeman's Journal, and in that paper it was stated, that he did set at defiance, not the Government, but the enemies of Ireland, and the most malignant amongst them. Should he name some of them? As he was on the subject of chronology, he would refer to some supposed contradiction between the report to which the noble Lord had alluded, and the petition. It so happened that the report was prepared first. That report cost him sixteen hour's work, and it contained at great length the detailed objections against the bill. The noble Lord had had that report before him for several days, and he had not shown him to be wrong in any one single particular. This bill, although he did not say that such an object was intended, was with a vicious ingenuity, calculated to annihilate the franchise of Ireland. The situation of Ireland was extraordinary—he might say pitiful. What had happened in the other House of Parliament? Subjects of the greatest importance, and most nearly affecting the interests of Ireland, were staved off, because, unhappily, one noble and learned Lord was ill, and another fantastic and learned Lord was elsewhere. Ireland was waiting for the convalescence of a noble and learned Lord who had called Irishmen aliens in blood, in religion and language. Such an insult was never offered to any country. Ireland was also obliged to wait for another noble and learned Lord who had a great deal of wit and talent, but no wisdom; while at the same time the mighty leader of hon. Gentlemen opposite said, that he never wished for a postponement of any question without a sufficient reason. The noble Lord had been reading, he did not know from what documents, a manuscript history of the Reform Bill, as it was brought into the House of Commons. He did not know who the writer was, but he was certainly no accurate historian, for he placed him in the position of one who was anxious to raise and limit the franchise, whereas, all his efforts were directed towards the object of obtaining a franchise at least as low as that of England, and when he found he could not get that, he divided the House upon the question of a 5l. instead of a 10l. franchise. And yet the noble Lord gave the House a manuscript history of the transaction, in a style which he could only describe as chit-chatting, and represented him as desirous of narrowing the franchise. The noble Lord ought to look back to that period with great regret. If he had possessed as statesmanlike a mind as he had talent for debate, he would have seen that he ought not to have thrown away that great occasion. It was a great occasion. The Reform Bill presented an opportunity of placing Ireland in the position which she ought to occupy. But the noble Lord while he gave to England great advantages, inflicted on Ireland mighty wounds. He met the noble Lord from day to day, and he had found the noble Lord in the Cabinet the perpetual enemy of his country. To him was to be attributed the restricted franchise which was imposed upon Ireland. This made the people of Ireland shudder at any measure which the noble Lord introduced, In England the Reform Bill took away both the rotten and the nomination boroughs. It destroyed the rotten boroughs in Scotland, and it gave to Scotland eight additional members. Even to Wales, with a population of 800,000 inhabitants, the Government gave four additional Members, but to Ireland with a population of 8,000,000 they gave but five, indeed only four, for one Member was given to the University of Dublin, and that might well be said to be a vote against Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of Dublin had said that the repeal of the union was a cry fit only for old women and boys; it was well that the right hon. Gentleman did not enter into either category. But did he not think that the public mind would be dissatisfied when a contrast was drawn between the relative positions of England and Ireland as affected by the Reform Bill He well knew how difficult it was to restrain that feeling. The Reform Bill annihilated no franchise that it found in England. The owner of a 40s. fee, and the owner of a 40s. life estate, were left untouched by the bill. Every franchise that the Reform Bill found it left, and it augmented the number. But in Ireland it destroyed several franchises. In several Irish boroughs there were voters entitled by the ownership of a 40s. fee and a 40s. life estate, and there was a 5l. franchise in Dungarvan and Lismore. These franchises were all annihilated. He knew that the noble Lord was not aware of what he had done. In Dublin there were 1,300 40s. freeholders; there were now only 14. And yet the noble Lord boasted that he had extended the franchise in Ireland. But then it was said that the county voters were augmented. Why, the leasehold voters only amounted to 8,000. But the noble Lord said that he gave Ireland the same 10l. franchise as England—a franchise of a 10l.. value. He would, however, ask whether a franchise of a 10l.. value was the same franchise in London and Ennis, in Manchester and Tralee, in Bristol and Portarlington? There was the name indeed, but not the reality; and yet this the noble Lord called placing Ireland on an equality with England in regard to the franchise. The noble Lord had repented even of that, and had brought in a bill, the object of which was, to deprive Ireland of the leasehold franchise conferred by the Reform Bill. The noble Lord came for that purpose to the House at a moment when, as it seemed, it would be more agreeable to the noble Lord, and it ought to be, to be elsewhere (interruption). "It was not I," continued the hon. and learned Member, "who invited the noble Lord here (interruption). I know the cause of these brutal exclamations ("Adjourn," and "Chair.") Nothing will keep those who are inimical to Ireland from the indulgence of their hostility towards that country. It is not my fault. I have heard of other instances, which may, perhaps, be found among those who are accidentally present to-night. I will now come back to the point on which I was enlarging." The hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to say, that the noble Lord had, in that honest explanation of his, which he had given that night, admitted that it was his intention to assist the landlords of Ireland in their endeavours to prevent their tenants from voting. There was not the slightest doubt that the bill would very considerably limit the franchise. Members on his side of the House computed that it would annihilate two-thirds of the constituency of Ireland. It was also agreed by hon. Members opposite, that the effect of the bill would be to limit the constituency. There was, then, no question between the two sides of the House as to its actual operation. Let it, then, be avowed, without any paltry hypocrisy, that the object of the bill was to annihilate the franchise. He would deal with the measure as if that were the avowed object. Hon. Members opposite complained of fictitious votes. Was the constituency so extensive that they had a right to complain that persons were on the registry who ought not to be there? Were the people so extensively represented that it was of no importance how many votes were struck off the register? Why did not hon. Members come forward and say, "Here are so many registered voters for the country, that it is impossible, looking at the population, that they can all be fairly entitled to vote." He would show the disproportion between the representation of England and Ireland. In Westmoreland after the Reform Act, the population was 35,046, and the number of voters 4,392; while Cork, which had a population of 700,366, had but 3,835 electors. Yet, with that fact staring hon. Gentlemen opposite in the face, they came forward with this bill to destroy fictitious votes. The. right hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke, had said, that base falsehoods were resorted to for the purpose of getting on the Irish register. Whoever supplied him with that information, asserted the basest of falsehoods. But he would go on with his comparison. Bedfordshire, with a population 88,524, had 3,966 voters; while the Protestant county of Antrim, with 316,909 inhabitants, had only 3,484. What had the Protestant county of Antrim done that it should not have an equal number of voters with Bedfordshire? The noble Lord was extremely anxious to carry this bill, and to remedy the abuses which had crept into the registration. Now, he would ask, was there any abuse equal to an abuse of principle? But the noble Lord not only suffered this enormous disproportion between the two countries to exist, but he came to the House with a proposition for still further limiting the constituency of Ireland. But he would proceed. There was Rutland, with 19,000 inhabitants, and 1,296 voters; Longford had a population amounting to 112,391, while the number of electors was but 1,294. He knew he should fatigue the House by going on with these illustrations, but they were powerful for his object, and would operate powerfully on the honest hearts and common sense of the people of England, or, at least, they ought to do so. The noble Lord was not acting of himself, but was propelled by others. He supposed the hon. Member for Belfast had furnished the noble Lord with law as he had done with evidence. The hon. Member came to the noble Lord, and his name was put on the back of this bill; or, in the phrase which the noble Lord had applied in connexion with Ireland, the bill was branded with the names of the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Belfast, who had come reeking from his Orange lodges, his Orange toasts with nine times nine, the Kentish fire, and "no surrender." Now, to return to the comparison between the number of voters in England and those in Ireland. In the Isle of Wight, with 228,731 inhabitants, there were 1,167 voters. In the county of Mayo, with 366,328 inhabitants, there were only 1,350; and in the county of Tyrone, with 310,000 inhabitants, only 1,151. So that Protestant Tyrone and Catholic Galway were mixed up in equal disfranchisement, not having so many voters as the Isle of Wight. Was he an Irishman, and to say nothing on that point? Was he not bound to respect their sorrows, while more mischief was threatened to them? He would now take the two largest counties: Yorkshire, an agricultural county, with a population of 913,713, had 33,154 voters; whilst Cork, with 703,000 inhabitants, had only 3,385. Now, ought that proportion to remain? Ought they not to struggle to give to the people of Ireland an equal proportion of voters to the population, as there was in this country? He should be very short in his comparison of the cities of the two countries; but even there the same proportion existed. He had forgotten to give the noble Lord credit for having annihilated, in the cities of Ireland, the votes of joint tenants. Mark how important that was; for in Ireland no gentleman could have a vote for the premises which he held with his partners, although they might be worth 300l. a-year. He was told that Exeter-hall had furnished no less than eighty-five votes in the first year of the registration; while, in Ireland, if premises were of the same value, not a single vote could have been registered if they had been held by partners; and yet that was one of the things for which the noble Lord taunted the law officers on his (Mr. O'Connell's) side of the House, because, in the bill they had brought in, there was a clause to redress such a monstrous hardship. Ought they not, then, to put the franchise on a better footing before they talked of registration? Now, in Exeter, there were 27,000 inhabitants, and 3,420 voters; but in Waterford, there were 28,000 inhabitants, but only 1,278 voters. In Worcester there were 27,213 inhabitants, and 2,608 voters; in Limerick 66,554 inhabitants, and only 2,850 voters. In Cork there were 110,000 inhabitants, and 3,650 voters; while, in Newcastle-on-Tyne, with only 42,000 inhabitants, there were 4,952. He had shown, then, in the towns as well as in the counties, that there was a miserable defalcation of voters in Ireland. And now, having read those Parliamentary documents, he would turn round on hon. Members opposite, and ask why they had spoken of that small and paltry number as fictitious voters? What scope was there for it? If, however, they succeeded in this bill, then would Ireland be still more restricted in the number of her voters. Having made these preliminary observations, he would now state his objections to the bill. He objected to it in principle, independent of its details. His first objection to it was that which the noble Lord had called one of its merits. It was because it was purely and singly a registration bill. He said, that, in the nature of things there ought first to be an explanation of the doubts as to the franchise, before they entered into the question of registration. The great difficulty was the franchise. Nine-tenths of the Struggles in the registration courts would never have arisen if the franchise had been properly denned. They ought, while they defined it, to extend it; but to talk of registration with an undefined franchise was an absurdity. The great question at present was between the solvent and beneficial interest tenant. He knew there were some who contended that they meant the same thing; but they who were in Ireland knew that the battles in the registration courts chiefly turned on the question between the profit-rent made by the solvent tenant, and that of the beneficial interest. Some judges decided one way; some another. Some assistant-barristers held the one opinion, some the other. Now, suppose some assistant-barrister took the profit-rent mode of the solvent tenant, and allowed a vote, and that the judge was of the same opinion, and the oath was registered; while in another town the barrister took the beneficial interest mode, and the judge decided in the same way. Thus would there be two decisions directly opposite. Ought there to be that difference? The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Exeter, had given his opinion on tins point. A more able lawyer there was not in this House or out of it. A more agreeable, he would say fascinating, speaker he had never heard. But he regretted to find him always in the van when an attack was to be made on Ireland. He would not say that the hon. and learned Member did not adhere to his principles; but he might be permitted to deplore the way in which they were exercised. When the Spottiswoodes, with their gang of conspirators, threatened to turn out every liberal Member from the House, who was their great and successful advocate? Who was it who found out particular cases in which similar practices had been pursued on particular occasions, and had drawn this inference from them, that it might be done on a great national scale? Who but the hon. and learned Member for Exeter? It was very fit, then, he should be one of the supporters of the noble Lord. He was very much surprised, however, at something that had fallen from him. The hon. and learned Member said he had heard of a judgment given by the judges in Ireland on the question of test, and said that that ought to be final. How could so able a lawyer have made that mistake? Where did he find one single clause in one single act authorizing the judges to meet at all on the subject, or that gave any appeal to them? No; if they had, then they must have heard counsel on both sides, pronounced their judgment, and given their reasons at large, and the public would have heard what that judgment was. He would not pretend to dispute; with the hon. and learned Member for Exeter upon a point of law; but this was a plain and palpable matter of fact. No judgment was given by the judges; there was, indeed, a sort of consultation among them from which the clients themselves were excluded, and from which counsel were excluded. He need not point out to the hon. and learned Member the value of able counsel in assisting judges to form their decision. This could not be called a judgment, it was a mere private consultation, and nothing else, and had been considered in that light by the judges themselves. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin might assert that there could be no such things as political judges, that it was impossible for judges to be political partisans; but he (Mr. O'Connell) was of a different opinion, and thought that he who was a violent politician at the bar, would be a politician, more cool, more cautious perhaps, but on that account more mischievous, upon the bench. There stood he who had refused a high judicial office solely because he would not trust himself to take a course by which there was a possibility of the administration of justice being polluted with political feelings. What were the opinions of the judges themselves as to the weight to be attached to this decision of theirs, as it was called? Why, on one point it was generally said, and generally believed, two of the judges dissented from the other ten. Did those two acquiesce in the decision of the majority? On the contrary, one of them said afterwards he did not consider himself bound by such advice, for judgment it was not. On another point five judges were supposed to have dissented from the rest, and on this point the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench in the case of George Pratt, Queen's county, had given judgment in a manner inconsistent with the conclusion to which the judges had come at the private meeting to which he had alluded. So far was the question from being settled, and settled by judicial decision it could not be, that it was not at that moment settled at all. And yet the noble Lord opposite wanted to introduce a registration bill, which would leave that important question still open. The noble Lord had struggled to get out of his own declaration in 1829. "How should I," said the noble Lord, "recollect what I said in 1829?" But it appeared from what the noble Lord said in 1832, that he then had some scanty recollection of what he had said in 1829; for then it was, that the noble Lord himself invented the beneficial interest test, and having struck out the true principle, proclaimed it manfully. The question afterwards came to be considered in the House of Lords in the discussions upon the Reform Bill, and there the principle met with the disapprobation of the Earl of Roden, a man who had never changed his opinion, on which account those who thought with him gave him their confidence, and those who differed from him, respected him for his manly bearing. The noble Earl then said, that the introduction of such a principle into the Irish Reform Bill, was effected by his (Mr. O'Connell's) manœuvres. The noble Earl did him too much honour, although he had certainly done his best to help the noble Lord opposite in the course which he took. And yet the noble Lord now attempted to fritter away the effect of what he had done on that occasion, by bringing down some manuscript papers, for the purpose of showing that his (Mr. O'Connell's) opinions had been in favour of enhancing the franchise, when it was well known that he was anxious to lower it as much as possible. Was this question then still to remain undetermined? Every other bill contained a clause respecting the right of voting in the case of joint-tenancies, and tenancies in common, and another clause defining the beneficial interest to be the tenant's profit, and not the landlord's rent. But the noble Lord took a different course; he was content to leave litigation where he found it. This arose from his anxiety to exclude from the franchise as many as possible. That was a bad principle, and would not long be supported. Chartism had frightened many into the support of such a principle. But the Irish people had refused to join the Chartists. Chartism he trusted had passed away; but while it was at its height, and while timid men trembled at its progress, he reminded the House that the Irish peo- ple had refused to make common cause with the Chartists in demanding universal suffrage. And how did the noble Lord propose to reward the Irish people for their conduct? Why thus: he said, "I find your franchise small and miserable, and I will give you such machinery as will render it impossible for you to realize even the franchise which you possess." His (Mr. O'Connell's) first objection to the bill was, that it contained nothing to define or to enlarge the franchise. It was said, he had once been in favour of annual revision and an appeal both ways, but why might he not change his opinions as well as the noble Lord? He certainly had at first thought that the system which prevailed in England ought to be adopted in Ireland, but who then opposed him? Why, the noble Lord himself. Who spoke against him on that occasion? The noble Lord. He was then for an annual revision; but the noble Lord was against it. It had changed sides since that time. But the reason why the change had been reciprocal was, that there had been great experience upon the subject; and how had that experience told? It showed that there was an organized resistance to an annual registry of the franchise; and he did not believe that it was practicable. His next objection was, that this bill would disfranchise all Ireland at once. Every man who registered on the 20th of November last, would lose the benefit of that registry. After six weeks' battling in Dublin, there were registered in his interest a majority of 300 votes. The entire registry consisted of from 1,100 to 1,200 voters. They went through the ordeal; attorney, and counsel, and witnesses were brought on both sides; and now they were to be deprived at once of their rights, and disfranchised by this bill! Where could they find such a sweeping measure of disfranchisement as this? Where was there exhibited such a contempt of vested rights as this? Would any one turn upon him and say "Were there no such sweeping clauses in the bill of 1835?" Why there were in that bill those redeeming qualities which, if they were put in this bill, would make him content to let it go into committee. But he never would consent in the absence of those or more explicit clauses. Was it reasonable or fair to have this sweeping disfranchisement? The voters already registered were to come up again to the revising court; the notices were to be served again; witnesses were to be examined as to the notices, and as to the facts, and as to the value of the property. Everything was to be tried over again, that had been tried within the last year. Was there ever greater injustice offered to the electors? They would have no advantage from their present register; not even a prima facie case could be made from it for them. They were to be treated just as if they had never been on the register. No man need give notice of objection. Every man was at liberty to come forth and object, without giving the slightest warning. Uncertainty and disfranchisement were to be thrown over the whole register. Oh, shame upon those that would commit that gross, that glaring, that palpable injustice! His next objection was to a matter apparently of detail, but really of the essence of this bill. He meant the notice required to be served. Why was it so complicated? A notice containing so many things, and requiring so much precision, never was yet introduced into any bill of this description. He was unwilling to fatigue the House by going into all the particulars, but he would mention two or three things which appeared to him to be most monstrous. Notice was to be given at the distance of thirty or forty miles, the name was to be written at full length, and the particulars of the nature of the qualification, the parish and place in which it was situated was to be specified, and its situation within that parish or place; there must be the local description of the property, and the name of the tenant or tenants, and the names of all the lives in the original, and in any renewed grant. Why, the best franchises in Ireland were those that had passed through a century of renewals for life, for in every one of those leases must be specified every renewal, or else the party, through the omission of one of them, could be defeated. Then, again, the right to the property must be specified, and that in every case, even in cases in which an assignee was concerned, and where it would require a competent lawyer to ascertain the right. Yet all that must be stated, and that the party believed what he stated. He mentioned these details as proof of the noble Lord's anxiety not to touch the franchise in Ireland. The very first proof that must be given of the franchise before the assistant-barrister, must be the proof of every one of these particulars. Here was another singular contrast afforded between the case of England and that of Ireland. At present a residence is towns and troughs in Ireland entitled the parties to vote as in England. But in England, if the voter changed his place of residence before the registration, his vote could be retained by him. In Ireland, in the case of a change of residence, the party must begin de novo to recover his vote. With respect to the matter of the certificate, he thought the bill of Mr. Woulfe would remove every difficulty. His next objection was to the appeal both ways. He knew that the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin would quote his speech against him which he made in 1835, wherein he spoke in favour of the appeal both ways. But even then he expressed his mistrust of the judges; and now he was more impressed with a want of confidence in them, and that with other considerations led him to object to the appeal against votes already inserted on the register, because the franchise was sufficiently curtailed already. He had not exhausted all his objections to this bill; but he deceived himself much if he had not stated sufficient to induce the House to reject a measure, which, if it had not been so intended, must practically operate to diminish the franchises of the Irish people, to make less what was now little, to diminish what ought to be augmented, to disfranchise the people, and be another blow to the liberties of Ireland. He conjured the House respectfully at once to throw out the bill, which would perpetuate injustice in Ireland. He feared it was vain to ask either side to do justice to Ireland. But, whether he might be blamed or laughed to ridicule, he would say it was impossible the present state of things should continue. The people of Ireland were too numerous not to attain peaceably and loyally, but firmly and constitutionally, an increase of rights. This attempt to spoil them would be met with a firm and manly indignation. They were now carried away by no unnatural excitement. They were exhibiting another instance of their high excellence among the nations of the earth. They had of all others been the most faithful to what they believed the true creed—amidst war, plunder, desolation, and blood; and now they were rising in the might of a giant morality. They were now universally avoiding every species of intoxicating excitement. Prudence was marking their steps and their conduct. Indiscreet marriages, formerly a blemish in their character, had altogether ceased. The moral lesson was becoming a practical one. Dispose of them as England might, insult them she chose—in his humble opinion they were her equals in constitutional rights—he believed them to be her superiors in morality and political integrity.

The House divided:—Ayes 250; Noes 234:—Majority 16.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Dalrymple, Sir A.
Acland, T. D. Dalmer, hon. D.
A'Court, Captain Darby, G.
Adare, Lord Darlington, Earl
Ainsworth, P. De Horsey, S. H.
Alford, Lord Dick, Q.
Alsager, Captain D'Israeli, B.
Arbuthnott, H. Dottin, A. R.
Ashley, Lord Douglas, Sir C. E.
Attwood, M. Douro, Marquess
Bagge, W. Dowdeswell, W.
Bagot, hon. W. Drummond, H.
Bailey, J. Duffield, T.
Bailey, J. jun. Dugdale, W. S.
Baillie, Colonel Dunbar, G.
Baker, E. Duncombe, W.
Baring, hon. F. Duncombe, A.
Baring, hon. W. B. Du Pre, G.
Barrington, Lord East, J. B.
Bell, M. Eastnor, Lord
Bentinck, Lord G. Eaton, R. J.
Bethell, R. Egerton, W. T.
Blackburne, I. Egerton, Sir P.
Blackstone, W. Eliot, Lord
Blair, J. Ellis, J.
Blennerhassett, A. Estcourt, T.
Boldero, H. G. Farnham, E. B.
Bolling, W. Feilden, W.
Bradshaw, J. Fector, J. M.
Bramston, T. W. Fellowes, E.
Broadley, H. Filmer, Sir E.
Broadwood, H. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Brownrigg, S. Fleming, J.
Bruce, Lord E. Follett, Sir W.
Bruges, W. H. L. Forester, hon. G.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Fox, S. L.
Burrell, Sir C. Freshfield, J. W.
Burroughes, H. Gaskell, J. M.
Calcraft, J. H. Gladstone, W. E.
Castlereagh, Lord Glynne, Sir S. R.
Cholmondeley, hn. H. Goddard, A.
Christopher, R. Gordon, Captain
Chute, W. L. W. Goring, H. D.
Clerk, Sir G. Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Clive, hon. R. H. Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Cochrane, Sir T. Granby, Marquess
Codrington, C. Greene, T.
Cole, Lord Grimsditch, T.
Colquhoun, J. Grimston, Lord
Compton, H. C. Grimston, hon. E.
Cooper, E. J. Hale, R. B.
Coote, Sir C. H. Halford, H.
Corry, hon. H. Hamilton, C. J.
Courtenay, P. Hamilton, Lord C.
Crewe, Sir G. Harcourt, G. G.
Cripps, J. Harcourt, G. S.
Hardinge, Sir H. Owen, Sir J.
Hawkes, T. Packe, C. W.
Heneage, G. W. Pakington, J. S.
Henniker, Lord Palmer, R.
Hepburn, Sir T. Parker, R. T.
Herbert, S. Patten, J. W.
Herries, J. C. Peel, Sir R.
Hill, Sir R. Peel, J.
Hillsborough, Earl of Pemberton, T.
Hodgson, F. Perceval, Colonel
Hodgson, R. Perceval, G. J.
Hogg, J. Pigot, R.
Holmes, hon. W. Planta, J.
Holmes, W. Polhill, F.
Hope, hon. C. Pollen, Sir J. W.
Hope, H. T. Pollock, Sir F.
Hope, G. W. Powell, Colonel
Hotham, Lord Powerscourt, Lord
Houldsworth, T. Praed, W. T.
Houstoun, G. Pringle, A.
Hurt, F. Pusey, P.
Ingestre, Lord Rae, Sir W.
Ingham, R. Reid, Sir J.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Richards, R.
Irton, S. Rickford, W.
Irving, J. Rolleston, L.
Jackson, Sergeant Rose, Sir G.
James, Sir W. C. Round, C. J.
Jermyn, Earl Round, J.
Jones, J. Rushbrooke, R.
Jones, Captain Rushout, G.
Kemble, H. St. Paul, H.
Kelburne, Lord Sandon, Lord
Knight, H. G. Scarlett, hon. J.
Knightley, Sir C. Shaw, F.
Knox, hon. T. Sheppard, T.
Lascelles, W. S. Shirley, E. J.
Law, hon. C. E. Sibthorp, Colonel
Lennox, Lord A. Sinclair, Sir G.
Liddell, hon. H. T. Smith, A.
Lincoln, Earl of Smyth, Sir G. H.
Lockhart, A. M. Somerset, Lord G.
Long, W. Spry, Sir S. T.
Lowther, Colonel Stanley, E.
Lowther, J. H. Stanley, Lord
Lucas, E. Sturt, H. C.
Lygon, General Sutton, hon. J. H.
Mackenzie, T. Teignmouth, Lord
Mackenzie, W. F. Tennent, J. E.
Mackinnon, W. A. Thesiger, F.
Maclean, D. Thompson, Ald.
Mahon, Lord Thornhill, G.
Maidstone, Visc. Trench, Sir F.
Manners, Lord C. Tyrrell, Sir J. T.
Marsland, T. Vere, Sir C. B.
Marton, G. Verner, Colonel
Mathew, G. B. Vernon, G. H.
Maunsell,T. P. Villiers, Lord
Maxwell, S. R. Vivian, J. E.
Meynell, Captain Waddington, H.
Miles, P. W. S. Walsh, Sir J.
Miller, W. H. Welby, G. E.
Morgan, C. M. R. Whitmore, T. C.
Neeld, J. Wilbraham, B.
Nicholl, J. Williams, R.
Norreys, Lord Williams, T. P.
Ossulston, Lord Wood, Colonel T.
Wyndham, W.
Young, J. TELLERS.
Young, Sir W. Fremantle, Sir T.
Baring, T. B.
List of the NOES.
Adam, Admiral Dundas, F.
Aglionby, H. A. Dundas, hon. J.
Aglionby, Major Dundas, Sir R.
Alston, R. Easthope, J.
Anson, Sir G. Elliot, hon. J. E.
Archbold, R. Ellice, Captain A.
Bainbridge, E. T. Ellis, rt. hon. E.
Baines, E. Ellice, E.
Bannerman, A. Ellis, W.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T. Evans, Sir De L.
Barnard, E. G. Evans, G.
Barron, H. W. Evans, W.
Barry, G. S. Ewart, W.
Beamish, F. B. Fielden, J.
Bellew, R. M. Fenton, J.
Berkeley, hon. H. Fitzalan, Lord
Berkeley, hon. C. Fitzpatrick, J. W.
Bernal, R. Fitzroy, Lord C.
Bewes, T. Fitzsimon, N.
Blake, W. Fleetwood, Sir P.
Bowes, J. Fort, J.
Brabazon, Lord Gisborne, T,
Bridgeman, H. Gordon, R.
Briscoe, J. I. Grattan, J.
Brocklehurst, J. Greg, R. H.
Brodie, W. B. Grey, Sir C.
Brotherton, J. Grey, Sir G.
Browne, R. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Buller, C. Grote, G.
Buller, E. Guest, Sir J.
Busfeild, W. Hall, Sir B.
Butler, hon. Col. Handley, H.
Byng, G. Harland, W. C.
Byng, G. S. Hastie, A.
Callaghan, D. Hawes, B.
Campbell, Sir J. Hawkins, J. H.
Campbell, W. F. Hayter, W. G.
Cavendish, C. Hector, C. J.
Chapman, Sir M. Hill, Lord, A. M.
Clay, W. Hindley, C.
Clayton, Sir W. Hobhouse, Sir J.
Clements, Lord Hobhouse, T. B.
Clive, E. B. Hodges, T. L.
Collier, J. Horsman, E.
Collins, W. Hoskins, K.
Corbally, M. E. Howard, hon. E.
Cowper, hon. W. Howard, F. J.
Craig, W. G. Howard, P. H.
Crawford, W. Howick, Lord
Crawley, S. Hume, J.
Currie, R. Hurst, R. H.
Curry, Sergeant Hutchins, E. J.
Dalmeny, Lord Hutt, W.
Dash wood, G. H. Hutton, R.
Denison, W. James, W.
D'Eyncoutt, C. T. Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Divett, E. Lambton, H.
Duff, J. Langdale, hon. C.
Duke, Sir J. Lennox, Lord
Duncombe, T. Lister, E.G.
Dundas, C. W. D. Loch, J.
Lushington, C. Sharpe, General
Lushington, rt. hn. S. Sheil, R. L.
Lynch, A. H. Shelbourne, Earl
Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B. Slaney, R. A.
M'Taggart, J. Smith, G. R.
Marshall, W. Smith, R. V.
Marsland, H. Somers, J. P.
Martin, J. Speirs, A.
Maule, hon. F. Stanley, hn. E. J.
Melgund, Viscount Stanley, hn. W. O.
Mildmay, P. St. J. Stansfield, W. R.
Milton, Lord Steuart, R.
Morpeth, Lord Stewart, J.
Morris, D. Stuart, Lord J.
Morrison, J. Stock, Dr.
Muntz, G. F. Strickland, Sir G.
Muskett, G. A. Strutt, E.
Noel, hon. C. G. Style, Sir C.
O'Brien, W. S. Surrey, Earl of
O'Callaghan, hon. C. Talbot, J. H.
O'Connell, D. Tancred, H. W.
O'Connell, J. Tavistock, Marquess
O'Connell, M. Thornley, T.
O'Connell, M. J. Townley, R. G.
O'Conor Don Troubridge, Sir E. T.
O'Ferrall, R. M. Tufnell, H.
Ord, W. Turner, W.
Oswald, J. Vigors, N.
Paget, Lord Villiers, hon. C. P.
Paget, F. Vivian, Major C.
Palmerston, Lord Vivian, J. H.
Parker, J. Vivian, Sir R.
Parnell, Sir H. Wakley, T.
Pattison, J. Walker, R.
Pechell, Captain Wall, C. B.
Pendarves, E. Wallace, R.
Phillips, Sir R. Warburton, H.
Philips, M. Ward, H. G.
Philips, G. R. Westenra, H. R.
Phillpotts, J. Westenra, J. C.
Pigot, D. R. White, A.
Pinney, W. Wilbraham, G.
Ponsonby, J. Williams, W.
Power, J. Williams, W. A.
Price, Sir R. Wilshere, W.
Protheroe, E. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Pryme, G. Winnington, H.
Redington, T. N. Wood, C.
Rich, H. Wood, G. W.
Roche, W. Wood, B.
Rundle, J. Worsley, Lord
Russell, Lord J. Wrightson, W. B.
Rutherfurd, A, Wyse, T.
Salwey, Colonel Yates, J. A.
Sanford, E. A. TELLERS
Scrope, G. P. French, H.
Seymour, Lord Somerville, Sir W. M.
Paired off.
Archdall, M. Bodkin, J. J.
Ashley, hon. H. Strangways, hon. J.
Attwood, W. Scholefield, J.
Barneby, J. Seale, Sir J.
Bateson, Sir R. Roche, Sir D.
Buck, L. W. Conyngham, Lord A.
Burdett, Sir F. Cave, hon. R. O.
Campbell, Sir H. Walker, C. A.
Canning, rt. hn. Sir S. Maher, J.
Cantalupe, Viscount Standish, C.
Cartwright, W. B. Davies, Colonel
Chapman, A. Humphery, Alderman
Cole, hon. A. White, S.
Copeland, Alderman Etwall, R.
Cresswell, C. Erle, W.
Dungannon, Viscount Power, J.
Egerton, Lord F. Fazakerley, J. N.
Farrand, R. Heneage, E.
Godson, R. Talfourd, Sergeant
Gore, R. O. Norreys, Sir D.
Grant, hon. Col. Greenaway, C.
Hayes, Sir E. Martin, T.
Hinde, J. H. Smith, B.
Johnston, J. H. Gillon, R. D.
Jones, W. Ferguson, Sir R.
Kelly, F. Wilde, Sergeant
Kerrison, Sir E. Heron, Sir R.
Kirk, P. O'Brien, C.
Knatchbull, Sir E. Rice, E. R.
Lopez, rt. hon. T. Grattan, H.
Litton, E. Nagle, Sir R.
Master, T. Dennistoun, J.
Milnes, R. M. Smith, J. A.
Mordaunt, Sir J. Donkin, Sir R.
O'Neill, hon. Gen. Bryan, Major
Palmer, G. Berkeley, hon. G.
Parker, M. Acheson, Viscount
Parker, T. W. A. Chester, H.
Plumptre, J. P. Verney, Sir H.
Sotherton, J. B. Wood, Sir M.
Stewart, J. White, H.
Thomas, Col. Blake, N. J.
Tollemache, hon. F. Jervis, J.
Trevor, hon. G. R. Colquhoun, Sir J.
Wynn, rt. hon. C. Turner, E.
Yorke, hon. E Childers, J. W.
Abercromby, G. Heathcote, Sir G.
Andover, Lord Heathcote, G.
Benett, J. Hollond, R.
Blackett, C. Howard, Sir R.
Blewitt, R. Jervis, S.
Brabazon, Sir W. Johnstone, Gen.
Bulwer, Sir E. Langton, Gore
Cavendish, G. Leader, J. T.
Cayley, E. Lemon, Sir C.
Chalmers, P. Macnamara, Major
Chetwynd, Major Molesworth, Sir W.
Chichester, J. P. Moreton, hon. A.
Compton, Sir S. Murray, A.
De Winton, W. Palmer, C. F.
Duncan, Lord Pease, Joseph
Edwards, Sir J. Ponsonby, hon. C.
Euston, Lord Pryse, Pryse,
Ferguson, Sir R. Ramsbottom, J.
Ferguson, R. Rippon, C.
Finch, F. Roche, E. B.
Fitzgibbon, R. Rumbold, C. E.
Greig, D. Russell, Lord C.
Hallyburton, Lord Spencer, hon. Capt.
Heathcote, J. Stanley, W. M.
Staunton, Sir E. Wemyss, Colonel
Stuart, W. V. White, Luke
Talbot, C. R. M.
Blakemore, B. Lowther, Lord
Burr, D. H. Miles, W.
Conolly, Colonel Monypeny, T.
Davenport, J. Price, B.
Foley, E. T. Sanderson, R.
Gore, J. O. Sugden, Sir. E.
Heathcote, Sir W. Wilmot, Sir E.
Hughes, W. B. Wodehouse, E.
Jenkins, Sir R. Wood, Colonel
Ker, D.

The bill read a second time.

Back to