POLLING AT ELECTIONS (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 8 July 1847)

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, that the first 45 of the Amendments of which he had given notice was in reference to this clause; but he hoped the Government would agree to a different arrangement from either that contained in the Bill or his Amendments, in reference to the university which he had the honour to represent. The University of Dublin is at present subject to the same law as counties and boroughs with regard to elections. There may be polling for five days—the Bill as introduced by Government limited the polling to one day, with one day intervening between the day of nomination and polling. It was obvious, considering that the great proportion of the university constituency were resident in the country, many of them in England, that the effect of this provision would be to exclude a great number of the electors from exercising their franchise at all: the Amendments of which he (Mr. Hamilton) had given notice would have the effect of providing a two days' poll and two intervening days' notice. But since he had placed his Amendments on the Paper, he had received many representations from persons who complained that any restriction as to the time of polling would deprive them either of their franchise in their counties or in the University. The case of a university was certainly peculiar, from the nature of the franchise, and from the class of persons who possessed it; the electors were most of them scattered over the whole country, and had votes in other places also. The English Universities, for the same reason, were excluded from the clauses in the Reform Bill by which the polling was limited in England; and he would, therefore, on the whole, ask Her Majesty's Government to place the University of Dublin on the same footing.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, that as it appeared to be the wish of the University to be placed on the same footing as the English Universities, he should not oppose the proposed exception.

SIR R. FERGUSON
said, the effect of requiring a separate applotment and warrant, he feared would be burdensome and vexatious; and he hoped the sums to be collected under this Bill would be included in the warrant issued under the Bill for amending the Labour-rate Act.

§ MR. MONAHAN
said, that the ques- 46 tion would remain open; provision could be made, if desirable, in the other Bill.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
warned the right hon. Gentleman against multiplying warrants and collections. They might feel assured that the chance of collecting diminished in proportion to the number of warrants.

§ MR. VESEY
inquired how the expense of procuring copies of the poor-law valuation and the rate-book was to be defrayed; there seemed no power of presenting for such expenses.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
thought the collectors should have them made; the expense could not be considerable.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
reminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that the ratebooks and valuations were very voluminous; that the copies should be made accurately, and could not be done but at a considerable expense. He advised the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the subject on the report. He would take the opportunity of stating that it was his intention to move that the words "or tithe" should be omitted; but as the Motion might involve a division, and as the state of the House at that moment did not admit of a division, he would postpone it till bringing up the report. The reason he objected to those words was, that they would extend the taxation for compensation to a class of persons and to property which was already grievously overburdened, and which, in no case heretofore, had been subjected to taxation for public works.