§ Order for Committee read.
MR. ESMONDEsaid, he rose to make an objection to the title of this Bill, which, he contended, did not cover its contents, inasmuch as a Registration Bill could not be presumed to contain provisions with reference to polling-places. The objection might be got rid of either by discharging the Order and bringing in a new Bill, or by altering the Bill in order to make it correspond with its title. He believed that the objection ought to have been taken on the second reading; but, as the Bill was read a second time before it was printed, it was impossible for him to have offered the objection at that stage.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that most Bills, after indicating the contents, contained the words "and for other purposes." In this instance these words did not occur; but the objection taken by the hon. Member was a preliminary one, which ought to have been offered on the second reading, and it was now too late to make it.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, that in moving the second reading he had informed the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) that the Bill would contain provisions for additional polling-places, and had also stated the fact in the few words with which he introduced the measure; and he trusted, therefore, that the House would acquit him of having acted in any way unfairly. It was true that the Bill was read a second time before 1487 it was printed; but be stated at the time; that if that course were at all objected to he should not think of pressing it.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he could not regard an accidental remark made to himself in the light of a communication to the House of the contents of the Bill. It would have been much better if the noble Earl had had the Bill printed.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that the Irish Members had been taken quite by surprise. This Bill had not been discussed, not a word said, upon the second reading. It was introduced at two o'clock in the morning on Tuesday week. The noble Earl did not then explain its provisions fully. The noble Earl stated that the object was simply to have the registration taken in such time as to enable the General Election to take place in November, and then just as he was sitting down he said that it would also contain some; alteration with respect to the increase of polling-places. It was put down for a second reading on Thursday, and when it came on it was found that it had not been printed. At the time of the second; reading he and several other Irish Members were in Ireland. When the Bill was printed it was discovered that it made a most material change in the law of Ireland regarding polling-places. The result had been to bring back Irish Members who had left for the Session, and the first opportunity they had of considering it was after the Appropriation Bill had been read a second time in that House. He certainly thought this was not fair in the noble Earl or Her Majesty's Government. If he were in "another place," he might say that it was a dodge or a trick, but as he knew that that would be un-Parliamentary in that House, he would not use the expression. According to the existing law in Ireland, application might be made to the magistrates in Quarter Sessions for new polling-places, and if such application were sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council the alteration took effect. By the present Bill it was proposed to render the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council unnecessary. Now, nine-tenths of the magistrates in: Ireland were Conservatives of the highest possible order, and to place in their, hands such a power was certainly not a proposal that ought to be made at the end of a Session when so few Irish Members were in London. The result would 1488 most probably be that every magistrate who was a landlord would make his own rent-office a polling-place, and the tenants would be marched up to give their votes. It was a proposal he could not sanction, and he felt it his duty to give the Bill every opposition in his power.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, the Irish Registration Bill ought to have been brought in simultaneously with the English Registration Bill, and not in the last week or the last fortnight of the Session. But in the English Bill there were provisions for increasing the polling-places according to the increase made in the county constituency; while in Ireland there was no increase in the constituency, and it was expected that the Irish Registration Bill would be confined to registration. In the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Mayo) in introducing the measure, as reported in The Times, not a word was said about an increase of polling-places. On the second reading the noble Earl said that clauses relative to polling-places would be introduced, and they were introduced before the Bill was printed, and what the clauses were had only just become known. [The Earl of MAYO: I stated them publicly.] He was not aware what they were till Saturday night; and the clauses had kept him and other Members in town. Many Irish Members who had not seen them had, however, gone to Ireland; and he objected to the alteration of the law at this late period of the Session.
§ MR. VANCEsaid, he must contend that there had been no surprise in this matter. The Bill would increase, instead of diminishing, the facilities for voting. If hon. Gentlemen wished elections to be conducted with order in Ireland they would vote for additional polling-places. The clauses relating to new polling-places were precisely similar to clauses in the English Bill, except where concessions had been made to Irish Liberal Members.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he had not supposed the Bill was anything but a simple Registration Bill. The House ought not to consider the circumstances of England and Ireland as being alike. In England the magistrate would exercise his power with respect to additional polling-places as a matter of business; but in Ireland party feeling ran so high as to make it highly undesirable to give this power to the magistrates without some check. He hoped the Government would withdraw this portion of the Bill.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)said, he could assure the Irish Members that there had been no intention on the part of the Government to cause them any inconvenience. He suggested that the discussion on the subject of the polling-places could be taken much better in Committee than on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
§ COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENTsaid, that as the Irish Reform Bill did not touch the county franchise he could not see why the Government had thought it necessary to interfere with the question of polling-places in a Bill which he had supposed to be merely a Registration Bill. At present application could be made at Quarter Sessions for an increase in the number of the polling-places. He thought the Chief Secretary for Ireland ought to give some explanation before the House was asked to go into Committee.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, that perhaps it might facilitate matters if he now offered a few remarks by way of explanation. He believed he could satisfy the House that there was an absolute necessity for the clauses which provided facilities for increasing the number of polling-places. As the law stood at present it was impossible to get additional polling-places in Ireland, no matter how general and how just the demand for them might be. That had been decided on several occasions, in accordance with the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. The alteration he proposed was not one in the law, but merely a provision to make the existing law workable. By the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 50, it was provided that certain places duly scheduled in that Act should be the polling-places for the whole of Ireland; but by Clause 22 of that Act it was further provided that no barony or half barony in a county could be divided for the purpose of making additional polling-places. By the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 62, that latter restriction was removed; but no provision whatever was made for the distribution of the voters in accordance with the number and the situation of the polling-places. This was sought to be amended by the 27 & 28 Vict. c. 22, which was partly retrospective and partly prospective in its provisions; but here, again, there was a defect, because if an alteration of the polling-places occurred in, say, the early part of the year, it was impossible to obtain any re-distribution of voters for nine or ten months after. In the event of 1490 an election in the interval, very great confusion would be certain to occur, by reason of the uncertainty as to where each man should vote. It had been therefore held by successive Advisers of the Crown that, under the circumstances to which he had referred, it would be improper for the Privy Council to make the Order respecting the applications for additional polling-places contemplated by the Legislature. The consequence was that the law was a dead letter, and it was impossible to obtain additional polling-places for any county in Ireland. The first case arose in reference to Kilkenny. It was submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, who gave their opinion that it would be improper and dangerous to make the Order. The result was that the last Act was passed; but, while providing for the case of Kilkenny, it omitted to provide for the other case to which he had just referred. In the year 1864 the magistrates of Queen's County applied for additional polling-places. The Law Officers, however, advised the Privy Council not to make an Order, as it would be productive of great confusion. As the whole necessity of the present legislation arose out of that opinion, it was desirable that it should be read to the House. It was as follows:—
We are of opinion that the Privy Council ought not now to make the proposed orders, involving as they do a division of baronies. We think that the making of such orders would cause very great confusion and embarrassment, by constituting new polling-places for barony divisions without any machinery being in existence for making out separate lists of voters for each division before an election may take place for the county in which the divided barony is situate. The Act of Parliament, 27 & 28 Vict. c. 22, is, we think, defective in not providing that the polling at elections which may happen between the making of the order for the new polling-places and the revision of the separate lists consequent thereon should proceed as if no such order was made, and the said Act must, we think, be amended. Pending this amendment, it appears to us that the Privy Council should make no order involving a division of a barony. We think it right to add that, in our opinion, the amendment of the Act ought to provide that the separate lists should be made out and revised at the Quarter Sessions next after the order of the Privy Council, by enacting clauses similar to the 10th and following sections in the Act abovementioned, and that elections in the meantime should be conducted as if no such order was made.THOMAS O'HAGAN.JAMES A. LAWSON.EDWARD SULLIVAN.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENWhat is the date?
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, it was dated 1491 the 27th of December, 1864. No doubt, that opinion was perfectly correct; and, after such advice, it was obviously impossible for the Privy Council to make any Order for additional polling-places. Another case had arisen more recently in reference to the county of Donegal; but the application was not complied with, on the ground that the Privy Council felt it unsafe to make an Order on the subject until the law was completed. Both the late and the present Governments, therefore, had been obliged to refuse relief when it had been applied for. He hoped hon. Members would now see that the accusations brought against him of taking the House by surprise, of making material alterations in the law, and other ridiculous and absurd charges had no foundation whatever. He merely proposed to facilitate the action of the present law; and, with one single exception, he did not deviate from the very letter of the advice given to the Crown by its Law Officers of the late Administration in the case to which he had referred. The necessity in Ireland for additional polling-places was very urgent. To show this, he would compare three Irish counties with three English agricultural counties, as it would obviously be unfair to take manufacturing counties in this country for the purpose of making the comparison. The English counties he had selected were North Devonshire, Westmoreland, and the North Riding of Yorkshire, and these he would compare with the counties of Tipperary, Donegal, and Cork. In North Devon there were eleven polling-places for 9,500 electors, or one polling-place for about every 900 voters; but in Tipperary, where the number of electors was the same—9,500—there were only five polling-places, or one for every 1,900 voters. Again, Westmoreland, with 4,200 electors, had thirteen polling-places, or one to every 400 voters; whereas Donegal, with 4,300 electors, had but four polling-places, or one to about every 1,100 voters. He might mention that there had been repeated applications from Donegal for additional polling-places, and that some of the voters in that county had to travel no less than twenty-five or twenty-six miles across a mountain to record their votes To show further the disadvantage at which Irish counties were placed in this respect as compared with English counties, he need only state that whereas the North Riding of Yorkshire, with 15,400 electors, 1492 had seventeen polling-places, the county of Cork, with 15,700, had only ten. Then in Ireland itself the greatest inequalities existed between different counties with regard to polling-places. The county of Clare, for instance, with 5,460 electors, had ten polling-places, while the county of Cavan, with 5,900 electors, had only four. These statistics must convince the House that, putting aside all other considerations, there was a necessity for immediate legislation. He believed the present Bill would effect a great improvement. According to the old law, which was inoperative, alterations with respect to polling-places could only be made at Quarter Sessions, which in Ireland were not generally well attended by the magistrates, but were mere hole-and-corner meetings. He proposed, therefore, that a public notice should be given of all intended alterations of polling-places, with the view of securing the attendance of all the magistrates and other persons interested, and that the subject should be discussed at a Special Sessions. This, indeed, was the only alteration he proposed to make in the existing law. When the list of polling-places had been arranged by the magistrates it was to be submitted to the Privy Council, as at present, for approval and rectification, and afterwards published in the Dublin Gazette. It was also provided that in the event of there being an election between the appointment of new polling-places and the revision of the lists, the old lists should remain in force as respects the polling-places. Of course the Executive Government, through the action of the Privy Council, would in every case be responsible for alterations in the polling-places. He implored the House to pass these clauses; they would save large numbers of electors in Ireland from having to take long and sometimes dangerous journeys. They carried out the principle which was always acted upon in England of bringing the polling-places as near as possible to the electors. He was astonished that any Member connected with Ireland could get up and oppose these provisions. They were proposed for no party purpose whatever: in fact, the greater number of applications for additional polling-places came from the North of Ireland; but he believed that they were calculated to facilitate elections in Ireland, to prevent disturbances, and to contribute largely to the convenience of the voters.
§ MR. LAWSONsaid, he thought the speech of the noble Earl was the strongest 1493 possible argument against the clause, because if the grievance was one of so many years' standing it was difficult to understand why the noble Earl had not addressed himself to it before, instead of so unexpectedly proposing to legislate upon it by introducing special clauses in a Bill introduced for quite another purpose. The noble Earl told them that n formal and technical defect in the law was pointed out in 1864; but he was in power in 1866 and 1867, when there were applications from King's County and other places, and yet he took no steps towards remedying the defect. Why did not the noble Earl propose the change in the Irish Reform Bill when there would have been an opportunity of discussing its expediency? The alterations proposed by the noble Earl were not quite so insignificant as he had made out. By the present law no additional polling-places could be applied for except at Quarter Sessions, and he must say that he was surprised to hear the noble Earl talk of Quarter Sessions in Ireland as "hole-and-corner" meetings, for they were as well attended as Quarter Sessions in England. The noble Karl now proposed that six Justices of the Peace, or twenty electors, upon requisition to the Lord Lieutenant, should have power to convene a Special Sessions, to be held ten days from the date of the application. This proposal he condemned as an unconstitutional innovation. The power to convene the Special Sessions would rest with the Lord Lieutenant, and not with the Privy Council, and the month's notice now necessary would be dispensed with. The Special Sessions proposed to be substituted for the Quarter Sessions in this matter would really be "hole-and-corner" meetings. He looked upon these provisions as an after-thought. He fancied they had been added at the suggestion of some person whose object was to enable a large number of fresh polling-places to be granted in the ensuing month of August, a time when a great many of the influential residents were out of the country, for the purpose of obtaining some political advantage. He trusted that the clauses would not be pressed. If they were he hoped the Irish Members would give them their most determined opposition.
§ MR. DISRAELISir, I think the best way to advance the Business would be for us to go into Committee without further delay. If there are on our part any of the deep-laid plots that the right hon. Gentleman opposite supposes, the scrutiny of the 1494 Committee will soon reveal and defeat them. But until we get into Committee we are making no progress.
§ MR. COGANsaid, it would be a great inconvenience if just on the eve of a General Election the polling-places throughout Ireland were changed. But the great objection to the plan was that it was a surprise, no intimation on the subject of these polling-places having been given on the introduction of the Bill.
THE EARL OF MAYOI stated distinctly on that occasion that provision would be made for additional polling-places.
§ MR. COGANsaid, that the no mention of them would be found in the report of the noble Earl's speech, probably on account of the very late hour in the morning at which the noble Earl addressed the House. He trusted that the House would come to a clear decision on these clauses before going into Committee. It was clear that the most strenuous opposition would be given to the third part of the Bill, and as practical men they ought to consider that at this period of the Session great powers and facilities were given to an Opposition to defeat any measure of which they disapproved. Those powers had been exercised already on another Bill, and if they were driven to exercise them on this Bill very serious consequences might ensue.
§ MR. HORSMANsaid, he hoped the House would follow the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and go into Committee; but he rose to call attention to two preliminary points on which he thought the whole discussion in Committee would turn. The two points were these. In the first place, his right hon. and learned Friend objected not so much to legislation on this matter as that the clauses referring to it were in the wrong Bill. The Government had had the opinion of counsel before them for four years, recommending a change in the law; but the clauses making the change ought, as in the English Bill, to have been placed in the Reform Bill, and not in the Registration Bill. The other point was that if these clauses were to appear in the Registration Bill the Government ought to have given Notice of their introduction. But the Bill was allowed to be read a second time without being printed, because it was supposed that it would be strictly confined to the subject which was represented by its title; but when the Bill was printed they found to their surprise that it referred 1495 to quite different matters, and many of the Irish Members who had left England were obliged to return to this country in consequence. These were the points which required explanation. There was nothing of which the House was so jealous, and the right hon. Gentleman had shown tonight that there was nothing of which he was so sensitive, as the suspicion that the House was about to be taken by surprise, Having listened to this discussion with the greatest interest and attention, he was brought to the conclusion that the noble Earl had given no answer at all to the objections of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Greville-Nugent), and that the Bill as a Registration Bill ought not to have been extended to the increase of polling-places. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Government would not persist with these clauses.
§ MR. HADFIELDsaid, he thought the House should not come to any hasty conclusion with regard to principles which might have a vital effect on the character of the Bill. It seemed to him that if this Bill contained any lingering remnant of the old system of favouritism and ascendancy, it was time for that House, which represented the people of the United Kingdom, to put an end to it. The object of the clauses he understood to be to give the landlords power to bring their tenants like serfs to the poll. Now, if that were so, he asked the House to pause before adopting them. He implored the House to consider that this was but a remnant of powers attaching in past times to property as disconnected with labour and the rights of industry, and that it was now time to put an end to them all. He would support the proposition of the right hon. and learned Member for Portarlington (Mr. Lawson). He would never be satisfied till the Union was made complete, and Ireland enjoyed all the rights and all the liberties of England.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 (Definition of "Principal Act").
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, the present would be a good opportunity to ask whether the Government intended to persevere with the third part of the Bill? Several hon. Gentlemen took a great interest in the question which stood nest on the Paper (the Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market Bill), and it might be convenient to them to know if that Bill was 1496 not to come on till eleven or twelve o'clock that night.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 2 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 22 (Courts of Revision to be held between 8th September and 6th October).
MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, he wished to make an appeal to the Government as to the necessity of taking some steps to secure greater facilities than had commonly been given heretofore for the registration of voters belonging to the working classes. By the Act of last Session they had in towns greatly extended the bounds of electoral privileges, more especially by the concession of the franchise to lodgers. But from what reached him he feared that this boon would be rendered useless, unless the Government would either introduce a measure or give directions to the Revising Barristers as to the time at which the Revision Courts should be held. It was plain that those who lived by their labour could not afford to hang about a Revision Court for the greater part of a day, or of more days than one, to secure their claims being admitted; and, if they were in consequence denied their promised share of enfranchisement, would not a feeling inevitably arise that hopes had been held out to them that were not meant to be realized? He was sure that this was not in the intention of any party in that House; and therefore he trusted that he might be pardoned for making a suggestion which, if acted on, he trusted would tend to prevent dissatisfaction or distrust arising. The Revision Courts were to be held in September; and at that season of the year there could be no possible objection to their sitting in the evening from six till eight for the purpose of hearing the claims of lodgers. He would suggest that whenever a Revising Barrister was called upon by a sufficient number of persons, say fifty or 100, to hold his Court on alternate days till eight o'clock in the evening he should be bound to do so. When the ordinary day's work was done the frugal and careful man would thus have an opportunity of making good his claim, which he otherwise could not be expected to do. He (Mr. Torrens) put it to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Treasury whether he could do anything more generally acceptable, more considerate, or more just, than to act upon the suggestion which 1497 he (Mr. Torrens) had ventured to mate. He had been anxious to urge a similar provision in the English Bill.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he did not know what the law might be in England, but in Ireland it was competent to a Revising Barrister to sit to any hour, and he himself, when he was a Revising Barrister, in his younger days, had on one occasion sat till ten o'clock.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
§ Clause 25 (Expenses of Chairman).
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsuggested that the scale of remuneration should be fixed by the Lord Lieutenant or the Law Officers, instead of by the Revising Barrister, to whom the duty was a very invidious one.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)said, that the Government could not tell what the clerk's duties had been, and might give too much or too little, while the Barrister knew exactly to what he was entitled.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 26 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 32 (Occupiers not to claim as Lodgers, and Persons making false Declaration as to Claim guilty of Misdemeanour).
§ MR. LAWSONsaid, that this clause, which made it a misdemeanour for anyone who was an occupier to have himself rated as a lodger, created a new misdemeanour, and was not in either the English or the Scotch Bills.
THE EARL OF MAYOcould only express his surprise and regret that the clause had been proposed to be omitted. He thought the Committee would not wish that those who were entitled to claim as occupiers should also claim as lodgers. The clause could be inconvenient only to those who were desirous of setting up fictitious claims.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he must object to the clause, which made the offence of making a false declaration to get on the register a misdemeanour. Why should a clause of that kind be introduced into the Irish Bill when it was not in the English Bill?
§ MR. VANCEsaid, the lodger franchise was a new franchise. It was well known that much stir was now making in the city of Dublin to take every advantage of it. It was stated by the correspondent of The Times, that if the matter was allowed 1498 to proceed as intended, it would amount almost to universal suffrage, for all those persons who could not claim as occupiers were determined to claim as lodgers. The clause could not be objected to by any man who did not wish to make a fraudulent claim. If the clause was not in the English Bill there was no reason why a precedent for introducing it should not be set in the Irish Bill. He would point out that there was no rating check upon the lodger.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, be could now see whence the clause originated. It appeared from the observations of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance) that objections were entertained in certain quarters to a lodger franchise for the city of Dublin. The clause appeared to be framed solely with reference to that class of voters.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the clause contained two distinct and incongruous propositions. It ought to be divided into two clauses, and he thought it would be impossible for the Committee to pass it in its present shape. The first part enacted that no person rated as an occupier should claim to be placed on the register as a lodger; the second part said that a person making a false claim as a lodger should be guilty of a misdemeanour. The first part was open to objection, because a man might be wrongly rated as an occupier. To the second part, the objections were insurmountable. The Committee ought to proceed on the principle of equity and equality with regard to all persons claiming the franchise. All the reasons for providing against fraudulent claims on the part of the lodger were equally applicable to the case of the leaseholder and freeholder.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, he objected to the clause, which he believed to be due to the oracular interference of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance).
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)said, there would be no difficulty in dealing with the two parts of the clause separately if the Committee desired it. It was manifest that the lodger clause required peculiar safeguards, which he could not but suppose hon. Members, who were in favour of purity of election, were anxious to see provided. The object, then, of the first part of the clause was to make rating as an occupier conclusive evidence that the person was not a lodger, so that a man who was rated as an occupier could not come forward and say, "It is true I have not paid the rates which according to the 1499 ratepaying books I am liable to pay, and I claim as a lodger." With regard to the latter part of the clause, he trusted that no hon. Member would, after consideration, say that the Government had done wrong in attaching a stigma and punishment to wilful and corrupt falsehood in reference to the elective franchise.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, some hon. Gentlemen seemed to entertain a perfect horror of the lodger class. He did not see how a person duly rated could claim as a lodger, for a lodger must reside in some part of a house occupied by another party. He thought that to meet a danger of so problematical a character as the one supposed, it would be most unwise to apply this new and exceptional legislation to Ireland. He strongly objected to the second part of the clause, which created a new crime, and did not see why the penalty should apply to lodgers and not to other claimants for the franchise.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the lodger qualification was a perfectly unique one and would be fruitful of fraud. So far from wishing to see the provision limited to Ireland he should like to see it extended to England, and so far from its being unnecessary, it was only analogous to the proposals made on the other side of the House with respect to the declarations required from candidates. Every precaution ought to be taken against fraudulent attempts to obtain votes.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he saw that the Government attached importance to the first part of the clause. Though he thought it a great mistake to introduce legislation of the kind proposed into a Bill of this character, yet he desired, out of deference to the views of (he Government, to suggest the introduction of the word "duly." The first part of the clause would then run thus—"No person duly rated as the occupier of any house or premises shall be registered in respect of being a lodger." With respect, however, to the latter portion of the clause, he would remind the Committee that it was a distinct stigma, not only upon lodgers as a class, but on the Irish lodgers as compared with all others.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he saw no objection to the introduction of the word "duly." He would observe that in Ireland the lists were taken from the rate books, and no one could get on them without being duly rated.
§ MR. MAGUIREsaid, it was all very well to talk about extending these provisions to England, but the English Bill could not be re-opened. He did not wish—and he thought it came with a bad grace from the noble Earl the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Attorney General for Ireland—to brand their countrymen with a desire to get on the register by corrupt practices. If the clause were not extended to England, why should it be applied to Ireland?
§ MR. HADFIELDsaid, he objected to the imposition of a new penalty, and to the attempt to fix on Irish lodgers the crime of misdemeanour. Instead of increasing the list of crimes it was most desirable to diminish the number. The voters under the Reform Bill would be enormously increased. In his own constituency the number would be increased four-fold, and it was not likely they would be willing to be convicted of misdemeanour. He protested against the doctrine of the Attorney General for Ireland which made that a crime in Ireland which was not an offence in England.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he thought there was some force in the objection, and he would consent to leave out the latter part of the clause, which made a false declaration a misdemeanour.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 33 (Evidence to support Claim).
§ MR. LAWSONsaid, that as the clause was worded he apprehended that it might preclude an appeal. He thought the words stating that the evidence should be such as was satisfactory to the chairman or Revising Barrister should be struck out. He moved to leave out all the words after the word "claim."
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, the law of registration in Ireland was different from that in England. In England a claimant would be obliged to bring forward some evidence of his claim. In Ireland any one who made a claim was put on the electoral roll of the borough or county as the case might be, unless his claim was objected to. A case had occurred in which the Revising Barrister erased a name which was not objected to. On appeal the late Judge Perrin ordered the name to be placed on the register. It was therefore necessary, as a large number of claims would be made by lodgers, to place the law by a clause of this kind substantially on the same footing as that in England.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that the noble Earl was quite correct in his statement of the law on the point. A roan could register himself for every one of the thirty-two counties by sending in a claim i for that purposes, and if his claim was not objected to he would have a vote in; each of those counties. He thought the noble Earl would do well to bring up a clause to alter the law in that respect.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he had heard of a case in which a man had succeeded in getting himself on the register for eighteen counties without any real qualification.
§ SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he believed it was a fact that one individual had claimed to vote in twenty counties, and that he had actually got on the registers of eighteen and voted in five. He made out his claims by means of maps and documents in the Landed Estates Court.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he would move, in order to make the operation of the clause general with regard to all claimants, whether lodger or other, to omit the words "in respect to the occupation of lodgings."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 34 (Act and Parts of Acts in Schedule (E) repealed).
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that they had now come to the objectionable part of the Bill—the clauses for establishing new polling-places—and these clauses he proposed to strike out. In 1865 he assisted the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel)—who was at that time Chief Secretary for Ireland—in the preparation of a Bill to; remove the very difficulties in respect of increasing the number of polling-places which the noble Earl now proposed to remove by this and the next twelve or thirteen clauses of the Bill. The rejection of that Bill was moved, and was carried by a factious majority of 2, and it was a curious fact that the noble Earl the present Chief Secretary and the hon. and gallant Member for the Queen's County (General Dunne) voted with the majority on that occasion. This fact showed that if there were any defect in the law, his side of the House was not answerable for its continuance. The present Government were in Office two years, why had not they thought of amending the law before, and not reserve the 1502 question till the fag end of a Session, and the advent of a General Election? Was not this evidence of some electioneering contrivance? He would say no more at present, as he intended to speak again and divide the Committee on every clause, and perhaps on every line of every clause, relating to what he considered a most objectionable scheme. He would, however, make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that in order to facilitate Public Business, he should not go on with this part of the Bill.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, the hon. and learned Baronet had made an appeal to him of a peculiar kind; for, though conceived in an amicable spirit, it was founded on a threat of a very elaborate character. He had no doubt that if an opportunity presented itself his noble Friend (the Earl of Mayo) would give a sufficient answer to the attack which the hon. and learned Baronet had made upon him with respect to the Bill of 1865. It was quite clear from the last expression of opinion on the part of the hon. and learned Baronet that he was influenced at the present time by personal reminiscences of a peculiar nature, though he (Mr. Disraeli) could not withstand the conviction that as the discussion went on the hon. and learned Baronet would come to the conclusion that to pursue the course he had just announced would not tend to advance Public Business, nor to raise the hon. and learned Baronet's character for learning and good temper. He trusted there would be a full and complete discussion of these clauses. If they could not bear such discussion, of course they would not be carried; but he could not bring himself to the belief that the House would witness from the hon. and learned Baronet or any of his friends that exhibition of Parliamentary tactics which had been just referred to.
§ GENERAL DUNNEsaid, that he had been accused of inconsistency because he voted against the Bill of 1865, and he had done so because at the time there were special objections to that Bill, which was merely brought forward for a party object, and not on any principle. He could only say that the hon. and learned Baronet, who was one of the promoters of the Bill, had adopted a most singular method of proving his consistency on the present occasion by voting against it, when no one knew better than he did the necessity for some means of preventing violence at the ensuing elections.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that his Bill did not deal with the question of jurisdiction. It had left the appointment of polling-places with the Quarter Session and the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council.
§ MR. ESMONDE moved the omission of the 34th clause, the first of those relating to the alteration of polling-places. There was no reason for passing this clause now which did not exist when the Irish Reform Bill was before them. The Irish county constituencies had not been increased, and these clauses were quite out of place in a Registration Bill, which never would have been allowed to pass a second reading unopposed, and without having been printed, except on the supposition that it was what its title proclaimed it, a mere Bill for the registration of voters.
§ MR. AGAR-ELLISsaid, the present law had worked well except in one particular, which was not at all touched by the present Bill.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he concluded that the hon. Member could not have been in the House at the time he made his opening statement. He would therefore repeat that, according to the opinions of the Law Advisers both of the late and the present Governments, the existing law was totally inoperative, and that it would be unsafe and improper for the Privy Council to add to the number of polling-places in Ireland on application from any quarter.
§ COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENTsaid, that these clauses had taken Members for Ireland by surprise, and they had not had the opportunity of consulting their constituents with regard to them. He objected to these clauses being included in the Bill, and begged to move that the Chairman be ordered to report Progress.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he did not deny that difficulties existed with respect to increasing the number of polling-places in Ireland; but he would suggest that the best course for the Government to pursue would be to withdraw the clauses relating to jurisdiction, and on the Report to bring up new clauses to remove the technical difficulties referred to. He had no objection to remedy existing defects in the system, but these clauses would make a very serious change in the tribunals by which the matters were to be decided. It would make the mere ipse dixit of justices in Session the law of the land, without any appeal to the Privy Council.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was mistaken in supposing that the authority of the Privy Council would be affected. The Bill, with the Amendment of which he had given Notice, would not deprive the Privy Council of any control it at present possessed. He might add that he was quite willing to accept the Amendment of which Notice had been given by the right hon. and learned Member for Portarlington (Mr. Lawson), which perhaps was couched in terms more clear and explicit than his own. The only alteration proposed to be made in the law was that in respect to the Special Sessions. A great deal had been said about altering the law in Ireland from that which it was in England; but it was remarkable how hon. Members opposite, when it suited them, could at one time argue that the peculiar circumstances of Ireland rendered necessary a different law for that country from that in England; and at another insist upon the same legislation for Ireland as had been established in the other parts of the United Kingdom. The simple proposition now was, that Special Sessions for the purpose of appointing polling-places in Ireland should be convened. He maintained that this mode of proceeding—namely, by Special Sessions, was a vast improvement of the law, and infinitely superior in the way of publicity to the old mode of proceeding by Quarter Sessions, even if the latter were practicable in the present instance. When hon. Gentlemen exhibited such an ardent desire to have the same law in this respect for England and Ireland they evidently forgot what was the law in England, which was that upon which he had based his first proposition. He had shown that in Ireland there was a great want of polling-places. For example, in the county of Donegal, voters had sometimes to travel twenty-five or thirty Irish miles, and in the counties of Cork and Waterford to travel also immense distances for the purpose of recording votes. The principle of multiplying the polling-places was admitted by all parties. He confessed he was lost in amazement to find a party movement now made to defeat the carrying out of that principle, of which, he believed, every man in Ireland having an interest in peace and the proper conduct of elections would express his approval, if asked to give his candid opinion. He could not conceive any party object to be gained by this proposal. They had a General Election coming on, when the 1505 want of a sufficient number of polling-places would be felt as an injustice and an enormous inconvenience. He therefore submitted that there was nothing in the proposition he had made to justify the opposition of hon. Members from Ireland.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he would repeat an anecdote he had heard, which he thought would have a bearing upon this question. In the county of Leicester a question arose at the last election in respect to polling-places, and it turned out that a Committee of Justices, on whoso recommendation new polling-places had been created, was constituted precisely of the same gentlemen who formed, a few weeks before, the Election Committee of one of the candidates. Those circumstances having excited extraordinary interest in Leicestershire, a legal opinion on the present state of the English law with regard to polling-places was obtained, to this effect—that although under the Act of last year the justices were enabled for the first time, contrary to the provision of the former law, to divide their counties into polling districts, nevertheless that process having taken place no further change could be made except by a process identical with the Irish mode—namely, by means of petition from the justices in Quarter Sessions to the Privy Council. It was because the noble Earl proposed seriously to alter that system that he and other Irish Members opposed the provision. If the Government were unwilling to acquiesce in his (Mr. C. Fortescue's) reasonable proposition, he hoped that the Committee would at once divide upon the clause, and with that view he would ask his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Greville-Nugent) to withdraw his Amendment that the Chairman report Progress.
MR. HEYGATEsaid, he wished to explain the state of things in Leicestershire during the last election, which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last. Many complaints had been made as to the distances which some of the electors had to travel in order to reach the polling-places. It was found that serious inconveniences had arisen to all parties concerned, and scenes of tumult and disorder had been created by mobs of roughs—but from no political motives whatever—in consequence of the want of a sufficient number of polling-places. The magistrates remedied the inconvenience by creating polling-places within five miles of every village; but nothing like party feel- 1506 ing influenced their decision. The Committee which had been appointed to inquire into the subject of polling-places on that occasion was constituted as fairly as possible, and without the slightest reference to party purposes. The results were satisfactory to all classes. The object of Parliament should be to protect electors from inconvenience and insult, and on this ground he should support the clause.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was of opinion that this matter being intimately connected with questions of class and party, should be handled with some tenderness. He was sorry that the noble Earl had designated the opposition to the clause a party move. A very large portion of Irish Members—who had the best means of judging—regarded the proposed alteration as of a serious character, and believed that it would act injuriously upon the conduct of the coming elections in Ireland; and the defect existing, as the noble Earl ha6 stated, in the present law was no justification for it, since all parties would be willing to co-operate in removing that defect, and it had been shown that that could be done without resorting to the sweeping change proposed by the Government. Whether the proposal was an improvement or not was not the question, for the matter could not be fairly discussed under present circumstances, Irish Members having had no notice that it would be raised, beyond a fugitive sentence uttered by the noble Earl at two o'clock in the morning, which naturally was not reported in the newspapers. During the passage of the English Registration Bill the noble Earl, being asked to produce this measure, said he was reserving it till that Bill was disposed of, a statement which implied that the entire issue depended on the English Bill. Even if the proposal were a good one it ought not to be brought forward in the last week of a Session, and he felt bound to protest against it.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, he was quite willing to accept the proposition of the right hon. Member for Louth (Mr.Chichester Fortescue) if it could be shown to be practicable. He had been surprised, on an allusion being made to the impending election, to hear a derisive cheer from the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) and some of his Friends, as if they had discovered some secret motive for the clause. Why, all those arrangements for registration had reference to the impending election, the desire to advance which on the part of the House ns much 1507 as possible wag the only reason for the introduction of the Bill. This being the case, it was of undeniable importance that there should be free and convenient access to the polling-places. If it was possible to have a Special Quarter Sessions, so that the body which had hitherto dealt with these regulations might continue to do so, he should he perfectly satisfied. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth could suggest any terms by which the course recommended by him could be adopted, he should willingly support it, and it was therefore unfair to impute to the Government any covert purpose.
§ GENERAL DUNNEsaid, that a special meeting of the county and a Special Quarter Sessions would probably be attended by the same magistrates. He was anxious that the arrangements should be made by the entire magistracy of a county, so that the magistrates of a particular section of it might not bring about objectionable arrangements. His own county had made a demand for additional polling-places, and if they were of any utility at all they should be provided in time for the next election.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had misunderstood his proposal. He objected to the proposal of a Special Sessions, because his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had failed to give a sufficient reason for it, and because it would create those Sessions as a permanent tribunal. He objected to meetings at this particular period of the year. His proposal was to remedy the technical defects which had been alluded to by a measure like that introduced by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) and the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen). He was wholly opposed to the exceptional legislation proposed.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he must maintain that the inconvenience caused by an insufficient number of polling-places, and the scenes of violence which were likely to occur if the defect was not removed, called for exceptional legislation. In reference to the objections urged as to the late period at which this proposal was brought forward, he wished to explain that until he received an application from the comity of Donegal the question had not been brought prominently under his notice, and though it had been mentioned incidentally, he was not till then aware that such great evils existed. On looking into the 1508 matter he found counties with 6,000 or 17,000 electors having only four or five polling-places. In view of an election, which would probably be contested with singular warmth, ought such a state of things to remain? He did not attach great importance to Special Sessions, and if power were given to the Lord Lieutenant to summon the ordinary Quarter Sessions for this purpose, leaving their jurisdiction for other years unaffected, he should offer no objection. He was anxious only that additional polling-places should be provided in time for the impending election. Had they not hastened the time for all these proceedings? Had they not run the risk of great inconvenience arising to numbers of electors, and of many of them being excluded from the register, owing to the limited lime at their disposal in consequence of their desire to give the country an opportunity of declaring its opinion at the earliest possible moment? Therefore, when he asked that with regard to the next election there should be special legislation in order to provide the requisite number of polling-places, he did not think he was asking anything wrong or unreasonable. Now, in the English Registration Act that had recently received the Royal Assent, there was a clause which provided that a power of dividing the counties into polling districts and of assigning polling-places to each might be exercised by the Justices from time to time as they should see fit, and it was added that such power of dividing each county into polling-places should be deemed to include the altering of such places. Therefore, the Bill which passed a few weeks ago had altered the law in England in the way that he proposed to do in Ireland, and yet he was charged with having a political motive in view when he sought to relieve the Irish voter from the disabilities under which he lay. He cared not by what machinery additional polling-places were to be established, provided it was made available for the next election.
§ MR. MONSELLsaid, he thought it was an unwise thing to take the period just before a General Election to make new arrangements with regard to polling-places. But what he and those who agreed with him honestly objected to was this—and the noble Earl must feel the force of the objection—that for an election which, according to the noble Lord himself, would be fought with peculiar vehemence, it was proposed to place the initiative with, regard to a change of poll- 1509 ing-places in a body of men whom he respected as much as the noble Lord, but who were known to be far more favourable to the party opposite than to that (the Opposition) side of the House. He was quite willing that power should be given to the Privy Council to sanction the creation of additional polling-places in those cases in which application had already been made.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he believed that the Bill had been introduced not to protect the voters, but to enable the landlords to poll their tenants against their will. So high did party spirit run in Ireland at election times that magistrates were not allowed to act at elections unless they got a fresh commission; and yet it was into the hands of these very magistrates that the noble Lord now proposed to put a power which might be used with the most crushing effect against the unfortunate tenantry.
VISCOUNT HAMILTONsaid, that at the last contested election in the county of Donegal, when a number of voters who had travelled about twenty-eight or twenty-nine miles arrived within a mile of Letterkenny they were met by a ruffianly mob, who destroyed their cars. Applications had at different times since then been made to have new and convenient polling-places provided, but the Privy Council always returned the same answer—that under the existing law it was impossible. He hoped, therefore, the Committee would consent to give the magistrates the power provided in the Bill.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)said, that the discussion had commenced in a very angry tone. They had been told by one hon. Member that the landlords took their tenants like serfs to the poll; another hon. Gentleman had said that he would divide on every line of the Bill; but the discussion appeared to be about to take another tone when the right hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) suggested that two clauses should be brought up for the purpose of meeting the admitted difficulty of the case. It had been admitted then, by an authority than whom none was higher, that there was a defect in the law which required to be remedied. Now, he maintained that it was right that au authority should exist somewhere—that a power should be vested in some body, to create polling-places. There existed a technical difficulty in the way of providing these polling-places, and a remedy was 1510 proposed. What were the objections to the proposal of the Government? The first was that no effectual supervision by the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council was provided. But an Amendment had been suggested by which that objection might be removed. The real point of conflict was the necessity of providing additional polling-places before the next election; he apprehended that if there were any necessity for them it was eminently with reference to the next election; and it was with that view that provision was made for resort to Special Sessions when Ordinary Sessions were not available, just as a similar provision was made in the 6 & 7 Will. IV. A Bill had been introduced this Session with reference to the presence of military at elections by those who objected to that species of protection being given to voters; the only effectual way of obviating the necessity for that protection was to provide additional polling-places, so as to facilitate the access of electors to the poll without danger of molestation and violence; that such was the object of this measure; and it had no party object beyond that of securing to electors the free exercise of the franchise.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, those who i thought that landlords were desirous of driving their tenants to the poll as if they had no will of their own would entertain a different opinion if they knew more of the North of Ireland; for landlords exercised nothing but a moral influence, acquired by residence and good deeds among their tenants. Would it not be better to take the polling-places to the electors than to incur the heavy expense of taking electors in cars to polling-booths, in localities where they were not known? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) made a proposal but little different from that of the noble Earl; and he was inclined to accept it until he heard the second explanation. If the right hon. Gentleman would promise to support the Government on the Report in providing additional places for the next election he would not vote with the Government on the 34th clause; but he must do so in the absence of such an undertaking.
§ MR. VANCEsaid, he regretted that the right hon. Member for Louth, who was acquainted with the working of the present law, did not give Notice of clauses to remedy it. The Bill would do what was wanted; and if the right hon. Gentleman was not able to propose what would equally accomplish 1511 that he ought to support the Bill. It would be dangerous to give up the clauses on the mere assumption that other clauses would be brought up and that they would effect the object.
MR. HEYGATEsaid, that such anomalies would not be tolerated in England as existed in Ireland with regard to the distances voters had to travel to the poll. There was an increasing dislike to the long journeys; and the lower the franchise was reduced, the more necessary was it to bring the poll to the voter. In this matter, he asked, why was the urban voter to have a privilege denied to the agricultural voter? The former could reach the poll by walking a short distance from his home; and why should the latter be compelled to make the sacrifice involved in travelling several miles?
§ MR. LEFROYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) would agree to an arrangement by which a sufficient number of polling-places might be provided for the protection of the voters in Ireland.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, there was a clause in the Scotch Act giving the sheriff the power of increasing the number of polling-places in any district, so that not more than 300 need vote at one booth. He did not see why a different law should be applied to Ireland.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 84: Majority 10.
THE EARL OF MAYOSir, it is quite clear we must take it that the decision at which the Committee has just arrived is conclusive upon the subject of providing additional polling-places for Ireland at the next election, and therefore I propose to withdraw the whole of Part III. of the Bill. In so doing, however, I must say distinctly that, in the event of scenes of violence and bloodshed occurring at the ensuing election in Ireland, the responsibility will rest not with us, but with the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, in defiance of every principle of their own, and in defiance of every vote they have given with regard to the provision of additional polling-places in England and Scotland, have voted against the clause which was intended to provide facilities for polling in Ireland. Of course it will be the duty of the Government to endeavour to do everything in their power to preserve 1512 peace at the ensuing election; but the difficulties they will have to contend against will be enormously increased by the decision at which the Committee have just arrived.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUESir, the noble Earl (the Earl of Mayo) has prophesied the most frightful consequences as the result of the vote just given, and he has chosen to throw upon us the responsibility of those consequences. We are quite ready lo bear whatever responsibility properly belongs to us; but we decline to acquit the Government of any blame which may hereafter attach to it in consequence of neglecting until a few days before our separation to take means to prevent what the noble Earl fears, but which I, for one, do not. But the noble Earl's remarks are not consistent with his own statement of an hour ago, when he seemed to anticipate that the number of applications would be very few indeed. [The Earl of MAYO: Not very many.] The noble Earl said the number of cases of difficulty which had arisen were few, and that they had mostly arisen in the quieter districts—some places in the north, I believe. Now, with respect to the Midland, Western, and Southern regions of Ireland, I am convinced that in the present political state of the country there is no reason to fear any danger unless extravagant, unreasonable, and improper means are taken to prevent the great mass of electors from recording their votes in accordance with their wishes. If attempts are made to compel the large body of the Roman Catholic voters to support the Established Church in Ireland contrary to their feelings, difficulties may, indeed, arise. It may be hardly credible in this country that an attempt could be made to maintain Protestant ascendancy by means of the Roman Catholics' votes; but I am afraid we cannot allow ourselves to hope that the attempt will not be made.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, the noble Earl ought to have been the very last person to throw responsibility on the Opposition when he knew he had voted against the Bill of 1865 which, if it had passed would have prevented any difficulty upon the point now before them.
§ MR. VANCEsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite was bound to do something to remedy the evil which he admitted to exist, and it would be very unsatisfactory if Parliament were prorogued without effectual measures being taken. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to attempts to maintain Protestant as- 1513 cendancy in Ireland. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman there was no such thing as Protestant ascendancy in Ireland; but there was a vast amount of Papal aggression.
§ MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he wished to explain that no Gentleman on that side of the House had objected to the creation of additional polling-places, all they wanted was that such places should be appointed in the same way as they had hitherto been.
§ Clauses 35 to 45, inclusive, struck out.
§ Clauses 46 and 47 agreed to.
§ Clause 48 (Power to Lord Lieutenant to appoint Revising Barristers in certain Cases).
§ MR. LAWSONsaid, that this clause cast upon the Lord Lieutenant the duty of appointing additional Revising Barristers, He (Mr. Lawson) thought it would be well to amend the clause in such a way that the English practice should be followed. He therefore begged to move, in page 21, line 26, to leave out "the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland," and insert "any Judge of Her Majesty's Superior Courts of Common Law in Dublin sitting as vocation Judge for the despatch of chamber business." He also thought that such appointments should be made only if they should prove necessary.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he objected to the alteration. The public had hitherto exhibited no want of confidence in the appointments made by the Lords Lieutenant, and those appointments had this advantage, that whereas the appointments made by a Judge who might be a strong partizan could not be challenged, the Lords Lieutenant were responsible to Parliament for the exercise of their patronage. In some places it might be necessary under the peculiar circumstances of this year to appoint additional Revising Barristers, though he hoped that it would not be necessary so far as Dublin was concerned. It was not the intention of the Government to make any appointment until the revision had progressed some way, nor unless it was shown that the present officials would be unable to get through the work in time. But if some assistance were needed, care would be taken that the selection should not be confined to men of one particular party.
§ MR. LAWSONsaid, he would not, after the statement made by the noble Earl, press his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN moved a new clause (Parties at the Revision Court may appear and be heard by Counsel).
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)said, he must oppose the clause. The time of the Revising Barristers would, he thought, be too much taken up by long speeches from counsel.
§ Clause withdrawn.
§ Schedules A, B, and C agreed to.
§ Schedules D and E negatived.
§ House resumed.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 248.]