COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 14 August 1883 vol 283 cc472-522

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)

MR. GIBSON

said, that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was admirably suited, from its brevity, to the period of the Session at which the Bill was introduced. The course of Business that Session in regard to Irish Bills was, to the last degree, startling and strange, as a glance at the Order Book would show; and he would illustrate his meaning by the fact that the House was asked to go into Committee on a Bill of this importance on the 14th of August, and by the further fact that the third and fourth Orders related to the Tramways and Public Companies Bill—a Bill of great importance as affecting Ireland, which had been introduced only two or three days ago. It was impossible to ignore other Bills of more importance to the social well-being of Ireland than these two. If there was one Bill which more than another had attracted wide attention, or that was desired by the Irish people, it was the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. Deputation after deputation had waited upon the Irish Government about it, and it was known from past votes and speeches that four-fifths of the Irish Members were more or less strongly pledged to support it. [Mr. CALLAN: No, no!] He spoke according to his own knowledge. Other hon. Members could do the same, and he would adhere to his original statement. The exact proportion was not his point; but the Irish Government was pledged, through the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant, that, whatever other Irish Bill became law, the Irish Sunday Closing Bill would be placed on the Statute Book, and now the Irish Sunday Closing Bill was dropped and forgotten, and this Registration Bill was placed in its present remarkable position. Another measure that was heralded with great promises, and bold and resolute assertion, was the extension of the Bankruptcy Bill to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), who was generally considered to be a man who knew his own mind, had, within the last few days, distinctly and categorically stated across the floor of the House that the Government were determined to adhere to the clauses extending the Bill to Ireland; and, notwithstanding that distinct pledge, the measure was given up as recently as Saturday last. Then, quite recently, another Bill challenging the attention of the House was introduced by the Chief Secretary for Ireland for the re-organization of the Resident Magistracy and Police in Ireland, after it had been postponed more than once, in order to get a good opportunity for making a statement upon it—a Bill that was obviously, from the terms in which it was brought forward, of great Departmental importance, and that Bill actually died still-born. It was almost dropped before it was printed and circulated. They had another Bill also on the Paper which vindicated the words he had used when he spoke of the conduct of Irish Business this Session as startling and strange—he referred to the Tramways and Public Companies Bill, a Bill which anyone who listened to the statement by which it was introduced must know was in no sense urgent. ["Oh, oh!"] It was a Bill for which there was at that moment no urgency of necessity. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might say "Oh, oh!" but the Bill was in no sense urgent; it was not to be confined to necessitous districts; it was not alleged that it was for the relief of distress, and it would be applied to the richest and poorest alike; and he was saying what could not be disputed when he said that it was a Bill introduced without the slightest excuse of pressure or urgency. And what was the Bill which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had moved so concisely now? It was a purely political Bill, introduced and ordered to be printed on the 26th of April, and one which no one had since heard anything of until, through the vicissitudes of other legislative proposals to which he would subsequently refer, the Government found it necessary to bring it again under the notice of the House, and procured the passage of its second reading on a Saturday in August—an unprecedented course to take with an important political Bill, in which the legislation dealt with was of an opposed character; and now, on the 14th of August, they were gravely asked to go through the clauses. He, therefore, protested against further proceeding with this Bill at a period of the Session when the sparse attendance in the House indicated the overwhelming conclusion that it could not obtain, and was not intended to obtain, a full and complete hearing. Now, what was the nature of the Bill? It had not, and could not have, a principle. The Sunday Closing Bill, which was only needed by those who desired the moral well-being of Ireland, and the Bankruptcy Clauses, which only affected the mercantile community of Ireland, had been dropped; and the only reason why this measure was being pressed so late in the Session was because the Government thought that, at this time of the Session, they might possibly pass a measure which some people thought might have a political power in some particular places. Was there any urgency for it? ["Yes; there is."] He was not concerned to deny that the registration system in Ireland was susceptible of improvement. [Laughter.] He had admitted that more than once in that House, and was not prepared to withdraw or qualify anything he had said in reference to the subject. He saw nothing, however, in that system to justify the monstrous conduct of the Government in pressing on a Bill like this at this time of the Session; and when he admitted what he had, it was in no way to encourage or facilitate the Government in the prosecution of that conduct. Had the Bill come on at an earlier period there were many of its provisions that he should have been prepared to consider and criticize; and, just to show the importance of the measure, and what might be its operation on the administration of the Registration Laws of Ireland, he would take one or two points only for illustration. One of the principal and most important points of controversy in the registration system had reference to what was called "the Supplemental List," and the way in which it was dealt with. The expression "Supplemental List" did not occur, however, from beginning to end of the Bill; and yet, by general words, which required to be interpreted by a lawyer, immense changes would be made in many important centres of registration. He would admit that a voter whose name was on the original list of voters had had his right to vote recognized; and if that right were challenged, it was not unreasonable that he should be furnished with a specific objection. To that extent he was in favour of a modification of the existing law; and he should be prepared to take a similar view with regard to the Claimants' List. But the conditions under which the Supplemental List was prepared were wholly different; and the only point under discussion was, what were the conditions under which the Supplemental List should be examined and considered by the Registration Court? The present law was, that any person wishing to challenge the right of another person whose name appeared on the Supplemental List, claiming to be added to the original list of voters, should have the power of furnishing to that person a general notice of objection. This Bill, however, proposed what was a grave and serious change—that any person on the Supplemental List should have a specific objection to his name, and that no longer a general objection would be allowed. That would be all right if the persons who prepared the Supplemental List, the Poor Law officers, had knowledge sufficient to satisfy themselves that every person on the Supplemental List had the proper qualifications. But that was not so—they only knew that the person whose name they submitted was possessed of two out of four of the requisite qualifications—namely, that he was rated, and had paid his rates. ["Hear, hear!"] Very well; but that did not prove the residence or nature of the occupation, which were as necessary as the other two qualifications to give the right to vote. Their object should be a pure registry. Let every man who was entitled to be on the registry be there; but if they allowed every person, without any check, and insisted upon a specific objection, to be placed on the Supplemental List, they would add hundreds and thousands who did not possess the necessary qualifications for voters. He did not want to run away with the question. The second detail he would call attention to was the proposal to shift the onus of proof from the claiming voter to the objector. That was a startling measure. The Bill proposed also to give, for the first time, to the Poor Rate Collectors, who were appointed for a totally different purpose, substantial and significant power in the preparation of voters' lists and objections. That was a matter which must be carefully examined in Committee, and if the Bill were to be considered as its importance required that stage would occupy a very considerable time. The Bill did not come accredited with the recommendation of any Select Committee. The last time a Select Committee sat on the subject was in 1875, when the majority made a Report that was entirely opposed to the main provisions of this Bill; and what he wanted to impress upon the Government was this—that the matter required more close and minute investigation than could be given to it at this period of the Session. If there were few Amendments to the Bill, he could understand the Government proceeding with it at this time of the Session. He found, however, that the Paper of Amendments contained a substantial number of Amendments, and he assumed that if the Amendments were discussed at all adequately, considerable time must be occupied. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson), who, he might say, had registration on the brain, had put down a large number of clauses. He did not know whether the hon. Member intended to press them, or whether they were merely "leather and prunella," put down to give interesting reading to Gentlemen who took an interest in Parliamentary Papers. But, if the hon. Member proposed his Amendments, they had before them an intellectual treat of some hours. He protested, and on every subsequent stage of the Bill he should protest, against proceeding with the measure after the 14th of August. He believed this to be an attempt at a most inopportune season, and in a most unsatisfactory manner, to foist legislation on the House of Commons; and he would, therefore, move the rejection of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day throe months."—(Mr. Gibson.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he gathered from the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) that, in making his protest, he did not wish it to be followed by a long debate. [Mr. GIBSON: It is the 14th of August.] No doubt that was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reason for not wishing to enter into a long debate, and he (Mr. Trevelyan) should follow the example set, and only make a few remarks. The right hon. and learned Gentleman took exception to the general management of Irish Business. He regretted the fate of the Sunday Closing Bill; he (Mr. Trevelyan) also regretted it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to the withdrawal of the Police Bill, which he described as a Departmental Bill of first-class importance. It was, however, hardly in those epithets that he (Mr. Trevelyan) introduced the Bill, seeing that when he did so he described it as one which would promote administrative convenience and very considerable public economy; and since the withdrawal of the Bill he had indicated the nature and extent of the Departmental inconvenience which had been caused by the postponement of the measure for what he hoped would not be more than eight or nine months. The right hon. and learned Gentleman commented upon the fact that the Bill under the notice of the House was introduced on the 29th of April, yet the Government could not find time to read it a second time until Saturday, the 14th of August. That, however, was the first opportunity on which, so far as the choice of the Irish Government was concerned, they were able to bring the Bill on for second reading. He could not allow that the right hon. and learned Gentleman justly described the Tramways and Public Companies Bill, when he said it was a Bill which had been introduced with no pressure of circumstance, because it did not refer to the distressed districts. It essentially referred to those districts, for it was in the distressed districts that railways had not been made, because they would not pay, and it was in those districts that tramways alone could pay. [Mr. GIBSON: They will not be localized to those districts.] No; he would quite admit that the right hon. and learned Gentleman described the Bill now under consideration as a keenly-opposed political Bill, He (Mr. Trevelyan) did not dispute the possibility of its being keenly opposed; but he denied that it was a political Bill. It was not brought in in favour of one Party more than of another. In the speech in which he moved the second reading, he gave reasons which had convinced himself, and, he thought, had convinced other hon. Gentlemen in the House, that if the Bill was in favour of any Party, it was in favour of that Party which was, perhaps, the least actively political—namely, the quiet Conservatives of the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said the Bill had no principle; but he (Mr. Trevelyan) did not quite agree in that. The Bill had a simple and plain principle, and that was that a man should enjoy the vote which Parliament intended he should have. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had also asked what the urgency of the Bill consisted in. Well, it consisted in this—that three years ago it was read a second time without a Division by the House of Commons, which might be presumed to know more about everything that concerned elections than any other Body in the country—that it was passed by the House of Commons, and that it was then thrown out by the House of Lords, who, hon. Members could conceive, had not the same interest and thorough knowledge in those matters as the House of Commons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked of the monstrous conduct of the Government in bringing on this Bill at this time of the Session. If it were monstrous conduct for a Government giving plenty of reasons for doing so to read a Bill for the second time when it was late in the Session, what was the conduct of those who would throw out that Bill without giving any reason except that it was late in the Session? That was the urgency for the Bill. It was a measure brought in to help the citizen, as a citizen, to the vote which Parliament intended he should have, and in order that he should enjoy the vote at the next General Election. The urgency was, that they were three years nearer the next General Election than they were when the House of Commons determined it was just and for the public advantage that the Bill should pass. He hoped the House would, without further delay, be allowed to go to a Division on the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he should not make a long speech upon the subject, seeing that he had moved the rejection of the Bill upon the second reading. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had contradicted the assertion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), that the Tramways and Public Companies Bill was not one called for by the necessities of the case; and he said that the urgency of that Bill consisted in the fact that it would be applied to the necessitous districts. He (Colonel King-Harman), however, maintained that it could not be so applied, because, in some of these districts, the poor rates and the county cess were so high that the required baronial guarantees could not be given; and, consequently, they could not avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill. He had no intention of opposing the Tramways and Public Companies Bill, because he believed that in many parts of the country it would do a great deal of good, though he did not think it would affect the districts where tramways were most required. As to the Bill now before the House, he saw no reason for proceeding with it at that late period of the Session, when other and more important measures had been dropped by the Government in such a pusillanimous manner. All he could say was that he was sorry the Conservative Members for Ireland had not taken a lesson from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway; but this Bill, aimed as it was at the Conservative Party in Ireland, would teach them to oppose the Government in every possible way. ["Hear, hear!" from the Ministerial Benches.] Yes; he did not see why hon. Members sitting on the Conservative Benches if they knew how to give battle to the Government in favour of measures which were for the good of Ireland, in the same way as the Irish Members below the Gangway, when they were fighting for measures which were of a pernicious character and not for the good of Ireland, would not be able to prevent the Government passing measures such as the one under consideration, which were absolutely unnecessary, and would do no good for the country. He desired simply to enter his protest against the Government bringing on this Bill, not in an unprecedented way for second reading on a Saturday, for the same course was followed in 1880, but for bringing it on at a time when there was no opportunity of discussing it. He hoped his right hon. and learned Friend would go to a Division, for if he did, he (Colonel King Harman) would support him in opposing it.

MR. WARTON

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) recently accused Irish Members below the Gangway of having made an alliance with rebels. The right hon. Gentleman brought forward no proof in support of that accusation, except the number of Questions put on Thursdays and Mondays. But since then, beyond dispute, the Government had entered into an alliance with hon. Members below the Gangway for the purpose, he supposed, of getting rid of inconvenient opposition. They saw an illustration of that in the Bill before the House. The object of that Bill was to flood Ireland with a number of bad votes, and another object was to take away some votes from the Conservative Party. In 1880 the other House rejected a similar measure, because it came up shamefully late—namely, in the month of September; but he thought that this year, on the 14th of August, they were really later than in 1880 in September. There was no reason why a Bill brought forward in April should not have been read a second time in June or July. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) would divide, in order to show the other House that there was a strong objection to the Bill; and, weak as they (the Opposition) were, he trusted there was a place where their weakness would be respected and their voices heard, and that a House which had often prevented what was wrong would see that justice was done.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 29: Majority 89.—(Div. List, No. 293.)

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Preliminary.

Clause 1 (Definition of Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act, 1850) agreed to.

Clause 2 (Extent of Act) agreed to.

Clause 3 (Short title and commencement).

MR. HEALY moved, in page 1, line 13, after the word "and," insert "with the exception of section eight," the object of which was to provide that Section 8 should come into operation immediately after the passing of the Act.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 13, after the word "and," to insert the words "with the exception of section eight, which shall come into operation immediately on the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, that, before the Amendment of the hon. Member was put, he wished to know whether it would be regular to insert it in the present clause, because it would really involve the discussion of the 8th clause, and it might be that Clause 8 would be objected to altogether, and might never come into operation at all? Under these circumstances, he would ask the Chairman whether the Amendment of the hon. Member could be inserted as now proposed?

MR. HEALY

said, that, as a matter of draftsmanship, there was nowhere else in the Bill whore he could insert this Amendment, because, if the present clause were passed, they would enact that— This Act may he cited for all purposes as the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Act, 1883, and shall come into operation on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty four. His object in proposing this Amendment was to provide that Section 8 should come into operation at an earlier period—namely, immediately after the passing of the Act. He had no wish to discuss Section 8 now; but he did not think there was any other place in which he could move the Amendment.

MR. WARTON

pointed out that in the Friendly Societies Bill a section was inserted which would come into force at a different time from the rest of the Act. He believed that it was the 17th section; and therefore he presumed, as a point of Order, it would be open for the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), when Section 8 was reached, to move that it should come in force at an earlier date than the rest of the Act. He did not know whether the Attorney General for Ireland was as well acquainted with the facts of the case as the Secretary to the Treasury, and he regretted that the Secretary to the Treasury was not in his place. He could, however, assure the Committee that the facts were as he had stated them.

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not understand the question to be one of Order; but I certainly entertain the opinion that it would be more convenient to propose the Amendment upon Clause 8 of the Bill. I do not think, as a matter of Order, that there would be any objection to that course.

MR. HEALY

said, he would do whatever the Committee pleased in the matter. It would, perhaps, be as well, however, that he should state his reasons for proposing the Amendment now, as it might lead to confusion subsequently, and the statement he had to make was very brief.

MR. WARTON

said, he thought the statement had better be postponed.

MR. HEALY

asked if any other place could be suggested where it could be brought in?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he thought it would be convenient to move the Amendment, and explain the reason for it at the end of Section 8.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think that would be the most convenient course.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Prevention of frivolous Objections.

Clause 4 (Notices of objection shall state grounds of objection).

MR. HEALY moved, in page 1, line 16, after "26," insert "and 36." The clause provided for objections under Section 26 of the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act, 1850, and he thought it was evidently by an error of draughtsmanship that Section 36 had been omitted. He believed that the Government had been led into the error by the previous Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon). Schedule A absolutely referred to Clause 36; whereas it had no reference whatever to Section 26. The law as it stood under Section 26 required notice to be served on the Clerk of the Peace; and it was provided, under the present Bill, that any notice of objection might be given under that section to any person or any list of claimants; but no notice of objection given under Section 26 should be valid unless the ground or grounds of objection were specifically stated therein. There was, however, no provision in regard to the notice to be served upon the individual occupier who claimed the right to vote; and unless they included Section 36 in this clause, the occupier who received a notice of objection would have no means of knowing what the grounds of the objection to him were. He thought it would be most unfair that the occupier should not be made acquainted with the nature of the objections against him. The Schedule attached to the Bill applied to notices of objection to be given to parties objected to by any person other than the Clerk of the Peace or the Clerk of the Union or Poor Rate Collector, and that Schedule had reference to Section 36 of the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act, and not to Section 26 at all. The matter was a thoroughly technical one, and exceedingly difficult to explain; but he challenged anyone to say that the Schedule attached to the Bill could apply to anything except Section 36. It certainly could not apply to Section 26; and it would be a very unfair thing for an occupier to receive a notice of objection which simply stated that he was objected to, without stating the grounds. He might be called upon to travel many miles before he would be able to find out what the nature of the objection was. He did not see what hardship it would be to require the person sending the notice of objection to state the grounds of objection, and therefore he trusted the Committee would accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, after the word "twenty-six," to insert the words "and thirty-six."—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'and thirty-six' be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, he had no objection whatever to the Amendment. It appeared to him that Section 26 made provision for the notice to be served, and Section 36 required the grounds of objection to be stated.

MR. GIBSON

remarked, that a good many of the provisions of the Bill had been draughted from the clauses of the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), who was a complete master of the question. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would explain to the Committee how it was that he had arrived at the conclusion not to include Section 36 in the clause with Section 26? He wanted to know whether the attention of his hon. and learned Friend had been drawn to the matter, or whether it was a point which had escaped his consideration?

MR. MELDON

said, his attention had not been attracted to this clause until the present moment; but now that it had been it occurred to him that the objections referred to had reference to the supplemental list. There were two lists, and the supplemental list did not exist in the boroughs at all. In the counties certain officials prepared the list, and they were absolutely responsible for it, and it was called a supplemental list. In the boroughs there was only the one list, and that included the names which had originally been on the list of voters for the previous year, and also the names of those who were entitled to come upon it. He certainly saw no objection to the Amendment proposed, so as to embrace the lists prepared by the officials in the boroughs also.

MR. TREVELYAN

suggested that the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) should change the words "and thirty-six" to the words "or thirty-six."

MR. HEALY

said, he had proposed "or" originally; but he was advised that "and" would be better. He was prepared to take whichever word was most acceptable to the Government.

MR. P. MARTIN

suggested that a better Amendment would be to say that any notice of objection given might be given according to the provisions of the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act. That would include both sections.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, that that, in point of fact, would be in accordance with the Amendment originally placed upon the matter by the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Corry)—namely, to leave out all reference to any particular section of the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act. On considering the Amendment he thought, on the whole, it was a preferable Amendment to that of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). Both hon. Members, however, were aiming at the same object.

MR. HEALY

said, he had no objection to substitute the words "or thirty-six" instead of "and thirty-six."

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, after "twenty-six," to insert "or thirty-six."—(Mr. Healy).

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GIBSON moved, in page 1, line 18, after "claimants," insert "or the supplemental list." He said, that Amendment dealt with the question already brought before the House on the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair. The object of the Amendment was to include the supplemental list as well as the original list, so that general notices of objection should apply to that list as well as to the original list. He presumed that the majority of hon. Members then present were in their places when he addressed the House on a former occasion, and it would be unreasonable and unbecoming if he were to go over the same ground again. The supplemental list was prepared by the officers of the Poor Law, who were gentlemen of great respectability, but who were not acquainted with the nature of the qualifications possessed by the persons whose names appeared on the list. All that the officers knew about the persons figuring on the list was that they had paid their rates, and it was only reasonable that there should be power given to serve a general notice of objection against a claim to appear on the list.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, after the word "claimants," to insert the words "or the supplemental list."—(Mr. Gibson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. MELDON

observed, that prior to 1868, when a person did forward a claim, unless it was objected to, he got upon the list of voters without being called upon to give any proof that his name was entitled to appear there. A change was then made in the law, and it was insisted that every claimant, whether he was objected to or not, should, in the first instance, be bound to go forward and prove his case. Consequently, at the present moment the onus was thrown upon the claimant, whether he was objected to or not, to come forward and prove his claim; but with regard to the supplemental list, a person whose name was upon that list, so far as two of the qualifications for voting were concerned—namely, rating and the payment of rates, was relieved from the onus of proof. At the present moment these supplemental lists were actually primâ facie evidence that the man whose name appeared on the list was rated, and that he had paid his rates. What was simply proposed to be done was to extend that primâ facie evidence to the other qualifications required for voting. Upon this ground the supplementallist, according to the evidence given before the Select Committee, was prepared in the most careful way; and in the great majority of cases—nine-tenths at least—experience proved that the persons put on that list were persons whose names were entitled to appear upon it. There were three officials connected with the preparation of the list—the Clerk of the Peace, the Clerk of the Union, and, in addition to the Clerk of the Union, the person who was primarily responsible—namely, the Poor Rate Collector, was made auxiliary to the preparation of the list. What the Bill did was this—it said that the Poor Rate Collector and the Clerk of the Union had such information at their disposal as to render it desirable that the nature of the qualification, when testified to by them, should be taken, not as conclusive evidence, but primâ facie evidence, upon the subject. The whole of the Inquiry of 1874, or, at any rate, the greater part of it, was directed towards that question—namely, Whether or not it would be safe to entrust the Clerk of the Union and the Poor Rate Collector with the duty of testifying to these facts, and whether the list might be regarded as having been sufficiently prepared to render it desirable that the testimony of these officers should be considered sufficient to establish certain facts in regard to the occupation and the nature of the occupation? The evidence upon the question was altogether one way both in 1869, when a Committee sat in reference to the English registration system, and in 1874. The evidence was conclusive that the Poor Rate Collector, travelling about from house to house, and having imposed upon him the duty of inserting in the rate book the name of every person rated for the relief of the poor, was the proper person to record these particular facts. The means of knowledge of the Poor Rate Collector were such that, unless something tantamount to a fraud was committed, a mistake could not be made by him. Upon that ground a minority of the Committee of 1874 substantially approved of the clause as it now stood. The Committee consisted of 15 Members, seven of whom voted for the Report, which contained a recommendation to this effect, while the remaining seven voted against it. The Committee was appointed at the time when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House were in power; and it was well known what power the Government of the day had in selecting the Members to serve upon a Committee. In this case, owing to the composition of the Committee, the number on each side was equal; and it was only by the casting vote of the Chairman that the recommendation for an alteration of the law was thrown out. Under these circumstances, he thought a case had been made out in support of the fact that the list was so well prepared by the Clerk of the Union, with the assistance of the Poor Rate Collector, as to justify the House in placing the onus upon the persons who prepared the list. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in 1880, moved the same Amendment, but did not press it to a Division. He hoped the clause would be allowed to stand in its present form.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

supported the Amendment moved by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), which he thought raised a point that could not be fairly and reasonably objected to. He and those who acted with him had no wish whatever to object to a person who had a fair right to appear upon the list. They had no wish to object to the claim of such person on the off-chance that by some device or trick the name might be struck off. He thought that would be a most dishonourable proceeding. At the same time, he thought that this supplemental list, especially in Ireland, was not always, and could not always be, so carefully prepared as it ought to be; and it was, therefore, right not to throw such obstacles in the way of objection to persons whose names appeared on the supplemental list as to make it impossible to frame objections. It was all very well to say that the Clerk of the Union, with the assistance of the Poor Rate Collector, ought to prepare an immaculate list; but those who lived in the country knew that that was not the case, and that without the slightest suspicion of fraud a great number of names were put on the list which had no business to appear upon it. What he maintained was that it would be very hard not to have the power of objecting to such names if there was reason to believe that the names had no legal right to be on the list. He distinctly repudiated any imputation that he desired to prevent anybody from exercising the franchise who had a right to enjoy it. The righ hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant wished it to be inferred that those with whom he acted were the only persons who desired to see all persons entitled to the franchise in full possession of it. He (Colonel King-Harman) and his hon. Friends had certainly no wish to take it away from them; but what they wanted was that there should not be a list provided which should contain the names of a large number of persons who were not entitled to be upon it.

DR. LYONS

said, as a matter of fact, persons, whether authorized or not, did, as the law now stood, object to voters who were fully entitled to be upon the Register, and were frequently able to carry their objections to a conclusive issue. He was an example of this in his own person. He had been kept off the list in two counties on account of frivolous objections, and he had not yet succeeded in having his name placed upon the Register in either of those counties. It so happened that he was a good deal occupied, either in the House of Commons or elsewhere, and frivolous notices of objection were served by persons of whom he had no knowledge whatever, the consequence of which had been that his name had been kept off the list of the County of Dublin and the County of Limerick for years. He might also state that on one occasion during his absence his name had been struck off the list for the City of Dublin; and it was only after a great deal of trouble, and employing a solicitor who attended on several occasions under circumstances of an unpleasant character, that he was able to substantiate his claim. It was against such improper practices as that that he protested.

MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)

said, he thought that the passing of the Bill would be facilitated by the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman), who had declared that it was the desire of himself and his Party to put everyone on the Register to whom the law had given a Parliamentary vote. But if anyone wanted protection, it was those who were on the supplemental list. It was a very simple matter to deal with those who had already established their claim. The persons they wanted to protect were those whose names were placed upon the list for the first time, who did not know the intricacies of the law, and who did not know how to proceed in order to substantiate their claim. He thought this was a most important part of the Bill, in order that persons whose names were placed on the list for the first time by the Registration Officers should be informed clearly what the objections against them were, so that they might be prepared to meet them at the proper time.

MR. GIBSON

said, that owing to the late period of the Session, he had no desire to raise a prolonged debate upon his Amendment. He did not, therefore, propose to put the Committee to the trouble of Dividing upon it, but he would allow it to be negatived.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. WARTON

said, he thought it would be necessary to make a verbal Amendment in lines 18 and 19. At present the words stood "that section;" but the clause had been made to apply to two sections—namely, 20 and 36. It would be necessary, therefore, to change the word "that," at the end of line 18, to "these," and the word "section," at the beginning of line 19, to "sections."

MR. P. MARTIN

suggested that the consequential Amendment should run in this way. The clause now applied to notices of objection given in Sections 26 and 36 of the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act, and he would move an Amendment to provide that the notice should be given according to the provisions of either of those sections respectively, omitting the words "that section" altogether.

MR. HEALY

said, he had a series of consequential Amendments to move, beginning at line 20.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, to insert the words "either of these sections respectively."—(Mr. P. Martin.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. PARNELL

remarked, that the sections in question referred to proceedings in connection with the registration of voters both in the counties and in the boroughs. Section 36 of the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act had reference to county elections; whereas Section 26 referred to elections in boroughs. Would it not, therefore, be better to say "under the provisions of Section 36 in regard to persons on the supplemental list in counties," and vice versâ?

THE CHAIRMAN

I wish to point out to the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) that the words he has placed in my hands are not in agreement with the words which follow. It would be nonsense to say the provisions of "either of these sections respectively," and then to add the words "that section."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, it was intended to strike out the two words—"that section."

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny did not say so.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 18 and 19, to leave out the words "that section."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HEALY moved, in line 20, to omit the words "section twenty-six of."

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, to leave out the words "section twenty-six of."—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. MACFARLANE

asked if a correction was not required in line 19?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the alteration suggested was not necessary.

Amendment negatived.

MR. H. G. ALLEN

moved, after the word "voters," in line 21, to insert the words "other than the notice to the Clerk of the Peace or the Town Clerk." In the English Act it was not required to give particulars of the objection to the officials; but, of course, they were required to be given to the voter himself. The words of that Act—28 Vict. c. 36 s. 6—were, "No notice shall be valid, other than a notice to the overseers, unless the ground of objection be specifically stated therein;" and, to make the present clause correspond with the provisions of the English Act, he begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 29, after the word "voters," to insers the words "other than notice to the Clerk of the Peace or the Town Clerk."—(Mr. H. G. Allen.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. MELDON

said, he was afraid the insertion of that Amendment would lead to a great deal of contention, and that nothing would be practically gained. The official who had charge of the matter prepared the list for the Revising Barrister, and in that list were stated the objections which had been made, so that at a glance the Revising Barrister could see what he had to adjudicate upon. There were different classes of objections, and it would be highly inconvenient to use the word "objection" without stating the nature of the objection. The only thing that would be saved was the scribbling which would be necessary in order to fill in the nature of the objections.

MR. H. G. ALLEN

remarked, that a different system was pursued in England. In the cases he had been accustomed, as a Revising Barrister of many years standing, to hear, full notice of the objections was given to the persons objected to; and he failed to see what useful purpose was accomplished by requiring a full explanation of the objections to be given to anyone else. The voter was the person to whom the information must be conveyed of the different grounds upon which he was objected to; but it was obviously superfluous to enter into such particulars upon the notice paper required to be put on a door, and an inconvenient, as well as useless, burden to be attached to the exercise of the statutory right of objecting.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

, while recognizing the experience of his hon. and learned Friend, with all due deference, said there would be considerable inconvenience to the Judge in deciding the case if he did not have a copy before him of the exact nature of the objections. It was calculated to avoid disputes and to lead to the convenience of the parties concerned.

MR. LEWIS

said, the clause as it stood provided that no notice of objection to any person upon any list of voters should be valid unless the ground or grounds of objection were specifically stated therein. This applied only to the notice given to the Clerk of the Peace or the Town Clerk. His experience or knowledge was not equal to that of the hon. and learned Member for Pembroke (Mr. H. G. Allen), although some years ago it was somewhat extensive; but he had in his mind what the practice was under the English Act, and it was this—that they gave to the voter a specific notice of objection, but that to the overseer they did not; and he did not know why they should give specific notice to the overseer. With that exception, no notice of objection was given under Section 26 to any person; it was distinctly confined to notice to the voter. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was labouring under a misapprehension, and that he intended his Amendment to refer to some other document than a simple notice to the voter.

MR. H. G. ALLEN

said, the clause referred to the list of claimants whose names appeared for the first time upon the list, and not to the persons the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) thought they referred to.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

was of opinion that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. H. G. Allen) had given no reason why the Committee should accept the Amendment. It was better to leave the clause as it stood.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, the conversation which had taken place proved one thing which he had long suspected before—namely, that although the Bill did not come before the Committee until the 14th of August, very few Members of the House, and especially those sitting on the Government Benches, were thoroughly acquainted with the provisions of the measure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland and the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) both appeared to be in a complete muddle about it. He believed the Bill would be greatly improved by discussion.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, he really could not understand what the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to. Personally, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) fully understood the clause, which was perfectly clear and intelligible, and so was the Amendment.

MR. LEWIS

asked the hon. and learned Member for Pembroke (Mr. H. G. Allen) to follow him for one moment while he explained that Section 26 quoted in the clause dealt with two different notices. There was the notice of objection to be given to the Clerk of the Peace, and the notice of objection to be given to the voter. The words they were now dealing with did not refer to the Clerk of the Peace, but only to the notice to be given to the voter; and why should they insert words in the clause to say that they did not apply to the Clerk of the Peace that which, as a matter of fact, they had not applied to him?

MR. H. G. ALLEN

said, he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEALY moved, in page 1, line 27, to leave out the word "may," and insert the word "shall," the object being to make the requirements of the clause obligatory.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 27, to leave out the word "may," and insert the word "shall."—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."

MR. GIBSON

said, the word in the Bill was "may," and he failed to see that any advantage would be derived from changing the Government drafting. [Mr. HEALY: What harm?] The hon. Member asked what harm. There might be some inconvenience; whereas there could be no advantage in making a change.

MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)

said, the provision of the clause, as it stood, was optional; whereas his hon. Friend proposed to make it imperative.

MR. HEALY

said, that if there was any objection to the Amendment he would withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the word "form," and insert the word "forms."—(Mr. Healy.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, after "(A,)" to insert "and (15) in Schedule (B) respectively."—(Mr. Healy.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Evidence of person objected to).

Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 3 and 4, to leave out the words "Section of the."—(Mr. Healy.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 (Each ground of objection to be treated as a separate objection).

MR. MAYNE moved, in page 2, line 17, to leave out the words "to the amount of at least two shillings and sixpence," and insert the words "a sum not exceeding two pounds nor less than seven shillings and sixpence."

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

said, he had an Amendment which came before that of the hon. Member, after the word "objection," in line 11. The clause proposed to enact that— Every separate ground of objection in any notice given in accordance with this Act shall be treated by the county court judge, chairman, or revising barrister as a separate objection. To that he did not object; but he proposed to omit the rest of the clause—namely, And for every such ground of objection which, in the opinion of the county court judge, chairman, or revising barrister, has been groundlessly or frivolously and vexatiously stated, he shall, on the application of the person objected to, or anyone on his behalf, and upon the production of the notice of objection, award costs against the objector to the amount of at least two shillings and sixpence, and this though the name of the person objected to he expunged upon some other ground of objection stated in the same notice of objection. He proposed to substitute the words of the 3rd sub-section of Clause 27 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registrations Act of 1878, which provided that where an objection was made to the name of a person which appeared on the list of voters, and the name was retained on the list, the Revising Barrister should, unless he was of opinion that the objection was reasonably made, or was occasioned by some error of entry in the books, or the difficulty of verifying such entry, or from some other special reason, order costs, not exceeding 40s., to be paid by the objector to the person objected to. He thought that provision, which was contained in the English Act, was more just and reasonable for both sides than the proposal contained in the present clause. Where an objector gave more than one reason for his objection, a discretionary power was given to the Revising Barrister under the English Act to award costs. On the other hand, the amount of costs that could be awarded was a reasonable amount, and it was discretionary with the Revising Barrister to give costs up to the limit. He would not detain the Committee by any argument in support of the Amendment. The clause had been very well considered in the English Act, and it appeared to him to be a better clause than the one now proposed. He understood one great object was to assimilate the law of Ireland to the law of England, as far as possible, in registration matters, and he therefore proposed the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 11, after the word "objection," to leave out all the words down to the word "least," in line 17, in order to insert—"That where the objection is made otherwise than by the overseer to any person whose name appears on the list of voters, and the name is retained on the list, the revising barrister shall, unless he is of opinion that the objection was reasonably made, either on account of error in the books, or the difficulty of verifying such entry, or for some other special reason, order costs not exceeding 40s. to be paid by the objector to the person objected to."—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. LEWIS

said, he thought his hon. and learned Friend had fallen into one of those difficulties which people frequently fell into when they were doing things in a hurry. The Act from which his hon. and learned Friend had selected this clause, applied alike to Parliamentary and Municipal boroughs, and not to counties at all. Nevertheless, it was now proposed to apply it to counties. It was perfectly obvious that in regard to boroughs there were considerations as to the knowledge of the objector which might be very different from those which applied to a large county, and there might be, therefore, good reasons for making a difference. The argument in favour of the clause was that under the precedent established by the Act of 1865 they ought to fine the objector for any failure to make good his objections; but it would certainly be a curious anomaly to take a clause out of the English Registration Act, which alluded only to boroughs, and to say that, "because you have that provision in regard to English boroughs, you must make it applicable to both boroughs and counties in Ireland." He thought that was a very singular mode of dealing with the question for an English Member to adopt, and he therefore preferred the clause as it had been drawn by the Government.

MR. MELDON

said, that another objection which he took to the Amendment was that in the Act of 1878 there were provisions for the withdrawal of objections, but there was no provision of that kind in the present Bill; and, as far as he could see, the proposal of the hon. and learned Member was altogether inapplicable to the section now under discussion. The object of the clause was to make it compulsory upon the Revising Barrister to award costs in every case where an objector failed to substantiate his objection. There were eight different grounds of objection which might be stated; and it was thought better to make the penalty in each case small, as it might be repeated eight times over, rather than give a discretionary power to the Revising Barrister to award a large penalty.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. MAYNE

said, he thought that after the discussion which had taken place upon the last proposal the Committee would probably be prepared to accept the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper. He proposed to fix both a maximum and a minimum penalty. He feared that the maximum named in the Bill was much too small, and that in Ireland it would not operate in the way the framers of the Bill intended that it should operate. What he desired was to put a stop to frivolous objections. There were Registration Associations in various parts of Ireland, who, if they happened to be in funds, would think nothing of spending a large number of half-crowns in order to pursue their system of objections, which they at present found so successful. He therefore proposed to omit the words "two shillings and sixpence," and to substitute "not exceeding two pounds nor less than seven shillings and sixpence."

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 30, to leave out "to the amount of at least two shillings and sixpence," and insert "a sum not exceeding two pounds nor less than seven shillings and sixpence."—(Mr. Mayne.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he did not think it desirable that the Committee should adopt the Amendment, although he could well understand the ground upon which the hon. Member brought it forward. If they departed from the penalties fixed in the Bill in one direction they would find it very difficult to refuse to depart from them in another. Nor did he consider that the reasons given by the hon. Member were adequate, in this instance, to justify a departure. It did not necessarily follow that 2s. 6d. would be the maximum penalty, or that that would be the amount of the fine in all cases. No doubt, the duty of the overseers would be rendered more complicated by a great number of objections; and it was necessary to take care that the fine should be of such a description as to prevent frivolous objections. It was not the question of a single half-crown fine; but if the objections were frivolous they would have to be repeated upon different grounds. No doubt, if the penalty were trifling, it would afford an opportunity for making general fishing objections, and the objector would endeavour to hit his victim all round in the hope that his objections might succeed. But if a person simply gave notice of objections at random he would probably find that he would have to pay a fine, not at a minimum rate of 2s. 6d., but up to 5s., 10s., and even a larger sum. That being the case, he did not think the hon. Member had given sufficient reason for increasing the maximum penalty.

MR. CALLAN

said, that he had a larger experience, probably with the exception of the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), than any hon. Member, as an Irish barrister practising at Petty Sessions, and he must say that the objections of the Chief Secretary did not carry any great weight with him. The clause provided that the objections must be groundless, frivolous, and vexatious, and he was of opinion that the fine of 2s. 6d., in a case where a country farmer had had to travel a distance of 18 miles and then find that the objections served upon him were not gone into, was absurd. Nevertheless, he had known costs applied for under such circumstances, which the Revising Barrister had declined to allow. Seeing that the clause was safeguarded by requiring that the County Court Judge, Chairman, or Revising Barrister should be of opinion that the objection had been groundlessly or frivolously and vexatiously stated, 10s. at least ought to be the minimum penalty. It was all very well for well-paid officials, like the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General, to oppose this proposition; but he was satisfied that no country farmer in the month of October, when he was digging his potatoes or harvesting his crops, would desire to go 10 or 15 miles to answer an objection, even if he got 10s. for his trouble.

MR. MELDON

said, he thought the provision contained in the Bill was really a reasonable one. It was not the infliction of any fine or penalty, but a provision where a man made an objection and failed to substantiate it to indemnify the person objected to for the cost he had incurred. The section provided that on the application of the person objected to the costs he had been put to might be awarded by the Revising Barrister, and that in all cases no less a sum than 2s. 6d. should be awarded. If a man did not employ a solicitor, but simply defended his claim himself, he would not be put to any cost at all, and in that case to award 7s. 6d. would be simply to open the door to fraud, and a number of men might serve notices of objections on their friends for the sole purpose of obtaining costs. It was only the costs that were to be awarded, and not a penalty inflicted. If they were to fix a penalty they might make it any sum they pleased; but in the case of a person who did not employ a solicitor or a barrister, surely 2s. 6d. was the utmost sum he was entitled to for costs, seeing that he was not to be paid for the loss of time or the trouble he had been put to in appearing to vindicate his claim, and he simply received the sum to indemnify him against the costs he was out of pocket. It would be altogether a new thing to insert in a Bill of this kind a provision that because a man attended a Court in person he would thereby be indemnified in a sum of 7s. 6d. or more. He thought that the proposal was not only dangerous, but that there was no precedent for it. The clause, as it now stood, provided that 2s. 6d. should be paid as costs, and that it might be left to the discretion of the County Court Judge, Chairman, or Revising Barrister whether a larger sum was awarded.

MR. PARNELL

said, he thought that as the object of the Bill was, as far as possible, to assimilate the registration in Ireland to that in England, they ought not to press the Government to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. TATTON EGERTON

said, the last part of the clause provided that the costs should be awarded for the failure of an objection, although the name of the person objected to was struck off the list upon some other ground of objection. He thought the last part of the clause might be omitted without any damage to the Bill, and he would therefore move to omit all the words after the words "two shillings and sixpence."

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 18, to leave out from the word "and" to the word "objection," in line 20.—(Mr. Tatton Egerton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. HEALY

said, he thought the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member was one of the most extraordinary that had been suggested. Its simple object was to give to objecting agents the chance of firing three or four shots, and if they failed in three and brought down their bird with the last one, then they were to sustain no penalty at all. All that it would be necessary for the objector to do was to make as many objections as possible, on the chance that he might hit a blot in some way. The Amendment would simply encourage fishing objections.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he thought the opposition of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was hardly reasonable. If a large number of objections were made, and they failed to bring down the bird, then the objector would be liable to a fine for each objection he had made, and the Revising Barrister would have no difficulty in deciding that the grounds of objection were frivolous and vexatious. There were many cases in which two or three objections might seem perfectly reasonable and fair, but which were very difficult to prove. He would suggest to his hon. Friend (Mr. Tatton Egerton) that he should accept the Amendment which came next, and which proposed to omit the last part of the clause, and to insert— Unless the name of the person objected to be expunged upon some one of such objections.

MR. PARNELL

said, he thought the Committee ought to adhere to the principle which had guided them in dealing with the last Amendment. The English Act required the fine to be inflicted in respect of every objection that was not sustained, although one objection was sustained, and he saw no reason why they should depart from that principle in the Irish Bill.

MR. MELDON

wished to point out that, in point of principle, the Amendment differed from the rest of the clause. The clause avoided giving any discretion to the Revising Barrister as to awarding costs. It was possible to have objections sowed broadcast by one side or the other, and often, when that course was pursued, costs were not asked; but it would be fatal to that system if any discretion as to awarding costs was given to the Revising Barrister. If the Committee struck out these words in every case where one ground of objection was successful, notwithstanding that a number of other objections had failed, the Revising Barrister would have a discretion in regard to allowing costs, and that would set aside the real principle of the Bill.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, the Revising Barrister had a discretion at present. It would be within his discretion to decide that the objection was frivolous, and having done so he would be bound to order costs.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the Government could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, they saw strong reasons against it. The clause followed the Act of 1865, and he thought it was very desirable that they should adhere to the principle of the clause. The principle of the Bill was that an objector should put himself to the trouble of making the inquiries beforehand; and if he made one good objection, that did not justify him in making two or three others which were bad. There could be no doubt that if they allowed an objector to make five or six objections with impunity, whether he substantiated them or not, it would be exactly the same thing as allowing a general objection.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (Costs to be awarded not to exceed £5).

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had placed an Amendment on the Paper to leave out "five pounds," and insert "forty shillings." He wished to know whether that Amendment would leave the Bill in the same condition as the English Act?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, the clause, as it stood now, was in the position of the English Act.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Proceedings on objections).

MR. HEALY

said, he presumed this would be the proper place for inserting the Amendment he had given Notice of upon the 3rd clause—namely, to provide that this section should come into operation immediately upon the passing of the Act. He wished to make one remark with regard to the Amendment. The Bill, on the whole, and very properly so, was not retrospective, and it would be very unfair to make its provisions retrospective in regard to the objections already served. He should, therefore, be sorry to propose anything of the kind. But what he did propose was that when objections were served, the onus of proof should he thrown on the objectors. In view of the fact that a General Election was expected next year, the fate of the Election would probably very much depend upon the result of the next revision. If the Amendment were agreed to, it would have no penal consequences whatever, and in no way would it hurt or damage any individual. Unless it could be urged that the persons who now made objections in Ireland had a vested right in those objections to keep people off the list, it would be sufficient to say that the Clerk of the Peace or the Town Clerk should be the only objector whose objection was to prevail. He did not see how the Government could contend, in passing a law to simplify the registration, that in face of the thousands of objections which had been served in the county of Dublin during the last three months the Act should not come into force until next January, and that during the next three months the persons objected to should be put to all the trouble and expense which it was the object of the present measure to prevent. He did not propose that the other provisions of the Act should come into operation at once, but simply this clause, which required that a private objection to the voter should be sustained by primâ facie proof that there was good ground for making it. Unless it could be said that they had an interest in the efforts which had been long continued to keep persons entitled to vote out of their just rights, he did not see how the Government could object to this section having immediate application. He trusted hon. Members below the Gangway on that side would, in this instance, receive the support of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman).

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 43, to add—"And this subsection shall come into operation immediately after the passing of this Act, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in section 3 hereof."—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. LEWIS

said, it would be very objectionable to introduce a violent innovation of this sort, which would hardly reach the minds of the parties concerned in it before the Act came into operation. The hon. Member said that no penalty should ensue; but he (Mr. Lewis) was not clear that under Clause 6, together with Clause 8, a man might not be fined. He trusted the Government would not agree to the Amendment, because he thought that all parts of the Act ought to come into operation at the same time.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he was of the same opinion as his hon. Friend with regard to the Amendment. There was, no doubt, a good deal in the suggestion that the new system could not come into operation too soon; but he could conceive that when a Bill was introduced, altering the whole system of registration, it might be dangerous to enact that the date which governed the Bill as a whole should not govern a particular part of it. He thought, also, that there should not be any temptation given to introduce provisions so as to suit the case of any particular election. But his chief objection to the Amendment was that it referred to a new and supplemental list of voters.

MR. HEALY

said, he was surprised to hear the objection of the right hon. Gentleman to the Amendment; but as he could not expect to carry it against the Government, he would ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Miscellaneous.

Clause 9 (Poor rate collectors to enter objections on list. Certain provisions of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 69, to apply to poor rate collectors) agreed to.

Clause 10 (Poor rate collectors to attend revision court).

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 28, to leave out from the words "ratebooks" to the word "shall," in line 30.—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he felt sure that these words were intended to effect a certain improvement in the present system. He was told there might be some officers having the custody of the rate books whose duty it ought to be to attend before the County Court Judge. The words proposed to be struck out provided for that case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11 (Remuneration to poor rate collectors).

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, to leave out the word "may," and insert the word "shall."—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."

MR. MELDON

said, he hoped this Amendment would be adopted by the Government, so as to make the payment to the Poor Rate Collectors, who discharged duties under the Act, compulsory upon the Guardians. These persons prepared the supplementary lists, and it was upon them that the real work in this matter devolved. The Clerks of the Union were largely paid for the work they were supposed to do; but it was the Poor Rate Collectors who actually did the work, and up to the present time they had worked satisfactorily at preparing the lists. But it was now proposed to throw them over by leaving it to the option of the Guardians whether they should be paid or not. If work was imposed upon them by the Act it was only fair that they should be paid; and for that reason he should vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend if he went to a Division.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would accept the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. HEALY

said, the next Amendment of his on the Paper was consequential upon that which had just been agreed to. Irish Members objected to giving an annual allowance, and he thought the fairest way of settling the matter was to give the Poor Rate Collectors that allowance which they received under the 9th section of the Juries Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1876. He understood there was no objection to this on the part of the officers themselves.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 41, to leave out from the word "Guardians" to end of Clause, and insert the words "now allow under the ninth section of 'The Juries Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1876.'"—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he thought there ought to be some supervision over this matter of allowances to Poor Rate Collectors.

MR. HEALY

said, he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not understand the matter thoroughly. The system he advocated was already adopted by the Poor Law Board. He would find the amount fixed by a Minute of the Privy Council.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he understood the matter perfectly well, and it was for that reason he wished to see the payments to Poor Rate Collectors under the control of some responsible authority.

MR. TREVELYAN

pointed out that the Poor Rate Collectors would be liable for any breach of duty—that was to say, if they did not do their work properly. Under the circumstances, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would, perhaps, withdraw his opposition to the Amendment, which the Government were willing to agree to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)

said, the clause which he was about to ask the Committee to read a second time was not intended to make any alteration in the existing franchise. It was intended to assimilate the law of Ireland in that respect to the law of England. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, on introducing this Bill, said that the spirit of it was to make genuine that which Parliament had already granted. Now, Parliament had granted a vote to every occupier in Ireland rated at over £4 in boroughs, and to every occupier rated at £12 in counties; but, notwithstanding that, a large number of those persons did not get on the Register, owing to omission on the part of the Poor Rate Collectors. There were from this cause 12,000 people in Dublin alone precluded from voting, and he believed the number similarly situated throughout Ireland would not amount to less than 86,000. That was due to the people in Ireland not being possessed of those facilities which were given in this country. The clause which he now asked the Committee to read a second time was one of a series which he proposed to insert in the Bill in order to carry out the object he had described, and which he trusted would meet with the favourable consideration of the Government.

New Clause:— (Poor rate collectors to return occupiers under penalty.) The poor rate collector shall, in every case where the valuation of any rateable hereditament is over four pounds, enter in the occupiers' column of the rate hook the name of the occupier, and, if any poor rate collector negligently or wilfully, and without reasonable cause, omits the name of such occupier, or wilfully misstates any name therein, such rate collector shall, for every such omission he liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding two pounds: Provided, That any occupier whose name has been omitted shall, notwithstanding such, and that no claim to be rated has been made by him, be entitled to every qualification and franchise depending upon such rating, in the same manner as if his name had not been so omitted, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the 6 and 7 Vic. c. 92, or in 12 and 13 Vic. c. 91, sec. 63,"—(Mr. Dawson,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. GIBSON

said, he protested entirely against the clause of the hon. Member for Carlow, which would be equivalent to the incorporation of a fresh Bill with the present measure. Her Majesty's Government, after mature deliberation, had introduced a Bill of 14 clauses, to which the hon. Member now suggested the addition of four others, which would have no less effect than that of converting a Registration Bill into a very considerable Reform Bill. They could not consider a Registration Bill at that time of the Session, which had been duly weighed and debated by the House on its various stages; and, assuredly, they could not reasonably be asked to assent to four clauses which would have the effect he had described, and which had not even been read a second time. Certainly he would be no party to the introduction of the clause. He protested against that or any other new clauses being added to the Bill.

MR. PARNELL

said, the clause which his hon. Friend had moved was one which he thought might be fairly pressed on the attention of the Government, in order that the measure might be saved from being merely an assimilation of the Irish law with that of England in respect of a most imperfect system of registration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the clause of his hon. Friend conferred a new franchise. It did nothing of the kind; it was only to amend the present franchise, and it was a provision for preventing the intention of Parliament in passing the Franchise Act from being defeated by provisions in connection with the registration of voters in Ireland. It was, therefore, from every point of view, a most reasonable clause, and it would further go in the direction of making the present measure complete, inasmuch as, in its present form, the Bill only related to a portion of the Irish constituencies, and practically did not touch the system of borough registration in Ireland at all. If it was right that the franchise which the law had conferred upon persons in the Irish counties should be exercised, and that the difficulties left in the way of obtaining that franchise by the law relating to registration should be removed, it was also right that the franchise which the law conferred on persons living in boroughs in Ireland should also be exercised, and that the difficulties in the way of that should be removed likewise—that the path should be made smooth, as was done by the English Acts, for the Irish voters, whether in counties or boroughs, to obtain the very limited franchise which Parliament allowed to Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland. The clause of his hon. Friend went no farther than the English Act provided, and he said the Government could not oppose it except by violating the principles they had advocated.

MR. TOTTENHAM

concurred with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) that this clause was, practically, a new Bill in itself, and he thought before they proceeded any further the Committee were entitled to know whether or not it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to accept it?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the question they had to consider was whether it was more important to pass this Bill now than it was to make it a complete Bill in the sense indicated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Anything which could be devised that would settle this difficulty once for all, Her Majesty's Government would be ready to assist in promoting. The clause of the hon. Member for Carlow, he must own, did not appear to him perfectly fitted to meet the case. He thought that unless some more specific words were introduced into the clause it would not effect the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view. But he earnestly hoped the House would take this opportunity of making the franchise a real one. The clauses which followed, though taken from the English Act, appeared to him to weight the Bill. On the main point, he did not think they ought to let the Bill leave the House until they put on record their intention that every Irishman should have the vote which in 1868 Parliament laid down should be possessed by every Englishman and Scotchman. In most of the Irish towns, he was informed that the vote was at present enjoyed by the citizens; but in the capital of Ireland the franchise, which Parliament intended to be a £4 franchise, had become, in reality, an £8 franchise. The course he should propose to be taken was that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) should withdraw this clause without reference as to whether he would or would not pass the other clauses of which he (Mr. Trevelyan) did not complain, and over which probably there would be no serious dispute or discussion. The matter was grave enough for the Government to prefer to put a new clause, or new clauses, on the Paper, in order to secure the object which they certainly believed ought to be secured.

MR. GIBSON

said, that a more remarkable speech could not have been made by a Minister than that which had just been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who was in charge of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman obtained the second reading of the Bill, on Tuesday, the 4th of August, upon the ground that the Government had well considered the requirements of the Irish Registration Law; that the Government had had before them all that related to the matter; and that the subject had been thoroughly threshed out by them before they submitted the Bill to the House. This was the way they got the measure read a second time at the beginning of August. To-day, when the present stage of the Bill was reached, the Speaker was moved out of the Chair by a gesture, it being thought that the measure did not require any explanation, although every one of the clauses to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had just made such remarkable reference had been on the Paper for 10 days. When the Chief Secretary had in his mind any of those strange opinions to which he had just given utterance, it was his business to have made some short statement when he moved the Speaker out of the Chair, in order to put the House in possession of what the views of the Government were. More than that, he (Mr. Gibson) begged leave to say that it was the duty of the Chief Secretary, and of his right hon. and learned Colleague the Attorney General for Ireland, to have taken steps to re-commit the Bill, and to have introduced such new Clauses and Amendments as they thought necessary and essential. The Chief Secretary had not for the first time thought out this question. He (Mr. Gibson) assumed that, as was the right hon. Gentleman's duty and business, the right hon. Gentleman had considered these clauses, which had been on the Paper for 10 days, and had made up his mind as to which were right and which were wrong, which could be adopted without amendment, and which needed amendment. If that were so, he asked, had not the Committee a right to expect that the new clauses which the Chief Secretary now seemed to desire to submit on a later stage, in substitution for the clauses they were now discussing—had they not a right to demand that these new clauses should be put on the Paper, instead of being sprung upon the Committee at a time when they would have much less opportunity of considering them? He should like to know what was the opinion and decision of the Government in reference to the clauses they were now discussing. Suppose, as was within his right, the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) said—"I stand firmly by my clause; I am fond of my own progeny"—was the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant going to vote with the hon. Member? He assumed that the right hon. Gentleman would do so. [Mr. TREVELYAN dissented.] Then the right hon. Gentleman was not going to vote with the hon. Member; and it turned out that all the time the hon. Member for Carlow had been thinking the right hon. Gentleman was his friend, he was really an enemy in disguise. The right hon. Gentleman said that this clause required amendment. Where, and how? As a matter of fact, these new clauses created a perfectly new Bill—a very substantial new Bill. He (Mr. Gibson) declined, however, to enter into this discussion at that time of the day. The Chief Secretary had entered upon an emasculated discussion. The right hon. Gentleman had hinted that he would, and that he would not, and that he would if he could, and could if he would, and then he wound up by saying he was not prepared to vote for the second reading of this clause. He (Mr. Gibson) should like to know what was the meaning of the Chief Secretary's statement as to the other five clauses, which he had said would weight the Bill. If they added the five clauses to the 13 they would weight the Bill to the extent of five clauses; but then he should like to know whether the Chief Secretary had resolved that he would adopt the five clauses? He (Mr. Gibson) was in considerable doubt on the subject, and he would be glad if, before they passed from this stage of the Bill, they were given to understand what the new clauses were which the Chief Secretary said he was ready to introduce at a later stage of the Bill. He was of opinion that if anything were wanting to justify the observation he made at the outset of this discussion it had been amply and overwhelmingly supplied by the speech of the Chief Secretary. They had been asked to read this Bill a second time as a piece of matured and well thought-out legislation; and now it turned out that the Government had not embodied all their ideas in the Bill, but that they desired to introduce new clauses, which would give efficacy and reality to the measure. The House had thought that the efficacy and reality was to be found in the 13 clauses which originally formed the Bill. It was not his province, or his business, to give advice to Her Majesty's Government; but, still, people got very benevolent in the month of August; and he would venture to give this parting advice to the Government—that, as they had not at present made up their minds as to what where the clauses they were prepared to introduce into the Bill, it might be as well for them to devote the months of September, October, November, December, and January to the maturing of a new Bill; and he had no doubt that the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson), with that urbanity and readiness which characterized him, would be quite willing to confer with the Chief Secretary, and give him any assistance he could in the framing of the new clauses.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken in very strong and decided terms, and he seemed to hold decided opinions on this matter; but he (Mr. Trevelyan) did not consider that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said anything to invalidate the position he (Mr. Trevelyan) had taken up on this clause. He imagined that the object of this clause was to place the voter in Ireland in the same position as the voter in England—that was to say, that he should not be deprived of his vote by the fact that his rates were paid by his landlord. In his (Mr. Trevelyan's) opinion, the first of the new clauses now under review, taken by itself, was not sufficient for the purpose, and for that reason he desired time to consider the matter. He should be certainly unwilling to pass a clause, or be a party to passing a clause, which held out to the Irish voter expectations which could not be realized. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) considered that the Government were in a disagreeable position in this matter. He (Mr. Trevelyan) thought they would be in a much more disagreeable position if, at the next registration, thousands of people who expected to have conferred upon them the privileges enjoyed by the English voter found they had obtained no such privileges. This was the position which he tools; up upon this 1st clause, and he regarded it as the most important of the new clauses proposed by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson). He declined to commit himself to the exact words which he should propose to introduce; but they would be words to the effect that the fact of the rates not being paid personally should be no disqualification in Ireland any more than in England. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the Government had not made up their minds about the remaining five clauses. They had made up their minds about those clauses; and the decision they had come to was that the clauses, taken one after another, applied in Ireland just as much as they applied in England. If hon. Members met those clauses with that qualified opposition which would enable them to pass through the House, the Government would be glad to see them inserted in the Bill. On the grounds which he had now stated, he should certainly, generally speaking, support the introduction of these English clauses into the Bill; and on the grounds he had also stated he should certainly ask the hon. Member (Mr. Dawson) to withdraw his first and principal clause, and to allow the Government to bring up on Report the clause amended in such a manner as would make it more acceptable to the general body of the House.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, that when he suggested that it was difficult to clearly understand the position which the Government had taken up in this matter, he was sharply rebuked by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland; but he thought that what had now taken place fully justified his remark. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland had for some time past not only had their own Bill to consider, but three or four other Registration Bills, and at last they had brought in a Bill which, it seemed to him, they never intended to push to a second reading. They had, however, found themselves obliged to proceed, and they had floundered the Bill through the stage of second reading; while now, in Committee, they came suddenly upon an Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson), which they had not considered. After what had just been said, he did not think it would be consistent with self-respect to take any further part in the discussion upon the Bill.

MR. HEALY

said, one would have thought, after listening to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson)—a speech which was full of sound and fury—that the proposal now before the Committee was not one for the object of giving to the Irish voters what Parliament intended to give them 15 years ago. Fifteen years ago Parliament intended to give a vote to men in Ireland rated at £4; but the franchise actually given had resolved itself into one of £8. Parliament now proposed to set to rights the wrong which was committed so long go. The disgrace was not that the Government had accepted this Amendment, but that they had not long ago put some machinery in motion to correct the mistake of 15 years since. It had been said that the Government had fumbled through the second reading. If there had been any fumbling in the matter it had been on the side of the Opposition, who could only manage to get 17 votes against 90 on the second reading; while to-day, on going into Committee, they were absolutely deserted by their own Party. The fact was that the Conservatives below and above the Gangway would not be parties to this miserable attempt to prevent the Irish voter from having that which Parliament was willing 15 years ago to give him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) were, at the present moment, isolated and alone. They were not only alone in the House, but alone in the country, for their friends thought more of shooting grouse than of conferring the franchise upon the unfortunate people of Ireland. As to the Chief Secretary, he (Mr. Healy) was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, in accepting this Amendment, made any reservation whatever. If the Amendment required any alteration it was in the direction suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Mayne). He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would remember that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on that (the Opposition) side of the House really represented no one but themselves. They did not oven represent their own Party, for their own Party had deserted them. One of them represented a constituency—Trinity College—which would probably be abolished; and the other, who represented the County of Dublin, would certainly, whether this Bill passed or not, find himself in a minority at the next General Election.

MR. DAWSON

accepted the proposition the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had made, because it was clear that the right hon. Gentleman had grasped the object which he (Mr. Dawson) had in view. The right hon. Gentleman had clearly enunciated, in a few short sentences, the object contemplated; and he (Mr. Dawson) should be glad now to leave the matter in the right hon. Gentleman's hands. He should also leave the second clause in the hands of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman would see that this second clause was really consequential upon the first. He would now ask leave to withdraw the first clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DAWSON

, in moving his clause dealing with the question of lodgers, said, the law gave every person in England and Ireland alike the lodger franchise under certain conditions; but great difficulty was felt by lodgers in making their claims. For instance, persons belonging to this class had experienced great difficulty in obtaining permission from their employers to attend the Revision Court; and, as a matter of fact, many of them never made their claims. What he desired was to apply to Ireland the 41 & 42 Vict., c. 26, s. 23, so that the declaration of the lodger should be primâ facie evidence of his qualification. The second paragraph of the clause provided that— Lodgings occupied by a person in any year or two successive years shall not be deemed to be different lodgings by reason only that in that year, or in either of those years, he has occupied some other rooms or place in addition to his original lodgings. This proposal was taken from the English Act; and he did not, therefore, anticipate that any objection could be raised to it. The next paragraph provided that— For the purpose of qualifying a lodger to vote, the occupation in immediate succession of different lodgings of the requisite value in the same house shall have the same effect as continued occupation of the same lodgings. The following paragraph dealt with the joint occupation of lodgings by one or more lodgers.

New Clause:— (Declaration of lodger to be primâ facie evidence—41 & 42 Vic. c. 26, s. 23.) In the case of a person claiming to vote as a lodger, the declaration annexed to his notice of claim shall for the purposes of revision be primâ facie evidence of his qualification. Lodgings occupied by a person in any year or two successive years shall not be deemed to be different lodgings by reason only that in that year, or in either of those years he has occupied some other rooms or place in addition to his original lodgings. For the purpose of qualifying a lodger to vote, the occupation in immediate succession of different lodgings of the requisite value in the same house shall have the same effect as continued occupation of the same lodgings. Where lodgings are jointly occupied by more than one lodger, and the clear yearly value of the lodgings if let unfurnished is of an amount which, when divided by the number of the lodgers, gives a sum of not less than ten pounds for each lodger, then each lodger, if otherwise qualified and subject to the provisions of 'The Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868,' shall he entitled to be registered, and when registered to vote as a lodger: Provided, That not more than two persons being such joint lodgers shall be entitled to be registered in respect of such lodgings. In and for the purposes of 'The Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868,' and this Act, the term 'lodgings' shall include any apartments or place of residence, whether furnished or unfurnished, in a dwelling-house,"—(Mr. Damson,)

—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. GIBSON

declined to discuss the clauses further, and he only desired to point out that this was not strictly a Registration Clause; but, as far as there was meaning in the English language, it was a Reform Bill Clause. For instance, the fourth paragraph of the clause provided for the case of joint occupation of lodgings by more than one lodger. Now, under the existing "Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868," the persons who were dealt with had not the right to vote before the measure was passed; but the effect of the legal operation of the section now proposed would be that people who had not at present the right to vote would be given votes. A Registration Bill was a Bill conferring on those who, under the existing law, had a right to be registered as voters, facilities for registration. This clause, however, was not calculated to afford facilities for registration only, but to give the franchise to persons who were really not entitled to it. This was really a burlesque of legislation.

MR. TOTTENHAM

asked the Chairman whether the clause now proposed was not foreign to the intention of the Bill under discussion; and whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) was in Order in moving such a clause?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the hon. Member was perfectly in Order in moving the clause. The proposal was simply to insert in a Registration Bill clauses which were found in a former Registration Act.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, that when the Chairman had first put the clause he had said he regarded all the paragraphs of it together.

Motion agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN

called upon Colonel King-Harman.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he declined to move the Amendment standing in his name—namely, the insertion of the following clause:— Any person aggrieved by any decision of a Court of Revision under 'The Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act, 1851,' may appeal therefrom to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland.

MR. HEALY

said, he could understand how it was that the hon. and gallant Member and hon. Members above the Gangway, their forces having deserted them, assumed the attitude of despair. He begged to move the next new clause on the Paper.

New Clause:— (Evening sittings of revision courts.) Every barrister appointed to revise the lists for a Parliamentary borough containing, according to the last census for the time being, more than ten thousand inhabitants, shall hold at least one evening sitting of his court in such borough. An evening sitting shall commence not earlier than six nor later than seven o'clock in the evening, and shall be of such duration as, in the opinion of the revising barrister, shall be reasonable. Special notice or notices of an evening sitting or of evening sittings to be held in a borough shall be published by the town clerk in such manner as the revising barrister may direct,"—(Mr. Healy,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. TREVELYAN

said, this clause had been put down too recently for Her Majesty's Government to give it serious consideration. [Mr. HEALY: It is in the English Act.] That might be; but he was not sure that the provision was one which would apply satisfactorily to Ireland. The existing grievanee was admitted, and the question was whether this clause would not raise in Ireland grievances greater than that it would remove? On that ground he could not assent to it.

MR. DAWSON

said, he could give the Committee some practical information on this point. He had to preside over the Municipal Revision Courts in Dublin; and he found that it was impossible for artizans and clerks, and persons of that nature, to leave their employment and attend these Courts during the ordinary hours for holding them. He had, consequently, exerted his authority as Lord Mayor, and had held evening Courts, and the result had been that he had admitted to the franchise a great many people who had a right to it, who, nevertheless, would not have put in an appearance to claim it had it not been for the course he had adopted. This clause was confined to towns of more than 10,000 inhabitants, which, obviously, would not include many places in Ireland. It would include some, however, where the operatives were not able to attend at day sittings of the Court. The object of the Bill was to give facilities for voting; but it was no use enabling a person to obtain a vote if he could not attend the Court to claim it. The right hon. Gentleman would see it was only fair and just that the opportunity now sought to be obtained for poor people to prefer their claims to be put upon the Register should be granted.

DR. LYONS

said, that if they were to have an effective system of registration in Ireland such a clause as this was necessary. It was unreasonable to ask a respectable tradesman or artizan to sacrifice a day's work, or it might be several days' work, through attendance at the Registration Court. Even where a gentleman of position attended the Court to get his name put upon the Register he frequently had to go again on the following day—he might not be called on at the time which was most convenient to him. He (Dr. Lyons) could state this as a fact, for he himself had had to attend personally under these conditions. He had been struck off the Register of the City of Dublin, and had been obliged to attend two days in succession before his case was called on. It was hopeless to expect to extend the franchise to all working men, and to expect them to attend the Revision Court day after day, at the loss of their wages, in order to secure the right of recording a vote. The refusal of this clause would be a direct violation of the principle of the Bill, which was to give the franchise to all those who were fairly entitled to it. He would strongly recommend this matter to the attention of the Government.

MR. BULWER

said, he could not refrain from expressing his astonishment that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant should, without the slightest demur, accept important Amendments moved by hon. Members below the Gangway which had nothing whatever to do with registration, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had pointed out, and should throw difficulties in the way of accepting such an obvious Amendment as this. Everybody knew that in the large towns and cities of this country, where there were a great many poor voters, the Revising Barristers did sit in the evenings. If they had wanted an illustration of straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel they could not have had a better one than the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had just given them.

MR. HEALY

said, he had not understood the right hon. Gentleman to give him an absolute refusal. He had understood him to say that he had not had time to consider the clause, owing to its having been only just put upon the Paper. The Amendment had not only just been put upon the Paper. It had been down three days; therefore, it must have, accidentally, escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice. He (Mr. Healy) would put it down on the Report. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer) said the Amendment was an obvious one; and, that being so, and there being no objection to it on either side, he hoped the Government would give it their favourable consideration.

MR. TREVELYAN

If the hon. Member will put the Amendment down for Report we will consider it.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEALY

said, he had another new clause to propose, requiring the Guardians of the Poor, in boroughs other than in Dublin, and in Dublin the Collector General of Rates, to give notice to the occupier of premises capable of conferring the Parliamentary franchise, in cases where the rates remained unpaid, that such rates were due. At present the practice was this—in County Monaghan, for instance, in regard to which he was able to speak, a man received notice on the 30th of June that his rates were due, and then, perhaps, two or three days afterwards, he received a summons or writ for the amount. The receipt of such summons or writ was the first intimation he received of the fact that his rates were due. Where there was strong Party feeling in a county these matters were watched very keenly by the officials, who took care not to give any notice that the rates were due. The moment they were due summonses and writs were issued for payment, the ratepayers in arrear being mulcted in costs. That was very unfair, and were tactics which, even where strong partizanship prevailed, ought not to be resorted to. The new clause would do away with these unfair tactics, would prevent many people from being improperly disqualified from voting, and besides, in that way, improving the Bill, would tend to bring about an early collection of the rates. No one would deny that it was a proper thing that the rates should be collected at the right time. At present, the balances were on the wrong side; whereas, if the ratepayers had a distinct premium offered them, in the shape of securing their votes, by timely payment of their rates, those balances would not exist, as they did now in too many cases. He asked the support of those who desired to promote efficient Poor Law administration, as his new clause would have the effect of greatly benefiting the financial administration of Poor Law Unions.

New Clause:—

(Rate when unpaid to be demanded from occupiers.)

"(1.) Where any poor rate due previously to the first day of January in any year in respect of any premises capable of conferring the Parliamentary franchise for any Parliamentary borough remains unpaid on the first day of May following, the guardians of the poor in boroughs other than in Dublin, and in Dublin the collector-general of rates, shall on or before the twentieth of the same month of May, unless such rate has been previously paid, give or cause to be given to the occupier of such premises a notice in the form (number one) set forth in the schedule to this Act annexed, or to the like effect. The notice shall be deemed to be duly given if delivered to the occupier or left at his last or usual place of abode, or with some person on the premises in respect of which the rate is payable; and, in case no such person can be found, such notice shall be deemed to be duly given if affixed upon some conspicuous part of the said premises. Any person who shall negligently or wilfully withhold any such notice shall for every such offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding two pounds, to be recovered by civil bill, before the county court judge or recorder within whose jurisdiction such person resides, by the occupier of the premises in question.

"(2.) This section shall apply to any such premises as aforesaid, notwithstanding that the immediate lessor or owner thereof is primarily liable to pay the poor rates payable out of same,"—(Mr. Healy,)

—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. DAWSON

said, he gave this proposal his most unqualified support.

Motion agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."

MR. MELDON

said, that before that was agreed to he wished to say a word with regard to Clause 4. An objection had been raised to the effect that Section 26 of the Parliamentary Voters Act was not in the Bill; and he had put down an Amendment to deal with the point. He had discovered the explanation to be that this was a Bill to assimilate the law in England and Ireland; and——

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

wished to know whether the hon. and learned Member was in Order? What had all this to do with the Bill before the Committee?

MR. MELDON

said, he was merely giving the reason why the Bill had not been applied to boroughs. It was because the English Act had not applied to boroughs.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member is not out of Order.

MR. MELDON

said, the Amendment he had proposed had been a perfectly proper one.

Motion agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.