§ Viscount Melbournemoved the Third Reading of the Reform of Parliament (Ireland) Bill.
§ Bill read a third time.
902§ On the question that the Bill do pass.
§ The Duke of Wellingtonsuggested some verbal Amendments in the clause relative to Freemen and Freeholders in Cities and Boroughs, which were agreed to.
The Earl of Rodenproposed an Amendment to the effect, that Barristers for holding Courts for the Registration of Votes should be appointed by the Judges in Ireland in the same manner as they were by the Judges in England.
§ Viscount Melbourneobjected to any Amendment of that kind, on the ground that the state of Ireland was different from that of England, and that which was expedient for England might not be expedient for Ireland.
The Earl of Rodencould understand that in no other sense than as an insinuation that the Judges in Ireland were not so honest and impartial and independent as the Judges in England. He repelled that insinuation, and maintained that the Irish Judges were as impartial, honest, and independent as the Judges of any country whatever. The noble Lord, however, would not, it appeared, agree to his Amendment in that respect, and, therefore, he would not press it. He would, however, proceed to propose an Amendment in the clause that related to the oaths of voters so as to continue these oaths exactly as they were fixed by the Act of 1829.
The Marquess of Lansdownsaid, that he was sure his noble friend near him had not the slightest intention of casting any imputation upon the learned Judges in Ireland. The only motive for passing the Bill, as it at present stood, was to save the Judges from imputations of party feeling in the selections of Barristers which they might make.
The Earl of Longfordobjected to the rejection of the old oath, as opening a door to the most extensive perjury.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, it was begging the question to assert that the alteration would lead to perjury.
The Earl of Rodenreferred to a letter which he had received from an Assistant-barrister in Ireland, concerning the departure from the plan laid down in 1829, and declaring, from his own experience, that there could be no doubt that the operation of the change would be to lower the qualification, and to lead to much perjury.
The Earl of Gosfordsupported the Bill as it stood; declaring that no greater precautions could be taken to prevent perjury.
The Marquess of Westmeathwas opposed to leaving the value of a freehold to the oath of the freeholder; no man should be a witness in his own cause.
§ The Earl of Harrowbyhad heard no reason given for altering the settlement made in 1829; and, without some reason, he could not consent to any change. He
| List of the CONTENTS. | ||
| ARCHBISHOP. | EARLS. | VISCOUNT. |
| ARMAGH. | ABERDEEN | SYDNEY. |
| DUKES. | AYLESFORD | BARONS. |
| CUMBERLAND | BEAUCHAMP | |
| LEEDS | CALEDON | BEXLEY |
| WELLINGTON. | ELDON | CLANBRASSIL (E. of Roden) |
| HARROWBY | MELROS (E. of Haddington) | |
| MARQUESSES. | LIMERICK | REDESDALE |
| SALISBURY | MANSFIELD | SILCHESTER (Earl of Longford) |
| THOMOND | ROSSLYN | |
| WESTMEATH. | WESTMORELAND. | WYNFORD. |
| List of the NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| The LORD CHANCELLOR. | AMHERST | DINORBEN |
| DUKES. | CHARLEMONT | DUNDAS |
| GOSFORD | FINGALL | |
| HAMILTON | MEATH | FOLEY |
| LEINSTER | MINTO | HEADFORT |
| RICHMOND | POMFRET | HOLLAND |
| SUSSEX. | RADNOR. | HOWARD of Effingham |
| MARQUESSES. | VISCOUNTS. | HOWDEN |
| CLANRICARDE | LILFORD | |
| CLEVELAND | GODERICH | LUDLOW |
| LANSDOWNE | MELBOURNE. | OAKLEY |
| QUEENSBERRY. | BARONS. | SAY and SELE |
| SEFTON | ||
| EARLS. | ARGYLL | TEYNHAM. |
| ALBEMARLE | AUCKLAND |
§ On the original question being again put, that the Bill do pass,
The Earl of Longfordobjected to the principle of the measure, as a change calculated to do more harm than good; one upon the whole not likely to produce any benefit to the country, or effect any improvement in the Constitution. He considered that this measure would, instead of reforming the Constitution, tend only to deform it; and he expressed his ex-
§ wished to know this—was the alteration made in order to prevent fraud, or with a view to lower the qualification?
§ The Duke of Richmondcould assure the noble Earl that the intention was not to alter the qualification, but to adopt the best mode for carrying into effect the present system.
§ The House divided on the Amendment: Contents 24; Not-Contents 36—Majority 12.
§ treme regret at their Lordships having determined upon altering a system which had for such a number of years been found to work so well.
§ Bill passed.