the Committee to continue the quarterly come to any person in any manner, or by any system at present established; and in the means whatsoever, within such period of event of the noble Lord opposite succeeding twelve calendar months herein before required, in the clause, it was his intention to make but not less than six months next previous to other amendments. the 20th of July, such person, if continuing to Lord Stanley could not object to the be so otherwise entitled on the said 20th day noble Lord taking what course he thought qualified, shall be entitled to be registered as of July, and being in all other respects duly proper, but he considered annual registra a voter at the said next ensuing registry.” tion to be an important feature of his bill ; and if the noble Lord succeeded in the Now, why had he considered it necessary quarterly registration, he would consider it to insert this proviso? Because he did not so direct a condemnation of his own bill, wish to alter the registry ; for, by the law that he would not give the noble Lord or as it stood now, a man had no right to vote the House any additional trouble. The in Ireland, any more than another had to principle of quarterly registration was so be registered in England, until he should inconsistent with the terms of his bill that have been in possession twelve months. he should not be justified in persevering, What he proposed was very different from and he was ready to meet the noble Lord the proposition of the hon. and learned upon the point at once. Gentleman, who proposed to give the six Mr. O'Connell said, that he could not months before the registry and the six allow this clause to pass without making months after the registry as the necessary several amendments. The noble Lord title for a vote. Now, the effect of that must be aware that he would raise eight or would be that a man coming into possession ten questions upon the clause. He was in September would not be entitled to vote ready to take up the debate upon the words till seventeen months afterwards. Accord" in any year.” ing to his bill, the Irish voter would rather Lord Stanley said, that he was there to gain than lose when compared to the Engdefend his bili against all the objections lish voter ; but the result, he thought, which could be urged against it, and would would be the reverse according to the bill give way when the objections were reason of the hon. and learned Gentleman. able. Mr. O'Connell observed, that the noble Mr. O'Connell said, that a change of Lord seemed to think his bill conferred a residence vitiated the vote in Ireland, greater favour on the Irish voter than that whereas in England permanency was not of the Solicitor-general, and that if a man required, provided the value was retained. came into possession of the property entiThe bill of the noble Lord would exact tling him to the franchise in September or from the claimant not only the previous October, the hon. and learned Gentleman's residence of a year, but in many cases a bill would create a delay of more than person occupying premises would not be a twelvemonth before he could vote. But entitled to vote in fifteen, seventeen, eigh- this was impossible ; for, by the Solictorteen, and twenty-three months from the general's bill, it was provided that there time of his occupation. Whereas, by the should be a registry every four months. existing law, the time at the utmost from The noble Lord said, he did not underwhich an occupying tenant could be ex- stand how twenty-three months could included was twelve months. terpose under his bill between the tenant Lord Stanley said, that his bill would coming into possession and his right to give a greater advantage to the Irish voter exercise the franchise ; but if he came in in than the English bill gave to the English March, he could not vote until the followvoter, and a far greater advantage than the ing October twelvemonths, and then, in bill of the Solicitor-general for Ireland ; case of any mistake arising at the registry, for the English bill declared, that no one or any other obstacle, he might have his should register until he was twelve months right to vote deferred another six months. in possession, whereas the bill which he He was surprised to hear the noble Lord introduced with regard to Irish registration say that tenants were in the habit of comdid not exact a residence of twelve months ing into possession in Ireland so late as to be placed upon the register. The words October, when they would necessarily have were to pay rent for a dead half year as it were. “ Provided also that where any such lands, The fact was, that tenants almost univer&c, which would so otherwise entitle the sally in Ireland came into possession about seemed disposed to give to Ireland all that was bad in the English Act. The Attorney-General said, that the noble Lord seemed to imagine that, in England, in all county qualifications, whether freehold or leasehold, the right to vote was only given by an occupation of twelve months; whereas an occupancy of six months only was required by the Act. In England, any man having a freehold occupation for six months before the 20th of July was entitled to vote; and, in Ireland, any man having had a freehold qualification for eleven months three weeks and seven days would be prevented by the bill of the noble Lord. [Lord Stanley: No, no.] He held in his hand the Act of Parliament to bear out what he had said. Lord Stanley admitted, and it was quite clear, that, in the case of only one annual registry being established, it might happen that a person coming into possession at a particular part of the year-immediately after the registry, for instance-would not be able to register so soon as in a case where there would be four registrations in the year. This was in the nature of things, and unavoidable if they were to have an annual registry. Lord J. Russell: The noble Lord, at all events, seems to admit that there will be this inconvenience attending his bill, namely, that a tenant, having come into possession, would have fewer opportunities of being registered under his bill than under the Irish Reform Bill, or the bill of my hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitorgeneral. With respect to what the noble Lord says of the English system, if the noble Lord means that the whole of that system should be adopted in Ireland, I can understand it to be a fair proposition. But when he professedly proposes to cause delay in the registration of Irish voters, and tells us that that delay is the same to which we are subject in England, then I say that the noble Lord gives to Ireland nothing, but that which constitutes any hardship there is in the English measure. He gives to Ireland every disadvantage connected with the Irish system, and every English disadvantage into the bargain. Sir E. Sugden did not at all understand that this bill took all that was bad in the English law and gave it to Ireland, because by the English law there must be a twelvemonth's possession, whereas this bill gave the title to vote after a six month's possession. He was not disputing the benefit any rate a man must have been six months on the registry before he could vote, let him register, under the present system, whenever he would. By the bill of the noble Lord, an annual registration was to be adopted in Ireland, certainly at some cost; but by that bill, a voter would be entitled to exercise the franchise after having been twelve months in possession altogether. It enabled a man to register after six months, and to vote after a twelvemonth's possession. Mr. C. Wood thought they were discussing a question not then immediately before the House, viz., the time of possession which should entitle a man to register his vote. The hon. Gentleman then read a clause in the English Act, showing that a freeholder in England was entitled to register after a six months' occupation from the 20th of July, and said that, considering that an Irish leaseholder was the same thing almost as an English freeholder, he thought the noble Lord's bill placed the former in a worst position than the latter. Mr. Shaw observed, that every Irish voter, under the present system, must be six months in possession before the registry, and six months also after the registry, before he was entitled to vote, making in all twelve months; whereas the noble Lord's bill gave him the right to vote, after he should have been twelve months in possession, even if he should not have registered exactly as now required. Sir G. Grey thought that much of this unnecessary discussion arose from the want of perspicuity in the mode in which this clause was drawn. He thought it would be much better that the noble Lord should insert "six" instead of "twelve" months for the present, in this clause, and take the discussion on the clause in that shape afterwards, when the other amendments respecting it should have been disposed of (at least so we understood the hon. Baronet's proposition). Lord Stanley said, that he would at once tell his hon. Friend what had been his object in drawing the clause in the manner he had done. He did desire, when the registry was made, that that registry, and that only, should be conclusive as to the right of the party to vote; and therefore it was that, instead of providing for a twelvemonth's previous possession, he proposed a six month's possession, and that the party should not be entitled to vote until six According to his proposition, the registry , ation was to be made contemporaneously would itself show the precise period of the with annual registrations—as in England. occupation in each case, and, consequently, Supposing they consented to adopt the the day upon which each party would be principle of annual registration, he for entitled to vote would appear on the face one was ready to concur in the general of the registry. The only effect of intro- sense of the House, if such were the ducing the words "six months" instead case, and allow the words “ six months” of “ twelve," would be to render the instead of “ twelve” to be inserted in the registry imperfect, on account of the diffi- clause. culty of ascertaining the exact period of Mr. Sheil said, that as the law stood, occupation. occupation for twelve months before the Mr. O'Connell said, it was manifest that, registry was sufficient; but what did the instead of removing, the noble Lord was noble Lord require? Why, he required a only increasing the difficulties; because, six months' occupation before the 20th of without a special registry, it was impossible July. He seemed, however, to forget that that the noble Lord's intention could be the registry did not take place until Sepcarried into effect. No general rule could tember or October, and that if a party could be laid down under the noble Lord's Bill, not vote for six months after he was regisand the result would be, that at least half tered, he must in effect have a thirteen of the parties entitled to claim would be months' occupation. Suppose, for instance, left in uncertainty as to the time when a party came into possession of a qualifithey could register. Their title to register, cation in January, he would be entitled to too, must be ascertained by establishing a register in July; but not being able to preliminary fact which would tend to liti- register then, nor until September or Ocgation, and this was enough for him to tober, and having to wait six months from object to the proposition of the noble Lord. thence before he could vote, it was clear He would ask whether any one could, under that the time would be extended long bethis bill, vote unless he could show a twelve- yond twelve months. month's occupation? Yet the noble Lord Sir R. Peel—The right hon. and learned talked of doing a favour, while, in point Gentleman has taken a case, and he says, of fact, he was inflicting an injury on the that if a voter be in possession of his quaIrish constituency, by taking away rights lification in January, he cannot vote under which they possessed under the existing law. my noble Friend's bill, for six months after Lord Clements thought that a party in he has registered. Now, this is not the possession of a freehold qualification ought fact, because I am prepared to show that to be entitled to register and vote at any the voter under this bill will be entitled to time. He could not see any object to be vote precisely as he would under the existgained by prolonging the time. ing law. The time of his occupation will Mr. Lynch said, it appeared to him appear on the registry, and consequently strange that the noble Lord had not thought if he have been in possession nine months of placing the Irish freeholders on the same at the period he is registered, he will footing as the English. That was what be entitled to vote in three months from the noble Lord should have done. He that day. trusted that the amendment would be Viscount Morpeth said, that although adopted by the Committee, and in that case the right hon. Baronet seemed to give a he meant to propose, that the proviso should triumphant answer to the objection of his extend to leaseholders and householders as right hon. and learned Friend, he had well as freeholders. forgotten that if a party came into pos. Lord Stanley said, as the law stood, a session on the 21st of January, he would party could not be registered without show. not be entitled to register on the 20th ing a twelvemonth's previous occupation, of July. Now, what would be the conbut he found he was in error in not refer- sequence of this law? Why, that he ring to the difference in the law between could not vote for seventeen months after England and Ireland with regard to free that period. hold rights. In England a six months' Mr. C. Buller said, that although they possession conferred the right, and in Ire- had been favoured with six speeches, he land it did not; but he could only say, thought it had been agreed that the words that if the House wished to place the law "six months" should be substituted for of both countries on the same footing, hetwelve." If so, where was the good of should not object to it, provided the alier. so much discussion ? Amendment agreed to. Viscount Morpeth said, he was now quite ready to raise the question with respect to annual or quarterly registrations, and he would move that the words "his registry" be inserted, instead of the words "the 20th of July," with which it was proposed to fill up the blank in the clause. Lord Stanley thought the noble Lord had not treated him fairly by not having given him notice of the amendment which he intended to propose. The noble Lord ought to know that in carrying a bill of this kind, it was impossible at a moment to see the effect of an amendment: but he absolved the noble Lord from all blame, because it was now evident that he had not himself the least idea of the effect of his amendment. It was quite obvious to the House, from his consultation with the noble Lord the Sscretary for the Colonies, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-general, that the noble Lord had not made up his mind to the last moment as to what he was going to propose. The object of the noble Lord, it was clear, was, not to amend the clause, but to mangle the bill, and he was only sorry, that the noble Lord was not now prepared to carry his intentions into effect. Viscount Morpeth: The noble Lord has exhibited a happy specimen of the temper in which he proposes to carry on the discussions on this bill from the commencement, but I shall not attempt to retaliate. I shall remind the House, and not the noble Lord, that I stated, when we first came to consider the clause, that I thought it would be convenient to discuss the question of annual registration before we proceeded further, as I objected to the clause in toto. I did this to save the time of the House, and with a view to consult the general convenience; and I was only endeavouring to see if I could raise the question in the case of the clause when the noble Lord rose. What I said was, that if we could come to an understanding, I was ready to raise the question; and I shall now persevere, although it is my intention, when we dispose of the remainder of the clause, to move that it be struck out of the bill. who would have had already, to a certain extent, made up their minds as to that construction of the law which most narrowed the franchise? Why should that be done, at the same time that he was deprived of the advantage which he before possessed of claiming his franchise four times a-year? He also thought that the noble Lord ought to define the franchise more clearly before he passed such provisions as that bill contained. They ought, in justice to the claimant, to take away all ambiguity from the franchise; it should be clearly defined, that a poor man who wished to establish his right could not misunderstand it. any provision in the bill the effect of Mr. Ingham said, that if there were which would be to place an unfair restriction upon the man who honestly sought to establish his vote from a bona fide noble Lord would be one of the first to qualification, he was confident that the agree to the omission of that provision from the bill. If the hon. Member who spoke last had objections to other details of the bill, as it would appear he had, there would be opportunities afforded of suggesting alterations in the Committee, with a view to carry out any alterations in the details of the bill. If the hon. Member thought the appeal to the judge objectionable, it was open to him to suggest another tribunal. The hon. Member supported the clause. | Viscount Howick regretted that his noble Friend did not state more fully the ground of his amendment. Before he voted he trusted the House would permit him to make one or two observations with respect to his views of the subject. It appeared to him that the claimants to register ought to be afforded every possible facility for obtaining the right to vote which the law intended they should pos sess. But the greatest care ought to be taken that none but those who had a real and bona fide right to register should be placed on the list of voters. With respect to the objections, it was quite clear that if those objections were to be repeated Mr. Slaney would support quarterly four times a-year it would have the effect registrations, although he should like an- of placing a heavy burden upon the counnual registrations if they were practicable. ties and parishes in Ireland where such He feared the only effect which the noble lists would be made out under the proviLord's bill could produce was that of sions of the bill, and they would have throwing fresh difficulties in the way of just right to complain of that burden. In rightful claimants. Why should the the bill of the hon. Solicitor-general for vision took place it should only apply to the law as it was-which would leave that cases which had arisen since the establish law to exist that the people of Ireland ment of the right to vote on the part of were used to, which was allowed to stand the voter, so that it followed, the same re- by the Reform Bill, and which would vision could not take place under that permit a remedy of the abuses that now bill after the name of the voter was ori- existed-he thought it would afford strong ginally placed on the list. It was quite reason to the House why it should not evident, therefore, that before the name adopt the system proposed by the noble was placed on the list there ought to be a Lord. The law as it now existed was inmost strict and searching investigation, terwoven with the habits of the Irish and that every opportunity ought to be people, and he always heard that it was afforded to ascertain the real value of the wise to adapt legislation, as far as such property from the possession of which the was possible, not only to the institutions, person sought to establish his claim, and but to the habits of the people for whom to ascertain that the person so claiming to it was intended. What course had been vote was the real bona fide possessor of pursued in Ireland with respect to the rethe property; for when the claimant was gistry? In the last century a system of not to be harassed by having that ques-registration was adopted which was extion repeatedly opened it was clear that the original investigation ought to be the more searching, and the proof required the more satisfactory. He repeated, that he did not see how it was possible to revise the list four times a-year without its being burthensome in its operation. With regard to the inconvenience arising to the claimant for the registry, as the clause now stood it was next to nothing, for the person so claiming could not by any possible circumstances be kept without his vote for a longer period than fifteen months. Mr. Pigot wished to direct the attention of the House to the difference between his bill and the bill of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire. The bill which he brought in proposed to leave the law with respect to registration as it stood at present. Abuses had been alleged to arise from the system of registry which at present prevailed in Ireland. Abuses were admitted to exist from that system which had been in operation in that country for upwards of one hundred years. It had occurred under that system that persons in some cases remained on the registry when they ought not so to be placed. His object was to remove those abuses, and that could be attained solely by revision, for there was no necessary connection between the admission of votes and the removal from the list of names which ought not to be there. The noble Lord's bill, however, went further, and, instead of revision, it provided a new system of registration. To that he (Mr. Pigot) objected, for there was no necessity for superadding one upon the other; and if he could show to the House a system which would leave tremely defective. The freeholder appeared before the magistrates at quarter sessions, and having sworn an affidavit, was thereupon registered. In 1829 the right hon. Baronet introduced his bill, He found local courts existing which had been in use since 1796, and in them discovering every quality for the administration of justice, he trusted to them the care of the registry. In 1832 the noble Lord found that this jurisdiction had been tried successfully, he selected it again for this bill; and now, at the end of eight years, he asked hon. Members how and upon what ground he intended to deprive the people of Ireland of the benefit of that jurisdiction? And why he selected an annual system of registry, because he selected an annual system of revision? Was it not an advantage to have a court sitting frequently, and having always a staff of professional men, who usually attended, instead of bringing them specially to attend an annual court, at an expense which those who were acquainted with the English system could tell? The professional men usually attending the present courts were employed by the farmers in their civil business, and they were also engaged by the landlords to manage their ejectments and other civil affairs, so that they could attend perfectly well to the registration of the farmer, and of the landlord's tenants, and were a ready staff without any additional expense. Was not the House, then, called upon to say that nothing but the strongest, nay, almost an irresistible necessity should be proved before they would take away from the Irish a system with which they were well acquainted, and in which they ever found, at a cheap rate, |