bill through the house, he declared his determination to introduce a similar bill at so early a period in the next session as would enable him, in spite of such attempts as had hitherto proved too successful to thwart his object by delay, to carry it into a law, which might come into operation no later than was proposed by the original bill. In pursuance of this pledge, lord Stanley, on the first day of the present session, gave notice of a motion for leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws relating to registration in Ireland. The government, however, had this time adopted another plan for defeating the measure. A rival plan was prepared, to be submitted to the preference of the house. The notice of lord Stanley was followed by one from viscount Morpeth, but it was announced that the ministerial bill was to include that object, the omission of which had been made so strong a ground of objection to lord Stanley's-namely, a definition of the qualification for the franchise. The motion for leave to introduce lord Stanley's bill was fixed for the 3rd of February for that of the ministers, two days later. On the former day, lord Stanley opened his plan to the house. He said, he did not conceive it would be needful for him to trespass at any length on the attention of the house, since the bill which he had now to propose was founded on the same principle, and embodied nearly the same provisions, as that which last year he had introduced, which was then so much discussed, which was affirmed by the house on the second reading, and, but for the delay which had arisen, would now have been law. The abuses of the registration system were universally ad

mitted, and a remedy was absolutely necessary. He would briefly point out the main provisions which he intended to apply to these evils. First, the abolition of certificates as evidence of the right of voting, and the substitution of annual registration, on the English system; together with a public notice, similar to that required in England, on the part of the person seeking to establish his claim to the franchise. Also, to appoint other places besides the quarter-sessions towns for the work of registration, which should form the business of a separate circuit. The next alteration related to the appeal from the decision of the assistant-barristers. At present the sole remedy was by resort to that universally-deprecated tribunal a committee of the house of commons. If this remedy were taken away, some other mode of appeal must be supplied. He had sought in vain to find any more free from objection than that which he had proposed last session, namely, the appeal to a judge of assize, to whom also he meant to give a discretion in awarding limited costs in cases of frivolous or vexatious appeal. He would, however, introduce a provision to obviate all objection to this part of the bill, to exempt from costs, in all cases, the party coming forward to support the decision of the court below. There had been an association formed since the bill of last year was discussed, having for its object the investigation of the registration question, the establishment of objections to his (lord Stanley's) bill, and the support of the government views on the subject. He wished to avoid all irritating topics in this discussion, and would speak with all respect of that association, but he was most

anxious to show to the house that, on the main grounds on which his measure had been so vehemently attacked last year, he had the full concurrence of the Ulster association. These points were, the abolition of certificates, the registration before the assistant-barrister, and the formation of a court of appeal, in lieu of a committee of the house of commons, with the power of awarding costs in certain cases. Such were the points of agreement; -what, then, were the points of difference? The first was, whether the registration should be annual or quarterly. He had formed a strong opinion that it ought to be annual, and a majority of the house last year had pronounced that opinion. In the next place, as to costs:-the Ulster association proposed that costs should never in any case be given as against the claimant, but that they should be given as against the objector in all cases in which he failed to establish his objection. He proposed, on the other hand, that as against either party costs, never to exceed 51., should be given where either claim or objection was frivolous or vexatious. This proposition he could not but think was the more equitable of the two. An amendment had been proposed by the attorneygeneral for Ireland, to the first clause of the former bill, and carried by a small majority, the effect of which would be to make the name of the voter, once placed on the register, for ever after immoveable, except for disqualification subsequently arising, however originally destitute of qualification or right he might have been. All such votes would be swept away, if the right of objection were made annual, as in England; but he did not propose to go so far as this.

For the sake of protecting the voter who was once on the register, he would propose that he should remain on for life, unless the objector could establish an absolute disqualification against him, such objector, in the event of failing to do so, being liable to costs. With respect to persons who should have obtained certificates, he was willing to concede that they might remain on the register without question so long as their certificate had to run. On another point he was prepared to remove an objection which had been urged against his bill. In the form of notice of objection to be served on the voter, he was willing to propose that the grounds of the objection should be formally specified. He had now referred to all the points of difference which existed between his plan and that of the Ulster liberal association. He would now advert to a point not included in the bill; but Mr. O'Connell had given notice of an intention to move the adjournment of the house, unless he (lord Stanley) introduced into his bill a clause for the purpose of defining the franchise. He would now, therefore, distinctly state his intention to introduce no such clause. He saw clearly that if he wished to carry this bill, or to carry any bill, he must separate the two objects. The propriety of this course had been affirmed by a large majority of the house last year, upon a motion made by Mr. O'Connell himself for combining the two questions; and many members of the government had then voted with him (lord Stanley) against coupling the question of franchise with that of registration. He admitted the difficulties arising from the division of opinion among the judges on the

question of franchise, but he felt convinced that if he attempted to settle that question by the present bill, the attempt would fail, the session would pass away before any thing was done, and the abuses of the registration would be prolonged for another year. In conclusion, lord Stanley said, he wished to discuss the provisions of this bill in the most friendly temper and spirit; he would respect the arguments of such as should oppose his views; and he would readily bow to the decision of the house on any points not involving the principles of his measure.

Viscount Morpeth said, that he had no intention of opposing lord Stanley's introducing his bill. He observed, however, that its main features remained the same as last year. He had already given notice, on the part of the government, of a bill which they meant to introduce on the next day but one following, and in that bill it was his intention to ask the house to concur in determining the qualification, as well as the mode of registering the voter. He was sure that no measure, having the latter object in view, could be complete or satisfactory without a concomitant definition of the franchise.

Mr. O'Connell delivered an angry and bitter speech against lord Stanley, in which, however, he evaded discussing the grounds upon which the bill was introduced, and, contrasting the population of some of the Irish counties with the number of votes on the registers, and the relative proportion of voters to the entire population in Ireland and England, inquired whether the noble lord grudged so small a number of voters to so large a population as that. Was this the enormous multiplication of fraudulent

voters complained of? Was this an union between the two countries? He thought that lord Stanley ought not to be allowed to introduce his bill before that of the government was laid before the house. The noble lord's object was, not to amend the registration, but to give a death-blow to the liberties of Ireland. He (Mr. O'Connell) would meet him foot to foot; and he now moved that this debate be adjourned till after the 4th instant, when the government measure would come on.

Lord John Russell said, that his objections to the measure of last year were very little diminished by lord Stanley's present statement. He could not but view with much jealousy and alarm a measure to reform abuses in the registration, which was to act entirely by way of restriction. The bill proposed to retain the franchise as it existed according to law, but also proposed that that franchise should be ultimately determined by a court of law. He must say, without any imputation of undue bias to the judges, that the general tendency of courts of law was to restrict the franchise by technical definitions and distinctions. Now, if parliament were to pass a bill by which the whole franchise would be left to the decision of the courts of law, he could easily imagine that, in no long time, the effect would be its ultimate limitation to a very small number of persons. They should be very careful that, in raising up a barrier against the fraudulent voter, they did not throw obstacles in the way of rightful claims to the franchise. He could easily imagine cases in which parties possessing good right to the franchise might be so harassed by the trouble, expense, and

difficulties to be incurred in maintaining their votes, when repeatedly objected to, as to prefer abandoning their claims altogether, and thereby to throw discouragement upon others similarly circumstanced. On the whole, he believed it would be impossible to settle this question thoroughly, and with any satisfaction to the people of Ireland, without including the consideration of the franchise in any measure proposed for reforming the registration. He could not, however, deny, that the noble lord was quite justified in the course he had that night taken; and after the sanction given by the house last year to the general principle of the measure, he thought there was no parliamentary ground for refusing leave to bring in the bill, and he should vote for the motion. A division then took place on Mr. O'Connell's motion of adjournment-Ayes 71; Noes 261 -Majority 190.

Two days afterwards the government bill for the same object was brought into the house of commons by viscount Morpeth. The main features of the plan, so far as it related to the registration of voters were, to abolish certificates, to make the register conclusive of the right to vote, except where disqualification by matter subsequent appeared, to establish an annual revision of the registers, and to give a right of appeal, equally to the claimant and the objector. The main point of difference between this bill and lord Stanley's, consisted in the tribunal to whom the appeal was to be made. The government proposed, for this purpose, the erection of a new court, consisting of three barristers of certain standing, whose appointment was to be vested in

the speaker of the house of commons. Such was the plan proposed, as regarded the subject of registration, but by far the more important object of the bill, and the vital difference by which its authors sought to get the preference for it over lord Stanley's, was the addition of a set of provisions intended nominally to define, but really to alter and place upon an entirely new footing the elective franchise of this part of the kingdom. Adopting as his warrant the uncertainty and diversity of opinion which prevailed respecting the construction of the franchise conferred by the Reform Act, viscount Morpeth declared the intention of the government to settle the question by adopting an entirely new basis, fixed and ascertained, exempt from tendency to fraud, and carrying its own check against abuse along with it, viz.: the valuation under the new Poor-law Act. As however, from the mode in which that valuation had been taken, and the scale on which it had been formed, the effect of its application, according to the existing standard of the franchise, would be very much to diminish the numbers of the electoral body, and as in any measure proposed for settling the franchise, it would hardly be supposed government would propose to cut it down; the bill proposed to enact that every occupier of a tenement under a holding of not less than fourteen years of the annual value of 51., according to the valuation under the Poor-law Act, should have the same right of voting previously enjoyed by persons having a beneficial interest to the amount of 101.

Considerable surprise and some indignation were expressed by members on the Conservative side,