The Sun. — London, England, 1841-02-23 00:00:00

ORNIN ti EDITION shall endorse the name of the appellant and tsar earty whom he shall be directed to treat as respondent, in the 67th clause provides that it shall be lawful for the said Court of Appeal to make such, or, respecting the payments of the costs of the respondent in any appeal, or of any part of such costs as to the said Court shall seem meet." The principle of costs upon appeal against the claimant of the franchise, which was one of the points upon which the strongest objections were made to my Bill of last year, is affirmed by the Noble Lord in his Bill of the present Session, but affirmed without any restrictions by which I sought only the exercise of the right and to protect it from abuse—( Hear, bear)—and that power which the Noble Lord refused to entrust to judges appointed by the Crown, and holding their office for life, the Noble Lord does not besita',e to entrust—much more ample power and without the same restrictions—t 3 three Barristers, who should be appointed under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Now, Sir, I am not surprised that the Noble Lord did not at all notice this question of costs in his opening speedo Dealing with the regis tration subject, the Noble Lord neveir mentioned the subject of costs at all, and I think this clause may perhaps, in some degree expla n that omission. There night be some little hesitation upon the part of the Noble Lord as to the provisions which he really in tencled to introduce upon the subject of costs, be• cause upon looking et these marginal notes, - which so much disturbed the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, I find the other night the marginal note to the 42d clause provides that double costs should be given in cases of unfounded charges of fraud, but the note is altered since, and now me double costs are to be given.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Now, Sir, I have contented myself with enumerating the principal points of difference between the Noble Lord and myself, with the exception, however, of one which I shall state to the Noble Lord now, because I hope he will be able to give me un explanation of it, and because I really cannot with it understand the 81l after careful examination. Sir, I had hoped that the abolition of certificates was absolute and en• tire, and that no Hon. Member on either side wished to keep up a system of certificates which all admitted to be the fruitful parent of crime. The Noble Lord abolishes certificates as the test of qualification before the returning officer, but before the Clerk of the Peace he can claim a certificate of his entry upon the registry ; and this certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the right of that person to be vlsced on the registry, in any proceeding against the Clerk of the Peace. Now, Sir, I cannot understand upon what ground that is to be considered conclusive evi dence The possession of the certificate is evidence of his having been on the registry some time previously, but the fact of his being challenged, and an appeal lc aged against his right to vote must be t aken to be a proof that he bad lest his qualification. And therefore the certificate will only prove that at some time he was on the registry, and that he had heen regularly and pro perly struck off. Sir, I have gone shortly through the points without arguing them, on which there are main differences between 11E, but in the manner which 1 had the honour to introduce on the subject of his alteration of the registration there are other differences. Sir, I have already- stated that if my objections rested upon the subject of the revision only, I should not offer any opposition to the second reading of the Noble Lord's Bill; but I shall now proceed to another and much more important branch of the subject. So the tack which the Noble Lord has affixed to the Registration Bill for the purpose, as I believe, of defeating the attempt which is now making by both sides of the House to amend the existing evils of the Registration system.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Without mean ing anything disrespectful to the Noble Lord, my first objection to the Bill is that he has brought it for. ward under false colours and false pretences—( Loud cheers)—and I see in this Bill another sLip in that line of policy which has been adopted by the present Admiuistra then, which has been in a manner peculiar to it, and which has never been followed by any Government, and which lea never characterised any other, but which has been studiously pursued by the present Government of her Ma jesty from the first moment down to this period, whatever this period may be of its political existence.—( Hear, and a laugh.) In 1835, when my Right Hor. Friend's Go eminent was thrown out of cfrice, not that there was any difference as to the measure to he introduced for settling the vexati nos question of tithes in Ireland (for upon that subject both sides of the House were agreed, even to the minutest details of the measure), but because he refused to admit a tack to the measure—(Load cheers) — of a di einction to which, as honest men, it was impossible th .t we should accede.—(Cheers.) That, in fact, was declared by the Government of the Noble Lord opposite to be a sine qua non, without carrying which it was impos sible they could, as honest men, hold their situations. That, then, was tlso commencement by the Government of a system which I trace again in the present Bill, of bolster ing up their credit, not on that they had achieved, but on some unattainable and imaginary performance which they professed their determination to carry, on the responsi bility of the Government attempting to carry which they maintained a precarious existence for a certain number of )ears; but at the end they were compelled to acknow ledge they were unable to carry their inestimable sine qua nosa.---( Cheers.) Tnese two results followed. The remedy of acknowledged abuses and grievances, I be lieve, in the t question ; and if the Government shall he successful, will be in the registration system ; and the remedy will be delayed from year to yaar, whde the plausible ground which will be taken by the G , ,verninent towards tneir supporters will be, " See what we are disposed to give you. If you desert us, see wie_t a prospect you will lose."—(Cheers.) While to the more reflecting portion of the community, they will say, •‘ We would have remedied these evils, but have been seimpeiled to abandon the hope of doing so by the factious and pertinacious opposition of our opponents."—(Cheers ) Why, Sir, that pretext has been held out, and what has !been the result ? Why, that in the Tithe Question it has happened, and I trust and believe that on the Registration 'Question it will happen, that they hove found themselves compelled to abandon this sine qua non, and to adopt those very measures which, but for their obstini.to resis tanen, we, theie opponents, would have joined them in enabling them to carry some four years ago.—(Loud cheers.) And now let me ask what has been the history of this registration system, and how far differs the Rilicy pursued upon the Tithe and Appropriation Question ? Far four long years the Government have been in the habit, Session after Sei , ion—the abuses of the registra tion system being forced upon them until they were unable to resist any longer—of introducing Bills, but with no other object than that of preventing the efforts of other gentlemen unconnected with the Government, who hal felt the inconvenience of the present system. Why. one Bill which they brought f, r.vard, not being op ions,2d by any member of this House, was sent to the Douse of Lords; at what period of the Session ?—the 296 of August—having been introduced into this House on the II th of At!gust fur the first time. That is the f xourse which the Government have pursued in introducing , jiegistration Bills, k eping others out from the beginning until the end of the Ses,io:', and then as regularly aban doning them as they had introduce) them. Now, so fir las 1 was concerned, I was determined that the last Session (cif Parliament should not pass without an effort to remedy ipose grievarceg, and accordingly, at an early period of 'the Session, the Noble Lord having told me the Govern easent had no intention of introducing a Registration Bill, A introduced a Bill which appeared to me, and to the great :majority of this House al.o, to held out the prospect of remedying the grievances of the existing system ; and h3w did the Noble Lord determine to resist the Bill ? N o t by resisting principles which were not included, but by resisting principles which were in cluded in it; and on the second reading of the Bi:1 :not a word fell from the other side condemning my sill on account of its not containing any definition of the ex isting system—( Loud checrs)—nay, more than tha., so far from this being any objection on this account to the second reading, the Solicitor-General stated his objec tions to ate, that by the insertion of the word " Acts" in stead of " Act," I was not defining, but introducing an expression which might tend to influence tho judgment of other parties as to the definition of the franchise as it ex ists at tho present moment. But whew it was found that my Bill was successful, and about to pass this House, a different coarse was pursued. Then we first heard of the absence of a definition, then we first beard that the Ge vernment had taken up the question, then, not one, but two bills were introduced, one f_r the purpose of meeting a bill on the subject of Registration, and another by the then Solicitor- General for Ii eland, for the purpose of remov ing the obscurity of the law respecting the elective fran chise in Ireland. Here is the Bill introduced by the So licitor-General last year—" A Bill to remove doubts re specting qualified voters, and to create a tribunal of appeal for matters of law, relating to the registration of yours in Ireland 1" and this is the definition which the S,)licitor- Goneral introduces, f,r the purpose of removing ail doubts with regard to the franchise. The Bill provides, that, i❑ order to determine whether any person claiming to be re gistered has a beneficial int , rest of the value required by lar, either in freehold or leasehold estates, the tribunal determining such claim shall estimate such value according to the beneficial interest which such property yields, or is capable of yielding, calculating such interest to be the advantage derived or derivable by such claimant out of the premises, after deducting the expenses, and not according to what a solvent tenant could pay for the same. This is the very last definition to remove obstruction from the ex- crcise of the franchise, by the Solicitor- General. lam not surprised that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-Gen, rrl for Ireland, after having introduced that measure, should look back to the records of Parliament, and, seeing the speeches determined in the House, on the subject of the beneficial interest, and of th., solvent te , aritcy test by my ILnourable and Learned Friend, the Member for Exeter, and anticipating the speeches Le might hear from the same quarter, and th effects that might follow from the arguments which would be advanced, in the event of his bringing forward a similar provision for the removal of the doubts that en cumbered the elective franchise—( Hear, hear)—that he should have again considered the subject. But, Sir, what does the Noble Lord do now ? Does he propose to bring forward any definition of the existing franchise? Yes. that is the avowed object of the Noble Lord —that is the pretext cf the Bill ; that is what is put forward in the preamble of the Bill; but that is not the inten :' tion of the enactments of the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord now abandons the definition of the franchise altogether, and without a single argument, and with the most meagre statements that I ever heard on se great a subject from a Cabinet Minister, or any Member of Par liament, he proposes, not a new definition, but a total al teration of the franchise in Ireland.—( Opposition cheers. ) I know not how long the Noble Lord has enter tained the opinions he now professes—(Renewed cheering)—hut this I know, that in 1839 the Noble Lord professed to entertain very different views upon the subject, and upon the policy of snaking such an extensive in road on the principles and provisions of the Reform Bill. In 1839 the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin moved for leave to bring in a Bill to aseimilate the franchise in Great Britain acid Ireland, and by whom was that ;notion resisted ? It was resisted by the Noble Lord the Secre tary for Ireland. The Noble Lord, indeed, resisted it in a hesitating voice, with a faltering tone, and in a manner uncomposed.—(Laughter.) But listening to the cheers he received in front of him, and looking to the cordiel sup port which came from this side of the House, the Noble Lord at last screwed up his courage to meet the proposi tion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member fur Dublin, and closed his speech with the following expres sion t---" Thinking, ' said the Noble Lord, " that the Le gislature ought not lightly to disturb the arrangements which accompanied a statute of such vast importance and of so recent a date, I believe that any encouragement in any endeavour to do so would lead only to a protracted and useless debate. I must give my decided, thongh reluctant, negative to the motion. "—(Hear, hear.) In the next year, in the course of last session, for fear we should have forgotten the line taken by the Learned Lord, ho again referred to the views he had taken ; and on the part of himself and of her ;slaje-ty's Government, inf rrmed me that "he had met the motion for leave to brirg in that Bill with a direct negative, and thst the Go vernment felt it would be inexpedient, in so short a time, to break in on the settlement that had been made, or to introduce any measure of fundamental cherge. " The Go vernment," said the Noble Lord," are still prepared to adopt the same course, and to act in the same spirit." This declaration of his determination to resist not only the ansimila'ion of the franchise in England to that of Leland, but any material or wide departure from the principles of the Reform Act, so emphatically announced by the Noble Lord in 1839, was emphatically repeated :by the Noble Lord in 1840, and as absolutely and positively departed from and repudiated by the Noble Lord in 184 L —( Loud cheers from the Opposition benches.) Sir, it was a favour able expression of the Noble Lord, that since that time he had derived some new impressions. I know not whence those new impressions may have been derived. I know not from what source they may have come—they may be, and they probably are, the result of the indepen dent exercise of the reflective powers of his own mind.— ( A laugh.) But this I know, that it is a singular coin cidence that in the year 1839, on the motion being brought forward, which the Noble Lord negatived, these were the views which .were taken of the subject by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. Sir, I may le told that when a motion was made fur assimilating the franchise in the two countries, that the franchise in Eng land was unjustifiable as well as the franchise in Ireland, and that it ought equally to be extended. Be it so, give us the franchise in Ireland, and then we will join you in extending the English franchise. What I propose is, to reduce the franchise in both countries to M. I have no doubt the Noble Lord has been brought to that conclusion by the independent exercise of his own opinions—( Great cheering) not influenced by the Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin—(lncreased cheering).— and thet unbiassed opinion has led him to adopt that sys tem which he refused in 1839.—(Continued cheering.) Now, I must confess, that I view this proceee.ing with alarm, coming as it does from her Majesty's Ministers, who represent her Majesty in this House.—(Cheers.) If the Noble Lord has altered the views which he took in 1839, if he has determined to abandon the ground he took in 1840, and to repudiate the provisions of the Reform Bill, why does lie not come forward boldly and state the real grounds on which he does this? Why does he not tell us that he thinks it unjust to take the franchise from the 40s. freeholders, and that he was prepared to restore to those voters the rights which were taken from them in 1829. But perhaps the Noble Lcrd will tell us he is not going to restore the rights of the 40e. freeholders, but I tell the Noble Lord, and I will prove it before I sit down, that he is going to restore a class of voters far more subject to intimidation, far more numerous, and far inferior to the 40s. freeholder, whose rights were taken away in the year 1329. On what ground does the Noble Lord do this? Does he do it because he wishes to assimilate the law in England and Scotland to t tat which he proposes for Ireland ? or does he mean to give to Ireland a franchise more extensive than to either of the other parts of the empire ? If he does so, the Noble Lord ought to have made a statement to that effect in the face of the country, but as it is, his Bill is brought for ward under false colours. The preamble of the Bill and its enactments were at variance with each other, for the Bill subverted the whole principle on which voting in Ire land had hitherto taken place. The arguments by which the Noble Lord had sought to support that Bill are the most meagre I have ever heard, and totally without foun dation. Now, I should like to know what the instructions were that were given to the barristers who formed the Commission with respect to the Poor-rates 9 It is never left to the personal communication of the Attorney-Ge neral with his private friends. It is never said, " Go down to the country, visit the unions, and report upon these which you think proper to select; abstain from reporting upon others ; ycu know our views, and whatever you can get bearirg upon them bring forward and give it to me, and I will make my own selection.—( Cheers.) Mind, there is one thing," and this is the only instruction given to them, " that you shall carefully conceal from all the parties connected with the Workhouses, Guardians of the Poor and all, the fsct of your presence and the nature of the inquiry. Ihe Noble Lord tells us that those gentlemen have visited ten uniene—how and why selected the Noble Lord has not condescended to in form the House. He has not told us that they were in the most forward state with regard either to valuation or as sessment. Si-, when I turn to the Poor-law Report for 1840 I find that in two important towns (not to he lost sight of in the question of the applicability of such a test to the ft anchise)-1 find that a raee is in progress under the Poor-law valuation in the two important towns of Dub lin and Cork. That in those towns, and in these two only, a rate under the Poor-law is in progress, and the Poor-law Commission( re state in their Report that they are watching with the greatest anxiety the progress of the rate in these two towns. And yet in the unions visited we know not whether Dublin or Cork are included. When the visita tion was commenced I know not, but from the evidence of the Commissioners themselves, it was performed in a most hasty and cursory manner—in such a manner, that in the papers laid before us to-day it is stated that the barrister who via ted the union of Carrick-on-Suir was unable to snake extracts from the minutes of the Board, so short was his stay.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I know that it has been stated to us that these gentlemen visited ten unions, and we were furnished for the first time with the Report upon five out of the ten uni ms, and the concluding Report em bodying the views of the Commissioners was put into the hands of lion. Members this very msrning, alien the Noble Lord calls on us to assent to a proposition so start ling and astounding an that now before us. Hear, hear, hear.) Sir, I know not where those papers came from ; they are not by her Majesty's command— they arc not ordered to be printed by this House. They merely state that they are Reports relative to the valuation under the Poor-laws, printed by Clowes and Son for her Majesty's Stationery-office. That is the only official stamp on them, except that the Noble Lord extracted from them, and gave a history of them. Sir, lam satisfied to take the evidence as I find it in these Reports ; they are based upon five out of the ten of the unions, out of a total of 140 unions into which Ireland is to be divided. But I will take the evidence, however weak and inconclusive it may be, to support the Noble Lord's views; and I say that it furnishes grounds strong and incontrovertible, which must convince the House that the basis of the elective franchise, as proposed by the Noble Lord, actu ally forms no test or criterion of value whatever. Sir, I by no means wish to contend that if you had a fair and correct valuation of property in Ireland, and if you are to make a change, or even if you are not, such a document may be of infinite importance and value in removing doubt and forming a correct test of the value. But we must have that preyed by impartial examination, free from all sus. pici ins of political motives, founded on, and in precise ac cordance with, the principles laid down by law; and I say in every one of these tests, freedom from the suspicion of political motives, impartiality, correctness, a following up the law, and uniformity of the proceedings, the valuat'on now taking place under the Poor-laws in Ireland is sig nally, lamentably, and avowedly deficient.—(Cheers.) I cannot suppose, Sir, that such a valuation ears he impar tial.—( Hear, hear.) But I entreat the House to consider that, apart from the political question—even apart from the false basis upon which you are going to put the fran chise—there is an evil of no cornmosi magnitude attaching to a selection of this valuation for the purposes °fie political franchise. If there be one point in the world—if there be one course of proceeding on which it ought to be the endeavour and desire of every Member of this House who wishes well to the peace and prosperity of Ireland cor dially to unite, it is this—to withdraw from the valuation under the Poor-law ' for the sake of that valuation itself, apart from policed grounds, any suspicion of its being founded upon political and party grounds. I say that the Poor law Bill has to encounter enormous difficulties from prejudice, from novelty, and from a thousand causes; and that if you superadd to that the curse of political partisan ship, actuating and influencing the board of guardians from the commencement of their proceedings, and in the valuation, to the administration of relief, you will render that which is difficult enough, hazardous enough at present, you will render it an absolute curse to Ireland, and make its working beneficially absolutely and entirely hopeless.— (Hear, hear.) But now, Sir, take a second case. I will not press the paint whether there has or has not at pre eat been mixed up with the election of guar. dians anything of political partisainhip.—( Hear, hear.) Allegations to that effect have been made. lam not in quiring how far they are well founded, but I say that the course which you are now pursuing is that which neces sarily and naturally must give those proceedings that par tisan character which it is most desirable on all occasions to avoid. I am afraid that I can hardly promise the House that I shall not have to trouble it for some consider able time longer ; and in the course of the argument which I am about t 3 address to them, I must read to them documents to which it will be very troublesome to listen; but I am arguing a question of vital and fundamental im portance, and I hope, so long as I argue it candidly and fairly, I may throw myself upon the indulgence of the Nouse. Now, with respect to any valuation as the basis of the elective franchise, I should require that it be in strict accordance with the law ; and nothing can be more de,i ivc than what we•find in that law. The Poor-law Commissioners, reciting the clause in their directions to the valuators, state the the estimate ~f value is required to be the rent at which, or.e year with another, the he reditarnents might in their natural state be expected to let. They go on to state that there is no sure criterion for the valuations, except a careful adherence to the principle of th e Act, by estimating all property at its fair annual letting value, as the Act requires to be done in every case. These were the instructions given to the valuators. The Commissioners, indeed, tell us in their Report that they found some traces of uniformity in all the Unions. The only uaiformity which is to be found on the showing of the Report) itself is, that the valuators have every where set the law at nought. The Commissioners say that the valuators were not surveyors by profession, but respectable farmers, who had in some instances been em ployed as rural surveyors, but many of whom had not been so employed at all; but the valuators in general had no claim to professional knowledge. Now, what are the lists which they adopt? What is the list a Mr. Morriss, of Balruddery ? Ile says he does not take the rent at the land would let. Why? Because it was raised too touch by compediion—( Cries of " Hear, hear")—but w hat a steady solvent man could give for it with a fair remuneration for his capital and labour. Another valua• tor, %lr. Hugh Morrow states his test to be, what a man could afford to give, and to live like a Christian, eat ing animal food twice. a-week—( Hear, hear)—but from the same union Mr. Wallace, another valuator, thought that Mr. Morrow was mistaken. In Longford, one of the valuators states his estimate to be formed upon what a tenant could pay with ease to himself, supposing him able to meA all demands, to give his family potatoes, with milk and butter, every day, and animal food sometimes, with comfortable clothing.—(Hear, hear.) In Parsonstown the valuators took their estimate of Cm value of the land by walking round the fences, which were made of earth in that union, and therefore they said it enabled them to judge sufficiently of the natare of the soil, and the value of the farms. In the Lurgan union, to which Igo to illustrate the singular views taken by the,Poor-law valuators and the mode in which their estimates were usually formed, the valuators tell you the land is worth 21. or threw guineas an acre ; indeed that plenty of persons would be willing to give DA an acre premium for the tenements let at that re,,t, and that the tenants could put by We. an acre beyond what they pay their landlord. Now notwithstanding this, what do you think he rated those farms at? At 275. 6d. an acre—(Cheers)—and when he was asked why he did se, his answer was that it was ne cessary to make the rents low, in order that the landlord should bear his fair proportion. Now lam not stating whether this was too high or too low. lam only stating that it is a criterion of no value whatever. —( Hear, hear.) It is absolutely and entirely good for nothing.—(Cheers.) And this is to be the basis of the Noble Lord's ( Cheers.) Why, Sir, the Commissioners themselves, Messrs. Hague and Deasey, in the papers furnished by the Government, state that in various instances the Guardians revised the estimates of the valuators, and raised or lowered the rate according to their own views.—( Hear, hear.) The Commissioners state that the valuation can not be taken as a criterion, for they say that too many mo tives were in operation to influence those who made it. The words of the Act were variously interpreted by the va luators according to their own views, some thinking when they took produce into account at all that one half was a sufficient remuneration for the tenant's capital and labour, and others thinking him entitled to two-thirds. Yet this valuation, which the Commissioners pronounce to he no criterion of property, is propose.' by the Noble Lord as the fixed basis of that qualification.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) He proposed to enact that the amount on the rate•book shall be taken as conclusive evidence of the value of the property. I ask the House of Commons will they take this test which is admitted on all hands to be actually worthless ?_( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord says that the rating is below the actual value, I know in- Cead, that many motives have been in operation to make it so.—(Hear, hear.) In the union of Searrig, the velu tor having made his estimate, returned home, and struck out 2e. in the pound from the whole of the union. The guardians, however, said that he had acted most un- ustly, and they reduced the valuation, still by one-sixth. The guardians then ulso passed a resolution that no land in the union should be rated higher than 265. per Irish acre. The Commissioners informed them that it was against the Act to fix a maximum, but in the end the valu ation was allowed to stand so, and this is the actual state of the qualification at this tirve. In England it does not matter, as far as concerns the relation of the tenants to each other, and to the landlord, whether the rating be high or low, if it be equal, but, in Ireland, as the landlord bears a per centage upon the rate, a greater proportion of the burthen is thrown upon him when the rate is below the rent. In the union of Scarrig the unfairly reduced rate was defended by the ex-officio guardian, Mr. Maurice O'Connell, not, I believe, the Member of this House. Mr. O'CONNELL—No, a relation. Lord STANLE Y—That gentlemen defended the low rate on the ground that the landlord should be obliged to bear his fair share, and that the people could not endure any additional taxation.—( Hear, hear.) When the guardians go upon this principle and say, that the rate shall be at all times considerably under the rent, how can it be sail, as the Noble Lord said the other night, that putting the qualification upon what a solvent tenant could give would amount to a general disfranchisement 2 ( Hear, hear.) I have stated that there are motives operating at present on the guardians to make the rates low. It may be right that they should do so. But that is not my objection to the principle of this Bill, for you furnish me with no means of conjecturing how far below the reel value the ratings may be made. On this valuation, so wanting in accuracy, I will not consent to leave the elective franchise, even though I were disposed to consent to any change whatever.— ( Hear, hear. ) I object, however, to the principle, even supposing the valuation to be accurate—supposing it to be uniform—supposing it to be perfectly fair, and not to he impugned—l object to the principle on which you are applying the franchise; because you adopt a principle you have not introduced in any other Bill, you adopt a principle wholly repugnant to that which you have adopted in other Bills—you adopt the principle of de c.ding the franchise by the amount of the rate chargeable, but not by the amount of profit derived from the property ; and whatever may have been the differences with respect to the construction of the Rif rrm Act, neither the Noble Lord, nor the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman op posite, will deny that the only point of difference has been, not whether a profit should be required, but that the difference has been as to the mode in which that profit should be calculated. That was the only question on which any difference had arisen. How that portion of the statute has led to a difference of opinion in Ireland I am at a loss to understand.—(Hear, hear.) It is to my mind perfectly inexplicalle on what foundation any portion of the legal authorities in Ireland have rested their doubts with regard to the franchise in Ireland, which has never raised a shadow of a doubt in England, with identically the same words with regard to the franchise in England and the franchise iu Scotland.—( Hear, hear.) What are the words is which these doubts have arisen ? The words :on which these doubts have arisen with regard to the settlement of the franchise on freeholds in fee, are these words "of the clear yearly value of 101." The Right Hon. Gentlemen will not, I think, contend that there is any mention what ever in the Irish Reform Act of the freehold franchise in fee from one end of the Act to the other; and that fran chise is neither granted nor altered by that Bill. The franchise in fee depends on the Act of the 10th Geo. IV., and the qualification is the possession of a freehold of the clear yearly value of 10/. The oath which the freeholder takes under the Irish Reform Act is this—" I am a free holder, and I possess a freehold of the clear yearly value of 101." That is the oath and the only oath— that is the qualification and the only qualification under which the freeholder votes in Ireland. The words of the English Bill are borrowed from the Irish Act. The enacted words in England are pre cisely the same as the enacted words in Ireland—the words in Scotland are precisely the same as the words in Engl and and Ireland ; and nether in Scotland nor in England have I es or heard a lawyer get up and say that in his mind he entertained the slightest doubt, or ever heard a doubt raised, as to the legal construction of these terms which are identically the same.—( Hear, hear.) The terms " beneficial interest" apply not the f eehold but to the lucrative interest ie. Ireland, whether for lives or fur a term of years. Let us sec whether the doubt hangs on this point. lam not going to enter into a history of the introduction of the words " beneficial interest," which has already been often before the House. Let the House, however, bear in mind that as to freeholds the terms bene ficial interest have never been applied in any statute; but the following is the manner in which the kinds of qualification are elefine.3. The leasehold qualification in England is given on lease of the clear yearly value of the suns appointed. In Ireland it is given on leases which give a beneficial interest of the clear yearly value laid down. In Scotland it is given to tenants where the clear yearly value of such tenants' interest, after the payment of rent and any other consideration dui by him for the said interest, is not less than a blank being ap pended. These are the three statutes, and it requires, I think, more than even legal ingenuity to find out any diffe rence between the legal construction and the interpretation to be given to these statutes. But whatever differences have arisen on the subject have not been as to the fact of profit being required, but as to the mode in which that profit should be calculated ; whether it should be construed according to the solvent tenantcy test, or according to the amount which the person by his own labour and capital could make out of the land which be held. That is the only subject of difference; and when, at an early period of the discussion on the Irish Reform Act, it was proposed to confer the franchise on parties having a lease for 21 years, and paying a rent of 501., an objection was taken to that provision, and it was subsequently altered in deference to the arguments raised by the Hors. and Learned Gentleman opposite. The objection taken was stated as follows: " With respect to towns, I cannot but think that in giving the franchise according to the amount of rent paid rather than the profit made, you arc acting on a wrong principle; you are giving votes to rent, which makes a man poor, and not to profits, which make him rich. A man might have to pay on a lease 50/. for a lease which is not worth 40/., and that man would have a vote, while a man with a larger profit out of a smaller rent got no vote. This prin ciple, I think, is wrong." This wits the argument made use of in 1831 in favour of requiring the test of profit, and that argument came from the Honourable Mem ber fur Dublin.—(Loud cheers from the Opposition.) In the following month, in the second Session of the same Parliament, an argument was raised as to the required larger amount of profit for leaseholders as compared with freeholders. " The constituences of Irish counties," ob served the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, " consist already of parties having a 101. profit, and a profit above the rent. The Government raised the 101. qualification so high as 20/ It seems anomalous to make a 101. qualification of fieelaolders, and a 201. qualification for leaseholders." I have cited this passage for the purpose of showing that throughout the whole course of the debate on the Reform Act in I eland and in England, the amount of profit over and above the rent, and nut the amount of rent payable, was made the criterion of the franchise, and was made the test of the independence and station of the party claiming it. The present Bdi departs from that principle altegether. It requires no profit whatever on the part of the voter. It requires consequently , no independent interest, it requires no stake in the country. The party might be burdened with rent far beyond his power to pay ; he might be loaded with debts wirlch placed him absolutely under the control of his landlord, and yet you are granting him the franchise, and granting it not on the principle which you apply else whet e of resting on a profit on the rent, but resting on the amount of incumbrance to which the land is liable. Where then would be the argument of Gentlemen opposite. a rn t w b e u t throw that on we parties the giy b e u m e n theof paying franchise. e ! claims T T hh The answer s o a yn is—you give them the franchise, but you do not thr,,w upon them the burden o f taxation. — ( Cheers.) pay franchise shoul pay rates; he sno The Act does not require that is ept even lersoniab e exercising to the a half-penny of rates. You give the rates ; the whole of the rates fal l u p on t he landl o rd—t he tenant need not pay 11EN TUE SUN LONDON, TUESD AY, FEBRUARY 1841. franchise not to property but to the rate. Nay, you go further ; for you provide that if a person shall at any time have had land in occupation which shall have been rated at 5/. a year, although that property shall no longer be rated at such an amount—although it may he altogether out of the rate-book—yet the occupier shall remain on the re gister so long as he, or some one else for him, shall say that he is willing to be liable for the rates. You actually put up she franclai'e to auction, and knock it down for sixpence a year. If my tenant has once been rated at 5/. a year, although the property may have fallen in value, and may not be worth 4/. a year, what is to prevent roe from saying to him, No matter, I shall be a candidate at the next election ; I shall want your vote ; say you are willing to be rated ; continue on the rate-book, and for 6d. a year I may buy as many votes as I like._ (Cheer;.) But is that all ? I will not go into the mi nute details of the Bill. I find I have already trespassed on your patience, but I must trespass fur a short time longer.—(Cheers.) The Bill does not even require that the Cates shall be paid. On reading over the Bill, there was one of the provisions of it tslich I thought must have escaped the attention of the Hon. and Learned Attorney_ General. He has stated it as his opinion that taxa tion and the franchise ought to go together. There are certain portions of property which it has beers deemed expedient should be exempted from rating altoge ther. Now it is provided that the guardians or valuators, in addi on to the rao..- book, shall make out a supplementary valuation of such property as is not liable to be rated. Now in the instance of the rated inhabitants it was stated, that there was a check upon the desire to obtain the franchise in the natural de sire to escape from the payment of rates, but in the in stance of the supplementary valuation there is no check whatever; there is no inducement acting upon these valu ators to value the property at one shilling or one hundred pounds, except the inducement to obtain the elective franchise. I had read the act, and was quite at a loss to discover what could be the object of the Hon. and Learned ri e fu m rina e svtol n a,oa t l nt a unh r ad y eir for y fan a sut l areuai -book teooobnpko. purpose ihrs p T tor hhse myself,eet! ooi re quired rate r n oo -etnubook r a ib n tnhaeg i ns n pdt rtmiosefduah supplementary franchise. snegdoemphatepiths: the eeths supplementary ey u s r s test of value, and the amount of rate on the property, not the payment of the rate, is insisted on for conferring the franchise ; and it was not until my attention was directed to that portion ct the Bill where I should least expect to find any measure for altering or enlarging the franchise, that I discovered the reason for this supplementary valua tion, and the manner in which the franchise will be en larged by it to an immense extent. Will the House believe that this enlarged franchise is actually conferred on the technical interpretation clause ?—( Loud cheers. ) Yes, that clause in which it is provided that, through • out the Bill, and wherever the male gender is used, the female shall be understood as being in cluded ; that the words Lord-Lieutenant shall be held to include the Lords Justices in that clause ; which in every Act of Parliament is introduced to obviate technical difficulties merely, and to avoid verbose pro lixities. I find it provided that the words " rate and rate book " shall be held to include supplementary valuation and supplementary rate book.—(Loud cheers from the Opposition, answered by counter-cheers from tbe Minis terial benches,) And in that interpretation clause the Noble Lord thinks it proper to give a definition which will have the effect of conferring a perfectly new franchise.— (Ch core.) This proceeding is like the producing such a Bill to follow such a preamble, and I cannot help saying it is a course utterly unworthy of the talent and station of the Noble Lord.—(Cheers.) The taking the valuation of the Poor-law Commissioners as the test for conferring the right of voting, will greatly enlarge the franchise. Now, on what ground is this great extension of the fran chise to take place ?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord does not deny that an extension of the fran chise will be the consequence of this measure. He says that there will be sonie extension—that the fran chise will be conferred on some who do not now possess it—while others who now possess the franchise will in sonic instances be deprived of it. Now what do the papers which were furnished us this moroing—the Reports of the Poor-law Valuator., who were ordered t ► report for the purpose of furnishing the data for elective fanchise—show ? Why all the information they furnish amounts to just this, that they know nothing at all on the subject.—(Chee and laughter.) The Report from one of the unions states that the inaccuracies existing are so great that they arc unable to state anything with accuracy on the subject. In the union of Scarrig he had only examined a small portion of the union, and in the union of Lurgan not more than one half. In by far the greater number of instance; these pa pers furnish no information whatever, and it is under these circumstances that we are called upon to alter the constitu ency and enlarge the number of electors of Ireland. Now, what' does the Noble Lord allege as his reason for altering the constituency of Ireland ? He gives you no reason as to the towns, and very little as to the countlee But the Noble Lord tells you, borrowing the arguments of the Hop. Member for Dublin, he tells you that the proportion of the constituency of Mayo to the population of Mayo is much larger than the population of Kent is to the constituency. Now, I repeat that that is a basis of re presentation altogether unfounded. In your electoral districts, in the wards of your great cities in England, no doubt there are more in one ward than another entitled to the franchise, yet shall ever a human being contend that the amount of the franchise should be different in each ward on that account ?_( Cheers.) Was it ever laid down in any part of the kingdom that a certain amount of the wealthy inhabitants should form the constituency? If that principle had never been admitted, I see no reason for ap plying it to Ireland because a large portion of the popula tion of the country are in indigent circumstances. I come nrw to a question which, I am aware, is one of consider able difficulty and delicacy, but from which, in the discussion of this great, question, I am bound, looking to this Bill and its effects, not to shrink from discussing, although the Noble Lord only slightly touched upon it, I mean the state of society in Ireland with reference to the exercise of the elective franchise. Now I take them to be of two characters—one the great subdivi sion of land in Ireland, which makes the agricultural body in Ireland as a class, though not inferior in character, yet inferior in point of property, solvency, and independence to the same class in England. Now, fur the Pur pose of proving this, I will refer to the report of Mr. St rnley, the Secretary of the Poor-law in Ireland, who gives an analysis of the state of the population of the two countries ; and from that analysis it ap pears that in Ireland there are 14,500,000 acres, while in England there are 34,280,000 acres, so that the land in Ireland is only about two-fifths of what it is iu England and Scotland. In England there are 355,800 landowners, while in Ireland there are 659,600 landowners, and those landowners are di,tributed into two classes, those who do and those who du not employ any labourers besides themselves. Now in England out of the 355,800, 187,000 employ labourers, while in Ireland out of the 659,600 landowners only 95,000 employ labourers. Does not this, therefore, show the necessity of making a difference between the two classes, and prove the neces sity also of making a difference in tile franchise? In the Report, which was put into our hands this morning, it is said " In every part of Ireland which we visited the num ber of existing leases seemed more likely to diminish than to increase. An indisposition to grant leases prevals to a remarkable extent among landed proprietors. Leases ex pire and they are not renewed. Landlsrds have ceased to wish that their tenants should possess the land. Whole districts are everywhere to be found, the tenants of which are leaving." Sir, that is the statement made by a gentle man, whose Report has this day been submitted to the consideration of Members of Parliament, and I do not mean to deny that to a certain extent, to what extent we know not, his statement is well founded. lam free to admit that I regret the fact ; I regret the fact, but I am bound to say also that lam not surprised at it. Now, Sir, I admit that this topic is a very delicate one; but I must speak to the truth as to the state of the two countries. Sir, I believe that there is no man in England, on either side of the House, wino does not know that there is a very remarkable contrast in this country with the state of things just described. There is not a remarkable objection on the part of landlords to granting their tenants leases ; there is not a remarkable aversion to their possessing the elective franchise—and why ? Because taking them as a body, one with another, be they Whig or be they Tory, be they gen tlemen on one side or the other, it is the priie and satis faction of a landlord in England to believe that, in the main, his tenants will be guided by his wishes.—( Hear, hear, from the Mini,terial benches.) We do not seek to disguise or to deny it, and every gentleman knows per fectly well, in a contested county election, though he would condemn an extravagant and oppressive exercise of autho rity, he may calculate upon the result of the election by the number of landed proprietors and the party to which they respectively belong.—(lronical cheers from the Liberal benches.) No English landlord would think it proper to interfere, if upon his estate he found that one, two, or three, or half his tenants were, in the exercise of their own independent judgment, differing with hint in political views, sad taking a course wholly independent of and adv rse to his ; but if he found that there was upon his estate a systematic influence habitually exercised over all his tenants, to prevail upon them as a body in every instance to put themselves in opposition to him, and that that influence was one which he could neither avert nor control, I ask, what would be the natural course fur an English landlord, and in such circumstances, to take ? t Yo a mrtit tenants wo ul d not ev e t r h iwnk whom rntthat very unnaturalinfluence f w h a e a s n o o u t g b e t a to e ) f.te by . In this country, where there is less of hardship than there is in Ireland, in getting rid of one tenant and substitu ting another, I do not think that any great animadversion would be poured upon the landlord who should say, " I must have tenants who will not be habitually subject to an inte rest and an influence which they exercise against me." re strained by motives of humanity, or But, Sir, if the landlord did not consi deration for his tenants, from taking tins step, and substi tuting f t j h u i s s t justice, g o t r h o ; f c if o , from him, if he confined himself to taking this course, and saying, n o f. You ailed with me as a libe ral tenant, as between tenants who concurred with, for those who dif,ro d d erfectly satisfied will rs.l and independent landlord ; I am t p but there is one con stant source of ill-will betweeo us. • t of • tme • this is the only point to take a part wholly against not let hit in . • between us. For God's sake do , discussion with the friendly relations of landlord and political questions you are led by an extraneous influence in terfere longer waritehsyll• tenant. As long as this state of things exists , there must .s must be a constant be constant irritation between us—toei , interruption of that ha r m o ny and goodwill which ought to exist. You may fe e l con fidence in nr will I dispossess a You know that I would not willi ng ly dispossess?, n tenant wino does his duty by me in an agricultural point of view. For God' s sa k e let us get rid of this bone of contention, the franchise, and I will accept rea sonable from you—from i o e. year to year, a re n t w hi c h will afford you a andfai• profit, an d w hi c h a t the same time will remove for ever this bone of contention." Now, I ask if in Eng land that would not be considered a kind, and a mild, and justified i be in the opinion of benches.) Would no t an y landlord n saying I trill be Hon. Gentlemen o pp os it e a liberal course ? (I ron i c al cheers from the Liberal contented to neutralise the influence of my property. alto gether, I will be content to sateitice any influence and Political right which I may denim from the possession of property, but I will not submit to have the influence of my property habitually turned against myself, and I a ill nor of my own free will place instruments in the hands of ot , iers for the purpose of effecting that." Now, Sir, I say that that is a natural course, and I believe that it is a course to which very little exception could be t..ken. I say that that is the state of so c•cya to a certain extent in England. I say that there are those tendencies afloat, and those tendencies, as between landlord and tenant, have led to a diminution of the number of electors, from the indisposition of land lords to put into the hands of their tenants engines to be wielded in political warfare against themselves. Sir, I regret this state of things ; I regret this result ; I regret this diminution cf the constituency arising from this cause ; and I say, moreover, if you can show me that things are fast verging back to the period when the con stituency of Ireland was in a small number of hands, and th it tin excessive influence is again monopolising the Irish interest in opposition to the principles of the Reform Act, which went to confirm the franchise as extensive, and upon the same classes of persons, as in England—l see the Hon. Gentleman is going to take down my words— (the Noble Lord was understood to refer to Mr. O'Con nall)—but I have very frankly to say, that when you show me that state of society arising from that cause, I shall be prep ireil to discuss with you, with the full view of cor lee ing that which I admit to be an evil, the best of counteracting such a state of thing.. Ilcoore I can take that course it must be shown to me to what extent the constituencies of Ireland have b;Tn reduced —you must show me that, and then I will be ready to discuss with you the whole matter ; but I would advise you that it is not a matter that can be treated lightly. I tell you that it will be a matter of serious MO merit, for it will be an exercise of the powers of the Legis lature , giinst property-_( Hear, hear)—.and that probably property may turn against you.—( Cheers.) But I must know to what extent the diminution of the constituencies of I, child has gone. Let me look at the country consti. tuencies of Ireland. At the period of the Reform Bill, I calculated them to amount to 52,000. Upon that occa sion the lion. and Learned Member for Dublin stated that I had taken an extravagant estimate of their num bers, and he said that I would probably have been more right had I taken them at one half of that number, and he added that if we adopted the Si. franchise, we might pro bably get a constituency to the number of from 60,000 to 90,000. Now, Sir, I hold in my hand a paper which was moved for by the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, and pressed for by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. In 1831 arid 1832, I calculated the amount of the consti tuency at 52,000—what is it now ? By this paper, I find that the present moment it is no less than 99,157. (Cheers.) I find that in ten of the counties there has been a very considerable increase in the number of voters since 1832, and even since 1835—in two counties only has there been any diminution since 1835.—(Cheers.) The nett increase in the county constituency since 1835 was 10,419, and since 1832, taking the lowest calcu lations, the increase is not less than cent. per cent.—(Cheers.) Now, Sir, let us look at the borough constituencies; they also have aug mented since 1835. I find by this paper, that in ten bo roughs there has been a considerable increase, and that in one borough alone has there bean a diminution, and that of one voter only.--( Cheers and laughter.) I find, in Dublin, there are 17,347 voters, 10,885 of them 101. householders, a species of voters that were wholly created by the Reform Bill; in Cork, 8,164 ; in Belfast, 4.156 ; the total number of the thirty-two boroughs is 55,530-- 37,000 of wnom are 10/. householders, and I may add, that there is not one constituency in Ireland that does not exceed 200 voters. I may be told that this paper is not worth anything—(Loud cheers)—you have been calling for this paper day after day—it has been laid upon the table at your request, and finding that it does not bear out your own arguments, you repudiate it—(Cheers)—you turn round upon me, and say, this paper is good for no thing—if it proved your own case you would have been ready enough to have acted upon it--( Hear, hear)__ but now that it shows the fallacy of your arguments you want to repudiate it as unworhy the at teution of the House. I have no doubt it contains many double eatries.—(Hear, hear.) I have no doubt, also, it contains many fraudulent aed fictitious vetch ; but what shall we allow for them? Shill we say 20,000 for them. Let me do so, and still you have a re gi ter far exceeding that of 1832. Let me also call to your attmti in to the fact that the register of 1832, when I made my calculations of the constituency being 52,000, was fifty years old ; and that, of course, there would upon that r gister be many more deal men —many more cases of ree.eval, and other bad votes. Before you proceed to art upon the assumption of a great diminution in the Con s ituency, you should introduce a r eg i s t rat i on t h at w ill purge ie No, sai l the Noble Lord, you shall not have that. We will not rate: the incorrectness. We tell you that the constituency of he land has diminished ; and before we give evidence to show t;;at fact, I call upon you to alter the qualification, while we retuse the mewls of corrcc ing its errors.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, lam sure the House will be glad to hear that I am come to my last objection. I object to the Bill on account of the principle on which t. is founded. I object to the qualification not being founded on profit but rating. object to the qualification as being professedly under no valuation whatever, and I object in the strongest terms to the amount of value you propose to attach to the franchise. Sir, i have not heard a single reason why the franchise should be reduced from 10/. to 51. Were these a greate,. 'lumber of freeholders in the to.vns deprived of that frac chiso than in England ? (Yes.) An Hun. Member says yes ; but I ask him to prove that statement—where are his documents to establish it? It is for Hon. Members on the other side, who wish to alter the franchise, to show the necessity for it. On what ground dues the Noble Lord hope to induce the House, without any knowledge of the arriouut of the constituency, to say that every man, whether charged with a heavy burthen of rent or not—every man who occupies property which at any time was iaserted in the late-book an being of the value of 3/. shall be entitled to the franchise ?—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I ask on what grounds the House is called upon to make this de parture from the usual amount of the fianclise. The Noble Lord refuses his assent to a Bill brought in by the Hon. Baronet the Member for Preston, to confer that franchise upon the English borough voters, but does he think that the 5/. householders in Ireland arc as a class less subject to influence, more independent, more steady and industrious, more thrifty and economical, than the same class in England or Scotland.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord is about to introduce a fe .4/ unfortunate men, who, under the dominion of a grinding landlord, inhibit a cabin a ith an acre or two of laud, for which he is charged more rent than he could possibly pay, hying decently.—( Hear, hear.) It is a class of persons infinitely below the labourers of this country—below them, and more degraded, I mean, in point of station, education, acquirement, and indepen dence, infinitely below the labourer of England who de pends upon his labour for subsistence. in the report of the Poor Law Commissioners on the subject of emigra. lion, they state that in Is eland the, e is practically no difference between them and the labouring classes, and that as regards gratuitous emigration the farmer is quite as much entitled to the compassion of that Government as the labourer. And yet the Noble Lord says that out of this class every man rated to 51. should be entitled to the franchise. Sir, I hope the House will permit ins to read one more passage, and it is from the evidence of a Roman Catholic gentleman, and a Magistrate of Kilkenny, with reference to the arrears of tithes. (The Noble Lord here read a passage from the evidence, in which it was stated that the class of farmers holding from 10 to 15 acres of land were for half the year in a state of the greatest destitution, having no means of mee-- leg their demands after their crops were soli', and that potatoes without milk was the general diet, and they thought they were lucky. That, under the most improved sstein of management, they could not make more than double their rent). This is the state of the farmer with 10 or 15 acres, paying from 20s. to 30s. an acre fur the land which he occupies. It is a rent which a solvent tenant in this coun try could pay, and it is on the lowest estimate of this de scription of persons, rated at three-times the amount of these parties, that the Noble Lord is preparing to give the franchise. Why, Sir, for silod's sake, let us not make a mockery of the franchise. Lit us by legislation, if pos sible, relieve these poor pe)ple—let us try by Puor-laes, by emigration, or by some other means, to place them in a better situation. Let us endeavour to relieve their phy. sical wants. But when a man tells you that the gene al situation of these people is, for four or five mouths of the year, to be in a state of destitution—that it costs them the most a ;intermitting and index igable industry to enable them ~o pay their rent—don't let the House of Commons tender to persons in such a condition the exercise of the elective franchise—don't, above ail, go to the absurdity of saying, while you hold a virtuous horror of a dependent condition on the landlord, aid the present position of the 501. tenant-at-will in Eneland, you consider the introduc tion of a clause to that euicct in the present Bill should excite your opposition—don't make such a mockery of le gis'ie ion as to confer, by way of forming an independent constituency, the right of voting on men at the rate of 5/. a year—upon men who were barely able to find potatoes for the support of themselves and the r families great part of the year—and to confer this right, too, without re ference to the amount of rent pall by them, which does keep them in an absolute state of dependence, on the landlord or on some one else.—( Opposition cheers.) The reason for doing away with the rights of the forty-shilling freeholders in Ireland was not that they were a:"„Roman Catholic constituency, but that they were a dependent constituency. It was because of the state of life in which they lived. They were necessarily and ut terly dependent either on their landlords or on other in fluence. That was the statement made by Lord Plunkett, and many of those who supported the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling treeholdere. This was the ground on which Parliament acquiesced in their disfranchisement— that they Isere, from their station in society, incapable of exercising an independent franchise. They, therefore, deprive them of it, and by depriving them of it they de prived them of no real boon whatever, but took out of the hands of the landlords the means of furthering their own views, with a total disregard on their (the landlords) parts to the parties whom they were controlling in the exercise of the franchise. The forty-shilling freoholdera were required, at all events, by the law to pos- sess a beneficial interest over and above their rent. But you, in the present case, take those pau pers who are required to have no beneficial interest-, ( Opposition cheers.) You establish a rate of but 51. a year ; you take no security for their rent ; and those are the persons whom you set up as an independent consti tuency —men whom every landlord who chooses to act harshly may turn out as soon as they take a course at an election which they (the landlords) may not like. You take a class of men whose houses are not se cured against fire —whose persons are not secured against violenc e — w h o d are not face the consequences to themselves and their families of giving, on any consideration, a vote which would happen to be unpopular to the majority of the people.—(Oppos;tion cheers.) But the Noble Lord, however, will tell you that there is a restriction which be imposes on this class of persons; he says, I am told— "St 11 there is a restriction ; they must have a 14 years' lease." And this the Noble Lord seems to think a restric tion. It it a restriction, but just in the wrong sense—just in tint point in which you should not have a restriction, It is no restriction on the point on which the Noble Lord contends that it is. What are the advent sgei of a lease? It is thet a man has, for a twin of years, an mdeveadent property of Lis own—a stake ever and above all . dernasids, of w hi c h no roan can deprive him, and from relinch he i s ena bl e d to ma i ntain himself and his family. but a lease upon rack-rent—a lease will a nominal amount of real caarged above that which a man can par —a lease of that description confers on the tenant no independence whatever. It lout keeps him in the clutches of his land lord. If the landlord choosers to act tyrannically, he will grant him a lease of fourteen years, he will keep him in a perpetual arrear of rent, and then bring ing hen, under the Noble Lord's Bill, to the hust ings, he may say, " Vote according to my dictation, or e ls e (Opposition cheers.) But the Noble Lord says the great evil of Ireland is that the landlords hold the leases. Why should they not? The Noble Lord states that that one thirg causes the grand diminution of the franchise for which he means to provide a remedy. He says that if the landlords choose, whole districts may remain unrepresented, and under the Noble Lord's Bill a greater temptation is given by granting a lease of 51. How stands the case ? A. does not choose to grant a lease except to a solvent, a respectable,' and responsible tenant. Therefore what am I to do? I will enable 13. t i grant as many leases as he chooses. And supposing all other objections to the Bill obviated, this is one which I consider as insurmountable. Sir, I am deeply sensible of the indulgence and kindness of the House in listening to observations which I ant well aware have been protracted to an unusual length of time.— ( Cheers.) I would willingly have spared your time and patience if I could have done so, but I felt that in justice to this great question I was not able to do so when arguing, not against the particular details, but against the whole frame and principle of the Bill, and calling upon the House not to examine its details, but to reject the prin ciple on which they were founded.—(Cheers.) Sir, I would impress upon the House how impossible it is, if the House should sanction the principle of this Bill being in troduce.: into Ireland, to withhold the same extension to England.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Member for Kilkenny, who has now in succession given his services to all the three portions of the empire, and consequently looks with an impartial eye on all—(Laughter)—told the Noble Lord that what was good for Ireland was good also for England, and that what was good for England was also good for Scotland. The Hon. Gentleman has now re presented Dundee, Middlesex, and Kilkenny, and he will say " This franchise is to be granted to Ireland, and is a most desirable franchise. lam most anxious the people of England should also obtain it, and I shall call upon you for Justice to England." Now, Sir, the Noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) must look with some amuse ment at the way in which some of his more eager followers fall into his successive lures.—(Cheers.) I ask the Noble Lord, do you mean to give to the Si. householders in towns in England and Scotland the right of voting? The Noble Lord is bound to givp an answer to this question, and I trust that he will give it in the course of this debaee, that we may know, and that no party may be deceived by the statement of the Noble Lord, what course of legislation may be reasonably expected with respect to England and Scotland. Sir, lam firmly persuaded that the Noble Lord, although he may for a time succeed in postponing or defeating the remedy of the great abuses of the registration by tacking to it impossible measures— although he may succeed in again unsettling the mind of the whole constituency—(Cheers) —on the subject, not of any minor alteration of detail, but on the subject of the whole principleon which the Reform Bill was founded— (Cheers)—although he may succeed, and possibly will to a certain extent, in throwing all those elements of discord into that political cauldron, the stirring of which was so eloquently denounced by the Noble Lord, the author of " A Letter to the Elee,ors of Stroud "—(Cheere)—ale though the Noble Lord may succeed in unsettling every thing that the Reform Bill has settled, I rely on the good sense of the constituency of this empire to render it impos sible for the Noble Lord to pass this Bill even through one branch of the Legislature. —( Cheers.) I entertain a hope, an . ardent, I will not say an anxious, hope that even this House will on this occasion reject the principle of the Noble Lord's Bill on the present reading. lam confi dent that the great body of this House, whether the majo rity of this House, or otherwise, e ill be supported in their opposition to this Bill by the cordial support of the people of this empire without your doors—( Cheers)—but if I did not entertain that hope—if 1 ft lt that I should be left in the smallest conceivable minority on the occasion—if I knew that I should be left to stand alone in opposition to this Bill, so decided am I in my feeling and opinion as to the dangerous circumstances that must result directly and certainly from the introduction of the principle of this Bill, that if I stood alone I would record my opposition to its second reading. Sir, I therefore beg leave to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.— ( The Noble Lord having thus concluded a speech of three hours' duration, sat down amid loud cheers.) Mr. C. WOOD said, lie was perfectly aware of the disadvantage to which he subjected himself in rising after the Noble Lord ; but at the same time he was anxious to avail himself of the first opportunity of expressing his en tire concurrence in the course pursued by her Alajeety's Government in the present Session_( Cheers)—and his entire approval, he would not say of all the details, but of the general principle of both branches of his Nubia Friend's Bill.—( Cheers. ) He ( Mr. C. Wood) was the more asxioue to say this, because it was his painful duty last year to differ from the course pursued by the Govern ment, who, while they admitted th , abuses in th regie. trvion system, had, as the Noble Lord (Lord Stantey) reminded them. declined to bring forward any remedy, and therefore he (Mr. C. Wood) could not refuse to join the Noble Lord in considering the di t rile of a measure, the principle of which had been sanctioned by the House. ( Hear, hear.) But this self-same consideration seemed to him to render it impossible to join in tee opposition ti the second reading of this Bill ; and after the speech of the Noble Lord, he confessed he was left as much in the dark as before it of the whole grounds on which that opposition was founded. (Cheering. ) The Noble Lord hal not told the House that the remedy proposed was not as stringent as his own. The Bill of his Noble Friend put an exiieguisher upon every kind of fraudulent voting inn Ireland. The moment the Bill came into operation it would put an end to the system of certifi cates, and no man could vote who could not show bona _fide title to the franchise. 'I here was the appeal both ways, and he thought it important Bert the appeal was not to the Judges, who ought to be kept apart from political considerations. As far a; the system of registration went, it appeared to him that the Bill provided all necessary protection sgeinst fraud and fictitious votes. All the fraud which the Bill of the Noble Lord (Stanley) last year would provide against, was personation of voters or frau dulent certificates, and when it was shown that the greatest evil was the uncertainty of the franchise, Hon. Gentleman upon that (tee Liberal) site of the House would not entertain the Bill, because it applied only to the lesser, and not to the greater evil. He ( Mr. Wood) did not concur in that objection. But mush lers could be concur in the objection offered to the present Bi 1, be cause it applied a remedy to the greater evil as well as ti the lesser; that argument was so monstrous that he did not expect to have heard it from the Noble Lord.— (Ht a - , hear.) The Noble Lord bad not denied the un eert inty as to defining the franchise, nor had he, in the whole course of his address, suggested a remedy for the state of things which he, as well as every other Hon. Member, must deplore.—(Cheers.) lie (Mr. Wood) admitted that this uncertainty was one which could hardly arise in this country. But be asked was tie case mended by that? The doubt did exist in Ireland, and in every grade of society, from the peasant to the Judge upon the Bench. The fact that the doubt existed, and that it affected the whole franchise, could not be denied ; and it was the duty of the House to do everything in its power to remedy certain things. All hopes of defining the words in the Reform Bill had clearly failed. Were they then to go back to the solvent tenant test ?—( Hear, hear.) At the time the Reform Bid passed, that test was abandoned, and in the House of Lords the Duke of Richmond and the Marquis of Lansdowne decla - ed that it was too strin gent and ought to be relaxed. It would be a breach of faith with the people of Ireland to go back to that test.-- ( Hear, hear.) If therefore it was impossible to define the words, beneficial interest, so as to remove the present on. certainty, or to return to the test which existed before the Reform Bill, he (Mr. Wood) knew of no test safer than the Poor-law rating.—(Cheers.) This was no Radical suggestion ; it was first proposed by gentlemen on the other side, the Members for Mallow and Monachan, who could not be supposed to be influenced by party objects. —( Hear, hear, bear.)—lle found a similar test suggested by an Irish barrister of Conservative prin• ciples when examined before a Committee. That gen. Oman was the Registering Barrister in the county of Longford, and was appointed to that office by the Noble Lord opposite ( Stanley). Ile recommended that being rated to the county cess should be taken as tho test, al though he did not think it a good test ; but he was of opinion that the qualification ought to be tested only by a rated value.—( Hear, hear.) With regard to the precise amount of the rating, that was not now before the House. In the Committee they might determine whether it should be Si., 101., or 201.---(Cheers.) The Noble Lord (Stanley) had insisted, and at great length, upon the ne cessity of retaining some profitable interest to be on the rent; but it appeared from the statement of the valuators that such a provision would tend, in a very great degree, to diminish the Irish county constituency. Mr. Wallace, the valuator of the Longford Union, stated, that although the rating was below the rent one quarter or one-fifth —as, indeed, was the case in England —where _the rating was never more than three-quarters the rent, yet, if a profit able interest of 101. above the rent were required, it would disfranchise 126 out of 130 voters in that union; if 5/. were fixed, it would disfranchise 83.—( Hear, hear.) If that test, therefore, were adopted, it would destroy the constituency in the Irish counties. But he did not wish to denounce it, much less to destroy them.—( Hear, hear.) He did not agree with the Noble Lord that it was:not a just subject for comparison to show the proportions between the constituencies in English and Irish counties, although he ad mitted that tire comparison might be pushed too far. Under the present system there was no fair proportion be. tweea the population and the constituencies anti the coun ties in Ireland. When the Noble Lord took the returns as a fair representation of the amount of the Irish consti tuencies, he seemed to have forgotten that those returns did not show the real state of the constituencies. For instance, the constituency of Cavan was stated to be 3,800, but the return itself showed that upwards of 500 of thoae were double entries. In the county of Lorgford it wool d appear, from the returns, that there was a constituency of 1,900 voters ; but the Reports stated, that in the whole county there were in reality little more than 1,500. But even from that number a considerable number must be deducted on account of double entries, so that the consti- tuency would dwindle down much below the amount stated in the return. Wicklow was set down as having a constituency of 2,300, but, judging by the late election, not more than 1,300 were now capablo of voting. In Mayo the constituency was stated to be 2,100—a smaller county constituency than any in England, with the ex ception of that of Rutlandshire; but in May last the number did not exceed 700. Would any body say that the amount of those constituencies bore a fair proportion to the population of the Irish Counties? ( Hear, hear.) He would admit that the amount of constituencies ought not VI depend altogether on population, but was _MORNING EDITION. I ti c , ,t , t tli p e r.. g. , pi t l h l e tti a o n tl lo a w r ,t hO o s f t c i . .ll:,: s o , r it t u aL ep t , i a ,, n s d ? ma A t t e s t i ll s l e e i F e e n r • i e ,.der e t n r f the passing of th e R e f irin lad; population snd er:P a _ s t i a were taken, togeth e r as tae standa d by which 4 0 it be ietermined wh e th er erten' towns shou ld or she.. e have represeetstives in lacunae:oA; and erof'' w rt ; i t w e e the only basis of electoial rights ti ee might is an j left the repre,eetstive system elte ether unreferire- • sa ,, e its condition unalt ere d. He d.d not advoc ate ae bide or a large extension of the franchise, which he thn n' ° a a io .„ would be a great evil, in opposition to the o p in 6 great many Hon. Geetlemeii on Li; side f the 1,„, bf eatlie it would become an obstacle to enlightened gislation, and he bad no reason to think that if n ma_nY the costiencies ha been much enla sged a a fo r mat period the tu Roman Catholic Re 13ill wouldt not paper been parsed. He had, he thought, been shown i° p with which the Honourable Member fe r Leeds re ( ott Baines) was connected, that there was every to apprehend that if the franchise Were I 96 cf .: . extended, it would tend ultimately to defeat those imP r e ° _ ments which was the main object which the advocatcte9e., such a course had in view. At the same time, 1 0 , c v si d be ee such wished ns ttohaetntalbieremseommbeerseocofi community t c y o l o ts; i f t r u c r g iee s t. l e v e m en the people and those who were entrusted with theiriktaeyre eats in that House.—( Ile ir, hear.) The county ° , O w ere contained a population of :36 0,000 inhabitante, %vat principally R o m an C a tholics, but if the Protestan,,,!nte lords cecerced th e cons tituents, then the result nos,:; that a large Catholic population might be represe:tasiai representatives directly hostile to them• li e e ra' whether that were a state of things which left anY o r the bability of an identity of interest and feeling betwee, co0; 1 ' mass of the people and the constituency of the ( Hear, hear)—or whether diet were a .s:tate of 11) . 1 '7 to which the population of that county would . be p l ia s feet much confidence in the Legielature which bad , . 0 . duced results so anomalous ? The Noble Lord in coMeeloata isg of the present measure, had confined of England and Ireland as regarded the but it aid not seem to him Mr. C. Wood) that ther e u t the slightest analogy between Thew° mount the two cases. v ery of the leasehold constituencies in England •"gime small, unless in a very few places. Fifty or hu ge holders wsre the most that were generally found In earl . constituencies; but in Ireland and Scotland a v er s Y be eire siderable portion of the voters had acquired the fr lea ses by right of leasehold and it would appear that the lee hold tenure in Ireland was gradually diininishinJ; lend, did not wish to impute political motives to the jr . w ed lords in the management cf their property , but itte,,P,Peeting leaseholdthenuvires; that many of them were not now in the habit 01 b . as t he leases to their tenants. Their object probsbl 501eer improvemeet o f th e i r estates, an d t h e law cou ld hose iris tainly interf e r e w i t h t h em ; b ut yet the result t . c ounty' pruvements might be the di s f ranc hisement of halfa Much had be en sa id o f t h e coerc i on attic 50 1 . tenal?triagicea in this c ou n t r y ; an d t h e N o bl e L or d o pposite h' r`lations expression that even i ng to sent i men ts as to the Od . ) a ss between l a ndl or d an d tenant w hich he (Mr. W ° } l o tad not a little surprised to hear.—( Hear, herr .) 1,0 0 1 always understood that the tenure of land, and th e r ; ode° subsisting between landlord mid tenant, should b e ns ' °- 0 / tes on their mutual interests, and the political eein ie tlel nants should have no more to do in such a case than did eel were not known to exist.—( Heaa, heir. But h e „ e els believe in the coercion said to have been) xercised tet-onf the 50!. tenants in this counts He did not tneanearsce that there were not instances Y in which an undue la ago; had been used, but he did not know why suc h g i l : p lieve u ence should be generally used, because he &int,'to' that in the majority of cases the opinions of th":, 501 i r lits; nants were in perfect accordance with those t " e s • lords on the subjects which decided county electin b e ard further, he had no reason to think, from all h e ha least road all he had seen, that the influence exercised on to n. holders was less than that exert ised on the 0 1 ' t e e said —( a:, hear, hear.) I n B,,„hi re ief laence the to to unexampled extent hid been exercised principally °vgat such who held by the leasehold tenure. But in whale at at er e dangers might be provided agaiest, he thoughtat be 0 ): should be taken that the constituency of liela,_ ° %„, orn ° , 4 further e I uced. --( Hear, hear.) lie certainly '‘ n , he rate' better test for the qualification in that country than ` e ors' lion b ue w o h f i p ei r t e h m e is h e a s. d s l n i g e g d e i s d te n o s: t to m l e e a a n ve orwintsist on . . 11 ber t he a ltoge i t tbe necessity of a leasehold tenure, because he hehe a sn6i d H e o e u is sc o o h had n no t t ha a t de s q o u o is je t e s r. amount for o fer s : i ° in g ot ! s r it p t r f , ' . independently of any tenure, would give ° et ,: It °le- P s tualt tion however, e v7el;,otoht t a t t o e or p is r t o i p ttl o e s n e c d y n ' loe f as o u n r l e y:;r o ;t t e o bl e c ; merit on the Reform Act, and the were told not thou d a the doors to voters insufficiently aliaed, lest the !, 'n t he hereafter be unable to close them. To any eha ti bib i l trilt" Reform Bill for the purpose of producing' a r e o d sit' Lion of powers he (Mr. Wood) was as much 00°5-115forta Noble Lcrd opposite. He certainly thought t he bta ° Act. as a settlement of a great national question, _(,)titgbat lightly to be disturbed.—(Hear) He considere°,ao 0(01 its passing a revolution was effected in the constittlletien country, affecting the popular party here as the r, ev :y o°, l 1663 affected the monarchy, and no one cold" j ai e ort„ . : —( Hear, hear.) 3l dbnbbt yeetu H aci aitiase e ntuhtutecre w sheome i dup s oirt , dtihrte t went h t ohoo e stat r ahot e cmbev f oiyeeetui had been effected without hazard. They bad ' t , - o t l be thankful that it had not injured the counter' filar en ought to be cautious and timid in incurring O l e t ' e f bectft t iloe h toicia,cl E sui:foiae:: l tw,r. t a dutortid e ituy.cisi, f i Noble Lord to ore' the prine t r e ia b e r in t wne : tveere r eciu n r a ceei s tsd3h.sa ° tlbe eriso P i elot i f;:l e or ete l f totachgr e ' ic n i e art i l br e raleb i ol:o England no doubt as to the franchise, and h o od whileobta inheed adhered e a fr r oal l ry y mfae d irir iv ßu i ra d i ell e llpy d r:d i : n ievni t di h tt ea tdin c o: o nn u w a t°: : :: Y - t-01113; d e° r ll o l3l: a cei r l- ; e i 'B6l3: b e tlea had reason to think that, unless some estrallrt wo uld li t unforeseen circumstances arose, no other res tt ,,'" „"be re n d ew to t a i t t s e pe p a r l ibe to ip t l h e e o c f o t n i s te titu g e e n f t o :: rgn !l i i was net fettered to all its provisions; he pinned down to the four corners of the eness d ' e t i the g t; bear.) He did not think that when they fen ° I deere n a chise unsettled in Ireland, they were bound to fesudeeeres that uncertainty, and leave the doors open t°, go , r to extend the franchise and tobringa perjury. Besides, was it not a principle of tn e be ieh e d grea ter b Bill of a t t )ar s t u ie e s b wv,itahainththeearpoalweeodfothhjeeoctonosftittbuetionlaii7l litestbaeachti;eso, the object avowed by the Noble Lord hilnae ll f the • They should not adhere too strictly to the letter e rtt, form Act, while they might thereby violate 10 and s tye should not run counter to the objects Of the 131 ;0 00 11* , less to the intentions of its framers. But e i l f ." he ( ble principle avowed by the Noble Lord him t he t he Wood) was surprised at the opposition ofit wasn-es Lord to the Bill. He had understood that tbe r r ld wish of the Noble Lord that such a measure e s o d gil tat sent should he introduced by the Goverentt tein a l t ai l blo be fairly considered by the House. He did, p ot tbo Pv ea that was the stage of the measure at Winer }A bel e to Lord should have urged any objections be oT e rati 3 ,", tertained to it. There was oe other consi ci d - dee , s' e f which he wished to refer. The Noble Lord ha sys teen that his only object was to remedy the defeet ive d bad Diet registration in Ireland, though the Noble l' er ag ituen e t he accused of covertly seeking to diminish the ect' llit eed of that country. He would not say be °lot 1 / 0 „ 0 1 Noble Lord of any such intention, becattso ' aid "d, imply a suspicion on his part which be did Vr el feel as to the motives of the ,_°' eten, ti ar a He believed that the Noble Earl had no olu e r f ie ble then those which he professed ; but the befo re - be should in that case allow tine measure then s o f t o House to go into Committee. The feel Lord or people of Ireland were opposed to the No bo the occasion. If the Hon. and Learned blab a lso Dublin were the only person opposed to n w ere 7,0 might have braved such opposition ; but tb e to ppo lt ife of his own Government in Ireland.—( Hear, Le ap) in e a lti s te arrayed against him those who were tbe firm es i 7 ea r,) ei believed it to be most unwise and impolitie ' leg ° lo t of the most stringent necessity, to ettemPtidtetidetittthe against the feelings of a people, though lie we u „yaiah he t cases might exist and had before e xisted la _ duty; e f House of Commons had not shrunk front itan„s 05e ,e would anybody say th a t th e prese nt occasion t he la; o f bsfer i ° the /3 11 that nature? The only question then was whether the House would proceed Noble Lord IP his Noble Friend, or with the Bill of the Noh' t ; e n t i , posits. That was the sole and s imple q ue the t , a y before the House; and was there anybody te was a case in which they thauld attempt ta.eiiiig p ie b direct opposition to that almost uvailimeus laaeland (rota they had every reason to know now pervaded 1' a bleh one eoid Li the ether ?—( Cheers. ) Mr. LITTON would briefly state the gro"" idc iej fie e tap" he opposed tee second reading of the iene a ttee ~l e y it did not mean what it spoke, but sees a e ' ver eens tifu' elai repeal the Irish Reterrn Bill, and open the a,. eite n bte e ti a body of men th e Referin Int had nevee'ves the should be invested with the franchise. Th e .„3: ad, 0 1 were now admitted had been heretef ire a1e ° , 1 ;,,, r 'f it te Government had been celled on to reined,' tu e ,ssiv e a .,to time to time Bills bad been brought in hy s u it - g t— thelest torneys-General, without any intention of paems remedy the evils of the Irish registration syster.! tie ose• year, compelled by the success cf the Bill ° L i nt pia the for 0,0 sul?J e t Lord, Ministers had brought in a Bill t" 1. tP c r e Pi ljg • cti That Bill had been accompanied by a Bill franchise, but it had been understood that thet 00 gl ,_ e were to be kept distinct and separate, and they(, t,echtsrh have been kept so. The Bill for defining eesehad dotet if that what ten out of the twelve Judge s . so thy' it , mined to be the franchise should be so no long t r o l ' t h e Mil os they amended the evils of the registration aP te hy enlarg b e ters were determined to have a quid pro ;illsqu9 were to o ber the franchise, but they concluded the two Ilie ale ion kept separate. The Bill of the Noble Lord Lre,,ii.tratiess for North Lancashire removed the etas of th e c oat se d a lien a lso. system, and its fate was well known, an drawn f i t a•,, t 0 withdrawn the Government Bills were " oes trUet t " It was monstrous in such a Bill that the e r et , 110 1( ; ii i tea of the Judges as to the franchise I. l d,h' re sent 5 , Bill should be declared to be wrong, and t' =e nc c taa nlitl et was characterised by equal want of fairneis e ge forit _ o f What the public complained of was not that the inisva tion be was in bad liw, but they called for the due 2 ` 15 t° tea that law. The Government found they m e u i , s it'to 3 s i st re call of the people, wile would DO longer Su' l 5 et ease, o of fraud, and that if they did not iatrodh,u ice T alc alo„ 1 ?!., of their own they must submit to the " cratizeLord. B on u e t they bad no right e late i W o o.. a principle extending the francliise eat ta 0 end d peal the Reform Bill, and to dernoraliz ther e - the hero d(nnodt :hit found l them anro hp: t: parties m i t the produced oa laud, Act, en dasn;siumcnßeiceledaaxercised the jantilords tbose o objected ng th e no appeal to the Judges, to the a r n c . ' h 1 1, .7 0 ,to registry of unqualified persons. ,0 . , ) u sieg i s tra i l l ' u n t manner of the appointment of the !rise! ua which the public complained. The crying „ el l, L inn vs wholly tlir! England, as in Ireland, was, that phrso I3arristers. The Bill tended to perpetuat e r eitts lified by their situation inn life, by their wen t :d the le!, ictnetdrod nd sWar"P e d prito , ' character got upon the registry, a . ie fratid m ust mate constitute cy. It would e,es tha Toter the by legitimizing the paupers upon tbertAo.":7 I they th ee° WO have the votes of the mob, and thereto', ot g .° whY paupers on the register. It vas sa id, aclol