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

~' . lIVENING EDITION :leiter-General last vear—" A Bill to remove doubts re- P oC ting qualified vote r s, an d to create a tribunal of appeal r matters o f l aw relating to the registration of voters in Ireland ps and this is the definition which the Solicitor- Genera 1* introduces, for the purpo se Of remov i ng a ll doubts with regard to the franchise. The Bill p rov id es , that, in order to determine whether any person claiming to be re gistered has a beneficial interest of the value required by laws either in freehold or leasehold estates. the tribunal eetermining such claim shall estimate such value according to the beneficial interest which such property yields, or is c apable of yielding, calculating such interest to be the advantage derived or derivable by such claimant out of the Premi ses, after deducting the expenses, and not according to w hat a solve n t tenant could pay for the same. This i s the very last definition to remove obstruction from the ex ercise of the franchise, by the Solicitor-General. I am not surprised that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Soli citor-Gen,r a l for Ireland, after having introduced that measure, should look back to the records of Parliament, and, s ee i ng the speeches determined in the House, on the subject of the beneficial interest, and of the solvent t P : al tcY test by my H onoura bl e an d L earne d her'end, the M em b er for Exeter, and anticipating t h: speeches h e m i g h t h ear f rom the same gum ter, and the "eta that m i g h t f o l low from the arguments which Would be advanced, in the event of his bringing forward a Rimilar provision for the removal of the d ou bts that en e,arnhered the elective franchis e —( H ear , b ear )— t h a t lie Mould have again considered the subject. But, Sir, what does the Noble Lord do now ? Does he propose t ; b ring forw ar d any d e fi n i t i on o f t h e ex i sting franchise? , e. that i s t h e avowed object of the Noble Lord—that t h In e pretext of the Bill ; that is what is put forward the preamble of the Bill ; but that is not the inten )l, of the enactments of the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) The "oh le Lord now abandons the definition of the franchise llit° e' er ber• and without a single argument, and with the blest meagre statements that I ever beard on se great a i l i ub j e et from a Cabinet Minister, or any Member of Par ._4l4ent, he proposes, not a new definition, but a total al teration of the franchise in Ireland.—( Opposition cheers.) h i : kn ew not . how long the Noble Lord has enter ;died the opinions he now professes—( Renewed I,:p e A rh ig)--but this I know, that in 1839 the Noble 11 , 4 *.' 4 professed to entertain very different views upon the „,•l e et, and upon the policy of making such an extensive in 'Zee the principles and provisions of the Reform Bill. In 1.,1 . the H on. and Learned M em b er for Dublin moved ..aye to bring in a Bill to assimilate the franchise in realtt Britain and Ireland, and by whom was that motion ta s „ t Pl? It was resisted by the N o ble L or d the Secre ▪ 'or Ireland. He resisted it, indeed, With hesitating voice, ,„Viith faltering tone, and visage uncomposed. he qeers and laughter.) But listening to the cheers 00 received in front of him, and looking to the cordial sup- I: W hich came from this side of the House, the Noble t i o d at last screwed up his courage to meet the propos] b n of th e Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for c oh llbl in, and c l ose d hi s speec h w i t h t h e f o ll ow i ng expres gq::"." Thinking, ' said the Noble Lord, " that the Le y/11.'41 eh re ought n o t lightly to disturb the arrangements la ccompanied a statute of such vast importance and ta b recent a date, I believe that any encouragement to o Y i en deavour to do so would lead only to a protracted and a i ,,, e as, debate. I must give my decided, though reluctant, yeet7e to the motion."—( Hear, hear.) In the next Z;" 11 the course of last session, for fear we should have r'C'tta a the line taken by the Learned Lord, he ea referred to the views he had taken ; and on hi n , l . l4 rt of himself and of her Majesty's Government, Ititi; ri led Me th a t "he had met the motion for leave to 1 , 6 1 0 th at Bil l w i th a d i rect negat i ve, and t h at the Go t:rant felt it wou ld b e i nex p e d ien t, i n so s h ort a t i me , is ak in on the settlement that had been made, or to ve r ' l ace any measure of fundamental change. " The Go tt! arnent," said the Noble Lord," are still prepared to TiZ t . ,the same course, and to act in the same spirit." ast,,:°eclaration of his determination to resist not only the Liewation of the franchise in England to that of Ireland, fit, Lie material or wide departure from the principles of .Liteforns Act, so emphatically announced by the Noble I:: i n 1 839, as emphatically repeated by the Noble d in 1 840, and as absolutely and positively departed C a nd repudiated by the Noble Lord in 1841.—( Loud shi're from the Opposition benches.) Sir, it was a favour expression of the Noble Lord, that since that time he t h derived some new impressions. I know not whence 1 1 : t l e new impressions may have been derived. I know m e b e , what source they may h a ve co me—they 4' °es and th e y p ro b a bly are , th e resu lt o f t h e iudepen alexercise of the reflective powers of his own mind. tid s ' au gh• ) But this I know, that it is a singular coin ht. - nee that in the year 1839, on the motion being I :ulitt forward, which the Noble Lord negatived, thesel re the views which were taken of the subject by the • Q. and L earne d M em b er f or D u bli n. Si r, I may b e fi l th at when a motion was made f o r assi m il a ti ng the linhAd"'hide in the two countries, that the franchise in Eng i wea unjustifiable as well as the franchise in Ireland, lit that it ought equally to be extended. Be it so, give ett_the franchise in Ireland, and then we will join you in r e rding the English franchise. What I propose is, to tiee the franchise in both countries to 51. I have no h tt-t .!le Noble Lord has been brought . to . that conclusion e t he inde finependent exercise of his own opinions—( Great not influenced by the Honourable and %egad Member for Dublin—(lncreased cheering)— tern and unbiassed opinion has led him to adopt that sys - liis h • t i eh he refused in 1839.—(Continued cheering.) I bt ' o must confess, that I view this proceeding with ;p' ee tiing as it does from her Majesty's Ministers, who rebisent her Majesty in this House.—(Cheers.) If the if ° h: Lord has altered the views which he took in 1839, 18 4 7 44 determined to abandon the ground he took in a,h;'Aoes and to repudiate the provisions of the Reform Bill, lin not come forward boldly and state the real il:l4l4dg on which he does this? Why does he not tell eo s tua „t he thinks it unjust to take the franchise from the th zreeholders, and that he was prepared to restore to 1 8 ° ,: voters the rights which were taken from them in Rein • But perhaps the Noble Lord will tell us lie is not h it g to restor e the rights of the 40s. freeholders, but I tlA t th , e Noble Lord, and I will prove it before I sit down, going to restore a class of voters far more fs r i e ct to intimidation, far more numerous, and inferior to the 40s. freeholder, whose rights Reg taken away in the year 1329. On what ground 7, the Noble Lord do this? Does he do it because ho tha t to assimilate the law in England and Scotland to 4: w hich he proposes for Ireland ? or does he mean . to of to Ireland a franchise more extensive than to either the other parts of the empire ? If he does so, the Noble tae ° , l ?ught to have made a statement to that effect in the es s - a u t the country, but as it is, his Bill is brought for- Its'" under false colours. y The preamble of the Bill and tertectments were at variance with each ether, for the lendP hv erted the whole principle on which voting in Ire the , n ad hith erto ta k en p l ace . Th e arguments b y w h ic h the t •‘ ° ble Lord had sought to support that Bill are the dati on ine agra I have ever heard, a nd t o t a lly without foun 'Wet—. Now, I should like to know what the instructions t o e that were given to the barristers who formed the lee t leion with res p ec t t o th e P oor - ra t es ? It i s never herat ° „,,Pe personal communication of the Attorney-Ge ro with his private friends. It is never said, " Go down country, visit the unions, and report upon those Up on You think p ro p er to se l ect ; a b sta i n f rom report i ng !et t , e ethers ; you know our views, and whatever you can Will 4 ring upon th em b r i ng f orwar d an d g i ve i t tome, an d Otte thi?lake My own selection.—( Cheers.) Mind, there is th at e, and this is the only instruction given to them, %e lle YeU shall carefully conceal from all the parties 11 00 eted with the Workhouses, Guardians of the the r e "d all, the fact of your presence and th at attire Of the inquiry. The Noble Lord tells us by s th eae gentlemen have visited ten unions—how and fo rm teted the Noble Lord has not condescended to in most f o rty ouse. He has not told us that they were in the seas m rd state with regard either to valuation or as -1.840 , when I turn to the Poor-law Report for light that in two important towns (not to be lost Yo th _ul la the question of the applicability of such a test the I:!tranchise)—l find that a rate is in progress under lie i Le r,"law valuation in the two important towns of Dub % ra t . ` - '°r l r. That in those towns, and in these two only, Co e ; l i a n!hr the Poor-law is in progress, and the Poor-law with th ssioners state in their Report that they are watching tive e greatest anxiety the progres s o f th e rate i n t h ese Ivhethas w "* And yet in the unions visited know n tiee Dublin or Cork are included. When we the visite ot - the Co mmenced I know not, but from th e ev id ence o f h asty e a rnreis sioners themselves, it was perf orme d i n a most Pap ers cursory m a nner—in such a m anner, t h at i n t h e v, ho aid b efore us to-day it is stated that t h e b arr i ster ' le ah ,!isited t h e union of Carrick-on-Suir w as unabl e to bias stitextracts from the minutes of the Board, so short was Mat ed Y, - -( Hear, hear.) Sir, I know that it has been tat we re us that these gentlemen visited ten unions, and h e 'e furnished for the first time with the Report upon hod, A u t ° he ten uni ms, and the concluding Report ern liar,fi`ting the views of the Commissioners was put into the Nobi °f P ico. Mem be rs this very morning, lip when the e Lord .. t t calla on us to assent to a proposition so s ar ° a nd est • ear, ° b ear as that now before us.—( Hear, come f t .,, ea rt) Sir, I know not where those papers they it , " 14 ; they are not by her Majesty's command— merely e not ordered to beprinted by this House. They tied state that they R the valuation are eorts relative to va u e.ta• e , uor-l asss t 4t-3"11 Stat . printed by Cl owes and Son for her owe ionery-office. That is the only official th P " jhem, except that th them. Sir, Lord extracted from talcs' gave a h' ° • fi d t 14the evidence Istory of them. Sir, I am satis o 4 . t i upon five ce as I find it in these Reports ; they are 1 40 um° out of the ten of the unions, out of a total t o te ns into which Ireland is to be divided. I tilab Le the evidence., however weak and inconclusiv ` t it Noble Lord's ' • and I s lt furnishes views , no e l:1 11 moeonv. grounds strong and incontrovertible . t fvo f ;: nchise ince the House that the basis the Y °rln s 11 0 test • • as Proposed by the Noble Lord, actu y on or criterion of value whatever. Sir, I to tl . ee '.ue . wish to contend that if had a fair and t valuation cf • you . y tiffs a eh an _ e Property in Irelan and if you are to and b e of infinite Or. even if you are n ta g such a document fur m i n Re importance and value in removing doubt t hat g a con ect test of thevalue. But t preyed by i • u we must have 4_ o e t io ns of politic impartial examination, free from all sus danv`rce with, thea motives, founded on, and in precise ac id 0 principles laid down by law ; and I say Y nu of these tests freed from the • • of toe motives, i • ,freedom suspicion e mpartiality correctness, a following up ties/ talon„' and unif • • uniformity of the proceedings, the valuation 1 " Place under the P llreland • • 1 e • iam eetc,b Poor - laws in is sig al4/Inot ly , and avowedl deli ient.—(Cheers.) tial s uPpoae Si r • tha t Hear, hear. s at sucu a valuation can be iropar elts apart fr' ear. ) But I entreat the House to consider !? fla,, b __?ro the political question —even apart from ttrleth„7l.s upon which you are going to put the fran -4.1.4‘ seie,,o al . evil of no common magnitude attaching 1 !_ of this valuation for the purposes °fie political If there be one point in the world—if there lrrahaiaa eo • 'ourse ° Wr and d os . f ever on which it ought to be the dialt -s well to ire of y Member of this House who tm , Y to unite .the peace and prosperity of Ireland cor der the pir t ) e, it is this—to withdraw from the valuation a part fr om °l l 4 law, for the sake of that valuation itself, ia enti od up Poli eca l grounds, any suspicion of .ts being .oron polltic I Prei Bill a and party giounds. I say that the fi l a s to encounter en ormous difficulties from 11 "eltYs and from a thousand causes ; and that if you superadd to that the curse of political psi-. i,eu 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 point whether there has or has not at present been mixed up with the election of guar. diens anything of political partisanship.—( Hear, hear.) Allegations to that effect have been made. I am 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 to 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, 1 may throw myself upon the indulgence of the House. 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 decisive than what we find in that law. The Poor-law Commissioners, reciting the clause in their directions to the valuators, state that the estimate ef value is required to be the rent at which, one year with another, the he reditaments 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 the 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 uniformity 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 bad in some instances been em ployed as rural surveyors, but many of whom had not lee.en 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 of Mr. Morriss, of Balruddery ? He says he does not take the rent at which the land would let. Why? Because it was raised ton much by competition—( Cries of " Hear, bear")—but what a steady solvent man could give for it with a fair remuneration for his capital and labour. Another valua tor, '4r. 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 meet 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 the 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 nature of the soil, and the value of tee farms. In the Lurgan union, to which I go 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 three guineas an acre; indeed that plenty of persons would be willing to give 10/. an acre premium for the tenements let at that rent, and that the tenants could put by 10s. 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 so, his answer was that it was ne cessary to make the rents low, in order that the landlord should bear his fair proportion. Now I am not stating whether this was too high or too low. I am 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 Bill.— (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 be no criterion of property, is proposed 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 deed, that many motives have been in operation to make it so.—(Hear, hear.) In the union of Scarrig, the valu tor having made his estimate, returned home, and struck out 2s. in the pound from the whole of the union. The guardians, however, said that he had acted most un justly, and they reduced the valuation, still by one-sixth. The guardians then also 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 thistiree. 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 tentage 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 said, 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 ? (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 real 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 be 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 ciding 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 Reform 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 bad 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 inexplicable 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 in 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 i fee from one end of the Act to the other; and that frail- . 1 chise is neither granted nor altered by that Bill. The ' franchise in fee deponds on the Act of the 10th Geo. IV., and the qualification is the possession of a freehold of the clear yearly value of 101. 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 valise 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 England and Ireland; and nether in Scotland nor in England have I ever beard a lawyer get up and say that in his mind he entertained the slightest doubt, or ever beards 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 in Ireland, whether for lives or for a term of years. Let us see whether the doubt hangs on this point. I am 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 defined. The leasehold qualification in England is given on lease of the clear yearly value of the sum 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 due 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 50/., an objection was taken to that provision, and it was subsequently altered in deference to the arguments raised by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite. The objection taken was stated as follows : " With respect to towns, I cannot but think that in giving 'Le franchise according to the amount of rent paid ratherthan the profit made, you are 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 501. for a lease which is not worth 401., 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 was the argument made use of in 1831 in favour of requiring the test of profit, and that argument came from the Honourable Mem ber for Dublin.—(Loud cheers from the Opposition.) In the following month, in the second Session iif 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 201 It seems anomalous to make a 101. qualification of fi eeholders, and a 20/. 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 Ireland and in England, the amount of profit over and above the rent, and not 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 Bill departs from that principle altogether. 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 which 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 where 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. They say that we throw on parties the burden of paying the claims on him, bat that we do not give him the franchise. The answer is—you give them the franchise, but you do not throw upon them the burden of taxation.—( Cheers. ) The Act does not require that the person exercising the franchise should pay rates; he is not even liable to pay rates; the whole of the rates fall upon the landlord—the enant evils pays half-penny of rates. You give the 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 51. a year, although that property shall no longer be rated at such an amount—although it may be 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 far the rates. You actually put up the franchise to auction, and knock it down for sixpence a year. If my tenant has once been rated at Si. a year, although the property may have fallen in value, and may not be worth 4/. a year, what is to prevent me 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.— (Cheers.) 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 for a short time longer.—( Cheers.) The Bill does not even require that the rates shall be paid. On reading over the Bill, there was one of the provisions of it which 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 been deemed expedient should be exempted from rating altoge ther. Now it is provided that the guardians or valuators, in addition to the rate-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 Gentleman in making this supplementary valuation. The rate-book and the supplementary valuation are both re quired to be produced at the sessions, and I said to myself, of course this supplementary valuation. is for the purpose of conferring the franchise. But, no, the rate-book is the 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 of 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.) Yee, 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 the 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.— (Cheers.) 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 tight 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 some 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 some instances be deprived of it. Now what do the papers which were furnished us this morning—the Reports of the Poor-law Valuators, who were ordered t s report for the purpose of furnishing the data for elective franchise--show ? Why all the information they furnish amounts to just this, that they know nothing at all on the subject.—(Cheers and laughter.) The Report from one of the unions states that the inaccuracies existing are so great that they are 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 instances 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 counties. But the Noble Lord tells you, borrowing the arguments of the Hon. 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 shell 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 now 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, for the pur pose of proving this, I will refer to the report of Mr. Stanley, 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 arc 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 do 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 the 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 prevails to a remarkable extent among landed proprietors. Leases ex pire and they are not renewed. Landlords have ceased to wish that their tenants should possess the land. Whole districts arc everywhere to be found, the tenants of which arc 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, who does not know that there is a very remarkable contrast in this country with time state of things just described. There is not a remarkable objection on the part of landlords to granting their tenants leaees ; there is not a remarkable aversion to their possessing the elective franchise—and why ? Because taking them as a body, one with another, he they Whig or be they Tory, be they gen tlemen on one side or the other, it is the piile and satis faction of a landlord in England to believe that, in the main, his tenants will be guided by hi s wishes. —( Hear, hear, from the MineaFrial benche s .) We do not see k 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 exerei.e of autho rity, he may calculate upon the result of the elscrion by the number of landed proprietors aed the p arty to wh i ch they respectively belong.—(lronical cheers from the Liberal benches.) No English landlord would think it proper to interfere, if upon his estate he found th a t one , two, or three, or half his tenants were, in the exe rc i se o f their own independent judgment , differing with him in po'itical views, and 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 ,osite e s " Po t ' of 8 _ . 0 151- thee er °' aOA • , re Vie ~~ THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1841. 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 for an English landlord, and in such circumstances, to take ? You would not think it very unnatural if he sought to ob. tain tenants over whom that influence was not exerted. In this country, where there is less of hardship than there is in Ireland, in getting rid of one tenant and substituting 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." But, Sir, if the landlord did not go this length • if, re strained by motives of hum an ity, or of justice, or Of consi deration for his tenants, from taking this step, and substi tuting tenants who concurred with, for those who differed from him, if he confined himself to taking this course, and saying, '• I have no quarrel with you my tenant, as between landlord and tenant. You are satisfied with me as a libe ral and independent landlord ; I am perfectly satisfied with you as industrious and honest tenant, but there is one con stant source of ill-will between us. I see that upon all political questions you are led by an extraneous influence to take a part wholly against me; this is the only point of discussion between us. For God's sake do not let that in terfere longer with the friendly relations of landlord and tenant. As long as this state of things exists, there must be constant irritation between us—there must be a constant interruption of that harmony and goodwill which ought to exist. You may feel confidence in me. You know that I would not willingly dispossess, nor will I dispossess a tenant who does his duty by use in an agricultural point of view. For God's sake let us get rid of this bone of contention, the franchise, and I will accept from you—from year to year, a rent which will afford you a fair and rea sonable profit, and which at 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 a liberal course ? (Ironical cheers from the Liberal benches.) Would not any landlord be in the opinion of Hon. Gentlemen opposite justified in saying " I will be contented to neutralise the influence of my property alto gether, I will be content to sacrifice any influence and political right which I may derive from the possession of property, but I will not submit to have the influence of my property habitually turned against myself, and I will not of my own free will place instruments in the hands of others 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 taken. I say that that is the state of so ciety 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 of the constituency arising from this causer"; 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 that an 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 goir.g to take down my words— (the Noble Lord was understood to refer to Mr. O'Con nell)—but I have very frankly to say, that when you show me that state of society arising from that cause, I shall be prepared to discuss with you, with the full view of cor recting that which I admit to be an evil, the best means of counteracting such a state of . things. Before I can take that course it must be shown to me to what extent the constituencies of Ireland have been 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 ment, for it will be an exercise of the powers of the Legis lature against 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 Ireland has gone. Let me look at the country consti tuencies of Ireland. At the period of the Reform Bill, I calculated them tb amount to 52,000. Upon that occa sion the Hon. 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, 1 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 and 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 is 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 been 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 whom are 101. 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 bees ready enough to have acted upon Hear, hear)— but now that it shows the fallacy of your arguments you want to repudiate it as unworthy the at tention of the House. I have no doubt it contains many double entries.—( Hear, hear.) I have no doubt, also, it contains many fraudulent and fictitious votes ; but what shall we allow for them ? Shall we say 20,000 for them. Let me do so, and still you have a re gister far exceeding that of 1832. Let me also call to your attentim 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 register be many more deal men—many more cases of removal, and other bad votes. Before you proceed to art upon the assumption of a great diminution in the con stituency, vou should introduce a registration that will purge it. No, sai I the Noble Lord, 'feu shall not have that. We will not alter the incorrectness. We tell you that the constituency of Ireland has diminished ; and before we give evidence to show that fact, I call upon you to alter the qualification, while we refuse the means of correc:ing its errors,—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I am sure the House will be glad to hear that I am conie to my last objection. I object • 'to the Bill on account of the principle on which it is founded. I object to the qualification not being founded on profit but rating. I 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 101. to 51. Were there a greater number of freeholders in the towns deprived of that fran chise than in England ? (Yes.) An Hon. 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 does the Noble Lord hope to induce the House, without any knowledge of the amount 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 inserted in the rate-book as being of the value of 5/. 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 franchise. The Noble Lord refuses his as , ent 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 Si. householders in Ireland are 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 ti introduce a few unfortunate men, who, under the dominion of a grinding landlord, inhabit a cabin with an acre or two of laud, for which he is charged more rent than he could possibly pay, living 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 tion, they state that in Ireland there 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. Aud 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 me 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 meet ing their demands after their crops were sold, and that potatoes without milk was the general diet, and they thought they were lucky. That, under the most improved system 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 tr" 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 tifod's sake, let us not make a mockery of the franchi c. Let us by legislation, if pos sible, relieve these poor people—let us try by Poor-laws, 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 general situation of these people is, for four or five months of the year, to be in a state of destitution—that it costs them the most uuintermitting and indefatigable industry to enable then to 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 all, go to the absurdity of saying, while you hold a virtuous horror of a dependent condition on the landlord, atld the present position of the 501. tenant-at-will in England, you consider the introduc tion of a clause to that effect in the present Bill should excite your opposition—don't make such a mockery of le, gislas ion as to confer, by way of forming an independent constituency, th. - 3 right of voting on men at the rate of 51, a year —upon men who were barely able to find potatoes for the support of themselves and their families great part of the year—and to confer this right, too, without re ference to the amount of rent paid by them, which dues keep them in ae 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 freeholders. This was the ground on which Parliament acquiesced in their disfranchisement— that they were, 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 v'ews, 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 fieeholdcrs were required, at all events, by the law to pos sess a beneficial interest over and above their rent. Bet you, in the present case, take those pau pers who arc 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 violence—who dere 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.—( Opposition cheers.) But the Noble Lord, however, will tell you that there is a restriction which he imposes on this class of persons; he says, I am told— " Still there is a restriction ; they must have a 14 years' lease." And this the Noble Lord seems to think a restric tion. It is a restriction, but just in the wrong sense—just in that 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 advantages of a lease ? It is that a man has, for a term of years, an independent property of his own—a stake over and above all demands, of which no man can deprive him, and from which he is enabled to maintain himself and his family. But a lease upon rack-rent—a lease with a nominal amount of rent charged above that which a man can pay—a lease of that desciiption conf !rs on the tenant no independence whatever. It but keeps him in the clutches of his land- lord. If the landlord chooses 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 him, under the Noble Lord's Bill, to the hust ings, he may say, " Vote according to my dictation, or else —" (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 thing causes the grand diminution of the franchise for which he means to provide a remedy. Ile 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 Si. 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 B. to 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 am 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 dune so, but I felt that its 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 net 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 troduced 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. I am 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 54 householders in towns in England and Scotland the right of voting? The Noble Lord is bound to give an answer to this question, and I trust that he will give it in the course of this debate, 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, I am 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 principle on 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 Elccoors of Stroud "—(Cheers)—al 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 ono 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. I am confi dent that the great body of this House, whether the majo rity of this House, or otherwise, will 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 I felt 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, he was perfectly aware of the 1 disalvantage to which he subjected himself in rising after the Noble Lord ; but at the same time he was anxious to aveil himself of the first opportunity of expressing his en tire concurrence in the course pursued by her Majesty'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 Noble , Friend's Bill.—(Cheers.) He (Mr. C. Wood) was the more anxious 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 the abuses in the regis tration system, had, as the Noble Lord ( Lord Stanley) 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 details of a measure, the principle of which had been sanctioned by the House. ( Hear, hear. ) But this self-same consideration seemed to hint to render it impossible to join in the opposition to 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 had not told the HMV- ,or .; the remedy proposed was not as stringent as his o sr. The Bill of his Noble Friend put an extinguisher tioen every kind of fraudulent voting in 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. There was the appeal both ways, and he thought it important that the appeal was not to the Judges, who ought to he kept apart from political considerations. As far as the system of registration went, it appeared to him that the Bill provided all necessary protection against 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 (the Liberal) side 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 much less could he concur in the objection offered to the present Biel, be cause it applied a remedy to the greater evil as well as to the lesser ; that argument was so monstrous that he did not expect to have heard it from the Noble Lord.— ( Ilea-, hear.) The Noble Lord had not denied the un cert..inty as to defining the franchise, nor had be, in the whole course of his address, suggested a remedy fur the state of things which he, as well as every other Hon. Member, must deplore.—(Clacere.) He ( Mr. Wood) admitted that this uncertainty was one which could hardly arise in this country. But be asked was the care mended by that? The doubt did exist in Ireland, and in every grade of society, from the peasant to the Judge upon the Peach. 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 Bill passed, that test was abandoned, and in the Home of Lords the Duke of Richmond and fie Marquis of Lansdowne declared 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 un certainty, or t return to the test which existed before the Reform Bill, he ( Mr. Wood) knew of no teat safer than the Po »r-lacy rating.—(Cheers.) This was no Radical sug , 4estioa ; 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, hear. )-1-le faced a similar test suggested by an Irish barrister of Conservative prin• eiplga when examined before a Committee. That gen tleman was the Registering Barrister in the county of Longford, and was appointed to that office by the Noble Lord opposite (Stanley), Be recommended that being rated to the county cess should be taken as the test, ale 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 toe precise amount of the rating, that was not now helm e the House. In the Committee they might determine whether it should be 51., 101., or 20/.—(Chcers.) The Noble Lord (Stanley) had insisted, and at great length, upon the ne ccs-ity 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 vaster or one-fiftli_ as , indeed, was the case in England—where :the rati ng was never more than three-quarters the ren t, 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 51. 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 con.nituencies in English and Irish counties, although lie ad mitted that the comparison might be pushed too far. Under the present system there was no fair propel-lion be. tween the population and the constituencies and the coun ties in Ireland. When tile Noble Lord to Ir. the return 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 those were double entries. la the county of Longford it would 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 states, 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 capable cf 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 to depend altogether on population, but was not population a moat important and material element in settling the amount of constituencies ? At the period of the passing of the Reform Bill population and property were taken together as the standard by which it was to be determined whether certain towns should or should not have representatives in Parliament; and if property we; e the only basis of electoral rights they might as well have left the representative system altogether unreformed, and its condition unaltered. He did not advocate an indefinite or a large extension of the franchise, which he thought would be a great evil, in opposition to the opinion of a great many Hon. Gestlemen on his side of the House, because it would become an obstacle to enlightened le gislation, and be had no reason to think that if many of the constituencies had been much enlarged at a former period the Roman Catholic Rel;ef Bill would not have been passed. He had, he thought, beet' shown in a paper with which the Honourable Member for Leeds ( Mr. Baines) was connected, that there was every reason to apprehend that if the franchise were largely extended, it would tend ultimately to defeat those improve ments which was the main object which the advocates of such a course had in view. At the same time, however, he wished that the members of the constituencies should be such as to ensure some community of feeling between the people and those who were entrusted with their inter ests in that House.—( Hear, hear.) The county of Mayo contained a population of 360,000 inhabitants, who were principally Roman Catholics, but if the Protestant land lords cecerced the constituents, then the result might be filet a large Catholic population might be represented by representatives directly hostile to them. He would ask whether that were a state of things which left any pro bability of an identity of interest and feeling between the mass of the people and the constituency of the county ? ( Hear, hear)—or whether that were a state of things in which the population of that county would be likely to feel much confidence in the Legislature which had pro duced results so anomalous ? The Noble Lord in complain leg, of the present measure, had confined the cases of England and Ireland as regarded the leasehold tenure ; but it did not seem to him (Mr. C. Wood) that there was the slightest analogy between the two cases. The amount of the leasehold constituencies in England was very small, unless in a very few places. Fifty or sixty lease holders were the most that were generally found in large constituencies; but in Ireland and Scotland a very con siderable portion of the voters had acquired the franchise by right of leasehold; and it would appear that the lease hold tenure in Ireland was gradually diminishing. He did not wish to impute political motives to the :Irish lands lords in the management cf their property, but it appeared that many of them were not now in the habit of granting leases to their tenants. Their object probably was the improvement of their estates, and the law could not cer tainly interfere with them ; but yet the result of those im provements might be the disfranchisement of half a county. Much had been said of the coercion of the 50/. tenant-at-will in this country ; and the Noble Lord opposite had given expression that evening to sentiments as to the relations between landlord and tenant which he (Mr. Wood) was not a little surprised to hear.—( Hear, hear. ) He had always understood that the tenure of land, and the relations subsisting between landlord and tenant, should be founded on their mutual interests, and the political opinions of te nants should have no more to do in such a case than if they were not known to exist.--( Hear, hear.) But he did nut believe in the coercion said to have been exercised towards the 501. tenants in this country. He did not mean to say that there were not instances in which an undue influence had been used; but he did lint know why such an influ ence should be generally used, because he firmly believed that in the majority of cases the opinions of the 50/. te nants were in perfect accordance with those of their land lords on the subjects which decided county elections ; and further, ho had no reason to think, from all he had heard and all ho had seen, that the influence exercised on lease holders was less than that exercised on the 501. tenants. —( Hear, hear, hear.) In Berkshire the influence said to have been exercised by the landlords to an unexampled extent had been exercised principally on those who held by the leasehold tenure. But in whatever such dangers might be provided against, he thought that care should be taken that the constituency of Ireland be not further reduced. —( Hear, hear.) He certainly knew of no better test for the qualification in that country than the rated value of premises. He did not mean to insist on:an altera tion which he had suggested, to leave out altogether the necessity of a leasehold tenure, because he believed the House had not adequate information for forming a final decision on that subject. The amount of a 101. rate, independently of any tenure, would give out of a po pulation of 71,000 a constituency of only 2,200. It was stated, however, that the proposed measure was an infringe ment on the Reform Act, and they were told not to open the doors to voters insufficiently qualified, lest they should hereafter be unable to close them. To any change in the Reform Bill for the purpose of producing a re-distribu tion of powers he ( Mr. Wood) was as much opposed as the Noble Lord opposite. He certainly thought the Reform I Act as a settlement of a great national question, ought not lightly to be disturbed.—( Hear) He considered that by , its passing a revolution was effected in the constitution of the I country, affecting the popular party here as the revolution of j 1688 affected the monarchy, and no one could say that it had been effected without hazard. They had reason to be thankful that it had not injured the country, but they ought to be cautious and timid its incurring similar risks. _( Hear, hear.) He was, therefore, as opposed as the Noble Lord to any attempt to overturn the principle of the Reform Act, but he did not believe that such would be the effect of the measure, or that it would be necessary to follow in England the course they were about to pursue towards Ireland, because the same necessity and the same cases did not exist in the two countries. There wab in England no doubt as to the franchise, and he further be lieved that the Reform Bill as it now stood in this country had produced a fair representation of the people. He found parties nearly equally divided in the House, and he found them similarly divided in the country; while he had reason to think that, unless some extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances arose, no other result would be obtained by a new appeal to the constituent body. But while he adhered to the principle of the Reform Bill, be was not fettered to all its provisions ; he was not to be pinned down to the four corners of the measure.—( Hear, bear.) He did not think that when they found the free cbis unsettled in Ireland, they were bound to adhere to that uncertainty, and leave the doors open to fraud and perjury. Besides, was it not a principle of the Reform Bill to extend the franchise and to bring a greater number of parties within the pale of the constitution ? He believed that such was the avowed object of the Bill. Such was the object avowed by the Noble Lord himself at the time. They should not adhere too strictly to the letter of the Re form Act, while they might thereby violate its spirit. They should not run counter to the objects of the Bill, and still less to the intentions of its framers. But evesa on the principle avowed by the Noble Lord himee l lf ho (Mr. Wood) was surprised at the opposition of the Noble Lord to the Bill. He had understoea that it was the wish of the Noble Lord that such - a measure as the pre sent should be introduced by Government and should be fairly considered by the 'douse. He did not think that that was sh e s t ege of toe measure at which the Noble Lord should have urged any objections he might have en tertained to There was one other consideration to which he wished to refer. The Noble Lord had declared that his only o bj ect was to reme d y t h e de f ect i ve system o f regietratiou in Ireland, though the Noble Lord had been accused of covet ty seeking to diminish the constituencies of that country. He would not say he acquitted the Noble Lord of any such intention, because that would imply a suspicion on his part which he did not feel as to the motives of the Noble Lord. He believed that the Noble Earl had no other intentionsr then th o se which h e p ro f esse d ; b u t the NobleLed e should in th a t case a ll ow t h e m easure then before of the House to go int o C omm itt ee . The feelings f the tp/eleopoleccaosfiolreland thew were Hon and Nobleto L t e h a e rnedM etrLiboerdr furon Dublin were the only person opposed to him, ho might have braved such opposition ; but there were also arrayed own ag G over nment ainsthit!los i e n 4S ire ho l Irelan e d.—( the c_ (t ie fir ti n r i , e s h t e a supporters r.) of his Ile believed it to be most unwise and impolitic except in cases of the most stringent necessity, to attempt to legislate though he would admit that cases might exist and had before existed in which th e against the feelings of aP°Pie House of Commons had nut shrunk from its duty ; bus would anybody say that the present occasion was one of that nature? The oily question then before the El oo ,, was whether the House would proceed with the Bill o f his Noble Friend, or with the Bill of the Noble Lord op_ posits. That was the sole and simple question then before the House; and was there anybody to say that that was a case in which they should attempt to legislate in direct opposition to that almost unanimeue feeling whi c h they had every reason to know now pervaded Ireland from one he e Solper nd t opposed e l o d T t T t h i Oe secondNtiwero?ie i — ld r aCdlbrieflyineger of ) f ta t the ß gr rill, ee considered which ' it did not mean what it spoke, but wets a covert attempt to repeal the Irish Reform Buil, and open the constitueoev to a body of men the Reform Bill had never intended sl.ould be invested with the fsaaellise. The evils which were now admitted had been heretofore denied, and the EVEN ING EDITI Government had been called on to remedy th am `• eet-ieer .a . 4;4 4 time to time Bills had been brought in by succae4a\u,,,e':.fee torneys-Gencrel, without any intention of passingle a pae4d ;a l e „....m<eae.2 . > remedy the evils of the Irish registration system, mpg 15.4 hT year, compelled by the success of the Bill of the -/ecible • Lord, Ministers had brought in a Bill for that purpose. That Bill had been accompanied by a Bill for defining the franchise, but it had been understood that the two subjects were to be kept distinct and separate, and they ought to have been kept so. The Bill for defining the franchise enacted that what ten out cf the twelve Judges bad deter mined to be the franchise should be so no longer ; so that it they amended the ova_ of the registration system the Minis ters were determined to have a quid pro quo by enlarging the franchise, but they concluded the two Bills were to le kept separate. The Bill of the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire removed the coils of the reghtratiou system, and its fate was well known, and when that was withdrawn the Government Bills were withdrawn also. It wes monstrous in such a Bill that the construction of . ten of the Judges as to the f ranc hi se under tee Reform: Bill should b e deelered to be wrong, and the present Bill was characeerised by equal want of fairness and nminlinees. What the public cemplained of was not that the Reform Act was a bad I rev, but they called for the due administration of that law. The Government found they must ield to the call of the people, who would no longer submit to a system of fraud, and that if they did not introduce some measure of their own they must rubmit to the Bill of the Noble Lord. But they had no right to introduce into the Pill a principle extending the franchise and calculated to re peal the Reform 13111, and to demoralize and demo., cratize the country. He objected to there being no appeal to the Judges, to the retaining on the registry of unqualified persons, and also to the manner of the appointment of the Irish Registration Barristers. 'She Bill tended to perpetuate all the evil of which the public complained. The crying complaint in Figland, as in Ireland, was, that persons wholly unqua lified by their situation in life, by their property, or by their character got upon the registry, and swamped the legiti mate constituency. It would get rid of fraud and perjury., by legitimizing tire paupers upon the registry. They must bare the vacs of the mob, and therefore they place the paupers on the register. It was said, why not go into Committee on the Bill ? In answer to that, he would say because, in the first place, that when the Si. occupation value was mentioned, irrespective of rent, any man who knew anything of Ireland must know that ss. or .sd. might as well be named.— (Hear, hear.) Ile opposed the principle of the Bill, on the ground that. the franchise was so low that it showed that Govermuent did not mean fairly by the country. The provisions of the Bill could not be corrected in Committee, because it ‘hions of the Bill, it was true, would endanger the eon. was entirely irrespective of rent and outgoings. The pro stituency of Ireland. Indeed it would do so with a ven geance, for its provisions were little short of Universal Suffrage. He admitted that the Bill contained some good provisions, with respect to the amendment. of the machinerat of registration, but it s d e f ects f ar ou tb a l ance d i ts goo d gum " Ltiee as it would in fact enfranchise a host of pauper!.. Ile (Mr. Litton) would be satisfied with taking the rates under the Peer-law as the criterion cf the franchise, pe so vided he could be sure it was fairly taken. The Bill, leas' in effect a repeal of the Reform Bill, and it would have been more manly en the part of her Majesty's Ministers to. have brought it forward as such. He asserted that the Go— vernment had brought up this 5/. franchise for the pur pose of increasing agitation, and he would venture to say' this, that no man in her Majesty's Government had any supposition that this 5L franchise would eve r pass the House of Commons. lie trusted that the House would beware of political impostors, and of a Government that . would sanction agitation. For these reasons he should . oppose the second reading of the Bill. Mr. FITZPATRICK supported the Bill. Mr. LUCAS said he was anxious to take an early portunity of deliverieg his opinions upon the Bill wl ,a,A t was before the House, the mere so because he had ' 0 „, referred to several times, in connection with that o' e k e _ The Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, h Ao t a t_ luded to hire a few nights back, and reproached the. /,, - o a4. Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, for not: a d ept ... • in hi • pre.eet Bill a suggestion which he (Mr. L ucas ) ing had mode on a former occasion. The Noble Lord had . stated, upon the authority of the " Mirror of Parliie. • ment," that he ( Mr. Lucas) had expressed' an opinion that there should be alteration in the ba is upon which the elective franchise was made to rest, and had then pre ceeded to deduce from his words arguments which tle were never intended to furnish, and did not in real Ay supply. He (Mr. Lucas) had stated that he wished • a a, st , the franchise should be based upon some fo, tin independeet of the oath of the claimant. His whl ' s was made. ascertain the value of the land, f ur w hi c h t h e cla' an , was ; his sole. made. But though he desired a substitute for the oath of eel a Bill with the claimant ho did not desire to gm any further object was to prove the value of the land by a indifferent person. The Hon. Member then referred which he bad been connected, and to some, corm- ondeoce t; Jr subject of vele on the subject, for the purpose of shawl An. what'Pwere the d be 8/. above ' 4". precise views he entertained. Upon t ton opinion had been that it she d & o l. rth Lancashire li - ad so ,efure the House. rent. With respect to the N t the defects of that mea he difficult for any person who Noble Lord the Member for hunted out all the faults ratea remarks without going ovcr sere, as to make it extremely ineen occupied by the Noble Lord. should follow him to offer a an ' y the same ground as had . There was cne taolat, h oecver , on w hi ch he wouldi shortly detain th e lieuse. They had often been told that; the electors of Ireland were too few in proportion to thee population. The argument which was used, was, in hie; opinion, based upon totally false grounds. He bad never conceived that it was the object of the Legislature to irr - part the franchise to a number of people, simply becate so they did not possess it. The first consideration. appeared to Lim to be this, how were those who were tee be sent to Parliament to be most safely, most soundly, end most in. dependently e l ec t e d ?_( H ear, hear.) There would remit in a question a f ter that, whether thee would be mos t su f e l y elected by a small number or a t erge one; but the abs tract propositi o n, th at because Ireland cont a i ne d a greet populatio n an d a sma l l nu7.nber of electors, the fran chiso should be extended, 'Fes a proposition from whit's he (rocs Lucas) ate, from an lion. ea, entirely dissent. Th ey h a d h eard rantlernan in that House that the neumber of electors •,vas extremely small, and that it was decreasing in consmattenee of the unwillingness to grant leases. That was a startling fact. Without wearying the 'House with tiny lengthed details, he would shortly refer to the document which he held in his hand. With re ference to the number of electors, he would state one fact, with which he was himself conversant. In ;a county with which he was intimately concerned, its 1834, there were 2,400 ; now they amounted to 4,000, notwithstanding many of the leases bad fallen in since that year. Was that any proof of the niggardliness of the franchise, so loudly condemned on the other side? He only wanted a fair state of the representation, and he wished to see it, not by lowering the franchise, but by the increased independence and education of the elector. As the present Bill was based upon a principle whioh he had always opposed, he never gave a vote with mr,re pleasure than he would in favour of the amendment enoved by the Noble Lord below him. Lord MORPETH then rose, but was, for a few mo ments, inaudible, in consequence of *Members hurry ing to their places. He said, the Noblra, Lord had made many personal charges against the Government with which he had the honour to be connected, He accused them for the policy which they had pursued relative to the re gistration law in Ireland. He accused them of unsettling men's minds by a ccnstant meddling with the elective frail ' Ilse, but in filet particular they had still some lessons to take from the Noble Lord.—(Loud cheers.) He accused the Government, to which he had the honour to belong, as being, guilty of stirring the cauldron until it boiled over, but on that occasion his was the hand that had added the most potent and busy element of mise chief.—( Hear, hear, cheers, and laughter.) Tho Noble, Lord constantly spoke of the proposition contained in the Bill with respect to the settlement of the qualification for the elective franchise being a mere tack or addition to the Bill. Now if it were not allowed to form part of the text, it was, at all events, their preface, for he consi dered that it constituted the only Ivape of bringing the whole question to a satisfactory, conclusion—(Loud cheers)-_ to a satisfactory conclusion and final settlement; for without any settlement of the electoral quaiification leaving it as it at present a ood—h e conceived they would be offering a mere delusion and mockery to the public.— ( Loud chesrs.) The Nobiie Lord had frequently said that it was not until ho had carried his Bill to a second reading in the last Session of Parliament that they bad ever heard. of a definition of tloe franchise. Lurd STANLEY-_I did not say so. Lord NIORPETH had taken down the words of the Noble Lord at th e t i me t h ey we re uttered, and he distinctly said it was not until after he s uccessfully f lic.ii u . n (Cries of " Oh, heard c one word res. Yarried his Bill to a second readi ng that they i i petting any definition of the oh," and cheers.) He was as f' confident that the Noble Lord had used these words as that he then stood . before th e House. Now, what were th e facts? Why, it was note.- Bills rictus that in all the which had been i ntro d uced under the sanction of the Governmentof late years, th e definition of the franchise formed_ a substantive part, an d without that forme d p art of the legislation they were not prepared at ail t o legislate on the subject.—( Cheer, ) So far mere tack or o far from cons iderin g that part of the Bill as postscript last year, head h giv en i t I ris moat cordial- a pprobation, and had most willingly in corporated (it in the meas ure h e then proposed. The Noble Lord asked the Government, and that was re peated by the Hon. Member for Coleraine, why they had not come forward in a manly way and proposed some un ambiguous measure for all parts of the empire ? Ile (Lord Morpeth) did not feel himself called upon then to enter into any discussion respecting the Scotch and the English franchlse—the subject before them was quite enough.—(Laughter and cheers.) Tho abuses cf the system of registration in Scotland were acknowledged, yet the Noble Lord had strictly confined himself to the sup posed ebuses existing in Irelansl—(Cheers)—laaving taro system as it existed in Scotland and England with all their imperfections on their heads. It was in Licked, and Ire -1 sod alone, that all this ambiguity met them—it was in that country alone where the registration laws were per plexing and embittering every grade of society. The Noble L or d sa i d they were about to give to Ireland a qualification which we: unknown to any other part of tht empire. But it was to be remembered, that in England. tl.ey enjoyed the 40:. franchise—that was a franchise atil4 enjoyed in England, and which was once enjoyed in lre land, He did not believe that there was one Member of the Liberal p ar ty—he did not believe that there was any partisan of the Liberals, who would not willingly accept of the English or the Scotch system of registration, in lieu of the measure then under consideration,. By such an offer the Noble Lord would be considered a much bet ter Irishman—a more promising disciple of the movement. --(Loud laughter.) The Noble Lord Lai omitted from his consideration the great preponderance of freeholders in I r eland—leaseholders had very little importance in the constituent body in that country. The measure of 1829, with which the estate of the Right Hon. Baronet was so honourably eentiected, disf, auchised no less than 191,000 40s. freeholders in Ireland ; 6,000 201. fceeliolders ; 1,800 501., and 303 100/. freeholders. Was not that wholesale disfranchisement? The Noble Lord quoted some expres- S U N ~' ,~ ~w-