The Sun. — London, England, 1850-03-02 00:00:00

support the amendment .of His Honourable Friead. The Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) intimated last night that it was not desirable to introduce any legislative measure which might operate as a substitute for the Reform Bill; but that all legislation on the subject should' be supplementary to that Bilh Now, he must frankly dect'are that the present measure proposed to annihilate every existing franchise and to re-construct an entirely new franchise which . , with regard to counties, would introduce a cons tit uenc y t o whom it would be dangerous to entrust the election of representatives.—(Hear, hear.) That, in fact, was the position of the question, and let them see in what way they ought to proceed. Were they to act upon the caution of the Noble Lord in his speech of yesterday, and take the institutions as they existed under the Reform Act, and add such classes of electors as the existing state of society rendered imperatively necessary, or to sweep everything away in order to re construct our representative system entirely anew. It appeared to be of vital importance that they should understand what the question was ; and he trusted the history he had given of the attempts at legislation would not be considered unnessary.—(CheersS New, if the Government conceded the insertion of the words pro• posed by his Honourable Friend, the very first question which would arise was, whether the House would create. 4 new class of county voters. The Government pro posed a constituency for Ireland, consisting of personS rated on the annual value of 8 7 . What was the new county constituency which they would raise under the present Bill ? They were, he believed, all agreed that it was absolutely necessary that there should be some re vision of the county constituency in Ireland, with a view to supply- its acknowledged deficiency—(Hear, hear) —and their next endeavour woel , l he to ascer tain what would be the best mode of creating a class to supply the deficiency in the constititercy. He would therefore support the amendment of his Hon. Friend the Member for tee University of Dublin, his (64 F. Thesiger's) anxious desire only t eing to give such a consituency to Ireland as was heat adapted to the wants and wishes of the people of Ireland.—(Cheers.) Sir G. GREY said that there was no desire on the part of the Government to oppose the amendment. The proposition was extended over a very long historical Fe:iod.—(Hear, hear.) The speech of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had not touched the question in the slightest degree.—(ilesr, heat.) The amendment pro posed to make no alteration whatever in the principle of the 811, bat simply to make it more perspicuour.— (IVar, hear.) The Government, therefore, bad no de. sire' to oppose it, and they might proceed at once to the consideration of the several clauses of the Bill,—(Hear, hear, and che,rs.) The amendment was then agreed Mr. HENLEY moved an alteration, the effect of which would be to throw the consideration for the • cif dification net upon the rates due, but upon tee average of thoec which be'ore a certain late period had been assessed and paid. He thought that the House were well agreed as to the necessity of shutting the door upon all corrupt practices, and he thought that seine parts of this Bill were well e&calated to do so.• lie „though,: taat all par ties would agree that so far the boards of guardians had been free f:•orn all political biz.; hut ho wished the House to coasider how ea-y it wes by this Bill fir guardians to put on and strike off the resist° h He' would therefore suggest that they 5 houll a'dopt, the provision of the English lie f den Act, that the party had been rated to all the rates, and that would get rid of this fscility for creating fag got votes. He had no oljeetion to that point of the Bill .which related to the period of rating, bat with re gard.te the other point he did feel strongly upon it, ter - eels° if the MU were ogre e I to as it Roe/ Awed, it must inevitably head to great confu-,ien, if not liti,r,-ation and an l fratel.— ( He te, hear.) The ATTORNEY-GENIMAL said, a; the Bill at present stool every occupier ratad fey relief of the poor bef ,re the let of July, and who had raid the preceding rate, would be entail- d to vote. It appeared to him, theref thst the in:reduction of the words " tenant or oeh.e " would lead to great rtecertainty in the revi sing barristers' courts, for in the eve of tenants under notice to quit, legal questions might be raised It at would lead to continual litigation and uncertainty as to the persons entitled to vote. The other part of the amendment, for substituting tee, years instead 01 one, would of course greatly limit the operation of the Bill. —(lrear.) It was also propo-.el by the Hon. Member that the parties during. the currency of these two years should be continually on the rate-book, and that the omission of that con lition should be the loss of the franchise. That was, in his epinion, eh indirect blow aimed at the principle of the 1.3d1. It any l erson was on the registry without being qualified by a ye :es occupa tion, be might eahily be ()ejected to; and if a ly person entitle f to he on the registry was omitted, there would he no difficulty iu the way of his obtaining his right. The amendment of the Hon. Member far Oxfordshire would greatly limit the constituency, and he trusted the. Committee would reject it. Sir F. THESIGER thought they were indebted to his Right Hon. and Learned Friend tor the interpretation which he had fr: f the Bill, for it was evident that the object of the Government was, that persons who were neither tenants nor owners, but merely acted as occu piers, should be entitled to vote. (The Att erne} - -General dissented.) Hie 'Hight Hoe. and Learned Friend had not said so, but did he not mean it? If not, why should he object to the introduction of the words tenant or owner? —(Hear, hear.) With regard to the litigation which his Hight Hon. Friend thought would follow from the introduction of the words, he apprehended there could be no question as to whether a person under notice to quit was a tenant or not, if the tern of such notice re m linod unQx2ired. But a person under notice to quit would hare an interest in the case of an approaching election to prolong his occupation beyond the legal term; and yet, by the Bill, as it now stood, he would be en titled to vote.—(Hear, liar.) He thought the occupier should be a bola fide occupier, and legally entitled to vote. The ATTORNST-.GENERAL said that his Right lion. Friend had not correctly apprehended what he had said. What be had said wa; that persons wishing to disentitle a farmer to vote might give him notice to quit, and that that would give rise to doubt and litigation. Sir F. THESIGER wished to know whether his right Hon. Friend meant that any pF4.son who should keep possession cf his holding by strong hand, against the will cf his landlord, who had given him notice to quit, would, from being de facto in occupation, be cntqled to vote? In the English Reform Bill there was a clause explaining this very term " occupier." • The ATTORNEY-GENEItAL was aware of the Chandos clause. Several Members—Nn, no; that not the elauge. The AT TORNEY- GE N E AL—lion. Members were alluding to the borough franchise, but the Com mittee wore now discussing the county franchise. Thu meanin f 7 of the Bill was clearly that every person occu pying i'firm for a year should, if he were ra'ed, he en titled t, the tranchiso. Ia answ• - zr to his Right Hon. Friend's question, he must sqy he thought the Parlia mentary franchise ought not to depend on the dispute between landlord and tenant. Mr. LAW said, as the object was to secure to Ireland a saf3 and soun.l franchise, he should support the intro duction cf the words " tenant or owner." He would, however, suggest t ) the Hon.l'dember for Oxfordshire to mike that a distinct motion, apart ;Tom the:other portion of his amendment.—(Hear, hear.) The sense of the C maini!t;e might than be take] on the question whether an occupier, without the slightest claim Ar right, should have, by means of force or f r aud, a r i g h t to the polit i cal franchise ?—(Hear, hear.) Mr. BRIGHT r the attention of the Committee to the e. , - ,1% - en on the Devon Commis sion, wherein it wA, :1 that ceada land agents had served a: ma - iy as .)on , notocs to quit at one time, and that it was a eustim iu e,rtain parts to serve tenants with notices to quit every six months.—(Hear, hear.) If such was the fact it was greatly to be deplored. The term occupier was simple, and it undoubtedly was the object of Parliament to give the franchise to occu piers. He hopel they would do nothing to fritter away the franchise of Ireland. Mr. SHEIL said he was once Member for Louth, and in that county there was a mountain called Carlingford. Some thirty fishermen had reclaimed part of the moun tain, and had held their possession for upwards of 29 years. They said they were not tenants, the landowners said they were not owners. How, then, would the amend ment affelt them? Sir V.iliES — l6Eß—Twenty years' possession would give them a tide.. • Mr. SHELL —But suppose their possession had only been for 19 years? Mr. rIENLEY denied that they wished to fritter away the fraqphise in Ireland. Ile had in his amendment adopted the words of the English Reform Act, about which there could be no ambiguity, as t h e point had been settled by a judicial decision. With regard to the rating, it was necessary in the English Act that a 10/. eecupier'should be rated fir a whole year. The word owner or tenant were in the English Burgh Act, and if they were not introduced into the present Bill, any "squatter" might claim the right of voting.—(Bear.) The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (for Ireland) said that the present constituency had been diminished in a great degree by the Irish laldlords refusing to grant leases. The Bill, to remedy that evil, proposed to give the fran chise to a person occupying tor twelve months and pay ing the rate. With regard to notices to quit, he thought disputes might arise if the proposed words were intro duce]. A tenant whose holding did not expire till May might for election purposes be served in November with a notice'to quit, and the result might be his disfranchise ment. Was that just?—(hear,) Mr. GROGAN pointed out to the Learned Gentleman that according to the construction put by the Attorney- General on the Bill at it now stood a tenant holding wrongfully would be entitled to vote. Was that just? After a few words from Sir F. TrIESIGER, Mr. SADLEIR said he would oppose the introduction of the words proposed by the Hon. &Leather for Oxford, because he was convinced they would lead to a great deal of litigation. Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know what mischief would arise if a person holding wrongfully, as it was called, should vote?—(Laughter and c h eers. ) Their object was to increase. the number of voters in Ireland, and to whom it was proposed to give the right of voting? He wished to know, as a statesman and not as a la-vyer— (Clwers)—what mischit f would arise if the constituency peas co- n p og -d o f voters possessing the qualifications laid down in this all. According to the Bill the voter must 4) , .. be convicted of crime—:he , must occupy land cr tenements. of the annual value of 81.—he must have p ai d his ratps u p to July, and he muss be occupier for a year. —(llear, h ear.) In the present state if the Iri,h con stituency ought they, on account of disputes as to whe ther a Wan want -gaily or wrongfully i.2possession, di vest such a cla ss o f voters cf the right of voting, andoay that they were un worthy of the fr l nchise? la feet, by retaining the clau se as i t stool, they would deprive landlords of the motive to quarrel.--(llear.) Mr. HAMILTON said ho remembered sitting on the Fieti:ious Vct?rs Conrnittee in 1336, when a great deal THE SUN, of evidence was giver of the fictitious votes in Ireland. According to the Bill as it steed a tenant not legally in possession might register and vote. Would such a vote be fictitious or not? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL apprehended that a person in bona fide occupation, and paying • the rate, would be a legal and not a fictitious voter. After a few words from Sir D. NOILREYS, Sir F. THESEGER remarked teat tie Attorney-Ge neral had introduesd a new tam, and had spoken of a bona fide occupation. Surely his Right Hon. Friend did not mean to say that there was no distinction between a wrongful and rightful occupier. The Bill merely said that an occupier should he entitled to vote. After a few words from Mr. MOORE, Lord C. HAMILTON thought that as the Attorney- General had stated that the introduction of the words " tenant or owner" would lead to litigation, the Right Hon. Gentleman should introduce words which would prevent litigation, and he would therefore suggest that the Right Hon. Gentleman should at once say that any defacto occupier should he entitled to vote, whether he was in occupation de jure or not. Mr. BROWN—Not taking a lawyer's, but a corn• - mon-sense view of :he point, he should say that proa of occupation was all that was required. After a few words from Mr. HILDYARD, Mr. HENLEY said he should separate the two parts of the amendment, and first take the sense of the Com mittee on the introduction of the words " tenant or owner." The Committee then divided : For the emenclirent ... 102 Against it ... ... 166 Majority against the amendment --6 t Mr. HENLEY then moved the omission of the " under the last rate for the time being," for the purpose of inserting in their place the f illowing words, " for the seine time all rates made during that period." The Bill required that a person should have paid the rates during the year; and surely it must have been the intention of its framers to require that ho should also have been rated during the same period. But no such provision was contained in the clause as it then stood ; and it was for the purpose of supplying the omis sion that he moved the amendment. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that by the clause as it then stood a person who at the commence ment of the year had held a property worth less than the required amount, but who before the close of the year had by the outlay of capital rai , e 1 its value beyond that amount, would be entitled to the franchise; and he thought the House would act wisely and properly in adopting such a provisi Mr. BRIGHT said, he believed that the adoption of the amendment would only throw unnecessary and vexa tious obstacles in the way of the claimant of the fran chise; and he should therefore oppose it. Mr. HENLEY said, that as the clause then stood, if a man occupied a tenement worth only 10s. a year, and a few days bciore the registry friendly guardians should strike a rate in which that tenement should be fixed at 81., that man would be entitl:d to be rcgistereJ. In order to prevent such a proceeding, he proposed that a party claiming the fi anchise should be rated to all the rates struck. Lord J. RUSSELL said, that under that measure a person seeking to be pla•wd rn the registry should be en occupier —that he should be 'wed to the poor-rats in a sum of not less than 81, and that he should have paid his rate; and he (Lord J. Russet) did not think it ne cessary to add to those conditions by adopting the pro. posal of the Hon. Member fir Oxfordshire. He believed that no serious abuse could arise from the adoption of the clause as it then stood. Mr. W. MILE 3 said, that if they wished to establish a property q lalifica.ion, they ought surely t take into account not merely the last rite, hut nil the aces to which the. party was liable during the required perio 1. Mr. LAW saicl, that under the clause as it now stood a person who had contributed to no ra'e excf.nt or e, au:l who had been made liable to that rate solely fir the pur pose of meeting the requirements of that Bill, vroul I be entitled to he i lieed on the registry. It seemed to him tha: they etk;!.t to prevent the possibility of such art abuse. Sir F. TIIESIGER said it should be remembered that the valuation could only be changed once in seven years. He should further observe, that an occupier who might have improved the value of his holding to the requisite amount •was a person fairly entitled to the privilege conferred by the Bill. Under those circumstances he hoped that, his Hon. Friend would not press hie amend ment. Mr. HENLEY intimated that he should not divide the House on the subject. The amendment was then negatived Without a division. The question having then been put that the blank in the clause with respect to the rating qualification should be filled up with the words " eight pounds," Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said he was well aware that, in moving an amendment for the purpose of raising the rate of the qualification, he should be met by the argu ment—if argument it could be cal'ei—which was usually eddreessd t s Members who opposed an en'arge merit of the franchise—namely, the , . he was actuated by a desire unnecessarily to curtail the rights cf his fellow-countrymen. But for his part he had no hesita tion in stating that he subscribed to the constitutional doctrine advanced by the Noble Lord at the head of the Administration, that it was the right of every indivi dual in the community to have the best system of go vernment, and the best system of representation, which it was possible for Parliament to devise fn. him. He believed that no reasonable man could rtfase his as sent to an opinion quoted on a former occasion by the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Ripon, from Mr. Fox, he believe 1 , to the effect that the best quali. fication as the basis of the representative system we. that which would include the largest number of in dependent voters, and exclude the largest number c f persons who were not independent.—(Hear, hear.) They had heard it fry quently said that the fact tha! the number of electors in Irehted bore a coraider able disproportion to the amount of its population, a compared with the number of electors in England, af forded a good reason for their increasing the number in that country. But he could not admit that the franchise was to rest on any me se arithmetical calculation of that kind. The only question they had to consider was, what was the amount of franchise which was calculated t) effet' the best system of government. That question had formed a subject V very anxious deliberation at the period of the passing of the Reform Bill; and it had at that time been considered as an established principle that a certain balance was to be observed between the amount of househ H franchise conferred on the inhabitants of boroughs, and the amount of franchise based on property extended to counties. Now it appeared to him that it would be very unwise to interfere unneeessarily with that balance; and if he objected to the franchise which would be created by that Bill for one reason more than for any other, it was, that he thought it was calculated to destroy the existing distinction between the house hold franchise for boroughs, and the franchise founded on property, which had been established for counties. If there was any ground of justification for the franchise which it was they proposed that they should create for counties, it was, that with that franchise property in the counties would he fairly represented. The Committee were aware that in all previous Acts of Parliament upon that subject there had been three essential conditions ap pended to the franchise for counties; the first of which was, that there should be occupation ; the second that there should be tenure, and the third, that there should be a certain amount of beneficial interest. In the year 1811 L-rd Morpeth bad introduced a Bill in which he ha I proposed that the franchise in Ireland should be bases' on a 5/. rating and a 14 years' tenure; but the House had thought proper to reject that proposal. Now, he (Mr. IL) believed it might fairly be calculated that with an 8/. rating franchise the beneficial interest of the holder would not amount to much more than about 41. instead of the 181. required by the Re'orm Bill. But it, as he was about to propose, the amount of the quali fication was r died to 15/., the property rated at that amount might, he thought, be fairly considered worth about 201., any the beneficial interest f the holder could not be much less than about 10/., the amount required by the Reform Act. He could assure the Committee that in making that proposal he had no wish unnecessarily to curtail the franchise in Ireland. His only desire was to see it extended to those persons; in that country who were qualified properly to exercise it. He would press on the Committee the necessity. of their using peculiar caution in dealing with that question at the present moment. Ireland was at present recovering from those internal dissensions to which she owed so many of her misfortunes; and they ought to beware how they created in that country a new element of strife among her people. The past struggles between her upper and inferior classes had merely placed them in antagonism as to the tenure under which land should be held; but the proposal then before the House would place them in antagonism as to the occupancy of the land. With these convictions he felt it his duty to move that the blank in the clause be filled up with the words "fifteen pounds," instead of the words " eight pounds." Mr. GRATTAN said that in his opinion the qualifi cation should be fixed at 61. instead of 8/. A voter rated at 61. for Dublin, iunbflaine,t titey rated at 9/. As to the two Hon. Mem berswere no doubt, exceedingly com placent excellent men, and both the ono and the other, perhaps, might be called "ingenui vultus peer inge nuique pudoris."—(A laugh.) But there was another expression in Dean Swift's" Polite Conversation" which equally applied to them. Referring to a similar cha racter, Dean Swifc said that " though butter would not melt in his mouth, he would warrant that cheese would not choke him."—.(Laughter.) Mr. REYNOLDS said that though not learned in the legal sense of the word he thought he could nevertheless give the Lion. and Learned Members for Abingdon and the University of Dublin a little information on the sub ject of the Irish franchise. Whatwereit was eaqs enjoyedual qualifications for for the franchise in Ireland? True, 501. and 20/. freeholders, 20/. rent-chargers, i, lease holders with a 10/. beneficial interest, householders re _ in d boroughs of 101. annual value, and freemen w.hquhtre so no property qualification. Now, this Mil, to which bad a character had been given, 1 , ft the free un touched, as also the 50/, and ' , O/. freeholders, and the rent-chargers. It was scarcely correct, therefore, to say that the Bill would sweep away all existing qualifications. The lion. Member for Montrose stated the other night that 81. in Ireland was equal to 301. in England; and, therefore, 15/. in Ireland was equal to 581. in England; and he apprehended the House would never sanction such a qualification as that. He protested against the slow progress wh'cla they were making in Vie 13:11. Hero they were at eight o'clock on the second night of the discussion only on the 12th line of the Ist clause, and if they proceeded at the same rate, they might, perhapi, get through the Bill by next August. He appealed to English Members. It had been said that if Ireland wou"d only drop the que3- tion a a domestic legislation, everything would be granted t) her which she could ask. Without "dropping anything,' he demanded respectfully of them.as -Eng lift) repeesentatives, in the name of his fellow countrymen and constittrents, a libel al, fair, and honest Parliamentary LONDON, SATURDAY Reform Bill for Ireland. He asked only the same fran chiso as that in England and Scotland. He asked re presentation on the principle of revenue and populat;oe, and he regretted the Right Hon. Secretary for Ireland had not in his Bill thought fit to increase the number of Irish Members. He had taken the trouble to compile a statetneat from the returns laid on the table of the House, which showed that in the thirty-two counties of Ireland the population was 7,435,000; number of voters enrolled, 33 : 804; number who would be enrolled under this Bill, 370,000; or, with deductions, probably 274,000. He had made a similar calculation with respect to bo roughs. Ile found in Athlone 349 enrolled; voted, 196. Belfast, 4,234 enrolled; voted 2,000. Clonmel, 687 en rolled; voted, 321. Carlow, enrolled, 417; voted, 175. Cork, enr011ed,4,965; voted,l,6oo. Coleraine, enrolled,36B; voted, 176. Drogheda, enrolled, 734; voted, 307. Dub lin, enrolled, 19,562; voted, 7,000. Dundalk, enrolled, 538; voted, 245. Dungannon, enrolled, 434; voted, 286. Kinsale, enrolled, 216; voted, 189. Limerick, enrolled, 2,063; voted, 600. Mallow, enrolled, 335; voted, 130. New Ross, enrolled, 270; voted, 124. Waterford, en rolled, 1,696; voted, 800. Youghal, enrolled, 493; voted, 176. Total, of 16 boroughs, in 1847, enrolled, 37,374; voted, 14,305. He had often referred to a Parliamentary paper, furnished on the motion of the Hon. Member for Msrylebone, which showed that the Scotch and English boroughs, with a population cf 7,700,000, had 417,587 electors, and returned 358 Mem bers, while Ireland, with a population of 8,175,000. re turned 105 Members, with votes not exco ding 30,000 in number. The Hon. Member for Middlesex, the Nestor of ref trm, almost cried as he pictured the state of things in Eigland, where, the total of the whole population being 16,000,000, there were no more than 1,000,000 of Parliamentary voters. But whilst England and Wales returrei about 500 members, with a popula tion of 16,000,000, Ireland, with 8,000,000, only re turned 105. He knew there were many Irish Members who would ask him, why trouble your head with an Irish Franchise Bill? There were Members who, when they had secured the honour e f MP. after their names, thought all their Parliamentary duties accomplished, and absented themselves from the House. He would not be guilty of anything so invidious as t) mention names, but his fellow-countrymen were in telligent enough to look at the printed list aid see what had become of their represeetatives. Where, the ladle i would ask, are the men who came here coaxing our husbands and kissing our children? lie knew many would say, if he asked them where they were when the battle of the franchise was fought, that they had no con fidence in an English House of Commons. To this, his answer would be, then resign, and let other men Ii i your seats.—(Hear, heir.) He had confidence in an English House of Commons, and ho believed that the battle of Ire'and was to be fought on the floor of that House, lie had made a list of six English and six boroughs, all sending Members to that House. lye would first take the English boroughs. He found that And over, with a population of 4,997, had 243 voters, and re turned two members; Knareshorough, a population 01 5,352; voters 223; returning tvo members. The! f a population of 3,854; vs t ees, 214; returning two stem hers. Harwich, a population of 3,730; voters, 268; re turning two members. Marlborough, a population of 4,130; voters, 255; returning two members. Itch monl, a population of 4,301; v,tn3, 265; returning two members, giving an aggreg, t 'population of 26,333; voters 1 473; returning 12 members. He would now take thi six Irish boroughs. He f mud that Cork bed a popula tion of 80 720; voters, 3,2t4; membet - , 2. Dcblin, pc pulstion, 232,726; voters, 15,449; members, 2. Galway, popula ion, 32,511; voters, 1,922; members, 2. Lime rick, population, 48,391; vot re, 1,246; members, 2 Waterford, population, 23,316; voters, 1,273; members. 2. Belfast, population, 75,303; voters, 4,701; member s , 2. Showing an aggregate population of 492,972; voters, 27,73.5; memle:rs, 12. He presumed the question on whioh the Committee were about to divide was whether the qualifica*ion was to be Si. or 15/. He should record his vote against the 151., and gave notice that if' that motion were lost, as he prophesied it would be, he would feel it his duty to move another amendment, to the efihet that every person so qualified as aforesaid and rated to the relief of the poor in any county of Ireland should be eetitled to be enrolled as a Parliamentary elector, and he would propose to leave out the words "eight pounds" as the minimum rating, for the purpose of substituting four pounds." With regard to another part of the clause to which they had not yet come, nemely, that part which provided that in order t be enrolled it should be a condition precedent that the rate should be paid, it was his intention to take the sense of the Committee, for he held that you had no more right to n - ,alie such a con iition than you had to insist that a man should first pay his half-year's rent. Mr. STAFFORD reminded the Hon. Member that by swelling the Ministerial majority with his vote on this measure he would defeat his own object, inasmuch as the question put would be, not whether the franchise should be 15/. but whether it should be 81. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the question re solved itself into this—what should be the num ber of electors in Ireland? and in reference to this view he submitted to the Committee that an 81. franchise would not render that number excessive. Taking the counties and boroughs,be believed the who'e number would be found to be under 300,000, and if they compared that with the number in England and Wales, it would be found, that while the proportion there was about one in five, it would be one in six wad a half or seven. Such being the case he saw no reason for holding the number to be excessive. It had been taid that 8/. a year represented a beneficial interest of half thst amoun —namely, 4/. a year; but compare that with the feec• hold franchise in England, which was only 21,—(Hear.; There was certainly the diference f tenure—(lronical cheers)—but still it was admitted nat the property re prennted by these was opf to as much ai 40s. There fore, the proposal being that them should be rather a less number in proportion in Ireland than in England and Wales, there was no reason for saying the franchise was too low. BA then came the question upon which there had been very little argument— namely, why they should give the franchise to persons who were mere occupiers, and why they should not join that occupation with tenure, as had hitherto been the case in England ? In order to arrive at the conclusion that they ought not any longer to insist on such a tenure in Ireland, it was sufficient to look back to what had been the course of proceeding in Parliament with re spect to the franchise by tenure in Ireland. In 1793 a 40s. franchise as enjoyed in England was given by the Irish Parliament. The consequence was that there were in soma counties thousand of manufsctured votes, and persons having no property 'whatever were driven up to the poll, as given in evidence on oath before Com mittees of the other House by the agents of landlords ; in fact, firming the greatest caricivure and most sad abuse of the representative system that could very well be imagired. He remembered hearing a story of a per son driving through a wretched village in company of the proprietor. " How can you," said be, " keep such wretched hovels on your o,tatg ?" To which he re plied, "It is well worth my while to have there wretched hovels on my estate, for it was mainly through them that I was enabled to make my brother a Member."— Meer, hear, and laughter.) Such was the system under the 40s. franchise. In 1829 the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth, in proposing the Catholic Emancipation Bill, declared his plan, which was supported by large majorities, of disfranchising the 40s. freeholders, and they had a ' new franchise estab. lished--namely, a 101. franchise; and that was subse. qusntly amended and altered by the Irish Reform Ac _ _ introdUced by Lord Stanley. llut so far from I °ling rid of the abuse, they had under that franchise cases of perjury, fictitious votes, and lire interests given t 3 men of 70 or 75 years of age, fir the purpose of voting at the coming election, and abuses so grievous that everybody agreed that such a system should not continue. The party with whom be was connected attemp'ei some mode of amendment, Lord Stanley proposed another, and Lord Howick, again, a third. But there were several Members of that House—amongst others, be believed, the Hon. Member for Cavan—who said they would never put an end to such scenes of perjury, and the creation of fictitious votes, until they placed the right of voting on occupation and rating, and not on tenure. When Lord l3esborough went to Ireland he was Particularly di rected to report on that subject, and to give his opinion to the Government. He gave his opinion very deci dedly, that as long as you kept up any right of voting by tenure so long would' you have scenes of fraud which it would be quite impossible to counteract, and he pro posed that whatever the amount might be, the franchise should be founded on rating and occupation. so as to make the register little more than a copy of the rate book. Such was the plan that they had adopted upon Lord Besborough's recommendation. The different:Bills introduced were founded on that plan, and the question now was, •whether, having adopted that plan, the pro per amount of qualification had been fixed. He did not think they would give satisfaction in Ireland if they were to fix in that country a much higher value of property as a qualification for the franchise than in England, or declare their opinion that such was the character of the Irish people that they were not to be trusted with the same privileges as the people of England. He should wish, therefore, that if they did not grant the 404. fran chise to Ireland—if they saw that the 40s. franchise led to fraud—in that case he should wish that there should be given some equivalent qualification, which would give that country a sufficient number of voters. He did not think that the number the Government proposed was at all excessive, and he trusted, therefore, the Committee would not agree to the amendment. Mr. GOULBURN was anxious to state why he ob jected to filling up the blank with the number proposed by the Government. He was a party to the arrangement for the abolition of the 40s. freeholders, on the ground that they were not an independent class—that they were merely an instrument in the hands of one party or ano ther in Ireland, rather than exercising any opinion of their own. Having been a party to that arrangement, he fzlt that there was a great delicacy and difficulty in reducing the franchise now so low as to give rise to si milar practices in Ireland. lie felt' strongly the condi tion of those to whom they now proposed to give the franchise; at the same time he had no wish whatever to make any reduction in the number of electors. On the other hand, there were causes beyond the mere numerical amount of the electors that influenced his mind, and these must be looked t ) in the peculiar condition of Ire land. They had first to consider how they were to cre ate a constituency that had that degree of interest in the soil that would enable them to act independently of all parties. Above all, they must consider what would be the effect upon the social condition of th e so large an alteration i n t h e Ile apprehended, in th e fi rst country amount place, that by giving 8/. as the proper amount of the franchise, they would f in the making franchise. necessarily give a preponderating influence to the occupiers of those towns that did not send representatives to Parliament, and they would find that the majority of these 8/. freeholders would be inha bitants of those towns who, although they did not send representatives to Parliament, were possessed of a con . siderable population and property. They mus t remember that with the increase or property and manufalturing industry there was a constant tendency in these towns to augment the numbers enjoying the franchise, and that influence would not prevail to the same extent in the egriculturel districts. So little explanation had been given by the Government as to the basis or grounds en which they placed the franchise at 81., that he was not in a situation to judge of their motives in making it so low in amount. He confessed that he had great fear that a majority of those upon whom the franchise would be conferred would be subjected to indirect influence at elections, Land was money in Ireland, and that man who paid :71. or 81. for his holding might be taken as working for the lowest rate of wages, and, con seqaentiv, could not be c insidered independent. The Noble Lord (Eliot) when he was a Member of the Irish Government introduced a m, mir) with the object of establishing in that country a franchise similar to the English franchise—he proposed that the occupying fran chise should be 301., and he made it up by proposing that the freehold qualification should be W. But there was a great difference between an occupation of 301. and an occupation of al St. holding, and he did not consider that the latter was a franchise which it was desirable to give to Ireland in order to obtain an independent constituency. If they increased the amount of the franchise they might reduce the number of the constituency, but the effect would beta provide a wholesome stimulus to the indus try of the country, 83 that others might qualify them selves for obtaining it. As he was called upon, without any political or party feeling on the subject, to decide, he should say that in the present social condition of Ire land it was not advisable that the franchise should be fixed at se low an amount.—(Hear.) Sir W. SOMERVILLE gave the Right Honour able Gentleman credit for the best int mtions towards Ireland while opposing the proposition of the Government. He apprehended that there was bat one opinion in that House as to the necessity of doing something. The state of the franchise in Ire !aid was at present such that it was a complete satire upon representation. The question was, hew were they to apply themselves to the case, and which was the be st method of remedying the existing evil ? The House wont 1 re member that by the Reform Bill a 10/. franchise was con ferred; that narrowed inst?ad of extending the consti tuency, and they gradually dwindled away until they were now reduced to little more than 30,000. How, then, were they to get a franchise for the geople of Ireland? If they connected it with tenure, let them put it as low as they tale used they would never be able to get a constituency; there would always be an indisposition on the part of the landlords to grant leases, and that would be in crossed. The question fiat, whether the 81. franchise they now proposed was extravagantly low as c enpered with the 10/. which it was, intended to confer by the Reform 1311. He was of opinion that the proposed franchise was higher, rather than below, the former 10/. franelii, , e. The next question was, whether the numhcr t ) be enfranchised would he excessive? The prop n fen of electors at present, as compared with the male. a 4.11 t poputatiee, was little more than three per cent. If they meant to do what was right end 'air, they would ha obliged to add greatly ti the number. The nu veer wlsieh it was celculated would be created by the Bill eas about 267,000, being about fifteen per cent. ( f ,he irate ;dolt population; and if they stopped st any , usaller numbt , r,!here weul I be just ground of complaint on the part of the Irish people. It appeared to him that the ai g ht Hon. Gentle.nau (Mr. Goulburn) took rather extraval.art view of the number f voters in the towns not returning representatives to that I 3 Rase, and in proof of th it he would refer to the ret ins laid on the table of the House cf the number of psrsens rated et 81. and upwarir. He did not think that there was asythir,; un r a;r, or unreasonable, or dangerous, in the proposition cif the Government. He trusted, therefore, he House would not accede to the amendment of the [lon. Member for the University c f Dublin. Mr. R. H. FOX said the Right Hon. Gentlemen had set great store on the creation of an independent ceneei ruency in Ireland, and fir that reason it was that he (Mr. Fox) 11r3; anxious to extend the frenchisr as much as possible. He believed that the existing 10/. fre - hollers were not more intelligent than the cams whom it was propose Ito create by the present Bill. Indeed he did riot know anything more miserably dependent than the 101. freeholders, where the comftuencies were small. The great body of the non-electors throughout the country exercised a wild right of control, and as slimed to themselves the name ( f the country. On the other hand, bodies of the electors were dragged by their landlords to vote as they pleased to dictate, and to such an extent had this gone that the freeholders in many cases looked uron the franchise as a burdensome privi lege, of which they did not wish to avail themselves. The real remedy was such an ext nsion of the franchise as would enable them to disregard the influence of the land lord or the intimidation of the " county."—(ilea-.) Mr. A. STAFFORD complimented the Noble Lord an d t h e Right Hon. the Secretary for Ireland upon the very temperate speeches they had made, but observe 1 that they had spent a considerable time in laying down propositions which no one had attemp'ed to deny, and in drawing fale inferences which no one had disputed. The Noble Lord had urged that there was nothing in the numbers of the constit uenc y propose d to be created that could alarm either side of the House. The aeswer of his (Mr. Staffe:ere) aide of the House was, that it was not the number, but the quality of the electors they ob jected to. The reel question before the house was, should the figure 8 be inserted in the clause, but neither the Noble Lord nor the Right Hon. Gentleman had grap pled with that question. They had net shown upon what principle that sum had been selected. Why, he found that in another Bill introduced by the Right Hoe. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland (the Landlord and Tenant Bill) he had separated the Irish peasantry into two distinct classes. Of these one kind should have the right of appeal, and the others should sue in forma peuperis, and be found that fie limit so fixed was not an 81. but a 101. —(Loud cries c f h Heir.") So that in the one Bill the Right Hon. Gentleman had drawn the line between the inferior and superior at 10/., end in the other Bill at 81.— (Herr, hear.) Now, was not that a most marked piece of inconsistency? The two principles were wholly irreconcilable the one with the other. The in ference he drew from it was this, that no sooner did the Bi!1 become law than the Right Hon. Gentleman, dis daining to be the representativ e of a rotten borough, would ask for the Chiltern Hundreds, and they would see the sublime spectacle of a dissolution for Ireland. — (Hear, hear.) He called upon the Hon. Member for Manchester, who was about to vote for the 8/. franchise, to explain how he could reconcile that with the vote he had given the previous night. Last night be was pre pared to vote for universal suffrage for England, and he would ask was he now prepared to vote for 81.? If so, the inference wan that the difference between 81. and nothing was the difference between the Irish and English constituency.—(No, no.) If the Honourable Gen tleman had one spark of consistency, whet he should do was, to vote that the blank be not filled up with 81. —ho should avoid swelling the Government majority, as that would preclude him from afterwards voting a smaller sum. If ho and his party did nut act thus nothing would prevent the public from seeing that they were taking a most illogical course. What ho (Mr. Stafferi) and his friends proposed was that, balancing the advantages and the disadvantages of the selected Bih.e o a n had plan, they had come boldly forward an d stated what they meant to divide upon. Mr. SHELL said the House w as very justly impatient for a division —(A. laugh.) It appeared to him that the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat d own was, in all much more upon what to the obser 'td n h pr e o m ba e b a i n li t t3; o , e s n ay ga h g i e rn d 3 i e n u r t e h fl a e g than in n listening th To nm tive er Hon.e nt rations of his Right Hon. Fri en d t h e Secretary for Ireland. .a dFt the . notit. Friend d stated bad why ) Gentlemanhad ah G ground workdistinctly o the franchise;Mated that he but his 81. as equivalent ts the franchise conceded by the Reform Bill. His Right Hon. Friend might be wrong, but that was the explana tion he had given. He should snit r only ono statisti cal fact, but that was one of no ordinary importance. There were 469 English Members in that House—there were 105 Irish Members, Of these English Members, 321 were returned by boroughs ; and of tho 105 Irish Members a large majority were re• turned by counties. What inference did he draw from that? The qualification of the English Members was a 101. value; and the qualification of the Irish Members was not a 10/. value, but a beneficial 101. interest. That was equivalent to a 201. value. Now, he wanted to con tend for the right of the Irish to British institutions. Let them not imagine that the question he was about to put was not germane to the matter in hand. He had no fanatical antipathy to the Irish Church, but the question ho put to the House was, on what principle did they maintain the Irish Church?, Not because they were not insensible to the anomaly—Rot because they were not convinced of the inconsistency of maintaining it—but because they thought that in the two countries the same ecclesiastical institutions should exist. Be it so. Ap_ ply the same principle to the present case. Let th em apply to the state the principle they applied to the church, and grant them the constitutional affinity as they insisted upon ecclesiastical affinity, g o _ nourable Gentlemen opposite ought to bear in mind the Conservative concomitants of the Bill. He be lieved that there would not be such an augmentation of democratic power as Honourable Gentlemen anti cipated. In the first place, the expense of the elections would be doubled, and the legitimate ambition of many young aspirants would be pu t a stop to. In the next place, there would be a large mails of rural occupiers of the soil who would go to the county towns, and in hie progress of 20 or 30 miles he would get rid of the popular epedimic of intimidation —he would be encum bered and surrounded by excited and assisting thousands, and he would vote under the eye of his landlord, and in his peculiar physiegnomy he would find an exceedingly intelligent glance that he would be at no loss to under stand. These were the Conservative concomitants of the Bill. It was, he trusted, not difficult, from the text devised by her Majesty's Government, to give all classes in Ireland a just equipoise of power.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. ROEBUCK denied that he had been guilty of any inconsistency because he had voted for the motion of Mr. Hume on the previous night. He was anxious to see the constituency of Ireland enlarged, and that was the object of his vote last night as regarded the English constituen c y. He would go as far as he could get anyb o d y to go with him. The question really before the House was, in what way they wore to enlarge the constituency of It-clamed? Ile heard con• scantly from the other side expressions of great sym pathy for Ireland, and he wished then that they would show It by allowing them the mewls of managing their own affaire. When the Government were attempting to extend the constituency they heard Hon. Members from the Odposition side of the House rising up one after another and saying that they wanted an independent constituency. '1 2- -ey, however, think that independence and a 15/. franchise are co-existent. Why should 151. create al more independent constituency than 10s or 81.? There was a great reason for making the franchise much lower its Ireland than England, for in the latter country there was much greater wealth than in the former. If they were in England to give such a franchise which. he should be glad to see cor fared upon the people—fir he had never opposed the Chendos clause—they would swell the constituency in this country far more than ~, EVENING, they would do in Ireland. An 8/. franchise in Ireland would be a larger sum than 15/., 201, or 301. paid in this country. He feared not the charge of inconsistency in going out in support of the Noble Lord's proposition. He would vote fir it in tho full expectation that the experience of such a measure would teach that House that they might hereafter go one step farther in the same direc tion. He was not in a hurry, for he believed that ;his reform must be done by degrees. He trusted that the Noble Lord would soon bring in that Reform Bill which he shadowed forth last night.—(Heae, hear.) Ho did not think that the Noble Lord would, for any long period, delay such a measure, and he hoped that it. would be accompanied with another Irish Reform Bill which would go one step lower than tho present.— (Laughter.) He (Mr. Roebuck) promised him, if he were present on su c h an occas i on, t h e No b le Lord should have his hearty support. Lord C. HAMILTON said it was a most remarkable fact that nut of the numerous petitions presented from Ireland only five of them prayed for en increase of the electors. This fact was of itself sufficient to show that the people were altogether indifferent to such a measure as the present. They certainly asked for more repre sentatives, but the Government said they should not have additional Members, hut they would give them more electors. He thought that the way of exhibiting their sympathy f.r tho Irish people was to give them more Members. If they passed this measure he could not Lee how they could consistently stop short from voting them the increase of representatives asked for. —(Hear, hear.) It could be shown that the proposition of his Honourable and Learned Friend the Member fn. the Dublin University would come much nearer to the franchise indicated in the Reform Bill than the Mea sure before the House. It aas a proposition, too, which he thought better adapted fur the present situation in Ireland. They ought to be cautious how they disturbed that calm which the Noble Lord described last night as now existing in Ireland, by giving the people an ides that they wcro to obtain great advantages from the pro posed franchise.—(Hear.) If they m sde the franchise too easy of attainment, they would degrade it in the eyes of the people. The real friends of the country were those who placed themselves in opposition to the measure now submitted to their consideration.—(Hear.) Mr. T. M'CULLAGH said that the Noble Lord who had just sat down had, in common with other Hon, Gentlemen on the same side of the House, an odd way of showing his sympathy with the Irish people. The Noble Lord had aske I why there had not been petitions presented in favour of this Bill. The answer he gave him was, that the people of Ireland, finding on two se veral occasions in 1848 and 1849 the Hon. Gentlemen opposite coaling do.vn and sffirming the principle of this Bill, believed those Honourable Gentlemen were in ear nest, end naturally thought it unnecessary to petition in favour of it.—(llea a lira-) In Utter, out of a population of 3200,000 inhabitants, the consti tuency was less than 9.000. They wore asked t;- night why hi. was selected mere than any other amount. He did not know why. —Meer, heae.) But such a franchise would nearly give them such a constituency es on an average they had in Bleglatid. Tee English cor-ati tuencies in the counties had on an average 6,700 electors. He c nee! veil that the proposed franchise for Ireland would give 6,000 for ea ill county. This Bill was, after a'l, but a performance of the promise made at the Vine of the Reorm Bill—that Ireland should not he placed upon the same footing as Engl sod. He might be asked what that promise was in precise terms. Ho would appeal to only one authority. On the second reading of that B these words were used, " If it was just that. the principle of the all carried fir Etigl Ind should be applied to Eng land, it was no less just that the same principle should be applied t Ireland. If the R. form Bill only coeferred on the people of England that which was their right. how could the same right be denied to the I e Cplsplit of Irelan? Could three rights be denied without danger? —or, if long withheld, would it not constitute a fair reason why the people should demand a repeal of the union?" This was the language that was at that time used by Lord Stanley. He believe I that the Noble Lord was sincere when he used those words, and that he really meant to give that power substantially to the Irish people of choosing their own representatives. Was it, he (Mr. M'Cullagh) asked, fair, just, reasonable, or politic for them now to refute to give to the people of Ireland, after a delay of so many years, the realisation of those promises which were at the period alluded to held forth ?—(Hear, heat.) If they believed in the re ality of religious liberty, was it not an argument to ex tend the liberty of the Irish people whess they saw how they had used that liberty fur the last 20 years ? They had !sow in Ireland 500,000 children receiving ite true fonby a grant from that House—the major portion be longing to the Catholic religion. If the House believed in the efficacy of religious instruction, they must believe that the Irish people were better fitted now for that liberty which it was proposed to give them than before such a means of education existed. He only asked the House to give the counties in Ireland that franchise which they possessed in 1829. Was it consistent, wise, or just that they should now divide the House on the question of whether the qualification for the franchise should be 81. or 151. ? If they placed any value upon the good feeling and the loyalty cf the Irish people, he trusted that the Government would persist in the vindication of their rights by pressing on this mut aure.—(alear, hear.) Lord cAsTLEREAGFI said be considered the quali fication proposed in the amendment of his Hon. and Learned Friend a great deal too high. Neither did he approve of the proposition of the Noble Lord. If, how ever, he was compelled to vote for either, he should cer tainly support the mra , ure cf the Noble Lord; for when they were called upon to give a new constitution to Ire land, ho thought that they had better be found on the liberal side.—(Hear, hear.) Ho, however, concealed that he had much doubt as to the propriety of selecting the present time for this experiment. He should prefer a 10/. franchise. Ho most sincerely wished by this measure that they could either teed the people or restore tranquillity and contentment in Ireland. As, however, it was impossible for them to do all that they wished, they ought to do all they could.—(Hear, hear.) ll° had no doubt that if they did their duty towards Ireland, they would have no reason to repent by the conduct of the people themselves. Sir W. 'VERNER was understood to say in reply to an observation ma d e b y t h e H on. Member for Sheffield, that at the time that there were 40s. freeholders in Ire land, the uefertunate freeholders were driven in flocks, like sheep, to the hustings, by the priests; and then, too, the priest was to be seen with a double-thonged whip in his hand forcing on the voters to the poll. An Hon. Member, too, had remarked that the landlords would not give leases. Mr. MONSELL explained that what he had stated was that the people did not register because they had not leases; and the reason they had not leases was because the landlords did not wish them to register. Sir W. 'VERNER continued by saying that he had property in Armagh, Tyrone, and Monaghan, and he was most anxious to make freeholders in all these cram ties—(Hear, and laughter)—but the respectable Roman Cathol:c farmers requested of him not to give them leases, because if ho did they must vote as the priest di rected them.—(Hear, hear.) He adeed on this cccasion the same justice to be done to them which would be done to England and Scotland. A highly-respectable Mem ber, who he had no doubt was in the House—(Cries of " Name")—the Hon. Member for Berwickshire, had told the House that it was an unprecedented thing to bring firward and attempt to pass any measure through that House connected with Scotland in the same way that the Noble Lord had endeavoured to force on that Bill in the absence of the Irish Members. The Honourable Member had twice told the Noble Lord that ho dared not do it. They had then this, an Irish Bill, before the House, at the same time that the acsizes__ were going on in Ireland, and tha • many Members were 'absent in the performance of very important duties. Th• Noble Lord did not aTord t ) the people of Ireland the opportunity of consulting their re prestntatives with respect to this measure. It was be cause the Noble Lord could not do this that they felt compelled to take the part they had done in opposing its progress ; and the Irish felt grateful to the Scotch and English Members for the manner in which they had supported them on that occasion. lie hoped then that their party, though small, would stick together, and teach the Government not to take those liberties with them. Lord J. MANNERS observed that the lion. Member for Dundalk, apparently in want of an opponent, had sought to fiz an accusation on his Hou. Friend the Mem ber for Northampton, which the Hon. Member (Mr. M'Cullagh) would, upon reflection, he hoped, be disposed to withdraw. He had fixed upon the expression of "sham representatives of a rotten constituency ;" when these words were intended as an interpretation of the language which Hon. Gentlemen opposite gavo to them selves.—(Fiear' hear.) It wa said that they ought to give to Ireland a constituency like to that of England. That, he said, was what they (the Opposition) wanted to do.—(Hear, hear.) The tone and temper of the Hon. Member for Sheffield, who had referred to the Hon. Member for Northampton, showed how deeply wore felt the observations of his Hon. Friend.—(Hear.) The lion. Member for Sheffield had contrasted the expres sions of sympathy and generosity, as compared with the conduct of the Opposition on this occasion. This was a charge which, he said, eat light upon him; for whea English Radicalism could not coin, at a time of the mo s t _ . severe pressure of distress in Ireland, words harsh and bitter and severe enough to describe the Irish character, it never was alluded to by any one on that (the Opposi tion) side of the House but in terms oe respect, and there was no act of theirs but ono of liberality and kindness.— (Hear.) If it wore true that on the memory of Irish Members these facts made a light impression, it was not so with others; for they were more deeply and strongly impressed upon the memory of the Irish people.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that there was au advantage in discussing this Bill after the debate of last night. They derived, too, great benefit from having the philosophical principles laid down by a Noble Lord as to the manner of granting the franchise, and upon which they oug h t to proceed'. He did not thei, he thought, travel out of the record if he tested this Bill by the principles which had been laid down.— (Hear.) lie understood the Noble Lord to have laA down this principle—tlat any reform they granted should be as a supplement to the Reform Bill, ald not a reversal ofit. It would be easy to show that theamendmont of the Hon. Member for tha University of Dublin was in strict accordance with tho speech of the Noble Lord on the preceding night. He believed that he might take it for granted that the Reform Bill was intended to create a constituency rpproachirg 150,000 voters, and in the year 1837 the actual constituency was 122,000 some odd hundreds but the proposal of the Noble Lord, which they were told was to give a constituency like that of England, would in point of fact giro them a great .r constituen c y than that given by4the Reform He could not, he must admit, blind him self to the argument of his Hon Friend (Mr. Stafford), that those who voted with the Her,. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) last night, and this night intended t o vote with I the Noble Lord, were guilty of inconsistency.— (Hear, MARCH 2, 1850 hear.) He wished also to obtain for his Honourable Friend the majority who had supported the Noble Lord, becense if it were otherwise the Noble Lord might have the reproach justly cast upon him that ho placed greater confidence in the peasantry of Ireland then in the peasantry and the mechanics of England.— (Hear.) Now, he had a great admiration of the virtues of the Irish people; hut stil he could not think them more peculiarly qualified to exercise the franchise than the people of England,—(lfear.) He could not say that the peasant's. of Lincolnshire and the artisans of Birmingham were less worthy of the right of voting than the owners of tenements in the bog of Allen.—(Lasigh ter.) Here the desire was to restore the constetueney of Ireland to the lesel on which the Reform Bill had placed them. He directly joined with the Nob!e Lord in !list eedesvour; but he would not create an enfrely new con stisuency. If it veers adopted, it would nut confer the least benefit upon Ireland, and it would lessen in the minds of the people of England that respect and regard for the representation of Ireland 'Which it was of imperial moment to retain intact.—(Hear.) The Committee divided, and the nuasbers were— For the amendment ... 144 Against it ..• ..• ••• ••• 213 Majority against the amendment ... —69 On our return to the gallery we found Mr. J. REYNOLDS addressing the Committee in support of creating a 4/. instead of asi 8/. franchise; hut having been inf 'rifled by the Chairman that he (amid not then move it as an amendment, the Honourable Member gave notice that he would take the sense of the House upon it on the bringing up of the report. Ile then proceeded to say that he had no objecton to re cognise the principle that a man ought not to be enrolled unless he was rated to the relief of the poor; but he thought it was decidedly wrong in principle to dsprive him of the right of being enrolled unless he had paid the rates.—(A laugh.) That, he belle ved, ought not to be a condition, because at present the law provided efficient remedies for the recovery of the rate as well a the rent.—(Hear, hear.) He would suggest, therefore, that the words bearing upon this point in the clause should be omitted. Sir W. SOMERVILLE declined to adopt the sug gestion cf the Hon. Gentleman, as being opposed to the principle of the Bill. Mr. REYNOLDS—Then I protest against the prin ciple of this Bill.--(Leughter.) Mr. WALPOLE was of opinion that the days upon whieh the rates were to be paid, in order t qualify. a county or borough franchise, should be assimilated; but as the Bill steed it provided that in the case of a county qualification the rates should he paid on or be, fore the let July, whilst in the case of boroughs the date was the sth of July.—(Hear.) Mr. BEIG-EIT concurred in opinion with the lion. and Learned Gentlemar, and said it struck him that fixing different days for paying the rotes might lead to much confto ion.—(ilenr.) Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that he should be pre pared to consider this subjs ct when the Committee came to the 6th el =use. Mr. REYNOLDS said that in matey unions in Ire land there had knee an accurnulati n of arrears cf rates so large that it would be impocrible to ersy them up. Mr. HUME considered that the land had hi ea sub jected to very extraordinary eireurnsterees dariee the past year—(Laughter, end cries of " Ileer")—arid he contended, therefore, that the payment cf such rates only as had been levied after the passing of this Act should he a condition to the possession of the franchise. Lord C. HAMILTON then rose to move the proviso to the first dame, of which he had given notice, to the effect that the voter should make a claim to be place I on the register to the high constable of the b irony in which he should to rated. The Noble Lord said he d'd not ish in the slightest eegree to gain any political ad vsn t tee or party ohject by moving this amendment. his vo!e object was that the measure should he cf a gene ral and impartial el erecter, and thst the real feet dom asd independence of ell classes of the electors should be maintained. He felt that it was necessary to protect those who might hold the right of voting from undue influences as far as possible; for he was sorry to say that it was notorious that in Ireland the consti teeecies were painfully open, arid exposed to the most unfelt' and apparently tyrannical interferences in the exercise of their franchise. It was an unpleasant thing for an Irishmen to confess that such was the case; hut no one who had resided in that country, and had wit nesg.d contested elections there, could fail to have a strong impression on his mind that they were a perfect mockery.—(Hear, hear.) Now, the objet he had in pre-- posing his amendment was to prevent any man being placed in the painful dilemma of voting for one party or the other without his own consent.—(lies.r, hear.) He believed the Government had come forward, upon the present occasien, redly with a sincere desire not only to enlarge the constituencies, hunto do so fairly towards all parties, without any political or party object; aid it was from the strong 01-jertion he entertain, d to putting men in the unferiunate position of being subjected, on the one hand, to threats of 'ensporal injury, and, on the ether, to threats cf punishment in the future world, that he thought the Committee would act wisely and justly by giving those parties the right of sa)itig wheth, r they would or would not accept the franchise.—(Hear.) It could not be denied that at present there was Ter) great interference with the electors, and that in conse quence considerable disinclination prevailed to accept the franchise that now existed. He believed that he was thoroughly within the mark when he said that those who were entitled to exercise the right, even under the present law, might be multiplied by three.—(Hear, hear.) Seeing, then, the existence of this disinclination, surely it would be highly advisable that this House, v. hich was really anxious to promote the welfare of Ire land, should deal with this as a fact, and that the people should have the option of exercising the franchise or not as they pleased. That was Lis proposition, and he main I tined that it was quite as liberal an act to give a IThill the right of refusal as to insist upon his using the fran chise. He might be told that he was endeavouring place an impediment in the way of the franchise; but he unhesitatingly disclaimed being actuated by any such e desire. He wished to preserve those persons who were enfhanchised from being exposed to the serious annoy ances which would he brought to bear upon them in Ireland. Tie only asked the Committee to affirm the principle without alopting the exact words of the amendment, which, perhaps, in their present form might be taken to apply t ) persons already on the register, or to make the claim annual, which was not his intention. Sir G. GREY said the adoption of the amendment would destroy the value of a qualification founded upon rating; the advantage of which was that it was telf acting. The independence cf the voter would be sacri ficed, instead of being maintained, if the amendment were adopted. The proviso was then put from the chair and m gativ_d without a division. Mr. J. REYNOLDS proposed the addition of a pro viso, to the effect that no person otherwise qualified to ho registered should be held to be disqualified by rea on of any arrears cf rates which have occurred previous to the 16th of July, 1849. The AT I ORNEY-GENER AL said the House could not agree to the proviso, for the CI - ancellor of the Ex ceequer would object to it as a receipt in fall for all arrears. Mr. BRIGHT said that the Bill was not a measure to erect the collection of rates, which would be dore through the machinery of the poor•law, aid he, there fore, could see no objection to the proviso. Mr. AGLIONBY hoped the Government would allow the proviso to be added to the Bill, unless they could tusign some other reasons than those given by the At torney-General. Viscount CASTLEREAGH opposed the proviso. Ltrd J. RUSSELL said the question had been already decided by the House that the rates should be paid ep to a certain day as a qualification for a vote, and now that general decision having been been given, the ques tion was whether or not there should be any exceptions made to it, because there had been peculiar distress in the year 1849. Ho did not think as a general rule, for the franchise had been laid down by the House. that it would be expedient to make exception on account of those cases of digress, and he could not for that reascn support the proviso. Mr. HUME regretted that the Government opposed the provis^, but advised the Hon. Gentleman to withdraw it for the present. After a few 'word,; from Mr. CONNOLt..Y, Mr. REYNOLDS said that in order to give the Go vernment time to consider the question he would not give the House the trouble of dividing on the proviso at pre sent. He would, ther€fore, withdraw the motion.—(" No, no," from the Opposition.) The CHAIRMAN then put the question from the chair, and the proviso was negatived without a division. Clause 1, as amended, was then put from the chair, and agreed to. On clause 2, Mr. HAMILTON suggested that, at that late hour, the Chairman should report progress. Lord J. RUSSELL said, as there were many objoe tions to be s'nted relative to that clause, he concurred in the advisability of reporting progress. With respect to the clause itself he could only say he should he happy to hear the opinions of Hon. Members connected with Irc land upon it, especially of those who were favourable to the Bill. With respect to the statement which he bad made at five o'clock relative to the conduct of business of the House, he had to observe that the First Lord of the Admiralty found it impossible to attend the House on Monday, and as in his absence it would not be ad visable to bring forward the navy estimates, he proposce to go on with the present Bill on Monday instead. Mr. STAFFORD observed that the N.,ble Lord had said he wi3he I particularly to hear the opinions of gen tlemen connected with Ireland, especially those who supported him on the Bill. If opposing the proviso of the Hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. neynol Is) amounted to supporting the Bill, then he (Mr. Stafford) and 11i; friends were supporters of the Bill, and the Noble Lord ought to he happy to bear their opinions.—(Hear.) The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and ot tained leave to sit again on Monday next, and the Howe remitned. The second reading of the Court of Chancery (Ire land) Bill was postponed to the 15sh of March. Mr. CARDWELL sad, in the early part of tho even ing, he had stated that great interest was felt by the public as to the Mercantile Marine Bill. He wished now to ask whether it was likely that Bill would be brought on on Monday next ? Mr. LABOUCIIERE said be did n'A think there wax any chance of bringing that Bill forward on that evening, lie would therefore fix it for Friday next. REGISTRATION OF DEEDS (IRELAND) BILL. Read a second time. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY. house resolved its,ll into a Committee of Supply. Resolved, teat a sum of 17,758,7004 be grantel to hcr Majesty to defray the charge of outstanding Exc%cquer bills.—Agreed to. House resumed. Committee n Monday next , The House at its risin g t o adjourn. -p Monday n ext , Mr. lIEA.DLA.M obtained have ' a Dill to Act atuvrlf/ and rwtenrl certiir, of the provisions or ares"! , v :;I,ie thQ year 8:h :,n(1 9th o f her present gaJi 1-1 Jlt7.t!ctl, `• Au Act to f,cilifato th e Couveyance of real P. - operty." aanevya st Tivel" no Hom e &djounnd at a Q o'clock. AIUNTRY MAR ETS' most WAKEFIELD, MARCH I.—The supplies are good of eo articles. There is very little passing in wheat, and to ogre in salcs a submission of Is to 2s per: quarter , s made, inducing millers to purchase except in very limited q uail Oa In barley there is no chan4e in value, but common cl aa at are still difficult to move. Oats, stoning, and beans *— dull sale, and priers tend lower. Ola' New. g. WHEAT, per qr. 601bs per bushel : s. s• to ''''' Suliolk, le e:z, aml Kent, red ... 38 to 41 Ditto, white ..„,„ ~, 43 --46 "-- ..„,..... Norfolk and !hints , red ... „. 36 — 39 ' P.- ..- --- Ditto, white ... ... ... 40 — 4l •-• _ .-• Lincolnshire and Cambridge, red ... f 6 —3 7 --- •-•* Ditto, white ... ... .. 33 •—• 42 ''. .... Yorkshire, red .., ... _34— 37 --- __, .-- Ditto, white ... ... ... 38 —42 --..-- -- Dantzic and Konigsburg, white .. 90 _ 43 -- ...., -- ..- Lower Baltic and 11 =burgh, red... 36 --3 8 .....-- Lledite,rranean, red ... ... ... 30 —34 '' BARLEY, per quarter of 8 bikinis:— -- --' Norfolk and Suffolk_ ••• •• 23 . 26 '"'" „... .... Lincolnshire and Yorkshire .. 20 —2l "--,...... Scotch ... ... ... ... 22 —2 5 '...... •••• Grinding per 30 stone ... ••• 19 —2O '-- ....• .... Foreign ... ••• ••• ••• 20 —22 BEANS, per quarter of 8 bushels 631h:— 28 0.,„30 ... Small, fine ... ... 26 —2 7 - --- ... Ticks ... ... ... ... 24 — 26 -- ......• Foreign ... _ „„. „., 23 —2a "'- OATS, per stone:— nj to 01 Dlealing • ... ... 7hd to 81d - 9d Feeding _ , .„ 7d to 84 8d to to oj ..., Foreign .. : .... 7d to 8d od ...... SHELLING, per had of 2611 b ... 20 —2l --....... .ALT, per load of 6 imperial bushels 33 -- 35 -- PEAS, per Imperial Quarter Blue and white boilers Grey and Feed 25 ! 2 a B 24 Qrs' ARRI Qrs. 'iILS. Rapeseed ••• **: 465 1 Barley ... ... 3,635 Shelling ••• Oats ... 1,F,99 Linseed ••• Beans... 1,468 Malt . Peas ... ... 45 I Flour ... ••• Fares • fly • •• NEWBURY, FEB. 28.—At to•day's market the (lea.h-1,- wheat in offer i s e xt reme ly moderate, yet fully suffleten" te s the demand, which is v er y s l ac k, an d viith d fliculty the re t he of last week are supported. Barley, moderate suPP I Y ; t hrt Finer descriptions were much s oug ht after, and obta'ned rec e better rates ; other descriptions ;n better request, at full Pr' st, Beans, Oats, and Peas ; short supply, and in moder ate regee at fu prices. L . IV II EI'POOL, acts I.—At this day's market there:l: ;Tam a very limited attendance of buyers, and little Pre,g_ c was made with sales of any a rticle. Wheat, in souse instals quite sees decidedly easier to buy. Oats and oatmeal were neglected. Barley, Brans, a nd Peas without alteration en'Tto in valuelor demand. Flour v. as very difficult to more , a A fO. have made sacs some reduction would have been submitto to India Corn was not so easy to buy as during t he , P s Pt days, but must be quoted 3d to 61 lower since Tuesoar „01 EXETER, MARCH I.—Cattle market—The supply wa s to the demand, which was by no means brisk. P a , n s r ; Turkeys, Is to 85 each ; duc!.:s, 4s Gd to ss 6d ; widgeon, 3s 61 to 4s ; galenas 53 to 6s ; fowls, 2 s "'s -- to 31 spring chickens, 3s Gd to 4s per couple; hares, 25 9' pots' each ; butter, Is to Is hl per lb; eg to 20 for 1 5 ; tjp toes, 91 to 101 per score. Corn Exgchange, one o'clock-- to this hour but little actual business has been transacted.; fact, although the market nominally ' begins at eleven , W ai l is not at:ended to for the first two hours, and there s ee ho uri 'ste disposition to protract the m a rket to an unreasonably no as which is much complained of. Wheat is about the sa„orr last week, but there is less disposition to sell, and no e en „`„ire; able quantity could be bought without increasing the hrojell 5s to Is 3d must he quoted for the best samples; 00e 2s 101 to 35 per bushel; oats, Is 11 d to 2s 21 per b ush e" flour, 28s to 29s per sack of 280Ibs. ed re " WETHEBBY, FEB. 28.—White wheat 15s 6d to u r 'a • ditto 13s 6d to 15s 6d per load ; barley 23s to 263 P e- beans Fs to 13s per load ; oats 74 1 d to 9tl per stone. bea ns KNARESBOROOGII, FEB. 27.—Wheat 4s 3d to ba 3 i d j ; o d to 33 9d to 4s lid per bushel; barley 21s to 265; • 0 s s per qr. • 5 5 Odi NORTHALLERTON, whi, 6 ( 1 so 6d; red 4s I'd to 4s ; oats Is Gd to 2s 3d; 'beans3s Od to 35 barley 2s 91 to 3301 per bushel. a ditto RIPON, FEB. 28.—White wheat 4s 91 to 5s 3(1, r e m s to 4s 3d to Is; beans 3s 61 to 4s 3d per bushel ; barley *- 265; oats 14s to 21s per qr. Od w hite SCARBOROUGH, FEB. 28.—Red wheat 4s 3d to 55 „ b ite - • ditto 4s 9d to r Gd per 5 stones ; black oats 60 to 7 ;Jog ditto oats 5.9 7d to Pd per stone ; malting barley 193 to 215, A r g r.- to 3 0 s ditto 17s to 193 per qr. of 32 stones; superfine aeu - ' 335, seconds ditto, 24s to 27s per sack of 20 stones. d 39 0 BANGOR, FEB. 25.—Wheat, beat home grown, rea°- " Sw ar teri to 40s ; barley, 193 to 29s ; oats, 13s to I3s Per oatmeal, 20s to 2ls per 2401b5. DENBIGII, FEB. 27.—Wheat, 12s to 12s 6 1 ; barleys fry to 7s 6d; oats, 4s Gd to Is ; peas, 10s per bobbet; butter, 10Id; salt ditto, 6d per lb. LLassnwsr, FEB. 2.3.—The following are the que tsti 6 lir Wheat, Ils to 13s Od ; barley, Gs to 7s 6d ; Oatmeal, 9 t ifa 6 RUTHIN, FEB. 25.—The average price of ei hea- ag' titir ° from 12s Gel to 13s per hobbet ; a few mal l V reached 13s Cd. 6 , d b a rley, -ices MOLD, FEB. 27.—Wheat, from 12t to 135; ,„ 1 . to 7s; oats, 4s to 5s ; but no buyers at the big"' asked. j3O 311 ! RHYL I Fan. 26. Wheat averaged from 12s 6d O n . 8,1 {yet barley, 7s to 7s 6d ; oats, Ls ; beans, 101 ; vetches) I— bobbet. INVERNESS, FEB. 26.—Wheat, per quarter, vr e . n ig tjes ; 621 b per bushel, 363 to 383; new ditto, ditto, 0 15 1 9/ old barley, per quarter, weighing 541 b per bu /411; to ON ; new ditto, ditto, o"'s to 00s ; oats, - - - 1 4 § 0. , bushel, 153 to IGs Od. Oatmeal, per imperial bell , brs o, second, 13s; barleymeal, 1 Is Od; peasemcal, 14s to 01;0 3 to per stone, 6d ; first flour, per 2801 b, 34s to 365; sea' 'os oatmeal, best, er stone of Ib imperial, Is 4d to 00 0, second, Is 2d ; barleymeal 14 , Is 2d ; peasemeal, ls 4c l ; 6rst pots; 23 4d cash, 2s 8d credit; second, 2s cash, 2s 3d c redit. _ ea !, 4 0 toes, per stone, 6d to Od ; beef, per pound, 4d to 66 1 ; 1 ,,d t 0 to 5d ; mutton, 4d to 6d ; pork, 3d to 4d ' - fowls, each , pd t° I4d ; chickens, per pair, 16d to 18d ; ducks, es 7d 7c l t ; 00d ; eggs, pm- dozen, 4d to 5d ; butter, fresh, per po u0" 8d; salt, 9d to Od; cro udi e ( cu rd s ) Od to Od; f°' l „; t 9; loaf, cash, 5d t o 6d, cre di t , 54 c 1 t o bid ; co als, per hay, per ston e , 8d t o 9d. ' Carr's HartleyCOAL 15( 1 41 5 it s K Od ET ‘H . East Adairs Main 13s 3d IJonassohns '''''''''' 1 7 . i 0,1 fluting's Hartley lss OdiLambton ............. •us A New Tanfield l ,/5 001ussell's Hetton •• ...... 08 In Ravensworth'sW.Hart 155 OdStewart's .............. 168 3 d fanfield Moor Butes l3s 6diDenison ..............•••• 1 63 !.); Townley 155 Od 'South Hartlepool ••••' 1 5 8 tr Wall's End, &c. West Hetton .............. „ Is 9 e! T5wYeE151T..E.11..D.,..1'.......... 1 4 1 : i i ci i Brown's.. . 6 ! Brown's Gas l3s 3d, Adelaide Tees ....... ', 4 , 5 / Bewieke and Co. 6 1 Hilda.... 1 6 15s 3d Seymour Tees • l5 o a _ . _. Original Gibson 14s ed South Durham ........ : 218 6 IS Bell ."j Belmont l6s 6d Hartley ..-......•.... Os Braddyll letton - -- • : RAILWAY SHARK YE Alt I S- ' EIS. BRISTOL, MARcir 1. trtn ° STOCK EXCHANGE.—A good business bas bae° .ter m °f acted, but prices have again declined, w ith the el cceP‘ i The Bristol and Exeter New, which have slightlr sise.?.., dealt following are the closing prices of the principil slVe-storn• in to-day : —Bristol and Exeter, New, ley —Gre at dis. e° Quarters, 13 3 , 4 1 ex div.—Ditto, New 1:71. Shares, 7, ‘' div.— Midland, 59 c. ex dir. don ° LIVERPOOL, Mitacit 1. bliO es3 ed' STOCK EXCBANGE.—There has been a good p ro 6 in cur Stock Exchange to-day, and prices aro 1 ro b i e , The transactions were as follow : Lancashire and Y° Nortb: a nd .... D O, Halves, 24—Ditto Fifths, 8% dis.—London Western, 1024—Ditto, New Quarters, % c• dis 'b'ee, 11 Fifths, 1 .4 dis. —Manchester, Sheffield, ard I,incolns I,6iyest itto , .... 1- `yorler c.—Ditto, Preference, 6 f 3 —Midland, 394 —D Is. 3d. dis.—South-Eastern and Dover (N O . 4), 6 n er Pt ' Newcastle, and Berwick (G. N. E Purchase), ,u, p er till 1850, Gs. 3d. c. di-. —York and North islin"i" Belfast and Ballymena, 17 1 4. 0 1 MANCHESTER, MARCH 1. ver y ~ 2 STOCK EXCHANGE.—Our share market was I s eriv -i to-day. Few purchasers were found until after th° a ct]. a of the London paces, when the aspect of affairs nilPf" shade. BIRMINGHAM, MARCH I. vsebi ll3 g e STOCK EXCHA.NGE.—Business on our Stock . •tendersel* was very dull to-day, and prices had a downwa rd reg er, The only transactions were—Londen and North 102—South Staffordshire, 31. 18s. 9d. dis. YORK, FEB. 28. follow c :- 1c STO to da y W ere til G E r e X a C t ei A i‘ fi o a r s th .— ern T , he transactions d Midland, 17 174. 5/. 18s. 9 . 1 — Yor k $l3 0 GLASGOW, FEB. 28. Wer e •f- STOCK ExertAxGr.—The transactions to-dn9 cr0 ,,,, P follow : —Edinburgh and Bathgate, 5/. 185.---G li oril lerti' tn , arnock, and Ayr, Hal ves (N o . t), 12/. 12s.— Gre_at 6d. B'. 7a. 6d. —Midland, 42—N or th British, iO/. c_s_:_____/ a do o a n n a gt t hh h t e e a 2r 2 4 3 t d h u I t . the o a wif t f il ,at Ezet B e I r RI BS S. Williamwhit urn,., i ellto Cooper,the tei.. of .Klein, a son W.O.t 24th ult., at Woodstock -cottage, • We' 34ll i b l e ro2 `2 o6 6 kt t hfi h e ul u di l t t . .. ,o , ifn a ap t Esq of a son.' • St. Jobo - H. D. Carte-, aatrtlei.e,_nEnsigng,toorns:absaolln,ear Ashton), fi e of T' gre- On the aj• On the 26thark-villas, '"fs• ult. at Westbourne-par k-Y1 1 Neame, iale' of a daughter. in field, the 26th ult., at Southsea, the wife of CaP ts Royal Artillery, of a daughter. Pota-street, Portman-squaret Pereivl` l MARRIED. itt r t o, On the 26th ult., at St. Matthew's Briston, .-• ' t he 1$ D iu . r. P \ a v d . w c i e e e k p , e o r f , 0 111 o l\ u , n e ' vr - i street, , t s o u E r i rleley'n., daughter of daughter, Castle, Kent, the vt all c• D une of On the 26th ult , at Beckenham Church, the eldestll' son, , Travers, M.A., incumbent of Thorpe Hesley'_, 1 .1 to PI , Captain Sir Eaton T , avers R.N., Kitt. and IN-•".4 01 , Be e fifth daughter of L. Holl-tn ' d E, ► of Langley 'r Fras er' coharn, Kent. ' ' ji ' . ri der ,-,110 On the 26th ult., at Enfield Church, Ale' -a , te r of - I S' B q . • of Spital square, to Frances , second daag" avies, Esq., of breezy-water, Enfield. h ter DIED. dot c hug D. At Cromarty, on the 22d ult., Franco, younfP , c. 1.3., 0 -, On the 21d ;qt., at Mount• pleasant, e'er' , tate of of the late Major General Robertson, of ,Strovvi,eanaw, ell, Dia d wife of J. Howarth, Esq., aged 31. Ar e ate , - At Deptford, on Pie 25th ult., Mr. Robert , fs(l ' Newark, aged 63. a s Cruce fiS, On the 2: - .ith ult., at Bath, Robert Thom Se V. 1,1. D., ag e d 01 On the 2 ith ult-, at Broomfield, near Cli Be r Thomas Sayer , , aged 5". 0 29th l ilt ' , r 0. At Wimborne Minster, Dorsetshire, on th '1 V' s q . ' riette, daughter of the late IV. Evans, Egt pai 1 Of On the 26th nit., in Guildford -street, John ,Eed ., Croydon Sarrey. aged P. gartitif . On the 27th tilt., in London, Thomas _,4 3. 0e, Ile, C g ' Liverpool, aged S 2. briclga-We On the 27th ult., at Nevill-park, Tun , d 4 0 . widow of the late Colonel Mother, age elaisford, the rf TOII I - f.s, : Printed and I'vbli , 4hed by Mintpoce, a t e cf Sun No. 112, Stran d, Printer, at The lityand, in thz recinct of the Savoy; 1p e-n s ; Satu P rday, March 2, 1850. !Wheat