The Sun.
London, England, 1852-02-10 00:00:00

IRISH UNIONS.

In reply to Colonel DUNNE,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated
that it was the intention of Government to bring in a
Bill on an early day to remit certain unions in Ireland
from the payment of advances that had been made to
them.
AUSTRIA.
Mr. C. ANSTEY gave notice that to-morrow he
should ask a question of the Government relative to the
expulsion of a Protestant clergy man and other British
subjects from Austria.
RECAL OF SIR HARRY SMITH.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS rose to put a question to the
Noble Lord at the head of her Majesty's Government re-
lative to the recal of Sir Harry Smith. The Noble Lord
had on a former evening read to the House a communi-
cation from her Majesty to the Foreign Secretary
relative to the duties of his office, and he
wished to know whether a similar communication had
been addressed to the Colonial•office, and whether in
consequence of that communication the dispatch con-
taining the recal of Sir Harry Smith had been submitted
to her Afajest% ?—(Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said that at the time those in-
structions of her Majesty had been conveyed to the Fo-
reign Secretary, her Majesty had expressed herself de-
sirous of having all important decisions with regard
to colonial matters transmitted to her, but did not re-
qure to have the dispatches sent to her. With regard to
the dispatch alluded to, he could not say what had been
the course pursued; but he could assure the House that
the decision for recalling Sir H. Smith was the decision
of the Cabinet.
ENCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND).
Mr. FRENCH rose to ask the Master of the Rolls the
following question:—The Incumbered Estates Com-
missioners in Ireland having sold part of the estate of
Mr. Freeman, which was leased for two lives at a rent
which left to the lessee a profit rent of 691. a year, and
having executed a conveyance of the lands to Mr. Dense
in March, 1851, discharged of that lease—to whom is
the lessee to look for his 691. a year during the time
such lives remain in existence?
The MASTER of the ROLLS declined to answer the
question of the Hon. Member, as, if he were to do so,
it would be perfectly competent for any Hon. Member
concerned in obtaining redress of a legal grievance to
ask any legal Member of that House what course would
be best for him to pursue to obtain that right.
LOSS OF THE AMAZON.

Lord NAAS moved that all the correspondence which
has taken place between the Admiralty and the Admiral
commanding at Plymouth relative to the loss of the
Amazon steam-ship should be laid on the table of the
Houae.—Agreed to.
Lord NAAS gave notice that he would move for a
copy of the correspondence
SAFETY OF THE CHANDELIERS.
Lord J. MANNERS wished to know whether Lord
Seymour bad today received a communication as to the
insecurity of the chandeliers above the heads cf Mem-
bers ?—(A laugh.)
Lord SEYMOUR said be had not, but that a few days
ago he received a statement, signed by the contractor
and others, assuring
safe.—(Rear.) him that the lamps were perfectly
(At this period great amusement was created in con-
sequence of the lights being so lowered as to render the
House very dark.)
Lord J. MANNERS thought it would be better at
once to call Dr. Reid to the bar.—(Hear.)
SALMON FISHERIES IN IRELAND.
IrLY gealvaend.—(Loud laughter.)
leave to bringoticien
a Bill that this
theda weeksnynjnt e hoo
would move for t
MILITIA LAWS.
salLMmoorr.ndefiJhNellr°NieLs in
RUSSELL postponed his motion on the
militia laws till Friday,_

.....
SUPPLY.
The report of the Committee of Supply was brought
up, and addressee agreed to praying her Majesty to be
be laid on the table.
MR. P. O'CONNOR.
pleasedTh to
e spEorAdeKr thatEß the estimates for the two services
that he had received a letter from Mr. Henry, the anounceßow-
street magistrate, stating that he had convicted Mr. F.
O'Connor on a charge of assaulting a police-constable, and
sentenced him to seven days' imprisonment.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORVI.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose to move for leave
to bring in a Bill to extend the right of voting for
Members of Parliament, and to amend the laws
relating to the representation of the people. The state
of affairs, he said, in which he brought this motion for-
ward ought to be satisfactory to the House and to the
country.— (Hear, hear.) During the last four years
we had seen wonderful changes on the continent, and
yet during that period this country had been tranquil
and loyal, and many apparent dangers had been averted
by the courageous spirit of the people themselves.
It appeared, therefore, that this was a proper time
for considering whether any further extension could be
given to the right of voting consistently with the princi-
ple of the Constitution, the prerogative of the Crown, the
authority of Parliament, and the rights and liberties
of the people.—(Dear.) There were some persons who
said that they ought rather to wait for agitation, and
that it was better to legislate upon a subject of this kind
when the passions of the people had been raised; but he
totally differed from that opinion. He thought if it was
desirable to make any amendment in the state of the
representation, it was well to consider the change in a
time of peace and tranquillity—to concede it as a reward
for past gorl(ilear, hear.)thertha He b
n to make
it, as it were, upon conduct,
compulsion.—(Hear,
n.
sio
lieved, therefore he was doing right in now bringing
forward this question.—(Hear, hear.) It had been as-
serted, but without foundation, that it was merely on the
spur of the moment, when being pressed by a
motion which was last year carried, that he gave notice
that he should bring this subject under the consideration
of the House this session,—(Hear, hear.) Now,
so far from that being the case, it was stated
by him so far back as 1848, in answer
to the Honourable Member for Montrose, that he thought
the time was rapidly approaching when the further ex-
tension of the franchise might be again consideree
and deliberated upon by Parliament. —(Hear, hear.)
It was then thought that it would not be advisable to
bring
in such a measure, and when the subject was die-
cussed last year in the Cabinet the reasons for post-
Ponement again outweighed those for its immediate pro-
duction. That postponement, however, subjected the
Government to these disadvantages, that in opposing such
motions it must, in givieg reasons for their postponement,
be supposed to be coucealing its real intention, and thus
appear to be forced to du something which it had never
intended to do, or, in stating
a general intention on the
subject, it should be accused of causing apprehension and
expectation as to what the details of the measure were to
be. This alternative, although attended with inconvenience,
ho had preferred. Having stated thus much, he thought
it would be convenient if the House would review alone
with him the measures which had been taken and pro-
posed on this subject at various times. He did not meat.
to enter into the general principles of representation•
rett well reed
but he believed it was p y ag the:
the claim to the franchise in every individua
was one which could not be supported, the object to b,
gained being always good government. In deliberatine
on the means of obtaining the fairest measure of represen-
tation they must always bear in mind the importance 01 I

the functions which this House exercised. equalled by
e-..sre ;inlets erol scowl); oy eeLe
in ancient. In referring to the proceedings with
respect to the representation of that House, they felled
thy:' in 1781 Mr. Pitt brought forward a general motion,
which was supported by Mr. Fox, and in 1785 brought
forward a plan by which he proposed to lay aside a sum
to purchase 36 small boroughs, the Members for which he
proposed to supply by the additional representation of
counties. This plan was founded on an idea of Lord
Chatham. That plan, however, was rejected. In 1790
Mr. Flood brought forward a measure proposing an ad-
dition of 100 Members, and Mr. Pitt then declared, that
though he had not changed his opinion, he did not think
that a time for the discussion of the subject. In
1822 Lord Durham proposed to divide the country
into districts, but his plan was also rejected. In 1823
be himself had brought forward a proposition to take
100 Members from the small boroughs, one from each, and
to add of these 60 to the counties, and 40 to the boroughs,
The Noble Lord then detailed the various propositions
which preceded the passing of the Reform Act, and which
eventually formed the basis on which it was founded.
Those who supported the Reform Bill did not shrink
from asserting that there would still be a groat number of
boroughs with a small population which would not, per-
haps, immediate'7 represent any particular interest, but
might be the means of returning Members who were
well qualified to inform the House on great questions. It
had been said that with respect to Schedule D they had
gone too far in disfranchising boroughs which were repre-
sented by as important class of Members. He (Lord
J. Russell) thought that if there were none but Mem-
bers for counties and for large cities and towns, it
would be impossible to say the country
could be fairly represented.—(Hear, hear.)
For instance, none would be elected for counties except
those who were generally known for their long residence in
them, or for their connexion with them, and large cities
or other places would not return Members except
they represented the popular opinion of the day. Thus
many valuable Members would be excluded, and the
completeness of the representation would be destroyed.
—(Hear, bear.) Other nations had endeavoured to
remedy this obvious inconvenience. The President of
the United States possessed a power for the formation of
an executive body, which was far beyond that
exercised by the Sovereign of this country. He
might utterly disregard the wishes of the Congress in
choosing his Ministers, because he could select persons
who represented any policy of which he approved.
Now the House of Commons exercised a control in that
respect over the Executive. He held, therefore, that
they would destroy the balance of the Constitu-
tion in this country if they were to say that none
but counties and large cities eel towns should
have a voice in the representation.—(Hear, hear.)
Nothing but absolute necessity should induce them to
resort to the practice of disfranchisement. It appeared
to him, as he had stated more than once, that nothing
but such absolute necessity should induce them to
resort to an arbitrary disfranchisement; and what they
proposed, therefore, was simply to disfranchise only in
cases of proved corruption. The second Bill which he should
have to bring in would propose that there should be a
considerable change in the mode of inquiry into cases
of corruption.—(Hear, hear.) He owned he thought con-
siderable damage was done in this matter by the adoption
of the Grenville Act, which enabled parties to go before
a Committee with counsel and state their own case as
between A and B, and whether A and B succeeded it
was of little importance, as the question was no
longer a party dispute in which the House and
the public at large could take an interest.—
(Hear, hear.) At length, however, Mr. Sheppard
drew attention to the subject, and he obtained the
thanks of the House for having got rid of some
portion of the corruption which then prevailed;
but as these matters were now tried the inquiry
terminated with the success or defeat of either side.—
(Hear, hear.) There the inquiry finished, and no further
step was taken in the shape of an investigation for
the benefit of the whole community.—(Hear, hear.)
Now what he proposed to do was, that upon
an address of this House based upon any reason—it
might be a report of an Election Committee—it might
be the report of a Select Committee—or it might be
common fame and general repute—it should be law-
ful for the Crown to appoint a commission, which
commission should resort to the borough, and
have the same means of inquiry which had been lately
exercised with such success in the case of St. Albans.—
(Cheers.) By this mode he conceived they would
obtain evidence sufficient in many cases to
enable them to re.ort to distranchisement.—(Hear,
hear.) Nor did he think the other House of Parlia-
ment could complain of this, because before the
disfranchisement could take place they would
be asked to give their sanction to the step,
and have the same opportunities as this House of
forming an opinion upon its expediency.—(Hear, hear.)
He proposed that the seats now vacant from disfran-
chisement should be filled up by conferring upon Bir-
kenhead and Burnley the right of returning a Member
each, but if they disfranchised St. Albans there would
still be two vacancies, and those would also have to be
provided for.—(Hear, hear.) He had now to state
what they proposed to do by this Bill with regard to the
extension of the franchise.—(Bear, hear.) It appeared
to him that there were grounds upon which they could
safely concede a considerable extension of the right of
voting to many of the cities and boroughs of the United
Kingdom.—(Hear, hear.) At the time of the Reform
Bill, in limiting the right of voting to householders of
10/. each, he thought they did quite right, although the
limitation was placed rather higher than was absolutely
necessary; but that was a time when there was a great
wish already for reform; and it was, therefore,
felt that too much caution could not be used
in the extension to be conceded.—(ll, ar, hear.)
There was another ground which had great it,iluence
upon his mind, and that was the growing intelligence
and education of the people.—(Hear, hear.) This he '
could prove, if it were necessary, by the increase in the
sale of newspapers and books, and by the great
number of schools which had been established since 1831;
but he thought that the experience of every one was suf-
ficient to induce them to concur in the truth of this fact,
that the franchise of 1831 might be safely extended at
the present time. It was proposed, instead of fixing the
right to vote in those persons paying 101. rated value, to
extend it to Si. In looking at the general returns he
should say that the proportion of householders
paying from 51. to 101. compared with those paying
10/. and upwards, was as 6 to 10, aad it would be seen
that when they proposed to lower th© franchise to 51.
they would add a very great number of persons to those
at present entitled to vote. He was persuaded that the
franchise might be safely entrusted to those persons—
(Hear, hear)—and be was confident that they were a
class in whose hands our institutions would be safe.
(Cheers.) The Noble Lord then proceeded to say—
With regard to counties, I do not propose to change
that which has been the general constitution of this
House, that the representation of counties should be
placed on a different basis from that of cities and bo-
roughs. The greatest change that was made in this re-
spect at the time of the Reform Act was a change
which was introduced by a Nobleman then a Member of
this House, and now of the other House of Parliament—
the Duke of Buckingham. That which we proposed
went on the principle of tenure-405. freeholds, copy-
hold tenure, and leases of a certain duration—not losing
sight of the original difference between county Members
and borough Members, the one being founded upon
tenure and the other upon occupation. But the propo-
sition of that Noble Lord, which was sanctioned
o byn aa
majority of this House, gave to occulptenrisnkindeed I
rated
rental of 501. a year a right to vote.
thought so at that time—that we may tfair:ly lower the
franchise to that which entitles a man to sit on a jury.
Among the jury qualifications is one that persona
occupying property of the ratable value of 201. a
year are qualified to serve on juries. I think
that a person who is qualified t o serve on a
jury cannot be an unfit person to be entrusted
with the elective qualification.—(Cheers.) Besides this
right of voting, we propose to reduce the amount wizh
respect to copy holders and long leaseholders, from 101. to
$l. There is another right of voting which I have to
mention, and which we propose should bta given indis-
criminately to persons re siding either in a county or a
borough—that is to set', if they reside in a county with-
out the limits of a borough they may vote for the
county, and if within the limits of the borough they
may vote for the borough—such persons paying direct
taxes in the shape of assessed taxes, or paying income-
tax to the amount of 403. a year.—(Hear, hear.) We
do not propose that persons paying licences ehould have
the right of voting, because we think it might be liable to
abuse. With regard to persons who pay 40s. a year in
direct taxes, we propose that the right of voting should
be given to them. Now, the reason on which this par-
ticular franchise is founded is the objection which has
been constantly made, and not without cause, that while
persons having freehold property and others occupying
leasehold property are possessed of the franchise, there
are great numbers of well educated men—(llear, hear)
—who, not having that particular species of property,
ire debarred from the right of voting. We hope,
therefore, by this proposition to enable them to havef
votes, and thus to contribute to the representation of
the country.—(Cheers.) Having stated the extension
of the franchise within the existing limits, I come now,

Sir, to state that I propose an extension of the frarl-
ei:l,-.z, v>,'.`,:4out the iinid;;s ol certain skr.aii berou,,,fj;,t,

I have already stated, I think on pi inciple wa were
right tat the time of the Reform Bill in maintainieg a
certain number of boroughs of that kind; and I do not
find that any of these whom I have mentioned—Me.
Pitt, Mr. Fox, or any of those who broueht forward
measures of reform—have agreed to the total destruc-
tion of small boroughs. I find there is at this time an
outcry against them, but that outcry, with the exception
of certain cases, is founded on the mistaken notion that
all the smaller boroughs of the country are infected with
bribery and corruption.—(Hear.) I believe that is a
great mistake.—(Hear, and a langh.) I believe that
while bribery exists in many of the smaller
boroughs, the same thing may be said, and
to as large an extent may be said, of many of the
larger boroughs.—(Elenr, hear.) Ido not believe it
is at all peculiar to those smaller boroughs ; I be-
lieve, on the other hand, that there are many of those
boroughs in which bribery is not known, and where
elections have been conducted with perfect purity. But
it is said, and said certainly with great truth, that with
regard to many of those smaller boroughs, not only does
the influence of property prevail, and not only does pro-
perty influence the elections, but that the property of
individuals is so overwhelming in many of them that
they approach the character of these boroughs in which
direct nomination prevailed.—(Hear, hear.) Now, Sir,
I think it desirable to take away that reproach—
(Chsrs)—because, although we may leave them totally
undisturbed, yet I cannot but think the continuance of
that reproach and the odium into which they would fall
would render it doubtful at some future time whether
they could be maintained. We propose, therefore, with
regard to a certain number of those beroughe, to diffuse
the influence, as it were, and to add some of the neigh-
bouring towns in the same county, or towns
in the neighbouting counties, and give them
the right of sending representatives to Parlia-
ment. The line which we take is nut founded
on that which was taken in the time of the Reform Bill
viz., the number of houses assessed to the assessed taxes,
because we have now at hand better and more convenient
wets for the point under consideration. At the time of
the Reform Bill I stated that in my opinion nearly all the
boroughs could not have less than 300 voters each. While
this has been proved to be the case generally, there are
14 smaller boroughs which have less than the number I
have stated; there are upwards of 30 more with less than
400 electors. When I speak now of electors lam speak •
ing of permanent electors—namely, those who are 101.
householders and those who are freemen holding the
right to vote, which was maintained and guaranteed to
them at the time when the Reform Bill passed. We pro-
pose to go up to the number of 500 of those permanent
electors, and to add places to all boroughs which have
less than 500 of such electors, consisting of 101. house-
holders.. The number of boroughs to which this prin-
ciple will apply is 6".—(Hear, hear, and some mur_
muring.) I am speaking HOW only of England and Wales
I do not wish at present to enter into any details on this
subject, because I think those details will be far better
discussed when the Bill is before the House, and when it
will be seen in what manner this principle will operate.
—(Hear, hear.) There is an observation which I must
make, which is an observation certainly founded on
truth, although it may have different eff_cts on gentle-
men who take different views on this subject; it is that
those smaller boroughs are, generally speaking, with the
exception of Yorkshire, in the south and we.; of the
kingdom. They are, therefore, boroughs situated rather
in the agricultural than in the manufacturing and com-
mercial parts of the country. It follows that the places
which we can join to those smaller boroughs, beieg places
in the neighbourhood of towns of somewhat the same
character, are not towns bearing the character of or likely
to rise to manufacturing or commercial prosperity. The
effect, therefore, of this is, whether it be right or wrong,
whether it be judged politic or impolitic, to maintain the
same general balance established at the time of the Re-
form Bill. It is obvious, if we had disfranchised those bo-
roughs, and if we had given the right of voting to towns in
the north of England, there would have been a disturbance
of that balance, and that the agricultural interest would
have been depressed and the manufacturing raised in its
stead. That might be a right thing to do; that might
be what many gentlemen would wish; but I will frankly
say it is not what we are prepared to do. We are pre-
pared to extend the franchise; but while we make large
additions to boroughs, we propose to leave general in-
terests as we find them, and not to disturb them; feeling,
if we did so, we should only raise a fierce struggle,
which would inflame the minds of Members of this
House, while it would cause our measure to be strongly
opposed in the other House of Parliament.—(Hear,
hear.) I have now stated the general purport of the
measure with regard to the franchise. There are other
provisions in the Bill which I propose to introduce,
which I will shortly state. In answer to a speech of a
Right Honourable Friend of mine last year, I stated
that no good end was attained in retaining the present
property qualification of Members of Parliament, seeing
that it was so capable of being evaded—(Hear);—that I
thought it had been introduced contrary to the general
principles of representation, and that for my part I
should willingly see it altered. I avail myself
of this opportunity of repealing all those Acts,
beginning with the Act of Anne, by which those various
qualifications were introduced.—(Cheers.) In so doing,
I shall propose that Members for places in England and
Ireland shall be in the same position as those represent-
places in Scotland—(Hear, hear)—and I think that in
Point of property no one will say the Scotch Members
of this House are in any way inferior to those of Eng-
land and Ireland.—(Cheers.) Sir, there is another pro-
vision which I propose to introduce into this Bill, but
which I cannot introduce at first without going into a
Committee of the whole House. It appears to me that
the state of the oaths required to be taken at the table
of this House are not such as can be consistent with the
Bill.—(Loud cheers, mingled with murmurs.) In the
first place, we make it necessary to abjure James
and his descendants, and to enter into various parti-
culars with respect to that family, in regard to which it
is not now necessary to say what it was necessary to say
in the reign of the first Prince of Hanover. In the next
place, I think there is an invidious distinction made in
the oath between Protestant and Roman Catholic Mem-
bers.—(Cheers.) It appears to me that there ought to he
an oath which Protestants and Roman Catholics can alike
take. I cannot see what is the advantage of making the Pro-
testant abjure the ecclesiastical and spiritual supremacy
the Pope, if you think the Roman Catholic, of whom alone
you could be afraid in Shia respect, abjures only the
temporal and civil supremacy—(Hear)—nor do I think
that there is any advantage in the provision which leads
a Roman Catholic to declare that he will maintain the
established laws of property, that he will not attempt to
subvert the Protestant religion, or to interfere with the
settlement of the Church as established in this realm.
useless.—(Hear, hear.) If a Member admit It appears to me that an oath for these purdpinosictsoins totally
g
awish to disturb
his seat in this House that he has
he comes here determined toh
disturb
tor injure it, then I
the Established Church, the oath issutnhbentuhseelersrso;tebsuttanitt
Church, and to do all
d oing. it. On. the. othritmounities on certain
with a violation of
shtocca-
sionshaayenidar:afoioot,ratm: ths.earu—weni iy(tl ill
In affordsoa
Catholicsltrl,°Phmreeaavnotreh.pn)apttohrlt i 11
me therefore
speaking,
sur-
prisethe the Ho" to learn that newtehneerally
form of oath
which I have provided is, g
Roman Catholic oath, with certain omissions, and that
I have not reeenaeeed the words, "on the true faith
of a Christian."—(reoud cheers.) It is abundantly
clear that those words were not originally introduced
in order to confine the right of sitting in this House to
Christians, but for another purpose; and it is also well
known that the judges of the land are not quite ready to
decide unanimously as to the bearing of these words;
and as to whether any penalty has been incurred in a
recent instance. It appears to me to be far better
to make a simple oath, which all the Members of this
House could take, and which should pledge them to
allegiance to the Throne and fidelity to the succession.
(Cheer:.) There is another provision of the Bill which
I conceive will not be objected
ex-
isting state of the law seems to
office
render
d earn and e
ewe': i:ahr)t,.b e
At
under the Crown,
iptriestewn,,tilifkanoMwenmtbheart
haceceptsan
vacates his seat. Whether that
I will not say; but it is
was originally a
body an urt
quite clear that it gives the electoral top u-
h r they choose to nave a Member
wise provision
nity of say ing whether
who is in office, and will therefore be expected to give
his vote with the Government of the day, or whether
they require that their Member should be independent.
But there is another provision which appears to me to be
totally unnecessary. It is that when a Member changes
his office—for example, having been Solicitor-
General, ho becomes Attorney-General—he cannot take
his seat without going again to the electors. It appears
to me that, the electors having once had an opportunity
of deciding when their representative accepted an efface
under the Crown, he should not again be called upon to
appear before them on changiug his office. I propose,
therefore, to alter the law to that extent.—(Cheers.)
Sir, I believe that I have gone through all the main
provisions of the Bill which I propose to introduce. It
appears to me to be consistent with that which I have
frequently said we should endeavour to attain, namely,
to have a supplem(tnt to the Reform Bill, and not a sub-
etitute for it.--(1,1€ or.) I hare now fur thirty years de-