The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-01 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY,- EVENING EDITION,-MARCH l, 1839.

was due to the House, before another Committee of
th e .:ame sort was appointed.
Mr. HUME thought it was not altogether regular
to call upon an Hon. Member to explain what appeared
in the public journals. If they once admitted the
principle, that Members must be answerable for what
was reported in the public papers, or in Public Com-
mittees of that House, see what a situation Hon.
Members would be placed in. The speech might or
might not he correct.—( Mr. Ward said " It is an ad-
dress.") His Hon. Friend said it was an address, but
even then they had nothing to do with what occurred
out of the House.

Mr. AGLIONBY said there might be some doubt
as to the expediency of putting the question, but he be-
lieved in principle and practice that it was quite right.
He contended that when any statement appeared calcu-
lated to prejudice that House, it was their duty to call
upon the Hon. Member in his place to state whether
what appeared in the public papers had been spoken by
him, or whether he avowed or disavowed the expres-
sions ; that was done in the case of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Dublin. When the Noble Lord
made his motion he had no knowledge of the matter ex-
cept from the public papers ; that was the origin of
the proceedings which had occupied the House
so long. An objection was now taken to the said course
of proceeding, and lie saw no other way in which
the question could be set at rest, if indeed it was worth
noticing at al.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped, therefore,
the House would call upon the Hon. Member to give
it some explanation. He (Mr. Aglionby) had seen the
Hon. Memb:.x in attendance at the Committee ; he
heard all the questions that were put and the diseu-sians
that took place, and he could assure the House that he
(Mr, Aglionby) had . never once lowered his voice.—
(Great laughter.) The Committee might have been
wrong in permitting Mr. Harvey to 'be present during
the two days of their proceedings, but be believed, ac-
cording to the rules of the House, Mr. Harvey was a
stranger, and the Committee were justified in requesting
him to withdraw. So far from (here having been any se-
cresy in their proceedings, the grounds on which they had
come to their decision were communicated to Mr. Harvey.
It was due to the Committee to state that much, and
it was due to the Hon. Member for Montgomeryshire
to say, that according to his judgment he had dome no-
thing that was not strictly according to the forms of the
House.

Mr. HARVEY having been called upon, said if the
House considered it right that a Member of that House
should be called upon to explain his address to his con-
stituents, he should not interpose any difficulty whatever.
He had only hoped that they bad more important m it-
ters to engage their attention. As he understood the
observation of the Hon. Member for Sheffield, he had
been called upon in courtesy, and: he had no objection
to give any explanation that was required. Tile Hon.
Member, however, should not have been altogether un-
mindful of what was due to;him ( Mr. Harvey), foralthough
he had been sitting in the House since four o'clock,
and although the Honourable Member had been there
nearly for the same period, it was a mere acciden-
tal suggestion about five minutes since which led him to
understand that the Hon. Member was about to men-
tion the subject, or that he cared anything for what ap-
peared in the public papers. As he had been called on
by the Hon. Member for Cockermouth to avow or dis-
avow these words, he would at once—and he was not
one of those who would take shelter under one thing or
another—he would at once avow and explain what he
had said. If he was wrong, no one was more ready to
explain or retract it. He did write that letter, and he
abided by it. It was true, not only in the letter, bat
in spirit. A secret and Select Committee of the
House of Commons, in whose appointment he had no
share, and from whose deliberations he was expressly
excluded, had in its wisdom come to the decision that
he had accepted an office of profit, and declared his seat
to be vacated. That it was secret was not denied, be-
cause the Hon. Gentleman had admitted that all
strangers were excluded. That it was select was also
true, for that was the very title of the Committee. Iu
the appointment of that Committee he bad no share,
because the names had never been shown to him, nor had
he been asked whether the Committee were acceptable in
its persons, or as as a whole. True, he (Mr. H) had acci-
dentaly suggested to a Wght lion. Gentleman on the
Treasury Benches that if there was no objection he would
be pleased to see Mr. Sergeant Wilde and Mr. Talfourd
on that Committee, considering that they were both
able lawyers ; end with all due submission to the Hon.
Member for Cockermouth, they might have been use-
ful in such a case, if they got a word in.—(Great
laughter.) With respect to that part of the subject, he
would say that he not only gave credit to his Hon.
Friend when he had stated that he talked as loud as
usual, but he heard nobody else speak.—(Renewed
laughter.) The first day there was no deli'oeration at
all. There were only five Members present, and it
appeared to him (Mr. Harvey) that they considered it
as a mere conversazione. They walked about the
room, and stood at the fire, and there was a great deal
of coquetting about who should take the chair. The
Solicitor. General stated that rather than nobody should
take the chair, he would. He was obliged to the Hon.
Member for the compliment he had paid him in saying
that he had an opportunity of hearing what he did not
recollect. The only deliberation was as to the ques-
tions to be circulated among the Members who were to
be summoned for the following Thursday. They did
assemble on that day, and he (Mr. Harvey) carried his
point notwithstanding the thunder of the Hon. Mem-
ber's voice that the Hon. Member for Southwark had
no business there, the Committee being a secret and
select one—nothing offensive of course was meant. He
(Mr. Harvey) immediately said that all he wished was
that the Committee should come to a conclusion as
soon as they could. It was then intimated to him that
he should retire, which he did most readily. Tho
Chairman certainly asked him whether he had anything
to state. He replied in the negative, adding that all he
wished them to do was to decide at once. To show
how little he had to do with their deliberations,
(he did not mea❑ their talk or conversation), and to
show how expressly he was shut out from them, the
Committee directed the Messenger to tell him that they
would be glad if he would wait in the Library during
their deliberations. He did wait there, and if they
asked their Librarian they would find that during that
time a good many of its shelves had been de-
ranged as they sent for not less than twenty
books to assist their deliberations, in which delibera-
tions he (Mr. Harvey) had no share whatever.
If; in making that statement to his constituents,
he had offended the Hon. Member or the Committee
he was sorry for it. Why should he ?he was in excel-
lent humour with them all, and so were his constituents:
—(A laugh.) He had nothing to apprehend from their
decision, for as soon as the forms of law permitted it
he was re-possessed of his seat. He would conclude by
assuring them that he had no intention whatever in fram-
ing- that address to speak of the Hon. Member
in any other terms than than that of kindness and
courtesy.

Mr. GOULBURN regretted very Much that the
Hon. Member who had moved the Committee, had
seen reason to depart from what he understood was the
original intention of the House, viz., to submit the
question to the same Committee as before—he was sur-
prised to find the substitution of the names of two gen-
tlemen to whom be had no objection farther than as
it infringed on the general principle. The Honourable
Member was proceeding on the supposition that two
Members of the previous Committee 'could not attend,
and that it would be therefore necessary to substitute
other names, but he doubted whether that would justify
him in appointing other Members. He thought it was
their duty not to make any alteration in the original
understanding of the House for the accommodation of
any particular Member on the one side or the other.
He had really considered the question as one which
they were not to deal with as a party or political one.
The present Committee was a new construction of it,
more than one Member being added ; and he felt it im-
possible to give his sanction in such a proceeding. He
hoped. therefore, the House would adhere to its origi-
nal understanding.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he bad sug-
gested the substitution of another name for his, as it
would be impossible for him, however anxious to do his
duty, either in this House or before a Committee, to be
present. He should be engaged for three days.
After that time he would have no difficulty, but he
thought the House ought to determine as early as
possible.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL believed that neither be
nor the Hon. and Learned Gentleman intended to ask
any Member proposed whether he should attend the
Committee or not. He thought in a case of thii kind,
which involved the seat of a Member of the House,
there should be no delay, especially as the investigation
was not one likely to last for weeks or months, but
would be decided in two or three days. He should
move the appointment of the original Committee.
Mr. JERVIS had no objection ; however he could
not substir,ore Mr, O'Connell for Sir Thomas Ackland,
nor,Mr. Harvey for Mr. C resswell, because they had
not given notice to that effect. He wa; indifferent about
the opinion of the Committee—what he wanted wag to
have the facts of the case clearly developed and laid be-
fore the public. Let no one accuse him of acting un-
fairly in this matter. He was willing to undertake the
entire responsibility of the proceeding. However, for
the sake of expediting the business, if those opposite
would strike out of the eight members which their side
of the House furnished, Sir Thomas Ackland and Mr.
Cresswell, he would strike out Mr. O'Connell
and the Attorney-General. Then the Committee
wftuld consist of eleven which he moved accordingly.
GOU L BU RN moved that the Attorney-Gene-
ral be retained instead of Mr. O'Connell.
Mr. O'CONIigLL—I egetyl that :not*, Sir.—
(Laughter.)
Sir R. PEEL proposed, that to prevent,any unplea.
sant discussion, and in order to accommodate'Members
grteb sidp who could not attend, that four (viz. two
front Peel; i-"Ide) 04otild e omitted, altogether.—(Hear.)
Doi:, would be quite en:o4
Mr. HUMb
mould sit on Committees
a rule that fifteen Members s
nnaht that the House had laid down
of this kind.—(Not Dn.) The present oPposition

seemed as if Hon. Gentlemen were inclined to cavil at a
tribunal which they had agreed to on a former occasion.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said that illness would prevent him
from attending.
Air. O'CONNELL did not see why the proposition just
made to the House should not be acted upon. He thought
that a man who was desirous to be on a Committee was not fit
for it. A. man that attended a Committee should merely attend
for the performance of his duty.
Air. HARVEY said that if there had been no House on
Tuesday, the Committee would have gone well off. He was
glad of the suggestion of the Hon.' Member for Chester, but
some of the arrangements that had been proposed were open to
inferences unfavourable to the even flow of justice. lie would
have the House remember that some persons were alive to their
proceedings as others were sensitive to addresses.—( Laughter. )
When the Hon. ,tlember for Montgomeryshire said that it was
unnecessa. y to propose a Committee because he was satisfied
the Member for Southwark had vacated his scat, it might be said
that he should not be on the Committee because his mind was
made up. Why, if Montgomeryshire were not as safe as South-
svark that would be some reason for him to be on the Commit-
tee. They must not be content with mere parole evidence now,
they must have ample documentary evidence before the House,
and he was satisfied then the House would came to a just con-
clusion.

The original Committee .was then retained, with the excep-
tion of the Attorney-General, Mr. O'Connell, Sir I'. Acland,
and Mr. Cresswell.

ELECTIVE FRANCHISE (IRELAND.)
Mr. O'CONNELL said that he stood rather in a predica-
ment, having given notice for this night to take a certain
petition into consideration, and also fur leave to firing in a
Bill upon upon the above-named subject. However he would
:t trouble the House about the pet•tion, but would con
flue himself to a few brief observations respecting the Bill.
He would now, therefore, beg leave to move for leave to
bring in a Bill to assimilate the Franchise in England, Ire-.
Imd, and Wales. Probably this subject would .not much in-
terest the House, but it was of the greatest importance to Ire-
land. He understood it was the intention of the Govern-
ment to oppose even permission to bring in the Bill, but he
a determination. The principle on s-hich he brought forwar
sathhtli
.Legislative
Billp€eodgr
iaiwtst!ivsai
et:
ittlohlwunaoset
teni
inhe
aaEtd
agnnl
yao England d b
both
tnhd principle
cI
or
ue I
anatt
adi was
es ill t o,
right! and privileges. If it were not so, the connexion was that of
t.
nits:er and slave, not the intercourse of citizens of the same
tlbladieneidnub:lyfil:tictobehnaettbhiuedent:ii‘io, House not to concur
State. Having these principles, therefore, it was with deep
regret he perceived that Government thought it necessary to
oppose this measure. It would seem to authorise his repeated
declarations that the Union had not been for the benefit of Ire-
land. However, he stood not here now as a Repealer, tho Ugh
his sentiments on that point were still Free, but to propose a
measure which would perhaps, in the consideration of some,
make that measure unnecessary. This, however, could riot be
considered t:nnecessary, unless Ireland had other advantages
besides those she now possessed. Nut to weary the House by
the repetition of truths so obvious, he would proceed to show
the House that, in the case of that most impoi Sant right,
the elective franchise, the difference between Ireland
England was enormous—so great indeed, that he believed
the House had no idea how infinitely inerior Ireland was in
this respect. The comparative and relative number of persons
exercising the elective franchise in Ireland was so small that it
must be perhaps an object of surprise that any effective resist-
ance had been made there against the Aristocratic party, or
that the popular voice from the country should be at all heard
in this House. What he insisted on was that the same propor-
tion of inhabitants in Ireland should have the franchise as ex-
tensively distributed as the people of England. It was, indeed,
a matter of complaint that the constituency of England was
much too narrow, and he believed that that injustice arose in a
great degree from the conduct of those who retarded the
operation of the Reform Bill, and he had no doubt that
the cry fur an enlarged constituency in England would
be revived as 'soon as the weakness or wickedness of that
party should have been exp-sed. However, his present
object was, in the state of the elective franchise be-
tween the two countries, for although the Parliamentary con-
stituency was much too narrow in thi• country, it was infinitely
more so in Ireland. He had examined Parliamentary docu-
ments giving particular returns of the number of Irish electors,
which were laid before the House, after the fi-st registry after
the Reform Bill.: From those documents he wonld read returns,
Which would be the most favourable way of taking an opinion as
so the number, because there we •e, more registered after the
Reform Bill than since. It would be impossible to ascertain
exactly how many votes hail been added to the lists since, be-
cause the registry for Ireland being for eight years, those who
were once entered, were continued on the list of electors for that
time, though many may have been dead or may have lost their
franchise, or may be no longer qualified to vote. But
is had checked those returns by the polls of contested electio..s,
and he found that in every instance the number of electors en-
tered on the first registry was greater than at any period since,
'therefore in proving the lim•ted franchise of Ireland it must be
admitted 'drat, he relied upon data that were upon suspicion,
and that the number was greater in appearance than in reality.
Now he would confine himself to the various contrasts by show-
ing the general superiority of England in respect to the nu.n-
ber of electors in several successive counties; and first he would
show the minority of Ireland as compared with Wales. The
entire population of Wales was 816,183, the number of electors
was 37,124—the population of the Welch counties was 609,871,
that of the electors 25,815. Now let them recollect that those
"5.815 electors were in a popUlation of 609,000 in Wales,
which he would now contrast with the state of the
county of Cork. The population of the county of Cork,
exclusive of cities and towns returning Members, was
in round numbers 720,000, the number of electors was
3,635, less than 4,000 for 720,000 ; while Wales had 25,000
electors for 609,000 inhabitants. Now he would ask this House
was it possible to suppose that the people of Ireland could feel
themselves united to this country by an identification of privi-
lege=, when they saw one of their own counties having 720,003
inhabitants and only 3,800 electors ; wl.ilst Wales with 609,000
inhabitants had not less than 25,000 electors? Now he would
proceed to show the inferiority of Ireland as contrasted with the
counties. He would first state Rutlandshire, which was the
smallest county in England; but the contrast would be seen
better and in a more striking view by referring to the following
statistical table:—

RUTLANDSHIRE.
Population
Electors
• Population. Electors.
I Carlow ... . 73,953 - 1,248
2 Louth
3 Kildare
4 Leitrim .
5 Sligo. 162,482 941
6 Kerry 255,579 1,243
7 Mayo
Rulandshiro, with less than 20,000 inhabitants, had morte
(lectors than two Irish counties ranging between 70,000 and
100,000. than two more ranging bet weenloo,ooo and 140,000 :
than one more with upwards of 150,000: than one more with
more than 250,000 ; and lastly, with another, with more than
350,000

RADNORSHIRE
Population
Electors
Population. Electors.
8 Longford
9 Wicklow
10 Westmeath
11 Waterford
12 King's County 144,225 1,526
13 Fermanagh 147.364 1.640
14 Meath
15 Roscommon
16 Donegal
At the last election there voted.
In Longford (violently contested)
Return as above
Voted 1,172

Less by
estmeath —Returned as registered 1,395
Voted

Less by 257
Wicklow—Returned ..
Voted 1,325

Less by 415
Dublin City—Registered
Voted ,7023

Less by
Though about 1,000 freemen added
Cork County—Registered
Voted ... 2,504

Less by
WESTMORELAND.
Population
Electors
1.-LONDONDERRY COUNTY.

Population
Electors...
Comparative Population.
Londonderry 207,848 t Say 5 to I.
Westmoreland

Excess in Londonderry-165,384.
Westmoreland
Londonderry 1
Comparative Franch3se.
2, 372

Excess in Westmoreland 2,20
2.--nowssiiiitx.
Population
Electors
. .

b
Comparative3l33o7i:st6titonAout 6 to 1.
Downshire
Westmoreland

Comparative Franchise.
I Westmoreland
Cork

Excess 557
There is one instance a singular coincidence—
Tyrone has a population of 301,325
Its Electors are 2,151
Flintshire, a population of 29,329
Its Electors are 2,151
Thus the population of Tyrone exceeds that of Flintshire more
than ten times told ; yet the number of electors is precisely
Ilse same. One Welshman is equivalent to ten men of Tyrone.
These documents were taken from the Parliamentary Returns,
from stateme is put forth by authority, and it would be seen
by a reference to the 'cumbers polled at the last elect on in the
severe contests which took place in Longford, Westmeath.
Wicklow, Dublin CiS y, and Cork County, that the case was
still stronger in his favour than he had steed. He thought
that after these statemeuts the. e could be no doubt as to the
gross and manifest injustice wh;eli had been done to Ireland.
In this statement he made te.e of no vague assertions to prove
his case; he had referred to his data for every assertion he had
ma.i the truth of whi h was proved by the rules of mere
vulgar arithmetic. But gentlemen might say that tt-e
electors of Ireland were already filo numerous—he be-
lieved that there were gentlemen on both sides
of the House who entertained this feeling towards Ireland.
He saw an Honourable Gentleman who did him the honour
to smile—but can any rational man consider that the people of
Ireland are not deprived of their rights by this limitation of the
franc:hi a ?--(Hear.) The operation of this was grossly unjust
and injurious to the people of Ireland. The people of Ireland
were as deserving of confidence as the people of England.—
( Hear, hear.) They had shed their blood as freely on the
battle-field as the English had done, and they were entitled to
an equal measure of justice.—( Hear.) It was true that her Ma-
jesty's Government had received the thanks of the Irish people,
but why was this? Because they were the first Administration
which, duringthe long series of years during which Ireland had
been connected with England, had stated that it was their wish
to administer justice impartially to the people of England. It
was the first Administration which had ever administered the
executive Government of Ireland with anything like impartial-
ity; but he would say that if the Government should this even-
ing oppose this act of justice to the people of Ireland, if they
showed a desire to confine their impartiality to the merely exe-
cutive departments of the Government, they would lose the
support of the Irish people.—( Hear, hear.) In England the
40s, freeholder possesses his franchise without occupation.
In England, the 101. occupier possesses the fran-
chise. In' England, the richer country, they had
the lower franchise, while in Ireland, the poorer country
they had the higher franchise. It justice were done, the con-,
trary to this should be the case, for it was unreasonable that
the franchise should have been lower in the poorer country
than in the richer one. England in this respect presented a
remarkable contrast to Ireland. Why should these fran-
chises not have been made equal? What was the
comparative state of the cases regarding the mere money fran-
chise in the two countries. In England a man possessing a
franchise of 10/. a-year was comparatively a poor man. In
Ireland he occupied a much higher grade in society, and yet
they were not placed upon a political equality ; if justice were
clone the reverse of all this would be the case, and the poorer
country would have the lower franchise. He knew- that it had
been said that the 40s. freeholders of Ireland had been sacri-
ficed, in virtue of an agreement made at the time of the pass-
ing of the Emancipation Bill. There never was a
grosser mistake than this. On the part of some
persons he might say that there was never a more wil-
ful falsehood uttered. At all events it was a gross mis-
statement— that the last he held in his hand, the last
resolution passed by the Catholic Association, which called upon
the Parliament not to grant emancipation at the expense of
the 40s freeholders. He was one of the 45 delegates who had
come over from Ireland fur the purpose of watching the pro-
gress of the Emancipation Bill, and they had presented a peti-
tion to that House, praying them to stay the progress of the
Einaneipation Bill, rather than sacrifice the 40s. freeholders. It
was true that when, in 1825, Catholic Emancipation had been
h umbly solicited, hopes had le en held opt that they might be
brought to consent to the abolition of the 40e. freeholders as
the price of emancipation, because up to that period many abuses,
it must be admitted, had existed in the manner in which the
40s freeholders exercised their franchise, but their humble
petitions had been scornfully rejected, and from that time they
had determined to support the 40s. freeholders foot to foot, for
after this period the spirit of the 40s. freeholders of
Ireland had risen above ad temptations—(Hear, hear)—and
in spite of every obstacle, frem 1825 to 1829, they had nobly
done their duty, and it, was an act of injustice to deprive them
of the franchise. -(Cheers.) But su ,pose the scene to be
changed—suppose this differeee between the two counties to
be in favour of Ireland. Would England endure this ?
(Cheers. ) Would Eneiand endue that the coin, yof Cork
heuhl have a 1 reer constituency than the coudty of Yot k ?
Would the English Members go to bed before they hail brought
in a Bill to remedy ties monstrous injustice? A Bill having
this for it', object, yr ould be brought in that very evening, the
rule = and orders of the House would be dispensed with, Hon.
Members would not go to bed until they had seen the Bill en-
ressed, which ould be ea- vied up to-morrow to the House f
Lords, who would no delay an hour in passing it into
a I.w. —( Hear, hear, hear.) He knew that he was
obnoxious to many parties in that House. He knew that Hon.
Gentlemen opposite treated his statements and prediction:; with
scorn and contempt, but he had predicted before, that if they
did not redress their wrongs, the people of Ireland would, by
legal means, redress them themselves. It was a mockery to
talk of a union of equality under such circumstances as those.

Excess in Downshire 295,412
Comparative Franchise.
Westmoreland, Electors... 4,392}
About 11
.one-tatr,, nCS3.
Downshire .................. 3,130

Exce55.................. ... 1,262
'3. MAYO.

Population
Electors
Comparative Pepulatio'n ..
.......
1,350
Mayo ..................... 366,228
Westmoreland.
--
Excess in Mayo
Comparative Franchise.
Westmoreland •.............. 4,392
Mayo ........................... 1,350 Electors nearly 4to 1.

Excess ........ ..... 3,042
4.—TIPPEItA
population ............................ 330,435
Electors .......... . ............... 2,369
.............. 3:44354 About Bto 1
Comparative Popolution.
TWi Pe sPternr aorrYe laud .............

Front whet he saw, he felt convinced that this House. had no
sympathy for the people of Ireland; they would even
refuse him the mere ceremony of permitting him to
lay a Bill to remedy this gross injustice, before them;
but they should recollect that it was to . the Irish
Members that they were indebted for the first majority on the
Reform Bill. They had fought side by side with England.
until they had won that Bill, and the first benefit that was
granted to them in return was the Coercion Bill, and the last
favour conferred upon them by the Queen's Government was
to refuse them permission to lay this Bill on the table of the
House. lie would try them by another test. Suppose this gross
contrast existing between different counties in England. Suppose
the southern counties of England presented such a contrast as the
one he had that night presented. Suppose, instead of the county
of Kerry it was the county of Kent, which had been thus de-
prived of its franchise. Would the English Members re t
until they had remedied the injustice? ' He beseeched the
House not to mock the people of Ireland with this delusive
semblance of equality; they might threaten to 'et loose faction
against them—they might make abortive attempts to govern
Ireland by ha:aneing faction again-st faction, but he would tell
them that they ct uld oo longer govern Ireland by faction—seven
or eight successive ad • in:strations h.al been ruined in the at-
tempt. The pc, ple of Ireland were now too strong fur faction.
Every person conversant with the state of Ireland, was aware
of the necessity of encouraging landlords to grant leases to
their tenants, in order to insure the tranquillity of the country.
Now the direct oppositien to the existing state of the franchise,
was to prevent landlords from grantingleases. The great evils of
Ireland, are owing to agrarian wrongs, and these agrarian wrongs
producedagrarian outrages,land the continuance of the present
system, leading, as it does, to the annihilation of leases, tends
to the encouragement and perpetuation of these wrongs and out-
rages. He knew that a great deal had been said of introducing
the Protestant tenantry, but these Protestant tenants, unfortu-
nately- for their landlords, considered that their religion should
pay part of their rent. The Protestant electors would not pay 11
their rent, but the Catholic electors would, and landlords as ill
soon get weary of that religious impulse, the effect of
which was invariably to lessen their income considerably. •
Wirt a terrible thing it was that they were increasing the
religious animosity —that they were introducing in the worst
sh.ipo the fiend of religious discord, which was done by the
Franchise which-they imposed upon Ireland. He might be told
that the English franchise was a mass of evil, that it required
amendment and regulation. Give it to Ireland as it stood,
and then the Irish would assist them in amending the fran-
chise of England. He did not expect to hear from the Noble
Lord that the Reform Bill was not worth giving to Ireland
because it was so bad—he did not expect to hear such
an admission—but bad as it was let them give it to Ireland, and
then they would assist the English in making their franchise
better. That was his sole object. He had intended to have
altered his notice so as not to have included an extension with
an assimilation, but having given his notiee, as it then stood, he
thought it was better to take the sense of the House upon it, as
he fully intended to do oe ce every fortnight during the Session.—
( Laughter). He would not in that way be precluded from
doing so by the forms of the House. The Irish had a franchise
of 101. nominally, but in reality it was a chatel interest of 201.
Ile proposed that the franchise in both countries should he 51.
In England there could be no objection to the proposition,
for the Si. twenty-year holder was equal to the 40s. life-holder
—a tenure of such a kind for twenty years was equal to it.
That was an extension to which he would make no objection in
Committee. He would take similarity, an identification in all
points, but having given his notice as it r.ow stood in the paper,
he was obliged to take the sense of time House upon it, with all
its faults ; but he frankly informed the House that he would
yield to them in Committee. He had now demonstrated that
there existed a most extraordinary contrast between the fran-
-chise in the two countries. In the poorer country the highest
•qualification was required—in point of common sense it should
be the reverse. He would avail himself of the Act of Union,
and even by it he proved his case. He wotkld not stand there
to use threats, but he would tell the House that the people who
had put confidence in him for se long- a period had instructed
him to say that they were determined that they would nut be
contented under such a system of gross injustice, and that unless
they had a Union in reality they would not have any, and in
order to make the Union one in reality he begged to m0...e for
leave to bring in a Bill to assimilate the franchise in the two
countries.

Excess in Tipperary ..•• 337,971
Cimparative Fra.nt•hise.
Westmorelaland, Electors 4,392
Tipperary .................. 2,369 1 Neady 2to 1
Excess in Westmoreland ,023
s.—aALwAv couwry,
... '
.3
---tive Populati . 3,061
Population ......... ...... ............. 81,564
Electors ••• .......................

Compara:,
331 564
Galway .. ...............
Westmoreland... . ...... 42,464 Move than 9to 1

in
Ga7vcaeys.s. .
..... a.C.h:O.na.l.Yl)..;..r.lll.Vi.;7333.F)9o6;2lllThiteiee.acrti(zwos.ne.
third less in
Westmoreland ............... 4.392
1441 Galway.
6.—coal Con Nly.
Population ...... ............... 720,030
Electors .................................... 3 835
Comparative Population. '
s7k ... . ........ . ...
......... 4'4,4001
4bout 14 to 1
Excess in Cork ......... 617,5%

Mr. HUME seconded the motion.
Lord MORPETH said that, notwithstanding the repudia-
tion of his Eon. and Learned Friend, he thought it his duty to
state to the House, at the earliest oppor'unity, the mode in i
which the Government intended to meet the preposition now
ma.le. He felt obliged to admit the truth of many of the docu-
ments referred to by his Hon. and Learned Friend, and would
liaJe been most happy that it had been in his power to support
the motion. With these feelings and impressions he was
anxious to state the reasons which infixed him to oppose—the
reasons why he was not prepared to yield to the introduction of
the measure of his Hon. and Learned Friend. That oration,
taken in connection with other matters, rendered it the duty of
the Government not to leave any room for misapprehension or
uncertainty as to the course they intended to take. Acting
otherwise, they would be giving rise to expectations—by acced-
ing to the introduction of the n easure they would be giving rise
to expectations whi..h, under harsh necessity, they might be
obliged to .lisappoint ; and they were also, on the other hand, to
take care that they did not waste the time of the House
in discussing the merits of a measure which it was already
known would not be carried. He was far from
claiming for any Act of Parliament that which was denied to
anything done by human authority—he was far from chin-Ong
perfection for an Act of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) Still less
was he prepared to contend that the time would soon come when
it might be permitted to them to sweep away every vestige of
inequality from the Statute Baoli.—( Cheers.) They were al-
ready engaged in the work in another field, and he apprehended
that by multiplying their object a they would run the risk of dis-
tracting and dividing their exertions, and weakening their exer-
tienS. With respect to the question of identity he could not deny
that there was a great disproportion shown between the ranchisca
iof the two countries by his Hon. and Learned Friend, but he
would beg to remind him that there was not a perfect
identity between the fra.nehiaes of England and Scotland ; still
though disparity existed it did not exist in such a degree as
many of those cases brought before the House non. and
Learned Friend. While he .
--mettv repudiatel the question
of finality as appped to any Legislative measure —( cheers)—
and however anxious he was for the ultimate removal of all re-
maining inequality between thee two countries, still he could not
exclude from his observation that the motion, if carried, would
be a direct violation of the great healing measure of 1829, the
Emancipation Act, and of a still more recent Act, the Irish
Reform Bill of 1832. At the time the last measure wiis in
progress through that House, his Hon. and Learned Friend
brought that very motion, with all his accustomed ability, be-
fore the House. It was negatived by the Parliament of that day.
Was it to be said by any one that the MAI Reform Bill had failed?
it amid not be said by his Hon. and Learned Friend when he
I)4ed around him and saw those benches, and saw them
filled with his political friends. At the time the House denied
the motion for re-establishing the forty-shilling freehollers, his
Hon. and Learned Friend stated that the Bill would extend
the 1,0%,qr ef the aristovracy, and increase that of the oligarchy
c‘hicti bad so long ruled Ireland, that it would give over the
whole representatation of Ireland to the absentee proprietors
of that country, and that A better Bill could not be devised