The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-02 00:00:00

ing from it to continue? Were they to allow inadequate qualifica-
tions and every other contingent disadvantage to go on uninterrupted
until some indefinite period, and only then to hope for a test by
which to qudge of qualification—a test which ought to be secured in
the first instance, or it would be too late ? It was evident that the
intention of the Noble Lord was to lower the franchise qualification
as much as possible; and, indeed, so confident did he feel upon thAs
subject, that he (Mr. Shaw) inclined to think the real question was,
whether they, were to have a 51. or a 101. franchise.—(Hear, hear.) If
they wished for a real and genuine 10/. qualification, why did they
object to the test, or, having objected to it, why did they not suggest
some other, capable of accomplishing the purpose that they should all
be inclined to advance the satisfactory adjustment of the qualification ?
Their object was to secure a bona fide qualification, not a fictitious
one, and the Poor-law rate was decidedly the best, the surest, and least
erring criterion,
Mr. SHELL said that in the case of Poor-rates the credits were al-
lowed against the party, and in the case of franchise they were allowed
in favour of the party. This was the distinction. He would cite an
instance corroborative of this distinction, and would put it hypothet.;-
cally. He owned a House for which he paid 101. a year rent, and 2f.
taxes.—(Here the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was interrupted by
Mr. O'Connell and other Irish Members, as if correcting his calcula.
tion, upon which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman stopped, amidst cries
of "Go on," from the Conservative benches.) The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman said he had made a miscalculation, but the principle was not
at all affected by that, it was exactly as he had stated. What was tEse
test they proposed ? Was it similar to that which was in operation irr
Scotland ? No. In that country the Poor-rate was not employed as
the criterion of value. It might be said this test was introduced for the
purpose of preventing abuses of the elective franchise. Very good.
Were there no abuses of the elective franchise in Scotland ? Were
there no fictitious votes there ?—(Hear.) Why, then, did they not
apply a test similar to that proposition for Ireland ? If they did not
propose the same test, why did they adduce Scotland as au example in
corporate franchise, or in any other alterations ? There could be no
doubt in the mind of any person as to the motive which induced them
to propose this test. It was to raise the franchise; they would apply it
now to the borough franchise, but hereafter it would be applied to the
Parliamentary franchise, and this was the secret of its adoption.-7
(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) They would extend the crite-
rion beyond its present sphere. It would be found,that they only offered
a resistance to that test which was perfectly justified. The Hon.. Gen-
tlem.n at the other side had opposed the Corporation Bill for four years,
and now they wanted to make it subservient to their political views. Dur-
ing all the period of their opposition they were creating hundreds of free.
men. Did they intend to disfranchise them when the Bill passed, or
did they intend to continue them as a means of opposing the principle
of the Tit? When the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for
Tamworth introduced the !Emancipation Bill he retained the forty-shil-
ing freeholders in some towns, as a countervailing power against the
freemen. Drogheda was one of these towns. Would they act in a si-
milar manner now? They would have the mass untouched, and
would throw as many obstacles as possible in the way of those who
would counteract their influencee. The object of the test was obvious,
it was to affect the franchise, and was intended, however ineffectual, to
act against the Catholic population of Ireland, by keeping the power as
much as possible out of their hands ; this had been their policy since
the passing of the Emancipation Act; and they still kept up those odious
distinctions. If Ireland possessed seven millions of Protestants they
would not be anxious to increase the franchise; but when it served a
purpose it was different. They would preserve the former, and increase
the 101. qualification when they thought it would confer power uron
the Catholics. If they continued this system in the present Bill—if
they set Protestant and Catholic in opposition, they would defeat thew
own work.
Sir 11. PEEL--Sir, I was anxious to discuss this question in a manner
calculated as little as possible to afford any cause for division ; but the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin says that I brought forward my
proposition not with a view to the carrying out of the Bill, but with a
view to' deteriorate the interests•of the Roman Catholics. The proposal
of the Bill is that there should be a 101. franchise; that is, that the fran-
chise in the towns which it is intended shall have corporations shall be
given to those in possession of a house of the annual value of 10/., and
my proposition is that there should be some test by which to ascertain
that qualification for that franchise. This it is that the Honourable
and Learned Member for Dublin designates a proposal degrading to the
Roman Catholics of Ireland. How can it be said that this argues an
insult to the Catholics of Ireland ? How can it be construed into
a proposition degrading to them ? This charge is indeed a
pretty return for what has been designated by the Honourable and
Learned Member himself my fair and conciliatory conduct in giving
my assent to the Bill a few evenings ago. The Honourable and Learned
Member should recollect that Corporations were not instituted in Ireland
for the purposes of local government alone. The Honourable and
Learned Gentleman, when he spoke of our wishing to apply the power
of the Corporation to a purpose which he assumes, should remember that
they were instituted for the purposes of protecting and strengthening
the Protestant interest in that country.
Mr. O'CONNELL—They were not specially for that purpose.
Sir R. PEEL—They were practically for that purpose from the reign
of James the Second until 1830. Upon a former occasion when the ob-
jections which had been found to exist against the Irish sorporations
were brought forward, and when it was proposed to pass a 1.
lilt for the
purpose of improving
them, I thought it would be better Lc) abolish
them altogether, and thus, even at the expense of forfeithig any
advantages from them, secure the removal of the objections. At
that period I could not anticipate that the Roman Catholics of Iref.uid
would offer any opposition to such a proposal. I did not imagine they
would object to the abolition of the Protestant Corporations altogether.
That proposition was, it appears, in opposition to their wishes; it
appeared to wound their feelings, an effect which I could not have ex-
pected. So soon, therefore, as I became satisfied that the appropria-
tion clause was not to be brought forward, I was anNious to come to an
adjustment upon this subject. It should be recollect,f'd that deference
is due to the opinions and feelings of both sides, for it is admitted there
are two sides upon this subject, and it is only by adopting this course we
can hope to make the Bill effectual for its purposes. Ido no' see how
my proposal can merit any opposition from the Noble Lord opposite. Ho
proposes to grant a certain qualification for the franchise, and I p."oPose
to establish a test by which we can ascertain the possession of this qOall-
fication. He proposes that in towns possessing 15,000 inhabitants a,7kd
upwards the qualification should be 10/. ; those towns amounting to'
eleven. I assent to this. He goes on to assume that corporate govern.
ment will produce all the good effects that have been described, and,
acting upon this assumption, he leaves no option to the inhabitants of
those townsto accept or reject the corporations. I accede tO this. I
agree to the assumption that local government will produce all the good
effects that are anticipated from its introduction. I only ast that
with respect to those towns in which the 10/. franchise will certainly
to established there should be a bone fide qualification, tested by the

Poor.rate, the best criterion, and thai which is adopted in England.'
If the mode proposed in the Bill was made :the test of qualification for
Burgesses, for instance, it would have the Offect of substituting the
oath or opinion of an, individual for the superior criterion of rates. A
borough rate 'is surely a better and more effectual
mode of judging a
qualification.—(llear, hear.) The Hon, and Learned Member for Dub-
lin said that Ireland should be placed in a similar positimr. to Scotland.
I must say that we treat Ireland in this measure with as in.'ith indul-

gence as Scotland, and that nothing can be further from our' minds

than an undue preference.
Mr. O'CONNELL—Give us the Scotch Bill.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—You will take the Scotch Bill, but you
not consent to the Scotch assessment.—(Hear, hear.) But is there a
fair parity between the countries ? Are the circumstances connected

with their corporate towns the came ?

rison between the countries is without value.