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

lIVENING EDITION

:leiter-General last vear—" A Bill to remove doubts
re-
PoCting qualified voters, and to create a tribunal of appeal
r matters of law relating to the registration of voters in
Ireland ps and this is the definition which the Solicitor-
Genera 1*
introduces, for the purpose Of removing all doubts
with regard to the franchise. The Bill provides, that, in
order to determine whether any person claiming to be re-
gistered has a beneficial interest of the value required by
laws either in freehold or leasehold estates. the tribunal
eetermining such claim shall estimate such value according
to the beneficial interest which such property yields, or is
capable of yielding, calculating such interest to be the
advantage derived or derivable by such claimant out of the
Premises, after deducting the expenses, and not according to
what a solvent tenant could pay for the same. This is
the very last definition to remove obstruction from the ex-
ercise of the franchise, by the Solicitor-General. I am
not surprised that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the
Solicitor-Gen,ral for Ireland, after having introduced that
measure, should look back to the records of Parliament,
and, seeing the speeches determined in the House, on the
subject of the beneficial interest, and of the solvent
tP:altcY test by my Honourable and Learned
her'end, the Member for Exeter, and anticipating
th: speeches he might hear from the same gum ter, and the
"eta that might follow from the arguments which
Would be advanced, in the event of his bringing forward
a Rimilar provision for the removal of the doubts that en-
e,arnhered the elective franchise—( Hear, bear)—that lie
Mould have again considered the subject. But, Sir,
what does the Noble Lord do now ? Does he propose
t; bring forward any definition of the existing franchise?
, e. that is the avowed object of the Noble Lord—that
th
In e pretext of the Bill ; that is what is put forward
the preamble of the Bill ; but that is not the inten-
)l, of the enactments of the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) The
"oh le Lord now abandons the definition of the franchise
llit°e'erber• and without a single argument, and with the
blest meagre statements that I ever beard on se great a
iliubjeet from a Cabinet Minister, or any Member of Par-
._4l4ent, he proposes, not a new definition, but a total al-
teration of the franchise in Ireland.—( Opposition cheers.)
hi :knew not. how long the Noble Lord has enter-
;died the opinions he now professes—( Renewed
I,:peArhig)--but this I know, that in 1839 the Noble
11,4*.'4 professed to entertain very different views upon the
„,•leet, and upon the policy of making such an extensive in-
'Zee the principles and provisions of the Reform Bill. In
1.,1. the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin moved
..aye to bring in a Bill to assimilate the franchise in
realtt Britain and Ireland, and by whom was that motion
tas„tPl? It was resisted by the Noble Lord the Secre-
▪ 'or Ireland. He resisted it, indeed,
With hesitating voice,
,„Viith faltering tone, and visage uncomposed.
he qeers and laughter.) But listening to the cheers
00 received in front of him, and looking to the cordial sup-
I: Which came from this side of the House, the Noble
tio d at last screwed up his courage to meet the propos]
bn of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for
cohllblin, and closed his speech with the following expres-
gq::"." Thinking, ' said the Noble Lord, " that the Le-
y/11.'41
eh re ought not lightly to disturb the arrangements
laccompanied a statute of such vast importance and
tab recent a date, I believe that any encouragement
tooYiendeavour to do so would lead only to a protracted and
ai,,,eas, debate. I must give my decided, though reluctant,
yeet7e to the motion."—( Hear, hear.) In the next
Z;"11 the course of last session, for fear we should have
r'C'ttaa the line taken by the Learned Lord, he
ea referred to the views he had taken ; and on
hin,l.l4rt of himself and of her Majesty's Government,
Ititi;riled Me that "he had met the motion for leave to
1, 6 10 that Bill with a direct negative, and that the Go-
t:rant felt it would be inexpedient, in so short a time,
is ak in on the settlement that had been made, or to
ver'lace any measure of fundamental change. " The Go-
tt! arnent," said the Noble Lord," are still prepared to
TiZt.,the same course, and to act in the same spirit."
ast,,:°eclaration of his determination to resist not only the
Liewation of the franchise in England to that of Ireland,
fit, Lie
material or wide departure from the principles of
.Liteforns Act, so emphatically announced by the Noble
I:: in 1839, as emphatically repeated by the Noble
din 1840, and as absolutely and positively departed
C and repudiated by the Noble Lord in 1841.—( Loud
shi're from the Opposition benches.) Sir, it was a favour-
expression of the Noble Lord, that since that time he
th derived some new impressions. I know not whence
11:tle new impressions may have been derived. I know
me
be,
what source they may have come—they
4' °es and they probably are, the result of the iudepen-
alexercise of the reflective powers of his own mind.
tids'augh• ) But this I know, that it is a singular coin-
ht. -nee that in the year 1839, on the motion being
I :ulitt forward, which the Noble Lord negatived, thesel
re the views which were taken of the subject by the
• Q. and Learned Member for Dublin. Sir, I may be
filthat when a motion was made for assimilating the
linhAd"'hide in the two countries, that the franchise in Eng-
i wea unjustifiable as well as the franchise in Ireland,
lit that it ought equally to be extended. Be it so, give
ett_the franchise in Ireland, and then we will join you in
rerding the English franchise. What I propose is, to
tiee the franchise in both countries to 51. I have no
htt-t.!le Noble Lord has been brought. to
.that conclusion
e the inde finependent exercise of his own opinions—( Great
not influenced by the Honourable and
%egad Member for Dublin—(lncreased cheering)—
tern and unbiassed opinion has led him to adopt that sys-
- liish• tieh he refused in 1839.—(Continued cheering.)
Ibt'o must confess, that I view this proceeding with
;p'eetiing as it does from her Majesty's Ministers, who
rebisent her Majesty in this House.—(Cheers.) If the
if °h: Lord has altered the views which he took in 1839,
1847 44 determined to abandon the ground he took in
a,h;'Aoes and to repudiate the provisions of the Reform Bill,
lin not come forward boldly and state the real
il:l4l4dg on which he does this? Why does he not tell
eostua„t he thinks it unjust to take the franchise from the
th zreeholders, and that he was prepared to restore to
18°,: voters the rights which were taken from them in
Rein • But perhaps the Noble Lord will tell us lie is not
hit g to restore the rights of the 40s. freeholders, but I
tlAtth,e Noble Lord, and I will prove it before I sit down,
going to restore a class of voters far more
fsriect to intimidation, far more numerous, and
inferior to the 40s. freeholder, whose rights
Reg taken away in the year 1329. On what ground
7, the Noble Lord do this? Does he do it because ho
that to assimilate the law in England and Scotland to
4: which he proposes for Ireland ? or does he mean. to
of to Ireland a franchise more extensive than to either
the other parts of the empire ? If he does so, the Noble
tae°,l?ught to have made a statement to that effect in the
ess-aut the country, but as it is, his Bill is brought for-
Its'" under false colours.y The preamble of the Bill and
tertectments were at variance with each ether, for the
lendPhverted the whole principle on which voting in Ire-
the ,nad hitherto taken place. The arguments by which
thet•‘°ble Lord had sought to support that Bill are the
dationineagra I have ever heard, and totally without foun-
'Wet—. Now, I should like to know what the instructions
toe that were given to the barristers who formed the
leetleion with respect to the Poor-rates ? It is never
herat°„,,Pe personal communication of the Attorney-Ge-
ro with his private friends. It is never said, " Go down
country, visit the unions, and report upon those
Upon You think proper to select ; abstain from reporting
!et t,eethers ; you know our views, and whatever you can
Will 4ring upon them bring forward and give it tome, and
Otte thi?lake My own selection.—( Cheers.) Mind, there is
that e, and this is the only instruction given to them,
%elle YeU shall carefully conceal from all the parties
1100 eted with the Workhouses, Guardians of the
the re
"d all, the fact of your presence and
that attire Of
the inquiry. The Noble Lord tells us
by stheae gentlemen have visited ten unions—how and
form teted the Noble Lord has not condescended to in-
most forty ouse. He has not told us that they were in the
seas m rd state with regard either to valuation or as-
-1.840 , when I turn to the Poor-law Report for
light that in two important towns (not to be lost
Yo th_ul la the question of the applicability of such a test
the I:!tranchise)—l find that a rate is in progress under
lie iLer,"law valuation in the two important towns of Dub-
% rat. `-'°rlr. That in those towns, and in these two only,
Coe; lian!hr the Poor-law is in progress, and the Poor-law
with th ssioners state in their Report that they are watching
tive e greatest anxiety the progress of the rate in these
Ivhethas w"* And yet in the unions visited know n
tiee Dublin or Cork are included. Whenwe
the visiteot
-
the Commenced I know not, but from the evidence of
hastyearnreissioners themselves, it was performed in a most
Papers cursory manner—in such a manner, that in the
v,ho aid before us to-day it is stated that the barrister
'
leah,!isited the
union of Carrick-on-Suir was unable to
bias stitextracts from the minutes of the Board, so short was
Mated Y,--( Hear, hear.) Sir, I know that it has been
tat were us that these gentlemen visited ten unions, and
he 'e furnished for the first time with the Report upon
hod,Aut °he ten uni ms, and the concluding Report ern-
liar,fi`ting the views of the Commissioners was put into the
Nobi °f Pico. Members this very morning,
lip when the
e Lord..
t t-
calla on us to assent to a proposition so s ar
° and est • ear, °b ear as that now before us.—( Hear,
come ft.,,eart) Sir, I know not where those papers
they it, "14 ; they are not by her Majesty's command—
merely e not ordered to beprinted by this House. They
tied state that they R the valuation
are eorts relative to va u
e.ta• e ,uor-lasss
t 4t-3"11 Stat. printed by Cl owes and Son for her
owe
ionery-office. That is the only official
thP " jhem, except that th them.
Sir, Lord extracted from
talcs' gave a h' ° • fi d t
14the evidence Istory of them. Sir, I am satis o
4. ti
upon
five
ce as I find it in these Reports ; they are
140 um° out of the ten of the unions, out of a total
tote ns into which Ireland is to be divided. I
tilab
Le the evidence., however weak and inconclusiv `tit
Noble Lord's ' • and I s
lt furnishes views ,
noel:111 moeonv. grounds strong and incontrovertible.
tfvo f;:nchiseince the House that the basis the
Y °rlns 110 test • •
as Proposed by the Noble Lord, actu-
y onor criterion of value whatever. Sir, I
totl.ee'.ue . wish to contend that if had a fair and
t valuation cf • you .
y
tiffs a ehan_e Property in Irelan and if you are to
and be
of
infinite
Or. even if you are n tagsuch a document
furmin Re importance and value in removing doubt
that g a con ect test of thevalue. But t
preyed by i • u we must have
4_oetions
of
politic
impartial examination, free from all sus-
danv`rce with, thea motives, founded on, and in precise ac-
id 0 principles laid down by law ; and I say
Y nu of these tests freed from the • • of
toe motives, i • ,freedom suspicion e mpartiality correctness, a following up
ties/ talon„' and unif • •
uniformity of the proceedings, the valuation
1" Place under the P llreland• •
1 e • iameetc,b Poor-laws in is sig-
al4/Inot ly , and avowedl deli ient.—(Cheers.) tial suPpoae Sir •
that Hear, hear.
s at sucu a valuation can be iropar-
elts apart fr' ear.
) But I entreat the House to consider
!? fla,, b__?ro the political question—even apart from
ttrleth„7l.s upon which you are going to put the fran-
-4.1.4‘ seie,,o al.evil of no common magnitude attaching
1!_ of this valuation for the purposes °fie political If there be one point in the world—if there
lrrahaiaaeo• 'ourse
°Wr and dos.
f ever on which it ought to be the
dialt-s well to ire of y Member of this House who
tm, Y to unite .the peace and prosperity of Ireland cor-
der the pirt)e, it is this—to withdraw from the valuation
apart from °ll4law, for the sake of that valuation itself,
iaentiod
up Poliecal grounds, any suspicion of .ts being
.oron polltic I
Prei Bill a and party giounds. I say that the
fi las
to encounter en ormous difficulties from
11"eltYs and from a thousand causes ; and

that if you superadd to that the curse of political psi-. i,eu-
ship, actuating and influencing the board of guardians
from the commencement of their proceedings, and in the
valuation, to the administration of relief, you will render
that which is difficult enough, hazardous enough at present,
you will render it an absolute curse to Ireland, and make
its working beneficially absolutely and entirely hopeless.—
(Hear, hear.) But now, Sir, take a second case. I will
not press the point whether there has or has not
at present been mixed up with the election of guar.
diens anything of political partisanship.—( Hear, hear.)
Allegations to that effect have been made. I am not in-
quiring how far they are well founded, but I say that the
course which you are now pursuing is that which neces-
sarily and naturally must give those proceedings that par-
tisan character which it is most desirable on all occasions
to avoid. I am afraid that I can hardly promise the
House that I shall not have to trouble it for some consider-
able time longer ; and in the course of the argument
which I am about to address to them, I must read to them
documents to which it will be very troublesome to listen;
but I am arguing a question of vital and fundamental im-
portance, and I hope, so long as I argue it candidly and
fairly, 1 may throw myself upon the indulgence of the
House. Now, with respect to any 'valuation as the basis
of the elective franchise, I should require that it be in
strict accordance with the law ; and nothing can be more
decisive than what we find in that law. The Poor-law
Commissioners, reciting the clause in their directions to
the valuators, state that the estimate ef value is required
to be the rent at which, one year with another, the he-
reditaments might in their natural state be expected to let.
They go on to state that there is no sure criterion for the
valuations, except a careful adherence to the principle of
the Act, by estimating all property at its fair annual
letting value, as the Act requires to be done in every
case. These were the instructions given to the valuators.
The Commissioners, indeed, tell us in their Report that
they found some traces of uniformity in all the Unions.
The only uniformity which is to be found on the showing
of the Report, itself is, that the valuators have every-
where set the law at nought. The Commissioners say
that the valuators were not surveyors by profession, but
respectable farmers, who bad in some instances been em-
ployed as rural surveyors, but many of whom had not lee.en
so employed at all ; but the valuators in general had no
claim to professional knowledge. Now, what are the lists
which they adopt? What is the list of Mr. Morriss, of
Balruddery ? He says he does not take the rent at which
the land would let. Why? Because it was raised ton
much by competition—( Cries of " Hear, bear")—but what
a steady solvent man could give for it with a fair
remuneration for his capital and labour. Another valua-
tor, '4r. Hugh Morrow states his test to be, what a man
could afford to give, and to live like a Christian, eat-
ing animal food twice a-week—(Hear, hear)—but from
the same union Mr. Wallace, another valuator, thought
that Mr. Morrow was mistaken. In Longford, one of the
valuators states his estimate to be formed upon what a
tenant could pay with ease to himself, supposing him able
to meet all demands, to give his family potatoes, with milk
and butter, every day, and animal food sometimes, with
comfortable clothing.—( Hear, hear.) In Parsonstown the
valuators took their estimate of the value of the land by
walking round the fences, which were made of earth in
that union, and therefore they said it enabled them to judge
sufficiently of the nature of the soil, and the value of tee
farms. In the Lurgan union, to which I go to illustrate
the singular views taken by the Poor-law valuators and the
mode in which their estimates were usually formed, the
valuators tell you the land is worth 21. or three
guineas an acre; indeed that plenty of persons
would be willing to give 10/. an acre premium for the
tenements let at that rent, and that the tenants could put
by 10s. an acre beyond what they pay their landlord. Now
notwithstanding this, what do you think he rated those
farms at? At 275. 6d. an acre—(Cheers)—and when he
was asked why he did so, his answer was that it was ne-
cessary to make the rents low, in order that the landlord
should bear his fair proportion. Now I am not stating
whether this was too high or too low. I am only stating
that it is a criterion of no value whatever. —( Hear, hear.)
It is absolutely and entirely good for nothing.—(Cheers.)
And this is to be the basis of the Noble Lord's Bill.—
(Cheers.) Why, Sir, the Commissioners themselves,
Messrs. Hague and Deasey, in the papers furnished by the
Government, state that in various instances the Guardians
revised the estimates of the valuators, and raised or
lowered the rate according to their own views.—( Hear,
hear.) The Commissioners state that the valuation can-
not be taken as a criterion, for they say that too many mo-
tives were in operation to influence those who made it.
The words of the Act were variously interpreted by the va-
luators according to their own views, some thinking when
they took produce into account at all that one half was a
sufficient remuneration for the tenant's capital and labour,
and others thinking him entitled to two-thirds. Yet this
valuation, which the Commissioners pronounce to be no
criterion of property, is proposed by the Noble Lord as
the fixed basis of that qualification.—( Hear, hear, and
cheers.) He proposed to enact that the amount
on the rate-book shall be taken as conclusive evidence of
the value of the property. I ask the House of Commons
will they take this test which is admitted on all hands to
be actually worthless ?—(Hear. hear.) The Noble Lord
says that the rating is below the actual value, I know in-
deed, that many motives have been in operation to make
it so.—(Hear, hear.) In the union of Scarrig, the valu-
tor having made his estimate, returned home, and struck
out 2s. in the pound from the whole of the union. The
guardians, however, said that he had acted most un-
justly, and they reduced the valuation, still by one-sixth.
The guardians then also passed a resolution that no land
in the union should be rated higher than 265. per Irish
acre. The Commissioners informed them that it was
against the Act to fix a maximum, but in the end the valu-
ation was allowed to stand so, and this is the actual state
of the qualification at thistiree. In England it does not
matter, as far as concerns the relation of the tenants to each
other and to the landlord, whether the rating be high or
low, if it be equal, but, in Ireland, as the landlord bears a
per tentage upon the rate, a greater proportion of the
burthen is thrown upon him when the rate is below the
rent. In the union of Scarrig the unfairly reduced rate
was defended by the ex-officio guardian, Mr. Maurice
O'Connell, not, I believe, the Member of this House.
Mr. O'CONNELL—No, a relation.
Lord STANLE Y—That gentlemen defended the low
rate on the ground that the landlord should be obliged to
bear his fair share, and that the people could not endure
any additional taxation.—( Hear, hear.) When the
guardians go upon this principle and say, that the rate
shall be at all times considerably under the rent, how
can it be said, as the Noble Lord said the other night,
that putting the qualification upon what a solvent tenant
could give would amount to a general disfranchisement ?
(Hear, hear.) I have stated that there are motives
operating at present on the guardians to make the rates
low. It may be right that they should do so. But that
is not my objection to the principle of this Bill, for
you furnish me with no means of conjecturing how far
below the real value the ratings may be made.
On this valuation, so wanting in accuracy, I will not
consent to leave the elective franchise, even though I
were disposed to consent to any change whatever.—
( Hear, hear.) I object, however, to the principle, even
supposing the valuation to be accurate—supposing it to
be uniform—supposing it to be perfectly fair, and not to
be impugned—l object to the principle on which you are
applying the franchise ; because you adopt a principle
you have not introduced in any other Bill, you adopt a
principle wholly repugnant to that which you have
adopted in other Bills—you adopt the principle of de-
ciding the franchise by the amount of the rate chargeable,
but not by the amount of profit derived from the property ;
and whatever may have been the differences with respect
to the construction of the Reform Act, neither the Noble
Lord, nor the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman op-
posite, will deny that the only point of difference has
been, not whether a profit should be required, but that
the difference has been as to the mode in which that
profit should be calculated. That was the only question
on which any difference bad arisen. How that portion of
the statute has led to a difference of opinion in Ireland
I am at a loss to understand.—(Hear, hear.) It is to
my mind perfectly inexplicable on what foundation any
portion of the legal authorities in Ireland have
rested their doubts with regard to the franchise
in Ireland, which has never raised a shadow of a doubt
in England, with identically the same words
with regard to the franchise in England and the franchise
iu Scotland.—(Hear, hear.) What are the words in
which these doubts have arisen ? The words :on which
these doubts have arisen with regard to the settlement of
the franchise on freeholds in fee, are these words "of the
clear yearly value of 101." The Right Hon. Gentlemen
will not, I think, contend that there is any mention what-
ever in the Irish Reform Act of the freehold franchise in
i fee from one end of the Act to the other; and that frail-.
1 chise is neither granted nor altered by that Bill. The
' franchise in fee deponds on the Act of the 10th Geo. IV.,
and the qualification is the possession of a freehold of the
clear yearly value of 101. The oath which the freeholder
takes under the Irish Reform Act is this—" I am a free-
holder, and I possess a freehold of the clear yearly
valise of 101." That is the oath and the only oath--
that is the qualification and the only qualification
under which the freeholder votes in Ireland. The
words of the English Bill are borrowed from
the Irish Act. The enacted words in England are pre-
cisely the same as the enacted words in Ireland—the
words in Scotland are precisely the same as the words in
England and Ireland; and nether in Scotland nor in
England have I ever beard a lawyer get up and say that
in his mind he entertained the slightest doubt, or ever
beards doubt raised, as to the legal construction of these
terms which are identically the same.—( Hear, hear.)
The terms " beneficial interest" apply not the f eehold but
to the lucrative interest in Ireland, whether for lives or
for a term of years. Let us see whether the doubt hangs
on this point. I am not going to enter into a history of
the introduction of the words " beneficial interest," which
has already been often before the House. Let the House,
however, bear in mind that as to freeholds the terms bene-
ficial interest have never been applied in any statute; but
the following is the manner in which the kinds of
qualification are defined. The leasehold qualification
in England is given on lease of the clear yearly value of
the sum appointed. In Ireland it is given on leases which
give a beneficial interest of the clear yearly value laid
down. In Scotland it is given to tenants where the clear
yearly value of such tenants' interest, after the payment of
rent and any other consideration due by him for the said
interest, is not less than —, a blank being ap-
pended. These are the three statutes, and it requires, I
think, more than even legal ingenuity to find out any diffe-
rence between the legal construction and the interpretation
to be given to these statutes. But whatever differences
have arisen on the subject have not been as to the fact of
profit being required, but as to the mode in which that
profit should be calculated ; whether it should be construed
according to the solvent tenantcy test, or according to the
amount which the person by his own labour and capital
could make out of the land which be held. That is the only
subject of difference ; and when, at an early period of the
discussion on the Irish Reform Act, it was proposed to
confer the franchise on parties having a lease for 21 years,
and paying a rent of 50/., an objection was taken to that
provision, and it was subsequently altered in deference to
the arguments raised by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
opposite. The objection taken was stated as follows :
" With respect to towns, I cannot but think that in giving

'Le franchise according to the amount of rent paid ratherthan the profit made, you are acting on a wrong principle;
you are giving votes to rent, which makes a man poor,
and not to profits, which make him rich. A man might
have to pay on a lease 501. for a lease which is not worth
401., and that man would have a vote, while a man with a
larger profit out of a smaller rent got no vote. This prin-
ciple, I think, is wrong." This was the argument made
use of in 1831 in favour of requiring the test of profit,
and that argument came from the Honourable Mem-
ber for Dublin.—(Loud cheers from the Opposition.)
In the following month, in the second Session iif the same
Parliament, an argument was raised as to the required
larger amount of profit for leaseholders as compared with
freeholders. " The constituences of Irish counties," ob-
served the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, " consist already
of parties having a 101. profit, and a profit above the rent.
The Government raised the 101. qualification so high as
201 It seems anomalous to make a 101. qualification of
fi eeholders, and a 20/. qualification for leaseholders." I
have cited this passage for the purpose of showing that
throughout the whole course of the debate on the Reform
Act in Ireland and in England, the amount of profit over
and above the rent, and not the amount of rent payable,
was made the criterion of the franchise, and was made the
test of the independence and station of the party claiming it.
The present Bill departs from that principle altogether.
It requires no profit whatever on the part of the voter. It
requires consequently no independent interest, it requires
no stake in the country. The party might be burdened
with rent far beyond his power to pay ; he might be loaded
with debts which placed him absolutely under the control
of his landlord, and yet you are granting him the franchise,
and granting it not on the principle which you apply else-
where of resting on a profit on the rent, but resting on the
amount of incumbrance to which the land is liable. Where
then would be the argument of Gentlemen opposite.
They say that we throw on parties the burden of paying the
claims on him, bat that we do not give him the franchise.
The answer is—you give them the franchise, but you do
not throw upon them the burden of taxation.—( Cheers. )
The Act does not require that the person exercising the
franchise should pay rates; he is not even liable to pay
rates; the whole of the rates fall upon the landlord—the
enant evils pays half-penny of rates. You give the
franchise not to property but to the rate. Nay, you go
further; for you provide that if a person shall at any time
have had land in occupation which shall have been rated at
51. a year, although that property shall no longer be rated
at such an amount—although it may be altogether out of
the rate-book—yet the occupier shall remain on the re-
gister so long as he, or some one else for him, shall say
that he is willing to be liable far the rates. You actually
put up the franchise to auction, and knock it down
for sixpence a year. If my tenant has once been rated
at Si. a year, although the property may have fallen in value,
and may not be worth 4/. a year, what is to prevent me
from saying to him, No matter, I shall be a candidate at
the next election ; I shall want your vote ; say you are
willing to be rated ; continue on the rate-book, and for
6d. a year I may buy as many votes as I like.—
(Cheers.) But is that all ? I will not go into the mi-
nute details of the Bill. I find I have already trespassed
on your patience, but I must trespass for a short time
longer.—( Cheers.) The Bill does not even require that
the rates shall be paid. On reading over the Bill, there
was one of the provisions of it which I thought must have
escaped the attention of the Hon. and Learned Attorney-
General. He has stated it as his opinion that taxa-
tion and the franchise ought to go together. There are
certain portions of property which it has been deemed
expedient should be exempted from rating altoge-
ther. Now it is provided that the guardians or
valuators, in addition to the rate-book, shall
make out a supplementary valuation of such property as
is not liable to be rated. Now in the instance of the
rated inhabitants it was stated, that there was a check
upon the desire to obtain the franchise in the natural de-
sire to escape from the payment of rates, but in the in-
stance of the supplementary valuation there is no check
whatever; there is no inducement acting upon these valu-
ators to value the property at one shilling or one hundred
pounds, except the inducement to obtain the elective
franchise. I had read the act, and was quite at a loss to
discover what could be the object' of the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman in making this supplementary valuation. The
rate-book and the supplementary valuation are both re-
quired to be produced at the sessions, and I said to myself,
of course this supplementary valuation. is for the purpose
of conferring the franchise. But, no, the rate-book is the
test of value, and the amount of rate on the property, not
the payment of the rate, is insisted on for conferring the
franchise; and it was not until my attention was directed
to that portion of the Bill where I should least expect to
find any measure for altering or enlarging the franchise,
that I discovered the reason for this supplementary valua-
tion, and the manner in which the franchise will be en-
larged by it to an immense extent. Will the House
believe that this enlarged franchise is actually conferred
on the technical interpretation clause ?_( Loud cheers.)
Yee, that clause in which it is provided that, through.
out the Bill, and wherever the male gender is
used, the female shall be understood as being in-
cluded ; that the words Lord-Lieutenant shall be
held to include the Lords Justices in that clause ;
which in every Act of Parliament is introduced to obviate
technical difficulties merely, and to avoid verbose pro-
lixities. I find it provided that the words " rate and rate-
book " shall be held to include supplementary valuation
and supplementary rate book.—(Loud cheers from the
Opposition, answered by counter-cheers from the Minis-
terial benches,) And in that interpretation clause the
Noble Lord thinks it proper to give a definition which will
have the effect of conferring a perfectly new franchise.—
(Cheers.) This proceeding is like the producing such a
Bill to follow such a preamble, and I cannot help saying
it is a course utterly unworthy of the talent and station of
the Noble Lord.—(Cheers.) The taking the valuation
of the Poor-law Commissioners as the test for conferring
the tight of voting, will greatly enlarge the franchise.
Now, on what ground is this great extension of the fran-
chise to take place?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
does not deny that an extension of the fran-
chise will be the consequence of this measure.
He says that there will be some extension—that the fran-
chise will be conferred on some who do not now possess
it—while others who now possess the franchise will in
some instances be deprived of it. Now what do the papers
which were furnished us this morning—the Reports of the
Poor-law Valuators, who were ordered t s report for the
purpose of furnishing the data for elective franchise--show ?
Why all the information they furnish amounts to just this,
that they know nothing at all on the subject.—(Cheers
and laughter.) The Report from one of the unions states
that the inaccuracies existing are so great that they are
unable to state anything with accuracy on the subject. In
the union of Scarrig he had only examined a small portion
of the union, and in the union of Lurgan not more than one
half. In by far the greater number of instances these pa-
pers furnish no information whatever, and it is under these
circumstances that we are called upon to alter the constitu-
ency and enlarge the number of electors of Ireland.
Now, what: does the Noble Lord allege as his reason for
altering the constituency of Ireland ? He gives you no
reason as to the towns, and very little as to the counties.
But the Noble Lord tells you, borrowing the arguments
of the Hon. Member for Dublin, he tells you that the
proportion of the constituency of Mayo to the population
of Mayo is much larger than the population of Kent is to
the constituency. Now, I repeat that that is a basis of re-
presentation altogether unfounded. In your electoral
districts, in the wards of your great cities in England, no
doubt there are more in one ward than another entitled to
the franchise, yet shell ever a human being contend that
the amount of the franchise should be different in each
ward on that account ?—( Cheers.) Was it ever laid down
in any part of the kingdom that a certain amount of the
wealthy inhabitants should form the constituency? If that
principle had never been admitted, I see no reason for ap-
plying it to Ireland because a large portion of the popula-
tion of the country are in indigent circumstances. I come
now to a question which, I am aware, is one of consider-
able difficulty and delicacy, but from which, in the
discussion of this great question, I am bound,
looking to this Bill and its effects, not to shrink
from discussing, although the Noble Lord only slightly
touched upon it, I mean the state of society in Ireland with
reference to the exercise of the elective franchise. Now I
take them to be of two characters—one the great subdivi-
sion of land in Ireland, which makes the agricultural body
in Ireland as a class, though not inferior in character, yet
inferior in point of property, solvency, and independence
to the same class in England. Now, for the pur-
pose of proving this, I will refer to the report of Mr.
Stanley, the Secretary of the Poor-law in Ireland,
who gives an analysis of the state of the population
of the two countries ; and from that analysis it ap-
pears that in Ireland there are 14,500,000 acres, while
in England there arc 34,280,000 acres, so that the
land in Ireland is only about two-fifths of what it is
iu England and Scotland. In England there are 355,800
landowners, while in Ireland there are 659,600 landowners,
and those landowners are di.tributed into two classes,
those who do and those who do not employ any labourers
besides themselves. Now in England out of the 355,800,
187,000 employ labourers, while in Ireland out of the
659,600 landowners only 95,000 employ labourers.
Does not this, therefore, show the necessity of making a
difference between the two classes, and prove the neces-
sity also of making a difference in the franchise ? In the
Report, which was put into our hands this morning, it is
said " In every part of Ireland which we visited the num-
ber of existing leases seemed more likely to diminish than
to increase. An indisposition to grant leases prevails to a
remarkable extent among landed proprietors. Leases ex-
pire and they are not renewed. Landlords have ceased to
wish that their tenants should possess the land. Whole
districts arc everywhere to be found, the tenants of which
arc leaving." Sir, that is the statement made by a gentle-
man, whose Report has this day been submitted to the
consideration of Members of Parliament, and I do not mean
to deny that to a certain extent, to what extent we know not,
his statement is well founded. lam free to admit that
I regret the fact ; I regret the fact, but I am bound to say
also that lam not surprised at it. Now, Sir, I admit that
this topic is a very delicate one; but I must speak to the
truth as to the state of the two countries. Sir, I believe
that there is no man in England, on either side of the
House, who does not know that there is a very remarkable
contrast in this country with time state of things just
described. There is not a remarkable objection on the
part of landlords to granting their tenants leaees ; there is
not a remarkable aversion to their possessing the elective
franchise—and why ? Because taking them as a body, one
with another, he they Whig or be they Tory, be they gen-
tlemen on one side or the other, it is the piile and satis-
faction of a landlord in England to believe that, in the
main, his tenants will be guided by his wishes.
—( Hear,
hear, from the MineaFrial benches.) We do not seek to
disguise or to deny it, and every gentleman knows per-
fectly well, in a contested county election, though he would
condemn an extravagant and oppressive exerei.e of autho-
rity,
he may calculate upon the result of the elscrion by
the number of landed proprietors aed the party to which
they respectively belong.—(lronical cheers from the
Liberal benches.) No English landlord would think it
proper to interfere, if upon his estate he found that one,
two, or three, or half his tenants were, in the exercise of
their own independent judgment, differing with him in
po'itical views, and taking a course wholly independent of
and adv, rse to his ; but if he found that there was upon
, his estate a systematic influence habitually exercised over