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

all his tenants, to prevail upon them as a body in every
instance to put themselves in opposition to him, and that
that influence was one which he could neither avert nor
control, I ask, what would be the natural course for an
English landlord, and in such circumstances, to take ?
You would not think it very unnatural if he sought to ob.
tain tenants over whom that influence was not exerted.
In this country, where there is less of hardship than there
is in Ireland, in getting rid of one tenant and substituting
another, I do not think that any great animadversion would
be poured upon the landlord who should say, " I must
have tenants who will not be habitually subject to an inte-
rest and an influence which they exercise against me."
But, Sir, if the landlord did not go this length • if, re-
strained by motives of humanity, or of justice, or Of consi-
deration for his tenants, from taking this step, and substi-
tuting tenants who concurred with, for those who differed
from him, if he confined himself to taking this course, and
saying, '• I have no quarrel with you my tenant, as between
landlord and tenant. You are satisfied with me as a libe-
ral and independent landlord ; I am perfectly satisfied with
you as industrious and honest tenant, but there is one con-
stant source of ill-will between us. I see that upon all
political questions you are led by an extraneous influence
to take a part wholly against me; this is the only point of
discussion between us. For God's sake do not let that in-
terfere longer with the friendly relations of landlord and
tenant. As long as this state of things exists, there must
be constant irritation between us—there must be a constant
interruption of that harmony and goodwill which ought to
exist. You may feel confidence in me. You know that
I would not willingly dispossess, nor will I dispossess a
tenant who does his duty by use in an agricultural point of
view. For God's sake let us get rid of this bone of
contention, the franchise, and I will accept from you—from
year to year, a rent which will afford you a fair and rea-
sonable profit, and which at the same time will remove
for ever this bone of contention." Now, I ask if in Eng-
land that would not be considered a kind, and a mild, and
a liberal course ? (Ironical cheers from the Liberal
benches.) Would not any landlord be in the opinion of
Hon. Gentlemen opposite justified in saying " I will be
contented to neutralise the influence of my property alto-
gether, I will be content to sacrifice any influence and
political right which I may derive from the possession of
property, but I will not submit to have the influence of my
property habitually turned against myself, and I will not
of my own free will place instruments in the hands of
others for the purpose of effecting that." Now, Sir, I say
that that is a natural course, and I believe that
it is a course to which very little exception could
be taken. I say that that is the state of so-
ciety to a certain extent in England. I say that
there are those tendencies afloat, and those tendencies, as
between landlord and tenant, have led to a diminution of
the number of electors, from the indisposition of land-
lords to put into the hands of their tenants engines to be
wielded in political warfare against themselves. Sir, I
regret this state of things ; I regret this result ; I regret
this diminution of the constituency arising from this
causer"; and I say, moreover, if you can show me that
things are fast verging back to the period when the con-
stituency of Ireland was in a small number of hands, and
that an excessive influence is again monopolising the Irish
interest in opposition to the principles of the Reform Act,
which went to confirm the franchise as extensive, and
upon the same classes of persons, as in England—l see
the Hon. Gentleman is goir.g to take down my words—
(the Noble Lord was understood to refer to Mr. O'Con-
nell)—but I have very frankly to say, that when you show
me that state of society arising from that cause, I shall be
prepared to discuss with you, with the full view of cor-
recting that which I admit to be an evil, the best
means of counteracting such a state of . things.
Before I can take that course it must be shown to
me to what extent the constituencies of Ireland have
been reduced—you must show me that, and then I will
be ready to discuss with you the whole matter; but I
would advise you that it is not a matter that can be treated
lightly. I tell you that it will be a matter of serious mo-
ment, for it will be an exercise of the powers of the Legis-
lature against property—( Hear, hear)—and that probably
property may turn against you.—( Cheers.) But I must
know to what extent the diminution of the constituencies
of Ireland has gone. Let me look at the country consti-
tuencies of Ireland. At the period of the Reform Bill,
I calculated them tb amount to 52,000. Upon that occa-
sion the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin stated
that I had taken an extravagant estimate of their num-
bers, and he said that I would probably have been more right
had I taken them at one half of that number, and he
added that if we adopted the Si. franchise, we might pro-
bably get a constituency to the number of from 60,000
to 90,000. Now, Sir, 1 hold in my hand a paper which
was moved for by the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, and
pressed for by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin.
In 1831 and 1832, I calculated the amount of the consti-
tuency at 52,000—what is it now ? By this paper, I find
that the present moment it is no less than 99,157.
(Cheers.) I find that in ten of the counties there has
been a very considerable increase in the number of voters
since 1832, and even since 1835—in two counties only has
there been any diminution since 1835.—(Cheers.) The
nett increase is the county constituency since 1835 was
10,419, and since 1832, taking the lowest calcu-
lations, the increase is not less than cent.
per cent.—( Cheers.) Now, Sir, let us look
at the borough constituencies; they also have aug-
mented since 1835. I find by this paper, that in ten bo-
roughs there has been a considerable increase, and that in
one borough alone has there been a diminution, and that
of one voter only.—( Cheers and laughter.) I find, in
Dublin, there are 17,347 voters, 10,885 of them 101.
householders, a species of voters that were wholly created
by the Reform Bill; in Cork, 8,164 ; in Belfast, 4,156 ;
the total number of the thirty-two boroughs is 55,530-
37,000 of whom are 101. householders, and I may add,
that there is not one constituency in Ireland that does not
exceed 200 voters. I may be told that this paper is not
worth anything—(Loud cheers)—you have been calling
for this paper day after day—it has been laid upon the
table at your request, and finding that it does not bear out
your own arguments, you repudiate it—(Cheers)—you
turn round upon me, and say, this paper is good for no-
thing—if it proved your own case you would have bees
ready enough to have acted upon Hear, hear)—
but now that it shows the fallacy of your arguments
you want to repudiate it as unworthy the at-
tention of the House. I have no doubt it contains
many double entries.—( Hear, hear.) I have no
doubt, also, it contains many fraudulent and fictitious
votes ; but what shall we allow for them ? Shall we say
20,000 for them. Let me do so, and still you have a re-
gister far exceeding that of 1832. Let me also call to
your attentim to the fact that the register of 1832, when I
made my calculations of the constituency being 52,000,
was fifty years old ; and that, of course, there would upon
that register be many more deal men—many more cases
of removal, and other bad votes. Before you proceed to
art upon the assumption of a great diminution in the con-
stituency, vou should introduce a registration that will
purge it. No, sai I the Noble Lord, 'feu shall not have
that. We will not alter the incorrectness. We tell you
that the constituency of Ireland has diminished ; and
before we give evidence to show that fact, I call upon
you to alter the qualification, while we refuse the means of
correc:ing its errors,—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I am sure
the House will be glad to hear that I am conie
to my last objection. I object • 'to the Bill on
account of the principle on which it is founded. I object
to the qualification not being founded on profit but rating.
I object to the qualification as being professedly under no
valuation whatever, and I object in the strongest terms to
the amount of value you propose to attach to the franchise.
Sir, I have not heard a single reason why the franchise
should be reduced from 101. to 51. Were there a greater
number of freeholders in the towns deprived of that fran-
chise than in England ? (Yes.) An Hon. Member says
yes ; but I ask him to prove that statement—where are his
documents to establish it? It is for Hon. Members on the
other side, who wish to alter the franchise, to show the
necessity for it. On what ground does the Noble Lord
hope to induce the House, without any knowledge of the
amount of the constituency, to say that every man, whether
charged with a heavy burthen of rent or not—every man
who occupies property which at any time was inserted in
the rate-book as being of the value of 5/. shall be entitled
to the franchise ?—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I ask on what
grounds the house is called upon to make this de-
parture from the usual amount of the franchise. The
Noble Lord refuses his as,ent to a Bill brought in by the
Hon. Baronet the Member for Preston, to confer that
franchise upon the English borough voters, but does he
think that the Si. householders in Ireland are as a class
less subject to influence, more independent, more steady
and industrious, more thrifty and economical, than the same
class in England or Scotland.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord is about ti introduce a few unfortunate men, who,
under the dominion of a grinding landlord, inhabit a cabin
with an acre or two of laud, for which he is charged more
rent than he could possibly pay, living decently.—( Hear,
hear.) It is a class of persons infinitely below the labourers
of this country—below them, and more degraded, I mean,
in point of station, education, acquirement, and indepen-
dence, infinitely below the labourer of England who de-
pends upon his labour for subsistence. In the report
of the Poor Law Commissioners on the subject of emigra-
tion, they state that in Ireland there is practically no
difference between them and the labouring classes, and
that as regards gratuitous emigration the farmer is quite
as much entitled to the compassion of that Government as
the labourer. Aud yet the Noble Lord says that out of
this class every man rated to 51. should be entitled to the
franchise. Sir, I hope the House will permit me to read
one more passage, and it is from the evidence of a
Roman Catholic gentleman, and a Magistrate of
Kilkenny, with reference to the arrears of tithes.
(The Noble Lord here read a passage from the evidence,
in which it was stated that the class of farmers holding
from 10 to 15 acres of land were for half the year in a
state of the greatest destitution, having no means of meet-
ing their demands after their crops were sold, and that
potatoes without milk was the general diet, and they thought
they were lucky. That, under the most improved system
of management, they could not make more than double their
rent). This is the state of the farmer with 10 or 15 acres,
paying from 20s. to 30s. an acre fur the land which he
occupies. It is a rent which a solvent tenant in this coun-
tr" could pay, and it is on the lowest estimate of this de-
scription of persons, rated at three-times the amount of
these parties, that the Noble Lord is preparing to give the
franchise. Why, Sir, for tifod's sake, let us not make a
mockery of the franchi c. Let us by legislation, if pos-
sible, relieve these poor people—let us try by Poor-laws,
by emigration, or by some other means, to place them in
a better situation. Let us endeavour to relieve their phy-
sical wants. But when a man tells you that the general
situation of these people is, for four or five months of the
year, to be in a state of destitution—that it costs them the
most uuintermitting and indefatigable industry to enable
then to pay their rent—don't let the House of Commons
tender to persons in such a condition the exercise of the
elective franchise—don't, above all, go to the absurdity of
saying, while you hold a virtuous horror of a dependent
condition on the landlord, atld the present position of the
501. tenant-at-will in England, you consider the introduc-
tion of a clause to that effect in the present Bill should
excite your opposition—don't make such a mockery of le,
gislas ion as to confer, by way of forming an independent
constituency, th.-3 right of voting on men at the rate of 51,
a year—upon men who were barely able to find potatoes
for the support of themselves and their families great part

of the year—and to confer this right, too, without re-
ference to the amount of rent paid by them, which dues
keep them in ae absolute state of dependence,
on the landlord or on some one else.—( Opposition
cheers.) The reason for doing away with the rights of
the forty-shilling freeholders in Ireland was not that they
were a Roman Catholic constituency, but that they were
a dependent constituency. It was because of the state of
life in which they lived. They were necessarily and ut-
terly dependent either on their landlords or on other in-
fluence. That was the statement made by Lord Plunkett,
and many of those who supported the disfranchisement of
the forty-shilling freeholders. This was the ground on
which Parliament acquiesced in their disfranchisement—
that they were, from their station in society, incapable of
exercising an independent franchise. They, therefore,
deprive them of it, and by depriving them of it they de.
prived them of no real boon whatever, but took out of the
hands of the landlords the means of furthering their own
v'ews, with a total disregard on their (the landlords)
parts to the parties whom they were controlling in the
exercise of the franchise. The forty-shilling fieeholdcrs
were required, at all events, by the law to pos-
sess a beneficial interest over and above their
rent. Bet you, in the present case, take those pau-
pers who arc required to have no beneficial interest.—
( Opposition cheers.) You establish a rate of but 51. a
year ; you take no security for their rent ; and those are
the persons whom you set up as an independent consti-
tuency—men whom every landlord who chooses to act
harshly may turn out as soon as they take a course
at an election which they (the landlords) may not
like. You take a class of men whose houses are not se-
cured against fire—whose persons are not secured against
violence—who dere not face the consequences to themselves
and their families of giving, on any consideration, a vote
which would happen to be unpopular to the majority of
the people.—( Opposition cheers.) But the Noble Lord,
however, will tell you that there is a restriction which he
imposes on this class of persons; he says, I am told—
" Still there is a restriction ; they must have a 14 years'
lease." And this the Noble Lord seems to think a restric-
tion. It is a restriction, but just in the wrong sense—just
in that point in which you should not have a
restriction. It is no restriction on the point on which the
Noble Lord contends that it is. What are the advantages
of a lease ? It is that a man has, for a term of years, an
independent property of his own—a stake over and above
all demands, of which no man can deprive him, and from
which he is enabled to maintain himself and his family.
But a lease upon rack-rent—a lease with a nominal amount
of rent charged above that which a man can pay—a lease
of that desciiption conf !rs on the tenant no independence
whatever. It but keeps him in the clutches of his land-
lord. If the landlord chooses to act tyrannically, he will
grant him a lease of fourteen years, he will keep
him in a perpetual arrear of rent, and then bring-
ing him, under the Noble Lord's Bill, to the hust-
ings, he may say, " Vote according to my dictation, or
else —" (Opposition cheers.) But the Noble Lord
says the great evil of Ireland is that the landlords hold
the leases. Why should they not ? The Noble Lord
states that that one thing causes the grand diminution of
the franchise for which he means to provide a remedy.
Ile says that if the landlords choose, whole districts may
remain unrepresented, and under the Noble Lord's Bill a
greater temptation is given by granting a lease of Si. How
stands the case ? A. does not choose to grant a lease
except to a solvent, a respectable, and responsible
tenant. Therefore what am I to do? I will
enable B. to grant as many leases as he chooses.
And supposing all other objections to the Bill obviated,
this is one which I consider as insurmountable. Sir, I
am deeply sensible of the indulgence and kindness of the
House in listening to observations which I am well aware
have been protracted to an unusual length of time.—
( Cheers,) I would willingly have spared your time and
patience if I could have dune so, but I felt that its justice
to this great question I was not able to do so when arguing,
not against the particular details, but against the whole
frame and principle of the Bill, and calling upon the
House net to examine its details, but to reject the prin-
ciple on which they were founded.—(Cheers.) Sir, I
would impress upon the House how impossible it is, if the
House should sanction the principle of this Bill being in-
troduced into Ireland, to withhold the same extension to
England.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Member for Kilkenny,
who has now in succession given his services to all the
three portions of the empire, and consequently looks with
an impartial eye on all—(Laughter)—told the Noble
Lord that what was good for Ireland was good also for
England, and that what was good for England was also
good for Scotland. The Hon. Gentleman has now re-
presented Dundee, Middlesex, and Kilkenny, and he
will say " This franchise is to be granted to Ireland,
and is a most desirable franchise. I am most anxious the
people of England should also obtain it, and I shall call
upon you for Justice to England." Now, Sir, the
Noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) must look with some amuse-
ment at the way in which some of his more eager followers
fall into his successive lures.—(Cheers.) I ask the Noble
Lord, do you mean to give to the 54 householders in
towns in England and Scotland the right of voting?
The Noble Lord is bound to give an answer to this
question, and I trust that he will give it in the course of
this debate, that we may know, and that no party may be
deceived by the statement of the Noble Lord, what course
of legislation may be reasonably expected with respect to
England and Scotland. Sir, I am firmly persuaded that
the Noble Lord, although he may for a time succeed in
postponing or defeating the remedy of the great abuses of
the registration by tacking to it impossible measures—
although he may succeed in again unsettling the mind
of the whole constituency—(Cheers)—on the subject, not
of any minor alteration of detail, but on the subject of the
whole principle on which the Reform Bill was founded—
(Cheers)—although he may succeed, and possibly will to
a certain extent, in throwing all those elements of discord
into that political cauldron, the stirring of which was so
eloquently denounced by the Noble Lord, the author of
" A Letter to the Elccoors of Stroud "—(Cheers)—al-
though the Noble Lord may succeed in unsettling every
thing that the Reform Bill has settled, I rely on the good
sense of the constituency of this empire to render it impos-
sible for the Noble Lord to pass this Bill even through ono
branch of the Legislature.—(Cheers.) I entertain a
hope, an ardent, I will not say an anxious, hope that even
this House will on this occasion reject the principle of the
Noble Lord's Bill on the present reading. I am confi-
dent that the great body of this House, whether the majo-
rity of this House, or otherwise, will be supported in their
opposition to this Bill by the cordial support of the people
of this empire without your doors—(Cheers)—but if I did
not entertain that hope—if I felt that I should be left in
the smallest conceivable minority on the occasion—if I
knew that I should be left to stand alone in opposition to
this Bill, so decided am I in my feeling and opinion as to
the dangerous circumstances that must result directly and
certainly from the introduction of the principle of this
Bill, that if I stood alone I would record my opposition to
its second reading. Sir, I therefore beg leave to move
that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.—
(The Noble Lord having thus concluded a speech of three
hours' duration, sat down amid loud cheers.)
Mr. C. WOOD said, he was perfectly aware of the 1
disalvantage to which he subjected himself in rising after
the Noble Lord ; but at the same time he was anxious to
aveil himself of the first opportunity of expressing his en-
tire concurrence in the course pursued by her Majesty's
Government in the present Session—(Cheers)—and his
entire approval, he would not say of all the details, but of
the general principle of both branches of his Noble ,
Friend's Bill.—(Cheers.) He (Mr. C. Wood) was the
more anxious to say this, because it was his painful duty
last year to differ from the course pursued by the Govern-
ment,
who, while they admitted the abuses in the regis-
tration system, had, as the Noble Lord ( Lord Stanley)
reminded them, declined to bring forward any remedy, and
therefore he (Mr. C. Wood) could not refuse to join the
Noble Lord in considering the details of a measure, the
principle of which had been sanctioned by the House.
( Hear, hear. ) But this self-same consideration seemed to
hint to render it impossible to join in the opposition to the
second reading of this Bill; and after the speech of the
Noble Lord, he confessed he was left as much in
the dark as before it of the whole grounds on
which that opposition was founded (Cheering.)
The Noble Lord had not told the HMV- ,or .; the remedy
proposed was not as stringent as his o sr. The Bill of
his Noble Friend put an extinguisher tioen every kind of
fraudulent voting in Ireland. The moment the Bill came
into operation it would put an end to the system of certifi-
cates, and no man could vote who could not show bona
fide title to the franchise. There was the appeal both
ways, and he thought it important that the appeal was not
to the Judges, who ought to he kept apart from political
considerations. As far as the system of registration went,
it appeared to him that the Bill provided all necessary
protection against fraud and fictitious votes. All the fraud
which the Bill of the Noble Lord (Stanley) last year
would provide against, was personation of voters or frau-
dulent certificates, and when it was shown that the
greatest evil was the uncertainty of the franchise, Hon.
Gentleman upon that (the Liberal) side of the House
would not entertain the Bill, because it applied only to the
lesser, and not to the greater evil. He (Mr. Wood) did
not concur in that objection. But much less could he
concur in the objection offered to the present Biel, be-
cause it applied a remedy to the greater evil as well as
to the lesser ; that argument was so monstrous that he
did not expect to have heard it from the Noble Lord.—
( Ilea-, hear.) The Noble Lord had not denied the un-
cert..inty as to defining the franchise, nor had be, in the
whole course of his address, suggested a remedy fur the
state of things which he, as well as every other Hon.
Member, must deplore.—(Clacere.) He ( Mr. Wood)
admitted that this uncertainty was one which could hardly
arise in this country. But be asked was the care mended
by that? The doubt did exist in Ireland, and in every
grade of society, from the peasant to the Judge upon the
Peach. The fact that the doubt existed, and that it
affected the whole franchise, could not be denied ; and it
was the duty of the House to do everything in its power to
remedy certain things. All hopes of defining the words in
the Reform Bill had clearly failed. Were they then to
go back to the solvent tenant test ?—( Hear, hear.) At
the time the Reform Bill passed, that test was abandoned,
and in the Home of Lords the Duke of Richmond and
fie Marquis of Lansdowne declared that it was too strin-
gent and ought to be relaxed. It would be a breach of
faith with the people of Ireland to go back to that test.—
( Hear, hear. ) If therefore it was impossible to define the
words, beneficial interest, so as to remove the present un-
certainty, or t return to the test which existed before the
Reform Bill, he ( Mr. Wood) knew of no teat safer than
the Po »r-lacy rating.—(Cheers.) This was no Radical
sug,4estioa ; it was first proposed by gentlemen on the other
side, the Members for Mallow and Monachan, who could
not be supposed to be influenced by party objects.
—( Hear, hear, hear. )-1-le faced a similar test
suggested by an Irish barrister of Conservative prin•
eiplga when examined before a Committee. That gen-
tleman was the Registering Barrister in the county of
Longford, and was appointed to that office by the Noble
Lord opposite (Stanley), Be recommended that being
rated to the county cess should be taken as the test, ale
though he did not think it a good test ; but he was of
opinion that the qualification ought to be tested only by a
rated value. —( Hear, hear.) With regard to toe precise
amount of the rating, that was not now helm e the House.
In the Committee they might determine whether it should
be 51., 101., or 20/.—(Chcers.) The Noble Lord

(Stanley) had insisted, and at great length, upon the ne-
ccs-ity of retaining some profitable interest to be on the
rent; but it appeared from the statement of the valuators
that such a provision would tend, in a very great degree,
' to diminish the Irish county constituency. Mr. Wallace,
the valuator of the Longford Union, stated, that although
the rating was below the rent one vaster or one-fiftli_as,
indeed, was the case in England—where :the rating was
never more than three-quarters the rent, yet, if a profit-
able interest of 101. above the rent were required, it would
disfranchise 126 out of 130 voters in that union; if 51.
were fixed, it would disfranchise 83.—(Hear, hear.) If
that test, therefore, were adopted, it would destroy the
constituency in the Irish counties. But he did not wish
to denounce it, much less to destroy them. —( Hear, hear.)
He did not agree with the Noble Lord that it was :not a just
subject for comparison to show the proportions between the
con.nituencies in English and Irish counties, although lie ad-
mitted that the comparison might be pushed too far.
Under the present system there was no fair propel-lion be.
tween the population and the constituencies and the coun-
ties in Ireland. When tile Noble Lord to Ir. the return
as a fair representation of the amount of the Irish consti-
tuencies, he seemed to have forgotten that those returns
did not show the real state of the constituencies. For
instance, the constituency of Cavan was stated to be 3,800,
but the return itself showed that upwards of 500 of those
were double entries. la the county of Longford it would
appear, from the returns, that there was a constituency
of 1,900 voters; but the Reports stated, that in the whole
county there were in reality little more than 1,500. But
even from that number a considerable number must be
deducted on account of double entries, so that the consti-
tuency would dwindle down much below the amount
states, in the return. Wicklow was set down as having a
constituency of 2.300, but, judging by the late election,
not more than 1,300 were now capable cf voting. In
Mayo the constituency was stated to be 2,100—a smaller
county constituency than any in England, with the ex-
ception of that of Rutlandshire; but in May last the number
did not exceed 700. Would any body say that the
amount of those constituencies bore a fair proportion
to the population of the Irish Counties ? ( Hear,
hear.) He would admit that the amount of constituencies
ought not to depend altogether on population, but was
not population a moat important and material element in
settling the amount of constituencies ? At the period of
the passing of the Reform Bill population and property
were taken together as the standard by which it was to
be determined whether certain towns should or should not
have representatives in Parliament; and if property we; e
the only basis of electoral rights they might as well have
left the representative system altogether unreformed, and
its condition unaltered. He did not advocate an indefinite
or a large extension of the franchise, which he thought
would be a great evil, in opposition to the opinion of a
great many Hon. Gestlemen on his side of the House,
because it would become an obstacle to enlightened le-
gislation, and be had no reason to think that if many of
the constituencies had been much enlarged at a former
period the Roman Catholic Rel;ef Bill would not have
been passed. He had, he thought, beet' shown in a paper
with which the Honourable Member for Leeds ( Mr.
Baines) was connected, that there was every reason
to apprehend that if the franchise were largely
extended, it would tend ultimately to defeat those improve-
ments which was the main object which the advocates of
such a course had in view. At the same time, however,
he wished that the members of the constituencies should
be such as to ensure some community of feeling between
the people and those who were entrusted with their inter-
ests in that House.—( Hear, hear.) The county of Mayo
contained a population of 360,000 inhabitants, who were
principally Roman Catholics, but if the Protestant land-
lords cecerced the constituents, then the result might be
filet a large Catholic population might be represented by
representatives directly hostile to them. He would ask
whether that were a state of things which left any pro-
bability of an identity of interest and feeling between the
mass of the people and the constituency of the county ?
( Hear, hear)—or whether that were a state of things in
which the population of that county would be likely to
feel much confidence in the Legislature which had pro-
duced results so anomalous ? The Noble Lord in complain-
leg, of the present measure, had confined the cases
of England and Ireland as regarded the leasehold tenure ;
but it did not seem to him (Mr. C. Wood) that there was
the slightest analogy between the two cases. The amount
of the leasehold constituencies in England was very
small, unless in a very few places. Fifty or sixty lease-
holders were the most that were generally found in large
constituencies; but in Ireland and Scotland a very con-
siderable portion of the voters had acquired the franchise
by right of leasehold; and it would appear that the lease-
hold tenure in Ireland was gradually diminishing. He
did not wish to impute political motives to the :Irish lands
lords in the management cf their property, but it appeared
that many of them were not now in the habit of granting
leases to their tenants. Their object probably was the
improvement of their estates, and the law could not cer-
tainly interfere with them ; but yet the result of those im-
provements might be the disfranchisement of half a county.
Much had been said of the coercion of the 50/. tenant-at-will
in this country ; and the Noble Lord opposite had given
expression that evening to sentiments as to the relations
between landlord and tenant which he (Mr. Wood) was
not a little surprised to hear.—( Hear, hear. ) He had
always understood that the tenure of land, and the relations
subsisting between landlord and tenant, should be founded
on their mutual interests, and the political opinions of te-
nants should have no more to do in such a case than if they
were not known to exist.--( Hear, hear.) But he did nut
believe in the coercion said to have been exercised towards
the 501. tenants in this country. He did not mean to say
that there were not instances in which an undue influence
had been used; but he did lint know why such an influ-
ence should be generally used, because he firmly believed
that in the majority of cases the opinions of the 50/. te-
nants were in perfect accordance with those of their land-
lords on the subjects which decided county elections ; and
further, ho had no reason to think, from all he had heard
and all ho had seen, that the influence exercised on lease-
holders was less than that exercised on the 501. tenants.
—( Hear, hear, hear.) In Berkshire the influence said
to have been exercised by the landlords to an
unexampled extent had been exercised principally on those
who held by the leasehold tenure. But in whatever such
dangers might be provided against, he thought that care
should be taken that the constituency of Ireland be not
further reduced. —( Hear, hear.) He certainly knew of no
better test for the qualification in that country than the rated
value of premises. He did not mean to insist on:an
altera-
tion which he had suggested, to leave out altogether the
necessity of a leasehold tenure, because he believed the
House had not adequate information for forming a final
decision on that subject. The amount of a 101. rate,
independently of any tenure, would give out of a po-
pulation of 71,000 a constituency of only 2,200. It was
stated, however, that the proposed measure was an infringe-
ment on the Reform Act, and they were told not to open
the doors to voters insufficiently qualified, lest they should
hereafter be unable to close them. To any change in the
Reform Bill for the purpose of producing a re-distribu-
tion of powers he ( Mr. Wood) was as much opposed as the
Noble Lord opposite. He certainly thought the Reform
I Act as a settlement of a great national question, ought not
lightly to be disturbed.—( Hear) He considered that by
, its passing a revolution was effected in the constitution of the
I country, affecting the popular party here as the revolution of
j 1688 affected the monarchy, and no one could say that it
had been effected without hazard. They had reason to
be thankful that it had not injured the country, but they
ought to be cautious and timid its incurring similar risks.
_( Hear, hear.) He was, therefore, as opposed as the
Noble Lord to any attempt to overturn the principle of
the Reform Act, but he did not believe that such would be
the effect of the measure, or that it would be necessary to
follow in England the course they were about to pursue
towards Ireland, because the same necessity and the same
cases did not exist in the two countries. There wab in
England no doubt as to the franchise, and he further be-
lieved that the Reform Bill as it now stood in this
country had produced a fair representation of the people.
He found parties nearly equally divided in the House, and
he found them similarly divided in the country; while he
had reason to think that, unless some extraordinary and
unforeseen circumstances arose, no other result would be
obtained by a new appeal to the constituent body. But
while he adhered to the principle of the Reform Bill, be
was not fettered to all its provisions ; he was not to be
pinned down to the four corners of the measure.—( Hear,
bear.) He did not think that when they found the free-
cbis unsettled in Ireland, they were bound to adhere to
that uncertainty, and leave the doors open to fraud and
perjury. Besides, was it not a principle of the Reform
Bill to extend the franchise and to bring a greater number
of parties within the pale of the constitution ? He believed
that such was the avowed object of the Bill. Such was
the object avowed by the Noble Lord himself at the time.
They should not adhere too strictly to the letter of the Re-
form Act, while they might thereby violate its spirit. They
should not run counter to the objects of the Bill, and still
less to the intentions of its framers. But evesa on the
principle avowed by the Noble Lord himeellf ho (Mr.
Wood) was surprised at the opposition of the Noble
Lord to the Bill. He had understoea that it was the
wish of the Noble Lord that such -a measure as the pre-
sent should be introduced by Government and should
be fairly considered by the 'douse. He did not think that
that was she stege of toe measure at which the Noble
Lord should have urged any objections he might have en-
tertained to There was one other consideration to
which he wished to refer. The Noble Lord had declared
that his only object was to remedy the defective system of
regietratiou in Ireland, though the Noble Lord had been
accused of covet ty seeking to diminish the constituencies
of that country. He would not say he acquitted the
Noble Lord of any such intention, because that would
imply a suspicion on his part which he did not
feel as to the motives of the Noble Lord.
He believed that the Noble Earl had no other intentionsr
then those which he professed ; but the NobleLede
should in that case allow the measure then before
of
the
House to go into Committee. The feelings f the
tp/eleopoleccaosfiolreland
thew were
Hon and
NobletoLtehaernedM etrLiboerdr
furon
Dublin were the only person opposed to him, ho
might
have
braved such opposition ; but there were also
arrayed
ownag Governmentainsthit!losien4Sirehol
Irelane
d.—(
thec_ (t
iefirtinri,e s
ht
e a supportersr.)
of his
Ile
believed it to be most unwise and impolitic except in cases
of the most stringent necessity, to attempt to legislate
though he would admit that
cases might exist and had before existed in which the
against the feelings of aP°Pie
House of Commons had nut shrunk from its duty ; bus
would anybody say that the present occasion was one of
that nature? The oily question then before the Eloo,,
was whether the House would proceed with the Bill of
his Noble Friend, or with the Bill of the Noble Lord op_
posits. That was the sole and simple question then
before the House; and was there anybody to say that that
was a case in which they should attempt to legislate in
direct opposition to that almost unanimeue feeling which
they had every reason to know now pervaded Ireland from
onehe
e Solper nd t
opposed
elo dTtTthi Oe
secondNtiwero?ie i—ldr
aCdlbrieflyineger
of
)
ftat theß gr rill, ee
considered
which '
it did not mean what it spoke, but wets a covert attempt to
repeal the Irish Reform Buil, and open the constitueoev
to a body of men the Reform Bill had never intended
sl.ould be invested with the fsaaellise. The evils which
were now admitted had been heretofore denied, and the