The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-27 00:00:00

think it is desirahle to maintain a profit from the land as
an element of the county franebie —(H ar, hear.) If it
should he shown to me the, in the propp'e'd chartee in
the Irish constituency a profit voted by ra.ing is es,ee-
' Oral, I should not be indisposed to take into considerwi re
that other preposition of the Nehle Lord—namely, not to
require a lease, but to require the payment of a certain
amount of rent by a tenant-at-will, and thus to counteract
that objection which is made at present from the unwilling-
ness of the Irish landlords to grant leases ; but I
am not prepared to adopt the details of the Noble Lord's
measure. I will, however, vote with his amendment, be-
cause it recognises the beneficial interest and an element
of the county franchise. —( Che rs). I consider the N.rbie
Lord's amendment to the first clause to be exactly tanta-
mount to an abstract resolution of that kind. Suppose we
had met the Noble Lord's Bill on his motion for going into
Committee by a resolution to the eff,ct that mere occe.
parley could not entitle to the franchise, but that a profit
from the land was indispensable in the county franchise—
suppose we had made such a motion, I consider it would
have been exactly tantamount to the amendment of the
Noble Lord. A great principle was thus at issue between the
two Noble Lords. The Noble Lord, the Member fur North-
umberland, wished to maintain an essential element in
the county franchise, a profit from the laud or
a beneficial interest, while the Noble Lord
the Secretary for Ireland proposed to subvert the existing
franchise, and to take occupation, as tested by rating, as the
only element of the franchise.—( Hear, hear.) I give my
preference to the principle involved in the amendment of
the Noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland. Why,
then, do I not support his measure ? Because I do not
think the Noble Lord is in a position which will enable
him sufficiently to adjust this question. It appears to me that
the simple substitution of the first franchise he proposes,
namely, to require a certain amount of rating above the
rent, would give a very extensive franchise. I think that
simply to require rating above the rent would confer a very
extensive franchise. It would be impossible, however, to
propose what the required amount should be. lamat a
loss to ascertain it, and while I admit the principle I am
not prepared to accede to the details of the measure of
the Noble Lord, or approve of the machinery by
which he proposes to carry his Bill into effect. In
point of fact he admits he is not prepared to specify
the amount of rent which should be required. I appre-
hend we are about to come to a vote which is de-
cisive of the fate of the Bill ; at least to a vote which, if it
be carried against the Noble Lord, will render it neces-
sary to proceed with a measure directly at variance with
the present. I am glad an opportunity has arrived of
taking the sense of the House on the point. lam glad
the Noble Lord does not now consider this a mere verbla
amendment. lam glad he considers that a great question
is now at i sue. lam glad that before we proceed fur-
ther with the details of the Bmll the sense of the House
shall be fairly taken as to whether a profit should be con-
sidered a distinct mark of the county franchise ; and I do
entreat Hon. Gentlemen carefully to consider what will be
the effect on the constituencies of England, and on the f, an
chises of England, if they consent that mere occupancy
in Ireland shall determine the county franchise.
One word as to an observation made by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Dublin. I did not state on a former
occasion that there had been any contract in 1829, be-
tween the advocates of the Roman Catholics and those
who proposed the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. I admit
to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that there had been
no such contract in existence. But this I stated, and this
I repeat, that the evidence given by the advocates of the
Roman Catholic claims in 1.825 did fully justify the dis-
franchisement of the 40s. freeholders in Ireland.—( Hear,
hear.) I stated that the Hon and Learned G-ntleman,
as well as the Hon. and Learned Member for Tipperary,
and Mr. Blake, a Roman Catholic gentleman of great
eminence, had all given it as their opinion that it was
essential to the interests of Ireland that an intelligent arid
respectable yeomanry should be formed and invited to the
exercise of the franchise, and that those results were
more likely to be obtained under a limited and indepen-
dent constituency then with such a constituency as
that of the forty shilling freeholder:. I stated that
Mr. Dominic Browne, the Member for Mayo, had declared
that when there were 25 000 voters in the county, it was
a nomination county, :led that when the constituency was
reduced under the Reform Bill to 9 000, the independence
of the constituency had been secured, and no one could
nominate for the county. I stated that when the elec-
tors voted formerly against their landlords they were sub-
ject to so much oppression, that in order to rescue them
from their condition it was found desirable to modify the
franchise. That was what I ststed ; but I never stated
that there h d been a compact between the advocates of the
Roman Catholics and the Members of the Government.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had again referred
to the amount of population. I apprehend that her Ma-
jesty's Government will not concur with him in looking
on population as a test for the franchise.—( Hear, hear. )
The question is not, I apprehend, as to the amount of
population, but as to the amount of intellig,oice and respect-
ability, free from all external control, which we can com-
mand. That was avowed to have been the prin-
ciple of the Reform Bill—that I apprehend is still
avowed to be the principle of her Majesty's Government.
The question then does not now arise as to whether or not
the franchise should be co-extensive with population; the
question in dispute is this, whether her Majesty's Govern-
ment hare made a proposal which entitles them to the con-
fidence of Parliament, and whether they are capable of
dealing with this great question ; and I must say that the
course they have pursued on the subject of the l!i,11 fran-
chise appears to me to discntitle them to the confidence of
this House.—(Cheers.)
Mr. O'CONNELL said he wished briefly to notice
that speech of his to which the Right Hon. Baronet had
alluded. The Right Hon. Baronet had quoted it as if
he ( Mr. O'Connell) had made the calculation of what
would be the franchise after the Reform Bill, whereas
the speech he read related to a calculation of the state of
it before the Reform Bill, namely, 23,000. On that
point he (Mr. O'Connell) could not be mist. ken, what-
ever he might have been before—( oh)—because he
had published that statement in a letter, bo h in the news-
papers and in a pamphlet. The Hon. Baronet who had
taken an active part in the Emancipation Bill, had done
them the justice to say that they made no bargain, nor any
compact, but that was but doing them half justice, because
they had expressly called upon the House to reject the
Emancipation Act rather than disfranchise the 40s. free-
holders. Petitions were presented to the House on this
subject by sixty.three gentlemen who came from Ireland
expressly for Chit purpose. They spurned the distrane
chisemcnt which accompanied the Bill, and petitioned the
House rather to reject both than to pass both.
So that they not culy made no compact, but
they protested against this disfranchisement.-4 Hear.)
Ira 1825 there existed objections to the 40s. freeholders.
They were then dependent on their landlords, and obliged
to vote as they pleased. There were many difficulties con-
nected with them, but he ( Mr. O'Connell) for one never
consented to the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders
who were seized in fee. In 1825 they threw off their
shackles, and evinced their patriotism. They turned the
Beresfords out of Waterford, the Fosters out of Louth,
and Mr. Vcscy Fitzgerald out of Clare. Having
given these proofe of their patriotism in 1825,
when they were dependent, in 1829 they were
disfranchised. This was the history of their disfranchise-
ment, and what did the Reform Bill? Did it uive thorn
additional franchises, or restore to them that they bad lost ?
Would it have been taken away in England ? Would the
people of England have suffered it? Very properly they
would not, yet it was taken from Ireland where it was
more needed than ever in England. When the Right
Hon. Baronet told him that population was not the basis
of the franchise, he admitted that it was not the sole
basis, but the basis was population and property.
But how was it estimated in Ireland ? Why, by
population and the forty shilling freeholders. The
Noble Lord taunted him, (Mr. O'Connell) and his party
with driving Ireland to despair. He told the Noble Lord
they were not driven to despair. They were too many,
too peaceable, too intelligent, and too united for that.
What had occurred among them recently ? He stated it
with satisfaction and with pleasure, because it supplied
them with a new remedy. He had stated it before, and
he stated it again, that they did not know that country.
There were five millions there who never tasted the liquor
of intoxication. They had calculated on their pas-
sions and their vices, but they could be oppressed
through these no longer. How could the Noble
Lord say that he did not intend to place the
people of Ireland in the hands of the landlord? Why did
not the Noble Lord avow it ? Did not the Noble Lord
say that he intended to assimilate them to those in Eng-
land ? should he be told after that it was not intended to
disfranchise them? The House had done nothing but base
injustice to Ireland. The Right Hon. Gentleman had
said that he (Mr. O'Connell) gloated in looking back at
the crimes that England had perpetrated against Ireland.
It must be admitted that no one country had ever perpe-
trated so many crimes as England had to Ireland. Why
did he mention it? Because that spirit existed still. They
had not the same means—they had not the same power;
they could not do'it now, but they were as willing to do it as
ever their ancestors were. The Noble Lord had exhibited
that spirit to-night. He told the House there was little
chance of their getting the Bill through that or the other
House. Let him proclaim that to eight millions of people.
It had been proclaimed, and it would be proclaimed again.
He ( Mr. O'C.) remonstrated against their continued in-
justice, in asserting that whatever might be the population,
it was not to be the basis of representation.- He did not
know what was meant by this paltry distinction between
man and man, between Englishmen and Irishmen,
but he knew that a 501. franchise was not a
anchise, and he knew again that a 40s. franchise
was an ancient franchise, not depending upon property.
To talk about a 40s. franchise as a franchise by property,
was insulting common sense. He had shown them a po-
puiation of 366,000 with only 925 voters. They had de-
prived Ireland of her fair share of representation. On the
basis of property and population she ought to have 150 or
170 Members in that House. Ireland felt the indignity
that was done to her. It was called a representation, out
it was not. No ; let them go on. They would not di.-
appointment him ; on the contrary, they would but ani-
mate his hopes. He trusted he should yet live to see a
Parliament that would do Ireland justice. -
Lord HO WICK explained. He was greatly surprised
that, that, after his explanation, the Noble Lord should yet
state that his proposition was one of disfranchisement.
Its object and tendency were most directly the contrary,
Sir R. PEEL ssid he was very sorry the El n• and
Learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Conre 11) should think that
he had any intention to misrepresent an) thiNLthat
fell
from him on a former occasion. He (Sir R. Peel) had
stated that in what the How. and Learned Gentleman
said, in 1832, he had been making !L prophecy
of the future operation of the Relorm Bilt,
and he wished to show that he was unwarranted in attri-
buting those words to him, according to the report r f his
speech in Parliament. In 1832 the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman said, " Now let us see what the present Bill
wilt effect, and I will give the House a few epecirnens of the
numbers who will have a right to Vie a .c,rding to this
measure ;" and then the neght Hon. and,Learned G. ntle-
man went into details, with which he (Sir R. Peel) would
not trouble the House. He went on to say, " I therefore
say the same principle runs through the whole Bill,
and that the whole Bill is as Conservative al the