The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-24 00:00:00

landlords which induced them to withhold leases—if all these
various circumstinces were to be taken into consideration and
to be coupled with that which they knew to be the state of Ireland
from all the most authentic information before Hon. Members
—from the information contained in Reports upon the subject,
and from previous Reports of Mr. Nicholls, written without
any reference to the subject at present under discussion—if
that, he (Lord Howick) said, was clear, surely it was perfectly
obvious, in justice to the people of Ireland and in sound policy,
with respect to the interests of the empire at large that theyought
at they same time that they established a stricter and severer
system of scrutiny of the right of voting in Ireland they
ought at the same time to make the definition of that right
clearer and plainer, and also so shape it that it would prevent
the diminution in the numbeis of voters, which was to be ap •
prehended. That appeared to him to be the course which it
became them to adopt, and he must, before he brought to a
close His observations, which had already run to a greater
length than he had intended—before he drew those observa-
tions to a close he must refer particularly to one of the argu-
ments which he meant to advert to, and which it was most im-
portant the House should consider. In speaking of the incon-
venience and mischief which resulted from uncertainty in the
right of voting, and from the difficulty of applying a test of
value according to the existing law, even if the con-
struction were more clear and more certain than
it was—in speaking of that he meant t o have
called the attention of the House to that fact, that in applying
that test by means of the Assistant Baristera they produced
very serious evils in Ireland. His (Lord Howick's) argument
was, that if they continue to have, as in time past, extremely
conflicting evidence on the subject of value on every occasi .11
of registry in Ireland, to call on the Assistantßari ister to decide
upon his own judgment, or on the evidence so tendered to him,
—to call upon him to pronounce a decision which might
materially affect the political interests of the contending
parties was attended with this disadvantage, that it threw
supicion upon his character, and upon the due administration
of justice.—( Hear, hear.) Every man knew how important,
in the administration of justice in Ireland, had been the system
of Assistant Barristers. This institution he believed well cal-
culated to provide for the satisfactory adjustment of all those
disputes which in every country arose b• tween man and man.
It would, therefore, be the foundation of improved order and
tranquillity in Ireland. But if they threw
,a doubt on the
impartiality of the Assistant Barrister,—if they mixed him up
in politics, by imposing on him the duty of eeciding on the
right of persons to vote, they would do all they could towards
going back to the state of things that before existed, and de-
stroying the benefits of valuable institutions. And this was not
his ( Lord Howick's) opinion only. Those Gentlemen on the
other side of the House who were Members of the Committee
on fictitious voters in Ireland, could not fail to recollect that
the Assistant Barristers who were examined on that occasion,
and had also been employed .in registration, expressed the
strongest opinion, derived from their own experience, of the
inconvenience and mischief of uniting in their persons these
duties. They said, that if they were to perform the duties of
registration it was necessary, for the satisfactory administra-
tion of justice, that they should not be called upon to do so
upon an indefinite title of voting.--( Hear, hear.) The estab-
lihment of the clear right of voting, therefore, was coincident
with the due administration of justice. His Noble Friend had
said that he had a great objection to impose the task upon
them. Could it be imposed upon the Judges? In his (Lord
Howick's) opinion, still less. Upon the executive Govern-
ment ? Hon. Gentlemen had stated distinctly, No ; and as
he was willing to admit, with every appearance of justice.
Could they allow the right of deciding upon matters so vague
and uncertain as the value of property to be given, without
appeal to any Bar ister, let him be chosen by whomhe might?
Could they give such an extent of power, so liable to abu,e,
to any man in such a situation ? In his (Lord Howick's)
opinion, decidedly not. On this question of value, to chat
tribunal was to be their appeal ,from the decision of the Bar-
rister ? To what other authority were they to refer this
question? Were they to give it, as at present, to the Judges
and Juries ? He was sure no friend to Ireland would recommend
such a course. Party political animosities had al catty,
in that unhappy country, gained too mush admission within
the sanctuary of justice.--( Hear, hear.) But no man who
had the slightest regard to the interests of Ireland would ag-
gravate and extend so injurious a system. Was it a Court of
Appeal, such as was proposed by the Bill of his Noble Friend,
now before the House ? Such a Court might by possibility
decide, as proposed by that Bill, on disputed questions of law,
but on questions of value, which turned on the nice balance of
conflicting evidence, which, to justly estimate, must be heard
and not t sad, such a tribunal would be utterly inefficient ; it
would be_impossible for it even to attempt to perform such a
task. Were they to leave questions of value open for the con-
sideration of a Committee of that House ? Were they
in every case of contested election to allow a person
to be brought over, at a vast expense, before a Committee
of that House, to give evidence whether the property of
a person in Kerry or Cork was worth ten pounds
a year beyond what a solvent tenant would give
for it? Could any man continue a system of this
kind by the effect of which, when parties were equally divided,
the representation was virtually placed at the command of the
longest purse?—( Hear, hear)—for that was the effect of leaving
those questions to be decided by Election Committees. He
had now nearly concluded what he had proposed to be addressed
to the House. He had stated the grounds oil which it ap-
peared to him, that it was in the highest degree expedient,
they should endeavour, if possible, to couple the right of
voting with the assessment for the Poor-rate.—( Hear, hear. )
In stating the grounds of his opinion, he was aware that he
was making admissions which would be greatly disapproved of
by gentlemen around him, and that the conclusions to which
.he had arrived, would be equally disapproved of by the oppo-
site side. It was a painful position for any man to be placed
in, to Snd that in no quarter of the House, could
he look for approbation of the course which he
had adopted. Yet, although it were ea'ier to go
with the stream, and vote with a party, that should
never be his course of conduct. On a question like this, on
which the peace, happiness, and stability of the empire de-
pended—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. O'Connell)—he would
act on the dictates of his own independent judgment.—( Hear,
hear.) He appealed to those Gentlemen opposite who agreed
with him in wishing this question to be settled on a fair basis
for ail parties, and he entreated them to ask themselves, whe-
ther this Bill did not hold out a prospect of arriving at such a
settlement ? ' was not their duty to sup-
mar lot propose Utopian views
own opinion.
the nature of popular assemblies, no great object could be
car-
ried out without the co-operation of many minds; which could
only be obtained by sacrifices of one's own opinion to that of
others upon minor points. He knew that was the case, and
he had always acted on that conviction. Bat there were cases
of too deep an importance to allow that rule to be acted upon.
That co-operation and that sacrifice of opinion of which he
spoke were always understood, with air§ reservation, that they
can only be required on questions not of vital and paranrunt
importance.—( Hear, hear.) On all questions, when great
interests of the country were at stake, every man should act on
hii own independent judgment ; and he asked, was not such
the case of the present Bill ?—( Hear, hear.) Let any man
look to the present state of Ireland—( Hear, hear)--and say
was it consistent with the safety cf the empire—.(Cheers)—that
this question should be any longer left the subject of a3itation
and of angry and acrimonious discussion ?—( Cheers.) If
they looked not only to Ireland, but to Foreign affairs, would
any man say that the importance of this question was not
greatly increased by the aspect which they bore ?—(Hear, hear. )
Was not the temper of men's minds in other countries such as
lo lead to doubts of the permanence of that peace,
which had already lasted longer than any other, per-
haps, which this country had ever enjoyed ?—( Cries of
" Hear, hear.") He feared that its length added to the
danger; for he believed that a generation was arising, by
which the miseries of war were to a great extent unknown and
f irgotten, and that the animosities which in• former times de-
solated the world with war and bloodshed might again lead to
similar results. If they looked to the state of the country at
home and abroad, could they reconcile themselves to re.. and
this question as one of minor importance, and one on which
they could vote for party purposes ?—( Cheers.) For himself,
he gave his vote under a sense of the highest responsibility,
but without the slightest hesitation, that it was his duty to
support the Bill.
Dr. LE FR OY said, that if the Bill were calculated to put
an end to doubt and uncertainty, it should have his most cor-
dial support. But it would do no such thing ; and its honest
title ought to be, " A Bill to abolish all the honest country
voters e-tablished by the Reform Bill." It wa such a mea-
sure as they ought to take the first opportunity of putting. out
of the House. If the Parliamentary qualification were reduced
to 51. the municipal qualification could not be maintained at
IN. and the question of corporations would be agitated anew.
The main provision of the Bill was one which had never
been heard of in the House, except from the Hon. Member
for Kilkenny and those who acted with him ; and it was
melancholy to find the Government going so far with that
party. The fact was, that the qualification under the proposed
law would be less than that of the 40s. freeholders, for those
were required at least to have some profit in their holdings.
In England a 101. tenantcy was the qualification which entitled
a pauper to parish relief, while in Ireland a 51. tenement.was
to entitle its possessor to a vote for the county —(Hear, hear.)
He found that, before the passing of the Reform Act, the voter,
in Ireland amounted to 70,408, while they were now raised to
the number of 154,687, showing an increase of more than two to
one. There was, therefore, no grounds for saying that the
constituencies of Ireland had been so diminished by the pre-
sent system al to render it necessary to have recourse to the
de perate expedient then proposed for the purpose of keeping
it up to a reasonable proportion. Previous to the Reform Act,
the Liberal party in Ireland returned 63 Members to Parlia-
ment, and the party opposed to them returned 33;_ while the
Liberal party now returned 75, and their opponents 35. That
was another reason for inducing him to think that the power
of the party opposite had not of late years been unduly Aid:
nished. It wee a serious objection to the measure that i'
would tend to the subdivision of property, and the general im
poverishment of the country. The Hon. 'and Learned Mem

her for Dublin himself had expressed that opinion on aneirami-
nation before a Committee of the House. The Hon. and
Learned Member on that occasion recommended the establish-
ment of a 101. constituency, stating that such a measure would
tend to raise the condition of the Irish farmers, and to give the
country, what it so much wanted, a substantial yeomanry.
' The measure would tend to corruption of the cons ituency
I itself, by creating a pauper constituency. The measure was
not only an infringement of the Reform Act, but a breach of
the compact entered into in 1629. The Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin had been a party to that compact, as was
proved by his evidence, which he had before quoted, and ,o
lately as the month of February, 1539, had admitted that a
measure for the abolition of the 101. franchise would be a vio-
lation both of the Reform Act and of the Catholic Emancipa-
tion Act, and yet he was now advocating such a measure.
Should this measure be carried the constituency of Ireland
would be so thrown into the hands of the Repealers as to
make it exceedingly difficult for the House to resist such a
measure. He would therefore conclude by giving his hearty
concurrence to the amendment of the Noble Lord that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. PIGOT said that as the discussion had proceeded it
appeared to him that it had been gradually narrowed to what
appeared to him the essential part of the project of legislation
which had been submitted to the attention of the Home. That
question was whether the franchise in Ireland ought to be con-
tinued on the basis on which it rested at present—and to
the consideration of that question all the topics which had been
Urged in the litter part of the debate seemed to converge.
The main question for consideration was this, whether they
should retain that props rty qualification, leaving the test of
value what it was at present in law. He would ask the House
to consider what was the present state of things with rtferenee
to the test of value in relation to the franchise. He was now
speaking peculiarly with reference to the county frinchi.e, and
on that ques'ion they had not only to combat wi h the difficul-
ties which must always arise when a question of value at as .to
be discussed, but there was this additional difficulty, that they
had to contend with a contested question of law. Some differ-
ences might arise even with respect to a question of fact, but
with respect to a question of value there must necessarily be
subjects of difference. The elements of qualification were
three—the title, the occupation, and the value of the tenement.
All these questions had to be discussed merely as a question of
fact, with the exception of the element of value. The ques-
tion of title was proved by a production of the lease, the
question of occupation was also a matter of fact, and ad-
mitted of clear proof, but when they came to the considera-
tion of %eke, that was decidedly not a question of fact but a
question of opinion—(Cheers)—and on all matters of opinion
the evidence would always be so conflicting as to lead on the
consideration of the subject to the greatest perplexity. They 1
knew that on questions relating to matters of fact, to what .

?—and if so, whether it
Hear hear.) He did t
n. No. From the f 37