The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-30 00:00:00

R. H. Inglis, Lord Viscount Lowther, Mr. Pendarves, Mr.
Clay, Col. T. Wood, Mr. G. Palmer, Mr. R. Steuart,
Mr. Barnard, Sir De Lacy Evans, Mr. Wakley, Sir B.
Hall, Mr. Planta, Mr. Keml,le, Mr. Al lerman Humphery,
and Mr. Hawes.—Ap.:reed to.
SEWERS BILL.

Mr. BETHELL moved that the following Gentlemen
be appointed the Select Committee on Sewers Bill :
Mr. Bethell, Lord Worsley, Mr. Law Hodges, Mr.
Christopher, Mr. Bramston, Mr. Ayshfcrd Sandford,
Mr. Rice, Mr. Freshfield, Mr. Darby, Mr. Sothrron, Mr.
Charles Octavius Morgan, Mr. Grantley Berkeley :—Five
to be the quorum.—Agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Lord MORPETH, the House then
resolved itself into Committee on this Bill.

On the motion that the second clause, as amended, stand
part of the Bill,
Lord MORPETH rose and said—Often and frequent
as this subject had been discussed, and often as its many de.
tails had been brought under consideration, he yet felt
that in the present critical position of this subject, after
the determined, and, indeed, mortal opposition that had
been announced—( Hear, hear)—mortal so fir as inten-
tion was concerned—to the present clause, to that clause
which he had ever admitted to be the vital prin-
ciple of the measure, that he was warranted in
endeavouring, though he should net think it neces-
sary to do so at any great length, to ask the House
to take that measure into their serious consideration.
What he conceived the House to have decided by the
assent it had given to the second reading of the Bill,
not by any overwhelming weight of numbers certainly
—(laughter)—but still by a distinct vote, after a
most full and minute discussion, was that the
right to the elective franchise in Ireland should
be ascertained and tested by reference to a fixed amount of
payments, as in the instance before the House, in accord-
ance with the valuations made under the Poor-law Bill, for
that country. In the early part of that discussion
some attempts were made to impugn the trust-
worthiness of those valuations, but the more
taey had been examined into—the more they were
brought to light the more reason there seemed to admit
their general faithfulness, the more they were shown to be
in conformity of construction one with another. He did
not for a moment mean to say that all of them were
in strict accordance with the provisions of the
poor relief Act ; indeed, all of them seemed to have been
pitched at a lower standard than the Act required, but it
had been said by Mr. Nichols, the Poor-law Commissioner
in Ireland, that when they had experience of the
working of the Poor-law system in that country,
the more those valuations would be in accordance
with each other, and with the valuations made under the
Poor-law Act for this country. The observations of Mr.
Nichols were very strong. The Noble Lord then read a
quotation from the Report of Mr. Nichols to that effect.
Upon that point he must remind the House, and es-
pecially he must remind the great party opposite,
of whom the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member
for Tamworth, and the Noble Lord, the Member
for Noi th Lancashire, were the Leaders, that
although doubts about the propriety of applying the
test of the Poor-law valuation were expressed in the
course of discussion on the Bill, yet no such doubts or
hesitation existed, when it was insisted not only
before the conclusion, but even before the commence-
ment of the valuation, that they should be applied to
test the municipal franchise in cities and boroughs in Ire-
land.—( Hear, hear.) There must have been a very
shrewd suspicion indeed that the tendency of that valua-
tion, or any valuation fur the purpose of assessment, must
have been below the real or average valuation, yet these mis-
givings had no weight in deterring the party from adopting ie
as the basis of the municipal franchise, when the object
would be to raise and restrict the franchise, and it was
only now that it was considered mischievous, when the re-
sult would be to simplify an important privilege. He would
have supposed that the contrary course would have been
the most just and generous—that there would have been
more doubt when the effect was restriction, and less than
when the object was simplification and enlargement.
But, apart from mere recrimination, what he wanted to put
to the honest and unbiassed mind of every man
in that House, and the country was that, looking to
those valuations, wore they not in their very nature
as presenting a certain amount of payment and adapt-
ing a uniformity of system and principle, being ascer-
tained for a purpose entirely distinct from the Pranchise, and
supplying in themselves a check el the contrary direction.
to the desire of possessing the franchise ? Did they not in
all these respects, as well as in others, promise to give
them an incalculable uniformity, and a better mode of
ascertaining the franchise than existed at present? and
would they not be a great improvement on the present
system of registration in Ireland ?—( Hear, bear.) In
fact, he need not labour to prove that point, be-
cause it was not denied by any party that had addressed
the ilouse. Many of those who spoke expressed doubts
and difference of opinion as to the mode in which the test
should be applied, but none doubted that it would be a
great improvement to rest the franchise on some
fixed and settled basis, instead of leaving it as it
was at present, matter of opinion according to the
views and interests and oaths of adverse competing par-
ties.—( Hear, hear.) He would not again quote the
opinion of the lion. Member for Monaghan, who had a
virtuous horror of anything complimentary being said
to him from that side of the House, but be
could not resist ()lace more laying before the House,
although he did it before, when ho had not the satisfaction
of seeing the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-
worth, in his place—he could not help repeating to the
House what he bad stated on the subject, and
which completely bore out his views and objects.
The Hon. Member for Monaghan, in talking of the Irish
Munieioal Reform Bill, said he woulti not consent to any
test which was not a certain one. He would not consent
to any test which would cause a necessity for appoint-
ing a Committee to inquire into and ascertain how far
the carrying out of the Bill would depend on fictitious
voice. He would adopt no test which would involve
a mere principle of valuation. He thought that that must
be a bad principle which held out temptations to be guilty
of false oaths. Such a test was very unsatisfactort.
They ought to know what franchise was intended to be
given, and it was necessary to adopt such a test as would
extinguish fraud and perjury, and by which they
would se At the morality and prosperity of the
people.—( Hear, hear.) He conceived that considerable
a !vantage would be attained if they adopted a rating on
the Poor-law. Such were the opinions expressed by the
Hon. Member for Monaghan. In the course of the pre-
sent and last session of Parliament they heard a great deal
of the abuses which were alleged to attach to the
present system of registration in Ireland, and
distinct charges of fraud, personation, and perjury
were brought forward, as connected with that
system. He (Lord Morpeth) thought that the ardour of
complaint on those topics had been materially damped
since the Government brought forward a Bill which would
go so t ffectually to remove the evils complained of. If, how-
ever, the evils existed to so great an extent as bad been
alleged, petitions complaining of undue returns of Mem-
bers to this House would be presented, and Election Coin-
miAees would be appointed to try those petitions.
Now, from the passing of the Irish Reform Bill only two
Election Committees had heard and determined petitions
of that nature, and he ( Lord l\t.) believed that in no
one of those were the charges of fraud, persona-
tion, and perjury substantiated. ( Hear, hear.)
If he wanted a proof ( f the present system he might refer
to the recent proceedings in the Registration Court of the
Queen's County—( Hear, hear)--part of which they had
learned, and a good deal more of which they might have
been heard had they been able to he on the spot.
—( Hear, hear.) What he contended for was, and it was
a principle which had not been controverted by any one
in the course of the discussion, that it would in itself be
advisable to take the franchise out of the province of opi-
nion to which it was now confined, and to ascertai❑ it by
some fixed and independent standard of value. But then they
had to determine how the test was to be applied. They might
have an application, very good in theory, but they should
look for some practical measure. In what mode then was it to
be applied ? They might apply the test of rating above
rent—that was to say, the test of profit appearing on the
rate above rent and charges. That was the measure
which was brought under discussion the other evening by
the amendment of his Noble Friend the Member for
Northumberland ; but he flattered himself lie had demon-
strated—and if the proposition were disputed he would
again be ready to lay before the House irrefragahle
grounds for showing that such n test would not only effec-
tually disfranchise almost the whole existing constituency of
Ireland, but that it would go so far as to prevent the possibi-
lity of forming any future constituency. But if they had net
the profit of rate above rent they had another option, by
taking a cert sin amount of rating without reference to
profit or to a lease or tenure. He would not enter into
the discussion which occupied them last night, as
to whether it was expedient in any country, and
especially in a country situated like Ireland, to
di-pense altogether with the necessity for a lease of
some period or another; but the Honourable Member
for Halifax had stated yesterday, as he ( Lord Morpe.h)
had understood him, that the extent of the conjoint pro-
position which his Noble Friend the Member for
Northumberland had brought forward, would not
effectually disfranchise any of those parties on
whom his Bill would confer the franchise.
He now asked what was to become of all the present
voters between those registered at 81. and those at 201 ?
By the proposition of the Government, out of 1,794 voters
in ten unions of the Queen's county, in that class 138
would Le excluded.—( Hear, hear.) Now, of these
1,794 the franchise proposed by his Noble Friend
( Lord Howick) that as the excess of rating above rents
would not save one—(Cheers)—the additional franchise
of his Noble Friend, as proposed in another clause,
would save but three.—( Loud cheers.) The whole
result of the conjoint qnalifications of his Noble
Friend would be :to disfranchise 665 electors
in those ten unions, whereas the measure which he ( Lord
Morpeth) had introduced would disfranchise only 135.
It appeared to the Government to preserve the tenour of ,
the Reform Act, and to test that by the rating. The amount
of rating in the Bill as it now stood was 81 , and
the Government had been subjected to imputations, and
charges, and taunts, for departing from their first views,
and raising the rate from Si. to 8/. Now, although im-
putetions of change of mind seemed to bring down ridicule
in that House, yet the present Government, and all those
who took part in its politics, never hesitated to adapt their
measures to public expediency arid the views of Parliament.
The Right lion. Baronet opposite had seen tit to change
his opinion with respect to the Test and Corporation Acts,
whilst the Noble Lord, the member for Norzh Lancashire
had thought it advisable to change from a loan of fifteen
millions to the West India planters to a grant of twenty
millions. He found from the information laid before the
House with respect to the Cashel Union, that the beneficial
interest of a 5/. rating, using that term to denote the clear
annual profit actually accruing after paying all ex-
penses of rent, taxis and labour, was twelve pounds.
In Roscrea the beneficial interest of a rating of Si., after
deducting rent, taxes, and all expenses, was about 15/.
per annum. A rating of Si generally carried with it a be-
neficial interest of from 12/. to 20/. per annum. There
was nothing very prepostrous, therefore, in the ori-
ginal proposition of a 51. rating. At the tame