The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-25 00:00:00

chise.

That would still bo in operation if the 8.11

passed into a law, and they w ould find at last that
the constituencies would have so dwindled that the

Legislature of this country would be compelled to adopt
some plan to prevent the representation from
being entirely on one side.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
He was very sorry to detain the House by entering
into details, but he trusted the great importance of the
subject would excuse him for putting the House in
possession of the former a•ad the present state of the
constituency of the county of Meath. It was to be borne
in mind that that county had the advantage of a near
neighbourhood to the port of Drogheda, whence they
had opened up to them the whole of the vast and im-
portant markets of Lancashire.—(Hear.) In the year
1821, the population of Meath was 159,000—in 1831
it amounted to 176,000, and supposing they were to
take the increase up to 1841 in the same ratio it would
give a population of 193,000. Under the Reform Bill
the constituency was 1,536 ; in January, 1841 it was
no more than I,263.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Lft
them bear in mind, that in that period there bad ben
a vast increase in the prosperity of the county, yet the
falling off in the constituency during the eight years
was no less than one-sixth—this was a _ serious

state of things, and was deserving of the best
consideration of the House. The House was not

then in possession of data, so that they might
take his word for the fact ; but Returns would soon

be laid on the table of the House, which ho much

doubted would show that the constituency was

not now so great as it was before the Reform Bill.
It had been complained that the people were com-
pelled to vote against their landlords. The fact
was that they frequently did vote against them. If in
Ireland political circumstances only were discussed upon

occasions of election, that general opposition of the
people to their landlords might excite some surprise.
But, unfortunately, in that country those questions
alway took a religious turn.—(Hear.) Incalculable
mischief was caused in Ireland by the language used in
that House.—(Hear, hear.) Conservative Gentlemen
in Ireland condemned that language ; but yet here it
was made a trade to vilify the Catholic religion
and clergy.—( Hear, hear.) Was it wonderful, then,
that the people should say at the time of election
that men were put forward as the enemies of the
clergy and religion, and was it wonderful that
the Catholic tenantry should feel themselves, to
a man, bound by their allegiance to their rc'i
gion to oppose such candidate?—(Cries of " Hear,
hear.) Much mischief had also been done
by the virulent language indulged in by the Con•
servative press of England.—( Hear, hear.) All

the violent articles published in this country
we e inserte I in the Irish Liberal papers, and
the minds of the people become still more inflamed and
exasperated against their landlords, whom they identi-
fitd with the party which was so inimical to their
religion.—(Hear, hear.) He did not go the length of
expecting that the Bill now under consideration would
Fettle the question of the franchise, but it would do
one thing—it would attempt to define it.—( Hear.)
He would not now stop to dispute the question of law.
It was sufficient for his purpose to state that doubt ex-
isted—(Hear, hear)—and that House was bound
in duty to come forward and settle the doubt by
defining the franchise. If it was to be defined by
the solvent tenant test, let it be so ; and if the mode
of ascertaining the franchise by the beneficial in-
terest was wrong let them find out another test,
but let them not leave the matter in doubt—if they did
I so, at their doors must lie the charge of fraud and per-
jury which the unfortunate people were subject to, and
which they were actually led into by the state of doubt
in which the matter rested. This much was clear, that
whether there was to be a change in the value of the
franchise or not, some change must be made. It was quite
certain that the Reform Mtnistry in the year 1832
determined that the franchise was not to be ascertained
by the solvent tenant test. A motion was made when the
Irish Reform Bill was introduced to that effect, but it
was rejected, and he reminded the House that when the
Irish Reform Bill was before the House of Lords,
Lord Ellenborough stated upon that point that they
had introduced into the Bill a leasehold qualification,
which is less than the freehold one as settled in 1829.
Did not the Duke of Richmond say that the solvent
tenant test was in effect a 20/. qualification? Did not

Lord Lansdowne say that the solvent tenant to
was a 20/. qualification ? Yea, e ach of these Noble
Lords had said s). Did not Lord Roden divide
the House of Lords on the motion for reinstating the
original freehold qualification of the year 1829,
and was not that motion lost ? The adminis-
tration of justice was, brought into contempt
in Ireland, and the character of the Judges was daily
lowered by. the differences of opinion entertained
by them on the question of the franchise. After
having done so much to reconcile the people of
Ireland to the administration of justice, after having
given them confidence, that House Iwas now lasing
ground. The character of their Lordships was at stake,
and he called upon every well-wisher of Ireland
to lend his aid to stop the course of such a state of
things, and to remove all doubt from what ought to he
the t .!st of the franchise. ()cc of the objections of the
Noble Lord to the Bill was, he said, against the bringing
of the Poor-law into operation as regarded the
definition of the franchise.--(Hear, hear.) He
(Sir William Somerville) did not see that
the effect which the Noble Lord anticipated
would arise from that arrangement. There was
something against which the Noble Lord did not
object, and which was worse in i's tendency than
that, and that was the making registration officers
of the Judges.—(Ministerial cheering.) He (Sir
W. Somerville) was satisfied that no well-wisher of Ire-
land would do anything else than seek to remove any
imputation being attached to the Judges. If the Noble
Lord SAW that it was better to give the English Par-
liamentary franchise to the people of Ireland, why did
he not give the same Municipal Reform Bill to that
people ? (Loud cheers.) Was it worth while
to withhold that small boon from the people of Ire-
land, and thereby create great dissatisfaction in that
country ? The bestowal of the boon involved a risk.
Why then was it not extended to the people of Ireland ?
The Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had stated that ex-
aggerated statements had been made with respect to
his Bal. He (Sir W. Somerville) had, both
in that 'House and in other places, given every
opposition in his power to it. Perhaps he had
taken an exaggerated view of the mischiefs that would
result from the 811, and if he had opposed it on
any occasion in what seemed an unfair manner,
he hoped the Noble Lord would accept his apology.
He should be very sorry to offer an unfair oppo-
sition to any measure (Hear, hear) but he
could assure the Noble Lord that all the
information which he had been able to procure had not
lad him to change his opinions with regard to the ince'•
callable mischief which would result from his Bill.—
He solemnly protected it to be his opinion that if that
Bill passed there would not be twenty Liberal Mem-
bers returned for Ireland. He was sure that was a
state of things the. Noble Lord would not wish to see.
The Noble Lord had stated as much, and be (Sir W.
Somerville) was bound to give every credit to that
statement, but he might be allowed to judge of the effect
of his measure. He (Sir W. S.) was not singular
in this opinion. It was also the opinion of one of the
most influential Conservative organs in this country.
What did he find in a recent number of the Standard
newspaper 2—" The Irish registries arc improving though
not rapidly, and Lord Stanley's Bill would purify them
altogether, and give the Conservatives at least 80 out of
the 105 Members. This was certainly purifying them
with a vengeance. His opinion was that the Standard
newspaper was below the mark.—( Hear, hear.) And
how would the Bill do this ? A double appeal was quite
enough to disfranchise anybody ; but what he objected
to.was that the freeholders would never reach the Ap-
peal Courts, some part of the counties being to his
knowledge 30 miles from the assize town.—(Hear.)
Could it be expected he would go there ? Could it
be expected that a poor man would travel
thirty miles to appear before a Court of
Appeal, for the purpose of establishing his claim to
the franchise? He (Sir W. Somerville) believed that
he would not. He recollected that when, in 1829,
the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for
Tamworth had brought forward a measure for
the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders, and giving
the appeal one way, the late Lord Farnham, a man
who knew the Irish people as well as any Member of
the House, said that as regarded the poor freeholder the
appeal to the Judge would be only nominal, on account
of the expense that would attend it. It would cost
him, he said, at least a half year's rent.—(Hear,
hear.) He (Sir W. Somerville) would put it to the
House whether it would be fair to compel the free-
holder to go 30 miles to substantiate his claim. after it
had before been sifted in the Registration Court, with
an ingenuity of which many Members of that House
could have no idea? It was his opinion that a provision
of such a nature would have the effect of totally dis-
franchising the Irish constituencies ; and he hoped that
the Noble Lord opposite, before he pressed that Bill,
would give it again his serious consideration. They
had heard a good deal of the courage of the Noble
Lord, but courage was sometimes better evinced by
moderation than in aggression.—(Cries of " Hear.")
He would conjure the Noble Lord if ho had the
welfare of the country at heart, as he was sure ha
had, to pause before he pressed a Bill which was
opposed to the wishes of the entire Irish nation. He
said the entire Irish nation, although he was aware that
petitions had been presented from Belfast and other
parts of Ireland in favour of the measure. He was
aware, too, that petitions of a similtr nature had been
presented from Liverpool and other parts of Eng-
land ; but he was afraid that if the Bill had not
a tendency to restrict the liberties of Ireland,
they would never have heard of those petitions.
The Noble Lord had stated that his Bill would admit
the independent body of electors. At the passing of the
Reform Bill the Noble Lord stated that the forty shilling
freeholders were disfranchised because they voted at the
beck of the landlord ; but now the Noble Lord stated
that he refused the franchise to a number of people be-
cause they would not vote at the beck of their landlord.