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

contended for the adoption of such a test.--( Hear, hear.) The.
Noble Lord was in favour of a beneficial interest, but not a
good and solvent tenant test. That was what the Reform Act
bad done, and they were bound to take that Act according to
the intention of its framers. He called upon Parliament to
give its sanction to a distinct and intelligible measure for the
purpose of settling the franchise upon a sure and solid footing.
He called upon them not to look upon this question under the
influence of party feelings or political excitement.—( Hear. )
He called upon those who desired the future peace and tran-
quillity of Ireland, who desired to see it progress in that rapid
career of improvement which was now unquestionably
developing so much of the resources of Ireland, who wished to
extend to that country the blessings which distinguished this
country, to come to the consideration of this question with
unprejudiced minds, and for that purpose to go into Commit-
.the on this Bill.—( Cheers. )
Sir W. FOLLETT said he quite agreed with the Hon.
Gentleman, that the details of this measure would be best
dealt with when discussed in Committee. It was upon the prin-
' ciple involved in these clauses respecting the elective franchise,
that the question now arose, and he could not avoid express-
ing his surprise that the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman,
the Attorney-General for Ireland, under whose auspices this
Bill was mainly introduced into Parliament, should have con-
cluded his speech without addressing a single word to the
House upon the great and sweeping change which these clauses
introduced in the elective franchise of Ireland. He could
not but suppose that the Right Hon. Gentleman was quite
aware of the full scope of this Bill; and yet the Right Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had treated it as if the whole principle
which they were discussing was the application of a par-
ticular test. Did the Hon. Gentleman suppose that Hon.
Members on that side of the House were opposed to the ap-
plication of a test? We (Sir Wm. Follett) perfectly agreed
with the Hon. Member for the county of Northumberland that
some test arising from the relief of the poor, or some other
public burthen, should be applied, and that they should not
rest solely on the oath of the claimant ; and he was surprised
that it should be supposed that any opposition would
be offered to the application of a proper test. But then, under
the pretence of applying the Poor-rate as a test of value,
there was an attempt to sweep away the existing
franchise in Ireland. Acting entirely contrary to the princi-
ple laid down by the Reform Bill, it was thought to substitute
another constituency, based upon a different principle and
upon a different qualification.--( Hear, hear.) It was a violent
interference with the very principle of the Reform Bill. Be-
fore he proceeded to speak of the general principles of the
measure, the House would allow him to say one word upon
the difficulties which it was supposed to meet. He perfectly
agreed with the Right Honourable Gentleman that the scenes
now existing in Ireland were a scandal and reproach, and no one
could more regret that state of things. But he was not prepared
to admit that the blame of those scenes was to be attributed
to some deficiency in the Reform Act. As an English gentle-
man and an English lawyer, he could not understand the
doubt or the difficulty. The elective franchise in Ireland was
given in precisely the same terms as in England ; the two
great classes of voters, the freeholder, and the 101. occupier,
were the same. With respect to the term " beneficial inte-
rest," he was satisfied that no English lawyer could rise in his
place, and say that the introduction of those words created the
slightest doubt.—( Hear, hear.) They had heard of discord-
ant decisions. He (Sir W. Follett) never heard of a Revising
Barrister in any part of England entertaining the slightest
doubt as to the meaning of those words ; that part of the Re-
form Bill had in this country been carried into effect without
doubt and without difficulty. —( Hear, hear.) Now, what
had occurred in Ireland? l'he Right Hon. Gentleman said
that the Barristers gave a large and liberal construction to the
words. Did he know how far those Barristers went—not as
regards freeholds, not as regards leaseholds, but as regards oc-
cupiers of 101. tenements ? It had been proved, before Com-
mittees of the • House of Commons, that in some
cases the occupier of a cellar had been admitted on account of
his trade, or something else, which was called a beneficial inte-
rest, to be placed upon the register.—( Hear, hear.) They took
the same fanciful mode with regard to the freeholds. It
doubts and difficulties existed, there was an easy mode of set-
tling them. 'There was an appeal to the Judges; and he
could conceive no course more proper than to assemble the
Judg• s of Ireland, that the matter might be properly di-cussed,
and when that tribunal had made its decision, he could not
conceive how any further doubts could exist. But what had
actually occurred? Why, ten of the Judges of Ireland had
given the construction to the Act which had been put upon it
in England. There were two dissentient Judges, and they
had advised the Barristers to act upon their own authority. He
hoped that the House would not suppose that he meant to impute
improper motives to those Learned Judges. He believed that
there was no Member of the English bar, who had obtained a
seat on the bench, who once allowed himself to be influenced
by political feelings; he believed the same of the Iri,h bar ;
but, for this reason, he the more deeply regretted the course
which the Learned Judges in question had pursued. It was
said that the opinion of the majority was not binding. lie
admitted that it was not, but he would ask what man's life or
fortune would be safe if the Judges of England were to choose
to act upon their individual opinion instead of yielding their
opinion to the Cogrts of Appeal. The Judges invariably
yielded to the majority. They knew that even the Govern-
ment acted upon the opinions of the majority of the Judges.
They had, in a recent case of high treason, carried
into effect the decision of the majority of the Judges,
He could not help thinking that it would have been much bet-
ter for the two Judges to have conformed to that of teeir ten
brethren. He would have said so in any case of a non-politi-
cal nature—how much more so, then, in a case relating to the
franchise.—(Cheers.) He called upon the Right Hon. the
Attorney-General fur Ireland to look again at, and compare
the provisions of the 10th George IV., with these contained in
the Reform contended they were identically the same.
Well, they introduced a Bill into the House, but not containing
the same provisions as the Bill is hich had formerly been intro-
duced by the Right Hon. Gentleman. It was quite clear that
if that Fill had passed the only elect of it would have been to
increase the evils now existing in Ireland ten-fold. Had it
passed the same. difficulties would have existed now. But what
was the Bill of the Noble Lord ? Why was it rendered neces-
sary under a pretence of removing doubts and difficulties? re
they going to introduce such a clause as the Si. rating one ?
(Cheers.) He could not characterise that as fair—he had al-
most said not honest. The efeet of the clause would be not
only to destroy the franchise introduced by the Reform Bill, but
it would introduce quite a new one. Under that Bill the 10!.
freeholders, lea-eholders, would have a beneficial interest
fair certain terms of 60, 20, and 14 years, the beneficial interest
varying from 101. to 20/, according to the time of the lease.
The franchise was also given to copyholders ; he believed none
of that class existed in Ireland. That was the franchise, as
settled l,y the Reform Bill ; but what was the principle of it ?
Was it not that the right of voting in counties shpuld be based
upon property.—( Loud cheers.) And that in burghs the right
of voting should be founded on occupation. The Noble Lord
the Secretary for the Colonies objected strenuously to the in-
sertion of the 50/. clause to the Reform Bill, upon the very
ground that it was an interference with the right of voting in
counties, which was distinctly based upon property, and not on
occupation.—( Cheers. ) What then did the Government
propose to ilo by this Act ? In effect they would
take awarthe necessity for any property whatever being pos-
sessed by a county voter.—(Cheers.) He repeated it, that no
-party would be bound under this Act to have any property
whatever, to entitle him to vote under this Act. He was re-
quired to be an occupier for 14 years of a tenement rated to
the poor at 5/.—( Cheers.) Was not that a complete altera-
tion of the principle of the Reform Bill ? The effect of it would
be, that every occupier of any cottage, stable, tenement, or
hovel in Ireland, paying - even more than the full value of the
cottage, garden, or other possession, if he held it for 14 years,
at a rack rent under any and every restriction by his landlord
still he would be entitled to vote for any county in that country.
Was not this, he would ask, almost admitting the principle
of Universal Suffrage in the counties of Ireland?—( Cheers. )
The lion. Member for Kilkenny had said that he expected
soon to see the principle of the Bill applied to England; and
supposing that the House were now to agree to the Bill then
before them, how were they to refuse such a demand upon the
part of the people of England, supposing it to be made ; and if
.t were agreed to, let them sweep away all Revising Barristers
and Courts of Appeal, because there would be no property
qualification to inquire into. He contended it was not only an
alteration of the principle contained in the Reform Bill, but it
was a direct violation of the conditions which accompanied the
Catholic Relief Bill of 1839—(Cheers)—which required the
franchise to be lodged in the hands of the 10/. freeholders of
Ireland. The Noble Lord cheered him, but did he not
only last session strenuously oppose the second reading of the
Bill, on the ground that it would interfere with the settlement
made by that Bill. It was true they did not intend to restore
the 40s. freeholders, but they were about to establish a much
worse franchise. The great objection made to that class of
voters was that the system led to a division and sub-division of
tr e land to a degree which was most destructive to the welfare
of the population, and detrimental to the landlords. Many
serious attempts had been made to counteract the evils of that
system, but the Bill under consideration would bring them all
back in their full malignity. They would again have the land-
lords dividing and sub-dividing their lands into 5!.
holdings for fourteen years.—(Hear, and cheers.) The
Bill provided no check upon the landlord whatever ;
he would grant a 14-year lease, but he could require any rent
he pleased; he could put his tenant under any restrictions he
thought proper ; yet under the provisions of the Bill he would
be enabled by that Bill to enforce that rent, and enforce those
restrictions which he could not do when he made 40s. free-
holders ; it was putting an immense power into the hands of
landlords who were of an exacting nature ; as long as the te-
nant voted as he desired, he might retain his lease, but the
moment that he thought proper to vote in opposition to him,
that moment he could be removed. These were the consti-
tuencies which the Noble Lord proposed to introduce into
Ireland, by means of a Bill which only, professes to clear up
doubts and remove difficulties.—(Loud cheers.) But
where were they to rest ? how resist a demand of the same
nature if Riede by the people of England ?—(Cheers. ) They
could not look at what was now taking place out of doors with-
out seeing that there was a large party in the coun-
try who hailed this Bill as the first step to House-
hold if not to Universal Suffrage.—(Cheers.) The Noble
Secretary for Ireland as well as the .Attorney-General for that
eouotry stated that the information upon which they called
upon the House to legislate was both meagre and unsatisfac-
tory. In his opinion it was much worse. It was founded
upon aldirect violation of the directions of an Act of Parliament.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman here read a section of the
Poor-law Act for Ireland, and in contradistinction a passage
f
prin-
ciple orderto
show
from the clause contained in the Act. He would ask was
thevaluationsw takeniinpn founded,
aded , in
different
there no mode of compelling obedience to an Act of Parlia-
ment in Ireland!?—( Cheers.) Were there no Courts in Ire-
landthatßeportupontheproceed Billwas
? These Gentlemen state that the parties who had rated
under the Poor-law have done so most imperfectly and im_
properly, and in direct violation of the terms of the Act ; and
yet the Noble Lord came down and called upon the House to
legislate upon that which even the Assistant Commissioner
stated was altogether wrong and illegal. He objected to the
principle of the Bill because neither the Noble Lord nor the
Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had shown the slightest
reason why its provisions should be extended to luisssholders in
towns, .ast Session he had fixed the municipal franchise at
to be
Members of Parliament whom he proposed reduced to a
an-
-10/. upon a rating to the poor-rate ;he had now voters for
rating of only 51.; nor had any reason been shown why the fr
chise should be reduced to Si. in Ireland and retained at 101
and lie would ask the House whether he had not redeemed the
pledge he gave--(Cheers)—when he said that he would show
in Scotland and England. Such was the Bill of the Noble Lord,
that neither the Attorney-General nor the Noble Secretary
had at all alluded to the material part of the Bill, which would
alter the provisions of the Reform Bill, and be guided by the
prix ciple of the Bill of 1829.—(Loud cheers.) He wouldoeupti
peal to Gentlemen sitting on both sides of th House—he would
appeal
opposed wild and visionary
whe-
ther when they had so frequently
f .t. f th
schemes which had been the production o a sec ion o e
—(Loud cheerine
appeal more particulsrly to her Majesty's Government,
supporters of her Majesty's Government e)
introduced ? He would
he asked if they were prepared to
objec-
tionable than any that had ever been intro
motives venture to hope that whatever might be the and
suppm t a Bill more
ob-
jects of the Government in introducing the present Bill, that
a majority of the House that night would show them and the
th
e Re-
form aside Re-
form Bill for the three
and allow new claimants
countries,
country that they would not attempt. under the guise of a Bill
for amending the registration in Ireland, to set
in the constituencies of the empire, which must be attended
if not to the Constitution itself.—(Loud cheering .for some
with danger to all the es'ablished institutions of .the country,

minutes.)
Mr. Al A C A TM A Y-- ir, if this were a legal question
purely, I should think i
it most presumptuous n me to inter-