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

PRICI 1: sd.

neighbourhood to the port of 2 roheda, w bet see they
_g f
the vs Ist and
in ti :c year
had opened up to them the whole e
.)
portant markets of Lancashire.—(He.. ')00 a0..711 1831
1821, the population of Meath was 159,
ter re to
it amounted to 176,000, and supposing th.
oam
. take the increase up to 1841 in the same ratio .tt
9 Bill
give a population of 193,000. Under the Refot'er .
the constituency was 1,536 ;in January, 1841 I K t
no more than I,263.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Lt
them bear in mind, that in that period there lead beet
a vast increase in the prosperity of the county, let the
falling off in the constituency during the eight years
was no leas thee one-sixth--this was a :serious
. state of things, and was deserving of the hest
consideration of the House. The House was hoot
then in possession of data, so that they • ig j
take his word for the fact ; but Returns wotild soon I
be laid on the table of the House, which ?ice :much
doubted would show that the constitttr.ncy- was
not now so great as it was before the Refer= Bill.
It bad been complained that the people wee com-
pelled to vote against their landlords. Th ea fact
was that they frequently did vote against them. . If in
Ireland political circumstances only were discus: ied upon
occasions of election, that general opposition of the
people to their landlords might excite some Surprize.
But, unfortunately, in that country those c nestions
alway took a religious turn.—(Hear.) Inc. ilculable
mischief was caused in Ireland by the language • used in
that House.—( Hear, hear.) Conservative Ge ealemen
in Ireland condemned that language ; but yet s here it
was made a trade to vilify the Catholic religion
and clergy.—( Hear, hear.) Was it wonderfs al, then,
that the people should say at the time of election
that men were put forward as the enemic ss of the
clergy and religion, and was it wend !rail that
the Catholic tenantry should feel therm 'elves, to
a man, bound by their allegiance to t heir reli-
gion to oppose such candidates ?—(Cries of " Hear,
hear.) Much mischief had also be, sr a done
by the virulent language indulged in by tbe Con•
, servativss press of Erssland.—(Hear, hear All
I the violent articles published in this country
were inserted in the Irish Liberal paper s, and
the minds of the people become still more intla ased and
exasperated against their landlords, whom the y identi-
fied with the party which was so inimical to their
religion.—(Hear, hear.) He did not go the 1 ength of
expecting that the Bill now under consideratir m would
settle the question of the franchise, but it s could do
one thing—it would attempt to define it.— -( Hear.)
He would not now stop to dispute the questh of law.
It was sufficient for his purpose to state that d!onht ex-
isted—(Hear, hear)—and that House ws is bound
in duty to come forward and settle the do übt by
defining the franchise. If it was to be dsefii sed by
the solvent tenant test, let it be so ; and is tl tc mode
of ascertaining the franchise by the beneficial in.
tersest was wrong let them find out anode ...as test,
but let them not leave the matter in doubt—if they did
so, at their doors must lie the charge of fraud and per-
jury which the unfortunate people were subject to, and
which they weresactually led into by the state sf doubt
in which the matter rested. This much was els sar, that
whether there was to be a change in the value of the
franchise or not, some change must be made. It ' ens quite
certain that the Reform Ministry in the yy;ar 1832
determined that the franchise was not to be a Acertaiced
by the solvent tenant test. A motion was mashe when the
Irish Reform Bill was introduced to that effect, but it
was rejected, and he reminded the Hous e that when the
Irish Reform Bill was before the H °use 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, test
was a 20/. qualification ? Yes, each of these Noble
Lords had said so. Did not Lord Roden divide
the House of Lords on the motion for reinstating the
original freehold qualification of the year 1829,
and yeas not that motion lost? The m n is-
tration of justice was brought into c,antempt
in !vela ad, 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 alone so much to reconcile the people of
Ireland to the administration of justice, after having
given thorn confidence, tbat House !was now losing
ground. 'rho character of their Lordships was at stake,
and he called upon every well-wisher of Ireland
to lea his aid to stop the course of such a state of
things, and to remove all doubt from what ought to be
the test of the franchise. One of the objections of the
Noble Ihq,rd to the Bill was, be said, against the bringing
of the Pepr-law into 'Operation as regarded. the
definition of the franchise.—('Hear, hear.) He
(Sir William Somerville) del not see that
the efarect which the Noble Lord anticipated
would arise from that arrangement. There was
something against which the Noble Lord dirt not
object, acid which was worse in iss tendency than
that, and that was the making registration oflicers
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 raw 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 Bill. He (Sir W. Somerville) had, both
in that IHouse 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 Bill, 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
led him to change his opinions with regard to the incal-
culable mischief which would result from his Bill.—
He solemnly protested 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 sec.
The Noble Lord had stated as much, and he (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 or the
most influential Conservative organs in this country.
What did he find in a recent number of the Standard
newspaper ?—" The Irish registries are 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 :829,
the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for
Tamworth had brought forward a measure for
the disfranchisement of the 40a. 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.) lie (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 time Irish constituencies ; and he hoped
that
the Noble Lord opposite, before he pressed that
They
the Bill,
would give it again his serious consideration.
had heard a good deal of the courage of. Noble
ofhe "
had the
Lord, but courage was sometimes better evinced by
moderationconjuretha than i n
trmgegriatesosib°lne.—L(od i
aggression.—(Cries
welfare of the country at heart, as he was sure he
had, to pause before he pressed a Bill which was
he ethat
was aware
opposed to the wishes of the entire Irish nation. lie
said the entire Irish nation, although
Ireland petitions had been presented from Belfast and other
parts of in favour of the measure. He Was
aware, too, that petitions of a similar 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.
Tho 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 pecple be-
cause they would not vote at the beck of their landlord.