The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-27 00:00:00

Nor could he derive any consolation from the hope held
out that when the franchise was destroyed some Bill would
be: introduced to restore it, when they had changed the
character of the representation, and round that the people
nominally represented actually had no voice it it
In fact, it would be, according to the desei ip-
tion of his Noble Friend, a representation of tae
owners of the land from which the people were ex-
cluded.—(Cheers. ) He thought that if they wished the
people of Ireland to have a real representation, the time
to give it them was now. If, on the contrary, it was their
determination that the people of Ireland should not be re-
presented, he thought it would be better to take a clear
and direct means of effecting that object, and to declare
that they were not fit to he entrusted with the right of
voting for representatives. If that were the iiitention of
a great party in that Houie, let them take their stand upon
that ground, and declare that they intend to adhere to
that principle. From all that he (Lord J. Russell) had
heard that night, he could only gather that it was intended
to persist in that indirect and tortuous way of disfranchis-
ing Ireland—( Loud cheers from the Liberal benches)—
which he saw attempted last year—a way which would
not be the less effectual because it was indirect, which he
certainly should never cease to denounce and op-
pose ( Hear, hear) and he certainly did trust
that the people of Ireland would believe, it'
these attempts should unhappily make any progress,
that it was not because the people of England wished to
see them disfranchised, but that, on the contrary, the
people of England wished to see them honestly and fairly
represented—( Loud cheers from both sides of the House)
—and not defrauded of their rights—( Hear, hear)—and
by withdrawing from them those privilcgss which even
when they took away the right of voting from the forty_
shilling freeholders they granted in a manner that showed
considerable generosity and a great sense of the value of
the privilege of voting for Members of Parliament. "Do
not, do not imagine," said the Noble Lord, " that you
can without remark, that you can without exciting great
indignation, withdraw the privileges which in 1829 you
granted to the people of Ireland. My belief is, that by
acceding to the Bill of my Noble Friend and by the fran-
chise which he has proposed, you will act in the spirit of
the Bill of 1829 and in the spirit of the Bill of Retorra of
1832 ; and that if, on the contrary, you take an unwise
course it will not be long before you would wish that you
had not interfered to excite a spirit in the people of Ire-
land which will justify them in—(The remainder of the
sentence was lost amid loud and long-continued cheers
from the Ministerial side of the House.)
Sir R. PEEL rose and said—Sir, the Noble Lord has
on this occasion pursued the course which he almost uni-
formly pursues when he has some very defective measure
to defend (Load cheurs)—that of trying to divert
the attention of the House from the subject properly under
its consideration, and by some general declamation about
popular rights in some charges against his polit!cal oppo-
nents, to raise a cheer in the behalf of those who sit behind
him, under the cover of which cheer he himself retires
from the discussion, and fancies that he has been tris
umphantly successful.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
charges my Noble Frigid with an intention so to reduce
the constituency of Ireland that the counties of Ireland
may become nomination counties; and then the Noble
Lord says that my Noble Friend proposes an intention to
condescend to introduce a Reform Bill. The Noble Lord
charges us with an intention to defeat the expectations
which were encouraged by the Act for the Relief of the
Roman Cetholic;, and by the Reform Bill. I utterly re-
pudiate arty such intendun.—(Great cheering). Ido not
think there would he any advantage to any interest, to
any party, in defeating such an intention. My Noble
Friend distinctly stated, and 1 repeated, " If you will
prove to us by conclusive evidence, that the constituency
intended by the Reform Bill has been materially diminished,
we will then consider a proposal for increasing it, if
brought forward by those only who can suggest it with
advantage, namely, those who fill the executive offices of
Government, and have the means of information in
their power." But the question arises, has the
constituency been materially decreased beyond the measure
that was contemplated by the Act of Reform ? Sir, the
Hun. Gentleman, who was better qualified to judge of
what was the constituency immediately after the Reform
Bill, or the constituency that would be given by the Re-
form Bill, than the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. Sir,
I have his own words—he is speaking on the 18th of June
1832, and the lion. arid Learned Gentleman distinctly
states, " The Member for Kilkenny has made a calcula-
tion of the number of persons who polled at contested
elections in 1818 ; that number amounted to 15,211.
There then remained fourteen counties unpollcd. But it
should be obacrved that the contests took place in those
places where there was the greatest number of voters."
Now, let any man calculate on this data, and I fearlessly
ask him whether, in giving a constituency of 26,000 to Ire-
land I have woe-placed the number infinitely too high. Make
the number caused by the additional franchise to be
26,000, and can the Hon. Gentleman show that the con-
stituency, as it at present exists, is diminished beyoud the
expectations excited in 1832 ? But what is the proposal
of the Noble Lord ? I will assume, for the sake of the
argument, that you have afforded us that proof
and demonstration, that you have shown that from
the operation either of laws, or of social causes beyond
the control of laws, there is a considerable decrease in
the constituency of Ireland, and a tendency to further de-
crease. I wilt assume that you have proved that. Then
I say, even if I grant that that has been proved, the No-
ble Lord has provided a most indefensible and inefficient
remedy. That is the question which we are considering.
to-night.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord says, in conse-
quence of the refusal of landlords to grant leases the con-
stituency of Ireland is undergoing a considerable diminu-
tion. And what does the Noble Lord propose as a re-
medy ? He proposes a measure which makes a lease in-
oispensably necessary.._( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord,
in providing for the increase of the constituency, what
course does lie pursue? lie subverts altogether the ex-
istir g franchise in Ireland. In England, in Scotland,
and in Ireland, with the exception of the .50/. clause, the
main element of tie constituency is interest in the land
and profit from it. It always has been so. Is it
right in tee case of Ireland, mainly dependent for her
prosperity on the success of agriculture—is it right, in the
case of Ireland, that profit from the land should be alto-
gether excluded from the franchise ?—( Hear, hear.) But
the Noble Lord proposed that the right of voting for 32
counties in Ireland shall be exectly coincident to the right
of voting in boroughs and towns—namely, that occupancy
alone, as tested by the rating, should constitute the fran-
chise. Has the Noble Lord given us any argument in fa-
vour of such a substantial alteration? Has he considered
the effect of tha. alteration upon the franchise in England?
How lung wilt the Noble Lord maintain profit from the
land as an element of the franchise in England, alter he
has subverted it in Ireland, and substituted merely occu-
pancy, as tested by rating in Ireland ?—( Hear, hear.)
It is an important principle which the Noble Lord recom-
mends us to adopt a principle of very extensive
application. He will find it exceedingly difficult to main-
tain one franchise in Ireland and another in England. If
the one invariable franchise in Ireland is to be mere occu-
pancy as tested by rating, the effect, I believe, will be to
place the return of the Irish Members very much in the
hands of the same class of constituency as now return the
Members for the boroughs. Well, then, I object entirely
to the principle upon which the Noble Lord proposes to
alter the franchise. And am I not at liberty to make that
objection without being immediately met by the declara-
tion of the Noble Lord telling us, " Your object is not
me ely to defeat my Bill but to reduce the counties of
Ireland to the lowest point of representation?" The
Noble Lord charges us with reducing the franchise. Why,
the Hun. Member for Halifax told him not merely
that he was taking a leaf out of the book of my
Noble Friend, but that he was constructing his franchise
upon a shifting sand ; that he went infinitely further to-
wards reducing the franchise titan any reduction which
icy Noble Friend have made by the amendment of the re-
gistration. The Hon. Member for Halifax showed the
Noble Lord that the affect of the franchise which he pro-
poses in fourteen unions in Ireland, would be to reduce
the number of electors now entitled to vote by one-sixth.
That is the allegation which the Hon. Gentleman made
against this well-considered plan of the Noble Lord. Why,
what confidence can we place in you as legislators fit to
deal with this subject ?—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) You
had the whole of the recess; you had notice that this sub.
ject was undergoing consideration ; you had the means
of gaining official information ; you had every
element which could enable you to bring for-
ward a measure which was likely to conciliate public
opinion in its favour, and you brought forward a measure
destroying the existing franchise in Ireland and substitut-
ing a 51. occupancy. We remained under the impression
that we were to discuss the question of 51. occupancy, and
two or three nights before we enter upon the considera-
tion, without a reason assigned, the Noble Lord changes
his proposal from 51. to 81. And what does the Noble
Lord say now? The Secretary for Ireland tells us now
that he could support his 5/. franchise by a reference to
facts and evidence, which shows that it was a proposition
that ought to have been made. Why had it been aban-
doned ?—( Hear.) From whence came the suggestion of ob-
jection ? Not from this side of the House. The Noble
Lord said—" I have made this alteration in the hope of con-
ciliating your favour, and now you are so unreasonable
as to object to it." We never objected to the
amount, we objected to the principle. ( Hear.)
Now, what can be more unfair than the course which the
Noble Lord took in throwing out these insinuations
against us ? We said, " We object to a uniform franchise
fur all Ireland." We said, "If you make leasehold the
only element of franchise there is a tendency on the part
of landlords to withhold leases ; you make no settlement of
this question, because, if a disposition to withhold leases
exists, you are not affording any sufficient remedy for
the evil " And then the Noble Lord changes the qualifi-
cation from 5/. to 81. He does nothing to remedy our
objection to the principle of his franchise; but he charges
us with being unwilling to effect a conciliatory settlement
because he has no: gained our favour by making an altera-
tion in degree without the smallest alteration in principle.
These ere the grounds why we object to 8/. equally that
we object to 5/.—namely, that the main objection.
in point of principle, remains entirely unchanged
by the alteration in the Bill.—( Hear, hear.)
But we have another proposition to consider in addition
to that of the Noble Lord, the amendment proposed by
the Noble Lord the Member for Northumberland. The
Noble Lord, as I apprehend, brings forward a distinct and
specific proposition in opposition to that of the Govern-
men,. The Noble Lord's proposal I apprehend to be
this—that the Noble Lord will retain the beneficial in-
terest, that he will require as An essential condition for one
franchise, and that, perhaps, the main franchise, a profit
derived from the land, that profit not to be ascertained by
the oath of the party, but to be determined by rating.
The Noble Lord did not propose that as an exclusive
franchise, but theNobleLord objects altogether—as I under-
stand him—to the proposal of the Government, end_pro-
feeses to substitute for that proposal something of the na.
cure of that clause in England, which has been called tae
Chandos clause, that i. to say, he will require the pay_
inept of a certain rent, but he wilt infer the rent from the
amount of rating. The extent of the requ red rent be
eas not defined, because he says he has not acquired the
information on which he can safely proceed. Now, from
the principle of the Noble -Lord I 'do. not dissent. I
think it is desirable to retain the beneficial interest ; I