The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSD Y. APRIL 29, 1841.

different manner. During the existence of the 40s. freeholders
in Ireland, there was an immense abuse of the franchise ; and
the right of voting was exercised in a manner that had never
been contemplated for the purpose of carrying an election. One
source of abuse was the intimidation of landlords, under a
strong political feeling that power was broken, or as the
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Peel) termed it, the
weapon snapped in their hands, and the great body of Roman
Catholic voters exercised the franchise in behalf of persons who
held their own political opinions. It was then stated that the
franchise was wrongly placed; that an immense number of
fictitious freeholds had been created, and that it was necessary
to place the franchise in more independent hands. The Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite proposed a plan for that purpose,
and looking to all the information which had been afforded, he
could not concur in what was clone by the Government of that
day. The Right Hon. Gentleman had asserted that there
was an immense number of persons exercising this freehold
franchise, and he had argued that, comparing the number of
voters in England and Ireland, the number in Ireland was so
large that it was impossible but that the franchise was abused ;
and he had proposed that the franchise should be raised to 101.
a year instead of 40s. Now in raising the franchise to 101.
a year he thought the difference between an English 40s.
freehold and an Irish 40s. freehold was totally lost sight of.
It was clear that the franchise had been much more restricted
in Ireland than was anticipated. However fair the Acts cf
11329 and 1832 might have been been framed, it was now
abundantly evident that they had committed many mistakes in
settling the county franchise in Ireland. In 1831 and 1832,
when the Noble Lord opposite brought in the Irish Reform
Bill, it was matter of reproach to him that he called upon the
House to legislate without any information, arid Mr. Croker
then said he supposed the Noble Lord would lay the informa-
tion upon the table the day after the debate, even as
the Government of the present day were taunted ; but the fact
was, there was no precedent for either case, and they were
obliged to legislate upon general principles. In attempting to
settle the franchise, they were compelled to adopt one that was
new, in order to avoid introducing one which had already
led to the loss of all former Bills ; therefore they had
adopted the occupation and rating franchise. It was well un-
derstood that the landlords in England called upon their 501.
tenants for their vote, and that without much evil to society,
because they did not differ much among themselves, but it was
very different in Ireland. There the landlords might, from
conviction, have an anxious desire to support the Protestant
religion, or wish to support a party not generally supported by
the majority of the people of Ireland, entirely iii opposition to
the convictions and feelings of their tenants, who must either
come up and record their vote in opposition to their con-
sciences, or give an honest vote at the risk of losing their
holdings. In his opinion, the 8/. rating, with a fourteen years'
lease, would be in an independent position to give his vote
according to his feelings and conscience. They had been
anxious to chose that right of voting which presented the least
of evil, and that was the clause as it now stood. It was said
that many landlords would refuse the fourteen years lease. Un-
doubtedly they might, but on the other hand, if they made the
franchise an occupation one, they would have the voters driven
up to the hustings to vote against their conscience. He was
most anxious to see tha country so governed as to avoid being
brought into that state in which it was previous to 1829, and
I for that purpose he was anxious that the people of Ireland
should be allowed to govern themselves in their municipal affairs
through their corporations—that they should have that
check and control over public affairs which they ought
to have either in Parliament or out of it. He
was convinced that any legislation of that House which
attempted to curb the people of Ireland, would entirely
fail, and they would lose the best safeguard they had—the best
the country had ever enjoyed was only since 1829, from which
epoch the catholic had a regular and constitutional mode of ex-
pressing his complaints_ and asking redress for his grievances—of
coming to that House, and if his complaints were just, obtain-
ing redress, if not of having their injustice shown. That was
the privilege he wished them to retain, and with that desire
he was anxious to see the Bill become the law of the land.
Mr. LUCAS would venture to trespass for a few moments
on the patience of the House, while he replied to the observa-
tions of the Noble Lord who had just sat down. The Noble
Lord had charged him with having last year supported a pro
position for defining the franchise, while this year he had op.
posed it. If he-,had changed his mind on that or any other
subject, he would have no hesitation in coming down to the
House and openly avowing that change, instead of giving an'
new proposition a silent acquiescence. He had in his hand
a report of the debate which took place on the occasion to
which the Noble Lord had referred, and he had no hesitation
in stating so much o; it as would place his observations in their
true light. The Hon. Member here read some extracts from
his remarks upon the subject of beneficial interest. He had
certainly never expressed at that or any other time any observa-
tions that would give the House an idea that he wished to sub-
stitute a rating test for the beneficial interest or solvent tenant
test. He had always experienced courtesy from the Noble
1.,0rd opposite, but he should not accept it on the present occa-
sion at the expense of his friends.
Sir R. PEEL wished to state the course he intended to
take on the question then before the House as to whether
the words " fourteen years " should remain, or the words
" one year" be substituted. He apprehended that they had
now before them the original proposition of the Government.
It appeared to him that it would he infinitely fairer and bet-
ter that they should have the proposal of her Majesty's Go-
vernment made in that shape which would best meet their
own views. It might be that by coalescing with the Hon.
Member for Kilkenny they might carry the amendment of
that Hon. Member ; but he thought it infinitely better that
the Government should be allowed to fill up the blanks in the
way they thought best. The course he should take between
the proposition for one or for fourteen years was the same he
shou'd take upon the proposition of a rating for Si. or for
81., and therefore not being prepared to admit that a tenancy
or occupancy from year to year should confer the right of vot-
ing, the details being a matter of indifference to
him, and yet being unwilling to go to a division
without stating to the House what his opinions
were, he should on the present occasion give his vote in favour
of the original proposition, not because he approved of it, but
because he wished to have the details of the measure fully ex-
plained, it being perfectly notorious that when the great ques-
tion came to be decided he should give his vote against the
clause.

Mr. C. WOOD should also feel it his duty to vote against
the amendment of the Hon. Member for Middlesex. Nobody
i was more sensible of the difficulty of finding in any way an in-
, dependent constituency in Ireland than himself, and it was with
i' the view of obtaining an independent class of voters that his
Noble Friend the Member for Northumberland had suggested
his amendment. The mistake into which many Hon. Members
on his (Mr. Wood's) side of the House had fallen on Monday
night had since, he had reason to believe, been cleared up, and it
was now obvious that the proposal of his Noble Friend was a
clear addition to the franchise, without disfranchising one single
individual who was enfranchised by the Bill of the Govern-
ment. —( Hear, hear.)
Mr. SHEIL thought the statement of the Hon. Member for
Halifax at variance with the intentions of the Noble Lord the
Member for Northumberland. If the statement of the Hon.
Member for Halifax was correct, and that the proposition of
his Noble Friend was merely that their franchise should he ad-
ditional to that of the Government, and not exclusive of that
franchise, would it not have been the duty of the Hon. Mem-
ber and the Noble Lord to have voted for the proposition
made by the Government ?—( Hear, hear.) He questioned
whether • the Hon. Member for Halifax could reconcile
the conduct of the Noble Lord with the statement
which he had just made. 'Uhe Noble Lord had distinctly an-
nounced to them, when the subject was first discussed in Com-
mittee, that his proposition should be not only an addition, but
a substitution for the plan of the Government, and that he
had repeated again and again. The Government proposition
of an 8/. rating was a simple and single one, but the proposi-
tion of the Noble Lord was a franchise which depended upon
tile excess of the rate beyond the rent. That, of course, ex-
cluded all who were rated at 81. but who had not an excess of
rating beyond the rent.—( lieu, hear.) He hoped the Hon.
Member for Halifax, and the Noble Lord, would set him
right, if he had the misfortune not to understand them. The
second proposition of the Noble Lord was for an independent
constituency, without a lease ; but that was a point which the
Hon. Member for Halifax was not very clear about. He hoped
the Hon. Member and the Noble Lord would forgive him, if
he ventured not to insinuate, but to state, that they did not
appear to possess that knowledge of Ireland which such a pro-
position required ; and he must also sav, with regard
to the amendment of his Hon. Friend behind him, although his
Hon. Friend was Member for Kilkenny—(Much laughter).—
he did not seem to possess a sufficient knowledge of the charac-
ter of the tenure in Ireland. He (Mr. Shiel) would ,not ven-
ture to pronounce with any great confidence upon the opinions
and state of the public mind in Middlesex, and notwithstanding
the connection of his Hon. Friend with Kilkenny—( Renewed 1
laughter)—he did not appear to possess the intimate acquaint- 1
ance with the state of the people in Ireland which such
a proposition required. The Noble Lord's clause, which he
would term the Chandos clause, or rather,the Howick clause, as
applied to the people of Ireland, must depend fully as much
upon the relations of the gentry to the people—upon the
character of the gentry and the habits of the people, as
upon the mere question of tenure.—(Hear, hear.) He
believed the Noble Lord had voted for the Chandos clause,
having then filled the office of Secretary at War, although
Lord Grey had entered his strong protest against that clause.
If he recollected right the Noble Lord, in a speech made by
him in 1835, complained that the Chanties clause had not
worked well in England, and inveighed against the most scan-
dalous conduct of the landlords, the Tory party being par-
ticularly addicted to intimidation. Now what would be the
effect of such a clause irs Ireland ? In England the landlords
and tenants generally agreed, but in Ireland they did not, and
on that account compulsion must be resorted to, and that was
why the Howick clause for Ireland was so strenuously sup-
ported.—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Shiel) had spent a larger
portion of his life than he ought in very exciting agitation. He
knew what landlords could do, and how tenants could resist ;
and he could tell them that leases made a very great difference.
When there was a lease there was a barrier be-
tween the landlord and the tenant, and the rent
could be paid. One of the most remarkable incidents
in the agitation of the Catholic question was the enormous con-
tribution fur the defence of the persecuted tenants. He knew
it had been said that such a collection could not be made again.
But as the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had said
that he did net despair of the fortunes of his country, so he
(Mr. Shiel) of the virtues of his countrymen never would de-
, spar ; and he did not entertain a doubt that if ever there was
need, the same spirit of lofty generosity would be displayed
which corresponded with the sentiments and heroism of former
da)s. Suppose the Noble Lord the Member for Northumber-
land—and he begged pardon for the hypothesis—suppose he
went to a tenant-at-will, and asked him for his vote, if the poor
fellow told him " I have a wife and a large family, and I shall
be served with notice to quit, and turned out, if I vote for you,"
rainnieitt
if the Noble Lord pressed him and had the misfortune to suc-
ceed, and that a few months afterwards he saw him starving
additional argument and shivering on the public road, would not the Noble Lord
,cuifuhlde haairduradnyhtfmeelinnog,
ctohmatpethuesahtiigohnesfot
for such
isnuffthereinCga?-
LHoornd. Gmreemybdeerelaf roredthathearegretted the change made by the
Chandos Clause, because he considered it, to a certain extent,
Tipperary to definegum
an "
enhtis in favour ofHteh e
(Mr.
bsyhebiail)lot. The
his opixions. Lambeth . said. he called on the Member for
He was speaking of that which he knew—
He was speaking of a co.untry with which
de-
fininghichßallot might say—" Give us protection, he was acquainted..
was acquainted. The advocates of the
, let them
of that with which he
esdudbywseome
, save the
the
eansiaeltd-
will from intimidation--give us the Ballot,on
as
nota colourinfliot foron
agree." But if
they would not give the Ballot, and protection to the tenant
falsehood
sienhdoeopde n; dhe
untc e.g i v
eI t maysthb:irciardt
whom they vested with that privilege
him a favour which would make hit either a slave or a
martyr. Let them not leave ,_ra
t to make a se-
lection the most painful—a selection that must re-
duce him to servitude the most ignominious, or tosuff •
the most disastrous. He ( Mr. Shiel) had written to suffering
persons in Ireland who had been, like himself ,engaged inma
ration, and there was but one sentiment among them
allagoln-
the subject. They all zencurred in saying that the person
haling the franchise would be a slave in the midst of disturb-
ance, and a martyr in the midst of agitation. He would yen.
tare to turn from the topics to which he had just been advert-
ing to the general matter which was under discussion—namely,
to the course which under all circumstances it was wise and
just for the House to pursue. He had remarked in the course
of the discussion that a great deal of reference had been made
to facts; but the references which had been made to facts were
not made with that due attention to order and to method with
which they ought. It occurred to him as not inappropriate
very briefly to advert to the circumstances which

led to the state in which the country and the
House stood.—(Hear.) Let not the House be alarmed
if he went so far back as the year 1825. He would not do
so, if the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth had not adverted,
on Monday night, to the opinions given at that time on cer-
tain subjects by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin.
It was perfectly true that, in 1825, he (Mr. Shiel), stated it
to be his opinion that 40s. freeholders should be abolished. At
that time the 40s. freeholders had not thrown off the yoke.
They fulfilled the prediction of the Duke of Wellington, when
he said in the Irish Parliament, that he was sure the 40s. free-
holders would vote with their landlords. In 1825 the change
had not taken place, which subsequently slid. It was quite
true that in that year the opinions of the gentlemen who were
deputed by the Irish people to this country, were favourable to
the suppression of the 40s. freeholders. They were anxious to
have the Catholic question settled. He was sure the Hon.
Baronet lamented very much, as they certainly did, that that
opportunity had not been seized by the Tory Government to
come to some settlement of that question. Well, that propo-
sition was rejected. He (Mr. Shiel) owned that he was sur-
prised that the Hon. Baronet adverted to the circumstances
which then took place, because he was sure, when concessions
were made a few years afterwards, under a strong exercise of
a pressure from without, the Hon. Baronet must have felt
that it would have been better if that question had been
settled before such excitement had taken place, as
to make the concession appear to be the result of a
feeling different from that in which all concessions are made.
, Well, the deputies felt that they had but this resource—namely,
to avail themselves of the energies which the Irish people pos-
sessed. The 40s. freeholders were roused. The Waterford
' election took place. Victory after victory was soon gained by
the popular party. Then it was that the power of the 40s.
freeholders was developed, and not till then. The Hon.
Baronet at length perceived that the settlement of the Catholic
question was indispensable. Might he intimate to the Hon.
Baronet that he could not help feeling surprised that he (Sir
R. Peel) entered into an encounter with the Irish people.
From the Irish people on that occasion he met with a most
signal defeat. No man felt more regret than he (Mr. Shiel)
did that the Hon. Baronet did not continue in the course of
policy which he adopted when he made the concession alluded
to. No compact had been made with the Irish people.
His Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Dublin, when
the subject was last under discussion, mentioned a fact which was
of the utmost importance, namely, that there was a great meet-
ing at the Thatched House Tavern, of the men in whom the
greatest confidence was reposed by the Irish people, and they
agreed that Catholic Emancipation should not be obtained at
the sacrifice of the 40s. freeholders. The Right Hon. Baronet
admitted that the sacrifice of the 40s. freeholders was not the
result of a compact. There was a protest entered by the
Noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and by the
Noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, against the
solvent tenant test. In a speech of the Noble Lord, he con-
demned the solvent tenant test as establishing too high a
franchise.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The man who
made the protest against the solvent tenant test, was the man
who had the Irish Bill in his hands, and he struck out
out the solvent tenant test. Could ;tic deny that? In his
answer to the Judge Advocate, the Noble Lord said, when
called on to account for the speech that he made in the year
1832, that he could not account for it—that it was a misprint—
that the reporters had made a mistake. But he would not
attempt to account for leaving out the solvent tenant test.
Lord Oriel was so convinced of the injurious tendency of the
solvent tenant test, that he divided the House of Lords
upon it. He (Mr. Shiel) would go for the interpretation of
the Reform Act not to the opponents of it. He would go to
the Liberal Judges of the land for the interpretation of it. By
their decision he would abide. The Judges were divided on
the subject ; and, coupling all those facts, he would say, it was
incumbent on the House to settle the question. The Honour-
able Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, said that they ought
ought not to build a new house, but repair the old one. He
(Mr. Shiel) would say they ought to build a new one, but
upon the old foundation—upon the foundation on which the
Reform Bill was raised. The Hon. Baronet found fault with
the Government for not introducing a Bill to define the benefi-
cial interest. Had not the Noble Lord (Lord Howick) voted
for Sir Michael O'Loghlen's Bill ?—( Hear, hear.) The
Honourable Baronet was therefore in the wrong, when
he said that no attempt had beenmade on this question by the
Government, because an attempt had been made again and
again by the Government to define the beneficial interest.
The Noble Lord (Stanley) found the majority of the Judges
in Ireland in favour of the solvent tenant test, and he calcu-
lated that the minority who dissented would ultimately agree
with the decision of the majority. That was the opinion of
the Noble Lord. He then brought in the Bill, which did not
define the franchise ; but since that time the Chief Baron had
announced that he could not agree with the majority of the
Judges. This being the case, it was manifest that the Bill
of the Noble Lord could not be adopted. The Government
w- re then driven to bring in a Bill, in which the franchise was
to be defined. What had the Government done? They had
got a series of returns from the Poor-law Commissioners, by
which it was manifest that the rate was uniformly below the
rent. It was perfectly preposterous to make the excess of the
rate above the rent a test of the qualification.—( Hear, hear. )
He could not understand why the Right Hon. Baronet, the
Member for Tamworth, meant to insist that there should be
an excess of the rate above the rent ; but if he did, it was ma-
nifest that 5-6ths of the constituency of Ireland would be
disfranchised. (Hear, hear.) He was surprised that
no Honourable Member on the other side of the House
had yet stated whether they would adopt the rate as a founda-
tion for the franchise. The Learned Recorder of Dublin had
stated that the rate mostly exceeded the rental. He (Mr.
Shiel) was obliged to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman for his
candour.—(Hear.) He would pray the attention of the
House to this. ,The Recorder had stated that the excess of
the rate would be above the rent, and yet the Right Hon.
Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, the other night,
said that the rate was almost uniformly below the rent.
They ought not to make the excess of the rate
beyond the rent the test of the franchise. fle
thought the Hon. Baronet ought to tell. the House what he
thought ought to be done—(Cheers and laughter) —especially
as the Noble Lord beside him had undertaken to legislate for
the country. He (Mr. Shiel) had shown that the definition
of the franchise was indispensable, as the Judges of the land
were divided on the question. When the state of things was
,uch as was admitted, and when Hon. Gentlemen on the
opposite side found fault with Government, he thought they
ought to say what rate they would adopt. It was obvious that
the Noble Lord's (Lord Stanley's) could not be adopted, for by
it the evils which at present existed would remain unreme-
died. Were they, then, to leave the constituency of Ire-
land in the state in which it now was ? There had
been much controversy on the state of the constituency
in Ireland; but documents had been laid on the table of the
House which laid that matter at rest. The Noble Member for
North Lancashire, when introducing his Bill, used the most
offensive terms. He talked of the extent to which perjury was
committed in Ireland. The Noble Lord introduced. a Bill, the
effect of which would be to reduce the constituency still lower
than it was shown to be. The county of Waterford had a popu-
lation of 150,000, and a constituency of only 803. In a dis-
trict of Ireland which contained one million of inhabitants, the
constituency only amounted to about 4,000. He did not ask
them to restore the 40s. freeholders, but they ought to place
Ireland, with respect to advantages, on a footing analagous
with that of England_ The poverty of Ireland was used to
serve the purposes of debate. The Irish people had a
right to an entire participation in those advantages ,
of which England was in the full fruition.—(Hcar.)
It is true, continued the Hon. and Learned Member, that
Ireland is not a rich country, but Ireland possesses some great
qualifications for a large constituency. Ireland has made great
and signal advances, and to a country which in every thing re-
specting social power is making such advances, to a country
which has arisen from servitude to high mindedness, and has
put off the habitude of depression, to a country in which great
courage and determination is combined, as it is, with great
morality and sobriety, to a c ountry which almost as by a
miracle has given you signal proof of its social improvement,
I say to such a country you ought to concede a very different
franchise—to such a country you ought not to award the con-
stituency the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire
has prepared for them. Between the Bill of the Noble Lord,
the Secretary for Ireland, and that of the Noble Lord the
Member for North Lancashire, this House must elect. For
mark, has the Noble Lord the Member for, North Lanca-
shire given up his Bill ? Does he not persevere in it with all
its vices ? Does he not still insist upon appeals to the Judges ?
Does he not still insist upon annual revision? Does he not
insist upon that system of oaths which gives rise to that " vil-
lanous perjury" he so much laments? And, under these cir-
cumstances, what course is the House to take ? Take the Bill
of the I\ oble Lord the Member for North Lancashire and you
take ambiguity, confusion, and agitation ; but take the Bill of
the Secretary for Ireland and you take a Bill which fixes the
franchise by a definitive standard, you take a Bill, which sets
ihe conflicting statements of the law at rest, you take a Bill
by which oaths are suppressed and perjury put an end to, you
take a Bill by which the dissensions of the Judges cease, and
you will then show your solicitude for the rights of the peo-
ple of Ireland, and afford them the most perfect satisfaction.
•
—(Loud cheers.)

Sir R. PEEL explained, and quoted some evidence of Mr.
O'Connell in 1825, containing objections to the 40s. franchise,
and contended that upon such evidence the Legislature of the
day had a right to draw the inference they did of the evils of
the system.
Mr. HUME said that although he bad been accused of ig-
norance through not being an Irishman, he know that by this
clause no one could vote without a lease, and as the landlords
would not give leases, the consequence would be that the clause
would be one of disfranchisement.

After a few words from Mr. W. ROCHE, which were in-
audible,
Mr. O'CONNELL said he hoped the House would allow
him to trespass on its attention for a short time,as he had been
strongly alluded to by the Noble Lord and the Right Hon.
Gentleman. He should be sorry that his Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Kilkenny should persevere in his intention to divide the
House. It was totally unnecessary, for if he would look into the
clause he would see that it was an affirmative clause, and there-
fore that he might after the present one add the clause giving
even tenants-at-will the right to vote, provided they varied
the sum by only one shilling, so that it was totally unneces-
sary for him then to divide the House. It was not very ma-
terial whether he took that immaterial division—for an imma-
terial division it would be, because as the Right Hon. Baronet
and the Government would vote against him he had no chance
whatever of a majority. He (Mr. O'Connell) had heard what
had fallen from the Noble Lord (Russell) with great pleasure,
yet not without regret. There was in his speech an exposi-
tion of some of those principles applicable to the government
of Ireland, which if carried into effect would be eminently
usefel ; but he did not think the Noble Lord's v indicatjon of
the conduct of the Reform Ministry in 1832 was satisfactory.
The Noble Lord went into the history of the 40s. franchise,
and of its abolition, but he was not accurate in saying
that the 40s. franchise was abolished on his (Mr. O'Con-
nell's) evidence, nor was the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R.
Peerin such a statement. He referred him to the very first
answer he (Mr. O'Connell) had given, and which with the
permission of the House he would read. He (Mr. O'Con-
nell) spoke of the different franchises in Ireland, under a
lease, and did not speak of the 40s. franchise as in England.
Being asked what 'would correct the evils of the 40s. fran-
chise, he answered—"lt is difficult to answer that question,
the systein of the 40s. freeholders in Ireland, is differentfrom
that in this country. There are, however, 40s. freeholders in
Ireland, and with these I suppose nobody would meddle.".....
( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member proceeded to read several
other quotations to a similar effect, and proceeded—but the
Right Hen. Baronet said the 40s. freehold was abolished as
a measure of Reform. It was the only instance in which the
Right Hon. Baronet had shown himself a Parliamentary Re-
former. It was not because they were Catholics, but because there
ere social evils connected with it, that the Right lion. Baronet
became a Parliamentary Reformer. And what was the effect?
He reformed by totally destroying. But was that a reason
why the House should not now take' into consideration the
extension of the franchise in,lreland to a similar class? During
the period from 1825 to 1829 the abuses in the exercise of this
franchise ceased, and the 40s. freeholders displayed their
patriotism. While these abuses existed emancipation was
refused on the terms of correcting the abase. Had
this been done a political slumber and apathy
would have", passed over Ireland, and the people
of Ireland would not have found it necessary to make further
exertions. The Right Hon. Baronet refused the auspicious
lx.ioment. He roused the spirit and genius of the people of
Ireland, and was compelled to grant them unfettered and un-
shackled emancipation. But the 40s. freeholders who shared
in the battle `were not allowed to partake in the triumph—they
were annihilated and destroyed. Then came the Reform Bill,
and here he (Mr. O'Connell) complained of the Noble Lord

(J. Russell) and his colleagues. He (Mr. O'Connell) opposed
that Bill because o fits narrow limits and insulting nature.
The Noble Lord had said Ireland had received the same ad-
vantages as England—that, like England, she had got corpo-
rate reform. But had she got the corporate reform which
England had? Ireland was the poorer country, and this
crime was committed against her, that whereas the burgess
of every town in England who was rated at 6d. was entitled
to vote, no burgess could vote in Dublin who was not
rated at 101. Why make that distinction, but because they
had the power to tyrannise over Ireland, and do her injustice,
and exercised it with insolent domination, without reason or
argument, and in defiance of the principle which said both
countries should be united into one ? The Hon. and Learned
Member then proceeded to quote returns exhibiting
the comparative constituencies of the two countries.
Is there an Hon. Gentleman opposite who will say that this
is just and right, or that if the case were reversed, and if
95,0004 Irishmen had 5,000 voters while one million of Eng-
lishmen had but 4,000, they would submit to such a state of
things? If any one did submit to it he would deserve no
other feeling than contempt. He would appeal to the House
for redress for these anomalies, and he would appeal from them
to the people of Ireland, who would know how to obtain re-
dress for themselves if justice were refused them by Parlia-
ment. Again, the rural population of Wales amounted to
805,000 and the population of Cork to 703,000, whilst Wales
had a constituency of 36,883, and the constituency of Cork
amounted to no more than 3,835 voters. In the Courts in
which he ( Mr. O'Connell) practised equality was said to be
equity, but he was sure there could be neither equality nor
equity in those cases. They had the power to continue this
injustice ; but would it be prudent of them to do so ? It was
safe for them now, but would it be safe for them before the
next three months had passed over? Let them depend upon
it that the people of Ireland understood the injustice done
them perfectly well; they had heard it often, and it would not
be his fault if they did not hear it again. They should recol-
lect these things when they came to deliberate on the course
they were to pursue towards Ireland? How were they to deal
with that country ? They ought now to be weary of the system
of exclusion and insult ; while they seemed, on the contrary,
as fresh fer the work as if they were now only at the beginning
of the seven centuries of oppression. He was not content
with the Bill of the Government, although he should support
it. He could not get a better Bill ; and he certainly
much regretted the change from a Si. to an 8/. qualification.
The Government, he believed, had gained no accession of
strength by the change, and they had suffered some
disparagement by having made it. His Right Hon. and
Learned Friend the Member for Tipperary had told them what
the Irish people were ; they had set an example of religious
fidelity to the nations of the earth, and even those who might
consider their faith erroneous should respect the firmness and
integrity with which they adhered to it. There were now in
Ireland upwards of 5,000,000 pledged never to take of the cup
of intoxication ; and such a people would not tamely submit to
the perpetuation of oppression. If they wished for a continua-
tion of the Union they should make it a union in reality, and
not allow that 1,000,000 of people in this country should have
only the same number of representatives as 1,000,000 in the
other. By adapting the Ministerial, Bill they would take a
short, small, and slow step in the way of justice and concilia
tion, and one which would lean to other practical results. He
trusted it would be taken as an argument in its favour (although
it might be an indiscretion on his part to avow it) that if rating were
to be taken as the test for the franchise in Ireland, that would
soon become the law of the whole empire. It was but fair to
couple taxation and representation. He believed that the
measure would do much good in Ireland, for the people of that
country were easily won by their affections, while they were
never led by their fears. The Bill would have the effect of
doing away with perjury—that great offence against God, and
that stain upon the character of man. He had only one word
to say as to the extension of the right of voting to tenants-
at-will. If the provisions for such a measure were made
sufficiently extensive to render inoperative attempts at
individual tyranny, he should vote in its favour. Give
him a tenancy-at-will sufficiently extensive, and he should
embrace it ; but the one proposed was not sufficient—it was
riot extensive enough ; it would leave the voter exposed to the
tyranny of his landlord, and there was no remedy for this except
by extending the suffrage, or giving the voter that which he
ought to have, the protection of the Ballot, which was a pro-
tection which they would not give. He would vote for the
Government measure, and he was glad he was able to do so con-
sistently with his duty. He was desirous that the people of
Ireland should know that the Government was making a strug-
gle for the rights of the country.—( Cheers.) If they failed, it
would not be their faults, but the fault of those who opposed
them, and their failure would be a sufficient intimation to the
people of Ireland that they must make a hearty struggle to ob-
tain justice for themselves.—( Cheers. )
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Committee
divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Hume's amendment
Against it
Majority for the amendment .-466
On our return to the gallery, we found
Mr. HUME moving that Si. be inserted in the clause. in the
place of 81.
Lord MORPETH said he had tried to promote conciliation,
and was not ashamed of so doing. It was for that purpose that
he had consentedto insert 81.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the conciliation was not made to
the gentlemen opposite.—(Cheers.) That was another insult
to Ireland. The people of that country had therefore not to
complain of their enemies, that was a matter of course, but of
those who called themselves their friends.

Mr. SLANE Y said a few words amidst loud noise, which
prevented a word that fell from him reaching the gallery.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
For the amendment
Majority . .

434
126
_3OB

On our return tliere were loud cries for adjournment.
Lord J. RUSSP.LL said he thought as they had been die•
cussing the question all the evening, and it was now 12 o'clock,
they had better divide on the clause.
Sir. O'CONNELL said he thought the reason assigned by
the Noble Lord, was one why they should adjourn. He would
not be taunted with proposing an adjournment on Lord
Stanley's Bill, and opposing it on that one.
The words " six months" were then inserted in the clause.

On the question that the clause as amended stand part of
the Bill.

Mr. BROTHERTON moved that the House should adjourn,
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
For the adjournment ... 9B
Majority -330
- -

On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. HUME protesting against the course pursued by the
Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) with respect to the Bill. If
the Government were determined that a good Bill should not
pass, it would be better that this Bill should be put an end to
at once.

Mr. O'CONNELL then movel that the Chairman do leave
the chair.

Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but the House did not
divide.

On our return to the gallery, we found
Air. WAKLEY protesting against the course pursued by
the Government. The Hon. Member said ho was placed in
a situation of extreme difficulty by the vacillating conduct of
those below.—( Hear, hear.) He for one could not understand
the tactics of the Noble Lord. If he had occupied the
Noble Lord's position he would not have had courage to
have faced the House in the manner that the Noble Lord had
done. The first principles of this Bill had been abandoned.
—( Hear, hear.) He would be very glad if the Noble Lord
would rise from his seat, which it was his fixed determination
to do.

Lord J. RUSSELL said the Hon. Member for Finsbury
had said that the course taken by the Government had placed
the House in its present situation, but he (Lord J. Russell)
imagined that, with respect to that, the question of st. or 81, did
not make the smallest difference. The question was, whether
the House was prepared or not to vote for the clause as it then
stood. With regard to that, he could only say, that many
Members having informed the Government they could not
vote for so low a sum as 5i., the amount was raised to 81. He
had never seen any Government that retained its own views on
all questions without alteration. A Government dependent for
support on a popular assembly could not be carried on if it
did not allow itself to bend in the least degree to men who
honestly gave advice and counsel to them. If the Hon.
Member for Finsbury should become a Member of a Govern-
ment they should see the inflexible virtue which he would ex-
hibit. He (Lord John Russell) had done everything in his
power to promote a division on the clause, and if that should
take place he was afterwards prepared to state the course he
meant to pursue. If the clause was adopted by a majority of
the House, he should go on with the bill, if not he should
deem it useless to proceed with the remaining clauses. He
was sorry the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had put
a question before the House by which the Bill would be
lost.--( Cheers. )
Mr. J. JERVIS strongly protested against being forced to
a division.

Sir T. D. ACKLAND said he could not consent to the
motion being withdrawn. He rejoiced to see the truth of the
old adage justified, " Nec lex est justior ulla quam necis arti-
fices arte perire sua."
Mr. C. WOOD hoped the motion would not be pressed to a
division.

' Sir R. PEEL thought that twice during the evening gen-
tlemen on that side of the House had given proofs that their
desire, was to come to a decision upon the merits of the clause,
and he thought a decision on the merits of the clause, taken
in the usual way, would be more satisfactory than to take ad-
vantage of the supporters of the Bill ; yet he thought the House
was now in a position to come to a decision, and if it gave way
and permitted the Hon. Gentleman to withdraw his motion,
he trusted they would receive a distinct intimation that no
further postponement should take place, but that the Bill
should to-morrow take precedence, and that the sense of the
house should be taken on the clause in the usual and une-
quivocal manner. On that condition he would advise his
friends to consent to the withdrawal of the motion of the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman. _ _

Mr. O'CONNELL said the advantage was not so great as
Gentlemen opposite seemed to think, as the only effect would
be that the Bill must be recommitted.
Lord J. RUSSELL had no objection to give the measure
the precedence to-morrow if the motion were permitted to be
withdrawn.
Sir ROBERT PEEL desired that it might be distinctly
understood that the Bill would be brought on to-morrow at
five o'clock.
The motion was then withdrawn and the House resumed.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House Adjourned at Half-past One.
ELECTION COMMITTEE.

The Committee appointed to try the merits of the peti.
tion against the return of Mr. Armstrong, for King's
County, met yesterday. J. W. Patten, Esq., Chairman.
Mr. Sergeant Wrangham and Mr. Talbot appeared for
the petitioner ; Mr. Austin and Mr. Cockburn for the sit-
ting Member.
Mr. Sergeant WRANGIIMA apprehended that according
to precedent the only business for them that day was to
exchange lists and adjourn.
After a long discussion the Committee decided that,
under the new law, there was no necessity for their ad-
journing on the first day, as was usual, heretofore, in
Irish cases.

Mr. Sergeant WRANGHAM then stated the case on the
part of the petition. The election took place in February
last. During the polling notice was given that the sitting
member was disqualified, he being in receipt of a pension
as compensation for the loss of his office of Receiver-
General for Stamps in Ireland. The Learned Gentleman
cited a number of Acts of Parliament to show, first—that
the office in question was one which disqualified its holder
from sitting in Parliament, and that receiving a pension in
compensation for the loss of that office continued the disquali-
fication. He then cited other acts and decisions of the Court
to show that a salary or pension coming through the Lords
Commissioners of the Treasury, was a pension during
pleasure, and was revokable at the will of the Crown.
The Learned Gentleman was interrupted in his address
by the announcement that the Speaker was at prayers.
The Committee then adjourned till to-day at 11 o'clock.

The General Steam Navigation Company's
steam-ship Monarch, Capt. Fraser, which left Blackwall on
Saturday evening, arrived at Leith in 38 hours from her
departure, after a splendid passage.

POLITICAL. SUMMARY OF THE

MORNING JOURNALS.

CHRONICLE.—In the Times' article, announcing the
election of Mr. Walter for Nottingham, the following com-
mentary is appended to its report of that event :—" Nottingham
itself has postponed or cast away all the seductive theories of
Ballot, Extension of the Suffrage, Abolition of Church-rates,
&c., and has eagerly returned the man who stood boldly and
honestly on his opposition to the Somerset-house triumvirate."
We do not perceive by what logic, founded on the topics
themselves, any necessary hostility can be demonstrated be-
tween opposition to the Somerset-house commission and the
advocacy of Ballot, extended suffrage, and Church-rate abo-
lition. Because a man thinks that the pauper should not, by
the refusal of out-door relief, be coerced into the
workhouses, must he therefore hold that the dependent elector
ought, by open voting, to he coerced into a dishonest suffrage
at the poll •booth ? Because a man thinks that there should
not be a distinct pauper class, deprived of the social freedom
enjoyed by the more fortunate, must he therefore contend that
there ought to be a distinct slave class, deprived of the political
freedom enjoyed by the more privileged in society ? Be-
cause he is adverse to the power of Commissioners to tax
for the poor, must he needs be friendly to the power of
churchwardens or archdeacons to tax for the Church?
Cannot a man wish to keep out of a workhouse
without also wishing to get into an ecclesiastical court?
The leap is startlingly long from the premises to the conclusion.
Although with no bond of logical connection, yet as embodied
in the politics of Mr. Walter, there is the antagonism which
our contemporary indicates. His hostility to the poor-law is
identified with hostility to the ballot, the suffrage, and church-
rate abolition. He is not simply an anti-poor-law politician.
He does the dirty anti-poor-law work of the Tory party. In
voting for Mr. Walter, therefore, the Nottingham electors have
made themselves the tools of the tool of the Tories. It is riot
so much against the poor-law that they have voted, as against the
ballot, the suffrage, and the abolition of Church-rates. The prac-
heal effect of their votes will tell much more strongly against
these points than against that. Such is the first use made of
the election by the Times. If the electors did not know what
they were about before, they know it now. They have polled
for coerced voting, for a restricted franchise, for Church-
rate impositions, warrants, and imprisonments. To those in-
telligent and sincere men among the working classes, who
strive to raise the intellectual and moral characters of their
fellow operatives, we would put it seriously whether they
can expect the sympathy and aid which their professed objects
merit. while they are, to all public appearance, identified
with this unprincipled warfare against civil and religious liberty?
The personal knowledge of, and confidence in, their integrity,
must needs be limited. The public has a right to pledges.
And any organised connection with the Chartist move-
ment in favour of Toryism, whether at Nottingham in the elec-
tion just decided, or elsewhere in anticipation of other elec-
tions, is a public pledge indeed, but a pledge of fraudulent pur-
pose, of crooked policy, and of disgusting unprincipledness. No
perversion, fraud, or party tactics, however, should be allowed to
obscure the fact that this Nottingham election is, to a certain ex-
tent, indicative of a public feeling relative to the new Poor-law that
demands attention from the Legislature. By several amendments,
supported or suggested, we had evinced our opinion on this point
before the Nottingham election was thought of ; and we shall
not decline the additional force thus imparted to our reason-
ings. It will not be forgotten, that by the Tory leader and
the Tory party was the five years' amendment (as to the Com-
missioners' term of renewal) carried in preference to that for
two years only ; and for every practicable mitigation of what-
ever in the Act is n:ost stringent on the poor we shall continue
to plead, although without contaminating the humanity of such
a course by the hypocritical and treacherous sacrifice to it of
reforms so essential for public rights and interests as the intro-
duction of the ballot, the extension of the suffrage, and the
abolition of the Church-rate imposition.
The Morning Post of this day observes, in a leading article
on the late divisions in the Commons ;—" the people should meet
and petition the Crown for the dismissal of Ministers who have
not the confidence of Parliament. If these Ministers will not go
out, according to the constitutional usage hitherto existing, we
see nothing for it but to drive them out by the urgency of popu-
lar demand. "—The Morning Herald thus alludes to the recent
Ministerial defeat on Lord Howick's amendment :—" What is
to be done with a leader in the House of Commons so powerful
that he is bearded by a majority of twenty-one votes on a ques-
tion which he and his colleagues in office have already declared
to be vital to the interest of Ireland, to the welfare of the
United Kingdom ? The remainder of the debate supplies no
answer to that question, undoubtedly. But it shows Lord
Howick in the consistent exercise of that unenviable uncer-
tainty of purpose which, having utterly wrecked his guardian
friends by forcing a division on his amendment, leaves them to
get out of their dilemma in the best way they can."—The Times
remarks, with reference to the Nottingham election :—" The
immediate effect of this memorable election must be, to esta-
blish, beyond controversy, the superiority in point of importance
of the Poor-law question over all other topics of political dis-
cussion now agitated in England."

MONEY MARKET and CITY NEWS