The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-23 00:00:00

TUE SUN LONDON, TUESD AY, FEBRUARY 1841.

franchise not to property but to the rate. Nay, you go
further ; for you provide that if a person shall at any time
have had land in occupation which shall have been rated at
5/. a year, although that property shall no longer be rated
at such an amount—although it may he altogether out of
the rate-book—yet the occupier shall remain on the re-
gister so long as he, or some one else for him, shall say
that he is willing to be liable for the rates. You actually
put up she franclai'e to auction, and knock it down
for sixpence a year. If my tenant has once been rated
at 5/. a year, although the property may have fallen in value,
and may not be worth 4/. a year, what is to prevent roe
from saying to him, No matter, I shall be a candidate at
the next election ; I shall want your vote ; say you are
willing to be rated ; continue on the rate-book, and for
6d. a year I may buy as many votes as I like._
(Cheer;.) But is that all ? I will not go into the mi-
nute details of the Bill. I find I have already trespassed
on your patience, but I must trespass fur a short time
longer.—(Cheers.) The Bill does not even require that
the Cates shall be paid. On reading over the Bill, there
was one of the provisions of it tslich I thought must have
escaped the attention of the Hon. and Learned Attorney_
General. He has stated it as his opinion that taxa-
tion and the franchise ought to go together. There are
certain portions of property which it has beers deemed
expedient should be exempted from rating altoge-
ther. Now it is provided that the guardians or
valuators, in addi on to the rao..- book, shall
make out a supplementary valuation of such property as
is not liable to be rated. Now in the instance of the
rated inhabitants it was stated, that there was a check
upon the desire to obtain the franchise in the natural de-
sire to escape from the payment of rates, but in the in-
stance of the supplementary valuation there is no check
whatever; there is no inducement acting upon these valu-
ators to value the property at one shilling or one hundred
pounds, except the inducement to obtain the elective
franchise. I had read the act, and was quite at a loss to
discover what could be the object of the Hon. and Learned
riefumrina esvtolna,oatl
ntaunhradyeir
fory
fanasutl
areuai
-book
teooobnpko.
purpose
ihrs
pTtor
hhse
myself,eet!
ooi
re-
quired rate
rnoo-etnubook
ra
ibntnhaegi
nsnpdt
rtmiosefduah
supplementary
franchise.
snegdoemphatepiths:
the
eeths
supplementary
eyus r
s
test of value, and the amount of rate on the property, not
the payment of the rate, is insisted on for conferring the
franchise ; and it was not until my attention was directed
to that portion ct the Bill where I should least expect to
find any measure for altering or enlarging the franchise,
that I discovered the reason for this supplementary valua-
tion, and the manner in which the franchise will be en-
larged by it to an immense extent. Will the House
believe that this enlarged franchise is actually conferred
on the technical interpretation clause ?—( Loud cheers. )
Yes, that clause in which it is provided that, through •
out the Bill, and wherever the male gender is
used, the female shall be understood as being in-
cluded ; that the words Lord-Lieutenant shall be
held to include the Lords Justices in that clause ;
which in every Act of Parliament is introduced to obviate
technical difficulties merely, and to avoid verbose pro-
lixities. I find it provided that the words " rate and rate-
book " shall be held to include supplementary valuation
and supplementary rate book.—(Loud cheers from the
Opposition, answered by counter-cheers from tbe Minis-
terial benches,) And in that interpretation clause the
Noble Lord thinks it proper to give a definition which will
have the effect of conferring a perfectly new franchise.—
(Ch core.) This proceeding is like the producing such a
Bill to follow such a preamble, and I cannot help saying
it is a course utterly unworthy of the talent and station of
the Noble Lord.—(Cheers.) The taking the valuation
of the Poor-law Commissioners as the test for conferring
the right of voting, will greatly enlarge the franchise.
Now, on what ground is this great extension of the fran-
chise to take place ?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
does not deny that an extension of the fran-
chise will be the consequence of this measure.
He says that there will be sonie extension—that the fran-
chise will be conferred on some who do not now possess
it—while others who now possess the franchise will in
sonic instances be deprived of it. Now what do the papers
which were furnished us this moroing—the Reports of the
Poor-law Valuator., who were ordered t ► report for the
purpose of furnishing the data for elective fanchise—show ?
Why all the information they furnish amounts to just this,
that they know nothing at all on the subject.—(Chee
and laughter.) The Report from one of the unions states
that the inaccuracies existing are so great that they arc
unable to state anything with accuracy on the subject. In
the union of Scarrig he had only examined a small portion
of the union, and in the union of Lurgan not more than one
half. In by far the greater number of instance; these pa-
pers furnish no information whatever, and it is under these
circumstances that we are called upon to alter the constitu-
ency and enlarge the number of electors of Ireland.
Now, what' does the Noble Lord allege as his reason for
altering the constituency of Ireland ? He gives you no
reason as to the towns, and very little as to the countlee
But the Noble Lord tells you, borrowing the arguments
of the Hop. Member for Dublin, he tells you that the
proportion of the constituency of Mayo to the population
of Mayo is much larger than the population of Kent is to
the constituency. Now, I repeat that that is a basis of re-
presentation altogether unfounded. In your electoral
districts, in the wards of your great cities in England, no
doubt there are more in one ward than another entitled to
the franchise, yet shall ever a human being contend that
the amount of the franchise should be different in each
ward on that account ?_( Cheers.) Was it ever laid down
in any part of the kingdom that a certain amount of the
wealthy inhabitants should form the constituency? If that
principle had never been admitted, I see no reason for ap-
plying it to Ireland because a large portion of the popula-
tion of the country are in indigent circumstances. I come
nrw to a question which, I am aware, is one of consider-
able difficulty and delicacy, but from which, in the
discussion of this great, question, I am bound,
looking to this Bill and its effects, not to shrink
from discussing, although the Noble Lord only slightly
touched upon it, I mean the state of society in Ireland with
reference to the exercise of the elective franchise. Now I
take them to be of two characters—one the great subdivi-
sion of land in Ireland, which makes the agricultural body
in Ireland as a class, though not inferior in character, yet
inferior in point of property, solvency, and independence
to the same class in England. Now, fur the Pur-
pose of proving this, I will refer to the report of Mr.
St rnley, the Secretary of the Poor-law in Ireland,
who gives an analysis of the state of the population
of the two countries ; and from that analysis it ap-
pears that in Ireland there are 14,500,000 acres, while
in England there are 34,280,000 acres, so that the
land in Ireland is only about two-fifths of what it is
iu England and Scotland. In England there are 355,800
landowners, while in Ireland there are 659,600 landowners,
and those landowners are di,tributed into two classes,
those who do and those who du not employ any labourers
besides themselves. Now in England out of the 355,800,
187,000 employ labourers, while in Ireland out of the
659,600 landowners only 95,000 employ labourers.
Does not this, therefore, show the necessity of making a
difference between the two classes, and prove the neces-
sity also of making a difference in tile franchise? In the
Report, which was put into our hands this morning, it is
said " In every part of Ireland which we visited the num-
ber of existing leases seemed more likely to diminish than
to increase. An indisposition to grant leases prevals to a
remarkable extent among landed proprietors. Leases ex-
pire and they are not renewed. Landlsrds have ceased to
wish that their tenants should possess the land. Whole
districts are everywhere to be found, the tenants of which
are leaving." Sir, that is the statement made by a gentle-
man, whose Report has this day been submitted to the
consideration of Members of Parliament, and I do not mean
to deny that to a certain extent, to what extent we know not,
his statement is well founded. lam free to admit that
I regret the fact ; I regret the fact, but I am bound to say
also that lam not surprised at it. Now, Sir, I admit that
this topic is a very delicate one; but I must speak to the
truth as to the state of the two countries. Sir, I believe
that there is no man in England, on either side of the
House, wino does not know that there is a very remarkable
contrast in this country with the state of things just
described. There is not a remarkable objection on the
part of landlords to granting their tenants leases ; there is
not a remarkable aversion to their possessing the elective
franchise—and why ? Because taking them as a body, one
with another, be they Whig or be they Tory, be they gen-
tlemen on one side or the other, it is the priie and satis-
faction of a landlord in England to believe that, in the
main, his tenants will be guided by his wishes.—( Hear,
hear, from the Mini,terial benches.) We do not seek to
disguise or to deny it, and every gentleman knows per-
fectly well, in a contested county election, though he would
condemn an extravagant and oppressive exercise of autho-
rity, he may calculate upon the result of the election by
the number of landed proprietors and the party to which
they respectively belong.—(lronical cheers from the
Liberal benches.) No English landlord would think it
proper to interfere, if upon his estate he found that one,
two, or three, or half his tenants were, in the exercise of
their own independent judgment, differing with hint in
political views, sad taking a course wholly independent of
and adv rse to his ; but if he found that there was upon
his estate a systematic influence habitually exercised over
all his tenants, to prevail upon them as a body in every
instance to put themselves in opposition to him, and that
that influence was one which he could neither avert nor
control, I ask, what would be the natural course fur an
English landlord, and in such circumstances, to take ?
tYo a
mrtit
tenants wo
ul d notev etrh iwnk whom
rntthat very unnaturalinfluence fwhaea snooutg beta to e )f.te by.
In this country, where there is less of hardship than there
is in Ireland, in getting rid of one tenant and substitutinganother, I do not think that any great animadversion would
be poured upon the landlord who should say, " I must
have tenants who will not be habitually subject to an inte-
rest and an influence which they exercise against me."
re-
strained by motives of humanity, or
But, Sir, if the landlord did not
consi-
deration for his tenants, from taking tins step, and substi-
tuting f tjhuisst justice, gotrho;f cifo,
from him, if he confined himself to taking this course, and
saying,
no
f.
You
ailed with me as a libe-
ral tenant, as between
tenants who concurred with, for those who dif,rodd
erfectly satisfied will
rs.l and independent landlord ; I amtp
but there is one con-
stant source of ill-will betweeo us.
• t of
• tme • this is the only point
to take a part wholly against
not let hit in-
. • between us. For God's sake do ,
discussion
with the friendly relations of landlord and
political questions you are led by an extraneous influence
in-
terfere longer waritehsyll•
tenant. As long as this state of things exists, there must
.s must be a constant
be constant irritation between us—toei,
interruption of that harmony and goodwill which ought to
exist. You may feel confidence in nr will I dispossess a
You know that
I would not willingly dispossess?, n
tenant wino does his duty by me in an agricultural point of
view. For God's sake let us get rid of this bone of
contention, the franchise, and I will accept
rea-
sonable
from you—from
ioe.
year to year, a rent which will afford you a andfai•
profit, and which at the same time will remove
for ever this bone of contention." Now, I ask if in Eng-
land that would not be considered a kind, and a mild, and
justified i
be in the opinion of
benches.) Would not any landlord
n saying I trill be
Hon. Gentlemen opposite
a liberal course ? (Ironical cheers from the Liberal
contented to neutralise the influence of my property. alto-
gether, I will be content to sateitice any influence and
Political right which I may denim from the possession of