The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-20 00:00:00

REFORM BILL.-IRELAND.

Mr. STANLEY having presented a petition relative to
the Galway franchise, said, I now rise, Sir, to move that
leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the
representation of Ireland. In doing so 1 feel it is un-
necessary, and therefore inexpedient, that I should at any
length enter into a discussion of the various topics that
might naturally suggest themselves to the consideration of the
House during the progress of the Bill, and I think it
the snore necessary to do so, because I have no reason to sus-
pect that the House will refuse me that indulgence which
it formerly granted to bring in such a Bill, and partly
because I consider the principles on which it is intro-
duced and supported, to be the same which were so (ally
discussed on the English Reform Bill, and not at all
likely to be affected by local circumstances, but to remain
the same unchanged, because they are the principles of rea-
st,m, of justice, and of the constitution of the United Empire.
For this reason 1 do not think it necessai y to enter into a
a discussionopted
a and
dn theren
recognized
thiswhich
House, I imaginean d to, hich, ave been
adopted en
recognized with regard to England, must be recognized
with regard to Ireland, unless it can be shown that there
are specific reasons for not applying the same rule of con
duct to one country as to the other.We have admitted that
it is repugnant to the principles of the Constitution that
representatives for boroughs should be returned by nomina-
tion ; we have admitted that the corporations of towns
should not take to themselves a monopoly of those rights
intended to be exercised for the benefit of all ; we have
admitted that residence is an essential qualification of elec-
tors for boroughs, and we have admitted also that a certain
qualification with regard to property, ought to be con-
sidered as the rule upon which the representative
system should be estiblished. Now, if there be any who
contend that these principles, in themselves true in Eng-
land, are false in Ireland ; if there be those who contend
that we must have the reality in Eng!and,and must be content
in Ireland with the mockery and delusion ;—on them,
and not on me, rests the onus of proving that there are
those circumstances which justify a deviation from the
rule we have adopted. At the same time, Sir, I
am quite aware that I ant exposing myself
to no contemptible argument on the part of those who,
admitting the general principle, yet contend th it neither
the time nor circumstances in regard to Ireland
have come when it is expedient to agitate such a
question. I shall be asked whether this be the time to
extend popular rights in a country when the authority of

law has been set at defiance, where contention has been in-
troduced, and excitement prevails that has led to the most
frightful excesses. Sir, I feel the force of that argument,
Ind I am not insensible to the additional difficulty thrown
in our way by the conduct of those who have excited that
easily excited people, and who, professing to mean well to the
cause of Reform, have by every step they have taken,
thrown the most serious impediments in the way of a Re-
ibrtning Government. At the same time it is not because of
the agitation that prevails, but in spite of it, that 1
feel we are not justified in refusing at this time to do jus-
tice to Ireletel.—(Hear.) I am ready also to admit that
the Reform Pill for Ireland need not be so extensive as that
for England, and for this reason—that much of what
has been done by the present Bill for England,
gradually, progressively, and at various intervals,
been already effected fur Ireland. If we look at the
representation of that country in its present state, bad
as it is, and turn back to the description of
it which was given in 1793 by Mr. Grattan, it is
impossible that any man should say that a real substantial
Reform has "not already taken place in the representative
ay stem of the country. In Ireland you have no Gatton, 11,,
Old Sarum, no boroughs incapable of furnishing a decent
constituency. You have nothing to which it is not pos-
sible to fix the title of a respectable constituency. When
Mr. Grattan, in 1793, brought forward his motion for
Reform, according to the statement he then made, of
300 Members, 200 were returned by individuals; from
tarty to fifty were returned by ten persons ; several of the
boroughs had no electors at all ; some had but one ;
and, us • the whole, two-thirds of the representa-
44101060;exioes of Commons Were returned by
ess than' a hundred perionse,—( Hear.) This' is not, says
Mr. Grattan, that ancient Constitution of King, Lords,
and Commons : it is not even an Aristocracy; it is
an Oligarchy ; it is an Oligarchy, not of property,
hut of accident ; not of prescription, hut of inno-
vation. The Reform, however, in Parlament in a
great measure which is now adopting with regard to Ire-
land was adopted at the Union, because they proceeded
on a principle of disfranchising the rotten and nomination
boroughs. I am not now entering into the consideration
whether Ireland should have 300 or 200, or 100 Mem-
bers, and still less on the mode by which the Union was
carried, and the Reform effected. But representation
has by that means been put on a different footing,
by the cutting off of the rotten and decayed parts : in
short, that system which we recommend with regard to
England, was adopted in reference to Ireland at the Union.
Instead of 300 Members, 100 alone were left ; of these 62
were county Members ; two representatives more were given
to the principal cities, and the remaining 31 to the prin-
cipal boroughs ; thereby doing for Ireland what now
we are doing for England.—( Hear, heir) Whet,
Mr. Grattan brought forward his proposition for Reform;
he stated the principles on which at that time he recom-
mended his measure, and I beg that these will be born,
in mind, because in a large proportion his views
!lave already been carried into effect, while at tit
=tune time the other portion is being called int,
effect. " We agree, I apprehend, that twelve burgesses
should not return Members to Parliament ; we canno
differ about the propriety of residence. We agree
that close boroughs should be disfranchised, and on
extending the right of franchise of the close corpora-
tions to freemen by birth, marriage, or servitude ; that is,
to the respectable resident inhabitants ; perhaps we shalt
not differ as to the right of voting, of a universal re"
gistry, election to be limited in time, and carried on it,
lifferent places." Now a considerable portion of this
has been already effected by various Reforms in Ireland.
Nearly the whole of it is to be effected, both with regard to
England and Ireland, by the Bill about to be introduced to
the House. But if there be any distinction to be drawn
between England and Ireland, those cases must rest on our
shoe ing particular circumstances, either with regard to the
terms of land or considerations, to justify us it,
making any alteration between the two cases.
One of the great mistakes of carrying on the system in
Reform at the Union, in cutting off the other decayed
hot eughs, appears to be this, that while they struck
off the rotten boroughs, anti left the large towns, little
if any attention was }slid to what must be considered the
vital principle, namely that of those towns which were
left, what should be the constituency which the interest,
or the Members of those towns had in sending Members
to Parliament. It is nothing to say that Belfast in Ireland,
or Bith in England, returned a Member to Parliament,
but the question is whether the return of that Member is
satisfactory to 50,000 persons, or whether the interest is
confined to about thirteen persons. Now we propose to
follow up in Ireland the system adopted at the Union
—that the great boroughs shall send Members to Pitrlie-
meat, and to go this step further, viz., to see that they shall
not only in name, but in reality,:be the Members of
those boroughs. With regard to residence, we make
that point both in the Bill for England, and
to the Bill for Ireland, an essential requisite in the
right of voting to send Members to Parliament. Let
it be well understood that I take the liberty to follow
the laying dawn this broad principle, that we are
to do by Ireland as we do by England, unless
we can show that those peculiar circumstances
exist which render it necessary to aft •r our conduct in re-
' spect to the one and in respect to the other. With this
proposition I shall take the liberty of comparing
the franchise we propose to establish, with the fran-
chise the English Bill proposes to give. But be-
fore I proceed to that, I may be permitted to say
a few words on the subject, which has excited consider-
able attention, and upon which I have the mis
rortune to differ with some gentlemen, whose opinions
I do very greatly respect, but have the good !brume
to agree with those whose opinions I more highly
esteem. It was proposed by the last Bill to augment
the representation of Ireland, by giving five addi-
tional Members—we propose that it shall be the
' amine now ; at the same time I am aware that there are
many gentlemen here who think Ireland has in that
respect been unfairly dealt by. In introducing this Bill
to Parliament, we are not revising or discussing the
terms on which the Union was formed between two in-
dependent countries ; and I am aware that we should have
escaped all this difficulty and not been liable to the attack
to which we have been exposed had we laid down the
broad rule, that from the proportions fixed at the Union,
as regarded Ireland, we would not depart. At
the same time I am aware this is a difficulty which we
have to meet, and is an argument furnished to
our opponents, that it will be our duty to combat
with, while at the same time the benefits intended to be
given to Ireland are complain d against, because we
do not give a sufficient number of Members to Ireland.
But if any one will look back to the discussions and the
debates which took place in the Irish as well as in
the British House of Commons in the year 1800, he
will find that there was never any such thing pro-
posed as that the number of representatives for Ireland
should bear an exact proportion to the number itl
'lritish representatives, as compared with the re-
spective wealth, and the respective population of the
different countries. It will appear that at that time a
proposal was made and accepted, founded on very loose
besis, that the number of Members for Great Britain
should be 558, and the number for Ireland 106 to
serve in Parliament. And here, I would observe,
that there is no injury done to the kingdom of Ireland
by the number of additional Members that are given to
Scotland, because the arrangement at the Union
was not made between England, Ireland, and Scotland,
as a party tripartite, but between England and Ireland
alone ; and whatever arrangement now takes place be-
tween England and Ireland does not affect the Irish and
English arrangement in any way. Supposing, for Me
saince, that a number of Members were taken from
Ireland and given to Scotland, why then there might
he the same argument raised against such an arrangement.
Mr. Pitt, in loosing in Parliament, at the time of the
Union, that the proposal from the Irish Parliament should
be acceded to, considered the proposal one of justice, anti
so reesonsble that he could not think the English Parliament
could object to it. It appeared to him difficult to form
a fair plan as regarded Members; at the same time he was
not aware that exact numbers were very material—nor
could he think any proposition could be more proper to be
adopted than the proposal which had come front
the Irish Parliament; nothing, however, could be
more satisfactory than such a statement as this from Mr.
Pitt ; and was it to be supposed that the number of
Irish representatives was to depend on the varying com-
parative state of property and population ; and that again
to depend upon the jarring affairs of the two countries, in-
cidental to circumstances which no one could foresee. This
never could be the intention of the Imperial Parliament.

It is for this reason, . and feeling. that 'it could -have been
byd no a
t ags means
sh e aproperd,
to
to have
to the stronger force, but, taken away from
,Ireland any
abe
givenrather that there should be an augmentation from the
advantages
stronger to the weaker, that his Majesty's Government
proposed to give to the different pat is of Ireland the addi-
tional five representatives now proposed to be given.
In looking at the various qualifications which we have
thought it right to adopt with regard to England and It e-
land, and to the various provisions relating to them, we
found it unnecessary to adopt the principle of disfranchise..
ment in Ireland to any very great extent. There are few
towns in Ireland now returning 'Members which do not
furnish a very respectable constituency. With regard to
the freehold qualification for voting in counties, we pro-
pose to extend to Ireland the saute principle as that
adopted with regard to England—i.e., we consider,
the propriety of adding to the freehold constituency
a leasehold, constituting an adequate share of property,
and if any Hon. Gentleman will compare the gusher.
fications of one country and the other, it will be found that
the leaseholders of Ireland will not hive the the shglitese
reason to complain. In Engl Ind, if a person either have zi
lease of 60 years with a beneficial interest of 101., or a lease
of 20 years with a beneficial interest of 501. or, if he be a
tenant at wi,l, at a rental of not less than 50/. a year, lie
is entitled to a vote. In the former Irish Bill the alters
native was taken of the amount of rent, but, as unfortue
nately in Ireland, the amount of rent on a lease does not
prove the respectability of the voter, and as ; that
Bill embraced the objectionable clause, viz, that of
_paying
up the rent, we have in the present Bill struck out the
criterion of rent, and adopted that of the beneficial in-
terest arising from the lease. We originally intenheml to
take twenty years as the term, but upon coneidefation
and enquiry, it was proved that that period would ex-
chide a great number of persons who, holding under leases,
we considered ought to he fairly entitled to a vote.
We found there were so.many leases existing far a term
of 21 years. of which the soccupying tenants held in many
instances but for six or seven years, that we- therefore
adoptel a medium by taking a lease bar 14 years, with e
.beneficial interest of 20/. Now, if Hon. Gentlemen com-
pared the twenty years' lease and the 50/. beoefici ml in-
terest in England, with . the fourteen .years' lease
amid tie beneficial interest of 20/. • in -Ireland, it
would be - seen -as far as the leasehclier.. in
Ireland was concerned,- bee put',4 nu as, good, and
indeed better terms than the lealeholder in England. In
England you have die lowest claem of constituency, v;z.,
the 40s. freeholders, which class is exempted from the
constituency of Ireland. I will now refer to some returns
which have been presented to this. House for the purpose
of showing the proportion in which die property of
some of the counties in Ireland is represented. By
a paper, which is dated 1830, containing a list of tee
freeholders of all the counties in Ireland, it appeared that
there were 53,152 freeholders, not less than 22,000 of
whom were registered as 50/. freeholders, and 10,000 more
as 20/. freeholders, leaving the lowest class of 101. free-
holders at only about 21,000, and that in a country where
the bulk of the property belonged to Protestants, le
the county of Munster there were 15,382 Catholic free-
holders, of which 7,382 were of 501., 3,113 of 20/., and
, 1,900 of 101. In the province of Ulster, where the Pro-
testant interest was the strongest in Ireland, arid where a
large proportion of the lower classes were Protestants, and
not Catholics, the 10/. freeholders were in number 8,530
out of a total of little better than 16,000. So that
it appears that where die Protestant interest is the
greatest, the 10/ freeholders are the most nunats-
rous, but where the Catholic interest is the greatest
the 50/. freeholders were the most numerous. Ido not
state these facts for the purpose of creating a distinction
between the Protestant and Catholic interests, nor do I
wish to set those two interests at variance with each other.
I wish to slew that all interests will be fairly re-
presented, and if there is any one wish nearer to my heart
than another, it is, that I may never again hear the
terms of Protestant interest or Catholic interest. I
no told that by this extension of the constituency; 1 am
wishing to overthrow the Protestant interest I show that I
can have no sueli desire; I wish to see all interests fairly
represented, but 1 wish to overthrow the political power
of those who, with religion on the one hand, and politics
on tha other, inflime the minds of the people by their
bigotry.—(Hear, hear.) I have now stated time only
addition to be made with respect to the county
I constituency. I will now address myself to the borough
representation, in which we propose to melee a more ex-
tensive, but I trust it will not be considered an uncalled for
change. I have been told that the whole strength of the
Protestant interest depseded on the existence of seventeen
or eighteen rotten boroughs. I will not believe that
Protestant property, Protestant wealth, and Protes-
tant influence, will be deprived of their due share
in the representation, by the non.existence of a few
rotten boroughs. When the Union of Ireland was effected,
it was argued by the Protestants that the measure
was dangerous, for it would destroy the rotten boroughs,
the only stay of Protestantism. Perhaps at that time
it was so, for it might at that time have been necessary to
continue and keep up the system of exclusion and of Pro-
testant ascendancy. But that day is gone by—time
Catholic Emancipation Bill has passed, the system of
general knowledge exists, and Catholic gentlemen are now
admitted to sit in this House. When this semis urged
to Lord Castlereagh, lie truly said, that if this altera-
tion were to take place in the Parliament of Ireland,
the argument might held good—the Catholics might Re-
quire too great a preponderance; but it was to be re-
membered the countries were no longer distinct ; Ireland
was now part of a great Empire represented. by one United
Parliament; arid, therefore, that the Protestant Establish-
ment in Ireland would depend not on the roam boroughs,
but on the sense and judgment and high feeling of the
Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was on this, too,
that in these days Protestant institutions should rest, and
not upon the remaining rotten boroughs. The fact I be..
lieve, that the large towns should have representation was.
not disputed. Well, of the 31 boroughs there were 18
with less than the 100 electors—and of these 10 had a
constituency of not more than 15—that was to say, no
constituency at all. This was the system to which they
had objected in England, and which they proposed to
remedy in Ireland by following up the principle laid down
at the time of the Union. Then there was very little
difficulty in finding out the 31 best boroughs. The scale,
however, was founded not on population but on taxation.
It happened that the 25 highest in population were likewise
highest in taxation ; but of the remaining seven some
were as low as 57. Nor was the ratio a combined
ratio of population and taxation, but of taxation alone,
end that not very exactly taken. The principle,
however, having been once agreed to in the Irish House
of Commons, they did not cavil about the details.
There was, in fact, only one amendment proposed upon the
Bill, and that was, that the borough of Mullingar should
be substittned for that of Enniskillen—neither of them
having any claim to representation whatsoever. He pro-
. posed, then, with regard to boroughs, to go upon a more
equitable principle—the same that is pursued in England.
Here the right of voting was to he extended to alt bona fide
ten-pound householders ; in 'reliant there would be some
difficulty in ascertaining this point. Ido not think aft
be unreasonable topropose, that in the great towns
will , .
where there are local taxes, such as tor paving, lighting,
&c., the individual should be obliged to show he had paid
them up within the last half-year before he should be pri-
vileged to exercise the franchise. I do not speak of
church cess or ministers' money, which might be hails to
objection. In the counties of cities arid the counties of
towns, which, in addition to the horougl', comprehended
an agricultural district, I resolve to propose the coinbined
right of the ten-pound householder in the towns, and the
freeholder and leaseholder in the country, which I intend
to add to the ten-pound voter of the tow!), and this with-
out depriving him of his vote for the county at large, thus
retaining for him the double vote—that for the county and
that for the town—which he enjoyed before. I have now
gone through the main provisions of the Bill ; but
there is one point to which it is my wish particu-
larly to allude, because it might lead to discussion on one
side and on the other, since it departed from the principle
now laid down in the English Bill : I allude to the pro-
vision in the English Bill by which the present right of
freemen is made to descend for ever as heretofore. That
precedent we do not propose to follow, because the free-
men in Ireland were an objectionable class of voters, al.
though it was not so in England. The freemen in Ire ,and
were mixed up, not with political but religious quarrels.
If they were simply persons who, by birth or sereil ude, or
inhabitancy, had acquired their right of votiros, the same
rule would apply to them as to the freemen of England ;
but I do nut wish to perpetuate a race of Protestant free-
men, who were made freemen, not for any of the reasons
I have mentioned, but because they were Protestants, and.
thus belonging, as it was once supposed, to the only ileum
which had a right to return Members. I propose then to
retain actual and inchoate rights, hut not to continuum them,
(This is as it was in the English Bill.) And this is the
course which it is intended to pursue with respect to the
Catholic forty-shilling freeholders. We propose that
they
c
e
•
forty-shilling freeholders shall be registered so long
'
continue in the same holdings. There is one other pre-
cedent in the English Bill we will not we do not
mean to try the experiment of
":11koinrgteriminglYthe number oin differentf
places at the same time,
and
days for taking it. We propose .to adhere to the existing
system, extending it in the details with respect to the lio-