The Sun.
London, England, 1832-07-24 00:00:00

MESSAGE FROAi THE COMMONS.

Mr. BERNAL, Mr. F. PALMER, Mr. PETRE, and
others, from the Commcns, brought up the Sheriff's Ex-
penses Bid, and three Private Bills, which were severally
read a first time.

REFORM OF PARLIAMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord TEYNEIAM presented a petition from certain
freeholders of the county of Mayo, praying for additional
Members for Ireland.

The Duke of CUMBERLAND presented a petition
from the University of Dublin, praying that the consti•
tunic), might be assimilated to that of the English
Universities.

The Archbishop of ARMAGH presented another peti-
tion to the same effect, from the Masters of Arts of the
Univ-rsity.

Lord MELBOURNE rose to move the second reading
of the Reform of Parliament (Ireland) Bill. As this was
the last of a series of Bills on the subject of Reform, he did
nut deem it necessary to go into any lengthened argument
upon the general question. In the whole of the
debates upon this subject, it had never been
argued, nor did he see how it could be ar
gued, that it was not necessary to extend the
same principles of Reform to the Sister Mend that
had been adopted in this country. if it was necessary to
extend the elective franchise to classes differently qualified
from those to whom its enjavinent bad hitherto been con-
fined in this country, it could not be contended that it was
not right to make such a similar extension of the fran-
chise to Ireland as the circumstances and situation of
that country called for. It had been said that they had
carried Reform in England further than necessity required,
and further even than the expectations of the people ; but
he had always felt that when we once began Reform—
when we once admitted that boroughs were to be dis-
franchised, it was necessary to carry the principle to
the extent they had done —(Hear, hear.) Had they
done less, they would have involved themselves in a maze
of inconsistencies, from which it would have been impos-
sible for them to escape. They could not by any chance
have m ide any ii,lection of boroughs which would not have
drawn down upon them the charge of partiality. But sup-
posing they had avoided hat charge. and had contrived
to strike tif a part of the rotten boroughs up n a prin-
ciple which would have satisfied all, of tt.eir impartia-
lity, the scandal of those which would have been lett would
have been greater, and the leaving of them would have
caused more condemnation atnocg the people than
the system had ever done before.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) If that argument were good in Engl,n4, how
much stronger was it as applied to the nomination
boroughs of Ireland ? Had any boroughs been left in
the hands of individuals in that country, the charges
which had been always made against their oligarchical
tendency, would have been aggravated a thousand times,
and the scandal created by their sal, would have been in-
finitely aggravated by the manner in which the diminution
of the nomination boroughs would have enhanced the price
of those preserved. He was sure the House would not think
him called upon to make any remarks upon the state of the
representation of Ireland, either before or since the
Union, or, as the elective franchise rested upon the
same principles it did in this country, to enter into a
statement so full of historical and antiquarian research
as that which the Noble and Learned Lord on the
Woolsack had found himself obliged to make, from the
peculiar nature of the tenures in Scotland, with re-
gard to the electoral qualifications of that country.
All that he proposed to do was to state the points
of difference between the English Reform Bill and that,
the second reading of which he now moved, with the
reasons for those differences. The first point of importance
was, that the representation of Ireland was to be increased
by the addition of five Members, four to be given to large
towns, and the remaining one to the University of Dublin.
With respect to the first four, there was no question but
that they had been distributed in the best na inner that
could be adopted ; and respecting the other. he believed
that a little difference of opinion prevailed; but he admitted
that there was rnatier enough for debate, as to what would
be the most proper constituency for the University. This
was, however, a question for discussion in Committee, and
could not influence the votes of their Lordships on the
second reading. In the counties, leaseholders with three
different qualifications had been introduced, and he believed
that this provision would give the electoral franchise to a
most respectable class of persons, have the effect of re.
establishing the influence of landed property, and renew that
link between lanalord and tenant which had lately been un-
fortunately broken. The counties of cities were put on the
same footing with respect to the qualification as the counties
at large,with this difference, that in the former,the 101. house-
holders were permitted to vote. With respect to the bo-
roughs, the Irish Bill followed the example of the English
Bill. It gave the right of voting to the 10/. household-
ers ; and the boundaries were to be alt gyred, in the same
manner as the boundaries of the English boroughs were,
by a measure which was now in progress through the
other House. The other provisions of the Bill related to
the registration of votes, and the conduct of the poll ;
and he thought it unnecessary for him to go into any mi-
nute detail respecting them ; but lie trusted that they woulf
be found to facilitate the progress of elections, and to pre-
vent fraud and unnecessary expense. These were the
principal provisions of the Bill ; and they appeared to him
to be fair and equitable enactments, well suited to the cir-
cumstances and situation of the country, and likely to pro-
duce the greatest advantages. The present Bill effected
a much less change in the representative system than the
English Bill, and he begged leave to submit it to the care-
iul and impartial attention of their Lordships.—(Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord concluded by moving the second
reading of the Bill.

The Duke of WELLINGTON, particularly in the ab-
sense of some Noble Peers whom he knew to be opposed
to the present measure, could not allow this stage of the
proceedings to pass, without offering a few observations
in objection to the Bill. It might be convenient in these
times to reform the representation here, and even in Scot-
land, and yet not to introduce it into Ireland. ' In 1829, the
subject of reformation in Ireland was considered, and an
important measure then adopted, by which the differentin-
terests of that country were finally settled. The measure
of 1829 was founded on the former measure, namely, the
40s. freeholders, and was calculated to put an end to the
improper influence of the Catholic priesthood. Supposing
it were proper, in consequence of what had lately passed on
the subject of the representation of the people of this part
of the United Kingdom, to adopt a similar measure
with respect to Leland, it was surely necessary to adopt
that measure on the principle of the measure passed in
1829, and not on any new-tangled motives of the present
day. This was the ground on which the Noble Duke
meant to rest his opposition to this measure. By the mea-
sure a great preponderance of influence and of right was
given to the Irish Catholics: The rights of free-
men were put au end to after the death of the
present freemen, the rights given to corporate bodies were
boofthlBb2y9. the
lf such
enact-
ment
alterations oifon the English
also put an end to. The Noble Lord had, therefore, de-
parted from the principles
anidaidthe Actsdown
be introduced with respect to counties
and towns in Ireland, they ought to be consistent with
asw negtioish