The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-14 00:00:00

IRISH REFORM BILL.

Mr. STANLEY moved the Order of the Day for going
, into the Irish Reform Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL had to propose an instruction to the
Committee that the Irish forty-shilling freeholder in fee
.hould have a right of voting for Members of Parliament,
Ile English people had nobly done their duty ; the Irish
attople assisted them in their need ; so had the people of
Scotland ; and it was fitting that impartial justice should
be done to all. The franchise of Ireland was taken away
in 1829, and he now called for its restoration. In all its
details this Bill was founded upon a narrow basis, and
would make an oligarchy in Ireland, and confer the power
of representation upon absentees. He would not attribute
motives to any man, but the result of the Irish Reform
Bill would lead to the disfranchisement of the majority of
the people of Ireland. He made no objection to the Irish
Reform Bill until the English Reform Bill was carried
into a law.---(Hear, hear.) He was accompanied by the
Hon. Member for Waterford in an appeal to three Mem-
bers of the Government, and two out of three were dis-
posed to yield to his suggestions ; the third Member
could not be convinced.—(Hear.) He wished to pre-
serve the connexion between the two countries ; but if
justice were not done to Ireland they could not be con-
tented. Under this Bill there would not be more than
30,000 voters for a population of seven millions. From
the time of Henry the Sixth the forty-shilling freeholder
remained until 1829 ; then for a great and particularly
essential object it was violated ; but why not now restore
it when Reform was carried for England ? The old
system of forty-shilling freeholders in Ireland was sup-
ported in that House by Lord Palmerston and Lord Farn-
ham, and that illustrious man, Lord Brougham, now the
Lord Chancellor of England. In Waterford, Westmeath,
and Louth the forty-shilling freeholders shook off allegi-
ance to landlords and priests, and were determined to be
free. But he denied that the priests had influence. That
allegation was made in petitions against his election for
Clare, and when it came before a Committee it was re-
jected. So in the case at Westmeath and Dublin, he dis-
puted the dominion of the priests upon the ground of fact
it would be superfluous to say more ; but the dominion of
the landlord could not be doubted. The freeholders in fee
should not be expunged, and in 1829 the people of Ireland,
by legal combinations, had affected their deliverance. The
people of Ireland committed no crime, broke no law, and
yet they achieved their emancipation. In 1829 the forty..
shilling franchise was destroyed both in fee and for life. To
that he objected, and to that objection he would adhere.
At the time of the disfranchisement of the Irish forty-
shilling the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)
said that the limitation of the right of voting would extend
to 201., and the fact had turned out to be so. So he (Mr.
O'Connell) had stated over and over again, and so lie
would now repeat. What could more strongly demon-
strate the injustice done to Ireland than the distinction
made between that country and England respecting 40s.
freeholders in fee? Such voters were retained in England
and excluded in Ireland. Why was that ? Was it that
the Irish were inherently inferior to the English, or was
it that there was a determination that they should not
have equal rights ? With such an instance of partiality
he would ask with what countenance could the Right
Hon. Secretary talk of having given equal rights to Irish-
men ? Upon what ground could he talk of his wish to
amalgamate the Irish with the English people? Did the
Right Hon. Secretary think that the Trish people were so
degraded, so brutal, as that he could offer them such an
insult with impunity? But the Right Hon. Gentleman
felt secure of a majority, and that he might have even front
the Opposition side of the House—from those very Gentle-
men who had hitherto opposed the Government upon every
other question ; aye, of those gentlemen who voted against
every portion of schedules A and B, and also upon every
occasion that their votes were likely to upset the Ministry.
He wished the House to recollect what bad occurred in
that House respecting the English 40s. freeholders. They
were disfranchised, but the House of Lords restored that
franchise ; and they would do well to restore it in Ire-
land if they wished to encourage the Irish peasant in
the exercise of industry, if they wished that lie
should act for himself, and, by depending upon his
own exertions, cease to be a serf. English 10/. copy-
holders also were to have a vote, whilst that class were ex-
cluded in Ireland ; and he could assure the House that a
holding of 104 value in Ireland afforded to its owner more
means of subsistence, and more independence than a
much larger amount would do in England. He wished
as much as possible to extend the franchise, and by giving
it greater latitude, to destroy all unconstitutional influence.
He did not wish to see any man under the direct influence
of another, but the legitimate influence of property and
character would never be destroyed. The claims of the
Irish for equal representation and equal franchise, could
not be rejected on the grounds of the unfitness of the voters
to exercise their privileges. What then was the reason,
except that the Right Honourable Secretary grudged
them the boon ? He appealed against this injustice to the
people of Scotland ; he appealed to the Reformers of
Englandontry ; and,
ever if the
hav claimea right
utas
to noteom respondedpiain.
n et o
, might
his
u
be charged with creating agitation, but had he not thene
before him an active incentive to agitation ? Could th
Irish, could any people, be patient under such injustice ?
e
He adduced this amongst the many other acts of partiality
would
which excited the Irish people. Was not the prejudice
which existed against Ireland manifested on the motion of
General Gascoyne? That Gallant Member appealed, and
not in vain, to English prejudices, and he obtained a ma-
jority against Ministers. That Gentleman had since been
turned out of Parliament, and since then the present
Ministry adopted his motion ; and though they applied
that motion to England, they left Ireland without any in-
crease of Members. They had added to the Welsh repre-
sentation ; they had added to that of Scotland ; and he did
not think they added too much ; but still they kept Ire-
land down. Whilst the English Reform Bill was under
discussion the Irish Members suppressed their grievances;
but, now that that measure was passed, Ministers turned
against Ireland, and refused to give her a similar represen-
tation to that of England. Did Ministers think that this
suisiect would die or be forgotten with the vote of that
evening ? If they did they were sadly mistaken. That
people would become more united than :ever, and they
would act upon the maxim which they well understood,
that they must depend for justice upon their own exer-
tions. They well knew that .4 to be free themselves must
strike the blow." The Right Hon. Secretary would have
votes on that occasion from the Opposition side of the
House, but such votes would not be given hereafter, be-
cause the Right Hon. Secretary could not restore dominion
to the old dominant party in that country, whilst all he
(Mr. O'Connell) wanted was equality ; but that equality
.vas never the policy of England towards Ireland. Many a
time had this country to regret that she Lad not made
concessions to Ireland. It was the opinion of stone his-
torians, in which he did not coincide, that if Henry the
Eighth had, at the Reformation, granted some concessions
o the Irish, that country, as well as England, would
have adopted the reformed religion ; but however that
night be, the jealousy of England had always prevented
the prosperity or tranquillity of Ireland. He was glad to
see that the English Bill had been brought in by an Eng-
lish Gentleman; and it must be pleasing to the Scotch

to see their own countryman, one of the Luminaries of the
ige, bring in the Bill for that country; but no Irishman

was found fit to take charge of that Bill. There was se-
lected for that purpose a person, as he conceived, wholly
unfit for the task, and one who did not possess the confi-
lence of any one party in that country. In addition to
his the Bill was a fraud upon the country, and would in-
rease that agitation which it was so desirable to allay. The
Right Hon. Gentleman might go on legislating, and bring
of his Arms Bill and his Party Processions Bill ; but it
would be impossible, without doing justice, to restore
ranquillity to Ireland. Ministers might obtain a victory
Aver him. That they could easily do ; but could they
conquer the Irish people? That people would not violate
toe law, but while a rag of the Constitution was left they
would stand upon it, and there fight the battle, he hoped
The successful battle, of liberty. He then moved that it
Pe in instruction to the Committee "to enable persons in
-he counties in Ireland seised in fee, and occupying lands
tenements of the clear yearly value of fty shillings,
rod not subject to any rent, save quit rent oror crown rent,
vote at the election of Members of Parliament."
Mr. STANLEY said, that if he really stood. betweenl
nat rl
et
Tunaal thev:ls
p,,e people of Ireland and their rights,—fifßehfiosrmroftco.ewah7cnip:
n
evented their obtaining the measure o
L
nt him to the people of England, who
lefa rhnee dwG(T,e,
anxious to represent t Lekymtashotuegr ht,tihiiecmhsetlhveesHeonnti.tlaenild,
,ew him better than to believe the assertion, and to the
-uple of Ireland, whom the Hon. and Learned Gentle -
fn to might perhaps succeed in deceiving,—he should be
a:iamed to address to the House a single observation.
it it the Hon. and Learned Genthonan well knew that lie
,fr. Stanley) was not actuated by the motives which the