The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-04 00:00:00

BILL.

On the order of the day for considering the amend-
ments proposed in this Bill,
Mr. M. POWER moved the addition cd£ the following
clause:—" Be it enacted, that in all cases of agreement
between the landlord and occupier, or (in •,casei of joint
occupancy) the occupiers of lands, tenem E nts, heredits-
ments, within any county in Ireland, by virtue of which
agreement the landlord is or shall be rated for the poor-
rates at the net annual value of 81. and upwards, the
occupier, or (in cases of joint occupancy ) the occupiers
of such premises shall have all the rights ,t,f registry and
voting as if he or they had been rated; :and should the
landlord, under such circumstances, refust or neglect to
pay the said rates, the payment thereof b:‘,- the occupier,
or (in cases of joint occupancy) by the (..:cupiers, shall
entitle him or them to a right of registry and voting,
and also a right to deduct from the rent the full amount
of such rates."

Mr. HAirc HELL (the Solicitor-General for Ireland)
agreed tothe principle of the clause, as :applicable not
only to counties but also to cities and boroughs; but with
respect to the wording of the clause he, found it not
sufficiently explicit to effect the purpose the Hon. Mem-
ber had in view. He ("Zr. Hatchell) had therefore
made some verbal amendments in it with a view to that
object.
Lord BERNARD said that the clause -would lead to
inextricable omfusion and perjury. These was nothing
in it to prcvent any person coming f n-ward and swearing
that he had paid the rates and claiming to vote.
Mr. GROGAN also objected to the chase.
After a short discus2don, in which Sir a Norreys, Mr.
Monsell, Major Blackell, Mr. O'Flahetrty, and Lord
Naas took part,
Mr. STAIfFORD stated he via'', opposed to the clause,
es it would create a complete system of laggot-voting in
Ireland.

Sir G. CLERK said that all difficulty would b 3 re-
moved by the tenant putting forward a clam to be ratel,
and then upon his paying the rata he should ba able to
vot?.

Mr. HATCEIELL said that was the object contem-
plated by hi. 4 amendments.
Sir J. YOUNG said the clause would affect so few
beneficially and so many disadvantageously, that ho could
not give his consent to any proposal so well calculated to
give rise to fraud.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE suggested that the clause
should be withdrawn, for the ptirpr,sso of being printed,
and then it could be takes into consideration on the third
reading.
Mr. POWER consented to adopt this course; and
After a few words from Colonel Dunne, Sir D. Nor-
reys, and Sir G. Grey, the clause was withdrawn.

Colonel CHATTERTON then moved the insertion of
a clause to the effect that the class of voters usually
called " nln-resident freemen" be permitted to vote at
the election of nambers of Parliament for cities and
boroughs, if duly registered and reatdcnt within the
county. Ho also hoped that thl Irish Secretary would
postpone the registration from Juno to August, as the
sessions were held in that month, and a large number of
electors would be added to the list.

Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said freemen belonged to the
county of a town for the most part, and the adoption of
the clause would give rise to very great inequality. He
did not think it was worth the Hon. Gentleman's while
to divide on a proposition which was to reverse the law
settled twenty years ago.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE was very sorry to refuse the
Hon. Member, but the question had been settled by the
Ref irm Bill niftily years ago.
Viscount BERNARD hoped the Hon. Member would
not divide the House on the question.

Colonel CHATTERTON ►withdrew tho clause.

The clause was withdrawn accordingly.

Sir R. FERGUSON then brought-up the following
clause:—" And be it enacted, that the premises in respect
to the occupation of which any person shall be entitled to
be registered in any year, and to vote in the election for
any city, town, or borough, us aforesaid, shall not be
required to be the same premises, but may be different
premises occupied in immediate succession by such per-
son during the twelve calendar months next previous to
the 16th day of July in such year, such person having
paid en or before the Ist day of July in such year all
the poor rates which shall previously to the Ist day of
January they next preceding have become payable from
him in respect of all such premises so occupied by him in
succession."

The clause was adopted.
Mr. ANSTEY, on the part of the Lord Mayor of
Dublin, moved to omit in clause 1, line 11, all the words
after the word " year" to the end of the clause. To
make the vote depend upon the rating was a restriction
of the franchise; and as tho Bill was a measure purport-
ing to extend the franchise he considered it would be in-
consistent on the part of the House to reject the motion.
He would take the sense of the House upon the amend-
ment.

Sir W. SOMERVILLE felt bound to oppose the mo-
tion. It interfered with the main provision of the Bill.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ... 26
Agtinst it
Majority 2, —BO

Mr. FITZPATRICK moved that clause 2, relating
to joint occupiers, should be omitted. If it passed it
would be injurious to property, and would place the
franchise on an unsound footing.
Sir R. FERGUSON seconded the motion.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the original clans° 75
Against it ... 52

Majority ...

... -26

Mr. ANSTEY then, :on the part of the Lord Mayor
of Dublin, moved the omission, in clause 6, line 29, of tho
words " eight pounds," and to substitute tho words " five
rounds."
Colonel DUNNE agreed in the propriety of striking
out the 8/., bat ho did not concur in tho expediency of
substituting 51.
Mr. LAWLESS thought 6/. would be preferable.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said a similar proposition to
that of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite had
been already urged upon Government, but had not been
entertained, because believed to be founded on erroneous
calculation. If necessary he could prove that 8/. was
the most advisable amount.
Mr. BRIGHT said it was generally considered that
the amount of 81. was too high for Ireland. He thought,
however, it would be desirable to abstain from going to
a division on the Si. or 5/. question ; but those who
were in favour of the 51 amount might wait until some
contemplated alteration with respect to the grouping
lil
of Irish boroughs was brought forward by Government.
STAFFORD thought the Hon. Member (Mr.
Bright) t
was
nhoet particularly well informed on a question
which he had given advice upon to Hon. Members. The
question of
grouping of boroughs, he believed, was
left to some future
o, f was
one
tthi
ma te It
hI ion
wantedfranchise. the franchise to be enlarged,
at other times they supported measures for narrowing it.
Mr. AGLIONBy would '
reducing the amount of franchise qualification, but ho
Pport every measure for
thought he should do more harmthan good if he sup ported the proposition of the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man, because, if carried, it would prevent the measure
whath had occurred that
from
Viscount pitssi passing g
BERNARDth eother l osuesied.
t in having
night convinced him he was r'
doubted that the Irish Reform Billlg
sure. If he had another reason for opposing anhonest
talways
ea
thea t
Crosbyopi
Bill—
which was but another kind of Reforii'
opinions he
be from the variation of opinions expreassedill—it would
e lion.
uld
by the Hon.
Member for Manchester now frail
had given utterance to at a meeting
He would read to the House an extract from th
IClembar's speech on that occasion:—" The Irish Fran.
chise Bill was a proof of the great change which.
lied taken place, not only throughout the coun-
try, bat in Parliament, proposing, as it did, altera-
tions in the qualification required for voting which
ten years ago would not have been tolerated. About
ten years since, a Bill not relating to the property quali-
fication at all, but intended to improve the system of re-
gistration, was opposed as if the welfare of the empire
dependedrejection; but the opposition to the
present Bi
was A 4
o languid, that an Hon. Member, who
uponllw a
thought that 81. was too low a qualification, and wished
to raise it, received so little support that ho was obliged to
withdraw his motion without going to a division.—
(lea-,) The only thing complained of, in fact, was that
they ha I not reduced the franchise in the boroughs to
any considerable extent, which, he believed, arose from
cleuie which''''''
amistake, and that the Government were now very
sorry for it. Now, that Bill, passim
showed a change and only e fi;by large. majorities,
and which derived to introduce a
Members attempting .
should in any way embarrass its operation,
which it was most satisfactory to see,
that all public ved the more importance frogs the fact,
men knew that the present Bill was a