The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-02 00:00:00

support the amendment .of His Honourable Friead.
The Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) intimated last night
that it was not desirable to introduce any legislative
measure which might operate as a substitute for the
Reform Bill; but that all legislation on the subject
should' be supplementary to that Bilh Now, he
must frankly dect'are that the present measure
proposed to annihilate every existing franchise
and to re-construct an entirely new franchise which., with
regard to counties, would introduce a constituency to
whom it would be dangerous to entrust the election of
representatives.—(Hear, hear.) That, in fact, was the
position of the question, and let them see in what way
they ought to proceed. Were they to act upon the caution
of the Noble Lord in his speech of yesterday, and take the
institutions as they existed under the Reform Act,
and add such classes of electors as the existing
state of society rendered imperatively necessary, or
to sweep everything away in order to re-
construct our representative system entirely anew.
It appeared to be of vital importance that they should
understand what the question was ; and he trusted the
history he had given of the attempts at legislation would
not be considered unnessary.—(CheersS New, if the
Government conceded the insertion of the words pro•
posed by his Honourable Friend, the very first question
which would arise was, whether the House would create.
4 new class of county voters. The Government pro-
posed a constituency for Ireland, consisting of personS
rated on the annual value of 87. What was the new
county constituency which they would raise under the
present Bill ? They were, he believed, all agreed that it
was absolutely necessary that there should be some re-
vision of the county constituency in Ireland, with a view
to supply- its acknowledged deficiency—(Hear, hear)
—and their next endeavour woel,l he to ascer-
tain what would be the best mode of creating a class
to supply the deficiency in the constititercy. He
would therefore support the amendment of his Hon.
Friend the Member for tee University of Dublin, his
(64 F. Thesiger's) anxious desire only t eing to give
such a consituency to Ireland as was heat adapted to the
wants and wishes of the people of Ireland.—(Cheers.)
Sir G. GREY said that there was no desire on the
part of the Government to oppose the amendment. The
proposition was extended over a very long historical
Fe:iod.—(Hear, hear.) The speech of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had not touched the question in the
slightest degree.—(ilesr, heat.) The amendment pro-
posed to make no alteration whatever in the principle
of the 811, bat simply to make it more perspicuour.—
(IVar, hear.) The Government, therefore, bad no de.
sire' to oppose it, and they might proceed at once to the
consideration of the several clauses of the Bill,—(Hear,
hear, and che,rs.)
The amendment was then agreed
Mr. HENLEY moved an alteration, the effect of
which would be to throw the consideration for the •
cif dification net upon the rates due, but upon
tee average of thoec which be'ore a certain
late period had been assessed and paid. He
thought that the House were well agreed as to the
necessity of shutting the door upon all corrupt practices,
and he thought that seine parts of this Bill were well
e&calated to do so.• lie „though,: taat all par-
ties would agree that so far the boards
of guardians had been free f:•orn all political
biz.; hut ho wished the House to coasider how
ea-y it wes by this Bill fir guardians to put on and
strike off the resist° h He' would therefore suggest
that they 5 houll a'dopt, the provision of the English lie-
f den Act, that the party had been rated to all the rates,
and that would get rid of this fscility for creating fag-
got votes. He had no oljeetion to that point of the
Bill
.which related to the period of rating, bat with re-
gard.te the other point he did feel strongly upon it, ter -
eels° if the MU were ogre e I to as it Roe/ Awed, it must
inevitably head to great confu-,ien, if not liti,r,-ation and
an l fratel.— ( He te, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENIMAL said, a; the Bill at
present stool every occupier ratad fey relief of the poor
bef ,re the let of July, and who had raid the preceding
rate, would be entail- d to vote. It appeared to him,
theref thst the in:reduction of the words " tenant
or oeh.e " would lead to great rtecertainty in the revi-
sing barristers' courts, for in the eve of tenants under
notice to quit, legal questions might be raised It at
would lead to continual litigation and uncertainty as to
the persons entitled to vote. The other part of the
amendment, for substituting tee, years instead 01 one,
would of course greatly limit the operation of the Bill.
—(lrear.) It was also propo-.el by the Hon. Member
that the parties during. the currency of these two years
should be continually on the rate-book, and that the
omission of that con lition should be the loss of the
franchise. That was, in his epinion, eh indirect blow
aimed at the principle of the 1.3d1. It any l erson was on
the registry without being qualified by a ye :es occupa-
tion, be might eahily be ()ejected to; and if a ly person
entitle f to he on the registry was omitted, there would
he no difficulty iu the way of his obtaining his right.
The amendment of the Hon. Member far Oxfordshire
would greatly limit the constituency, and he trusted the.
Committee would reject it.
Sir F. THESIGER thought they were indebted to his
Right Hon. and Learned Friend tor the interpretation
which he had fr: f the Bill, for it was evident that the
object of the Government was, that persons who were
neither tenants nor owners, but merely acted as occu-
piers, should be entitled to vote. (The Att erne}--General
dissented.) Hie 'Hight Hoe. and Learned Friend had not
said so, but did he not mean it? If not, why should he
object to the introduction of the words tenant or owner?
—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the litigation which
his Hight Hon. Friend thought would follow from the
introduction of the words, he apprehended there could
be no question as to whether a person under notice to

quit was a tenant or not, if the tern of such notice re-
m linod unQx2ired. But a person under notice to quit
would hare an interest in the case of an approaching
election to prolong his occupation beyond the legal term;
and yet, by the Bill, as it now stood, he would be en-
titled to vote.—(Hear, liar.) He thought the occupier
should be a bola fide occupier, and legally entitled
to vote.

The ATTORNST-.GENERAL said that his Right
lion. Friend had not correctly apprehended what he had
said. What be had said wa; that persons wishing to
disentitle a farmer to vote might give him notice to quit,
and that that would give rise to doubt and litigation.
Sir F. THESIGER wished to know whether his right
Hon. Friend meant that any pF4.son who should keep
possession cf his holding by strong hand, against the
will cf his landlord, who had given him notice to quit,
would, from being de facto in occupation, be cntqled to
vote? In the English Reform Bill there was a clause
explaining this very term " occupier." •
The ATTORNEY-GENEItAL was aware of the
Chandos clause.

Several Members—Nn, no; that not the elauge.

The AT TORNEY- GE N E AL—lion. Members
were alluding to the borough franchise, but the Com-
mittee wore now discussing the county franchise. Thu
meaninf7 of the Bill was clearly that every person occu-
pying i'firm for a year should, if he were ra'ed, he en-
titled t, the tranchiso. Ia answ•-zr to his Right Hon.
Friend's question, he must sqy he thought the Parlia-
mentary franchise ought not to depend on the dispute
between landlord and tenant.

Mr. LAW said, as the object was to secure to Ireland
a saf3 and soun.l franchise, he should support the intro-
duction cf the words " tenant or owner." He would,
however, suggest t ) the Hon.l'dember for Oxfordshire to
mike that a distinct motion, apart ;Tom the:other portion
of his amendment.—(Hear, hear.) The sense of the
C maini!t;e might than be take] on the question whether
an occupier, without the slightest claim Ar right, should
have, by means of force or fraud, a right to the political
franchise ?—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT r the attention of the
Committee to the e.
,-,1%-en on the Devon Commis-
sion, wherein it wA, :1 that ceada land agents had
served a: ma-iy as .)on, notocs to quit at one time, and
that it was a eustim iu e,rtain parts to serve tenants
with notices to quit every six months.—(Hear, hear.)
If such was the fact it was greatly to be deplored.
The term occupier was simple, and it undoubtedly was
the object of Parliament to give the franchise to occu-
piers. He hopel they would do nothing to fritter away
the franchise of Ireland.

Mr. SHEIL said he was once Member for Louth, and
in that county there was a mountain called Carlingford.
Some thirty fishermen had reclaimed part of the moun-
tain, and had held their possession for upwards of 29
years. They said they were not tenants, the landowners
said they were not owners. How, then, would the amend-
ment affelt them?

Sir V.iliES—l6Eß—Twenty years' possession would
give them a tide.. •
Mr. SHELL—But suppose their possession had only
been for 19 years?
Mr. rIENLEY denied that they wished to fritter away
the fraqphise in Ireland. Ile had in his amendment
adopted the words of the English Reform Act, about
which there could be no ambiguity, as the point had
been settled by a judicial decision. With regard to the
rating, it was necessary in the English Act that a 10/.
eecupier'should be rated fir a whole year. The word
owner or tenant were in the English Burgh Act, and if
they were not introduced into the present Bill, any
"squatter" might claim the right of voting.—(Bear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (for Ireland) said that
the present constituency had been diminished in a great
degree by the Irish laldlords refusing to grant leases.
The Bill, to remedy that evil, proposed to give the fran-
chise to a person occupying tor twelve months and pay-
ing the rate. With regard to notices to quit, he thought
disputes might arise if the proposed words were intro-
duce]. A tenant whose holding did not expire till May
might for election purposes be served in November with
a notice'to quit, and the result might be his disfranchise-
ment. Was that just?—(hear,)
Mr. GROGAN pointed out to the Learned Gentleman
that according to the construction put by the Attorney-
General on the Bill at it now stood a tenant holding
wrongfully would be entitled to vote. Was that just?
After a few words from Sir F. TrIESIGER,
Mr. SADLEIR said he would oppose the introduction
of the words proposed by the Hon. &Leather for Oxford,
because he was convinced they would lead to a great deal
of litigation.
Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know what mischief would
arise if a person holding wrongfully, as it was called,
should vote?—(Laughter and cheers.) Their object
was to increase. the number of voters in Ireland, and to
whom it was proposed to give the right of voting? He
wished to know, as a statesman and not as a la-vyer—
(Clwers)—what mischit f would arise if the constituency
peas co-npog-d of voters possessing the qualifications laiddown in this all. According to the Bill the voter must

4),.. be convicted of crime—:he, must occupy land cr

tenements. of the annual value of 81.—he must have paid
his ratps u-
p to July, and he muss be occupier for a year.
—(llear, hear.) In the present state if the Iri,h con-
stituency ought they, on account of disputes as to whe-
ther a Wan want-gaily or wrongfully i.2possession, di-
vest such a class of voters
cf the right of voting, andoay
that they were unworthy of the frlnchise? la feet, by
retaining the clause as it stool,
they would deprive
landlords of the motive to quarrel.--(llear.)
Mr. HAMILTON said ho remembered sitting on the
Fieti:ious Vct?rs Conrnittee in 1336, when a great deal