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

of evidence was giver of the fictitious votes in Ireland.
According to the Bill as it steed a tenant not legally in
possession might register and vote. Would such a vote
be fictitious or not?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL apprehended that a
person in bona fide occupation, and paying • the rate,
would be a legal and not a fictitious voter.
After a few words from Sir D. NOILREYS,
Sir F. THESEGER remarked teat tie Attorney-Ge-
neral had introduesd a new tam, and had spoken of a
bona fide occupation. Surely his Right Hon. Friend did
not mean to say that there was no distinction between a
wrongful and rightful occupier. The Bill merely said
that an occupier should he entitled to vote.
After a few words from Mr. MOORE,
Lord C. HAMILTON thought that as the Attorney-
General had stated that the introduction of the words
" tenant or owner" would lead to litigation, the Right
Hon. Gentleman should introduce words which would
prevent litigation, and he would therefore suggest that
the Right Hon. Gentleman should at once say that any
defacto occupier should he entitled to vote, whether he
was in occupation de jure or not.
Mr. BROWN—Not taking a lawyer's, but a corn•
-
mon-sense view of :he point, he should say that proa of
occupation was all that was required.
After a few words from Mr. HILDYARD,
Mr. HENLEY said he should separate the two parts
of the amendment, and first take the sense of the Com-
mittee on the introduction of the words " tenant or
owner."
The Committee then divided :
For the emenclirent ... 102
Against it ... ... 166
Majority against the amendment --6 t
Mr. HENLEY then moved the omission of the
" under the last rate for the time being," for the
purpose of inserting in their place the f illowing words,
" for the seine time all rates made during that period."
The Bill required that a person should have paid the
rates during the year; and surely it must have been
the intention of its framers to require that ho should
also have been rated during the same period. But no
such provision was contained in the clause as it then
stood ; and it was for the purpose of supplying the omis-
sion that he moved the amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that by the
clause as it then stood a person who at the commence-
ment of the year had held a property worth less than the
required amount, but who before the close of the year
had by the outlay of capital rai,e 1 its value beyond that
amount, would be entitled to the franchise; and he
thought the House would act wisely and properly in
adopting such a provisi
Mr. BRIGHT said, he believed that the adoption of
the amendment would only throw unnecessary and vexa-
tious obstacles in the way of the claimant of the fran-
chise; and he should therefore oppose it.
Mr. HENLEY said, that as the clause then stood, if a
man occupied a tenement worth only 10s. a year, and
a few days bciore the registry friendly guardians should
strike a rate in which that tenement should be fixed at
81., that man would be entitl:d to be rcgistereJ. In
order to prevent such a proceeding, he proposed that a
party claiming the fi anchise should be rated to all the
rates struck.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, that under that measure a
person seeking to be pla•wd rn the registry should be en
occupier—that he should be 'wed to the poor-rats in a
sum of not less than 81, and that he should have paid
his rate; and he (Lord J. Russet) did not think it ne-
cessary to add to those conditions by adopting the pro.
posal of the Hon. Member fir Oxfordshire. He believed
that no serious abuse could arise from the adoption of
the clause as it then stood.
Mr. W. MILE 3 said, that if they wished to establish
a property q lalifica.ion, they ought surely t take into
account not merely the last rite, hut nil the aces to
which the. party was liable during the required perio 1.
Mr. LAW saicl, that under the clause as it now stood
a person who had contributed to no ra'e excf.nt or e, au:l
who had been made liable to that rate solely fir the pur-
pose of meeting the requirements of that Bill, vroul I be
entitled to he ilieed on the registry. It seemed to him
tha: they etk;!.t to prevent the possibility of such art
abuse.

Sir F. TIIESIGER said it should be remembered that
the valuation could only be changed once in seven years.
He should further observe, that an occupier who might
have improved the value of his holding to the requisite
amount •was a person fairly entitled to the privilege
conferred by the Bill. Under those circumstances he
hoped that, his Hon. Friend would not press hie amend-
ment.
Mr. HENLEY intimated that he should not divide the
House on the subject.
The amendment was then negatived Without a division.
The question having then been put that the blank in
the clause with respect to the rating qualification should
be filled up with the words " eight pounds,"
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said he was well aware that,
in moving an amendment for the purpose of raising the
rate of the qualification, he should be met by the argu-
ment—if argument it could be cal'ei—which was
usually eddreessd t s Members who opposed an en'arge-
merit of the franchise—namely, the,. he was actuated
by a desire unnecessarily to curtail the rights cf his
fellow-countrymen. But for his part he had no hesita-
tion in stating that he subscribed to the constitutional
doctrine advanced by the Noble Lord at the head of the
Administration, that it was the right of every indivi-
dual in the community to have the best system of go-
vernment, and the best system of representation, which
it was possible for Parliament to devise fn. him. He
believed that no reasonable man could rtfase his as
sent to an opinion quoted on a former occasion by the
Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Ripon, from
Mr. Fox, he believe 1, to the effect that the best quali.
fication as the basis of the representative system we.
that which would include the largest number of in-
dependent voters, and exclude the largest number c f
persons who were not independent.—(Hear, hear.)
They had heard it fry quently said that the fact tha!
the number of electors in Irehted bore a coraider-
able disproportion to the amount of its population, a
compared with the number of electors in England, af-
forded a good reason for their increasing the number in
that country. But he could not admit that the franchise
was to rest on any me se arithmetical calculation of that
kind. The only question they had to consider was, what
was the amount of franchise which was calculated t)
effet' the best system of government. That question
had formed a subject V very anxious deliberation at the
period of the passing of the Reform Bill; and it had at
that time been considered as an established principle that
a certain balance was to be observed between the amount
of househ H franchise conferred on the inhabitants of
boroughs, and the amount of franchise based on property
extended to counties. Now it appeared to him that it
would be very unwise to interfere unneeessarily with
that balance; and if he objected to the franchise which
would be created by that Bill for one reason more than
for any other, it was, that he thought it was calculated
to destroy the existing distinction between the house-
hold franchise for boroughs, and the franchise founded
on property, which had been established for counties.
If there was any ground of justification for the franchise
which it was they proposed that they should create for
counties, it was, that with that franchise property in the
counties would he fairly represented. The Committee
were aware that in all previous Acts of Parliament upon
that subject there had been three essential conditions ap-
pended to the franchise for counties; the first of which
was, that there should be occupation; the second that
there should be tenure, and the third, that there should
be a certain amount of beneficial interest. In the year
1811 L-rd Morpeth bad introduced a Bill in which he
ha I proposed that the franchise in Ireland should be
bases' on a 5/. rating and a 14 years' tenure; but the
House had thought proper to reject that proposal. Now,
he (Mr. IL) believed it might fairly be calculated
that with an 8/. rating franchise the beneficial interest of
the holder would not amount to much more than about
41. instead of the 181. required by the Re'orm Bill. But
it, as he was about to propose, the amount of the quali-
fication was r died to 15/., the property rated at that
amount might, he thought, be fairly considered
worth about 201., any the beneficial interest
f the holder could not be much less than
about 10/., the amount required by the Reform
Act. He could assure the Committee that in
making that proposal he had no wish unnecessarily to
curtail the franchise in Ireland. His only desire was to
see it extended to those persons; in that country who
were qualified properly to exercise it. He would press
on the Committee the necessity. of their using peculiar
caution in dealing with that question at the present
moment. Ireland was at present recovering from those
internal dissensions to which she owed so many of her
misfortunes; and they ought to beware how they
created in that country a new element of strife among
her people. The past struggles between her upper and
inferior classes had merely placed them in antagonism as
to the tenure under which land should be held; but the
proposal then before the House would place them
in antagonism as to the occupancy of the land. With
these convictions he felt it his duty to move that the
blank in the clause be filled up with the words "fifteen
pounds," instead of the words " eight pounds."
Mr. GRATTAN said that in his opinion the qualifi-
cation should be fixed at 61. instead of 8/. A voter rated
at 61.
for Dublin,
iunbflaine,t
titey
rated at 9/. As to the two Hon. Mem-
berswere no doubt, exceedingly com-
placent excellent men, and both the ono and the other,
perhaps, might be called "ingenui vultus peer inge-
nuique pudoris."—(A laugh.) But there was another
expression in Dean Swift's" Polite Conversation" which
equally applied to them. Referring to a similar cha-
racter, Dean Swifc said that " though butter would not
melt in his mouth, he would warrant that cheese would
not choke him."—.(Laughter.)
Mr. REYNOLDS said that though not learned in the
legal sense of the word he thought he could nevertheless
give the Lion. and Learned Members for Abingdon and
the University of Dublin a little information on the sub-
ject of the Irish franchise. Whatwereit was
eaqs enjoyedual qualifications
for for the franchise in Ireland? True,
501. and 20/. freeholders, 20/. rent-chargers, i, lease-
holders with a 10/. beneficial interest, householders
re
_ in
d
boroughs of 101. annual value, and freemen w.hquhtre
so
no property qualification. Now, this Mil, to which
bad a character had been given, 1, ft the free
un-
touched, as also the 50/, and ',O/. freeholders, and the

rent-chargers. It was scarcely correct, therefore, to say
that the Bill would sweep away all existing qualifications.
The lion. Member for Montrose stated the other night
that 81. in Ireland was equal to 301. in England; and,
therefore, 15/. in Ireland was equal to 581. in England;
and he apprehended the House would never sanction
such a qualification as that. He protested against
the slow progress wh'cla they were making in
Vie 13:11. Hero they were at eight o'clock on
the second night of the discussion only on the
12th line of the Ist clause, and if they proceeded at
the same rate, they might, perhapi, get through the Bill
by next August. He appealed to English Members. It
had been said that if Ireland wou"d only drop the que3-
tion a a domestic legislation, everything would be
granted t) her which she could ask. Without "dropping
anything,' he demanded respectfully of them.as -Eng lift)
repeesentatives, in the name of his fellow countrymen
and constittrents, a libel al, fair, and honest Parliamentary