The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-31 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY ft 31, 1850.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Jury 30.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool.
sack at Five o'clock.
SMALL TENEMENTS RATING BILL.

This Bill was read a second time.
GENERAL BOARD OF HEALTH (No. 2) BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.

The report on this Bill was brought up.
HIGHWAY RATES BILL.

The Highway Rates Bill was read a third time and
passed.
FISHERIES ON THE FRENCH COAST.
ARREST OF ENGLISH FISHERMEN.

The Earl of WICKLOW asked the Noble Marquis
whether be was aware that several English fishing-
boats had been lately seized and carried into French
ports, on the ground that they had been encroaching on
the rights of the French fisheries, and whether any
steps had been taken to remedy the grievances
of the English fishermen who had been con-
demned in large fines by the French authorities.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that fir a long
time there had been disputes as to the rights of French
and English fishermen. In 1838 a treaty had been en-
tered into, by which it was agreed that the ocean within
the coasts of the respective countries should be con-
sidered as belongieg to those countries. There was
an exception to this rule, which was the coast be-
tw.-en Jersey and France; there a certain line had
been drawn. Now it so happened that exactly upon this
line a bed of oysters had been discovered ; whether
these oysters had had private information of the
treaty, and had taken advantage of it, he did not
know—CA laugh)—but it was upon this bank
that the alleged encroachments had taken place.
The temptation to encroachment was too strong for any
fishermen. Several French fishermen had been arrested by
the English authorities for encroachments, and had been
fined, and several English fishermen had been arrested
by the French authorities. By the treaty persons so
arrested were brought before the magistrates of the
respective countries, and the consul was to attend
and watch proceedings, and if he thought injustice
had bean done, it was his duty to report the same to his
Government. Several English fishermen had been
taken into Dieppe ; the consuls had attended and had
mado no representations to the Foreign-office, and there•
fore the Government had no reason to. believe that. in-
justice had been done in any of these cases.
PROVISION FOR THE PRINCE OF WALES.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved that an ad-
dress be presented to her Majesty, in answer to her mes-
sage, assuring her Majesty that the House would adopt
means to secure to his Royal Highness the Prince
of Wales the possession of Marlborough House so
soon as ho should attain eighteen years of age. The
necessity for asking this opinion at present was that
Marlborough House was to be devoted to the exhibition
of the pictures left to the nation through the patriotism
of the. late Mr. Vernon.

Lord BROUGHAM seconded the motion, and in so
doing passed a high eulogium on Mr. Vernon.
Lord REDESD ALE thought it would be advisable to
fix on Marlborough House as a residence in perpetuity
for the future heirs of the Throne.
The motion was then agreed to .
CANTERBURY SETTLEMENT BILL.

This Bill was read a third time and passed.
FEES OF THE OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved a resolution
to the effect that the House concurs in the suggestions
of the Committee recommending the reform of the fees
of the officers of this House, and would carry the same
into effect.—Agreed to.
The Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and
their Lordships adjourned.

merit he intended to affirm the proposition that
the Baron was to constitute himself the judge, not only
of the manner in which the oath should be adminis-
tered, but also of the words of which the oath itself'
should consist.—(Hear, hear.) That was a thing
which he could not conscientiously vote fur,
according to the view which he took of the
case; but, said his Honourable and Learned Friend,
you change the words our Sovereign Lord King George
for our Sovereign Lady the Queen. Now, really,
was that a mode of dealing with the case ?
(Loud cheers.) Might they not just as well say
that they could change the oath because they
did not say A B, but inserted the name of the party
sworn?—(Cheers.) Looking, then, at this case with the
greatest attention which he was able to give it, he did
say that the House had not the power of dispensing with
any portion of the oath. The oath was imposed
by an Act of Parliament, and having given the best at-
tention he could to the Act, the words "on the true
faith of a Christian " did appear to be part of the oath.
and it was the duty of every Member to take it in full
before he could take his seat in the House.—(Cheers.)
His Hon. and Learned Friend seemed to be a little sur-
prised that the Noble Lord at the head of the Government
should have expresed his opinion without having heard
the arguments. Why, his Honourable and Learned
Friend must know that it was his, as well as the
Noble Lord's duty, to consider and look into
the case well before coming down to the
House, and no doubt the Noble Lord bad done that.—
(Hear, hear.) At a l events he had considered all the
bearings and facts of the case, and he came to a conclu-
sion which was liable no doubt to be removed
by argument, but he bad listened with the
greatest attention to the ablest argument he bad
ever heard in his life from his Hon. and Learned Friend,
and he must confess that it had failed to remove from
his mind the difficulty which he felt about altering an
Act of Parliament.—(Cheers.) So long as a statute
required them to take a particular oath' the House could
not dispense with any portion of it; he believed then
the words " on the true faith of a Christian" to be
part of the oath; aad, speaking there in his judicial
character, upon his conscience he did think the
Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild had not
taken the oaths in the form prescribed by the Act
of Parliament, or in such a manner as to entitle him to
take his seat in that House.—(Cheers.)
Mr. ANSTEY asked why his Hon. and Learned
Frtend the Attorney-General had addressed the House
on this occasion? He would tell him. It was to give
some sort of colour to the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government—(Cheers)—some sort of justification
for the Noble Lord for his indiscreet and unseasonable
speech of yesterday.—(Hear, hear.) His Hon. and
Learned Friend (the Attorney-General) had reminded
the House that this was a judicial question. If that was
an, why was the question preiudged ?—(Hear.) If it was
a judicial question, why was it made a Cabinet question?
Why was the law officer of the Crown put forward
to defend the Prime Minister? Had his Hon. and
Learned Friend (the Attorney-General) ventured to
reply to the unanswerable speech of his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Member for Oxford ? He had.
not ; he had contented himself with a sic yelp sic jubeo reply.
The argument of the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen was,
this: —Either the House had power to tamper with the
Acts of Parliament or the oath had expired. Every
fresh Parliament Protestant Members were called upon
to take the oath. It was not put to him, or he would have
claimed his right to be heard at the bar, and have showed
that it was an illegal oath.—(Laughter.) Hon. Members
might laugh, but he would quote a passage from the
statute, which would set the matter at rest for ever.
The arguments of his Hon. and Learned Friend opposite
had been greatly perverted. It was allowed that a man
ought to be sworn according to the form most bind-
ing on his conscience, and -the question was, did the
words "on the true faith of a Christian "
form part of the oath which was held binding on
the conscience in certain cases. He said they did.
Whatever opinions might be formed by lawyers or.
courts of justice as to the mode of prescribing the oath,
they could not shrink from doing their duty and
acting justly to one who, though elected to sit in that
House, was about to be deprived of that privilege by the
starting of an objection which he thought could not be
righteously sustained—
" Fiat justitia, ruat ecelum."
The Hon. Member concluded by expressing a hope that
the question would not be allowed to rest until Baron
Rothschild was permitted to enioy his right of sitting
and acting as a Member of the House.

Mr. HUME said it would be quite impossible for him
to attempt to enter into the legal argumenti of the case,•
after the very masterly and very able speech of his
Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Qxford; but
he wished to observe that one argument had been.
used which had not been answered by the Honour-
able Member for Abingdon (Sir F. Thesiger).
That Hon. and Learned Member called upon the House
to agree to a motion to the effect that the Hon. Member
for the city of London had virtually vacated his seat, be-
cause he had not taken the oath of abjuration in the pre-
scribed form ; and he wished to ask him by what statute
or by what law he considered the Honourable
Member had rendered his seat vacant?—(Hear.)
Now no one, he apprehended, would doubt that the
Baron Rothschild had taken the oaths of allegiance and
supremacy, and having taken those two oaths he (Mr.
(Hume) contended 'that he could not be expelled.
The last oath, the oath of abjuration, was one of pains
and . penalties, but the Baron would not be sub-
ject to those pains and penalties unless he had
eat and voted. Perhaps it might be better,
as the Attorney-General had come into the House, that
be should put the question to him. He wished to know
from that Learned Gentleman by what law the Hon.
Member for the city of London had vacated his
seat; he had taken the oaths of supremacy and alle-
giance, but it was said he had not taken the oath of ab-
juration.—(Hear, hear.) In his (Mr. flume's) opinion
he had.—(Hear.)
The-ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that it appeared
to him that the seat bad become vacant, assuming that
Baron Rothschild had refused to take the oath
of abjuration.—(Hear, hear.) By the 6th of George
111. persons who refused to take the oath of
abjuration were subject to the same penalties and
disabilities, as by the laws and statutes already enacted
were provided, and by that statute they referred to the
statute of William 111., which directed that the party re-
fusing to take the oath should be unable to sit in
Parliament.

Mr. BERNAL—What became then of the statute of
George 111. ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL considered that the
statute of William HI. overrode it.

Mr. WOOD assented that the statute of George 111.
repealed the statute of William 111.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not agree in
that opinion.
Mr. V. SMITH was not prepared to assume
that Baron Rothschild had refused to take the
oath (Hear, hear,) —yet that was the proposal
of the Honorable and Learned Member for Abingdon,
The Hon. and Learned. Member then‘proposed further
to issue a new writ for the city of London. He could
not assent to the adoption of such a course, when they
had the first legal authority in that House disputing upon
whether Baron Rothschild was entitled to his seat or not.
He could neither vote for the original motion nor the
amendment, and he would therefore suggest that a Com-
mittee should be appointed to consider what was the state
of the law op this subject.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY felt a difficulty in the matter. The
terms of the motion of the Honourable and Learned
Member for Abingdon were that the Baron de Roths-
child had refused to take the oaths prescribed by law;
but the Baron (14 Rothschild did not do that; -he merely
omitted certain words from one oath, because he did not
think them binding upon his conscience.—(Hear,
hear.) Now he was prepared to vote against the
amendment of the Hon. and Learned Member for Ox-
ford, declaring that the seat was full, and he must say
that he thought they ought to proceed with great caution
and deliberation before they agreed to the motion for
the issue of a new writ.—(Hear. hear.) They must
look at this as a precedent for all future time,
and what would the minutes of the House disclose? It
would appear that a Member came to the bar—he took
the two first oaths prescribed by law; be took the last
oath prescribed, by law, with the omission of certain
words, stating that he did not refuse to take them, but that
he did not use them because they were not binding upon
his conscience.—(Hear, bear.) He thought with his
Honourable and Learned Friend the Attorney-
General that these words formed part of the oath
prescribed by law, and the House had not the
power to dispense with them; but still they
ought to have something more to proceed upon
than the statement of the Hon. Member himself before
they proceeded to declare the seat vacant. There was
another question, however, to be 'decided. Was the
refusal of the Honourable Member final and com-
plete, and the seat thereby vacant ? For his
part he believed the Act of William 111., which made
the refusal to take this oath vacate the seat, was still in
force, notwithstanding what had been said to the con-
trary by the Honourable and Learned Gentleman the
Member for Oxford.—(Hear. hear.) At the same time
they were now acting judicially, and he did think
in the present state of conflicting opinion on the law they
would be acting unwisely if they now decided that the
seat was absolutely vacant without taking more time to
look into the point —(Cheers.)
Sir F. THESIGER was anxious to proceed with
all proper caution and due deliberation, and
undoubtedly when he proposed his resolution in the
terms which ho had submitted to the House, be thought
he was pursuing the course of precedent. because there
was no doubt whatever that there were a variety of
instances upon which parties had come to the table
and refused to take the oaths, and upon that
refusal there had been immediately made a
motion for the issue of a new writ.—(Cheers.)
New, Baron Rothschild took two of the oaths at the
table; but on coming to the words in the third, " on the
ghoenar.h)ja
true faith of a Christian," he closed the book and said
(Hear,dbinding
ckeristaseindlythedidbonookt.
lie
conscience.
(Sic
F. 'Leg
gt
ehre)n
heb omitted those words because be considered them not
understand, when the Baron said he omitted these words,
for the reason which he , gave, that there was a re-
ftbal to swear to those words 911 7-( ear, hear.) If he (Sir
g in
F. Thesiger) was wron •supposing that that
amounted to a refusal to take
asubstantial portion of
the oath, he wished to know in what mode the Right
Hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) proposed that
that the House
should ascertain clearly and distinctly whether it wasthe
intention of Baron Rothschild to take
the oaths pre-
scribed by Act of Parliament or not.
Mr. PAGE WOOD said, on the part of Baron Ro.ths-
child, but without consulting him, he would say, that
Baron Rothschild had not the least hesitation in sayitig,
that the omission to take those words should be taken u
a refusal to take them.
Sir FREDERICK THESIGER said, then if that
were so, he could hardly understand why his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. P. WOod)
wished to claim whet his lion. and Imirusii griped

called a locus penitentia for Baron Rothschild on this
occasion.—(Laughter.) He (Sir F. Thesiger) bad
merely risen to make the explanation which he bad
given to the House.
Sir GEORGE GREY explained that Mr. O'Connell
distinctly reluaed to take the oath of supremacy, and the
House reiolved that he was not entitled to take his seat
without taking that oath. The Speaker having informed
Mr. O'Connell of the resolution of the House, Mr.
O'Connell asked to see the oath, and he said he declined
to take it because it contained two propositions which he
believed to be untrue.

Mr. ROEBUCK said all he knew from the Hon. and
Learned Member for Oxford was that Baron Rothschild
refused to take the words on " the true faith
of a Christian." That did not imply that Baron Roths-
child had refused to take the oath.

Mr. Alderman SIDNEY, amidst shouts of " Oh, oh,"
said if this was a judicial question, and if this House was
to be the judge ot it, it required not the learning c f a
lawyer, but the sound sense of an individual to form an
opinion upon it. After listening to this debate for three
days he had come to the conclusion that the question
whether the House was to admit Baron Rothschild to take
his seat or not was virtually decided by last night's debate.
This was not a party question, but it was one in which
each of them would feel himself called upon to act the
part ot a magistrats. He entertained an opinion that
the time was gone by when this House could persuade
the country that a constituency like the city of London
was not able to judge for itself. He trusted that the
House would not stultify itself by proclaiming to the
world, and to the city ot London in particular, that they
would not accept the man whom they had chosen, and
by requiring them to go through the farce of a third
election.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL asked the House to come
to some decision as to the course of proceedings. If the
Hon. Member for Oxford, who represented the Hon.
Member for London in that House, thought some delay
advisable before proceeding to a diiision, he should pro-
pose that they should adjourn until six o'clock.
Mr. P. WOOD said that as he understood that it
was the desire of many Hon. Members to speak, he
should move that the debate should adjourn until to• night
at six.

---
Mr. DISRAELI—As it appeared to be the general
feeling of the House that the question was narrowed
to the point whether they should repeal an Act of Par-
liament or not, perhaps it would be requisite to allow some
further time for considera►ion. He would remind the
Noble Lord that the Irish Franchise Bill stood for to-
night. He would propose to adjourn until to-morrow.—
(Cries of• " No, no," "Divide, divide.") He would
propdae, then, that they should go on with the Irish
Franchise Bill at six o'clock.

Mr. P. WOOD said, that having consulted with Hon.
Members, he should be perfectly ready to go on with
the division.

Mr. B. OSBORNE said that he wished to state how
it was that he had not spoken on this question.—(Cries,
of " Oh, oh.") He was one of those who took a com-
mon sense view of the question, and he did not intend
to have his judgment perverted by the quibbles of
lawyers or the equivocal conduct of the Prime Minister.
What was the course of proceeding by the Government?
The Attorney-General moved that Baron Rothschild
should be heard at the bar of the House by counsel, but
'the Noble Lord (Lord J., Russell) got up and told the
House, after the Baron had been put to great ex-
pense in retaining counsel, and after he had raised
the expectation of the electors of the city of London,
that it was true he had agreed to hearing the Hon.
Member by counsel, but his mind was made up on the
question, and that whatever counsel might say he
would call on his supporters and other Honourable
Members to vote against the admission of the Ho-
nourable Member. Tbey were told that this was a
judicial question, but they knew very well, from the
course of proceeding by the Government, that it was not
a judicial question, but had been made by them a party
questiou.—(No, and Hear, hear.) It was no use tempo-
rising with the question,
_and he would tell the House
if it did so that it would engage in a conflict with the
citizens of London, out of which it could only come with
disappointment and disgrace.—(Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL rose to explain. His Hon. Friend
the Attorney:General stated, on the occasion referred
to by the Honourable Member, that he would follow
the precedent in the case of O'Connell, and pro-
pose that Baron Rothschild should be heard by
himself, or by counsel or agent. Then the Learned
Gentlemen the Member for the city of Oxford, said he
was authorised by Baron Rothschild to state that he did
not wish to be heard by counsel.—(Hear, hear.) That
having been declared, a debate ensued in which the
Honourable Member for Middlesex declared very
strongly his opinion on the whole question.—(Hear)—
and such being the case, he considered himself as well
entitled as any other Member to state his opinion to the
House.—(Cheers.) He accordingly did so, observing at
the same time that he thought this was a judicial ques-
tion, but he certainly did not wish to influence any
member of the Cabinet, or any other Member of the
House in the decision of the question.—(Hear.)

Mr. STANFORD rose amidst loud cries of "Oh "
and'6ther marks of disapprobation, for the purpose of
supporting the adjournment of the debate. He hopeil
the House would not prejudge the question, and that he
would hive an opportunity of considering its whole
bearings before he was compelled to record his vote.
Strangers were then order to withdraw and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. P. Wood's amendment ... 117
Against it ... ... 221
Majority against the amendment 104
On our return to the gallery wo found
Lord J. RUSSELL stating that he did not think
the House would be justified, without further authority,lin
saying that Baron Rothschild had refused to take the oaths.
Ile thought the+ House ought to have time to deliberate
upon the question, wnethcr either an Act of Parliament
or the precedent and usages of the House mide it neces-
sary and incumbent upon them to proecei immediately
to issue the writ. Ho was anxious that the
House should take the utmost time to deliberate upon
that point, and he therefore hoped his Hon. and Learned
Friend the Member for Abingdon would not press his
motion now, but either withdraw it or adjourn it to some
future day.—(Hear.)
Sir F. THESIGER was extremely anxious to leave
the matter entirely in the hands of the Noble Lord.—
(Opposition cheers.) He meant precisely what he said.
—(Cheers.) It was a question which concerned the pri-
vileges of the House, and he thought it was.peculiarly a
matter for the Noble Lord to decide what course they
ought to adopt. Of course he was not as well versed in the
rules and forms of the House as the Noble Lord, and
being desirous to proceed with due caution, he was
anxious to receive the instructions of the Noble Lord—
(Cheers)—as to the proper course to be adopted.—
(Hear, hear.) He had no desire to hurry this
matter on, he ' was only anxious, inasmuch
as they were now in a position which placed them
in a difficulty as to the proper mode of proceeding,
that there should be every opportunity afforded the
House to consider the question ; and he could,
of course, have no objection to adopt the sugges-
tion of the Noble Lord.—(Cheers.) With respect
to the question as to the refusal of Baron Rothschild to
take the oath, if it was required by the House that they
should have more distinct information on the subject,
he was ready to accede to it, because his object
was to establish a precedent for the future con--
duct of the House; and it was, therefore, of the
utmost importance that the journals should be full and
complete upon the subject.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HUM.E said, the Hon. and Learned Member
seemed surprised at some demonstration of applause
in favour of his conduct, but how could he
toon.
wonder at that ? Why, did not the Honourable and
Learned Member leave everything in the hands of the
Noble Lord at first, why aid the lion. and Learned
Member step forward and interfere with the Noble Lord?
The sp e speech
would of the
H a
divisiona d
sad Learned
negativeGentlemanw a
s
quite inconsistent with his practice,
House and he hoped the
proceed
mo-
tion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. V. SMITH said this was a question for the
House of Commons, and not for the Ministers to decide.
He was surprised at the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
opposite talking about caution, when he had been so
rash as to propose a resolution which the House could not
adopt; nay, it actually stated what was not the fact,
for it was untrue that the Baron Lionel de Rothschild
had refused to take the oaths.—(Cheers.) If any ad-
journment took place, be hoped it would be for the pur-
ls-Use of ultimately having a Committee to consider the
law of the subject.—(Bear.) •
Sir R. H. INGLIS denied that the resolution of the
Hon. and Learned Member for Abingdon contained that
which was untrue, nor had the Hon. and Learned
Member been at rash and precipitate in his conduct.
—(Cheers.) The Right. Hon. Gentleman the Member
for Northampton! had said that the Hon. Member for
the city of London had taken the oath, and if the
Right Honourable Gentleman limited himself to
the word oath, he was justified in saying so,
but the lion. Member for the city of London had not
taken the oath, which was the whole point at issue. The
lion. Gentleman had taken an oath, but not the oath.—
(Cheers.) Supposing the Hon. Member had omitted clause
3,4, or 5 of the oath, would the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Northampton then say that the Baron
de Rothschild had taken the oath?—(Cheers.) There-
fore, then, be contended that the motion of his Hon. and
Learned Friend was not premature, was not at all ill-
advised, and affirmed nothing but that which was obli-
gatory upon every one of thess.—(Cheers.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that the debate be
adjourned to twelve o'clock on Thursday next. His
Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General would
then propose such a resolution, or resolutions, as his
Hon. and Learned Friend and himself (Lord John Rus-
sell) should have conceived the dignity and the usage of
the House required.
Sir F. TIIESIGER seconded the motion.
Sir B. HALL said, whatever resolution the Govern-
ment might propose on Thursday next, he, for one,
should insist that the motion of the Hon. and Learned
Member for Abingdon should be affirmed or negatived
by the House.—(Cheers.)
Mr. V. WOOD said, as any resolution the Govern.
ment might propose
on Thursday would be in the shape
of an amendment to the motion of the lion. and Learned
Member for Abingdon, he did not see why the House
should not dispose of the motion of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Abingdon.
Mr. ROEBUCK: reminded the House what they were
going to do by adjourning. The real facts of this case
were before the House, and the only doubt was about
the conclusion from those facts.
Mr. HUME thought that if the Noble Lord (Lord J.
Russell) meant to act fairly on this question, the motion
of the Hon. and Learned Member for Abingdon should
be disposed of or withdrawn.
ACer a few words from Mr. ANSTEY,
Mr; AG LIONBY asked the Government if they were
going to incur the odium of preventing the House com-
ing to a decision on the motion of the lion. and Learned
Member for Abingddn?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied th4t he thogilt

far better to adjourn the debate until Thursday than to
come to any hasty decision on the motion before it. As to
any odium he might incur, he did not think it would he
wire for the First Minister of the Crown to be very
sensitive on that point,—(Laughter) He doubted it
was part of his fate to incur odium, but he should seek
to avoid it as much as possible.
The gallery was then cleared, but no division took
phlce. On entering we found
Sir F. THESIGER expressing his willingness to with-
draw his resolution, or to have it negatived ; but the
House must understand that it was solely on the ground
ihat he might not interfere with the Government reso-
lution.

Sir F. The3iger's motion -was then put and nega•
ivi,d without a division.

In reply to a question from Sir B. HALL,

The ‘ATTOIiNEY-GENERAL said that it would
not be possible for him to lay his resolution on the table
bef ,re Thursday.
Mr. ANSTEY complained of this delay.

The debate was then adjourned until Thursday.
Mr. DISRAELI suggested that Hon. Members who
had notices of motion on the paper should allow the
Government to proceed with the Irish Franchise Bill
this evening.

Lord J. RUSSELL expressed his willingness to com-
ply with the suggestion.
Mr. P. SCROPE said that he would willingly postpone
his motion if it were the wish of the House.

The House then adjourned at a quarter after four
until half-past six.

The House resumed at. Half-past Six, when
Colonel DUNNE postponed his motion relative to the
growth of tobacco in Irel Ind.

PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS' (IRELAND) BILL.
The order of the day being read for. considering the
Lords' amendments on the Parliamentary yuters (Ire•
land) Bill,

Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose and proposed, "On
consideration of Lords' amendments to Parliamentary
Voters, &c. (Ireland) Bill, clause I, page 2, line 8, to
amend Lords' amendments, by inserting the word
'twelve,' instead of fifteen.' To agree to Lords' amend-
ments omitting clause 2of Commons' Bill. To disagree
to Lords' amendments omitting clauses 18, 19, and 21, of
Commons' Bill." Before he made the motion he was
anxious to state the general view which her Majesty's
Government took of the amendments which had been
made in the Bill. and also as it stood now in being sent
down by the Lords. The House was well aware of the
extreme case which existed on this subject in Ireland—
s case which showed, that while they had in England a
per contage of registered electors in proportion to the
male p9pulation, of 8 per cent., in Wales 32 per cent., in
Scotland 25 per cent., in Ireland the proportion was less
than 2 per cent.—(Hear.) Without entering into fur-
ther statistics the House would see a strong example of
the great decrease of the number of electors in Ireland,
and if any further proof were wanting it would be seen
in Mayo—a large and populous county—where, at the
election which had just terminated, less than 250 voters
voted for .the two candidates.—(llear, hear.) What her
Majesty's Government proposed on the subject of elec-
tors was to change the present system cf voting alto.
gether, and the tenure on which. it was founded, into an
occupation franchise. He for one thought that Hon.
Gentlemen, who discussed this subject, were apt to lose
sight of the fact that the practice in England generally
was the 40s. freehold franchise. It was no doubt very
common to talk of the 50Z occuaption, which existed,
and to say that an 81. franchise in Ireland was much too

low, but in point of fact, the franchise in England ge.
nerally was the forty-shilling freehold, and to show that
such was the case, he should call the attention of the
House to the relative proportions of that franchise as
compared with the 501. in several of the counties. In
Berkshire the number of those possessing the 40s. free-
hold was 3,274 and of 50/., 853. In Herefordshire, of
403., 5,280 ; of 50/., 1,639. Lancashire, 16,064; of 50/.,
3,457. Middlesex, 10,418 403. freeholders, 1,317 50/.;
and in Sussex, 3,769 40s. freeholders, and 1,059 of
those who possess a 501. qualification. It was
quite clear, therefore, that the great bulk of the
voters in the English counties were persons possessed of
the 40s. franchise—a species of qualification, as the
House well knew, abolished in Ireland several years ago,
and was now completely extinguished. It was, there-
fore, proposed that the great bulk of electors in counties
in that country should be occupiers rated to the relief
of the poor, and the first question of great importance
which arose on the amendinent of the Lords was the
amount of that rated occupation. They proposed, and
it was acceded to by the House,. that it should be an 81.
rating, but it was altered in the House of Lords and
raised to 151. The number of tenants rated at 8/. would
be 330,224, whereas the number at 151. would be 180,000,
and if they deducted one-fifth, which was the usual pro
-pnvtion-for double-occupation and tenements inhabited
by females, the number at 81. would be 264,000, and at
151. 144,000. It. appeared, therefore, that the amend-
ments made by the Lords struck out no less than 120,000
voters out of 264,000 to whom that House accorded the
right to vote. That amendment, however, appeared to
him to reduce the number in a far greater degree than
was in accordance with justice; it was, in point of
fact, reducing the proportion of Irish voters as com-
pared with English much smaller than it ought to
be. He (Lord J. Russell) proposed in some measure
to remedy that great defect; he proposed to take 121.
instead of 15/., which would give 172,000 voters instead
of 144,000. The proposition originally adopted was in
the proportion of 15 per cent. to the male population,
the amendment in the Lords made it but 8 per cent.,
and -the proposal ho was now about to make of a 12/.
wing would make it about 10 per cent. He (Lord J.
Bissell) thought that if the rate of voting was raised
to 151. a question would arise immediately whether the
right of voting by tenure, and especially the ancient
right of the .40s. franchise, should be again resorted to.—
(Cheers.) He wished, however, as soon as possible, to
have such a number as to form a constituent body, and
on that ground be should propose, instead of the 8/.,
which he yet believed was perfectly reasonable, and of
the 151. proposed by the House of Lords, that in order
to remedy a crying grievance which now existed, to
insert 121. instead of 15/., which was almost dividing the
difference. There was another alteration made to which
he (Lord J. Russell) attached greater importance, because
the whole principle of the Bill was involved in it. They
might take the rating at 8/., 101., 121., or 151., but the
main principle and scope of the Bill was, that in-
stead of sending in claims to be registered, as now,
which produced so mach discussion and contention, it
should be a self-acting register, and those on the rate-
books for the relief of the poor should in future be
placed on the list. He thought the adoption of that plan
calculated to put an end to the interference of landlords
or any other persons, and thus have the registry in
future conducted on the simplest scale, and put an end
to many evils—(Hear, hear)—more especially those
complicated questions which arose at present.—(Hear,
hear.) He, therefore, proposed to disagree altogether with
the amendment made in the Lords on that clause, because,

as he said before, he attached far greater importance
to that, inasmuch as it seemed to him to be entirely con-
trary to the principle of the measure. Whether, ,as he
already said, the rating was 81. or 121. was a question
f ,r• argument, but on the principle of the Bill he
felt no doubt of being right, and he should, there-
fore, propose to disagree altogether from the
Lords' amendments on that subject. There were parts
altered in the Lords to which he did not feel disposed to
mske any alteration, although he bad not changed his
own opinions, for example, "owners of tenements" was
inserted, which altered the Bill in some measure, but he
VV,t3 not disposed to offer any opposition. Another re-
garding joint occupiers was one on which a great deal of
discussion took place in that House, and some doubts re-
sly>cting it were entertained, esp€cially by Irish Mem-
bers. That clause was struck out in the Lords, and he
(Lord John Russell) did not propose to disagree with
them. Another clause, giving a 51. freehold, was also
altered in the Lords. Ho no doubt considered such a
clause a very important one, because in the sale and sub-
division of land now taking place in Ireland, he believed
it would create a great number of small proprietors,
which was very desirable: the Lords inserted the words
" above all charges" in the clause; but as that was in
some measure conformable with the freehold right
in England, he would not insist on that amendment
being rejected. There were a good many amendments
made in the Bill, and in the schedules attached to it,
which were rendered necessary, by the operation of the
Bill being fixed to take place on the Ist of June, 1850.
The whole effect of those amendments would be that the
registry would commence on the 9th of September,
1850, and be completed on the 15th of March, 1851, and
after that period it would commence in each year on
the lst of June, and end on the Ist of November.
These were the amendments made by the House
of Lords, and he had stated his intentions respecting
them. With respect to that now under consideration,
he proposed that the House should agree, and they
could then proceed with a consideration of the next in
order.

Mr. GASKELL called on the House to ask themselves
calmly and gravely if the grounds put forward by the
Noble Lord were sufficient to induce them to refuse the
Bill as altered in the House of Lords. No one
denied but that the Bill as returned from that House
would extend the constituency of Ireland, and after they
had seen the operation of it would be the proper time to
propose alterations. He did not hold the opinion that
merely because a constituency was small it ought to be
increased.—(Cheers and counter cheers.) He could not
agree in the opinion that that House should pass mea-
sures for the extension of the franchise, without any re-
ference to the character of those to whom the votes were
kiven—(Hear, hear)—and he was bound to oppose mea-
sures which would give power to those whose principles
would, he believed, lead to the disruption of !all social
ties, and the subversion of every institution in the
country.—(Hear, hear.) On that gronnd he felt it his
duty to oppose such a measure. But there was no doubt
that the Bill, as it had come down from the House of
L would give a very large extension of the consti-
vtueeryncuynirnealsreenlaanbdle, atno dr
ehj eeetthtohueghßti wmoeurlediyt hbeereeafuosree,,t
the
other House of Parliament was not wilting to make such
sweeping alterations as they were. He regretted that
the Noble Lord had not shown a more Conciliatory dis-
position in this matter.
Mr. F. FRENCH said he certainly e
chda indmt ministers
its
disfranchisingct eo constituency
c uo
n a
(mr ti
tbe opinion of the Hon. Member thatofththiseßßiliillw,
eovuelnd
do much to ext e(nfftdete:e adtwre.
alnas roencHtaruhdiay masctybo
eiwinrti
nsni
g%
ivwl,nirhaeei
is: la and. On the con-
trary, its effect would be to render still more insignia-
icwnahni
which
feeblehannredixgiisntasi_ s
h t
a
resolvei
persons
r of
s oProperty
n the
s who
wholein
were subject, measure, and certainly his objections were not lessened
when he found the 121. proposition would strike off
24,000 voters from
the
formerlyea, decided ought to be
lal
o enfranchised. Ireland
had
voters,
tefallen,w fromo n Id
np
oe -t
culiar circumstances, so low in value that a very large
number
now be rated either at 121. or 151. He was not disposed
to disfranchise those who sent him there; he would
rather ask the same franchise as we had in England,
40s, freehold and all. - • ,

Sir W. SOMERVILLE complained that the Hon.
Member had introduced questions which, whether right
or wrong, had lung since been settled, and had no fear-
ing on the immediate question before the House. The
lion. Member oppo,ite had complained that the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government had not exhibited
a more conciliatory disposition. He must say, that in
expressing his own views, the Hon. Member had shown
a much less conciliatory disposition. But what was the
defect they were called upon to rem,Ay? Every one
admitted the constituency had dwindled away. But it
appeared that even the estimates formed of its actual
amount were far above the truth. Ia Mayo, the second
largest county in Ireland, the constituency had been
estimated at 591, whereas, at the election just finished,
no more voters than 230 could be brought to the poll.
—(Cheers, and counter cheers.) He understood the
cheers of Hon. Gentlemen opposite. But he repeated,
that his firm belief was that in every county in Irela-.d
there was not one half the constituency calculated.
The Hon. Member had talked a great deal about up-
holding the privileges of the House of Lords. He
trusted that he would not forget the House of Commons
had its privileges also.—(hear, hear.) In proposing to
adoi:t a 121. franchise after that House had agreed to an
81. qualification, he thought his Noble Friend had shown
eve:. desire to respect the independence of the other
House of Parliament, and at the same time made a
reasonable proposition, which he trusted would be ac-
cepted by that House.—(Hear.)
Lord JOCELYN said, when the measure was before
the House he had stated his opinion in favour of a 121.
franchise, but had strongly objected to the varied anti
um qual valuations o❑ which these rentals were assessed.
The valuation, which was now nearly completed, would,
if generally enforced, remove that inequality, and if his
Right Hon. Friend could state that it would be made the
foundation of the valuation of the franchise, it would
have some weight with him as to the vote he should give,
as well as other Hon. Members.

Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that by the law as it
now stood he believed the poor.law valuation wou Id ne-
cessarily ft‘rm the foundation of other assessments. At
all events, he could assure his Noble Friend that the
matter had received, and would continue to receive, the
anxious consideration of the Government.

Mr. MOORE said the state of the Opposition benches
of that House showed very significantly that this was not
a mere Irish question.—(Hear, hear.) Ireland was
chosen as the great b ittle field of party. He had no
faith in the party on either side. First of all the Noble
Lord had been suddenly smitten with a deep sense of the
degraded state of the Irish franchise. Why, any time
fir the last six years that degradation might have struck
him, and during that time the Irish Members would
have gladly aided him to pass any reasonable measure.
—(Hear, hear.) What was the reason why the Whigs,
who had been so long playing at Tories—(Hear, and a
laugh)—should so suddenly have discovered the ne-
cessity for extending the franchise? Why did Paul
appear among the prophets? It was because the trumpet
of protection had been sounded across the Chan-
nel.— (Hear, hear.) It was not until the cruiser was in
sight that the masters proposed to arm the slaves. He
might be wrong in these suspicions.—(" Hear," from
Lord John Russell, followed by laughter.) Well, if ho
was wrong, it was easy fur the Noble Lord to set him
right. Let him pledge himself to introduce another Bill
fur the reform of the Irish franchise, at least as liberal
as that he had brought in this year. Let him pledge
himself honestly, earnestly, and strenuously to bring
to the aid of that measure all his official influence—such,
for instance, as he exercised in the case of the African
squadron.—(llear, hear.) If the Noble Lord would do
that, he would pledge himself that the Irish Members
would give him all the aid in their power. The Noble
Lord was silent. If the Noble Lord would not do that,
he for one would not lift a finger to fight any more
party battle for the Noble Lord.—(Cries of " Hear,
hear.") On the other hand, Honourable Gentlemen
opposite, by their conduct on the question, had re-
newed the battle between their party and the people of
Ireland. He warned them that in the end that must be
fatal to them.—(Hear, hear.) As to the fears expressed
of the results of an extension of the suffrage in Ireland,
he spoke from considerable experience when he said that
mob law and mob dictation were the result of a narrow,
not an extended franchise. Let them imagine the posi-
tion of 1,000 voters spread over a large county. There
might be only ten or twelve in a single district. These
might be taken up to the poll under the protection of the
constabulary, and back again to their homes, but the
moment they were left there, tr ey might as well be
placed among a pack of wolves.—(Hear, hear, and a
laugh.) Why was this? Because the voters were not a
large enough body to protect themselves, and because
the others were excited by their exclusion from the
franchise.
Colonel DUNNE would vote with the Noble Lord for
the reduction of the qualification from 151. to 121. He
believed there would be no objection to the view taken
by the Noble Lord in respect to the other amendments
male by the Lords—namely, that relating to joint oc-
cupancy; but he also believed that the machinery of the
Bill, in reference to the self-acting registration clause,
the third amendment of the Lotds, would be most pre-
judicial to its successful operation.
Colonel RAWDON said that the Bill had been treated
with injustice by the other House.
Mr. CLEMENTS said he would support the proposi-
tion of the Noble Lord, the First Lord of the Treasury.
Mr. ANSTEY said that although he supported the
Noble Lord's proposition, ho did so with considerable
regret, because he thought the franchise of Ireland was
miserably low, and this 121. franchise would not place it
in the position in which it ought to stand. He would
himself, on a future occasion, bring in a measure to in-
crease the franchise in Ireland, England, and Scotland.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD would vote for the
proposition of the Noble Lord as a matter of necessity,
but he entered his protest against the proposed franchise
being considered as that to which the Irish people were
entitled.

Mr. SCULLY also supported the proposition of the
Government with great regret, because it was not equal
to the requirements of the Bill.
Mr. BRIGHT said, if he understood it aright, this
was the measure of the session, and they were soon to part
without having passed any Act of great public utility but
this. It was a sorry account that the Government would
have to render to the public for the time that had been
occupied by Parliament in its deliberations. With re-
gard to this particular measure, no man could say that
the Government had grappled with the representation
of Ireland before it was absolutely necessary; because,
with a population of eight millions, living under the
same constitution as ourselves, there was scarcely any
representation whatever amongst them. In bringing
forward the 81. franchise the Noble Lord de-
fended that measure on grounds perfectly satisfactory
to him (Mr. Bright), and if his intention had been
spoiled by what had taken place in the House of Lords,
the Noble Lord was still responsible for what had taken
place there. The conduct of the Government in the
House of Lords had been completely different from what
it had been in the Commons, and it would seem from
all that had taken place there, that the Government in-
tended it not to be an eight-pound franchise Bill, but
that that amount should be altered by the Lords.- The
principle of the eight-pound franchise had been affirmed
by increasing majorities of their own House, and if the
majorities and minorities of both Houses were added to-
gether, it would appear that that principle had been car-
ried by a total majority of 47.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) He knew that Hon. Members were not used
to that sere of arithmetic, but this he would say that in a
matter effecting the elective franchise of the House of
Commons, the votes of the House of Commons were
more entitled to regard than those of the other branch
of the Legislature.—(Cheers and laughter.) The Crown
was also in favour of an eight-pound franchise; and if
the Crown and the House of Commons had approved of
this step, it was doubly incumbent on the Noble Lord,
as the Minister of the Crown, to have seen that it was
carried, and he ought to have been cautious how he al-
lowed a small majority, of a small House, sitting in
another place, to override the measures of the other
estate of the country.—(Cheers.) The Lords would
have carried the franchise higher than 151. if they dared,
and the Noble Lord knowing their designs that way,
ought to have stood manfully by it, and have preserved
it in its integrity. The Noble Lord was a great man
for constitntions, and one of his chief objects was to
work this House in harmony with the House of Lords.
He had undertaken a hopeless task. That very day
they had been engaged in the discussion of a subject
which gave them an obvious specimen of the dead lock
at which the two Houses were now arriving.—(Hear. and
cheers.) The House of Commons and the Ministry
were treated with contempt, but the Noble Lord per-
sisted in ripening the pear, and in " bombarding" the
Lords with good measures, as he believed the phrase
was before 1841—(A laugh)—and in paring down
every measure which he believed necessary for the good
of the country, till it passed through the gauge which
might please the House of Lords. (Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord's constitution would not work.
In this conjuncture of affairs the course which the
Noble Lord ought to take was to state at the beginning
of the session, in introducing the single measure of un-
doubted utility, which he would now be able to piss in
a session, that he intended that it should be passed in
the form substantially in which it was introduced. The
course which at present he was pursuing was humiliat-
ing to the House and destructive to the Noble Lord's
Government, besides which, it kept those back who were
sitting on the Liberal side of the House from advancing
measures which they were sent there to support. Their
safest policy in Ireland was the most generous policy.—
(Hear, hear.) They had tried other policies there for
centuries, and there was now no spectacle so humiliat-
ing as that to which Ireland had been reduced by the
rule of the " territorial system." Generosity and
justice was the remedy which they never yet had tried,
and it was the one they were now voting against,
apparently because they were afraid of having
a hundred gentlemen there to represent truly the,
territory of Ireland. If the 12/. franchise were now'
taken and the terms ho proposed, he trusted that in the
course of one or two sessions the Noble LOrd would find
himself forced to propose the extension of the franchise
contemplated by this Bill when it left them. Of this,
at least, he was convinced, that a liberal and generous
policy toward Ireland was the only one which could bring
tLem from the leaders whom they said had misled them.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he felt sorry to have to ad-
dress the Hou-e on the topics to which the Honourable
Member for Manchester had adverted, but he could not
altogether avoid doing. so; for the Hon. Gentleman, not
to this Bill entirely, had thought fit to
confining himself
,lay down propositions which, as he conceived, he thought
tended to disparage the present constitution. of this
country, and led to the establishusent of some other. But
thiswas a question which arose for their decision on
amendments which had come down from the Lords,
and
aaeeewhich it was therefore necessary for them to deal
with on the decisions of that House of Parliament. The
Hon. Member for Manchester now proposed, that with
regard to any measure of the kind in future, the
Minister should state, in introducing it, that he in-
tended it should be carried. Well, if the Bill should hap.
pea to be rejected by the 1.901 idogelkg $4. pm •

---,---------
, ! Member sboull have something in the backg,raunw thd to
; 1 fill back upon. It might be very desirable to folloe
• 1 views of the constitution which the .1-1111)0-031‘,11ebeetr'ehr:ade
expressed, but they ought not to blind t
moment us to whet hie views were. The llont'lli.3.
Member, in fact, proposed that their deliberardtloloo
should proeted without reference to history or re!, bii
precedent. It was plain that instead of discussioce,isio
ideas in detail, they should sit as an absolutely de
to its
assembly, with no barrier to its wile no oppositien.tu,„
decrees, and before which all the states and consti
that
bodies of this country should bow. It might he
~,,,,
such a thing was desirable, but all he could sayn:erm
that he, at least was not one to desire it. linPecil ioci-
, in the way of legislation, and the delay idwaYeero A
dental to the progress of large measures, they we oled
familiar with; but he thought yet that the sum diuit4e,„,
, under their constitution was so great,' their inset , iwil'th
so valuable, and their fruits so precious, as compare'6lhich
those derived from other forms of governevent4t lie
were recorded in ancient and modern history,
eteidedly
though he would not declare them toubjeurdaceunwee:..
inferior, still he would not lightly
sures of change and resistance.—(llear, hear-) 1, bo
ways consideed that existing laws should °ll,),bi,e
changed when the change was obviously- for the pug
good; and in this view he had always acted acc`institu.
to the prospect before him—according to the lek was
lion which he did not frame, but wider which "ere,
born, and which he certainly did not wish to oVert:lsoo
(Cheers.) It crae proposed, some time aeo, tha _so:-
Most important change seould be made in the enticed
tion of the House of Commons. He sus not distil) deli'
by reverses; but, after ten years of dieion eu _ Jiro
beration, he had the satisfaction of geeing
he disree I
of Parliament adopted. Ile did not say l/ au
all respect 3 greet rca'rct,
for the constitution, because the Bill :bog,
adopted at once.--(Hear.) Then he proposedu a owe
roTalbeeiste'Leokthest.
of great consequence with respect to religio , re.,s aac•
namely, the Corporation and Test Acts. gewl'but be
cessful in his first attempt to repeal these lave, eete
had in the first instance,
rented to the substitution obfyawdscycicafrateiC)nra.P
commutation of tithes, he remembered that the or i
and some lion. Members did him the honour
etetiPb°o-0,13t
out that his measure did not meet the wishes
..I,ed to
exactly whom it most concerned. He aces
the
their proposition, and by that mean' 6e 11160 a cle
enactment of his measure. He might race 000
rions . other matters, but this he thought Wis little
to show that great good might arise fro°,3teeotion.
timely sacrifice of pride and extent of original lei, be°
The Honourable Gentleman appeared not I_,.ed .bie
forgotten the words in which he once stalehoed
oinion that the Honourable Member
f eßbielidiefa'
narrow views on certain points. The foriouraboa ore
ber seemed on that occasion, as he frequentli were 6
to think that the aristocracy of this countrf tocl be,
class quite independent of others in the countriithe ree'
said he thought that was a narrow view of
question. he trOuhis
Mr. BRIG lIT—I can save the Noble Lord t._, totbe
of the rest of the illustration. I was not referrletst dis•
matter he has been speaking of, but to the 1110, cos.
tribution of the representatives of the people I° ,
atituencies. , eollee,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—It was a matter Offr;e :
tion. He (Lord John Russell) was speaking ethers fillof
learning in the Church or in the law, 0! of °of, sll 8
had achieved distinguished positions in trotio or the
6whom had arrived at some of the highest bce riatocr6c;
Peerage, and formed as proud a part of the osoteet hili-0.
as any who could claim descent from an tot onlYe-i0
He thought, and maintained, that it was
Lead of
unfounded fact, contrary to all they and . ly°l'
history, and were seeing every day., B°, d o°lfse act'
if believed, would have a vaiseblec-ioes late
and by the ultimate disunion of the eoelPlt
which it aimed, would ultimately lead t° I%istie mbar
subversion of the constitution at proent ell g 130
was for that reason that he thought the iilderitiFeidi-
at.r)ristMeearielecyhester was quite mistaken 10 c°lli.stinctu 0
vided from tahse arespta.rt
On
nf thethe ceoemeentruenryitT ibleyoesfoeprioe,eaat
completely and desirably connected with I°s44trie,°`o,
large, that their ranks were continually beitig -ite P° d
by the most meritorious and deserving- tie 0011511)
Gentleman was not satisfied with the 1,01:10he 13°5:4'eati
the eight-pound franchise. He (10c1 idbofe -Oil'
wanted the same thing, and he wished it c°,?,leitt- „r
s.
carried through the other House of Patho o: to
jections had been taken to the conduct 0' wesset"bot
went in having delayed bringing forward loeticies'itei
correct the deficiency of the Irish had beep '1,1,, ot.
the famine with which the countrY, 11_,5`1.0adis'ti.
brought with it calamities which require° I bticl 0 Ptbeir
tention and relief, and they thought °este] wede ' ot
mount claim upon their consideration, all they did Iliei;
redress pressed so forcibly upon them', ueatl,o
think it was a time to introduce a political (I too )
Teel hest'
that it was more fit to postpone it. (gest, dot
blame to themselves for the dels,Y.--` passe eias
This year they brought forward this Bill, 1:0 site,reotlooo,
House, and went up to the Lords, 0411 he IYlheir
were made in it. The constituency I°u - forth 4 ii°
That was a great good, and he conceredl' . be !Trio
while to pass it. With regard to the WI/ the :at if
specific course to propose to either sido went '4 of
constituenciee were contented with it, yelle feelitlela be
it did not give satisfaction, and excited strtnt:rit sh'eoleo
disapproval, and it was found nreessarY To tie I'loo
extended, their consent to this Bill weel,(l-lesr'e Of
ulvinhodyerhtandesim' asiolhatoerudlediirnncuutmohtsehtracenraefeitnse:rt
instance
r
i°
r• 1
0
0 einisporrso
ft
ieoditoie
in order
constitution of this country give gres r°sPe 1 if''
,to ad P tbel
the people to of
, promote the happluess %eel j
the country, and toperman- elle
preserve the ber abed
stitutions.
Mr. 4 , bleo f Li' Li
M CULLAGII said, one no rias e, uo -:1
to have the Bill as it came from the -ti :lollclot,'
He could not consent to thee That vitt)); iiicaocl3,ll:
the principle of the Bill. which it Wasiitv of 'OP":
was that something like an eque-i of tbe 001;
ter libel; a 0
should be given to Ireland with the rest 00 hi niello
That principle was asserted in that Ped-ba6,°, eelii,
ties of 58 and 69. It was now intil'anteed 10' )jorut
strong feeling was manifested in ifloPid tlill, bii
be a permanent Bill. Ile did not in the in 01;
responsible for the alterations made
uritiao Ptieh. so,
gentlemen opposite, who were in intrind hi the 11,0,
mittee, to fix the qualification at 1511 61 reise lf fit,,(
ample induced the House of Lords gouge ° Asi,"it
chile. A Noble Lord, in the other ee tbere',lleah,
ment, who was not without great influene;to
P'ceece 1;1
the Bill which this House had Passeci d ad AIO
would enfranchise the rubbish of Irelann;toteim,k 00d0r,
elections under the influence of th,a rWen''' / 6"1.
~ lee, oeci
franchise proposed by the Member '''hrat of 'IA the
give a constituency of 110,000, and t" id gireo for ,ict,
ported by the Secretary for Ireland, weet• 26,0 ,t co'o.
so that it would create a difference 0 be jorgei fr.! •
whole of the constituency. In five °,f,,i 0 °,. 06`;,0
ties in the province of Cunnaugnief 9,00010/
chise would give a constituency but °sob ,0100,11 re'
franchise of 121. would give 1,174- tbill '',ol° del
ask whether, even if they consented tc.bords Yiti alic-
qualification, they knew whether ghttos° " lief
jeet it. He had no alternative to ell ebeills
Was b
vote for neither. tion none'hiB '
Mr. M. O'CONNELL said then uo d or - too ' g.
they should have a franchise for ellt 01. rettiseo
thought 8/. too high, and now fb°ug greens° I) ,rvii
but he thought the Bill contained oneud. tide
is the mode of reeistration. lie !erre/oetild ebeenslj:;,l
good, the fact that the registratio he ere et
, to.-- ,be r o°
without the solicitation of the voteid
or. her 1
that a great advantage. He should ,ine in
~,aee
of the Noble Lord, and take every means
I OW e
bo" TJL'e
to improve it hereafter. dell; to 01l
Mr. SHEIL said the Member for n°l3oo,veratigls,:s
the case as if the Noble Lord had, 11:1:ilt vrn64.-005`) raii.
the House of Lords to pass the 8i1,,,,i ° icsa tic'pei/o)afi
proposed, but he could not do so. 41°'? we oh e
hope that the Lords would retrace thell6otioni 006.050
had adopted the principle of eell'regisilOnti°l3the riool3
they rejected it in one case. Tbe,(oll,ocl indite abfset
and
in buth cases—in the couettes why .T
ed
boroughs—and there was no reaso° the 00,:feliccer
adopt it in the one case and reject it !Ile 11art'd 0600
retention of the wouldym vrould giv.teral 5110°0°
aeeitation, which involve the ten, 50A ro3ofe
dotal
p interestsose t
ha ina
na pseprppeeatiufarlomwrestle.
~ecote)o cor
5 cor3;11 0a e bioei co
would not reach a 151. franchise liai"brietingeg tebteirr°
chise. Father O'Sitaugnessy 1001" roecbiehat 'O.l
. gregation, and give notice of the IPbepe I,r eoott ar
serve notices to register. He w°lll°,,erl elle a tric
that day week they would. all have sex'''. ti 9 ij IV ‘'
and be
their country.—(Laughter and " gear' 00C1 P; tbejeirti
prepared at the nexe election to v 0 r.')
Murphy is touched by the invitetima,
utio of 1.0.00,,
hwwehealerli?aaneepoosst
serve the necessary notice. tit,lo tileet,l is hie if isolel
Murphysseshsiemrs
ionf
thisthe tw.asbiols::::‘ectl3l6,:e
gAr-0,,,5,01ii
which reacPboisolvotiaceoe ci 1
and bonding low with obsequious s° 0.0 to eyli
wag, t tal° os6/1;/
same time displaying his gray, von f ,po De p)
takesri yooffuligiisvhenatt:otice to rieg'he, t;,.0, o ; 0 i
Father poll' 00.311
words—" Father O'Shaugnee*e•
Father O'Shaugnessy. " 0
r 0 DI i
Does
, These be to. ,r-
-know that you have no lease? would 01104
constitutional influences which a bee b j
had bleb 000'
boar upon the registrations aria heYesiee 0' . tra ;die
the Lords. He objected to omi'of regitlie Pd'v
made in the self-acting priaeiPicht4llol ii3,,eftVolsej, I
would in fact be an appeal for the ;ion svieceti. 14
those who thought eeeresy better
~,el.O eilitt ill!noro,
(Hear.) The amendments made ,r,„,ir tue toeyol?
agitation. He did not, however, 0.`4", eat° ye
otheo el
would change their course when ii" they .c ofcch ocolt,s
the consequences. He did not (IVoll f4ortie Ord ti
eretion of Lord Stanley. That ft light
,iiPe 40, ,
Emancipation Act was passed, --° Odi -A
Itr- ' I
too high. In the case of the Ref0r0,300,erc..,..0 ill Ai
oath by which the franchise 074 g.
istA , by 10'1 birll it ;"al
who gave an intellectual qualificatle ation,ierPellee'lleo/
tion of the system of national educ mete , reP ,01,,
meesure of wisdom, and was bis big wool", tho, o,'l
"8 h"eause it stood alone. He, tat,,
11" teretiA Pe
his advent to power would be the Sign trade. 10,1 j
of unseen doings, whereby partY•`v •.0 d° ken if. IP
so rile ta ere to
berties of the people under act r°- were es- 30•°
Mr. DISRAELI said objeons
~,0 tbeicorevil
other branch of the Legislature true
oebe o,Co`o,lfe
privilege Curiterred upon them or ulil,, LoPigli/of
There wets no reason to say there u e et
0.--0 ii)evy
bt seen the Houses. The 1-I°tbseat 1000 e lleisll
agree to the tropposal now made, o.
_,t,es 0
,he
~oi
jeet it. Hr complained of herd Isibe,ef, Di is 01.Ke,
troduced into the debate, as it 61 etitic°,,aec alile
eeti go.- ifi Or'
uneo.. „tie 40) 4 ~r
fir Manchester, which was
might fetter the freedom of debate4o 'toe.
I,' • :peirs,
in their discretion, had preeumed ten Wit .00., rii
tions in this Bill. The Bill ''''eilt Prlitle° 0511°Llelero':
chise. It came down with a 15-1 (11314e1. 11.6°0545
le be a on ' lip)
was proposed that it shoe... ,erds oat, e f
question between the House of -rie treoe,,,tre'eli
ment was between a let and u 1",...., 13.100 i
question was the self-aetwe',oo -
was a point upon which there ,'