The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-02 00:00:00

TEE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, APRIL 21 1844

there was no such moans of compensating fraud on
the one hand, by equal fraud on the other. He ad-
mitted that where abuses existed they ought to
be correcte l, but if they gave the franchise to per-
sons so qualified they ought to demand proof of the
receipt or the 301. for six or twelve months precedinz,
It was necessary that persons claiming should be put
to the proof of the actual receipt. The Noble Lord
had stated truly that the 40,. franchise which had
been destroyed in 1829 had produced a great effect
in some counties, and scarcely any effect in others.
In the county which he represented it had produced
scarcely any effect, but in many counties the ma-
jority of the freeholders had been swept away. He
must admit that the 51. franchise was, of all others,
the one most desirable to exist ; hut, under the pre-
sent circumstances, he found that there was scarcely
any chance of any great number of such voters being
created. Then, with regard to the franchise in towns.
It appeared that where three persons had a beneficial
interest in a holding of the value of 301. it was the in-
tention of the Government that each of them

should be upon the register.—(Hear, hear.)
But he wished to draw the Noble Lord's attention

to one point, which was that in cases where a man
held different tenements of one landlord, the amount

of the whole rent of which 'sns 101., he was entitled
to a vote ; but where he held tenements of different
landlords, the total value of which was more than 101.,
but of which 10/. was not held under one landlord,

the occupier was not entitled to a vote. Now this he
considered ought to be altered. He did not wish to
mace any unnecessary objections to the Government
measure, and he was sorry that, while the Government
admitted the principle of the necessity of extending
the franchise, they had not sufficiently carried it out.
He must protest against giving the franchise to the
301. tenants-at-will.

After a few words from Mr. GROGAN,
Mr. F. SHAW said he did not think the measure

would have much immediate practical effect. The
amount of the holding was a matter of comparative

indifference ; while the present state of society in
Ireland, there was an indisposition on the part of the
tenant to be put upon the registry at all. The tenants
who wished to attend more to their farms and their

families than to politics, generally declined to be put
on the registry, as they wished to live in peace with
their landlords, and those who had influence over

them. Whether the holding was 30/. or 501.
would make little practical difference. lie would not

enter into the merits of the Bill till they had seen it
printed, and looked more particularly into its provi-
sions. He was unwilling to give his opinion as to the
measure, except as to one point. If by giving the
franchise to 51. freeholders, they could encourage the
creation of such a class of proprietors, he should much
wish to see it carried into effect.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said this was a subject
which, in itself, was one of very considerable diffi-
culty, and he was prepared to admit that the Noble
Lord had introduced it with great good temper. His
first proposition would, as admitted by the Noble
Lord himself, cause a very great deficiency in the
number of voters in Ireland. Speaking generally, it
might, it appeared, be taken at not less than twenty-
five thousand. But how did the Noble Lord propose
to supply the deficiency ? By allowing tenants pay-
ing a certain rent, and occupying from year to year,
to have votes, and therefore, so far, it would
be a tenant-at-will clause ; as it was well
known that a tenant choosing to vote ad-
versely to his landlord would be obliged to
quit his farm. This tenant-at-will franchise had
never been known in England until the passing of
the Reform Bill, and let it be remembered it was not
then proposed by the authors of the Bill, but by a
Noble Duke, then the Marquis of Chandos and a
Member of that House. Such was the origin of that
tenant-at-will clause, which placed the counties entirely
in the hands of the landlords. The effect of this clause
had been described very accurately and very pithily,
with respect to the counties of England, by the Noble
Lord the Secretary for the Colonies (Lord Stanley),
who had on a former occasion told the House that it
was only for six or seven of the large landed pro-
prietors to meet, and then the future representation
was at once determined on. In England they found
a very strong inclination, both among Whig landlords
'roryandlantdhelorredfosraendthteensaynstts,einto
did
an amount of evil as it was certain
nottogethera n d
create
tenants,reat ea at
s great
and
elections;
to do in Ireland. In some cases in England no doubt
it produced gross oppression and great evil, but in
the general run it did not perhaps do so. The case
in Ireland was very different. There, generally
speaking, the tenants were anxious to escape from
voting ; on the one hand, not wishing to vote with
the landlord—on the other, trying to avoid popular
influences, in order not to seriously offend the land-
lord. It was imposssible to have the same clause in
Ireland that now existed in England, without pro-
ducing very great discontent. If the effect of it in
Ireland should be the same as it was in England, to
make the counties the channels through which the
landlords should send to Parliament whomsoever they
liked, the representation would he the constant source
of irritation and annoyance. He (Lord John
Russell) considered therefore that the intro-
duction of the thirty-pound tenant clause
was one which was very objectionable indeed.
Introducing so high an amount as 30/. for occupation
would, he feared, only lead the landlords to think
that the body of electors would be sufficiently limited
for them to have some influence or power over them.
He was glad that the Noble Lord proposed a 51.
freehold franchise Bill. He only regretted that there
was not also a 40s. freehold franchise. The number
of freehold franchises in fee of Si., as well as those of
40s. in fee, would be small, and he did not see why
they should not give the same franchise in this re-
spect to Ireland as England enjoyed. He would not
then enter into the merits of the whole Bill, expect-
ing that on a future occasion the Right Hon. Baronet
would furnish the explanation desired. At present
he could not see how the present Bill would substan-
tially effect equality in the Irish franchise. The
Noble Lord proposed certain changes with respect to
the right of voting, which he thought would be be-
neficial. With regard to the Corporations, if he
understood rightly, the voting for municipal officers
would be the same as in England. lie did not know
that there was any provision in the Bill for the pay-
ment of rates. He had no further objection to make
in this stage of the proceedings.
Mr. BELLEW said he was not prepared to give
anyut
he
opidniidonnaottprtehsink
present
tohnethreegteinstarni would be at all
y at will clause ;
b
affected by it. The franchise in Ireland should be
as extensive as was contemplated by the Reform Bill.
Lord HOWICK thought that it was well worth the
consideration of her Majesty's Government whether
they might not get rid of all the agitation of the regis-
tration courts by taking the rating on the list instead
of compelling the party to appear for the purpose of
proving the amount.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped
gentleman on that side of the House would not too
hastily condemn 'voting founded on mere occupation.
He admitted the superiority of a lease; but if they
trusted entirely to a franchise depending on leases,
they could not obtain a sufficient number of voters.—
(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) If they
required a lease they placed it in the power of the
great owners of the soil virtually to disfranchise the
electors.—(Hear.) A franchise arising only from
a lease was liable to great Blouses. Suppose a person
granting a lease to the amount of 10/. or 201. The
lease might be granted at a nominal rent, when a
much less sum was really paid, in order that the voter
might be retained in the power of the landlord. He
had had considerable experience in county contests,
and all his experience led him to the same opinion. It
would be practically impossible to get a sufficient
number of voters in Ireland without an occupation
franchise. But if they made an occupation franchise,
he agreed with his Noble Friend that the amount
should be fixed so low as to enable the voters to pro-
tect each other. He thought 30/. was too high an
amount.nking thHaet
iftheyentirely agreed with the Noble Lord inthi were to create a vote arising
from property in fee, there was no reason why the
amount required should be higher in Ireland than in
England.—(Hear, hear.) On the contrary, Ireland
being a poorer country, a 40s. fee there was
sone thing whicha larger amount than the same fee in England,
The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite
t
hadwas
moretruly stateddesira
btlheattaif
dtoh etrhea NnV a
another it was to
was
veryg
en-
courage persons in Ireland to acquire a small pro-
perty in land. He thought that a Board of Franchise
poor-lawwould be
valuation.m ost valuable
il
in Ireland, testing it by the
He
lad to hear that
her Majesty's Government were in favour of encou-
raging the acquisition of the right of voting by small
fee simples. He hoped her Majesty's Government
would adopt some means to render more easy, cheap,
and simple, the conveyance of land.—(Hear, hear.)
Nothing so much tended to interfere with this salu-
tary process as the difficulty and expense attending
small conveyances of land. He trusted that the
question of stamps would not be excluded from con-
sideration whenever that was discussed. He could
not but express his satisfaction at finding that they
were now entering upon the discussion of this
question in a manner which was likely to lead to a
satisfactory settlement of the franchise.—(Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL expressed a hope that Hon. Gentle-
men would not prejudge this question, and deprive
themselves of the opportunity of giving a deliberate
judgment after examining the details of the Bill, and
having w
iaccess
respectto th
teo t
ile informationefftee
plied
o of
any particular pro-
position.—(Hear, hear.) The course which the Go-
vernment proposed to take with respect to the muni-
cipal and county franchise in Ireland was this. They
had found some disqualifications existing in Ireland,
which they proposed to remove. In Great Britain
occupation neceseery condition
of
voting
as the
n hs
e:t requireda
sein freehold a a
franchise. In Ire-
s
land it was required. They proposed to remove the
restriction in Ireland, and to place the 10/. freehold
franchise as to occupation on the same footing as in

that the Hon. Member for Kerry had answered the I
question of his Right Hon. Friend. His Right Hon.
Friend said, "If you do not admit a qualification by
this description how are you to provide sufficient con-
stituencies in the Irish counties ?" The qualification
proposed he (Lord Eliot) believed, so far from
strengthening the disinclination on the part of land-
lords to grant leases, would have a directly contrary
effect. He believed that the present disinclination to
grant leases arose from a disinclination to give poli-
tical power to those who were disposed to use it
against the landlords. He believed that the proposed
qualification would operate irrespective of the grant-
ing of leases, which would, be granted on the
probability of their being_ as conducive to
improvement in the cultivation of the soil.
He would make one observation as to the manner of
claiming to be registered. ' The Bill proposed that
the person claiming should merely send his name to
the baronial constable, to be placed in the list ; it
would then be sent to the clerk of the peace, by whom
it would be transmitted to the revising barrister, and
the party claiming would not be called upon to ap-
pear unless he should be objected to. This was pre-
cisely the same as the law stood in England. The
Honourable Member for Montrose had asked whether
this Bill would satisfy the people of Ireland ? He
asked if the constituencies had been established in just
proportion to the population ? Why this principle
had never been admitted by any statesman. The
principle always acted upon had been to take property
and population, and combine them together. He be-
lieved that the Hon. Gentleman would find that the
franchise was wider, and upon a more extended basis,
than it was either in Scotland or in England. The
short coinings arose out of the different distribu-
tion of property. To give the same proportion to the
population in Ireland as in England, they must admit
eery 5L rate-payer in the country to the franchise,
quite irrespective of any tenure whatsoever.
The Noble Lord had asked what would have been
the effect of the Bill of last session, with regard to
the rating of persons under 8/. in large towns, and
under 4/. in small ones? His (Lord Eliot's) answer
was, that by the 33d section of the 3d and 4th of
Victoria, an occupier might claim to be rated whether
he was liable or not. The Act of last session did not

in any way affect or take away that right. With re-
gard to the observations of the Hon. Member for
Kerry as to the oaths to be administered, he had
only to state that there would be but one oath to be
taken, and two queries would be put, namely, " Are
you the same person ? Have you already voted ?"
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL thought it would be
better to administer the general oath, that true an-
swers should be made to all questions, and then any
questions could be put. He thought this would save
time.

Leave was then given to bring in the Bill, and
Lord Eliot, the Irish Attorney-General, and Sir
James Graham were ordered to bring it in.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Lord ELIOT then moved for leave to bring in a Bill
to amend that part of the Act passed in the 3d and 4th
year of the reign of -her present Majesty, intituled,
"An Act for the regulation of Municipal Corporations
in Ireland," which relates to the qualification of bur-
gesses and of voters at elections held under the said
Act.

Mr. SHAW thought that was an excellent oppor-
tunity of introducing uniformity with respect to the
boundaries of municipal corporations in Ireland.
This would have the effect of increasing the county con-
stituencies. The city of Cork occupied a space of
four square miles, while the municipal district occupied
a space of seven miles.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
PRIVY COUNCIL BILL.

On the Order of the Day being put for going into a
Committee of Supply.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, in pursuance of the
motion of which he had given notice the other night,
he wished to put a question to the Right Hon.
Baronet, with respect to a Bill now in progress in the
other House of Parliament. It would at a future period
be brought before this House, when he would have
another opportunity of speaking. When his Noble and
Learned Colleague (Lord Cottenham) was in office, he
had expressed his opinion that it was not desirable that
two additional judges should be appointed,i although he
(Lord J. Russell) knew that another Chancellor, con-
nected with a different Government, might think those
appointments necessary. With respect to all the judicial
establishments of the country, especially that part which
was connected with the Privy Council, it might be ex-
pedient that the Crown should originate such establish-
ment, and make particular appointments, and then state
to Parliament what the additions were. The Bill to
which he had alluded had been brought into the other
House on the 4th of March, by which a new
judge was to be appointed with a salary of
2,0002 There were already two with salaries of 1,5001.
and 1,200/. respectively. On the 15th of March, the
Bill was referred to a Committee, and from that period
up to the present they had heard nothing of it. Now
what he feared was, that in the present complicated
state of the Parliamentary business the Bill would not
be brought to this House until near the close of the
session, when it could not receive that attention which it
demanded. He wanted to call the attention of the Right
Hon. Gentleman to an extraordinary statement which
had been made. It was stated that a very eminent per-
son was to be placed at the head of the Judicial Corn
mittee of the Privy Council as Judge.—(Hear, hear.)
It was within the discretion of Government, he was per-
fectly aware, to make up their minds with respect to
this appointment, or that such a Bill should be intro-
duced ; but he thought it seemed an extraordinarycourse
—not to say a suspicious one—to admit that any
individual, however eminent, should be named
to an appointment before the office had been created,
and at a time when the Government might forego their
intention of creating it. If the Government thought fit
that there should be such an appointment, surely it was
right that they should state their reasons. The whole
question depended on whether any one individual was
ready, or had engaged to accept this office. Now here
was the Bill introduced, and likely to be brought down
to this House at a late period of the session, and in con-
sequence he wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman
whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Govern-
ment to bring the Bill before the House at an early
period, and whether there was any foundation for the
statement to which he had alluded?

Sir R. PEEL, who spoke in a very low tone of voice,
said he thought the Noble Lord would agree that he
(Sir R. Peel) was entitled to exercise his unfettered dis-
cretion in the matter. Be could assure the Noble
Lord that the Bill would be brought before
this House as soon as it was possible in
accordance with the due course of business. He did
not concur in the opinion of the Noble Lord opposite,
that the Noble and Learned Lord (Cottenham) was
opposed last year to the appointment of a judge to pre-
side in the Privy Council. With respect to the state-
ment concerning which the Noble Lord put the other
question, he should say, it was the impression of the
Government that the Crown had the power of creating
such an office, and under this impression it had been
offered to a Noble and Learned Lord in the other

House, but he declined to accept it, stating at the same
time that he did not consider at that moment that such
an office was required. The Bill had been brought into
the other House independent of the Government by the
Noble and Learned Lord.

_ .
Mr. B. YORKE protested strongly against this Bill,
and whenever it should come before this House, he
would use every means which the forms of the House
allowed to oppose it.