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

THE SUN,

LONDON, SATURDA? EVENING, MARCH 2, 1850

support the amendment of His Honourable Friend. I
'The Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) intimated last night
that it was not desirable to introduce any legislative
measure which might operate as a substitute for the
Reform Bill; but that all legislation on the subject
should be supplementary to that Bill. Now, he
must frankly declare that the present measure
proposed to annihilate every existing franchise
and to re-construct an entirely new franchise which, with
regard to counties, would introduce a constituency to
whom it would be dangerous to entrust the election of
representatives.—(Hear, hear.) That, in fact, was the
position of the question, and let them see in what way
they ought to proceed. Were they to act upon the caution
of the Noble Lord in his speech of yesterday, and take the
institutions as they existed under the Reform Act,
and add such classes of electors as the existing
state of society rendered imperatively necessary, or
to sweep everything away in order to re-
construct our representative system entirely anew.
It appeared to be of vital importance that they should
understand what the question was ; and he trusted the
history he had given of the attempts at legislation would
,not be considered unnessary.—(Cheers.) Nov, if the
Government conceded the insertion of the words pro.
posed by his Honourable Friend, the very first question
which would arise was, whether the House would create
'a new class of county voters. The Government pro-
posed a constituency for Ireland, consisting of persons
rated on the annual value of Si. What was the new
county constituency which they would raise under the
present Bill ? They were, he believed, all agreed that it
was absolutely necessary that there should be some re-
vision of the county constituency in Ireland, with a view
to supply its acknowledged deficiency—(Hear, hear)
—and their next endeavour would be to ascer-

tain what would be the best mode of creating a class
to supply the deficiency in the constituency. He
would therefore support the amendment of his Hon.
Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, his
(Sir F. Thesiger's) anxious desire only being to give
such a consitnency to Ireland as was best adapted to the
wants and wishes of the people of Ireland.—(Cheers.)
Sir G. GREY said that there was no desire on the
part of the Government to oppose the amendment. The
proposition was extended over a very long historical
period.—(Hear, hear.) The speech of the Hon. and
- Learned Gentleman had not touched the question in the
slightest degree.—(Hear, hear.) The amendment pro-
posed to make no alteration whatever in the principle
- of the Bill, but simply to make it more perspicuous.-
- (Hear, hear.) The Government, therefore, had no de-
sire to oppose it, and they might proceed at once to the
consideration of the several clauses of the Bill.—(Hear,
' hear, and cheers.)
The amendment was then agreed to.
Mr. HENLEY moved an alteration, the effect of
_ .

which would be to throw the consideration for the
' qualification not
_upon the rates due, but upon
the average of those which berore a certain
late period had been assessed and paid. He
thought that the House were well agreed as t) the
necessity of shutting the door upon all corrupt practices,
and he thought that some parts of this Bill were well
- calculated to do so. He thought that all par-
ties would agree that so far the boards
of guardians had been free from all political
bias; but he wished the House to consider how
easy it was by this Bill for guardians to put on and
strike off the register. He would therefore suggest
that they should adopt the provision of the English He-
form Act, that the party had been rated to all the rates,
and that would get rid of this facility for creating fag-
got votes. He had no objection to that point of the
Bill which related to the period of rating, but with re-
gard to the other point he did feel strongly upon it, be-
cause if the Bill were agreed to as it now stood, it must
inevitably lead to great confusion, if not litigation and
and fraud.—(Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, as the Bill at
present stood every occupier rated for relief of the poor
before the Ist of July, and who had paid the preceding
rate, wuuld be entitled to vote. It appeared to him,
therefore, that the introduction of the words " tenant
or owner" would lead to great uncertainty in the revi-
sin4 barristers' courts, for in the case of tenants under

notice to quit, legal questions might be raised that
would lead to continual litigation and uncertainty as to
the parsoes entitled to vote. The other part of the
amendment, for substituting two years instead of one,
would of course greatly limit the operation of the Bill.
—([fear.) It was also proposed by the Hon. Member
that the parties during the currency of these two years
should be continually on the rate-book, and that the
omission of that condition should be the loss of the
• franchise. That was, in his opinion, an indirect blow
aimed at the principle of the Bill. If any person was on
the registry without being qualified by a year's occupa-
tion, he might ealily be objected to; and if Lily person
entitled to be on the registry was omitted, there would
be no difficulty in the way of his obtaining his right.
The amendment of the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire
would greatly limit the constituency, and he trusted the
Committee would reject it.
Sir F. THESIGER thought they were indebted to his
Right Hon. and Learned Friend for the interpretation
which he had given of the Bill, for it was evident that the
object of the Government was, that persons who were
neither tenants nor owners, but merely acted as occu-
piers, should be entitled to vote. (The Attorney-General
dissented.) His Right Hon. and Learned Friend had not
acid so, but did he not mean it? If not, why should he
object to the introduction of the words tenant or owner?
—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the litigation which
his Right Hon. Friend thought would follow from the
introduction of the words, he apprehended there could
be no question as to whether a person under notice to
quit was a tenant or not, if the term of such notice re-
mained unexpired. But a person under notice to quit
would have an interest in the case of an approaching
election to prolong his occupation beyond the legal term;
and yet, by the Bill, as it now stood, he would be en-
titled to vote.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the occupier
should be a bone fide occupier, and legally entitled
to vote.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that his Right
Hon. Friend had not correctly apprehended what he had
said. What he had said was that persons wishing to
disentitle a farmer to vote might give him notice to quit,
and that that would give rise to doubt and litigation.
Sir F. THESIGER wished to know whether his right
Hon. Friend meant that any person who should loop
possession of his holding by strong hand, against the
will of his landlord, who had given him notice to quit,
would, from being de facto in occupation, be entitled to
vote? In the English Reform Bill there was a clause
explaining this very term" occupier."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was aware of the
Chandos clause.

Several Members—No, no; that is not the clause. .
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Hon. Members
were alluding to the borough franchise, but the Com-
mittee were now discussing the county franchise. The
meaning of the Bill was clearly that every person occu-
pying a farm for a year should, if he were rated, ho en-
titled to the franchise. in answer to his Right ion.
Friend's question, he must say he thought the Parlia-
mentary franchise ought not to depend on the dispute
between landlord and tenant.

Mr. LAW said. as the object was to secure to Ireland
$ safe and sound franchise, he should support the intro-
duction of the words " tenant or owner." He would,
however, suggest to the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire to
make that a distinct motion, apart from thelother portion
of his amendment.--(Hear, hear.) The sense of the
Committee might then be take❑ on the question whether
an occupier, without the slightest claim or right, should
have, by means of force or fraud, a right to the political
franchise ?—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT begged to call the attention of the
Committee to the evidence given on the Devon Commis-
sion, wherein it was stated that certain land agents had
served to many as 500 notices to quit at one time, and
that it was a custom in certain parts to serve tenants
with notices to quit every six months.—(Hear, hear.)
If such was the fact it was greatly to b• deplored.
The term occupier was simple, and it undoubtedly was
the object of Parliament to give the franchise to occu-
piers. He hoped they would do nothing to fritter away
the franchise of Ireland. _ _

Mr. SHEIL said he was once Member for Louth, and

in that county there was a mountain ealled Carlingford.
Some thirty fishermen had reclaimed part of the moun-
tain, and had held their possession fur upwards of 20
years. They said they were not tmants, the landowners
said they were not owners. How, then, would the amend-
- ment affe them?

Sir F. THESIGER—Twenty years' pos,eision would
give them a title.

Mr. SHEIL—But suppose their possession had only'
been f 19 years?
Mr. HENLEY denied that they wished to fritter away
the franchise in Ireland. Ile had in his amendment
adopted the words of the English Reform Act, about
which there could be no ambiguity, as the point had
been settled by a judicial decision. With regard to the
rating. it was necessary in the English Act that a 10/.
occupier should be ratei for a whole year. The word
otvncr or tenant were in the English Burgh Act, and if
they were not introduced into the present Bill, any
" squatter" might claim the right of voting.—(hear.)
Thctr SOLICITOR-GENERAL (for Ireland) said that
the present constituency had been diminished in a great
degree by the Irish landlords refusing to grant leases.
The Bill, to remedy that evil, proposed to give the fran-
chise to a person occupying for twelve months and pay-
ing the rate. With regard to notices to quit, he thought
disputes might arise if the proposed words were intro-
duced. A tenant whose holding did not expire till Afay
might for election purposes be served in November with
a notice to quit, and the result might be his disfranchise-
ment. Was that just?—(Hear.)
Mr. GROGAN pointed out to the Learned Gentleman
that according to the construction put by the Attorney-
General on the Bill as it now stood a tenant holding
wrongfully would be entitled to vote. Wai that just?

After a-few words from Sir F. THESIGER,
lir. SADLEIR said he would oppose the introduction
of the words proposed by the Hon. Member for Oxford,
because he was convinced they would lead to a great deal
of litigation.
Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know what mischief would
arise if a person holding wrongfully, as it was called,
should vote?—(Laughter and cheers.) Their object
was to increase the number of voters in Ireland, and to
whom it was proposed to give the right of voting? He
wished to know, as a statesman and not as a lawyer—
(cheers)—what mischief would arise if the constituency
was composed of voters possessing the qualifications laid
down in this Bill. According to the Bill the voter must
not be convicted of crime—he must occupy land or
tenements of the annual value of 8/.—he must have paid
his rates up to July, and he must be occupier for a year.
—(Hear, hear.) In the present state of the Irish con-
stituency ought they, on account of disputes as to whe-
ther a man was legally or wrongfully in possession, di-
vest such a class of voters of the right of voting, and say
that they were unworthy of the franchise? In fact, by
retaining the clause as it stood, they would deprive
landlords of the motive to quarrel.—(Hear.)
Mr. HAMILTON said he remembered sitting on the
Fictitious Voters Committee in 1836, when a great deal

of evidence was givea of the fictitious votes i❑ Ireland.
According to the Bill as it stood a tenant not legally in
possession might re7,ister and vote. Would such a vote
be fictitious or not?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL apprehended the:, a
person in bona fide occupation, and paying the rate,
would b 3 a legal and not a fictitious voter.
After a few words from Sir D. NORREYS,

Sir F. THESIGER remarked that the Attorney-Ge-
neral had introduced a new tam, and had spoken of a
bowl 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 be entitled to vote.
After a few words from Mr. MOORE,

Lord C. HAILILTON 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
pr.wont litigation, and he would therefore suggest that
the Right Hon. Gentleman should at once say that any
de facto occupier should bo entitled to vote, whether ho
was in occupation de jure or not.
Mr. BROWN—Not taking a lawyer's, but a com-
mon-sense view of Lhe point, he should say that proof of
occupatio❑ was all that was required.
After a few words from Mr. MM./YARD,
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 amendment ... ... 102
Against it ... ... 166
Majority against the amendment ---64
Mr. HENLEY then moved the omission of the
words, " under the last rate for the time being," for the
purpose of inserting in their place the following words,
" for the same 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 he 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 raised its value beyond that
amount, would be entitled to the franchise; and ho
thought the House would act wisely and properly iu
adopting such a provision. _ _ .

BRIGHT said, he believed that the adoption pf
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 if
a few days before the registry friendly guardians should
strike a rate iu which that tenement should be fixed at
8/., that man would be entitled to be registered. In
order to prevent such a proceeding, he proposed that a
party claiming the franchise should be rated to all the
rates struck.

Lord J. RUSSELL said, that under that messuro a
person seeking to be placed on the registry should be an
occupier—that he should be rated to the poor-rate in a
sum of not less than 81., and that he should have paid
his rate; and he (Lord J. Russell) did not think it ne-
cessary to add to those conditions by adopting the pro.
posal of the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire. He believed
that no serious abuso could arise from the adoption of
the elause as it then stood.

Mr. W. MILES said, that if they wishod to establish
a property qualification, they ought surely t) take into
account not merely the last rate, but all the rates to
which the party was liable during the required period.
Mr. LAW said, that under the clause as it now stood
a person who had contributed to no rate except ot e, and
who had been made liable to that rate solely for the pur-
pose of meeting the requirements of that Bill, would be
entitled to be placed on the registry. It seemed to him
that they ought to prevent the possibility of such an
abuse.

Sir F. THESIGER said it should be remembered that
the valuation could only be changed once in seve❑ years.
lie 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 called—which was
usually addressed to Members who opposed an enlarge-
ment of the franchise—namely, that he was actuated
by a desire unnecessarily to curtail the rights of 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 for him. He
believed that no reasonable man could refuse his as-
sent to an opinion quoted on a former occasion by the
Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Ripon, from
Mr. Fox, he believed, to the effect that the best quali-
fication as the basis of the representative system was
that which would include the largest number of in-
dependent voters, and exclude the largest number of
persons who were not independent.—(Hear, hear.)
They had heard it fr, quently said that the fact that
the number of electors in Ireland bore a corsider-
able disproportion to the amount of its population, as
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 mere arithmetical calculation of that
kind. The only question they had to consider was, what
was the amount of franchise which was calculated to
afford the beat system of government. That question
had formed a subject of 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 household 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 unnecessarily with
that balawe; and if he objected to the franchise which
would be created by that Bill fur 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 then proposed that they should create for
counties, it was, that with that franchise property in the
counties would be 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
1841 Lord Morpeth had introduced a Bill in which he
had proposed that the franchise in Ireland should be
based on a 51. rating and a 14 years' tenure; but the
House had thought proper to reject that proposal. Now,
he (Mr. H.) believed it might fairly be calculated
that with an Si. rating franchise the beneficial interest of
the holder would not amount to much more than about
41. instead of the 101. required by the Reform Bill. But
if, as he was about to propose, the amount of the quali-
fication was raised to 151., the property rated at that
amount might, he thought, be fairly considered
worth about 201., and the beneficial interest
' of the holder could not be much less than
about 101., the amount required by the Reform
Act. Ho 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
mis!brtunes; and they ought to beware how they
crated in that country a new element of strife among
her people. Too past struggles between her upper and
inferior classes had merely placed them in antagonism as
to the tenure under which land should to 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. was in fact rated at 91. As to the two Hon. Mem-
beerrsfeprs.mightDublin, be called "ingenui vultus peer inge-
nmque pud9ris."—(A laugh.) But there was another
expression in Dean Swift's" Polite Conversation" which
equally applied to them. Referring to a similar cha-
mraecltte in lh)iesannioSuwthi
hs:aidwtohualdt
w"
at
rhroaungt h t
hbaut t t
cheese
hr
ewe
so
eu
would nu
lodt
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 Hon. and Learned Members for Abingdon and
the University of Dublin a little information on the sub-
ject of the Irish franchise. What were the qualifications
for the franchise in Ireland? True, it was enjoyed by
50/. and 20/. freeholders, 201. rent-chargers, 10/., lease-
holders with a 10/. beneficialinterest, householders in
boroughs of 10/. annual value, and freemen who required
no property qualification.
given,N left the freemen ow,thtsßill, to which
unchso_
had a character had been
rent-chargers.
un-
touched,
nu
te.heehda,r asgelt
also thewarsic. a
re
eandly
correct,2ti /. freeholders, e
therefore,holders, arittol.ons.
saythe
that the Bill would sweep away all existnig qualifications.
The lion. Member for Montrose stated the other night
that 81. in Ireland was equal to 30/. in England; and,
therefore, 151. in Ireland WAS equal to 58/. in England;
and ho apprehended the House would never sanction
such a qualification as that. He protested against
the slow progress which they were making in
the Bill. Here they were at eight o'clock on
the second night of the discussion only on the
12th line c,f the Ist clause, and if they proceeded at
the same rate, they might, perhaps, get through the Bill
by next August. Ile appealed to English Members. It
had been said that if Ireland would only drop the ques-
tion a a domestic legislation, everything would be
granted to her which she could ask. Without "dropping
anything," ho demanded respectfully of them as Engli,h
representatives, in the name of his fellow-countrymen
and constituents, a liberal, fair, and honest Parliamentary

Re/orrn Bill for Ireland. He asked only the same fran-
chise as that in England and Scotland. He asked re-
presentation on the principle of revenue and population,
and he regretted the Right Hon. Secretary for Ireland
had not in his Bill thought fit to increase the number of
Irish Members. He had taken the trouble to compile a
statement from the returns laid on the table of the
House, which showed that in the thirty-two counties of
Ireland the population was 7,435,000; number of voters
enrolled, 33,804; number who would be enrolled under
this Bill, 370,000; or, with deductions, probably 274,000.
He had made a similar calculation with respect to bo-
roughs. He found in Athlone 349 enrolled; voted, 196.
Belfast, 4,234 enrolled; voted 2,000. Clonmel, 687 en-
rolled; voted, 321. Carlow, enrolled, 417; voted, 175.
Cork, enr011ed,4,965 ; voted, 1,600. Coleraine, enrolled,36B ;
voted, 176. Drogheda, enrolled, 734; voted, 307. Dub-
lin, enrolled, 19,562; voted, 7,000. Dundalk, enrolled,
538; voted, 245. Dungannon, enrolled, 434; voted, 286.
Kinsale, enrolled, 216; voted, 189. Limerick, enrolled,
2,063; voted, 600. Mallow, enrolled, 336; voted, 130.
New Ross, enrolled, 270; voted, 124. Waterford, en-
rolled, 1,696; voted, 800. Youghal, enrolled, 493;
vetted, 176. Total, of 16 boroughs, in 1847, enrolled,
37,374; voted, 14,305. He had often referred to a
Parliamentary paper, furnished on the motion of the
Hon. Member for Marylebone, which showed that the
Scotch and English boroughs, with a population of
7.700,000, had 417,587 electors, and returned 358 Mem-
bers, while Ireland, with a population of 8,175,000, re-
turned 105 Members, with votes not exceeding 30,000
in number. The Hon. Member for Middlesex, the
Nestor of reform, almost cried as he pictured the state
of things in England, where, the total of the whole
population being 16,000,000, there were no more than
1,000,000 of Parliamentary voters. But whilst England
and Wales returned about 500 members, with a popula-
tion of 16,000,000, Ireland, with 8,000.000, only re-
turned 105. He knew there were many Irish Members
who would ask him, why trouble your head with
an Irish Franchise Bill? There were Members
who, when they had secured the honour of M.P.
after their names, thought all their Parliamentary
duties accomplished, and absented themselves from the
I House. He would not be guilty of anything so invidious
as to mention names, but his fellow-countrymen were in-
telligent enough to look at the printed list and see what
had become of their representatives. Where, the ladies
would ask, are the men who came here coaxing our
husbands and kissing our children? He knew many
would say, if he asked them where they were when the
battle of the franchise was fought, that they had no con-
fidence in an English House of Commons. To this, his
answer would be, then resign, and let other men fill
your seats.—(Hear, hear.) He had confidence in an
English 1101130 of Commons, and he believed that the
battle of Ireland was to be fought on the floor of that
House. He had made a list of six English and six Irish
boroughs, all sending Members to that House. He would
first take the English boroughs. He found that And-
over, with a population of 4,997, had 243 voters, and re-
turned two members; Knaresborough, a population of
5,382; voters 228; returning two members. Thetford,
a population of 3,884; voters, 214; returning two mem-
bers. Harwich, a population of 3,730; voters, 268; re-
turning two members. Marlborough, a population of
4,130; voters, 255; returning two members. Rich-
mond, a population of 4,300; voters, 265; returning two
members, giving an aggregate population of 26,383; voters
1,473; returning 12 members. He would now take the
six Irish boroughs. He found that Cork had a popula-
tion of 80,720; voters, 3,244; membere, 2. Dublin, po-
pulation, 232,726; voters, 15,449; members, 2. Galway,
population, 32,511; voters, 1,822; members, 2. Lime-
rick, population, 48,391; voters, 1,246; members, 2.
Waterford, population, 23,316; voters, 1,273; members,
2. Belfast, population, 75,303; voters, 4,701; members,
2. Showing an aggregate population of 492,972; voters,
27,735; members, 12. He presumed the question on
whioh the Committee were about to divide was whether
the qualification was to be Si. or 151. He should record
his vote against the 151., and gave notice that if that
motion were lost, as he prophesied it would be, he would
feel it his duty to move another amendment, to the effect
that every person so qualified as aforesaid and rated to
the relief of the poor in any county of Ireland should be
entitled to be enrolled as a Parliamentary elector, and he
would propose to leave out the words " eight pounds" as
the minimum rating, for the purpose of substituting
" four pounds." With regard to another part of the
clause to which they had not yet come, namely, that part
which provided that in order to be enrolled it should be
a condition precedent that the rate should be paid, it
was his intention to take the sense of the Committee, for
he held that you had no more right to make such a con-
dition than you had to insist that a man should first pay
his half-year's rent.
Mr. STAFFORD reminded the Hon. Member that
by swelling the Ministerial majority with his vote on
this measure ho would defeat his own object, inasmuch
as the question put would be, not whether the franchise
should be 15/. but whether it should be Si.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the question re-
solved itself into this—what should be the num-
ber of electors in Ireland? and in reference to
this view be submitted to the Committee that an
81. franchise would not render that number excessive.
Taking the counties and boroughs, he believed the whole
number would be found to be under 300,000, and if they
compared that with the number in England and Wales,
it would be found, that while the proportion there was
about one in five, it would be one in six and a half or
seven. Such being the case he saw no reason for holding
the number to be excessive. It had been said that 8/. u
year represented a beneficial interest of half that amount
—namely, 41. a year; but compare that with the free-
hold franchise in England, which was only 21.—(Hear.)
There was certainly the difference of tenure—(ironical
cheers)—but still it was admitted that the property re-
presented by these was quite as much as 40s. There-
fore, the proposal being that there should be rather a
less number in proportion in Ireland than in England
and Wales, there was no reason for saying the
franchise was too low. But then came the question
upon which there had been very little argument—
namely, why they should give the franchise to persons
who were mere occupiers, and why they should not join
that occupation with tenure, as had hitherto been the
case in England ? In order to arrive at the conclusion
that they ought not any longer to insist on such a tenure
in Ireland, it was sufficient to look back to what had
been the course of proceeding in Parliament with re-
spect to the franchise by tenure in Ireland. In 1793 a
40s. franchise as enjoyed in England was given by the
Irish Parliament. The consequence was that there
were in some counties thousand of manufactured votes,
and persons having no property whatever were driven
up to the poll, as given in evidence on oath before Com-
mittees of the other House by the agents of landlords ;
in fact, forming the greatest caricature and most sad
abuse of the representative system that could very well
be imagined. He remembered hearing a story of a per-
son driving through a wretched village in company of
the proprietor. " How can you," said he, " keep such
wretched hovels on your estate ?" To which he re-
plied, "It is well worth my while to have these wretched
hovels on my estate, for it was mainly through them
that I was enabled to make my brother a Member."—
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Such was the system under
the 40s. franchise. In 1829 the Right Honourable
Baronet the Member for Tamworth, in proposing the
Catholic Emancipation Bill, declared his plan, which
was supported by large majorities, of disfranchising the
40s. freeholders, and they had a new franchise estab-
lished—namely. a 101. franchise; and that was subse-
quently amended and altered by the Irish Reform Act
introduced by Lord Stanley. But so far from getting
rid of the abuse, they had under that franchise cases of
perjury, fictitious votes, and life interests given to men
of 70 or 75 years of age, for the purpose of voting at the
coming election, and abuses so grievous that everybody
agreed that such a system should not continue. The
party with whom he was connected attempted some
mode of amendment, Lord Stanley proposed another, and
Lord llowick, again, a third. But there were several
Members of that House—amongst others, he believed,
the Hon. Member for Cavan—who said they would never
put an end to such scenes of perjury, and the creation of
fictitious votes, until they placed the right of voting on
occupation and rating, and not on tenure. When Lord
Besborough went to Ireland he was particularly di-
rected to report on that subject, and to give his opinion
to the Government. He gave his opinion very deci-
dedly, that as long as you kept up any right of voting
by tenure so long would) you have scenes of fraud which
it would be quite impossible to counteract, and he pro-
posed that whatever the amount might be, the franchise
should be founded on rating and occupation, so as to
make the register little more than a copy of the rate-
hook. Such was the plan that they had adopted upon
Lord Besborough's recommendation. The different:Bills
introduced were founded on that plan, and the question
now was, whether, having adopted that plan, the pro-
per amount of qualification had been fixed. He did not
think they would give satisfaction in Ireland if they were
to fix in that country a much higher value of property
as a qualification for the franchise than in England, or
declare their opinion that such was the character of the
Irish people that they were not to be trusted with the
same privileges as the people of England. He should
wish, therefore, that if they did not grant the 40s. fran•
chise to Ireland—if they saw that the 40s. franchise led
to fraud—in that case he should wish that there should
be given some equivalent qualification, which would give
that country a sufficient number of voters. He did not
think that the number the Government proposed was at
all excessive, and he trusted, therelme, the Committee
would not agree to the amendment.
Mr. GOULBURN was anxious to state why he ob-
jected to filling up the blank with the number proposed
by the Government. lie was a party to the arrangement
for the abolition of the 40s. freeholders, on the ground
that they were not an independent class—that they were
merely an instrument in the hands of one party or ano-
ther in Ireland, rather than exercising any opinion el
their own. Having been a party to that arrangement,
he felt that there was a great delicacy and difficulty in
reducing the franchise now so low as to give rise to si-
milar practices in Ireland. He felt strongly the condi-
tion of those to whom they now proposed to give the
franchise; at the same time he had no wish whatever to
make any reduction in the number of electors. On the
these amount
must
other hand, there were causes beyond the mere numerical
b
of
the
the looked electors
oin
thatthe
conditionhis rn in mind, andlre-
land. They had first to consider how they were to cre-
ate a constituency that had that degree of interest in the
soil that would enable them to act independently of all
parties. Above all, they must consider what would
be the effect upon the social condition of the
country in making so large an alteration in the
amount of the franchise. Ile apprehended, in the first
place, that by giving 81. as the proper amount of the
franchise, they would necessarily give a preponderating
influence to the occupiers of those towns that did not
send representatives to Parliament, and they would find
that the majority of these 81. freeholders would be inha-
bitants of those towns who, although they did not send
representatives
to Parliament, were possessed of a con-
siderable population and property. They must remember
that with the increase of property and manufacturing
industry there was a constant tendency in those towns

to augment the numbers enjoying the fanchise, and that ,
influence would trot prevail to the sore extent in the
agricultural districts. So little explanation had been
given by the Government as to the bsis or grounds on
which they placed the franchise at 81. that he was not
in a situation to judge of their motive in making it so
low in amount. He confessed that ie had great fear
that a majority of those upon whom t' ,e franchise would
be conferred would be subjectel to in ireet influence at
elections, Land was money in Ireland, and that man
who paid 171. or 8/. for his holding might be taken
as working for the lowest rate of eagee, and, con-
secieently, could not he c meiiiered irlependent. The
Noble Lord (Eliot) when he was a Member of the Irish
Government introduced a measure vith the object of
establishing in that country a franchise similar to the
English franchise—he proposed that he occupying fran-
chise should he 301., and he made it in by proposing that
the freehold qualification should be 5, But there was a
greet difference between an occupaton of 30/. and an
occupation of an 81. holding, and he (id not consider that
the latter was a franchise which it was desirable to give
to Ireland in order to obtain an independent constituency.
If they increased the amount of the fas.nchise they might
reduce the number of the constituescy, but the effect
would be to provide a wholesome stimulus to the indus-
try of the country, SO that others misfit qualify them-
selves for obtaining it. As he was called upon, without
any political or party feeling on the subject, to decide,
he should say that in the present socal condition of Ire-
land it was not advisable that the tanchise should be
fixed atso low an amount.—(Hear.)
Sir W. SOMERVILLE gave tie Right Honour-
able Gentleman credit for the best intentions
towards Ireland while opposing the proposition
of the Government. Ho apprehended that there
was but one opinion in that House as to the necessity
of doing something. The state of tie franchise in Ire-
land was at present such that it wat a complete satire
upon representation. The question wee how were they to
apply themselves to the case, and whict.wa,s the best method
of remedying the existing evil ? Ths House would re-
member that by the Reform Bill a 101 franchise was con-
ferred; that narrowed instead of wending the consti-
tuency, and they gradually dwindled [way until they were
now reduced to little more than 30,0(0. How, then, were
they to get a franchise for the people of Ireland? If they
connected it with tenure, let them pre it as low as they
pleased they would never be able to get a constituency;
there would always be an indisposition on the part of
the landlords to grant leases, and that would be in-
creased. The question was, whether the 81. franchise
they now proposed was extravagantly low as compared
with the 10/. which it was intended to confer by the
Reform Bill. lie was of opinion that the proposed
franchise was higher, rather than below, the former
10/. franchise. The next question was, whether the
number to be enfranchised would be excessive? The
proportion of electors at present, as compared with the
male adult population, was little more than three per
cent. If they meant to do what was right and fair, they
would be obliged to add greatly ts the number. The
number which it was calculated would be created by the
Bill was about 267,000, being about fifteen per cent. of
the male adult population; and if they stopped at any
smaller number, there would be just ground of complaint
on the part of the Irish people. It appeared to him
that the Right Hen. Gentleman (slr. Goulburn) took
rather an extravagant view of the number of voters in
the towns not returning representatives to that House,
and in proof of thst he would refer to the returns laid
on the table of the House of the number of persons rated
at 81. and upwards, He did not think that there was
anything unfair, cr unreasonable, or dangerous, in the
proposition of the Government. He trusted, therefore,
the House would not accede to the amendment of the
Hon. Member for the University cf Dublin.
Mr. R. M. FOX said the Right lion. Gentleman had
I set great store on the creation of an independent consti-
tuency in Ireland, and for that reason it was that he
(Mr. Fox) was anxious to extend the franchise as much
as possible. He oelieved that the existing 101. free-
holders were not more intelligent than the class whom
it was proposed to create by the present Bill. Indeed
he did not know anything more miserably dependent
than the 101. freeholders, where the constituencies were
small. The great body of the non-electors throughout
the country exercised a wild right of control, and as-
sumed to themselves the name of the country. On the
other hand, bodies of the electors were dragged by their
landlords to vote as they pleased to dictate, and to such
an extent had this gone that the freeholders in many
cases looked upon the franchise as a burdensome privi-
lege, of which they did not wish to avail themselves. The
real remedy was such an extension of the franchise as
would enable them to disregard the influence of the land-
lord or the intimidation of the " county."—(hear.)
Mr. A. STAFFORD complimented the Noble Lord
and the Right Hon. the Secretary for Ireland upon the
very temperate speeches they had made, but observed
that they had spent a considerable time in laying down
propositions which no one had attempted to deny, and
in drawing false inferences which no one had disputed.
The Noble Lord had urged that there was nothing in the
numbers of the constituency proposed to be created that
could alarm either side of the House. The auswer of
his (Mr. Stafford's) side of the House was, that it was
sot the number, but the quality of the electors they ob-
jected to. The real question before the House was,
should the figure 8 be inserted in the clause, but neither
the Noble Lord nor the Right Hon. Gentleman had grap-
pled with that question. They had not shown upon what
principle that sum had been selected. Why, he found that
in another Bill introduced by the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Secretary for Ireland (the Landlord and Tenant Bill)
he had separated the Irish peasantry into two distinct
classes. Of these one kind should have the right of
appeal, and the others should sue injortva pauperis, and
he found that the limit so fixed was riot an 8/. but a 10/.
—(Loud cries of Hear.") So that its the one Bill
the Right Hon. Gentleman had drawn the line between
the inferior and superior at 101., and in the other Bill at
81.—(heir, hear.) Now, was nut that a most marked
piece of inconsistency? The two principles were
wholly irreconcilable the one with the other. The in-
ference he drew from it was this, that no sooner did the
Bill become law than the Right Hon. Gentleman, dis-
daining to be the representative of a rotten borough,
would ask for the Chiltern Hundreds, and they would
see the sublime spectacle of a dissolution for Ireland.—
(Hear, hear.) He called upon the lion. Member for
Manchester, who was about to vote for the 8/. franchise,
to explain how he could reconcile that with the vote he
had given the previous night. Last night ho was pre-
pared to vote for universal suffrage for England, and he
would ask was he now prepared to vote for 81.? If so,
the inference was, that the difference between 8/. and
nothing was the difference between the Irish and English
Gen-
tlemanti had one spark of consistency, what be should
d
Nth°a' no.) If the Honourable t
the blank be not filled up with
coons was,tu e
tn:y vote a - (
ho should avoid swelling the Government
majority, as that would preclude him from afterwards
voting a smaller sum. If he and his party did not act
thus nothing would prevent the public from seeing that
they were taking a most illogical course. What he
(Mr. Stafford) and his friends proposed was that,
plau, they had come boldly forward and stated what they
balancing the advantages and the disadvantages of the
meant to divide upon.
Mr. SIIEIL said the House was very justly impatient
for a division.—(A laugh.) It appeared to him that the
Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was, in all
probability, engaged . in reflecting much more upon what
he meant to say himself than in listening to the obser-
vations of his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary for
Ireland. The Hon. Gentleman said he had not stated
why the Government had selected 81. as the ground-
work of the franchise; but his Right Hon. Friend had
distinctly stated that ho considered 81. as equivalent to
the franchise conceded by the Reform Bill. his Right
lion. Friend might be wrong, but that was the explana-
tion he had given. He should state only ono statisti-
cal fact, but that was one of no ordinary importance.
There were 469 English Members in that
House—there were 105 Irish Members, Of these
English Members, 321 wore returned by boroughs ;
and of the 105 Irish Members a large majority were re-
turned by counties. What inference did ho draw from
that? The qualification of the English Members was a
10/. value; and the qualification of the Irish Members
was not a 10/. value, but a beneficial 10/. interest. That
was equivalent to a 201. value. Now, he wanted to con-
tend for the right of the Irish to British institutions.
Let them not imagine that the question he was about to
put was not germane to the matter in hand. He had no
fanatical antipathy to the Irish Church, but the question
he put to the House was, on what principle did they
maintain the Irish Church?: Not because they were not
insensible to the anomaly—not because they were not
convinced of the inconsistency of maintaining it—but
because they thought that in the two. countries the same
ecclesiastical institutions should exist. Be it so. Ap-
ply the same principle to the present case. Let them
apply to the state the principle they applied to the
church, and grant them the constitutional affinity as
they insisted upon ecclesiastical affinity. Ho-
nourable Gentlemen oppo.site ought to bear in mind
the Conservative concomitants of the Bill. Ile be-
lieved that there would not be such an augmentation
of democratic power as Honourable Gentlemen anti-
cipated. In the first place, the expense of the elections
would be doubled, and the legitimato ambition of many
young aspirants would be put a stop to. In tho next
place, there would be a large mass of rural occupiers of
the soil who would go to the county towns, and in his
progress of 20 or 30 miles he would get rid of the
popular epedimic of intimidation—he would be encum-
bered and surrounded by excited and assisting thousands,
and he would vote under the eye of his landlord, and in
his peculiar physiognomy he would find sin exceedingly
intelligent glance that he would be at no loss to under-
stand. These were the Conservative concomitants of the
Bill. It was, ho trusted, not difficult, from the text
devised by her Majesty's Government, to give all classes
in Ireland a just equipoise of power.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK denied that he had been guilty of
any inconsistency because he had voted for the motion
of Mr. Hume on the previous night. He was anxious
to see the constituency of Ireland enlarged, and that
was the object of his vote last night as regarded
the English constituency. He would go as far as
he could get anybody to go with him. The question
really before the House
was, in what way they wore
to enlarge the constituency of Ireland? He heard con-
stantly from the other side expressions of great sym-
pathy for Ireland, and he wished then that they would
show it by allowing thorn the means of managing their
own affairs. When the Government were attempting. to
extend the constituency they heard Hon: Members from
the Opposition side of the House rising up one after
another and saying that
they wanted an independent
constituency. They, however, think that independence i
and a 151. franchise are co-existent. Why should 15/.
create a more independent constituency than i 0 or 80
There was a great reason for making the franchise much
lower iu Ireland than England, for in the latter country
there was much greater wealth than in the former. If
they were in England to give such a franchise which
he should be glad to see conferred upon the people—for
he had never opposed the Chandos clause—they would
swell the constituency in this country far more than

they etould do in Ireland. An 81. franchise in Ir:land
would be a larger sum than 151., 201., or 301. paid
in this country. He feared Lot the charge
of inconsistency in going out in support of
the Noble Lord's proposition. He would vote
for it in the full expectation that the experience
of such a measure would teach that House that they
might hereafter go one step farther in the same direc-
tion. Ho was not in a hurry, for he believed that this
reform must be done by degreeg. He trusted that the
Noble Lord would soon bring in that Reform Bill which
he shadowed forth last night.—(Hear, hear.) He did
not think that the Noble Lord would, for any long
period, delay such a measure, and he hoped that it
would be accompanied with another Irish Reform Bill
which would go one step lower than the present.—
(Laughter.) He (Mr. Roebuck) promised him, if he
were present on such an occasion, the Noble Lord should
have his hearty support.
Lord C. HAMILTON said it was a most remarkable
fact that out of the numerous petitions presented from
Ireland only five of them prayed for an increase of the
electors. This fact was of itself sufficient to show that
the people were altogether indifferent to such a measure
as the present. They certainly asked for more repo -
sentatives, but the Government said they should not have
additional Members, but they would give them more
electors. He thought that the way of exhibiting
their sympathy for the Irish people was to give them
more Members. Tr they passed this measure he could
not see how they could consistently stop short from
voting them the increase of representatives asked for.
—(Hear, hear.) It could be shown that the proposition
of his Honourable and Learned Friend the Member
for the Dublin University would come much nearer to
the franchise indicated in the Reform Bill than the mea-
sure before the House. It was a proposition, too, which
ho thought better adapted for the present situation in
Ireland. They ought to be cautious how they disturbed
that calm which the Noble Lord described last night as
now existing in Ireland, by giving the people an ide
that they were to obtain great advantages from the pro-
posed franchise.—(Hear.) If they made the franchise
too easy of attainment, they would degrade it in the
eyes of the people. The real friends of the country
were those who placed themselves in opposition to the
measure now submitted to their consideration.—(Hear.)
Mr. T. M'CULLAGH said that the Noble Lord who
had just sat down had, in common with other Hon.
Gentlemen on the same side of the House, an odd way
of showing his sympathy with the Irish people. The
Noble Lord had asked why there had not been petitions '
presented in favour of this Bill. The answer he gave
him was, that the people of Ireland, finding on two se-
veral occasions in 1848 and 1849 the Hon. Gentlemen
opposite coming down and affirming the principle of this
Bill, believed those Honourable Gentlemen were in ear-
nest, and naturally thought it unnecessary to petition
in favour og it.—(Hear, hear.) In Ulster, out of a
population of 3,200,000 inhabitants, the consti-
tuency was less than 9,000. They were asked to-
night why 81. was selected more than any other amount.
He did not know why.—(Hear, hoar.) But such a
franchise would nearly give them such a constituency as
on an average they had in England. The English consti-
tuencies in the counties had on an average 6,700 electors.
He calculated that the proposed franchise for Ireland
would give 6,000 for each county. This Bill was, after all,
but a performance of the promise made at the time of
the R&orm Bill—that Ireland should not be placed upon
the same footing as England. He might be asked what
that promise was in precise terms. He would appeal to
only one authority. On the second reading of that Bill,
these words were used, " If it was just that the principle
of the Bill carried for England should be applied to Eng-
land, it was no less just that the same principle should
be applied t Ireland. If the Reform Bill only conferred
on the people of England that which was their right,
how could the same right be denied to the people of
Ireland? Could these rights be denied without danger?
—or, if long withheld, would it not constitute a fair
reason why the people should demand a repeal of the
union?" This was the language that was at that time
used by Lord Stanley. He believed that the Noble Lord
was sincere when ho used those words, and that he
really meant to give that power substantially to the
Irish people of choosing their own representatives. Was
it, he (Mr. M'Cullagh) asked, fair, just, reasonable, or
politic for them now to refuse to give to the people of
Ireland, after a delay of so many years, the realisation
of those promises which were at the period alluded to
held forth ?—(llear, hear.) If they believed in the re-
ality of religious liberty, was it not an argument to ex-
tend the liberty of the Irish people when they saw how
they had used that liberty for the last 20 years ? They
had now in Ireland 500,000 children receiving instruc-
tion by a grant from that House—the major portion be-
longing to the Catholic religion. If the House believed
in the efficacy of religious instruction, they must believe
that the Irish people were better fitted now for that
liberty which it was proposed to give them than before
such a means of education existed. He only asked the
House to give the counties in Ireland that franchise
which they possessed in 1829. Was it consistent, wise,
or just that they should now divide the House on the
question of whether the qualification for the franchise
should be Si. or 15/. ? If they placed any value upon
the good feeling and the loyalty of the Irish people,
he trusted that the Government would persist in
the vindication of their rights by pressing on this nem-
sure.—(Hear, hear.) _ _

Lord'CAST LER'EAGH said ho considered the quali-
fication proposed in the amendment of his Hon. and
Learned Friend a great deal too high. Neither did he
approve of the proposition of the Noble Lord. If, how-
ever, ho was compelled to vote for either, he should cer-
tainly support the measure of the Noble Lord; for when
they were called upon to give a new constitution to Ire-
land, he thought that they had better be found on the
liberal side.—(Hear, hear.) He, however, confessed
that he had much doubt as to the propriety of selecting
the present time for this experiment. He should prefer
a 101. franchise. He most sincerely wished by this
measure that they could either feed the people or restore
tranquillity and contentment in Ireland. As, however,
it was impossible for them to do all that they wished,
they ought to do all they could.—( Hear, hear.) He had
no doubt that if they did their duty towards Ireland.
they would have no reason to repent by tho conduct of
the people themselves.
Sir W. VERNER was understood to say, in reply to
an observation made by the Hon. Member for Sheffield,
that at the time that there were 40s. freeholders in Ire-
land, the unfortunate freeholders were driven in flocks,
like sheep, to the hustings, by the priests; and then, too,
the priest was to be seen with a doubleethonged whip in
his hand forcing on the voters to the poll. An Hon.
Member, too, had remarked that the landlords would
not give leases.
Mr. MONSELL explained that what he had stated
was that the people did not register because they had not
leases; and the reason they had not leases was because
the landlords did not wish them to register.
Sir W. VERNER continued by saying that ho had
property in Armagh, Tyrone, and Monaghan, and he
was most anxious to make freeholders iu all these coun-
ties—(Hear, and laughter)—but the respectable Roman
Catholic farmers requested of him not to give them
leases, because if he did they must vote as the priest di-
rected them.—(Hear, hear.) He asked on this occasion
the same justice to be done to them which would be done
to England and Scotland. A highly-respectable Mem-
ber, who he had no doubt was in the House—(Cries of
" Name")—the Hon. Member for Berwickshire, had told
the House that it was an unprecedented thing to bring
forward and attempt to pass any measure through that
House connected with Scotland in the same way that the
Noble Lord had endeavoured to force on that Bill
in the absence of the Irish Members. The
Honourable Member had twice told the Noble Lord that
he dared not do it. They had then this, an Irish
Bill, before the House, at the same time that the
assizes were going on in Ireland, and that
many Members were absent in the performance of very
important duties. The Noble Lord did not afford to the
people of Ireland the opportunity of consulting their re-
presentatives with respect to this measure. It was be-
cause the Noble Lord could not do this that they felt
compelled to take the part they had done in opposing its
progress ; and the Irish felt grateful to the Scotch and
English Members for the manner in which they had
supported them on that occasion. He hoped then that
their party, though small, would stick together, and
teach the Government not to take those liberties with
them.
Lord J. MANNERS observed that the Hon. Member
for Dundalk, apparently in want of an opponent, had
sought to fix an accusation on his Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Northampton, which the Hon. Member (Mr.
M'Cullagh) would, upon reflection, he hoped, be disposed
to withdraw. He had fixed upon the expression of
sham representatives of a rotten constituency ;" when
these words were intended as an interpretation of the
language which Hon. Gentlemen opposite gave to them-
selves.—(Hear, hear.) It was said that they ought to
give to Ireland a constituency like to that of England.
That, he said, was what they (the Opposition) wanted
to do.—(Hear, hear.) The tone and temper of the Hon.
Member for Sheffield, who had referred to the Hon.
Member for Northampton, showed how deeply were felt
the observations of his Hon. Friend.—(Hear.) The
Hon. Member for Sheffield had contrasted the expres-
sions of sympathy and generosity, as compared with the
conduct of the Opposition on this occasion. This was a
charge which, he said, sat light upon him; for when
English Radicalism could not coin, at a time of the most
severe pressure of distress in Ireland, words harsh and
bitter and severe enough to describe the Irish character,
it never was alluded to by any one on that (the Opposi-
tion) side of the House but in terms of respect, and there
was no act of theirs but one of liberality and kindness.—
(Hear.) If it wore true that on the memory of Irish
Members these facts made a light impression, it
was not so with others; for they were more deeply
and strongly impressed upon the memory of the
Irish people.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that there
was an advantage in discussing this Bill after the debate
of last night. They derived, too, great benefit from
having the philosophical principles laid down by a
Noble Lord as to the manner of granting the franchise,
and upon which they ought to proceed. He did not
then, ho thought, travel out of the record if he tested
this Bill by the principles which had been laid down.—
(Hear.) lie understood the Noble Lord to have laid
down this principle—that any reform they granted
should be as a supplement to the Reform Bill, and not a
reversal Grit. It would be easy to show that the amendment
of the lion. Me.aber for the University of Dublin was in
strict accordance with the speech of the Noble Lord on
hundreds,lB37
the preceding night. He believed that he might take it
for granted that the Reform Bill was intended to create
a constituency approaching 150,000 voters, and in the
year
the
butactual
the
proposalconstituencyofwtahse 12 2,
Nobleo 00 s o me
odd Lord,
which they were told was to give n constituency like
that of England, would in point of fact give them a
greater constituency than that given bylithe Reform
Bill.—(Hear.) lie could not, ho must admit, blind him-
self to the argument of his Hon Friend (Mr. Stafford),
that those who voted with the Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Hume) last night, and this night intended to vote with
the Noble Lord, were guilty of inconsistency.—(Flear,

he.lr.) He wished tn.lso to obtain for his Honourable
Friend the majority who had supported the Noble
Lord, because if it wore otherwise the Noble Lord
might have the reproach justly cast upon him that he
placed greater confidence in the peasantry of Ireland
than in the peasantry and the mechanics of England.—
(Hear.) Now, he had a great admiration of the virtues
of the Irish people; but still he could not think them
more peculiarly qualified to exercise the franchise than
the people of England.—(Hear.) Ho could not say
that the peasantry of Lincolnshire and the artisans of
Birmingham were less worthy of the right of voting than
the owners of tenements in the bog of Allen.—(Laugh-
ter.) Here the desire was to restore the constituency of
Ireland to the le. el on which the Reform Bill had placed
them. He directly joined with the Noble Lord in that
endeavour; but he would not create an ent rely new con-
stituency. If it were adopted, it would not confer the
least benefit upon Ireland, and it would lessen in the
minds of the people of England that respect and regard
for the representation of Ireland which it was of imperial
moment to retain intact.—(Hear.)
The Committee divided, and the numbers were—
For the amendment ... .., 144
Against it
Majority against the amendment ... —69

On our return Co the gallery we found
Mr. J. REYNOLDS addressing the Committee in
support of creating a 4/. instead of an 8/. franchise; but
having been informed by the Chairman that he could
not then move it as an amendment, the Honourable
Member gave notice that he would take the sense of the
House upon it on the bringing up of the report. He
then proceeded to say that he had no objection to re-
cognise the principle that a man ought not to be enrolled
unless he was rated to the relief of the poor; but be
thought it was decidedly wrong in principle to deprive
him of the right of being enrolled unless he had paid
the rates.—(A laugh.) That, he believed, aught not to
be a condition, because at present the law provided
efficient remedies for the rec•.overy of the rate as well a
the rent.—(Hear, hear.) He would suggest, therefore,
that the words bearing upon this point in the clause
should be omitted.

Sir W. SOMERVILLE declined to adopt the sug-
gestion o 4 the Hon. Gentleman, as being opposed to the
principle of the Bill.
Mr. REYNOLDS—Then I protest against the prin-
ciple of this Bill.—(Laughter.)
Mr. WALPOLE was of opinion that the days upon
which the rates were to be paid, in order to qualify for
a county or borough franchie, should be assimilated;
but as the Bill stood it provided that in the case of a
county qualification the rates should be paid on or be-
fore the Ist July, whilst in the case of boroughs the
date was the sth of July.—(hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT concurred in opinion with the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman, and said it struck him that
fixing different days for paying the rates might lead to
much confusion.—(llvar.)
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that be should bo pre-
pared to consider this subject when the Committee came
to the 6th clause.

Mr. REYNOLDS said that in many unions in Ire-
land there had been an accumulation of arrears of rates
so large that it would be impossible to pay them up.
Mr. fIUME considered that the land had been sub-
jected to very extraordinary circumstances during the
past year—(Laughter, arid cries of " Ilear")—and he
contended, therefore, that the payment of such rates
only as had been levied after the passing of this Act
should be a condition to the possession of the franchise.
Lord C. HAMILTON then rose to move the proviso
to the first clause, of which he had given notice, to the
effect that the voter should make a claim to be placed on
the register to the high constable of the barony in which
he should be rated. The Noble Lord said he did not
wish in the slightest degree to gain any political advan-
tage or party object by moving this amendment. His
sole object was that the measure should be of a gene-
ral and impartial character, and that the real free-
dom aed independence of all classes of the electors
should be maintained. He felt that it was necessary
to protect those who might hold the right of voting
from undue influences as tar as possible; for he was sorry
to say that it was notorious that in Ireland the consti-
tuencies were painfully open, and exposed to the most
unfair and apparently tyrannical interferences in the
exercise of their franchise. It was an unpleasant thing
for an Irishman to confess that such was the case; but
no one who had resided in that country, and had wit-
nessed contested elections there, could fail to have a
strong impression on his mind that they were a perfect
mockery.—(Hear, hear.) Now, the object he had in pro-
posing his amendment was to prevent any man being
placed in the painful dilemma of voting for one party or
the other without his own consent.—(Heer, hear.) He
believed the Government had come forward, upon the
present occasion, really with a sincere desire not only to
enlarge the constituencies, bu(to.do so fairly towards all
parties, without any political or party object; and it was
from the strong objection he entertained to putting men
in the unfortunate position of being subjected, on the
one hand, to threats of temporal injury, aud, on the
other, to threats of punishment in the future world,
that he thought the Committee would act wisely and
justly by giving those parties the right of saying whether
they would or would not accept the franchise.—(Hear.)
It could not be denied that at present there was very
great interference with the electors, end that in conse-
quence considerable disinclination prevailed to accept the
franchise that now existed. He believed that he was
thoroughly within the mark when he said that those
who were entitled to exercise the right, even under the
present law, might be multiplied by three.—(Hear,
hear.) Seeing, then, the existence of this disinclination,
surely it would be highly advisable that this House,
which was really► anxious to promote the welfare of Ire-
land, should deal with this as a fact, and that the people
should have the option of exercising the franchise or not
as they pleased. That was his proposition, and he main
Lined that it was quite as liberal an act to give a man
the right of refusal as to insist upon his using the fran-
chise. He might be told that he was endeavouring to
place an impediment in the way of the franchise; but he
unhesitatingly disclaimed being actuated by any such a
desire. He wished to preserve those persons who were
enfranchised from being exposed to the serious annoy-
ances which would be brought to bear upon them in
Ireland. He only asked the Committee to affirm the
principle without alopting the exact words of the
amendment, which, perhaps, in their present form might
be taken to apply -0 persons already on the register, or
to make the claim annual, which was not his intention.

Sir G. GREY said the adoption of the amendment
would de4troy the value of a qualification founded upon
rating; the advantage of which was that it was self-
acting. The independence of the voter would be sacri-
ficed, instead of being maintained, if the amendment
were adopted.
The proviso was then put from the chair and negatived
without a division.

Mr. J. REYNOLDS proposed the addition of a pro-
viso, to the effect that no person otherwise qualified to
be registered should be held to be disqualified by reason
of any arrears cf rates which have occurred previous to
the 16th of July, 1849.
The AT I ORNEY-GENERAL said the House could
not agree to the proviso, for the Chancellor of the Ex-
ceequer would object to it us a receipt in full for all
arrears.

Mr. BRIGHT said that the Bill was not a measure
to effect the collection of rates, which would be done
through the machinery of the poor-law, and he, there-
fore, could see no objection to the proviso.
Mr. AGLIONBY hoped the Government would allow
the proviso to be added to the Bill, unless they could
assign some other reasons than those given by the At-
torney-General.

Vi;count CASTLEREAGII opposed the proviso.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the question had been already
decided by the House that the rates should be paid up
to a certain day as a qualification for a vote, and now
that general decision having been been given, the ques-
tion was whether or not there should be any exceptions
made to it, because there had been peculiar distress in
the year 1849. lie did not think as a general rule, for
the franchise had been laid down by the House. that it
would be expediant to make exception on account of
those cases of distress, and he could not for that reason
support the proviso.

"Mr. HUME regretted that the Government opposed
the proviso, but advised the Hon. Gentleman to withdraw
it for the present.
After a few words from Mr. CONNOLI,Y,
Mr. REYNOLDS said that in order to give the Go-
vernment time to consider the question he would not give
the House the trouble of dividing on the proviso at pre-
sent. He would, therefore, withdraw the motion.—(" No,
no," from the Opposition.)
The CHAIRMAN then put the question from the
chair, and the proviso was negatived without a division.
Clause 1, as amended, was then put from the chair,
and agreed to.
On clause 2,
Mr. HAMILTON suggested that, at that late hour,
the Chairman should renort progress.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, as there were many objec-
tions to bo stated relative to that clause, he concurred in
the advisability of reporting progress. With respect to
the clause itself he could only say he should he happy to
hear the opinions of Hon. Members connected with Ire-
land upon it, especially of those who were favourable to
the Bill. With respect to the statement which he had
made at five o'clock relative to the conduct of business
of the House, he had to observe that the First Lord of
the Admiralty found it impossible to attend the House
on Monday, and as in his absence it would not be ad-
visable to bring forward the navy estimates, he proposes
to go on with the present Bill on Monday instead.
Mr. STAFFORD observed that the Noble Lord had
said he wished particularly to hear the opinions of gen-
tlemen connected with Ireland, especially those who
supported him on the Bill. If opposing the proviso of
the Hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Reynolds) amounted
to supporting the Bill, then he (Mr. Stafford) and his
friends were supporters of the Bill, and the Noble Lord
ought to be happy to hear their opinions.—(Hear.)
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and ob-
tained leave to sit again on Monday next, and,tho House
resumed.
The second reading of the Court of Chancery (Ire-
land) Bill was postponed to the 15th of March.
Mr. CARDWELL said, in the early part of the even-
ing, he had stated that great interest was felt by the
public as to the Mercantile Marine Bill. He wished now
to ask whether it was likely that Bill would be brought
on on Monday next?

Mr. LABOUCHERE said he did not think there
was any chance of bringing that Bill forward on
that evening. He would therefore fix it for Friday
next.
REGISTRATION OF DEEDS (IRELAND) BILL.
Read a second time.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
The nous° resolved its. 4 into a Committee of Supply.
Resolved, that u sum of 17,758,700/. be granted to her
Majesty to defray the charge of outstanding Exchequer-
bills.—Agreed to. fioue resumed. Committee on
Monday next. The House at its rising to adjourn till
Monday next.
Mr. HEADLAM obtained leave to bring in a Bill to