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

not dissent from any of the praises ,which had been
bestowed on the measure by Hon. Members on that
side of the House. With regard to the right of voting
derivable. fraiu 'freeholds, he- entirely -concurred with
the observations which had been made on both sides

of the House.- He thought the great point was to es-
t tblish proprietorship, for a small proprietor was very
often more independent than a large leaseholder. He
regretted that the amount had not been fixed at a
lower value than 51. He believed that if the Govetn-

ment had adopted the 40s. freehold it would not have
been abused now as it forinerly was. Ile hoped the
Noble Lord therefore would. see the propriety of
lowering the qualification. With regard to the muni-
cipal improvements which the Noble Lord suggested,
he (Mr Wyse) was glad the Noble Lord recognised
the same necessity for an extension of the franchise
in towns as in the case of counties. He (Mr. Wyse)
repeated that he was glad that this Bill had-been in-
troduced as it had elicited from the Right Hon.
Baronet and th? Noble Lord, the expression of prin-
ciples which he hoped the Government would be pre-
pared to carry fully into operation.
Sir R. PEEL said there were one or two points
which he wished to explain. He had said that in
some towns in Ireland it was impossible to apply the
English principle, namely, to give the right of the
municipal franchise after occupation for two years,
and the payment of all rates and taxes. He had since
been informed that it was possible to apply this prin-
ciple to all the towns 'in Ireland, and therefore he
proposed to substitute that provision at once. The
Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had expressed an ap-
prehension that the assin'iilation of the stamp duties
would 'have' .the effect of increasing the charges of
conveyance. .Now, the reverse was the fact. Before
the assimilation of the duties, the stamp duty on a
conveyance of property- trp-tcr -the value of 1001. was
11., but now it was reduced to 10s.
- -Lord ELIOT did not mean' to discuss- at any
length the occupation clause, but he would just allude
to an observation which had fallen from the Noble
Lord respecting it. The Noble Lord said that in
point of fact it was a Chandos clause. This was not
so, for by the Chatidos clause the qualification, con-
sisted of the payment of a certain amount of rent to
the landlord, while the proposed occupation clause in
the present Bill made the qualification to depend upon
the tenant being rated to the poor. He did not think
that the lion. Member for Kerry had answered the
question of his Right Hon. Friend. His Right Hon.
Priend 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
every 5/. 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 41. 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 ?" • '
.31r.•11.- 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 Eliok-the Irish Attorney-General, and Sir
James Graham were ordered to bring it in.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Lord ELlOT: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-
thnity 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
rootion,of.-which he had given notice the other night,.
he . wisjied. to put a question to the Right Hon.
-Baroicet7with 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 theAPrivy Council, it might be ex-;
pedient that the Crowe 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
2,0091. There were already two with salaries of 1,500/.
'and 1,2001.. 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 Parlianientary 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 Com -
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 xespeet to
this appointment, or that such a Bill should be intro-
duced ; but hethought it seemed an extraordinarycourse
—not .to say At 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 incon-
sequence he wished to ask -the Right Hon. Gentleman
whether it was the intention of her IVlajesty'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? • .
' H.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. ,Ile 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. Hi; 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 jUige to pre-
side in the Privy Ceuneil. 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' arid Learned Lord.
Mr. R. YORT. ?retested strongly against this Bill,
and Whenever it iould come before this house, he
wiaild use every means which the forms of the House
allowed to oppose it.