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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, July 30.
The House resumed at Half-past Six, when
Colonel DUNNE postponed his motion relative to the
growth of tobacco in Ireland.
PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS' (IRELAND) BILL.
The order of the day being read for considering the
Lords' amendments on the Parliamentary Voters (Ire-
land) Bill,
• Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose and proposed, "On
consideration of Lords' amendments to Parliamentary
Voters, fee. (Ireland) Bill, clause 1, page 2, line 8, to
amend Lords' amendments, by inserting the word
' twelve,' instead of fifteen.' To agree to Lords' amend-
ments omitting clause 2of Commons' Bill. To disagree
to Lords' amendments omitting clauses 18, 19, and 21, of
Commons' Bill." Before he made the motion he was
anxious to state the general view which her Majesty's
Government took of the amendments which had been
made in the Bill, and also as it stood now in being sent
down by the Lord,. The House was well aware of the
extreme case which existed on this subject in Ireland—
a case which showed, that while they had in England a
per centage of registered electors in proportion to the
male population, of 3 per cent., in Wales 32 per cent., in
Scotland 25 per cent., in Ireland the proportion was less
than 2 per cent.—(Hear.) Without entering into fur-
ther statistics the House would ace a strong example of
the great decrease of the number of electors in Ireland,
and if any further proof were wanting it would be seen
in Mayo—a large and populous county—where, at, the
election which had just terminated, less than 250 voters
voted for the two candidates.—(Hear, hear.) What her
Majesty's Government proposed on the subject of elec-
tors was to change the present system of vcting alto•
paler, and the tenure on which it was founded, into an
occupation franchise. He for ono thought that Hon.
Gentlemen, who discussed this subject, were apt to lose
sight o 7 the fact that the practice in England generally
was the 40s. freehold franchise. It was no doubt very
common to talk of the 501. occuaption, which existed,
and to say that an 81. franchise in Ireland was much too
low, but in point of fact, the franchise in England gee
neraliy was the forty-shilling freehold, and to show that
such was the case, he should call the attention of the
House to the relative proportions of that franchise as
compared wieh the 501. iu several of the counties. In
Berkshire the number of those possessing the 40s. free-
hold wzs 3,274 and of 504, 853. In Herefordshire, of
40.1., 5,280 ; of 501., 1,639. Lancashire, 16,064; of 50/„
3,437. Middlesex, 10,418 40i. freeholders, 1,317 50L;
and in Sussex, 3,769 40s. freeholders, and 1,059 of
thole who possess a 50/. qualification. Is was
quite clear, therefore, that the great bulk of the
voters in the English counties were Persons possessed of
the 40s. franchise—a species of qualification, as the
House well knew, abolished in Ireland several years ago,
and was now completely extinguished. It was, there-
fore, proposed that the great bulk of electors in counties
in that country should be occupiers rated to the relief
of the poor, and the first question of great importance
which arose on the atneedment cf the Lords was the
amount of that rated Occupation. They proposed, and
it was acceded to by the House, that it should he an Si.
rating, but it was altered in the House of Lords and
raised to 15/. The number of tenants rated at Si. would
be 330,224, o hereas the number at 151. would be 180,000,
and if they deducted one-fifth, which was the usual pro
portion for double occupation and tenements inhabited
by females, the number at 8/ would bo 264,000, and at
15/. 144,000. It appeared, therefore, that the amend-
ments made by the Lords struck out no less than 120,000
voters out of 264,000 to whom that House accorded the
right to vote. That amendment, however, appeared to
him to reduce the number in a far greater degree than
was in accordance with justice; it was, in point of
feet, reducing the proportion of Irish voters as com-
pared with English much smaller than it ought to
be. He (Lord J. Russell) proposed in Emile measure
to remedy that great defect; he proposed to take 121.
instead of 15/., which would give 172,000 voters instead
of 144,000. The proposition originally adopted was in
the proportion of 15 per cent, to the male population,
the amendment in the Lords made it but 8 per cent.,
and the proposal he was now about to make of a 12/.
'tieing would make it about 10 per cent. He (Lord J.
Ressell) thought that if the rate of voting was raised
to 15/. a question would arise immediately whether the
right of voting by tenure, and especially the ancient
right of the 40s. franchise, should be again resorted to.—
(Chtere.) He wished, however, as soon as possible, to
have such a number as to form a constituent body, and
on that ground he should propose, instead of the 81.,
which he yet believed was perfectly reasonable, and of
the 151. proposed by the House of Lords, that in order
to remedy a crying grievance which now existed, to
insert 121. instead of 15/., which was almost dividing the
difference. There was another alteration made to which
he (Lard J. Russell) attached greater importance, because
the whole principle of the Bill was involved in it. They
might take the rating at 81., 101., 12/., or 151, but the
main principle and scope of the Bill was, that in-
stead of sending in claims to be registered, as now,
which produced so mach discussion and contention, it
should be a self-acting register, and those on the rate-
books for the relief of the poor should in future be
placed on the list. He thought the adoption of that plan
calculated to put an end to the interference of landlords
or any other persons, an 4 thus have the registry in
future conducted on the simplest scale, and put an end
to many evils—(Hear, hear)—more especially those
complicated questions which arose at present.—(Hear,
hear.) He, therefore, proposed to disagree altogether with
the amendment made in the Lords on that clause, because,
as he said before, ho attached far greater importance
to that, inasmuch as it seemed to him to be entirely con-
trary to the principle of the measure. Whether, as ho
already said, the rating was 8/: or 121. was a question
for argument, but on the principle of the Bill he
felt no doubt of being right, arid he should, there-
fore, propose to disagree altogether from the
Lords' amendments on that subject. There were parts
altered in the Lords to which he did not feel disposed to
make any alteration, although he had not changed his
own opinions, for example, "owners cf tenements" was
inserted, which altered the Bill in some measure, but he,
was not disposed to offer any opposition. Another re-
garding joint occupiers was one on which a great deal of
discussion took place in that House, and some doubts re-
specting it were entertained, especially by Irish Mem-
bers. That clause was struck out in the Lords, and he
(Lord John Russell) did not propose to disagree with
them. Another clause, giving a 51. freehold, was also
altered in the Lords. Ho no doubt considered such a
clause a very important one, because in the sale and sub-
division of land now taking place in Ireland, he believed
it would create a great number of small proprietors,
which was very desirable: the Lords inserted the words
" above all charges" in the clause; but as that was in
some measure conformable with the freehold right
in England, he would not insist on that amendment
being rejected. There were a good many amendments
made in the Bill, and in the schedules attached to it,
which were rendered necessary, by the operation of the
Bill being fixed to take place on the let of June, 1850.
The whole effect of those amendments would be that the
registry would commence on the 9th of September,
1850, and be completed on the 15th of March, 1851, and
after that period it would commence in each year on
the Ist of June, and end on the Ist of November.
These were the amendments made by the House
of Lords, and he bad stated his intentions respecting
them. With respect to that now under consideration,
he proposed that the House should agree, and they
could then proceed with a consideration of the next in
order.

Mr. GASKELL called on the house to ask themselves
calmly and gravely if the grounds put forward by the
Noble Lord were sufficient to induce them to refuse the
Bill as altered in the House of Lords. No one
denied but that the Bill as returned from that House
would extend the constituency of Ireland, and after they
had seen the operation of it would be the proper time to
propose alterations. He did not hold the opinion that
merely because a constituency was small it ought to be
increased.—(Cheers and counter cheers.) He could not
agree in the opinion that that House should pass mea-
sures for the extension of the franchise, without any re-
ference to the character of those to whom the votes were
given—(Hear, hear)—and he was bound to oppose rnea-
sures which would give power to those whose principles
would, he believed, lead to the disruption of tall social
i
tics, and the subversion of every institution n the
country.—(gear, hear.) On that ground ho felt it his
duty to oppose such a measure. But there was no doubt
that the Bill, as it had come down from the House of
Lords, would give a very large extension of the consti-
tuency in Ireland, and he thought it would, therefore, be
very unreasonable to reject the Bill, merely because the
other House of Parliament was not willing to make such
sweeping alterations as they were. Ho regretted that
the Noble Lord had not shown a more conciliatory dis-
position in this matter.
Mr. F. FRENCH said he certainly did not concur in
the opinion of the Hon. Member that this Bill would
do much to extend democracy in Ireland. On the con-
trary. its effct would he to render still more insignifi-
cant and feeble the already insignificant constituency
which exiats.—(Hear.) His own view of the Bill, even '
in its original state, was that it was a disfranchising
measure, and certainly his objections were not lessened
when he found the 12/. proposition would strike off
24,000 voters from the number which ministers on a
calm resolve of the whole subject, decided ought to be
enfranchised. Property in Ireland had fallen, from pe-
culiar circumstances, so low in value that a very large
number of persons who were formerly voters, would not
now be rat d either at 12/. or 15/. He was not disposed
to (IL:franchise those who sent him there; he would
rather ask the same franchise as we had in England,
40s, freehold and all.