PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (IRELAND.)

HC Deb 26 April 1841 vol 57 cc1073-97

Viscount Morpeth moved the House in Committee on the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Bill.

Preamble postponed.—On the first clause being read.

Viscount Howick

said, that in rising to propose the amendment on the first clause, of which he had given notice, he might, perhaps, be looked upon as taking upon himself an office which did not properly belong to him. This might be supposed to be more properly the office of some one possessing an intimate and local knowledge of Ireland, to which he had no pretensions, or of one commanding the support of a powerful party in that House. He was sensible of his total inadequacy to do justice to the subject, on either of those grounds. But, although, on the one side, he had no local acquaintance with Ireland, neither, on the other hand, was he mixed up with those religious and political animosities, which now, unfortunately, afflicted that country; and, if he had no right to reckon on the support of any great party in that House, still he hoped, that very circumstance would convince hon. Members, that his sole object was, to promote the public benefit, for he disclaimed most sincerely in what he was about to propose for the consideration of the House, the prospect of any party advantage. His only object was to assist in promoting the settlement of a question which he was convinced, could not without infinite detriment to the best interests of the country, or, indeed, without danger to the security of the empire, be left a subject of fierce party contest in that House, and in Ireland. The importance of the settlement of this great question, must be felt by both sides of the House. It must be equally evident, that any final settlement would be altogether impracticable, if both sides of the House insisted on carrying out to the utmost, each its own peculiar views. It was hardly necessary for him to state, that on bringing forward his amendment, he was actuated by no feelings of hostility towards the Government. He could assure his noble Friend, who so ably conducted the business of Government in that House, that nothing could be further from his mind than such a feeling. But, finding it impossible, consistently with his sense of public duty, to support the clause as it now stood, in the bill, he thought it better to endeavour to find some substitute for the plan there proposed, than to confine himself simply to negativing the clause. The clause, in its present shape, appeared to him, open to great and serious objections—not that he differed as to the object sought to be attained—far from it. No one felt more strongly the extreme importance of obtaining for Ireland the advantages of a simple and easily-ascertained test of the right of voters than he did. None desired more sincerely to see Ireland in the enjoyment of a bonâ fide popular constituency. These opinions he held as strongly as his noble Friend, who had introduced the present bill to the House; but the more closely he looked into the question, and endeavoured to make himself master of it, the stronger became his apprehensions, that the mode proposed by his noble Friend, of attaining those objects, would not answer. He thought the extent of change proposed unnecessary, and, therefore, unwise. The right of voting in counties in England, as well as in Ireland, had hitherto been based on property. It had been so before the passing of the Reform Act, and since that act had passed, it had still continued the same. The single apparent exception to the rule existed in England, and was that of the voter who enjoyed the franchise by virtue of a 50l. tenancy. This exception was not real, but apparent, because, as it appeared to him, it proceeded on the assumption (and a just assumption it was), that the fact of a tenant being able to pay a rent of 50l., necessarily implied, that he was in possession of an amount of capital fully equal to the property which a freeholder was required to possess. The principle was the same in Ireland, for, however parties might differ as to the construction of the words, "beneficial interest," yet in all the disputes which had taken place on the subject, it seemed to be universally admitted that some profit ought to be understood—some benefit on the part of the tenant beyond the rent reserved in his lease and any other charges to which he might be liable. Now, the clause of his noble Friend would entirely set aside that principle. If that clause were adopted in its present shape, a person holding a lease for fourteen years, and rated at an amount of 8l. would be entitled to claim the right of voting; he would be able to do so, even though he should be charged with a rent of 16l. instead of 8l., so that his farm, instead of being a property, would be an actual burthen to him. In this case the principle to which he had adverted with respect to the English 50l. tenant did not apply, because pa the system on which land was occupied in Ireland, the circumstance that a tenant held land of 8l. yearly value afforded no proof whatever that he was in possession of capital, in consideration of which he ought to be entitled to the franchise. No one could venture to say, that the mere fact of holding a cabin with a few acres of land, rated at 8l., afforded in Ireland the slightest proof that the occupier was the owner of capital, and should, in virtue of that qualification, be entitled to a vote. Therefore he was bound to regard the clause of his noble Friend in its present form as entirely setting aside that which was known and universally recognised as their guiding principle in legislation. This he thought highly inexpedient. He viewed the principle of basing the county qualification on property as not only consecrated by long practice and the usage of the constitution, but he thought it also in accordance with sound sense and reason, for it was a legitimate inference that the possessors of property would on the whole be the class of persons most capable of exercising the franchise with independence, and, having themselves some stake in the country, would be most anxious to discharge honestly the duty imposed on them. It was not the principle of the present law relating to the franchise in Ireland, by which the right of voting was attached to the possession of property, that was wrong, but the manner in which that principle was applied. Without dwelling on subjects which had been sufficiently discussed in former debates, he believed, that it was pretty generally admitted, that the fault of the present system arose not more from want of agreement as to the proper construction of the words "beneficial interest," than from the fact that, supposing the construction to be agreed on, still the only test of the surplus value of property held on lease would be the opinion of parties having a strong interest one way or other, and an opinion supported by oath. All experience showed that it was in the highest degree impolitic in subjects of this kind to depend on the oath of strongly-interested parties. He proposed, by the amendment which he was about to lay before the House, to obviate these objections. He proposed to provide the means of ascertaining in such a manner as to leave no opportunity for fraud or doubt the real interest which the person claiming to vote possessed in the property which was to form his qualification. He proposed that the value of the property should be ascertained by the valuation taken fur the purpose of assessment to the poor-rates, and that which, according to the existing law, must be produced at the time of registration, should be evidence of the amount of rent to which the claimant was liable. By thus deducting the amount of rent reserved by the lease from the rated value of the property, a test of the interest of the voter would be obtained which appeared to him liable to no objection. This was the principle recommended by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Monaghan, during the last debate, and it appeared to him to present every possible advantage. It had been said, that the reports which had been said, that the Table of the House showed, that hitherto the valuation had not been so correctly obtained as to enable them to proceed on it. It certainly did not appear altogether satisfactory, but machinery had already been provided by Parliament by which the valuation might, if necessary, be corrected, and in a short time a valuation would be obtained which could be relied on. If there was any error in the valuation, at least it was not, and probably never would, be one caused by a desire improperly to obtain the franchise. The interest of parties to avoid too high a valuation would always prove a much stronger motive on men's minds than the desire to obtain the right of voting by raising the valuation. It was for this reason that the Poor-law valuation was to be relied on. It appeared to him that, if they adopted the principle which he now recommended, they would obtain certain and conclusive proof of the interest of the voter in the property in respect of which he claimed to vote; but then an important question arose—what was the amount of interest, so ascertained, to be fixed, in order to confer the right to vote? He could not but think that if so high an amount as 10l. excess of value above the rent paid as shown by the assessment to the poor-rate were taken as the qualification; it would raise the franchise, even above the amount contended for by those who took up what was called "the solvent tenant test." He thought that in adopting any measure of this kind, they were bound to look a little further. He agreed with hon. Gentlemen opposite, that as the Act of Parliament was drawn according to the strict technical interpretation of the Reform Act, those who insisted upon the solvent tenant test put the proper construction upon those words; but he was equally convinced that if they looked back to the history of the act carried in 1832, they would find, that it was the intention of Parliament to make some extension of the right of voting as it at that time existed. That such were the views of those who introduced the Reform Act, appeared to him perfectly obvious from their recorded speeches. He should not think himself justified in proposing his amendment if he were not prepared at the same time to recommend a considerably lower amount of qualification than 10l. He believed, that the moment the test was applied, its practical severity would be such, that all fraud would be most completely and effectually excluded. He proposed, therefore, in the amendment which he was about to move, that the sum of 5l., excess of value beyond the rent and charges to which the person who claimed the right to vote was liable, should be considered a sufficient qualification. He thought that hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House must agree in his suggestion for this reason:—They had admitted, us he had already stated, that the words "beneficial interest" clearly meant some profit to be enjoyed by persons claiming to vote. The words of the clause which was introduced into the bill of last year by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-general for Ireland, defined the beneficial interest as a profit or advantage derived or derivable by such claimant from such premises after deducting rent, tithes, and rent-charges, payable by such claimant, and expenses of cultivation. This was a very large deduction. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that 10l. beyond all these charges was according to the existing law, that which constituted the claim to vote. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin, in a recent debate, when he (Lord Ho wick) had asserted that the value of the labour of the occupant himself was not, according to those who objected to the solvent tenant test, to be deducted in calculating the beneficial interest, had said, that he had never contended for any such construction. He really found it difficult to understand clearly where the line of distinction was to be drawn between the two constructions of the law contended for by Gentlemen on each side of the House, since he really did not know what deductions from the value of a farm a solvent tenant would take into account in calculating the rent he could afford to give, beyond the rent, fixed charges, and expenses of cultivation, He was at a loss to discover speaking technically and legally, what shade of difference in the construction of the terms "beneficial interest" existed between the hon. Member for Dublin and hon. Gentlemen opposite; but, admitting that a distinction did exist, he thought that it must be perfectly clear that a beneficial interest of 10l. would not according to the real meaning of the law, be ascertained in a manner unfavourable to the claimant of the franchise, by requiring 5l. excess of value in the manner which he proposed. If, then, this were admitted, he must confess that he could see no good reason for rejecting the amendment which he proposed; because, from the principle laid down by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and from admissions made by them during the late debate, as to the extreme importance of obtaining a well-ascertained test of the right to vote, they could hardly now with consistency reject his proposition. Hon. Members on his own side of the House might adopt the proposition of his noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland, without rejecting his amendment, which went to continue a class of voters to which he was sure no objection could be made. The whole of that class of persons who claimed a right to vote from freeholds in fee, that was from bonâ fide property, would derive great advantage from his amendment; while it was perfectly obvious that, according to the clause of his noble Friend, no person would be able to claim that right unless the property he occupied was rated at 8l. Persons who paid no rent for property rated at 5l., would be excluded from the register by his noble Friend's clause. Thus would voters of an independent description obtain the franchise under his amendment, and forfeit it under the clause of his noble Friend. In the same manner, persons paying 1l. rent for land which they had either greatly improved, or had reclaimed from bog or mountain land, having holdings of 7l., or just under 8l., could claim the franchise under his amendment, but would be entirely excluded by his noble Friend's proposition. He was sure he would not be called on by his noble Friend to argue that it was desirable that those men should have votes. They might not form a numerous class, but that they existed there was sufficient evidence to show. In the reports laid upon the Table by his noble Friend, he found it stated, that,— In general, electors rated at small sums, so far as we are able to ascertain, are persons who hold at very low rents, and in some instances rent free. Thus, in Bandon two registered electors will be found, one of whom appears to be the owner of fifteen acres of land, subject to no rent, and which is rated at 7l. 10s. The other appears to be the owner of ten acres, rated at 4l. Thus it clearly appeared, that the clause of his noble Friend would exclude some of the most independent and best voters who enjoyed the right of voting under the existing law. Even where the beneficial interest was strictly construed, persons whose holdings were rated under 8l. would be excluded by his clause. He might be told that although the amendment he proposed would admit some voters who would be excluded by his noble Friend's clause; yet that, on the whole the effect either of the amendment he proposed, or of leaving the existing law as it was at present, would be greatly to restrict the county constituency of Ireland. Many hon. Members might reject his amendment and support his noble Friend's clause, because they felt it necessary to supply the deficiency which they anticipated in that constituency. He agreed with them as to that necessity, and he certainly was not inclined to propose that this amendment should be the only change adopted. On the contrary, he felt that it was desirable to take other steps in order to prevent the franchise from being confined. The question was, how that was to be accomplished? His noble Friend proposed that it should be done by giving the right of voting to all persons rated at so low an amount as 8l. if they had leases for not less than fourteen years. He, on the other hand, wished to propose that a considerable higher amount of rating should be required, but that no lease should be insisted on, and that the yearly tenant should be admitted to the franchise in common with the tenant of fourteen years. Although his first amendment did not directly involve this, which he meant afterwards to propose, yet they were so closely connected that he thought they should be explained at the same time. One of the motives which induced him to propose this second change was that, in his opinion, it was of the utmost importance that any additional franchise for Ireland should be so framed as not to bring upon them further demands of the same kind either from that country or from this. He held very strongly the opinion which had been so frequently and so ably insisted on by his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, that the frequency of political changes of this kind was on evil of the greatest magnitude. He therefore wished to avoid, as far as practicable, disturbing the distribution of political power effected by the Reform Bill, and he could not help thinking that the clause proposed by his noble Friend might be very objectionable in this point of view—both as introducing a totally new class of voters unlike any to be at this moment found in any division of the kingdom, and also a class holding a lower position in society, as he should endeavour to prove, than any class of voters to whom the Reform Act extended the franchise. On the contrary, the proposition which he submitted to the House was founded strictly upon the analogy of the Reform Act. In England a 50l. occupying tenant was entitled to the franchise, and it was a natural proceeding to grant a similar right in Ireland. By doing so it did not seem to him that they would be giving rise to any fresh claims in this country. When he spoke of a similar right to Ireland, he must not be understood as meaning to say, that he thought the payment of 50l. rent would in Ireland form a desirable qualification. Looking to the difference in point of wealth, and to the great extent to which the subdivisions of landed property had been carried in Ireland compared with England—looking to these circumstances, it was obvious that they ought not to require an occupation of the same value in Ireland as in England. And while, instead of the 40s. freehold of England, they required so high a freehold qualification as 10l. in Ireland, it appeared to him that they ought, in giving an occupation franchise, to make some allowance for those circumstances and lower the amount of value which should qualify the occupying tenant in proportion. He was not now prepared to state what the amount of value ought to be. The very late period at which most of the important returns bearing upon this subject had been put into the hands of hon. Members, the most important of all having been only delivered that morning, made it quite impossible for him to have given that full consideration to the subject which would enable him to state what amount of value ought to be required to qualify the occupying tenant. Still he thought that the object he had in view might be easily stated. He wished that the value might be fixed at such an amount as would give, in the present condition of Ireland, at least as large a number of voters as had enjoyed the franchise immediately after the passing of the Reform Act. With that number he should be satisfied. He did not ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to go further, and he thought that from the information now before the House they might, after a little time for the consideration of it, be able to determine what amount of value should be required from the occupying tenant, in order to give to Ireland as nearly as possible that number of voters. Upon that amount of value, be it what it might, he should feel disposed to fix the franchise. All he asked the House to do was this, to consent to the principle that in creating a new franchise in Ireland, instead of taking a very low amount of rating coupled with a lease, they should dispense with the lease, and take a higher amount of rating, that amount, however, being something considerably below that of England. Before he quitted the question of value, he would observe that in England the right of voting depended upon the amount of rent paid; but that, with the experience they had had of the tendency which existed to abuses of various kinds in Ireland, he thought it would be extremely injudicious to adopt the same principle in that country. He thought that the right of voting should be fixed, not upon the amount of rent paid, but upon the amount of the rated value of the property held, and for these reasons—that in fixing it upon the amount of rent, they would give a premium to high rents, which, in the opinion of all hon. Members was one of the greatest evils which afflicted Ireland, and also a premium to fictitious rents. Taking, on the contrary, the rated; value of the property as the test of qualification, they would obtain a qualification easily ascertained, and liable to no abuse or fraud. He was aware, in proposing this alteration in the clause of his noble Friend, that he would be met by the very popular objection, that a reference to the experience of England showed that tenants without leases did not possess that independence which qualified them to vote: and he knew that many Gentlemen attributed a very prejudicial operation to the clause introduced into the Reform Act by the present; Duke of Buckingham. But, in his opinion, this was an objection to which a very undue force had been attached. As far as he had been able to observe the working of the system in England, it appeared to him that tenants generally, whether they had leases or not, were extremely anxious to vote with their landlords, and that in all ordinary times, when no particular question upon which they held strong opinions, or which was likely to cause excitement, was being agitated in the country, they did so. But, in times of a different character, which were fortunately of rare occurrence, such, for instance, as that of the Reform Bill, he thought that tenants at will, and all others entitled to vote, threw off the influence of their landlords, and voted according to their own individual opinions. It was true that at the period of the Reform Act there were no voters who enjoyed the right of voting in consequence of occupation of land without leases; but a great number of persons holding land under landlords in English counties who possessed a 40s. franchise, and who in ordinary times would have been under the influence of those landlords, did at that period vote and act according to their own Opinions and their own feelings, and without any reference whatever to the wishes of their landlords. So that there was no real practical difference in point of independence between the tenant who held a lease and the tenant who did not. He was confirmed in these views by what took place in Scotland. In Scotland the tenantry almost universally held leases; and, if he wanted to mention a particular election which more than any other since the Reform Act had given rise to the loudest complaints of undue influence exercised by landlords, he Would be inclined to his upon that for the county of Perth, at which his hon. Frind the Under Secretary for the Home Department, was defeated. Now, he believed that the tenants over whom that influence had been exercised were, almost without exception, tenants holding leases for the long period of nineteen years. Experience, then, proved, that in England and Scotland a mere lease was no proof of the independence of the voter. At the same time he did not mean to argue that a lease was an unimportant element to be considered, or to raise the question of comparative independence between the man who held a lease and the man who did not, their farms being of equal value and equal rent. That was not his object; but the consequence of his noble Friend's making the possession of a lease of fourteen years a part of the franchise, he proposed to give, the necessary consequence of improving this constituency was, that his noble Friend in order to obtain a sufficient number of voters was compelled to go down to a much lower amount of value than he would otherwise have found it necessary to adopt as a qualification for the right of voting. The argument he wished to press upon the House was, that the independence of the voter depended very materially on the amount of rent he was bound to pay, and that a man who was bound to pay a large amount of rent, in proportion to the real value of the property he held was in general less independent than a person in a different situation. In the reports laid on the Table by his noble Friend, he found the following statement from the gentlemen who were sent to examine the valuations of the different unions in Ireland:— It is a universal fact prevailing in every union which we visited, that much competition for small holdings is more active than for large. The consequence is, that the acreable letting value of small holdings is considerably higher than that of large. And in another place they state that— Rents of small holdings are sometimes four or five times the valuation. Now this circumstance of the higher rate per acre, at which the smaller holdings were usually let, was of the more importance when it was considered that the surplus produce of the land beyond the rent, was what constituted the tenant's means of subsistence; the occupier therefore of only a few acres in order to be as well off as the farmer to a larger extent ought to be called upon to pay as rent a smaller proportion of the gross produce of the soil; and when the fact turned out to be, that on the contrary the smaller occupiers taken as a class, had for the maintenance of themselves and their families a smaller proportion of the produce of each acre as well as of a smaller number of acres, it was obvious how greatly their condition in life must he inferior to that of the larger holders. Accordingly he believed it to be a fact which would be confirmed by the experience of every Gentleman in the House who was conversant with the subject, that nothing could exceed the misery of the small class of tenants, holding land to such a value as 8l. Every one who had written or spoken upon the subject, whatever their political opinions, had all concurred in this—that it was in general those small tenements which were so grievously over-rented, that the holders were persons in a very low situation of life. Another consequence of the more active competition for small holdings would be, that the clause proposed by her Majesty's Government would afford great facility for the creating of dependent votes. The landlord if so disposed, might divide his property into small tenements of the value of 8l., for which he would have no difficulty in finding tenants upon terms, which in spite of their holding under leases, would leave them completely at his mercy. Thus dependent votes might be created to a great extent, and there was surely great danger in offering to Irish landlords the temptation of being able both to extend their political influence, and to obtain an immediate increase of income, by resorting to the system ultimately so injurious both to themselves and to the country, of subdividing their land amongst a multitude of pauper tenants. It was known how injuriously this temptation had operated under the old system of the 40s. freeholders. But under that system various contrivances and evasions were necessary in order to confer a vote, and at the same time to retain the person who was to exercise it in a state of dependence, because the freeholder wan bound to have a bonâ fide property in land of the value of 40s. above the annual rent. The bill of his noble Friend would render the process of creating dependent votes much easier and practicable, without any evasion or concealment. The landlord mould only have to let for fourteen years holdings of 8l. value, reserving rents beyond the power of the tenant to pay, and making an annual abatement so long as he voted according to his wishes; by this easy method votes might be created entirely dependent on the landlord; for the very moment the tenant ventured to assert his independence, and act differently in the exercise of his franchise than his landlord desired, that moment would the process of distress and ejectment be resorted to, and his lease would at once be put an end to. So far, then, from the lease constituting a claim to the franchise, or assisting to establish the independence of the voter, it would be only a stone tied round his neck; instead of making him a free man, it would but the more completely enslave him. It would debar him from the last resource of the wretched, overrented tenant—that of selling his goods, abandoning his unproductive land, and seeking relief in emigration. Hence he thought it was impolitic to make a lease an essential condition of the franchise, since it was by this that his noble Friend was driven to go down to such a very low grade in society, and to extend the right of voting to persons who were in a state of life infinitely beneath any class of voters to whom the franchise had been extended by the Reform Act. His noble Friend found this descent necessary in order to secure such a number of voters as, in his opinion, ought to exist, if he required a least as a qualification. But would he obtain that number? Possibly looking only to the immediate effect of the measure he might do so; but even that was very doubtful. For the present, indeed, he might succeed in creating the number of new voters which he thought necessary. But what would be the result in a very short space of time? His noble Friend proceeded upon the assumption Unit there was an indisposition on the part of landlords to grant leases; and yet in the measure he proposed, he provided no remedy against the effects it must, produce. Now the fact that a general reluctance to grant leases prevailed, was proved by the strongest evidence. It had been admitted by almost every speaker on both sides of the House, and had been asserted by the agents who had been sent round to examine the different unions in Ireland, they reported, that— Leases expire, and are not renewed; and whole districts were everywhere to be found the tenantry of which were unrepresented. How did his noble Friend meet that evil? Why, because the tenants of some estates, or perhaps a whole union, where the proprietors did not choose to renew leases, were unrepresented, his noble Friend proposed to give the right of voting to a very numerous and improper class of voters in the adjoining district. By such a plan he might keep up the number for a time, but not long. The hon. Member for Drogeda had said expressly that if leases were insisted upon the number of voters would dwindle away, and in a very short space of time the Legislature would be called upon to undertake the same task again. But by what class of landholders was this indisposition to renew leases evinced? Were they exclusively persons of any particular school of politics, who feared that their tenants might vote against their views and wishes? Were they landlords who were in the habit of making hard bargains with their tenants, and extorting the utmost amount of rent from them? Far from it. The actuating motive of a great majority of these landholders was a desire to improve the condition of their tenantry. His noble Friend had a near relation who owned considerable property in Ireland, in the management of which he knew his noble Friend to take a great concern, and he would ask him whether upon this large estate leases were granted or renewed as they expired? He believed that they were not, and if he had not been misinformed there were other Members of the Cabinet holding large estates in Ireland who acted in the same manner, not renewing their leases when they fell in. His noble Friend, ought further to consider that this indisposition to grant leases had only grown up within the last ten, or at most, fifteen years, while leases were granted for two or three lives, or for twenty-one years, or for longer periods. It was obvious, then, that the effects which this indisposition must ultimately produce were only beginning to develop themselves, and that these effects would still further be manifested in a greater diminution of the number of voters; and for all this his noble Friend did not propose any remedy. The tendency of the clause proposed by his noble Friend was, to extend the franchise in ill-managed estates, where the landlords tempted by a desire to increase their rental, would cut up their lands into small portions for separate holdings. Thus a class of voters would be created of the lowest grade, and mostly under the influence of the least substantial and the least opulent landlords. At the same time, the operation of the measure would exclude a large proportion of the more respectable and independent classes. If any new franchise were to be introduced into Ireland, it would be far more expedient to take a greater value than his noble Friend had proposed, to dispensing with a lease as part of the qualification than to adopt the clause as it stood, extending it to persons holding leases of fourteen years, of the yearly value of 8l. But perhaps though his reason for giving the preference to a simple occupation franchise might be admitted to be good, if any new right of voting were to be created, his noble Friend the Member for Lancashire would say, that he had shown no ground for adopting any such measure, and for altering the Reform Act. He did not think that there were grounds for such an objection, he concurred in the opinion so well expressed in the late debate by the hon. Member for Cavan that there should be no mock representation of the people, but that they ought to enjoy a real and bonâ fide representation in Parliament; that such representation ought not to be the representation of a class—of that class, consisting almost entirely of owners of the land, but of the bulk of the community. His noble Friend opposite (Lord Stanley) had admitted this principle as unreservedly as he would admit it. The noble Lord said, he felt that the Irish people ought to be efficiently represented, and that the constituent body ought not to be reduced to a small amount; but while his noble Friend said this, he advised the House not to attempt to create a new franchise until an inconvenience was felt, or a difficulty might arise that rendered it necessary. He differed from his noble Friend greatly, because, in the first place, he thought that the inconvenience was experienced, and that the difficulty had arisen. The return just laid upon the Table of the House, showing the constituencies of the different counties in Ireland, proved to a demonstration, that the evil did not exist merely in anticipation, but had begun already. In the short space of time since February 1, 1835, to February 1, 1841, the diminution in the constituent body of Ireland was no less than 7,563, and this diminution had been chiefly among the lower classes of voters, exclusive of the 50l. freeholders. Such a reduction must be greater, he was sure, than his noble Friend could think expedient. Still if that diminution were not progressive, and were likely to stop, he (Lord Howick) should not attach so much importance to it. But it was only the commencement of a process which must go on, unless Parliament interfered; and when viewed in this light, it formed an unanswerable argument for immediately stepping in and providing a remedy. The whole amount of the Irish county constituency at this moment was 57,103; of leaseholders 10l. freeholders and 20l. leaseholders were 41,711. When he mentioned 10l. freeholders, English gentlemen must not suppose that he meant freeholders who were so by fee simple, the greater proportion in Ireland being freeholders in Ireland by virtue of leases for lives; and he believed the greater number of the 20l. freeholders were persons in the same situation, being also freeholders only by virtue of leases for lives. But to avoid exaggeration, he would exclude the 20l. freeholders, and take only the 20l. leaseholders, the 10l. freeholders, and the 10l. leaseholders; and he found that the class of voters who almost exclusively derived their right to the franchise from leases were no fewer than 41,711 out out of 57,103, being very little short of two-thirds of the whole. It was upon this large number that the indisposition to renew leases would produce its effects; and unless that House wished to see the constituency dwindle away, not by very slow degrees, and the right of voting taken away from the bulk of the people, some means should be taken for opening the doors to the more ready acquisition of the franchise. It was upon that ground he urged the propriety of granting an occupation franchise, giving to the Irish people a right of voting similar to that in England. His noble Friend (Lord Stanley) had talked of waiting until the evils were actually felt, before they attempted to apply remedies. But was it safe to deal with the discontent of a whole people? Was it wise to wait until discontent arose to a height at which it was no longer tolerable, before they attempted to apply a remedy? He had thought that this pitiful policy had been sufficiently tried in the case of the Catholic Emancipation bill. He never expected that any one would again dream of deferring a remedy until it could be no longer withheld without danger to all. There was another consideration which seemed to him to render it highly expedient to grant an extension of the franchise, at the same time that they endeavoured to reform the system of registration. His noble Friend must be sensible that whether his, or any other measure for this purpose, were adopted, the practical effect of it must depend very much upon the temper and spirit in which it was granted and received. Let them, then, when they passed a measure for correcting the evils complained of by his noble Friend the Member for North Lancashire, as regards the mere registration, provide means also for counteracting the causes which produced a diminution in the number of voters. Any reform in the system of registration must increase the effect of the causes already in operation, by which the number of voters is reduced, therefore, in attempting such a reform, they should couple with it a measure for extending the franchise and admitting within the pale of the constitution persons who would otherwise be excluded from it. It was possible that his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) might succeed in passing a bill for dealing separately with the evils of the present registration system; but surely the prospect of his doing so was not very encouraging, and even success considering the passions which must be excited in the contest was not very desirable. On the other hand he called upon hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House to consider the extreme importance of not asking for too large concessions; since this subject could only be settled by some agreement between the two sides of the House, because it appeared to him that either party possessed the power of preventing a good and reasonable reform, while neither party of itself could accomplish its own peculiar object. Gentlemen opposite would find it difficult, if not impossible, to carry a measure for the reform of the registration, without some improvement, not only in the definition of the franchise, but in the terms on which it was granted; and Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, to carry any reform that was not coupled with provisions for a thorough purgation of the register. Let them consider at how much expense, in the loss of public opinion, they would take the course of resisting an alteration of the registration, if an alteration should be found necessary. And after the admissions which had been made as to the extent of the franchise which existed; and the facts which had been clearly proved relating to the frauds practised at the registrations, even though they should fail to obtain an improvement of the franchise, let them be assured that the people of England would not join in an attempt to resist the improvement of the system. They might defeat that reform, but they would do so after a prolonged and angry contest, and, he was convinced, at a great sacrifice of reputation and character. But, on the other hand, if anything like an agreement between the two sides of the House could be brought about—if they could define the franchise fairly and justly for all parties an inestimable benefit would be conferred upon the country. Let him further observe, before he concluded, to hon. Gentlemen on that side, that it was the more necessary that they should endeavour to effect such a settlement, because they must be sensible that if they should succeed, in preventing any change for the present year, and the registration should remain on its present footing, still the constituencies of Ireland would be reduced in a short time in a manner very greatly to be regretted. There was no chance of any reform of the system being carried, except one that should have the concurrence of all parties—no chance of any measure of this kind being carried, which was to be the subject of a determined and angry resistance from the powerful party opposite. That they might carry a measure so resisted through that House was possible, though he might unlikely but clearly, in the other House of Parliament, it must inevitably fail. Anil let them recollect that they were not now in the position in which they were at the time of the Reform Act. A measure for altering the franchise in Ireland would not have that support out of doors to which the Reform Act owed its success, and therefore they could have no reliance in overcoming in that way the opposition which it must excite. These seemed to him to be reasons which ought to weigh powerfully with all parties, and with every hon. Gentleman in the Mouse, in endeavouring, if possible, to effect a settlement of this question; and he believed that, on looking closely into the subject, the plan which he proposed would be found to settle the Irish franchise fairly for all parties, in a mode just to Ireland and satisfactory to the great body of the people of that country. He asked them to give a beneficial interest in the manner he had explained, and at the same time to add another franchise strictly analogous to one already existing in England. Such was the nature of the amendment he was now about to move. He could not conclude without expressing the regret he felt at having so imperfectly and inadequately developed to the House the grounds and reasons on which he founded his motion, and he would only further add that even if the House should be disposed to differ from him as to the mode in which he proposed to attach the right of voting to simple occupation, that was a question which would arise only on a subsequent clause. The noble Lord then moved to omit, after "no person," all the Words to the end of any clause, and to insert, "claiming under any act or acts now in force to be entitled to be registered, and to vote as a Parliamentary elector for any county, in respect of any freehold or leasehold property in his actual occupation, shall be deemed to have a beneficial interest therein of the clear yearly value required by such act or acts, except as hereinafter provided."

Viscount Morpeth

could assure his noble Friend that it was quite needless in him to repudiate the notion that, in bringing forward this amendment, he could have been Suspected of being actuated by any motives of merely embarrassing the Government. He felt sure that all who knew his noble Friend were aware that he could not be impelled to any course that was so unworthy of him and so alien from his whole character and disposition. His noble Friend stated, that he despaired of seeing this measure brought to an amicable settlement, or indeed any settlement, if either party stood upon extreme opinions. Now they (the Ministerial side) had done their best to demonstrate that they were not disposed to stand upon extreme opinions, because, even since the expiration of the recess, although they were convinced that the proposal they had originally made of grounding the franchise upon a rating of 5l. was amply borne out by the information which had been supplied, and by all that was known with respect to the subject in Ireland, they had not hesitated, within limits which they thought admissible in point of principle and just to the interests of the Irish people—they had not hesitated, for the sake of conciliating any scruples they thought might reasonably be entertained, to depart so far from the proposition formerly made, as to consent to raise the franchise by the slight amount since proposed. His noble Friend said, that in remodelling the franchise they would not be warranted in looking for great or warm support out of doors. He could assure his noble Friend that the Government calculated on no such aid or reinforcement, they rested their proposition upon its own abstract justice and merits. He Was pleased to hear his noble Friend repeat the opinion he had formerly expressed, that he was most anxious that Ireland should enjoy an easily and simply ascertained test of rating. He was very glad to hear that his noble Friend adhered to that opinion. He thought that the justice of that opinion, and of the propriety of adhering to it, had been demonstrated in the course of the discussions which had taken place, and had been proved by all that had taken place in Ireland, to rest upon unassailable grounds; and he hoped whatever alteration might be made by the committee in the bill, they would not lose sight of what he considered to be a fundamental principle, namely, the propriety of resting the basis of the future franchise upon some grounds easy of access and proof. His noble Friend had likewise expressed a wish that the constituency of Ireland should not be unduly diminished by any alteration. He entirely sympathised in that wish, and he only feared that the amendment put into the hands of the chairman might lead not to the fulfil- ment of his wish, but in the most striking and startling manner to counteract it. The amendments, of which his noble Friend had given notice, seemed to him to divide themselves into three parts. Two of them related to matters of substance, but the other related more to matter of form and expression. This last proposition which was of a verbal nature, was the first in order of those which his noble Friend had proposed. His noble Friend had proposed to insert certain words in tin first clause in lieu of the following words as they stood in the bill:— And thenceforward no person shall be entitled, as a freeholder or leaseholder, to be registered as a voter for such county in respect of any freehold or leasehold property, in his actual occupation, save as herein provided. Instead of this, his noble Friend proposed,— And thenceforward no person claiming under any act or acts now in force, to be entitled to be registered and to vote as a Parliamentary elector for any county, in respect of any freehold or leasehold property in his actual occupation, shall be deemed to have a beneficial interest therein of the clear yearly value required by such act or acts except as herein after provided. Now it seemed to him that it would be as open to them after the insertion of these words to carry out the definition of the beneficial interest by the proposition of the Government, as by the subsequent propositions of his noble Friend; in either case a change in the present law was made, and us he saw no good in pretending to make no change, whilst, in fact, a change was made, he was disposed to reject his noble Friend's proposition, and adhere to that made by the Government as one much more distinct, intelligible, and straightforward. His noble Friend then proposed that, to entitle a person to vote for Members of Parliament in Ireland, he should be rated at a rate of 5l. over and above all rent, and charges. Now, if his noble Friend had merely brought forward this proposition as an addition to, and alternative over and above the franchise which the measure of her Majesty's Government proposed, namely, a franchise derived from a rating of a net annual value of 8l., so as to give a franchise to occupancy whether derivable from a leasehold or fee simple interest, he (Viscount Morpeth) should not now rise to object to it, because it could only be looked upon as an enlargement and relaxation of the principle adopted by her Majesty's Government, and not as a restriction of it. But he apprehended that, considered as a substitute for what her Majesty's Government proposed and as the staple franchise of Ireland, the proposition of his noble Friend would prove a mere delusion. He was sure that his noble Friend as he indeed had stated, had not made this proposition with a view of destroying the franchises of the people of Ireland; but at the same time his united proposals were open to many objections, and required to be carefully and jealously looked at. In the first place, the noble Lord in his second amendment, which related to mere occupation without reference to lease, did not state the amount of rating which he should think it right to propose as the qualification for the franchise—this was to be the matter of subsequent consideration and, therefore, with this imperfect view of the subject before the House, he (Viscount Morpeth) would call upon them to pause before they gave their consent to that proposition, so brought, before them, in preference to that which her Majesty's Government proposed. His noble Friend had found fault with her Majesty's Ministers for attempting to introduce a new form and condition of elective franchise in Ireland, which he stigmatised in common with some hon. Members who had at times spoken on the opposite side of the House, as being at variance with the three Reform Acts passed in 1832. With respect to this charge he would just beg to remind his noble Friend that the three the form bills, as at first introduced, did actually attempt to confer a franchise on leaseholders of every description, paying a certain amount of rent, whether holding at a rack-rent, or at a rent leaving a beneficial interest. Even now, however, in England and Scotland, the franchise was enjoyed by all leaseholders liable to a rent of 50l., without any reference to whether that rent was below or above the actual value of the tenement. The proposal made by her Majesty's Government on the subject certainly did not require that the occupier should be able to show any certain amount of beneficial interest in his holding; but it did propose such a test of rating as it was conceived would in general get at and include that class of persons on whom it was intended by the original Reform Act to confer the franchise. Therefore, when the spirit of the Reform Act was spoken of he maintained that be and his colleagues were acting in strict conformity with the spirit of that great measure when they sought to disembarrass and disencumber it of those impediments with which it had been found to be encrusted and hampered in practice, and so to give effect to the true intent and principle of that enactment. His noble Friend set out by assuring the House that his scheme of a 5l. profitable holding above all rent and charges would be liable to no objection and afterwards, rather inconsistently to be sure, he said it would be liable to the charge of great severity. He would not charge his noble Friend with any wish or attempt to curb and confine the franchise of the people of Ireland, but at the same time he was confident that his noble Friend in what he now proposed had done more than take a leaf out of the book of his noble Friend opposite, the Member for North Lancashire; and if he succeeded in inducing the House to adopt that scheme his noble Friend would be a most useful pioneer to his noble Friend opposite in a way which even he had hardly professed himself ready to follow him in. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire had never ventured to impose by distinct enactment the solvent tenant test; but his noble Friend, the Member for Northumberland not only attempted this, but more, for besides all the proper and peculiar stringency of the solvent tenant system, he added the stringency which always belong to a valuation formed for the purpose of a rate or pecuniary assessment, for he believed that in practice it had always been found that valuations, made under such circumstances, for the purpose of rating, were always much lower than the real value or than any valuation not taken for such a purpose. It seemed that in such a case the interests, not indeed of the whole taken together, but of each component party operated to beat down the ratings as low as possible; and, therefore, even if a new rating were made according to his noble Friend's proposition, he apprehended that the rating would be in all cases found to fall very short of the actual value. He was enabled, in fact, to test the probable operation of his noble Friend's proposition by the returns of the Poor-law rating, which had actually taken place. He regretted that all those returns were not yet in a complete shape before the House, but when they appeared he believed it would be admitted on all hands that nothing but the great labour and complexity of details which they involved had delayed them. From the returns already before them, he was enabled to make some statements he thought conclusive. In Ath- lone, it was stated, that the valuations had generally been made at a rate often per cent, under the actual value, and that the result appeared to give satisfaction both to the landlords and tenants, who seemed indeed to desire to have them made lower. In Bandon, the valuations for the municipal rates were uniformly higher than those under the Poor-law, and considerably under the actual letting value. In Castlebar, out of seventy returns, there were sixty instances of rating under the rent, and ten at over rating. In Clonmel, there were very few cases in which the valuation was not lower than the rent. In Cashel, the rating was stated to be at the rate of from 3s. to 5s. in the pound below the rents. Similar results appeared in the case of Cork: and in Roscrea, they had the authority of Mr. Scrope for the fact, that the rating was from ten to fifteen per cent, below the letting value; and twenty-five, and in some cases thirty per cent, below the real value. In Sligo, Bolton, and Tipperary, the same results appeared. But these might perhaps be considered only as matters of opinion. He would now beg, therefore, from the returns actually before the House, to take a few instances of the effect which such a scheme as that proposed by his noble Friend would have; in a word, to show how many of the electors of Ireland would be disfranchised if the amendment of his noble Friend were adopted. In Fermoy the number of 10l. electors, whose rents were ascertained, were 174. Of these there would be excluded, by a test requiring any excess of rating above rent, 118. By a test requiring 3l. excess there would be excluded 132; by a test requiring 5l. excess there would be excluded 140; by a test requiring 10l. excess there would be excluded the whole, except 15. Now, with respect to the character and station of those who would be so excluded, the 118 who would be excluded by a test requiring any excess of rating above rent, pay rent as follows:—There are two who each pay rents exceeding 200l.; fourteen who each pay rents between 100l. and 200l.; thirty-seven who each pay rents between 50l. and 100l.; ten who pay rents between 40l. and 50l.; twenty-three who pay rents between 30l. and 40l.; twenty-five who pay rents between 20l. and 30l.; five who pay rents between 10l. and 20l.; and two who pay rents between 5l. and 10l. In Bandon any excess of rating above rent would exclude fifty-three out of 141. A 5l. excess of rating above rent would exclude seventy-six. The excluded would be persons occupying considerable farms and paying a large amount of rent, as would be seen by the following table;—

Number excluded.	Who pay rents at the following amounts;—
100l. of upwards.	50l. and not 100l.	40l. and not 50l.	30l. and not 40l.	20l. and not 30l.	10l. and not 20l.	5l. and not 10l.
53	1	13	7	9	15	3	5
Additional persons excluded if 5l. excess of rating above rent be made the test:—
Additional number excluded.	Who pay rents at the following amounts;—
100l. and upwards.	50l. and not 100l.	40l. and not 50l.	30l. and not 40l.	20l. and not 30l.	10l. and not 20l.	5l. and not 10l.
23		1	1	4	6	1	1
Table of the acres of the excluded:
Excluded by any excess of rating over rent.	Of whom the number who hold farms of the following extent are as under:—
100 acres and upwards.	50 acres and not 100 acres.	40 acres and not 50 acres.	30 acres and not 40 acres.	20 acres and not 30 acres.	10 acres and not 20 acres.	under 10 acres.
53	3	27	3	9	8	2	1