PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.

HC Deb 04 March 1850 vol 109 cc318-54

The House having gone into Committee on this Bill,

On Clause 2,

SIR R. FERGUSON

proposed the omission of Clause 2. If the clause were suffered to remain, it would have a mischievous tendency by encouraging joint occupation.

LORD J. RUSSELL

said, he had no wish to pass the clause, but he wished to take the opinion of Irish Members upon it. If he was to take the hon. Baronet as the foreman of the jury, the clause must be expunged.

MR. REYNOLDS

said, he was not disposed to take the hon. Baronet as the foreman of the jury; and he thought the noble Lord, instead of taking the opinion of the hon. Baronet, should take the opinion of the representatives of popular constituencies. The hon. Baronet said, this joint occupation would cause the subdivision of land. He (Mr. Reynolds) did not believe that would be the effect; but where a farmer and his sons had land which would give to each a rating of the required value, the clause would give to each of them a vote, in the same manner as by joint occupation each would have a vote in a city or a borough. There was a precisely similar clause in the Irish Parliamentary Reform Bill, governing the franchise in cities and boroughs.

COLONEL DUNNE

had supported the second reading of the Bill, but he did not support this clause, and he agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry that this clause was most objectionable.

MR. FITZPATRICK

said, he should cordially support the proposition of the hon. Member for Londonderry, agreeing with him that the clause would have a most mischievous tendency; that it would act as an encouragement to a species of tenure alike injurious both to the landlord as well as the tenant. Taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of Ireland at present, the vast changes taking place there in the distribution of land, all tending to a sound and more satisfactory condition, he thought this House could not be too careful in guarding against any legislation which might give an inducement to revert to that wretched system of mismanagement of property, from the evil effects of which all classes were now suffering severely.

MR. FAGAN

said, that this was a kind of Chandos clause, and the only way of preventing intimidation being practised towards the tenants was to extend the franchise. It so happened that in Ireland joint tenancies were very numerous, and he did not see why persons so occupying land should be deprived of their franchise.

MR. GROGAN

was very glad the noble Lord was disposed to comply with the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry. He believed a more mischievous clause could not have been contrived. He could not conceive anything more injurious to Ireland than the subdivision of property.

DR. POWER

did not see how the objection to the clause could arise, because if a man had a farm which would give to each of his three sons a vote, he could easily subdivide the farm, and give a vote to each of his three sons. He thought they ought to extend the franchise as much as possible.

Mr. GRATTAN

had heard no reason whatever for omitting the clause. The truth was, landlords did not like joint tenancies, because that would make them look after their land. It was not for the franchise. If four persons had a joint occupation of land, the hon. Baronet objected to three of them having votes. He said he did not see why they should be entitled to vote. He should ask him, why not? Did these men so conduct themselves towards their tenants that they were afraid to trust them with votes?

MR. R. M. FOX

supported the clause, believing there was no more connection with joint occupancy and subdivision than existed between the acts of joining and dividing.

MR. CLEMENTS

said, they were not discussing the question of joint tenancy, but of joint occupancy, which was a different thing. He hoped the House would not encourage the system of joint occupancy. Everybody connected with Ireland was aware of the evils of such a system, and he maintained that this clause would have a tendency to continue that system.

MR. SADLEIR

thought the noble Lord at the head of the Government would have to take upon himself the responsibility of expunging or maintaining this clause. On a subject of this nature it was utterly impossible to obtain unanimity. He admired the intimation given by the noble Lord on Friday evening that he would, to a great extent, be guided by the opinions of those Members of that House who were in favour of the great and leading principles of this Bill. This was one of the leading principles. There were at present at least two millions of acres in Ireland in joint occupancy, or occupied by tenants in common. He entreated the Government to pause before they put out this clause, which he thought it was wise and sound policy to retain. There had never been conferred on the people of Ireland the franchise enjoyed by the people of this country. It was notorious that the franchises given by the Irish Parliamentary Reform Bill were not those which it was the intention of the Government and of the Legislature to give. The decisions of the Judges had much curtailed the right of voting in Ireland, and, even under this Bill, the people of Ireland would have but a stinted constituency. There were franchises irrespective of residence and occupation; and there was the 5l. in fee franchise, which was liable to great abuse by the granting of rentcharges. How could they prevent that? By enlarging the franchise in respect of residence and occupation. He did not think that landlords would in future improve their political influence by the sacrifice of their property. Joint tenants had long enjoyed the franchise in England, and they had never heard of its being abused in this country.

MR. ROEBUCK

rose to ask for information at the hands of the Government. If he understood it, the objection to the clause on that side of the House was that it would lead to the subdivision of property. He would at once acknowledge that that was an enormous evil. But he wanted to know whether this clause legitimately led to that conclusion, and, if it did, whether they would not be doing an injustice to the people of Ireland by omitting the clause. A large number of persons, say six or eight, might hold property, a factory for example, and it might be worth say 1,000l. a year. Were not these six or eight persons joint tenants of that property, and had they not a right to vote? If they took out this clause, those persons could not vote; but one man, and one man only, could vote. But it might be said they would have property so small, that at last they would get the whole country divided into 8l. tenancies. But that depended on the landlords. He therefore asked the noble Lord, or those who had charge of the Bill, to explain this to the House.

LORD J. RUSSELL

said, it had been considered that persons occupying to the value of 8l. a year should have a vote, and where there were two persons holding land together, and their occupation in point of value was 8l. each, these two persons would be qualified to vote as the one person who had a separate holding, and therefore they thought that the clause might fairly be put in the Bill. Several Members, however, who were in favour of the Bill, were of opinion that the consequence of dividing holdings would be mischievous in Ireland, and they hoped this clause would not be inserted in the Bill. However, he must say, so far as he had heard, there did not appear to be a general agreement that the clause would produce that effect, and therefore, not having the proof shown to him that the clause would be mischievous, he was prepared to adhere to his original intention.

MR. STAFFORD

looked upon the statement of the noble Lord as an indirect announcement that the suggestions of Irish Members would only be favourably received if they came from one (the Ministerial) side of the House. But a word or two as to the effect of this clause. He would take the case of a tenant hostile to the landlord, and also of another tenant favourable to the landlord. Then he would take the case of a landlord anxious, by fair or by foul means, to increase his political influence. Suppose the tenant was hostile to the landlord, and divided his farm into three parts, and, for the purpose of having three votes, paid himself one-third of the poor-rates—when he presented one-third of the poor-rate tickets, and proposed to deduct one third, the landlord would stop him at once and say, "You shall not subdivide the farm; you are only in possession of one vote, and one only you shall have;" and then he would strike off two voters. He would next take the case of a tenant favourable to the landlord—when the tenant came with one poor-rate receipt, the landlord might say, "You have two sons; I wish to increase my Parliamentary influence, so register your two sons." Then, in that case, the landlord would have the power to add two votes. On the whole, he considered that the effect of the joint-tenant clause would be to give a very large political power to the landlords throughout Ireland.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the only effect of the clause would be, that a landlord, instead of letting a farm of twenty-four acres, for instance, in three farms, might, if he chose, let it to three occupiers. It was, no doubt, desirable to have largo farms; but if they wished to counteract the influence of the landlords, that could not be done by expunging this clause. Suppose a tenant joined his three sons in his occupation, the landlord would got three votes; and he could do so at present by having the farm split up into separate tenancies. Therefore, the mischief pointed out would not be remedied by expunging this clause; it was left open cither way.

MR. H. A. HERBERT

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had only put the case of a landlord who did not care a single farthing for his property, and who would sacrifice his property to the making of votes. But the case put by his hon. Friend the Member for North Northamptonshire was one whore the landlord had some regard for his property, but also wished to have political influence. He would ask any hon. Gentleman, whether, on commencing improvements on his property, he would not desire not to have large farms with joint occupancy, but to have every man holding his own land. When he came into possession of his estate, one half of it was held under joint tenancies, and he felt his first step should be to get each tenant to hold separately his own land. The clause would give a dangerous power to the landlords; but it was an instrument which, though it might sometimes work favourably to them, was full of danger, for it would lead to the creation of fictitious voters. Considering how the clause would affect the social condition of Ireland, and believing that it would serve as an inducement to landlords to create fictitious votes, he had no hesitation in voting against it.

MR. HUME

considered that they were not legislating there for the purpose of giving votes to landlords, and he must protest against the argument of the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire, when he supposed that they could not give a vote to a particular individual, but that it would favour the landlord to whom the property belonged. As a matter of justice they ought to give the votes to the persons occupying the land and resident upon it, and then let the electors vote by ballot, and they might set at defiance the influence of the priests at one side, and the landlords at the other. That was the way to meet the objection, and he trusted the Government would persevere in the clause.

MR. SCULLY

rejoiced that the Government were resolved to maintain this clause. This was not a question between landlord and tenant, and he thought that view of the subject should have been left out of the case altogether. In his county there were tenants who had occupied for twenty, thirty, and fifty years as joint tenants, and if this clause were not adopted, those parties would be disfranchised. Before he sat down, he wished to refer to what had fallen from the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire with respect to an observation made by the hon. Member for Carlow, and to say, in reply, that that was not a question of a borough at all. It was a national question; and any hon. Member who thought warmly on the subject of the franchise in Ireland was hound to give his opinion honestly and sincerely on the entire franchise of the country. With regard to the opposition to this measure at the other side of the House, he must say, that, although this question of the franchise might have been taken very coolly by hon. Gentlemen opposite in the first instance, it was now factiously opposed by them, as was shown by eight divisions in one night. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire had said that this clause would give power to the landlords. If so, he (Mr. Scully) was surprised that the hon. Gentleman and those agreeing with him, who were so anxious an all occasions to support that class, should oppose the clause on that ground.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

begged of the House to recollect that they were legislating on this subject with very slight ideas of what the future constituency of Ireland would be under this Bill. They had no means of judging, except from the returns which had been furnished by his right hon. Friend opposite. Taking the county of Down, the nearest guess he could make was, that the 8l. rating would give a constituency of 20,000; but if this joint occupancy clause passed, he would be glad to know what might the constituency be—not less than 25,000 or 30,000, and what he complained of was, that they had no means of knowing. It was very well to tell Gentlemen on that side of the House that they were illiberal, but he did not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite had looked to the amount of the constituency in England. He found, by a return made in March, 1847, that the English constituencies were reduced to an exceedingly small extent. In the three counties of Bedford, Berkshire, and Buckingham, the constituencies were 4,000, 5,000, and 5,000; and even in Devonshire, Yorkshire, and Lancashire, the constituencies were limited. If they increased the constituencies in Ireland 10,000 or 15,000, there would be reason to complain that they were called upon to legislate in this manner without information.

MR. ROEBUCK

thought, that if the clause should have any political influence at all, it would be an influence in favour of the landlord. He was willing to meet that by making a large constituency, and he was not to be stopped by the declaration of the noble Lord the Member for Down, that England had small constituencies. He hoped the Government would adhere to the clause.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

Then, the only way the Government will have to moot the difficulty is by increasing the number of representatives for Ireland.

SIR F. THESIGER

took it for granted that the clause was introduced because it was the opinion of the Government that it was desirable, in the system about to be established, such a clause as this, with regard to joint occupants, should be adopted; but the noble Lord at the head of the Government told them he had been disposed to abandon the clause, with the notion that several Irish Members thought it would be desirable that such a clause should not be introduced. He certainly understood that the noble Lord had abandoned the clause. But the noble Lord having received encouragement from certain Gentlemen connected with Ireland at the other side of the House, stooped down to pick up the clause again, and insisted that it should form part of the Bill he proposed to the House. There was a great mistake with regard to the exact effect of this particular clause, and he thought the difficulty had arisen from the Government having refused the proposition of one of his hon. Friends the Member for Oxford-shire, the other night, that after the word "occupy," "tenant or owner" should be inserted. If those words were inserted in the first clause, the difficulty they were now discussing could not have arisen. This was not the question of a joint tenancy at all. It was admitted by the Government that, under the first clause, any occupation, no matter whether wrongful or rightful, if a party be on the rate, would give him the right to vote; and it was clear they were now considering a clause by which joint occupiers, who could get rated to the amount of 8l. each, would be entitled to vote. There might be no great mischief in that, while the parties holding as joint tenants were liable to the rent, and to all the liabilities to which the tenant is exposed, and each held a sufficient amount to give him a vote. There would be no difficulty in giving each person in that joint tenancy a right to vote under the English Reform Act. With regard to the Chandos clause in that Act, under a subsequent Act of Parliament, power was given to two persons, holding to the extent of 100l., to have each a vote under the Chandos clause; but how were they to hold? They were to hold as tenants liable to a rent of 100l But the question here was, whether a mere occupier, no matter how introduced, should have a vote. He might have been introduced against the will of the landlord; the original occupier might have become a wrongful occupier, and hostile to the landlord; wishing to introduce new occupiers and fresh voters on the land. He would have no difficulty in allowing persons to come into joint occupation with him of this land; and if he happened to get rated at a sufficient value, such persons so occupying would be entitled to vote. He seriously asked the noble Lord to look to the very great inconvenience and mischief that would arise from adhering to this clause; for it appeared to him (Sir F. Thesiger) that it would be very difficult to prevent fraud from being practised by different parties who were not entitled to be rated even in respect to value. Let it be understood that this was not a question of joint tenancy at all, but a question of joint occupa- tion, and a joint occupation as interpreted the other night, namely, an occupier, be he rightful or wrongful.

COLONEL RAWDON

said, that even taking this as a question of joint occupancy, would not the effect be to increase the representation of Ireland? There were two millions of acres held under those joint occupancies, and they must diminish the constituent body if they expunged this clause. He had no apprehension that property, circumstanced as it then was in Ireland, would suffer by this clause, for the minds of the landlords were now so sot upon their property, that they would see that it increased in value without any reference to political interests.

MR. ANSTEY

said, it was admitted on all hands that tenancy must be given up as the basis of the qualification in Ireland, and that occupancy must be substituted. As the English Reform Act empowered joint tenants to vote, the same privilege ought now to be extended to joint occupiers in Ireland, provided each of their occupations was of sufficient value. It was no conclusive objection to say this would open a door for fraud; nor had it been held so in the case of joint tenants. As no one could vote under this Bill unless he was rated to the extent of 8l., there could be no great amount of fraud practised. He thought the value was fixed much too high; he would make the simple payment of any rate or tax sufficient to qualify. Still he would not attempt to retard this Bill; and he hoped the Government would not abandon the clause.

MR. SHEIL

said, that at the present there was one great evil in Ireland connected with fictitious votes. The evil arose from a landed proprietor granting five or six annuities to his sons and nephews, who never derived any profit from the land, and did not occupy. They were registered; and when an election came they went to the county town, and voted in favour of their father or uncle's friend. To this abuse there was no check; but under this clause there are two checks—rating and occupation. The check was double. The rate is sot down in the rate book, and in order to be entered in the registry, the chief constable must certify the fact of occupation. Consider what the evil would be, on the other hand, if you denied the right of voting to joint occupiers in towns. In towns there was nothing more common than for three persons to enter into trade. [An Hon. MEMBER: This is the county franchise.] He know it was the county franchise, but they were giving to the inhabitants of towns that did not return Members to Parliament the county franchise. He was glad he was put in mind of the fact, that in Ireland there were abundance of towns containing from 10,000 to 12,000 inhabitants that do not return Members to Parliament. There was, in the county of Tipperary, Thurles, with about 8,000 inhabitants, Nenagh with 8,000 inhabitants, and Carrick with 8,000 inhabitants, without representatives; was it not just that those towns which did not return Members to Parliament as boroughs should have votes for the county? In those towns where there were joint occupiers, carrying on trade together, and in common occupation, each person was liable for the rates—would they deprive every one of those men of their votes? He did not deny that evils might result from fictitious votes, but he would say the preponderance of evil lay in small constituencies. The noble Lord the Member for the county of Down had called their attention to the probable amount of the constituency of that county after the passing of this measure; but he would suggest to the noble Lord that the only effect would be, that in future the noble Lord would have to fish with nets instead of with lines for votes.

MR. M. J. O'CONNELL

said, that if the clause was rejected, the result would be to disfranchise joint occupiers generally. At present there was no mention in the Act of joint occupiers in boroughs; some barristers held that they were disfranchised thereby; and he had known a man occupying a 40l. house disfranchised, because a party was joined with him in the lease, for the purpose of securing the rent. If this clause were rejected, any landlord who chose to do so might disfranchise his tenants, by insisting on nominal parties being put in the leases as security. He did not think that the practice of splitting occupations would be diminished by refusing the franchise; that system was to be got rid of by other laws., If there was any need for protection against fictitious votes, it would be for the House to adopt other measures.

MR. SADLEIR

said, that if, as had been suggested by the noble Lord the Member for the county of Down, the retention of this clause would give to any particular class of voters an undue influence, no person would more strenuously oppose it than he would; but he believed that no reliance could be placed on the Parliamentary returns that had been furnished, for they presented a fallacious view with regard to the nature of the constituency that might be created by this Bill. He had looked with some care to the probable amount of the constituency of the county of Tipperary under this Bill. He took into account the arrangements which within his own personal knowledge were made for further and increased emigration from the south of Ireland; the numerous evictions that had taken place even since the date of those returns; and the measures, by means of notices to quit, which were now taking to carry out further the system of extermination and the consolidation of farms; and he could assure the Committee there would be no such number of voters under this Bill as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think. The class of 8l. occupiers would not be so numerous as hon. Gentlemen thought they would be. He could give an accurate return with respect to the borough of Carlow. A short time since the constituency of Carlow amounted to 471 voters. By an alphabetical list up to the 1st of February, 1850, the number of persons who would appear to be entitled to vote if this Bill should pass, amounted to 445; but that alphabetical list was utterly worthless for a guide as to the constituency under this Bill. There were numbers of persons named two, three, four, and five times over; there were numbers who had either died or emigrated, and the actual number of voters at that moment in the borough of Carlow entitled to vote at an election was 235, being 210 less than the actual number represented by the alphabetical list. He had taken pains to ascertain the numbers that would be entitled to vote after the passing of this Bill, and in Carlow the utmost extent of the constituency would only be 300.

SIR R. PEEL

Sir, I am disposed to concur in the opinion expressed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government at about a quarter past five this evening, in favour of the omission of this clause. I am one of those who are in favour of an extensive franchise, and if I had had the opportunity of giving my vote on a former occasion, I should have given it in favour of an 8l. as against a 15l. qualification. At the same time, while I am desirous of establishing an extensive franchise, I am equally desirous that it should be a bonâ fide one. I should support any plan which appeared effectual for obtaining that end, and for fulfilling that which the Legislature intended; but, above all, I should attempt, as far as possible, to discourage that abominable system of creating fictitious votes—to the prevalence of which system, while the 40s. freehold franchise existed, I attribute not only much of the perjury and corruption which have prevailed in Ireland, but also many of the social evils of that country. Now, this I am willing to admit, that if there be a bonâ fide tenant or bonâ fide joint-tenants—for instance, if three persons take a farm, and contract to pay 60l. a year rent for it, and that each of these three persons are equally bonâ fide responsible to the landlord for the rent which they jointly undertake to pay—I am willing to admit that in that case each of these persons should be entitled to be placed on the register, and to vote at elections. I am also willing to admit that if there be two or three partners in a concern, for instance a paper manufactory, or any other manufactory—each of those persons bonâ fide contributing a certain amount of capital for carrying on the concern, each of the partners being duly rated, each responsible for the engagements of the concern—in that case, also, each of these persons should be entitled to vote. But I am apprehensive of great abuse from the effect of this clause, which makes each person upon his being rated entitled to vote. When hon. Gentlemen opposite argue in favour of the clause, they cannot help using the words "each tenant." Tenancy is the test which their own good sense and discretion suggests for determing the qualification to vote. Now, I admit that each tenant—each bonâ fide tenant equally responsible for the rent—ought to have the right of being registered as a voter. That is the law both of England and Scotland. But you are not about to impose that restriction of tenancy or joint tenancy, which in your speeches you unconsciously suggest as the proper restriction, in addition to that of simple rating—on the right to vote at elections. Hon. Gentlemen say that the payment of the rate will be of itself a sufficient security against abuse. That I greatly doubt. What will be the amount of rate actually payable upon an 8l. rating? It may be manifestly the interest of the landlord, particularly upon the approach of a general election, to make himself responsible for the rate due from the occupying tenant; that is, for the payment of 8s. or 10s. at the utmost. That will be the entire amount of the security against abuse, if your qualification rests simply on rating. We all know that under the old system of "scot and lot" voting, it was the constant practice for candidates to pay the rates due by poor electors, not only the amount of current rates, but also of all arrears of rates, in order to qualify the voter. I have no doubt that the same will be done if this clause were agreed to; that in many counties, during a close contest, the landlords will undertake to provide the necessary funds for the payment of the rates of tenants unable or unwilling to pay for themselves. Will it not be possible, under this word "occupancy," for a landlord wishing to increase his electioneering influence, to say to his tenants, "I will accept your sons as joint tenants with you; they shall be rated, but for the payment of the rate I will be responsible." If that practice can be established—if you can place on the rate the son of the tenant, as well as the tenant, the labourer as well as the employer of labour—you are about to introduce great abuses in the representative system—you are about to give encouragement to the landlord again to resort to practices similar in nature to those which so unfortunately divided Ireland into a vast number of 40s,. freeholds—effectual for their purpose, in the eye of the law—but as perfectly different from the bonâ fide 40s. franchise which we have in England as it is possible for any two franchises to be. If the word "tenant" had been introduced in the clause, and the right of voting had been given to bonâ fide tenancy with rating, the case would have been different. But if the word "occupancy" be alone retained, I consider that grave abuses are likely to result from it; and, while I am perfectly prepared to support any clause which will enable bonâ fide tenants, each of whom are responsible for the payment of the rent, to exercise the right of voting, I must, as at present advised, take the course which, about an hour since, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) professed his intention to take, and vote for the omission of this clause.

MR. REYNOLDS

thought that some difficulties would arise in cases where several partners participated in the profits of the business, while the lease was held in the name of one person only, but all of the partners were liable to the payment of rent.

MR. HENLEY

considered that under this clause the boards of guardians would have, not only the power of creating a considerable number of fictitious votes, but also of destroying a great number. In the case of a joint occupancy of 80l, there would be ten votes; if a board of guardians chose to strike off 1l. off the 80l. rating, the whole of the ten votes would be disfranchised. Any board of guardians disposed to exercise this power, could easily say that the tenement, not being in so good a state of repair as they expected, the amount of rating ought to be reduced, or numerous other excuses of a similar kind.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 104: Majority 40.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3.

SIR F. THESIGER

said, that as he understood the proposition of the Government, it was not their intention to interfere with the existing franchises, except so far as they depended on occupation; but that it was intended to create a now franchise, which was in fact created by the first clause of the Bill. He would therefore suggest, in order to make the matter perfectly clear, that there should be introduced in the clause then before the Committee, after the enacting words, the words "in addition to those qualified by law to register and vote at any election upon rights acquired in virtue of any qualification not requiring occupation."

SIR W. SOMERVILLE

said, that as the words were the same as those introduced in the first clause of the Bill, and for the same object, he had no objection to their insertion.

MR. REYNOLDS

considered the whole of the clause as a most dangerous one—one which was a departure from the principle of the Bill, and was of opinion that it ought to be expunged altogether. As he did not think, however, that he should succeed in dividing the House on the question, he should merely content himself with protesting against the clause.

The words to be inserted in the clause.

SIR F. THESIGER

then moved the omission of the words in the clause giving the right of voting to persons possessed of estates for life of the value of 5l.; the words proposed to be omitted being "or for his own life (such tenant for life) not being a lessee or assignee of a lessee at a rent." In 1844, when the Bill of Lord St. Germans was before the House, proposing a 5l. freehold franchise of inheritance, the noble Lord at the head of the Government stated that he had great objection to a franchise founded upon a 40s. freehold for life, on account of the abuses to which it might lead, but saw no reason why a freehold of inheritance should be retained so high as 5l. Now, the proposed franchise was not one of the value of 5l., but a freehold "rated as of the value of 5l. A person, therefore, who held a freehold for life, though not of the value of 5l., or perhaps not more than 40s., would, if he could get his freehold rated as of the value of 5l., be entitled to vote, thereby opening the door to abuse, which would, in his opinion, be prevented if the franchise were confined to a freehold of inheritance.

MR. GRATTAN

said, that there appeared to be some misapprehension as to the powers of the boards of guardians in creating fictitious votes. In point of fact, the guardians had not the power to put a single amendment on the rate.

MR. M. J. O'CONNELL

expressed himself anxious to hear the opinions of the Government on the subject of the proposed Amendment.

MR. HATCHELL

considered that the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon, with respect to under value or over rating, went to the entire principle of the Bill, and applied equally to the question of the 8l. rating as to this clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not object to persons voting who were possessed of estates in fee or in tail, but confined his objections to possessors of estates for life, and appeared to think that the clause referred to leaseholds for life. That, however, was neither the object nor the meaning of the clause. The true construction of the clause was, that a party to be entitled to the franchise should be possessed, as tenant for life, of an estate of a certain value, which estate was to be carved out of the inheritance. If there were any words which would appear to the hon. and learned Gentleman better calculated to remove the ambiguity, he would have no objection to their insertion.

Amendment withdrawn.

SIR F. THESIGER

thought at first that the wording of the clause could be made to bear the construction which he had put upon them; but from the ex- planations of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland he was satisfied of its true construction, and he had therefore withdrawn his objection. However, he now begged to call attention to the Amendment which he was about to propose, which was to omit all the words after the word "hereditaments" in the 33rd line, down to the words "or upwards." At present they stood, "which shall be rated in the last rate for the time being under the said Acts for the more effectual relief of the destitute poor in Ireland as of the net annual value of 5l. or upwards." He proposed to insert in their stead the words, "over and above all rents and charges payable out of or in respect of same." The Committee would understand the object he had in view in omitting these words, and inserting the substituted ones. They had now come to an important question. Agreeing, as they all did, in the necessity of making up for the deficiency in county constituencies in Ireland, and agreeing that for such purpose it was necessary to create a new class of voters, the question then arose whether, in creating a new freehold constituency in the counties, they would take rating as the test of bonâ fide freeholders of a certain value. Now, hon. Members were aware that at present, under the 10th Geo. IV., there was no freehold franchise under the amount of 10l. in Ireland, and that every person holding to that amount was required to occupy, in order to entitle himself to the franchise. Hon. Members were aware that at the present moment, with one slight exception, there was an invariable distinction between the franchise as it existed in counties and boroughs; and that as regarded the franchise in the county, it was invariably based upon property. The 40s. freehold in England was a freehold under which a man possessed value to that amount, whilst the freehold that gave the party a right to vote in Ireland was one under which the party had a beneficial interest; and the distinction had been preserved between the franchise as it existed in counties—being based on property—and boroughs, which rested on occupation, since the Reform Bill. They were then about to make an extraordinary change in their system, and to create an entirely new class of freehold voters. They were about to declare that property should no longer be the basis of qualification; and by that clause, if adopted, persons who did not hold a shilling beneficial interest in freehold would be entitled to the franchise. He was particularly desirous of following the course on the present occasion which he had ever pursued since he had had the honour of obtaining a seat in that House, with regard to questions similar to the present. In 1844, as the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government was aware, the Government with which he (Sir F. Thesiger) had the honour to be connected, introduced a Bill for the purpose of supplying the deficiency which arose in the county constituencies in Ireland, and proposed to create a new class to supply that deficiency, who were to be rated at 30l., the other class being, where parties held by freehold tenure an inheritance of 5l. over all charges. To that principle the noble Lord, as far as he (Sir F. Thesiger) was able to watch his course, had hitherto adhered, and at different times had strongly contended for it. In 1841 the noble Lord objected to the introduction of the Chandos clause, not because it was calculated to load to abuses, but because it violated a principle. He had not before heard sentiments from the noble Lord which differed from that view; but he (Sir F. Thesiger) conceived that up to the introduction of the Bills introduced in the last and previous Session, the noble Lord sustained the same views which he had previously done in that House. But at present he came forward with a Bill which sweptaway all such instructions, and in which it was proposed to base the county constituency, not on property, but on rating. Now, let them consider the question before them. It was clear that any person who could get his name inserted upon the rate as of the value of 5l. would be entitled to be registered, and would be registered, although he might not have paid a single rate at the time of registration—because the six months' possession or receipts of rents previous to the 6th of July was the ground on which he was entitled to be registered. A party was entitled to be registered although he had not paid his rates between the 5th of January and the 6th of July. The party might never have been on the rate before the 5th of January, and therefore although bound to pay all rates before that date, yet, inasmuch as he might not have been rated at all, no rates might be due from him, and therefore he would be entitled to be registered. Well, was the condition of such a party, a person possessing property? He took the case of a party who held for lives renewable for ever. That party might be rated for the full amount of property without possessing one shilling beneficial interest; yet it was clear if he paid a rate of 5l. he would be entitled to be on the rate. He would suppose the case of a person who borrowed money to buy, and afterwards mortgaged his freehold: that person would be in receipt of no profit, yet would be entitled to be a 5l. freeholder under the present clause, though he had not a farthing beneficial interest, being obliged to pay it away to the mortgagee. Thus they introduced persons who might be paupers. They afforded the opportunity to persons to register who had no property and no independence. At a general election, forinstance, the landlords might be ready enough to pay rates for these parties; and thus, instead of creating what they all desired, a free constituency, they were creating a low dependent class, that would be entirely at the mercy of those who had advanced money on property, and were thus destroying the principle on which the franchise ought to be conceded; and that was the question they were then to decide. The question was, would the noble Lord bestow the franchise on such persons when he considered what the effect would be? Of course he might assume from the introduction of similar Bills in previous Sessions, that the noble Lord had now changed his views on the subject. It had been said, that from the constant waste and renewal of our bodily particles, at the expiration of seven years not a single atom remained of those which constituted our bodies at the commencement of that period; but he must say that the mental changes were still more extraordinary than the bodily, because he had seen them effected all in one night. They had seen the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government throwing the shield of conservatism before the Reform Act when assailed last night by the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose; whilst immediately afterwards they had the same noble Lord coming down and supporting a Bill infinitely more destructive to the Reform Act in Ireland, than the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Montrose. He assured the noble Lord he viewed with great fear the course he was pursuing; because he was satisfied there was great danger in it to their existing institutions, and that if he proceeded in such a course—at one period letting the reins loose, and then tightening them, according to the exigencies of the times—he would be ultimately dragged headlong by those who were desirous of a downward tendency in our institutions, and who were anxious of introducing more of the democratic leaven into them. He could assure the noble Lord these Gentlemen were fully satisfied that he was playing the part which would assist the object they had decidedly and unmistakeably in view. He (Sir F. Thesiger) viewed the present measure with considerable alarm, because he saw it would naturally entail a similar measure for England. ["Hear, hear!"] He heard the sentiment cheered, and adopted by the hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side, who felt it was the first movement in the direction which they wished to pursue. He called on the noble Lord not to deliver himself over to the views of those Gentlemen, who differed so widely from him as to the preservation of their ancient institutions. He called on the Committee of that House to adopt his (Sir F. Thesiger's) view of the clause, and decide if they were to create a new 5l. constituency, to make it a bonâ fide freehold to that amount, instead of adopting the noble Lord's fictitious and colourable project of placing parties' names on the rate, and not requiring payment to entitle them to be placed thereon.

Amendment proposed, page 2, line 33— To leave out the words 'which shall be rated in the last rate for the time being under the said Acts for the more effectual relief of the destitute poor in Ireland." '

LORD J. RUSSELL

said, the proposal was to give the right of voting to persons who held property of the value of 5l., and who were owners in fee, or in possession of an estate for life of that amount. He declared the proposal was not open to the hon. and learned Gentleman's objection. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that a party might have no property whatever, or if in possession of property it might be mortgaged to such an amount as would render it valueless to him; but it struck him (Lord J. Russell) that the hon. and learned Gentleman failed in making out his case. In his opinion the occupiers of 8l. ratings and those holding property of 5l. annual value, were persons that might safely be entrusted with the franchise. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had said "Do not touch the Reform Bill, which provides a sufficient constituency," then he (Lord J. Russell) could have understood his proposition; but half the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman went to show that he concurred with the Government with which he had been connected in altering the Irish Reform Act. The question, therefore, was not whether the Irish Reform Act should be altered, but whether the 30l. occupation and free-hold qualification, mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, or the franchise proposed by Her Majesty's Government at present, would be the better for Ireland. They adopted the principle of the present Bill, which assumed that the franchise would be conferred on a sufficient number of electors, and that these electors would be possessed of the required amount of property. That cases of fraud might arise, he was not prepared to contradict, because in England and Scotland parties were fraudulently placed on the franchise who had no right to be on it, and, therefore, he was not going to maintain that such would not occur in Ireland. However, the system was not open to general objection; on the contrary, he believed the electors would have sufficient property, and would possess a degree of intelligence and respectability, sufficient to enable them to exercise their right. The hon. and learned Gentlemen had asserted that by acceding to such measures as the present, they were incurring dangers of a more serious nature than could be expected to result from the adoption of the measure of the hon. Member for Montrose. He (Lord J. Russell) would not stop to institute a comparison between the two measures; but he would say, he did not conceive it to be the best way to preserve their institutions, to adopt on all occasions conservative courses, and deny all reforms which, even in themselves, were useful and capable of being defended on sound principles. He had been told at the time of the Reform Bill, that reform should be refused, and conservation adhered to. But he had lived to see the day when he heard hon. Gentlemen who entertained these views ejaculate, "Thank Heaven, our objections to the Reform Bill were ill founded, and not adopted; because in these revolutionary times neither we nor our institutions have been exposed to the perils with which we have been surrounded." Therefore he was of opinion that those who called themselves "conservatives" were most revolutionary, and that the best way to preserve their institutions was to do away with the exclusiveness that heretofore prevailed.

LORD J. MANNERS

briefly expressed his dissatisfaction at the reply of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, which did not meet the able statement of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abingdon; and therefore he hoped the Committee would adopt the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that the effect of his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment would be to give the franchise to freeholders possessing what was now called a beneficial interest, which would occasion considerable doubt, and revive the old mischief occasioned by raising the question of beneficial value before the barrister. In lieu of that the Government took the simple criterion of rating.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

thought that, without reference to party questions, it would be most desirable to have bonâ fide and not fictitious votes. The test adopted in the clause was rating, but he was of opinion that a beneficial interest was a better criterion.

MR. REYNOLDS

declared that, if the words proposed to be omitted were left out, the landlords would be enabled to make voters by wholesale. Even as the clause stood it would enable the landlords to swamp the ratepayers with 5l. voters. No residence was required, and only six months' receipt of the rents and profits, and if he were to give the clause a name, he should call it "a clause to enable the landlords of Ireland to manufacture, without limit, as many fictitious votes as might suit their purpose."

MR. SADLEIR

had also a very great objection to the clause as it stood, because it created a right of voting wholly irrespective of inhabitancy, and would add very much to the number of fictitious votes. But if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon were adopted, it would open the door to the greatest frauds. The plain result of the Amendment would be, to substitute the test of swearing for the test of rating.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 36: Majority 70.

SIR F. THESIGER

said, that he did not think it was reasonable that parties should be rated, and not required to pay rates, as was the case under this clause. He should, therefore, propose a proviso to the effect— That no person should be registered under this clause unless all rates made up to the 1st of January in each year should be paid by the 1st of July. This would place them on the same footing as the 8l. voters.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that when a party was not an occupier under this clause, he would not be rated, but the rates would be paid by the occupier. If the owner was the occupier, he would be rated.

MR. REYNOLDS

thought the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon was reasonable, and he should vote for it if it was pressed to a division. An owner of property might let it to parties who might get greatly in arrear with the rates. He feared this clause would tend to the manufacture of fictitious votes.

MR. SCULLY

argued that care should be taken that all rates due should be paid before parties under this clause should be entitled to vote.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause agreed to, as was Clause 4.

Clause 5.

MR. HATCHELL

, in answer to a question from Sir R. Ferguson, said that the object of the clause was to prevent a person having the franchise for a borough, possessing also a vote for the county arising out of the same property.

MR. C. ANSTEY

thought the two last lines in the clause, "in respect of which he would be entitled to vote at an election for such city, town, or borough," should be left out, as inconsistent with the other provisions of the Bill.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

explained that, in England, if a person had half a dozen franchises in a borough, all of which were borough franchises, he could not vote for the county; but if he had an occupation franchise in a borough, and also other freehold property within the limits of the borough, he could vote for the county in respect of that freehold.

SIR D. NORREYS

proposed leaving out the words "in respect to any lands," in order to define more clearly that the voter might vote, having a freehold of which he had not the occupancy.

SIR F. THESIGER

said, that a man might possess two descriptions of property in a borough, and with respect to one he might be entitled to vote for the borough or for the county, but was registered for the borough and not for the county; but with respect to the other was entitled to vote for the county and be registered for the county.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that an individual could not be registered for county and borough on one property; and the object of the clause was to prevent any one from voting for both county and borough on the same property.

MR. R. C. HILDYARD

did not see why a party happening to live in a borough should be placed in a better position than one living in a county, by having a double vote. The simpler and juster course would be to enact that no one should be entitled to interfere in a county election if his property was situated in a borough.

SIR G. GREY

said, that the effect of the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal would be to disfranchise person now having a county vote because they happened to live in a borough.

MR. R. C. HILDYARD

expressed his opinion that the clause would give an undue influence to the boroughs.

MR. HAYTER

said, it was clear that a person having freehold property in a borough was entitled to vote for the county in respect of that property. What was done was to make the alteration with respect to Ireland.

SIR F. THESIGER

could not see anything undesirable in a man having two properties in a borough voting for the county upon one of them. In this respect he was content with the law as it was in England.

Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to.

On Clause 6,

Mr. G. A. HAMILTON

proposed the addition of certain words with respect to the borough franchise, to preserve the rights of the existing 10l. voters.

SIR W. SOMERVILLE

objected to the addition.

LORD J. MANNERS

said, if these householders were not to be disfranchised, the words proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin ought to be added. But if they were to be disfranchised, let the intention be declared at once.

MR. REYNOLDS

said, that the first clause of the Bill had deprived a large and respectable class of the franchise who were registered under the 10l. qualification. He presumed the same would be the effect of the present clause, and that those registered as leaseholders would be swept away.

SIR F. THESIGER

said, that his object had been from the first to preserve the existing franchise, and to make this Bill, not a substitute, but a supplement—to use the words of the noble Lord at the head of the Government—to the Reform Bill. He had been desirous that the words proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, at the end of the first clause, should have extended further, and included the case of every existing county franchise. However, the committee had decided otherwise, and now the question was, how far they should preserve the existing rights of the boroughs. He was disposed to preserve every existing right.

SIR W. SOMERVILLE

observed, that it was proposed to do the same thing with regard to the boroughs that had been done in reference to the counties.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, all he desired was, that the Committee would accept the words he proposed, in order that the existing occupation franchise might not be disturbed.

MR. SADLEIR

wished to understand what the intentions of the Government were. The question was important, as the clause would operate extensively in cities and towns.

SIR W. SOMERVILLE

said, that the question was not raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dublin University, who proposed that all franchises should be preserved which did not require occupation.

SIR G. GREY

apprehended that the 10l. qualification for mere occupation was to be swept away, and a rating to the poor substituted.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GROGAN

then moved to omit, in line 25, the words "any lands, tenements, or hereditaments," as leading to doubts and litigation.

SIR F. THESIGER

wished to know if by this clause a person should be entitled to vote for two houses, or counting-houses, or warehouses, or shops? He presumed he did not, but that it was intended by the clause that a man should vote for a house and land, or a warehouse and land, or a counting-house and land. But the preceding words were "in respect of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments," which any lawyer would tell them that two houses or twenty houses would be included in them. It would be desirable to omit the words, or explain them by specific words.

SIR D. NORREYS

said, that nothing would be more mischievous than to leave put the words. If this Bill were to receive the interpretations of the hon. Members for Abingdon and Dublin, it would disfranchise a large portion of the constituency of Ireland. But he hoped the Government would be firm in resisting the insertion of the clause.

MR. M. J. O'CONNELL

argued that if the words proposed to be left out were omitted, the Irish franchise would not thereby be assimilated to the English franchise, inasmuch as the English Act contained the words "or other building."

COLONEL DUNNE

had not the slightest doubt that the Bill, as it stood, would have the effect of restricting the franchise beyond the intentions of Parliament. He hoped, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would interpose no objection to the union of different tenements in order to make up the franchise.

MR. C. ANSTEY

said, that was the very point of discussion. In a Bill which changed the franchise from tenure to rating, they ought to follow the analogy of the Irish poor-law, to which this measure was a supplement. In the rating under that law every description of property was taken into account, whether occupied under one or under various titles. As, therefore, occupation and payment of rates were intended to confer the franchise, the analogy ought to be strictly carried out, and no words be introduced which would deprive a qualified occupier who had paid his rates of the right to vote, by creating a distinction not recognised in the Poor Law Act. With regard to the Amendment for leaving out the words "lands, tenements, or hereditaments," he hoped it would be unanimously rejected, for it would materially add to the hardship and inconsistency of the Act.

MR. GROGAN

said, the sense of the House appeared to be against the Amendment; and, therefore, he would not press it.

Amendment withdrawn.

SIR D. NORREYS

, after the above words, "lands, tenements, or hereditaments," moved the omission of the words "or any house, warehouse, counting-house or shop, either separately or jointly with any land within such city, town, or borough, occupied as tenant under the same landlord, or occupied as owner," for the purpose of introducing a provision that, where an occupier shall be separately rated for several premises of the value of 8l. and upwards, the payment of poor-rates for any one of such premises (being of the required value) shall be sufficient payment of rates for registry.

COLONEL DUNNE

objected to the omission of the words, and suggested that "or other building" should be added after "counting-house," as a means of assimilating the Bill to the English Act.

MR. REYNOLDS

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would give rise to litigation. It might do very well for a small borough like Mallow, where the difficulties which he foresaw could never occur, becauses the houses there never attained to the elevation which they reached in the city of Dublin, but it would be impracticable in large constituencies.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the words "lands, tenements, or hereditaments," were large enough to include everything; but the following words specified particular premises, restricting their occupation to be under the same landlord. There was therefore an apparent difficulty in the construction, which it certainly would be better to avoid. But he did not think the Committee would assent to the Amendment. The reason for inserting "lands, tenements, or hereditaments," was to comprehend every species of franchise. The clause certainly might be more clearly put, and it might be reconsidered upon the report. As the clause stood, the voter would have the right to vote, though he held under a hundred different landlords; but if the words "lands, tenements, or hereditaments," were struck out, he would not.

MR. R. C. HILDYARD

reminded the House that the general words, "lands, tenements, or hereditaments," had been passed, and the question was whether words should be inserted to qualify them. If such words were inserted, he thought the clause would be inconsistent.

MR. ROEBUCK

understood that the Attorney General acknowledged the principle contended for, but only wished to guard against proceeding in a hurry. If the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted the principle, he (Mr. Roebuck) would give him the discretion he asked.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that if the Committee were agreed on the point, he was willing that the words after "lands, tenements, and hereditaments" should be left out.

MR. ROEBUCK

suggested that the words should be struck out at once.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

was quite willing to do so, but was in the hands of the Committee.

SIR F. THESIGER

suggested the advisability of taking the portions of the clause separately. If the Government would consent to omit the words "house, counting-house, or shop," the hon. Member for Dublin might then raise a discussion with respect to the occupation of tenants and owners.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GROGAN

then moved the insertion, after the words "hereditaments," of the words "as tenant or owner."

MR. C. ANSTEY

wished to asked the Chairman whether it was competent to the hon. Member to move the insertion of words which had just been struck out of the clause?

The CHAIRMAN

considered that it was perfectly competent to the hon. Member for Dublin city to propose his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, page 3, line 25, after the word "hereditaments," to insert the words, "as tenant or owner."

Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 170: Majority 87.

Same Clause, page 3, line 34. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the blank be filled with 'eight pounds.' "

MR. REYNOLDS

moved that the word "eight be struck out, and the blank be filled up by "five." His object, he said, was to reduce the borough qualification from 8l. to 5l. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side had admitted that the county qualification ought to be higher than the borough qualification, and as they had fixed the county qualification at 8l., he asked for their co-operation to induce Government to consent to his proposition. If the 8l. qualification were maintained, some of the boroughs would be virtually disfranchised. Portarlington, for instance, had 170 Parliamentary voters in 1847; and if the franchise were confined to those rated at 8l., the number would be reduced to 110. The case would be the same at Athlone. As the intention of the Government by this Bill was to enlarge the constituencies, he hoped they would not allow it to pass in such a form that it should have an opposite effect. In Dublin there were nominally on the burgess-roll 15,000 voters, including a class whom he was not quite in love with—the freemen—whose numbers were 4,000, who had no property qualification, and were not required to be ratepayers or householders. Was it fair towards the voters with a property qualification, while the freemen were maintained, to insist on so high a franchise as an 8l. rating? A great principle was involved—were the parties who were rated to the poor, and paid their rates, entitled to a voice in the choice of their representatives? He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would not oppose his Amendment, but give up all unworthy suspicions of the people, and identify themselves with the people in feeling and interest. If they acted otherwise, and the Bill was carried in spite of them, they would have to admit, on returning to their constituents, that they had done all in their power to prevent them having the franchise. With the 8l. qualification, not more than 24,000 voters would be given to all the boroughs; hence the state of the franchise would be made worse instead of being improved. At present the qualification was a 10l. value, which was lower than an 8l. rating, the latter being equal to 12l. in rental.

Afterwards proposed, "That the blank be filled with 'five pounds.'"

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

said, he had no wish to limit the constituency in the county he represented.

MR. REYNOLDS

expressed his belief that the noble Lord would be returned for the county Down, even if they had universal suffrage.

SIR W. SOMBRVILLE

said, it was the intention of the Government to maintain the Bill as it stood; he must, therefore, oppose the Amendment. The franchise proposed for the counties was much more extensive than the present one; but it was said it would not be so in the boroughs. His answer was, that the case of the boroughs was not so strong—so largo an extension of the suffrage was not necessary. The county electors in Ireland were not more than two per cent of the adult male population; while in this country it was 29 per cent. The borough electors in Ireland, on the other hand, bore a larger proportion to the population than it did in this country, being 22 per cent. There were 48,421 tenements in the different boroughs rated above 8l.; deducting one-fifth for double holdings, and holdings by minors, there remained 38,753. In some boroughs, the constituency might be diminished, but it was impossible to legislate with a view to particular boroughs; the House could only proceed on general principles. In addition to the 38,753, there would also be the freemen, whatever might be their numbers. He would repeat, that the case of the boroughs was not so strong as that of the counties, and that it was the determination of the Government to support the Bill as it stood.

MR. P. FRENCH

believed, if the 8l. rating standard were adopted, the Bill would operate as a restriction instead of an extension of the present franchise. The Reform Bill established an occupation franchise of 10l.; but many of the tenements which conferred that franchise were rated at 5l. and 6l., and that was before the depreciation of property which of late years had taken place.

SIR T. O'BRIEN

considered that the 8l. test would virtually disfranchise many towns.

COLONEL RAWDON

deplored the decision which Government had come to in this matter. They could not be aware of the great depreciation of property in Irish towns. He thought that a 5l. rating for Ireland would be fully as high as a 10l. rating in this country.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, that admitting a 10l. rating to be the proper test for the possession of the suffrage here, he wished to know whether an 8l. rating for Ireland bore the same relative proportion to the wealth of Ireland as a 10l. rating did to the wealth of England. He found that in this clause they were going to pass another Schedule B—that great blot in the Reform Bill. It was now generally admitted that small constituencies were the source of great corruption in England; but were we not now about to call into being a series of small boroughs in Ireland in which the probability was that bribery of all kinds would most flourish? Now, he believed that corruption would, in a great degree, be put an end to by taking a 5l. instead of an 8l. franchise, and thus enlarging the constituencies. But, even apart from that consideration, was there not something in having a fair representation of the people of Ireland? A 10l. qualification in England was grossly unequal; in some places in the north it would not do more than include the first houses in the town, and in London it hardly gave a vote. But how much more inequality was there between a 10l. house in London, and an 8l. rating in Portarlington. Could anything be more unjust? and what would be the harm of adopting the proposition of the Lord Mayor of Dublin? It appeared to him that the 5l. rating would hardly include the real honest middle classes of Ireland. Certainly, it would not do more than just include them. He trusted the Irish Gentlemen on both sides the House would press upon the noble Lord the adoption of the 5l. rating, as being only equivalent to the 10l. rating in this country, and fairly expressing the difference in the manners, habits, and wealth of the two countries.

MR. M. J. O'CONNELL

was of opinion that there was not an argument which had been used to sustain the 8l. franchise in counties, that would not go to support the proposition for a 5l. franchise in boroughs. The counties returned 64 Members, and the boroughs 39, and the 64 Members would have a constituency of 250,000, while the constituency of the boroughs would amount only to 48,441. Of that number Dublin would have 19,000, Cork 4,500, and Belfast 5,000; and what then would they have for the remainder of the boroughs?—a wretched minority, on which it would not be in the power of public opinion to act. To show the reduced state of the borough constituencies, he referred to the place represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. In the borough of Drogheda, at the last election, 307 electors only were polled; and in the city of Cork, with a population, including the rural districts, of 106,000, the number of voters polled at the last election was 1,377.

SIR D. NORREYS

called attention to the fact, that the valuation on which the calculation was made respecting the borough franchise, was made some years ago, and no person could deny that, in the intermediate time, the valuations of tenements in towns had fallen 25 per cent.

MR. SADLEIR

concurred in the observation that had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, that the only real protection against a wide-spread system of corruption would be to increase the numbers of the borough constituency in Ireland. As the Bill at present stood, very few constituencies would exceed 300, and it was idle to expect that purity of election could be preserved in those boroughs where the constituency was under 300. He was surprised at the course taken by Irish Members at the opposite side of the House. They should have risen above the paltry considerations of party on this occasion, and called upon the Government to confer on the boroughs a franchise sufficiently extensive.

LORD C. HAMILTON

said, that the hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that he very often sat at that side of the House himself, and was constantly changing his seat. He agreed in the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon with respect to the propriety of assimilating the practice in regard to boroughs in Ireland and Scotland.

MR. M. O'CONNELL

said, there was no one acquainted with rating in Ireland who must not know that an 8l. valuation, if not more, was certainly not less, than 12l. value, and the amount proposed by his right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor of Dublin would bring the amount as near as possible to an 8l. franchise.

MR. SCULLY

begged to say, in reference to an observation that fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Seccretary for Ireland, that the number of borough voters in England was 314,000, while the number for Ireland, according to this return, would be 48,000; and was that, he asked, a fair proportion? If the 5l. franchise were adopted in Ireland, it would give, according to a calculation he had made, a proportion of about one vote in every sixteen of the population. He trusted the Government would attend to the suggestion made to them, for there were loud complaints from all quarters of the country against the Bill,

MR. BROTHERTON

said, that there was not much cause to apprehend a very great extension of the franchise, whether they allowed all persons rated to the poor to vote, or limited the number to those who were rated at 5l., 6l., or 8l, so long as the payment of the rates was made a condition. Some rated at 5l. would pay, but many would not.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

hoped that some Member of the Government would condescend to state to the House the reasons why a measure was to be persisted in which evidently placed the Irish boroughs in such a dilemma.

COLONEL DUNNE

begged to say, and he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin had said, that there were only 170 voters in the borough which he (Colonel Dunne) had the honour to represent. But if his right hon. Friend were to take off the odd hundred, and leave only the seventy, he would be really nearer the mark. And if the present measure were passed in the form in which it then stood, there would be some even of them taken off.

MR. MONSELL

wished the noble Lord at the head of the Government would, after the strong and almost unanimous opinion expressed by all the hon. Members for Ireland against the Government proposal, allow the Chairman to report progress. It was admitted on all hands that a very different measure of justice would be dealt to the boroughs from that which was dealt to the counties if the clause were allowed to remain.

MR. S. ADAIR

thought that a decision taken then by the House upon the question before it would be premature. He had received letters from persona of the highest respectability in the borough of Armagh, in which it was stated that the 8l. franchise, as it was proposed to be based, would be equivalent to a 16l. value, taking into account the depreciated value of property, which was 20 to 25 per cent, at the very least. Of that depreciation there could be no doubt, and he felt that there would not be an equal measure of justice dealt to the boroughs and the counties by the original clause proposed. They ought to give the boroughs a free, fair, and bonâ fide franchise, and he confessed he had his doubts that the 8l. franchise would do that. In order to give the Government time to consider the question, he would be prepared, if the House thought fit, to move that the Chairman should report progress and ask leave to sit again.

LORD J. RUSSELL

said, that the Government had endeavoured to carry this Bill with a view to give, if possible, a real and practical benefit to the people of Ireland, to extend the number of electors where they were at present exceedingly deficient, and to make the franchise more satisfactory to the people of that country. If they should fail in that endeavour, they could not continue to take charge of the present Bill. With regard to the county franchise, it was obvious that the value hitherto required, and the mode of obtaining the franchise, had diminished the number of voters very greatly, so greatly that it was necessary to consider in what way the number could be best increased. They had considered the various propositions made during the past ten years upon the subject, and, upon the whole, they had come to the decision that it was necessary to alter the basis of the franchise from tenure to mere occupation. It was not thought necessary to make any consider- able alteration in the borough franchise. It was made like the English borough franchise, which was fixed at 10l. And, as it was an obvious proposition that they should no longer take the 10l., it was resolved that they would take 8l. only, adopting rating as the amount instead of value. The 40s. franchise having been abolished in Ireland, it was necessary to take a different franchise entirely from that of England with regard to the counties. But with regard to the boroughs it was not necessary to take another. There was not there the same dissimilarity. The 10l. franchise remained in England, and if a 5l. one were taken for Ireland—if the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin were adopted, he certainly could see no reason why a 5l. one should not be taken for England. He had had an extensive correspondence upon the subject. He had received various letters from persons well qualified to form an opinion upon it, and they gave as their opinion that such a change would be entirely fatal to the Bill. Having received the opinion, and considered it, it certainly struck him that it was well founded. If they placed the Bill before the House as they had done, they would have a good chance of making a large and practical extension of the franchise. But if they made a proposal such as that which was then before the House, there would have been but little chance of such a Bill passing during the present Session. Those were the grounds upon which they had made their proposal. Of course, the House would deal with it as it thought fit. But it was not for want of discussion and a great deal of consideration upon the subject, that they had come to the decision they had of proposing an 8l. franchise.

MR. CHRISTOPHER

begged to make one observation as an English Member. He was very much surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen from the other side of the Channel state broadly and frankly that an 8l. franchise upon the rating in Ireland was equivalent to a 16l. holding, when upon the poor-law debates they complained of the excessive pressure, in consequence of the rates being too much for them, so much higher than they were in England. He really could not reconcile the two propositions. If the 8l. franchise, according to the rates in Ireland, were equal to a 16l. franchise in England, then hon. Gentlemen had no right to come forward to say that they were grievously oppressed.

MR. ROEBUCK

thought that the question which the Committee had to discuss was entirely confined to the suffrage, and had nothing whatever to do with the question of rates as referred to by the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire. He (Mr. Roebuck) disapproved of the conduct of the noble Lord at the head of the Government with respect to this Bill, and his threatening no longer to take charge of it if any alteration were made in it by the Committee. The noble Lord had said, that he had made inquiries with respect to the case of Ireland; but what more information could he have desired than had been furnished to him by hon. Members for Ireland? There was not a single Irish Member who had spoken on the subject who had not said that the effect of fixing this amount of franchise would be to reduce very considerably the borough constituencies. The noble Lord had not stated how he had obtained his information from Ireland; but could he deny any of the statements which had been put forward by hon. Members for that country, one of whom, the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington, had said, that if this amount were adopted, his constituency would be reduced to seventy electors. In his opinion the noble Lord was not dealing fairly with Ireland, and his councillors had not fairly informed him of the state of the country.

MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGH

called the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to the report of the Commission appointed in 1840 to inquire with respect to the valuation of property in Ireland, in which it was stated that an eight pound franchise would strike off a great many of those who were then rated at 10l., and that a 5l. franchise oven would have the same effect.

MR. KERSHAW

said, that as he had always supported liberal measures for Ireland, he hoped that the Government would consent to reconsider this question with respect to the borough franchise.

The EARL of ARUNDEL and SURREY

suggested, that if the Government would not give the Committee any hope of their reconsidering the subject, the sooner the House divided the better.

MR. GROGAN

said, that in his opinion it was impossible to increase the borough constituencies, unless they obtained voters from the poor-houses.

MR. REYNOLDS

said that, as he believed the Government might probably be induced to change their minds on the sub- ject, he thought the better course to adopt would be for the Chairman to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.

Question put, "That the blank be filled with 'eight pounds.'"

The Committee divided:—Ayes 142, Noes 90: Majority 52.

List of the AYES.
Abdy, Sir T. N.	Halsey, T. P.
Adderley, C. B.	Hamilton, G. A.
Anson, hon. Col.	Hamilton, J. H.
Archdall, Capt. M.	Hamilton, Lord C.
Arkwright, G.	Hatchell, J.
Armstrong, Sir A.	Hawes, B.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T.	Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.
Bankes, G.	Headlam, T. E.
Bateson, T.	Heald, J.
Bellew, R. M.	Heneage, E.
Bennet, P.	Henley, J. W.
Beresford, W.	Herbert, H. A.
Berkeley, A dm.	Herbert, rt. hon. S.
Birch, Sir T. B. M.	Hildyard, R. C.
Boldero, H. G.	Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.
Bowles, Adm.	Hood, Sir A.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Howard, Lord E.
Brockman, E. D.	Jervis, Sir J.
Bunbury, W. M.	Jocelyn, Visct.
Carew, W. H. P.	Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Cavendish, hon. C. C.	Jones, Capt.
Cayley, E. S.	Kildare, Marq. of
Chatterton, Col.	Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Chichester, Lord J. L.	Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Childers, J. W.	Legh, G. C.
Christopher, R. A.	Lemon, Sir C.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.	Lewis, G. C.
Clive, H. B.	Lindsey, hon. Col.
Cole, hon. H. A.	Locke, J.
Coles, H. B.	Lockhart, W.
Conolly, T.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L.	Manners, Lord J.
Cotton, hon. W.H. S.	Masterman, J.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Maule, rt. hon. F.
Dodd, G.	Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.	Morris, D.
Duncombe, hon. O.	Mulgrave, Earl of
Dundas, Adm.	Mullings, J. R.
Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.	Mure, Col.
Ebrington, Visct.	Naas, Lord
Ellice, rt. hon. E.	Newry & Morne, Visct.
Farrer, J.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Paget, Lord C.
Filmer, Sir E.	Paget, Lord G.
Fitzpatrick, rt. hon. J. W.	Palmerston, Visct.
Foley, J. H. H.	Parker, J.
Forbes, W.	Patten, J. W.
Freestun, Col.	Peel, F.
Gaskell, J. M.	Portal, M.
Gooch, E. S.	Price, Sir R.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Ricardo, O.
Greene, T.	Rice, E. R.
Grenfell, C. W.	Rich, H.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Romilly, Sir J.
Grogan, E.	Russell, Lord J.
Guernsey, Lord	Russell, hon. E. S.
Hallyburton, Lord J. F.	Russell, F. C. H.

Rutherfurd, A.	Tufnell, H.
Seymer, H. K.	Turner, G. J.
Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Shelburne, Earl of	Vane, Lord H.
Simeon, J.	Verney, Sir H.
Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.	Vesey, hon. T.
Spooner, R.	Waddington, H. S.
Stafford, A.	Walsh, Sir J. B.
Stanford, J. F.	Watkins, Col. L.
Stanley, E.	Williamson, Sir H.
Stanton, W. H.	Wilson, J.
Stuart, H.	Wodehouse, E.
Stuart, J.
Taylor, T. E.	TELLERS.
Thesiger, Sir F.	Hill, Lord M.
Townley, R. G.	Grey, R. W.

List of the NOES.
Anstey, T. C.	Marshall, W.
Armstrong, R. B.	Martin, S.
Arundel and Surrey Earl of	Matheson, col.
	Milner, W. M. E.
Bass, M. T.	Milton, Visct.
Blake, M. J.	Mitchell, T. A.
Bouverie, hon. E. P.	Monsell, W.
Brotherton, J.	Mowatt, F.
Brown, W.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.	O'Brien, Sir T.
Bunbury, E. H.	O'Connell, M.
Caulfeild, J. M.	O'Connell, M. J.
Clay, J.	O'Flaherty, A.
Clements, hon. C. S.	Osborne, R.
Cobden, R.	Pilkington, J.
Coke, hon. E. K.	Power, Dr.
Collins, W.	Power, N.
Dashwood, Sir G. H.	Rawdon, Col.
Dawson, hon. T. V.	Rendlesham, Lord
Dovereux, J. T.	Roebuck, J. A.
Duncan, G.	Sadleir, J.
Dunne, Col.	Salwey, Col.
Ellis, J.	Scholefleld, W.
Evans, J.	Scrope, G. P.
Fagan, W.	Scully, F.
Fagan, J.	Smith, J. B.
Forster, M.	Spearman, H. J.
Fortescue, hon. J.W.	Stuart, Lord J.
Fox, R. M.	Sullivan, M.
French, F.	Talbot, J.
Glyn, G. C.	Tancred, H W.
Grace, O. D. J.	Tenison, E. K.
Grattan, H.	Tennent, R. J.
Greene, J.	Thicknesse, R. A.
Grenfell, C. P.	Thompson, Col.
Hardcastle, J. A.	Thornely, T.
Hastie, A.	Trelawny, J. S.
Henry, A.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Heyworth, L.	Wawn, J. T.
Hodges, T. T.	Willcox, B. M.
Howard, hon. C. W. G.	Williams, J.
Jackson, W.	Wilson, M.
Keating, R.	Wood, W. P.
Kershaw, J.	Wyld, J.
M'Cullagh, W. T.	TELLERS.
Meagher, T.	Reynolds, G.
Mahon, The O'Gorman	Adair, R. S.

MR. GROGAN

then moved, that in the first line of page 4, after the words "Poor-rates," there be inserted the words "Grand Jury Cess and Police-rate." He moved this, on the principle laid down by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, of assimilating the qualification in Ireland to that of England, inasmuch as the poor-rate in the latter country included taxes analogous to those the payment of which he proposed to make indispensable.

MR. FORBES

objected to going further, as it was now within a few minutes to One, and moved that the Chairman do now report progress.

LORD J. RUSSELL

hoped the Committee would not refuse to go on till they had finished the clause. With regard to the proposition before the House, he did not think that it would be any improvement, as it would add to the number of taxes which the voter must pay; and it was desirable that he should pay them, if possible, in one amount.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Committee report progress; to sit again on Monday next.

The House was adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.