Commons Sitting of 13 February 1852

MINUTES.
Public Bill.—1° Railways (Ireland).

ECCLESIASTICAL APPOINTMENTS.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLwished to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government with reference to an appointment which had lately taken place to a canonry in the Cathedral church of Durham. In 1836 Dr. Maltby was appointed Bishop of Durham, and he (Sir B. Hall) found from the Parliamentary papers that 8,000 l. a year was assigned to the see of Durham, and that Dr. Maltby, being a
496
Bishop upon a new foundation, was entitled to that sum. He found, however, from a paper presented last year, that Dr. Maltby had received 79,658 l. more than that income. In 1843 there was a vacancy in the rectory of Eaglescliffe, and the Bishop appointed his son to that valuable preferment, which was worth 1,200 l. a year. Three weeks ago a canonry, which he believed was known as a "golden canonry," became vacant in the Cathedral church of Durham, and the Bishop appointed this same son, the rector of Eaglescliffe, to that canonry. He (Sir B. Hall) wished to ask whether any remonstrances had been made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or whether any correspondence had taken place between them and the Bishop with reference to this appointment; and, if so, whether the noble Lord would have any objection to the production of such correspondence?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLunderstood that a correspondence had taken place with regard, he believed, to the emoluments the canon was to receive, and there would be no objection to lay it on the table. His hon. Friend seemed to be under some misapprehension as to the value of the "golden canonry." The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been taking measures to reduce all the canonries to 1,000 l. a year; and by an Order in Council the value of the canonry to which the hon. Baronet alluded would be reduced to that amount.

BRITISH SUBJECTS IN AUSTRIA.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYwished to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government a question on the subject of the recent expulsion of certain Scottish clergymen from the Austrian territories, by order of Prince Schwarzenberg, and, as it was alleged, in contravention of the municipal laws of the Austrian empire, as well as of internal rights. He would not now recapitulate the facts to which his question referred; but he wished to draw the noble Lord's attention to its importance, relating, as it did, to the expulsion of certain Scottish clergymen from the Austrian territory, under circumstances of great cruelty and hardship. He wished to ask whether the statement of facts which he (Mr. Anstey) had made on a former occasion was correct, and also whether it was not true that under the laws of Hungary before the revolution, and under the Austrian constitution of 1848, ample liberty of conscience was secured to persons of the religious persuasion of these gentlemen? He wished

497
to ask, also, whether, applying the precedent of Mr. Finlay's claim upon the Greek Government to the present case, the noble Lord was prepared to say that, supposing the expulsion to have taken place merely because of the religious profession of those parties, or merely because it was thought expedient to gratify the wishes of a portion of the Roman Catholic Church in Austria, this was not a case demanding the most exact attention and scrutiny at the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and the most ample reparation at the hands of the Austrian Government?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLreplied, that there was so far truth in the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that certain persons, ministers of the Scotch Free Church, who were residing in the Austrian territories, for the purpose of the conversion of the Jews to the Christian faith, had been expelled from those territories. Those persons stated that they had not attempted to make proselytes from the Roman Catholic to the Protestant faith, but that their sole endeavour was to promote Christianity among the Jewish population. They certainly seemed to have been persons who entirely separated themselves from any political associations or proceedings whatever. But when the hon. and learned Member asked him whether liberty of conscience was secured by the ancient laws of Hungary, and the constitution of 1848, he (Lord John Russell) could only state that it was well known that the ancient laws of Hungary were exceedingly favourable to religious freedom, and so, he believed, was the constitution of 1848: but these laws had at present no effect in Hungary, and the Austrian Government had thought proper to repeal the constitution. Her Majesty's Government had not at present information of the grounds upon which the steps that the question referred to had been taken; but upon representation made to Lord Granville, he had addressed a communication upon the subject to Her Majesty's Minister at Vienna. He (Lord John Russell) was not able to state whether the proceedings of the Austrian Government had been against the present municipal laws of the Austrian empire, or contrary to international rights; but undoubtedly, the case called for explanation, from the hardship of the sudden expulsion of innocent persons, and their considerable loss of property in consequence of that expulsion.

THE HOLMFIRTH CATASTROPHE.
MR. SANDARSgave notice that on Monday he would ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was his intention to institute an inquiry into the frightful loss of life which had recently occurred at Holmfirth, and whether any funds would be made available on behalf of the sufferers?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was in a condition to answer the question at once. He had received from the magistrates an account of the appalling calamity to which the hon. Member referred, and they stated that an inquest had been begun on some of the bodies that had been found, and they requested the Government to send a competent engineer to attend the adjourned inquest, and to make previous inquiries as to the cause of the accident; they also stated something as to another reservoir, with respect to which they thought investigation desirable. A gentleman had accordingly been directed to go down and watch the proceedings, and render any assistance to the magistrates that he could. With regard to the last part of the question, he could not hold out hopes of any assistance from the public money; and he trusted that the case would be amply met by public subscriptions.

INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.
MR. LABOUCHEREmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to carry into effect certain provisions contained in the Copyright Treaty with France, and said, that inasmuch as this Bill contained a principle of legislation novel to the House, it would perhaps be deemed proper that he should in a very few words explain what that principle, or extension of principle, was. The House were aware that by an Act passed in 1838 the subject of international copyright generally was raised. By that Act (1 & 2 Vict. c. 59) it was provided that the Crown might, by an Order in Council, give to books, prints, music, and similar articles from foreign countries the same privileges of copyright as were enjoyed in this country, provided those foreign countries conceded reciprocal privileges. By an Act passed in 1844, en titled the International Copyright Amendment Act (7 Vict. c. 12), these powers were extended to articles of sculpture, and other works of art. In these enactments original works only were included, translations being expressly excluded. In order to procure the benefits of these enact-

499
ments, treaties had been entered into with Prussia, Saxony, and some other States on the Continent; and we were at this moment in communication with Bavaria on the same subject. Gentlemen who had paid attention to this subject were aware that for a long time negotiations had been going on between this country and Prance upon the question of international copyright, but that the various proposals of the two countries had not hitherto terminated in any satisfactory arrangement. The French Government, however, had recently sent over a gentleman to this country, specially commissioned to negociate with the Government on the terms on which the regulation could be relaxed; and the result of communications with that gentleman was the treaty between the two Governments, a copy of which had been laid on the table of the House. It was to enable the Government to carry out certain stipulations in that treaty that he now moved for leave to bring in the present Bill. By this treaty various extensions of powers were proposed to be made in the Act of 1844, but as they were of a trifling description, he would not dwell upon them at length, contenting himself with a reference to the more important principle contained in the Bill to which he had already adverted. He would at once proceed to state what that principle was. It had been strongly pressed upon the Government by Franco that we should extend the protection now confined to original works to translations of works; and after some discussion the British Government agreed to that proposal, with certain restrictions and modifications. It was now intended to give protection to the authorised translation of the original work, on certain terms. It seemed to him unjust and improper to place translations on the same, or anything like the same, footing as original publications, for he thought there was a plain distinction between them. It might, indeed, be contended that a translation, being the result of a new application of original labour, should be considered as an independent work, and under certain circumstances he thought that was so. Translations of works of imagination and poems, even of works of fiction (for instance, one of Sir Walter Scott's novels), must, it was clear, be very imperfect, if they had not in a great degree the merit of the original works. On the other hand, there was a class of works purely historical and scientific, as Humboldt's Cosmos (which
500
had been translated by various persons in England), the translations of which were little more than mere reproductions of the original work, by a merely mechanical operation. Taking all these questions into consideration, it appeared to the Government that it would not be right to accede to the proposal of the French Government, or to grant a very extended protection to translations; but that it might be just, that it would be a great advantage to the author of the original work, and that the general advantages of the arrangement would more than counterbalance any inconveniences which might arise from it, if for a certain limited period protection were given to the authorised translation of an original work. It was agreed, therefore, that for a period of five years the author of an original work, published in either country, should be entitled to protection for the translation which he himself authorised, provided that at the time he published the original he announced on the title-page of such first publication his intention of protecting the translation, and that the latter was published within a certain limited period after the former. This was the principal provision of the Bill; which would, however, not only enable the Government to carry out the convention into which they had entered with France, but would enable them to make similar conventions with other Powers; for it was clear that the law on the subject should be of universal application; and that if we entered into a convention of this kind with France we should be prepared to make similar conventions with all other countries who were willing to enter into them. The measure would also extend the power of the Crown, and might lead to future negotiations with such other countries as should be desirous to make arrangements similar to those which had been entered into with France. The Bill, in fact, not only carried into effect the convention with France, but must also be regarded as a sort of complement to the measure of 1844.
VISCOUNT MAHONsaid, that, so far from offering any opposition to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought, on the contrary, that he was entitled to the thanks of the public for the care he had bestowed on the subject. He thought also that the thanks of the public, and more especially of men of letters, were due to the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), under

501
whose administration of the Foreign Office language, there was no country with which, this treaty was entered into. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had taken a just view of the subject of translations; it was a subject of difficulty—for while, on the one hand, translations could not claim to be put on a footing with original works, on the other hand, he concurred with him that they were entitled to some degree of protection. There was an obvious advantage to the public in such a course. They had an example in the case of the work that had been cited by the right hon. Gentleman, Humboldt's Cosmos; it was a strictly scientific work, without any room for the play of fancy, or for any especial felicity of diction; but yet, even in a work of this kind there was a great difference in the degree of merit of the various translations of it, and the popular acceptance of such a work must depend upon the fidelity with which the translation of the work may have been executed. It was of advantage to the public that there should be one translation that should come forward under the auspices of the author of the original work, and that they should give to the author of the original work some interest in providing an authorised translation. On that ground he thought the right hon. Gentleman had taken a just view of the subject, or had fixed a proper period, for the present at least, when he named five years as the time of vested right in translations; and he trusted there would be no division of opinion as to the utility of passing this Bill. His learned Friend Mr. Justice Talfourd introduced the Bill on the subject, and when he ceased to be a Member of the House that Bill came into his (Viscount Mahon's) hands; but he (Viscount Mahon) and Mr. Justice Talfourd both felt they could not complete the subject in a satisfactory manner without the aid of a treaty respecting international copyright. He rejoiced to sec that some progress had been made towards effecting that object; and he was anxious to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman in what condition they stood with respect to other countries besides those which he had mentioned. There were two countries of especial importance—Belgium, which, from its geographical position and manufactures, was able to compete in many respects with great advantage with England and France; and there was another country of still more importance—the United States of America. In consequence of the affinity of race and of
502
language, there was no country with which it was more desirable that they should come to a good understanding with regard to copyright, or any other subject, than the United States of America. He had reason to believe, from communications from that country, that there was now (what there was not at a former period) a growing wish for the establishment of a system of copyright between the two countries; and he hoped that the negotiations on that subject would now have a happier issue than at a former period. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman if any negotiations were in progress between those countries to which he had referred, or whether he could hold out to them the expectation of establishing such negotiations on the passing of this Bill?
MR. LABOUCHEREcould only say, in answer to the question of the noble Lord, that at present he was not aware of any negotiations going on with any country but the one he had already adverted to; but it was the intention of Government, when this Bill should become law, to communicate the law as it should then stand to the various countries of the world, especially to the United States, and to urge upon them the subject, in order that a negotiation might be entered into that would lead to a satisfactory conclusion.
Leave given. Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Attorney General.

PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION (SCOTLAND).
The LORD ADVOCATEmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the Right of Voting for Members of Parliament, and to amend the Laws relating to the Representation of the People in Scotland. The learned Lord said that the provisions of this Bill would be so nearly identical with those of the Bill moved the other night, by the noble Lord at the head of the Government for England, that he need not detain the House with many observations. There was a topic, however, to which he could not help adverting. It was the good fortune of his noble Friend who introduced the English Bill, not only to have introduced and witnessed throughout its whole career the results of the first measure of reform, but also to have been the instrument of introducing the second measure, which was intended to extend it. In regard to reform in Scot-

503
land, the case was different, Of his great countryman who introduced the former Bill (Lord Jeffrey), unfortunately we bad nothing now left except the fruit of his public labours and the honoured memory of his name; and he (the Lord Advocate) could not more properly and more appropriately commence the honourable and gratifying task committed to him than by recalling to the recollection of the House the name of one who devoted, during so long a period of his life, his great ability to the cause of the liberties of his country—a man who had spread the fame of Scotland throughout every part of the world where the English language was understood, and whose name would he venerated and loved by every true son of Scotland as long as genius and eloquence, and learning, and patriotism, were honoured and appreciated. When Francis Jeffrey moved the first Reform Bill for Scotland, he had a task imposed upon him which, in some particulars, was even one of greater interest than that which had devolved upon his noble Friend in the introduction of the Bill for England. The electoral system of England, though overlaid by antiquated abuses, yet preserved in its form, and to a certain extent in its substance, something of popular representation. Scotland at that time bad not even its shadow. The state of the representation in Scotland before the Reform Bill, would, when a few years had passed away, be entitled to a place among the fabulous parts of Scottish history. The county representation was vested in a small knot of landholders called the Court of Freeholders, not freeholders in the English acceptation of the word, but persons holding directly of the Crown property valued according to certain ancient valuations at a certain amount; and this body was only diversified by the introduction, when political animosity ran high, of certain very expensive but altogether fictitious tenures. As for the borough representation, it was still more unpopular, for the town-councils were the only constituencies, and they not only elected their representatives, but also elected themselves. The House might well conceive to what extent representatives so elected, and constituencies so constituted, were calculated to reflect the opinions of the people. That, notwithstanding such a system of representation, Scotland should have flourished as it did, did not prove that popular representation was of no value, but simply what the energy of a nation might
504
do, notwithstanding the greatest political disadvantages. When Lord Jeffrey proposed the former Bill, it would not have been extraordinary if, in introducing popular representation into Scotland for the first time, the gratification of success had been to a certain extent blended with anxiety; if the Reform Bill was an experiment in England, it was so to a much greater extent in Scotland. But, if an experiment, it had proved completely a successful one. His countrymen had made good use of their privilege. There was no part of the United Kingdom in which the franchise had been more honestly or more independently exercised. He could only hope that if this measure should pass, the same use might be made of it, and that Scotland would maintain and increase her character for purity in elections. He hoped that all parties—candidate and voter, landlord and tenant, employer and employed—would make it their pride and duty to maintain the national character for self-respect and independence, without which popular institutions were at the best but a doubtful good. In regard to the results of the Reform Bill, that part of the subject was one too general for him then to enter on. But he must be allowed to say, when the Reform Bill was spoken of as a failure—however true that might be in a comparative sense, that, as a positive proposition, he could not help thinking the reverse was true. He knew at least that in Scotland it had been productive of great benefits. A great though peaceful revolution in politics and political sentiment had taken place within the last twenty-one years. Any man who saw what an increase of strength public opinion had received during that time, how much the country had found both a voice and a response within the walls of that House, what an increased sense of responsibility prevailed, and what an improvement had taken place in the tone of political morality, must be convinced that, whatever the Reform Bill might not have done, it was impossible to estimate too highly that which it had done. The Government were taunted with the fact, that there was no popular excitement on the subject of reform. They were told within that House and without, that apathy prevailed, that no crowds were gathering round the walls of Parliament to learn the probable fate of the measure. That was perfectly true; and the case being so, he said, if this were the first measure of the kind proposed in peaceful times, and dis-

505
cussed without excitement, it was one of the greatest distinctions such a measure could possess. But further, there could not be a more expressive, though silent, tribute to the merits of the former Bill. If the people were content to leave the matter for discussion with the House, if that cry of reform, which had been the battle cry from the Rockingham Ministry till the time of Lord Grey, was no longer heard as at former periods, the extinction of that cry was itself one of the greatest triumphs of the former Reform Bill. The reason why it had ceased was, that the system established by the Reform Bill had drawn together more closely the representatives and the people. The people had more confidence than formerly that they would obtain justice in that House, and they felt that it was not necessary to agitate for justice out of it. If there was at the time of the Reform Bill excitement among those who were anxious for progress, there were on the other side tremors among those who were afraid of it. Were there no anticipations of ruin to the constitution? In Scotland, at least, there were many expressed; and now, when a measure was proposed carrying much further the same popular principles, he asked why there were none of those tremors or fears? The moral he read from the position of matters was this, that the Reform Bill had created in the minds of the people a measure of confidence in the Legislature such as it never possessed before; and, on the other hand, those who were jealous of the effects of popular influence, and afraid of the popular voice, had learned at last the still more salutary lesson of confidence in their countrymen. With these few introductory remarks, he would proceed to explain, as shortly as he could, the specific provisions of the measure he had to propose. With respect to the enfranchising clauses, they were, as he had already remarked, almost exactly analogous—they corresponded almost exactly—with those of the English Bill; for instance, at present the right of voting for the county representation was vested, first, in proprietors of real estate and holders of long leases of 10 l. annual value; and, in the second place, in those who held of a landlord paying 50 l. of yearly rent. It was proposed by the present Bill to reduce the amount conferring the property and long leasehold qualification from 10 l. to 5l., and to reduce the 50 l. qualification for those paying rent to 20 l. Then
506
with respect to burghs, the 10 l. occupation franchise was to be reduced to 5l.; and the same provision was to be made with respect to the vote depending on direct taxation, as had been announced with reference to the English Bill. Beyond these points, he did not know that there was anything to explain relating to the franchise. But there were two other points to which he would direct the attention of the House, and which, as regarded Scotland, were of no inconsiderable importance. First, it was thought that in any revision of the electoral system there should he an endeavour to secure that the franchise should be real, honest, and substantial. He did not need to remind hon. Members acquainted with Scotland, that, owing, he supposed, principally to the smallness of the constituencies, there had been, for many years after the Reform Bill, a great manufacture of fictitious votes. He did not mean to take credit for the one side, or to throw blame on the other, with reference to the manufacture of these votes. Both parties, it must be said, had availed themselves very considerably of the facilities they had under the old Reform Bill for carrying on that manufacture; and at the present time he thought he might safely say that both were very considerably tired of it. In extending the franchise, however, the endeavour should he made to procure, if possible, the means of protecting it from invasion by fictitious qualifications. It was proposed, then, in the first place, to insist that parties claiming upon a property qualification should be infeft, which was a step necessary by the law of Scotland to complete a real title, a feudal title, without which the creditor of a party could not attach the property, and without which the party himself had only a personal right. In the second place, it was proposed that persons holding property in joint liferent, who were not placed in that position by succession or by marriage, should not be entitled to enrolment as voters. Hon. Gentlemen acquainted with the law of Scotland would well understand the intention of that provision. The conveyance of a liferent by one man to another during his life, was a kind of right hardly known in ordinary practice to the law. It was competent for a person to convey a liferent to another; but a liferent to two persons jointly, granted by a man possessor of an estate during his own life, was so rare in ordinary transactions, that, by excluding from the register a per-

507
son who held in joint liferent, no one would be excluded who could be supposed to be one really possessing a genuine qualification. There had, however, been a practice of manufacturing votes by large clusters by means of liferents; 20, or 25, or 30 parties were joined together in one deed, thus creating 20, or 25, or 30 liferent votes; and the extent of these creations, and the facilities which existed for them, were notorious to every man who knew anything of legal proceedings in Scotland. It was therefore proposed that joint liferenters should not be entitled to be enrolled, when liferenters by constitution. Then it was proposed to define and explain the old law of Scotland with respect to nominal and fictitious qualifications; so that in those cases, where real and substantial rights were never intended to be conveyed, the claim to be placed on the register should be rejected. Prom the working of the system in Scotland, it had been found very doubtful whether the old law was applicable to the state of matters which had arisen under the Reform Act. So much for the second of those provisions which the Bill was intended to embrace, relating to the reality of the franchise. There was a third matter on which legislation would, he trusted, be productive of great improvement. Perhaps it might not be generally known that in Scotland the Registration Court consisted, first, of the sheriff, and, secondly, of the Appeal Court, which was constituted by the sheriffs of particular districts. One result had happened from this form of tribunal—that the sheriff of one district decided one way, and the sheriff of another district decided another way; and there was no supereminent tribunal whose decisions might give uniformity to the law relating to registration. It was almost unnecessary to remark that any enfranchising system which might be brought forward would be incomplete without an attempt to remedy that evil. Following the precedent set by a Bill introduced with respect to England in 1843, if he rightly recollected, by the right hon. Member for Ripon (Sir James Graham) [3 Hansard, lxvi. lxvii.], the Government proposed to institute a right of appeal, on points of law only, either from the sheriff or from the Court of Appeal to the Judges of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland. They proposed to make the appeal to that Court, because, from the small amount of business before it, and from the general
508
nature of that business, there seemed to be every reason to believe that a short, summary, and inexpensive mode of bringing appeals to that tribunal might be established without interfering with the ordinary business of the Court. He made that observation, because otherwise it would not appear why that tribunal was selected as a court of ultimate appeal. The object was to afford a compendious and effective court of appeal on points of law, so that the working of the appeal would be, that when a party appealed from the sheriff to the Court of Exchequer at once, he was foreclosed from opening the question in other respects; and if he chose to appeal from the sheriff to the Court of Appeal, and took his chance there, he still had the right of appeal on the law of the case to the Court of Exchequer. With these short explanations, he begged to move for leave to bring in the Bill; and he would conclude by expressing the hope, that as the privileges of the constitution were extended to a lower class, so it would be deeper rooted in the affections of society, and tend more and more to the welfare of the country.
MR. CUMMING BRUCEsaid, that, in the eloquent panegyric which the learned Lord had passed on his eloquent predecessor, whom all who knew must esteem and admire, as one distinguished by great ability and not less distinguished by every good and amiable quality of life, he cordially concurred; but with regard to the measure introduced by the noble Lord, he could not allow even the first stage to be taken in regard to it, without expressing his strong conviction that it was most ill-timed, uncalled for, and in a wrong direction. The provision which the learned Lord had shadowed forth as affecting the county constituencies of Scotland—with which he was more immediately concerned—would, he believed, furnish a class of persons much less qualified to exercise the franchise with advantage to the country than those who were now entitled to vote. He did not mean to say that tenants occupying farms between 20 l. and 50 l. were not a class of persons as upright, independent, and well qualified to possess the franchise as were those who held for terms of a greater extent; but he conceived that all unnecessary peddling with the basis upon which their representative constitution rested was most mischievous, and must be productive of evil consequences. No increase of the county franchise in Scotland

509
was required. Though he did not object to the class which the Bill proposed to enfranchise, yet he thought it was altogether; uncalled for and unrequired. With regard to the lowering of the qualification for burghs to 5l., he was not sure whether the noble Lord meant a 5l. rating, as in the English Bill, or a 5l. occupancy; but his own knowledge and experience, and all he had heard of the working of the Reform Bill, led him to believe it went a great deal too low. He could not say, from the attention he had been able to give to the statement of the learned Lord, whether he should feel it to be his bounden duty to oppose this Bill; but he thought that by its operation there would be an interference with the independent exorcise of the franchise in the larger towns of Scotland. The learned Lord had greatly glorified the introducer of the former Reform Bill, in consequence of the good effects it had produced. He (Mr. C. Bruce) was one of those who sat in the House when the former measure was introduced, and he had felt it his duty to oppose almost every clause except the clause referring to the county voters; and he was free to confess that the evils he had expected from the Bill were not realised to the extent he had apprehended. When the learned Lord, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government, glorified themselves on the manifold good produced by the Reform Bill, he (Mr. C. Bruce) asked, if under that Bill they were yet able to answer the question put by an illustrious man. "How is the Queen's Government to be carried on?" How would they be able to answer it after the passing of the proposed measure? Let them consider what was the power of the Government and of the Legislature since the Reform Bill had passed. Let them consider their relative positions at that moment. Had they not seen Governments, and particularly during the official existence of the parties now in power, at a dead lock, and was it not often found impossible to carry on the business of the country? The move about to be taken would make it still more difficult to answer the question how the Queen's Government was to be carried on; and he could not consider it otherwise than ill-timed, mischievous, and uncalled for. The hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Baillie) had the other night let fall sentiments in which he could not concur. The hon. Member seemed to think that it was a good opportunity for giving a larger num-
510
ber of Members to Scotland; but he (Mr. C. Bruce) did not think that Scotland required more Members than she had—he did not think she would be a gainer by having ten seats transferred from English boroughs to Scotch burghs. He believed that in the English Parliament his country received a full measure of justice, and that English Members felt as anxious to promote the interests of Scotland, and attended as much to her prosperity, as the Members for that country themselves. The hon. Member had also said that the duration of Parliament should be shortened, and he (Mr. C. Bruce) also dissented from that opinion. The shortening of the duration of Parliament would increase the difficulty of finding persons willing to undertake the responsible duties of representing the interests of Scotland in Parliament. That country was now represented by men who had no motive for seeking a seat in that House but to do their duty to their country. If the duration of Parliaments were shortened to three from seven years, the difficulty of getting persons to perform those laborious duties would be greatly increased. The quality of the representation would undergo a change, and the "Mountain" section of that House would send the fag-end of their agitators to the hustings; the ballot would be introduced; and no doubt some of those candidates would be returned for the large towns; but he doubted whether the nation at large would be benefited. With respect to the provisions which had reference to fictitious voting, he begged to say that he most cordially thanked the learned Lord for having undertaken to deal with the subject, and would go with him heartily in any part of his Bill which tended to prevent anything of the kind.
MR. HUMEwas not surprised at the observations of the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bruce). He was only consistent; for since he had been in Parliament, he had always been a strenuous opponent of reform and popular progress. He did expect that the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, by his enlightened speech, with which he (Mr. Hume) was delighted, would have benefited those around him more than it appeared he had. He was sorry for it; but he thanked the hon. Member for the very able manner in which he had stated what the Government ought to have done, lie wished they had done so, for they would have avoided what the hon. Member well called this peddling reform. This was a

511
peddling measure of reform, both for England and Scotland; and the noble Lord, who professed to be a bold reformer, when the advocates of reform had been for fifteen years pointing out the errors of the Reform Bill, used to reply there could not be a Reform Bill every year. Now, this peddling measure would indeed necessitate a Reform Bill every year. He was not surprised that the hon. Member for Elginshire should concur with the Duke of Wellington in asking "How the Queen's Government was to be carried on?" But he (Mr. Hume) was of opinion that if the noble Duke and every Member of every Government were swept away, the common sense of the people would soon show how the Queen's Government was to be carried on. He had such confidence in the people of Scotland and England as to believe that they would always select proper Members; and it was an insult to his countrymen to say that they would accept of the "fagend" of any party. They were as good judges of proper representatives as the hon. Gentlemen or any of his friends, and it was not treating them well to make such an assertion. The hon. Member looked back with regret to the period of the Reform Bill, but yet he admitted that all the alarms he felt at the time were groundless. He held the same opinion as to the present measure; but he should not be alarmed now, and believe that those who were bringing in this "peddling" measure were doing no more to realise anticipation of disaster than they had done in introducing the original Reform Bill. As to the Bill now introduced, it was to him a matter of great satisfaction to hear the opinion of the learned Lord. He, unlike the learned Lord, could go back to the years 1817, 1818, and 1819, when, as a Reformer, he proposed a change in the Scotch borough system. At that time he was met by hon. Gentlemen connected with Scotland who were determined to stand by the representative system as it then existed. He was now, however, told that great advantage had arisen from the popular franchise in Scotland which had since been given, and that the people had made good and proper use of it. He was certain that that would be the case; and, therefore, was it that he desired to see that franchise further extended. He was opposed to an arbitrary line being drawn, by which one man should have the privilege of electing a Member of Parliament, and another man, equally valuable to society, should be deprived of
512
that privilege, or rather of that right; for he differed from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and would not call it a privilege. The noble Lord would soon be called upon to give chapter and verse for his authority in support of that strange doctrine which he had laid down—that every man in society had not a right to elect Members to represent his interest in Parliament. Men who associated together and formed a community resigned such of their natural rights as it was found convenient for them to do for the general benefit, while they retained all those which could be exercised by each individual without detriment to the general weal. The noble Lord, however, had broached a different doctrine, and in doing so was laying the ground for continual agitation on the subject. He (Mr. Hume) only wished he could live for twenty years longer, to trouble the noble Lord every year. He should certainly prove a thorn in the side of the noble Lord; for the doctrine he had promulgated was decidedly at variance with all sound policy and common sense. It was entirely at variance with that principle of justice on which he ought to place the population of the country in regard to the rights they were entitled to enjoy. He would ask the learned Lord (the Lord Advocate) why Scotland should not he placed on the some footing as England? Why not give a 40 s. freehold franchise to Scotland? If the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had wished to give satisfaction, and to save trouble, expense, and annoyance, he would have made one registration both for England and Scotland sufficient for all municipal and Parliamentary purposes. Why should not a man who voted for a municipal officer equally have a voice in the election of a Member of Parliament? A more trustworthy class than the municipal voters did not exist. He did not, however, disapprove of all the doings of the noble Lord. In bringing down the franchise to 5l., the noble Lord had acted wisely, but he ought to have gone further. With regard to the counties of Scotland, it was impossible the present proposal could be considered satisfactory. Some of the counties had not more than 2,000 electors, and yet it was intended to continue a system which was discreditable to the Legislature, and an insult to the people. He hoped the House would not sanction such a stigma on the population of the counties, but extend to them the same franchise as was to be given to the towns. Without

513
going further into the question now, he would observe that while he was willing to accept everything which tended to a step forward in the emancipation of his countrymen, and by which the basis of the constitution would be widened, while at the same time the Crown and the proper authorities of the country were maintained, he believed that in order to give the people an interest in good government, the more the suffrage was extended the better. He called this a peddling measure, and one which would cause a Reform Bill every year. The noble Lord would do well to consider the question of triennial Parliaments and the ballot, the absence of which he (Mr. Hume) thought the greatest defect of this measure.
MR. FORBES MACKENZIErose, not for the purpose of offering any remarks upon the details of the Bill; these he should reserve till it came to a second reading; but he wished to put a question to the learned Lord Advocate with regard to a circumstance which took place on the first Reform Bill. It was well known to all Scotchmen, that, in ascertaining the value of property in Scotland which gave the franchise, the fact of its being charged with debt was not taken into consideration. Thus, if a house of the yearly value of 10 l. was saddled with an incumbrance of 200 l., it still conferred the franchise. What he desired to know then was, if it was intended by the present Bill to make the qualification a bonâ fide one, and in ascertaining its value make allowance for the amount of debt with which it might be charged?
The LORD ADVOCATEwas understood to say that the law of Scotland did not at present require that the property should be free from debt, in order to give a right of voting. The present Bill would contain provisions on that subject intended to prevent that state of the law being abused, in the way of creating fictitious votes. The subject had been made a matter of consultation, the result of which was, that no alteration in the law should be made in any other respect. He should be ready at a future day to explain the reasons for that decision. Scotland having a very perfect system of registration of titles, stood in a different position from England with regard to the power of parties to make real property the subject of credit, and he thought it would considerably limit the right of voting, and throw obstacles in the way of ordinary and bonâ
514
fide transactions, were they to alter the law.
MR. JOHN STUARTthought that if the Bill were accurately described by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), when he said that, instead of improving the representation either of counties or boroughs, it would only lead to continual agitations upon the subject, then it was deeply to be regretted that the fruits of the noble Lord's labours should be so unworthy the attention of the Douse. To him it was a matter of great surprise that upon the introduction of a question of this kind, and when the learned Lord Advocate referred to what took place on the Scotch Reform Bill of 1832, he did not also notice the fact that the sense of the House was on that occasion taken, after an extraordinary debate, upon the question of the county representation in Scotland. It was then proposed to the House that the county representation of Scotland should be revised, in regard to the number of Members who should appear in this House as the representatives of Scotch counties; and its attention was called to the circumstance that several of the great counties of Scotland—Perthshire, Aberdeenshire, Lanarkshire, and Inverness-shire—all of them having immense populations and a large amount of property, returning to this House but one Member each, whilst insignificant boroughs in England, with not one-tenth of their populations, or of their importance in point of property, returned two Members to Parliament? The proposition made by Sir George Murray upon this subject had the support of a considerable portion of the Members of this House, and it had the reluctant, the avowedly-reluctant, opposition of Lord Jeffrey; and his (Mr. Stuart's) hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce), who had declared his change of opinion upon other matters, seemed to have changed his opinion also on that; for if he (Mr. Stuart) was not mistaken, his hon. Friend voted at that time for Sir G. Murray's Amendment. Well, a proposition, reluctantly opposed by Lord Jeffrey, and founded upon justice and common sense, was at least entitled to consideration in bringing forward a measure of this kind. The circumstances and the situation of the constituencies of the larger Scotch counties were very extraordinary indeed; and he hoped that when the attention of Government should be applied to this point, they would give it their full and fair con-

515
sideration, and introduce some proposal which would render it unnecessary for an independent Member of the House to raise a discussion upon the subject. Let them take the case of the county of Inverness, with a population of above 100,000, and they would find that little short of one-half of that county was in the Western Isles, totally dissociated from the other parts of the county, with interests altogether different from the interests of the great body of the inhabitants and proprietors in the same county on the eastern coast. He submitted it to the consideration of the Government, therefore, whether a more reasonable proposal could be made than that the county of Inverness should, in future, like some of the counties of England, be constituted of two divisions, each of which should return its own Member to this House? He mentioned this proposition with no hostile view, but with the view of making this Bill something which should really improve the representation of Scotland, and render it worthy of a measure proposed for the adoption of that House.
MR. EWARTsaid, that while he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose upon the general principle of widening the basis of representation in Scotland, he differed from him with regard to making payment of rates the basis of representation in that country, as it was well known that in many parts of Scotland the people were not rated at all. He had not yet heard whether the 40 s. freeholders in Scotland were to be put on the same footing as those in England. He hoped, on the second reading of the Bill, the House would have that matter cleared up to its satisfaction. He might say that he cordially approved of that part of the noble and learned Lord's Bill intended to put a stop to the practice of fictitious voting.
MR. MACGREGORsaid, he always held the principle that taxation and representation should go hand in hand. He considered that the Bill was exceedingly unsatisfactory with regard to Scotland, and that it was casting an extraordinary reflection on the property, industry, and intelligence of that part of the kingdom, that it should only be represented in that House by 53 Members. He agreed with all that had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Newark (Mr. John Stuart), with respect to the large Scotch counties. He would take the case of Aberdeenshire, with its immense population and its exten-
516
sive trade, and when he knew that it only sent one Member to Parliament, and that no addition was to be made in its representation by this Bill, he said such a state of things was exceedingly unjust with regard to Scotland, and to that populous and thriving district of it in particular. He should reserve his opinion upon the details of the Bill itself until it came before the House; but he did trust that, with reference to the large counties and cities in Scotland, some alteration would be made in it before it received the sanction of the House. When he looked to the city of Glasgow, containing, with its suburbs, half a million of inhabitants, and yet only sending two Members to Parliament, while miserable places like Harwich, and others, returned each two, he said this Bill would only be an instalment of the reform in the representation which the people of Scotland had a right to look to in future. He would accept the measures proposed by Government as an instalment of justice as regarded England and Ireland; but that portion of them which regarded Scotland he considered as utterly unjust.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Fox Maule.

PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION (IRELAND).
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the Right of Voting for Members of Parliament, and to amend the Laws relating to the Representation of the People in Ireland, and said, that the question of the Irish franchise having been so recently under the consideration of the House, the Bill he now proposed to introduce would not deal so extensively with that subject as it would have done had not the subject been so recently before Parliament. The House would remember that in the year 1850 it was his duty, in consequence of the almost extinction of the county constituencies in Ireland, to submit for their acceptance a Bill for the amendment of the representation in that country. The House would also remember that at that period the measure to which he alluded underwent very great discussion, and he believed there was scarcely a Gentleman in the House who was not fully convinced that the time had arrived when the interference of the Legislature was absolutely necessary. At that time the county re-

517
presentation for Ireland gave about 27,000 electors; that was to say, there was that number of electors on the register, though the actual number was considerably below it. He had introduced a Bill in the year 1848 to place the county franchise on a new basis, namely, that of rating; but that Bill was subsequently withdrawn. In 1850 he introduced it again, and had the satisfaction, with the concurrence of the House, of finally passing it into a law. The effect of that enactment upon the representation of Ireland might now be fairly judged of from the returns which had been laid upon the table of the House, which afforded the means of comparing the number of county electors on the register before and after the passing of that Act. [Parliamentary Papers, No. Session 1852.] Previous to the passing of that measure the number of county electors upon the register was 27,000, being, as he had already observed, a far greater number than the bonâ fide county electors really amounted to. The state of the county franchise there at the present moment was as follows: Instead of the 27,180 electors who were on the register before the Act of 1850, the effect of that measure had been to increase the number to 135,645. He believed, moreover, that the machinery of the Bill had worked satisfactorily; therefore the Bill which, with the permission of the House, he should now bring in, was not designed to interfere in any way whatever with the county franchise. But the state of things with regard to cities and boroughs in Ireland presented a widely-different aspect. Under the registration system, before the existing law was passed, the number of voters upon the register for counties of cities, and counties of towns and for boroughs in Ireland, was as follows—though, as was the case with the county constituencies, the number of bonâ fide electors was, in reality, much less. The numbers which appeared at that time on the register were—for counties of cities and counties of towns, 21,863, and for boroughs, 11,993. These numbers, he should repeat, were known to be far beyond the real bonâ fide number of voters at that period. Several severe and closely-contested elections showed that the actual number of voters was considerably less. But, taking those numbers as they stood on the register in 1850, what did the returns show to be the number on the register since the passing of the Bill of that year? It ap-
518
peared that the number on the register in the year 1851 for counties of cities or towns was 20,255, and for boroughs was 8,046; thereby showing that the constituencies had not increased, but that there had been a considerable diminution of electors, as compared with the year 1850 under the old law. Now, it was undoubtedly intended that the Act of 1850 should extend the number of voters; but, instead of doing so, a decrease had been the result. The proposal contained in the Bill, which he hoped, with the permission of the House, to introduce this evening, would therefore be to reduce the borough franchise in Ireland from an 8l. rating to a 5l. rating. It would be further observed, upon reference to the returns on the table of the House, that the number of voters in many of the boroughs in Ireland was exceedingly small; and that the number in the counties of cities and counties of towns was in every instance above 500. Therefore it was not intended to take any measures whatever, further than the reduction of the voting qualification from an 8l. to a 5l. rating, so far as regards the counties of cities and the counties of towns; but as regarded the towns where the number of voters was in many instances exceedingly small, it was proposed to apply the same principle as the Bill brought in by his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) applied to England—a principle which was recommended when the Bill of 1832 was before the House—and associate with such boroughs certain towns in their neighbourhood, situate in the same or an adjoining county, which would have the effect of greatly increasing the number of voters. He proposed, therefore, in every instance where the number of electors now upon the register did not amount to 400, to associate with the parent borough one or more towns in its vicinity in the same or the neighbouring county, and so increase the number of voters. By reference to the returns before the House, it would be seen that this provision of the Bill would affect every borough in Ireland, with the exception only of Belfast and Newry. He would not at present enter further into the details of the Bill, and the provisions it contained for registration, polling, and the rest of the necessary machinery. The Bill would not be a very long one; and he trusted that the plan it was intended to carry out would prove satisfactory to the House.
MR. WHITESIDEthought that a more

519
unnecessary Bill had never been introduced; but he did not wish to oppose the introduction of a measure the principle of which the House had affirmed in the case of England, and he was willing to look at it as a measure which the Government proposed for the solution of the problem how to remedy the evils of Ireland. It required the genius of a statesman to discover the necessity for altering, at the present moment, the franchise in Ireland. He must, however, congratulate the right hon. Baronet on being himself the individual to discern the necessity of reforming his own Reform Bill, which, be it remembered, was yet scarcely twelve months old. It escaped all common understanding why the Ministry should be so anxious to pass the present measure. Supposing that the Government had been compelled by some great outburst of public feeling to introduce this Bill, he had turned back to the Reports of the Committee on Public Petitions; and on looking to the petition that had been presented to the House, in favour of Parliamentary Reform in Ireland, he found that in 1850 there was one petition, signed by 49 persons, for, and one petition, signed by 39 persons, against, that measure—majority in favour of the Bill, 10. He found that in 1851, the return as to the petitions from Ireland respecting Parliamentary reform was "nil." And, indeed, he firmly believed that it would be impossible to find, in Ireland, any body of individuals, in a respectable position of life, to set their hands and signatures to any petition praying the House to extend the franchise, in the present condition of that country, to 5l. householders. He did not believe that it would be possible to find such petitioners; because he knew it was a general conviction that such an extension would be a measure to transfer political power from those best fitted by their education and position to possess it, to those who were least qualified to enjoy it. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) grounded his proposal of Parliamentary reform in respect to England upon the great increase of late years of newspaper circulation and newspaper knowledge among the people. But the same reasons could not be adduced in regard to Ireland. The Government of the noble Lord had been very unceremonious in its treatment of newspaper editors in Ireland, inasmuch as the noble Lord had felt it his duty to transport a good many of them; and as to those who
520
lad escaped prosecutions, the noble Lord it the head of Government in Ireland had utterly regretted their escape, alleging as reason that the instructors of the public and of the popular mind in Ireland were in the habit of inculcating lessons which were opposed to all order, and to the peace and well-being of the country. The grounds of the Government measure failed, therefore, in reference to his (Mr. Whiteside's) unfortunate country. He would admit, however, most readily with the noble Lord, that there had been an increase of knowledge in Ireland; for it had been recently remarked by the police that the Ribbon notices were written in a much better style than was formerly the case—the handwriting was better, and the orthography more correct; and if the noble Lord would inquire, he would find that the reason of this was that some of the school-masters who were paid out of the national funds were the writing preceptors of these Ribbonmen. What was the case now? That very gentleman whose case had recently been before the world, and who was now lingering in torture and upon the point of death, had been shot because he had signed as a magistrate the commitment of a schoolmaster who had been de-detected in the act of writing a Ribbon notice. Well, that confederacy was in most active and formidable existence in several towns; and the first result of a measure of this description, decreasing the suffrage test, would be greatly to extend the power of that body. The description given by the right hon. Baronet of the Reform Bill of 1850—that Bill which they were now again to reform—was, that it ought to be received as a wise, just, and liberal measure. But the condemnation of this Bill was to be found in the reasons offered for the first Bill. The registration under the Reform Bill of 1850 had only just been completed; 110,000 persons had been added to the constituency, but they had never had an opportunity of exercising their new power, and they had never had a general election in Ireland since they had obtained those advantages, under a measure described as wise, liberal, and just. There had been no instances of corruption at isolated elections, because there had been no Coppock. The last Reform Bill had never yet been tried, and yet it was under such circumstances that the right hon. Baronet came forward to condemn his own Reform Bill, and to declare that

521
it was necessary to the peace of Ireland that we should have another Reform Bill; and the probability was that they were to have a reformed Reform Bill every year they lived. Concurrently, however, with this vast increase of the Irish constituency, there had been a vast diminution of population. The reason alleged by the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh), in 1850, as necessitating the Bill of that year, was, that the population was 8,105,000. But what was it now? Let the right hon. Baronet look to the emigration returns, and he would find that in 1851 alone the emigration from Ireland amounted to 279,000—the diminution of the population was immense. What possible necessity then, could there be for a Bill like this? Who had called for it? Who had asked for it? Who had expected it? Why, not one man in Ireland. Therefore the Government was without any justification for this proposal, and in particular was without justification in contemplating a system of patching the representation by the association of the small boroughs with the small towns essentially of the counties—a system which had never existed in Ireland during the five centuries in which they had had Parliamentary representation. The Bill was entirely a mistake, and it was only to be described as a Bill for handing political power to those who were disqualified to exercise it. On one point in connexion with this measure he could congratulate the right hon. Baronet. It appeared to him (Mr. Whiteside) that the separation of the Irish and English Bill was judicious; for whatever might be the fate of the English Bill, he thought he might rely upon the good sense and discretion of Parliament to reject the Irish Bill. On another point he had to ask the right hon. Baronet a question; or he would put the question to his right hon. and learned Friend whom he saw opposite (Mr. Hatchell), and who had probably just returned from the Monaghan Commission. He had asked the right hon. Baronet the other evening whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to reform the jurors' lists of Ireland? and the answer of the right hon. Baronet was, that no reply could be given until the return of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland. On seeing his right hon. and learned Friend, he (Mr. Whiteside) had repeated the inquiry, and he was then informed that it was his intention to bring in such a Bill.
522
By the last Reform Bill—or, to speak more distinctly, by the last but two or three—it was intimated that there must be a concurrent alteration in the jurors' lists, and a Jurors' Bill followed the Reform Bill—the principle being that a 10 l. voter ought to be also a juror; and the noble Lord, in introducing his Reform Bill for England, (Lord J. Russell) had said with truth the other evening, that it was a very reasonable thing that a man qualified to serve on a jury should not be disqualified to vote for a Member of Parliament. He (Mr. Whiteside) now wanted to know from his right hon. and learned Friend, or from the right hon. Baronet, whether the Government intended to look the country in the face and to propose that the precedent established in connexion with the first Reform Bill should be preserved in the Bill which had been promised, though probably hastily, by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. In certain districts in Ireland the effect of creating 5l. jurors would be just this, to transfer the Ribbonman from the dock to the jury box, and the execution of criminal justice in that country would no longer be difficult, but would become impossible. It was therefore of great importance that the House should know whether this phantom, this Reform Bill, was likewise to be accompanied by a new Jurors' Bill. If that indeed were to be announced by the Government of this country, nothing would remain for the weak and innocent in Ireland but to prepare for death, and for the strong men but to take up arms and prepare to defend themselves against a confederacy which it appeared was already so strong and united as to have defied at the Monaghan Commission all the abilities of his right hon. and learned Friend, backed by a corps of Queen's Counsel to procure even a single conviction.
MR. HATCHELLsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations were made with a double view: first, to call the attention of the House to the necessity of amending the Reform Bill; and, next, to bring under discussion some intended Bill with respect to the formation of juries in Ireland. As to the latter, he thought it would be most unreasonable to expect him to enter upon the discussion of a measure which was not now before the House. As to the former point, the amendment of the Reform Bill, the hon. and learned Member seemed to intimate that the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville) had discovered

523
some great neglect or inaccuracy in the former Bill, which made it necessary to come again to the House before that Act had obtained a trial; but he (Mr. Hatchell) could only account for his learned Friend's ignorance of the question on the ground that he was not a Member of the House when that measure was under discussion; because there was at that time a strong desire expressed by several hon. Members that there should be engrafted on the Bill some such provisions as the right hon. Baronet now asked them to adopt; and, under a promise that the state of the franchise of the small boroughs and the question of connecting them with adjacent towns would be considered at a future period, the Bill passed without the Amendments which had been proposed. It would, therefore, be seen that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been treating the House to some of that declamation to which the people of Ireland were so well accustomed, without paying any very particular attention to facts. The hon. and learned Gentleman had likewise introduced the subject of the recent outrages in Ireland, and appeared to attribute them to the increase of education amongst the people of that country. Because, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, you have educated the people, they are enabled to dictate and write better English in their threatening notices to landlords. Such are the hon. and learned Gentleman's sentiments touching the education of the Irish people; and the hon. and learned Gentleman went further, and made use of expressions with regard to a great national institution which he (Mr. Hatchell) thought ought not to have been used in that House. The hon. and learned Gentleman told them the magistrate on whom a murderous outrage had been committed was attacked as he was returning from having signed the committal of a master of a national school for writing a threatening notice. The fact followed the committal certainly; but it was well known that that worthy and exemplary magistrate had, from time to time, been warned of his danger long before, and that the assassins who fired at him had been lying in wait for some time before, and at a distance of some miles from the town in which he signed the committal, and therefore the attack on him arose, not from the fact stated, but from circumstances connected with the agrarian outrages of that district. He had called attention to this because the hon. and learned Gentleman had endea-
524
voured to draw a false conclusion by begging premises which he was not justified in assuming.
MR. GROGANsaid, he had the advantage over his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside) in possessing a seat in that House in 1850, and he could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hatchell) that he remembered no such promise or understanding as that now mentioned in connection with the measure of that date. What he did remember was utterly inconsistent with any such understanding; for on a specific and positive Motion being made by his hon. colleague (Mr. Reynolds) to reduce the proposition of the Government from an 8l. to a 5l. rating clause, a division took place, and the whole weight of the Government was thrown into the scale against that Amendment. He would not oppose the introduction of this Bill; but he must protest at the outset against the wanton agitation into which the Government had plunged Ireland in introducing these different Reform Bills. But for the present Government, nothing whatever would have been heard of an Irish Reform Bill; and he could consider these successive measures as neither more nor less than traps to catch the wavering support of certain unattached parties, without whose occasional assistance Her Majesty's present Ministers would be utterly unable to keep their places.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I think that the hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland was perfectly justified in what he said in reference to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen. The hon. and learned Attorney General did not allude to any statement which was made during the progress of the last Reform Bill for Ireland as to reducing the borough franchise from 8l. to 5l., but what he did allude to was the very general wish which was expressed, on the part of Irish Members, that a plan should be considered, and should be introduced into that Bill, for embracing other towns and boroughs in Ireland than those which already possessed the franchise, and in which the body of electors was then too small, and would still continue to be too small under the measure then proposed to be passed. In answer to that call, I said I thought there were many objections to such a proposition, but at all events, it ought not to be adopted hastily; I did promise, however, that it should receive the future con-

525
sideration of the Government. To these facts my hon. and learned Friend alluded, and he is perfectly right in his recollection that such was the view taken by the Government. Well now, Sir, when we had, in accordance with all that was said in 1848, and, indeed, from 1837 to the present time, introduced a Bill to amend the laws relating to the representation of England, we Wad to consider whether there was anything in the Act of 1850 which required further amendment. It will be recollected that at the time some Irish Members said that, instead of the franchise being extended, it would be considerably restricted in the boroughs of Ireland. It was stated that the 8l. franchise would diminish the number of electors. My right hon. Friend near me, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, had a contrary impression; but when we come to the facts, it appears that while by the former return there were in the boroughs of Ireland, exclusive of the counties of cities and towns, 11,993 electors, there are by the last returns only 8,046. There is, therefore, a reduction of upwards of 3,000 (nearly 4,000) in that small number; and when we come to the particular instances, we are still more startled by the results. We find that in some cases the numbers stand as follows:—in Armagh, 318; Athlone, 181; Bandon, 209; Carlow, 237; Cashel, 111; Clonmel, 379; Coleraine, 222; Downpatrick, 236; Dundalk, 267; Dungannon, 158; Dungarvon, 314; Ennis, 143; Enniskillen, 172; Kinsale, 139; Lisburn, 188; Mallow, 143; New Ross, 171; Portarlington, 71; Sligo, 336; Tralee, 228; Wexford, 348; and Youghal, 261. So that, whether we looked to the general numbers, or whether we looked to the numbers of each particular borough, we did consider it reasonable further to extend the franchise, and to endeavour to ensure a larger number of electors in these small boroughs. It does appear to me, that with such facts before us, there were good primâ facie grounds for introducing this further measure. Now, Sir, I will not say anything further on that point. I must say, however, that I think the occasion upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite the Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) has chosen to introduce a sneer at my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, with the view of producing some laughter in the House, is hardly an occasion which is decent and proper. It is certainly true,
526
that the law officers of the Crown wont down to Monaghan to prosecute persons who were believed, in consequence of statements and of evidence laid before those learned Gentlemen, to have been guilty of secret atrocious murders. It has certainly also happened, that no person was convicted before that Commission. There has therefore been in that case, I apprehend, a failure of justice, and to my mind that is to be regarded as a most lamentable matter. It is one which ought to be a subject of deep concern to all Members of this House, if life and property are rendered less secure in these parts of Ireland; it is a subject which I am sure can afford no pleasure to any one; and I do not think it is an occasion for a lively sneer at the expense of a political opponent.
MR. REYNOLDSremembered that when an Irish Reform Bill was last before the House, the debate had been conducted without any heat. It was also to be remarked that the discussion on the Scotch Reform Bill, introduced that night, had been in perfect good temper. He therefore regretted that, on this occasion, on the bringing forward of a new Irish Reform Bill, gall and bitterness should have been instilled into the debate by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Enniskillen. It appeared to him (Mr. Reynolds) that the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman that evening was most injudicious. The hon. and learned Gentleman might have taken a better opportunity of bearing his angry testimony against his own countrymen. It appeared to him, that on an occasion like this, the people of Ireland ought not to be described by an Irishman to the British senate as perjurers and assassins, and, as such, unworthy to be possessed of civil rights. [Mr. WHITESIDE: I most distinctly deny the fact.] He was happy that the hon. and learned Gentleman was ready to deny the fact. But what had the hon. and learned Gentleman said? He said, "If you confer a 5l. franchise, you will not be able to execute the laws, because you will have your juries composed of Ribondmen to try their confederates." It was impossible to give utterance to a more infamous libel on the Irish people. He (Mr. Reynolds) must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that at the late special commission at Monaghan the juries were all Protestants. They were not at all composed of the peasant or of the farmer class; they were taken from the gentry of the country. And yet, in spite

527
of this, and although the accused had to contend with all the talent of the law officers of the Crown, a Protestant jury of that country could not agree in convicting the very Ribbonmen to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded. But what right had the hon. and learned Gentleman to mix this question with the question of the franchise? The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to gloat on the expectation that this Bill, though passed by the House of Commons, would be strangled elsewhere. He (Mr. Reynolds) would take the hint; and he begged to ask the noble Lord why he had not incorporated this miserable Bill—for it was only a miserable instalment of justice—with the English Bill? He could understand why the Scotch Bill should be made a separate Bill, seeing that the law of Scotland differed so widely from the law of England. But the same remark did not apply to the law of Ireland; and it appeared to him that there was no reason whatever why there should not be an incorporation of the English and Irish Bills. He had some fears on this subject. He remembered how Ireland was treated when the Municipal Reform Bill was passed; and he was under an apprehension that there was some thought in some quarters of playing the same game over again now. Were the Irish Members to be called upon to vote for the English Bill, and then to be left in the lurch in respect to the Bill for their own country? The advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) was to leave matters as they were. The hon. and learned Gentleman meant to say, "we are very well off in Enniskillen." But in glancing over the returns respecting the Parliamentary cities and boroughs in Ireland, he (Mr. Reynolds) saw reasons for thinking that no man, however in the abstract opposed to suffrage extension, would be disposed to leave the existing state of things in Ireland unaltered. He would call attention, in the first place, to the state of things in Enniskillen. That place, which had the honour (and he spoke without affectation when he said the honour) of sending the hon. and learned Gentleman to Parliament, possessed only 172 electors. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not even represent the 172; he represented only a majority of the 172; and that majority could not be very imposing. Why, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to let those of the people of Enniskillen who were rated at 5l. be included
528
in the Parliamentary franchise, he would only be creating 87 electors more; and no one would pretend to say, that even this constituency would be sufficiently large. Was the hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to contend that the city of Cashel, with its population of 8,000, ought only to have 111 Parliamentary voters? Take the case of Portarlington. Portarlington had only 71 voters. The majority of 71 was 36; and was a Member returned by 36 men a representative of the people? The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland had given the total number of electors in Ireland as 28,282. But the total had to be still further modified. Out of the 28,000 they had to deduct 6,000 freemen, who voted in virtue of no property qualifications whatever. In the city of Dublin he found 3,783 freemen entitled to vote, but not compelled to show a property qualification, although, no doubt, many of them could show such a qualification, and, in fact, possessed a double qualification. Now, how was it that in the Bill the freemen were to be passed over? According to the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) the basis of all these Bills—English, Scotch, and Irish—was the principle that taxation shall accompany representation. If this was so, were the four thousand freemen in the city of Dublin to continue to possess the right of voting irrespective of a property test? The noble Lord was not proposing a real Reform Bill while he was leaving this blotch on the Parliamentary roll. For his (Mr. Reynolds's) own part he had no confidence in this Bill. But, because he said this, let not hon. Gentlemen run away with the supposition that he was going to join in a vote with a man who had described his countrymen as a nation of perjurers and assassins. He acknowledged the urgent necessity of a Reform Bill for Ireland. He looked to these returns, and he could not get over the facts. He would remind the House that there were 33 cities and boroughs in Ireland which returned Members; and of these 33 cities and boroughs, he found four cities and boroughs—Dublin, Limerick, Belfast, and Cork—with a population in round numbers of 500,000, returning eight Members. He took the remaining 29 boroughs, with an aggregate population of 300,000, and he found that these returned 31 Members. With such a state of things as this existing, the horn and learned Member for Enniskillen could yet say that we required no reform at all.

529
He (Mr. Reynolds) could not coincide in opinion with the hon. Gentleman, and, though he did not pledge himself to the course he should take on this or any other Bill, he could not help expressing his belief that, at all events, imperfect and contracted as the measure of the Government was, it was a step in the right direction.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYhoped that no attempt would be made to obstruct this Bill. The hon. Member for Dublin blamed the noble Lord for not having engrafted this Bill on the English Reform Bill, and said, that the law of the two countries was the same. But there was not a Gentleman in the House besides the hon. Member for Dublin who did not know that though the common law might be the same in the two countries, the statute law had disturbed this uniformity of the law. The mode of registration was different in Ireland, and there was a difference in a variety of other respects. It was, therefore, more convenient that there should be a separate Bill. After what had been said, he need say but little on the bad taste of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite in turning the impunity from law in Ireland into a joke. It was a sneer unworthy of any one, and especially of the hon. and learned Gentleman. When the last Bill was before the House, he proposed that it should be made to meet the exigencies of the country, and that the suffrage should be household. But the House of Lords raised the franchise higher than what had been agreed to by that House, which was considered already too high. When it came back, the noble Lord at the head of the Government said the House of Lords had made a mistake, and that the form in which the Bill had passed this House was a compromise. The Irish Members, almost to a man, called upon the noble Lord to reject the Lords' Amendments. However, they were agreed to, and the Bill passed; but, if there was one thing better understood than another in the country, it was this—that no Irish Member who had voted for it in any stage, considered it as a settlement of the question, and that Her Majesty's Government were bound to consider how soon they could bring in another Bill. After this it was monstrous to hear, not the hon. Member for Enniskillen, because he was not in the House at the time, but the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Grogan) who was, say that that was a settlement of the question. There would be ample
530
opportunities hereafter for considering the measure in detail, and of endeavouring to make it more effectual as a measure of reform. He should do his best to make suggestions of that kind, and to unite with those who agreed with him in the necessary measures for carrying those suggestions out. He considered the Bill a large concession, and one which would go far to carry out the promises of reform made to them by Her Majesty's Ministers in 1851.
MR. ROCHEwas glad that he had given way to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, because they had heard from his hon. and learned Friend a clear vindication of himself and his colleagues. The hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) had said it would require the genius of a statesman to discover the necessity for this Reform Bill. Now, if that were the case, every man in Ireland was a statesman, for there was hardly a man in it who did not think that it ought to be enlarged. Nothing in his view could be more unjust than that Enniskillen, for example, with its 172 electors, should have half as much weight and voice in that house as the county of Cork, which had 13,000 electors. Such a state of things ought not to be continued. He was glad that a measure substantially identical with the English Reform Bill was to be proposed for Ireland. It was true that while the limit was taken of 500 electors in England, no alteration was to be made in the Irish boroughs having 400 electors. This, however, was merely a difference in figures, and practically it would be no difference at all, because there would be the same number grouped together as having under 400 electors as there would have been if 500 had been taken. He trusted the Bill for Ireland would be carried through by the Government pari passu with the English Reform Bill. Members opposite spoke in favour of the English Bill; but when the Irish Bill was brought in, he was sorry to see a different spirit come over them. He heard with great pleasure the speech of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Baillie). He was rejoiced to hear such a speech from that side of the House. He thought they were going to rival the noble Lord in their desire for reform, but he was sorry to see the change that had come over the party. From the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen and of the hon. Member for Dublin, he feared that for

531
the sake of a party triumph they were about to strangle the Reform Bill for Ireland. He hoped the party opposite would hesitate before they made Ireland once again the battle-field of party. Heaven knew they had had enough of that. He applied that observation to all parties in that House. He believed that much of the sufferings of Ireland, and especially that of the landlords, might be traced to Ireland having been made the battle-field of party in that House, and he warned them not to repeat that game. He guarded himself against an unqualified approval of the Bill. They had not it yet before them in detail, nor had they the English Bill, and therefore it was impossible that he could commit himself on either the one or the other. It might be said there was something anomalous in bringing in a Reform Bill every year; and no doubt there was some truth in that. But the Bill of last Session was very unsatisfactory. The electoral machinery in Ireland was in such a state that it was impossible to work it much longer without some alteration and improvement. One of its defects was, that it was based on the rating to the Poor Law, which, in turn, was based upon a valuation in which there was no uniformity. In one union, a man paying 12 l. a year rent had a vote, because he was rated at the rent he paid; while, in another union, a man paying a rent of 20 l. had no vote because he was assessed at a 10 l. rating. The Government ought, long ago, to have brought in a Bill to make the valuation uniform, and to take it out of the hands of the Poor Law Guardians. The present franchise was too high, and he begged to express the satisfaction with which he had listened to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who had brought in the Bill.
MR. NAPIERwould not have interposed in the debate, only that some of the views put forward by his hon. Friends the Members for Enniskillen and Inverness, had been perverted or misunderstood. The hon. Member for Inverness had suggested that there should be a principle of consistency in this matter. If towns having small constituencies were locked together so that a certain number of electors should return a certain number of representatives, how were they to deal with such constituencies as the city of London, if it was to go through the country and give to every 400 electors the election of a representative; but it was not the suggestion of the hon. Member for Inverness to reduce the
532
franchise to 5l. and then group them together. The noble Lord had commented on the observations of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Enniskillen; but every one who knew his hon. and learned Friend knew perfectly well that he was wholly incapable of the construction put on his observations. If he (Mr. Napier) understood the argument of his hon. and learned Friend aright, he had only asked the Attorney General for Ireland whether he was prepared to follow out consistently his own principle—namely, to reduce the qualification of a juror to that of a 5l. elector, or to enable 5l. electors to sit on juries. He (Mr. Napier) cast no reflection on the conduct of the juries on the late trials in the north of Ireland, but nevertheless thought it a perfectly fair proposition to consider the question whether the man qualified to return Members to Parliament, who would have to deal with subjects involving the glory and greatness of the empire, should be disqualified for the jurybox, or vice versâ? The argument was a fair argument; and. he (Mr. Napier) was satisfied, for one, that his hon. and learned Friend in using it did not in the slightest degree seek to cast any imputation on the administration of justice in Ireland. As regarded the Bill before the House, he (Mr. Napier) felt bound to say that he did not regard it with any very pleasant anticipations, with respect to its operation in Ireland. The noble Earl who governed that country said on a recent occasion that what Ireland wanted was peace and repose—that men might sit down and pursue their several occupations calmly. This Bill would have a contrary effect to that predicated by the Lord Lieutenant as necessary for Ireland; for if year after year this question was to be brought forward, the country could not have repose. He (Mr. Napier) considered, moreover, that as the qualification for boroughs had been fixed last year at its present figure, by the consent of all parties, there was no ground now to disturb it. In respect of the small constituencies, he did not think the Bill would improve the representation; at present these boroughs did not return the worst Members.
MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGHsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman who last addressed them, had told them that in 1851 no exception was taken to a 8l. borough franchise. He remembered a conversation that took place between the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and

533
the humble individual who now addressed the House on that subject; and the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore) left the House rather than vote for the compromise that was come to. The truth was, that the majority of the Irish Members did distinctly protest against the 8l. franchise, and told the Government the mistake they were committing, and that they would have a miserably small borough constituency. The noble Lord, to his great credit, now attempted to repair that error; and now, when he was doing that, they were told by two hon. and learned Gentlemen—one of them was excusable, because he was not a Member of the House at the time; but the other was a Member then—that they (the Irish Members) submitted to that franchise. He found that on the 4th March, 1850—the question being that 5l. be substituted for 8l.—32 Irish Members voted in favour of that proposition, and 28 against it. They asked at that time, that the boroughs should be grouped as in Scotland, and that the franchise should be lowered to 5l. He was prepared to accept this Bill, and he believed it would be acceptable to the people of Ireland.
SIR JOHN YOUNGbelieved it would be found that great inconvenience and expense would be occasioned by adding small country places to the small boroughs, and he questioned whether as good a constituency could be got from these small boroughs as by disfranchising them, and transferring their representation to the counties and larger towns and cities. That would be a better and much mote permanent arrangement than the one now proposed was likely to be. Some of these boroughs had increased in population concurrently with the decrease in the county population; not from any increase of industry or prosperity, but because the people who had lost their land had betaken themselves to the towns, where they swelled the population from which the future constituencies were to be drawn. He was afraid that the arrangement now proposed would not be satisfactory. He (Sir J. Young) had no fears for himself of a 5l. franchise, or even a lower franchise than 5l. He believed that permanency of residence was a more important element than the amount of the qualification. The measure proposed two or three years ago relative to the Irish counties was a very wise measure. Each party was inclined to be satisfied with it, and, seeing this, he was willing to
534
leave the legislation for the boroughs in the noble Lord's hands. The difficulty was to make such an arrangement as the noble Lord proposed a permanent one.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Somerville, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.