§ Order for Committee read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. R.EARDENrose, pursuant to Notice, to move the following Amendment:—
That no Bill can be satisfactory to the people of Ireland which does not provide for a rental franchise of £6 or upwards in counties, instead of a rating franchise of £12 or upwards, and a rental franchise of £3 or upwards and a lodger franchise of £3 or upwards in boroughs, instead of a rating franchise of £4 or upwards; that votes at Elections be taken by ballot; and that no borough be disfranchised, but that the boundaries of boroughs having less than 6,000 inhabitants be extended so as to include within the limits of such boroughs all premises, for the purpose of conferring the franchise on the inhabitants thereof.
§ MR. SPEAKERBefore the hon. Member moves his Resolution I wish to point out to him that it exceeds the limits prescribed for such Motions by the Rules of the House. It is a Resolution which in reality anticipates discussion on every clause of the Bill, and on some points with respect to which Notice of Amendment has been already given, It seems to me to go beyond the rules laid down by the practice of this House. It would, I think, be more regular to move that the Committee on the 1572 Bill be postponed than to propose a Resolution couched in such terms.
§ MR. REARDENsaid, he would withdraw his Motion in deference to the opinion of the Speaker. He hoped to be able to carry the Amendments embodied in the Resolution in Committee on the Bill; for without them he did not believe it would be worth the paper on which it was printed,
§ MR. SANDFORDsaid, he rose to urge upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland the expediency of proceeding only with the enfranchising portion of the Bill. The redistribution part could not stand, inasmuch as those boroughs which it was proposed to disfranchise were not the smallest, and appeared to have been selected for disfranchisement on some capricious system, in support of which no valid argument could be advanced. He felt assured, he added, that nobody could be more thoroughly actuated by a desire to act justly in the matter than his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but then, he must acknowledge that it was a somewhat arbitrary mode of proceeding to propose to give a third Member to Dublin on the minority principle, and to divide the counties in those cases in which an addition was made to their representation. Then, although it was intended to disfranchise six boroughs, only one of the seats—that conferred on Dublin—was to be given to a town, although, as things at present stood, the counties were represented in nearly the proportion of two to one. What he would suggest was, that the town of Portarlington alone, which only possessed 100 voters, should be disfranchised, and that the seat thus obtained should be conferred on Kingstown, Dalkey, Monkstown, and Bluckwell, which contained a population of something like 28,000. If that suggestion were adopted matters might be much simplified; but if the Bill were proceeded with as it stood, it was clear, from the number of Amendments of which Notice had been given, that the discussions on it must occupy several nights.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that taking into account that they had reached the middle of June, and that everybody was anxious to prepare the way for an early dissolution, it was desirable that the discussions on the Bill should be shortened as much as possible. There were various Amendments on the Paper which would clearly, if brought on, raise questions of principle and lead to long debates; and it would be a great blessing, he thought, if they could be set 1573 aside so that hon. Members might be the earlier released from their labours. He saw no hope of their getting through the Bill in anything like a reasonable period if they were to proceed with the proposals of the Government, as to re-distribution of seats. Ireland would not suffer by leaving the remainder of the scheme to be dealt with by the better or worse men who were to follow in the new Parliament,
§ MR. PIMsaid, that in England 37 per cent of the Members would, under the new Bill, be returned by counties; whilst in Ireland the county Members were in the proportion of 62 per cent. It was, therefore, a very extraordinary thing to propose an increase of the number of Irish county Members. There was no doubt that the small boroughs in Ireland were not independent; but no party on either side of the House seemed to take into consideration the arrangements by which they might be made independent. The same arguments brought against five of the boroughs which it was proposed to disfranchise could be brought against all boroughs with less than 10,000 inhabitants. There were many boroughs in Scotland and Wales with under 2,000 population. His own opinion was that these boroughs in Ireland could not be rendered independent by any other plan than that of grouping, which had been found so successful in Scotland nod Wales. Though he should prefer to see Portarlington grouped instead of being disfranchised, yet he was willing to admit that that borough afforded by far the least strong case for the retention of representation, while Kingstown afforded by far the strongest case for enfranchisement; and he should be well content if the whole principle of re-distribution were given up, with the exception of the transference of the representative from Portarlington to Kingstown. The question of the Irish Church was at present one of absorbing interest in Ireland, and there were also other questions engaging the attention of the lower classes in that country, and preventing them from taking an interest in the subject of Parliamentary Reform, their feeling rather being not to be connected with that House at all. He therefore thought that it would be advisable that the whole matter of redistribution should be put off until those questions were settled and the mind of the Irish people was in a fit state to express their feelings with regard to Parliamentary Reform. Under these circumstances he should be glad if the suggestion of the 1574 hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sanford) were acceded to.
§ MR. BAGWELLsaid, that when the Bill was introduced he objected to the disfranchisement of a number of boroughs in Ireland. The proposal to disfranchise boroughs while the county representation was increased could not he borne out by reference to the principle adopted in the case of England or of Scotland. He thought that such an arrangement would be fatal to the establishment of a fair system of representation. In the counties the landed interest and the landlords had a preponderating influence, and he did not wish to see that influence increased; but in towns the population consisted of people of varied interests and varied opinions. He still entertained the same objection to the Bill as he expressed on the night of its introduction. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford) was one which was well worthy the attention of the Government. It would meet with very considerable support in Ireland, and, if adopted, would facilitate the progress of Business in that House. It was not to be regarded as in any sense a party question: and he hoped both sides of the House would concur in adopting the suggestion which had been made. He believed that the Bill would double the constituencies in boroughs; and therefore the number of voters would be so large as to form a good argument against disfranchisement.
§ SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he hoped the House would not forget the strong claims which Ulster possessed to increased representation. The present proposal of the Government by no means commended, itself as likely to be a permanent measure. He would take the statistics of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) himself, and he found that the number of Members, if allotted to the four provinces in proportion to population, and also to the annual value of property in each, would be as follows. According to the population in 1861, Leinster, with a population of 1,457,635, would have 26 Members; Munster, with a population of 1,513,558 would have 27 Members; Ulster, with a population of 1,914,236, 34 Members; and Connaught, with a population of 913,135, would have 16 Members. According to the annual value Leinster (£4,386,986) should have 35 Members; Munster (£3,263.804), 27 Members; Ulster (£3,830,040), 30 Members; Connaught 1575 (£1,416,301), 11 Members; and combining the population and annual value Leintster should have 34 Members Munster, 27 Members; Ulster, 29 Members; and Connanght, 13 Members. The numbers who could read and write in each province were—Leinster, 638,436; Munster, 533,516; Ulster, 712,999; and Connaught, 221,013; so that Ulster deserved more Members on every ground—of population, annual value, menu of population, and annual value, and education, as also on the ground of freedom from crime and number of electors. He altogether objected to the principle of grouping, which was accurately enough described by Mr. Whiteside when he said—
You add one melancholy little town to another melancholy little town, and their union makes a still more melancholy state of things than did their separate existence.The practice in Scotland could not properly be adopted in Ireland, because the state of things in Scotland was different. In Scotland among grouped towns the religion, the politics, and frequently the trade were one; but in Ireland it was proposed to group towns which were twenty miles away, and, which were in no way connected. This could only be regarded as a very temporary measure. Speaking for Ulster, she could happily afford to wait, and the longer she waited the more Members she would have allotted to her.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he could not allow the question which had been brought before the House by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford) to pass without some expression of opinion. The impression he had and which was considerably strengthened by what had been stated on both sides within the last half-hour, was that there was a great deal of force in the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). From the state of the Notice Paper there certainly appeared no prospect of a very speedy agreement upon the re-distribution scheme of the Irish Reform Bill; and he had other grounds for feeling anything but enthusiastic in entering on the consideration of the re-distribution clauses. The proposals themselves were objectionable, and he found it utterly impossible to assent to them, while, on the other hand, he well knew the difficulties a private Member had to encounter in proposing to substitute other provisions. Although the present system was exceedingly faulty, the possible changes must inevitably 1576 lie within a narrow compass, and therefore he thought it right to say that if the Government were disposed to let that part of the Irish Reform Bill stand over for future consideration there would be but little objection made on that side of the House, and the public interests of Ireland would not be imperilled thereby. But, at the same time, if the Government thought it right to go on with that part of the Bill, he should—feeling the proposals made by them extremely unsatisfactory—do his best, in conjunction with others on that side, to substitute some plan of re-distribution which he considered more suitable to the circumstances of the case and fairer to the various interests, especially with reference to the proportion of seats held by county and borough Members.
§ GENERAL DUNNEsaid, that he had been surprised to hear of any commercial interests requiring protection in the greater number of the towns in Ireland. With the exception of Belfast, Dublin, and Cork, there were no such interests. The interest towns were very nearly as agricultural as the counties, for what trade they had depended on the prosperity of the agricultural population. But he could not agree that there was a proper Irish representation. The immense county of Cork was under-represented, so was the county of Tipperary, and also the county of Down: these counties had but two Members each. The hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Sandford) had said that he was surprised there should be so many representatives of the agricultural classes in Ireland; but what was the proportion of electors in boroughs and counties? In the boroughs there were 32,000 electors, with four representatives; in the counties 134,000, with only sixty-four representatives. He contended that the counties ought to get more Members, not by taking them from the boroughs, but by giving Ireland additional representatives. Scotland had no better right to additional Members than Ireland. If they were to take population as the test, Ireland ought (not according to any calculation of his, but according to a Return that had been laid on the table of the House) to have 131 Members. The Scotch Members coolly set down the Irish Revenue at £6,500,000, and placed their own at £7,500,000; but the fact was that the Irish Revenue was nearer £9,000,000. Therefore, comparing both population and revenue, Ireland was clearly entitled to a large increase of Members. 1577 When speaking to other Irish Members on this subject they said that the claim of Ireland to additional representatives was perfectly just, but pointed out that there was no use in pressing it, because they would not get them. But, for his part, he could not allow the debate to close without protesting against giving Scotland additional Members when they were denied to Ireland, However, if the Government chose to accept the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), to leave the present distribution of seats within Ireland as they now exist, he felt that he could not hope for support even from Irish Members, and therefore would not at present throw any impediment in the way.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, that they ought to adopt one of two courses—either to proceed to the disfranchisement, or at once to abandon that portion of the Bill. He had, however, one exception to take to the suggestion of the hon Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford) that they should execute the wretched borough of Portalington, and leave untouched all the other small boroughs, which were not, a bit better. He dissented altogether from the idea that the present House was not perfectly competent to deal with a few boroughs, instead of leaving them over for a future Parliament. After settling the great questions of English and Scotch Reform, were they to pronounce themselves unable to decide about a few small boroughs? He did not agree with the plan of Her Majesty's Government; but the points upon which he differed from them were but few, and he was prepared to meet them upon those points. He quite agreed in the proposal that Kingstown and Rathmines should have a Member, because they were among the most rising townships in Ireland. The right hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) had said that there was no necessity for any re-distribution; but he recollected the same right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion saying that these were small trumpery boroughs, of which six if put together would not make a decent constituency. As a county Member, and not looking to the North or the South, he was always for giving to every borough that had a claim its due representation. He hoped, therefore, that a Member would be given to night to Kingstown, and also a second Member to Londonderry, although in al probability he should disagree in opinion 1578 with the Gentlemen who might represent them. When the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) spoke of the county representation as satisfactory, did his hon. Friend mean that the great county of Cork, with 490,000 inhabitants, was to remain content with only two Members? In England they had the land represented by a number of highly respectable Gentlemen, somewhat slow, but very sure—were it not for some recent indications he should say they were a remarkable honest body. But it was from the representation of the towns in England that they got all the vigour and energy of the nation. He had chanced that morning to look over the income tax accounts in England, and he found that while in 1815 the national income was derived from £137,000,000 of property it was distributed in this way—land was represented by £39,000,000, profits of trade under Schedule D by £37,000,000, and houses, funds, &c, by £61,000,000, the proportion being land, £39,000,000, as compared with £98,000,000 from other sources. But in 1867 the national income was derived from £291,000,900, of which the land represented £46,000,000, profits of trade under Schedule D £84,000,000, and houses, funds, &c, £160,000,000, or a proportion of £46,000,000 to £244,000,000. While, therefore, between 1815 and 1867 the increase from land had been only £7,000,000, the increase from all other sources was no less than £147,000,000. Now the increase in the borough representation strengthened every one of those great sources of income. But was that the case in Ireland? Nothing (if the kind. There were in Ireland 39 Members of boroughs, the population of which was only 707,000, the valuation being £1,600,000. Supposing the voters in these boroughs were taken on a £4 franchise the whole number would not be more than 66,000. On the other hand, the counties had only 64 Members, their population was about 5,000,000, their valuation £11,500,000, and the number of voters would, under this Bill, he 176,000. Therefore the claims of the Irish counties, especially the flourishing counties of Cork and Down, for additional representation could not be put aside.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he thought that, as the re-distribution scheme of the Government apparently gave satisfaction: to neither side of the House, it was advisable to abandon it. If it were proceeded with he should he prepared, at the proper 1579 time to urge the claims of Ulster to increased representation; for he believed that Ireland, and especially that province, had as good claims as Scotland, if not better. The valuation Returns for the last ten years showed that in Ulster there had been an increase of £1,500,000, while in other parts of the country there had been a decrease.
§ MR. LAWSONsaid, there was not the same reason for disfranchising small boroughs in Ireland as in England. In England there were large and growing towns, with enormous populations, which sent no representatives to that House, and it was in order to provide representatives for those places that the disfranchisement of small boroughs in England was urged. But that was not the case in Ireland. It appeared that the only town in Ireland over 10,000 inhabitants which did not send a representative to that House was Kingston and Rathmines, in the county of Dublin. He protested against borough seats being transferred to counties for it had always been held that variety of representation should be studied. The Irish county Members were, almost without exception, the proprietors of landed estates in the counties they represented or in adjoining ones. Members of the trading, professional, and mercantile classes were only returned by the boroughs. He did not believe the proposal to transfer five seats from boroughs to counties would meet with approval, and he was not surprised to find hon. Members desirous to get rid of the difficulty by asking the Government to withdraw their scheme. He objected to any middle course being taken, and he protested against his own borough being made the scapegoat. Portarlington was not smaller than some English boroughs which, until the recent decision of the the House, had returned Members, nor was it much smaller than Dungannon.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, that although the discussion was premature and not altogether in Order still he did not regret that it was raised, and he hoped it might lead to some advantageous arrangements between the two sides of the House. The proportion between the urban and the county representation had been fixed in 1800 and in 1832, and there had been no change since. As a county Member he objected to the annihilation of boroughs to increase the county representation. Such a change would lead to lamentable consequences in every sense with respect to the interests of Ireland. The 1580 desultory propositions of several Members ought not to be attended to, inasmuch as they had given no Notice of them and placed no scheme whatsoever before the House for the consideration of Members. In fact, there were only two schemes before the House, one, the scheme of the Government and the other the scheme of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Longford (Colonel Greville-Nugent). The scheme of the Government was devoid of all principle, and that of the hon. and gallant Member for Longford was founded upon a fallacious principle. The scheme of the Government was against all constitutional principle, inasmuch as it proposed to merge the borough representation in the county representation; and the scheme of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Longford was founded on a fallacious principle, inasmuch as it placed the English and Irish boroughs on the same basis as to population. A population of 5,000 in an English borough represented a decaying village, but not so in Ireland. An Irish borough with 5,000 inhabitants, according to the proportion of the urban population in the two countries, was equivalent to an English borough with 10,000. He recommended that the defective scheme of the Government should be struck out of the Bill, and in that case he recommended his hon. and gallant Friend not to persevere with his scheme, but to withdraw it.
§ MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, the Government re-distribution scheme seemed to be condemned by Gentlemen opposite, because they disliked the transfer of borough seats to counties, and by his own (the Ministerial) side, because it gave additional representation to the South and not to the North. He thought Ireland should be treated in same way as England—boroughs with less than 5,000 inhabitants being disfranchised, and the seats being given partly to the large towns and partly to the counties. Kingstown ought certainly to be represented, and additional representation should be given to Cork city, Dublin city, and, perhaps, to Belfast, as well as to the counties of Cork and Tipperary.
§ COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENTsaid, he hoped the Government would tell the House what they really intended to propose, and not lose time by discussing points that might hereafter be given up, and that could only be dealt with in Committee.
§ COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he could not 1581 understand the object of the discussion, unless it was to throw cold water on the whole plan for the reform of the Irish representation. For hon. Members to pick out and discuss particular portions of the question was certainly to prejudice it. He did not see why this Bill should be divided, and a half left to be passed by another Parliament. He was anxious to go into Committee, and he should then be able to meet the statements and arguments of the hon. Members for Dublin (Mr. Pim) and Londonderry (Sir Frederick Heygate), and show that the claims of Ulster were not paramount. The English Reform Bill had occupied almost the whole of last Session; and he had no reason to suppose that the Government or the House would be reluctant to give sufficient time for the fair and full consideration of the Irish Reform Bill.
§ MR. DISRAELII do not understand what ground there is on the part of the hon. Member for Longford (Colonel Greville-Nugent) for blaming the Government in regard to the course they have taken. They have moved that the House go into Committee on the Irish Reform Bill, where upon a discussion not originated by the Government, but in which the Irish Mom hers on both sides have taken a great interest, has arisen. It would not have been becoming in us to stifle that discussion, because it has enabled us to learn the general opinion of the House on the matters which have been raised. All that has been said shall receive respectful and careful consideration; but I do not understand that anything has occurred to prevent the. House from going into Committee, on the Irish Reform Bill. I hope that the Committee will now go on with the business before us.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Clause 2 postponed.
§ Clause 3 (Occupation Franchise for Voters in Cities, Towns, and Boroughs).
§ MR. LAWSONsaid, he rose to move an Amendment. The existing franchise in boroughs in Ireland was a rating of £8. When the Chief Secretary for Ireland moved for leave to bring in the present Bill he stated that he proposed to lower the borough franchise from £8 to £4; but instead of lowering it to £4, the noble Earl had made it necessary that a voter should be rated at something "more 1582 than £4." [The Earl of MAYO: I said "about £4."] The clause now made the franchise above £4, for which there was no sufficient reason. The valuation in Ireland was conducted by persons appointed by the Government, and the valuation usually proceeded by steps of from 10s. to £1. The effect of the clause would be that in order to entitle a man to the franchise he must be rated at, say, £4 10s. It was desirable that the Government valuators should not consider whether the effect of their rating would be, to give the franchise or not. His Amendment would render it necessary to alter the law of rating, and he had put upon the Paper a Notice in conformity with his present Amendment. The effect of the clause, as it was now worded, would be to disfranchise all who were rated at £4, of whom there are considerable numbers. Such an amount would be quite high enough, because it would usually indicate a house of between £5 and £6 rental. He begged to move on page 2, clause 3, line 4, to leave out the words "more than," which would place the borough franchise on an intelligible and rational basis.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 4, to leave out the words "more than,"—(Mr. Lawson.)
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, taken in conjunction with a Notice he had given of an Amendment in Clause 26, would practically alter the law of rating in Ireland as it had existed ever since the Poor Law was established in that country. That law of rating was that in the case of all tenements rated above £4 the pour rates were paid, one half by the landlord and the other half by the tenant; whereas in the case of all tenements at or below £4, the whole of the rates were paid by the immediate lessor, and no demand was ever made on the occupiers for poor rates, That principle had worked very satisfactorily, and it practically exempted from the payment of poor rates the greater number of persons who were unable to pay them. That system got rid of the difficulty in the way of the collection of rates which existed in many instances both in England and Scotland, and he believed the day was not far distant when some such system—he was then speaking only in regard to the collection of rates—would be adopted for the entire United Kingdom. The great closeness between the rates struck and the 1583 rates paid in Ireland was, perhaps, one of the most remarkable features presented by the administration of the Poor Law. Since the introduction of the Poor Law into Ireland the total amount of rates made was £20,300,000, of which £19,500,000 sterling had been actually collected; so that the total amount of poor rate declared irrecoverable out of that very large sum in a period of more than thirty years, including the time of the famine, was under £1,000,000. The Committee ought, therefore, to pause before it interfered with a system which had worked so admirably. The increase which the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would cause to the constituency, although not very large, would include the very poorest class, and as a rule precisely those whom the law had declared to be unable to pay their rates. The increase to the borough constituency which would be made by giving household suffrage to every man in Ireland who paid rates would, in round numbers, be about 9,700 or 10,000; and the adoption of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would add to that number some 2,000 persons scattered all over Ireland, the greater portion of them living in the city of Dublin. The great objection to the Amendment was that it did not affect only the persons who were rated at £4 in boroughs. Taken in connection with the Amendment proposed in the 26th clause, it would interfere with the system of rating over the whole of Ireland, and would render the occupiers of 39,000 tenements who were now exempted from poor rates, liable to pay those rates. No cause had been shown why they should create so great a disturbance in the Irish Poor Law and inflict so great a hardship on thousands of poor people. Nobody had asked for such a change. On the contrary, all whom he had spoken to were perfectly satisfied with the working of the present law, and not a single petition had been presented to the House since then. He therefore hoped that the Committee would reject the Amendment.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he thought the proposal ought to be limited to boroughs, and believed his right hon. Friend the Member for Portarlington (Mr. Lawson) was quite willing that it should be so limited. Thus altered, the noble Earl the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given no sufficient reason for opposing it. It was true that was not a very large question, but that fact told both ways; and in speaking of the great disturbance the 1584 Amendment would cause in the rating system, the noble Earl much exaggerated its effects, especially if it were confined to boroughs. He could confirm what the noble Earl had said in regard to the admirable manner in which the poor rates were collected in Ireland; but he could not believe that that inconsiderable departure from the present line at which the occupier became personally liable, but which would make a considerable addition to the borough franchise, would seriously impair the collection of poor rates. Again, the noble Earl himself proposed a much greater departure than his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lawson) now did from the present system of rating in regard to five large cities, of which Dublin was one; for in those five places the limit of liability was to be reduced from £8 to over £4. The entire addition to the borough constituencies resulting from that Bill was a very moderate one indeed, and he should welcome the extension, how ever small, that would be given to it by the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, which he hoped the Committee would support.
§ MR. VANCEsaid, that on the second; reading of the Bill, the late Chief Secretary for Ireland entirely approved the principle of the proposed borough franchise for Ireland. Occupiers at and under £4 would not wish to have the franchise on the condition of paying rates, and the Amendment before the Committee would be regarded in Ireland among all the parties concerned as a breach of faith.
§ MR. MURPHYsaid, that the consequence of retaining these words in the clause would be to do great injustice to five large towns in Ireland. It would disenfranchise the occupiers of 319 tenements in Cork alone, and practically fix the rating qualification at £4 10s., which would be equivalent to a £7 rental.
§ LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr. Lawson) whether he was prepared to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) with respect to limiting his Amendment to the case of boroughs?
§ MR. LAWSONwas understood to answer in the affirmative.
§ GENERAL DUNNEsaid, that if the Amendment were adopted, it would lead to much confusion, as well as open the door to fraud and corruption, inasmuch as the very poor class of householders could never pay the rates for themselves.
§ MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, that the operation to which the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland now so much objected, he had himself proposed to carry out with regard to no less than two-thirds of the whole of the voting population of boroughs.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)said, that all the Government were proposing to do was to assimilate the law of rating all over Ireland, so that a principle which had been found by experience to act well might prevail in counties and boroughs alike. The proposal that came from the other side was to compel occupiers of houses in boroughs to pay rates and to leave those in counties exempt.
§ MR. SULLIVANsaid, this clause did, not follow a single principle which had been laid down with respect to the English Bill. A most inconvenient "hard and fast line" would be imposed by it. The proposition of the Government was to give every man a vote who was rated over £4, and the Amendment was to give every man a vote who was rated at £4. In Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Belfast, and Waterford, those who occupied tenements valued under £8 paid no rates and the Government proposed to give every man in those towns a vote who was rated at more than £4. In other words, in giving a man a right to vote they put upon him the hard condition that he should submit himself to a rate to which he was not now liable. This would apply to eight-tenths of those admitted to the franchise. Why not accept the convenient figure of £4? By this clause, the noble Lord was inflicting a great hardship on eight-tenths of those admitted to the franchise.
§ Question put, "That the words 'more than' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 188; Noes 177: Majority 11.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Lodger Franchise for Voters in Cities, Towns, and Boroughs).
§ MR. REARDEN moved, in line 30, to leave out the word "ten" in order to insert the word "three."
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
1586§ Clause 7 (Successive Occupations in Counties).
§ MR. REARDEN moved, in line 30, after the word "year," to leave out to the end of the Clause.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 8 agreed to.
§ Clause 9 postponed.
§ Clause 10 (Disfranchisement of certain Boroughs).
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, he proposed that this and the two following clauses should be postponed, in order that the Government might have the opportunity of considering the suggestion which had been made to-night. He proposed, however, to go on with Clause 13, and to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Portarlington (Mr. Lawson) so as to do away with the Boundary Commissioners.
§ MR. BAGWELLsaid, he did not understand why Clause 13 should not be postponed also.
§ Clause postponed.
§ Clauses 11 and 12 postponed.
§ Clause 13 (Appointment of Boundary Commissioners).
§ MR. BAGWELLinquired what the Government proposed with regard to this clause?
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, that with the permission of the Committee, he would explain the course the Government meant to take with respect to the question of boundaries. He was sure the Committee felt it would be a matter of great convenience if any inquiry into the question of boundaries could be dispensed with. There was really, as he would show, no necessity for any extensive alteration of the Parliamentary limits of boroughs. He found that in fourteen out of the thirty-three boroughs in Ireland the Parliamentary boundaries were the same as the municipal boundaries. These boroughs were Armagh, Carlow, Clonmel, Tralee, Wexford, Bandon, Dungannon, Ennis, Enniskillen, Kinsale, Mallow, New Ross, Portarlington, and Youghal. In these fourteen cases they would be disposed to leave the boundaries as they were, being the same for municipal and Parliamentary purposes. In a considerable number of them the population had 1587 increased since 1841, so that there was really no case whatever for altering any of their boundaries. In fourteen of the remaining boroughs the Parliamentary boundaries were larger than the municipal—namely, Carrickfergus, Cork, Drogheda, Galway, Kilkenny, Limerick, Waterfoid, Dungarvan, Lisburn, Newry, Sligo, Cashel, Coleraine, and Downpatrick. In these fourteen boroughs, with the exception of Carrickfergus and Lisburn, the population had decreased; in no instance had they extended beyond the present municipal boundary; therefore, they did not require to be enlarged, and no one suggests their reduction. That leaves only five boroughs to be dealt with—that is, Dublin, Belfast, Londonderry, Dundalk, and Athlone. In Dublin there were some small portions of the city north of the North Circular Road and south of the South Circular Road which were contained within the municipal boundary, but were beyond the Parliamentary borough. These parts of the city should be included in the Parliamentary boundary. As regarded Belfast and Londonderry, the Parliamentary boundaries should be extended, as in both these places the towns, from considerable additional buildings and a largely increased population, had gone beyond the present Parliamentary limits. The Government proposed that in these cases also the Parliamentary boundaries should be extended, so as to correspond with the municipal. In Dundalk and Athlone a small extension will take place by assimilating the municipal and Parliamentary boundary. The Government were prepared to omit the 13th clause, and to adopt the first portion of the clause of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Portarlington (Mr. Lawson) had given Notice, which provided that where the boundary of any municipal borough did not coincide with the Parliamentary borough, all that part of such municipal borough extending beyond the limits of the Parliamentary borough, but within the municipal limits, should hereafter form part of the Parliamentary borough. The second part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's clause would provide that in the case of any borough not municipal, but under Town Councils or Commissioners, the boundaries as settled for the purpose of local government should be the Parliamentary boundaries also. This would bring in such towns as Carrickfergus, Lisburn, Coleraine, Galway, Newry, Down- 1588 patrick, and Cashel, and as it would have the effect of curtailing the limits of those boroughs he should not think the Committee ought to agree to it. He believed that in the case of the borough of Cashel it would have the effect of reducing the number of voters to the extent of one half. He thought that if the Committee adopted the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's clause, and agreed to the suggestion of the Government, they would get rid of nil necessity for a Boundary Commission in the case of the Irish boroughs.
§ MR. LAWSONsaid, he would withdraw the latter portion of the clause of which he had given Notice. He had not intended that it should apply to the boundaries of existing Parliamentary boroughs, but introduced it to meet the case of Kingstown if it should get a Member.
§ GENERAL DUNNEWhat does the right hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr. Lawson) really want?
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid that the general principle on which the Government proposed to act in cases where the municipal now exceeded the Parliamentary boundaries was to extend the latter so as make them conterminous with the former.
§ Clause 13negatived.
§ New clause inserted—
§
(Boundaries of Parliamentary Boroughs).
Where at the time of the passing of this Act the boundary of any municipal borough does not coincide with the Parliamentary borough, all that part of such borough situate beyond the limits of the Parliamentary borough but within the municipal limits, shall form part of the borough for all purposes connected with the Election of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament for said borough.
§ Clause 14 agreed to.
§ Clause 15postponed.
§ Clause 16 agreed to.
§ Clause 17postponed.
§ Clause 18 (Payment of Expenses of conveying Voters in Boroughs to the Poll illegal).
§ MR. GREGORY, in the absence of Mr. G. MORRIS, moved an Amendment, having for its object to except from the operation of the clause the towns of Carrickfergus, Drogheda, and Galway, and the cities of Cork, Kilkenny, Limerick, and Waterford.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 7, line 4, after the word "borough," to insert the words "except the several boroughs
1589
of the county of the town of Carriekfergus, county of the city of Cork, county of the town of Drogheda, county of the town of Galway, county of the city of Kilkenny, county of the city of Limerick, county of the city of Waterford."—(Mr. George Morris.)
§ VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, that when the English Reform Bill was under discussion he voted for an Amendment having a similar object with regard to certain places in England to that of the Amendment now proposed by the hon. Member in favour of certain Irish boroughs; but the agents on both sides were now of opinion that it would have been better to provide additional polling places.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he hoped that the noble Earl the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not assent to the Amendment. He thought the exception made last year in the English Bill was of doubtful policy; but the Amendment now proposed did not rest even on the same ground. The boroughs included in it were not, he presumed, of the extent of Manchester or Liverpool.
§ MR. G. MORRIS, who had entered the House after his Amendment had been proposed, said, that some parts of the Parliamentary borough of Galway were seven or eight miles from the town. If voters living at that distance were not conveyed to the poll by car they would in winter have to start from home before daylight in order to vote at an election. If expenses of conveyance were allowed at all, they ought to be allowed in boroughs comprising a large rural district. He hoped the Government would agree to his Amendment.
§ MR. MURPHYsaid, that although the Parliamentary boundary of the city of Cork extended for seven English miles, no polling places were allowed beyond the limits of the municipal boundary. He would suggest that in Cork and similar places the candidates should be allowed to convey to the poll voters who lived beyond the municipal boundary. The only other way of meeting the difficulty would be to create additional polling places: but his own opinion was that adopting such a course would lead to inconvenience;
§ MR. SYNANsaid, that these county towns were really districts of counties, and it would be impossible to provide polling places for the sparse population scattered over them. The candidates for such districts should be allowed to provide cars for voters, as the candidates for counties were allowed to do.
SIR HENRY WINSTON-BARRONsaid, that as the representative of one of the boroughs affected by the Amendment, he was quite sure that candidates for these places would rather not have the privilege of increasing the expenses of their election in this way. He could speak feelingly, for he knew the extravagance and imposition which attended this form of expenditure. He hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment. Those voters who wished to come in and vote were perfectly able to do so.
§ COLONEL TOTTENHAMsaid, he wished for a clear explanation of how the Amendment would operate. Would candidates be debarred from paying the travelling expenses of voters who happened to be away in the country?
§ MR. PIMsaid, that with regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Waterford (Sir Henry Winston-Barron), though his (Mr. Pim's) election had cost a great deal of money, he had found the carmen of Dublin less inclined to imposition than many in a higher social position. Still he doubted not that the voters in outlying districts always contrived somehow to attend every fair and market in the borough, and he did not see why they should not he left to find their way to the poll. Scarcely any of them were without a horse.
§ LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, that many of the electors in these boroughs were poor men, who could not afford to pay the expense of a cart, especially as carters demanded higher terms at election time. Unless the candidates were allowed to pay these expenses a number of voters would practically not be allowed to exercise the franchise. The exception made in favour of certain English boroughs ought to be extended to analogous cases in Ireland.
MR. SERJEANT BARRYsaid, he thought Dungarvan should be included in the Amendment, as if comprised a large rural district.
§ MR. G. MORRISsaid, he had no objection to strike out Waterford and insert Dungarvan, since the hon. Member for the former town (Sir Henry Winston-Barron) seemed to have a painful recollection of the impositions which had been practised upon him.
§ COLONEL FRENCHsaid, it was ridiculous to suppose that Galway voters were unable to walk five miles. They frequently walked such a distance to 1591 markets and fairs; and such an exertion, for an election happening perhaps once in three or four years, was surely not unreasonable.
§ VISCOUNT GALWAYhad learnt, since he recently addressed the Committee, that the five polling places in Galway were all in the city, whereas in the English boroughs they were so distributed that no voter had to walk more than two miles or two and a half. It was manifestly unjust to expect voters to walk five miles.
SIR HENRY WINSTON-BARRONsaid, that he objected to the clause alto-gather, as subjecting candidates to imposition, and not merely to its application to Waterford.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, the discussion ought not to turn on the virtues or vices of carmen. He thought the fault of the Amendment was that it went on a general principle, regardless of the particular circumstances of each borough. Drogheda, for instance, had an area of only 5,000 statute acres. He thought the Amendment was defective, inasmuch as it proposed to except small as well as large boroughs. In places of great size, like Limerick, which comprehended 33,000 acres, he thought that exception might fairly be allowed.
§ MR. WHITWORTHsaid, that the Amendment if carried would only be a temptation to bribery and corruption.
§ MR. G. MORRISsaid, he was willing to omit Waterford as well as Drogheda from the Amendment.
§ MR. VANCEsaid, he did not know why Dublin should not be one of the excepted places, especially as Dublin was itself a county. The better course would be to strike out the clause altogether and allow these expenses to be paid where they were not paid corruptly.
§ MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he thought that this clause was a very peddling way of dealing with bribery and corruption. That question could not be satisfactorily dealt with in a clause such as this, nor could a clause be framed to carry out even the limited object at present in view if justice were to be done to the peculiarities of different boroughs.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, it appeared from a Parliamentary Return that out of ten boroughs in England exceeding thirty square miles in extent, only two were exempted. He objected altogether to the exemption of Drogheda which had an area of but nine square miles.
§ MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he was of opinion that their principle should be to diminish the expenses of candidates, and then they would not get a corrupt House of Commons. The proper remedy for the evil complained of was the increase of polling places. That was the only way to grapple with the question of candidates' expenses. He would divide the boroughs into districts and establish polling places in each. He would have additional polling places even where there were only three or four voters. Why should electors have to go five or six miles to record their votes?
§ LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, that at present it was no easy thing in Ireland to establish a number of new polling places, though it might be easy to pass an Act to effect that object. A good deal of formality had to be gone through before they could be erected; and the inhabitants of the neighbourhood in which the polling places were usually situated would always oppose with the utmost violence the granting of any new polling places by the Quarter Sessions, because their sale of whisky would thereby be effected. But it was a mistake to suppose that the expanses of the candidates would be diminished by an increase in the number of polling places. Booths must be erected, each candidate must have an agent and a polling clerk at every polling place, and in fact the remedy would be worse than the evil.
§ MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he thought that if the House was in earnest on this subject of Parliamentary Reform in Ireland there ought to be no hesitation in dealing with the question now before the Committee. If they decided upon granting the suffrage to the Irish people, they ought to give all possible facilities for the exercise of the voting power. Those facilities ought not, however, to be provided at the expense of the candidates, but of the public; and even if carriages were necessary for the conveyance of voters to the poll, these also ought to be provided at the public cost. Additional; polling places were provided in the English Reform Bill, and if, being necessary in Ireland, they were not provided by the Legislature, what would the Irish Reform Bil be worth after all? There were numbers of places in England much larger than those in Ireland for which exemptions were now sought, and, in his opinion, exceptions ought only to be made in extreme cases.
§ MR. MURPHYsaid, ha was of opinion 1593 that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gal way (Mr. G. Morris) were adopted it should be limited to those cases in which there were voters outside the municipal limits of the boroughs. No payment should be made for car hire within those limits.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he could not consent to withdraw the clause which was framed on the English Act. The best course that the Committee could adopt was to follow the precedent of the English Act as a general rule, but he admitted that there were cases in which such a rule would be equivalent to depriving residents outside the municipal boundaries of their votes. Under these circumstances he proposed to omit the boroughs of Drogheda, Kilkenny, and Waterford from the clause, leaving Limerick, Galway, and Cork under its operation. He did not think the plan suggested by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy) would work satisfactorily. It would only lend to difficulties if one portion of the voters of a borough were subject to a different law from those who lived in another portion of it.
§ MR. BRADYsaid, though car hire was of some importance, Reform in Ireland was more important. They could not introduce corruption into a borough more readily than by sanctioning the payment of car hire. In his opinion the constituency ought to pay the expenses of conveying voters to the poll.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that no sensible man could entertain a doubt with regard to Drogheda. In the English Bill of last year an exception was made in favour of four places, which were called boroughs, but were to all intents and purposes more like counties than boroughs. If an exception was made with regard to Irish boroughs they ought to be in the same category as the places to which he had alluded, otherwise the rule that had been laid down by Parliament would be broken through. Cork was the only borough which came within that rule.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, that he proposed to limit the exception to three towns—Cork, Limerick, and Galway. They were the largest in extent of any in Ireland. Cork had an area of 70,000 acres. Limerick 33,000, and Galway 34,000. The case in their favour had been very much pressed, and he thought it would be better to conclude the matter by making an exception in their regard.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that if twenty- 1594 four square miles was considered a sufficient area to justify an exception being made in favour of one of these boroughs, it would be impossible for Parliament to resist any applications for a similar exception that might be made by English towns.
§ MR. G. MORRISsaid, that in the borough which he represented there were voters living at a distance of five Irish miles, which was equivalent to something like seven English miles, from the only polling place in the borough; and to have to walk that distance to and from the poll was no slight matter. He should divide the Committee with regard to Galway.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, that until he was persuaded that an Irishman could not walk so far as an Englishman he must oppose the Amendment. The largest of the boroughs contained only 47,965 acres, while the smallest of the boroughs excepted in England contained 51,246.
§ MR. CANDLISHsaid, that in his opinion no case had been made out except on behalf of Cork, for Gal nay comprised thirty-five and Limerick forty one square miles, so that if the polling place were central voters could be only about three miles from it.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, that the polling place was at one extremity of the borough, and this made all the difference.
§ Amendment amended, by leaving out the words "county of the town of Drogheda,"
§ Another Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out from the words "county of the town of Galway to Waterford, inclusive"
§ Question put, "That the words 'county of the town or Galway' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 86: Majority 48.
§ MR. VANCEsaid, that nearly all the counties of cities and towns in Ireland had been exempted from the operation of the clause except Dublin, It was true Dublin was not of a large area; but the Parliamentary boundary extended several miles beyond the municipal boundary, and there were many more voters, who would have to go six or seven miles to the poll. He should move, therefore, that Dublin be added to the list of exemptions, and he was sure the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) would support him.
§ MR. PIMsaid, he would do no such thing. It was true that Dublin deserved to be exempted as much as Cork or Limerick, but as he was opposed to the exemption of those places he could not agree to include Dublin.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment, which there was nothing in the circumstances of Dublin to justify.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTON moved to include in the Amendment his borough, Londonderry which was peculiarly situated. Its area was not very large, but the town was divided by a river, over which there was a bridge, and as on this bridge a toll was levied, persons wishing to record their votes on the occasion of an election would be subjected to a fine. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might laugh; but seeing to what extent the franchise had been lowered, 1d. was a great object to some who would in future exercise it. He thought the candidate standing for Londonderry should be allowed not only to engage carriages to convey voters to the poll, but also to pay the toll of the bridge.
MR. PEEL DAWSONsaid, he thought the noble Lord had made out a strong case, and as he (Mr. P. Dawson) was well acquainted with the locality he would give him his support.
§ MR. O'REILLYsaid, if there was to be any payment at all it should be the payment of 1d. to each voter to enable him to cross the bridge. It would be for the noble Lord, or some other candidate—and he hoped it would be another candidate—to pay the voters their toll.
§ COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENTsuggested, as a way of getting over the difficulty, that there should be a rider, making the bridge free on polling days, as Chelsea Bridge was thrown open on Sundays.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
§ Amendment, as amended, by striking out Drogheda, Kilkenny, and Waterford agreed to.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought it would be necessary to insert words restricting the payment for conveyance to the case of voters brought from places within the Parliamentary borough, or else it might include voters brought from the Continent. He would move to add words to that effect on the Report.
§ Clause agreed to.
1596§ Clause 20 (Notice of Claim in Cities, Towns, and Boroughs).
§ MR. LAWSON moved to omit the words "for any city, town, or borough," and to insert the words "or on behalf of" before the word "claimant," Claimants might be abroad and it was only fair that some one on their behalf should assert their claim to be put on the register.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he thought the proposed alteration would be very disadvantageous, and that it would be much better to assimilate the law in boroughs to that in force with regard to counties. There was no reason why there should be a distinction between them. It was desirable to get rid of fictitious notices, sent in by mere political agents, and often signed without the knowledge of the person, on whose behalf they were ostensibly made. The public were put to great expense in respect to fictitious claims, there being no power to give costs against those who resorted to the practice.
§ GENERAL DUNNEsaid, that if an agent were permitted to sign a notice, it should be provided that he should be required to prove that he had received authority to act as agent. Otherwise a political agent might of his own accord send in claims for half a county on the plea that he was acting "on behalf" of the persons concerned.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, such an Amendment as that had always been steadily opposed in England, because its practical effect would be that a political agent would sign any number of claims without the parties hearing a word of the matter, and when once he got their names on the register he would regard them as his voters, and they would never escape from him.
§ MR. LAWSONsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. MURPHYsaid, that there was no penalty against a clerk of the Union for omitting the name of a qualified person from a list of electors. He begged to direct the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the subject in order that a remedy might be provided.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 21 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 25postponed.
1597§ Clause 26 (Where value of Premises do not exceed Four Pounds, in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Belfast or Waterford, immediate Lessor to be rated).
§ MR. MONSELLsaid, that as proposed by the clause, the rate in certain boroughs was to be made on the immediate lessor, where the value of the property was not more than £4, and it would be a very hard case if the lessee, through the act of the immediate lessor, should be deprived of his right to vote.
THE EARL OF MAYOsuggested that the clause should stand for the present, and he would bring up a new clause.
THE EARL OF MAYOIn regard to the ensuing election, it would be necessary to pass a temporary clause relating to the position of the voters this year, while this clause will refer to them in future. There is no necessity for postponing this clause.
MR. SERJEANT BARRYproposed to add a proviso, to the effect that the occupants of land or tenements in a borough rated at the net annual value of less than £8, and more than £4, should be entitled to be put on the register and vote at the election of Members of Parliament, notwithstanding the immediate lessor should not have been rated,
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 27 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
§ On Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress,"
§ COLONEL FRENCHasked when the now clauses would be brought up and the consideration of the Bill resumed. He gave Notice that as soon as the postponed clauses were disposed of he should ask the House to adopt in the Irish counties a franchise of £8 instead of £12.
§ MR. DISRAELII think it is due to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and also to the importance of the question generally, that no time should be lost in coming to a conclusion upon this question of the Irish representation, and therefore I will remove the Order which I had arranged for Thursday, and will put this Bill first for that day.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.