Lords Sitting of 27 July 1832

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Russian-Dutch Loan; Bankrupt Laws Amendment.—Read a third time:—New-foundland Fisheries, and Appropriation of Duties.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of RADNOR, from the Barony of Ivert, to assimilate the Registry under the Reform Bill (Ireland) to that of the English Bill; from Kin-sale and other Places, for the Abolition of Tithes and Church Cess.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Galway, for Improvements in the Reform Bill (Ireland); and from Derby, for the Abolition of Slavery.—By the Bishop of LONDON, from Leeds, for the Abolition of Slavery,

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR IRELAND—REPORT.
Earl Grey moved, pursuant to the Order of the Day, that the Report of this Bill be brought up.
The Duke of Wellingtonsuggested the propriety of a short delay, as some noble Lords were not yet present, who wished to attend the House on the occasion. It was much earlier than they had for some time past been in the habit of entering upon important business.
After a short interval,
Earl Greysaid, that he did not see the necessity of further delay, as anything that was intended to be done by noble Lords now absent, might be proposed on the third reading of the Bill. He should, therefore, move the Order of the Day that the Report be received.
The Duke of Wellingtonwished to limit the 40 s. freehold qualification in boroughs and cities, to such freeholds as had been created prior to the 31st of March, 1831. Such a provision was contained in the English Bill, and he could see no reason why it should not be introduced into the present measure. There could be no doubt that greater abuses prevailed in Ireland with respect to this description
822
of franchise than in this country. The noble Duke moved an amendment in the 7th clause to attain his object.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the reason why freemen made after a certain date were to be excluded from the franchise was to guard against the abuse of creating a great number, in order to preserve a monopoly of power in the Corporations. But was there any reason to suppose that any considerable number of 40 s. freeholders had been created subsequently to the date mentioned?
Lord Plunkettsaid, that the freeholders who had been created since the introduction of the Reform Bill had, many of them, paid money for the freehold. There was, therefore, no analogy between their case and that of the freemen. The freemen, who had inchoate rights, were to be entitled to acquire the right of voting; and if any occasional 40 s. freeholders had been created, without consideration, they were to be excluded by other provisions of the Bill.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that if this should appear to be the case, he would not press his Amendment. He only desired to legislate upon equal and impartial principles, with respect to freemen and freeholders.
Earl Greythought the object of excluding fraudulent freeholders a very proper one, and he should have no objection to a provision of the kind, taking care that they did not exclude any bona fide freeholders.
The Duke of Wellingtonobserved, that his Amendment was in the precise words of the English Bill.
Lord Plunkett, looking to the different situation of the people of the two countries could not immediately say what would be the effect of the Amendment; but, he believed it would not answer what he understood to be the noble Duke's object, supposing that a desirable one.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he should be perfectly satisfied if the noble and learned Lord would consider the subject in the interval between this and the third reading. His only object was equal justice, and it was certainly difficult to see how the clause could be a proper clause in the English Bill, and an improper one in the Irish Bill.
Amendment withdrawn.
The Duke of Wellingtonhad another Amendment to propose with respect to

823
the sons of freemen. He could see no reason why they should not be as much entitled to vote in Ireland as in England. The noble Viscount said, that the freemen were not as eligible a body of voters in Ireland as in England. But how could he resort to this argument, while, at the same time he assumed that the 40 s. freeholders were a body of voters? He asked no more than that the sons of Irish freemen should be secured in the franchise transmitted to them from their fathers, as the sons of English freemen actually were. He should propose to leave out the words, "born before the passing of the Act," and to add other words to secure this object. Nothing could surely be said against the persons whose rights he proposed to secure, as they were persons not yet in existence.
Viscount Melbournehad said, that such of the freemen as were of respectable station would acquire a right to vote by the household franchise. He had not cast any imputation upon that body when he observed that the right of creating freemen was exercised more extravagantly and exclusively by the Irish Corporations than by those of England.
The Duke of Wellingtonobserved, that the right of freemen's sons must stand upon the same ground in Ireland as in England. He could not conceive how a distinction could be made between the two. If it were said, that the freemen in Ireland made an improper use of their franchise, and ought therefore to lose it, this was an argument in which he could not concur, but at least he could understand it; but, he could not understand why they should disfranchise in Ireland, more than in England, freemen who were yet unborn, and who would be entitled to the privilege of voting by charters and ancient usage.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the noble Duke's argument, founded on the inviolability of charters, would preclude them from requiring residence as a condition of the vote. The children of 40 s. freeholders were disfranchised as much as those of freemen.
The Earl of Rosslynmust object to the clause as it stood, because it made an invidious distinction between Ireland and England. It had been said, that there were greater abuses in Ireland than in England. If so, it would be a reason perhaps for disfranchising the existing freemen, but he did not see its application to a clause which preserved their rights,
824
and destroyed the rights of their unborn children. All he wanted was an equal and impartial enactment.
The Marquess of Butehad been opposed to the measure of Reform, but he had not voted against the second reading of the present Bill, because, the English Bill having passed, he thought it expedient to legislate for Ireland upon the same principles. In sacrificing the hereditary rights of freemen in Ireland, while they preserved them in England, that impartiality, which he thought so necessary to be observed in relation to the two countries, would be abandoned.
Earl Greyhad no objection to the object which the Amendment proposed, but, it was necessary to see that, in attempting to carry this object into effect, they did not go beyond it. He should, therefore, prefer that the noble Duke should postpone the Amendment till the third reading of the Bill.
Amendment postponed.
On the Motion of the Duke of Wellington, it was agreed that clergymen in Ireland should be allowed to register at the Quarter Sessions in the same way as 50 l. freeholders.
Report received.