Debates anb 1,9rocttbinas in Varlianunt.

THE IRISH FRANCHISE.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, the motion for the second reading of Lord Morpeth's Bill for amending the elective franchise and the registration of Parliamentary electors in Ireland, was prefaced by the presentation of a great number of petitions pro and con. from all parts of Ireland. Of these, the most important was one agreed to at a meeting in Belfast, to which 86,000 signatures were attached of persons owning land producing an annual income of one million and a half. This petition was presented by Lord STANLEY in favour of his Registra- tion Bill.

When Lord MORPETH had moved the second reading of his bill, Lord STANLEY immediately rose to oppose it. He said he could not consent to the second reading of a bill which tacked to the regis- tration of voters a subject of still greater importance—which altered, in fact, the whole system on which the representation is founded. As to the details of the bill, so far as regarded registration, there was no material difference between Lord Morpeth's and his own ; and he was glad to perceive that in this respect the Government measure had been approximated to his, and in those particulars which had last year been the objects of particular vituperation against his bill— The noble lord had adopted the principle of annual revision, but had clogged it with restrictions which would open a wide door for fraudulent and fictitious votes: for though the noble lord admitted annual revision, he at the same time said, in effect, that if a voter should at any time get his name on the registry, the objector was not to be allowed to show that he had no qualification at all ; but be is bound to show that, having had the qualification once, circumstances bad occurred by which he had lost it. The effect of this part of the bill would-be to give a perpetual impunity to fraud, where a party had by fraudulent means once got his name on the registry. He had proposed that an appeal should be given not less to the claimant of the right to vote than to the oppo- nent of his claim. This was objected to; and it was said to be a great hard- ship on the voter, and was complained of as throwing unnecessary obstacles in the way of the political rights of voters. But in the bill of the noble lord now before the Raise, not only was the principle of appeal adopted fur the objector to the vote as well as the claimant, but an appellate tribunal was proposed, to which both parties could proceed. The tribunal of appeal was, indeed, different from the one he proposed ; for instead of referring the question to the Judges, Lord Morpeth's bill would constitute a tribunal of three barristers, to be appointed by the Speaker. He objected to such appointments by the Speaker, because they would ¶lace him in an invidious position ; and he concluded that the appeal to the Judges would be more satisfactory, and less liable to suspicion of party bias, than that of three barristers appointed by a leading party-man, as the Speaker must always be. In the bill brought in by himself he had endeavoured to abolish the system of certificates. Lord Morpeth's bill also admitted that certificates were objectionable, but authorized the Clerk of the House to make out copies of the re- gistry, to be sent to the returning-officer. These might be conclusive evidence of the registry as against the Clerk of the Peace, for he was not authorized to alter it ; but it would be no conclusive proof that the party named in the certificate so given had a right to be there, or that he had not lost his right to be on it. These were the principal details of the registration part of the bill to which he objected ; and had the bill been confined to that object, he would not have opposed the second reading. He now came to the more important clause which had been tacked to the bill ; the effect of which would be to postpone or defeat those of its objects which all were agreed it was necessary should be enforced— His first objection was that this bill came before the House under false colours. And in this he sliw another instance of that line of policy which had characterized the present Government, from the very first dawn to the present moment, whatever period that might turn out to be ofits political existence. In the year 1835, his right honourable friend (Sir Robert Peel) went out of office, nominally, it would seem, on a question of tithes, but in reality, not because of opposing a measure for the settlement of that question on which all seemed agreed that something should be done, but his right honourable friend went out of office because be would not consent to a tack being made to the tithe question of a principle which the noble lord opposite and his friend declared to be a sine quit non and without which it would be impossible that the govern- ment could be carried on. It was then that was commenced that line of policy which he could trace in the present measure, to prop and bolster up men and ohtain for them the credit of attempting to carry some perfect measure which they knew they could not accomplish, and to end as they did then and would now, by confessing they were unable to carry their vaunted sine gull non. That course was followed on the Tithe question, when the sine qua non of the Appropriation-clause answered its temporary purpose ; and so it would again, should Ministers succeed in this new registration measure. They would say then, as they bad said before, to their supporters, " You see what we are prepared to give you ; you see what we have in prospect, and may expect : " but to the grave and thinking portion of the community they said, when their promised object did not appear, " You see what we would have given you, but for the factious opposition by which we were thwarted." And what would be the result ? They would in the end be compelled to abandon their sine gad non, and would end in adopting the measure which, but for this underhand policy. and false colouring, their opponents would long since have aided them in carrying.

As to the objection raised last session against his bill for not defining the franchise, he observed that the bill introduced by Ministers as an amendment upon his contained no clear definition of what the franchise was to be ; and in the present bill the difficulty was attempted to be evaded by making a total change, instead of giving a definition.

He elaborately criticized the reports of the Commissioners on which

the calculations of the valuation for the poor-rate had been made. These valuations, he contended, were made in such a manner that they could not be relied on. They were formed in too great haste to be ac- curate, even had the parties intended to obtain an impartial valuation ; but the character of their mission and the object for which the valua-

tions were made rendered them liable to strong suspicion that party motives influenced them. He showed from the manner in which the valuations were in some instances taken, that they must necessarily be imperfect— It was argued on the opposite side that the 51. qualification for voting in the election for Poor-law Guardians was much below the real value of the property represented. That might be the case ; but then, what means had he to ascer- tain or even to conjecture how much above or below the real value it might be? It might be 51. in one instance, it might be 10/. in another, it might be 201. in a third; it might even extend to 1001.; but it was at all events a test so deficient in the great points of accuracy, precision, and uniformity, that he would never consent to base the Parliamentary franchise upon it, even if he were disposed to agree to an alteration of the principle laid down in the Reform Bill.

The proposition was to make the franchise dependent on the rent charged, and not upon the profit derived. The ground on which the proposition was founded was the alleged difficulty of calculating a bene- ficial interest. Now the propriety of making the interest the standard, had never been questioned. No allegation had been made in England or Scotland that the franchise required defining, and he could not see why the meaning of the same words in the Irish Reform Act should require to be specially defined. During the debates on the Reform Bin

the profit and not the rent paid was understood to constitute the qualifi- cation to vote ; and in support of this opinion Lord Stanley quoted from the speeches of Mr. O'Connell. So clear was this point, that he was surprised that legal ingenuity even could raise a doubt upon it. After having stated in detail his objections to the principle of founding the , franchise on the valuation to the poor-rate, on the plan laid down A in the bill, Lord Stanley next considered the state of society in Ireland as bearing on the question, and the causes which might lead to a smaller proportion of the population in Ireland having the elective fran- Oise than in England— Those causes were of a twofold character. They arose from a greater sub- division of land in Ireland, and from the greater competition for land in Ire- land ; which made men perhaps not inferior in character, but on that point he would say nothing, but certainly inferior in solvency and independence to the tenantry of England, the tenants of laud in Ireland.

To prove the different condition of the occupiers of land in England and in Ireland, he referred to the report of Mr. Stanley, the Secretary

to the Poor-law Commissioners in Ireland ; from which it appeared that in an area of only two-fifths that of England, the number of landholders was double. He referred also to the growing indisposition of the Irish landlords to grant leases which would confer the right of voting, as a cause of diminution in the number of voters— There was no indisposition among the proprietors of land in England to grant leases to the tenants of their farms ; they had no objection to their te- nantry possessing the franchise. And why ?—Because, be they Whigs or be they Tories, did they sit on the Opposition or on the Ministerial benches, it was the pride of the landlord in England to believe that in the main his te- nants would be guided by his wishes in the exercise of the elective franchise. " We do not," said Lord Stanley, " either disguise or deny this fact ; and every one of you, though you may condemn the exorbitant exercise of this influence and of this power, know well that you may calculate on the result of any county election by calculating the number of great landed proprietors that are ranged on each side, and the weight and influence which each and all of them individually and collectively possess. (Ironical cheers from the Ministerial, met by loud and continued cheering from the Opposition benches.) Those gentle-

men opposite who are now cheenng me, are just as willing as their neighbours to take advantage of this power. (Cries of " No! " from the Ministerial, met

with loud cheers from the Opposition benches.) My noble friend the Secretary for the Colonies, in moving for leave to introduce the Reform Bill, said that so far was he from wishing to extinguish that he was even anxious to main- tain the legitimate influence of the landed interest." (Cheers from the Op- position benches.) Let the House consider what the condition of an English landlord would be if he were suddenly to find that not one, two, three, or even half of his tenantry were, on the exercise of their independent judg- ment, differing from him in political views, but that a systematic influence,. which he could neither conquer nor control, was exercised over them all for the purpose of prevailing upon them to set themselves in direct opposition to his political feelings and wishes. He asked them to consider what would be the course of the English landlord under such irritating circumstances ?- Could they blame him if he pursued a course which, under such circum- stances, would not be unnatural—namely, if he selected tenants over whom that influence could not be exercised ? He did not think that any great or general animadversion would fall upon the head of any English landlord who should say, " I will have tenants who are not habitually under an influence exercised hostilely against me." (Cheers and counter-cheers.) But if the landlord should not be inclined to go that length—if he should be re- strained by humanity, or justice, or consideration for his tenantry, from taking such a step as that just mentioned—if he should confine himself to this course and say, "I have no quarrel with you as tenants; you are satisfied with me as a landlord, I am satisfied with you as tenants; but there is one source of irritation, one subject of sore quarrel between us, the hostile influence exer- cised over you against me, let not that interfere any longer between us; as long as it exists there must be an interruption of that harmony which is for our mutual advantage; you feel a confidence in me, I feel a strong interest for you; you know that I have no wish to get rid of you as tenants; do you, therefore, get rid of the source of quarrel between us—get rid of your leases, and become tenants of mine from year to year." (Cries of " Oh!" and " Year ! ") He asked the House whether, if a landlord in England were to adopt such a course towards his tenantry, it would not be considered a kind, a mild, and a liberal course? (Loud cries of " No! " fr6m the Ministerial, followed by loud cheers from the Opposition benches.) He next referred to a Parliamentary paper, printed on the motion of Mr. Hume, containing the amount of the constituencies in Ire- land, for the purpose of showing that notwithstanding these causes operating to the contrary, there had been a great increase instead of a dimunition in the constituencies since 1835, in counties as well as in the boroughs. Even were he to take off 20,000 as the amount of double re- gistrations and fictitious votes, there would be in Ireland 70,000 electors more than the 50,000 he had calculated in 1831. He then called on the House to consider the effect in England if the franchise were to be re- duced in Ireland from 10!. to 51.— The noble lord had refused, not many years ago, to assent to a measure brought in by the honourable baronet the Member for Preston, for establishing an occupation franchise of 10/. a year in England. On what ground, then, could the noble lord now come forward to ask their assent to a similar franchise at half the amount ? Did the noble lord think that the 5L householders in Ireland were a more honest, more industrious, more thrifty, more economical race of men than the 101. householders in England? What was the description of persons who would be entitled to the franchise under this bill ? Why, every unfortunate man who under a grinding landlord occupied a cabin and an acre of land, might be charged with an amount of rent far higher than he was able to get out of the property. In fact, the bill would give the franchise to a class lower than that of the labourers of this country—lower, he said, in station, in education, in acquirements, in independence, than that of the labourer in Eng- land, who depended on his labour for subsistence. He asked the House, for God's sake, not to make this mockery of giving the franchise to those unfortu- nate people. Let Parliament do any thing—by means of the machinery of the Poor-law, or by any other practical means—let them do any thing to relieve the physical wants of those men; but when a man in such circumstances told them that it cost him the exertion of his utmost industry to enable him to pay his rent and keep famine from his doors, let Parliament by all means seek some plan for improving his condition; but let them not insult him by this mockery of conferring the legislative franchise. He called on honourable gentlemen opposite not to consent to such a measure. While they possessed a virtuous horror of the 501. tenants-at-will in England enjoying the franchise because they must necessarily be under the influence of their landlords, let them not make a mockery of conferring the franchise on men who great part of the year barely existed on dry potatoes.

Alluding again to the effect the bill would have on the people of Great Britain— Her Majesty's Government might depend upon it, that the honourable Member for Kilkenny, who had given his services to all the three portions of the kingdom, and consequently looked with equal impartiality to all of them, would say, " I sat for Montrose once, I have represented Middlesex, and I now represent Kilkenny, and I was anxious that Ireland should obtain this exten- sion of the franchise; but now that Ireland has obtained it, I see no reason why equal justice should not be done to the other parts of the kingdom." (Much laughter.) He thought that the noble lord must see with some amuse- ment the anticipations of the more eager of his followers in this respect; and he called upon the noble lord to declare what were his intentions with regard to England. Would the noble lord give the 51. rating as a qualification for voting to the English county constituency ? He firmly believed that the noble lord, although he might succeed for a time in postponing the remedy for the great abuses of the Irish registration—although he might succeed again in unsettling the minds of the constituency of that country and of this, not on the subject of any minor details of reform, but on the whole prin- ciple of the Reform Act—and although he might succeed in throwing the elements of mischief into that cauldron, the stirring of which had been so eloquently denounced by the noble author of the "Letter to the Electors of Stroud"—although the noble lord might succeed in all this, he firmly relied on the constituency of the empire to prevent the noble lord from having the means to pass this bill even through one branch of the Legislature. Indeed he hoped—he would not say he ardently hoped, but he would say he anxiously hoped—that the House of Commons would not pass this stage of the bill.

He concluded, by moving as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. C. WOOD expressed his concurrence in the bill, and his approba- tion of the course the Ministers were this session pursuing. The Re- form Bill was not a final measure ; and when any glaring defects existed, it was according to the principle of the bill to extend the franchise and to include greater numbers within the pale.

Mr. LrrpoN and Mr. Lucas supported the amendment.

Lord MORPETE rose to answer the objections raised against the bill by Lord Stanley. He commenced by retaliation. Alluding to the charge that Government would by this measure unsettle men's minds and create disturbance—

In this particular he thought the Ministers had still some lessons to learn of

the noble lord opposite: Characterized as the noble lord was by many emi- nent qualities, it was not as a settler, an anti-disturber, and a peace-maker

that he was most distinguished. The noble lord had talked of the Government

to which Lord Morpeth belonged " making the cauldron boil"; but on the present occasion, and with respect to the present subject, he fancied it was the noble lord's own hands which had put the most powerful ingredients into the cauldron, and it was the noble lord himself who had invoked from it the most potent phantoms of mischief. The noble lord characterized the Government

proposal with respect to the settlement of the qualification for the elective franchise as being a mere tack and postscript to the measure : now Lord Morpeth rather looked upon it as its preface, for he regarded it as the most essential ingredient of the measure, constituting the only hope of bringing it to a satisfactory and final conclusion. Unless the elective franchise were settled, he conceived that any proposition on the subject of registration must be a de- lusion and a mockery.

As to the objection that the English and Scotch would be calling for a 51. franchise if it were granted to Ireland, he said that the Irish would be content to take the English qualification as it stood, in preference to the extension proposed to be granted— If the noble lord were to offer the Irish people the English qualification even with all its imperfections and objections, the noble lord would be hailed as a most liberal politician and a most promising disciple of the Movement. The noble lord had alluded to the superior advantages given to Ireland with respect to leaseholds over England; but the noble lord ought to bear in mind that the number of forty-shilling freeholders disfranchised by the act of 1829 amounted to no less than 191,666.

Then as to the charge that Ministers were uselessly agitating this question, that charge could be brought with more force against the other side. For his part, he conceived the time was not ripe for legis- lation until the Poor-law was more matured ; but the Opposition had hurried it on— The opponents of Ministers were not satisfied with upbraiding them with a want of alacrity in bringing forward their own measure, they must needs have a measure of their own. The noble lord was tired of inaction- " No :oys to him pacific sceptres yield,

War sounds the trump ; he rushes to the field."

He sighed over former arms bills and former coercion bills. He challenged them to the fight, and made it impossible for them to remain any longer pas- sive spectators of his follies and inroads into the domain of legislation and ra- vages on the national franchise ; and as he threw down the gauntlet, they:had not shrunk from taking it up.

The bill Lord Stanley proposed to remedy the evil of perjury, would, in Lord Morpeth's opinion, tend to aggravate the existing evil, because it left the main point of doubt and dispute unsettled. It was on the question of value that all the alleged perjury took place. He did not think that actual perjury was intended ; but it showed the indecent conflicts of testimony which took place, for the prevention of which the bill of the noble lord took no steps. He did not recommend the rating under the poor-law as an exact criterion, but as a means of preventing fraud and overreaching. As to the amount of qualification, whether 5L or 101., that was for consideration-in Committee, and did not affect the principle of the bill— The reason, which had made the Government adopt the sum of 5/., (and he had heard no reason which would dispose him to recede from the proposition,) was because they thought it incumbent on them, in order to render improba- ble a recurrence of those evils which presented themselves so forcibly in the present registration system of Ireland, by adopting the poor-law rating as a basis, to ex on some amount which, in the opinion of Government, would be likely to establish a fair equilibrium, and afford reasonable evidence of the fran- chise as intended to be bestowed by the Reform Act.

The effect of the valuation generally, where it had been ascertained., was to place the value considerably lower than the actual rents. Then as to the amount of the constituencies, he believed there would be found to be a great diminution since the registry in 1832 had ceased to be in force; and that if an election were now to take place, the numbers en- titled to vote would be a great many less than before the registries of 1832 had expired— He hoped that the House, in passing its deliberate verdict upon these two rival measures now before them, would be so far guided by the spirit of the Reform Act of 1832 as to weigh deliberately the general features of the two measures in connexion with the principle of that great enactment. He begged the House to consider these facts. The bill of the noble lord would involve all voters, good and bad, in the same series of obstructions, delays, appeals, and costs; subject them all alike to restrictions of every description, which would have a manifest tendency to impair a great and important public right, and must inevitably in the end pinch and pare down the elective franchise of the Irish people within very disproportionate bounds; and that whilst it did all this it left all those points of dispute, all those prolific sources of discontent, all those mischiefs which had been so loudly and so justly complained of, wholly untouched, uncared for, and unredressed. On the other hand, the bill which he proposed, whilst it removed all that train of doubts and disputes which at pre- sent existed, and put in their stead clearness, plainness, and simplicity, went upon the principle of giving instead of denying facilities for the exercise of a great and beneficial public right, and did not shrink from affording also colla- teral means to some possible future enlargement to a popular franchise, which had been too long cooped up and confined, and in some degree equalizing the conditions of two great portions of her Majesty's subjects. It could not be denied that great anxiety and agitation existed in Ireland at the present mo- ment. He did not wish to hint at the agitated question of a repeal of the Union, for he knew what a concurrence of parties there would be to resist such a measure if it were talked of; but he thought a happy opportunity now pre- sented itself for replacing feelings of amity for those of animosity and aliena- tion which had too long existed, for restoring confidence, and for riveting the Union with links more durable than law, more firm than force could make it, and for making it such as patriots would not be easily tempted to despise.

At twelve o'clock, on the motion of Mr. BROTRERTON, the debate was adjourned.

Before Tuesday's debate began, an immense petition was presented to the House of Commons by Lord MORPETH, signed by 225,800 per- sons in Ireland, in favour of his Registration and Franchise Bill.

The debate on Tuesday was opened by Mr. YOUNG of Cavan ; who opposed Lord Morpeth's bill as inconsistent with the state of Ireland. Sir R. BATESON took a similar view of the measure. The speakers in favour of the bill, in the early part of the evening, were Mr. Serra O'BRIEN and Mr. CAREW.

Lord HOWICK spoke to the question, not as regarded the amount of franchise, but in reference to the test of the poor-rate ; which he consi- dered the principal feature of the measure on which the vote was then to be given. The present state of the franchise presented innumerable difficulties and doubts, which it was essential to remove ; and he thought the assessment to the poor-rate, if properly ascertained and placed under certain regulations, might be the means of settling the difficulty with satisfaction. As to the charge of perjury, so long as the law remained as at present, he conceived differences of opinion might honestly exist as to the value of the holdings ; and the variations in statement did not imply the commission of perjury— It was a matter of opinion upon which men might honestly differ; and when that happened to be the case, it was sufficiently proved by experience that oaths were not taken in the meaning in which they were designed. He would not make these charges of perjury founded against the Irish people on their religious tenets, which he had heard with so much disgust on a former occa- sion, but from which he was happy to find the present debate was free. He would not charge the Irish people with any peculiar disregard of troth arising from their peculiar religious tenets. Such illiberality of sentiment he utterly disclaimed. Not only in Ireland but in England, and not only in England but in all countries where the interests of large classes were at stake, oaths and solemn promises were found to be but trifling barriers, which were easily over- leaped. Experience proved this to be the case even as regarded men of otherwise the highest honour. For instance what class was there which for probity, honour, and uprightness surpassed the British merchant, whose virtues were admitted over the whole civilized globe, and whose character was respected even in those remote or unfrequented regions to which civilization had not yet extended? Yet, when through a mistaken policy and a system of absurd restrictions, compulsory oaths were enforced at the Customhouse, they were broken through without compulsion, and what was called a "Customhouse oath" was only known as the byword of an obligation made but to be disregarded. The thing eventually became so notorious, that the ill-judged imposition was ultimately done away with, and no oaths were now taken with respect to im- ports or exports.

Though the test by rating seemed the least free from objection, he must say the valuations in the returns presented on Monday were in the highest degree unsatisfactory. The valuations could not be de- pended on. Still that was no reason for voting against the second read- ing; since the Douse might take measures for procuring valuations which should really he correct. And probably the whole object might be attained by requiring that the voter should be rated for a certain amount beyond that for which he might be rated in the shape of rent (that is, for a bond fide surplus belonging to himself.) The landlords were now diminishing the number of tenants qualified to register, by refusing to renew the leases ; and that number would be still further diminished by any searching law of registry like that of Lord Stanley. Such a result the House ought to counteract, as far as that could be ef- fected by clearing the construction of the law. He approved of that part of the bill which appointed a Court of Appeal ; as he conceived the mode proposed of composing that court had fewer objections than any other which had been suggested.

Mr. LEFROY objected to the bill, on the ground that it would destroy the principle of the Reform Act, and set up a principle of Democracy in its place.

Mr. Picorr, the Attorney-General for Ireland, adduced numerous instances of the uncertain manner in which the present decisions as to the franchise were given. The law, resting on opinion, was differently construed by different Revising-Barristers and Judges, according to the bias of their minds. He argued that all the objections raised as to the mode of ascertaining the value and the amount of qualification, were questions for discussion in Committee, and ought not to affect the second reading of the bill.

Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT said, the main point on which he and the Conservative party founded their opposition to the bill vas, that under pretence of affording a solitary and definite test of qualification, it at-

tacked the Reform Bill in a most material point. He and they approved in principle of a test founded on the rate to the poor properly imposed— He knew not why it should be supposed that they were hostile to such a test : on the contrary, he had supported it, and his right honourable friends near

him had supported that test as applied to the qualification for voting in muni-

cipal bodies. What he objected to was this, that, under pretence, if he might so say, of applying the poor-rate as a test of value, it swept away and destroyed the present elective franchise in Ireland. It entirely and completely destroyed the constituency created by the Reform Bill, and substituted another consti- tuency on a totally different principle and of a totally different character.

The principle of the Reform Bill was, that in counties the franchise should be based on property, in boroughs on occupation. It was now proposed to dispense with all property qualification whatever in the counties of Ireland : but every occupier of a cottage or garden at rack- rent was to have a county vote. He hardly knew how to distinguish such a plan from universal suffrage. It was a breach of the compact made at the time of the Relief Bill, when it was agreed to extinguish the forty-shilling freeholders. This bill did not restore that class of voters in so many words, but it would bring back that and other more objectionable classes. Under the forty-shilling system, the landlord must have given the freeholder an interest ; but here the landlord would take the utmost farthing of rent and still keep the tenant under his gripe. He commented upon the irregular manner in which the Poor-law valuators bad proceeded with their labours ; and contended, that if the bill were passed, it would still leave the franchise open to doubt, and give rise to as many difficulties as it was intended to remove.

He appealed, then, to those honourable gentlemen who in that ;House had hitherto resisted the wild and visionary schemes that had been brought forward from time to time by a section of the supporters of her Majesty's Government ;

and he asked them, were they prepared to support a bill that was more objec- tionable than any that had been yet proposed. He could well understand bow the mass of the supporters of her Majesty's Government might do so, but not

how honourable gentlemen who considered that the Reform Bill was the settlle- ment of a great question—he did not understand how they could join those -gentlemen ; and he did venture to hope, whatciver might be the motives or the objects of her Majesty's Government in introducing this bill, that amajority would declare to them that they would not consent, under a guise of a bill to .amend the registration in Ireland, to set aside the Reform Bill for three the countries, and thus allow a new experiment uponthe constituency of the empire, which he thought must be attended with danger to all the_established institu- tions of the country, if not to the constitution itself.

Mr. MACAULAY contended that the objection now raised to the bill was a question of detail, which did not affect its principle. The amount of franchise might be settled in Committee ; as there seemed to be no objection to the nature of the proposed test. Both bills before the House were strongly marked with the spirit of the parties from which they proceeded. He assumed as the principle on which a registration bill ought to be founded, that it should attempt to keep out bad voters and to let in the good and honest— In looking at the machinery of both bills, he preferred that of his noble -friend. It kept out the dishonest voter, and employed a test by which they ascertained the franchise. It was connected with a check which acted without difficulty, without the intervention of an objector, without a subpoena, without an Assistant Barrister, without a Judge of Assize. His noble friend struck at motives of self-interest ; he sought a remedy in the nature of things and in

the hearts of men. This was a check which, without impeding the honest Toter—without drawing him from his home—without causing him any anxiety,

or doubt, or annoyance, and without laying on him any new pecuniary charge, afforded such a test as was most desirable, because the surest and the easiest way of ascertaining the franchise. When, then, he turned to the bill of the

noble lord opposite, what was the check to keep out the dishonest voter? He

looked at the bill over and over again, and the only security he could find in it was the trying over and over again the same question ad infinite= if

the object of the bill was to thin the constituency—if its object was to leave

in Ireland a shade, a mere shadow of the representative system, then the bill was well conceived : if this were its entire aim, then it was worthy of the abili- ties of the noble lord that nobody bad ever denied him. It was simply childish. It was simply a system of preventing fraudulent registration by making all registration in the highest degree disagreeable. He called the noble lord's bill

childish, because it was not directed more against the fraudulent voter, or against the dishonest voter, than against a short or a tall, a blue-eyed or a

black-eyed voter. The check provided by the bill of the noble lord would ope- rate in the same degree against all these classes of voters. The noble lord said that the object of his bill was to prevent perjury ; but he must say, a more fruitful source of perjury than the bill of the noble lord would inconve- nience he could not imagine. It would produce more perjury and more nconve- nience than all the wrong and conflicting decisions of the courts of law. The bill of the noble lord would disfranchise, by wholesale, men who had a right to vote. If the noble lord's bill were adopted in this country, it would disfran- chise many persons who had a right to vote ; it would disfranchise Mr. Mac- aulay himself and many of his friends. He possessed a vote for the Members for the University of Cambridge, and that vote was of more value than a vote for an Irish county : notwithstanding this, if the system of the noble lord op- posite were established in this country—if be were liable to be compelled to go to Cambridge, and to dance attendance there, in order to meet continued ob- jections—he would not venture to say how long he would remain a voter. Indignation might support him for some time; he might attend once or twice but he was quite sure that weariness and disgust would soon deprive him of his vote. It this would be the case with him, how much more strongly must such a vexatious system operate against the Irish farmer. He enforced the necessity of defining the franchise, as one of the most important duties of the Legislature ; and as it was notorious that great uncertainty existed in Ireland on this point, he thought it essen- tial that this measure, which provided a remedy, should be speedily adopted. All the objections against Lord Morpeth's bill resolved them- selves into die—that it would disturb the finality of the Reform Act. But he contended, that the principle of the Reform Act was not at pre- sent in operation in Ireland— If the meaning of the Reform Bill was that a beneficial interest should be the test applied, then it was not in force, for there were counties where the solvent tenant test was applied. If, on the other hand, the meaning was that the solvent tenant test should be applied, then the Reform Bill was not in force, for there were counties where the beneficial interest test was applied. Nay, more, one year one test might be applied in a county, and the next year the other. He was surprised that any person should defend such a state of things as this ; but the strangest of all things was to hear such a state of things maintained on the ground of finality. He wished to see a finality of things, not of words. When men came forward to stop this whirl, the cry was raised, that these men were unsettling the stability of justice. Stability ! when there was one law in December and another in May—one in Cork and another in Mayo—one law in the Queen's Bench, another in the Exchequer— when the question as to whether a great county should possess a constituency of 4,000 or 3,000 was made to depend on the fact whether a certain judge was likely to have a fit of the gout before neat sessions l The question was not between change and no change ; if it were so, he could understand that those gentlemen who opposed this bill might have much to say for themselves : the question u as between one change and an eternal succession of changes—between a change made by the Imperial Legislature and a change effected by the courts of law—not one change but an hundred changes. Could any thing be more calculated to lower the judicial character than such a state of things as this ? Could any thing be more monstrous than to give to the Judges the power% of settling which county of Ireland should have a Democratic, which a Liberal franchise ? On the one band, the constituency was quibbled away by the sub- tleties of the bar ; and on the other, agitated by all the violence of the hustings. The bill of his noble friend appeared to him calculated effectually to exclude the fraudulent voter, while it gave the greatest facility to him who had the just right to the suffrage. It gave permanence instead of change, certainty in the place of doubt, and rescued the Judges of the land from the most calamitous position in which they could by possibility be placed. The bill of the noble lord opposite provided no remedy against improper claimants, while it threw difficulties in the way of the rightful voter ; it left doubt where it found doubt. It left the law unsettled, and gave the Judges a heap of questions to decide. Whatever part of the system the noble lord touched, he aggravated its existing imperfections ; he left the law uncertain, and he made it oppressive. He would degrade the Judges of the land into disfranchisers of the people. Where he had remedied one abuse, he had created twenty.

The establishment of the franchise was the very principle of this measure. He appealed to the House to consider the feelings of the Irish people on the two bills now submitted to consideration, and by granting their wishes, and not adding insults, to cement the Union of the two countries, and make what has hitherto been a source of weak- ness into a means of glory and strength.

At the conclusion of Mr. Macaulay's speech, the midnight hour hav- ing arrived, the debate was again adjourned.

The third night's debate was occupied for a great part by speakers of inferior note. Mr. BROTHERTON commenced it, and spoke in favour of Lord Morpeth's bill.

Mr. R. M. MILNES opposed the second reading. The principle of the measure, he conceived, was the augmentation of the franchise ; to which he could not consent. The bill had been brought forward not with the intention of being passed into a law, but with other ulterior views.

Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE supported the bill, as it would be the means of defining the franchise ; though he was net sanguine enough to sup- pose it would settle the question. He maintained, in opposition to Lord Stanley, that the constituencies in Ireland had been reduced since the passing of the Reform Bill, when viewed in relation to the population ; and he referred to Mayo as an example.

Mr. Sergeant JACKSON commenced by congratulating the House on the absence of irritating topics during the debates, and on the candour and moderation displayed ; and immediately afterwards proceeded to describe Mr. Macaulay's speech as one of the most empty and frothy pieces of mere declamation he had ever heard. It was objected to Lord Stanley's bill that the appeal given by it was open to investigation, and that this was a principle unknown to the law: now this idea was er- roneous, for every case in civil law which could be proved to have been determined by fraud or perjury was open to reinvestigation. This bill gave no definition of the elective franchise :.it merely said that every tenant rated to the poor at 51. should have the franchise. The real question, the real principle involved in the bill, was this—" Is oc- cupancy to be substituted as the ground of the franchise for county electors, instead of the property qualification proposed by the Reform Bill ?" The bill itself was a cariosity : it exhibited the state of uncer- tainty in which its framers had been, and bore evidentproofs that one part had been tacked to the other. Ministers knew full well it was a bill they could never carry, even were it to pass through that House ; but he did not expect it would survive the Committee. He then addressed himself to the contradictory statements respecting the numbers of the constituency, and cited the returns from various counties, to prove there had been an increase. The subdivision of land to create fresh voters had in less than forty years more than doubled the population ; but since the priests had interfered to destroy the influence of landlords over their tenants, a contrary effect had ensued; and now the landlords were averse to grant leases that would give tke franchise. The political power of the priests would by the proposed bill be greatly increased. Their in- fluence was already great enough; and when the feeling that was arising in this country against the Catholic Emancipation Bill was con- sidered, he thought it would be impolitic to pass such a measure as this— There was a growing spirit in this country, having for its object the repeal of that act. (" Hear, hear!") It was with regret he observed it. lie thought it a most imprudent idea; and he warned the House not to give persons hold- ing these sentiments a most powerful argument by enabling them to say that now there were good reasons why the act of 1829 should be rescinded, since, by establishing this new constituancy—being, as it must he, quite as liable to the influence of the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church as the forty-shilling freeholders ever were—the terms had been violated on which that measure was passed. Mr. SLANE; in expressing his intention to vote for the second read- ing, said he thought the proposed qualification was too low, but it might be modified in Committee.

Mr. THESIGER attacked the arguments of some of the preceding speakers in favour of the bill, and went over the same ground, in oppo- sition, that had been travelled by previous speakers in the debate. Though the Conservative party did not object to the poor-rate test, if applied so as to afford security that it would yield a real and substantial qualification, it was impossible with the poor-rate alone to obtain that object. The bill, as it stood, really placed the county voter on a lower footing than the voter for boroughs ; because the qualification required for a county voter was that he should occupy under a lease for fourteen years any premises rated at 51. The amount of rent might, in fact, be merely nominal— He might go on amicably enough with his landlord, and pay the rent pri- vately agreed upon between them ; but let him oppose the wishes of his land- lord, and he would be swept off. This qualification it was proposed to substi- tute for a beneficial interest in property in the county. But it was said that the party must be rated for 51. Let the House consider the effect of this pro- vision. If-a lessee should consent to be rated at 51., though his holding be not 40s. or Is., no person could object to that rating; no person is aggrieved by an- other person being. assessed at a higher amount than he is entitled to be as- sessed at ; the grievance is when himself is overrated and others are under- rated. It was easy with a favourable Board of Guardians for a party who had no interest in the land he occupied to have his name put on the rate—once there, as long as he chooses his name must continue there; for by the bill, if a person is put on the rate for 5/., although the Board of Guardians next year should be satisfied that the party was improperly placed on the rate, and should reduce the amount of his rating, still the voter would have a right to insist on paying the 5/., and it would be irrevocable during the whole time.

There had been no ground assigned for lowering the franchise in Ireland. If the object of the bill were to define the franchise, that might have been done without altogether changing its nature and qua- lification. The measure he conceived to be most prejudicial to the in- terests of both countries, and had been introduced without any ade- quate motive.

Mr. C. Bur..LEst thought the country was indebted to Lord Stanley for having brought the evils of the Irish system of registration before its notice ; but those evils were in a great measure attributable to himself as the author of the Irish Reform Act. The bill he brought in to remove the evil he had created was a bad bill ; but the House should be grateful to him for it, as it had induced the Ministers to bring iu a good bill. Lord Stanley's measure invited personation, fraud, and perjury : he never saw a measure so calculated to disgust the House. Mr. Buller then proceeded to analyze Lord Stanley's bill, to justify himself in so describing it ; and he contrasted its provisions with those of the Government measure, to show how much the latter was preferable in its design and its operation ; especially in its appointment of a tribunal of appeal. He did not think the Reform Bill should be lightly dis- turbed ; but neither could he abide by the extreme doctrines of finality ; and he had no objection to a definition, which would reproduce in Ire- land the same kind and amount of qualification which it superseded. He advised the Opposition to look not only to the strength and temper of the Irish people, but to the state of our foreign relations. It was de- licate to touch these subjects ; but at a time like the present it was childish to pass them by ; and all the great gains to Ireland had been acquired at such critical times. The Irish character had been greatly raised, by liberty, by able leaders, by a zealous priesthood, by a series of successes, and they had been rendered eminently formidable by their new obligations of temperance. Much of justice had of late been done to the Irish; but it was not wonderful if their resentment still sur- vived its cause— He could not wonder there was indignation on their part against those who wished to root out their very existence. Honourable gentlemen on the other side had described them as savages and aliens—(Loud cries of " No, no ! " from the Opposition, and cheers from the Ministerial side); they had described their repre- sentatives as perjurers—(Cheers, and counter-cheers)—their religion as a wrong and mischievous idolatry; and their priesthood, whom they loved and vene- rated, as surpliced ruffians. (Continued cheers.) When he saw persons using such languake as that—persons who had never willingly granted any thing to the people of Ireland, but had always supported every measure fur their coer- cion and disfranchisement—he must say, as an Englishman, he could not com- plain that the Irish people had relaxed no part of their former hostility to this country. And what must be the result of that hostility if the Ascendancy policy were gained He would not allude to Irish insurrection, because he did not think such a thing probable—certainly not whilst the honourable and learned Member for Dublin was living, because he taught every person that the insurrection which was most effectual in coercing a Government was that which never broke out but was always to be apprehended. Now, what would be the first consequence of the present Administration giving up the govern- ment? That all that had been done during the last six years for the benefit of Ireland would be undone.

Coercion would again be the order of the day ; and yet the state of our foreign relations was so delicate that we might ere long have need to look to Ireland for support. Could this country expect that cordial support would be given under such circumstances ? Again, it must not be forgotten that the Tories of the present day were distinguished for timidity : they were bold enough when danger was at a distance, but when the indignation of a people was actually roused they were ready enough to give way. The instant war broke out and danger was im- minent in Ireland, they would repeat their former conduct, and yield to intimidation when the benefits of timely concession had been lost— Some honourable gentlemen might suppose the danger to be not so great as he represented it; but why should they incur any mischief or risk ? Was it for the purpose of turning out the Ministers ? Now he thought that the Oppo- sition could not bring their great strength to bear on any question half so in- convenient—not to the present Ministers—but to their successors. (Cheers.) Was it for the gain of a dozen seats in that House, which, by means of juggling

the Irish representation, might be transferred from the people to Orange land- lords ? They would not compensate for their weakness by collision with the people. The Irish nation was not a people with which the Government need necessarily be in collision. The events of the last seven years showed how quietly

the Irish people lived under a good representative government, and with how little of justice and concession they might be conciliated. If this course of com-

mon prudence and justice had been from the first pursued towards them—if the same good sense and fairness bad been displayed to them as to the Hindoos—if they had been conciliated, as every people must be conciliated, by conciliating their leaders—if those popular leaders had been conciliated, as all popular

leaders may everywhere be conciliated—(Laughter from the Opposition hen5lies) —he meant to speak of all popular leaders except those highly-distinguished

gentlemen on the other side of the House, who never cared for the influence

and emoluments of office—(Laughter from the Ministerial benches)—if, above all, the people had been conciliated by conciliating the priesthood, in the same way as every prudent Government in Europe had attached to itself the priest- hood of every denomination, by paying them respect, the Irish people might have been too manageable in the hands of Government. Why was the House now called upon to depart still further from this just and reasonable course ? For what object which common sense did not laugh to scorn, and common jus- tice and humanity would not repudiate with horror ? (Prolonged cheers.) Sir JAMES GRAHAM, after commenting at some length on the speeches of Mr. C. Buller and Mr. Macaulay, vindicated several of the points of Lord Stanley's bill which had been attacked. He then proceeded to

state his objections to the bill under discussion, and to the motives which induced Ministers to bring it forward. There was not the slightest chance of such a bill passing; whilst bringing it forward with the sanction of the Government would unsettle the minds of the people in Ireland, and lead to the expectation of constitutional changes in England and Scotland. This concession of the extension of the suffrage, after having been constantly refused to the Radicals who supported the Ministers, was now granted to the Irish Repeaters. If he were not

alarmed at the principle of the bill itself, he could not acquiesce in the measure on account of the rapid progress made by Ministers in danger- ous concessions of this description— Would the noble lord allow him to trace what had been that progress? In the summer of 1839, having come to the conclusion that they no longer suffici-

ently possessed the confidence of that House to conduct the Government, her Majesty's Ministers resigned their offices. They returned to place under cir- cumstances on which he would not dwell; but within a week of their return to their offices the honourable Member for Preston, a supporter of her Majesty's

Government, made a motion that the 101. franchise should be extended to the counties in England—one-half higher, be it observed, than that qualification now proposed for Ireland. The Member for Bridport on that occasion made a most pathetic appeal to the noble lord opposite as to the distress of the Eng- lish Radicals for some popular ground on which Liberal Members might go be- fore their constituents, and told him if he waved on this he must no longer calculate on the support of the Radical section of the House. The honourable.

Member for Sheffield was more explicit : he told the noble lord, that two-thirds of the party he attempted to lead went beyond the line be laid down, and that it was impossible for the party to be kept together unless he gave way on this

point. And so the session ended. He thought at that time, after two such pressing appeals, that probably the concession would be made; but he confessed

that his suspicions had been converted into certainty when he had read the

speech made from the hustings at Edinburgh by the Secretary at War. On that occasion, the right honourable Member announced distinctly to his con-

stituents, that he was decidedly in favour of the'extension of the 10/. franchise

to the counties of England and Scotland. That gentleman was admitted into the Cabinet. Immediately after he had taken his seat at the Cabinet, at the

commencement of the session, the Ballot was made an open question. A mem- ber of the Cabinet having declared for the 101. franchise in the counties of England and Scotland, the Ballot being made au open question, they arrived in the course of eighteen months of rapid concession to the tender of a Si. fran-

chise for the counties of Ireland. Now they would permit him to ask to whom this concession was made ? Why, distinctly to the honourable and learned Member for Dublin ; and to him alone the merit of this measure was really due. Ile must say, that he had the most evil forebodings as to the use to which this concession would be applied ; for what could be more plain than the assertion of the honourable and learned Member, that this was not the end he sought—that this was but the means to another end ?

Sir James recapitulated the objects which Mr. O'Connell had de- clared it was his intention to accomplish as the only acts of justice that

would put a stop to his agitation for Repeal. Then he quoted from the- declaration of Lord Juba Russell to the electors of Stroud, in which the attempts to agitate for a Repeal of the Union were condemned, and

the immediate effect of which it was stated would be war between the two countries. This exposition of the designs and intentions of the Repealers was given in 1832 ; and now the Ministers were acting under the control of the man whose designs had been thus openly repro-

bated-

Lord Ebrin

gton had recently declared that he would not countenance Re- peal by bestowing his patronage on any person favourable to it. But what bad been the conduct of her Majesty's Ministers on the subject ? The honour- able Member for Liskeard had said that there was an instrument by which all popular leaders might be conciliated. That appeared to be the recipe by which the Government attempted to put down the Repeal agitation in Ireland. It had occurred to him that it would be worth while to look to a division on a Repeal motion made in 1834 by the honourable and learned Member for Dub- En. In the list there were 33 who voted, and two tellers. He would read it, to show how large a portion of those popular leaders had been conciliated by the delightful recipe. The first on the list was Mr. Fitzsinon, a near relative to the Member for Dublin, now appointed to be Clerk of the Haoaper in Ire- land. The next was Mr. Kennedy, then the Representative of Tiverton, who now filled the situation of Slave Commissioner at the Havannah. The next was Mr. Lynch, now a Master in Chancsry. Then came Mr. Maurice 0-Con- nell, Clerk of the Registry-office in Dublin. Then Mr. O'Dwyer, of the Court of Exchequer. Then an honourable gentleman who had been made a baronet—the honourable Member for Limerick, he believed, Sir David Roche. Then came the teller, who was now the President of the Board of Trade. Last, but certainly not least, came the honourable and learned Member for Dublin; who had last year announced in his place that he bad been offered the office of Chief Baron in Ireland by the Government, but had refused it, because he could not trust himself.

He called on Lord John Russell to declare whether he was weary of the Reform Act, and to what extent he was now disposed to carry his innovations on that measure—

He thought that noble lord ought frankly to state whether he intended to snake further concessions; that he ought to avow his principles, and give them their legitimate effect, even if the fate of his Government hung on the issue, or beware lest it should be said of him with truth, that he was content to govern by the power of the Crown, when he had ceased to command the confidence of the nation. (Great and prolonged cheering.)

Mr. SnEn. spoke next. He twitted Sir James Graham for his poli- tical inconsistency ; and for his former support of the Ballot, and his abuse of the party with which he was now acting. As to the bill before the House, Mr. Sheil considered it to embody the true spirit of the Re- form Bill, and it would be the means of allaying the unhappy ferment which prevailed in Deland. There had been no objection to the forty- shilling freeholders so long as they voted at their landlords' command; but as soon as Irish electors became independent, they became ob- noxious. He cited a declaration made many years since by Lord Stan- ley, that a beneficial interest of 101. was enough, without a value of 101. assignable to a solvent tenant ; and made a keen and bitter attack on that nobleman for having quitted the Whigs. He defended the minority of the Judges in their refusal to defer to the majority ; and contended that the remedy of all the evil would be found in a legislative definition of the franchise— The noble lord (Stanley) had said that this bill of his noble friend bad been brought forward under false colours and fraudulent pretences ; he would not use terms so coarse in reference to the noble lord, but who could doubt the purpose of the noble lord, who had watched his conduct and read his bill?—he should rather say, who had heard him on Monday last enunciate such peculiar doctrines respecting the relation of landlord and tenant—doctrines which ought to show the people of England what manner of man was now the standard- bearer of the Tory party in that House, and make them feel that the time was come when against the strides of domination a stand must be made—when against the undisguised, avowed, unmasked, ostentatious spirit of intimidation, some protection for the consciences and liberties of the people should be required. The noble lord, by the announcement he had made, with more than the intrepidity of the most inveterate Tory, had conferred a public benefit. The production of this bill might also, perhaps, be considered in the same light. The truth was this—if the noble lord had not made some aggression on the Reform Act—if he had not himself entered the path of innovation—if be had net endeavoured to convert the counties of Ireland into a species of close boroughs—the reaction would not have been so strong, and the necessity for re- pelling him would not have been so apparent ; but now it was found they must not only raise a siege, but direct all their batteries against him, in order to prevent his entering the citadel. The opposition to the Government bill could not be defended by fair arguments in relation to the welfare of Ireland : it was only to serve factions purposes that the objections to the measure were raised. But he warned the House to consider the position of Europe, and the danger of exciting the enmity of the Irish in such circumstances— He called upon the House to bear in mind, thkt while France was arming her population and fortifying her towns and seaports, they were disfranchising a portion of the living force of the realm, and thereby creating dissatisfaction

amongst the people upon whom reliance must be placed in the hour of trial. The people of Ireland were ready to make sacrifices, and ready to bear their share of the common burdens which patriotism and an enthusiastic love of country

would inspire. Surely, then, they deserved more magnanimous treatment at the hands of Great Britain. The actual injuries to her interests would be these—

that for the loss of degree she had the ignominious compensation, that if fo- reign Cabinets could not be baffied—if Irish agitators could not be put down— if popular affection—if the verdicts of martial juries could not achieve in the end, the towers of Dublin Castle would exhibit the ensangained banners of Orangeism. (Much cheering.) Between twelve and one o'clock the debate was again adjourned.

On Thursday, Mr. MILNES GASKELL was the first speaker. He com- plained of the constant changes in the Reform Bill, which its authors were making, in opposition to their former declarations that it was a final measure. He rejoiced that Ministers had been compelled by their Democratic supporters to unfurl the standard of agitation and altera- tion, as it gave the House an opportunity of deciding whether they would consent to be thus tampering with the franchise. As to the cause of this bill, he believed that it was not the diminution of Irish electors that bad induced Ministers to propose such a measure, but the decrease in their Parliamentary supporters.

Mr. VILLIERS STUART, Mr. HOWARD, Mr. GISBORNE, Mr. RoCHE, and Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL supported the bill. They, how- ever, advanced no new arguments. They relied upon the simplicity and justice of the measure, in opposition to the complexity and unfair- ness of Lord Stanley's. Colonel CONOLLY, Mr. LASCELLES, Mr. Cam: MONDELEY, and Mr. E. TENNENT, were the Opposition Members who spoke early in the evening against the bill.

Mr. TENNENT, in particular, pointed out the facility the bill would afford for adding to the number of fictitious voters. In constituencies which had been nearly contested, a very trifling annual sum would speedily put an end to elections ; 500 voters could be kept upon the lists for 501. a year.

Mr. SHAW characterized this bill as an emanation from the party of the Movement ; and so far from settling the franchise, if it were passed there would be no longer any hope of peace. One advantage attending a high franchise in Ireland, was that it prevented the division of lands, winch had been carried to such an injurious extent in that country. Since the abolition of the forty-shilling freeholders, there had been a gradual improvement throughout the country ; but if this bill passed, the progress of amendment would be stopped, and the country would be in a worse condition than before. The introduction of measures like the present, when the experiment of the Poor-laws had scarcely come into operation, would be sure to have a most inju- rious tendency in carrying out that plan of relief. In reference to the opinions expressed by Lord Morpeth in 1839, when Mr. O'Connell brought in a measure to extend the franchise—and which proposition was objected to by his Lordship, on the ground that it would be in direct contravention both of the Emancipation and the Reform Act settlement—he wished to know what had since occurred to alter this opinion ? He believed it was, that the Government was threatened with the withdrawal of Mr. O'Connell's support unless they acceded in this form to his proposition. Mr. Shaw noticed the threats which had been uttered in the House, as well as out of doors, of Ireland seeking the assistance of France. Mr. Barrett, the friend of Mr. O'Connell,

had affirmed at the Repeal Association, that if Lord Stanley's bill were passed the people of Ireland would cry, " France and the people," and not " England and connexion." Now he felt assured, from his know- ledge of the Irish, that these threats were vain. Were any rash at- tempt made like that which had been menaced, there would be found a large majority of every class, of every sect, and of every party in Ire- land, faithful to the laws and to their allegiance to the Crown.

Mr. O'Cornizu., after disclaiming responsibility for the expressions or conduct of Mr. Barrett, alluded to the petitions from Ireland ; and asked, was it politic to tell the people of Ireland there was no hope for their country or their religion in any form ?—

The people of Ireland understood the question thoroughly. It was a simple and single issue between them and honourable gentlemen opposite. The sues-

thin was, whether they would pass a measure to extinguish the franchise of Ireland, or to extend and increase that franchise : that was the real and sole question before the House. ...Every thing else was pure collateral matter. It was plain that the measure of the noble lord the Secretary for Ireland would extend the franchise, though not near so much as was wished by him or appre- hended by others ; but the bill of the noble lord opposite would extinguish the franchise for ever. The right honourable baronet the Member for Tamworth said well, " Fight the battle in the Registration Courts." Following up his details, the noble lord opposite would have the battle-field full of pitfalls and traps. (Great cheering.) Yes ; he had done it designedly—he intended to make it impossible to register.

Mr. O'Connell dilated on the interest of the present discussion to Fo- reign Powers—to France, Spain, Russia, and America ; and gave promi- nence to what the previous speakers had said or hinted on this subject. He travelled over the old commonplaces of Irish topics—the penal laws, the insults which Ireland had received from England, and the disproportion of the burdens which she was made to bear. He com- plained, among other things, of the abolition of the forty-shilling fran- chise ; and utterly denied that it was a compact, a condition for grant- ing Emancipation. He complained of the unequal proportions in which the franchise and representation were distributed at the passing of the Reform Bill. • The constituency in Ireland were gradually diminish- ing ; and the Irish people had to thank Lord Stanley for having directed attention to the subject, and given timely notice of the approaching extinction. Again alluding to the danger of foreign war so long as Ireland continued dissatisfied, Mr. O'Connell exclaimed-

" 1 want you to tell the people of Ireland that all these divisions shall end; that you will identify them with you. Oh! refuse it—I threaten you with nothing. _ I prophesy—I tell you that you are the real Repeaters, and not me. I tell you that by this additional insult you bring the banner of Repeal amongst a people altogether of the middle classes, and many of them of the leading gentry." Of this they might rest assured, that while he lived, no violent mea- sures would be taken in Ireland. He relied with confidence on the Catholic clergy, those truest '° unpaid Magistrates," to second his efforts to this end- Outrages committed by a remnant of the Orange party on Catholics might occur, but never a tangible rebellion.

Sir ROBERT PEEL repudiated the sentiment that the spirit of vindic- tive animosity to the Irish people continued to animate the people of England. The feelings which dictated the penal laws were extinct. Addressing Mr. O'Connell directly, he said- " You threaten us with the alienation of Ireland in case of the growing dif- ficulties of this country. Now, I believe you hold language unworthy of the representative of the Irish people. I believe you libel your country, when you insinuate that they would not join us in repulsing the attack either of France or America, if by any misfortune we should be involved in a quarrel with either. • • ' The honourable and learned gentleman tells us, at the con- clusion of his speech—' Give me this concession, and you disarm me of much of my power.' But what was the tenour of the whole of the first part of the speech which he has delivered to might ? Did he not tell you that it is true you have made a sacrifice for peace of one quarter of the revenues of the Esta- blished Church, but that you must hope for no advantage until you surrender the other three porters ? • * * if this extension of the franchise be just —if it be consistent with your past enactments—if it be consistent with the great legislative act which gave emancipation to the Roman Catholics, and settled the foundations of it—if you really have at heart the welfare of Ire- land—forget the language of the honourable and learned gentleman. If you are satisfied that the privilege required will not be advantageous to Ireland —if you are satisfied that it will disturb—not alone disturb, but subvert—the settlement of the Reform Bill—if you doubt whether it will contribute to the real independence and to the social welfare of Ireland, then, I say, don't pass this bill in the hope that by passing it you will secure the favour of the ho- nourable and learned Member for Dublin, or advance the cause of conciliation one step."

Alluding to the manner in which previous concessions to popular de- mands in Ireland bad led to renewed demands, Sir Robert said he saw no hope, even were the House to grant the present demand, of pro- ducing satisfaction to the agitators ; and that the talk of arms and menaces would be still continued. By adopting the principle of this measure, they would, on the contrary, be establishing a precedent which would lead to a convulsion with England. It was nothing less than a proposition to subvert the representative system in Ireland, and to form a new representation. He wished a satisfactory mode of defining the franchise were introduced ; and regretted that the present state of the law should be aggravated by the division of opinion among the Judges. On whom the blame of that division rested, he thought it becoming to maintain a respectful reserve ; but his perfect conviction was, that it was the intention of the Legislature which passed the Reform Act to adhere to the freehold franchise of the Emancipation Act. Putting aside the question of difference, what could be more monstrous than to maintain that the evils of the present mode of registration should not be removed unless Parliament would consent to subvert the settlement of the Re- form Act ?—

The noble lord opposite could not deny that this bill would amount in Ire- land to a complete subversion of the Reform Act. He asked those who occu- pied the Treasury bench to say whether this franchise, worse than the scot and lot franchise, worse than household franchise, was consistent with the public engagements into which Parliament entered when it consented to relieve the Roman Catholics from the disabilities to which they were formerly sub- jected? No written engagement, indeed, was then made with the Roman Catholics; the Relief Bill was passed without the slightest communication with them. But there might be compacts which had all the force of treaties. He was sure the noble lord (John Russell) would not deny that there were such compacts, though they might not be reduced to writing, nor embodied in acts of Parliament.

In confirmation of this opinion, Sir Robert quoted the following pas- sage from the speech of Lord John in 1837—

" Do I say that the people of England are deprived of the right of recon- sidering the Reform Act ? I say no such thing ; but lam not myself going to do so. I think, on the contrary, that to go again into the question of the con- struction of the representation so soon would destroy the stability of our in- stitutions. It is quite impossible for me, having been one of those who brought forward the measure of Reform, who feel bound by the declaration then made, to take any part in those large measures of reconstruction, or consent to the repeal of the Reform Act, without being guilty of what I think would be a breach of faith towards those with whom I was then acting."

Sir Robert next adverted to the circumstances under which he had brought forward the Emancipation Act— It was perfectly understood that one of the conditions of the bill was, that the constituent body of Ireland should, if possible, be made independent ; that the forty-shilling freeholders should be abolished, and, in place of them, a ten-

nnd franchise should be enacted. It was on the faith of that condition, he not a doubt, that many were induced to give the Relief Bill a reluctant support. The noble lord opposite surely would not deny this; for in 1832, that noble lord refused to alter the franchise established by the Emancipation Act, because—he used the noble lord's own words—" it was part of the com- pact then made." (Loud cheers.) Now he had said last year—and he stated it with the most perfect sincerity—that he was for the fulfilment of that com- pact in the spirit in which be had brought forward the Relief Bill. He ad- hered to that declaration; but he was bound to say, that the spirit in which that great measure had been brought forward should be fulfilled on both sides, and that the conditions attached to it ought to be observed.

He referred to the evidence and speeches of Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Shell at the time of the passing of the Emancipation Act, to show that the extinction of the forty-shilling franchise was in consequenee of their evidence and speeches against that body, whom to-night Mr. O'Connell had declared to be so independent and so well entitled to electoral privileges. Looking towards Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Shell, Sir Robert exclaimed-

" You are the men who sacrificed the forty-shilling freeholders. You gave evidence which convinced and satisfied the public mind, that if such a system as that under which the forty-shilling freeholders existed continued, it was a mockery of independence. You it was who talked of men who could make two thousand such freeholders upon their estates in Tipperary by way of in- dependence. The honourable and learned Member for Dublin, in answer to a question, replied, ' I confess that a forty-shilling freeholder, if lie votes against his landlord, is ruined by it.' Yet this the honourable and learned gentleman sought now to revive: this is the class to whom it was said, that to refuse the franchise, was an insult to Ireland."

The proposed franchise was liable to all the objections that had been raised against the forty-shilling freeholders— By means of the bill of the noble lord opposite, any man who chose to divide his estate might qualify a certain number of voters, or he might secure their dependence by exactly the same means as that of the forty-shilling freeholders was secured. There might be attached to a lease a tenancy at will, more va- luable than the lease itself; indeed, the lease need be of no value. Observe, then, what were the influences operating upon the landlord. There was the double influence of gain and political power. For it clearly appeared from the reports of the Government's own Commissioners, that small holdings were let at a much higher rate than great ones, and that there was a much greater com- petition for small quantities of land than for great ones.

One of the effects of such a measure would be to increase the subdi- vision of land ; and he called on Ministers to read the reports of their own Commissioners before they sanctioned any measure that would have such an injurious tendency, and would be the means of retarding improvement in Ireland. Then as to the effect such a measure would have in England and Scotland : if they established such a precedent of the.extension of the franchise in the case of Ireland, could they refuse the same privilege in this country ?—

Had they no demands backed by exhibitions of physical force for an exten- sion of the suffrage in England? Suppose the Government had found a party in this country base enough to confederate with those discontented persons for the purpose of embarrassing the Government, in what condition would they now have been ? (Cheers.) Had they on his side of the House said to the Chartists that their demands were just, and that physical force required con- cession, or that it was better to purchase peace by yielding the privilege ques- tion, in what condition would the Government have now been ? (Loud cheers.) Aided by the support of those in opposition, the Government had been able to resist the demands which had been made upon them, and to main- tain their ground, so long as they said that the settlement of the Reform Act was permanent. But when they had in regard to Ireland brought in a measure like that now under consideration, the leading principle of which, as had been declared by the right honourable gentleman the Secretary at War, was the franchise which it would establish, did they think they would be long able to resist the demands which would be made for an extension of a similar mea- sure to this country ? If it was right to have a suffrage more extensive than household suffrage in Ireland, would they be able longer to say to the people of this country, that Lord Grey and Lord Althorn had declared themselves in favour of the permanency of the Reform Act, and that they were opposed to any violation of that settlement? He hoped the noble lord, whatever might be his present views, would make a public declaration of his intentions, be- cause nothing could tend more to excite expectation and prolong the struggle -which was going on than the establishment of this precedent, if the noble lord avoided at the same time making a distinct avowal whether the principle which was to be applied to Ireland was or was not to he extended also to England and Scotland. (Loud cheers) The noble lord might have reasons for holding different opinions now from those that he avowed in 1837. He might find it necessary, for the purpose of conciliating lukewarm supporters, and for prop- ping up his falling power, to hold out hopes of increased concessions to those who were dissatisfied wAth the declaration of 1837, and who demanded, if not actual performance, at least vague and indefinite promises as to the further progress of Reform. (Cheers.) Had the noble lord still refused to hold out encouragement, he might have continued to maintain his position : but he feared his power of resistance would be greatly weakened by the precedent which he sought that night to establish. In 1834, the noble lord was a party to a decla- ration by which the efforts to procure a repeal of the Union were dis- countenanced in the most formal manner in a speech from the Throne. In 1837, when the noble lord addressed a letter to his constituents at Stroud, he spoke in the following language to those who advocated an extension of the franchise—" If, after these declarations, any member of Lord Grey's Cabinet were to propose to begin the whole question anew, the obvious remark would be, You have either so egregiously deceived us that we cannot trust to your public engagements, or you have so blindly deceived yourself that we cannot helieve•in the solidity of your new scheme.' Again the noble lord said—" The excitement of a new change, the passions again raised, the House of Commons again in the furnace to be melted in a new mould, the people again in the temper which burst out in flames at Nottingham and Bristol, would go far to shake the stability of property, and make law the servant of disorder. The happy consummation of a labouring class, toiling little and earning much, would be further than ever; the security to be enjoyed in Switzerland and Germany would attract capital and diminish employment at home. The de- luded, indeed, might wake from their dream at length, but too late for peace." These were manly declarations, the very making of which from a place of high authority gave strength to him from whose lips they fell. Tb • noble lord might have found now the pressure upon him to be such that he could not maintain an adherence to these manly declarations. (Cheers.) The noble lord might have received a significant hint at the commencement of the ses- sion, that the foreign policy of the country did not meet with the cordial ap- probation of his supporters. He might have found the necessity to use less strong and forcible language in denouncing the efforts to promote Repeal by agitation. (Cheers.) language noble lord might have found in the return for Surrey a strong indication that the support of the country was leaving him. He might have found it necessary to seek compensation for that loss of confi- dence by renewing the alliance with those in that House who appeared ready to withhold from him their support. He might purchase, by concession on these points, a temporary support. But Sir Robert could not help thinking, when the noble lord recalled to mind the declaration of 1834 and 1837, it would. abate something of the feeling of satisfaction with which he contemplated his temporary triumph over the pressure of immediate difficulties. Something of dissatisfaction, in reflecting on the small majority he might bring to his aid to- night, must cast a gloom over the festivities with which, perhaps, he might celebrate the new compact and the new alliance, when the mortifying regret came across him that he had gained that support by receding from the position which had enabled him to arrest the progress of Democratic principles, by stopping the progress of social improvement in Ireland, by encouraging hopes in this country, by rousing passions and exciting expectations which lie could not disappoint without being the object of indignation, and which he could not gratify without being the fomenter of convulsion. (Protracted cheering.) Lord. JOAN RUSSELL was willing to accept Sir Robert Peel's chal- lenge, and to abide by the compact which lie admitted had been made at the time the Relief Bill was passed. But there were engagements on both sides, and he would not see the engagement with the people of Ireland set aside, as it would be by the bill of Lord Stanley. He reta- liated the accusation of making concessions to Mr. O'Connell, by a re- ference to the manner in which the Tory Government of 1829 had succumbed. Lord Stanley's Registration Bill had been the means of renewing agitation in Ireland, which had previously been enjoying tranquillity ; and because the Ministers opposed that bill, and brought in another, less objectionable to the Irish people, to effect similar objects, they were charged with encouraging fraud and perjury ! With respect to all those questions on which the present Government held different opinions from the honourable gentleman opposite, he might as well state, once for all, that as it was found in many cases to he impossible that the views of Government could be carried into effect, it WES believed that such a bill as Mr. O'Loghlen introduced in 1835, with a definition of the expression "beneficial interest," could not be made law ; and therefore it was deemed better to proceed with other questions on which so much agitation would not be excited. For instance, it was deemed better that the laws relative to the relief of the poor, relative to the administration of justice, and relative to the commercial regulations of the country, should be discussed; and in conse- quence, all exciting questions were left to a future time, when the people would either give an impulse to the opinions held by her Majesty's present Ministers, or declare themselves in favour of those maintained by their opponents. That determination was of no advantage to her Majesty's Government as a party. On the contrary, it was reproached with its unwillingness to bring forward popular rights, and it was stated to be losing its ground in the country. His answer to such reproaches was, that it would he more advantageous to the public that Government should proceed practically with measure of real benefit, which it could carry, and that it should defer other questions which it could not carry to a more fitting opportunity. -Lord John then proceeded to point out the principle on which the bill was founded ; taking the Poor-law test as a criterion of the fran- chise— Taking that criterion, her Majesty's Government proposed to take with it the tenure of a lease which was larger in amount than that of the forty-shilling freeholders ; for their tenures often depended on the life of old persons, and were not on an average of more than six years' duration. Her Majesty's Go- vernment proposed to take the lease at fourteen years, and the rating at 51. They took the rating at 5/. ; for they found that the general custom through- out Ireland was to undervalue land to the poor-rate. They likewise found by the reports now on the table, that a majority of the present freeholders who voted now under the 101. franchise would be disfranchised by the bill of his noble friend the Secretary for Ireland. Lord John thus approached the questions, whether any change had taken place in his opinions with respect to the Repeal of the Union and the Finality of the Reform Act— On the subject of the Repeal of the Union, he had nothing to add to or retract from the opinions which he had on various occasions already expressed in refer- ence to it. Those opinions were in exact conformity with a statement which had been made in November last by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in the name of himself and of her Majesty's Government; in which he had said that the Repeal of the Union he believed to be fraught with calamities, and that it must lead to separation from England. That was his opinion ; but the more he deprecated the coming on of that calamity, the more he dreaded the just complaints of the people of Ireland going unredressed. (Loud cheers.) It was because he was attached to the Union that he felt bound as a Member of the Imperial Parliament—that lie felt bound as a Minister of the Crown—to see that the people of Ireland were not wronged. (Much cheering.) With re- spect to the Reform Act, his opinions were still the same as he had expressed in his letter to the electors of Stroud. With regard to the permanence of that measure—with regard to reconstructing the representation of this country— his opinions were unaltered. But he could not but think, that when a case was made out—when he found that the interpretation of the franchise was on the one side so vague and indefinite as to lead to abuse, and on the other so stringent as nearly to extinguish the constituency—when he was told that the one mode was sanctioned by one portion of the Judges of the land, but that a majority of those Judges thought them- selves bound by the law to adopt the other —he could not think that this extraordinary state of things would, in case of a measure being passed for its settlement, form any ground for altering the Reform Act m England or Scotland. At the same time, he could not shut his eyes to the danger that the alteration in Ireland might be quoted as a precedent for the adoption of a similar measure for the rest of the United Kingdom. (Loud cries of " Hear!' from the Opposition benches.) He therefore had been reluc- tant to interfere with the Reform Act in Ireland until it was made absolutely necessary. Now he conceived it was made absolutely neces- sary, not only by the bill of the noble lord, but by the votes of the House of (Commons during the last session. With regard to the number of elec- tors in this country as compared with those of Ireland, what was the fact ? In the county of Lancaster, the total number of freeholdera was 16,875, the total number on the registry was 27,796 ; in the county of York, the number of freeholders was 26,022, the total number on the registry 49,529 ; making together 77,325 persons registered for the two counties. Now, when the frau-

aim in England was so extensive and the franchise in Ireland so restricted, was there not rather a danger that they might make the Irish discontented, % refusing extension, than that by giving them the franchise they should make

people of England dissatisfied ? The forty-shilling freeholder held by an excellent title ; he had a perfect right to the franchise; but it was a lower franchise than that which her Majesty's Government were now proposing. With respect to the whole of this question, Ile must say he was no believer that the Irish people would be so exasperated with the proceedings of that House in case this boon were withheld, that it might be expected that their allegiance would be transferred to a foreign power. (Cheers.) He was no believer in that anticipation. But nevertheless, the matter was worthy of grave consideration. In this view, was it nothing to be able to say,wlien they came to treat with France, or with America, or any other foreign power, "This comes from the Minister of a Queen who rules over an united and happy people!" (Great cheering.) He totally disbelieved that there was abroad in this country any such indis- position to do justice to Ireland as the honourable and learned Member for Dublin asserted. (Much cheering.) In order to this end, he believed that the course was to lay fully before that House all the reasons for increasing the franchise in Ireland. The proposition might be put with prejudice, it might be met with hostility on the part of many ; but his belief was, that if it were urged earnestly and without intemperance, the people of England would be glad if they could be shown how they might do justice to Ireland. (Loud tl urs.) It was true that the Irish had had disadvantages : they had suffered from the disqualification attached to their religion, they had seen tlkir Cor- porations made exclusive monopolies: but all that had been got rid of; and he believed that from the inestimable benefits to be derived from the free working of the constitution, it would shortly be seen that Ireland was making advance- ment in the arts, and increasing iu the fruits of peace and union. Ile believed that Parliament might expect to see springing up there the benefits of their measures for the improvement of Ireland. (Loud cheers.) The House then divided ; when the numbers were— For the second reading 299

For Lord Stanley's amendment 294

Majority in favour of the second reading... 5

The announcement of the result was received with great cheering from the Ministerial benches, echoed back by the Opposition.

Lord Joss RUSSELL stated that it was the wish of the Government that no delay should take place with reference to the bill, and he should move its committal on Monday next.

The House adjourned at a quarter before three on Friday morning. Ferry SESSIONS.

In the House of Lords, on Thursday, the Earl of DEVON moved the second reading of a bill to amend the administration of justice in Petty Sessions. The present state of the law with regard to the trial and punishment of offenders, in which the circumstances were simple and the pecuniary value small, presented anomalies which it would be ex- tremely desirable to have removed. It operated most injuriously upon -various prosecutors and offenders. He had brought in a bill the year before last which was not persevered in ; but a Committee was appointed, and he would refer to the report of that Committee to show that the Committee were favourable to his views, and that the present state of the law had failed to encourage prosecutions when punishment ought to follow the committal of crime.

The Marquis of NORMANBY admitted that the present condition of the law was anomalous ; and that it was desirable to ascertain whether a system of summary conviction could not be adopted, and how far the obvious convenience and substantial justice of such a system would compensate for the abrogation of trial by jury in certain cases. The bill was read a second time.

MISCELLANEOUS.

WEST INDIA CUSTOMS-DUTIES. On Monday, Mr. LABOUCHERE gave notice, that on the 8th of March he would move for a Committee of the whole House to consider the operation of the Customs-duties of the West Indian Colonies.

CANADIAN ORDINANCES. The Bishop of EXETER, OR Monday, com- plained of the delay that had taken place in the printing of thirty-nine ordinances which had been issued by the Canadian Government. The consequence would be, that the House would only have ten days left to consider them ; for unless the House addressed the Crown to disallow them within thirty days of their first being laid on the table, they would have the force of law ; and twenty days of that period had already elapsed. Viscount DUNCANNON promised to inquire into the matter.

DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IN IRELAND. Lord BROUGHAM, OR Tuesday, obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the act for com- pensating persons whose property was destroyed in riots. Owing to some technical construction of the term " barony," the present act had been held not to extend to Dublin ; and it is to remedy this omission that the bill is introduced.