said, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, with reference to one of the orders of the day, namely, whether it was the intention of the Cabinet of which the noble Lord formed a part, on the 25th of June, 1832, to give the right of voting at elections of Members of Parliament for counties in Ireland to all persons occupying tenements for which they paid an annual rent of 10l. It would explain the meaning of his question if he stated to the House that, having referred to the noble Lord on the subject, the noble Lord had referred him to the bill. That bill, however, did not afford the means of deciding the question. The question referred to June, 1832, and the bill of May, 1830, was evidently not in the state in which it stood before the House at a subsequent period.

said, the hon. Gentleman had been kind enough to put into his hands a copy of the Mirror of Parliament of 1832, and at the same time he had asked him to give an explanation of a; speech of his which he there found reported. A speech was then made by him in explanation of the bill as it stood at the time for consideration by the House, and as it was intended to stand by Earl Grey's Government. In explanation of his speech he had taken the liberty of referring the hon. Gentleman to the bill as he would find it up stairs, considering that a more authentic explanation than any which he could furnish. However, he well recollected the passage, because he had often looked at it, and he had noticed on various occasions that that speech contained a fundamental error throughout, arising out of a misprint he had no doubt, which made the whole statement perfectly unintelligible. The only explanation he could give was this. He was made to speak throughout of a rent of 10l., and he had little doubt the mistake had arisen from substituting the word "rent" for "interest," whereas he had been speaking as the bill spoke of an annual interest of 10l. It never was the intention of Earl Grey's Government to introduce the words in the report as part of the Reform Bill. He had no doubt that the error had arisen from the short-hand writer having, in copying out his notes afterwards, mistaken the mark, so that the word "interest" had been mistaken for the word "rent" or "rental." It certainly never was intended in the time of Earl Grey's Government to take such a course, and there were many hon. Members present who I could corroborate that statement.

wished to ask whether insurance companies were included in the objects of the committee appointed to inquire into all joint stock companies except banking companies?

said, there was no doubt about it, that insurance companies were included.

said, that in rising to propose the amendment on the first clause, of which he had given notice, he might, perhaps, be looked upon as taking upon himself an office which did not properly belong to him. This might be supposed to be more properly the office of some one possessing an intimate and local knowledge of Ireland, to which he had no pretensions, or of one commanding the support of a powerful party in that House. He was sensible of his total inadequacy to do justice to the subject, on either of those grounds. But, although, on the one side, he had no local acquaintance with Ireland, neither, on the other hand, was he mixed up with those religious and political animosities, which now, unfortunately, afflicted that country; and, if he had no right to reckon on the support of any great party in that House, still he hoped, that very circumstance would convince hon. Members, that his sole object was, to promote the public benefit, for he disclaimed most sincerely in what he was about to propose for the consideration of the House, the prospect of any party advantage. His only object was to assist in promoting the settlement of a question which he was convinced, could not without infinite detriment to the best interests of the country, or, indeed, without danger to the security of the empire, be left a subject of fierce party contest in that House, and in Ireland. The importance of the settlement of this great question, must be felt by both sides of the House. It must be equally evident, that any final settlement would be altogether impracticable, if both sides of the House insisted on carrying out to the utmost, each its own peculiar views. It was hardly necessary for him to state, that on bringing forward his amendment, he was actuated by no feelings of hostility towards the Government. He could assure his noble Friend, who so ably conducted the business of Government in that House, that nothing could be further from his mind than such a feeling. But, finding it impossible, consistently with his sense of public duty, to support the clause as it now stood, in the bill, he thought it better to endeavour to find some substitute for the plan there proposed, than to confine himself simply to negativing the clause. The clause, in its present shape, appeared to him, open to great and serious objections—not that he differed as to the object sought to be attained—far from it. No one felt more strongly the extreme importance of obtaining for Ireland the advantages of a simple and easily-ascertained test of the right of voters than he did. None desired more sincerely to see Ireland in the enjoyment of a bonâ fide popular constituency. These opinions he held as strongly as his noble Friend, who had introduced the present bill to the House; but the more closely he looked into the question, and endeavoured to make himself master of it, the stronger became his apprehensions, that the mode proposed by his noble Friend, of attaining those objects, would not answer. He thought the extent of change proposed unnecessary, and, therefore, unwise. The right of voting in counties in England, as well as in Ireland, had hitherto been based on property. It had been so before the passing of the Reform Act, and since that act had passed, it had still continued the same. The single apparent exception to the rule existed in England, and was that of the voter who enjoyed the franchise by virtue of a 50l. tenancy. This exception was not real, but apparent, because, as it appeared to him, it proceeded on the assumption (and a just assumption it was), that the fact of a tenant being able to pay a rent of 50l., necessarily implied, that he was in possession of an amount of capital fully equal to the property which a freeholder was required to possess. The principle was the same in Ireland, for, however parties might differ as to the construction of the words, "beneficial interest," yet in all the disputes which had taken place on the subject, it seemed to be universally admitted that some profit ought to be understood—some benefit on the part of the tenant beyond the rent reserved in his lease and any other charges to which he might be liable. Now, the clause of his noble Friend would entirely set aside that principle. If that clause were adopted in its present shape, a person holding a lease for fourteen years, and rated at an amount of 8l. would be entitled to claim the right of voting; he would be able to do so, even though he should be charged with a rent of 16l. instead of 8l., so that his farm, instead of being a property, would be an actual burthen to him. In this case the principle to which he had adverted with respect to the English 50l. tenant did not apply, because pa the system on which land was occupied in Ireland, the circumstance that a tenant held land of 8l. yearly value afforded no proof whatever that he was in possession of capital, in consideration of which he ought to be entitled to the franchise. No one could venture to say, that the mere fact of holding a cabin with a few acres of land, rated at 8l., afforded in Ireland the slightest proof that the occupier was the owner of capital, and should, in virtue of that qualification, be entitled to a vote. Therefore he was bound to regard the clause of his noble Friend in its present form as entirely setting aside that which was known and universally recognised as their guiding principle in legislation. This he thought highly inexpedient. He viewed the principle of basing the county qualification on property as not only consecrated by long practice and the usage of the constitution, but he thought it also in accordance with sound sense and reason, for it was a legitimate inference that the possessors of property would on the whole be the class of persons most capable of exercising the franchise with independence, and, having themselves some stake in the country, would be most anxious to discharge honestly the duty imposed on them. It was not the principle of the present law relating to the franchise in Ireland, by which the right of voting was attached to the possession of property, that was wrong, but the manner in which that principle was applied. Without dwelling on subjects which had been sufficiently discussed in former debates, he believed, that it was pretty generally admitted, that the fault of the present system arose not more from want of agreement as to the proper construction of the words "beneficial interest," than from the fact that, supposing the construction to be agreed on, still the only test of the surplus value of property held on lease would be the opinion of parties having a strong interest one way or other, and an opinion supported by oath. All experience showed that it was in the highest degree impolitic in subjects of this kind to depend on the oath of strongly-interested parties. He proposed, by the amendment which he was about to lay before the House, to obviate these objections. He proposed to provide the means of ascertaining in such a manner as to leave no opportunity for fraud or doubt the real interest which the person claiming to vote possessed in the property which was to form his qualification. He proposed that the value of the property should be ascertained by the valuation taken fur the purpose of assessment to the poor-rates, and that which, according to the existing law, must be produced at the time of registration, should be evidence of the amount of rent to which the claimant was liable. By thus deducting the amount of rent reserved by the lease from the rated value of the property, a test of the interest of the voter would be obtained which appeared to him liable to no objection. This was the principle recommended by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Monaghan, during the last debate, and it appeared to him to present every possible advantage. It had been said, that the reports which had been said, that the Table of the House showed, that hitherto the valuation had not been so correctly obtained as to enable them to proceed on it. It certainly did not appear altogether satisfactory, but machinery had already been provided by Parliament by which the valuation might, if necessary, be corrected, and in a short time a valuation would be obtained which could be relied on. If there was any error in the valuation, at least it was not, and probably never would, be one caused by a desire improperly to obtain the franchise. The interest of parties to avoid too high a valuation would always prove a much stronger motive on men's minds than the desire to obtain the right of voting by raising the valuation. It was for this reason that the Poor-law valuation was to be relied on. It appeared to him that, if they adopted the principle which he now recommended, they would obtain certain and conclusive proof of the interest of the voter in the property in respect of which he claimed to vote; but then an important question arose—what was the amount of interest, so ascertained, to be fixed, in order to confer the right to vote? He could not but think that if so high an amount as 10l. excess of value above the rent paid as shown by the assessment to the poor-rate were taken as the qualification; it would raise the franchise, even above the amount contended for by those who took up what was called "the solvent tenant test." He thought that in adopting any measure of this kind, they were bound to look a little further. He agreed with hon. Gentlemen opposite, that as the Act of Parliament was drawn according to the strict technical interpretation of the Reform Act, those who insisted upon the solvent tenant test put the proper construction upon those words; but he was equally convinced that if they looked back to the history of the act carried in 1832, they would find, that it was the intention of Parliament to make some extension of the right of voting as it at that time existed. That such were the views of those who introduced the Reform Act, appeared to him perfectly obvious from their recorded speeches. He should not think himself justified in proposing his amendment if he were not prepared at the same time to recommend a considerably lower amount of qualification than 10l. He believed, that the moment the test was applied, its practical severity would be such, that all fraud would be most completely and effectually excluded. He proposed, therefore, in the amendment which he was about to move, that the sum of 5l., excess of value beyond the rent and charges to which the person who claimed the right to vote was liable, should be considered a sufficient qualification. He thought that hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House must agree in his suggestion for this reason:—They had admitted, us he had already stated, that the words "beneficial interest" clearly meant some profit to be enjoyed by persons claiming to vote. The words of the clause which was introduced into the bill of last year by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-general for Ireland, defined the beneficial interest as a profit or advantage derived or derivable by such claimant from such premises after deducting rent, tithes, and rent-charges, payable by such claimant, and expenses of cultivation. This was a very large deduction. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that 10l. beyond all these charges was according to the existing law, that which constituted the claim to vote. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin, in a recent debate, when he (Lord Ho wick) had asserted that the value of the labour of the occupant himself was not, according to those who objected to the solvent tenant test, to be deducted in calculating the beneficial interest, had said, that he had never contended for any such construction. He really found it difficult to understand clearly where the line of distinction was to be drawn between the two constructions of the law contended for by Gentlemen on each side of the House, since he really did not know what deductions from the value of a farm a solvent tenant would take into account in calculating the rent he could afford to give, beyond the rent, fixed charges, and expenses of cultivation, He was at a loss to discover speaking technically and legally, what shade of difference in the construction of the terms "beneficial interest" existed between the hon. Member for Dublin and hon. Gentlemen opposite; but, admitting that a distinction did exist, he thought that it must be perfectly clear that a beneficial interest of 10l. would not according to the real meaning of the law, be ascertained in a manner unfavourable to the claimant of the franchise, by requiring 5l. excess of value in the manner which he proposed. If, then, this were admitted, he must confess that he could see no good reason for rejecting the amendment which he proposed; because, from the principle laid down by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and from admissions made by them during the late debate, as to the extreme importance of obtaining a well-ascertained test of the right to vote, they could hardly now with consistency reject his proposition. Hon. Members on his own side of the House might adopt the proposition of his noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland, without rejecting his amendment, which went to continue a class of voters to which he was sure no objection could be made. The whole of that class of persons who claimed a right to vote from freeholds in fee, that was from bonâ fide property, would derive great advantage from his amendment; while it was perfectly obvious that, according to the clause of his noble Friend, no person would be able to claim that right unless the property he occupied was rated at 8l. Persons who paid no rent for property rated at 5l., would be excluded from the register by his noble Friend's clause. Thus would voters of an independent description obtain the franchise under his amendment, and forfeit it under the clause of his noble Friend. In the same manner, persons paying 1l. rent for land which they had either greatly improved, or had reclaimed from bog or mountain land, having holdings of 7l., or just under 8l., could claim the franchise under his amendment, but would be entirely excluded by his noble Friend's proposition. He was sure he would not be called on by his noble Friend to argue that it was desirable that those men should have votes. They might not form a numerous class, but that they existed there was sufficient evidence to show. In the reports laid upon the Table by his noble Friend, he found it stated, that,—

"In general, electors rated at small sums, so far as we are able to ascertain, are persons who hold at very low rents, and in some instances rent free. Thus, in Bandon two registered electors will be found, one of whom appears to be the owner of fifteen acres of land, subject to no rent, and which is rated at 7l. 10s. The other appears to be the owner of ten acres, rated at 4l."

Thus it clearly appeared, that the clause of his noble Friend would exclude some of the most independent and best voters who enjoyed the right of voting under the existing law. Even where the beneficial interest was strictly construed, persons whose holdings were rated under 8l. would be excluded by his clause. He might be told that although the amendment he proposed would admit some voters who would be excluded by his noble Friend's clause; yet that, on the whole the effect either of the amendment he proposed, or of leaving the existing law as it was at present, would be greatly to restrict the county constituency of Ireland. Many hon. Members might reject his amendment and support his noble Friend's clause, because they felt it necessary to supply the deficiency which they anticipated in that constituency. He agreed with them as to that necessity, and he certainly was not inclined to propose that this amendment should be the only change adopted. On the contrary, he felt that it was desirable to take other steps in order to prevent the franchise from being confined. The question was, how that was to be accomplished? His noble Friend proposed that it should be done by giving the right of voting to all persons rated at so low an amount as 8l. if they had leases for not less than fourteen years. He, on the other hand, wished to propose that a considerable higher amount of rating should be required, but that no lease should be insisted on, and that the yearly tenant should be admitted to the franchise in common with the tenant of fourteen years. Although his first amendment did not directly involve this, which he meant afterwards to propose, yet they were so closely connected that he thought they should be explained at the same time. One of the motives which induced him to propose this second change was that, in his opinion, it was of the utmost importance that any additional franchise for Ireland should be so framed as not to bring upon them further demands of the same kind either from that country or from this. He held very strongly the opinion which had been so frequently and so ably insisted on by his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, that the frequency of political changes of this kind was on evil of the greatest magnitude. He therefore wished to avoid, as far as practicable, disturbing the distribution of political power effected by the Reform Bill, and he could not help thinking that the clause proposed by his noble Friend might be very objectionable in this point of view—both as introducing a totally new class of voters unlike any to be at this moment found in any division of the kingdom, and also a class holding a lower position in society, as he should endeavour to prove, than any class of voters to whom the Reform Act extended the franchise. On the contrary, the proposition which he submitted to the House was founded strictly upon the analogy of the Reform Act. In England a 50l. occupying tenant was entitled to the franchise, and it was a natural proceeding to grant a similar right in Ireland. By doing so it did not seem to him that they would be giving rise to any fresh claims in this country. When he spoke of a similar right to Ireland, he must not be understood as meaning to say, that he thought the payment of 50l. rent would in Ireland form a desirable qualification. Looking to the difference in point of wealth, and to the great extent to which the subdivisions of landed property had been carried in Ireland compared with England—looking to these circumstances, it was obvious that they ought not to require an occupation of the same value in Ireland as in England. And while, instead of the 40s. freehold of England, they required so high a freehold qualification as 10l. in Ireland, it appeared to him that they ought, in giving an occupation franchise, to make some allowance for those circumstances and lower the amount of value which should qualify the occupying tenant in proportion. He was not now prepared to state what the amount of value ought to be. The very late period at which most of the important returns bearing upon this subject had been put into the hands of hon. Members, the most important of all having been only delivered that morning, made it quite impossible for him to have given that full consideration to the subject which would enable him to state what amount of value ought to be required to qualify the occupying tenant. Still he thought that the object he had in view might be easily stated. He wished that the value might be fixed at such an amount as would give, in the present condition of Ireland, at least as large a number of voters as had enjoyed the franchise immediately after the passing of the Reform Act. With that number he should be satisfied. He did not ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to go further, and he thought that from the information now before the House they might, after a little time for the consideration of it, be able to determine what amount of value should be required from the occupying tenant, in order to give to Ireland as nearly as possible that number of voters. Upon that amount of value, be it what it might, he should feel disposed to fix the franchise. All he asked the House to do was this, to consent to the principle that in creating a new franchise in Ireland, instead of taking a very low amount of rating coupled with a lease, they should dispense with the lease, and take a higher amount of rating, that amount, however, being something considerably below that of England. Before he quitted the question of value, he would observe that in England the right of voting depended upon the amount of rent paid; but that, with the experience they had had of the tendency which existed to abuses of various kinds in Ireland, he thought it would be extremely injudicious to adopt the same principle in that country. He thought that the right of voting should be fixed, not upon the amount of rent paid, but upon the amount of the rated value of the property held, and for these reasons—that in fixing it upon the amount of rent, they would give a premium to high rents, which, in the opinion of all hon. Members was one of the greatest evils which afflicted Ireland, and also a premium to fictitious rents. Taking, on the contrary, the rated; value of the property as the test of qualification, they would obtain a qualification easily ascertained, and liable to no abuse or fraud. He was aware, in proposing this alteration in the clause of his noble Friend, that he would be met by the very popular objection, that a reference to the experience of England showed that tenants without leases did not possess that independence which qualified them to vote: and he knew that many Gentlemen attributed a very prejudicial operation to the clause introduced into the Reform Act by the present; Duke of Buckingham. But, in his opinion, this was an objection to which a very undue force had been attached. As far as he had been able to observe the working of the system in England, it appeared to him that tenants generally, whether they had leases or not, were extremely anxious to vote with their landlords, and that in all ordinary times, when no particular question upon which they held strong opinions, or which was likely to cause excitement, was being agitated in the country, they did so. But, in times of a different character, which were fortunately of rare occurrence, such, for instance, as that of the Reform Bill, he thought that tenants at will, and all others entitled to vote, threw off the influence of their landlords, and voted according to their own individual opinions. It was true that at the period of the Reform Act there were no voters who enjoyed the right of voting in consequence of occupation of land without leases; but a great number of persons holding land under landlords in English counties who possessed a 40s. franchise, and who in ordinary times would have been under the influence of those landlords, did at that period vote and act according to their own Opinions and their own feelings, and without any reference whatever to the wishes of their landlords. So that there was no real practical difference in point of independence between the tenant who held a lease and the tenant who did not. He was confirmed in these views by what took place in Scotland. In Scotland the tenantry almost universally held leases; and, if he wanted to mention a particular election which more than any other since the Reform Act had given rise to the loudest complaints of undue influence exercised by landlords, he Would be inclined to his upon that for the county of Perth, at which his hon. Frind the Under Secretary for the Home Department, was defeated. Now, he believed that the tenants over whom that influence had been exercised were, almost without exception, tenants holding leases for the long period of nineteen years. Experience, then, proved, that in England and Scotland a mere lease was no proof of the independence of the voter. At the same time he did not mean to argue that a lease was an unimportant element to be considered, or to raise the question of comparative independence between the man who held a lease and the man who did not, their farms being of equal value and equal rent. That was not his object; but the consequence of his noble Friend's making the possession of a lease of fourteen years a part of the franchise, he proposed to give, the necessary consequence of improving this constituency was, that his noble Friend in order to obtain a sufficient number of voters was compelled to go down to a much lower amount of value than he would otherwise have found it necessary to adopt as a qualification for the right of voting. The argument he wished to press upon the House was, that the independence of the voter depended very materially on the amount of rent he was bound to pay, and that a man who was bound to pay a large amount of rent, in proportion to the real value of the property he held was in general less independent than a person in a different situation. In the reports laid on the Table by his noble Friend, he found the following statement from the gentlemen who were sent to examine the valuations of the different unions in Ireland:—

"It is a universal fact prevailing in every union which we visited, that much competition for small holdings is more active than for large. The consequence is, that the acreable letting value of small holdings is considerably higher than that of large."

And in another place they state that—

"Rents of small holdings are sometimes four or five times the valuation."

Now this circumstance of the higher rate per acre, at which the smaller holdings were usually let, was of the more importance when it was considered that the surplus produce of the land beyond the rent, was what constituted the tenant's means of subsistence; the occupier therefore of only a few acres in order to be as well off as the farmer to a larger extent ought to be called upon to pay as rent a smaller proportion of the gross produce of the soil; and when the fact turned out to be, that on the contrary the smaller occupiers taken as a class, had for the maintenance of themselves and their families a smaller proportion of the produce of each acre as well as of a smaller number of acres, it was obvious how greatly their condition in life must he inferior to that of the larger holders. Accordingly he believed it to be a fact which would be confirmed by the experience of every Gentleman in the House who was conversant with the subject, that nothing could exceed the misery of the small class of tenants, holding land to such a value as 8l. Every one who had written or spoken upon the subject, whatever their political opinions, had all concurred in this—that it was in general those small tenements which were so grievously over-rented, that the holders were persons in a very low situation of life. Another consequence of the more active competition for small holdings would be, that the clause proposed by her Majesty's Government would afford great facility for the creating of dependent votes. The landlord if so disposed, might divide his property into small tenements of the value of 8l., for which he would have no difficulty in finding tenants upon terms, which in spite of their holding under leases, would leave them completely at his mercy. Thus dependent votes might be created to a great extent, and there was surely great danger in offering to Irish landlords the temptation of being able both to extend their political influence, and to obtain an immediate increase of income, by resorting to the system ultimately so injurious both to themselves and to the country, of subdividing their land amongst a multitude of pauper tenants. It was known how injuriously this temptation had operated under the old system of the 40s. freeholders. But under that system various contrivances and evasions were necessary in order to confer a vote, and at the same time to retain the person who was to exercise it in a state of dependence, because the freeholder wan bound to have a bonâ fide property in land of the value of 40s. above the annual rent. The bill of his noble Friend would render the process of creating dependent votes much easier and practicable, without any evasion or concealment. The landlord mould only have to let for fourteen years holdings of 8l. value, reserving rents beyond the power of the tenant to pay, and making an annual abatement so long as he voted according to his wishes; by this easy method votes might be created entirely dependent on the landlord; for the very moment the tenant ventured to assert his independence, and act differently in the exercise of his franchise than his landlord desired, that moment would the process of distress and ejectment be resorted to, and his lease would at once be put an end to. So far, then, from the lease constituting a claim to the franchise, or assisting to establish the independence of the voter, it would be only a stone tied round his neck; instead of making him a free man, it would but the more completely enslave him. It would debar him from the last resource of the wretched, overrented tenant—that of selling his goods, abandoning his unproductive land, and seeking relief in emigration. Hence he thought it was impolitic to make a lease an essential condition of the franchise, since it was by this that his noble Friend was driven to go down to such a very low grade in society, and to extend the right of voting to persons who were in a state of life infinitely beneath any class of voters to whom the franchise had been extended by the Reform Act. His noble Friend found this descent necessary in order to secure such a number of voters as, in his opinion, ought to exist, if he required a least as a qualification. But would he obtain that number? Possibly looking only to the immediate effect of the measure he might do so; but even that was very doubtful. For the present, indeed, he might succeed in creating the number of new voters which he thought necessary. But what would be the result in a very short space of time? His noble Friend proceeded upon the assumption Unit there was an indisposition on the part of landlords to grant leases; and yet in the measure he proposed, he provided no remedy against the effects it must, produce. Now the fact that a general reluctance to grant leases prevailed, was proved by the strongest evidence. It had been admitted by almost every speaker on both sides of the House, and had been asserted by the agents who had been sent round to examine the different unions in Ireland, they reported, that—

"Leases expire, and are not renewed; and whole districts were everywhere to be found the tenantry of which were unrepresented."

How did his noble Friend meet that evil? Why, because the tenants of some estates, or perhaps a whole union, where the proprietors did not choose to renew leases, were unrepresented, his noble Friend proposed to give the right of voting to a very numerous and improper class of voters in the adjoining district. By such a plan he might keep up the number for a time, but not long. The hon. Member for Drogeda had said expressly that if leases were insisted upon the number of voters would dwindle away, and in a very short space of time the Legislature would be called upon to undertake the same task again. But by what class of landholders was this indisposition to renew leases evinced? Were they exclusively persons of any particular school of politics, who feared that their tenants might vote against their views and wishes? Were they landlords who were in the habit of making hard bargains with their tenants, and extorting the utmost amount of rent from them? Far from it. The actuating motive of a great majority of these landholders was a desire to improve the condition of their tenantry. His noble Friend had a near relation who owned considerable property in Ireland, in the management of which he knew his noble Friend to take a great concern, and he would ask him whether upon this large estate leases were granted or renewed as they expired? He believed that they were not, and if he had not been misinformed there were other Members of the Cabinet holding large estates in Ireland who acted in the same manner, not renewing their leases when they fell in. His noble Friend, ought further to consider that this indisposition to grant leases had only grown up within the last ten, or at most, fifteen years, while leases were granted for two or three lives, or for twenty-one years, or for longer periods. It was obvious, then, that the effects which this indisposition must ultimately produce were only beginning to develop themselves, and that these effects would still further be manifested in a greater diminution of the number of voters; and for all this his noble Friend did not propose any remedy. The tendency of the clause proposed by his noble Friend was, to extend the franchise in ill-managed estates, where the landlords tempted by a desire to increase their rental, would cut up their lands into small portions for separate holdings. Thus a class of voters would be created of the lowest grade, and mostly under the influence of the least substantial and the least opulent landlords. At the same time, the operation of the measure would exclude a large proportion of the more respectable and independent classes. If any new franchise were to be introduced into Ireland, it would be far more expedient to take a greater value than his noble Friend had proposed, to dispensing with a lease as part of the qualification than to adopt the clause as it stood, extending it to persons holding leases of fourteen years, of the yearly value of 8l. But perhaps though his reason for giving the preference to a simple occupation franchise might be admitted to be good, if any new right of voting were to be created, his noble Friend the Member for Lancashire would say, that he had shown no ground for adopting any such measure, and for altering the Reform Act. He did not think that there were grounds for such an objection, he concurred in the opinion so well expressed in the late debate by the hon. Member for Cavan that there should be no mock representation of the people, but that they ought to enjoy a real and bonâ fide representation in Parliament; that such representation ought not to be the representation of a class—of that class, consisting almost entirely of owners of the land, but of the bulk of the community. His noble Friend opposite (Lord Stanley) had admitted this principle as unreservedly as he would admit it. The noble Lord said, he felt that the Irish people ought to be efficiently represented, and that the constituent body ought not to be reduced to a small amount; but while his noble Friend said this, he advised the House not to attempt to create a new franchise until an inconvenience was felt, or a difficulty might arise that rendered it necessary. He differed from his noble Friend greatly, because, in the first place, he thought that the inconvenience was experienced, and that the difficulty had arisen. The return just laid upon the Table of the House, showing the constituencies of the different counties in Ireland, proved to a demonstration, that the evil did not exist merely in anticipation, but had begun already. In the short space of time since February 1, 1835, to February 1, 1841, the diminution in the constituent body of Ireland was no less than 7,563, and this diminution had been chiefly among the lower classes of voters, exclusive of the 50l. freeholders. Such a reduction must be greater, he was sure, than his noble Friend could think expedient. Still if that diminution were not progressive, and were likely to stop, he (Lord Howick) should not attach so much importance to it. But it was only the commencement of a process which must go on, unless Parliament interfered; and when viewed in this light, it formed an unanswerable argument for immediately stepping in and providing a remedy. The whole amount of the Irish county constituency at this moment was 57,103; of leaseholders 10l. freeholders and 20l. leaseholders were 41,711. When he mentioned 10l. freeholders, English gentlemen must not suppose that he meant freeholders who were so by fee simple, the greater proportion in Ireland being freeholders in Ireland by virtue of leases for lives; and he believed the greater number of the 20l. freeholders were persons in the same situation, being also freeholders only by virtue of leases for lives. But to avoid exaggeration, he would exclude the 20l. freeholders, and take only the 20l. leaseholders, the 10l. freeholders, and the 10l. leaseholders; and he found that the class of voters who almost exclusively derived their right to the franchise from leases were no fewer than 41,711 out out of 57,103, being very little short of two-thirds of the whole. It was upon this large number that the indisposition to renew leases would produce its effects; and unless that House wished to see the constituency dwindle away, not by very slow degrees, and the right of voting taken away from the bulk of the people, some means should be taken for opening the doors to the more ready acquisition of the franchise. It was upon that ground he urged the propriety of granting an occupation franchise, giving to the Irish people a right of voting similar to that in England. His noble Friend (Lord Stanley) had talked of waiting until the evils were actually felt, before they attempted to apply remedies. But was it safe to deal with the discontent of a whole people? Was it wise to wait until discontent arose to a height at which it was no longer tolerable, before they attempted to apply a remedy? He had thought that this pitiful policy had been sufficiently tried in the case of the Catholic Emancipation bill. He never expected that any one would again dream of deferring a remedy until it could be no longer withheld without danger to all. There was another consideration which seemed to him to render it highly expedient to grant an extension of the franchise, at the same time that they endeavoured to reform the system of registration. His noble Friend must be sensible that whether his, or any other measure for this purpose, were adopted, the practical effect of it must depend very much upon the temper and spirit in which it was granted and received. Let them, then, when they passed a measure for correcting the evils complained of by his noble Friend the Member for North Lancashire, as regards the mere registration, provide means also for counteracting the causes which produced a diminution in the number of voters. Any reform in the system of registration must increase the effect of the causes already in operation, by which the number of voters is reduced, therefore, in attempting such a reform, they should couple with it a measure for extending the franchise and admitting within the pale of the constitution persons who would otherwise be excluded from it. It was possible that his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) might succeed in passing a bill for dealing separately with the evils of the present registration system; but surely the prospect of his doing so was not very encouraging, and even success considering the passions which must be excited in the contest was not very desirable. On the other hand he called upon hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House to consider the extreme importance of not asking for too large concessions; since this subject could only be settled by some agreement between the two sides of the House, because it appeared to him that either party possessed the power of preventing a good and reasonable reform, while neither party of itself could accomplish its own peculiar object. Gentlemen opposite would find it difficult, if not impossible, to carry a measure for the reform of the registration, without some improvement, not only in the definition of the franchise, but in the terms on which it was granted; and Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, to carry any reform that was not coupled with provisions for a thorough purgation of the register. Let them consider at how much expense, in the loss of public opinion, they would take the course of resisting an alteration of the registration, if an alteration should be found necessary. And after the admissions which had been made as to the extent of the franchise which existed; and the facts which had been clearly proved relating to the frauds practised at the registrations, even though they should fail to obtain an improvement of the franchise, let them be assured that the people of England would not join in an attempt to resist the improvement of the system. They might defeat that reform, but they would do so after a prolonged and angry contest, and, he was convinced, at a great sacrifice of reputation and character. But, on the other hand, if anything like an agreement between the two sides of the House could be brought about—if they could define the franchise fairly and justly for all parties an inestimable benefit would be conferred upon the country. Let him further observe, before he concluded, to hon. Gentlemen on that side, that it was the more necessary that they should endeavour to effect such a settlement, because they must be sensible that if they should succeed, in preventing any change for the present year, and the registration should remain on its present footing, still the constituencies of Ireland would be reduced in a short time in a manner very greatly to be regretted. There was no chance of any reform of the system being carried, except one that should have the concurrence of all parties—no chance of any measure of this kind being carried, which was to be the subject of a determined and angry resistance from the powerful party opposite. That they might carry a measure so resisted through that House was possible, though he might unlikely but clearly, in the other House of Parliament, it must inevitably fail. Anil let them recollect that they were not now in the position in which they were at the time of the Reform Act. A measure for altering the franchise in Ireland would not have that support out of doors to which the Reform Act owed its success, and therefore they could have no reliance in overcoming in that way the opposition which it must excite. These seemed to him to be reasons which ought to weigh powerfully with all parties, and with every hon. Gentleman in the Mouse, in endeavouring, if possible, to effect a settlement of this question; and he believed that, on looking closely into the subject, the plan which he proposed would be found to settle the Irish franchise fairly for all parties, in a mode just to Ireland and satisfactory to the great body of the people of that country. He asked them to give a beneficial interest in the manner he had explained, and at the same time to add another franchise strictly analogous to one already existing in England. Such was the nature of the amendment he was now about to move. He could not conclude without expressing the regret he felt at having so imperfectly and inadequately developed to the House the grounds and reasons on which he founded his motion, and he would only further add that even if the House should be disposed to differ from him as to the mode in which he proposed to attach the right of voting to simple occupation, that was a question which would arise only on a subsequent clause. The noble Lord then moved to omit, after "no person," all the Words to the end of any clause, and to insert, "claiming under any act or acts now in force to be entitled to be registered, and to vote as a Parliamentary elector for any county, in respect of any freehold or leasehold property in his actual occupation, shall be deemed to have a beneficial interest therein of the clear yearly value required by such act or acts, except as hereinafter provided."

could assure his noble Friend that it was quite needless in him to repudiate the notion that, in bringing forward this amendment, he could have been Suspected of being actuated by any motives of merely embarrassing the Government. He felt sure that all who knew his noble Friend were aware that he could not be impelled to any course that was so unworthy of him and so alien from his whole character and disposition. His noble Friend stated, that he despaired of seeing this measure brought to an amicable settlement, or indeed any settlement, if either party stood upon extreme opinions. Now they (the Ministerial side) had done their best to demonstrate that they were not disposed to stand upon extreme opinions, because, even since the expiration of the recess, although they were convinced that the proposal they had originally made of grounding the franchise upon a rating of 5l. was amply borne out by the information which had been supplied, and by all that was known with respect to the subject in Ireland, they had not hesitated, within limits which they thought admissible in point of principle and just to the interests of the Irish people—they had not hesitated, for the sake of conciliating any scruples they thought might reasonably be entertained, to depart so far from the proposition formerly made, as to consent to raise the franchise by the slight amount since proposed. His noble Friend said, that in remodelling the franchise they would not be warranted in looking for great or warm support out of doors. He could assure his noble Friend that the Government calculated on no such aid or reinforcement, they rested their proposition upon its own abstract justice and merits. He Was pleased to hear his noble Friend repeat the opinion he had formerly expressed, that he was most anxious that Ireland should enjoy an easily and simply ascertained test of rating. He was very glad to hear that his noble Friend adhered to that opinion. He thought that the justice of that opinion, and of the propriety of adhering to it, had been demonstrated in the course of the discussions which had taken place, and had been proved by all that had taken place in Ireland, to rest upon unassailable grounds; and he hoped whatever alteration might be made by the committee in the bill, they would not lose sight of what he considered to be a fundamental principle, namely, the propriety of resting the basis of the future franchise upon some grounds easy of access and proof. His noble Friend had likewise expressed a wish that the constituency of Ireland should not be unduly diminished by any alteration. He entirely sympathised in that wish, and he only feared that the amendment put into the hands of the chairman might lead not to the fulfil- ment of his wish, but in the most striking and startling manner to counteract it. The amendments, of which his noble Friend had given notice, seemed to him to divide themselves into three parts. Two of them related to matters of substance, but the other related more to matter of form and expression. This last proposition which was of a verbal nature, was the first in order of those which his noble Friend had proposed. His noble Friend had proposed to insert certain words in tin first clause in lieu of the following words as they stood in the bill:—

"And thenceforward no person shall be entitled, as a freeholder or leaseholder, to be registered as a voter for such county in respect of any freehold or leasehold property, in his actual occupation, save as herein provided."

Instead of this, his noble Friend proposed,—

"And thenceforward no person claiming under any act or acts now in force, to be entitled to be registered and to vote as a Parliamentary elector for any county, in respect of any freehold or leasehold property in his actual occupation, shall be deemed to have a beneficial interest therein of the clear yearly value required by such act or acts except as herein after provided."

Now it seemed to him that it would be as open to them after the insertion of these words to carry out the definition of the beneficial interest by the proposition of the Government, as by the subsequent propositions of his noble Friend; in either case a change in the present law was made, and us he saw no good in pretending to make no change, whilst, in fact, a change was made, he was disposed to reject his noble Friend's proposition, and adhere to that made by the Government as one much more distinct, intelligible, and straightforward. His noble Friend then proposed that, to entitle a person to vote for Members of Parliament in Ireland, he should be rated at a rate of 5l. over and above all rent, and charges. Now, if his noble Friend had merely brought forward this proposition as an addition to, and alternative over and above the franchise which the measure of her Majesty's Government proposed, namely, a franchise derived from a rating of a net annual value of 8l., so as to give a franchise to occupancy whether derivable from a leasehold or fee simple interest, he (Viscount Morpeth) should not now rise to object to it, because it could only be looked upon as an enlargement and relaxation of the principle adopted by her Majesty's Government, and not as a restriction of it. But he apprehended that, considered as a substitute for what her Majesty's Government proposed and as the staple franchise of Ireland, the proposition of his noble Friend would prove a mere delusion. He was sure that his noble Friend as he indeed had stated, had not made this proposition with a view of destroying the franchises of the people of Ireland; but at the same time his united proposals were open to many objections, and required to be carefully and jealously looked at. In the first place, the noble Lord in his second amendment, which related to mere occupation without reference to lease, did not state the amount of rating which he should think it right to propose as the qualification for the franchise—this was to be the matter of subsequent consideration and, therefore, with this imperfect view of the subject before the House, he (Viscount Morpeth) would call upon them to pause before they gave their consent to that proposition, so brought, before them, in preference to that which her Majesty's Government proposed. His noble Friend had found fault with her Majesty's Ministers for attempting to introduce a new form and condition of elective franchise in Ireland, which he stigmatised in common with some hon. Members who had at times spoken on the opposite side of the House, as being at variance with the three Reform Acts passed in 1832. With respect to this charge he would just beg to remind his noble Friend that the three the form bills, as at first introduced, did actually attempt to confer a franchise on leaseholders of every description, paying a certain amount of rent, whether holding at a rack-rent, or at a rent leaving a beneficial interest. Even now, however, in England and Scotland, the franchise was enjoyed by all leaseholders liable to a rent of 50l., without any reference to whether that rent was below or above the actual value of the tenement. The proposal made by her Majesty's Government on the subject certainly did not require that the occupier should be able to show any certain amount of beneficial interest in his holding; but it did propose such a test of rating as it was conceived would in general get at and include that class of persons on whom it was intended by the original Reform Act to confer the franchise. Therefore, when the spirit of the Reform Act was spoken of he maintained that be and his colleagues were acting in strict conformity with the spirit of that great measure when they sought to disembarrass and disencumber it of those impediments with which it had been found to be encrusted and hampered in practice, and so to give effect to the true intent and principle of that enactment. His noble Friend set out by assuring the House that his scheme of a 5l. profitable holding above all rent and charges would be liable to no objection and afterwards, rather inconsistently to be sure, he said it would be liable to the charge of great severity. He would not charge his noble Friend with any wish or attempt to curb and confine the franchise of the people of Ireland, but at the same time he was confident that his noble Friend in what he now proposed had done more than take a leaf out of the book of his noble Friend opposite, the Member for North Lancashire; and if he succeeded in inducing the House to adopt that scheme his noble Friend would be a most useful pioneer to his noble Friend opposite in a way which even he had hardly professed himself ready to follow him in. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire had never ventured to impose by distinct enactment the solvent tenant test; but his noble Friend, the Member for Northumberland not only attempted this, but more, for besides all the proper and peculiar stringency of the solvent tenant system, he added the stringency which always belong to a valuation formed for the purpose of a rate or pecuniary assessment, for he believed that in practice it had always been found that valuations, made under such circumstances, for the purpose of rating, were always much lower than the real value or than any valuation not taken for such a purpose. It seemed that in such a case the interests, not indeed of the whole taken together, but of each component party operated to beat down the ratings as low as possible; and, therefore, even if a new rating were made according to his noble Friend's proposition, he apprehended that the rating would be in all cases found to fall very short of the actual value. He was enabled, in fact, to test the probable operation of his noble Friend's proposition by the returns of the Poor-law rating, which had actually taken place. He regretted that all those returns were not yet in a complete shape before the House, but when they appeared he believed it would be admitted on all hands that nothing but the great labour and complexity of details which they involved had delayed them. From the returns already before them, he was enabled to make some statements he thought conclusive. In Ath- lone, it was stated, that the valuations had generally been made at a rate often per cent, under the actual value, and that the result appeared to give satisfaction both to the landlords and tenants, who seemed indeed to desire to have them made lower. In Bandon, the valuations for the municipal rates were uniformly higher than those under the Poor-law, and considerably under the actual letting value. In Castlebar, out of seventy returns, there were sixty instances of rating under the rent, and ten at over rating. In Clonmel, there were very few cases in which the valuation was not lower than the rent. In Cashel, the rating was stated to be at the rate of from 3s. to 5s. in the pound below the rents. Similar results appeared in the case of Cork: and in Roscrea, they had the authority of Mr. Scrope for the fact, that the rating was from ten to fifteen per cent, below the letting value; and twenty-five, and in some cases thirty per cent, below the real value. In Sligo, Bolton, and Tipperary, the same results appeared. But these might perhaps be considered only as matters of opinion. He would now beg, therefore, from the returns actually before the House, to take a few instances of the effect which such a scheme as that proposed by his noble Friend would have; in a word, to show how many of the electors of Ireland would be disfranchised if the amendment of his noble Friend were adopted.

"In Fermoy the number of 10l. electors, whose rents were ascertained, were 174. Of these there would be excluded, by a test requiring any excess of rating above rent, 118. By a test requiring 3l. excess there would be excluded 132; by a test requiring 5l. excess there would be excluded 140; by a test requiring 10l. excess there would be excluded the whole, except 15. Now, with respect to the character and station of those who would be so excluded, the 118 who would be excluded by a test requiring any excess of rating above rent, pay rent as follows:—There are two who each pay rents exceeding 200l.; fourteen who each pay rents between 100l. and 200l.; thirty-seven who each pay rents between 50l. and 100l.; ten who pay rents between 40l. and 50l.; twenty-three who pay rents between 30l. and 40l.; twenty-five who pay rents between 20l. and 30l.; five who pay rents between 10l. and 20l.; and two who pay rents between 5l. and 10l.

"In Bandon any excess of rating above rent would exclude fifty-three out of 141. A 5l. excess of rating above rent would exclude seventy-six. The excluded would be persons occupying considerable farms and paying a large amount of rent, as would be seen by the following table;—

said, he conceived the amendments then before the House did not appear to be properly understood; for its effect would be to make a clear addition to the occupation franchise proposed in the bill, whether that franchise might hereafter be with or without a lease; and he did not understand therefore the ground on which the noble Lord opposed the amendment of his noble Friend, after having stated his willingness to accede to it, if it made an addition to the constituency. Now, the proposition of his noble Friend was an addition, and not, as had been argued, a substitute. The noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland complained, that the object of the present amendment was to disfranchise; on the contrary, it was proposed to remedy a sweeping disfranchisement, which some of the words of the noble Secretary for Ireland's bill would cause. It was introduced with a view of inserting more moderate words. The bill of the noble Lord destroyed the whole existing properly qualification franchise of Ireland, and substituted in its stead one by leasehold occupation, while the proposition of his noble Friend near him (Lord Ho wick) would preserve a certain portion of that which now was in existence. The noble Secretary for Ireland argued throughout as if the proposition of his noble Friend (Viscount Howick) was brought forward as a substitute for that of the Government, instead of being, as it distinctly was, an addition thereto. But let the noble Lord look to the whole of what was proposed by his noble Friend, the substance of his noble Friend's first proposition, that which was now before the committee, being contained in the addition which he meant to propose to the second clause, and then let the noble Lord consider how the whole would work. If that addition was inserted, the clause would run—

"That after this act shall so come into operation in any county every person claiming under any act or acts now in force, to be entitled to be registered, and to vote as a Parliamentary elector for any county, in respect of any freehold or leasehold property in his actual occupation, shall be deemed to have a beneficial interest in such property of the clear yearly value required by such Act or Acts, if such property, or some part thereof, shall have been rated in the last rate made for the relief of the poor, at a net annual value which shall exceed any rent to which he may be liable in respect thereof, and any charges thereon, by the sum of five pounds per annum; and every male person, of full age, and not subject to any legal incapacity or disqualification, who shall have, at law or in equity, an estate of freehold in any lands, tenements or hereditaments situate in such county, or shall be entitled, at law or in equity, to any lands or tenements situate in such county, of any tenure, for the unexpired residue, whatever it may be, of any term originally created for a period of not less than fourteen years, &c., &c."

In the noble Lord's own words; and if his noble Friend's second amendment for removing the restriction of leasehold tenure was adopted, the words carrying that amendment into effect would after wards be substituted for those of the noble Lord which he had just read, be ginning at "Every such person, &c,"—so that the proposal now under discussion would be a clear addition, either to the franchise founded on a lease, or to the franchise founded merely on occupation. The proposition had this great advantage, that it would constitute the constituency so that the whole Parliamentary franchise of Ireland would not depend upon a single species of qualification. If, then, he had made his noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland understand, that this proposition was moved, not as a substitute, but by way of addition to that of the Government, he should hope that his noble Friend would withdraw the opposition which he had intimated. It was to be observed, that all who had votes for Members of Parliament in the three kingdoms might be divided into two classes, one having a franchise based on property, the other on occupation. The property qualification required an interest in the tenement above rent and charged. In England, the freeholder in fee voted if he possessed a value of 40l. above charges. The copyholder and leaseholder on a value of 10l. above rent and charges but in Ireland a value of 10l. was required alike in the case of the owner of the fee simple and the occupier with the lease. The whole qualification in that country rested on property with occupation as a condition. Now he thought it a great pity to destroy, as the proposition of the noble Secretary would do, the qualification based on property, which was the oldest known to the constitution, and also the best, inasmuch as it was the most independent. The proposal of his noble Friend near him (Lord Howick) would allow holders in fee simple rated on an annual value of 5l. to register. Of these persons there was but a small number, but there were some. But of persons paying a small amount of rent with leases for ever, or renewable for ever, who would be also admitted to the franchise, there was very considerable number in the north of Ireland, He alluded, amongst others, to a class of holders formerly called toties quoties tenants, who held at small rentals under the Church lessees, and were entitled to renewal as often as the latter obtained renewal, and whose title had now become perpetual, since the law had declared the properly of the lessees to be in perpetuity. Many of this class would be enfranchised by the proposition of his noble Friend near him, but disfranchised by that of his noble Friend, the Secretary for Ireland, it they were rated at the various sums between 5l. and 8l. with an interest above their rent, of 5l. In that respect his noble Friend's amendment was an improvement upon the plan of the Government, because it extended the franchise to a class the most independent of any not merely an occupying tenantry, but a class resembling, as closely as circumstances would allow, the small freeholders of this country. His noble Friend, the Secretary for Ireland, had argued all along as if this part of his noble Friend's proposition had been the whole of what was proposed, and the noble Secretary had stated that a large portion of the constituency of Ireland would be disfranchised by moans of it. Now, he (Mr. C. Wood) admitted, and his noble Friend was aware that the first part of the proposition would operate to disfranchise if taken alone; but his noble Friend thought that they ought to aim at preserving a portion of the most independent constituency in Ireland, and that any deficiency should be made up by a franchise based on occupation as in England. Looking to the returns of ratings from unions in Ireland which had been laid on the Table by the Government, it appeared that in five unions, in the cases of nearly one-third of the 10l. voters, and in London being in forty-two cases out of forty-six, the rating exceeded the rent by 5l.; and this, he thought, proved that the proposition of his noble Friend, instead of disfranchising to the extent supposed by the noble Lord, would retain many of the present constituency. Believing, then, that the class of voters who had a franchise based on property was the best, and that it was most independent, he called upon those who looked for an extension of the independent class of voters, to accede to the proposition of his noble Friend, in addition to any other that might be made. If it were asked why his noble Friend had fixed upon the sum of 5l. rather than any other, his reply was, because that sum best met the conflicting constructions of the beneficial interest clause; and in reference to this he might be allowed to remark, that he found the judges of a Court of Appeal in Scotland had concurred with the minority of the Irish judges in the interpretation of similar words in the Scotch Reform Act. Then with respect to the rating of the Poor-law, he believed that some fault had been found with that rating as a test; but he was disposed to think it a fair one: he had taken the pains to go through all the unions from which returns had been made, and he had found that 25 per cent, below the rent was the average rating, and this, as near as possible, was the case throughout England. The first part of the proposition of his noble Friend, if taken alone, would certainly disqualify a number of electors in the south of Ireland, but would enfranchise many in the north. The deficient numbers would be made up either by the leasehold franchise of the Government, or the occupation franchise of his noble Friend. He would now proceed to state the arguments against imposing the restriction of leasehold tenure on the new franchise. The noble Secretary thought he should be able, by means of the leasehold qualification, to maintain the number of the Irish constituency, but he (Mr. Wood) did not believe that even at a 5l. rating it would be possible for him to maintain it for a permanency. His only object, as well as that of the noble Secretary, and he was persuaded also of Gentlemen opposite, was to have an adequate number of an independent constituency, but he did not believe the noble Secretary's proposal would accomplish that object. What was the state of the constituency of Ireland as compared with that of 1835, which might be taken as the time at which the Reform Bill had come into fair operation, and before the registry had been in a great measure swelled by the false entries alleged to have been made through fraud and perjury? To these charges of perjury he did not attach much weight, for when the judges themselves differed as to the construction of a beneficial interest, two individuals might very well swear to opposite statements, without either intending to commit perjury. In fact, if Judges Crampton and Perrin were in circumstances to be called upon to swear to the point, they would swear point blank against each other, without any man dreaming that either was guilty of perjury. Since 1835, however, the total reduction of voters in Ireland was 7,500, but the 50l. freeholders had increased in that interval by nearly 300, and the diminution arising mainly from the falling in of leases, must be increased beyond the 7,500. The number of 10l. voters in 1835, was 45,000; they were now only 38,000. So that the class which represented the peasantry of Ireland, was diminished by upwards of 7,000, while the others had received an increase. No doubt a considerable portion of this decrease was owing to the non-renewal of leases. The universal testimony went to show that, in Ireland there was a very prevalent feeling, (whether arising out of politics or from whatever cause) against the renewal of leases. This prevailed in every part of Ireland. In the Union of Newton Lismavady, in the county of Londonderry, there was evidence on the Table that, though no political objection existed to renewing leases, the practice of letting by lease was decreasing. Throughout the county one-half the farms only were held under lease, and the number was stated as being likely to decrease. In Coleraine the same was the case; so too in the Union of Rosscrea, in the King's County, there were stated to be very few leases. In Gort there were now fewer leases than formerly. In the Union of Castlerea there was great indisposition to grant leases, unless when landlords wished to create a political interest. There was a general, an almost universal testimony, therefore, that the system of renewing leases was going out in Ireland. It followed from that, that if the franchise were based on leaseholds, it would be based on a foundation which would soon cease to exist; they would be building on a sand that was gradually sinking and falling away; and whatever number of leasehold voters they obtained now, even if they went down to a 5l. rating, which he presumed the Government felt they could not maintain, nothing was so certain as this, that five years hence they would not have that number, or anything like it. The disfranchisement had gone on at the rate of 1,000 a year during the last six years; and when the great object they were aiming at was not to diminish the number of voters in Ireland, and when it was objected that the proposition of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire would still further reduce the number, it did seem to him (Mr. Wood) an extraordinary proposition for his noble Friend (Lord Morpeth) to make, that the franchise should be based on a condition that was daily expiring. The necessity would therefore arise, in no great number of years' time, to re-open the whole question, and then, if not now, the Government would see the necessity of having an occupation franchise. He confessed that he did participate, in the strongest degree, in the objection which his noble Friend (Lord Howick) took, with regard to the dependent nature of a leasehold franchise of so low an amount. He did not believe that the other object which his noble Friend (Lord Morpeth) had in view—namely, securing the independence of the voter—would be obtained by a lease, the amount of which was so low as 5l. or even 8l. He was perfectly aware of the objection which had been felt on this side of the house—the supposed dependence of the tenant at will; it was a popular objection to what was termed the Chandos clause of the Reform Bill; and he thought that, without much proof, the dependence of that class of voters, and the coercion exercised over them, had been very much exaggerated. He believed that much misrepresentation had been made, both as to the landlords of this country, who had been supposed to exercise their power improperly, and as to the tenantry of the country, who had been supposed to be driven against their will to vote in opposition to their own opinions. He did not believe that this, as a general rule, had been the case. He did not believe that the coercion had been exercised. He did not believe that, if it had, the tenantry, as a class, would have been coerced. He must say, that one of his chief reasons for being of that opinion was this, that he did not believe, taking the occupying tenantry throughout England generally, that their opinions materially differed from those of their land- lords. Those who took an active part in English county elections knew perfectly well that on those questions generally deciding county elections—for instance the corn-law, church-rates, and other questions of that sort, there had been little difference between the majority of the landlords, and the majority of the tenantry. But the question, after all, was, not whether the occupying tenants were an independent class of voters, but whether leases would make them so; and he thought the experience of Scotland was a conclusive proof that a lease did not necessarily render the occupying tenant an independent man. Most undoubtedly, he had heard that complaints of coercion were as rife in Scotland as in England. He was not prepared to say that the occupying tenantry in general could under any circumstances be made independent of their landlords; his position was, that leases did not necessarily make them so, and especially leases of a small amount. So far as a rating of a high amount was a test of property, and so far as property was a test of intelligence and education, the occupying tenant of a high amount of rating must be presumed to have more intelligence and a better education than the leasehold tenant of a small amount. Most undoubtedly, the power of creating fictitious voters, which they heard of in the case of the Castlerea union, might be exercised under such a franchise to a very great extent, by granting leases at a small amount of rent. "No leases," said the commissioner, "are granted, except when they wish to create political influence." It might matter to the landlord, if the tenant was at a high amount, whether he would grant a lease, to ensure a good tenant; but in the case of a rent of 5l. only, it did not matter to the landlord whether the tenant had a lease or not; and those landlords who wished to acquire political influence could create dependent votes; those who thought that they could not depend on their tenants, had it in their power to withhold the franchise. The question was not so much whether they would have an independent or a dependent constituency, as whether they would have any constituency at all. If, by creating a leasehold franchise, they put it in the power of the landlords to destroy the existing constituency, he wished to know what situation they would then be placed in? He argued thus, as to the diminution of the constituency, even upon the supposition of the lower amount of rating which the Government at first proposed. It seemed, however, that they had now raised the amount from 5l. to 8l. He did not know how far his noble Friend (Lord Morpeth) had examined the returns which had been laid upon the table; but he thought he could make a statement which, if the noble Lord had not attentively perused those returns, would not a little astonish him; it was as to the effect that' would be produced on the existing constituency by the proposal of a rating of 8l. In going through these returns he found that there were 14 unions in which the number of 10l. electors was given, and the number of those whose rating was under 8l.; and it appeared that, out of the existing 10l. voters in these 14 unions, very nearly one-sixth would be disfranchised by the proposal of his noble Friend (Lord Morpeth) requiring a rating of 8l. Now, it certainly did appear to him to be a most extraordinary mode of keeping up the constituency of Ireland; if these unions were a test—and they were taken indiscriminately—if they were any test whatever of what the effects of that proposal would be on Ireland at large, the object being to resist everything which could reduce the constituency, when the first effect of the measure would be to disfranchise 6,000 of the present electoral body. In the last six years the electors of Ireland had been diminished from 45,000 to 38,000; and if the noble Lord's (Lord Morpeth's) measure were carried, another 6,000 would be disfranchised, and those who would then remain would be under the operation of those causes which had already effected this great reduction in their number. He repeated, that when 6,000 more were gone, the same cause, the non-renewal of leases, would continue in full operation. He would read the names of the 14 unions, in which, according to the returns, this effect would be produced; they were the unions of Lurgan, Dungannon, Castledeary, Sligo, Gorey, Kilkeel, Ballinasloe, Barbridge, Lisburne, Armagh, Athlone, Loughrea, Casbel, Castlerea. The number of 10l. voters in the whole 14 unions was 3,291; and the number rated under 8l., was 528, nearly as might be one-sixth of the whole. Now, this was a result which his noble Friend could not have contemplated. Unless there was some gross error in the returns, which it was not in his power to detect, that would certainly be the effect of the proposal of his noble Friend. If then it were true that the effect of the non-renewal of leases had been what was stated during the last six years, he confessed that his noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland did seem to have entirely failed in that which was his (Lord Morpeth's) as well as his (Mr. Wood's) object, that of preserving undiminished at least that portion of the Irish constituency which might be said more particularly to represent the Irish people. He repeated again, that the amendment now before them was not the only proposal which his noble Friend made. The effect of the present amendment was to retain the present property qualification, and many of the present voters. This proposal alone would certainly diminish considerably the number of voters. It would produce that state of things with which his noble Friend the Member for North Lancashire professed himself ready to deal when it arose. There would be a considerable reduction of the number of county voters, and the representation would be thrown back into that state for which the noble Lord had rescued it by the Reform Bill, The noble Lord's hypotheses would have become fact, and he called upon him therefore, and he called upon those who thought that the franchise in Ireland should be preserved, to make up the number, by the occupation franchise, in addition to those who would remain under the operation of the first amendment, to that which would be a fair constituency for Ireland. His noble Friend, if it had been possible for him to do so, would have given notice of the amount at which he proposed that the occupying tenant should be rated. But it was not in his power to do that until the returns were placed in his hands, and they were only delivered this morning, thus not affording sufficient time to consider them. His noble Friend (Lord Morpeth) might regard the occupation franchise as a substitute for his leasehold franchise; but the only point at present to be decided was, whether they would retain as much as they could of the present franchise in Ireland, making up the number in some way or other when necessary, and to be hereafter determined by this House.

wished to say a few words on this amendment. He hoped it would, not be considered any impertinent intru- sion if he rose for the very natural purpose before the question was put, of understanding what the amendment was, and what were the words it proposed to amend. Before the speech of his noble Friend he was almost disposed to vote with him—but as the amendment was explained he could not do so. He begged the noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) not to consider this as a verbal amendment. Could his hon. Friend have overlooked the importance of the words "in his actual occupation?" On what ground, then, did he say that the 10l. franchise was taken away by the first clause of this bill? The hon. Member was in total error in supposing that this clause operated as a disfranchisement of the property qualification. The clause did not affect those who were in actual occupation. Having said thus much, he would state as shortly as he could his reasons for voting against the amendment, notwithstanding the words "beneficial interest." He held the omission of these words as one of the main merits of the noble Lord's bill. The mode in which the hon. Member proposed to deal with the beneficial interest would of itself prevent him from voting with him; but the insuperable objection he had to it was this, that it would operate to disfranchise a class of voters to whom it was intended to give the franchise in 1832. The hon. Member had omitted to mention those qualifications in which property and beneficial occupation are required to exist. The amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland would operate most injuriously with respect to those. Although such an opinion had been frequently repudiated, his (Sir C. Grey's) opinion was, that by a law a farmer occupying a farm for a term originally created, having an interest of 10l. a-year above all rents and charges was entitled to vote.

explained. The proposal of his noble Friend was, not to disfranchise but to retain the franchise, and increase it as much as possible, and it was the hon. Member, and not his noble Friend who misunderstood the meaning of the clause.

said—Sir, it was not my present intention to enter on the discussion of the question of qualification proposed by the noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland, or that proposed by my noble Friend opposite. So far as I am concerned it is of little importance to me whether in the body of a clause I gave my vote one way or another on an amendment which I am told is merely verbal. But it is because I do not consider this amendment as a merely verbal amendment, but as an amendment involving u principle, that, when I am called on to affirm or negative such an amendment, I hold it to be an object of the utmost importance to uphold the principle for which I contend, and which, it seems by this, her Majesty's Government are determined to destroy. The proposition of the noble Lord and the Government, a proposition be it remembered made now for the first time, two months after the introduction of this bill to the House—the proposition of the noble Lord and the Government, I say, founded on information only this day furnished to hon. Members, and which information was not obtained by them for the purpose of framing this bill, but for the purpose of bolstering it up after it had been forced upon the House. The last proposition of the noble Lord and the Government is that there should be one simple, uniform franchise for Ireland, without reference to situation or circumstances—without reference to beneficial interest or occupancy—without reference to the solvency or insolvency of the individual—without reference to his poverty or his property—namely, a rating to the poor of 8l. a-year. That, Sir, is the present proposition of the Government. In opposition to that the noble Lord opposite, the Member for Northumberland, comes forward and says, "I propose, to define the existing franchise," undoubtedly with some modifications, with some limitations and some alterations. "I propose," he says, "to take rating to the poor as a test for the franchise; and that not rating per se alone, but a certain amount above it I will hold to be a beneficial interest"—namely, an excess of value over and above the rating which I understand to be the beneficial interest. Therefore, however it may suit the purpose of hon. Members opposite to regard this as a mere verbal amendment, I cannot so regard it. It is an amendment which distinctly involves the question, will you abolish or will you maintain the beneficial interest as the test of the right to vote? Upon these grounds, then, I shall vote in favour of the amendment moved by ray noble Friend in the first clause of this bill I do not conceive that this is the most convenient opportunity for entering upon a discussion in detail of my noble Friend's amendments, or of the proposition made by the Government; they will necessarily and naturally arise in their proper places upon the discussion of the 22nd clause; but I am now called upon to choose, if we are to do anything, if any alteration is to be made, if we are to legislate at all, we are now called upon to decide whether we will legislate upon the principle of a beneficial interest, or whether we will legislate upon the principle of no beneficial interest; and it will require some ingenuity of argument to persuade me, and I think, to persuade the country, that a division upon that question is a division on a mere verbal amendment. But I am bound to say, without discussing the propositions in detail, that in a great deal of what has been addressed to the House by my noble Friend, I am disposed entirely and cordially to concur. I should regret with my noble Friend that the franchise in Ireland should be unnecessarily and unduly diminished. I should regret to see persons of the same qualification, possessed of the same property, having the same amount of beneficial interest, which in this part of the country gives the franchise (I am not now alluding to the 40s. freeholders, for they stand by themselves on grounds perfectly distinct from other voters), by the operation of any cause, whether arising from the state of the law or from any cause independent of the law, as the conduct of the landlords of Ireland in refusing to grant that which is a necessary preliminary to the franchise, leases, I should regret to see the constituency reduced to small numbers, and when that case arises, I shall be prepared to consider any proposition emanating from the Executive, with whom any matter of this importance must emanate, in order to give a chance of a successful issue. I shall be ready to consider with respectful attention, any proposition which may be made for meeting the evil, for an evil I think it whenever it occurs. But all through this discussion hon. Gentlemen have assumed, that the intentions of the Reform Act have been entirely frustrated; that a state of things, as to the county constituency of Ireland has arisen, which was not to be expected when the Reform Act passed; that, indeed, the Reform Act was a delusion upon the Parliament and upon the people, and it is assumed that the county constituency is at the present moment in a state of rapid decline and progressive diminution. Now I apprehend that there is no proof of any foundation for the one opinion or the other. When I had the honour of introducing the Irish Reform Act, I was asked what I considered was the existing county constituency, and I then stated 52,000; that is, I took the existing register, and found in that register 52,000 voters: but I was properly checked by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who told me,

"True, there are 52,000 voters on the register, I am on the register, my sons are on the register; but my father, my uncle, and my grandfather are there too; and from my knowledge of the country I take on myself to say, that there are not near 30,000 efficient votes on the register; and your Bill cannot at the most add 1,200 to the present number. It must require an exorbitant stretch of imagination to suppose that the county constituency can ever reach 30,000."

That was the expectation entertained by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin; and also by Mr. Leader, then Member for Kilkenny. I said then that I did not anticipate as to the county constituency, any great increase of numbers, that I looked not to the county constituency, where abuses were not prevalent, but that I looked to the cities and boroughs for the great increase in the constituency as compared with the existing state of things; and, if I recollect correctly, my hon. Friends, the Member for the University of Dublin and the Recorder of Dublin, in opposing that measure, stated that they did not apprehend much increase in the county constituency, but that they did anticipate a great and alarming increase in the boroughs and towns. These are the expectations that were entertained on both sides of the House at the time of the introduction of that measure. As there was to be no alteration of the freehold franchise, and as the leaseholders were not many, though it was hoped they would increase, it was not anticipated by either party that any great increase would arise in the county constituency. However, by the Reform Act a new registration took place, great excitement prevailed; votes were no doubt put on with insufficient examination in many cases. The result wag that in 1833, under all the excitement of the Reform Bill, when persons were rushing to the booths for the purpose of asserting their claims, and when those claims were often admitted with imperfect consideration and without opposition, the number of persons constituting the county constituency was 57,000. From that period to the present it was necessary, it was impossible but that it should have happened, even without the double registration, seeing that no vote whatever could be struck off, that the numbers must go on increasing to the first octennial registration; and so it had. In 1835 the numbers were 64,000; in 1837,73,000; and I suppose I may say correctly in 1839, 99,000. But from what has this arisen? Why from the constant succession of names that have been placed on the register, whilst not a single name could be struck off. Among the 99,000, too, who appeared on the last register, a great number of those who had appeared on the register of 1832 re-appeared as a portion of the constituency; but in the course of the past year, in consequence of the lapse of time and the falling in of votes, at one sweep 57,000 names were swept off the register, whereby the constituency has been reduced to 42,000. But of these 57,000 a vast number were repeated again in the 40,000, and consequently it was natural to expect a large decrease in the past year; but, allowing for that decrease, the present number exceeds the constituency obtained in the first year after the passing of the Reform Act in all the heat and excitement which accompanied that event; and is only 6,000 or 7,000 short of that constituency which had been formed in 1835, two years after the bill had come into operation. And when I say only 6,000 or 7,000 short, I do so on account of an observation made by the noble Lord that itself was an argument to show the decrease which had taken place. But, I confess, that it does not seem to me a conclusive proof even of that, because, in the counties of towns and in the boroughs, there is a considerable increase over the numbers in 1835; and, looking to the places where there is a decrease, I find that it is in those counties where it might naturally be expected that on the polling of the first batch of voters, parties would not renew their franchise because there has been no contest—nothing to lead men to register. The total decrease is between 6,000 and 7,000, and that mainly taken place in these eleven counties in which there has been no contest—Antrim, Armagh, Clare, Donegal, Galway, Limerick, Londonderry, Mayo, Waterford, Wexford. [Mr. O'Connell: What! no contest in Wexford, Waterford, Galway?] Not at the last election, I am speaking of the motives which, in 1840, would or would not lead men to register, the franchise having lapsed by time—and I believe in no one of those counties has there been a contested election except in Limerick, when the defeated candidate polled the formidable number of fourteen votes. Not only does the deficiency in these counties account for the total decrease, but in the remaining counties there is an actual increase over the numbers in 1835 of between 4,000 and 5,000 voters. I don't mean to say that a deficiency in the constituency may not be going on; but I say that we have no proof before us that it is going on. 1 have reason to believe that many persons are now withholding leases, not on political grounds, but on grounds entirely independent of politics, being solely connected with the improvement of their estates; and that may have the effect of unduly decreasing the constituency; if it leads to that consequence, then the amendment of my noble Friend would be the proper mode of meeting that evil, by conferring on the tenant at will what the Government wishes to restrict to leaseholders; that is the proper mode of remedying an evil which arises from the refusal of the landlords to grant leases. I have gone more than I intended into the subject of these amendments; my object was, to express my concurrence in most of the principles enunciated by my noble Friend; and when I am satisfied that there is danger, and imminent danger of an alarming deficiency in the constituency, arising not from the want of a property qualification, but from circumstances connected with that property, I shall be prepared to consider any proposition which may be submitted to the House; but I should not seek a remedy in the proposal of the Government; and because one gentleman refuses to grant leases to his tenants, therefore enable half a score more to inundate and swamp the register with voters having no qualification, no properly, no beneficial interest. I cannot, however, as at present advised, in the present state of our information, assent to the necessity of making any alteration or augmentation of the existing constituency; nor has my noble Friend, as I think he will himself admit, in his hands the means and materials for supporting the details of his plan. He has been successful in exposing almost the absurdity—at least the want of consideration—attending the plan of the Government, and the many faults of the Government measure. I am prepared to vote neither for the one plan or the other as fit to be adopted; but if I am called upon to give a vote in affirmation of the one principle or the other, I must say I entirely concur in the principle of my noble Friend; I am not called upon to decide upon the adoption of one or the other, but to decide merely upon the comparative merits of the two principles involved in the amendment of my noble Friend, and I cannot hesitate for a moment to give my adherence to the principle of affirming a beneficial interest in opposition to the principle contended for on the opposite side.

said, that he had not intended to take any part in this discussion; but he had been driven from his intended silence by some of the observations of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had talked of the estimate he had made when the Reform Bill was introduced of the extent and probable increase of the county constituency, and had stated it correctly so far as he went. At that time he certainly had shown, that instead of 52,000 there were not above 26,000 or 28,000 available votes on the register, and that they were not likely to be increased by 2,000; but when was it that he said that? At that time the noble Lord had not inserted the clause for a 10l. chattel occupation; and now the constituency was 20,891 less than it had been. He begged the attention of the House to the actual state of the constituency. In Hertfordshire there were 95,977 inhabitants, and 6,150 voters; in Galway, which had been contested twice since the Reform Act, there were 381, 564 inhabitants, but only 2,088 voters; in Donegal there were 289,000 inhabitants and 1,452 voters; in Mayo 366,328 inhabitants, 952 voters. So that in these three counties, with a population of 1,037,044, only 4,548 were entitled to vole; a smaller number than that of the voters for the county of Hertford, the population of which was only 95,977. Look at Cork, with 713,000 inhabitants and 3,784 voters, whilst Wales with a rural population of 700,000, had 36,000 electors. The fact was manifest; the Irish constituency was miserably narrow, becoming less every day. The real question, under such circumstances, was, how they meant to govern Ireland? He was not so absurd as to imagine that he could make any impression upon the House by important facts. It was clear that there was very little prospect for Ireland from that House, and none at all from the House of Lords. But he would enter more at large upon this view of the subject on a future occasion. He had now pointed out these things to show that England and Ireland were not on a par; that they might Call it an union, or what else they pleased, but there was no equality between them. The noble Lord had said, that the 40s. freeholders stood on a different footing; but he denied it. It had been said, that those 40s. freeholders had been sacrificed to a compact; but the right hon. Baronet opposite would agree with him that there was no compact. A compact of that sort might have been made in 1825, but between 1825 and 1829 they had rescued themselves altogether from the controul of their landlords; they exercised their franchise free from the dictation of any one, and accordingly they were disfranchised. He wanted to know why, if England was to have 40s. freeholders, Ireland was not to have them; Ireland was certainly the poorer country; why did not the noble Viscount (Howick) propose that? Then he would believe everything he had said in his own praise; but when he found that noble Lord embarrassing instead of aiding them, and gaining cheers from the other side of the House, he did not impute motives to any one, but he must say, that this was not the way in which he should endeavour to effect an extension of the franchise in Ireland. It might be perfectly safe to treat Ireland in this way; but he could tell the House this—that she gerfectly understood the injustice which was done her, and appreciated the degree of contempt which was exhibited towards her.

Before the House divides I wish to say a few words on the proposition made by my noble Friend the Member for Northumberland (Viscount Howick); and I am exceedingly sorry, both from what he stated, and from what has been said by the noble lord (Lord Stanley) opposite, to find that there does not seem to be any prospect of the House succeeding in making such an improvement as must result from the settlement, of the elective franchise in Ireland upon a firm and defined basis. Without wishing to state it as a reproach to the noble Lord opposite, I must observe that 1 conceived our position to be this: that in the course of discussions regarding Irish registration, there was a very general impression that no system of registration could place the Irish franchise on a satisfactory basis unless the franchise itself were so defined as to prevent the contradictory claims—the contradictory decisions which led to the irregular practice which at present, prevailed in that country. The bill of my noble Friend, as introduced at the commencement of the present Session, pro posed to define the franchise; and my opinion is the same as that which my noble Friend has declared to-night, that the proposal that we made, namely, of a four teen years' tenure, with a 5l. rating to the poor-rate, was a franchise which would have given the right of voting to persons of property in Ireland, and at the same lime would have effected so extensive an improvement of the franchise as to give contentment to the country. Nothing of the information that we have since received has induced me to alter that opinion. But I did think, and I stated it to the House when I proposed the adjournment of the question—I did think it of such immense importance to obtain, if possible, an agreement upon a question of this kind, and not to leave it for another year to a course of agitation in Ireland, not to continue the discontent which I must say so naturally arose in that country from the menace of disfranchisement which was held out last year; I thought this of so much importance, that I considered it worth while to subject myself to the taunts which might be made against us, which have, in fact, been made tonight, and in which even my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Charles Wood) has a little indulged, namely, that we were departing from what we originally proposed, and that we were disfranchising some who were already electors, I say, I thought it worth while to risk those taunts, and to raise the sum originally proposed, in the hope—illusory it now seems—that we should bring to a successful close this much vexed and much agitated question, Although that attempt may fail, I do not, in the least, regret, that it has been made. I think it was our duty to subject ourselves to any sarcasms of this kind, in order, if possible, to retrieve the unfortunate error made by a great party in that House. It was my opinion, and still is, that Ireland having suffered much, having suffered wrongs, which I will not attempt to describe—(they were described in language stronger, perhaps, than I should use, in a recent debate by an hon. Member for Newark)—it was, I say, and still is my opinion, that Ireland, having so suffered, if you could possibly arrive at a period in which you should have no question before Parliament which should put in a conflict the passions of different parties in Ireland—if you could possibly arrive at such an interval of tranquillity as should enable men who were intent upon the pursuits of industry—who were intent upon the improvement of agriculture—who were intent upon the extension of commerce, to give their attention to those subjects, and to divert them for some few years from political contests, you would obtain a great benefit for that country, and for the nation at largo. But it appeared to a great party in the House, that this was not the course to be taken. It appeared to them better to raise questions which gave to them a party majority and a party triumph in the course of the last Session, and every one of which excited more and more the anger, the indignation, the feeling of wrong done to them among the people of Ireland. I was in hopes, however, that by sacrificing something of our opinion, another course would have been taken, and that the House generally, I will not say without difference of opinion, but that the great body of the House would have consented to the adoption of some law which should again have allayed the storm which had unfortunately been excited. It appears, that in that hope, we are to be entirely disappointed. It appears, from the speech of the noble Lord opposite, that if he votes for this amendment, which, in itself, I consider, is only placing in a different form of words, the operation of this bill—it appears, that if the noble Lord votes for those words he will do so on the ground that they maintain the principle to which he adheres, of an interest above the rent. Now, it is for that very reason—for the very reason which the noble Lord has stated, as inducing him to vote for these words, that I am led to oppose them; because, although the sense of those words might in a subsequent clause be so altered as completely to change their meaning; yet, as they at present stand, they appear to me to give a sort of sanction to such a definition of the franchise, as, in my opinion, would be utterly destructive of it. I cannot help again referring, as there are now some Members present who were not in the House at the time my noble Friend (Viscount Morpeth) was speaking, to some of the instances in which even such a clause as that proposed by my noble Friend (Viscount Howick) would destroy the franchise of the existing voters. Be it observed, that what my noble Friend is hereafter to found upon the words he now proposes, is a proposition to the effect, that the tenant who pays rent to a certain amount shall be rated 5l. beyond his rental. Now, I believe, whatever the intention of the bill destroying the 40s. franchise—whatever the intention of the Reform Bill—that the introduction of such a test, as that suggested by my noble Friend, would be to deprive a great body of the present electors of the right of voting. As a proof of it, he would again trouble the House with some of the figures quoted by his noble Friend. [Here the noble Lord quoted the statement read by Lord Morpeth, showing the extent to which the rating above the rental would operate to curtail the constituencies in most of the counties in Ireland.] What, then, is this proposition? What is it but the taking away of the franchise which now exists? In what light can it be considered but as destructive of the franchise? Yet my noble Friend proposes it as calculated not to limit, but to extend the franchise. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) opposite adheres to the decision given by the judges. I find no fault with the judges forgiving that decision, because, if it were founded upon their opinion of what was the correct interpretation of the law, they were perfectly right in giving it. They were perfectly right in saying—

"It is not for us to consider what Parliament intends—it is not for us to consider what the policy of the Legislature may be in regard to the franchise—we can look only to the letter of the act, and consider the meaning of the words which it contains."

Therefore whatever the interpretation of the judges, I wish, as far as possible, to declare, that it is their duty to give that in- terpretation according to their sense of the proper meaning of the words of the act. But this, I think is manifest, that if the interpretation of the judges is to be admitted—if, as the noble Lord proposes, the interpretation given by the majority of the judges is to be adhered to, it will certainly go much further than the proposition of my noble Friend, the Member for Northumberland, (Lord Howick)—it will, in fact, destroy the franchise of the greater part of the present voters; and it is no answer to say, as the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) has said, "Look at the present number of electors on the roll," because there have been other interpretations given by revising barristers and by some of the judges. But the question now is, whether, if you do not adopt some clear and definite franchise, you will not, in fact, be making the sense which has been given by the majority of the judges the prevalent interpretation of the law. I therefore cannot agree to the insertion of these words by my noble Friend, the Member for Northumberland, as introductory of his plan. I think they would be very inimical to the franchise. Neither can I derive any consolation from the assurance of the noble Lord opposite, that when the franchise shall have been destroyed, he will then introduce some bill to restore it. When you have changed the representation of Ireland—when you have a representation of the people in which the people have no voice—when you have a mere nominal representation of the people—when, according to the noble Lord's description, some three or four chief proprietors will name the representatives for the different counties—when the people of Ireland are thus nominally represented, of what use will it be for the noble Lord to say, "I now see that the franchise must be changed?" It seems to me, that if you do mean to keep up the franchise in Ireland—if you do mean to let the people have a real representation, the present is the time at which the work ought to be accomplished. If, on the contrary, it is your determination, and the determination of this House, that the people of Ireland are not to be represented in Parliament, then I think it would be better to take some clear and direct way of excluding them from the franchise. I think it would be better, that you should declare in plain and direct terms that the people of Ireland are not fit to be entrusted with the rights of representation; that you, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, boldly take your stand upon that ground, and that you mean to abide by that declaration. After all I have heard to-night, I can only gather, that it is intended to proceed in that indirect and tortuous way of disfranchising the people of Ireland which I saw attempted in the last year—a way that will not be the less effectual because it is indirect, but which I certainly shall never cease to denounce and oppose; and I trust that the people of Ireland will believe that, if these attempts should unhappily make any progress, it is not that the people of England wish them to be treated with this injustice and this wrong, but that, on the contrary, the people of England wish to see them honestly and fairly represented—[Great cheering from both side of the House]—that the people of England wish to see them honestly and fairly represented and not defrauded of their rights by withdrawing from them those privileges which even when you took away the right of voting from the 40s. freeholders, you granted, in a manner that showed considerable generosity, and a great sense of the value of the privilege of voting for Members of Parliament. Do not imagine that you can without remark, without exciting great indignation, withdraw the privilege which in 1829 you granted to the people of Ireland. My belief is, that by acceding to the bill of my noble Friend (Viscount Morpeth), and by adopting the franchise which he has proposed, you will act in the spirit of the bill of 1829, and of the Bill of Reform of 1832; and that if, on the contrary, you take an opposite course, it will not be long before you will wish that you had not interfered to excite a spirit in the people of Ireland which will justify them in making greater demands, and force you to make greater concessions.

rose and said—Sir, the noble Lord has, on this occasion, pursued the course which he almost uniformly pursues when he has some very defective measure to defend, that of trying to divert the attention of the House from the subject properly under its consideration, and by some general declamation about popular rights in some charges against his political opponents, to raise a cheer in the behalf of those who sit behind him, under the cover of which cheer he himself retires from the discussion, and fancies that he has been triumphantly successful. The noble Lord charges my noble Friend with an intention so to reduce the constituency of Ireland that the counties of Ireland may become nomination counties; and then the noble Lord says that my noble Friend professed an intention to condescend to introduce a Reform Bill. The noble Lord charges us with an intention to defeat the expectations which were encouraged by the Act for the Relief of the Roman Catholics, and by the Reform Bill. I utterly repudiate any such intention. I do not think there would be any advantage to any interest, to any party, in defeating such an intention. My noble Friend distinctly stated, and I repeat, "If you will prove to us by conclusive evidence, that the constituency intended by the Reform Bill has been materially diminished, we will then consider a proposal for increasing it, if brought forward by those only who can suggest it with advantage, namely, those who fill the executive offices of Government, and have the means of information in their power." But, the question arises, has the constituency been materially decreased beyond the measure that was contemplated by the Act of Reform? Sir, the hon. Gentleman, who was better qualified to judge of what was the constituency immediately after the Reform Bill, or the constituency that would be given by the Reform Bill, than the hon. and learned Gentleman. Sir, I have his own words—he is speaking on the 18th of June, 1832, and the hon. and learned Gentleman distinctly states:—

"The hon. Member for Kilkenny had made a calculation of the returns of the number of persons who polled at contested elections in eighteen of the counties of Ireland; and that number amounted to 15,211; there then remained fourteen counties unpolled. But it should be observed, that the contest took place in those counties where there was the greatest number of voters. Now, let any man calculate on these data; and he would fearlessly ask him, whether, in giving a constituency of 26,000 to Ireland, he had not placed the number infinitely too high?"

Make the number caused by the additional franchise to be 26,000, and can the hon. Gentleman show that the constituency, as it at present exists, is diminished beyond the expectations excited in 1832? But what is the proposal of the noble Lord? I will assume, for the sake of the argument, that you have afforded us that proof and demonstration, that you have shown that from the operation either of laws, or of social causes beyond the control of laws, there is a considerable decrease in the constituency of Ireland, and a tendency to further decrease. I will assume that you have proved that. Then I say, even if I grant that that has been proved, the noble Lord has provided a most indefensible and inefficient remedy. That is the question which we are considering to-night. The noble Lord says, in consequence of the refusal of landlords to grant leases, the constituency of Ireland is undergoing a considerable diminution. And what does the noble Lord propose as a remedy? He proposes a measure which makes a lease indispensably necessary. The noble Lord, in providing for the increase of the constituency, what course does he pursue? He subverts altogether the existing franchise in Ireland. In England, in Scotland, and in Ireland, with the exception of the 50l. clause, the main element of the constituency is interest in the land and profit from it. It always has been so. Is it right, in the case of Ireland, mainly dependent for her prosperity on the success of agriculture—is it right, in the case of Ireland, that profit from the land should be altogether excluded from the franchise? But the noble Lord proposes that the right of voting for thirty-two counties in Ireland shall be exactly coincident to the right of voting in boroughs and towns—namely, that occupancy alone, as tested by the rating, should constitute the franchise. Has the noble Lord given us any argument in favour of such a substantial alteration? Has he considered the effect of that alteration upon the franchise in England? How long will the noble Lord maintain profit from the land as an element of the franchise in England, after he has subverted it in Ireland, and substituted merely occupancy, as tested by rating in Ireland? It is an important principle which the noble Lord recommends us to adopt—a principle of very extensive application. He will find it exceedingly difficult to maintain one franchise in Ireland and another in England. If the one invariable franchise in Ireland is to be mere occupancy as tested by rating, the effect, I believe, will be to place the return of the Irish Members very much in the hands of the same class of constituency as now return the Members for the boroughs. Well, then, I object entirely to the principle upon which the noble Lord proposes to alter the franchise. And am I not at liberty to make that objection, without being immediately met by the noble Lord telling us, "Your object is not merely to defeat my bill, but to reduce the counties of Ireland to the lowest point of representation?" The noble Lord charges us with reducing the franchise. Why, the hon. Member for Halifax told him, not merely that he was taking a leaf out of the book of my noble Friend, but that he was founding his franchise upon a shifting sand; that he went infinitely further towards reducing the franchise than any reduction which my noble Friends have made by the amendment of the registration. The hon. Member for Halifax showed the noble Lord, that the effect of the franchise which he proposes in fourteen unions in Ireland, would be to reduce the number of electors now entitled to vote by one-sixth. That is the allegation which the hon. Gentleman made against this well-considered plan of the noble Lord. Why, what confidence can we place in you as legislators fit to deal with this subject? You had the whole' of the recess; you were aware that this subject was undergoing consideration; you had the means of gaining official information; you had every element which could enable you to bring forward a measure which was likely to conciliate public opinion in its favour, and you brought forward a measure; destroying the existing franchise in Ireland, and substituting a 5l. occupancy. We remained under the impression that we were to discuss the question of 5l. occupancy, and two or three nights before we enter upon the consideration, without a reason assigned, the noble Lord changes his proposal from 5l. to 8l. And what does the noble Lord say now? The Secretary for Ireland tells us now, that he could support his 5l. franchise by a reference to facts and evidence, which shows that it was a proposition that ought to have been made. Why then was it abandoned? From whence came the suggestion of objection? Not from this side of the House. The noble Lord said—"I have made this alteration in the hope of conciliating your favour, and now you are so unreasonable as to object to it." We never objected to the amount, we objected to the principle. Now, what can be more unfair than the course which the noble Lord took in throwing out these insinuations against us? We said, "We object to a uniform franchise for all Ireland." We said, "If you make leasehold the only element of franchise there is a tendency on the part of landlords to withhold leases; you make no settlement of this question, because, if a disposition to withhold leases exists, you are not affording any sufficient remedy for the evil." And then the noble Lord changes the qualification from 5l. to 8l. He does nothing to remedy our objection to the principle of his franchise; but he charges us with being unwilling to effect a conciliatory settlement, because he has not gained our favour, by making an alteration in degree, without the smallest, alteration in principle. These are the grounds why we object to 8l. equally that we object to 5l.—namely, that the main objection, in point of principle, remains entirely unchanged by the alteration in the bill. But we have another proposition to consider, in addition to that of the noble, Lord, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland. The noble Lord, as I apprehend, brings forward a distinct and specific proposition in opposition to that of the Government. The noble Lord's proposal I apprehend to be this—that the noble Lord will retain the beneficial interest, that he will require as an essential condition, for one franchise, and that, perhaps, the main franchise, a profit derived from the land, that profit not to be ascertained by the oath of the party, but to be determined by rating. The noble Lord did not propose that as an exclusive franchise, but the noble Lord objects altogether—as I understand him—to the proposal of the Government, and professes to substitute for that proposal something of the nature of that clause in England, which has been called the Chandos clause, that is to say, he will require the payment of a certain rent, but he will infer the rent from the amount of rating. The extent of the required rent he has not defined, because he says he has not acquired the information on which he can; safely proceed. Now, from that principle of the noble Lord I do not dissent. I think it is desirable to retain the beneficial interest; I think it is desirable to maintain a profit from the land as an element of the county franchise. If it should be shown to me that, in the proposed change in the Irish constituency, a profit voted by rating is essential, I should not be indisposed to take into consideration that other proposition of the noble Lord—namely, not to require a lease, but to require the payment of a certain amount of rent by a tenant-at-will, and thus to counteract that objection which is made at present, from the unwillingness of the Irish landlords to grant leases; but I am not prepared to adopt the details of the noble Lord's measure. I will, however, vote with his amendment, because it recognises the beneficial interest, and at element of the county franchise. I consider the noble Lord's amendment to the first clause, to be exactly tantamount to an abstract resolution of the kind. Suppose we had met the noble Lord's bill on his motion for going into committee, by a resolution to the effect that mere occupancy could not entitle to the franchise, but that a profit from the land was indispensable in the county franchise—suppose we had made such a motion, I consider it would have been exactly tantamount to the amendment of the noble Lord. A great principle was thus at issue between the two noble Lords. The noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland wished to maintain an essential element in the county franchise, a profit from the land, or a beneficial interest, while the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland proposed to subvert the existing franchise, and to take occupation, as tested by rating, as the only element of the franchise. I give my preference to the principle involved in the amendment of the noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland. Why, then, do I not support his measure? Because I do not think the noble Lord is in a position which will enable him sufficiently to adjust this question. It appears to me, that the simple substitution of the first franchise he proposes, namely, to require a certain amount of rating above the rent, would give a very extensive franchise. I think, that simply to require rating above the rent would confer a very extensive franchise. It would be impossible, however, to propose what the required amount should be. I am at a loss to ascertain it, and while I admit the I principle, I am not prepared to accede to the details of the measure of the noble Lord, or approve of the machinery by which he proposes to carry his bill into effect. In point of fact, he admits he is not prepared to specify the amount of rent which should be required. I apprehend we are about to come to a vote which is decisive of the fate of the bill; at least to a vote which, if it be carried against the noble Lord, will lender it nesary to proceed with a measure directly at variance with the present. I am glad an opportunity has arrived of taking the sense of the House on the point. I am glad the noble Lord does not now consider this a mere verbal amendment. I am glad he considers that a great question is now at issue. I am glad that before we proceed further with the details of the bill the sense of the House shall be fairly taken, as to whether a profit should be considered a distinct mark of the county franchise; and I do entreat hon. Gentlemen carefully to consider what will be the effect on the constituencies of England, and on the franchises of England, if they consent that mere occupancy in Ireland shall determine the county franchise. One word as to an observation made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. I did not state on a former occasion, that there had been any contract in 1829, between the advocates of the Roman Catholics and those who proposed the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. I admit to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that there had been no such contract in existence. But this I stated, and this I repeat, that the evidence given by the advocates of the Roman Catholic claims in 1825, did fully justify the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders in Ireland. I stated that the hon. and learned Gentleman, as well as the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, and Mr. Blake, a Roman Catholic gentleman of great eminence, had all given it as their opinion, that it was essential to the interests of Ireland, that an intelligent and respectable yeomanry should be formed and invited to the exercise of the franchise, and that those results were more likely to be obtained under a limited and independent constituency than with such a constituency as that of the 40s. freeholders. I stated that Mr. Dominic Browne, the Member for Mayo, had declared that when there were 25,000 voters in the county, it was a nomination county, and that when the constituency was reduced under the Reform Bill to 9,000, the independence of the constituency had been secured, and no one could nominate for the county. I stated, that when the electors voted formerly against their landlords they were subject to so much oppression, that in order to rescue them from their condition, it was found de- sirable to modify the franchise. That was what I stated; but I never stated that there had been a compact between the advocates of the Roman Catholics and the Members of the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman had again referred to the amount of population. I apprehend that her Majesty's Government will not concur with him in looking on population as a test for the franchise. The question is not, I apprehend, as to the amount of population, but as to the amount of intelligence and respectability, free from all external control, which we can command. That was avowed to have been the principle of the Reform Bill—that I apprehend is still avowed to be the principle of her Majesty's Government. The question, then, does not now arise as to whether or not the franchise should be co-extensive with population; the question in dispute is this, whether her Majesty's Government have made a proposal which entitles them to the confidence of Parliament, and whether they are capable of dealing with this great question; and I must say, that the course they have pursued on the subject of the Irish franchise appears to me to disentitle them to the confidence of this House.

said, he wished briefly to notice that speech of his to which the right hon. Baronet had alluded. The right hon. Baronet had quoted as if he had made the calculation of what would be the franchise after the Reform Bill, whereas the speech he read related to a calculation of the state of it before the Reform Bill, namely 26,000. On that point he (Mr. O'Connell,) could not be mistaken, whatever he might have been before, because he had published that statement in a letter, both in the newspapers and in a pamphlet. The hon. Baronet who had taken an active part in the Emancipation Bill, had done them the justice to say, that they made no bargain, nor any compact, but that was but doing them half justice, because they had expressly called upon the House to reject the Emancipation Act rather than disfranchise the 40s. freeholders. Petitions were presented to the House on this subject by sixty-three Gentlemen who came from Ireland expressly for that purpose. They spurned the disfranchisement which accompanied the bill, and petitioned the House rather to reject both than to pass both. So that they not only made no compact, but they protested against this disfranchisement. In 1825, there existed objections to the 40s. freeholders. They were then dependent on their landlords, and obliged to vote as they pleased. There were many difficulties connected with them, but he, for one, never consented to the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders who were seized in fee. In 1825, they threw off their shackles, and evinced their patriotism. They turned the Beresfords out of Waterford, the Fosters out of Louth, and Mr. Vescy Fitzgerald out of Clare. Having given these proofs of their patriotism in 1825, when they were dependent, in 1829, they were disfranchised. This was the history of their disfranchisement, and what did the Reform Act? Did it give them additional franchises, or restore to them that they had lost? Would it have been taken away in England? Would the people of England have suffered it? Very properly, they would not, yet the franchise was taken from Ireland, where it was more needed than ever in England. When the right hon. Baronet told him that population was not the basis of the franchise, he admitted that it was not the sole basis, but the basis was population and property. But how was it estimated in Ireland? Why, by population and the forty shilling freeholders. The noble Lord taunted him and his party with driving Ireland to despair. He told the noble Lord they were not driven to despair. They were too many, too peaceable, too intelligent, and too united for that. What had occurred among them recently? He stated it with satisfaction and with pleasure, because it supplied them with a new remedy. He had stated it before, and he stated it again, that they did not know that country. There were five millions of persons there who never tasted the liquor of intoxication. They had calculated on their passions and their vices, but they could be oppressed through these no longer. How could the noble Lord say, that he did not intend to place the people of Ireland in the hands of the landlord? Why did not the noble Lord avow it? Did not the noble Lord say, that he intended to assimilate them to those in England? Should he be told after that, it was not intended to disfranchise them? The House had done nothing but base injustice to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that he (Mr. O'Connell gloated in looking back at the crimes that England had perpetrated against Ireland. It must be admitted that no one country had ever perpetrated so many crimes as England had to Ireland. Why did he mention it? Because that spirit existed still. They had not the same means—they had not the same power; they could not do it now, but they were as willing to do it as ever their ancestors were. The noble Lord had exhibited that spirit to-night. He told the House there was little chance of their getting the bill through that or the other House. Let him proclaim that to eight millions of people. It had been proclaimed, and it would be proclaimed again. He (Mr. O'Connell) remonstrated against their continued injustice, in asserting that whatever might be the population, it was not to be the basis of representation. He did not know what was meant by this paltry distinction between man and man, between Englishmen and Irishmen, but he knew that a 50l. franchise was not a franchise, and he knew again that a 40s. franchise was an ancient franchise, not depending upon property. To talk about a 40s. franchise as a franchise by property, was insulting common sense. He had shown them a population of 366,000 with only 925 voters. They had deprived Ireland of her fair share of representation. On the basis of property and population she ought to have 150 or 170 Members in that House. Ireland felt the indignity that was done her. She had what was called a representation, but it was not. No, let them go on. They would not disappoint him; on the contrary, they would but animate his hopes. He trusted he should yet live to see a Parliament that would do Ireland justice.

said, that after what had fallen from the noble Lord (the Secretary for the colonies), he felt anxious to say a few words in explanation. He was surprised to hear the noble Lord state that the effect of the amendment would be to restrict the franchise in Ireland. He was convinced that it would, as it was his intention it should, have a precisely opposite effect. The noble Viscount (the Secretary for Ireland) concurred with him in the necessity of creating a new franchise, That noble Lord proposed, in order to counteract the indisposition on the part of landlords to grant leases, to bestow it on leaseholders of 8l., while he (Viscount Howick), with the same view, proposed to bestow it on certain tenants, whether they held leases or not. A valuable class of voters would be destroyed by the operation of the bill of the noble Lord while they would be preserved by the amendment which he had proposed. He had only further to state, that his object was not to restrict the franchise.

said, that he should be exceedingly sorry if the hon. Gentleman imagined that he had misrepresented him. He had described the hon. Gentleman as prophesying the future operation of the Reform Bill. He could not, of course, know what the thoughts of the hon. Gen-Gentleman were, he only spoke from his reported speeches. The hon. Gentleman said,—

"I will now give the House a few specimens of the number of persons entitled to vote by this measure."

The hon. Gentleman then went through the details, and concluded by observing, that—

"The same principle ran throughout the whole bill, and the whole measure was as conservative as the hottest Conservative could desire."

He had quoted the testimony of the hon. Gentleman against the Conservatives. He He had also pronounced strictures on the Whigs. He had declared that Ireland had suffered from them, for that it was the Whigs who gave penal laws to Ireland. There existed, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, an empty vulgar prejudice against Ireland. He had thought it right to give the hon. Gentleman's testimony on both sides. What he had said was, that the hon. Gentleman had prophesied that after the passing of the Reform Bill the number of voters would not exceed 30,000, and that it required a stretch of imagination to conceive so great a number. This was the number which was thought adequate to represent 8,000,000 of people.

said, that in reference to what had fallen from the noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland, he had only to state, that he did not wish to say that the proposal of his noble Friend would restrict the franchise, nor would he say whether the franchise proposed by the amendment was a good one or not.

said, that in consequence of what had taken place he was anxious to make it perfectly clear that the amendment he had brought forward, and which had been this night discussed, was intended to be an addition to another franchise, and not a substitution. He should, therefore, reverse the order in which he had proposed to move his two amendments, and not move that for the definition of the beneficial interest till he had submitted that relating to occupancy.

spoke of the political cowardice displayed by Ministers. He was glad to find by the result of the division this night, and by the honest, fair, undisguised muster of the Conservatives, that her Majesty's Government was no longer to be allowed to play the tricks with which it had for some time indulged the country. He asked why the noble Lord did not display a little of that moral courage he ought to possess, and not wince like a galled jade because his withers were a little wrung.

gave notice, that in the next stage of the bill, he would propose a clause for the restoration of the 40s. franchise in Ireland.

observed, that under the circumstances of the late division, it could not be expected that the noble Lord would be prepared to make any declaration as to the course he should pursue; but he thought that he was bound to state some reason why the chairman should report progress and ask leave to sit again. Did the noble Lord intend to go into committee again to-morrow.

said, that he considered the introduction of the words of the amendment an important change in the bill, but he was not now prepared to say to what extent it affected it. He therefore proposed to postpone the farther proceeding until Monday. He had no objection to take Wednesday next, if other Gentlemen wished it.

remarked, that his bill stood for Wednesday, but in the situation in which Ministers at present stood, he did not think it right to offer any opposition to their taking that day for their bill. The amendment just carried must make a material difference, and it was only fair to the noble Lord and his colleagues to allow them to-morrow to consider what course they would adopt. If, therefore, the noble Lord wished to re-commit his bill on Wednesday, he was quite ready to fix his own bill for some future day.