IRISH AND SCOTCH REFORM BILLS PASSED.
It was easy to foresee that the English reform bill having passed, those relating to Scotland and Ireland would be equally triumphant. Deliberation was, in point of fact, at an end. Both bills had been read a first time, and had awaited on the table of the house of commons the fate of the English bill in the house of lords. The bill relating to Scotland was read in the commons on the 21st of May, the day on which the restored ministry resumed the committee in the lords on the English bill. No resistance was made to the second reading, the opposition knowing that it was hopeless, and feeling assured that this measure must follow as part of the general scheme, all the elements of which had triumphed in regard to England. Various amendments were moved in the committee, but they were all rejected by large majorities, and it passed the third reading unmutilated. In the house of lords also, as in the commons, no opposition was made to the second reading, and it passed that house on the 13th of July, The Irish bill called forth more resistance than that of Scotland, though its triumph from the first was equally certain. Mr. Lefroy moved, on its re-introduction, that it should be read that day six months. He said, that if a reform bill was to be passed at all, the present measure, in so far as the country representation was concerned, was not very objectionable; but he could discover no advantage to be derived from it in respect to the alterations in the boroughs. Seven of these boroughs had sent reformers to parliament, and eight possessed an open constituency. In the others the constituency varied from twelve to ninety-four, and none of them could be called decayed boroughs; on the contrary, they were more flourishing than at the time when they received the franchise. Of the one hundred Irish members, eighty-three were popularly returned. Where then, he asked, was the necessity or expediency of the measure? Would any rational man have deemed a reform bill necessary in England under such circumstances? And while the bill was unnecessary, he continued, it was also dangerous—dangerous not merely to the Protestant church of Ireland, but to the sister church of England, and the integrity of the empire. The fall of the Irish church would endanger the connection between the two countries. The leader of the Catholic population in Ireland had told them to choose reformers as the best means of opening the way to repealers; yet it was proposed by opening the boroughs to put them into the hands of this party—a party whose influence would be increased to an extent that no government would have power to oppose. The amendment was seconded by Lord Castlereagh, and supported by Messrs. Shaw, Conolly, and Gordon, who all said that the bill would be ruinous to the Protestant interest in Ireland. Messrs. O’Connell and Shiel defended the bill against the objections urged by the supporters of the amendment, but pointed out other defects, which they expressed a hope would be remedied in the committee. For instance, the name of the ten-pound franchise had been given to Ireland without the reality; the Irish and English freeholders, from the nature of their tenures, and the disproportion between their means, were in opposite positions to each other. In respect to houses also, the franchise was too high; and, instead of being the instrument of reform, it would be productive of corruption. Thus Portarlington, which was formerly sold by a single proprietor, would now be sold by one hundred members. In England, no man was called upon to show his title unless by previous notice; but in Ireland a scrutinising assistant-barrister examined it without any process being-served on the man who came to vote. In Ireland, also, half-a-crown was the sum paid for registry; in England it was a shilling only. Was this equality? Was this union? Could this conduce to the continuance of the union between the two countries? But while he found so much in the bill of an objectionable nature, he would support it for the good it would effect; he would support it because it would strike down the corporation of Dublin, and because it would open the borough of Belfast, whose representative had hitherto been appointed by the noble Marquis of Donegal, like his groom or his footman. After a few words of opposition from Sir Robert Peel, the house divided on the second reading, and it was carried by two hundred and forty-six against one hundred and thirty.
It was in the committee that the attacks of the Irish reformers against the bill commenced in reality. The emancipation act had been accompanied by the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders. Mr. O’Connell moved that it should be an instruction to the committee to restore the franchise to these freeholders. The Irish reform bill exhibited gross injustice. England was to have thirty members more than had originally been contemplated, but Ireland was not to derive any such advantage. It was always the way when Ireland was concerned; her aid was invoked in the battle, but when the division of the spoil came, she was forgotten. And in the present instance insult had been added to injury. The Scotch bill had been brought forward by a Scotch legal luminary. Was there no Irish gentleman to whom ministers could entrust the Irish reform bill? Ministers wished to put an end to agitation in Ireland. But how did they set about it? By perpetrating an act of injustice, which would perpetuate agitation. The amendment was supported by Mr. Shiel, who contended that the restoration of the forty-shilling freeholders was just in principle, because it would assimilate the constituency of England and Ireland, and because it would conciliate the people of Ireland without being detrimental to England. Ministers replied, that if the proposed instruction was carried, it would have, the effect of impeding, if not ultimately defeating, the measure. Mr. O’Connell’s motion was lost! by a majority-of one hundred and twenty-two against seventy-three; and he immediately moved, as a modification of it; that “the franchise should be restored to persons seized of an estate for three lives, renewable for ever, of the yearly value of forty shillings, provided that the rent did not exceed four pounds per annum, of which one-third was to be profit, and provided also that the renewal fee did net exceed two-pounds.” This was opposed by Mr. Stanley, on the ground, that it would create a minute subdivision of independent, property, and by that means would also create an immense multitude of independent voters. The motion, was not pressed to a division; and Mr. O’Connell then took up the subject of the increase of representation in Ireland. Of the five additional members, one was to be given to the University of Dublin, which was now to return two members; and Mr. O’Connell and his party objected to this arrangement, because it would strengthen the Protestant interest. Sir Robert Heron moved as an instruction to the committee, that the University of Dublin should continue to return only one member. The motion was opposed by Mr. Crampton, the solicitor-general of Ireland, who vindicated the character of the electors of Dublin University from the attacks which the Irish reformers made upon it. The proposal was rejected by a large majority: and Mr. O’Connell returned to the attack by moving, as an instruction to the committee, to extend the franchise to persons occupying freehold estates of the yearly value of five pounds. His motion was founded on this reasoning—that, as Ireland was a poorer country, a ten-pound qualification in England was a twenty-pound qualification in Ireland, and the constituency of the latter would consequently be curtailed. In his speech, he said that the object of all parties seemed to be to exclude the people of Ireland as much as possible from the enjoyment of the franchise. He was justified in making this charge, when he saw two members given to Trinity College, Dublin, in the constituency of which it was impossible there should be a Roman Catholic voter. If the system was acted on, the Catholic question still remained to be settled. Mr. Stanley complained of the unreasonable conduct of Irish members, and especially of Mr. O’Connell, who first desired alterations in the bill, and then complained that it was no longer the same. The change in the plan of registration, he said, had been recommended by Sir Henry Darnel. An alteration had also been made in the leasehold from twenty-one years to fourteen, and this was done at the instance of Irish members. Mr. O’Connell himself had entreated ministers to omit the fifty-pound qualification, which was complied with: but he had hardly effected his purpose, when he turned round and accused the government of making unfavourable alterations in the bill. Members might be astonished, but it was fact, that he had given notice of a motion for the restoration of a qualification which was omitted on his own suggestion. This motion was likewise rejected; as was another, made by Mr. Mullins, to extend the franchise in counties to leaseholders for nineteen years, at a rent of thirty pounds. Ministers, however, yielded something in the committee by consenting to extend the franchise to leaseholders for twenty years, having a beneficial interest to the amount of ten pounds. Mr. Shiel divided the house without success, to get rid of a proviso that required ten-pound voters in boroughs to pay all municipal taxes. The recorder of Dublin was equally unsuccessful in a motion tending to place Irish freemen on the same footing with their brethren in English boroughs; that is, to have their rights as freemen perpetuated, instead of terminating with the lives of those existing, as provided in the Irish bill Before the bill left the committee, Mr. Dominick Browne, one of the members for the county of Mayo, proposed a different plan for Ireland; but his proposition was not entertained by the house. The bill passed the commons on the 18th of July, and was read a second time in the lords on the 23rd. No division took place; but the Duke of Wellington stated at length his objections to the measure, which were replied to by Lord Plunkett. The bill passed through the committee in the peers almost without discussion. The only amendment of importance was one which had been rejected in the commons; namely, to place the rights of freemen in boroughs on the same footing on which they stood in the English bill, by continuing them in perpetuity instead of confining them simply to the children of freemen born after the passing of the bill. When the bill returned to the commons, Mr. Stanley declared that he felt a strong repugnance to this amendment. It was, however, allowed to stand, and by the first week of August all the three bills had received the royal assent.
BILL TO PREVENT BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS, ETC.
Soon after, the reform bill was carried the house of commons was filled with complaints, that, in its working, it was producing, extensive disfranchisement among the new constituencies. It was required by the English bill, that the intended voter should have paid up by the 20th of July all rates and taxes, payable in the preceding April in respect of the premises on which he claimed. That period was now past, and the non-payers were so numerous as greatly to diminish the new constituencies. Under these circumstances Lord Althorp, on the 7th of August, moved for leave to bring in a bill “for allowing further time for persons to pay the poor-rates, in pursuance of an act passed in the present session to amend the representation of the people in England and Wales.” This was resisted on the ground that the act contained no clause allowing it to be altered, during the present session, and that the proposition was a breach of pledge. The house, it was said, had fully discussed and finally passed a measure effecting a great and extensive change in the constitution of the country, and that measure had gone forth to the country as being the final act of those who had originated it; yet it was now proposed to make an alteration in one of its most essential provisions. The alteration proposed was not unreasonable in itself; but there was danger in permitting any alteration to be made with respect to the reform act. Who could say, if changes were to be made, when they would stop? Lord Althorp argued that there were precedents which would enable the house to get over the difficulty in point of form, but as the bill was to be opposed, and as, in that case, it could not be carried through before the 20th of August, he would withdraw it altogether; he was the more ready to do so, because he thought that the inconvenience had been exaggerated. The subject, however, was taken up by Colonel Evans, who thought that a great number of tax and rate payers entitled to vote were defaulters, and therefore not able to enjoy their franchise. He moved a resolution, which, after adverting to the disfranchisement likely to arise, suggested that the mischief might be remedied by substituting for “the 6th of April,” in the 27th clause of the reform act, “the 25th of September last” for the payment of the poor rates, and the “10th of October last” for the payment of the assessed taxes. This motion was only supported by two members, yet the colonel brought the matter before the house again on the 10th of August, by moving “that an address be presented to his majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to prorogue the present, and convene another short session of parliament, to take into consideration the unexpected disfranchisement produced by certain restrictive clauses of the act for amending the representation of the people in parliament.” This motion was opposed by ministers, and was not pressed to a division. It had become clear, indeed, that many of the statements concerning the number of non-payers were without good foundation, and therefore there was no reason for altering the clause. About the same time objections were raised to the boundaries of boroughs as laid down by the commissioners whom ministers had employed, principally on the ground of the influence which, it was supposed, had here and there been given to individuals, by adding large portions of their lands to boroughs. It was objected, for instance, that, in the case of Whitehaven, a rural district, comprehending thirty voters, had been added to a borough containing three hundred. It was said that this was done to conciliate opposition; as this district was the property of Lord Lonsdale, it was stated, he would acquire by its junction with the town a preponderating influence. An amendment was made to exclude it, but ministers resisted it, and it was lost. Lord Althorp said, that nobody who knew the state of parties would believe in these theories of conciliation; and that Lord Lonsdale would have no more influence in the borough than the legitimate influence to which rank and property entitled their possessor. A similar objection was stated against the boundary allotted to Stamford, which was followed by a similar motion of exclusion; but it found only nineteen supporters, while one hundred and seventy-two voted against it.
Another measure connected with the changes in the representation was a bill brought in to amend and render more effectual the laws relating to bribery and corruption in elections. Lord John Russell, who brought in the bill, stated that its principal object was to subject all cases of bribery to a more complete investigation. With that view, the bill extended the term for presenting petitions complaining of bribery at elections from fourteen days to two years; and provided that it would be lawful for any person to petition the house during that period, complaining that the election of any particular borough had been carried by bribery and corruption. The bill also provided that where the parties complained of undue elections in consequence of bribery, if they proved their case, all their costs and expenses in sustaining their petition should be defrayed by the public. Objections were urged against this measure from both sides of the house. It was argued, that the extension of the period for petitioning would keep members in a state of vassalage for two years; that a new petition might be presented every week, if it only related to a different alleged act; and that the terms which defined what bribery was were so vague, and yet so comprehensive, that it was impossible for a member to know whether a charge could be brought against him or not. Some members thought that nothing but the ballot would prevent bribery, while others suggested that every member on entering the house should take an oath that he had neither given, nor promised to give, or would promise hereafter, by himself, his agents, or friends, any money, security, order, or other thing of value, or any pecuniary fee, or reward of any kind, in consideration of any vote or votes, by which his return to that house had been promoted or served. The bill passed the commons; but when it came to the lords its postponement for six months was moved by Lord Wynford, and the lord chancellor agreeing with him as to the impossibility of carrying its provisions into effect, the bill was thrown out.
During the discussion on the reform question, one strong objection against the destruction of nomination-boroughs had been, that without them there would be no certain means of members who vacated their seats by accepting office of securing a new return. In order to obviate this inconvenience, the Marquis of Northampton brought in a bill to repeal, in so far as certain offices were concerned, the act of Queen Anne, by which an acceptance of any of them vacated a member’s seat. On the motion for the second reading of this bill, the Duke of Wellington said there could be no doubt that some measure of this description was necessary; but it appeared to him that the present bill was only a half measure, because it provided for only half of the inconvenience likely to result. He also objected to the bill being brought forward in the individual capacity of the noble marquis. As the inconvenience would arise from a government measure, government should introduce a remedy, and recommend it to both houses of parliament upon their own responsibility. The lord-chancellor likewise thought that the second reading should be delayed till the matter had been more ripely considered. The second reading, therefore, was postponed, and, as the end of the session approached, the bill was ultimately laid aside. The last subject of direct reform in the representation was introduced by Mr. Bulwer, who moved an address to the king, praying that his majesty would give the free inhabitants of New South Wales a representative system. He grounded their title to it on the score both of population and taxation; but while ministers admitted that New South Wales must in time have a representative body, they did not think the elements had yet been formed out of which a safe constituency could be created, and the motion was negatived.