Lord Stanley called upon the house deliberately to ponder the several propositions before it. The proposition of the government their last proposition, made at the last moment, brought forward two months after the introduction of their bill, and upon evidence obtained, not for the purpose of framing the bill, but for the purpose of bolstering it up-the proposition of the government was to establish, as the franchise for Ireland, the being rated to the relief of the poor to the amount of 81., without reference to the amount of the tenant's beneficial interest -without reference to the fact whether he was a person having a beneficial interest - whether he was a solvent tenant, and possessed of any property whatever. That was the principle for which the government contended. In opposition to that principle, the noble member for Northumberland had come forward, and said, "I propose to define the existing franchise in Ireland-to define it, certainly, with some modifications and limitations; but I will take rating as a test; and taking rating as a test, I propose that a certain amount of rating (not simply per se, but a certain amount over and above the rent) shall be deemed and taken to be, not a new qualification, but the legal and correct interpretation of that for which I contend, in common with honourable members on the other side of the house, namely, the beneficial interest on excess of value over the burdens upon the holding." That was precisely in accordance with the principle of the Reform Act, which lord Stanley wished to maintain, but which the government desired to abolish. However, therefore, it might suit the views

of ministers to represent the noble lord's amendment as merely a verbal one, he could by no means agree in the correctness of that description. The amendment distinctly brought before the house the question, "Will you, or will you not, maintain the beneficial interest as a test of the right of voting?" Upon that ground he would vote in favour of the amendment proposed by the noble lord. He should regret to see the constituency of Ireland diminished; but there was no proof that that was the case at present, compared with the number of voters at the time of the Reform Bill. He went into a statement of figures to prove this assertion. He thought that lord Howick had successfully exposed the absurdities or mistakes of the government measure, and that lord Morpeth had successfully argued against the details of lord Howick's plan. He could, therefore, vote for neither scheme; but he should vote for the principle asserted in lord Howick's amendment.

Mr. O'Connell affirmed that the county constituency had decreased by the number of 20,000 since the Reform Act passed, and he went on to compare the proportions between the population and the number of electors in Ireland and Great Britain.

Lord John Russell was sorry to find, from what lord Howick and lord Stanley had said, that there did not appear to be any prospect of settling the franchise of Ireland on a satisfactory basis. He had thought it the duty of the ministers to subject themselves to the taunts which he knew they would receive on departing from their original proposition, in order to bring the question to a close, and procure for Ireland the tranquillity which

would turn attention from political contests to the encouragement of industry, agriculture, and commerce. But it appeared to a great party that this was a course not to be taken. Lord Stanley, he said, supported the amendment because it maintained the principle of requiring an interest above the rent; for that very reason lord John Russell opposed it. Although the sense of the words introduced by lord Howick might be completely changed by a subsequent clause, yet they appeared to sanction a definition of the franchise which would be utterly destructive of it. If the house meant to let the peo ple of Ireland have a real representation, they ought to do it now; if not, let them say so in direct terms, and take their stand upon that declaration.

Sir Robert Peel said, that "lord John Russell had now pursued the course which he invariably pursued when he had some defective cause to advocate-trying to divert the attention of the House from the subject properly under its consideration, by some declamation about political rights to raise a cheer from those who sat behind him, under cover of which he fancied himself triumphant." (Great cheering from the opposition.) Sir Robert Peel exposed the inconsistency of the ministerial plan to revive a constituency which was perishing through the refusal of leases, by rendering a lease indispensable to the qualification of the voter. And how long would they maintain the principle that the right of voting should be derived from the profit of the land in England, after adopting the test of mere occupancy and rating in Ireland? "Why, what confidence could we place in you as legislators fit to

deal with this subject? (Great cheering.) You had the whole of the recess to prepare in; you had notices of this subject under consideration; you had the means of gaining official information, and every element to enable you to bring forward a measure to conciliate public opinion: and you brought forward a measure destroying the existing franchise, and substituting a 57. occupancy. We remained under the impression that that proposition was to be discussed; and, two or three nights before the consideration of the question came on, without a rea son being assigned, the noble lord increased the franchise from 51. to 81. And what does the noble lord tell us now? That he could support his 57. franchise by reference to facts and evidence, which show that it was a provision which ought to have been made. Then why has it been abandoned?-whence came the suggestion of objection? -Not from this side of the House. The noble lord says, 'I made this alteration in the hope of conciliating your favour, and now you reject it.' We never objected to the amount, but to the principle." Like lord Stanley, sir Robert Peel said he would vote for the principle of lord Howick's amendment, which he regarded so far in the light of an abstract resolution, declaring the opinion of the House that the profit of the land, and not occupancy, ought to constitute the franchise. The vote on the clause, said sir Robert Peel, must decide the fate of the bill. Mr. O'Connell had referred to the amount of population: sir Robert Peel supposed that government would not adopt that as the test of a free constituency. The question before the house, however, was of another kind. It

was not whether or not the franchise should be coextensive with the population: the question which arose was this-whether her majesty's government had made a provision which entitled them to the public confidence of the house; and he must say, that the course they had pursued on the Irish franchise appeared to him to disentitle them to the confidence of the house or of the country. (Vehement cheering.)

Mr. O'Connell said, that he did not demand to make population the sole test of the franchise: it should be taken in conjunction with property. It was so in England-why should it be otherwise in Ireland? Ireland, however, would not despair-she was too peaceable, too well organized. Those who doubted him knew not the country which contained five millions who never tasted the liquor of intoxication. But to his opponents he said, "Go on in your career." They did not disappoint him; on the contrary, they animated his hopes.

On a division, lord Howick's amendment was carried by 291 to 270.

Lord John Russell was not prepared to say to what extent the alteration affected the bill; and He therefore proposed to postpone its further consideration in committee till Monday, the 3rd of May. Lord Stanley suggested that the committee should resume on the previous Wednesday. To that lord John Russell agreed; and lord Stanley postponed his own bill, which stood for Wednesday the 28th of April, until Wednesday the 5th of May. Before proceeding with the committee on that day, lord John Russell explained the course which he meant to pursue.

He had asked the house to adjourn after the division of Monday evening, because he believed the words which had been inserted in the first clause to be of very great importance; inferring from what had been stated in debate, that it was intended to exclude the franchise proposed by lord Morpeth. Government, however, would not be justified in considering the vote as conclusive. The principal clause of the bill-that containing the franchise-had been affirmed by the house on the second reading of the bill; and it must be considered that lord Howick's franchise was proposed, not with the view of negativing any other, but as an addition to the franchise contained in the bill-an addition which ministers would be quite willing to accept if the house would adopt their franchise.

Lord Howick explained his intended course. He had never thought of proposing the franchise founded on a beneficial interest, except as an addition to some other franchise. If some other franchise, which admitted a considerable number of electors to the right of voting, were agreed upon by the house, he should, in that case, and in that case only, propose the franchise of which he had given notice. Still, he could not support the government clause. He was, indeed, surprised that the ministers could call upon the house to decide upon it; for any one who knew any thing of public affairs, or of the state of parties, knew that if the clause did pass that house, there was no human probability that the proposed franchise would ever become law. The only consequence of further discussion must be to keep up the excitement in the house, and the still more

mischievous excitement in Ireland; leaving the franchise for another year in a state of uncertainty, and retaining for another year all the evils of the registration which arose from the undefined state of the franchise.

Sir Robert Peel said, that the ministers, the persons entrusted with the confidence of the sovereign, had undertaken to settle this great subject, asserting the necessity as well of defining the franchise, as of adjusting the registration. Instead of defining the franchise, they proposed a measure for destroying it. Lord Howick had suggested a different principle, that of retaining the beneficial interest, which he intended to preserve, in addition to, not in exclusion of, other franchises. That principle the government had endeavoured to overrule. They had endeavoured to disfranchise the bona fide freeholder of a clear interest of 77. 10s. He had put his own proceeding upon this plain ground, that property ought to be the basis of a county qualification. But he could not consent to vote an important change in the franchise on the suggestion of an individual member not connected with the government, nor with any powerful party, and not possessing any authority to command the necessary information. Nay, the recent returns expressly stated, that those who prepared them had no materials for calculating the number of voters likely to be produced by one or other principle of qualification. The necessary means of information could only exist in the hands of government, and therefore, though not disapproving the principle of lord Howick's amendment, he could not support it practically by a vote.

Lord Morpeth said, that lord Howick's argument in favour of a 51. beneficial interest had not been resisted by the government, as an addition to their own leasehold qualification by rating of 8l., but as a substitution for it; and on this 8. qualification, they were determined on taking the opinion of the house.

Mr. Sergeant Jackson said a few words; and Mr. H. Grattan made a vehement invective against lord Howick for the proposal of a measure which he had kept alive just long enough to embarrass his friends, and then had wanted resolution to carry through. He said "it was time for Irish members to speak out; and, as for himself, he would risk his life, his character, his all, on behalf of the liberties which were the birthright of his country."

Upon the house going into committee, a discussion arose upon an amendment proposed by Mr. Hume, to fill up the blank in the second clause (with respect to the term of years necessary to ground the qualification) with the word "one," instead of “fourteen." Several honourable members having contributed their suggestions for a standard of qualification, each speaker in turn preferring some. thing different from the last, Mr. Ward rather happily observed, that "gentlemen were really fishing for a franchise. One gentleman recommended one thing; another, another. Surely the safe course was to follow the government, who had brought forward their plan, as Sir Robert Peel had said, upon their official responsibility."

Mr. Hume rebuked Mr. Ward for his lecture. "There had been a meeting," he said, "of the opposition members two days since, at which the policy of that side of the

house was decided on; and no honourable member belonging to that side would dare to act counter to it. But a man in Dublin, or in any other part of the empire, knew just as much of what the government intended to do as he did. The fact was, the government did not itself know what it meant to do. (Laughter.) Every day some new change was proposed."

Lord John Russell vindicated the proposed leaseholder's qualification, in preference to that of mere occupation.

Sir Robert Peel recommended that the government should be allowed to fill up the blanks in the way which would bring their measure into the shape they intended, and that the vote of the house should then be taken for or against the measure so shaped. To that end, he should vote with the government now, the details of the bill being a matter of perfect indifference to him.

After a little more debate, the house divided, and the government proposal, fixing the term of lease at fourteen years, was carried by 513 to 47. On the proposal to fill up the next blank so as to fix the rating at 87., Mr. Hume moved an amendment to make it 51. The original motion was carried by 434 to 126. On the question being put from the chair, that the clause do stand part of the bill, Mr. Brotherton moved that the chairman report progress. That amendment was rejected by 428 to 98. Amidst much confusion, Mr. O'Connell then moved that the chairman do leave the chair. Immediately afterwards he moved that the chairman report progress. Mr. Bernal, the chairman, refused to put this motion, and a considerable degree of confusion ensusing, Mr. Wakley

taunted Lord John Russell with the vacillation of the ministers, which produced so much embarrassment to their adherents. Lord John Russell retorted upon Mr. Wakley, with some ironical compliments on his inflexibility of principle. Ultimately he said that if this clause were rejected, the government would abandon the bill.

Sir Robert Peel said, that he and his friends might, had they so pleased, have taken advantage of the opportunity afforded them by Mr. O'Connell's amendment, and have got rid of the bill. They wished, however, for a fair and unequivocal decision on the clause, and therefore he proposed adjourning the debate till the next evening, which lord John Russell agreed to.

On the meeting of the house the next night, the question was again put, that the clause should stand part of the bill. This led to a renewed but not very connected debate on the general merits of the bill, the principal speakers being lord Stanley, lord Morpeth, Mr. Charles Wood, Mr. Hume, and Mr. O'Connell. The latter said that the approaching defeat of the bill, which he foresaw, would nevertheless do the ministers much good service in Ireland. It would be useless and tedious to recapitulate, even in brief summary, the arguments used on either side, which, from the frequent repetition of the same topics, had become totally devoid of freshness or novelty. The great interest of the debate centred, of course, in the division, which excited intense eagerness. It at length took place, and the numbers appeared to beFor the clause 289; against it 300-Majority against the government 11.