ng 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,