The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-03 00:00:00

for capital, and for plofit. So that the effect of
making the solvent tenant's rent the test of the value,
would be to double the burden of the tenant, as he must
double the income before he would he allowed to vote. In
the Act of the 10th of George IV., which accompanied
the Emancipation Act, the 10/. franchise was intro-
duced for the first time, but in that Act there was no
statement how the 101. was to be tested, and therefore
it was left open to argue whether the Act meant the
101. to be rent or profit. By the 7th clause, it was
altered to a 101. profit-rent, and the Assistant-Barrister
was required to hear evidence as to the party being
able to get the 10/. additional rent necessary for his
franchise ; but that system of registration was totally

, . .
altered by the form Act. By it the 101. franchise
was repealed, an hat which was required by the lOth
of George the Fourth was now no longer part of the law.
He would make that quite clear by referring to the
_ .

section of the statute. (The Hon. and Learned Gentle-

man here read the 16th section referred to in support
of his argument.) Under the Act of George IV.,
the profit-rent list was the one refused ; but, by the

Reform Act, the whole of that had been repealed: The

words of the Act were not the same—the words of the
affidavit were not the same. The Reform Act re-

pealed the clause altogether, and substituted a totally
diferent form of affidavit, as would be seen by re-

ferring to Sc:lledule C of the Reform Act ; and it was
enacted that the voter should take that oa'h, instead of
the oath then required to be taken ; so that there
were direct words, doing away with that part of the
affidavit, as the other part did away with the words of
the clause ; and yet he was to be told that this was no
alteration—that it was only the substitution of one thing
for another—that the law remained unaltered, although
the Acts were cssectially different. If it had not come
from a country where a bias existed even on the bench
of justice, it would not have been credible that such a
decision could have been come to. The question had
come before the Judge, and one case had been argued
before them. So far, if he had been understood as
stating that the question had never been argued, he had
oeen properly corrected ; but he had been improperly
corrected when he stated that that decision had not

been given in public. That decision had never been
given in public—the Judges had made a decision and
had withheld the promulgation of it till they had

consulted with their brethren. In most instances they
would not hear Counsel. They had given their opinions

in private, even in the cases in which they had heard
Counsel. He collected from the report of the decision of
Baron Richards, that the Judges had met in pri-

vate. In that case there had been two questions
for their consideration, one as to the test of value if it
were the same in both Acts. There was 7to 5 cn

the first point. On the second point there were 10 to
2 as to the question which was to go to the Jury, whe-
ther the issue was to be the profit-rent test, or whether
the beneficial interest should be the issue to be tried.
Now, although he had read the words of the affidavit

• f.J
and the clause, in order to show that the regulation
of the 10th of George IV., was entirely annulled, yet
10 to 2 of the Judges were of the opinion that the
question remained the same. At least, they were of
opinion that such was the proper issue to be sent to the
Jury. But Baron Richards sent also the beneficial in-
terest question as an issue to the Jury. In the cases
of Lemon and Ferguson judgment had been given in
such a manner as not to entitle it to authority.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) The arguments had been full,
the judgment was short. (The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman here read the judgment, which stated, that
Richard Baron and Perrin Baron were of opinion that
the Act Geo. IV. having been repealed, by the 2d and
3d of William IV., that question had been improperly
left to the Jury. Now, this judgment was given in such
a manner as manifestly to show that the reporter was
not present at its delivery, or he would have given the

decision of each Judge separately. Three of the Judges
were of opinion that the Act of the 10th Geo. IV. was
repealed by the Reform Act, and yet that this fragment

of it survived, and that between those things so essen-

tially varying from each other, there was no legal dif-
ference. Three of them admitted the repeal of the
form of the oath, and yet came to the unheard-of con-
clusion that the test meant by the Reform Act was
the profit-rent test as before, and not the beneficial in-
terest test. Baron Foster, who had heard one Counsel
only on each side, sent his judgment in in writing.
The question again occurred before Baron Richards at

Sligo: and he considered his judgment to be correct.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON—Was that the case of
Walters ?

Mrs „O'CONNELL said it was, and what objec-
tion was there to that. He had the report of the
judgment from Baron Richards himself. There was
not a man living of higher honour and integrity than
that Learned Judge—(Cheers)—he had never heard
even any insinuation against that worthy and Learned.
person.—(Cheers.) Baron Richards said that the case
had occasioned him great perplexity, but that he con-
sidered, that as the decision of the Judges had been
given, a private judgment could not be consi-
dered binding as a judicial decision ; and he (Mr.
O'Connell) would be glad to know if it would not be
worse than the Star Chamber revived if the Judges
were to meet to give their opinions in private, and to
exclude Counsel and the parties interested from hearing
the judgment ? Such a thing would not be borne in
this country. Every day they saw cases decided in
the Court of Queen's Bench which. were overruled on
an appeal to the Exchequer Chamber ; and where de-
cisions were not appealed against, those decisions were
law, because the parties interested had the power of
applying, if they thought proper, but they acquiesced
in the judgment, because they were satisfied that
it would be affirmed on appeal. Bat it was
monstrous that any decision should be considered
or any judgment held as binding which was delivered
in private, and in such a form as it could not be appealed
against. Such was the opinion of Baron Richards, and
in that opinion he entirely concurred. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman then read the judgment of Baton
Richards, from which it appeared that that Learned
Judge was of opinion that the original jurisdiction was
in the Assistant-Barrister, and the last resort was to
the House of Commons ; and he further stated that
after he consulted the highest legal authority in the
kingdom, and also of the Judge going the circuit with
him, and that guided by their opinions he felt him-
self fully justified in deciding according to what he be-
lieved the law of the case, and he accordingly admitted
the men to be registered. All he (Mr.O'Connell) wanted
to show was that the question was not yet decided—
that it:was still under litigation, and that on the circuit
now going on it might he decided different ways. The
greater number of Assistant-Barristers were in favour
of the beneficial interest test.
Mr. SHAW—No.
Mr. O'CONNELL—WeII, several were, and that
was sufficient for his argument, and he called upon the
House, before they proceeded to enact a new registry
law, to put an end to these divisions, which brought
such disrepute on the Judges in Ireland. This must
give some definition of the test. If the House went
into Committee on this question, they might take the
proposition of the Member for Mallow, for making the
assessment of the Poor-rate a test, into consideration,
although he feared such a test would give rise to much
inconvenience. Another mode of deciding would be,
that the profit rent test should be the test, in thus
taking away from Ireland the benefit conferred by
the Reform Act, and raising that qualification.
to use the words of the Noble Lord, from a
101. to a 201. one. Under the beneficial intcrsst
test, it would be easy to show that qualification.
The claimant would show that he had paid his rent,
and by calculating the money that he had paid for
labour, the money for which he had sold his crops and
his cattle, he would at once show the beneficial interest
he had. But by adopting the profit-rent test, they at
once came upon imaginary ground, and instead of show-
ing what be actually made, he would he called upon to
show what somebody else, paying double the rent,
!night have made. Those imaginary valuations were
fruitful sources of error. In a trial to assess
the damages done to certain property belonging to
Heriot's Hospital, by the Edinburgh and Leith Rail-
• way Company, the Company had estimated the damage
at 5001, and the value of the land at 1,0001., making
1,500/. Five surveyors had been examined on be-
half of the hospital. One of them hatl valued the
land and damage at 90001. Another at something less,
and the sth at 70001., while the Jury had given IEOO/.,
Allowing 7001. of it as the value of the land. No one
sesnected any one of these parties of perjury, but the
nrofit rent test necessarily brought into action the
imaginative powers of the valuer, while by the bene-
ficial interest a man was obliged to give something like
en accurate account because he was brought down to
the details o vulgar arithmetic. The House might not
agree with h m in his views—the Committee might
adopt the Poor-laws, or some other mode of obtaining
the groundwork of the franchise, but let them at once
define what it was to be—was it not absurd to make
machinery for a merely imaginary work. First tell
them what the qualification was to be, and then
make the machinery for the registration. Every
former Act contained the specification he wanted.
Toe Noble Lord boasted that his Bill omitted it ; but he
(Mr. O'Connell) would appeal to the common sense of
the House and the country whether it was not pre-
posterous to make the machinery without laying down
what qualification was necessary for putting the ma-
chinery in motion—was it. a course which would be
taken with any other part of the empire ? The Noble
Lord had taken many advantages during the progress
of the- Well ;. but the one he (Mr. O'Connell) most com-
plained of was his forcing on the Irish Bill before they
1 proceeded with the English and the Scotch Registratien
Bill—had that cetnee been taken then they wouhl not
have had the Noble Lord forcing upon Ireland all the
pates of the Eogkish system which were most annoying ;
he had every reason to complain of the course adopted
by the Noble Lord. The Fictitious Vote Committee for
Scotland had shown that in one small county in that
country there were no less than 400 votes manufactured
without one single shilling having passed either
way. The Committee which inquired into the same
subject respecting Ireland had not dared to report any
such thing—they had contented themselves with merely
reporting the evidence, although a majority of the Com-