The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-23 00:00:00

ORNIN ti EDITION

shall endorse the name of the appellant and
tsar earty whom he shall be directed to
treat as respondent, in the 67th clause provides
that it shall be lawful for the said Court of
Appeal to make such, or, respecting the payments of
the costs of the respondent in any appeal, or of any
part of such costs as to the said Court shall
seem meet." The principle of costs upon appeal against
the claimant of the franchise, which was one of the
points upon which the strongest objections were made
to my Bill of last year, is affirmed by the Noble
Lord in his Bill of the present Session, but affirmed
without any restrictions by which I sought only the
exercise of the right and to protect it from abuse—( Hear,
bear)—and that power which the Noble Lord refused
to entrust to judges appointed by the Crown, and
holding their office for life, the Noble Lord does not
besita',e to entrust—much more ample power and without
the same restrictions—t 3 three Barristers, who should be
appointed under the authority of the Speaker of the
House of Commons. Now, Sir, I am not surprised
that the Noble Lord did not at all notice this question
of costs in his opening speedo Dealing with the regis-
tration subject, the Noble Lord neveir mentioned the
subject of costs at all, and I think this clause may
perhaps, in some degree expla n that omission. There
night be some little hesitation upon the part of the
Noble Lord as to the provisions which he really in-
tencled to introduce upon the subject of costs, be•
cause upon looking et these marginal notes,
-which so much disturbed the Noble Lord,
the Secretary for the Colonies, I find the other night
the marginal note to the 42d clause provides that
double costs should be given in cases of unfounded
charges of fraud, but the note is altered since, and now
me double costs are to be given.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
Now, Sir, I have contented myself with enumerating
the principal points of difference between the Noble
Lord and myself, with the exception, however, of one
which I shall state to the Noble Lord now, because I
hope he will be able to give me un explanation of it,
and because I really cannot with it understand
the 81l after careful examination. Sir, I had hoped
that the abolition of certificates was absolute and en•
tire, and that no Hon. Member on either side wished
to keep up a system of certificates which all
admitted to be the fruitful parent of crime.
The Noble Lord abolishes certificates as the test of
qualification before the returning officer, but before the
Clerk of the Peace he can claim a certificate of his
entry upon the registry ; and this certificate shall be
conclusive evidence of the right of that person to be
vlsced on the registry, in any proceeding against the
Clerk of the Peace. Now, Sir, I cannot understand upon
what ground that is to be considered conclusive evi-
dence The possession of the certificate is evidence of
his having been on the registry some time previously,
but the fact of his being challenged, and an appeal
lc aged against his right to vote must be t aken to be a
proof that he bad lest his qualification. And therefore
the certificate will only prove that at some time he was
on the registry, and that he had heen regularly and pro-
perly struck off. Sir, I have gone shortly through the
points without arguing them, on which there are main
differences between 11E, but in the manner which 1
had the honour to introduce on the subject of his
alteration of the registration there are other differences.
Sir, I have already- stated that if my objections rested
upon the subject of the revision only, I should not offer
any opposition to the second reading of the Noble Lord's
Bill; but I shall now proceed to another and much more
important branch of the subject. So the tack which
the Noble Lord has affixed to the Registration Bill for
the purpose, as I believe, of defeating the attempt
which is now making by both sides of the House to
amend the existing evils of the Registration
system.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Without mean-
ing anything disrespectful to the Noble Lord,
my first objection to the Bill is that he has brought it for.
ward under false colours and false pretences—( Loud
cheers)—and I see in this Bill another sLip in that line of
policy which has been adopted by the present Admiuistra-
then, which has been in a manner peculiar to it, and which
has never been followed by any Government, and which
lea never characterised any other, but which has been
studiously pursued by the present Government of her Ma-
jesty from the first moment down to this period, whatever
this period may be of its political existence.—( Hear, and
a laugh.) In 1835, when my Right Hor. Friend's Go-
eminent was thrown out of cfrice, not that there was any
difference as to the measure to he introduced for settling
the vexati nos question of tithes in Ireland (for upon that
subject both sides of the House were agreed, even to the
minutest details of the measure), but because he refused
to admit a tack to the measure—(Load cheers)—
of a di einction to which, as honest men, it was impossible
th .t we should accede.—(Cheers.) That, in fact, was
declared by the Government of the Noble Lord opposite
to be a sine qua non, without carrying which it was impos-
sible they could, as honest men, hold their situations. That,
then, was tlso commencement by the Government of a
system which I trace again in the present Bill, of bolster-
ing up their credit, not on that they had achieved, but on
some unattainable and imaginary performance which they
professed their determination to carry, on the responsi-
bility of the Government attempting to carry which they
maintained a precarious existence for a certain number of
)ears; but at the end they were compelled to acknow-
ledge they were unable to carry their inestimable sine qua
nosa.---( Cheers.) Tnese two results followed. The
remedy of acknowledged abuses and grievances, I be-
lieve, in the t question ; and if the Government
shall he successful, will be in the registration
system; and the remedy will be delayed from year to
yaar, whde the plausible ground which will be taken by
the G,,verninent towards tneir supporters will be, " See
what we are disposed to give you. If you desert us, see
wie_t a prospect you will lose."—(Cheers.) While to
the more reflecting portion of the community, they will
say, •‘ We would have remedied these evils, but have been
seimpeiled to abandon the hope of doing so by the factious
and pertinacious opposition of our opponents."—(Cheers )
Why, Sir, that pretext has been held out, and what has
!been the result ? Why, that in the Tithe Question it has
happened, and I trust and believe that on the Registration
'Question it will happen, that they hove found themselves
compelled to abandon this sine qua non, and to adopt
those very measures which, but for their obstini.to resis-
tanen, we, theie opponents, would have joined them in
enabling them to carry some four years ago.—(Loud
cheers.) And now let me ask what has been the history
of this registration system, and how far differs the Rilicy
pursued upon the Tithe and Appropriation Question ?
Far four long years the Government have been in the
habit, Session after Sei,ion—the abuses of the registra-
tion system being forced upon them until they were
unable to resist any longer—of introducing Bills,
but with no other object than that of preventing the efforts
of other gentlemen unconnected with the Government,

who hal felt the inconvenience of the present system.
Why. one Bill which they brought f, r.vard, not being op-
ions,2d by any member of this House, was sent to the
Douse of Lords; at what period of the Session ?—the
296 of August—having been introduced into this House
on the II th of At!gust fur the first time. That is the
fxourse which the Government have pursued in introducing
,jiegistration Bills, k eping others out from the beginning
until the end of the Ses,io:', and then as regularly aban-
doning them as they had introduce) them. Now, so fir
las 1 was concerned, I was determined that the last Session
(cif Parliament should not pass without an effort to remedy
ipose grievarceg, and accordingly, at an early period of
'the Session, the Noble Lord having told me the Govern-
easent had no intention of introducing a Registration Bill,
A introduced a Bill which appeared to me, and to the great
:majority of this House al.o, to held out the prospect
of remedying the grievances of the existing system ;
and h3w did the Noble Lord determine to resist the

Bill ? Not by resisting principles which were not
included, but by resisting principles which were in-
cluded in it; and on the second reading of the Bi:1
:not a word fell from the other side condemning my sill
on account of its not containing any definition of the ex-
isting system—( Loud checrs)—nay, more than tha., so
far from this being any objection on this account to the
second reading, the Solicitor-General stated his objec-
tions to ate, that by the insertion of the word " Acts" in-
stead of " Act," I was not defining, but introducing an
expression which might tend to influence tho judgment of
other parties as to the definition of the franchise as it ex-
ists at tho present moment. But whew it was found that
my Bill was successful, and about to pass this House, a
different coarse was pursued. Then we first heard of the
absence of a definition, then we first beard that the Ge-
vernment had taken up the question, then, not one, but
two bills were introduced, one f_r the purpose of meeting
a bill on the subject of Registration, and another by the
then Solicitor- General for Ii eland, for the purpose of remov-
ing the obscurity of the law respecting the elective fran-
chise in Ireland. Here is the Bill introduced by the So-
licitor-General last year—" A Bill to remove doubts re-
specting qualified voters, and to create a tribunal of appeal
for matters of law, relating to the registration of yours in
Ireland 1" and this is the definition which the S,)licitor-

Goneral introduces, f,r the purpose of removing ail doubts
with regard to the franchise. The Bill provides, that, i❑
order to determine whether any person claiming to be re-
gistered has a beneficial int, rest of the value required by
lar, either in freehold or leasehold estates, the tribunal
determining such claim shall estimate such value according
to the beneficial interest which such property yields, or is
capable of yielding, calculating such interest to be the
advantage derived or derivable by such claimant out of the
premises, after deducting the expenses, and not according to
what a solvent tenant could pay for the same. This is
the very last definition to remove obstruction from the ex-

crcise of the franchise, by the Solicitor- General. lam
not surprised that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the
Solicitor-Gen, rrl for Ireland, after having introduced that
measure, should look back to the records of Parliament,
and, seeing the speeches determined in the House, on the
subject of the beneficial interest, and of th., solvent

te,aritcy test by my ILnourable and Learned
Friend, the Member for Exeter, and anticipating
the speeches Le might hear from the same quarter, and th-
effects that might follow from the arguments which
would be advanced, in the event of his bringing forward
a similar provision for the removal of the doubts that en-
cumbered the elective franchise—( Hear, hear)—that he
should have again considered the subject. But, Sir,
what does the Noble Lord do now ? Does he propose
to bring forward any definition of the existing franchise?
Yes. that is the avowed object of the Noble Lord—that
is the pretext cf the Bill ; that is what is put forward
in the preamble of the Bill; but that is not the inten-
:' tion of the enactments of the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) The
Noble Lord now abandons the definition of the franchise
altogether, and without a single argument, and with the
most meagre statements that I ever heard on se great a
subject from a Cabinet Minister, or any Member of Par-
liament, he proposes, not a new definition, but a total al-
teration of the franchise in Ireland.—( Opposition cheers. )
I know not how long the Noble Lord has enter-
tained the opinions he now professes—(Renewed

cheering)—hut this I know, that in 1839 the Noble
Lord professed to entertain very different views upon the
subject, and upon the policy of snaking such an extensive in-
road on the principles and provisions of the Reform Bill. In
1839 the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin moved
for leave to bring in a Bill to aseimilate the franchise in
Great Britain acid Ireland, and by whom was that ;notion
resisted ? It was resisted by the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for Ireland. The Noble Lord, indeed, resisted it in
a hesitating voice, with a faltering tone, and in a manner
uncomposed.—(Laughter.) But listening to the cheers
he received in front of him, and looking to the cordiel sup-
port which came from this side of the House, the Noble
Lord at last screwed up his courage to meet the proposi-
tion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member fur
Dublin, and closed his speech with the following expres-
sion t---" Thinking, ' said the Noble Lord, " that the Le-
gislature ought not lightly to disturb the arrangements
which accompanied a statute of such vast importance and
of so recent a date, I believe that any encouragement in
any endeavour to do so would lead only to a protracted and
useless debate. I must give my decided, thongh reluctant,
negative to the motion. "—(Hear, hear.) In the next
year, in the course of last session, for fear we should have
forgotten the line taken by the Learned Lord, ho
again referred to the views he had taken ; and on
the part of himself and of her ;slaje-ty's Government,
inf rrmed me that "he had met the motion for leave to
brirg in that Bill with a direct negative, and thst the Go-
vernment felt it would be inexpedient, in so short a time,
to break in on the settlement that had been made, or to
introduce any measure of fundamental cherge. " The Go-
vernment," said the Noble Lord," are still prepared to
adopt the same course, and to act in the same spirit."
This declaration of his determination to resist not only the
ansimila'ion of the franchise in England to that of Leland,
but any material or wide departure from the principles of
the Reform Act, so emphatically announced by the Noble
Lord in 1839, was emphatically repeated :by the Noble
Lord in 1840, and as absolutely and positively departed
from and repudiated by the Noble Lord in 184 L —( Loud
cheers from the Opposition benches.) Sir, it was a favour-
able expression of the Noble Lord, that since that time he
had derived some new impressions. I know not whence
those new impressions may have been derived. I know
not from what source they may have come—they
may be, and they probably are, the result of the indepen-
dent exercise of the reflective powers of his own mind.—
( A laugh.) But this I know, that it is a singular coin-
cidence that in the year 1839, on the motion being
brought forward, which the Noble Lord negatived, these
were the views which .were taken of the subject by the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. Sir, I may le
told that when a motion was made fur assimilating the
franchise in the two countries, that the franchise in Eng-
land was unjustifiable as well as the franchise in Ireland,
and that it ought equally to be extended. Be it so, give
us the franchise in Ireland, and then we will join you in
extending the English franchise. What I propose is, to
reduce the franchise in both countries to M. I have no
doubt the Noble Lord has been brought to that conclusion
by the independent exercise of his own opinions—( Great
cheering) not influenced by the Honourable and
Learned Member for Dublin—(lncreased cheering).—
and thet unbiassed opinion has led him to adopt that sys-
tem which he refused in 1839.—(Continued cheering.)
Now, I must confess, that I view this proceee.ing with
alarm, coming as it does from her Majesty's Ministers, who
represent her Majesty in this House.—(Cheers.) If the
Noble Lord has altered the views which he took in 1839,
if he has determined to abandon the ground he took in
1840, and to repudiate the provisions of the Reform Bill,
why does lie not come forward boldly and state the real
grounds on which he does this? Why does he not tell
us that he thinks it unjust to take the franchise from the
40s. freeholders, and that he was prepared to restore to
those voters the rights which were taken from them in
1829. But perhaps the Noble Lcrd will tell us he is not
going to restore the rights of the 40e. freeholders, but I
tell the Noble Lord, and I will prove it before I sit down,
that he is going to restore a class of voters far more
subject to intimidation, far more numerous, and
far inferior to the 40s. freeholder, whose rights
were taken away in the year 1329. On what ground
does the Noble Lord do this? Does he do it because he
wishes to assimilate the law in England and Scotland to
t tat which he proposes for Ireland ? or does he mean to
give to Ireland a franchise more extensive than to either
of the other parts of the empire ? If he does so, the Noble
Lord ought to have made a statement to that effect in the
face of the country, but as it is, his Bill is brought for-
ward under false colours. The preamble of the Bill and
its enactments were at variance with each other, for the
Bill subverted the whole principle on which voting in Ire-
land had hitherto taken place. The arguments by which
the Noble Lord had sought to support that Bill are the
most meagre I have ever heard, and totally without foun-
dation. Now, I should like to know what the instructions
were that were given to the barristers who formed the
Commission with respect to the Poor-rates 9 It is never
left to the personal communication of the Attorney-Ge-
neral with his private friends. It is never said, " Go down
to the country, visit the unions, and report upon these
which you think proper to select; abstain from reporting
upon others ; ycu know our views, and whatever you can
get bearirg upon them bring forward and give it to me, and
I will make my own selection.—( Cheers.) Mind, there is
one thing," and this is the only instruction given to them,
" that you shall carefully conceal from all the parties
connected with the Workhouses, Guardians of the
Poor and all, the fsct of your presence and
the nature of the inquiry. Ihe Noble Lord tells us
that those gentlemen have visited ten uniene—how and
why selected the Noble Lord has not condescended to in-
form the House. He has not told us that they were in the
most forward state with regard either to valuation or as-
sessment. Si-, when I turn to the Poor-law Report for
1840 I find that in two important towns (not to he lost
sight of in the question of the applicability of such a test
to the ft anchise)-1 find that a raee is in progress under
the Poor-law valuation in the two important towns of Dub-
lin and Cork. That in those towns, and in these two only,
a rate under the Poor-law is in progress, and the Poor-law
Commission( re state in their Report that they are watching
with the greatest anxiety the progress of the rate in these
two towns. And yet in the unions visited we know not
whether Dublin or Cork are included. When the visita-
tion was commenced I know not, but from the evidence of
the Commissioners themselves, it was performed in a most
hasty and cursory manner—in such a manner, that in the
papers laid before us to-day it is stated that the barrister
who via ted the union of Carrick-on-Suir was unable to
snake extracts from the minutes of the Board, so short was
his stay.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I know that it has been
stated to us that these gentlemen visited ten unions, and
we were furnished for the first time with the Report upon
five out of the ten uni ms, and the concluding Report em-
bodying the views of the Commissioners was put into the
hands of lion. Members this very msrning, alien the
Noble Lord calls on us to assent to a proposition so start-
ling and astounding an that now before us. Hear,
hear, hear.) Sir, I know not where those papers
came from ; they are not by her Majesty's command—
they arc not ordered to be printed by this House. They
merely state that they are Reports relative to the valuation
under the Poor-laws, printed by Clowes and Son for her
Majesty's Stationery-office. That is the only official
stamp on them, except that the Noble Lord extracted from
them, and gave a history of them. Sir, lam satisfied to
take the evidence as I find it in these Reports ; they are
based upon five out of the ten of the unions, out of a total
of 140 unions into which Ireland is to be divided. But I
will take the evidence, however weak and inconclusive it
may be, to support the Noble Lord's views; and I say
that it furnishes grounds strong and incontrovertible,
which must convince the House that the basis of the
elective franchise, as proposed by the Noble Lord, actu-
ally forms no test or criterion of value whatever. Sir, I
by no means wish to contend that if you had a fair and
correct valuation of property in Ireland, and if you are to
make a change, or even if you are not, such a document
may be of infinite importance and value in removing doubt
and forming a correct test of the value. But we must have
that preyed by impartial examination, free from all sus.
pici ins of political motives, founded on, and in precise ac-
cordance with, the principles laid down by law; and I say
in every one of these tests, freedom from the suspicion of
political motives, impartiality, correctness, a following up
the law, and uniformity of the proceedings, the valuat'on
now taking place under the Poor-laws in Ireland is sig-
nally, lamentably, and avowedly deficient.—(Cheers.)
I cannot suppose, Sir, that such a valuation ears he impar-
tial.—( Hear, hear.) But I entreat the House to consider
that, apart from the political question—even apart from
the false basis upon which you are going to put the fran-
chise—there is an evil of no cornmosi magnitude attaching
to a selection of this valuation for the purposes °fie political
franchise. If there be one point in the world—if there
be one course of proceeding on which it ought to be the
endeavour and desire of every Member of this House who
wishes well to the peace and prosperity of Ireland cor-
dially to unite, it is this—to withdraw from the valuation
under the Poor-law' for the sake of that valuation itself,
apart from policed grounds, any suspicion of its being
founded upon political and party grounds. I say that the
Poor law Bill has to encounter enormous difficulties from
prejudice, from novelty, and from a thousand causes; and
that if you superadd to that the curse of political partisan-
ship, actuating and influencing the board of guardians
from the commencement of their proceedings, and in the
valuation, to the administration of relief, you will render
that which is difficult enough, hazardous enough at present,
you will render it an absolute curse to Ireland, and make
its working beneficially absolutely and entirely hopeless.—
(Hear, hear.) But now, Sir, take a second case. I will
not press the paint whether there has or has not
at pre eat been mixed up with the election of guar.
dians anything of political partisainhip.—( Hear, hear.)
Allegations to that effect have been made. lam not in-
quiring how far they are well founded, but I say that the
course which you are now pursuing is that which neces-
sarily and naturally must give those proceedings that par-
tisan character which it is most desirable on all occasions
to avoid. I am afraid that I can hardly promise the
House that I shall not have to trouble it for some consider-
able time longer ; and in the course of the argument
which I am about t 3 address to them, I must read to them
documents to which it will be very troublesome to listen;
but I am arguing a question of vital and fundamental im-
portance, and I hope, so long as I argue it candidly and
fairly, I may throw myself upon the indulgence of the
Nouse. Now, with respect to any valuation as the basis
of the elective franchise, I should require that it be in
strict accordance with the law ; and nothing can be more
de,i ivc than what we•find in that law. The Poor-law
Commissioners, reciting the clause in their directions to
the valuators, state the the estimate ~f value is required
to be the rent at which, or.e year with another, the he-
reditarnents might in their natural state be expected to let.
They go on to state that there is no sure criterion for the
valuations, except a careful adherence to the principle of
the Act, by estimating all property at its fair annual
letting value, as the Act requires to be done in every
case. These were the instructions given to the valuators.
The Commissioners, indeed, tell us in their Report that
they found some traces of uniformity in all the Unions.
The only uaiformity which is to be found on the showing
of the Report) itself is, that the valuators have every-
where set the law at nought. The Commissioners say
that the valuators were not surveyors by profession, but
respectable farmers, who had in some instances been em-
ployed as rural surveyors, but many of whom had not been

so employed at all; but the valuators in general had no
claim to professional knowledge. Now, what are the lists
which they adopt? What is the list a Mr. Morriss, of
Balruddery ? Ile says he does not take the rent at
the land would let. Why? Because it was raised too
touch by compediion—( Cries of " Hear, hear")—but w hat
a steady solvent man could give for it with a fair
remuneration for his capital and labour. Another valua•
tor, %lr. Hugh Morrow states his test to be, what a man
could afford to give, and to live like a Christian, eat-
ing animal food twice. a-week—( Hear, hear)—but from
the same union Mr. Wallace, another valuator, thought
that Mr. Morrow was mistaken. In Longford, one of the
valuators states his estimate to be formed upon what a
tenant could pay with ease to himself, supposing him able
to meA all demands, to give his family potatoes, with milk
and butter, every day, and animal food sometimes, with
comfortable clothing.—(Hear, hear.) In Parsonstown the
valuators took their estimate of Cm value of the land by
walking round the fences, which were made of earth in
that union, and therefore they said it enabled them to judge
sufficiently of the natare of the soil, and the value of the
farms. In the Lurgan union, to which Igo to illustrate
the singular views taken by the,Poor-law valuators and the
mode in which their estimates were usually formed, the
valuators tell you the land is worth 21. or threw
guineas an acre ; indeed that plenty of persons
would be willing to give DA an acre premium for the
tenements let at that re,,t, and that the tenants could put
by We. an acre beyond what they pay their landlord. Now
notwithstanding this, what do you think he rated those
farms at? At 275. 6d. an acre—(Cheers)—and when he
was asked why he did se, his answer was that it was ne-
cessary to make the rents low, in order that the landlord
should bear his fair proportion. Now lam not stating
whether this was too high or too low. lam only stating
that it is a criterion of no value whatever. —( Hear, hear.)
It is absolutely and entirely good for nothing.—(Cheers.)
And this is to be the basis of the Noble Lord's
( Cheers.) Why, Sir, the Commissioners themselves,
Messrs. Hague and Deasey, in the papers furnished by the
Government, state that in various instances the Guardians
revised the estimates of the valuators, and raised or
lowered the rate according to their own views.—( Hear,
hear.) The Commissioners state that the valuation can-
not be taken as a criterion, for they say that too many mo-
tives were in operation to influence those who made it.
The words of the Act were variously interpreted by the va-
luators according to their own views, some thinking when
they took produce into account at all that one half was a
sufficient remuneration for the tenant's capital and labour,
and others thinking him entitled to two-thirds. Yet this
valuation, which the Commissioners pronounce to he no
criterion of property, is propose.' by the Noble Lord as
the fixed basis of that qualification.—( Hear, hear, and
cheers.) He proposed to enact that the amount
on the rate•book shall be taken as conclusive evidence of
the value of the property. I ask the House of Commons
will they take this test which is admitted on all hands to

be actually worthless ?_( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
says that the rating is below the actual value, I know in-
Cead, that many motives have been in operation to make
it so.—(Hear, hear.) In the union of Searrig, the velu-
tor having made his estimate, returned home, and struck
out 2e. in the pound from the whole of the union. The
guardians, however, said that he had acted most un-

ustly, and they reduced the valuation, still by one-sixth.
The guardians then ulso passed a resolution that no land
in the union should be rated higher than 265. per Irish
acre. The Commissioners informed them that it was
against the Act to fix a maximum, but in the end the valu-
ation was allowed to stand so, and this is the actual state
of the qualification at this tirve. In England it does not
matter, as far as concerns the relation of the tenants to each
other, and to the landlord, whether the rating be high or
low, if it be equal, but, in Ireland, as the landlord bears a
per centage upon the rate, a greater proportion of the
burthen is thrown upon him when the rate is below the
rent. In the union of Scarrig the unfairly reduced rate
was defended by the ex-officio guardian, Mr. Maurice
O'Connell, not, I believe, the Member of this House.
Mr. O'CONNELL—No, a relation.
Lord STANLE Y—That gentlemen defended the low
rate on the ground that the landlord should be obliged to
bear his fair share, and that the people could not endure
any additional taxation.—( Hear, hear.) When the
guardians go upon this principle and say, that the rate
shall be at all times considerably under the rent, how
can it be sail, as the Noble Lord said the other night,
that putting the qualification upon what a solvent tenant
could give would amount to a general disfranchisement 2
( Hear, hear.) I have stated that there are motives
operating at present on the guardians to make the rates
low. It may be right that they should do so. But that
is not my objection to the principle of this Bill, for
you furnish me with no means of conjecturing how far
below the reel value the ratings may be made.
On this valuation, so wanting in accuracy, I will not
consent to leave the elective franchise, even though I
were disposed to consent to any change whatever.—
( Hear, hear. ) I object, however, to the principle, even
supposing the valuation to be accurate—supposing it to
be uniform—supposing it to be perfectly fair, and not to
he impugned—l object to the principle on which you are
applying the franchise; because you adopt a principle
you have not introduced in any other Bill, you adopt a
principle wholly repugnant to that which you have
adopted in other Bills—you adopt the principle of de-
c.ding the franchise by the amount of the rate chargeable,
but not by the amount of profit derived from the property ;
and whatever may have been the differences with respect
to the construction of the Rif rrm Act, neither the Noble
Lord, nor the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman op-
posite, will deny that the only point of difference has
been, not whether a profit should be required, but that
the difference has been as to the mode in which that
profit should be calculated. That was the only question
on which any difference had arisen. How that portion of
the statute has led to a difference of opinion in Ireland
I am at a loss to understand.—(Hear, hear.) It is to
my mind perfectly inexplicalle on what foundation any
portion of the legal authorities in Ireland have
rested their doubts with regard to the franchise
in Ireland, which has never raised a shadow of a doubt
in England, with identically the same words
with regard to the franchise in England and the franchise
iu Scotland.—( Hear, hear.) What are the words is
which these doubts have arisen ? The words :on which
these doubts have arisen with regard to the settlement of
the franchise on freeholds in fee, are these words "of the
clear yearly value of 101." The Right Hon. Gentlemen
will not, I think, contend that there is any mention what-
ever in the Irish Reform Act of the freehold franchise in
fee from one end of the Act to the other; and that fran-
chise is neither granted nor altered by that Bill. The
franchise in fee depends on the Act of the 10th Geo. IV.,
and the qualification is the possession of a freehold of the
clear yearly value of 10/. The oath which the freeholder
takes under the Irish Reform Act is this—" I am a free-
holder, and I possess a freehold of the clear yearly
value of 101." That is the oath and the only oath—
that is the qualification and the only qualification
under which the freeholder votes in Ireland. The
words of the English Bill are borrowed from
the Irish Act. The enacted words in England are pre-
cisely the same as the enacted words in Ireland—the
words in Scotland are precisely the same as the words in
Engl and and Ireland ; and nether in Scotland nor in
England have I es or heard a lawyer get up and say that
in his mind he entertained the slightest doubt, or ever
heard a doubt raised, as to the legal construction of these
terms which are identically the same.—( Hear, hear.)
The terms " beneficial interest" apply not the f eehold but
to the lucrative interest ie. Ireland, whether for lives or
fur a term of years. Let us sec whether the doubt hangs
on this point. lam not going to enter into a history of
the introduction of the words " beneficial interest," which
has already been often before the House. Let the House,
however, bear in mind that as to freeholds the terms bene-
ficial interest have never been applied in any statute; but
the following is the manner in which the kinds of
qualification are elefine.3. The leasehold qualification
in England is given on lease of the clear yearly value of
the suns appointed. In Ireland it is given on leases which
give a beneficial interest of the clear yearly value laid
down. In Scotland it is given to tenants where the clear
yearly value of such tenants' interest, after the payment of
rent and any other consideration dui by him for the said
interest, is not less than a blank being ap-
pended. These are the three statutes, and it requires, I
think, more than even legal ingenuity to find out any diffe-
rence between the legal construction and the interpretation
to be given to these statutes. But whatever differences
have arisen on the subject have not been as to the fact of
profit being required, but as to the mode in which that
profit should be calculated ; whether it should be construed
according to the solvent tenantcy test, or according to the
amount which the person by his own labour and capital
could make out of the land which be held. That is the only
subject of difference; and when, at an early period of the
discussion on the Irish Reform Act, it was proposed to
confer the franchise on parties having a lease for 21 years,
and paying a rent of 501., an objection was taken to that
provision, and it was subsequently altered in deference to
the arguments raised by the Hors. and Learned Gentleman
opposite. The objection taken was stated as follows:
" With respect to towns, I cannot but think that in giving
the franchise according to the amount of rent paid rather
than the profit made, you arc acting on a wrong principle;
you are giving votes to rent, which makes a man poor,
and not to profits, which make him rich. A man might
have to pay on a lease 50/. for a lease which is not worth
40/., and that man would have a vote, while a man with a
larger profit out of a smaller rent got no vote. This prin-
ciple, I think, is wrong." This wits the argument made
use of in 1831 in favour of requiring the test of profit,
and that argument came from the Honourable Mem-
ber fur Dublin.—(Loud cheers from the Opposition.)
In the following month, in the second Session of the same
Parliament, an argument was raised as to the required
larger amount of profit for leaseholders as compared with
freeholders. " The constituences of Irish counties," ob-
served the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, " consist already
of parties having a 101. profit, and a profit above the rent.
The Government raised the 101. qualification so high as
20/ It seems anomalous to make a 101. qualification of
fieelaolders, and a 201. qualification for leaseholders." I
have cited this passage for the purpose of showing that
throughout the whole course of the debate on the Reform
Act in I eland and in England, the amount of profit over
and above the rent, and nut the amount of rent payable,
was made the criterion of the franchise, and was made the
test of the independence and station of the party claiming it.
The present Bdi departs from that principle altegether.
It requires no profit whatever on the part of the voter. It
requires consequently, no independent interest, it requires
no stake in the country. The party might be burdened
with rent far beyond his power to pay ; he might be loaded
with debts wirlch placed him absolutely under the control
of his landlord, and yet you are granting him the franchise,
and granting it not on the principle which you apply else-
whet e of resting on a profit on the rent, but resting on the
amount of incumbrance to which the land is liable. Where
then would be the argument of Gentlemen opposite.
arnt wb eu
t throw
that onwe parties thegiy be u
me n
theof paying
franchise. e
!
claimsTT hh
The answer
s oa
yn
is—you give them the franchise, but you do
not thr,,w upon them the burden of taxation.—( Cheers.)
pay
franchise shoul pay rates; he sno
The Act does not require that
is
ept even lersoniab e exercisingto the
a half-penny of rates. You give the
rates ; the whole of the rates fall upon the landlord—the
tenant need not pay