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

mittee belonged to the other side of the House. Eng- '
land was dissatisfied with the system of Registration, so
also was Scotland, but Ireland was to be the
victim of the Noble Lord, while all the evils of the Eng-
lish and Scotch systems were left untouched. Was it
fair to do so when he could show that one Riding of
Yorkshire had more voters than the half of Ireland—

that in England twenty out of every thousand •f popu-
lation were entitled to vote, while in Ireland only lour
and a fraction possessed the privilege ? Was it not an
insult, then, to go on with a Bill which would much re-
strict an already limited franchise, while they left the
very foundation—the qualification for the franchise.=
undefined? He then moved "That it be an instruc-
tion to the Committee to define municipal cesses and

taxes."
Dr. LEFROY opposed the instruction on the ground
that the Judges in Irtland had laid down the law which
defined the franchise. A large majority of them had
decided the law, and there was no necessity for any de-
claratory law. The Judges had as much right to decide
upon the question of the franchise, as the 15 Judges in
England had to decide apon the case of Frost, and no
one had proposed to bring in any Bill to explain or
amend the Act of Anne, upon which they adjudicated.
The fact was, that ten out of the twelve Judges had
decided that the franchise should depend upon the
actual solvency of the tenant, and not upon the bene-
ficial interest. If the minority of the Judges were to
persist in setting their individual opinions in opposition
to the judgment of the Bench, it would be impossible
to arrive at any settlement of the law in any c:tse. The
Reform Bill had not changed the qualification : it had
only changed the test of the qualification.—(Hear,
hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then pro-
ceeded to observe upon the wording of the oath to be
taken by the elector, when going up to register, and
contended that, as the words " beneficial interest" were
not in the oath, the Legislature never intended to

_ -
change the qualification.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL protested again
the doctrine laid down by the Noble Lord, the Men

her for North Lancashire, and the Honourable and
Learned Member for the University of Dublin, that the

law was settled, and that there was no occasion for a

Declaratory Bill. The law was unsettled, and in a
state of great confusion—(Cheers)—and some Decla-
ratory Act upon the subject was indispensably neces-
sary.—(Cheers.) The Judges differed in opinion upon
it—(Cheers.)—the Assistant-Barristers differed in
opinion upon it—(Cheers)—Committees of that House
differed upon it—(Cheers)—and the Committee upon
the Longford election had decided in opposition to the
judgment of other committees, and in favour of the
beneficial interest. A m ijority of the Judges had de-

cided on the point, it was true, but the question was;
whether their decision was binding on those who dif-

fered from them. He did not think the decision was

binding on others ; and for this reason, that there was
no tribunal in Ireland vested with the power of settling
the matter. The Judges (lid not form such a tribunal,
inasmuch as they had no special right to give a de-
cision, and inasmuch as there was no court to which an
appeal could be made from their judgment. He would
not give any opinio❑ on the question itself; but if he
differed from the Judges, he should say with Bsron
Richards and Mr. Perrin, that their decision did not

bind him.—(Hear, hear.) He thought therefore that
the Chancellor of Ireland was right in saying that the

Revising Barristers mignt, if they thought the Judges
were in error, follow their own judgment. From these
facts it appeared to him, at all events, that it could not
be said that the matter was now settled.
Sir E. SU GDEN said that the first question on th
subject then under consideration was whether there
could be any doubt on it independently of the decision
of the Judges ; the next question was whether the
matter was so decided as to render a Bill in the matter
unnecessary ; and the third question was whether that
was the proper stage fur introducing a declaratory clause.
With regard to the last point he should only observe
that the Noble Lord epposite had in his own Bills sepa-
rated the questions of registration and of the definition
of the franchise. He did not therefore think that was
the proper opportunity for introducing the proposed
clause in the Bill of his Noble Friend. With regard to
the question itself of the beneficial interest, he should
observe that his Hon. and Learned Friend had refused
to give any opinion on the point which, in his (Sir E.
Sugden's) mind, meant that his Hon. and Learned
Friend had an opinion, but that he did not then find
it convenient to disclose it.—(Hear, hear.) For his
part he had no doubt that the framers of the Irish
Reform Bill evidently intended that a party claiming
to register should have a clear interest in his land
over and above the rent.—(The Right Hon. Gentle-
man went through a history of the framing of the clause
which related to the subject to prove this position.)
It had been eaba the quatificatlon had been altered by
the Reform Act, but be denied that, and defied any one
in the House to prove it ; but it was said it altered the
oath, and then the question was whether this altered
the qualification. He asserted that it did not. It
made this difference only, that it was not required that
he should swear a solvent tenant would give 104 a year
for the property. The great question put to the Judges
was, what form of oath should be put as the test of
value, and they were of opinion, in a majority of 10 to 2
that the construction he (Sir E. Sugden) put upon the
Act was the true one.—(Hear, hear, hear.) And
with respect to the legality of this decision,
no one could doubt 'that it had been
for a long series of years the practice of the Judges to
act in this manner, and that their decisions had been
acted upon. Nothing could be more fair and constitu-
tional, and he thought that every Judge who claimed a
right to differ from the majority should previously have
protested against being bound by their decision ; for it
was not a sound doctrine—it was not a doctrine to be
upheld by a Government, that the decision of a majority
of the Judges was not conclusive as to the construction
of •the law of the land.—(Cheers.)
Sir DENHAM NORREYS supported the amend-
ment of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin.
He considered what was called a beneficial interest to
be a fraud ; it was in fact the result of the unnatural
alliance between the Learned Sergeant opposite and his
Learned Friend.—(Great laughter.)
Mr. SHAW thought the speech of the Hon. Mem-
ber who had just sat down showed the utter inutility of
the annendment of the Hon. and Learned Member for
Dublin. He begged to read an extract from a speech
of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, in
answer to the speech he had made that night. The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman stated that " the reason he sup-
ported the Bill of 183,5, was," not because it contained a
clause relative to the beneficial interest, but " because
it provided for an'annual revision,'and gave an appeal
both ways."—(Cheers.) He therefore hoped the
House would act upon that view of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, and go into Committee on the
present Bill. He could not believe the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman was really sincere in the motion
he had made, but thought it had only been submitted
to the House for the purpose of obstructing the pro-
gress of the Bill.—( Hear.)
Mr. LYNCH. could not agree that they ought to
pass a Bill for registering the franchise without de-
termining what that franchise was.—( Hear, hear.)
Therefore he thought the Hon. and Learned Member
had acted wisely in moving the instruction.—(Hear,
hear.) The people of Ireland ought to know what the
franchise was, and the subject ought not any longer to
be left in doubt, as it was at present, from the conflicting
decisions of the Judges. He contended it was the in-
tention of the Legislature that passed the Reform Bill
to do away with the test of a solvent tenancy. The
registry under 10 Geo. IV. was completely abolislaed
by the Reform Act, and the qualification was to be
taken from that Act ; the Assistant Barrister was to as-
certain the value in the mode prescribed by that Act,
and the claimant was to take the oaths prescribed by
that Act, instead of any. other whatsover. The House
could not fail to see the difference between the oath
prescribed by the Reform Act, and the oath
prescribed by the Act of George IV. The words
of the oath having relation to the 501. freeholders were
different in the two Acts. It was the object of the
Reform Bill to introduce a new franchise altogether,
and to abolish the test of the solvent tenancy. He
knew there were great advantages to be obtained from
ascertaining the net value, but that was a proper ques-
tion to be discussed in the Commit tee ; but there were
doubts as to the construction, and he called upon the
House to put an end to it.
Mr. LITTON denied that it was either competent
or decent for any two Judges to put themselves in op-
position to the opinions of the majority. After the
question had been discussed for three days, ten Judges
decided that the question to be left to the Jury was,
whether a solvent tenant would pay 10/. a year more
than the tenant then paid. Tracy had formed their
deliberate opinion, lied communicated that to the
consulting Judge, and yet they found that consulting
Judge setting himself in opposition to their authority,
and boldly saying he would do so. No other Judge in
England or Ireland had ever done so. Until that ni;Jit
he had never heard any lawyer of any euinence p o-
pound such a doctrine. In the case of Frost, the de-
liberate opinion of the Judges was, that all the Judges
were bound by the opinion of the majority. But in tl
case, after Chief Justice Basho had heard that Baron
Richards would run counter to the opinion of his
brethren, he wrote to Lord Denman, who said that the
universal practice was for a Judge to be bound by the
opinion of the majority, and that no Judge had ever
run counter to that opinion ; and yet they were told
that the law was doubtful, because Baron Richards and
Judge Perria would not be bound by the law. What
would the people of England say if, on the next eirceit,
in a case similar to Frost, a Judge should have the in-
decency to set the opinion of the' Judges at defiance ?
Would such a thing be tolerated in any conntry but
Ireland? He asked the House whether it was just or
wise for the House to decide adversely to the declared
opinions of the Judges ?
Mr. H. GRA.TTAN said that the people of Ire-
land ought not to submit to such a Bill as this.—
(Cheers.) It was well known to those who supported
the plan of annual registration, that the effect would
be to disfranchise a large portion of the Irish people.
He had himself presented petitions with 550.4000 sig,