The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-25 00:00:00

stitut ‘ney was established by the Act 10 George IV., the
creel older being bound to prove that he possessed an in-
terea t of the yearly value of 10/. above the rent and
char gcs to which he was liable ; and in the oath
which be was required to take he was called upon
to state that he verily believed that a solvent
tenant could pay 101. over and above the rent with which
he was charged. Matters continued so until the
Passing of the Reform Bill in 1832 ; and no one
ever dreamt of disturbing that system no one
ever thought of restoring the 40s. freehold franchise
in Ireland. The lion. and Learned Member for Dublin,
in the course of the discussion which had taken place on
the Reform Bill, had occasionally raised his voice in favour
of the 40s. freeholders, but had found no echo whatever in
the House ; and no one till the present moment had ever
thought of disturbing the settlement that had been come
to, or of violating the pledge which had most unquestion-
ably been given. It remained for the Noble Lord, under
the circumstances which had been so frequently brought
under the attention of the House, to introduce this most
important and most startling measure, which would com-
pletely destroy the present system, and which would com-
pletely violate the pledge that had been given at the time
—which would not restore the 40s. freehold franchise to
Ireland, but would establish a constituency of a very infe-
rior description, and which would place matters on an in-
finitely worse footing than they were at the time of the
passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.—Hear,
hear.) He would ask whether it were just and proper that
Hon. Members who had voted for that measure, under the
assurance that it was to be accompanied by the extinclon
of the 40a. freeholders, and that the two systems were to
be established together, and were to remain permanently
attached to each other—he would ask whether it was
dealing fairly with them to introduce a measure of that
cl,eseription, and to call upon the 1101.17 C to pass it into a
law ? It had been said that doubts existed with regard to
the proper construction of the freehold and leasehold in-
terest, under the Irish Reform Act ; and his Hon. Friend,
the Member for Shrewsbury, stated that he had made
private insiuiries on that (the Opposition) side of the
House, and that he did not find any one who could give
a certain opinion on the subject, and who did not express
that he entertained some doubts of the propriety of the in-
terpretations which he had given. He (Mr. S.) should
confess that he was astonished to hear that observation
from the lion. Member, for he had unquestionably never
entertained any doubt with regard to the proper construc-
tion of the words in the Irish Reform Bill. He had con
versed familiarly and freely with lawyers on the subject,
and he had never heard that they entertained any doubt on
the matter. All of tbem—at least all of them with whom
he had been in communication-(" Hear, hear," from the
Ministerial benches)—were of the same opinion. It was
his own opinion, and he was not afraid to avow that he en-
tertained no doubt whatever that the statutes of the 10th
George IV., with regard to freelaol is, and the statutes of
the Reform Act with regard to freeholds and leaseholds,
were precisely the same, and that the interest required was
of a similar description. lie should beg lsave ta observe,
in reply to the lion. Baronet the Member for Drogheda,
that the opinions of Members of that House, or of the other
Mouse, expressed in the discussion on any Bi!l, shoul l not
be applied for the purpose of interpreting it, because if that
were done they could always get the construction for which
they were contending. But when a Bill had passed both
liouses of the Legislature, and had received the Royal
assent, it then became a subject fer judicial decision, and
they had not expressed this meaning so as not to be mis-
interpreted, it was their fault; but he had never heard
say one in arguing the construction of an Act of Parlia-
ment, inquire what were the arguments urged at the time
the Bill was under discussion in either House ; that would
he a most improper course to adopt, and he should, there-
fore,
enter his protest against that part of the observations
of the Hon. Baronet the Member for Drogheda. It was
a very great mistake, which his lion. Friend the Member
for Shrewsbury had fallen into in common with other Mem-
bers, to suppose that they were opposed on that (the Op-
position) side of the House to a certain test being applied
fur the purpose of ascertaining the franchise. They
bad not the slightest ;objection that the poor-rate test
should be applied, provided it were under certain eir-
cum:tare:es, land with such securities as would sa-
tisfy them that they would obtain the real and
substantial qualification.—( Hear, hear. But he was
certain that his Hon. Friend, if he applied his mind to the
subject, would see that it was impossible, with a poor-
rate valuation alone, that they could obtain that substantial
qualification sa hich they had a right to demand in a settle-
ment of the question. Let that House just consider for a
moment what it was the Noble Lord proposed by his Bill.
His Hon. and Learned Friend, the Member for Exeter,
had, in his usual clear and lucid manner, shown that from
the earliest period of our Parliamentary history, a di-tine-
tiou had always existed between the qualification for voters
in counties, and the qualification for voters in towns and
boroughs ; and that the one had been based on property,
and the other on inhabitantcy or some corporate or munici-
pal right. That distinction had been preserved at the time
of the passing of the Reform Act; because, however they
might differ with regard to the nature of the interest which
the leaseholder was required to possess in order to qualify
him to vote, they must all agree that the interest
which he had was to he of a superior and different
description from that which the voter in towns
and boroughs was required to possess; and whether
they took as a beneficial interest the profit to which
he might succeed in making out of his property, or
whether they took the solvent tenantcy test, still property
was to be for the foundation of the qualificaticn for coun-
ties, whereas in boroughs and towns they had nothing but
occupation. That distinction which his Hon. and Learned
Friend, the Member for Exeter, had so forcibly pointed
out was reserved at the time of the Reform Act ; but un-
der the Noble Lord's Bill it was altogether swept away.
The Noble Lord levelled everything—he removed every
land-mark--he made no distinction whatever, and, strange
to say, if his Bill ware carefully examined it would be
, found that he actually placed the county voter on a lower
footing than the voters for towns and boroughs.—( Hear,
hear.) Let them see, in the first place, what was the qua-
lification which the Noble Lord required for the voter in
counties. The Noble Lord proposed that persons who
occupied under a lease for fourteen sears any premises
would be entitled to vote, provided he were rated to the
extent of 51. Now let the House just see how unreal
and how illusory was this substitution for the
property which county voters had hitherto been
required to possess. What was the interest which
the lessee might have under the proposal of the
NoWe Lord ? Why nothing would be easier than for a
landlord to let his land for a lease of fourteen years at a
nominal rent of 5/., 10/. or 201., arid to enter into a pri-
vate agreement with the tenant that he would only pay
that which the land would clear, while he could introduce
into his lease a condition that if the tenant did not pay his
rent, or perform his covenant, the landlord would have a
right to enter and take possession. Now lion. Members
who were accustomed to this subject were perfectly well
aware that a lease of that description with such conditions
would be rated for the same term cf years as if it were
made absolute and unconditional ; and then let the House
see the situation in which that which was to be the basis
of the county constituency, and the substitute for the pro-
perty which tae county voters were now supposed to possess,
would place the tenant. Why, if he were refractory—if
he did net vote according to the wishes cf his landlord,
he could, under the process for re-entry, he deprived of his
possession. The tenant might agree with his landlord,
performing his wishes, and paying the rent agreed on be-
tween them, but let him disobey the wishes of his land-
lord and that moment lie might be deprived of his sub-
stance. And yet that was the expedient which had been
proposed by the Noble Lord as a substitute for the bene-
ficial interest, and fur the property which a county voter
was now required to possess. But there was another in-
gredient in the qualification, and that was that the party
should be rated to the amount of 51. Let the House just
consider the effect of the provision. If the voter and the
landlord could find a Board of Guardians favourable to
their views, they might easily procure the insertion of a
rate of the extent of 51., and if the party should have been
rated to that amount, although the holding might not be
worth forty shillings, or one shilling, no person could
object to the rate, as no person was aggrieved by the
insertion of a higher rate for another than the
holding was worth.—( Hear, hear.) The grievance
of an improper rate would only be felt when a party was
himself overrated, or where another party was underrated:
but when patty was overrated, there was no grievance
done to others under the same rate, because it would
rather diminish their burthens. Under the proposed sys-
em, if any one should happen to be improperly put on fur
the rate, the same provision would continue in force; and
he appealed to lawyers and to gentlemen familiar with
the subject, if he were not right in saying that in England
nobody ever dreamed of making objections to a rate by
reason of any party being overrated, and that it had never
been considered by others as a grievance. Now, if that
were so, it must be very easy indeed with a favourable
Beard of Guardians. fur a party who bad no interest what-
ever in the land which he merely occupied, to cause his
name to be put upon the rate ; and once there, so long as
the lease endured, so long must it continue on it, for the
Bill also containe I that most extraordinary provision. If a
person should have been placed on thereto for 51. although the
Board of Guardians appointed the very next year should,
in the discharge of their duty, feel satisfied that he had
been improperly placed there, and should reduce the
amount of his rating, still he would have a right, on paying
to the amount of 5/.—( Hear)—and he would not be remov-
able for the whole time that his lease would continue to
exist. That was put forward as the principle which was
to guide them in establishing a real and substantial quali-
fication. Could anything be more illusory ? Could any-
thing be more absurd, as under the circumstances to apply
that as a test for the right of voting ? How was it possible
to say that either in respect to property, or in respect to the
rate by which the amount of property was supposed to be
ascertained, this system afforded any security whatever
against those frauds, and these admissions of improper
parties to the franchise, which it was admitted on both
sides of the House had rendered some means necessary fur
amending the system of registration in Ireland ? Let
them now take the case of the household suffrage voters
in towns and boroughs. lie would show that not only
had the Noble Lord made no distinction between voters
in counties and voters in boroughs, with regard to any
property qualification in voters for counties, but that he
had actually placed the county voter en a lower footing
than voters in borough. The borough voter was to oc-
cupy a holding as well as the county voter. He was to be
qualified by virtue of a rate of 51., but he was required to
pay the grand jury cess, and the municipal cess rates and
taxes. Now, that did not apply to the poor-rate valua-
tion. The poor-rate was not a municipal cess or rate,
fora municipal rate was a rate peculiar to certain towns,
as the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin very well

knew. The grand jury cess extended all over the
country, and was distinguished from the municipal
Cei3 in that particular. All that the county voters
would be required to do would be to pay the poor-ree, and
no matter how abject might be his poverty, he would then
be entitled to the franchise. Nobody supposed there had

ever been the slightest doubt with regard to the qualifica-
tion of voters in boroughs, and yet there was to be a
sweeping alteration in both quaificatiott=. After this short
recital " whereas it is expedient to assimilate the mode of
obtaining the qualifications in boroughs to that of counties,"
where wax the expediency, and what would become of the