The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-05-04 00:00:00

THE BUDGET

In answer to questions by Col. SIBTHORP,
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would make his financial statement
to-morrow, and on Monday he should bring forward the
civil contingencies.
The house then went into committee on the Parliamen-
tary Voters (Ireland) bill, Mr. Bernal in the chair.
The CHAutmAN said the question before the house was
that clause 2 stand part of the bill.
Lord MORPETH said, although the subject had been so
frequently discussed, yet he felt called upon to state his
views of the proposed mode of altering the registration, par-
ticularly as such a threatened and combined opposition was
offered to it. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord then proceeded
to describe, in a technical manner, his opinion of the bear-
ings of the measure. He wished to see the Irish franchise
fixed on some definite and solid basis. Since the passing of
the Irish Reform Act there had been 42 election petitions
against the return of members for places in that country ;
but he believed in no instance had there been any allegation
of personation of voters, of fraud, or of perjury ; but the
complaint, in almost every case, was, that individuals had
been improperly placed on the registry. The noble lord then
defended the course which the government had taken in
changing the franchise from .1.:5 to £8; it was not a depar-
ture from the priuciple of the bill, and alterations in impor-
tant measures had frequently been made by former adminis-
trations, many instances of which, if necessary, he might
quote. They had at first thought that a£s franchise would
have been the best ; in deference to the wishes of many they
had increased it to £B, although he (Lord Morpeth) knew
that by so doing they should disfranchise a great number of
the present £lO voters. Ile (Lord Morpeth) certainly had
heard with some regret, that the right hon. baronet the mem-
ber for Tamworth had thrown himself into the impetuous
course marked out for him by his noble associates. (A
laugh.) If a triumph was, however, now obtained, it was
impossible to tell how long the victory might last. (Loud
and great cheering from the ministerial benches.)
Lord STANLEY said he took no part in the debate on this
clause more than observing that he should oppose it. And
he should not have done so had it not been for the misrepre-
sentations and sneers of the noble lord. (Hear.) He dis-
regarded those sneers (great cheering), and he would say the
whole conduct of the government in conducting the bill had
been one entire system of recklessness. (Hear, hear, and
great cheering.) The noble lord had misrepresented both
the principle which the house had affirmed and the objections
taken on his (Lord Stanley's) side of the honse to the bill of
the noble lord. The noble lord stated that the house by the
second reading of the bill affirmed the principle of defining
the franchise according to the test of the poor-law valuation.
The house, in affirming the principle of the bill, affirmed
that they would permit the government to submit to them,
and discuss in detail a measure which it was supposed that
they had, as was the duty of the government before submit-
ting, maturely considered in its details, collected the facts
and were prepared to stand by the provisions they had re-
commended. (Loud cheers.) On his (Lord Stanley's) side
of the house they took no objection to the government find-
ing a better and more satisfactory basis for the franchise than
the oaths of the parties interested on either side. On the
contrary, in the discussion that had taken place they had de-
clared that it was more the duty of the honourable member
for Mallow than it was of the honourable member for
Monaghan, whose consistency had been so unfairly im-
pugned by the noble lord last night.—(Reiterated cheering.)
It seemed to them most desirable that a real stringent and
efficient test should be applied to the oath of the party
himself, value of property other than oath of the party him-
self, or evidence upon oath, and, moreover they affirmed that
the best and most efficient test, for the amount of the value
was founded on the principle of rating, which imposed a tax
at the same time that it affirmed, a franchise. (Hear, hear.)
But the noble lord had found it convenient to omit that which
was the principle of the bill from the details. (Cheers.)
They were willing to take valuation for the purpose of rating as
the test of value in the property, but they were not willing to
take the value of the property apart from the charges and in-
cumbrances on it as the amount of the qualification—(loud
cheers)—and that was the principle of the noble lord's bill—
that value to a certain amount, tested by rating, should
be the standard, and they. were disposed to agree with him
in that principle. But, in addition, that it should be
a test not of the value of the property, but of the
qualification of voting. They contended that, although it
was the best test of the franchise, yet it must be estimated
over and above the amount of the charges and incumbrances
thereon. The noble lord assumed that that was the point of
difference between them. That was the point of difference
between them upon principle. That was the point which was
broadly and plainly stated to the House on Monday night,
and that was the point on which the House of Commons de-
cided in favour of a beneficial interest against the no bene-
ficial interest contended for by the Noble Lord, and that was
the point for which they again stood up in opposition to her
Majesty's Government. He stated, moreover, and he would
repeat it frankly, that in, the Poor-law valuation he could
place no confidence. The very evidence the Noble Lord had
produced coming forward in succession as it did paper by
paper, week after week, and month after month, but before
the house subsequent to the Bill—(opposition cheers)—that
evidence had gone on no fixed, or stable, or uniform princi-
ple. In one thing only had it been uniform—in disregarding
the provisions of the Act of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.)
But how far the Act had been disregarded how much the
valuators were below the rate—whether it was 5 per cent., or
30, 40, or 50 per cent. beneath the real value, could not be
learned. That was the account which their own Commission-
ers had given them of their own evidence; and yet it was
on that evidence that the noble lord asked the House to
form, not a prima facie case, but a conclusive proof of the
real and actual value of the premises, while the Commis-
sioners told them that it formed no conclusive or proximate
evidence, but that it varied in the proportions of its defi-
ciency and errors in every union and in every different part
of Ireland. He would say again that in the present state he
should decline, on the evidence they had now to assume it,
as the basis, even as the first element to be laid down, viz.,
of the value of the property, exclusive of the amount of the
burden charged on that property. He did not mean to say
that rating might not be solcorrect that it might be made so
perfect, and ultimately approximate so nearly to the real
value, and become so uniform, that they would be fairly
entitled and enabled to assume it, not as a test of the
value of the property on which the party claimed his
vote. But in the present state of things he could not take
it as any test either of the franchise or the value.
The noble lord then spoke of the manner in which the
evidence on this measure had been furnished, and the effect
of it upon the constituency.
After some further discussion the house divided, when the
numbers were—
For the clause
Against the clause....

Majority against Ministers .... 11
After the division, Lord JoHN RUSSELL said he com-
plained not that the clause had been rejected, but that the
grounds of the rejection had not been made intelligible to
the government or to the country. With regard to the
future, he thought that parliament was bound to look at
least that Ireland should not be deprived of the benefits in-
tended to be secured to her by the act of 1829. The charge
of vacillation, adduced against the government, reminded
him of the scene in the " Rivals," where Falkland condemns
the inconsistency of Julia, for being about to change her
declared purpose ; and then, finding that she never has had
any such intention, rates her for her pride and obstinacy in
adhering to her resolve. When he remembered the sacri-
fices made by the whigs for the catholic question, he thought
that the Irish ought not to be told that there was no party
in the state which took an anxious interest in their welfare.
lie was satisfied that no future bill would be useful which
should not be based on a definition of the franchise; but he
thought it could answer no wise or conciliatory purpose to
keep up the discussion of the present measure. He moved
that the chairman do now quit the chair.
Sir R. PEEL concurred in theopinion that it would answer
no good purpose to go on with this bill. The government
had very little ground for complainin,, of its opponents, who
had taken a straightforward and manly course. They had
stated throughout that they objected to the new leasehold
franchise proposed in this bill. And in answer to the ques-
tion, what they (the conservatives) desired to see done, they
had declared that it was not for t em, bnt only for the mi-
nisters themselves, to originate a measure on such a subject.