Pigot, D. R. Rawdon, Col. J. D. Roche, E. B. Fleetwood, Sir P. H. Roche, W. Fort, J. Gordon, R. Salwey, Colonel Goddard, A. Grey, rt. hon. Sir C. Guest, Sir J. Hall, Sir B. Hill, Lord A. M. C. Hindley, C. Hobhouse, T. B. Horsman, E. Howard, F. J. creetly he (Mr. O'Connell) very much doubted. Was it consistent with common sense to persevere in making arrangements as to how persons should vote, without first ascertaining what the qualification for voting ought to be? It was reversing the proper order of things. It was as absurd as if a manufacturer should Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A. order a machine to be made without first Rundle, J. Scholefield, J. Scrope, G. P. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. Style, Sir C. Tancred, H. W. Lushington, rt, hu. S. Vigors, N. A. Maule, hon. F. Muntz, G. F. Murray, A. O'Brien, C. O'Connell, D. O'Connell, J. O'Connell, M. J. Philips, G. R. Phillpotts, J. Villiers, hon. C. P. Walker, R. Wall, C. B. TELLERS. Hawes, B. Bill read a third time. determining whether he meant the machine for cotton or for flax. Let them, then, first ascertain the qualification: this was so obviously the proper mode of proceeding that in the bills which the GoM.vernment had brought in to amend the registry, the franchise was so defined that everybody could understand whether he had the franchise or not. It had been asserted that the judges had so limited and defined the qualification, that no man could possibly doubt it. He denied that there was any such judicial decision. The noble Lord had expressed his regret that a minority of the judges stood out against the opinion of the majority and seemed to consider this a highly deplorable state of things; but there was a worse state of things than that. It was when the judges had been selected for their partizanship, and when the suitors found their best counsel on the bench. In no country was the minority of the judges bound by the majority, except in cases of appeal to a higher tribunal. But there was no such power in the majority of the judges in Ireland to bind the minority-it was an opinion described in law as an aliter dictum, but it was not a legal decision, nor ought it to bind the minority, if they were convinced the decision was wrong. Two of the judges had declared that it was not their opinion. What, then, was the state of the law in Ireland? It might be said to depend on the assistant barrister, and whatever judge went the circuit. On the point alluded to there was a difference of opinion among the twelve judges, five being one way and seven another. Two changes had since taken place; and if the two gentlemen substituted held the same opinions on the bench as they did at the bar, they would have the Lord Chief Baron opposed to the opinion of the ten on the one point, and the seven on the other. The opinions of the other gentlemen raised to the bench he did not know. The law, then, could not be said to be settled. If we were ad REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND).] On the motion that the House go into Committee on the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill, Mr. O'Connell rose to move an instruction to the Committee, in order that the franchise might be defined. He said, that they had yet forty-six clauses of the bill before them, and if any amendment was necessary, it was quite impossible that within the space of thirty days the noble Lord could expect to get through with those clauses. The noble Lord had, no doubt, the right to persevere with his bill, partiality, he did not hesitate to say, that the construction, therefore, was against he could demonstrate the legality of the the solvent test and in favour of the beneficial interest as opposed to the sol- beneficial. He admitted that there were vent tenant test. He would premise that other clauses in the act which made this the freehold was so arranged as to make appear somewhat doubtful, but he wished it necessary for a person coming forward the House to understand that these words to state that he paid 101. per annum, were not introduced in that part of the otherwise he could not be registered. He act which touched the question of free. would show that the Reform Act intended hold, but they were inserted in the something different. There was a familiar clauses that related to the registry. By distinction which contained nothing of the seventh clause the revising barrister law, and well known to all the difference was required to examine the lease, and between the rent a tenant paid, and his determine the nature of the estate, and beneficial interest in the land. First of whether the solvent tenant could afford to all, there was no rational person who pay the annual sum of 101. That was would take land without expecting to ihe first time that they had introduced have a beneficial interest in it. In Eng- the examination concerning the rent test land the political economists divided the on the occasion of the registry. The beneficial interest thus:--they calculated oath to be taken by the freeholder was that a person taking land, supposing at a contained in the sixth schedule, to the rent of 101., ought to derive from it three effect that his property was worth 101. a rents-101. for the rent, 101. to replace year over and above all charges. Under the labour and capital expended in its these circumstances it was, that the noble cultivation, and 101. of clear income or Lord (Stanley) had shown that he underprofit. This distinction was so well known stood the difference when he brought in ihat every Gentleman would understand the Irish Reform Bill, which provided that him. Now, if the test was the rent paid any person having a lease for a term of by the solvent tenant, the House would not less than twenty years, and having, perceive that this result would follow: that therein the beneficial interest of the clear he ought to be able to extract 301. a year yearly value of 101., over and above the out of his land. If they look, then, the rent charges, should be entitled to the solvent tenant's rent as the value, they franchise. There was a plain distinction doubled his income before they allowed between the words of the Reform Act him to vote. The poble Lord (Stanley) and the 10th George 4th, chap. 8. In in 1828 had said, that it would make a lhe one it was a clear yearly value of 101., 201. of every 101. franchise, and he had while in the other it was a beneficial insaid perfectly right. According, then, to terest of not less than 101. Any fair this test, the tenant must have 201. profit judge would say, that the meaning of the before he was enabled to register, whereas, 10th George 41h was only more distinctly according to the beneficial interest, a pro- expressed by the Reform"Act, and that it fit of 101. would suffice. By the aci 10 required a 101. beneficial interest. The of George 4ih, which accompanied the whole of the 10th of George 4th was not Roman Catholic Emancipation Act, the only no longer required, but it was no 101, franchise was introduced for the first longer part of the law. The question time. By the second section, chap. 8, it had come before the judges in Ireland as is declared that no person should be ad- to whether the oath prescribed by the mitted to vote unless he had a freehold 101b George 4th should be the issue estate of the clear yearly value of 101. mentioned in that staiute, or whether the over and above all other charges and beneficial interest should be sent to the expenses. Now that 101. is stated to be jury, and there were ten judges to two of the value of 101., and the act did not upon that point. Was it right that ten say in what manner it was to be tested. judges should be at liberty to say, on an He would, therefore, remind the House appeal to them from the decision of an that it was open to be argued whether assistant barrister, that every part of the this 101. ought to be considered as a rent, registry under the 10th of George 4th, or as a 101. beneficial interest, which should be considered as annibilated, exwould, in fact, be 201. In the words of cept the mere fragment of allowing an the statute, they did not state that it was issue to go to the jury? Three of the his duty to move that it be read a third appropriated to the repair of highways time that day three months. and bridges, and why, be wished to know, The Marquess of Salıstury suggested should that object be now departed from? that the bill should be withdrawn for the Such a departure was a violation of the present, to allow time for its provisions law, to which he for one would not be a to be fully considered. party. He thoughe, that in a maller of Lord Alonson said, the bill had been such natior.al importance it was the duty before their Lordships since the 5th of of the government to interfere. May, and had before met with no oppo- Mr. Hindley said, that this bill came sition. He was convinced that the mea- before the House in the shape of a privale sure was calculated to do much good, but bill , but it was a bill involving maiter of at the same time he was perfectly willing the greatest public importance. He hoped to withdraw it for the present, to allow the House would allow the bill to be retime for consideration. ferred to a Commillee. Bill withdrawn. Mr. J. Jervis understood there was a technical objection to his moving the HOUSE OP COMMONS, clause of which he had given nolice, for the remodelling of the constitution of Thursday, July 2, 1810. trustees. Notice of the clause had not WEAVER Churches.] Sir P. Eger- been deposited in the Private bill office. ton moved the third reading of the Would ihe hon. Baronet (Sir P. Egerton) Weaver Churches Bill. allow the third reading to be adjourned Mr. Thornley beyged to move the till tomorrow, so as to give an opportuamendment of which he had given notice, nity to deposit notice of the clause. namely, [“ No, no!") Under those circumstances " That a Select Committee be appointed to he begged to move, that the debate be ad. inquire into the state of the river Weaver and journed. Weston canal, and of the quantity and de Sir P. Egerton said, that the course scription of trattic thereon; also, of the amount proposed by the hon. and learned Member of ionnage colleried, and the application thereof, with the view to ascertain what reduc- for Chester was a most unusual one, and ton of toll can be made for the benetit of the be certainly could not accede to the hoa. public, and to report thereon to the House; and learned Member's suggestion and that the Weaver Churches Bill be not The House divided on the question of proceeded wild woully the Committee has made adjournment :- Ayes 151; Noes 205 : its report." Majority 54. The tolls upon this navigation were al. Mr. J. Jervis did not wish to offer any ready excessive, and if the House did not factious opposition to this bill, his only interfere they would go on increasing in object being to have an opportunity of proportion as the commerce of the coun. discussing ine clause of which he had try increased. If the tolls were more given notice, and wbich he considered to than suficient to support the expen. be of great importance. To give him ses of the navigation, surely they ought that opportunity, he moved that the to be reduced, instead of being divested House do adjourn. as this bill proposed to divest tbem, to Mr. T. Egerton said, that it was the the furtherance of an object with which hon, and learned Member's own fault if this navigation had no connexion. He he had not given due notice. He saw no hoped the House would agree to the reason why the bill should be postponed. amendment which he bad proposed. The House divided on the question of Mr. T. E erton begged to remind the adjournment :- Ayes 74; Noes 275:House, that the tax for navigating this Majority 201. canal and river, about wbich so much was On the question being again put, said, was only a farthing a mile. Sir George Grey suggested, that the Mr. Hume said, that this bull involved third reading of the bill sbouid be pera principle of the greatest importance to mitted to take place, and that on the every county in England. He objected question that the bill do pass, further pro- . to the application of county funds to the ceedings should be postponed in order to building of churches. The Act estab. give his hon. Friend an opportunity of hishing the canal provided, tbal the sur-bringing up his clauses. tion of the right hon. Gentleman, He, Houldsworth, T. was sure his hon. Friend would be the lasi | Houstoun, G. Pigot, R. Planta, right hon. J. person in the world 10 throw technical Hughes, W. B. Polhill, p. difficulties in the way of the hon. Gen Hurt, F. Pringle, A. tleman. Ingestrie, Viscount Pusey, P. The House divided on the main ques- Irton, S. Inglis, Sir R. H. Rae, right hon. Sir W, tion :- Ayes 201; Noes 122: Majority Irving, J. Reid, Sir J. R. Richards, R. 79, Jackson, Sergeant Round, C. G. Jermyn, Earl Round, J. Jones, Captain Rushbrooke, Colonel Acland, Sir T. D. De Horsey, S. H. Kelly, F. Rusbout, G. A'Court, Captain Douglas, Sir C. E. Kerrison, Sir E. Sanderson, R. Alford, l'iscount Douro, Marquess of Knight, H. G. Sandon, Viscount Alsager, Captain Dowdeswell, w. Knightley, Sir C. Scarlett, hon. J. Y. Arbuthnoti, hon. H. Drummond, H. H. Lefroy, right hon. T. Shaw, right hon. F. Sheppard, T. Shirley, E.J. Sibthorp, Colonel Lockhart, A. M. Smith, A. Smyth, Sir G. H. Bailey, J., jun. East, J. B. Lowther, J. H. Spry, Sir S. T. Stanley, Lord Stewart, J. Mackenzie, W.F. Sturt, H. C. Mackinnon, W. A. Teigumouth, Lord Baring, hon. F. Farnham, E. B. Mahon, Viscount Tennent, J. E. Baring, H. B. Feilden, w. Manners, Lord C. S. Thesiger, F, Barrington, Viscount Fellows, E. Mathew, G. B. Thornhill, G. Bentinck, Lord G. Fitzpatrick, J. W. Maunsell, T. P. Tollemache, F. J. Bethell, R. Fitzroy, hon. H. Miller, W. H. Trench, Sir F. Blackburne, I. Fleming, J. Mordaunt, Sir J. Trevor, hon. G. R. Blackstone, W.S. Forester, hon. G. Morgan, C. M. R. Turner, E. Vere, Sir C. B. Neeld, J. Verner, Colonel Norreys, Lord Vernon, G. H. Northland, Lord Villiers, Viscount Walsh, Sir J. Broadwood, H. Gordon, hon. Capt. Owen, Sir J. Wilbraham, G. Brocklehurst, J. Gore, 0. J. R. Packe, C, W. Williams, R. Brooke, Sir A. B. Goulburn, rt. hon. u. Palmer, G. Wood, Colonel Brownrigg, S. Graham, rt, hn. Sir J. Parker, M. Wynn, rt, hon. C. W. Bruce, Lord E. Greene, T. Parker, R. T. Young, J. Parker, T. A. W. Young, Sir W. Paiten, J. W. Peel, J. Pemberton, T. Egerton, Sir P. Perceval, Colonel Egerton, T. List of the Noes. Sir H. Adam, Admiral Busfeild, w. Castlereagh, Viscount Hawkes, T. Alston, R. Byng, G. Chelwynd, Major Hayes, Sir E. Anson, hon, Col. Callaghan, D. Cholmondeley, hn, H. Beneage, G. W. Bainbridge, E, T. Campbell, W.F. Chute, W. L. W. Henniker, Lord Barnard, E. G. Cave, R. O. Chapman, Sir M.L.C. Clive, E. B. Codrington, C. W. Herries, rt, hn. J. C. Bewes, T. Corbally, M. E. Cole, hon. A. H. Hillsborough, Earl of Blake, M, J. Crompton, Sir S. Colquhoun, J. C. Hinde, J. H. Blake, W.J. Denison, W. J. D'Eyncourt, right hon. Corry, hon, H. Hodgson, R. Bowes, J. c. T, Courtenay, P. Holmes, hon. W. A. Bridgeman, H. Duncan, Viscount Duncombe, T. Dundas, Sir R. Easthope, J. TELLERS. his duty to move that it be read a third appropriated to the repair of bighways time that day three months. and bridges, and why, he wished to know, The Marquess of Salıslury suggested should that object be now departed from? that the bill should be withdrawn for the Such a departure was a viulation of the present, to allow time for its provisions law, to which he for one would not be a to be fully considered. party. He thought, that in a matter of Lord Monson said, the bill had been sucli national importance it was the duty before their Lordships since the 6th of of the government to interfere. May, and had before met with no oppo- Mr. Hindley said, that this bill came sition. He was convinced that the mea- before the House in the shape of a private sure was calculated to do much good, but bill , but it was a bill involving maiter of at the same time he was perfectly willing the greatest public importance. He hoped to withdraw it for the present, to allow the House would allow the bill to be re. ume for consideration. ferred to a Comunitiee. Bill withdrawn. Mr. J. Jervis understood there was a technical objection to his moving the HOUSE OF COMMONS, clause of which he had given notice, for the remodelling of the constitution of Thursday, July 2, 1840. trustees. Norice of the clause had not WEAVER CHURCHES.] Sir P. Eger- been deposited in the Private bill office. ton moved the third reading of the Would ihe hon. Baronel (Sir P. Egerton) Weaver Churches Bill. allow the third reading to be adjourned Mr. Thornley begged to move the till tomorrow, so as to give an opportuamendment of which he had given notice, nity to deposit notice of the clause. namely, {"No, no!") Under those circumstances “ That a Select Committee be appointed to he begged to move, that the debate be ad. inquire into the state of the river Weaver and journed. Weston canal, and of the quantity and de- Sir P. Egerton said, that the course scription of trathe thereon; also, of the amount proposed by the hon. and learned Member of ionnage collected, and the application thereof, with the view to ascertain what reduc- for Chester was a most unusual one, and ton of toll can be made for the benefit of the be certainly could not accede to the hon, public, and to report thereon to the flouse, and learned Member's suggestion and that the Weaver Churches Bill be not The House divided on the question of proceeded with until the Committee has made adjournment :-Ayes 151; Noes 205 : its report." Majority 54. The tolls upon this navigation were al. Mr. J. Jervis did not wish to offer any ready excessive, and if the blouse did not factious opposition to this bill, his only interfere they would go on increasing in object being to have an opportunity of proportion as the commerce of the coun. discussing the clause of which he had try increased. If the tolls were more given nolice, and wbich be considered to than suthcient to support the expen.be of great importance. To give him ses of the navigation, surely they ought that opportunity, he moved that the to be reduced, instead of being divested House do adjouro. as this bill proposed to divest tbet, to Mr. T. Egerton said, that it was the the furtherance of an object with wbuh hon, and learned Member's owo fault if this navigation had no connexion. He he had not given due notice. He saw do hoped the House would agree to the reason why the bill should be postponed. amendment which he had proposed. The House divided on the question of Mr. T. Ezerton begged to remind the adjournment :- Ayes 74; Soes 273:House, that the tax for navigalog this Majority 201. canal and river, about wbich so much was On the question being again put, said, was only a farthing a mile. Sir George Grey suggested, that the Mr. Humne said, that this bill involved third reading of the bill shouid be pera principle of the greatest importance to mitted to take place, and that on the every county in Eugland. He objected question that the bill do pass, further pro. to the application of county funds to the ceedin 33 should be postponed in order to building of churcbes. The Act estab. give his bon. Friend an opportunity of hishing the canal provided, tbal the sur-bringing up his clauses. |