SECTION VII. We must again do justice to the framers of the present Reform Bill by stating, that since the 1st of March they have applied themselves sedulously and in earnest towards the correction of those errors which had been detected in the last; and true to the hopes which they held out to their own party, that the Bill should reappear the same in principle, whatever verbal alterations might be found in it. They have carefully supplied the deficiency of old error by the insertion of new. They have counterbalanced the effect of one amendment by the introduction of an equivalent defect; thereby adhering to the spirit and principle of the original Bill. In this Section we find, "That "in elections for shires, where two or more 66 persons are interested in any subject to which "a right of voting is for the first time attached by this Act, as life-renter, and as fiar, the 66 66 Sect. 7. right of voting shall be in the life renter, and "not in the fiar." Now the words in italics being an insertion since the last Bill, we must conclude that they were inserted after due deliberation as to their effect: and as it behoves us, upon the construction of all Acts of Parliament, and especially on such an occasion, to attach some meaning to every word if possible, we will endeavour to discover the meaning of this. Sect. 7. In such an attempt we are guided by the rule, in construing Acts of Parliament, that, where two Sections are at variance, the latter always governs the former. Bearing this, therefore, in mind, and considering the exception at the end of Section V. conferring the right of voting" by one or other of the qualifications "hereinafter prescribed and directed"-reading in Section VI. the qualification of " proprietors "of heritages worth 10l. a year," and in Section VII. the "Rule as to life-renters and fiars” -considering moreover that every existing case of life-renter and fiar, where the right of voting is at present in the fiar, is NOT a subject to which a right of voting is for the first time attached by this Act: after all these considerations, there is placed a very reasonable ground for doubt, in the mind even of the most bigoted Reformer, whether the right of voting acquired over such subjects at present conferring that qualification (and which therefore are subjects to which a right of voting is not for the first time attached by this act) will not continue to be enjoyed as heretofore. Such uncertainty is the result of the introduction of those well considered words. If such be not the result, the whole of the first half of the Seventh Section is superfluous, as it is impossible to suppose any case wherein, by the terms of this Act, a person having a bare fee, without any present beneficial interest, can have a vote. The last half of the Section is in these words: Sect. 7. "And where the subject, being of less value "than to afford a free yearly return to each co"proprietor of 107. is held by heirs portioners "without division, the right to vote shall be long to the eldest heir portioner happening "to be a male, or to the husband of the eldest "heir portioner being a female." In order to show the effect of the above in its true light, we shall suppose the case of Two adjoining farms, each of the yearly value of 90%.: The proprietors A and B die, A leaving 10 children, heirs portioners, Why should not the property of A send nine ? I do not mean that A's property should do so absolutely, but merely in conformity with the prevailing rule and profession of the Reformers. Their principles, however, are so uncontrolled, so flexible, and vibrate so deceitfully between property, population, and taxation, that they escape all fixed rules, and cunningly avoid any test or touchstone that may be a criterion of the merits of the case. In England, joint owners and coparceners are not entitled to vote, unless each have the necessary qualification. There is a great degree of absurdity in making it otherwise, as if the B not to persons every piece of There may be Sect. 7. object were to give a voice, "To seek het water beneath cauld ice, And I've sought grace at a graceless face, Sect. 8. 66 SECTION VIII. And be it enacted, That tenants in lands, houses, or other heritable subjects within "the shire, shall also be entitled to be registered as hereinafter directed, and to vote "in elections for shires, provided each tenant "shall, when he claims to be registered or to "vote, be in possession under a lease or leases, "or other written titles, for a period of not "less than sixty years, exclusive of breaks, or for the life-time of the tenant, where the Sect. 8. "clear yearly value, after paying the rent, and 66 deducting all other burdens, is not less than ten pounds." Let any one read the above clause, and then attach any rational meaning. Many may at first think they understand it, but let any one try and explain it to himself or to another. Clear yearly value of what? To whom shall this extra clear yearly value belong? By whom, when, and how, shall it be ascertained? What is to be the amount of rent? That is no where told. We had been all led to suppose that it was hereby intended that every tenant, holding under a landlord by a lease for sixty years (it matters not here how far back the lease be antedated, that is not our question now) at a yearly rental of 107. should be entitled to vote. We have been deceived; such is not the case. Quite the reverse. Such a tenant has no more title to vote for a County Member under the words of this Act, than a New Zealander or Chinese. - I apprehend that this clause is intended to express, that after the tenant shall have paid his 107. of rent, and all taxes, &c., it shall be ascertained that the farm is worth 107. more than the rent paid: it is doubtful whether it shall be worth such extra sum to landlord or tenant. Taking the tenant to be the person intended by the word "where," and the above |