The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-26 00:00:00

and therefore immense. The right of voting both in
England and Ireland had hitherto been based on prc-
perty.—(Tory cheers.) It was so before the Reform
Acts, and continued so the present 'moment. The
single exception which apparently 'existed in Eng-
land was the 501. tenant-at will right of voting
but that was an exception not in reel•ty but apparently.
because the clause proceeded %sot, the assumption that
when a tenant paid 501. of rent, it necessarily irnpl ed that
he was in possession of a capital fully equivalent to
that which a freeholder • was required to possess.
The principle was the serve in Ireland, for much as had
been said about the beneficial interest, yet all admitted
that some behefit or se me interest beyond the base and
beyond all other charges was necessary. The clause of
his Noble Friend would entirely set aside all principle.
A tenement of 81. was no proof that the party possessed
capital ; in
,Ireland, at least, it was not the slightest
proof of the possession of capital, in virtue of which
he should be allowed to vats. The clause of
his Noble Friend was therefore objectionable, as it
at present stood as subversive of the principles univer-
sally followed in their legislation.—(Loud cheers.) In
his opinion that was highly inexpedient—he thought the
principle of basing the county franchise upon property
was not only consecrated by the long practice and
usage of the coast. tution, but was in accordance with
sound sense and reason„—(Hear, hear.) There was s
legitimate inference that the possessors of property would
be the class most capable of exercising that franchise with
independence, and ieaving themselves a stake in the coun-
try, they would be most anxious to discharge the duty im-
posed upon them. The principle of the existing law he
held to be wise, and the defect of the franchise in Ire-
land was not in the principle, but in the manner in
which that principle was applied under the particular
test adopted of the amount of property which the
person claiming to vote was required to possess.
The evils of the present eystem were admitted on all
hands. It was generally admitted that they arose not
merely front the want of agreement which existed as to
the proper construction of the words, beneficial interest,
but also from the circumstance that the only test
of value was the opinion of parties having
a strong interest at stake. All experienced
was against the application of such a test. It was
vWI the view to obviate that objection and provide a
means of ascertaining the real interest that the fiis
amendment which he was about to submit, had been
framed, What he proposed was that the value of the
property should be ascertained by the value
of assessment for the purposes of the Poor's-rate. It
appeared to him that this was a perfectly unobjectionable
list. It had indeed been said that the valuations at pre-
sent were imperfect, that the repoits which he has laid
upon the table showed that they were not so cor-
rect as to enable the HOLM: to proceed upon them.
It undoubtedly did appear from these papers that the
valuations hitherto made had not been altogether satis-
It undoubtedly did appear from the papers that the
valuations hitherto made had not been altogether satis-
factory but for other purposes, for the purpose of the
administration of the Poor-laws it was necessary that that
valuation should be correct. He was convinced that the
been already in existence by which the subjtct could be
accomplished. Under all circumstances th;s valuation
would be one which had no reference to the clause to
vote. The parties would have direct pecuniary in-
terest in avoiding too high a va'uation an f this would
always be stronger than the desire to obtain the fran-
chise ; if wrong in any respect. it would be
that the property would] generally be celculated
upon rather a low scale. But then the im
portant question arose, what amount of interest,
so ascertained, should confer the right of voting ?
If ;they were to take so high an amount as 10/. excess
of value, as shown by the assessment to the Poor-
rates above the rent paid, they would practically raise
the franchise even higher than was contended for by
those Gentlemen who had taken the solvent tenant test
He (Lord Howick) thought that in adopting a mea-
sure of this kind they should look a little further. If
they looked back to the history of what bad
occurred in 1832, they would see that it was
the intention of Parii anent to make some
extension of the right of voting as it then existed. That
such was the intention of those who introduced the
Reform Act, seemed to him perfectly obvious from
their recorded speeches. He should propose, therefore,
that in adopting the principles to which he referred.
they should take a lower amount of excess beyond the
rent than 101. In appiying a test of increased
severity, they were bound to make a con-
siderable abat ,ment in the amount of interest
constituting the right to vote. In the amend-
ment which he was about to move, he should pro-
pose that a suns of 5/. excess of value beyond the
rent and charges to which the person who laid claim
to vote was liable should be sufficient to qualify
him to enjoy the franchise. He thought the
Honourable Gentlemen oa that side of the
House ought to agree to this proposal.
The words of the clause, which was introduced last
year into the all by the Right Hon. and Learned
Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland, were-,-,
" That the beneficial interest should be deprived the
profit or advantage derived or derivable ley such
claimant from such premises, aftee deducting the
tithes-rent charge, and their expenses, it any, of
cultivating the same," The Right Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman admitted that 101.
profit beyond all these charges ought to constitute the
right to vote. In the recent debate, when he (Lord
Howick) contended that the occupant's own labour was
not to be deducted in calculating the beneficial intcrasz,
the Hon. and /seemed Gentleman, Member too Dublin,
himself corrected him (Lord Howickl, and said that.
it was never contended that any such construction
should be put on the law—that a fair deduction was
to be made for the estlue of the occupant's own
labour. If, then, those deductimaa were to ba
made he (Lord Howick) could not clearly
understand what line of distinction could be drama ley
Hon. Gentlemen hattveen the clause proposed :pact tort
course suggested on the opposite side. tic, was really
at a loss to discover, speaking Coif ler.tnicallp and
legally what should be the diffNeenCe 'oetween the con-
struction of the beeef7,4sl Interest contended for by the
Hon. and
19-eml)er for Dublin, and that by
the
ivatlerneu on ...lite other side of the House.—( Hear-)
(LEFT SPEAKING.)