Star.
London, England, 1818-05-28 00:00:00

RIGHTS 01 VOTERS FOR COUNTIES.

Mr. BROUGHAM called the attention of the
House to the Circular Letter sent from Kendal, by a
District Surveyor, to the Assessors, not to proceed in
the assessment of the Land Tax until further orders.
He maintained that this was a wilful disfranchise-
ment of voters : for if no assessments were made tol
the land-tax, the Freeholders who were not assessed
could have no right to vote. It was one of the gross-
est attempts that had ever been made to invade the
rights of electors ; and this must be particularly im-
pressed on every man's mind, when one knew the
quarter from which it came. Persons engaged in the
collection of the revenue had always been excluded,
from interfering at elections, under very severe peH
nalties. Not one of them was allowed even to ask
an elector not to vote; and it was much worse to in-
capacitate a man from voting. This conduct was
also a violation of the duty which the Collectors of
revenue owed to his Majesty; for they were bound
to collect in a manner the most beneficial and effica.
cious for the service of the Crown; and if they did
not collect the tax upon a particular freehold when
it was due, they were guilty of a breach of duty. It
appeared that the letter to which he alluded was
sent by a person named Thompson, residing at Ken-
dal. He concluded with moving—'4 That there be
laid before the House forthwith, Copies of all Letters
or Notices issued by John Thompson, Clerk to the
Commissioners of the Land Tar, at Kendal, relative
to the assessments of that tax, during the last three
months ; together with the names of those Commis-
sinners by whose authority such notices or letters
were sent."
Mr. LUSHINGTON observed, that he had already
stated, that no order of the kind alluded to by the
Hon. Gentleman had been signed by the Treasury.
A letter had been written by Thompson to Mr.
Lowndes, of the Tax Office, wishing fot some infor-
mation respecting freeholds, because there had been
some dispute respecting their titles.
Mr. BROUGHAM—" If the object of the inquiry
was to investigate the titles to those freeholds, that
might take up a long time, and injure the rights of
the freeholders."

Mr. LUSHINGTON said the letter had been re-
ceived by Mr. Lowndes on the 12th of April, and the
object was to know whether the Corahustioacrs had

la right to assess these freeholders to tt.e Land T 4
Mr. Lowndes sent for answer that it depen.f:d oath
title, quality, and value of the estate.
Mr. BROUGHAM wished to know what had 314 Lbwndes to do with the sight of Conunissi
assess, or talk about titles of elates ?
be more disgusting than to see officers hel,,aging
the Tax-office thus holding discussions resiettia
votes at elections. They had no other duty
to it!
form than that of collecting the revenue.
Mr. LUSIIINGTON replied, that the Lasd.ct
itself did not establish a right to voteHhear, /ievj
The question was, whether the COMMIS4OIIeIs
a right to assess certain persons to the Land.tax tie
had not been assessed ?
Mr. BROUG HAM—" It was not Mr. Coracle*
de
t to give an opinion on that point: t:I;I7.IOW'rHER said, the pararraph in gnestieo
first appeared in a country paper—Eo kw. nothing
of the transaction until be saw it publislsed.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he had toeuther ra.
ragraphs on this subject, in the same paper,
knew to be false. Many persons is the cnuntv
Westmoteland had pressed forward to be assessed to
the land-tax, who never had been assessed; and 41.
quiries were made of the Commissioners of Timis 7f.
lative to their claims, and it was very pier to hine
made such an enquiry. For his own part he knew ro.
thin more on the subject, that what he now sta;e:.
After some remarks from the CRANCELLoI cf. the
Exceactuaa, and Mr. W. Wrest, the motiosora
agreed to.

WIDOWS OF otrtcrits IN FRI ARMY.
Mr. LYTTLETON said he did not intend to Ras
his motion relative to the affidavit to be owe by
Officers on half-pay, because he understrx,,r/ was
under consideration in the War-Office. He wi+ed,
however, to ask whether he was tight in sappyi/g
that the Widows of Officers who now
half-pay were not entitled to a pension; and ..thoher,
if the Widow of an Officer martied
her pension ? Ile also wished to how ;: t.„
true, that in following the recommendation io tLe
Committee of Finance relative to Ceeteral Otiizers
the Army, the choice of the Officers who cans: s; til
the new regulation was in the Crown, and wlit
they were to be taken according to their staidritr?
No answer to these questions would be perfectly ss'..w
factory to him, if it was jn the affirmative.

Lord PALMERSTON said, that as to the Ent
question, the regulation by which the Widows cf
Officers who now married vn half-pay were to haw
no pensions, was now under consideration. As a
the second question, it was certainly tree, that bY the
existing regulations the Widow of an Officer, by
mar-
rying again, forfeited her pension. As to tlie rrFs
lation adopted under the recommenda:ioa et t_4
Committee of Finance, the choice of the Geueral
cers was in the discretion of the Crown ; :ad Lis
Officers were not indiscriminately taken accertriars
seniority. The reasons for this wee perfectlr
oats, as being for the benefit of the public scrim.
Mr. LYTTLETON said, he was i 1 a great degree
satisfied by what had fallen from the Noble Lent
and therefore he would not trouble the House Tick
any motion on the subject.