The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-30 00:00:00

gistered, and to vote as a parliamentary elector for any coun-
ty, in respect of any treehold or leasehold property in his
actual occupation, shall be deemed to have a beneficial inte-
rest herein, of the clear yearly value required by such act or
acts, except as hereinafter provided." The noble lord'said,
he considered many and serious objections must be raised
against the clauses in the government bill. (Hear, hear.) He
wished the value of property to be ascertained by assessment,
and what it ought to be rated at for the poor. (Hear.) He
did not think the solvent•tenant test could be safely followed,
and he intended to propose as an amendment that the party
claiming aright to vote should have " a beneficial interest of £5,
after deducting rent and other charges." The beneficial in-
terest of £lO contended for by Mr. O'Connell, after the de-
ductions which that member professed to allow, would not
be unfairly represented by this £5 rating. There were some
persons, not included in the £8 leaseholders'test, whom this
£5 rating would admit: those, for instance, who paid a very
low rent for a property not rateable in all at so much as £B,
but yet yielding to the holders a profit of more than £5 be-
yond that low rent. But as he was aware that on the other
hand there would be many voters whom the £8 leaseholders'
test would admit, but whom his £5 property rating would ex-
clude, he was disposed to move also another change, admitting
a large class of voters, a change which would substitute for the
government proposal of a rating on a lease at a low rent,
a proposal of a rating at a higher rent, but without
any lease. The circumstances of Ireland, however, were so
different from those of England, and her general wealth so
far inferior, that the English £5O franchise would be too
high for Ireland. What the proper amount would be he
was not yet prepared to state ; but it should be an amount
vs hich would give a constituency at least as numerous as that
which existed immediately after the reform act. All he
should now ask of the House would be merely to consent to
the principle. It would he said that tenants without leases
would be deficient in independence. He did not think it
was-found to make much difference whether the tenant bad
a lease or not ; for, except in times of great excitement, times
happily rare, all kinds of tenants very generally desired to
vote with their landlords. The most dependent tenants in Irel
land were the tenants of the smalle&t farms, such tenants as
the Government measure proposed to enfranchise. That
measure would lead to the fraud of leasing small properties
at very high rents, with an engagement for a debate so long
as be voter should continue to vote with his landlord. But
eve,l by adopting the low amount of £B, it was by no means
clear that any considerable number of voters would be pro-
duced. For though much of the new leasing would be frau-
dulent, the whole amount of new leasing would he diminished
by the general indisposition of the Irish landlords to trust
their tenants with the franchise. There was another ar-
gument which might be brought against him from the
Conservative side of the House,—that he had laid no
ground for altering the Reform Act. The answer was,
that the people of Ireland were entitled to a sufficient
representation, which at present they did not possess.
There had been a great reduction in the number of the Irish
voters, chiefly amongthe lower classes. A fair settlement of
this question would be a great boon to Ireland, and one
which the conservative party itself would find it expedient to
concede rather than suffer the constituency to dwindle as it
otherwise must. He then moved to omit those words at the
end of the first clause which abrogate the beneficial interest
franchise created by the reform act, for the purpose of ena-
bling him, in the second clause, to define that beneficial in-
terest by the £5 rating propounded in the earlier.part of his

speech.
Lord MORPETH said, he regarded the amendment of Lord
Howick as merely verbal, and was prepared to abide b., the
test proposed by government.
Mr. C. WOOD observed, that the Bill as it now stood de-
stroyed the whole qualification based upon property, and
made the franchise dependent solely on occupation, but the
amendment proposed would not prevent Ministers from after-
wards adding their own new qualifications also.
Sir G. GREY opposed the amendment, and was replied to
by Mr. C. Wood, after which
Lord STANLEY rose. That amendment was no verbal
one, he said, which raised the question whether the whole
existing law and principle of beneficial interest should be
swept away. The country would not easily be persuaded to
treat that as a trivial matter. He agreed with Lord Howick
that .an undue and unnatural diminution of the Irish
constituency, from the amount intended by the Reform
Bill, was not to be permitted. It was therefore assumed that
such a diminution had already taken place. Mr. O'Connell,
however, had expressed his opinion during the progress of
the Reform Bill, that it would not bring the number up to
30,000. There was so great an excitement on the first
registry after that bill, and so little opposition, that the
numbers amounted to 52,000. They still increased, nomi-
nally, till the octennial period ; and then, of course, they
were reduced by the striking off of many thousands. Yet
at this day they were between 40,000 and 50,000, exceeding
by many thousand persons the numbers which the Reform
Bill was framed and expected to yield. When he should
see an alarming diminution of the constituency, he should
gladly co-operate with Lord Howick for the redress of that
evil ; but he would not, because some gentlemen declined to
grant leases of their property, consent to inundate the con-
stituency by letting in voters without any property whatever.
Mr. O'CONNELL pettishly said that uo impression could
be made upon the house by that important fact. Lord
Howick would have better evinced his good wishes towards
Ireland by moving to restore the 405.-freeholders than by
aiding the opposition.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he thought £5 the proper quali-
fication, but had given way to the general proposal for £8
in the hope that the question might be settled. The amend-
ment was not much more than a question of wording, but he
would not concede it because it would introduce inconveni-
ences into the subsequent clauses.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said the noble lord had done what he
usually did when his case was peculiarly defective—he had
made a general declamation on popular rights, to raise a
cheer behind him ; and under the cover of that cheer be had
retired from further discussion, and fancied he had made a
successful speech. Referring to the expectations entertained
by the framers of the reform bill, and by Mr. O'Connell
himself, with respect to the numbers of the Irish consti-
tuency, he showed that these numbers did now far exceed
all those expectations. But if the numbers were really
diminished, what were the remedies proposed ? In thirty-
two Irish counties, the Government proposed the same
uniform franchise which belonged to the borough ; ex-
cluding property, and giving everything to occupation. If
property were excluded from the county franchise in Ireland,
how could it be retained in England ? And what confidence
could be placed in the legislation of a set of Ministers, who,
after taking time to deliberate throughout the recess, bad
brought forward such a measure as this, suddenly changing,
two or three days ago, their £5 to an £8 qualification? Lord
John had twitted the Conservatives for not accepting the £B.
Their objection was not to mere amount—it was to principle ;
they required for the counties a qualification of property,
not of occupasion. To the general principles laid down
by Lord Howick he agreed, although he did not intend to
support his details. The effect of the present amendment
was the same as if it bad been an abstract resolution affirm-
ing the principle of beneficial interest as a part of the fran-
chise ; and that amendment he should support. If it were
carried, it must be fatal to the principle of this bill—to that
principle which went to exclude property from its influence
in the franchise of counties; and if counties in Ireland, then
of counties in England also. He vindicated, by reference to
the testimony given in 1825 by the leading Catholics, the
disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders under the Relief
Bill ; and concluded by strongly declaring his opinion that
the conduct of ministers on this question had disentitled them
to the confidence of parliament.
The committee at length divided on the important motion,
" that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the
• question," when the numbers were—
AYES
NOES
MAJORITY AGAINST MINISTERS -21