The Sun. — London, England, 1829-04-10 00:00:00

the that I ought not to vote for a measure of this description. If I understood him and other Noble Lords rightly, this Bill does not depend upon its. ID ! tr k merits, but it is to b e p asse d b ecause i t i s con necied iiithgeneral emancipation. I beg to be un derstood as no convert to the propriety of such bar ter itt l egislation.—(Hear.)-1 cannot consent to do that Which I am satisfied is wrong, merely upon the d Quhtful event that good may come of it. Some Noble Lords on the other side of the House have objected to the Bill, as I think, upon fair constitu tional grounds, that Parliament has no right, with out inquiry, to wrest the elective franchise from any da indivi duals.—(Hear.)—The Noble Marquis (Lans downe) has truly stated, that at present we know bow many will be disfranchi se d, an d h ow man y w ill remain in possession of their right to vote. What evidence have you that you ought to disfranchise ten thousand? I may think that the number de prived of their rights is five thousand ; another Noble Lord may say it is twenty thousand, and who is to decide between 11, ? What investigation has t aken place before the House came to this important determination ? None : I declare that on a Turn• Pike Bill better evidence would be required than has been taken before we are called upon to disfranchise ma ny thousands. When had we any information— evidence I cannot call it—upon the subject ? Not since 1825 and when that Report was laid before the other House of Parliament, a Bill was brought ; and what did that say ? Did it say that the sub sisting rights of all the freeholders were to be de stroyed ? Did it attack the freeholders ? No : it attacked no man alive; it only declared that the piaetice was in convenient ; and that it was expedient to correct the prevailing abuses and mal-praetiees,- 1t Was my intention to have moved an instruc ton to . the ,Committee; but it has been suggested to. me that t h at would be an inconvenient course, an d I shall therefore move an amendment in th e Committee; the effect of it will be, to make the Bill Prospective only, and I shall follow it by another clause — to exclude from its operation those who old in fee. My objections, however, extend to eery part of it, and among other things, to the re gulations regarding Assistant Barristers. I do HA pretend to know m uc h a b out I re l an d, or w h et h er t he Assistant Barristers are, or are not, fit to be trasted with this power; but if I am not much mis taken, Ministers will have to come again to Podia itnt, to amend the Act in this respect. I allude i efly to the precedent established by the Bill. Are there no forty-shilling freeholders in England ? hear.)—Are there no freeholders in this country upon leases ? I t i s notor i ous t h at t h ere are _ ma ny. Then, say Noble Lords, the franchise ought to be raised to 101., in order that property may be represented. What, let me ask, is the property re presented in a borough like Preston, where the right of election is pot-walloping ? No property at all ; atidu Pon ,the principle that no property is repre flirted by the Irish forty-shilling freeholders, the right of election at 'Preston and other places of the 4me kind may be abolished. I will consent to no Measure that destroys the Constitution ; I have no is o: , i‘ i -e, for my conduct but a desire to preserve what eatable; and no interest in the result, as 1 have furthe r lrish pr res op ent', erty. only I I shallhope, t troubhatle th in t e H he ouse no at p Corn ttir;i!tee, You will allow m e to speak again, recollect -114. that one of a minority of 17 has a right to be h eard Oftener than one of a majority of 140. i,;.jard LAUDERDALE supported the Bill on tielrround th a t i t was a necessary concom i tant o f he Bill of Relief. t jhe • Marquis of CLANRICARDE sa id th a t "a beli e f that harmony would be restored in Ire land by the passing of this Bill, or that tranquillity Nuld be endangered by its rejection, he humbly t e Pneeived, with all due deference to great authori 'lP,• to be founded upon erroneous premises. The al rgron of the Irish const i tuency would not be altered b y altering.the amount of the qualification; "d the prim would exert his influence over the 104 freeholder, as he had done over the forty %liar nig freeholder, wh et h er aga i nst or i n favour of th ia e Opinions o f t h e l an dl ord. The only excuse for fi g away the vested rights of the fortshillin ehOlders was, that the measure of relief y- would beg incomplete without it. He gave credit to the Noble Duke for th e completeness of this Bill— i t was as oMplete a Bi ll of spoliation as ever was brought !n to Pacliament ; on l y 100,000 i n di v id ua l s wou ld be dePriyed of their rights at the moment when success had enabled them to appreciate their value. In 1825 , when it was first proposed to disfranchise the freeholders, it was asserted that they were the tools of the landlordi; the freeholders repelled the injustice of the charge. Next, it was argued that th eY,Were the instruments of the Association; and h °* they were the creatures of the priests. To forget . and forgive was a laudable doctrine, but lie wRs surprised their Lordships so soon forgot the kqs of 'the Association. On the ground of huma 4ty only, it behoved the House to reflect before it t ,dapted t hi s . Bill. -Th e I rish peasant would be driven from.his home—a home which he cherished, hough not replete witleluxuries; arid compelled t a seek a li v i ng i n a f ore i gn country, either as a "rggar or a bandit. Some Noble Lords had com- Atinefi of the invasion of England by the lower ° Wet of Irish ; but if this Bill were passed, the NI would be increased as far as related to this 'ettntry, and it would be extended to others. The Peasants might say— " At noslinc alii sitientes ibimus Afros, Pars Scythiam et rapidum Cretan veniemus Oaxem, Efi penitus toto divisor orbe Britannos." 1 1 °re than it was generally supposed understood the poorag he had quoted, and that a great number of 4 ; , Irish would hereafter be found among the --a n 7 ii there could be no doubt. h Th e Duke of WELLINGTON—The persons oW under diseu-sion are called freeholders, and the t) bli f •Marquis s u ppos es th a t we are d e priving them ,;i l e lt• vested rights; yet the same Noble Marquis, 410 ° know s th e country per f ect l y we ll, te ll s us a l so , " 4 1 Most in the same breath, that they hold under ekses---that their rent is in arrear—and that nothing : y more easy than for their landlords t o e j e ct th em , (1 to deprive them of their vested right.—(Hear, r')`-.-Thris a l an dl or d ma y d o , w h en lie pleases, t which Parliament is never to be permitted to oh; But I did i not rise t o co nfute the Noble Mar rs, who has n fact c on f ute d himself; but to ref er 0, f t point noticed by another Noble Peer, who re it:Jed t o th e su bj ect of the Assistant-Barristers. lie 11 4 0 whether that officer, who is to act under this 111 • 4 ovill be independent t I can assure him that „ ib lernment will pay the utmost attention to this ti Ref", and will take care that no Assistant•Bar tilteal` sh a ll be appointed to preside over the registra it,?l, of fr ee h o ld s , w h o i s not ent i re ly unconnecte d th, t " the Comity for which he is to act. I believe 6 01 4, tit present the Assistant-Barristers are not th erwise connected with the counties in which 'leY Act. Lord GOR T referred to certa i n returns he had bred for, and obtained from different parts of Ire hold) ill order to show that the forty-shilling-free to d ays had b een ra pidl y i ncrease d i n th e cor p ora t e 1 0 '0 s Of I re l an d. H e conten d e d t h at t h e Bill ought ave applied to corporate towns as well as to nt ieg. The forty-shilling freeholders were, he ad di!,,ed, the obj ec ti ona bl e p ar t o f th e s y s t em , an d h e 1„ 14,- ,9f.see why they should be permitted to remain t thvna when they were removed from the counties. to Passing this Bill why would not their Lordships gove the evil entirely ? t hh , lll WEarl of LIMERICK did n ot thi n k that the applied to freemen as to the forty- Ing freeholders, for it was known that the latter t} ne.ttme only,used the benefits they possessed for e advantage of their landlords, and at another for h , their fanatic priests. He considered that It it t Act, as it respected the forty-shilling freeholders, the boon to the.country at large, and no less so to 'o4;2 f orty-shilling freeholders themselves than to V . Persous„ .What was the great evil of Ireland ? a large, he might say an immense population, %%Tut employment; and out of that body of men 'pe -7 4 1 10E4 :those freeholders who, without inde '7fleeratoted according to.the wishes of those who happened at the moment to have the most con trol over them. _ Lord FARNHAM intendeLl to propose a clause in this Bill when it went into Committee, the effect of which would be to produce the extension of its provisions in the manner described by the Noble Lord. He would not propose to raise the franchise higher than it was at present, but he would have the same investigating tribunals to decide on the claims of the electors in towns as in counties. He thought the machinery could as well be applied to the former as to the latter. The Earl of CAERNARVON would give his vote for not going into the Committee if he believed the principle of this Bill was one of spoliation; but he did not think that the elective franchise, which their Lordships were now about to deal with, was a vested property, not disposable at the will of Par liament. He thought too that the retrospective part of the Bi!1 was almost the best portion of it, and that if it was made merely a prospective mea sure but little good would be done. At the same time that he was thus favourable to the Bill, to a great extent at least, and certainly favourable to the chief object of it, there were provisions in it to which he felt he must object. These were those which affected the rights of persons who held small freeholds in fee. There was one part of the Bill which he thought pressed hard upon those whom it might affect—he meant that clause which regarded decisions of the assistant barrister, and which al lowed no appeal from his judgment. He thought that clause ought to be altered. The House then went into a Committee, and one or two clauses were agreed to without discussion. On the clause that the franchise should only be vested in persons possessed of freehold property to the amount of- 101. per. annum, The Duke of RICHMOND proposed the inser tion of the following words—" That nothing in this Act shall . be construed to extend to prejudice the rights of those who were in actual possession of bona fide freeholds of 405., previously to the passing of this Act." Earl DARNLEY opposed the Amendment. Lord ORIEL was about to make some observa tions upon the rights which the freeholders in fee had had since 1793, but he was informed that the law relating to them would properly come under consideration in the next clause, and he contented himself with observing that the Irish freeholders in fee were, most of them, in such a miserable condition, that they would suffer nothing from the deprivation of their rights. . . . Lord CARBERY concurred in the measure it self, but not in the Amendment. The Duke of HAMILTON was in favour of the Bill, and could not reconcile himself to any captious clauses in opposition to it. Lord MALMESBURY opposed the Bill. Lord PLUNKETT contended that this was not a right of property, but a political right. The ob ject of the Bill in this instance was not to take away the freehold, but to regulate the right. The former exclusion of the Roman Catholics from Parliament was the privation of a political right which it was found ought to yield to expediency. So, in the in stance of the forty-shilling freeholders, the right given to them must yield to expediency. In the Acts of Union with Scotland and Ireland the num ber of Members was restricted, and several boroughs in both countries were deprived of the right of voting, and this without any saving of existing rights. The principle of the Constitution is, not that you shall bring the greatest possible number of votes at elec tions, but that the greatest possible number of free and independent wills shall be congregated together for such purpose. It was because he thought this measure a most salutary measure of reform, inde• pendently of its connection with the other measure, that he supported it. He was no advocate of wild arid theoretical reform ; but while he found reform not only practicable but F,afe, he felt bound to advo cate it. The Duke of RICHMOND thought that the abuse complained of ought to be shewn to him be fore he was called . upon to legislate for its removal. They were told that the forty-shilling freeholders did not understand the value of their privilege. What did their Lordships forget the election of Clare ? (Hear, hear.)—Now the Irish were called untutored savages—formerly they were called a fine, a gene rous, a magnanimous nation.—(Hear, hear.)—Their Lordships must see the injustice they were about to do. They were told that this Bill was coupled and bound up with the other; but he called upon them to do what was in itself right and just, without look ing to the consequences of such a vote. Lord LONGFORD contended that the abuse of the forty-shilling freeholders was so fully proved, that it furnished abundant ground for supporting the pre sent Bill. The Marquis of SALISBURY was opposed to the motion, and contended that the elective fran chise was inseparable from the right of freehold, and ought not to be separated from it. Lord SIDMOUTH thought that no further evi dence of the abuse of the forty-shilling freeholds was required to induce their Lordships to accede to the present Bill. The measure would not only conduce to the tranquillity and peace of Ireland generally, but would materially conduce to the benefit of the forty shilling freeholders themselves.—(Hear, hear.) Lord HOLLAND read a letter, in which the manlier of getting forty-shilling freeholders was de scribed. In one instance it was stated a little man was seen heading a party of Irish freeholders into town, he being mounted on a wretched mule; he held in his hand a whip, but the writer did not say that he applied it to the voters; he, however, stated that it must have been intended for them, as it was much too long to be applied to the mule—(Loud laughter.)—The Noble Lord, after a few additional observations, concluded by supporting the motion. The Earl of MALMESBURY wished to read one sentence from the evidence on this subject given by Daniel O'Connell, Esq. He stated, when ques tioned as to the forty-shilling freeholders in Ireland, and the alteration to be adopted, that he felt it dif ficult to answer that question. The forty-shilling freeholders in Ireland were differently placed from those in England. There were in Ireland many forty-shilling freeholders who held in fee simple, and with these he . presum'ed the Legislature would not meddle. These were the opinions of Mr. O'Con nell. After a few words from the Duke of RICHMOND, the amendmeNt was negatived. The Duke of RICHMOND would not consent to disfranchise the forty-shilling freeholders but upon the most absolute necessity. The Noble and Learned Lord on the cross-bench (Lord Plunkett) had, on a former occasion, opposed this measure, exclaiming, " Would the House carry the principle to the length of disfranchising the freeholders of England ?" He hoped the Noble and Learned Lord would be consistent. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that the re sult of his inquiries had convinced him that there was no class of freeholders to whom the Bill ought to refer more than to that class which the Noble Duke had described. Those people had acquired the right of voting without possessing any title what ever to property. He had no doubt that his Noble and Learned Friend would be able to explain what had been imputed to him as an inconsistency. The Earl . of NIALMESBURY differed from the Learned Lord who had just sat down. The free holders alluded to were as much entitled to the pro tection of that House as any landholder of ten thou sand a-year. The freeholders had originally esta blished themselves on the mountains, as the poor of England established themselves on commons. They were an industrious body of persons, and their free holds were as perfect as any other. Lord ORIEL said, that the freeholders were idle and ignorant, and possessed the privilege of voting, not in right of property, but only by an Act of Par liament passed eight years ago. It was no right possessed by inheritance, but had been held only for the short period of eight years. Lord FARNHAM said that many of these free holds had been originally granted to the soldiers of Cromwell. The right of voting bad not been given by the Act alluded to by the Noble Lord; for that Act had done no more than regulate the registry of the freeholds and right of voting. The freeholders upon the mountains were of the worst description; they were little better than gypsies. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that it was ad mitted that the freeholders alluded to were most corrupt; and as it was impossible to distinguish them in the Bill, he could not consent to lose the general benefit of the measure for the sake of pro tecting these people. Lord PLUNKETT explained, that the passage of his speech quoted by the Noble Duke (of Rich mond) had been used only in reply to an Honourable Member who had refused to support the Bill, be cause it did not go far enough. The Committee then divided — Contents Non- Contents Majority On our entering the House, we found the Duke of 'WELLINGTON on his legs, addressing the House upon the clause relative to the freeholders of towns that were counties. He did not think that it was necessary to extend the Bill to such persons. It was not in the power of the House to curb or check the freeholders in such places. There might be great abuses in voting in such places ; and should any Noble Lord bring in a Bill to prevent the evil, he would pay every attention to it; but he did not think it right that Government should interfere on the subject. Lord GORT thought that the evil could not be prevented by any powers possessed by the Corpora tion themselves. The cli.use vas then put and carried. Upon putting the clause relative to the Registiy of Freeholders, Lord FARNHAM said, that the provisions of the Act upon this subject were unconstitutional. He should propose that the Assistant Barrister should be associated with the Magistrates in the performance of that duty, so that they might be a check on each other. The clause was then agreed to. On the clause appointing the Assistant Barrister to superintend the business of registration, The LORD CHANCELLOR said—l ought to apologise to your Lordships for expressing any opi nion on a subject in which a local knowledge of Ire land is necessary to form a correct opinion. It is the object of his Majesty's Government, and we have with great attention directed our attention to the subject, in the endeavour to obtain the best pos sible tribunal to decide the question of right in the ease of every freeholder in his claim of the elective franchise. The result of that consideration and in quiry was, that it would be extremely injurious to the lights and interests of the freeholders of Ireland, to vest the power of decision in the local Magi strates; and I appeal to those Noble Lords who are acquainted with Ireland, whether we did not come to a correct dec:sion.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—lt then occurred to us that the Assistant Barrister was the best qualified to fill the office of Judge for this pur pose; and I think that every Noble Friend who is acquainted with Ireland will concur with me in my approbation of the fair, and impartial, and consi derate manner in which those who are appointed to these situations do, to the satisfaction of the coun try, perform the important functions entrusted to them. The Noble Lord remarks that they are paid by the Crown, and that they are to be paid an addi tional sum for the duties they are to be called upon to perform by this Act. Now I think he states that point incorrectly to your Lordships. With respect to the first registration, there can be no doubt that it will be a great additional burthen and duty thrown on the Assistant Barristers, and it was reasonable that when a new burthen was so added, the new duty should receive adequate remuneration. But there is no provision for any pecuniary remuneration to the Assistant Barrister for the future, and there fore I think the observations of the Noble Lord on this point are not entitled to much weight. It is provided by the Bill, that these Assistant-Barristers and Judges shall take an oath to be faithful in the. discharge of their duty. When they will have to inquire into the freeholds of several hundreds of in dividuals, is it reasonable to suppose that they can attain any object, even if they were disposed to do so, by departing from the correct line of their duty ? Besides, the registration is not done with a view to any particular election, but to operate prospectively for eight years. As to the right of appeal reserved to parties whose claims are rejected, to the Judges of Assize, the Noble Lord objects to it, because, he says, it cannot be carried there under 3/. or 4/. I have made inquiries as to this point ; and I find the result of my information from professional persons is, that the appeal will entail a very trifling expense. The freeholders nearly all attend at the Assizes, and their personal expenses would therefore be little, and beyond them little more is necessary. The whole proceeding is of a summary nature. I was told as the result of my inquiry, that an appeal might be conducted at an expense nor exceeding ten shil lings. The Noble Lord objects to the appeal being only in the cases of rejected freeholds. Suppose that the Assistant Barrister should establish some freeholds improperly, and put them on the register; is this binding ? When the election comes, the can didate may object to the decision of the Assistant Barrister, which is not final. If it were allowed to appeal against the votes admitted, it would give rise to contests of the most troublesome character. I think, therefore, my Lords, there is no question as to the propriety of the course that has been pursued, and that no better mode of conducting the inquiry could have been adopted; nor do I believe that any better plan could have been suggested to give effect to this measure.—(Cheers.) The Marquis of LONDONDERRY agreed with what had been said by other Noble Lords, that the duties performed by the Assistant Barristers were discharged in a most impartial and effective manner; but there were particular situations or localities where the came Assistant-Barristers always went to the same county. This was particularly his own case he might say, or rather that he was speaking of a very near relative of his own, an individual who had been the representative of a county in Ireland, but was not so now, though it had happened that his brother was appointed Assistant-Barrister of that county. No doubt he was an honourable man, but he thought that his going constantly into that county, and registering the freeholders, was not strictly pro per; and he must view with suspicion any individual so connected, lest he might be influenced by some degree of partiality. He did concur in what the Noble Lord had said as to the expellee of appeals. Lord PLUNKETT—The Assistant-B-rristers have been chosen, there can be no doubt, with pecu lair propriety, and the result is, that individuals fill that office to whom no objections can be urged as to their general conduct in the discharge of their duties. The Noble Duke stated that the Assistant-Barrister is removable at the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant, and lie may be sent from one county to another ; and the Noble Duke declared, that he had taken care that such transfers should be made that no local pre judices should operate. With respect to the joint aid of the County Magistrates, the great objec tion is, that the Assistant-Barristers were adopted to provide against the very evil which the Noble Lord proposes to reintroduce ; for it was for this purpose the Assistant Barrister was chosen, and the Magistrates excluded. • Besides the Magistrate must be local in his jurisdic tion ; he must act in the county ; and if they did, they could not go on with the inquiry ; for they would know nothing useful to it, as they would not be in habits of intimacy with the gentlemen residing there, and would not be able to perform the func tions entrusted to them. lam glad I can put the Noble Lord right as to this point ; lie did not hear the explanation of the Noble Duke, and I am quite sure, that finding this power left in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, he will be satisfied that the As sistant Barristers will discharge this duty with the same degree of impartiality and justice as in all other causes. Lord FARNHAM said that a professional gentle- man might give a good opinion as to the law of the case, but he thought that the opinion of a tavern keeper would be a better opinion as to the probable expense of an appeal. It would be no extravagant supposition to place the law expenses alone at ten shillings; but when the man had to travel forty or fifty miles to the Assize town with his witnesses, if they could avoid incurring a much greater ex panse, they must be the most economical people in the world. The Noble and Learned Lord had said, that the decision of the Assistant Barrister was not final, and that if a freeholder was not admitted, that error would be corrected at the next following elec tion. That he denied—in the first place, the Noble and Learned Lord said it was to be corrected before a Committee of the House of Commons, whete the same process would- be gone through. He would leave it to those Noble Lords who, before they were Peers, had the misfortune to go before a Committee of that House, whether by the present law of Ireland the Sheriff had any power of inquiry into the validity of a freeholder, or only into the form ? By the Act of Parliament, the Sheriff had the power of putting certain oaths to free holders; but speaking from recollection, he would say, that the only means the Sheriff had of investi gating the validity of the freehold was the oath of the freeholder himself. By the Act, certain queries were prescribed. As to the payment of the as sesssors, he had prepared a clause for that purpose ; for he took it as a general principle that services done for the Crown should be done for a fixed sum, and not left at the discretion of the Crown. He had intended to move fourteen or fifteen amend ments ; but to save trouble, he did not feel disposed to press them. Perhaps he had better not have told their Lordships so. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY remarked that the charge could not be vested in the County Magistrates, but in the Assistant Barristers. If any doubt would arise, the freeholder might appeal to the Judge of Assize. There could be no apprehen sion of unfair decision. Lord FARNHAM said, that all these arguments proceeded on confidence, and not on principle. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, the elec tion law of Ireland was analogous to that of Eng land. He did not give a positive opinion on the subject, and therefore he refrained from giving an express contradiction to the Noble Lord. Lord PLUNKETT rose to give what he trusted would be a satisfactory explanation of the election law of Ireland, which differed hardly at all from that of England. He had not had the advantage of that experience which the Noble Lord had said he had dearly bought, and which was the more likely to make a deep impression on him. He spoke too, like the Noble Lord, merely on recollection. The case in Ireland was this—that the Sheriff should appoint a certain number of Assessors, who sat in different booths, and by the Act of Parliament were limited to put seven questions only to the free holders.— Beyond that the Assessor had no power to go; but the Sheriff himself could institute an in quiry into the entire validity of the vote, and hear evidence on the question. If the Assistant-Bar rister rejected a just claim, the vote might yet be offered at the election to the Sheriff, who might de cide it; or in the House of Commons, before a Committee. Therefore the Bill was right in each respect. The amendment was negatived, and the clause agreed to. On the clause respecting the appeal from the Assistant Barrister to the Judge of Assize, Lord FARNHAM intended to move an Amend ment, which he was certain would have been ad mitted, but that he believed there was a determina tion to carry the Bill without permitting any Amend ments to be made in it. It was, that when the ap peal was allowed, the freeholder should have the're gistry dated back to the same time as if it had been originally admitted. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that would be the case of course, at present. • The clause was agreed to. On a clause relative to the Oaths to be taken, The Earl of hIOUN TCASHEL hoped the Covenanters of the North of Ireland would be allowed merely to give their affirmations, instead of taking their oaths. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, the Cove nanters did not refuse to take oaths in our Courts of Law. All they asked was the liberty of holding up their hands. On the clause stating the amount of the qualifi cation, Lord FARNHAM wished to know whether this was to be understood as the old currency of Ireland, or the present currency of the United Kingdom ? The LORD CLIANCE.LLOR said, it was, of course, the currency passing by law when the Act would commence. The clause was agreed to. The rest of the clauses were then agreed to, without observation or amendment. The House then resumed, the Report was received, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow (this day.) Their Lordships then adjourned at a quarter before Eleven o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(LAST NIGHT.) Mr. Johnson presented certain Papers from the Chief Secretary of Ireland, which had been ordered by the House. Mr. Danvers presented, from the East India House, certain Returns of sales of Raw Silk, which had been ordered by the House. SILK TRADE. Mr. FITZGERALD hoped that the Hon. Mem ber, whose motion for an inquiry into the Silk Trade stood for to-morrow night, would feel no ob jection to let it stand for Monday, as it was the in tention of the Ministry that he should then state the, plan which it was intended to recommend to Par liament. Mr. FYLER had no objection, providing that it should not be further postponed. It was then fixed for Monday. Mr. DICKINSON. presented a petition from the Silk-wearers of the counties of Somerset, Dorset, and Wiltshire, praying that their present distressed situation might be considered. Sir T. LETHBRIDGE hoped that the measures of Government would not admit of any delay. Mr. DAWSON moved for certain returns rela tive to the revenue of the Post-office. Mr. IL GRATTAN presented three petitions from different parishes in Leland, against the clause in the Bill for suppression of monastic institutions. Mr. ROBINSON presented a petition from the silk throwsters of London and its vicinity. The petitioners stated that they had expended large sums in mills and machinery, but were unable to compete with the foreign throwster, and unless the House afforded them some protection, their trade must go into complete decay.—Ordered to be printed. Lord CLEMENTS begged to ask, if it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to make any addition to the salaries of.,the Assistant Barristers in Ireland ? Lord L. GOWER replied that lie could not give a distinct answer to the question at present, but he informed the Noble Lord, that the whole subject of the duties and office of Assistant Barristers was at present under consideration. Mr, GRATTAN rose to present the petition, of which he had given notice, from the Irish Roman Catholic Bishops, on the subject of education. The petitioners did not pray that sums of money might be granted to them for the purpose of promoting the education of the people, but that Parliament would be pleased to adopt a system of national education calculated to benefit the community, without inter fering with their religious opinions. The petitioners expressed their willingness to cooperate in the pro motion of any such system. General GASCOYNE objected to the petition being received the very title of the petition showed that it was inadmissible. As far as he understood his Hon. Friend, the petition was from persons de nominating themselves Irish Roman Catholic Bi shops, and prayed for an application of public money. Since the Act of 1782, we did not recognise such offices as those of Roman Catholic Bishops, and a money petition could not be presented ►cithout the consent of the Crown. Mr. S. RICE said, if the Hon. and Gallant Member had heard the petition read, he must have perceived that his remarks were totally inapplicable to it. The petitioners did not petition the House now for the first time, neither had they assumed the character, in which they appeared, for the first time. He and his Hon. Friend had frequently been honoured with the petitions of these individuals, styling them selves, not the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland, which, he admitted, would be improper, but styling themselves (and to this title they had as good a right as the Hon. and Gallant Member possessed to his military rank) Bishops, professing the • Roman Ca tholic religion, andlit d esiding in Ireland. • Mr. G: . BANKES asked the Solicitor-General for Ireland whether the Act of 1782 was in force ? If it were, he maintained this petition could not be received. Mr. TRANT was disposed to watch such pro ceedings as the present narrmily. If the Solicitor- General for Ireland did not succeed in showing that the objections to the petition were unfounded, he would move that the petition be not received. After an observation from Mr. S. RICE, General GASCOYNE confessed his objection to the designation of themselves given by the peti tioners continued unabated. He should have been glad to have heard something more concluive as to the effect of the act of 1793 on that of 1782, from the law officers of the crown. Mr.DOHERTY declined giving any opinion on a question which, he hoped, before this day week would be so satisfactorily settled by the great mea sure now in progress through Parliament. Mr. W, WYNN cited the case of the Bishop of Spalatro, who had become a convert to the Pro testant faith, and obtained an English deanery, re taining still the title of Bishop, by which he was re cognized officially and publicly. ;Mr. MAURICE FITZGERALD could not suffer himself to believe there had been the slightest intention to encroach or entrench on the dignity of the Established Church, or its privileges, by the petitioners in this instance. The rejection of their petition would not fail to be treated as an insult. Mr. PEEL informed the House there was a pre cedent for the permission of the House to the peti tioners to assume the title of Bishops in Ireland upon the Lords' Journals, in a late case. in point of fact that we acknowledged Roman Catholic Prelates to be Bishops was clear from one of the Thirty.nine Ar ticles, which expressly recognised the Pope as Bishop of Rome. Mr. TRANT objected to the epithet or descrip tion adopted by the petitioners, as an encroachment on the privilege of English bishops. The petition was read, and ordered to be printed. Mr. PALMER presented a petition from the arch deaconry of Berkshire, signed by forty-three clergy men, praying that no further grant of the public money should be made to that seminary for the pro pagation and encouragement of the Romish persua- Sion, called Maynooth-college, near Dublin. Mr. H. FANE postponed his motion, which stood for to-morrow, relative to the election of bur gesses to serve in Parliament for the borough of East Retford. Mr. G. LAMB took that opportunity of acquaint lug the House, he had a petition to present on this subject from the bailiff and freemen of East Retford, which he should not present until the motion of the Hon. Member was about to be submitted to the House. Mr. A. BARING postponed until to-morrow his motion relative to Members of Parliament vacating their seats who had accepted offices in India. Mr. TENNYSON gave notice that he should on Tuesday next move that a select committee should be appointed to inquire into the state of the Orphan Fund, its annual amount, and application. LAW OF PATENT INVENTIONS. Mr. LENNARD rose to move for a Committee to inquire into the present state of the law and prac tice of granting patents for inventions. He had no intention of impugning the principle on which the law in regard to patents was founded, nor of en croaching on the prerogative of the King to grant them. The prerogative in that respect was as old as the Constitution; it was clear that at Common Law the Crown had the power of granting to the inventor of any new and useful manufacture or art the exclusive right of using or vending it for a rea sonable time. Such a grant was no violation of the rule laid down by Lord Coke, that no one is to be restrained of any freedom or liberty he had before, or hindered in his lawful calling; such a grant, so far from being injurious to the public, was, on the contrary, beneficial to it, by tending to encourage useful discoveries. But this power having been greatly abused, particularly in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James, having been made the means sometimes of enriching a favourite at the ex pence of the public, sometimes of raising a revenue for the Prince, having (in the words of Queen Eli zabeth, when she revoked some monopolies which had been complained of by Parliament) " been re peatedly turned to the hurt of the people," it was at length found necessary to define and limit it by statute, and to reduce it within its ancient and con stitutional limits, which was done by the well-known Statute of Monopolies, passed in the 21st James I. That statute suppressed all monopolies generally; but the sixth clause in it authorised the Crown to grant letters-patent, or grants of pri vilege for 14 years or under, of the sole working or making of any new manufacture within the realm to the true and first inventor of such manu facture. It was upon that clause that the right new exercised by the Crown, of granting those letters, which confer upon an inventor the right to the ex clusive benefit of his own invention for 14 years was wholly founded. Whenever that power was exer cised, the privilege or protection thus granted was the result of what might be called a compromise between the Crown, or rather, he should say, the public on the one hand, and the inventor on the other. That clause, which did no more than de clare that it should be in the power of the Crown to make such grants if it should think fit, left it to the Crown to prescribe those terms on which it would make the grant. Accordingly, in the reign of Queen Anne, a condition was introduced into the patent, which had always since been insisted on, that the inventor should, within a certain time, gene. rally within one or two, sometimes six, months after the grant of the patent, enrol in the Court of Chan cery, such a deseription of his invention, that the public might, at the expiration of the patent, have the use of it in as cheap and beneficial a manner as the patentee himself used it. By obtaining that statement the public derived a benefit, and an equivalent in return for the benefit the patentee derived from his limited monopoly. In looking at the limited and peculiar privilege granted by letters patent, Which he had spoken of as a monopoly, they must not confound it with the common notion of a monopoly, which it was not, being merely a bar gain between the inventor and the public : the pub lic acquired something which it had not before, or acquired it in a better form, or at a cheaper rate.— And it was manifest that it was equally just, as it was politic, that those who had employed their time and spent- their money in the production -of some new thing, which was to be useful to the community, ought to be rewarded;—that he who informed the public of a new method of increasing their wealth or their comforts, should obtain a com pensation or recompense for his labours and inge nuity. The best and most appropriate method of doing this seemed to be that which was marked out by the statute,—namely, the giving an inventor a limited m onopo l y i n hi s own manu f acture; for, in proportion as his invention was valuable to society, so would the amount of his profits increase. He considered, therefore, that the principle was a sound one on which our patent laws- were founded, and which were intended, on the one hand, to stimulate industry and ingenuity by securing to the inventors reward proportionate to the value of their inven tions, and, on the other, to secure io the public the perfect knowledge of such useful inventions or dis Coveries as might be made. His object was to make the law efficient for these purposes, which it was not at present. He should not say any thing in regard to the expense of taking out a patent: he had heard i spoken of as a grievance, but he was not prepared to s a y that the law required any alteration in that respect. It was his own opinion at present, and he knew itwas the opinion of many persons who had great expe rience in that part of our laws, that it was not de sirable to faciliate over-much the obtaining of pa tents by any reduction of expence; but what he did contend for was, that when a patent was ob mined, it should be perfectly effectual for its pose—namely, the security of this limited monopoly to the inventor, and of so perfect a knowledge of the invention to the public, that every one might use it when the term of the patent was expired. Such being the case, he would proceed to the considera tion of those parts of the law which he thought the most important to bring under the attention of the [louse, and in which he thought it possible some improvement, on mature deliberation, might be made. The patent, as he said, was granted on con ditition that the invention should, in the specifica tion, be accurately and completely de cribed—that it should describe the best and properest materials, and that the machine, or thing, or substance dis covered, should be accurately and completely de scribed. He was aware of the necessity of insisting on that ; it was part of the bargain, and fairly made, but the different interpretations that had been put on the law, the doubt what the law was, the different and the fluctuating opinions of Judges as to the application and best mode of construing the law, had made the property under letters-patent very insecure ; and had tended manifestly to discourage inventors, who, see ing others lose the benefit of their labours, were deterred from bringing forward their own in ventions. It was a sort of proverb among in ventors, that he who took out a patent took out a law-suit with it ; and the issue of a law-suit in support of a patent was so exceedingly once, ruin, that the patent.right was said to be of comparatively little value, till confirmed by the verdict of a Jury; so that where there was any probability of a dis covery being kept private without a patent, as in chymical discoveries, the secret was thought of far more value than a patent. In mechanical inven tions, the machinery would for the most part betray the secret ; but in chymical invention , , where the secret could be better concealed, it had been said that no man in his senses would think of disclosing his secret for such an imperfect protection as a patent gave him. The consequence of this was, that many a valuable discovery died with the inventor, and was lost to the public, or was locked up, and formed a perpetual monopoly in the hands of his represema tiles. The principal cause of the insecurity of • the patent consisted in the difficulty, not to say the im possibility often, of framing a specification which should not be liable to any of the manifold and often technical and formal objections which were allowed to prevail against them in courts of law. He would not weary the House with attempting to enumerate the manifold imperfections in specifications, which had been held to be fatal to the right of the paten. tee. It was sufficient that it was notorious that the drawing a specification was a matter of the greatest possible nicety, and that most of the patents which on judicial trial had been lost, had been so from mis takes in the framing of that document. The history of the courts of law afforded, perhaps, no one head of law about which there had been so much difference of opinion amongst the judges. He was not contend• ing that the patentee should not be obliged to give a complete and accurate description of his invention, far from it ; he saw the perfect justice and the necessity • of this ; but when a man had made a discovery, and was willing to come forward, and bona fide make the discovery known, which was part of the condition • of the grant, he had a right to ask, when he gave the description of that discovery, " Are you satisfied with it ?" " Is it complete ?" " Can you work by it ?" and then, unless he had wilfully concealed some part of the process by 'which the invention could be better or cheaper made, he ought to be secure of that protection which was to him the beneficial part of the bargain which he had entered into with the public; and not, after laying out vast sums of money, be liable to have to muintain his right before two or three successive Juries, and ulti mately, perhaps, after a balanced opinion of two Juries and the Court, lose the benefit of his inven tion on some technical point, which might have been foreseen, or which, perhaps, was really of no im portance. He thought it would be found that some mode of ensuring the validity of the patent, when the specification was complete, or, if incomplete, of making the patentee acquainted with the fact, and of allowing him before it was enrolled to make it complete, might fairly be required. The history of the cases showed that some of the most meritorious scientific men, who had devoted their time and Oleic fortune to the perfection of inventions—to whom it was that we owed the unparalleled extension of our commerce, the increase of our manufactures, and the improvements in agriculture, those resources of that . extraordinary prosperity and power to which this country had arrived—had, for some technical in accuracy in the specification, nearly risked the loss of their property. He need only refer to the case of Bolton and 'Watt, whose patent was all but lost, and that from some technical error in the description—such as a description of a method rather than a thing. It was a fast well known that these eminent persons expended between 30,0001. and 40,0001. in the defence of their patents, which never would have been infringed if there had been persons authorised and competent to examine the specification on its enrolment, and to have said, " You Lave taken a patent for a principle rather than a thing, or for a whole machine, when yours is only an improvement of a part." If that power existed, the public would be as well and better served than at present, and inventors would be saved all the cost and the uncertainty as to their invention and property. Whether that might be done by a commission composed of scientific men and lawyers, or whether it might be found impracticable, he knew not; but he thought the state of the law, and more particularly the state of opinion which existed among scientific men, were at least good grounds for inquiry and consideration, and he asked for nothing more. There were other points on which he might say a few words, one of which was the shortness of the time allowed for the specification. The history of nearly all great inventions showed, that the first sketch of the machine, or process, was cumbrous and complex; the operation of time was to simplify and perfect it. A man made a discovery, he was is hourly danger of being forstalled, or at least of losing his right to 9btaiti a patent for it; for any publica tion of his secret, in any' way, before the patent was rendered safe by passing the Great Seal, rendered his right to a patent void, whether that publication was made maliciously or accidentally, by a friend to whom he might have communicated his invention, or by a servant, whom he might have employed to assist him in the experiments necessary to-perfect it; and such caution on that account was thought necessary, that Lord Eldon once declared from the Bench, if he. were maturing an invention, and so liciting a patent, he would not intrust his . own brother with the secret Until his patent was sealed. The consequence of this was, that the moment the ieda orsome discovery had occurred to a mart, he was tempted to endeavour to secure it by a patent, which he immediately applied for, and reobably ob tained ; but he was obliged to specify, often within a time that was insufficient' for the due perfection of his invention, and the result was, he specified for an imperfect machine. The machine was improved, and he was from time to time compelled to take out a fresh patent for every successive improvement, and at the same cost. It in fact often happened, that an inventor had only the alternative of incurring the expenseof taking out several patents for one inven tion, or of waiting before he took out his patent t ill he had completed his. invention, at the hazard of los ing, through the carelessness or treachery of his friends, or servants,, his right, to a patent at all.