The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-05-10 00:00:00

effeet a most

!ke IP°4e of e.ise4::°,4l

len?basql

reellsesent liire objedis tart in Imbed w Weir
seriedwrodeng vow cone seeded en to a highly injurious esient,
cwt be wail eel the Beene, ens set the seissiesturieg of votes
siesiellspost Woe set feeds pet isle lessor so se
to pay 1.1 is RI thatASl, bare i boionghe ?
It wan Migod Ant litat present me woo Minded futo
nupo the evidence
of these who were aides be well oupeednted with the state of Ire-
land' cwt what was Bly. Blake's Oen of the measure? He was
tine to whose authority he &ought ono attention would be paid,
and yet what was hut opinion ? It sem, that it the present mea-
sure were enacted without the aenompanintent of emancipation. it
would be received with abhorrence and lie would ask,
was i: not in human nature to set gettatilidiZent poliiical privi,
leges, arid was it possible that the Irish posentry could feel other-
wise than proud of the privilege of voting fete a Member of Par-
liament ?
Mr. DAWSON would avail himself of that opportunity of
undressing his dissent from the principle of the Bill. It was a !
re. he thought, of the utmost importance—next in importance
Fps to the Catholic Qu-stion itself. The Bill then before the '
oust had been brought in uoder very inauspicious circumstances,
appearing, as it confessedly did, to have been brought in for the
purpose of aiding obje:ts of the Roman Catholics. The same
was true of the Bill for making a provision for the Roman
Catholic Clergy. These three great measures, separated, as
they ought to be, were precipitately blended, were so connected.
that they must either stand or fall together. The course that
had been taken placed him and other Members in such a
situation as that they n.ust vote against this measure, of which,
In principle, they approve, lest they should, by agreeing to it,
be wondered as giving an indirect support to that of which
they were most strenuous opposers—hs meant the Catholic question,
or, on theother hand, by acting on the abstract principle, which eta
hold, vote for the Bill, and so yield acquiescence to the Cat
claims. For his part, he preferred voting against the present Rill,
rather than even by implication give any anent to the measure of
I Emancipation, as it was called. Yet he confessed that he was
lest decidedly opposed to the system of freeholds as it existed in
Ireland. As to the disqualification proposed, he would view it
without reference to any calculation of the number of Protestant
or of Catholic Members who might be remained, but he would
consider it as an Irish Member of Parliament and as an Irish
landlord. He thought that by mixing up this Bill with the
Catholic Question, it lost much of the support which it might
otherwise have had, and accordingly the Honourable mover was
thrown tot assistance into the hands of those whose propositions on
this subject he ought well to consider, and see how far they could
be made to accord with his objects. The landlords would hail this
measure as one of the highest value, while the House was
told that the tenants would receive it with indignation and abhor-
rence. How did that appear ? Were there any petitions against
it ? Did any remonstrances against it reach Parliament? Nut
one. To all the inquiries which he had made in Ireland, he re-
ceived not one adverse c er.munication. He applied to several
gentlemen well acquainted with the people, and requested them to
make inquiries, yet they were able to discover no feeling ot hos-
ility ; and even in the Protestant county of Derry, the lower
el:Asses were touched on a point where they felt most sensitive—the
probability of this measure's assisting to fulfil the expectations of
the Roman Catholics ; still no opposition to it was excited. The
people felt, and justly, that they were more degraded by the pos.
session of a privilege which they were compelled to prostitute at
the desire of their landlords, than they could possibly by the de-
privation of it. He would be for raising the qualification to 201.
hich he thought would ler only sufficient to prevent the system of
fraud and perjury which now so evidently prevailed, and lie hoped
that, ultimately, there would be introduced in Ireland a respecta-
ble and substantial yeomanry to stand between the higher and the
lower classes. Upon every view of the subject which he could take,
he would have been much better pleased to have been called on to
vote respecting this measure without reference to any other.
Lord E BR INGTON. in supportiong this Bill, considered that
' he was assisting to confer a great boon upon Ireland ; fur he was
persuaded that the system of making forty-shilling freeholders had
been used as a great instrument of tyranny and oppression. and
though n friend to Reform, he would cordially support this measure
as a means of conciliating the opposers of Catholic Emanci-
pation.
Lord CORRY thought that although this would be by no
means • sufficient security in the want of concessions being made
to the Roman Catholics, vet he would admit that it might be sonic
mitigation of the evil. A sufficient security it could never be can-
sitlered, for the one measure would come into immediate operation,
whereas the other might not produce its effects for several years, as
many of the leases from which votes were at present derived, might
not expire for 8 or 9 or 10 years ; It was clearly, therefore, no se.
curity.
Alr. (ARCS WILSON briefly supported the motion.
Mr. HUM E considered the Bill to interfere with a most import.
aat privilege. It was a subject on which they should seek for still
further Information, and one too on which they should deliberate
calmly and cautiously. Ile could not but think that if it were poor.
Bible for any thing of the sort to have such an effect, that the con.
nection sought to be established between this and the Catholic
Relief Bill wouhl do much injury to the latter. What proof
had the House that the evils stated in the Bill had their rise
in the causes to which they were ascribed ? What proof had
they that the minute subdivision of land arose from that cause?
Without having any evidence to this effect, the Honourable Mem-
ber for Louth (Mr. Foster) would go a greater length, would in-
novate still further, and destroy the franchise of the tenants in fee ;
and the Honourable Member for Clare (dr. V. Vitsgerald) would
modify part of the Billet but did not state how he would effect that
modification. If we looked to the evidence of the Catholic Bi-
shops--to that of Dr. Doyle for instance—was there one opinion ex-
pressed by him in favour of this Bill ? That was a strong reason
wt:h him why the measure should not be carried. There was rot
in the whole of the evidence taken before the Committee, a single
word in favour of the Bill, and yet most of the questions were put
in the alternative, whether they would prefer this Bill with Eman-
cipation, or the continuance of the 40'. freeho'da. without Etnan-
c.pation ? He would say, that such was not a fair way of interro.
gating witnesses on so important a subject, where it called upon
them to give, as it were,: colourable approval of a measure for the
sake of securing a benefit with which that measure was linked. al-
though they might, at the rime time, be most strongly opposed to
that particular measure, if taken by itself. If Emancipation was •
good, ought we not to give it as • boon, wahackled by any
thing which was oat all calculated to depreciate that good that
it would confer ? But what were we doing ? We were professing
to hold out conciliation to the Cohdics, when by one act we were
giving an extension of power to the lkher orders, while with the
other we were depriving two or three hundred thousand of their
poorer fellow-countrymen of their dearest and only remaining right
belonging to them—their elective franchise. Were we to be told
at this time of day, that the elective franchise was not esteemed by
the peasantry of Ireland ? %Vint said Dr. Doyle upon that sub-
ject ? Ile spoke in the highest terms of the value of this right.
It was true, indeed, his words did not appear in the evidence be-
fore the House, but his opinions were well known by what
he had written, and he (Mr. Hume) was anxious that the
House should hear what that individual hail said upon thin
subject. The Horourable Gentlemen then read an extract from
one of Dr. Doyle,. publications, in which it was observed,
that " if there were one measure more than another calculated to
eradicate the Irish from the soil of Ireland, that was, in 1114 opinion,
taking away the elective franchise of the forty-shilling freeholders.
—Take away the elective franchise from the Irish peasant, aid you
would trot only strip hint of what connected and identified him with
his country, but you at once destroyed his every claim to the cha-
racter of a freeman. Ile was now the image of a freeman, but take
away his vote and he would he the very essence of a slave.—Take
from him his freehold and you cast hill out of the Constitution."
He (31r. Hume) was not aware that it was possible in fewer words
to express a more decided opinion against the measure now before
the House. And upon evidence was the House called upon to le-
gislate ? IVe were told that the practice which prevailed in Ire.
land at the elections in consequence of the existence of the forty.
shilling voters was injurious to the peace of that country. But
what was the evidence of this ?—None whatever. His object was
to recommend inquiry into the subject, and he should, before he
sat down, move for a Committee to make the inquiries necessary.
Eyen the Honourable Member who moved this measure had stated.
the necessity of having the fullest information. flow often in the
course of the debate on the Grameound Bill was it said that the full.
at inquiry ought to be made. But what was the Cframpound Bill ?
It was to extend die elective franchise, arid not to curtail it. And
lie would ask the House whether any evil had resulted from that
Bill, or whether there was any instance where the elective franchise
bad been extended that any evil had arisen from the mea-
sure ? He would say, where any abuse was known to exist let
the House correct it. But by this Bill now before us., what
would we propose to do ? We were going to deprive, by
one slrgle net, a large mass of the people of Ireland of a
right which they had enjoyed ever sines the time of Henry VI.
Was it an act of justice? Was it fair, after all the speeches that
we bad heard, that every thing which passed in this House for the
benefit of this country ought equally to extend to Ireland ? Had
not this sentiment been stated by 3lr. Pitt himself? And yet it
was now contemplated to deprive that very Ireland of almost the
only relic of liberty which it possessed. But the evidence, he
would repeat, upon which this measure was grounded was altoge-
ther imperfect and unsatisfactory. He was informed that no such
abuses as had been stated ever did rake place, in that extended
sense which required a measure of this nature to be applied to re-
medy
_them. finless then we could prove that there were those
aim" he would contend we had no right to take away their
elective franchise. But we were told that this incavtire was highly
approved of by the people of Ireland. An Hon. Member had said
that none of the people of 'lreland had petitioned against it. Ile
(Mr. Hume) thought Inc couldl give a very good answer to.titis ar-
gument. Were not all the Catholics of Ireland tied down to the
Asso:iation ? Did they not delegate every thing to their leaders?
Am' had not the Catholic Asanciation betrayed the interesta of their
countrymen ? (Hear, hear.) Had they not entered into a coin-
F romise with this House ? In the hope of getting Catholic Eman.
cipatioo, they were silent as ,tc this sweeping disqualifying Bill.
It was in c insequenee of this resigning of the interests of their
poorer brethren, to secure to themselves the greater measure of
Emancipation, that no Petitions had been presented to the Heuer
against the present Bill. But in his view it was imn sterial as to
die principle of this measure, whether the people of Ireland did or
did not petition against it ? If there was one measure calculated
' inure than another to work good for Ireland. it WAS the extension of
the elective franchise. (Hear, hear, hear.) Ile wanted no evi-
dence of the disposition and feelings of the people of Ireland,
to actuate him with -regard to this Bill ; it was enough for him
that it was intended to take away from half a million of men
their great privilege of electing their Representatives ; and in
thus taking away the popular branch of election, leaving it to
exist between the middling and higher cleans. Ile, fur his pats,

•
ieilid not bud that booesty and good filth were at all confined
*the higher classes; on the contrary, if any were more dishonest
eid treacherous it was the higher clan, wbo, for political purpose',
bad stronger motives to operate with them them than those of an
bumbler station. Were we then to reserve the right of voting to
a few, and deprive the many of it? On such a principle he would
nevi vote; and on that ground lie regretted that the sense
of the house lied not been taken upon the first reading
of the Bill. Instead of this 11111 being useful to Ireland,
ft would be injurious, anti he, therefore, begged the Honourable
Member who moved it to rescind his motion. If he should per-
sist in it, he would but retard the progress of the greet and import-
ant nic.P.sure of Emancipation, which needed no such accompani-
ment as was thus proposed to be given it. Take off the two wings,
as they were called, and he was qaite satisfied that the important
question would be carried. All that he would add to his observa-
tion was, that every one of the complaints stated by the Honour-
able Mover of this Bill, were evils which ought to be done away.
but at the seine time let not the elective franchise be touched. lie
denied, as tar as it had come to his knowledge, that there was any
evidence to support the preamble of the Bill. He admitted, indeed,
that property ought to bear an influence in the State, thought not
at an election ; but let not the peasantry of Ireland be punished
for submitting to that influence while the same was known to be
done by the people of this country. lie hoped that the House
would pause before they took a step in every point of view most
serious, and to his mind most objectionable. He would ask the
Gentlemen around hint who supported this Bill, whether they did
so with a view to the principle of Reform or not ?—(Hear, hear,
hear.) Those cheers must allude to one of two cases. Either they
were Reformers who would lessen the Elective Franchise for the
sake of the other measure; if so lie was not a Reformer; (hear,
hear) or they were Reformers who fur the sake of principle would
forego Emancipation rather than curtail that elective right. The
best Reformers were those who acted upon principle, not those who
would act on expediency, nut those who would act on compromising
to ma. If ibis Bill he passed, lie would venture to say those who sup-
pn ted t would be without many more votes for Emancipation than
what they had now. Ile for himself would rut vote fur it. This mea-
sure was short-sighted, ill.timed, and unjust; and he would say
that the man who would rob half a million (Hear, hear!), perhaps
the proper phrase would have been to take away (but it was of little
consequence), the right of voting, was not a friend to the trite
principles of represen.ation. If there were but ten inert in Ireland
who would stand up in support of their elective franchise, he would
say no power in this House ought to take it away from thrice ten
persons, unless they could show that it would do a paramount good
to the country. To those who were decided for the treasure he
would say, to give value to the proceeding let us have time. As
the Bill was against principle, he did trust they would support
the amendment he should propose. whatever might be the ultimate
step determined upon by the House. The Hon. Member then
moved as an amendment, that a Select Committee should be ap-
pointed to inquire what frauds and abuses existed in the Elective
Franchise in Ireland ; and, if any, to ascertain what measures were
necessary to remedy them.
Mr. MARTIN (ttf Galway) had been always opposed to any
measure that hail for its object the disfranchisement of any portion
of the people. On the occasion of the Cornwall boroughs, it was
agreed that unless corruption could be brought home to a majori y
of the voters, nothing could be taken away from those boroughs;
and it was laid down as a proposition, that we were not to seek out
corruption, but it must be palpable and self- evident. It, then, he
who, after all that was said, could not, upon constitutional princi-
pies, consent to disfranchise those boroughs—if he, who was one of
the many that said, punish the individual criminals, but do not
disfranchise the whole of the borough and their descendants for
over—ought lie to consent to disfranchise the forty shilling free.
holders of Ireland ? He agreed that there was a great paucity
of evidence as to the evils arising from those voters. The infor-
mation of Irish Members was relied upon; but he would
say that Irish Members were the last that ought to be consulted.
He was himself one of the last men that ought to be listened to on
lite subject. (Hear, and much laughter.) Ile was as much as they
were, and they as much as be. with regard to this question ; and he
would say again, that we (the Irish Member) were all incredible
witnesses. (Hear, and laughter.) As the elective franchise of Ire-
land had escaped Lord Claee and the Speaker of the Irish House
of Commons, and all the other men nod adverse to Catholic
Emancipation, who had had power in that country, he should claim
from this House as much as had been granted by the enemies
of Elective Franchise and Catholic Emancipation in Ireland.
It had been admitted that the forty-shilling freeholder in Ire-
land stood exactly upon the same footing as those in England.
He asked therefore, in the name of reason, if this were so, why
should not the forty shilling freeholders in England be put upon
the same tooting as it was proposed to place the Irish voter? If we
were to deal fairly with the Irish freeholder, this proposition would
be made. If corrupt practices in Ireland were to be made the
ground for disfranchisement, similar practices ought to have that
effect in this country. But upon another ground lie was compelled
to vote for going into the Committee. Great as the evils were that
were proposed by this Bill, yet they were not so great but that he
would purchase Catholic Emancipation by agreeing to the Bill.
He looked upon it that the forty shilling freeholder had consented
to immolate their right for the sake of Catholic Emancipation ; he
we. ready, then, to act as a Priest at the sacrifice. But if the mea-
sure of Catholic Emancipation should fail, he never would support
this Bill nor any other Bill of this nature. The lion. Member the
stated an Instance of what he termed the independence of voters at
Galway. In his election for that county, when opposed by the ro.,
lative of his Hon. Colleague (Mr. Daly) it had been agreed that his'
Honourable Colleague should stand neutral, and that none of hi
tenants should beallowed to vote on either side. In spite however
of all the efforts of his Honourable Friend, there were five fellows,
tenants of his Honourable Colleague, who, vagabonds as they were,
came to the booth of the opposing candidate, and, although cau-
tioned not to vote, persisted in voting for his Hotiourehle Col-
leagues relative. Vs ell, his Noble Friend told him (Mr. Martin)
not to mind, as these five miscreants had voted thus, he would in
return bring up ten men, who should vote for him (Mr. Martin).
Accordingly ten men were brought up, and their Antes were given,
but by their doing so they kept open a booth, which it was his sish
to have closed, and the consequence was, that upwards of COO votes
were polled against him at that very booth, by its being thus kept
open. (Muth laughter.) Now, was not this an instance of the
independence of the voters of Galway ? (Laughter.) In conclusion
he begged to state that it was a very reluctant support which he
gave to the present Bill, but he was induced to do so upon the
principle that by doing .a little wrong he, was doing a great deal
of good.
Mr. DALY said, lie was very glad that he happened to be pre-
sent to hear the observations of the Hon. Gentleman who had just
sat down, because he understood that that Hon. Gentleman had
made a similar attack upon him some few days ago ; but which he
Thad not expected to heat repeated this night, nit was not a quarter
of an hour since that he had asked his lion Friend whether he
should allude to him (Mr. Daly,) and the lion. Gentleman said he ,
should not. He begged now to state, that on the occasion alluded
to, so anxious wax he to observe a strict neutrality, that he dismissed
every agent and did not ask a single friend to vote for his relative,
although he confessed he had strong feeling for his success. He
did say on that occasion, that lion), of his tenants came forward to
vote on either side, he would exert as much influence as he could
over the others to vote on the other side. He did not mean to deny
that there was no such thing as influence in Ireland on the part of ,
the landlord over his tenant; lie knew there was, and he bel eyed '
the same thing existed in England. (Hest.) He did bring I
the ten tenants forward ; but he would ask whether such conduct
called for the language of the Hon. Member, or deserved to be de-
signated and represented as unfair as possible ? (Cries of " no,
no, no.") Such at least was his impression of the lion. Mem-
ber's language, whatever might be the seeming candour with whic't
it was expressed. Now that he was up he might perhaps CSITreiS
his opinion as to the measure before the House. Ile thought as ,
long as the present system continued there would be no quiet in
Ireland ; but he was also'nf opinion that this Bill was not calm.
listed to cure the evil which existed there. Ile was of opinion we I
ought to go into a Committee, although he would fairly confess
that in his judgment other measures might have been devised
better suited to the state of Ireland. Under the chimes of the pre.
sent Bill there would be a double inducement to perjury. Ile ,
could not couple thin question at all with that of emainipation.
He considered the two Bills perfectly distinct, and he did not con. I
eeive it was a pie, or consistent argument to say. that in order to
do justice to five thousand Irishmen we should do a positive in-
justice to five hundred thousand.
Mr. MARTIN explained. lie disclaimed imputing any guilty
foreknowledge of what had taken place on the occasion of his elec-
tion to his Hon. Colleague.
Mr. DALY said he should have very improper feelings, indeed,
if he were not to feel satisfied at the expltnation of the Honourable
Gentleman.
Mr. SPRING RICE observed, that it seemed the two lion.
Gentlemen who had just addressed the House had lost sight of the
main question, and had entered into a long dialogue respecting
local transactions; but he congratulated the House at having
heard their conversation, as it was the very best illustration of the
necessity of the Bill which had been introduced by the Honour.
able Member for Staffordshire. If we were without evidence
before, we had sufficient evidence now to proceed upon. Before
he applied himself to the amendment before the House, he
wished to make a few observations on an expression which had
fallen from his lion. Friend. the Member for Aberdeen. That
Hon. Oe oleman had said that the leathers of the Catholics of
Ireland —that the men whom the Catholics had reepected, whose
talents they admired, and in whose virtues, and probity, and public
spirit, the country had confided—that these men had betrayed their
trust, and had compromind the interests of their countrymen. /le
would say, that it was not true, that the Catholics of Ireland
would not believe this statement, although it came from the lion.
Member for Aberdeen. The conduct of those men, he was sure,
WAS such as would at least place them above the possibility of so.-
picion on the part of their friends in this House. Ile could not
conceive any thing that would be more fatal than the propagation
of these base misrepresentations, by which the Catholics might
be made not only to despair of friends within the walls of PA,
Lament, hut by being the dupes of wicked and incendiary
leselers, who by propagating these insinuations' would make them
despair of their own countrymen. in whom they hail hitherto firmly
confided (Hear, hear, hear). These wicked calumnies had done
more to estrange Parliament from the Catholic cause than
could possibly haste been contempleted at the beginning of
the Sestina'. lie was surprised that the Hon. Member for Aber-
deen hard given countenance to thaw insinuations which hail been
sit basely and wickedly circulatednot basely by him, for his cipi.
Ilion was honestly and freely declared, hut by those secret enemies
' wlease attacks were AO much the more to be dreaded because secret.
His lion. Friend had said, we had no evidence on which to pro.
eeed. Now he would first of all refer the lion. Member to what
, hud just been given in the conversation of the Hon. Itlembers fee
Galwayshire, and he !cold also refer hint to the evidence which hail

been taken before a Committee of this House, and which had been
hitherto most strangely overly eked. The part to which he alluded
given last year, and occurred in the evidence of Judge Be,. 3,7;"
at Learned Judge stated that he had known the 400. freeholders oh
into the huounffli in drove" that they were AO illiterate and desjetua
of what their privilege connoted, that they knew not no what rues.% -
they were assembled, or for whom they should vote. The Judge
he remembered one bring asked for whom he would vote, answered,-
that he should vote for Lady lampton,. he having been, ir
supposed. a tenant of that lady. !he witness was e
duce a the effect of this system was not almost enough to reduce the on
counties to an oligarchy ? He replied, "Yes," and that he Pig
known an innance of one county being thrown into the hands I,
one individuate This' brought him to another argument of his
Honourable Friend. He said that, as a friend of reform, he eoolr;
not /support this measure ; now he (Mr. S. Rice) supported it bro.
cause he was a Reformer. Again, his Honourable Friend said,
he could not support it because it would reduce the tinny'
'
franchise ; he supported it because it would extend the frac
ch-se. The affect of the present Bill would be to tyke the
power away from those who possessed It only. as a moans of we
rip ion, and 'o place it into the hands of moss who would b;
ao*.e c eruption. honourable Gentlemen were quite wrong wiles
they talked of the forty shilling treeholders in Ireland as beyiag
•he least analogy to those in England. lie cared not for the law
b ing the same, wit n he found the practice so :adically different.
The lion. Gentleman then alluded to the evidence of al
essra
O'Connell, O'Connor, and il'ollace, upon the subject of the a'.
vantages to be derhed from putting an end to these fictitious free-
holds, assuring the House that he !would not have detained it by.
mentio-ing those Gentlemen's testimony, had he not heard it So
frequently said that there was no evidence to support the Bill. Ife
trurederhat they had heard would be deemed sufficient by a British
House of Commons to put an end to thto system (*misery ard
fraud. Thy had the evidence of Judge Day too, who sews
thu
in his opinion the passing of such a measure would among,/
many other aivantagem increase the influence of the resident pro.
free...mon ; nothing could be mogrreeincorrprinecc,tp;le bole dei
prieturs, and diminish that of the absentees. icould not that bei
at
a desirable object, and fully worth the sacrifice of minor consider:.
tions ? Some lion. Gentlemen had argued that the lion. Menthe,
the whole ie .
for Staffordshire ( Mr.
eieaupnomt tonehge.ftrat.iantelhiiiose
none, but leaves them in possession of the full extent of their'
rights, that
uni .ticebned•a! pareustene
Hon. Friend
would disfr snchise the present forty shilling freeholder, now
what would be the loss. Why, they had the evidence . .of Mr-
Ol'eninell, that very few of the really independent freeholders
would be disfrar.chised by fixing a ten pound suenieebetert
' and this they had from a man who went so far as even to eon!
came L'aiversal Suffrage. He would ask, therefore, shether they
w, old continue to support any but the real 40s. freeholder,? But
they might think Mr. O'Connell not an impartial wetness. Would
they not trust the evidence of Colonel Curry? liesays. that in every
respect, in his opinion, the real 411 s. freeholder will remain the
same as before ; so that, by these accounts, even if the Honourable
Member tor Staffordshire was to make his Bill operative sow. horn
ut those evil effects would follow which Honourable Gentlemen
anticipate. If, therefore, the House wished to see a fair and ho.
nest constituency in Ireland, they would give ti eir consent '
to go into the Committee ; and that it was the method to
produce that fair and holiest constituency, he would maintain;
but it' it should affect the fee simple freeholds—if it shosld be
brought in any way to injure them—he begged now to be
understood, that he would object to it altogether, tither with
Catholic Emancipation, or without it ; for ha would rathe less
Catholic Emancipation altogether, than see the old fee ample
freeholds destroyed. Indirect influence they had and would tare;
it was impossible to be altogether free from it as long as bursa
nature continued to be what it is ; but when it appeared %ply,
and became dangerous, he knew how to deal with it independent of
the remedy of a total destrnetion of the fair and honest fee-sinple
Iteehold. lie rejoiced that this Bill was accompanied by /On
measures, but great as he thought the good to be obtained 'nom
Catholic Emancipmion, still he was of opinion that this Bill has •
great good in itself, independent of any other good with whin it
might be mixed up; and he begged now unhesitatingly to deare
that even If the Catholic Bill had not been introducrn, he (Mrff.)
was so thoroughly convi iced of the good to be derived from lis
measure, that he would hare support al it aloac; for he aisb!to
see a pure constitutional body of electors supporting their ruts
against the uli4arehies which seek to rule them. The in.
:Wernher then *eluding to the unanimity now prevailing in 'raid,
and declaring that unanimity to be the surest method of carrpg
the ques.ion, and a power against which no Cabinet, united or a.
united, could contend, concluded, slier inning some eneour.as
upon the conduct of Mr. Brownlow, by imploring the H.
Member fur Staffordshire not to allow the tee staiple freeholds toe
touched; for if he did, the English ;Members were bound to p
forward and defend those tenure, as the only means by which ry
could hope to protect their own. To extimmish the fraudulent e-
nufactured votes was, lie trusted, the object of the lion. (deer.
tr. an's Bill, and he therefore gave it I is ut qualified assent.
Mr. 31•NAGHTEN objected to the Bill altogether, beau*
disfranchised those who were unable to oppose it,. and deprinete
children, yet unborn, of their constitutional rights. The au.
menu he had heard might be very good, perhaps. when appluto
the Roman Catholics, but why eistmochise the Pretsbyterians:hu
were not placed in any such situation ? What had they done ?de
had heard a good deal of driving voters like nettle, but he Ind.
like to see them attempt to drive the l'res iyterians of the nor of
Leland like swine. If they did, be thought it very probableey
would turn and rend them. lie would therefore appose
altogether, because he thought it unjust to one part of the polo-
tion, and because the taking away the right of voting treat
manner to benefit the voter was like cutting off a-man's ban to
enable him to defend his person.
Sir F. BLAKE supported the Bill, because it produced refry,
end because it would enable the people to escape from bondage
Captain O'GRADY said that he had heard with as nth
astonishment as any of the English Menthers, the stories of 'cis
driven like cattle to the hustings ; and he could assure the Hot,
that in all his knowledge of elections in Ireland, he had never
any compulsion of the kind. He thought, however. that this lilt
wouLt do away with the unsubstantial freeholds, and et shdld
therefore have his support.
Mr. DO3IINICh. BROWSE supported the Bill, bent': it
would put an end to that system of traud and perjury which,sd
hitherto prevailed in elections.
Colonel I'IIENCEI agreed with the Honourable 31embeffor
Limerick (Mr. Spring Rice), that this Bill deserved suppor on
its own merits, independent of its connection with any oner
measure,. _ _

Lord 31 [ETON had voted, and would still vote for the /HE
rot because it was good in itself, but because it was the areompau-
ment of that other great measure, for which he was so analog: to
procure the consentlof the House. The advantages of this Bill lad
been in truth very much exaggerated by the Hon. Member tct
Limerick ; fur there was no question that those who now diridtd
their properties to make votes at forty shilling'', would be equally
well able to do the same at an amount of ten pounds. He *wild
vote for the measurerhowever. because he hoped it would in some
measure decrease the influence of the Oligarchy of Ireland at
last, and lay the foundation of a sound constitutional body of
constituents. lie was as much prompted to that support, how.
ever, by the °pp siiion of sonic Gentlemen opposite, as by any ar-
gument he had heard, and by none more than the Honourable
Member for Ortord, (Mr. MeNaghten), who, when he talked
of the purity of the Presbyterian voters, and the indepen-
dence of the freeholders, presented in himself a convincing moot
of that independence, and of there being st least one holy place in
Ireland free from the abominations of election corruptions, and, as
he had expressed it. so little likely to be driven like swine, that
they would turn and rend the driver. That Honourable Gentle-
man had once, he believed, represented the county of Antrim in
that Howie, but when the present head and then heir to an alas-
tennis family found it convenient to succeed him, that Hamm-able
Gentleman had quietly retreated to a entail borough in the Lad of
England. He wished the Honourable Gentleman joy of the
change, and of the purity of those lie had represented, but this was
the very kind of representation he (Lord Milton) wished to destroy
_-that kind of tystem which placed the county under the control
of one or two men of wealth, and enabled Gentlemen to pass
oith a bond from Antrim to Ortord. There were various means
which might, lie thought, be proposed to .emedy this nil be-
Si le those in the Bill. (Inc was, that the freeholder should bt ttt
possession of the freehold for a certain number of years: the other.
that i: should be registered in lan own name, or that of sonic mere.
ter of his family. fir had indeed acme intention of praposing in
the Committee a measure to do away with registry altogether, if
they could get any means of ascertaining the sabstanuality of
the vote! ; but ho hail not yet made up his mind. soil would
content himself for the present by giving his vote tor the Bill going
into a (lominittee.

Mr. hi•NAGIITEN rose to say, in explanation, that hr had
not stated the freeholders to be in general independent, but that s
part of them were not, in his opinion, to be driven as had been re-
prraenteel, and he trusted the Member for a Borough was, in that.
'louse, as fully entitled to give his opinion as the Representative et
a ('aunty. As for what the Noble Lord had said of oligarchy and
men-governing counties, did the Noble Lord recollect his—
( Here the lion. Mettil”r was assailed with such a shout of (ham
chair, spoke, spoke," that his voice was drowne,l in the clamour,
and he was compelled, atter some violent gesticulations. to sit down.)
The SPEAKER unformed the lion. Gentleman that he wss
certainly out of order.
Mr. hi•NAGIITEN then said, and he hoped that wis in nple•
nation, that he had ceased to be a Member for Antrim in 1814. sod
that the arrangement connected with his retirement was not for the
urpose stated by the Noble Lord, who shouted have known facts
better before he attempted to argue upon them. The alteration sas
of consequence only to himself, and not at all connected with the
Mr. W. BECHER said, that whatever obi.vtions might be to
the measure in theory, the practical result evoal.l b: to benefit Ire-
land.

The cries of " Question" were here very general.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House divided—
For the amendment . • - 53
Against it - . .
Majority in favour of the Committee 11

Mr. LA MIITON: during our absence froni the Gallery Ore
understood) intimated hi■ intention of opposing the Roman
Bill with the accompaniment of this measure of dam.
chiciment.

Mr. lionnousr. besought his Ilan. Friend to sconaiderhis
conclusions—to •iew the two nicasures separately, and it he re-
garded the measure of emancipation. e• it r.o doubt was one of suo-
siantial and essential justice, to give it his support, independent et
the present Bill, front which he may happen to dissent.

ZiAte 3131,1ti011 reSO.

DRURY-L.4NR %VI EA7RE.

TWA E;cnirig:+i!EWOA\,Mai 11).;;111Le JKrforwed
onn FRCINCIIII C 7.
fie Mr. Mr. Horn; Adolph, Mr.-T. Cooke; Ilernhard, Mr. Bedf..rd :
Hermit. hr. sheriff; Kilian, Mr. litzwilliam. Linda. Miss kirad-
d.m: hose. Wes rovey.
After %Mei, ACON lIACqAV.
The C0.:11,b, Mr. A(411'01,1 ; Ahem Homan. Mr. Horn; Zabciac, Mr
llurfey. Zullrua. Min Craddora.