The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-26 00:00:00

-0 r had received
irefd
ofl.i last
t Session.itstth-
leallrtaw from t
The
preser,le
present
illelprri roe.
seeded on the principle of that law, and was eslcu-
.-
fated td render the Roman Catholics of Galway -
capable.l4iieim with t iofeee,rgi corporatesingthe electiveright. To a principle
s franchise,anedi
pr
ee . ;
'2''7ldearly and decidedly just in itself, and resulting
so nattirll4* from the measure of last Session, be
had thought ii! iMpOssible that the Notsle Duke ,
should be opposed, aad he had thought it almost
etyally impossible that it :should be opposed by
•: others. I!s,- lad supported that great measure, for ,
the success of trnisb he had. been contending during
• the greater part of his political life, and for which.:
le hid surrendered every thisig that public men-.
most desired. There were others who Were el- :.
posed (he had• no doubt on conscientious grounds) '..
to that measure ; but it being
that on tahcicitouenvt;nortilietyle'c'toluAldcnt6 the osi,c:ieliCtirrarnai etnsddOsfialyae i'
elusion,remote
‘viiic
remain in a state
oof partial disqualificationnadiloeuxksl:'
He could not conceive tipon what ground the Noble ' • ?
-'•
'the could
rds en ottNi'ollalli::''toltlii:dvetachs:eviPenrsNtetescoislhdi! nileegedoDlagi siesttinkdoecticr:atlispl tylpes:::°‘ bla.etpursuing.n)iovll:
. Duke, who had supported the Relief Bill, proposed ..
such an alteration in the present measure, the effect - '
of which was—
" ...-•-- to keep the word of promise to the ear, _
" Vat break it to the sense." .'
The Noble Duke referred to the charter of the cor-
poration ~
of Galway, and argued from it that the
right of election should be restricted to the freemen!`;
as now appointed; that the government of the hos.: ..
rough was vested in certain officers and burgesses;
and further, that the present Bill would overthrow s.'
the corporation. Where was this charter'? /4 s.
' had not been produced. But putting aside that is:,
matter, the convitution of the borough unit Cots-
poration did not rest in the words of the Charter ' '
only, but also upon usage and prescription, lie i
contended that to pass the Bill in its present shape, .!1
would not be to overturn the rights of the Ctlq.)°- '
ration, but that if the Noble Duke's propositiots wit's' 1
• adopted, its effect would be to destroy those ri.gilt.
which the people of Galway had enjoyed, first by - '
• prescription, and next by charter, up to the passing ;i:,`
•of the Bill of Geo. I. Instead of having a ten- • i
dency to destroy the Charter, this Bill was in con- ;
formity with it, and with long usage and prescrip- 1
• tioo. The Noble Earl went into a statement of the ...,
political history of the borough, for the purpose of • i /
• showing that previously to 1717 the right of ad- f ,
mission into the Corporation was possessed by the , - '
resident inhabitants generally. From the restrict=
tions imposed by the 4th Geo. 1., CatYoolies and s '
Protestants (but especially the former) wereldll'eved •
by the Act of last session. The 4th Geo. I. getse• to.:'
persons who had professed the Protestant religion kr :.
. seven years not the right of admission to the CorpO --'
ratien (for that they possessed before), but additional -,
facilities fur obtaining the enjoyment of the privi- :'
leges conferred by it. In 1727, by an Act of the Irish .',
Parliament, Catholics were deprived of the facilities 2's
which they po,sessed of being admitted into the r
guilds. As the matter stood at present, the rights ..
both of Protestants and Catholics would he de-
stroyed by the Noble Duke's clause. He denied
that this was a Bill to violate the privileges of the .i.
corporation ; it was a measure of restoration, not of •
innovation—its object being to restore rights which
had fallen into disuse. The Corporation had not
petitioned against the Bill: seven petitions had
been presented against it ; there were very few sig-
natures attached to them, and in four the name- of
the same individual, Mr. James Daly, was repeated.
This gentleman and Mr. Burke (the Mayor) were
the principal petitioners against the Bill. There
was no petition under the corporate seal against it.
To accomplish such a petition, the opponents of the
measure must have had a majority of the Com Mon
Council on their side; but the majority of the Corn-
mon
Council had petitioned in favour of the. Bill— •
(Hear)—as had every Protestant freeman—(Hear)
—two out of three of the vicars of the town, and , 1 ,
grand jurors, in the proportion of 16 to 4, and 14 . i
Magistrates. The Noble Earl proceeded to.con-
trast the character of the petitioners on either side,
and observed, that he did not believe that in the
history of Corporations greater abuses of corruption
were to be found recorded than in the city of Gal.
way,—abuses and c irruption in which the petitioners
against the Bill were themselves mainly instrumen-
tal. It was perfectly true that great numbers of the
Roman Catholic peasants, resident at a distance
on the estate of the patron of this borough,
had been admitted as freemen, and it• was
now intended by the Noble Duke's clause
to support their privileges against those of, wor-
thier claimants. At the same time the Bill, as it
stood at present, had this advantage, that it did not
exclude Mr. Daly's Roman Catholic peasants, whilst '
it rendered other Roman Catholics eligible. • The
fears expressed at an assumed violation of the char-
ter
came with a bad grace from individuals who
:tad diverted the funds of the Corporation from the
proper channel to their own advantage. The Noble
Earl went into the proceedings instituted in Chan-
cery against the Corporation for this misdirection of "..
the funds, and observed, that the Mayor was now
o underthef this
1i
decree
scare e
there attachmentnai.ea :i)
yil
o Sir
pi
rrfooAor
f. contumacy;Hbatr Hart.
sttridisobeyingphpeoinsNinogbliet to b Dukee i
ts
ht stated, t e
fact,d , that
a thecomplaint
as
sl dtohhoiteell
oees
Ntduacionhr
Billob'
officers
increases,rchtee)
opOrosueOral
do(
inifcoeoposfavnaf
the
selhvsi‘eou,oolndtvAteteiei rtdcrrsies:,.
ohibr,lc:iieirtiaflacai
gmenidGcni:ricegNBncseroeolos‘lolnno:b.
faifstiet:ltaelir..:ntrii
ißera)iai tsndrltHaii
dboktm‘etiajhvevihda:eooi
secddruig:euijmarfdlleartmi
icei:c.nnatieeeeenidisa;losTcf:iti.tmme:neotn, petitionersifmt,et,4thhCo9heseoferrbtpeveooomrrioar leutrnilg borough
on whoth e
0,
nalli dn prefer7tBilit2es
by observing that he had taken up the question
through a sense of the policy and justice of the Bill,
'with a desire to do his duty to the House and to
the country, and wholly uninfluenced by party or
political bias.
Lord MANNERS made an observation which
was inaudible.

Viscount GODERICH said he would support
the Bill, in the conviction that it was expedient,
just, and necessary, and that all the opposite cha-
racteristics ought to be applied to the amendment
which he lamented to see opposed by the Noble
Duke.

The Earl of WINCHILSEA thanked the Noble
Earl (tJrey) for having stood forward in behalf of the
rights not only of Protestants but Catholics. He
would give the Bill, without the amendment, his
cordial support. 1
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the question
ought to be discussed calmly, and without reference
to party feelings. After the best consideration
which he had b en able to give to the subject,
founded upon all the information he could obtain, he
thought it would be both unjust and impolitic to
pass the Bill, except as modified by the amendment
proposed by the Noble Duke. The Noble Earl
(Grey) had alluded to three charters which had
been granted to the Corporation previously to the
charter of Charles 11. But the Noble Earl had
omitted to state that those charters had been for-
feited, and that the proceedings of the Corporation
had been governed down to the present time
by the charter of Charles. The Act of 4th Geo I.
was passed to prevent Catholics from obtaining the
ascendancy in Galway, it being apprehended that
they would exert their power and influence against
the interests of the Douse of Brunswick. The
Noble Earl said that Act conferred no new right
upon the Protestants. Ile should like to know from
what source the Noble Earl derived that informa-
tion. It could not be from a perusal of the Act.
His opinion was that the Act did confer most im-
portant additional rights on the Protestants. No '
-doubt that Act was an infringement on the popular 1
rights; but was not the measure now proposed an
infringement to a much greater extent ? It, was ne-,
/cessary to consider the practical operation of the
privilege conferred upon Protestants by the Act of •i
!Geo. 1. From the pa-sing of the Act down to the
1