The Sun.
London, England, 1832-07-27 00:00:00

PATRONAGE. OF THE LORD CHANCELLOR.

The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition
from the bankers, merchants, and others of the town of
Leicester, iu favour of the Local Courts Bill, in-
troduced by his Lordship two sessions back. He
approved of the prayer of this petition, and hoped that
the Bill to which it referred, would he carried into effect.
It had been referred to the Commissioners of Law Inquiry
to examine into its detai:s. He wished to take this op-
portunity of making sonic observations upon a subject
referred to in another place last night. He meant some
recent arrangements made in the Court of Chancery, with
respect to which the Solicitor-General was not able to
afford that information which he might have been
had he made inquiry of him (the Lord Chancellor).
The office he had the honour to hold was paid in
the worst possible manner, viz.—partly by salary, partly
by fees, and partly by certain patronage, which was allowed
for the sustension of the dignity of that office, and the
,•upport of that family upon which the Chancellor almost
inevitably entailed the burden and expense of a peerage.
This patronage had always been taken and deemed to be
an actual part of the emoluments of the office. This was
the worst possible way in which any office could be remune-
rated. It was bad, because it might happen, as in the case
of Lord Loughborough, that an individual might hold it for
seren years, and not have one of those offices fall vacant,
whilst another might hold it for as many months, and have
them all fall vacant. A necessary consequence of the
system was that it kept up useless places which
ought to be abolished, and had a tendency to perpetuate
abuses. So completely were the offices to which he allu-
ded considered a part of the emoluments of the Chan-
cellor, that they had been made the subject of
marriage settlement. From the moment of his taking
the office he had the honour to fill, it was his fixed de-
termination to use his best endeavours to prevail
upon Parliament to abolish them. Two Bilk
were accordingly prepared for that purpose, and one of
them was brought forward last session, and was only
postponed to give time for some improvements to
be introduced into it. Since these alterations bad been
made, by which the two Bills he referred to were to be con-
solidated into one, it was proposed in them to abolish two
of the principal offices to which be had referred. One of
them was that of the Registrar of Affidavits. He
hoped that this Bill would be laid before the House
in the course of a very few days. The Learned Lord
then proc-eded to say, that the 1311 which he meant next
s eek to lay before t' .e House, and which, as he said, was
but an enlargement of that of last session, which he had
since submitted to the revision and counsel of his profes-
sional brethren, would embrace provisions for abolishing
the two identical offices, the appointment to which had
given rise to the present explanation, and would also em-
brace certain provisions under which app-als might be
heard under the Chief Baron. One word in reference to
that appointment. \Vhile the Bid to which he referred
was in course of preparation, the melancholy event with
which they were all familiar occurred, which occasioned
a vacancy in the two offices filled by the late Mr. Scott.
He need not say that under the present system he was as
fully entitled to the patronage thus thrown into his
hands, as he was to his s Clary, or any other portion of
the emoluments of his office. He need not repeat,
that he conceived this to be a bad mode of official re-
muneration, and one which he was determined to use
every means in his power to abolish, as a practice
unworthy of his office, and calculated to lower it in
public estimation. The fault also, he repeated, lay in the
system, and not in the individual Chancellor, and he
trusted that he should be the last person filling the office
who would have to complain of its workings. But surely
it did not follow, that because he had pledged himself to
the abolition of those sinecures, that he should, when the
appointments thus unexpectedly fell into his hands, refrain
from taking possession of sonic of the emoluments of his
offi,e, before any regulation had been adopted for placing
them on a better footing.—(Hear.) The proposition Rid',
absurd, and surely never entered into the head of any man
possessing brains ; so that lie was convinced that the ques•
don put by a Learned Gentleman in another place, which
seemed to insinuate that he was violating his pledge by fill-
Mg up the appointment, had no such meaning, and
wholly originated from a laudable anxiety to 6, elicit
information on a matter affecting the character of th,.
highest law authority."--(A laugh ) " Yes," continued
the Learned Lord, " I am bound to relieve—nay, cannot '
for a moment doubt, that the Learned Gentleman was
wholly influt need by this most praiseworthy desire
of information. How could I think otherwise, know..
ing as I do, in common with that eminent " high le,
authOrity," that philosophers have long since cub°.
gized this laudable thirst of huoviledge as the most distia-

guished attribute of humanity, and as ti ‘most distin-
guished feature of an ingenious and lofty intellect ?
(Cheers and laughter.) Yes, my Lords, we have all read
that it is this Heaven-born thirst of information, and
its condition, at least invariable concomitant, a self-dis-
regarding and candid mind, that most distinguishes man
from the crawling reptile--that most distinguishes man
from the wasp that stings, and from the wasp that fain
would, but cannot, sting.—(Letl cheers.) Ay, distin-
guishes us from not only the insect that crawls and stings,
but from that more powerful, because more offensive, crea-
ture, the bug, who, powerful and offensive as it is, is, after
al, but so much loathsome vermin —(Continued cheers
and laughter.) Yes, I say, it is this laudable propensity,
upon which humanity justly prides itself, which I have no
doubt solely influenced the Learned Gentleman to whom
I allude, to seek for information which it would be
cruel to stingily gratify.--(Heir, hear, and a laugh.) Con-
vinced that this was the sole source of the Learned Gentle-
man's question and remark, he only regretted that he
did not apply to him sooner for an answer. Fortunately,
so far as the cavil of little minds was concei ned, he hid
living witnesses in that House and elsewhere to testify,
that before the melancholy occasion of the vacancy, and
forty-eight hours after they had occurred, he had expressed
his firm determination to go on with the self-same sine-
cure-abolishing Bill, precisely as if these vacancies were
not likely to occur, or never had occurred.--(" Hear,
hear," from the Treasury Bench.) There would be, as
he had stated, some alterations or differences between that
and the Bill he had formerly spoken of as in progress of
maturation ; but this be pledged himself to, that neither
in letter, spirit, form, or figure, shall the most insect and
miscroscopic eye detect the remotest change in that por-
tion of the Bill under which the very two offices at issue
would be totally abolished.—(Hear.) He had originally
intended to bring in two Bills—one for the improvement
of the administration of justice. and the other for abolish-
ing the registration of affidavits and clerk of the patents
bffice ; but upon consideration had thought it better to
incorporate all the provisions in one measure. The
Learned Lord then proceeded to hail, in the words of the
Roman orator, this new-born disposition on the part of the
inveterate foes of those who " trench upon vested rights,"
of which, of course, sinecure offices were a most ancient
and constitutional feature, and under which the country
had become the glory of surrounding nations, and the
envy of the world—(A llugh)—as a sign of the times,
and as a proof that at last we may hope to see their abo
lition. He trusted they would proceed in their econo-
mical career ; and thanking them for their attention to
himself, he would venture to suggest " they might go
further and fare worse."—(Hear, and a laugh.) For his
port, be would continue his earnest endeavours to " set
his own house in order." His sphere was necessarily
limited, but in the Court of Chancery he would labour so
long as he held office, trusting that the dry was not distant
when cheap, and speedy, and efficient justice should be
within the reach of every British subject.—(Cheers )
He would not limit his exertions to the abolishing of the
two sinecures more immediately under consideration; but
he should propose a measure for abolishing all sinecures
connected with his office, the majority of which, as they
knew, were tilled by Noble relatives of his predecessors in
office. That measure he would leave Parliament to adopt,
if it should, as he was sure it would, see fitting. It would
be ridiculous, absurd in the extreme, for him to vaunt
himself in his individu l capacity upon making great per-
sonal sacrifices to the public. He never said, or meant
any such thing. He hod no right to be generous at the
expense of his office, and the public had no right to ex-
pect that he should foolishly sacrifice his own personal
emoluments.—(Hear, hear ) He would, however, fear-
lessly and honestly endeavour to discharge the duty he
owed himself and the public, and would proceed with the
promised Boil, as if neither the vacancies had occurred,
nor the little good-natured episode connected with them
He would confidently leave the rest to the wisdom of Par-
liament, who might abolish or not abolish sinecures as it
pleased. He, at least, would do his duty. The Learned
Lord proceeded next to say, that it was necessity to the
public business that the office of Registrar of Affidavits
should be promptly filled up, a case having (named with-
in forty-eight hours after the vacancy, which com-
pelled him to make himself responsible for the ne-
cessary registering of a very important affidavit. It was
found on inquiry, that this could only be legally
performed by the deputy registrar; and as there could be
no deputy where there was no principal, it became necessary
to appoint a principal, for him to invest the deputy with
the proper functional authority. Then the point was,
who should he appoint? In the first place, he had a Bill
in progress for doing away with the office altogther ; in
other words, the appointment should be m...rely temporary,
to be valid only till the Bill had passed into a law. He,
therefore, took especial care to appoint a gentleman upon
whom he could exercise gre tt influence, and in whom he
bad implicit confidence, that when he gave the word he
would at once vacate the office, without the remotest
whisper, or insinuation of a complaint, of vio'ation of
vested rights, or any other slang set up by the defenders of
sinecures and obsolete institutions.---(Hear.) He &ere-
fore appointed his own brother, who, in accepting the ap-
pointment, was put to more inconvenience than, perhaps,
his cavillers would be ready to expose themselves, anxious
as they were to preserve immaculate the character of the
dispensers of justice in high places. The very vacating
his seat in the Commons was in itself no slight incon-
venience—the more to be felt, as the fees which he would
have to pay on assuming the functions of office would ex-
ceed the probable emoluments of his office, between the
date of his accession and the passing of the measure which
would abolish those offices.—(Hear, hear.) The Learned
Lord having repeated at some length his determination to
proceed at all hazards with his intended Sinecure Aboli-
tion Bill, fetid in conclusion, that if ever there was an in-
dividual whom it would cost nothing to abide by its pro-
visions, no matter at what expense of personal emolument,
he was that individual.--(Cheers.)
The Earl of ELDON stated, that in his opinion it was
quite necessary that the office should be filled up at once,
and therefore that the Noble Lord on the Woolsack was
perfectly justified in the course he had pursued. He dif-
fered, however, with the Noble and Learned Lord, in con-
sidering the office as a sinecure. It was one to which,
on the contrary, a very heavy responsibility was attached ;
and he hoped, that in whatever reforms the Noble and
Learned Lord might make, he would take care that due
attention was paid to the responsibility of the individua
presiding over the department.
Lord WYNFORD concurred with his Noble and
Learned Friend, and added, that in his opinion, means
should be taken to provide for the salary of the Lord
Chancellor in a less objectionable manner.
Earl GREY thought that the statement of his Noble
and Learned Ft lend, supported as it was by the testimony
of the Noble and Learned Lords opposite, must entirely
put an end to the calumnious charges--which had been
little to the credit of those who brought them forward—
preferred against his Noble and Learned Friend. It was
quite clear his Noble and Learned Friend could have pur-
sued no other course with respect to the appointment, than
that which he had followed.

The Duke of WELLINGTON rose for the purpose of
reminding the Noble Lords opposite, that it was now
nearly two years since the Noble and Learned Lord oppo-
site had made a sacrifice of his income, amounting to
several thousands a year, and yet no compensation had
been given to him. He now called upon the Noble Lords
to make some adequate provision for the office of Lord
Chancellor without further delay.

Earl GREY admitted that too much time had been
already lost, but this was chiefly owing to the indisposi ion
of his Noble and Learned Friend to entertain the subject.
He, however, believed that a colleague of his would bring
forward in the other House a motion for compensation to
his Noble and Learned Friend in the course of next week.
The LORD CHANCELLOR declared that he would
take no part whatever in the at rangements alluded to by
his Noble Friend. When the Bill, however, was brought
from the other House before their Lordships, they would,
of course, give it their best attention ; and he would then
be ready to show that the emoluments of that office need
not be enormous.
IRISH REFORM BILL.

On the motion of Lord SHAFTESBURY, the House
resolved itself into a Committee on this Bill.
Lord ORIEL declared himself oppo:ed to the principles
of the Bill, and maintained that great injustice was done by
its provisions to the freemen in towns, and their descendants.
In England these rights were preserved to a much greater
degree than in Ireland ; although the same necessity did
not prevail, because the Irish freemen were intended to
support the Protestant interests in Ireland. Adverting
to the Marquis of Anglesea, lie felt himself compelled
to say, although he had the greatest respect for that
Nobleman, that he was not fit for the situation he held,
dud that he had conducted himself as a partisan ever strict:
be had been at the head of the Government in Ireland. He
especially objected to the netv mode of registry as it re-
spected the Protestant Clergy of Ireland, who would bi-
compelled to swear that they were in possession of free-
holds at the very tune when the persecution against
them was so strong that it was impossible they could tell
whether they had any freeholds or not. On all these
grounds he felt it his duty to oppose the measure.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that as he was one or
those who concurred in recommending to Parliament
adoption of the Catholic Relief Bill, accompanied by a
measure for raising the qualification of voters in countie
in Ireland, which latter measure was considered to be in-

dispensable to the security of the Protestant interest in
Ireland, he did not feel himself at all at liberty to diminish
that security ; and as he was persuaded that if he agreed to
the Bill before their Lordships he should greatly diminish
that security, and thereby deal unfairly and unjustly by
the Protestants, to that Bill he could not assent. Thei,b-
ject of the measure for raising the qualification of voters
in counties, was to restore to property in Ireland, which
it was well-known was chiefly Protestant, its legitimate
influence. Now, what was done by the present Bill ?
The qualification of voters in counties was practically
altered by the ,alteration of the oath. To that he could
not agree. But more than that, the Bill established a
leasehold qualification. He did not mean to assert that that
was precluded by the measure of 1829 ; but they ought
to have made the leasehold qualification as high as the
freehold qualiflcatioh had been made by the measure of
1829. Ministers, however, bad not the fluntresa and the
justice to do that. By introducing a leasehold qualifica-
tion lower than the freehold qualification established
by the measure of 1829, they created an inferior
class of voters, and thereby diminished the security of
the Protestants. But the Bill went further than to
alter the qualification of the voters in counties : it
altered the qualification of the voters in boroughs. He
did not mean to say that the measure of 1829 pre-
cluded any alteration in the qualification of the voters in
boroughs; but at that period it had been thought that it
would be inconsistent to raise the qualification of the
voters far boroughs, unless the corporations were restricted
from creating freemen. What was done by the Bill ? It
disfranchised the non-resident freemen ; which was, prac-
tically, to transfer the right of election in boroughs from
Protestants to Catholics. He should pause, if these were
his only objections to the Bill ; but the Bill went much
further. It gave to the Catholics a preponderance never
before contemplated. The Noble Lord might say that in
this enlightened age that was very expedient. He (Lord
Ellenhorough) thought not. But at any rate it was not
the condition on which the Catholic Relief Bill passed ;
and he felt it his duty to oppose whatever infringed the
principle of that measure. He deeply regretted the differ-
ence which existed in Ireland between the Catholics and
the Protestants ; but it was impossible for him not to feel
that the Protestants supported the Union, and that the Ca-
tholics did not. He was desirous to maintain the Union ;
convinced as he was that it was essential to the prosperity
of the two countries; and he opposed the Bill, because by
throwing a preponderance of power into the hands of the
Catholics, materially influenced as they were by the priest-
hood, and still more by the agitators, the maintenance of
the Union was endangered. He must say, that he looked
with deep dismay at the present state of Ireland. For
that state he considered his Majesty's Ministers to be
deeply responsible ; and he would not render himself re-
sponsible far increasing the evils of that state, by creating
a further danger, over which it might be found imprac-
ticable to triumph, which might destroy not only the Pro-
testant establishment (indeed that was almost gone already),
but the Protestant Government in Ireland, and also dissolve
the integrity of that empire which his Majesty was bound
to preserve, as well as that church which he was sworn to
maintain.

The Earl of CLANRICARDE observed, with refer-
ence to the Noble Baron who had just addressed the
House, that nearly the whole of his remarks related to the
details of the Bill, and might, with more propriety, have
been made in the Committee. The Noble Baron who had
just sat down, founded his opposition to the Bill on his
indisposition to diminish the security of the Protestant
interest in Ireland. He (Lord Clanricarde) denied that it
would have any such effect. The main change in the re-
presentation of Ireland, which the Bill proposed to tff et,
was, the abolition of the close corporations. As to the
apprehended increase of the Catholic voters in counties, he
did not believe it would exceed a thousand, the effect of
which on fifty-two thousand, the present number of the
county constituency, would not be sensibly felt. As to
giving power to the agitators in Ireland, he wished to ask
whether the power which the Bill would give them could
be at all compared with the power which would be given
to them if the Bill were rejected? He had no apprehen-
sion that the proposed change would in the slightest de-
gree endanger the Union. He did not believe that the
Catholic body at large were averse to the Union : they
knew too well the value of the English market for their
cattle and other productions. They knew that the repeal
of the Union would increase their taxation, their want,
and the w hole mass of their evils.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH explained.

Lord Viscount MELBOURNE defended the conduct
of his Noble Friend, the Marquis of Anglesea. Whether
he considered the firmness or the conciliation of his
character, he was persuaded that the Noble Marquis
was one of the fittest persons that, could have been selected
for the high situation which he held. The Noble
Baron who had last spoken said he could not agree to the
Bill, because he consi,'ered that it involved a breach of
the general understanding on passing the Catholic Relief
Bill. He (Lord Melbourne) did not suppose that the dis-
franchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders had any
reference to the question of Catholic or Protestant; and
he did not think, therefore, that the present Bill would
break any compact, or diminish the security of the Pro-
testant establishment. He believed that the bt ter por-
tion of the Roman Catholics of Ireland were attactad to t'te
Union ; to show that the Protestants were not all so, he
need only appeal to the petition which had been recently
presented from one of the Guilds of the Corporation of Dub-
lin. He begged leave also to observe that the proceedings
of the Protestant Assembly in Dublin were, in character,
very similar to those of the Catholic Association. There
was just as much eloquence (if that could be called elo-
quence which was entirely devoid of wisdom)—just as
much violence—just as much exaggeration—just as much
falsehood; and in that assembly it had been declared that
a repeal of the Union was desirable.
The Archbishop of ARMAGH, conscientiously differ-
ing from his Majesty's Ministers wish respect to this Bill,
and looking upon it as calculated seriously to injure the
Protestant interest in Ireland, felt bound to oppose it. It
might be said, the wish to support the Proteitant esta-
blishment was an antiquated prejudice, which in this en
lie htened age ought not to be listened to. If so, he really
did not know why he, or any other Member of the Bench
of Bishops, was among their Lordships. At the time of
the Union, the Protestant religion was secured in Ireland,
not as the religion of the minority, but as the religion of
the great mass of the possessors of property. When the
Catholic Relief Bill was passed, it was said by its sup-
porters, though he and others did not concur in that
opinion, that it would strengthen the Protestant in
terest in Ireland. The question which he now put to
himself was this: Can the proposed change be effected
without endangering the Established Church and the
Protestant interest in Ireland—those bonds of connexion
between the two countries ? The boroughs which
were about to be destroyed were the only defences,
however insufficient, of the Protestant Establishment in
Ireland. The Bill would cause property to lose its due
influence. The great majority of voters in the boroughs
would henceforward support interests hostile to property.
The measure they were now about to pass would give all
power to that party which had long possessed the most
deadly hostility to the Established Church; and he saw
no means by which the subversion of that Church could
he averted in the event of their passing the Bill, unless
with the more horrible alternative of civil war. He was
willing to concede much, but he could not give his assent
to a Bill which was intended to strengthen the hands of
those who were hostile to the existence of the Established
Church, and proclaimed their determination to overthrow
it ; and he, therefore, entered his strongest protest against
the measure now before their Lordships.—(Hear, hear.)

. .
The Earl of RODEN commenced by complaining that
the Noble Earl (Grey) had, in respect to the present Bill,
as well as all the other measures of Reform, shown a dis-
position to consult his own despotic will and pleasure in
defiance of the wishes and feelings of the Members of that
House. That Noble Earl had refused all propositions for
dthp,tveoleihl
wgaci ioiei,,ntri
considered
. etni
they
e,
present
cyeor
(her:dewttehnoreoet thatrkeaptaa
snwst( thei)lanyveg
to,.
discussion,
swPen uehetsa :rit
iseoi
threatened;sncco,
Housean andnl
aeendc dtateolhilvlfeeotißrrvi
overpowered
lel
ctirev:iefi
foreseeing
Ireland
llealtt ni
et : f
allthe
argument and reason by the threat of an exertion of
of a deliberative assembly. For his (Earl of Roden'a) part,
have been the original cause of all the calamities with
miseries which must follow concession on that point, be
had the satisfaction of reflecting that he bad steadily and
consistently opposed it. He agreed with those who felt
that the measure now under consideration would prove
the final destruction of the Protestant interests, unless the
machinations of the enemies of the Church were manfully
and resolutely opposed ; and although the friends of that
Church had been libelled as disturbers of the public peace,
and stigmatized as an expiring faction, he thought the
time was not far distant when Government would
atcicZetridlievi naig,sa,:o, that be compelled to call on them for the preservation
or peace, the protection of property, and the support of
legitimate authority. The p,,rty with which he had the
honour to be connected were, however, determined in all
things to act constitutionally, and, whatever might be the
Ibtayri listened to opi-
nions danger,d(Hiffiecaut,lthyeoarr.)theTiiegre
Ire-
land had a Government wanting in energy, i❑ decision,
that Government, an I
and in temper ; a Government which had courted those
at
evilto (r)efsitshte
causenivi h(noi s
fibateitom endeavourediat,i l asnid
sides
: ‘hstioicthh support.rivesapsedespisedbe could say with safety he bad never heard a good word

respecting it.__( Hear.) It was said there was a third party
in Ireland. He had directed much attention to that point,
and he believed there was no third party in Ireland, nor
no party or portion of a party which placed confidence
in the Government.—(Hear, hear.) After contending
that the whole of the Protestants of Ireland were hostile to
the provisions of the Reform Bill, the Noble Lord pro-
ceeded to observe, that although quite willing to concede a
liberal Reform, lie never could consent to have Protes-
tant corporations overpowered by Catholic mobs.—(Hear,
hear.) He thought the better method would be to allow
all the Protestant residents, under certain circumstances,
to participate ifi the pririleos of the freemen.—(Hear.)
Without this the Bill would be merely I.slaohg a new wea-
pon in the hands of those who were struggling foi a tepeel
of that Union, which could only be preserved through the
influence of the Protestants. The Noble Viscount (Mel-
bourne) had used some very harsh expressions in peaking
of a society to which he (Lord Roden) had the honour to
belong. Among °theft thidgs; the Noble Viscount its.!
declared their arguments to be ay vide 'r
add 4.i ihlngermitc
as that of the Catholic Association. He denied tliks;dintl
he called on the Noble Viscount to prove his assertion by
facts. The difference between the Catholic Association
and the Conservative Society was, that the one was insti-
tuted to uphold the Constitution, and the other to over-
turn it. The Noble Earl, after repeating his strictures
on the conduct of the Government, and his defence of the
proceedings of the Conservatives, replied to a statement of
the Noble Viscount, that Mr. Boyton had igiefto *he
Protestants were anxious for a repeal of the Union. The
Protestants were not anxious for a repeal of the Union ;
but, as Mr. Boytim said, the conduct of the Government
might at length force them to consider it necessary. His
Lordship concluded by declaring himself strongly opposed
to the Bill, unless its provisions were materially modified
in the Committee.
The House then went into Committee.
After a few words from the Marquis of WESTMEATH,
the preamble of the Bill was postponed.
Clauses 1,2, and 3, were then agreed to.
On clause 4 being read,
Lord W YNFORD moved, that the words " or other
buildings" should be added after the word counting house,
in order to prevent the possibility of persons having double
vot, 9 for the borough and for the county.
The Duke of WELLINGTON, Lord MELBOURNE, and
Lord PLU NK ET opposed the amendment,
After some desultory conversation,
The Duke of RICHMOND said, that in another place,
when the English Bill went down with a similar amend-
ment, every lawyer on both aides of the Hodge sdoutdd it,.
Lord WYNFORD did not care what lawyers said id
another place, the question was, what was right and what
was wrong.

Lord FLUNKET said, he agreed in the legal opinions
expressed elsewhere.

The Duke of CUMBERLAND thought all objections
might be obviated by inserting a proviso, for the purpose
of preventing a man, voting for a borough, from having
two votes.

The Duke of RICHMOND said, the effect of such s
clause would be to disfranchise any gentleman who pos-
sessed a vote for Oxford or Cambridge, and who might
also happen to have a vote for a borough.
The clause was agreed to.
The fifth el .use was then agreed to.

Lord WYNFORD objected to the proviso in the sixth
clause, and moved it should be wholly omitted. He con-
tended, that as the right of voting of 40s. freeholders
was abolished in counties, the same right ought not to be
prissived in towns. The voters in each ought to be put
on the same footing.

Lord PLUNKET said the Bill on'y preserved the
right of 408. freeholders fgr their lives, as was also the
calve with tie lights of freemen.

The Duke of WELLINGTON denied that the rights of
all freemen were preserved fi)r their lives, for the rights of
freemen made since March, 1831, were not preserved. Un-
less this proviso were struck out, it was quite clear the
Protestant interest must eive way to the Catholic.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said, that the non-
preservation of the rights of :regimen made since March,
1831, was no argument for ti e deprivation of the 40r.
Ireeholders in the towns. If the Noble Duke thought the
freemen unjustly treated, he might make that the subject of
a distinct amendment when he came to that part of the Bill.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH also opposed the clause.
The Earl of RODEN said, it was most unjust to
sacrifice the freemen made since March, 1831, and pre-
serve the tights of the lorry shilling freeholders. The
former were sacrificed because rhey were Protestants—the
latter preserved because they were Catholics.
The Duke of RICHMOND denied this statement. Did
the Noble Earl know when he proposed to retain those
freemen that Mr. O'Connell made a s'milar motion in-the
House of Commons ? and surely Mr. O'Connell was not
a gentleman who would seek to elevate the Protestant in-
ter est. ( ar, hear.)

The Duke of CUMBERLAND said, that it was of
no consequence whether Mr. O'Connell or any other per.
son supported the proposition. The real question was,
whether the statements that the Protestant interest was in
danger were correct or nor. The Nobla Duke opposite
had voted against the Catholic Bill ; but he much regretted
that lie seemed to It .ve abandone I his Protestant feelings.
—( Hear, hear.)
The Duke of RICHMOND said, the Noble Duke
seemed to suppose that there was no friend of Protestantism
in the House save himself and one or two Noble Lords
with whom he acted.—(Cheers.) He denied that the
8.11 was subversive of the Protestant interests in the
slightest degree.—(Cheers.) He challenged the Noble
Duke or any Noble Lord to show that he had ever given a
vote in opposition to Protestant interests.—(Cheers.) He
did vote against the Catholic Relief Bill, because he
was opposed to it at the time; but the Bill having been
once carried, he gave his hearty co-operation to carry it into
effect.—(Hear, near.) This, however, he must say, that
he considered the only benefit that would arise from that
Bid was the doing away with all religious distinctions......
(Cheers.) But bow could that desirable object be carrried
into effect when night after night they heard from the lips
of Noble Lords Roman Catholics denounced, and Bruns-
wick Lodges and Orange Meetings were found following
their example ?—(Hear, hear.) How could the peace of
Ireland be preserved when such gross misrepresentations
of the conduct and intentions of Government were held
out ? Why, at one of the meetings in the North of Ice-
land he understood this was the language used My
boys, keep the Bible safe in your hands, and take care that
your powder is dry."—(Hear, hear, hear.) The only
wonder was, that when such language as this was held,
Ireland was not in a state of rebellion. He contended that
Catholics were the King's subjects as well ae Protestants
—that they bad equal rights, and that the Government
was dealing out a measure of even-handed justice. Vas
he, therefore, for this to be made the subject of such at-
tacks ? He repelled them with the respect due to the Noble
Duke, but with the warmth which they were calculated to
excite.—(Hear, bear.)

The Duke of CUMBERLAND disclaimed any intention
of offending the Noble Duke. But it was he who corn•
menced the attack on his Noble Friend near him.

The Earl of RODEN said, the Noble Duke opposite
(Richmond) complained of being attacked, but he com-
menced by an attack on bins. The Noble Duke considered
as a great flaw in his character his bringing forward the
interests of Protestantism.—(Loud cries of " No, no,"
from all parts of the House.) He rejoiced that fault was
found with him for such a cause. Ile wished that Noble
Lords whom he saw laughing at what he said, felt for the
Protestant interests. Neither the Noble Duke nor any
othifiaine°l:ll:iernhniii;l:dg.s. members to I
other person should stop his mouth on that subject. The
Noble Duke, and all who voted for this Bill, proved them-
selves unfriendly to Protestantism. He denied that the
meetings in the North of Ireland denounced the Catholics,
they only denounced his Majesty's Government.
Lord PLUNKET said, did the Noble Earl imagine
a right of arrogating to himself a monopoly
that he was the only Protestant in that House?—(Hear,
hear.) It would appear from his language that such was
oelf pinion.—(hear, he
monopoly
;yr.. )
,aor.lia.km)roentets.tanTtishme
f He e had no right to arro-
gatesaid he was not a friend to monopoly. Yet there was a
town in Ireland called Dundalk, containing 10,000 inha-
bitants, over which he exercised a monopoly, and returned
Protestantism,
Noble Lord
said
a Member to the House who was most odious to the whole
of its inhabitants—he meant Mr. Gordon, the most odious
man to the inhabitants.
Lord WYNFORD rose to order. The Noble Lord bad
no right to say that any man was odious.
Lord PLUNKET contended that he was speaking as
much to the point as Noble Lords who preceded him. He
did not say Mr. Gordon was personally odious, he meant
bins uu disrt.spect, but he said be was odious to the inh
bitauts of the borough on account of his politics—his po-
litics were the same as those of the Noble Lord who re-
turned hint, and both were equally odious to the inhabi-
tants of Dundalk. He proceeded to contend, that the
langutge used at the Conservative Meetings,their
desire to appal to arras,—and their abuse of Govern-
ment for not pet witting the contest between. Protestant
and Cithlic, was anything:but conciliatory; and then, re-
verting to the question before their Lot clships,argued that
it was by no means a measure of justice to deprive Owe
pers ins of the franchise who already `had it. Residency
here was necessary, as well as in the case of freemen, and
those who now possessed, the.frftichise,were to hold it for
life in the same way as the '4OG—freeholders. Ia fact

'p