The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-27 00:00:00

COAL TRADE.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY now renewed his
motion for the appointment of a committee to inquire into
4,e state of time coal-trade, which was agreed to.

MILITIA STAFF.

Lord F4R-11-14ItI rnovcd for the production of certain
papers relative to the redacting of the militia staff.
The Duka of IVELLj?IGTON had go objection to the
returns being made, and moved foT an Odjtipall return on
the same subject.
MODE OF PRESENTING PETITIONS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought it right to state,
;e4; order that no mistake might in future occur as to the
moti'e of ivevating petitions, that it was the understanding
of the House th4.t etch Peers as had petitions to present,
were, during the day os which they intended to present
them, to write down their namei, yii<h their own hands,
at any time after the meeting of the Hook.
Sir A. GRANT, and others from the Cominonsy
,tvotight up the Innkeepers' Bill, which was read a first
,tinw.,—.4.diop med.

HOUSE OF C,,0Z01,0*5..--(LAST NIGHT.)
Petitions against the Cathceic c,1.41s ware presented by
Mr. F. Wilson from Hedlington awl Llano /Ate; ; by Mr.
R. Smith from Oakley and liransb.y in Essex ; by S;r 4.
Inglis from Stonehouse, and four other places in the county
~,,-1 Ayr ; by Mr. Egerton from Macclesfield, John-
stone; a..d four other places in the county of Dumfries;
by Mr. Harvey, from the Minister and Congregation of
the Beresford CLpel, Walwerth ; by Mr. C. Pallmer,
from the county of Surrey; .ehia Hon, Member observed,
,shat this petition was got up at it.paiii.e meeting of the
4fitir of Surrey, regularly convened for the'Piap,-,.;„:, and
the tnotios!t wee carried by a large majority. The pest,
tion was signed 44 k large number of persons, respect"-
able by their wealth, ini‘ei;g,e/ and education. He had
often lifted up his voice against to
.0 asure, and would
ctr,,tiune to do so.
,On the Dr.,lion that the petition be brought up,
Mr. DEINTSS,OI; qbserved, that however he might coin-
cide in his Hou. Colleagids observations on the respecta-
bility of the petitioners, yet he nevi:r could admit that the
petition 'poke the sentiments of the county of Surrey.
He never .woßld admit that the present petition sposte tha
real sentiments of a county so long and so well known for
liberality. Lie felt that.nothing could induce him to
withdraw his support from it messy's wbicl was founded

on justice. On the occasion on which this petition Was
got up the roads leading to the meeting were crowded
with people carrying the most inflammatory placards, and
the gentleman who seconded the petition acknowledged on
the hustings that he had procured to be printed a consider-
able number of the placards, which were entitled " Queen
Mary's Days." The society for the publication of reli-
gious tracts had originally published some of these pla-
cards, but they *dared that it was for a religious
and net political purpose. He (Mr. D.) felt that what
Burke declared in respect to the Revolution of 1791 was
peculiarly applicable to the present measure ; that "it
would benefit all, and injure none." The Right Hon.
Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the
Noble Duke at the head of the Administration, would
reap their best reward in the peace they would visit on the
Sister Kingdom, and the gratitude with which they would
be remembered.

Mr. ELLISON presented petitions in favour of conces-
sion from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, from a parish in Durham,
and also from the masters and journeymen shoemakers of
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, against the importation of French
shoes.

Mr. PALLMER presented a petition against conces-
sion from Carshalton, and also one from St. Saviour's,
Southwark ; also a petition from the inhabitants of Mid-
dlesex and Surrey, recommending the introduction of Poor
Laws into Ireland.

Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from the
Broad Silk Weavers of Leek, praying for a return to the
prohibitory duties ; he also presented six petitions from
parishes in Stafford, one against, and the others in favour
of concessions.

Sir C. COOTE presented a petition from the Corporals
of the Queen's County Militia, praying for remuneration
for past services.

Mr. W. HORTON presented a petition from New-
castle-under-Line, in favour of concessions.

Mr. G. PONSONBY presented a petition from a
parish in Dul,lin, against the disfranchisement of the forty-
shilling freeholders ; also a petition from the Catholics of
Youghall, in the county of Cork, in favour of the con-
cessions.

.Mr. DUNCOMBE presented several petitions from
parishes in York against concession.
Colonel WOOD presented a similar petition from the
county of Brecon.
Mr. STANLEY said that the petition did not express.
the sense of the county of Brecon. At the last election
for that county 2,000 freeholders had been polled; and
yet, this petition, after being ha.vked through the market
towns of the county, including marksmen, and these were
rather numerous, had only 900 signatures.
Petitions were presented from the following places,
against Catholic Emancipation :—By Mr. Fred. Talntash,
from a place in the county of Lincoln ; by Capt. Wemyss,
from Anstruther Western ; by Sir Edward Knatchbull,
from a place in Sussex ; by Mr. H. Maxwell, from eleven
places in Ireland ; and by Mr. Curteis, from two parishes
in Sussex.

Petitions from the following places in favour• of the
Catholics, by Mr. Stanley, from the High Sheriff and
Magistrates of the county of Brecon, also a similar one
from a parilt in the same county ; by Mr. H. Grattan,
from Wicklow ; and by Mr. Beaumont, from Blythe.
Lord MILTON presented a petition from the worsted
manufacturers of Bradford, praying the House to regulate
the hours of apprentices working in the manufactories.
Mr. Secretary PEEL presented a petition from Mallow,
to increase the qualifications of freeholders.

Mr. G. LAMB said he should not object to any exten-
sion of the Disfranchisement Bill to Corporations in Ire-
land. The people of Ireland would consent to this Bill
in its present state, as the price of a greater good, and he
(Mr. G. Lamb) conceived that in the present stage of
the Bill any alteration would be premature, therefore he
should withhold his opposition until a future period, and
he could never consent to it, except considered as the
price of another great measure now in progress.
The petition was then laid on the table.

Mr. Secretary PEEL presented a petition from a parish
in the King's County, in favour of concession.
EDINBURGH PETITION.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH—AIthough I am perfectly
aware of the natural and very reasonable impatience of the
House at any lengthened speeches on presenting petitions,
yet 1 flatter myself, when I state the nature of the petition
on which I now lay my hand, Honourable Members will
be disposed to think that I am not too presumptuous in
requesting them to indulge me for a few minutes ; mare
especially as I have not hitherto engaged any portion of
their time in the gent cal discussion of this great measure.
This is a petition from the undersigned inhabitants of
Edinburgh and its vicinity; or, in other words, it is a
petition in favour of the Roman Catholic claims from
four-fifths of what, until such a levelling spirit seized the
Honourable Gentlemen on the Bench below me, used with-
out objection or exception to be Called tile respectable
clisses of the community in the ancient capital of the most
Protestant part of this Protestant Empire, which, in my
opinion, will peifoi in one of the noblest duties of its high
office of guardian to the Protestant interest of Europe by
passing this Bill into a law. The petition was adopted
by an assembly which, I believe I may say, is absolutely
unraralleled in the history of Scotland : it consisted of
about 2,000 persons, comprising, as I before said, four-
fifths, and, in the opinion of others, nine-tenths of those
who, until the late innovation of opinion, used to be
considered the most respectable classes of the community.
The number of signatures is something under 8,000, and
to each name is added the place of abode : the most
severe scrutiny was made into every signature, and all
the prec tutions it was possible to take were adopted against
those faults to which numerously signed petitions are ever
liable. In a particular manner, precautions were taken
which I wish had been adopted on the other side in Edin-
burgh and in all other places : the Committee by public ad-
vertisement disavowed every hand-bill, placard, or publi-
cation, not signed by them or by their agents. Whatever
imprudences, therefore, in this respect were committed, of
which I am not aware, they at least were not answerable
for them. The wisdom of this precaution was proved in
Edinburgh in a publication which, as my object is to com-
pose and not to inflame differences, I will not quote unless
1 am called upon to do so ; but it is one of the most daring
and treasonable libels against the royal title and sovereignty
of the House of Brunswick, and against the successors of
the Princess Sophia, as established by the Act of Settlement.
Many productions of a like nature have deluged the coun-
try during the last six weeks—in greater abundance than
for 40 successive years after the battle of Culloden to the
commencement of the present Session. As I before stated,
I will not quote any part of that daring libel unless called
upon to do so; it is certainly of a n store requiring no
little legal discrimination to distinguish it from high tree-
' son, and I should be extremely sorry that this author
should obtain the honours of martyrdom, to which many,
no doubt, aspire. In opposition to the new democratists
of the lower benches, I shall venture to assert that this
petition emanates from the higher class of society in Edin-
burgh. It is signed by seven Peers, suns of Peers, or
Privy Councillors; by 25 Knights of the Bath and Ba-
ronets; by 155 Landed Gentlemen of considerable pro-
perty; by 150 practi,ing Advocates of the Scotch Bar,
leaving scarcely twelve names of any distinction in this
class not appended to the petition, and completing that
union, I am proud and happy to say, of the Bar of Scot-
land with that of England, so worthily represented by my
Han. and Learned Friend who is at the head of it (Sir J.
Scarlett)—a union, let me add, not merely between the
English and Scotch Bars,s id
bvutewncietilit
btyheo,Perpoetteisttianinit
pre-
rented
Bar of Ireland, a
by my Hon. and Learned Friend—if he will allow
me to 'Nap en (Mr. Doherty). Thus we have the
general consent of the'lsgal prifeeeion in ell parts of 0111
British Islands, to show that these odious and voluntary
professors of Constitutional Law, who deal with Crowns
at their pleasure, may be mistaken in their opinions. I
may add, that the petition is signed by fifty Divines, com-
nrehending dignitaries of the Church of England, and Mi.
iatera well known to be most usefully employed in dis-
charging their sacia:ll d;ittipa in Edinburgh.
It compre-
hends also the Presbyterian Clergy, still fore anti-Papal
than the Scotch Divines of the Seceding "Cllitircb, all
Protestants, and comprehended in that class Which we
call orthodox D:ssenters. The petition is subscribed
also by the Principal of thebol\dlyet;robpyoltittvaenxtUtyn.oivneersßitayt,ikaenrtsi
by sixteen Professors of thaoturvenuonsivre,:e.dininas:tauytiownimreakitinigs
andthe goi:megeteiri:a,j,foriTity4lokf
i;giatc
well known that the bapking buiple§s is the principal
trade ; by six General Officers and forty Colonels, and
other Officersnf the toy N
in his 1j by thirty-two
a e satvc, s . Aiali
Officersincluding
Officers;
by 199 Physicians and Surgeons; by about
600 Gentlemen connected with various branches of the law,
/oes;dea Advocates ; and by nearly 250 respectable Mer-
chants and rir,,a'ajil! If it be any addition to the weight of
this list; I will 'say thai. it ~:iTit2ins the names of
almost
all the considerable persons of the two kailie di-
vided Edinburgh until the happy intr9duce.un of these
measures by Ministers lu.niariniesttl p
the raerstpeyetddibffeji:teryicoesf
thine
; may state with confidence now; that 'with a
v in-
deivryi:i
what harnsgoibi
uitmalsal'floerlmei2nPgt;*Cv.37hi:h exci:ptioi3. 1,1 do not breathe a
oftition
the Tories,
e singled,u n word—theilu '
as
pleasurewell tmbeenpteitnintio;:nhaotf
titiheereWrexisgts at Eprdeisnebnut
dis-
tinction, II take the liberty of remarking, that the petition
i t h in thesepetition six weeks,iis
signed_
Idt Itsel:pfe

-oeower•-•''
' contains no common names. At the Lead 0( the Requi-
sitionists for the Meeting, and nearly at the head of the
signatures to the petition, is the name of the most cele-
brated writer in the world—of a writer, who has given
in a
1 more delight to a greater number of human beings,
shorter space of time, than, I will venture to say, any au-
thor who has preceded him could ever boast of having
communicated. What is more pertinent to the subject be-
fore the Hcuse, he is a man, to the full, as much above
the common standard in sense and rectitude of judgment as
in other more conspicuous, but not more valuable quali-
ties. I need not add that this illustrious name is that of
Sir Walter Scott. Although not so pertinent to this peti-
tion, I would indulge in the melancholy pleasure of adding,
on this question, to the first name in British literature the
first name in British science—that of Sir Humphrey Davy.
Though on a sick bed, he was not so absorbed by his suf.
ferings.from which, I trust, he will be speedily relieved
—but that he felt and expressed a glow of joy at the glad
tidings of the introduction of a Bill which he held as
honourable to his religion as to his country. The person
who took the most active part in introducing the petition
is a gentleman whom I have the happiness to call my
friend—Sir James Moncrieff. Placed by the unanimous
suffrage of his own profession at the head of it, as Dean of
the Faculty of Advocates, and enjoying an extent of legal
practice which none of his greatest predecessors ever ap-
proached, I cite him chiefly on the present occasion, in
the hope that his name may furnish something to appease
and conciliate the hostility directed against this measure,
arising from feelings which, in the utmost excess, I can-
not but reverence, which I cannot approach without ten-
derness, and which I cannot wish on the whole to be
weaker, although I might pray that they should be ma-
naged with more forbearance. His father was one of the
brightest ornaments of the Church of Scotland, whose
venerable pia sense now rises before my eyes, uniting
the appearance of the primitive Christian and of the
gentleman of ancient blood in a degree I never knew
equalled. My friend, " of virtuous father virtuous
son," has subscribed the petition with as true a
heart as was possessed by his pious progenitor. Before I
elopes' to the next name, I must say that we have in it
that of one of the most splendid ;and the weightiest of
these who have supported this measure—the learned, the
philosophical, the eloquent, and, above all, the pious Dr.
Chalmers, than whom no more zealous Protestant can
exist, or one more ready to take a part in the contest be-
tween the two religions with more activity and sincerity.
It would be in vain to look among the Brunswickers for so
zealous a champion of the Protestant cause. I know that
he had never before spoken at any meeting called together
for any Protestant purpose; on this occasion lie made his
first appearance on behalf of his religion, for I never heard
of his political opinions before. He feels warmly; arid,
if I may so speak on so sacred a subject, he manifested
what I may venture to call a proud and jealous solicitude
for the religion which, above all human concerns, is most
dear to his heart. He prays us to disencumber his religion
of all that antiquated armour of disabilities and penalties
which has weakened it, and which has been worn by false-
hood and imposture, in order that the contest may be de-
rided by appeals to Scripture and reason which is the true
religion. He desires us to act in the noble spirit of that
ancient father of the Christian Church, St. Austin, who,
when offered military aid by the Pro-Consul of Africa to
support his religion, answered—" I should despair of the
Church of Africa, if it received the military aid of the Pro-
Consul." I turn also to him who was the light and glory
of the Protestant Church of Ireland. I appeal to those
who are acquainted with the history of that Church, whe-
ther Jeremy Taylor is not entitled to as high a rank
as any individual in any Protestant Church—whether he
is not indeed one of the most resplendent lights of the
Protestant Church? He, in language becoming him, but
much too bold for me, censures those who have recourse to
such aids in support of religion, because, he says, " they
distrust the power of God to maintain his own Kingdom."
I will appeal also to a person of high authority, Dr. Routh,
venerable for his Notes to Burnett, who has said that "all
sound divines of the Church of England consider that the
Roman Catholic Church retains the fundamentals of Chris-
tianity, though it has added to them errors and mistakes
in raising the superstructure." I am anxious to make a
few observations to caution the House against considering
the toleration of other opinions as a proof of indifference to
our own. I was surprised and shocked when I heard it
represented that since the appearance of the works of Jeremy
Taylor and Locke, toleration should be regarded as a proof
of indifference in religious matters. On the contrary, I
apprehend that those who are most careful to guard the
conscientious exercise of their own religion themselves
would be those also who would most respect that right in
others; those who would most deeply resent the least in-
trusion on the most valuable of all the privileges they enjoy
themselves, are generally those who are the least disposed
to invade those of others. Let not the House and the
country be abused by vague words which signify nothing,
but have a great effect in explaining the passions of men. I
highly approve of the just observations of an amiable and
excellent Prelate in another place, who distinguished so
well between the two points of religious toleration and civil
liberty. Nothing can be unfisirer than to excite the
feelings of the ignorant by confounding a union with the
Roman Catholics in the performance of the offices of civil
life and a union with them in the profession of the articles
of their religion.—(Hear, hear.)—There is no more ten-
dency to union with them in religious opinions than there
is in India between us and the followers of the 13rahrni-
Meal and Mahometan doctrines, because we do them the
justice to exercise a watchful care over their property, and
even over the endowments of their false and idolatrous re-
ligions; but we retain our religious opinions there as
much as we shall do when we have done the same justice
to the Roman Catholics. I shall close what I have to
say with a single observation concerning the effect which
our example in dealing with this Bill may produce on fo-
reign cotearies. I beg to call the attention of the House
to what I am going to say, and especially those who are
zealous for the Protestant cause. Let us consider how the
success of this Bill may affect the conditions of Protestants
in other parts of the world. There is a vast body of them
subject to France and other Roman Catholic Powers.
This is a question of some importance, if it be considered
in a religious point of view. There are some places from
which Protestants are shut out absolutely : I allude to that
unfortunate country which lies to the south of the Pyre •
nees. They are only let in by a precarious connivance to
Italy. In France and Austria only do they enjoy their po-
litical rights fully. Will you then refuse this Bill on tie
principle that the Roman Catholic religion is to be con..
sidered as idolatrous, and the professors of it incapable +
of performing the common duties of society, or worthy
to he believed on their oaths? What sort of disposi-
tion would such a result create in the minds of those
Sovereigns in whose hands the rights and happiness
of our brother Protestants are placed? What hosti-
lity would they not feel? What desire would they
not have to annihilate the political privileges of the
Protestants, if they saw such treatment endured by
the Roman Catholics? I may be allowed, I trust, to close
with an observation :slake by a great man, Mr. Burke,
who described Sir George Savile's Bill, in 1788, for the
Repeal of the Penalties against Roman Catholics,
as a Bill
for the toleration of the Protestant religion throughout
Europe ; and I, in a much more emphatic manner, will
say, that I consider the Bill now before the House as a
that will promote the interests of the Protestant reli-
gion in every other country in the world—that will open
the doors which long have been shut against the professors
of the Protestant faith, and enables' them to obtain a pa
tient hearing to its preachers in places where the most
violent prejudices now prevailed against it—that will give
to Protestantism a legal toleration, where it now subsists
only lay a precarious connivance—and will finally secure,
atrengthen, and perpetuate, the rights of millions of Pro-
testants whp bye under Roman pathulic Sovereigns. If
we could convoke all the Protestants on the Continent of
Europe at the Bar of this House, I am sure they would
implore us this day to spread over their rights and privi-
leges the shield of toleration by the example of our con •
loticshin act which may be
elsesl
seto
d
of
illchic RomanNF!i :o,cl Catholics.
prej that
repre-
sented as a proof that we hated their Roman Catholic op-
ponents mere than we loved our Protestant brethrs n.
On moving that the petition should be broeght
Mr. TRANT said, he could not feel himself justified in
admitting that the middle classes of people hail not an equal
right to addreas that Muse by petition as well as the most
eminently learned persona to be found in that city which
designated itself, by 1.1:11y of eminence, the modern Athens.
_44 1390, and hear.)—Certainly, distioctips of thie
natnrei to Ole pl.P.i4lPee of pertinn; ipferier stations in life, came with a very ill grace from quarters where, when
he was a boy, he recollected the sovereignty of the people
cstoitonn oi e ili to hu y
re a
giou . be of
had often been advocated, and the majesty of the mob been
drunk as a toast. When the House was acquainted with
f.
rwo,
rmhhic
tihrtebihila:ddw,alsa h lately
thoughtenloyt beena ue tnttniaca rtei o it would no longerhs at
apenos
tit correspondent acquainted hir4. that at a late Catholic
procession its Ireland; 'the 'Protegtant pasiers-bj; had been
; compelled A Worship the
gags were. carried in the ,
procession, and the Catholics actually broke into a Protes-
a letter fact
i tont chureh, and publicly burnt the Bible as a conclusion of
this ceremony.
1 Sir R. INGLIS remarked there was a wide distinction
to be draWn between toleration for which the Right Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had Sio eloquently pleaded, and

that admission to power which was the object of the Ca-
tholics and their advocates.

Sir G. MURRAY pat ticipated in the gratification so
eloquently expressed by the Right Hon. and Learned pre-
senter of !ha petition, in finding the views of his Majesty's
Government were sanctioned by the approbation of so many
men whose genius and talents had raised them to deserved
eminence.

Mr. S. BOURNE conceived, that by whatever term
the measure alluded to might be called, whether a mea-
sure of prudence, of policy, or of necessity, it certainly
could not with propriety be denominated by the term
" toleration."

Mr. C. GRANT admitted that there were many per-
sons, no doubt, in Scotland, who felt insuperable objec-
tions now to this measure ; yet with all the zeal which
characterized those who held these objections, he defied
them to produce a petition against concession signed by
persons of equally admitted character, intelligence, and
established fame, as those attached to the petition before
the House.

Mr. H. DRUMSIOND observed, that the present peti
tion was a proof of the intelligent mind of the best class
of people in Scotland.

After a few words from Sir J. Illicirmrosu and Sir R.
Itict,ts the petition was read, and ordered to be printed.
FREEHOLDERS' QUALIFICATION IN IRELAND

BILL.
The order of the day being moved by Mr. Secretary
PEEL, for the re-consideration of the Report on this Bill,
Mr. MOORE, in rising to move that it he an instruc-
tion to the Committee on the Qualification of Freeholders'
Bill, that they have power to extend the operation of
the Bill to corporate and other towns sending represen-
tatives to Parliament, and also power to preserve the ex-•
isting rights of Protestant freeholders, totally disclaimed
this Bill as a security for the measure of concession and
relief to the Roman Catho:ics. He considered the Bill
just in its principle, and that it derived its best claim to
his support from this circumstance,—that by raising the
freehold it the more effectually guarded the purity of elec-
tion in Ireland. The necessity which existed for this im-
provement of our Constitution was not confined ,to the
electors for counties in Ireland. The Bill was totally in-
adequate to the object the Right Hon. Gentleman had in
view. The reasons which his Right Hon. Friend had
assigned for not extending the operation of the Bill to
cities and towns, had not, upon full consideration satin-
fied his mind; and lie begged to move the following in-
struction to the Committee :—.‘ That power be given to
the Committee to extend the operation of the Bill to
boroughs, cities, and towns corporate in Ireland."
Mr. V. FITZGERALD would not detain the House
long in stating the reasons which induced him to oppose
the proposition of the Hon. Member for Dublin. The
Hon. Member bad stated the grounds on which he thought
the machinery of the Bill ought to be applied to all places
returning Members to Parliament. The Hou. Member
had stated that his Right Hon. Friend had supported the
Bill as it stood, on the principle that it was a counterpoise
to the predominant influence of corporations. For his
own part he had no recollection of his Right Honourable
Friend having used these terms ; but lie did recollect
his Right Hon. Friend having said that in addition to
other considerations, which his Right lion. Friend stated,
it ought to be recollected, that in the greater part of towns
and cities there existed the right of extending the elective
franchise indefinitely, and that for that reason the Bill
could not be applied to cities and towns without giving an
unfair advantage to corporations. He perfectly concurred
in this view; and he must say that when the principle of
these measures was to confer an equality of civil rights, it
did appear to him not a little inconsistent to propose that
the representation should he placed exclusively in corpo-
rations.—(Hear, hear.)—There was a very considerable
difference between the franchise in towns and the fran-
chise in counties. It was undoubtedly true that the free-
hold districts in towns were not confined to streets and houses
—but surely the Hon. Member did not mean to contend
that there was, in and about the towns of Ireland, that
very great, almost undefined, extent of ground which
would lead to such abuses as might be practised in coun-
ties. As to the power vested in corporations of creating
an unlimited number of freemen, he could only say, that
if there was any one circumstance more likely than ano-
ther to endanger the rights of great corporations, it was
the exercise of this power for the purpose of creating a
predominant influence in elections, instead of for the pur-
poses for which they were invested with the power. If there
was any case--and the Hon. Member fur Dublin would
know if there was—of a corporation admitting freemen,
not by name, but as members of certain political clubs, in
order to controul elections, he did think that the fact
would weigh with the House against, and not for, a pro-
position, the avowed object of which was to diminish
every other influence which could be opposed to that of
eorporations.—(Hear, hear.)—The lion. Member had
said that it would be easy to add a clause to this Bill,
which would carry his proposition into effect. He (Mr.
V. Fitzgerald) should protest altogether against the measure
being coupled with this Bill, even if the measure were one
in which he was inclined to acquiesce. Ile meant no dis-
respect when he said that it was impossible for gentlemen
to be wholly free from the influence of the interest by
which they were returned to Parliament ; and he must
say, that if the propositioa of the Hop. Member for Dub-
lin was to be agreed to, without raising the qualification,
it ought to be the subject of a subsequent measure, and at
another time, though, for his own part, there would be no
time at which he would consent to increase the power of
corporations to so great an extent. The Hon. Member
for Dublin had said that there were judicial officers in
towns and cities which corresponded to the assistant bar-
rister. Now if there was any one thing which he liked
more than another in the Bill, after raising the qualifi-
c.tion, which elevated the Irish voter, and gave to
the Irish Member a character which he had never
yet possessed, it was the selection of the persons to
whom the powers given by the Bill were confided. No
body of men had greater claims for their independ-
ence, for the excellence of their deportment, for their
strict impartiality, and for the extent of their knowledge,
than the gentlemen who presided at Sessions in Ireland;
and the Catholic gentlemen who had lately been raised to
these stations were not inferior to the most eminent of the
b.dy.—(Hear.)—But, on the other hand, the Recorder
was an officer elected by the corporation.—(Hear.)—The
Mon. Member (Mr. Moore) bad himself been a candidate
for that office in Dublin—and the Hon. Member for Drog-
heda (Mr. Van Homrigh), who was at that moment
speaking to the Hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Moore)
across the gangway, was himself the Recorder of Drog-
heda.—(Hear, bear.)—Speaking with all respect of the
Hon. Member for Dublin, he must say that such a re-
commendation as this, coming from the Hon. Member,
was not very likely to be attended to. His objection,
however, was to the principle of the instruction. Far
from conferring an equality of civil lights, it was calcula-
ted to recreate the most odious ascendancy; and he did
therefore implore the Mon.Alember not to press his motion.
After de opinion which the House had expressed of these
measures for tranquillizing Ireland, lie could not under-
will dacoconmwphiish what
what
principleyu any one
otnebuctolulwd
ilslayt
the cauldron which shall make it abortive."
Mr. H. GRATTAN never heard a proposition so ex.
say,
"wl see
t hayto iun
traordinary, so injurious, or so well calculated to revive
thole occurencee which they all deprecated, as the propo-
sition which had been made by his Hon. colleague (Mr.
Moore.)

Mr. VAN HOMRIGH hoped the Hen. and Learned
Member for Dublin would see the inexpediercy of pressing
his motion to a division, the rather as the Bill of which
it was intended to be an ametdment, was ow that many
Hon. Members—himself (Mr. Yan tionarigb) for one._
spppo}•teth pot op its own merits, but from its being an
appendage to a most beneficial measure.

Mr. TRANT would support the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin's proposition.
Col. TRENCH differed from the Hon. Member, and
contended that theli before the House would materially
strengthen the Protestant establishments.
Mr. LLOYD opposed the motion, because he conceived
its tendency would be to make the corporations in Ireland
omnipotent at elections.
After a few words, in reply, from Alr. Mona}, the
gallery -,ias &geared, but the 'Hon. Member 'withdrew his
motion without pressing it to a division.
On our return to the gallery, we found
Mr. MOORE proposing his next resoltn4-4t That
it be an instruction to the Committee on he qualification
of Freeholders' Full, that they have the power to preserve
the existing rights of Protestant freeholders." His reason
for thus exempting the Protestant forty-shilling free-
holders from the operation of the Bill was, that the Pro-
testants—particularly of the north of Ireland—were an in-
dustrious and intelligent set of men, and, unlike the Ca-
tholic freeholders, quite free from the influence of priests.
The Catholic freeholders were more objects of pity than
punishment, but stood in a very different relation to the
Bill from their Protestant brethren, Wh.ile the frauchiie
of the former was a great political evil, that of the latter
was a constitutional He did feel, then, that Ills
proposition was not more than was due to the Protestant
freeholders; indeed, his motto would be, sic utere Imo, at
aliennm non icedas ; so that nothing but jttatice \v,ould be
leave to propose
dope towards all
his r parte4ition.ieq. Vpoti that ground he begged
Mr. PEEL thought his Hon. Friend had acted wisely
in not pressing his former resolution to q diviiinn4 and

thought that such was also the feeling of dist Housto.O.
(Hear, hear.)—He also thought, that when his Nei'.
Friend considered that his present, motion was founded off'
a religious distinction, and not on political grounds, 1,0
would see the expediency of withdrawing it as in the'
former instance. His Hon. Friend must see that it would;
not he fair to grant the Protestant freeholder a privilege
whiCh they took from the Catholic, because, as his Hon.
Friend stated, the Protestants in the North of Ireland
were respectable and uncontrolled in the exercise of their.
franchise by spirital influence ; for his Hon. Friend must
know, that very many respectable Catholic freeholders
who had voted in favour of Protestant candidates, undis!.
mayed by popular clamour, would be disfranchised by the •
Bill before the House, no less than the Protestant free-
holders. There then existed no valid ground of distinc-
tion so far as respectability and freedom from spiritual in-
fluence was concerned. And would his Hon. Friend rest
his proposition on a religious distinction? H© was stile
not,—and that the force of the legal maxim quoted by his,
Hon. Friend, " Sic utere tuo, ut alienum non hulas,'
would induce his Hon. Friend to withdraw his motion. .
Mr. TRANT would vote for the Hon. Member's ma•
tion if he pressed it to a division.
Mr. V. Fl 7 ZGERALD felt himself bound to state,
that he never suffered one expression of censure or dissa-;
tisfaction to escape him in consequence of the opposition
given to him at the late election by the forty-shilling free- t
holders, and that be never suffered himself to be at all
influenced in his support of the present Disfranchisement'
Bill, nor to be at all influenced in his private or public
conduct by that opposition.—(Hear, hear. )—lf he had'
any resentful feelings in consequence of that event, -he had
kept his word given at the time, that it would not at all ,
influence the course of conduct which he had so long un-
deviatingly pursued toward his Catholic fellow-subjects.
He had not deviated from that course ; so that he might
repeat the language of a Noble Lord in another place,
and say " he had had his revenge."—(Hear.)--He sup-
ported this Bill because he considered it a security which
ought to satisfy the Protestants of the country. He sup-
ported it as afford'ng the beat reformation of the state of
the elective franchise in Ireland, and the most effectual
means for the regeneration of that country. It was on
these grounds, and on .the grounds which had been de-
tailed by his Right Hon. Friend in introducing the met-
sure, that he (Mr. Fitzgerald) supported it, and no per- •
sonal feelings whatever mingled with his advocacy of the
measure.—(Hear, hear.)
The motion was then put, and negatived without a
division.

Lord DUNCANNON was anxious to state before the
House went into a Committee on this Bill, that though he
had not altered his views with respect to it, for he still
considered it a measure equally unnecessary and unjust,
yet after the sense of the House had been so decidedly ex-
pressed upon it, and after the Right Hon Gentleman (Mr.
Peel) had declared that he and his colleagues viewed this
Bill in no other light but as a portion of the great mea-
sure of Catholic relief, he (Lord Duncannon) should not
take up the time of the House by giving this Bill any fur•
ther opposition.—(Hear.)
Sir H. PARNELL entirely concurred in the senti-
ments expressed by his Noble Friend (Lord Duncannon•)
He (Sir H. Parnell) should also feel it his duty to give no
further opposition to the Bill, lest, by so doing, he might
at all impede the success of the great measure of emanci-
pation.—(Hear.)
Mr. ESTCOURT also conceived that it would be quite
useless, and only wasting the time of the Nouse, to offer
any further opposition to this Bill.
Mr. A. DAWSON concurred as to the inutility of offer-
ing any further opposition to the Bill, but he trusted that
when in Committee, a clause which he intended to sug-
gest in reference to those forty-shilling freeholders who
held in perpetuity would meet with the support of the
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, and be introduced into
the Bill.

Mr. HUME said, he was one of those who in the first
instance had objected to this measure, in company with
the Non. Baronet (Sir N. Parnell). That Hon. Baronet
said, that he had opposed this measure not as a Parlia-
mentary reformer. Indeed, he (Mr. Hume) had been
surprsed at the complexion of the minority in which he
found himself in this measure. He certainly never was,
and he had been in a great many minorities—(a laugh)—
in a minority so strangely composed.—(Much laughter.)
—On going home to his house, he endeavoured to analyse,
it, and he must say that he could not reconcile the mo-
tives and views of the different individuals of whom that
minority was composed.—( Great laughter.)—He had op-
posed this measure because he considered it an infraction
of popular rights; he entertained the same opinion of it
still, but he should do nothing further in the way of oppo-
sition, lest he might thwart the great measure of emanci-
pation. By the way, he would direct the attention of the
Right Hon. Gentleman to the miserable state of the elec-
tive franchise in Scotland. An individual there, who
possessed not a farthing's worth, not an acre of land, but
who held land as a tenant at a nominal rent, had voted,
while the substantial freeholders were excluded from the
franchise.

Lord SANDON voted for this measure, not as a re-
former, but because be was willing, when a practical
grievance or abuse was pointed out to him, to apply to it
a practical remedy.
Mr. JAMES GRATTAN contended that the forty-
shilling freeholders bad in the majority of instances exer-
cised their fr4uchise honestly, and he should certainly op-
pose this Bill if he conceived that his opposition to it
would have any effect.

Mr. BANKES Wished to know whether any distinction
existed between the Protestant and Catholic forty-shilling
freeholders at present?
Mr. PEEL—No distinction whatever.
The House then went into a Committee on the Bill ;
Sir A. GRANT in the Chair.

The two first clauses were then put and agreed to.
On the clause, raising the qualification from 40e. to 10/.
being read by the Chairman,
Mr. MOORE rose to propose, as an amendment, that
the words " twenty pounds" be inserted instead of " ten
pounds." All the communications which he had received
from Ireland concurred in stating, that the Bill would not
accomplish the purposes for which it was intended, unless
the qualification were raised to twenty pounds. As far
as his (Mr. Moore's) observation and experience went, be
concurred in that opinion, and he therefore begged leave to
move an amendment to that effect.
Mr. PEEL should give his most decided opposition to
such an amendment..—(Loud cries of " Hear.")—lf his
lion. Friend would but look to the clauses which regu- •
lated and determined the 10/. franchise under this Bill, be
would see ;hat the present qualification afforded the most
ample security under such restrictions for its beneScial ex-
ercise, and a far better security than the raising of it to
20/., under the existing system, would supply. He ob-
jected to this amendment also, because it would go to take
the elective franchise from the counties, and to throw into
the great towns—to deprive the landed proprietors in the
counties of that influence, and to throw it into the bands
of the respectable shopkeepers in the great towns.
Mr. MOORE argued, that it appeared from the
eYi-
dence given by Mr. O'Connell iu 1825, that the rtal,sliaw
of the franchise to 10/ would increase the Cot4e&ic; anti
diminish the Protestant influence in Ireland.,
Mr. PEEL remarked, that that evidenec :0.044
raising of the qualification to 41. a* contemplated by the
Bill of 1825, from which pkll the present differed not
only as to the atmearit of the qualification, but as to the,
regulatiorra ender which the franchise must be regiatered,
Colonel TRENCH conceived
.that the pleing of the,.
franchise to 201. would be more likely to establish a race
of independent yeomanry and freeholders in Ireland.
Admiral.EVANS maintained, that in his opening speed
on this subject, the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr, peel),
had laid meat stress upon the evidence of Mr. White, 7+,4,
gave his opinion that it would be better to re* the q.ualie-
fication to 20/. The Right Hon. OentlnineA would of
course rely more upon that authority than the authority
of Mr. O'Connell, as the respectability of the parties would
bear no competition. He (Ad,rial,eal Evans) Would take it
middle course, and he weed(' propose that the qualities,
Iron should be raised to 151.-0 4010
Mr. V. FITZGERAU) contended, from his know-
ledge and experience of Ireland, fleet the raising of the
qualification with the regulations and under the
reatiictine of,' this Bill, would fully accomplish the objecte
wares the House had in view.
Mr. M. FITZGERALD argued against the pkope.atiou
of the Hon. Member for Dublin.
Mr. THANT remarked, that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Peel) had said, that the evidence of Mr.
O'Connell referred to the raising of the qualification to 51.
Ile would only refer the Right lion. Gentleman to that
evidence to convince him of his voietake.—(Cries of
" Read, read.")-lle held it in his hands.—(Repeated
cries of "Read,"),~Neshould read it to the House. The
extract which he proposed to read to the House was from
a speech made by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel)
en this subject in 1825.—(A laugh..)—The words of the
Right Hon. gentleman at that period were the follow-
jog :—" Ile would now exatnine how far the measure
would affect the Protestant interest in Ireland. Mr.
O'Connell bad stated in his evidence that this Bill would
have the effect of leisettieg the power of the aristocraeye
and of increasing tlie influence of the Roman Catholics.'
What were Ole effects which the Right Hon. Gentleman
tbeira attributed to the Bill, which was then before
Parlio-
tuentt and which lie himself contended at the time west