The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-20 00:00:00

REPRESENTATION OP CANTERMJnY.

Lord CLIFTON had a petition to present from the free-
men of Canterbury, which was agreed to at a Common
Hall convened by the Mayor. The pe!itienets complained
that one of their Representatives had accepted the goverw-
ment of Madras, and had gone to reside in another quarter
of the world. They considered it highly important to
their interests that both their Representatives should be in
their places, and they prayed the House to take some
measure which would enable them to elect another Repre-
sentative.

Mr. I3ARING had given notice last Session of his in-
tion to bring in a Bill, by which it should be enacted that
any Member accepting an office under the East India Com-
pany would vacate his seat in that House in the same man-
ner as a seat was vacated by the acceptance of an office
under the Crown. But for the Catholic question, which
engrossed so much of the public time, he (Mr. Baring)
would have introduced a Bill for this purpose, and have
taken the sense of the House upon it ; and he now rose
merely to state that he would bring the subject before the
House as soon as the subject which occupied so much of
the public attention was disposed of.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL happened to know that Mr.
Lusbington would have resigned his seat before he left
England if the request to do so had not been conveyed i❑
an offensive manner. He begged to know whether the
measure which the Hon. Member for Callington (Mr.
Baring) intended to introduce was to ne prospective or in
any degree ex post facto.

.Mr. BARING replied that his measure would be pro-
spective, and would not effect the case now under conside-
ration, though it would meet siniihr cases in future.

- After a short conversation, in which Mr. IloUHousE,
Mr. W. WYNN; and Mr. POULFTT THOMPSON took part,
the petition was ordered to be printed.
Lord CLIFTON presented petitions from Chatham and
Folkestone m favour of concession to the Roman ('atholics.
Similar petitions were presented by Colonel HUGHES
from Wallingford, Berks; and Rattlesden, Suffolk.—
Ordered to be printed.
LONDON AND WESTMINSTER PETITION.

Mr. C. PALLMER rose to present the petition of the
Protestants of the metropolis against further concessions to
the Roman Catholics, and spoke as follows:--I am called
upon, Sir, to perform the duty of submitting to this House
a petition from upwards of 113,000 householders of Lon-
don, Westminster, and the places adjacent, upon the subject
of the Roman Catholic question. • I have the assurance of
gentlemen whcse characters are above all suspicion, that
the utmost caution has' been used to preserve it from the
injuries of injudicious friends or the acts of insidious ene-
mies. I cannot possibly conceive a more faithful represen-
tation of noble feeling and opinion. Sir, though I refrain
at the present moment entering into the general question,
1 hope the time will arrive when I may do this inwortant
petition that act ofjustiee. In the mean time -I . may be
permitted, I think, without departing from my rule, to
assert that I cordially concur in the principles upon which
this petition is founded; and that, in spite of the dogmas
and the rhetoric of those who arrogantly call themselves
the intellectual, I feel a conscientious conviction that the
measure before the House is a question of the religion of
the country, the pure reformed religion, and that this House
of Commons has no more right against the will of the people
to admit Papists into the Legislature than they have to re-
verse the princip!e and exclude from it the Protestants.—
As a Member of Parliament I humbly but earnestly entreat
his Majesty's Ministers, and this House, to listen to the
prayers of the people, to beware how they overlook their
legitimate power, how they miscalculate their moral force,
and to guard against the infatuation of him, who, towering
upon the gigantic elephant, mistakes ductility for fear, and
whilst be avails himself of the useful energies of his
strength, overlooks the tremendous power of his rage. In
conclusion, Sir, I beg permission to add, that hoping and
believing that, in my latest hour, I shall look back with
indescribable happiness' to the humble but hearty part
which I have taken in this sacred cause, 1 shall feel it an
incalculable augmentation.of that enjoyment to reflect that
it has entitled me, without any other pretension, to the dis-
tinguished honour of placing this respectable petition upon
the table of the House of Commons.

Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN was a friend to petition-
ing, but he thought it his duty to offer some observations
on the petition now presented. The Hon. Member had
not stated how this petition was got up ; but the fact was,
that a meeting was called at the Crown and Anchor Ta-
vern, and that an individual, well known (Mr. Hunt),
made some proposition which threw the meeting into con-
fusion, in consequence of which the Chairman declared
that the meeting was adjourned, upon which some per-
sons withdrew to another part of the hotel, and formed
themselves into a committee, from whose exertions this
petition had emanated. Some curious doctrines had been
broached as to the right of petitioning. It bad been con-
tended that there was no reason why children and women
should not sign petitions. Now he (Mr. Alderman
Waithtnan) thought that women were very well in their
place-:—(A laugh)—but if they came forward as petitioners
it should be so declared, and the House would be aware
that the practice was confined to females of a certain de-
scription.—(Laughter.)—The question now was, whether
the House should be guided by its own deliberations, or by
parchments signed by women and children ?—(Hear.)—
The petitioners, he said, laid claim to exclusive loyalty,
and if the House would take the trouble to be informed
how those petitions were got on, and how signatures
were obtained to them, they would be better enabled to
judge of the extent to which they were entitled to the ap-
pellation of loyal. The Hon. Member then proceeded to
read a number of hand-bills, addresses, and other docu-
ments, some of which imputed to his present Majesty that
he was not a Protestant King.—((tries of " Oh oh,"
Order, order.")—ln support of his assertion he began
to• read the well-known address prefixed to the report of
the speech of a Ittyal Duke, " Listen to the warning voice
of the worthy son of George AL"; and from that and
other papers contended that undue ir.fitignce had been used
in getting up the petitions. Ile would ask, why public
meetings had tint Imen convened in every parish, and why
had nut fair opportunity been given fur the expression of
public opinion ? Ile had examined many of the names of
those who had signed that petition, and he found that they
by no means comprised any considerable portion of the
wealth, intelligence, or even numerically considered, of the
PoPulatioa of the metropolis. There were people from
Hull who had signed that petition—boys had signed. Such
a petition was an insult to the House. In his opinion the
Corporation was the proper Organ of the opinion of the
city of London, but the views of the Corporation by no
means suited the views of those who so strenuously op-
posed themselves to the Roman Catholic claims. As
another instance of the undue ilifluence exerted, he in-
stanced an address by a Rev. Gentleman, in which it was
declared that concessions to the Roman Catholics " was
legislative treason against the Majesty of Heaven." Good
God, Sir (continued the Hon. Member), I don't know

how you feel, butt cm horrift,e4.—(4 laugb, find er6; of
" Hear, hear.")—The fact was, that those petitions were
pzThto!ts it2ompetent to judge of questions
of to mach ditnettity arid iii;:tilet.±!: It was signed by
boys; it was signed lo; babes and sueklings.—(Lliifet
Hi.JSKIS.;6I`,I &tight the discitssions w'hich on
Several occasions lately lid@ otenpled the attention of the
House w.:s time not well spent. The uniritter in tel
signature had been obtained to petitions it was scarcely
digitilltid in that HOuse to occupy itself in discussing.
After a few words fl-Lnrt Lord MANDEVILLE and expla-
nation from Alderman WAITIIMAN,

General GASCOYINE knew nothing about the prc.Siit
petition, or the circumstances under which signatures had
been obtained to it. But, with respect to the objection
that women of a certJn description had signed it, he had
thily to sty, that When it was, as thin Hon. Gentleman
had Saitt it etas, carried round to the bankefs, Merchants,
ackbeiy bevrt. Witi!theview of procuring
in such places the signatures of those women. He retnein-
hued well that, during the trial of the late iiueri, petitions
were carried round to the alehouses anti gin-shops; and
no one better understood these matters than did the worthy
Alderman. ---f A laugh. )
Mr. TRANT supported the views of the petitioners.

Mr. P. THOMPSON inferred that the inhabitants of
the hieii•opbtis and of Brildl!3sez: were favourable to con-
cession from the flint that, out of ten MemlSerS; Therell,as
only one opposed to concession. The petition was lying
for signatures, and a copy of the address was always given
as a bribe for signing the petition.

Mr. Alderman W'oon and Mr. W. SMITH also made a
fr;! t,h;vrvationii oh the undue influence used in obtaining
iiignattud, ,
Sir IL IL INGLIS had reason to believe that the
greatest pains were taken to have the signatures unobjec-
tionable.

Mr. A. BARING said that this petition was stated to
be sigad by 113,03 whom. r.-are
slid to reside in the suburban parishes, sad the remaining
109,000 in the city of London. Now, bow that could
possibly be the fact he was at a loss to say, for, by the
htit eensui Which had been published, it appeared that in
the city of there oliSted rth more, than b 9,000
tiouseholders. When he firund that to he the nci tle er
taihly felt much dispoSed to behaVe that some of these Un-
fair means had been resorted to, to which other Hon. Mem-
bers had alhided, and tine signatnreti of any persons, how-
cvtir ignorant they might be, pi'ovicltid they tiould write
their n Imes, bad been sought for and obtained.
Mr. HOBHOUSE entirely differed in opinion froth the
.Huh: Member fed Liverpool; hintßitch wa=thembrlstrousgloss
put upon the words of Members who happefied to object
to any of the anti-Catholic petitions which were presented •
to the House that he did not like. upon any insignificant
• occasion to risk his .;11aracier in the eYe's of his 'constitu-
ents by Opening his lips uptin the subject, lest doMe
rieiein-
terpretation should be put upon what he said. Ile con-
tended, however, that this was net the petition of the in-
habitant householders of the cities of London and Wei:t-
minster. He (lid not Mean to say that the pbtitionrs
were not respectable and conseiemions persons, hilt he did
say that the petition could in no sense of the word be con-
sidered as the petition of the inhabitant householders of
the cities of London and Westminst.r and the parts
nt to them. When he heard the cumber of the peti
tioners he felt much astonishment, and, entertaining an
opini(th that so many householders (lid not really exist in
the places from whence the petition was stated to come,
he had gone into the library of the House in order to as-
certain whether what bad been stated could he correct,
and on referring to the proper authority he found that
there were not so many inhabitant householders by one-
half as were stated in the petition. He therefore did not
hesitate to say that some unfair means must have been re•
sorted to. He had no place to lose other than his seat in
Parliament, and if his constituents differed from him io
opinion upon this question they were at perfect lil:erty to
do so, and could easily express that difference of opinion
when he presented himself before them at the general elec-
tion. He felt convinced, however, that the electors of
Westminster would not reject him upon that ground.
The petition was then brought up.

Mr. C. PALLMER said that when the petition was put
into his hands he was informed that it was signed by none
but persons of respectability, the greater number of whom
had attached the names of their places of residence. With
respect to the number of inhabitant freeholders in London
and its vicinity, authorities appeared to differ very widely,
for since the statement of the Hon. Member on the other
side an Hon. Priemd of his had also consulted an authority
in the library, from which it appeared that the number of
householders amounted not to 58,000 only, but to 1:38,000.
—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. HustussoN, Mr. Alder-
man WaititmAN, and Mr. SADLER, the petition was read,
and ordered to be printed.
FORTY SHILLING FREEHOLDERS.

Mr. PEEL moved the Order of the Day for the second
reading of the Bill relating to the qualification of the free-
holders of Ireland.

Lord DIINCANNON was afraid that many of his
friends would think his guilty of much inconsistency in
opposing a Bill which in many respects was similar to one
which he had supported in 1825. The posture of affairs
in Ireland, however, was not widely different to what it
was at that time, and it was upon that ground that he
could not now give his unqualified consent. The measure
of Catholic Emancipation, upon certain conditions to be
observed by the Catholics, was now likely to pass, and
with this, it was said, the Irish people ought to be con-
tented. One of the conditions, however, upon which it
was to be granted would be the deprivation of one of their
most cherished privileges—the disfranchisement of the
forty-shilling freeholders. Much opposition, be thought,
would be shown by the people to such a measure, and, for
his own part, he did not see that it would have the effect
of preventing the fraud complained of in the election of
Irish Members. The Catholic clergy, who were now
acquainted with what had taken place in that House,
would endeavour to incite the people to resist the
disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders, and
much confusion would most probably ensue. It
appeared to be a general impression upon the mind of
the House that the forty-shilling freeholders were all cor-
rupt voters. He begged to say that if they did entertain
such an idea it was an exceedingly erroneous one. He felt
convinced that those who were favourable to the disfran-
chisement did not in the slightest degree know what they
were going to do. They believed that the forty-shilling
freeholders were the mere slaves and vassals of the land-
holders. It was said by an Hon. Member who had lately
visited Ireland, that upon examination he found that the
forty-shilling freeholders were so extremely ignorant that
nineteen out of twenty of tkem were unable to write. their,
names. He admitted that that was the case in the moun-
tain districts, but in other parts of the country they were,
comparatively speaking, well educated. It was net his in-
tention to divide the House upon this second reading of the
Bill, but at the same time he was anxious that some measure
should he taken to prevent the fraudulent registry of the
forty-shilling freeholders, which he conceived to be the only
real evil to be corrected. He should therefore move, in a
future stage of the Bill, that it should be referred to a Com-
mittee to consider whether the Bill might not be so framed
as to prevent a fraudulent and fictitious registry of electors.
Mr. AGAR ELLIS expressed his entire concurrence in
the proposed measure of disfranchisement.

Mr. BROWNLOW should lend his hearty support to
the second reading of this Bill. In doing so he begged it
to be understood that he did not mean to pledge himself as
being of opinion that a ten-pound freehold was the best
qualification
of the elective franchise of Ireland, but be-
cause he considered that a very great alteration might be
made in the laws respecting that country. lie was con-
vinced that the forty-shilling franchise gave rise to every
species of fraud, while the unfortunate freeholders them-
selves were compelled to perjure themselves to oblige their
landlords. It had been said that emancipation would be
dearly purchased if the forty-shilling franchise were aho
fished, and that it would be better to wait for .1 year or
two, when it tens supposed that emancipation must be
granted without any provision whatever. For his own
part he :Mr. Brownlow) would net wait one year, be-
cause, by so waiting, England and Ireland might be rent in
twain. He must differ from the Hon. Member who al)-
proved of the measure, because it took the votes out of the
hands and influence of the Catholic priesthood. Now, I.e
must declare, as au Irishman, and as an observer of the
scenes that had lately token place in Ireland, that the
minds of those Members of the I louse were much abused
who thought that the freeholders of Ireland were led by
their priesthood.—(llear, bear.)—He denied the fact alto-
.gether. Historians who in future times should write down
the events which bad led to the glorious accomplishment
of this great measure, anti who should say that it was in-
fluenced by the priesthood, would prUve themselves very
short sighted. The freeholders had acted as citizens,
wrought up to enthusiasm by grievance and a sense of in-
jury. They were unnatural exertions, and as soon as the
cause was taken away the voters would return, under the
influence of their landlords, as they were between 1793
and 1825, when they were driven into the county town
and put into the pound, till their landlord called upon them
to do their duty. For these reasons it was that he should
vote for the second reading of the Bill before them.
Lord BECTIVE could conscientiously vote for the pre-
sent Bill.

Mr. LITTLETON considered this Bill calculated to
afford the Protestants a substantial security; whilst it could

not be objected to by the Catholics, as it applied a'(11-tailY I
Ed Proteetante and Catholics.. Ali thinking men nia"ot
rejoice In the: ttipeal of the Act of 1793, which had ope-
rated to the ruin of osene laarted erne ict9rm of Leland and
the degradation of diet country. '.ll:e ?anted proprietors
Trete rateeseleee so coneeioue of the evils of tiro plaint
to al :onion it, and only
wanted tal te te!ti.itat law hi coru,e? #
tefi'rn. eeYn Ilfelrele7rdiethaiCie7tlepi ericentste tf-ot
die
feren
meas
tes'ant interests in Ireland.
effectu:lesa:(ll without) fcntrlr
linsit -le
edition he
ofcarried P co-
' into
M. /P.LiEns STUART should concur in flits mea-
sure although he FO'falft thereby sacrifice whatever popula-
rity he might have with his araittitnents. He could not,
however, forget that he was returned ley the re:teat mass of
his constituents at Waterford to fight the battle of fetaaious
libeaty ; and lie should consider himself little less than a
traitor to his trtiete-a--(hear)--if he did not-do all that he
thought Would aid to the great fight. But let him
not Fie tholight to site/mit thie thee:ante otherwise than as
an aceeesdey to. Ens'arachaathin. He could trot ecrneeal from
the House his regret at its. having been thought neeassaty
to have the present measure as an aetigmisaniment to the
other, for, if men ever vindicated their fitnea:f t 6 vote at
election., it was the firty.shilling freeholders at the late
election for Clare,—(llear.)—They had been told that
they'&ideas to theft iandlorde ; they had been taunted
with their sOiase:ana:'Vay they had been reviled for their
helotism ; but how, on the first of,'poittitaitaa Oaten them,
had they answered these charges? Threats could nett ewe/
promiecs could not sway, them to prostitute their suffragte
in enpport of principles which they knew to be inierical to
tfie4• end, itibeeteive of their liberties.—(Hear.)—
They had aced !ri taiaa h
,eofrineicaion with their priests,
and not in subservience to tluerO. !heft; ttetald he be
otherwise than reluctant to punish as a crMie pia&lice
which lie had been taught to look upon as a virtue in
theca Y. !.'ac eatatitiered the fear vain, that if this measure
were not passed, the l'retiOle!ete raerld continue to vote with
their priests. There would be no differel'.'ae between the
landlord and tenant when there ceased to be a distinction
between Catholic and Protestant.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—
If the me:Laura', of Einancieation had passed he would
not contielj.i taa thiel3lll ; brat as one cools! not pass without
the other, he asked hilailf 4hetha'r Ii Conetiments would
not be more benefitted by the discontiiWianfe of the disubili-
ties under which they at present laboured withoiltiaaiting
the ferinehtert than they would be by a continuance of both.
Mr; IltSKlSSrell felt as strongly as any Hon. Mem-
ber the incalculable impertairde tit Me measure which had
b4ei aarried at thaec o'elirek this morning by a decisive
majority of teat iteltee, It he'd been stated to the I-loose
Mat manner which could not doe Ittiaainderstaod, that that
measure was indissolubly bound up with the Vreseitit,--
that the fate of the One would decide the fate of the othet:
This it was wliiah inekeased the embarrassment under
which he laboured in his sentiments, which
arose from his disapprobation of the prineThaa of the Hilt
which disposed of an elective franchise. Ile at the Kittle -
time prci'eael againet the doctrine,—and it was an unpar-
liamentery *ay of discressing any measure,—that this
House was not at liberty to make art alteention in the elec-
tive franchise.—(Hear.)—=He could riot diseussethe trieesere
with reference to the present etete of property in Ireland,
as he was not acquainted tidth ehould diectree it on
the principle of right It Ireland was a neW if
she h id never enjoyed this right at all, and the question
here related to the establishment of the elective franchise
there, then he should not object to the limitation proposed
to be introduced ; 101. would be a very good limitation if
the Helve was legialatitig fot a hette tountry. But it was
said you must look at the state of Ireland as connected with
this proposition. They were nbt at liberty to look at
the question in that point Of view. It must be well
known to every Member in that House, that it was a point
of the case that the elective franchise of counties in Ireland
were the same as those in England; that whereas forty-
shilling freeholders in England had obtained the privileges
ahotit four hundred years ago, they had been extended to
Ireland a century later, about three hundred years
since. When be said this, he meant to say, that a fran-
chise so annexed and united, for a period of 300 years, to
a freehold, was; a right and property vested in the free-
holder, to take away which was only one degree less a
violation of tight than taking the property itself.—(llear.)
—Why did be state this ? Was there any ground of law
for this theory ? Yes, a high authority a deciehin of a
court of law. Lord Chief Justice Holt, in speaking of
Vie freehold rights of the people of England—of the forty-
shilling freeholders—said, " A freehold right is one which,
if ally person is in the slightest degree molested in the
exercise thereof, he may defend by action ;" and further,
" a freehold right is a most transcendent thing ; it is
vested in and inseparable from the freehold a if it be sepa-
rated, then the freehold is taken away." Then Magna
Charta itself contained a provision, that "no fteettian
shall be disseized of his freehold, of the liberties thereof,
but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the
land."—(Hear.)-a-Therefore these freehold rights and im-
munities were most sacred, protected by the law of the
country, and by the sanctity of 300 years. lie was told,
and this was the only difference which had been set up be-
tween the two eases, that this privilege had been mere
abused in Ireland than in ibis country. Was there no in-
stance of such abuses in England? Hon. Members might
recollect the election in Middlesex some twenty years ago,
and the scenes which had then taken place, when a mill
at Brentford had been split into a hundred votes.—(Hear.)
Who bad ever thought at that time of meddling with the
elective franchise of the people of England ? Let gentle-
men call to mind the elections of Westminster 40 or 50
years ago ; and the perjuries, and corruptions, and bri-
bery, and breaches of the peace; yet who thought of in-
terfering with the franchise of the people of England?
It had been objected that the votes in Ireland were not
derived from property in fee; and how many members
were there in that House whose property was not in fee ?
In the place which he haul the honour to represent, many
of the electors held only a life-interest in their property;
and in many places—Sussex, for example, votes were
created by the purchase of 40s. worth of land-tax, which
was not purchased for the profitable employment of capi-
tal, but solely with a view of obtaining the elective
franchise. He could not make up his mind to disposses
persons of their property, especially when the abuse—
which was to be considered the ground of the measure—
existed elsewhere. By the present Bill, which was not
prospective merely, all the proprietors of freeholds be-
tween 40s. and 101., who bad hitherto exercised the right
of voting, were iasfranchised, and thereby sustained an,
injustice only a degree short of the loss of their free-
hold. The Right Hon. Gentleman then referred to a
custom, about this period of the year, of taking the skin
from a dead lamb and placing it upon a live one; and he
observed that the Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to have
committed the mistake of putting the skin of a lamb, not
upon a sheep, but upon a wolf. Another argument in
favour of the Bill was, of all other arguments, the
least to be commended. It was said that the people of
Ireland were indifferent about this right,—that the measure
was not unpopular in that country. But was it becom-
ing in any Government to take advantage of a season of en- I
thusiasm, of an ebullition of gratitude, and to accept the
surrender of an institution connected with popular rights ?
Such an argument was open to great objection ; for if this
House might deal in that manner with the rights of elec-
tors, there was no knowing where it would end. Ile (Mr.
Huskisson) was an enemy to Parliamentary Reform, an
object which, since the intr.( duetion of this measure, had
become more than ever a topic of conversation. He had
heard it asserted, that this Bill was a measure of Parlia-
mentary Reform, but that it began at the wrong end. He
was hostile to all such reform, let the suggestion come
from what quarter it might—whether it referred to Eng-
land, Ireland, or Scotland. He should give such a project
his decided opposition; and admitting as he did, from a
sincere conviction, that the Catholic Bill would strengthen
the Protestant interests, he was of opinion, on the
other hand, that Parliamentary Reform would not rattly
destroy the Protestant Church, but every other esta-
blishment. But he could not compromise the rights
of the people, and consent to a violation of property.
If he ,had happened to be a Member of his Majesty's
j Government,
J of the
ngement.
i this,—he
l on those
tisfying him
.v,ll,elisii:e,iliaaeliretbesinol;lii,eli,nitnevi‘iiniylcoglseetilli(:in.tntoettwiolst,stisitillohti:(l!itanaermy:osit,:uce(l,lav)avaufvs,ssereesueciteiritocicineaofisf:(triu)rhaits.iei,iennal7:een(ris,aiesitorrlitc,,nritedesoateali
whoie; satisfied
course which he thought he should then have adopted was
were anxious for the measure to make it prospective; it
would h.tve
the absolute necessity of this measure, to secure the success
of the other,
sent state. He should not have yielded till the inseparable
demonstratedconnexion
n
to it in tHaving, p rcomplicatede
' to him. He had lived too long in public, and mixed too
much in its
sic ld.
state of things, theca may have existed some overruling
necessity, to
therefore, no means of knowing whether this recessity
ex-
isted,
great on
(ti
ffie othercuy,
hand, being moat anxious to do
hie
nothing which might, by possibility, seem to evince a desire
to delay or impede the other great measure, be felt it proper,
to abstain from vottlipin,iocgrhyahtaaasdlthoastthoe,
memory of
jopireise;
iti:xi.itraordinary speech which had
fallen from his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Husl isson.) He
lied never .
discussions which took place inDtht:hhtaetrUtil'uoss)tetse wee not always
on tlrl3 I.iblenleciEartfleb.TintY should not have addressed the House

accurate; and during at least three-quarters of that speech,
,7,l,thoughtise
ni ethatnt
f1t81,2:52t, forty-shillingie•ol
Gentleman
mo
thoughthl
I.e had thought he laboured under a great misappreheue
ber
n.
for I:.,:ford (Mr. Littleton) brought thrivard the question
dHisefi.
of the
that ti question had received the support of his Right
Him. Friend. But he
.bad been relieved from all doubt
upon the subject, when the
it prudent to anticipate the objeCtiotms dominclh
might- be
t of his
le
ad
ot:pi:tac:eft
omltmeyb'd siotnan t itllll9,ge2,
sfii
rnsiti ,latter piahr
which Etas a I
if in
Boo,—(Hear.)—For his own part, he gave his five
sanction to the measure. He had not intended to enter
into the question to-night—other Members, better ac-
quainted than he was with the subject, were present. He
had listened with admiration to the speech of the Horn
Member for Waterford (Mr. V. Stuart), which detnauded
Iris unqualified approbation, for ho knew the sacrifice lie
was making; he knew that it was by the forty-shillioe;
freeholders he had been supported. The Hon. Me;
her had, therefore, risked a great sacrifice for this great
measure. But the justification of that lion. Member
would he finind in the approbation of the Catholics them-
selves, who would by this sacrifice purchase a much more
valuable boon. But his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Hoskin-.
son) stood on different ground. He knew nothing of Ire.
iatgi he *aid, or of the forty. shilling freeholder; but hav-
ing voted err favour of this measure in 1825, why, he
would ask, did he support it then, if he believed that it
was an act of gross' Injustice? If there was a violation et
just principlesDuht) llireenwt,hmeind.
coßilluitnhc:
him Thal he need not repent his Jarring voted as he did ;
)
that no natural et legal right was violated, and that his
'ultdi'6!.reclie.7thilm),atv;e
Right Hon. Friend might afire his vote esow, if squeamish..
ness and no other ground withheld him. The lion, and
Learned Gentleman then proceeded to show that from the
time of Mtig Henry VI. down to the late reign, Parlia-
ment had on vaelons occasions proceeded to legislate on t 1
elective franchise, extetolirg it at some periods, end limit
ing it in others; but in all piertrels dealing with it mot mss
a vested right which was not to tee *interfered with, but is
one which might be regulated according to circunmstmetei.
After adverting to the advantages which ivould be derived
from the other DiN,----the great and important measure
with which this was accompanied, and which, without
this, they could not hope to carry,—he hoped that as his
Right Hon, Friend, time Member for Liverpool, was anxious
for the rifeness of the one, he would not allow his example,
which Wotild, no doubt, have great weight, to militate
against that tucceee tiy his opposition to the other.
Mr. HUSKISSON den/e4 that he opposed this Dili
from any principle of an equality of elective rights.
Sir T. GOOCII said, that as he did not approve of the
first measure, he would, if this were pressed to a division,/
vote with the Noble Lord (lluncannon) against this Bill.
Mr, S, WORTLEY had brought himself to the deter,
initiation 6f voting for the Bill, thong], ,not without
struggle.
Lord L. nowErt could state front time informat;ent
which lit: had received, that it wes fayonrebiy receiver; its
the county of Weeford, the focus of Catholic insurrection,
and in 'Waterford, crtath was the focus of it species of in-
surrection—or, be would rather say, insubordination of
tenant to landlord, which resulted, and be said it not in-
vidiously, In the return of the Hon. Member opposite (Mt.
V. Stuart) fur that county.
Mr. C. ()RANT regretted much being obliged to differ
from hi? tight Hon. Friend, but still more should he re,
gret that anj imp,tlltitent should be thi own in the way
of
the mighty measure with Which tire present was accom.,
pried. He would not then enter into the principle of this
Bill. He wished sincerely that it had never been in-
troduced ; but as a Member of Padliunent,
losking to time
mimes of a gteat and important measure fin' which had,
long sighed, he would pass over the demerits e..r this,
look only to the so:tees of the abet. He knew that,.
culties were placed in the way of Minis:ere, with respect
to the important measure for remoeing Catholic disabili-
ties. Seine of those difficulties might be nen by any per-
son who looked at what was passing; but there were othet
difficulties which could nut he seen by many. To aros'
arty additional difficulty in their way by appositions to this
Bill, whatever might be his opinion of it in the abstract,
was what he could not confetriplate. He therefore was
content with it. It might be said that this would tee
establishing a bad precedent for future tittiee......bat
brrfeo
him with such another measure, so pregnant wA benefit
to the country; and he would most readily pay the cadre
price and make a simitat sacrifice. On these grounds bet
would give his cordial assent to the motion.—(Hear.)
Mr. W. O'BRIEN would stipport the Bill.
Mr. ABERCROMBY said he altet Wee some broad
ground, and the best that appeared to hito was to give
his vote for the Bill, which, by.itself, lie coA not ap-
prove, for the sake of that before which all mine, cotter
derations give way.
BANKES....-" There is, sir, a religious society-a.
(Loud and continued laughter,)-eeNee, Sir, there is a re-
ligious society spreading and &tending itself, though sub=
silting contrary to law, both in this country anti in Ire-
land, with whom it is a tenet, if they are not most cruelly
maligned and belied, that the end in all canes justifies the
means, and that it is lawful if the end *hall be sick as
they are desirous to compass, not to be set upulotte ss ter
the means which they employ to effect it." The Hon;
Member proceeded to say. Brit whether that feeling was
justly ascribed to them or not, he did not know ; but his
conduct in public life had always been, and he trusted al-
ways would be, founded upon other principles. The Hon.
Member then proceeded to state his objections against the
hilt, but amidst a confusion and uproar in the Howse
which prevented us frem making out even the eniestance of
his remarks.

Mr. HENRY GRATTAN said, that a greater eft er
injustice could not be perpetrated than that which tho
House was now going to perpetrate under the false name of
civil and religious liberty. This Bill was not the barter
or price for any other Bill ; it ought to be called a Bill of
pe-alties.
Mr. C. WYNN said, that from the evidence which had
been given before one of the Committees two years agog he
had been convinced that there was a great evil which
peratively called fur remedy in the condition of the forty.,
shilling freeholders of Ireland. Ile had no hesitation in
declaring, that if the Catholic Relief Bill had been carried,
and this Bill had been proposed to them by itself, and on
is own merit;, he should have given it his best support,—...
He then proceeded to say, that there were many parte of
this Bill, en which he entertained some doubts, and that
there were others which he thought deserving of further
consideration before they were adopted; but taking it as a
whole, he had no hesitation in declaring that he would
give his consent to the measure, if it were necessary, even
in its Ir.:sent shape.
Lord PALMERSTON was induced by insurmountable
feelings of dislike to this Bill to meet it with his opposition.
The House had been told that the Bill for granting Ca-
tholic Emancipation and the present measure were in-
separably connected, so that one could not pass without the
other, and if one was ►ost, the other must be lost likewise.
He denied that Parliament had made any such bargain
with the Government. In the Speech from the Throne
Parliament was told that the price required for Catholic
Emancipation was the immediate and summary suppress
sion of the Catholic Association. That was the chly
bargain which Parliament made with Government, and the
price demanded having been paid, it was impossible, in the
event of the Bill before the House being defeated, for Go-
vernment to
February.neeessit: IT,ll:oeanartteNo
time
dohebec
vernment to turn round and refuse to fulfil its part of the
bargain. It was absurd to suppose that Government
could withhold emancipation. Neither this Government
nor any that might succeed it, could do so. What had in-
duced the present Government to advocate emancipation ?
eteiilslisarititty Lord h a ti
then not
contendedber
a
those who had voted for the measure of 1825 were not
thereby pledged to support the present Bill, because the
operationfiniT)
hrerenn te
were
measurerue,oelf,
rittoahpdaots‘bieb-edaeesnfiHousetprospectiveohfe wpoauncalesatt; triterims,en,
ot
ifmmediate.
ienarlttlneii the
appeared that the present Bill was conceived in something.
like the spirit of punishment and vengeance. Another
argument in support of the Bill was, that the forty-shilling
freeholders were influenced by the Priests, and that it WWI
dangerous to leave them in possession of the power they
now held. If the Bill were passed on that ground, how
could it be said that Catholics were admitted to an equality
of political privileges? The one measure propo,wil by Go-
vernment would defeat the other, and a Catholic ques-
tion would still remain to be discussed.

Mr. PEEL could not sufficiently express his admiration
of the lion. Member for Wtterford, who had expres‘cd lib
determination, perhaps at the cost of some personal sacri-
fice, to bestow on his constitunts a permanent benefit. The
Right lion. Gentleman then proceeded to argue that the
great difficulties which bad hitherto opposed the settlement
of the Catholic Question, rendered it incumbent on thos,
who were favourable to that object, to compromise, in
order to effect their object. The Noble Lord who spoke
last said, that the Session conmenced with a compromisr,
which was, that the Catholic Association should he sup
pressed, in order to arrive nt Catholic Eatancipation.
Noble Lord admitted that he was a party to, that consptenis.:.
and they to there Wil3 an end of the argture•nt a 4-ai.r),!t
the principle of compromise. The Noble Lord said, that
thep r of the
at_tbcompromisegowalaysptroombLeuLleid unqualified w
d e:
trill's:
Sion. denied th