Star.
London, England, 1825-03-29 00:00:00

CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.

Mr. SPRING RICE preserved a Petition from the
Nobility, Gentry, and Inhabitants of Limerick, in favour
of the Bill before the H. use, fur the removal of Catho-
lic D sabilities. The Petitioners represented in amount
o' landed property upwards of 200,000/. and what was
more remarkable, the Petition contained the signatures
'of many respectable individuals, who had hitherto been,
from hereditary association and the natural bias of
min.', the steadfast opponents of the Catholic Question.
He was required to state by some of the Petitioners,
that they would have been better pleased had they seen two other
13111 s brought in along with that now before the House; one to
regulate 40s. freeholders, and the other to make a provision for the
Catholic Clergy. He knew that a reformation of tke 40$. free-
holders would excite a latent public opinion in Ireland. He would
support it as a measure of rational reform.
Mr. LITTLETON would, after the second reading
of the Bill, submit a measure for regulating the Elec-
tive Franclii..e in Ireland. He conceived the qualifica-
tion should not be less than 51. cr more than 101. He
was one of those who thought that emancipation would bring with
it its own security. He and many others believed that no measure
would contribute more to the purity of elections in Ireland. On
this subject he bad no communication with any one, and perhaps
owed an apology to the Hon. Baronet (Burdett) for interfering in
a measure that be had commenced.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR must protest against the mea-
sures with which emancipation was to be accompanied.
He had sat 43 years in that House, and had ofttn voted
for Catholic Entancipat'on, but it was for Emancipa-
tion as originally set forth. Now it was coupled with
a change in the representation, and a provision for the
Clergy out of the funds cf England. To a provision
' out of the funds of Iceland, he did not object. How
could he, who lad always opposed taxation, consent
that his coostiu. nts should be saddled with taxes to the
amount of 230,0001. more ? Though ft iendly to the new
churches, he had opposed the grant of money, as he
believed the money could have been raised by voluntary contribution.
Toe English ens. Freeholder was to vote, but not the Irish. He
had only £3 in the county of Durham, and looked on his vote to be
as good as that of the Member for the County. He would tell the
friends of Emancipation, of which be was a friend, that they had
taken the most effec.usl way to defeat the measure.
Sir R. oIIAW s..id, that the alteration in the elective
franchi e, and a provision for the Catholic Clergy,
would be 11104 acceptable in Ireland, and serve to conciliate those
most opposed to the measure.
Sri J. NEW .OR'!' was a sincere friend to the elec-
tive franchise, and had once intended to submit a mo-
tion to the House, similar to the one of which notice
had been given. lie would ask the Member for Dur-
ham, whether it was better to pay three millions to sol.
thers, or V. 50000/. to the Catholic Clergy? The present:
was the happiest lime for carrying the measure into
effect, irons the stare of the public mind, both in Bd..'
tai and Ireland. The continuance of such a state was
Liie to be caku'ated upon. Ile could prove, that the elective fran-
chise, as at present exercised, was uo boon, but a curs as the
electors, as they were called, were not free agents.
Mr. S. WORTLEY hoped his Honourable Friend
would not be frightened by what he bad heard, as he ousted he
would have the support of a majority of that House.
Sir R. WILSON w ould go into a Committee to en-
quite into tie nature of the elective franchise, and to
do Away all qualifications that were not real, but wished
the Act of P.) 1 ament to be maintained, and would not consent that
a difference •hould be made between inland and England.
Lord .1. RUSSELL said, that the state of the fran-
ebi in cities and boroughs might also be necessary to
be er.qniied into. pot l.e wished that the measure
should be carried with the greatest possible speed, and when he

71"

~:.~s

.

WS

found that those best aeclnted with Ireland thought a provision
should be made for the one Clergy, be felt himselfiallettas to
assent to the prored measures.
Sir FRAN IS BURDETT would be ready to agree
to raise the rate.of freeholds in Ireland, and also to the
payment of the Catholic Clergy, if it appeared that
those measures were necessary' to carry Catholic Eman-
cipation. At the same time he must say, the measure
he proposed to the House was distinct and simple, and
he considered himself not implicated in any other ques-
tion. In consequence of a statement by an Honourable
Friend of his (Mr. Tietney) a great misconception had
gone abroad, that Mr. O'Connell had nothing to do
with drawing up the Bill. He wished to explain that
fact. He, and others of the Committee, consulted with
the Catholic Delegates, and it never occurred to him
that by Mr. O'Connell's drawing the draft of a Bill,
any disadvantage could arise to the measure. .Mr.
O'Connell did draw the draft of a Bill before he re-
turned to Ireland, but it afterwards occurred to some
of the Committee that it might not be proper to avail
themselves of it, and in consequence it was Hot used.
This sheaved that the statement of his Honourable
Ft lend and Mr. O'Connell a ere perfectly consistent.—
He hoped no one who agreed in the great measure of
Catholic Emancipation would withdraw their support
because it might possibly be followed by other nsea-
sates in which they might not agree.
Mr.. Secretary PEEL said, that nothing was farther
from his view in rising than to discuss indirectly and
incidentally any of those important questions that were
touched. It was his opinion that such questions wi,hout
notice, were unfair in themselves, and even injurious
to the question. His own views on the subject of Ca.
tholic Emancipation were well known, and he w i-hed
to have it known that he would not accept the conces-
sion of those measures, whatever he night tiink of
them, as a ground of compromise—( Henr,hear). If he
were certain that the proposed measure for the disfran-
chise ient of the 40s.freehold-rs, and the Stat.• provision
for the Catholic Clergy would form part of the Bili for
the Emancipation of the Catholics, he would relax in
his opposition to it —(Hear,hear). But supposing chat
his objection to the principle of that Bill would be over-
ruled, he would then come to the consideration of those
two measures. When the proper opportunity arrived,
he would be prepared to give his opinion on them ; his
mind was not made up at present. He for the present
could only say, that he would not accept these mea-
sures as a compromise of the Bill for Catholic EMAi,ci-
pation; but if his objections to that were overruled, he
would still reserve-to himself the consideration of those
other measures.

Mr. TIERNEY said, like the Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Peel) he would reserve his opinion on the subjects, and
give them all the cons.deration in his power. He beg-
ged to say one word as to what he on a former night
said respecting a distinguished Member of the Catholic
Association. He would be sorry that anything could
have fallen from himself that could be injurious to Mr.
O'Connell. He would not have said one word on a
former night, if the Right Hon. Gentleman had not
called on the House to watch the Bill, not so dangerous
in itself, but as it was drawn by Mr. O'Connell. He
(Mr. Tierney) then said that Mr. O'Connell was not
concerned in, nor consulted about the drawing of the
Bill. He then, however, thought that there was some
mistake, as he had no doubt of the veracity of Mr.
O'Connell. The House heard the facts from the Hon.
Baronet; some of the Committee communicated with
Mr. O'Connell, than whom certainly there was no one
more competent to prepare the Bill. For his own part,
he did that which became his situation, but he did not
find fault with those Hon. Members who adopted a con-
trary course. He was glad to hear the justification of
the Hon. Baronet,
Mr. BROWNLOW would not pledge himself to sup-
port the proposed measures, nor yet to oppose them ;
at the same time he believed that the altera.ion of the
franchise, and a provision for their Clergy, would tend
much to reconcile its enemies to emancipation. The
forty shilling freeholders exercised no freedom of elec-
tion; it was an abuse of terms to call it a franchise.
Mr. C. GRANT was of opinion, that the state of the
elective franchise, and the want of a provision for the
Catholic Clergy were two of the main causes of the
disturbed state of Ireland.

Mr. DAW SON said, that the two measu res, though
of great importance, had not removed his objections to
emancipation. He should like know what the Pro-
testants would gain by an alteration in the elective
franchise, which ssould extend to them as well as to the
Catholics? In the North of Ireland, many Protestant
electors had the elective franchise in the same manner
as it was enjoyed in this country. He doubted how far
the alteration would be acceptable to them. At present
he should give no opinion on the subject, but leave him-
self perfectly free as to his future conduct.
Mr. COURTENAY would support both the mea-
sures. He believed that the proposed measures would
have much weight with those men. He believed that
his Honourable Friend had no intention of meddling
with the forty shilling freeholders in Ireland, any more
than with the real freeholders in England.

Mr. LITTLETON explained.
The Petition was tbes read, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. S. WORTLEI presented a Petition from some town in
Yorkshire, against the House and Window Tax.—Ordered to be
printed.
Mr. S. WORTLEY Ireeented a Petition from the same place,
against the Corn Laws.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. H USK ISSON gave notice of a motion for to-morrow for a
Committee to inquire into the effect of the Combination Laws.
On the motion of Sir J. Nawronr, the House went into a Com-
mittee on the Apothecaries' Bill, which went through the Com-
mittee, and was appointed to be taken into consideration on Friday,
the 22d April.

--711IRTIV•

v-

Immrr'.%l

Mr. HUME said, what he wished was, that some'
prOvision should now be made, in caffiranfticauty should happen
by the death of the Marshal.
Sr; M. W. RIDLY, aUbding to the new edifices in
Whitehall and Downing-street,-wished to know to what
' purposes the space id Downing.street was to be ap...
plied? If it were not inconsistent .pith the plans already
prepared, be should be glad to see some residences erected there
fur the higher Public Officers of the State.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
it certainly was the intention to complete the line of
building on one uniform, and, as it appeared to him,
well-digested plan. He was aware of the extreme
propensity of most people to criticise architectural erec-
tions, and he felt it not the easiest thing in the wend
to answer such criticism. The misfortune of architects
was, that their works were submitted to the public in-
spection during every stage of their progress, and ob-
jections were called forth which never would arise if
the works were put out of hand at once in a state of
completion. Since the commencement of these build-
ings it had been found necessary, in consequence of
some great nuisaoces and defects, to make some altera-
tions in the plan, and to pull down the old and unsightly
bu:lJing, the Home Office. The plan now was, to
unite under one facade the whole line from the Board
of Trade, the Treasury, and the Office of the Home
Department. With respect to the space on the right
side of Downing-street, it would be occupied with some
small offices for the Exch,qtier, instead of the old un•
ainly offices which now stood near Westminster-hall.
niere was not room enough there to build any houses
for the Officers of State. He agreed with the Hon
Ba. one , that it was a matter worth considering that
resi.• ..ces should be provided for such Officers. All
the high-r Officers of Sate were called upon to keep
up a cm tai,: d(gree c.f state, and it was not always the
case Vat t.e were able to de it out of their private
fortunes. It would, in many respects, be a great relief
o have such reidences provided. Hitherto houses had
only hecn pr .tided for the First Lord of the Treasury,
the 'hancelor of the Exchequer, and the First Lord of
he Admiralty. There certainly ought to be furnished
r,sidei.ce the Secretary of State for F. reign Af-
fair., who was required, from his office, to receive a
great deal of company. The principle, however, should
lot be pushed .o tar as t • hrtig any large expense hn
the country, though on the other hand it was beneath the dignity
of Parliament to chew a niggardly feeling on the subject.
LOk KIIART said, that by giving splendid
Mill:1011s to Ministers, a feeling of hauteur would be
engelid,red, which would close up their doors to the
' Memb rs of that House who might have business to
oansact with them.