Star.
London, England, 1823-07-10 00:00:00

measure at a time when it could be fairly debated,
which could not be at that period of the Session. He
had for the first time heard that the Revolution was
an innovation: The Revolution was nn innovation,
but a restoration of the subject to his ancient rights.
The great blessing of the Revolution was, that it
brought oboist the establishment in Church and
State. He must say that the House was treated with
indignity when called on to decide on so important a
question in so thin a House. Such a thing had never
occurred before, and he must vote for the amendment.
The Earl of lIARROWBY said, that the Bill had
been some months before the other House, and had
only been delayed by the pressure of important busi-
ness. The subject had in substance been before the
House whenever the general question had been agi-
tated. He was at a loss to conceive upon what
grounds the measure could be opposed. Had•the
elective franchise, in 1793, been restricted to the su-
perior order of Catholics, he believed that all the be-
nefits of the measure would have been secured, and
much of the evil that afflicted Ireland would have
been avoided, and especially that greatest of all evils,
the demoralisation of the lower classes of the com-
munity. But none of those evils could be appre-
hended in the present case, and therefore formed no
objection to the Bill. In the event of the invasion of
this country, its defence could be as safely entrusted
to a Catholic as to any Noble Lord in that House.
The same Irish Parliament that had the one year, by
an immense .majority, refused the elective franchise,
granted it in the ftalowing. He should vote for the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR explained.
Lord LIVERPOOL should vote for the first Bill
of the Noble Marquis (the repeal of the Act of the
7th and Bth of William). Should the second Bill be
proposed, lie must move that it be postponed. Whether
the elective franchise was right cr wrong, concession
in Ireland was not the question before the House. By
the question of anomaly he was little moved. In every
part of the Empire there were anomalies. In Scot-
land there was not only a difference of laws, but, what
was much more, a difference of religion, from which
no bad effects had ever ensued. He, in fact, thought
that Ireland had received injury from an attempt to
remove the anomalies between her and England. He
agreed with his Noble Friend, that had the elective
franchise been limited to a higher order of electors, as,
the Catholics had prayed, much evil would have been
avoided. He, for one, saw no objection to the prin-
ciple of the first Bill, that went to give the elective
franchise. To the object of the second Bill, that went
to admit-the Catholic to certain offices, he had also no

objection, though he had objections to the way in
which it was proposed to effect it.
Lord CLIFDEN warned the House to take care,
if they did not concede the present measure, that it
might not one day be extorted from them.
The Earl of LIMERICK supported the [notion.
Lord MELVILLE agreed in principle with both
the Bills, but should move in the Committee, that
their operation should not extend to Scotland, as he
conceived such a procedure would be a violation of
the articles of the Union. He hoped both the Bills
would be read a second time ; hut in the Committee
he should propose certain modifications of the second
Bill, in order to define more clearly the extent of
its operation.
The Marquis of LINSDOWN shortly replied. He
had no objection to postpone the second Bill to ano-
ther Session; as the Noble Earl (Liverpool) made no
objection to the first Bill ; and was not unwilling to'
accomplish the object of the second. He trusted the
house would allow the Bills to proceed to a second
reading ; it not being his intention to press the second
Bill in the present Session.
The LORD CriANCELLOR and the Earl of LIVERPOOL
explained. The House divided on the second reading—
Contents—Peers present 43 Non contents—Peers present 41
Proxies 30 Proxies 39
73 BO
Majority against the second reading severs.
The Bill was consequently lost.
TITHE COMPOSITION BILL.

Lord CLIFDEN made a few remarks on this ques-
tion, which he followed up by moving, " That it be
an instruction to the Committee to give the Lord
Lieutenant a power to appoint Commissioners to set-
tle the amount of the composition, with reference to
the payment of tithes, the value of that sum to be
specified b, the amount paid for a certain number of
preceding years."
Lord KING thought that the Bill would be nuga-
tory without the compulsory clause. The state of
Ireland required legislative interference. The hie-
rarchy of Ireland by some were called the Monks and
Friars of Protestantism ; certain it was it drained the
country most cruelly. He could only compare an
Irish farmer to a miserable hack, with the Protestant
Church on the saddle, spurring his sides, and his own
Church on the crupper, spurring his flanks. He was
in a hell in this world and threatened with another
hell in the next, if he did not quietly submit to these
goadings—(a laugh).
Lord ELLEN BOROUGH said that the Bill, as it
at present stood, was not what was wanted. The
tithes of England and Ireland were quite different:
Isere there were full many rich payers of them—there
a great many pour payers. He thought this Bill
would still leave the clergyman and his flock in hos-
tile contact as num& as ever; for the Tithe Proctor
would not be got rid of by its operation. He would
rather the question should remain as at present, until
it forced itself upon the attention of Parliament.
The Earl of Lii9ERICK and the Earl of DARNLEY
felt it their duty to ,give the Bill their support.
Lord HOLLAND thought the Bill before their
Lordships no blessing without the compulsory clause;
and on that account voted for the amendment of his
Noble Friend (Lord Clifden). He considered the
Bill as a recognition of the intention of the House
to rediess that which Mr. Pitt bad twenty years ago
declared to be an evil, The Bill was the only mise-
rable pittance which, during 23 years, the wisdom
and justice of Parliament had condescended to give
to the people of Iceland. On that account he would
vote for going into a Committee, without pledging
himself to assent to the third reading, unless the mea-
sure received considerable improvement in the Com-
ruittee. But he wished it to be understood, that he
would not vote for the Committee on the ground,
which the Noble Earl opposite had on a former night''
urged to obtain the support of the Reverend Prelates
to the Bill. The conduct of the Noble Lords on his
(Lord Holland's) side of the House was more loge-