Star.
London, England, 1829-04-06 00:00:00

• 41 1 • • • •,. •
c•►nsiJrr boe•tbey piocer.J.
esneinber that the !uncut condition of the uareise
..f the franchise might not arise from any fault in
itself, but from a Want of discrimination in tlie
'jean! electors to make a choice for themselves. :The,
might find it extremely dif6colt to say that they would'
disfranchise a large population, and yet leave the state
of the representation complete. He admitted that the
evil was great, and that a remedy ought to he applied
to u ; but when it was put to him whe.l e. the temovai

of that evil should purchase this invabion of their Con-
Mullion, he could not v.nsont to the latter part of the
alternative. He hoped his memory did not mislead him
when he said that, in opening the 801 l of relief now 'same
them, the Noble Duke did nut even mention the Doblran-
chisement 13,11 Oil the securities offered by that n.ea-ure,
his humble opinion was, that they were a perfect nullity,
and it might de >r• ye conhideration what sem ities
to have been inserted in their stead ; but if it be the plea-

sere of the House to agree to the sec ind reading of the
Bill, and to admit its principle, he would be content. on '
the detail,, to reserve himself to a future occisios. There
is another difficulty (continued the Noble Lord) which
presents itbei in the's. m •a•ui es, front which I find it
iffiCUlt to extrtcate myself; and I candidly contras I
csnuot accept even the less objectionable Mrasurg as the
price of the other. That other measure 1 should have
received with pleasure, and it is perfectly in the compe-
tence of Parliament to pass i., if soch a Ball should be
considered expedient. On that Bill lam ready to say,'
it it should be the pleasure of your Lordships to proceed
n it, I shall reserve the delivery of my sentiments
for a future opportunity. As far as I recollect. the
Noble Doke in opening the Bill of Relief the other
evening. did not make any allusion to the Disfranchise.
meat Bill. It is germ ally considered by the advocates
of the Relief Bill that ti e Bill fox the Disfranchisement

of the Forty-shilling Freeholders would operate as at
security for the purity of the elective franchise in Imes
land. As a security against the dangers which lap •
prebend, neither th rt measure nor the precautionary
clauses of the one befiire us are in my mind more than
a mere nullity. It may be, ho wever, dem ving your Lords
ships attenion, if yr u should agree with me that the se-
cori•ies are insufficient, to examine wh it ether securities
ought to have been inserted in their stead. It it should be,
your Lirdships pleasure this evening to agree to the se
cond reacting of the Bill, and to admit its principle,
should be content at a tutu e stage, when in the Cum
oti tee, to sogge t such alterations as I humbly think
will render the adoption of the principle less dungen:se.
and so far lemoee some o the übjectir.ne which are re
untitled against it by the real (rends of our Protestant
Coneticution. From one task I feel myself altogether
reVeved, becau e the 'illicit has bee., sits usiied with so
touch ability. I shall leave the rap 'site': of the Acts of
the Pa It ,aunts of England and Scotland up .n the
statement of my Noble and Learned Fre id the Lind
Chief Ju . i e of England—tit that argumentative and
luminous statement it %sill be unnecessai y for me to add.'
Hi. talents, charatte-, arid ability, entitle him to the
highest ri sliect fit hi. opinions, and his seal( us con•
sirtence and high moral teeling au.horised bins to de-
sgerate him tit as a ti tie frietul to civil and reliiii.nas
liberty. Nor %hi uld the N:ble Erl (Grei) liiietakes
offence at my N tble and Learned Friend's having as,
tamed to himself that charatter. He eektidy meant
mit to say that he was such a friend to civil tad religious
'liberty as 'het h ble there are some persons in
the habit of descanting upcn civil and religious liberty
11 as something which they cannot enjoy under the pies
slent form tit Government, or under our present coo-1
ekitution. It was with great pain that I felt tope*
called upon by a sense of duty, in the course of
the last year, to give my dissent to the repeal of the
Test Act. The reason for my oppolition to that
repeal was, that I considered it would endanger the
Established Church et England. That opinion may be
erroneous: I stated it with deep concern, but it governed
me in the discharge of what I conscientiously con-
sidered to be my duty. The same reason operates with
me now in te.pect to this Bill. I contend that the
Established Church of Ireland cannot be in danger
without some peril to the Established Church of
England. It is the duty a Government to maintain a
National Church ; nay, further, it ha. been my opinion
ever, that it is its duty to provide for its subjects the
best and purest system of Christianity possible: in this
manner the State should support the Church, though
not so the Church the Stott. Because I take it to
be the duty of the State spontaneously and of itself
m support an Established Chttich, independently of the
014:aisle of reciptocity, although there can be no doubt
that there should subsist an alliance and strict union
between both for purposes of mutuai.support. I have lived
with the late Lord Hardwicke—l have lived with Lord
Kenyon (for whom I ever entertained sentiments of the
greatest respect and affection)—l have witnessed the
exyression of their sentiments with that deference to
which their profound talents en:itled them; I have also
listened to the late Lord Edenborough when a member
of the Cabinet, and prom nncing his opinions wi.h respect
to the question of concession to the Catholics; one of his
family has, however, seen reason to differ in sentiment
(tom his progenitor. These are all great names, and
they ate all of one opinion; they believed, and be-
lieve, that the connexion betwixt the Church and State
,was such, that it *I ught to ensure the nomination to dig.
nified stations and political offices in the State to that
class, or those classes of religious professors who were
not adverse to the Established Church, and who yet
were competent to give an enlightened and liberal
consideration to the claims of other classes of religious
professors. We have beard of the authority of great
names in favouref the late repeal of the 'feet and Cor-
poration Acts; but I should be glad' to knoW what right
those who opposed me last year had to quote Mr. Pitt
as being opposed to me, when it is known that he
stated in his place that he was decidedly against the
tepee. On this subject even Mr. Canning, though
the friend of concession to • the Catholics, hid not
Hesitated manfully' td sliver that.his opinion of the ig-
dipitiiehet Of that 'sepia continued unehaken. 1 allude
to these Illateliseuthorrties to 'show that there existed
men isi the minds of the fields of concession a very
elide differenteas the extent to which it would be
prudent to admit its applicabili y. Whilst so much ins
iitid of the friends elf civil and ieligicos liberty. I would
virilistotieLcirdships that thereare in this counts y those
fiiiitdrof civil and religious liberty, as they term theali:
4lits*,:wherionld oveirurn both the Church and the
'Thiene if they were able to du se,' and who now ad-
VOCal'e the cause' of 'civil and veligioos liberty upon
thosesort elf principles which enclave, our most antigen
and vduableinstletitions Catholic Einancipatiiin was. is
,the year•l799e the'Cry oftho,e men; whir,* object, it*ha4'
been since ascertained, wa. nothing lees than to kindle
the flames of rebellion in that country; yet it was acii
enrierledged liy;thisie Men them-elves that not one of
dices eus a friend to. or cared a farthing foe Catholic
Emancipation, alvanseti that• cry bad been much the
meads of exciting the feelings aud producing the
roost disastious• consequences *amongst the people co
lteland. In our own day the cry for civil and tell.
oloos label ty has, as you. Loidships itcollect