Star.
London, England, 1829-04-10 00:00:00

here truly say—
At •

wahine alii Bitterness Mims Afros,
Pars Scythian+, et rapidest Cwt. veniemus Ositem,
Et warns totos (Heim. orbs Britannos."
Thpl)uke of WELLINGTON said that the Noble
Du)* who had spoken against the Bill had said it
would deprive the forty shillings freeholders of their
vested rights; and the Noble Marquis who had just sat
down had admitted that they were so much in the
power of their landlords, that nothing was snore easy
than to deprive !hem of their leases. With regard to
the Assistant Barristers he begged to say that the utmost
attention had been paid, and would continue to be paid,
to th st measure"; and fro Assi tent Barrister would be
permitted to set who was not totally disconnected with
the county in which he was to act.
• Lori GORT agreed in all th it had been said of the
necessity of disfi &utilising the forty shilling fietholders,
but he thought the Bill should apply to the cities and
towns as well as to the counties. He had abstained
from saying any thing upon the question until the se.
turns which he had moved for bad been laid on their
• Lord,hips' table. The reason given for not disfranchis-
• ing the forty shilling freeholders in towns was, that
• they seised as a counterpoise on the freemen ; and yet
from these returns it appeared that during the last
. seven years there had been 4,579 ireeholdeta made is
ce►ta•n towns, and on'y 1,198 freemen.
The Earl of LIMERICK said, that "the power of
making freemen in boroughs was unlimited. The
c unty forty shilling fieeliolders exercised ;heir flaw
thine not for their own benefit, but at the will tither of
th• ir landltud. or their priests.
i.,ord FA IZNII ANI tote for the purpose of givieg
own e cif A c I .0 e u hich he intended to introduce when
• the Bill et oild he in Colimit'ee. With regard to cities
• it %% as n t his intentuoi to move that the qualification
tho.ild be raised higher than forty shillings, but 'ha!
• the Same investigations should t eke place. and the ame
!wog f • be required that they were bonafide forty
hug freeholders, as were to ke required for the 101.
erholders in the countie.„
. The Earl of CA RNARVON had always considered that the
franchise was not it v.sted right. but given at the will of the Par.
• /lament. He believed the forty-shilling freeholders would thank
their Lordships for relieving them from an irksome duty, and from
being the slaves either of one or other of those who sniAlit have
• power over theni. lie would wi•h, however, that thetill'sitould
, be only pm.pretive, and that it should not affect freeholds inlets.
lie though( the Hill should he considered in Committee, and, if
not, that it should be passed under an understanding that it ►hould,
' at some ftiture period, be revived, and those parts which he cocoa•
dereJ objectionable altered.
• The ilou•e then resolved itself into a Committee, Lord StIAfTW.
al 'YT ht the Chair.

After the two first clauses had been agreed to,
The Duke of RICHMOND moved for the introduction of a
• clause to the ef.•et that this Bill should not affect the existing right
of any bone fide forty-shilling freeholder pox :sing his freehold
previous to the pa►.iag of this
The Earl of D.% ItNIXY allowed that the system of Forty
&Mit% Freehold. hi Ireland was liable to abuse, and required con.
rye rho). lie ,hquhl• suppot t the present Bill, defective as he thought
it on account or its connection with the Rebel Bill.

. Lord Olt I I•L rose to make some remarks on fee-simple estates,
but resumed his seat int being intotmed, by the Duke of Web.
nv that the proposed ausentlineut did not relate to freeholds in
fve.simple
The Duke of RICH AIOND further explained, that the object of
his umendment was to preserve the right of voting to the existing
bona fide F. try Freeholders.
Lord CAItBEItRY objected to soy amendment of the pals Ogl
• the ground of its connection with the other great Ball.
The Duke of HA MILTON having supported the Belief Bill
In principle, could nut reconcile with that vice any captions ob-
jection to particular clau-es of the present Bill.
The Ktri of NI A 1..11 ESII It Y considered the Bill to be an un-
etsii.tirutionel violation of vested rights, and utterly unsupported
by authority or precedent. Ile bad opposed the Relief Bill for
that anu•ng other re 1%011, ; and he would upper this.
Lord PLUNK E•l' did net think that, in supporting this mese
sure, he violated any yriociple of justice or Constitutional privie
lege. The eective franchise was not a private property, bet a
- political right, which might be regulated by Parliament. The
present Bill was warranted by •precedents, by the Acts of Henry
VIIL and Henry VI. and the Acts of Union with Scotland and
Ireland, which regulated the elective franchise of Boroughs in
• those Kingdoms. He should support the Bill u a salutary ima-
gine of rational reform.

lbe Duke of It ICHSIOND called on Noble Lords toproduce,
in the Muses proofs of the abuse of the forty shilling franchise, it
such abuse existed. The forty shilling freeholders bad a just
opinion of the value of their franchise, and had often shown, since
1825, that they knew how and when to exercise it—for instance,
the election for the county of Clare. They were not such &svelte'
as they ware new described to he, though not long ago they were
called a magnanimous nation—(Laughter). He could not believe
that any essential connection existed between the Relief Bill and
the present. lie was sure the former would be carried whatever
became of the latter ; for though Noble Lords may change t►eir
opinions in three wet ks, it was more than could be expected that

they should change their opinions in the COUThe of the three ensuing
d.,ye. Ile hoped Noble Lords would vote against the MI on the
table if they thought it stirrer, without tepid to the consequences.
• The Karl of LONGFORD thought there was ample evidence
in the conduct of the forty shilling freeholders, since 1825,thit they
Fad abused their iranchiee. YoligyAO necessity demanded an
cod of the precut system.
The Marque. of SA LISDURV thuaght the elective franchise
• was an inseparable part of Ike forty @Witte freehold. He could
not consent to the Dill on the table, on account of its connectlon
with the- Helier Dill, as be dill net think it right to pass one mes-
siest merely on the merits of another.
Vwsount SIDMOUTH thought Ms Noble and Learned Friend
(Lord Plunkett) bad clearly provad the conirtitutsonal justice and
• policy to the measure.
1044 lIOLI. AND was of opinion that the measure was war-
ranted in paint of precedent by the Act of Henry the Sixth. which
thsfraiici ised. on account of abuses, all threws holding rittebuitis
under the value of forty shillings.
The Karl of MA LMRSBUDY quoted the opinion of Mr.
O'Connell against meddling with the rights of forty shillin g. free-
holders of fee-simple estates.
he Duke of ItICIIMOND said, be did not object to de.troy
the fictitious forty shilling freeholdeis. All he wanted was to pre
_ _

serve the tights of the bole-fele lofty freeholdits.
The amendment was then put, and negatived without a division.
lhe Duke of RICHMOND then proposed an am, nanient to
the effect of preserving the rights of the torty shilling tred•holders
bolding in fee simple estate.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that •the Intlividuah to

question were the Moo corrupt trerbolders in Ireland, all she: %owe
of them prisseemed being a cahin th 4 had erected en the side of
• sum* mountain, and without any
4O except what had then given
tte
them by time.
The hal of MA LMESMIRY contended that the rights of
the freeholders In fee ought to be protected. however poor they
might be. _ _

Lord ORIEL showed that the greatest always of the elective
. franchise had been committed by the forty shillnog freeholders
holding in fee.
Lott* FA It NHA SI said that that might be the case with these
who bad settled on a mountain side as they had heard desciihed;
• but it was not theme with the descendants of Cromwell's 'Addicts,
who 1.4 d received small grants of land from him.
Lord ELLENELIROUG /I thought the general advantage
ought not to be put in the scale with the political right of the few,
whom it appeared, by all the evidence, were not accused of cos•

noption.
Atter a few words from Lord PLUNK ETT,
The Douse divided on the Duke of 'insomnia amendment,
when there appeared
For it I se I Against it 66 I !Majority 54.
On the neat clause bring read.
t- kiii•lSP 1.44 31 rupusett amendment. by which cities and
bomogn. sere to be 'nought cruder the operation of the Bill.
11 be &Juke et IS ELLINGTON &stook:it he bad not included
cface and bor4u6hs, a, he had not thought it necessary- Then'

might be great abuse of the elective franchise in cities and boroughs.
but they could be remedied at another time.
After a few words from Lurd Onse. the amendment was nip.
tivcd without a division.

- --------
On the next clause, relative to the the** and places at which the
Assistant Bspieter was to hold his endow,
Lord FAUN HAM said, that be did net mean to cast any Immo-
tation upon the Assistant Banisters; but considering that they re-
coked payment from the Crown for their set vice, and were semen.
able at Will, he could not consider them altogether as the fittest
tribunal to decide finally upon the validity of the qualification of
all the voters. He said decide Study, because the expense of an
appeal would not be less than four or five pounds, which it would be
utterly beyond the power of the greater part of the freeholders to
Incur. He should move as so amendment, therefore, that two or
more Magistrates be empowered to act with the Assistant Barrister.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the object of the Go-
vernment had been to give the best possible tribunal for the decision
of Mr qualification, and certainly the assistant Banisters were muck
fitter for the task imposed on them than the Magistracy, who must
have local connection and partialities. With respect to the assistant
Barristers being paid by the Crown it was not a permanent payment,
but merely for the first heavy duty of registration, in the perform.
ance of which they could have no interest to depart from the strict
line of justice. With respect to the expense attending an appeal, he
had been informed by professional Gentlemen that the average ex.
penes would net 'steed 101. Nu harm couldarise from the Judge
admitting an Improper person to have a qualificiltion, as a candidate
could object to him at the election.
After a few observations from Lord Lounortosaav and Lord
PLIINZOTT,
Lard FARNHAM said that ten shillings might be the amount
of legal expenses attending an appeal ; but it would not carry a
man a distance of forty or fifty mike from his native place to the
county town, nor pay the expense of four or five days living there.
After a few wards from the Marquis of LOIDO DDDDD T and
Lord Piesexarr, the amendment was negatived, and the clause
agreed to.
On the proposition of the dome providing that the Clerk of the
Peace shall enter notices in his list and in the newspapers,
Lord FARNHAM thought the lists ought to be kept open in
the office of the Clerk of the Peace, because there were some
counties in Ireland in which no newspapers were published. and
consequently no other mode of publication remained. He did not
mean, however, to trouble their Lordships with moving an amend-
ment to that skeet ; fur If, as it appeared, It was determined to
caery the Dill without amendments, there would be no use in pro.
posing one. He should, however, move it on the btinging .op of
the Report.—The clause was then agreed to.
The next clause respected the registry of freeholds at Sessions.
Lord GORT said much inconvenience might arise to freeholders
from the long intervals (in some instances twelve months) that oc-
curred between the Sessions.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said be believed that in the
county of Galway it sometimes happened that the Assistant Barris-
ter did not attend more than once a year. The Lord Lieutenant,
however, bad the power of ',Merin him to go as frequently as be
should deem necessary. The subjrct of proportioning the remuoe-
raLion the duties of Assistant Barrister was also under considera-
tion. so that he was pretty sure no cause for complaint would arise
On this point alluded to by the Noble Lord.
Ilse clause was then agreed to.
The next clause referred to the mode of swearing freeholders.
The Earl of hi OU NTC IE L said. there were in the county
of Attains persons called •• Covenanters," who had a religious ob-
jection to taking an oath. He should propose, therefore, that they
should be excused in the same manner as Quakers and Moravians.
The LOUD CHANCELLOR wished to know on what autho-
rity the Noble Earl stated that Covenanters refused to take oaths.
They were frequently sworn in Court by bolding up their bands,
in the same manner as Presbyterians were sworn.
The clause was agreed to.
The clause respecting the registry or fifty pound freeholder, having
been read,
Lord FARNHAM asked, was the future registry of fifty pound
freeholders to be, as at present, required only once?
The LORI) CIIANCELLOR answered in the affirmative, and
the clause was agreed to.
Respecting the next clause, also referring to fifty pound free-
holders.
Lord FARNHAM thought it would be desirable to provide that
new existing freeholders of the value of fifty pounds, late Insh car
rency, should be recognised as fifty pound freeholders.
Lord PLUNKETT and the LORD CHANCELLOR said
the object of the Noble Lord was secured by the 6th Geo. IV.
called the Currency Act.
After a few words co the same effect from the Earl of ROSS-
N, the clause was agreed to.—Tke remaining clauses were then
respectively agreed to.
Their Lordships baying resumed, the Report was brought eel
received, and agreed to.
On the motion of the Duke of WELLINGTON, the Bill was
ordered to be read a third time on Monday next.—The motion was'.
agreed to.
The Duke of WELLINGTON requested to know from the
Noble Earl (Farnham) if be had any objection to the third reading
ot the Bill to-morrow (this day)?—(A laugh).
Lord FA RN HA Al— None in the world.

The third reading of the Bill was then fixed for tomorrow (this
day); and their Lordships adjourned at a QUA ITSII t • gLINSIG
HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr Danvers, from the East India llosee, presented a return of
the sale of raw silk for the last year.

SILIC

Mr. VESEY FITZGER ALD requested of the Hon. Member
foe Coventry to postpone his modal) on the Silk Trade till Monday.
It was requested by the persons in the silk trade that he (Mr.lritz
',raid) should on that day make known the course intended to be
pursued by his Majesty's Government, which he intended to do.
Mr. FY LER said, he should not object to the postponement it
he were certain that no fanher delay should take place.
Mr. V. FITZGERALD said be should be fully prepared. lad
as far as he could answer there should be no interference. He cobld
only answer that no Government orders should interfere with the
lion. Gentleman's motion.

The discussion was then fixed for Monday.
Mr. DICKINSON presented a Perkin.' from the Silk Manu-
facturers of Somerset, Dorset, and Wiltshire, complaining of the
distressed state of their trAile.

Mr. DA WSON moved for a copy of the Report of the Com-
missioners of Revenue, relative to the Post ()Med.—Ordered.
Mr. H. G It.trrAN presented a Petition from the Roman Ca.
thollc. of Lublin against the clause in the Relief 13111 ag dust meas.
tic institutions ; and similar petitions from three parishes in Ireland.
Mr. ROBINSON presented a Petition from the Silk Throw.
sten of London and it. vich.ity, praying for additional protection.
Mr. GRATTAN presented a Petition from the Catholic Bishops
of Irelands praying that education might be er ended to the Catho•
lie people of Ireland, without aoy interference with their religious
principles.

ChWieral GASCOYNE said, the petition being from Ronnie
Catholic Bishops, and praying fur public money, appeared to him
to be contrary to law.
Mr. SPRING RICE said the petitioners had often petitioned
the House in the present charicrer of Bishops professing the 11oin4n
Catholic religion resident in Ireland. Tile prayer of the petition
was, that the House would act on the recommendation of its Men
Committee.

Ur. G. DANKES t►ought there could be no objection to t►e
prayer of the Petition; but t►.t 'he Petitioners assuming the tide
of Bidlops was contrary to law. anti that their Petition ought not
to be received.

Oti the mocking, General G ASCOYNR, the Partition was read
at length.
Mr. TRA NT called for thr Solicitor General of Ireland to state
bate thr law stood respecting the titles of Catholic bishops in this
country.

The'SOLICITOIL GENERAL for Ireland said, there were
some doubts on the point at prevent but if his Hoe. Friend should
put the same question to him this day week, he would bays infinite
satisfaction in teifing him bow the law then stood.
• Mr. M. FITZGERALD contended that the Petition should
be received as all others from the same persons bad been received.
Mi. PEEL said the only question was, whether the petition was
informal? It bad been formally decided by the House of Lords,
[bat the redritmers should reflect petitions is the manner the pro.
alga we. wurded—ebet is, Bishops of the Catholic March in Ire-
land ; but not as Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland; and as the
petitioner, had conformed to that decision, be thought there could
fie no sufficient reason for rejecting the petition.—The petition was
then ordered to lie on the table, and he painted.
Mr. R. LLMEIL ptesented a Petition from the Oergy of
Berkshire, against any further grant to the College of Alarm&
Mr. BA It gave notice that, to•aturrow, be would ask leave
to bring in a Bill to make the accepting Mt olive in the .service of
the East India Compaq abroad, by a Meshes of Parliament, a
vacating of hii seat in Parl•ament.
Mr. TEN.. YSON gave notice, that on Tuesday next be should
move for a Select Committee to take into conaideradoo the state of
the Orphan's Fund of the City of London.