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

from an individual named Samuel Flying from -Coleman's Bridge.
Norfolk ; and from two other places.—Ordered to lie on the table.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented Petitions from dill
Roman Catholic Clergy of Oseory, Dublin. and Limerick. againit
the clauses in the Catholic Relief Bill affecting Monastic Orderer»
Ordered to lie on the table.

r

Lord KING pretested a Petition from Manchester andlialforti
in favour of the Catholic Relief Bill, and against the Bill for Dig:
franchising the Forty Shilling Frieholders.—Laid on the table.
The. Deke of SUSSEX said be had the boomer to present to' the
' House a Petition from the Rev. George Armstrong, of Cross:lBbn.
in the county of Down, to which be begged to call their Lordships'
attention, because he considered it to be extremely important, shim
it came front an individual who was known to many of their Lord.
ships to;have for a long period contested' the question. The Peti-
tion was in favour of the Bill now io progress through the House
for relieving the Roman Catholics, and its language was so power-i
ful and worts, that be begged leave to read it to their Lordshipo.l
His Royal Highness then read the Petition at length, which was
laid on the table.

Lord BEXLRY.begged to call their Lordships' attention far a
few momenta to a Petition which he had to present from a parish
in the county of Renfrew, the object of which, was, in the Ant
place, directed against the Bill for granting furthere
political power
to the Roman Catholics but it also claimed, upon the faith °eche
Treaty with Scotland, :special eiMption infirrout of that country.
They represented the Treaty of Union .with Scotland robe a leel
protection fur them against Popish power,, and stated that tie ex-
clusion of Papists was an original,; fundamental, sad an undeniable
part of that contract. Whatever, therefore, they should• deein
proper to do with reference to any other part of the kingdom, they
claimoda• emeritus on the faith of that Treaty.
At the Noble Lord's request the Petition was read atlength,aml,
was laid on the table.
Lord CLI FOEN presented a Petition front the Protestants of
:Waterford against the clauses in the Roman Catholic Relief Btil
which interfered with Monastic Orders. The Noble Lord sup-
ported the prayer of the Petition..--Ordered to lie on the table.
Lord TEYNHAM presented a Petition from the Forty Shilling
Freeholders of Catlingfnrd, hi the comity of Louth, 'pint the
Forty Shilling Freeholders' Disfranchisement Bill.—,Ordered to lie
on the table.

Lord KENYON presented five Nikko, front parishes in the
county of Carmarthen against granting further Contentious to the
Roman Catholics—Ordered to lk on the table.

I un sown ennuis° ritatiounm.
The blarquis. of LON DON DERRY said that something iced
falleu,.on a former evening, from a Noble Marquis, not now;in the
House, with respect to the number of forty shilhng freeholders re-
gistered in Ireland, which be (the Marquis ot• Londonderry) then
expressed his dissent from. k Return had since been made. per-
main to the Order made by their Lordships, from which it ap-
peared that the number of forty shilling freeholders in Ireland did
not amount to snore than half what some Noble Lords considered.
The number had been stated at abOut 480,000; but he found by
the Returns that there were not more than 217.000 forty shilling
freeholders in Ireland. • For his own part be was of opinion that
the franchise alight be advantageously confined to those only who
held freeholds of the value of 151. or 201. and if aqy other Noble
Lord thought proper to move an amendment to that effect it should
have his support; but he would not interrupt the progress of the
818 by moving it himself.
The Quke.of RICHMOND observed, that the Noble. Marquis
(Londonderry) had not taken into account the number of free-
'holders, nor those in counties from which no return had been made,
when he stated the whole number at 217,000—(Heir, hear).
Lord HOLLANDisrevented a Petition from Chelmsford In fa-
vour-of the Catholic Relief Bill; and a petition from LiVerpool
against, the clause of .the Bill for the regulation of.** monastic
orders. • The Noble Lord thought the Hosue would do him this"
credit to believe that the clause to which the petitiOn referred wea-
ns* that part of the Bill with which be was shoat in lore. * He
though the. prejudice which existed in this Protestant poetry
against members of monastic orders was very unfounded, and he
had only to hope,that the clause to which ;he -alluded would
be eternised with mildness and clemency when it became the law
et the land.—The petitions were ordered lb lie teat table'.
On the motion of tbk Duke of Watuninon the Annual Indem
nity Bill went through a Committee, and the Report was ordered
sobs received to ',sorrow.
111111 ill VittEIfoLDIRS. QUALIPICATIpII BILL.
The Duke of WEELINOTON moved the Order of the D 47
foe the. House going into Committee on the Irish Freeholders
Q,nalilicatio• BBL
• The Marquis of LANSDOWN would feel great re-
gret it he had felt himself obliged to offer any inipedi
meat to this Bill; and if he deemed doing so he wish d
expressly to state that it was because he felt no objec-
tious to it, as he . bad made up his mind to throw no
obstacle in the way of its passing. However, bethought
he would better consult his own convenience and that
of their Lordships, by expressing his opinion on the
measuee before their Lordships went into Committee.
This Bill affected one of the most important privileges
of the people, and was therefore Ivor* h y of theirLoidships
most seams, consideration. Some of his Noble Tr lends
bad stated that they supporte&. this Bill upon its own
merits; whilst others gave their support upon the merits
of the other measure which accompanied it. Now, he
(the NI 41 quis of Lansdown) was not able to agree with
eitner of those parties. The part of the Bill which was
prospective he supporteeentirely on its own merits. It
did not. require the evidence afforded by the late elec-
tions to prove to him that.some alteration was necessary
in the elective franchise in Ireland. The retrospective
effect of the Bill, however, was to be considered on
grounds entirely distinct. In fact, by rendering the
measure retrospective, they were legislating upon the
principles of a penal enactment; and, before such a
measure was introduced, he conceived that their Lord-
ships ought to have been in possession of a much larger'
share of information. The elective franchise was a'
tient ; and, however little valuable it might be to the
linty shilling freeholders, it was a right in many in-
stances feisty acquired and honestly exercised. The
chief ground on which -this Bill was advocate) was,
On it rendered the general measure before Parliament
complete; but he d subted whether any advantage
would wise from rendering the measure complete
which would compensate for such a violation of principle
and such an evasion of just rights. Sane time since he
(Lord t..) bad carried a Bill through that House for the
purposes of taking away votes given in common, and
upon joint tenancy. That Bill a as founded upon a pi in-
ciple the justice of which was obvious ;* but yet the Bill
was prospective only. He had great difficulty in assent-
ing to a summary measure like this for depriving the
forty-shilling freeholders of Zeeland of the elective friths
chile. It was only because he not only approved of,
but applauded, the general measure of Catholic relief,
that he was prevented from giving his decided opposi-
tion to a Bill containing so objectionable a principle,'
sad which woold be so very indefinite in its conse-
quences. He said indefinite, because there was a great
inequality in the number of persons exercising the 40s.
franchise In particular comities; and it was therefore
impossible even to guess at the effects of the measure
now in contemplation. In his opinion, it would hue
been much better if the measure bad been gradual, ra-
ther than immediate. It was almost übiversally allowed
that one of the great evils of Ireland was a superabun-
dant population.. One ground on which be approved
of the prospective principle of- the Bill was, that it
tended to diminish this evil, which evil had been
greatly aggtavated by the practice of letting out land
toe the purpose ,-f increasing the number of Towson ell
estate. Now, this practice, undoubtedly, was highly
objectionable; but then it was one thing to create a
number of small holdings, and trooper to sweep-them
away at once after they•bad been creased. •His opiaies
•

was that the present measure would operate too strongly,
and induce the landlords to act upon a sweeping pro-
cess, by dispossessing great numbers of small holders
at once. No situation could be more difficult than that
of an Irish landholder, a part of whose estate had been
held for a long time by a middleman, and who found,
when the lease expired, that his own interest required
he should banish a great number of the under-tenants ;
for banishment it should be called. It required not.
only strong nerves, but nerves of iron, to dismiss Ihe
whole population of an estate, without any place of
refuge or any means of subsistence being open to them ;
and, however conducive it might be to the interests of
landlords, he trusted that none of them would clear
away more than a small proportion of the population at
once. He apprehended, however, that 'this Bill would
be an additional inducement to landlords to get rid of
the surplus population too hastily. They should pause,
end consider well. however, before they acted violently.
either under the provisions of the Sub-letting Act. or
tinder the inducement to be !wind in this measure for
raisin's the'qualification from 40s. to 101. The popula-
tion affected hy such a proceeding were the people of
the country, and, as such, *ere entitled to the con;ide•
ration of the landlords. Having expressed these sesti-
matte it only remained for him to add, that he would
not tbrow-any obstacles in the way of the settlement of
Chi. great question al Catholic emancipation by pro
posing any amendments to this Bill in the Committee;
and it was perhaps less accessary that be should pro
pose any amendments, because he was convinced that it
would be found the Ball would require some amend-
ments in a future Session. The Bill certainly gave very
great posers to the assistant Barristers. but it did not
very clearly appear that this power could be safely
lodged anywhere else, and the objections made to the
Bill on this ground would be obviated in a great rues-
sine if the appointments to the office of Chief Barrister
were made on every occasion free from the exercise of
all local influence. Under these considerations he would
abstain from offering any resistance to the Bill in Coot
mittee.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY was desirous of
saying a word in explanation. It appeared from the
Returns to which he had previously referred that there
were only 191,000 forty shilling freeholders registered
in Ireland. There were three counties. however, from
which no Returns had been made; and for these he al-
lowed the difference between 191,000 and 217,000, at
which he had stated the whole number of forty shilling
freeholders in Ireland. Of that number. however, he
was firmly convinced that not more than 100,000 would
be entitled to vote at elections, a consideration which
must be satisfactory.
. Earl BATHURST said, he never could have come
to the resolution of supporting the other measure for
the relief of die Roman Catholics if it was not accom-
puled by this measure; and he might add, that. he
would have considered this measure altogether unjus-
tifiable if it was not coupled with the other measure.
Having said so much, he might be allowed to stare the
reasons why he approved of Vie retrospective principle
contained in this Bill. If the Bill was not re:rospective
he feared it would be laying a ground for fresh excite-
' ment in the country. The Roman Catholics having
been so long excluded from Parliament, would natu-
rally feel en ambition to have strati in the House of
Comnions, and would depend upon those freeholders
as the means of getting into Parliament. The influence
of the Catholic priests had been much talked of. and
he (Lord B.) was of opinion that the Catholic clergy-
men had as good a right to isterfere in politics as der.'
gymen of the Established Church, if they did not use
that power in a manner inconsistent with civil liberty
and with the doctrines of their religion. Same Nsble
Lords denied that the Roman Catholic priests had exer-
cised an improper. infleence over the forty-shilling free-
holders, but, whether they had power or had not, the
franchise was injurious to the freeholders themselves.
Now, if the Bill was not retrospective, the effect must
be that the freeholders now possessing the franchise
should retain it during their lives, and that a number
of new freeholders would arise under the new Act. It
was quite clear, therefore, that great inconvenience
would arise at the am general. election by the old free.
holders and the new freeholders voting. The Catholic
Gentlemen, too, would naturally make use of the influ-
ence of their priests to assist them in getting into Par.
WORM ; and in this way that religious animosity would
be revived which it was the great object of those mea•
sures to put an end to. In such a contest, the freeholders
themselves must suffer, for the only manner in which
the Roman Catholic Gentlemen could exercise their in-
fluence over the forty shilling freeholders would be by
fighting their opponents with their own tenantry. If
the operation of this Act was gradual the effect would
be that a greater number of forty shilling freeholders
would be in existence at the next general election than
at any subsequent election; and therefore it was rea-
sonable to suppose that a greater number of Roman
Catholics would get into Parliament than at any subte-
quent time; for it was impossible not to perceive that
there mould be a great anxiety at the next general elec•
don to try the strength 'of the Roman Catholics in lie-
!and. An unusual number of Roman Catholics there-
fore would come into Parliament at the time when

Protestant jealousy would still be excited ; and the
Roman Catholics who had obtained their seats by the
influence'of the forty shilling freeholders would find it
their interest to preserve the forty shilling franchise,
and to keep up the system •as it now existed. There
would be a bond of union, therefore, between the Ro-
limn Catholic Members of Parliament, who would, by
this mean., be induced to-give their support to one or
lother of the political parties which might then exist,
upon the condition that that party should resist any
measure for the suppression •of the forty shilling fran-
chise, or, in other words, that they should repeal this
Bill. In 1798 the Roman Catholics asked the limited

right of •oting out of freeholds worth twenty pounds,
which was refused them; but in the next year the elec-
tive franchise was-granted to them without any limit.-
tion. . He (Lord Bathurst) admired the moderation of
the Roman Catbolicsin aiking for such a limited power,
and also the liberality of the Protestants in granting
more than they were asked ; but he believed both the
demand and the grant were made upon prudential con-
siderations. Tile Roman Catholics thought, when they
asked for the limited Malaise, that they would get no
mdra; and the Protestant landholders hoped that, by
extending the fraichise, by means of their own influence
over their tenantry, they could neutralise the power of
the Roman-Catholici. Aitheir Lordships were aware;
however, tha 'power of the landlords had lately been

'
turned against themselves. It was much better, he
thought, therefore, slit the Bin should pass in its pre-
sent shape, for it the Bill had not an immediate effect.
it would prevent the final adjustment of the general
question, which all patties must admit was maps de-
sirable. •
The Hargolsof LANSDOWN blade a few observations lb ex-
planation.
The Eirluf HADDINGTON was not insensible to
the evils of the resisting representative system in I, elsnd,
and would have been most ready to me for in inquiry
into it, or to acquiesce in any proposal which nould
remedy the evil without designing the franchise. He
did not say the Bill would operate injuriously ; no the
contrary, he hoped it would operate beneficially in Ire.
land. But, however this might be, it would not alter
hi. objections to the principle of the Bill.
The Earl of WICKLOW confessed that his obji cfon
to the retrospective 'principle of the Bill was only sur-
mounted by urgent necessity. Theie were some reasons,
.however, which made it more desirable that t' e Bill
should have au immediate operation. If the f arty.
linjt freeholders were allowed to retain the franchise for
some time, it would give an opportunity t the It ins4n
Catholi.; agitators to force themselves ii.to Parliament.
This would he no es it to Parliament,or to those persons
' who got in, but it would be a great evil to she fir y.
shilling freeholders themselves, upon whose neck those
agitators mould lot into Parliament. For his part, he
could not condemn the conduct of the forty
holders at the late electi,,us, and as to the Catholic
Priests he did not think they were meow than theland-
hMders. If the I a ty-uhilling freeholders did slot exert se
their judgrueht in cho sing (semen the candidates, they
had do .e so at .east by choosing between those whole
dictation they should follow. In Ireland the tenants
were generally greatly in arrear to their lanarrds, and
when they voted contrary totbe wishes of the landlords,
the latter naturally sought to punish them by pleasing
for the arrears; and the situation of the forty-shilling
freeholders would have been dread:al if they had not
had the Catholic rent to resort to. By the Bill wh:ch
was passed early in the Session an end was rut to he
collection of that rent ; and as Parliament prevented
the possibility of a recurrence to that rent, it was also
r,bcjutid to prevent a recartence of that state of things
which. made the rent necessary. Upon these consister_f-
tions, and as a protection to the for rt,• fi &hollers
themselves, he gave his support to this IMAMS!, and
waived his objections to the retrospective principle
which it contained.

The Duke of RICHMOND said he found something
in the arguments of all ss ho supported this measure to
jurify tie rejection of this Bill. His Noble relation
(Earl Bathurst) said he would consider this meastne
most unjustifiable it it was not coupled with the (Wee
measure for the rel of of the R.,nian CatholiCs, and that
he could not consent to the measure for tby tel clot the
Catholics if it bad not been accompanied b) Ism mea-
.sure. Now he (the Duke of Richmond) could never
consent to this kind of barter in legisistti.in;and would
never acknowledge the principle that the Legialature
should do a certain and immediire wtong for If e'sake
of effecting a doubtful and remote good. Bat. Pik
tool o.ing the forty-shilling freeholders ouAr.t to
be disfranchised, he would beg to a k their Lordships
what evidence they had f filing the quaification st ten
pounds? Ile might say that it should he fixed at tive
p,.unds. Other Noble Lords had slid that it she ud be
raised to twenty pounds. The most unim,prtant turn-
pike road Bill would not have been passed throug., 0 e
House on such slight inqui•y. The only evidence thiy
had upon the stibject was that .shich Mas gisen in the
year 1b25 and did that evidence than tend to any at-
tack upon vested tights? The Bill which was In, Ul4l
into Parliament founded on that eviCence did not got°
d price those forty-shilling. freeholders Of their right to
vie wl.o at present possessed it, or those field. it
Li fee. For these reasons it was his intention to i. tits.
duce a clause in Committee th..t the Bill stiou'ai he only
pr. spective; and another that it should not extend. to
freeholdeis holding in fee. With legal dto the nitioner
of appealing from the assistant bar. ism' a, be thought
these_ would he one good effect from it, that it was so
bad that they would be obliged to matte the mite
Bill; but what he principally o$ jected to sas-ihe pre•
cedent which this Bill afforded. He would a k,. were
there no forty.shalling freeholders in England who tleid
their freeholds on leases ? Now, Noble Lords had ifs-
gued, that by raising the quit:pi:mom to test rounds
'novelty would be; reptesegte4; Was it piopeity..aftich
was rePres"teCii,44.4.oooB,l4:o, Pirstrio, sCh re
there was witas. tuabtuatalleakianpooa idloping representa-
tion? No one eneilatittentleinettl Tit-the uunoti y with
which he had voted the otherlatlit,ol taking the Ptu-
lar side; but he protar,te4.44.ost sO dangerous a pre-
cedent. Their Lordships had tome to a drieintiant.o n
that they had no right to disfranchise boroughs becaule
they, were corrupt, and, even adniittiog the charges
whiCh had been made against the. lorty-shilking tier-
holders of Ise.and, did nut the same principle rand
good with regard to them? He uvula not take up
mote of their Loidships' time at present. as he was sure
they would a low one who formed one i f seventeen to
speak oftener on the subject than one of one hundred
and twenty two.

The Eat! of LAUDERDALE, though he was one of
those who strenuously opposed the dislranchisenetlst•tif
the Boroughs alluded to by the Noble
thought that the measures of the Government would be
incomplete if not accompanied by this Bill. The Lbjeet
of the Relief Bill was to tranquillize Ireland, and it
never could be tranquillized while the Freehblders were
subject to thd cosifltctiaA•interests of Protestant land•
lords and Roman Catholic priests.
The Marquis of CLANRIDARDE th• u .tht that those
Noble L rds were mistaken avbe.tuppobed that the re-
ligion of the constituency of Ireland would be change'd
by raising the qualification to UV • The country was
Catholic, and therefore the constitnelicy mint hr:ca-
tholic, whether it consisted of 401. or Hlltfi eeholdert.-
The priests would still continue to have‘4le sansfperet.
He drought, however, that the poser had been much
exaggerated. The Catholic Clergy, in consequence of
their rank and education, had considerable iifiuence;
but let their Lordships look to the instances whith they
had of an attempt to exercise that influence in .oppr si-
lion to the feelings of the penjle. In t .e late elec ion
in the county Clare, one priest oho had come fermata
to support the Ptesidoct cf the Board dila& was de-
serted by his Rock and the unpatriotic priest shared the
fate of the anti Cgfrolic landlord. In the year 1845
the charge whiih.wasa made against the forty-shilling
freeholders wasi thaCtlre7 were the hols of tt.eir Lind-

lords. They wholly repelled-that charge. It was then
ssid they were the toots of the Assocrsti. n; and now
they were accused of being the tools of the priests. He
supposed the voice af humanity would have little weigh•
when a question of espesliency was discussed, but he
would remind their Lordsh;ps that the effect of this Bill
Arnold be to drive the people r,f Ireland from the liiimes
which they cherished, either to become beggars or
banditti. or to desert their ()alive land ; and he might