in presenting a petition from the Catholics of Ireland against this act, observed, that it had affixed to it the names of peers, merchants, and the leading private Catholic gentlemen of Ireland; and although it had no more than five thousand signatures, he had no doubt that it contained the sentiments of the whole Catholic population of that country upon this subject. He complained of the injustice of the Vestry acts, and recommended the House to take advantage of the example held out to them by the Hungarians, to whom the petition referred. The prayer of the petition was to beg the attention of that House to this—that where those of the Catholic persuasion formed seven eighths of the whole population, as regarded the church, and ninety-nine in a hundred of the actual population in many parts of the country, they were justified in entreating the legislature to re-consider the laws which authorized such oppressions and exactions as those enforced against them; they expressed their hope that the House would relieve them from the heavy charges to which they were obliged, by the existing laws, to submit; and they recommended to the con- sideration of that House the example of the Hungarian Diet in 1791; a body which, like the parliament of England, was composed of men of different orders in the community to the extent of five hundred or six hundred persons; and who, at the time referred to, had passed a resolution, that the Protestants of that state should not contribute to the Catholic churches money or labour; nor, on the other hand, should the Catholics contribute money or labour to the Protestants, nor towards the establishment of their churches.

condemned, as highly inconvenient, the custom of discussing questions of great importance on the presentation of a petition. He defended the existing measure as being a great improvement on that which had preceded it. If persons were aggrieved by assessments under the act, a remedy was provided for them, since they had the power to appeal. When he found that those who complained, chose rather to put their petition into the hands of the hon. gentleman than to seek for relief from the proper tribunal, he was inclined to doubt the correctness of their representation.

said, he was convinced that the bill afforded the Catholics no protection, and gave, as a proof of the correctness of his opinion, an instance in which, on a rate having been imposed by a Protestant bishop on the Catholic inhabitants of a parish for the supply of some articles to a church, the Catholics appealed to the Quarter Sessions, and the magistrates decided, that the act gave them no power to interfere with a rate so imposed. In some parts of Ireland, the Catholics were actually in such poverty, that they could not afford to repair their own chapels, and worshipped God almost in the open air. In one parish in the north, the Catholic chapel had been four times burnt down within twenty, years; the last time only five years ago; and while the Catholics were unable at present to rebuild that chapel, they were heavily taxed for the erection of a Protestant church. The injustice of the present state of the law was therefore manifest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had objected to this discussion, because it put a stop to what he considered more important business. Now, he knew of no business that could be more important than listen- ing to the complaints of five or six millions of people, of taxation without representation. True it was, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had promised, with reference to the canons of the church, that a notification should he sent round to the different parishes of Ireland; but he would take upon himself to assert, that even since, and in more than one instance, taxation had been enforced for articles not included in the canons of the church. In fact, the law, as it stood, was no sufficient remedy; and the same species of taxation which took place before the act, had been persevered in since it had passed. The whole was conducted in the most vague manner; and, besides the articles specified, in some instances 18l. and 20l. were charged under the head of contingencies; in fact, unexplained contingencies formed one-fifth of the whole tax. He sincerely hoped, therefore, that the act would be amended, and that the bishops would be deprived of the power of taxing parishes to any extent, and without any control. In his opinion, some person should be made answerable for the observance of due limits in taxation of this kind, and that person ought to be the incumbent of the parish.

admitted that there had been irregularities and infractions of the law under the old system, but contended that they were not enough, either in kind or degree, to warrant an enactment which would have been attended with greater evils than those it proposed to remedy. He complained that on occasions like the present, the right hon. baronet, and others who thought with him, brought forward a certain number of stock-stories, ready cut and dried, for the purpose of making out their case, and that the Catholic Association had done its utmost by its quackery to aggravate and inflame a wound at first of little importance. He then read a passage from a letter from Mr. O'Connell, and an extract from one of his speeches, in the latter of which that gentleman insisted that "the grievance of church rates was a grievance exceeded by no other that was felt in Ireland." The hon. baronet went on to examine, in some detail, the extent of this grievance, and adverted to several distinct cases, as made out by the petitions and returns upon the table. The first was that of Drogheda, which he argued was inapplicable; and the next was that of Thurles, where 32l. had been charged for hangings in the church. This sum, he contended, was not unreasonable, recollecting that Thurles was the residence of a great ecclesiastic, and that the church was the largest in the diocese. He also adverted to the situation of the parish of Clonolly, and contended, that in all these cases the evil complained of had been greatly exaggerated. If the fact were as Mr. O'Connell stated, that this was the greatest practical grievance in Ireland, he congratulated that country on the little that it had to endure. He also contended that much of the money raised, as appeared by the returns, was devoted to benevolent purposes; in some cases the Catholic schools were supported, the Catholic chapels repaired, and the Catholic priests paid out of the rates. On the whole, it amounted in most instances to about 1½d. per Irish acre, which was the sum of Mr. O'Connell's practical grievance. Were it not invidious, he would ask, what proportion this rate bore to the rent of the land in Ireland, for which twelve guineas, six guineas, and three guineas, per acre were paid? In the north of Ireland the amount of the rate was so small that, it could only be stated in decimals. He regretted that much of what had recently passed upon this subject had destroyed the harmony and good feeling formerly prevailing between the Protestant and Catholic clergy. The result of the whole of his inquiries was, that a state of irritation had been produced which parliament might find it difficult to allay.

denied that any stock-stories had been brought forward, or that the Catholic Association had been guilty of quackery. The former collection and disposition of the rates were most discreditable to all parties concerned, and it was highly important that the legislature should interfere to remedy the evil. The great objection was against the unwarrantable charges under the heads of "Sundries and Contingencies," in some parishes amounting to 20l. or 30l., without the specification of any particulars. In his opinion, the evil could only effectually be remedied by throwing open the vestries, and admitting Roman Catholics into them. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would take the subject into his consideration; but if he would not, he trusted the hon. member for Aberdeen would bring in a bill to amend the existing act.

supported the prayer of the petition. The cases of complaint under this act were not imaginary, as the hon. baronet had supposed. No church could be built in this country without the consent of parliament; but in Ireland the question was settled by a select vestry, consisting exclusively of members of the Established: Church, and they were generally parties interested in the disposal of the rate to be levied on the Dissenters and Catholics. The worst enemies of the Established Church were those who wished to prolong these abuses, by which the feelings of the people were excited against it.

urged the necessity of an amendment of this act; otherwise he feared the abuses already committed would be aggravated, and spread throughout all the parishes in Ireland.

presented two petitions for the repeal of the act of last session, to prevent the use of Ribbons at Elections. One of them was signed by 5,000 silk-weavers, inhabitants of Coventry; and the other by between 1,700 and 1,800 silk-weavers of Spitalfields. He concurred with the petitioners that their apprehension was well founded, that this act would do great mischief to the silk trade. The hon. gentleman then rose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill "to repeal so much of the act of last session as prohibited the use of ribbons at Elections." It would be in the recollection of the House, that this bill was introduced by the noble member for Northamptonshire. In its original shape, the bill merely went to deprive the counsel, agents, and attorneys, employed by the candidates, from voting at the election; but, from the use of the word "flagger," he concluded that it never could have been the intention of the noble lord to interfere with the silk trade. He was the more disposed to think that the House could have no objection to review its decision, when he recollected that the bill was brought in at a late period of the session, when many gentlemen had left town; and that it was finally passed through the House at two o'clock in the morning, when there were only thirty-six members present. The hon. member "then proceeded to take a review of the laws passed against extravagant expense on the subject, from the time of Edward 3rd to the present day; and contended, that such laws, from their bad effects upon trade, were absurd and impolitic, while they at the same time gave men the suspicion, that the members of that House, in the present case, were actuated by considerations purely selfish, and merely desired to diminish the expenses of their election. The silk trade, however, was a plant of exotic growth, and of delicate fibre; and, unless they made up their minds to apply to it those principles of free trade which they allowed to govern their opinions with respect to other branches of our commerce and manufactures, he was satisfied they would have to regret its total extinction, notwithstanding the extent of our capital, or the superiority of our workmen. In the ribbon trade of the city of Coventry, he believed he might safely say, that nine-teen-twentieths of the population of the city were constantly employed. At times this trade was dull, like every other; but the ribbon manufacturers were always in the habit of looking forward to the consumption of a general Election as their refuge in the hour of distress; as the asylum of their hopes, and their sheet anchor in the storm. The hon. gentleman then went on to observe, that the consequences of this restriction upon the wearing of ribbons, would not be such as the hon. member for Limerick supposed. The bill would not save the expense of elections, while, at the same time, by throwing numbers of industrious workmen out of employment, it would tend to increase smuggling, poaching, and the commission of every kind of crime; in short, it would have the effect of demoralizing, he might almost say, of revolutionizing the people. What, he would ask, could they expect from men who once received the poor-rate? From that moment all the habits of the man became altered. His feelings were debased. He nourished ideas of bloodshed and revenge, and ceased to consider himself as a member of the same society with which he had mingled before. The hon. member for Limerick had been engaged in putting an end to the expense of Yeomanry corps, but he would say, give the people employment, and then where would be the necessity for these corps in the manufacturing districts, if the people were happy and contented? That House, enshrined in all its omnipotence, and entrenched in all its powers, could not hope to conquer custom. Party always had distinctive marks in this country. From the time of the wars between the houses of York and Lancaster, there had always been ensigns of party, and he did not see why the privilege allowed to the high should be withheld from the low. After contending, that the state of Ireland was different from that of this country, and observing that the law against wearing ribbons at elections in that kingdom was passed in 1796, two years before the great rebellion, and when parties were extremely violent, the hon. member proceeded to ridicule the clause which prohibited a candidate from giving a ribbon to any one, even his own wife, during the time of an election, under a penalty of ten pounds: this penalty, too, to be given to the informer, without any limitation of time as to laying the information. Upon the whole, considering that the bill would not save expense, that it was injurious to his constituents, and that it was a blot upon the Statute-book, he would move for leave to bring in a bill to repeal so much of the act as prohibits the use of ribbons at elections.

seconded the motion, on public and private grounds. His private reasons, if the House would allow him to state them, were, that he had had some hundreds of Coventry men in his regiment; and when he parted from them, he promised, that if ever it was in his power to do them a good turn, he would recollect them. This was the first opportunity he had had to fulfil his promise, and he therefore seconded the hon. member's motion. The bill itself he considered, indeed, in a public view, to be calculated to do much injury to the trade in fancy ribbons, without producing any great advantage. He considered a measure prohibitory of the use of ribbons at elections as one partaking too much of minutiae for legislation. If there were any part of the law relating to Elections which he was desirous to see repealed, the Treating-bill was one that called for repeal far more than any enactment respecting the use of ribbons. The most wasteful extravagance was incurred by out-voters going from London and other places to Yorkshire and other remote places, at the expense of the candidates. Many persons took advantage of this opportunity of paying a visit to their friends once in seven years. This was very severe upon candidates, who were obliged to pay these expenses. This law, and the law permitting non-resident voters to vote at elections, were productive of far greater inconvenience than the law prohibiting the use of ribbons, which, in his opinion, would always be evaded.

said, he would decline to follow the hon. mover over the various irrelevant topics which he had somewhat strangely introduced into a discussion upon moving for leave to bring in a bill to repeal an act of last session, prohibiting the use of ribbons at elections. He would meet the motion of the hon. member at once, by announcing his intention to vote against it. It was the duty of the House to cheapen the expenses at elections. This was the only effectual mode of restraining bribery at elections, and of making them free. The most extravagant expense was incurred frequently at elections by the use of ribbons. At the last election for the county of Northumberland, the expense laid out on ribbons was 6,000l. He did not think that any act of legislation should be adopted for the sake of rendering a partial benefit to a particular place, which would have the effect of rendering expenses at elections unnecessarily greater than they were at present.

opposed the motion. He had some experience of contested elections, and he could give his testimony, that the act of last session was expedient to check the extravagance which prevailed in the wasteful distribution of ribbons at elections.

replied. The opposition which had been offered to his motion was, he said, to be traced to one principle— self—nothing but self. He hoped he should have a majority in favour of the bill, and that the House would not, under the influence of such considerations, toss the poor weavers of Coventry overboard.

rose pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill "to declare the Rights of Freeholders in separate districts or counties, to vote at the election of Knights of the Shire of the counties from which they shall have been separated." The hon. gentleman, after adverting to the conduct of some hon. gentlemen, who, on a former occasion, had, after professing themselves friendly to the principle of the measure he proposed, deserted him, upon a plea of not concurring in the mode in which he had brought the question forward, proceeded to declare, that to him it was perfectly indifferent what course he pursued, provided he could persuade the House to acquiesce in the object which he was desirous of obtaining. It would probably be convenient to the House, that he should discard all the learned lumber with which he had been obliged, on a former evening, to preface his notice on the subject. The hon. gentleman then went into a brief history of the origin of counties corporate, which had, in times past, been separated from their parent counties in virtue of various specific charters. Whatever alterations in the other rights and privileges of the districts so detached such charters might have effected, it was manifest that they could not legally interfere with the exercise of any existing elective franchise, formerly by such districts enjoyed. That was the position upon which he meant to contend for the principle of this bill. He should submit, that this being clearly the law of the case, although the usage, in respect of these counties corporate, had not been in conformity to the law, it was high time that parliament should declare what that law, or rather what that usage, ought to be. There were eighteen of these districts or counties corporate. There were three of them in which the freeholders had votes for the election of members for counties, Poole, Southampton, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Six others, for some causes which at that distance of time were not very easy to be ascertained, had acquired a right to vote for the election of burgesses or knights of the shire, to serve in parliament for the town or county from which they were so detached. With this right it was not his intention in any manner to interfere; but he did not think it fair, that the other counties corporate should not be participators in the same right in their own cases. Besides the three he had already mentioned, there were these six:—Bristol, Haverfordwest, Litchfield, Norwich, Nottingham, and Exeter; in all nine, which had the privileges he had spoken of. And these were without it:—York, Lincoln, Newark, Coventry, Kingston-upon-Hull, Canterbury, Chester, Caernarvon, and Worcester. Now, the mode in which he proposed to deal with all these counties corporate was, to give them the right of voting at elections for knights of the shires within which they were severally situated. He came to parliament to ask for this right, because parliament alone could bestow it. To acts of parliament more than one of the counties in this kingdom owed the possession of a similar privilege; and those of Chester and Durham were striking instances of that fact. The hon. gentleman then spoke of the little reliance which could be placed, in matters of this kind, upon the reports of committees upstairs, appointed to inquire into them; and cited two counter-decisions in the years 1739 and 1747 to account for his not now moving for such a committee in preference to a bill. Two objections had been heretofore taken to his proposition; the first, that it was an innovation; the second, that it was a branch of the system of reform. Now it was no such innovation; for in some of the cases it would but restore a right formerly enjoyed by the county corporate; in others, it would confer it where it ought to be possessed. As for reform, he was not ashamed to avow himself friendly to a general reform of the present constitution of parliament, as a measure which would be attended with great good to the country; yet, on the present occasion, he waived all argument upon that point, and should be contented to see the right for which he contended given to the districts he had indicated.

said:—I rise to second the motion. From the most mature investigation of this question, involving the rights and privileges of so many, and feeling as I do for them, as affecting all, I may perhaps be more particular in my application to those whom I have the honour to represent—comprising the populous city of Lincoln, of upwards of ten thousand inhabitants, and the villages annexed thereto, of full twenty miles in circumference, and containing in the total near four hundred and sixty freeholds. These individuals ask and seek no new privileges, no novel rights, but the restoration of those rights which they once exercised in common with others, and of which heavy impositions and exactions of former times have deprived them. The learned Attorney-general said, on a former night, that the freeholders of the city and borough alluded to had made a bargain with the government; that they had purchased exemption from county rates, &c, and, therefore, that the depriving them of those privileges was no severity. I confess I do not consider that a bargain, which is forced, from which they could not free themselves, and to which if they did submit tacitly it was because they were compelled to do so. A right hon. gentleman (Mr. Wynn) had said, that our whole constitutional system was a collection of anomalies, arising from various causes. These were got rid of by act of parliament, declaring the last final and decisive. I have heard constantly of an act to amend an act; and if there are grievances in any act, why not do in that case what the hon. member for Hull states was done in similar cases? As for the privilege of voting for counties, according to what is now required; remove these grievances by another act of parliament, and confirm by restoration the enjoyment before exercised. I hold authorities in my hand to prove, that in all the acts of those reigns that had so separated the city from the county, as far as realises it a county within itself, the former rights and privileges are expressly stated as reserved and unmolested; and I do think, in the ancient and loyal city of Lincoln, the right of a freeholder being vested in the soil, and not by grant or charter, there is every right for the possessors of soil therein to have a voice. I do hope parliament will give the subject that consideration to which such an important measure has every claim. I repeat, it is no novel right, no new privilege, but a restoration of former rights, that is sought for.

said, that he still held the sentiments which he had so lately expressed to the House on this subject; but he would not now repeat them, but reserve himself for a future stage of the bill.

rose to move for leave to bring in a bill "to render Lessors liable for county and parish assessments in all future lettings of land in Ireland." The hon. member observed, that complaints had been made from all parts of Ireland of the hardship of making the occupiers of land liable for permanent assessments. They were not only called upon to pay for roads and bridges, in which it might be said they were inter- ested, but also for gaols, hospitals, and other public buildings, for which presentments were granted by grand juries. This was a hardship which the proposed bill would remedy.

said, he would not oppose the principle of the bill, but he could not consent to so wide an extension of that principle as the hon. member proposed.

would not object to the introduction of the bill, but he would not stand pledged to go the whole way with the hon. member, in a measure which would make so great an alteration in the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland.

defended the necessity of the present measure. More than half the amount of grand-jury assessments in Ireland were not for objects in which the occupying tenant could be said to have a direct interest. It was a hardship on a tenant to be called upon, perhaps in the last year of his lease, to pay a share of a tax for a public building in which he was in no way interested.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill "to regulate the Admission of Freemen in Cities and Boroughs." The objects he had in view were, to diminish the expenses candidates were put to at elections, by being made to pay for the admission of freemen, and for bringing them down from town to the election. There were many towns which had a far greater number of non-resident freemen than resident freemen. Dover had one thousand two hundred resident, and one thousand eight hundred non-resident freemen; Lancaster had only five hundred residents and three thousand non-residents. For all these non-residents the candidate was obliged to pay the expense of coming from London to the city or borough to which they belonged, and not only that, but often the expense of taking up their freedom. It thus happened, that, in years of contested elections, from five hundred to one thousand two hundred freemen were admitted, whilst in other years there would not be more than a dozen. He proposed, therefore, that all persons entitled to take up their freedom should be bound to do so twelve months from the time of their becoming entitled to do it. The hon. member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the bill.

doubted whether the bill would effect the objects of the hon. member; namely, the correction of the abuse of the creation of freemen during the poll or immediately before it, and the expense of bringing up voters. It might injuriously affect the rights of persons at present out of the country. He had himself, last session, introduced a bill on the subject; but he would rather see the matter in the hands of the hon. member than his own, and he would give him every assistance in his power in framing the provisions of the bill.

said, they had so many election bills at present before the House, that he thought it would be impossible to do justice to them all. Besides, he thought the bill now proposed would be perfectly ineffective. He considered it to be one of the many attempts at petty legislation respecting the right of voting, which the House was almost daily in the habit of witnessing. He should oppose the introduction of the bill.

opposed the bill, as not only inadequate to the object proposed, but as greatly aggravating the evil it was designed to remedy. He was far from believing that all admissions were at the expense of the candidate; at least his own experience falsified the statement. But if it were so, the proposed bill would increase the expenses of an election; for as every man who claimed the right of admission would be anxious to possess it, he would go to the place in which it originated at an expense, the reimbursement of which he would expect whenever a contest arose, and thus throw on the candidates the charges of two journeys when one would suffice. But he was chiefly opposed to every measure of this sort because it began at the wrong end. If it were really an object to prevent the payment of admissions by candidates, why did not the hon. mover propose a bill by which the candidate should be compelled to swear that he had not by himself, nor his agents, paid or promised to pay, and that he would not hereafter by himself, or his agents, directly or indirectly, pay for the admissions; and, further, fix a high penalty on the detection of the offence, of which the mere receiving the money should be evidence? This would be an intelligible remedy. But it was quite the fashion of modern reformers to relieve members of parliament from expenses by curtailing the few existing rights of the electors—a plan to which he would never assent; and, therefore, without any disrespect to the hon. member, but to save him and the House trouble, he should oppose the bill in the outset.