said, he wished to state a fact which had come to his knowledge with respect to one of these petitions, that from the parishes of Normanton, Weston, and Ossington. He alluded more particularly to the latter place. It was a fact, then, that names of parties were signed to this petition, not only without their authority, but. without their knowledge. Who had authorized its being done he did not know, but it was a serious charge against some person. He mentioned the fact to the House, leaving it to deal with it as it should please. This petition did not originate at any meeting, in any of the parishes from which it purported to come. A person came with it to those parishes, and asked all he met to sign it, or to authorize him to sign for them; and that some one must have signed for many others was clear, for on the face of the petition it appeared, that a great many names were in one handwriting. It appeared, also, that the zeal of this collector of the sense of the people carried him a little further, for he not only signed for those he saw, or whose wives he saw, but he put down the names of others whom he could not possibly have seen at the time. He had looked over some of the names, and he there found that of his own groom, who was fifty miles distant at the time. Wishing to ascertain whether the man had given any authority for putting his name, he wrote to him, and was informed, in reply, that he had never before heard of the petition, and of course that he had given no authority to have his name affixed to it. In making this statement, he had no wish to detract from the merit of petitions; but, in pointing out abuses of this kind, he only asserted the right of petition.

—Probably the hon. member, before he proceeds further with these petitions, will address the House in explanation of the statement which had just been made to it—that one of these petitions contains names affixed to it by a person who was not authorized so to do.

said, that when he first heard that the names of parties had been put to this petition without their authority, he wrote to make inquiry as to the fact, and was told by the person whom he addressed, that he regretted there were the names of three persons put down without their authority, by the person who took the petition round, but at the request of their respective wives. As to the name of his hon. friend's groom having been put down without his authority, there was now no doubt of the fact; but it was probably done at the re quest of his wife. If there was any thing irregular in the petition, he was sorry for it; but he had no knowledge, when he received it, that there was any thing wrong in it. The feeling on the subject to which the petitions referred was so very strong in that part of the country, both amongst men and women, that he thought the latter could not be blamed if, in their zeal, they authorized the signature of their husbands' names.

—I am quite sure the hon. member will see that there is no charge whatever against him on the subject of this petition: but I would beg to direct the hon. member's attention to this—that every member who offers a petition to this House does it in the full confidence that it is signed by those who are professed to be its subscribers. The hon. member having heard it stated, that the names of individuals were put to the petition without their authority, and only at the suggestion of their wives, will feel that, in that respect, it is irregular; for, though there is no law or regulation of this House which prevents the reception of petitions signed by women, it does not go so far as to allow them to act as the proxies of others, in authorizing signatures to be affixed. It will therefore be better for the hon. member to withdraw it. If the women were right in the opinions they had formed of the sentiments of their husbands, the thing could be easily remedied, by the husbands signing their own names.

The petition was then withdrawn.

in presenting a petition from the Unitarian congregation of Nantwich, observed, that it came from a body who had done him the honour, on a former occasion, to intrust to his care a petition for the repeal of the Test and Corporation acts, and they were now anxious that relief from civil disabilities should be extended to all classes of his majesty's subjects; not merely Catholics, but Quakers and Jews. They prayed for this, not only on the grounds of political expediency, but on those of right and justice. In this prayer he fully concurred. He thought that any man who seriously considered the awful declaration made by the right hon. Secretary on a former evening, that five-sixths of the army kept up for home service were employed in Ireland, must be convinced of the absolute necessity of satisfactorily settling the question, by removing the civil disabilities under which the Catholic laboured; but he thought with the petitioners, that the question ought not to be considered as one of expediency only. He claimed it as one of right, on the part of British subjects. On this point he would quote the opinion of an eminent divine of the church of England of the last century, bishop Hoadley, who, in a pamphlet published about a century back, referred to the question of Catholic disabilities in these words:—"If I could be perfectly convinced, that the Catholics were no longer hankering after the House of Stuart, and that they were attached to the civil constitution of the country, I should feel that I had no right for a single hour to keep them from the enjoyment of the civil privileges which belong to them as Englishmen." Now, it would not he asserted, that any such hankering existed, and the mention of the House of Stuart showed in what light the Penal laws were viewed a century back. No man would say, that the Catholics were not attached to the civil constitution of the country. On what ground, then, was it that the civil privileges to which they were entitled, as subjects of the united empire, should be any longer withheld?

presented petitions against concession, from several places in Lincolnshire.

rose, to make a few observations on the mode in which these petitions had been procured. He rose in consequence of a challenge, which he had received on a former evening from his hon. friend, the member for the city of Lincoln, who had called upon him to prove that any undue influence had been used to get up anti-Catholic petitions in the county of Lincoln. He could tell his hon. friend, that he had got positive proof of what he had before conjectured to be the fact. He had now discovered the source from which all the petitions from the county of Lincoln against these claims had been derived. He knew where this petition-manufacture was carried on, almost as rapidly as if it were effected by steam. The petitions so manufactured had found their way into the hands of the hon. member for the University of Oxford, and of the other gentlemen who ranged themselves under his banner, and had been presented with all due pomp and ceremony to the consideration of the House. That they had been got up by undue influence he could prove by evidence which he defied his hon. friend, the member for the city of Lincoln, to refute. He need not say much of the manner in which these anti-Catholic petitions had been manufactured by the clergy, as it was now too notorious to be contradicted. They had ridden through the country, and had hawked their petitions from one market-place to another, with such indefatigable industry, that one would almost suppose that they had a personal interest in opposing this question. He would mention a circumstance, with regard to one of the petitions which his hon. friend, the member for the city of Lincoln, had presented. A clergyman who was out on his travels, not in search of orders for petitions, but of signatures to be attached to them, went into a parish with which he had some slight connexion. By various arts and representations, he procured the signatures of all the inhabitants of the parish to an anti-Catholic petition; and that, too, in a place where, if the lord of the manor and the rector of the parish had known in time of his proceedings, he would not have obtained a single name. What had been the consequence of the incursion made into this parish by this zealous minister of Christian peace and charity? Why, that all the inhabitants of the place had flown in the face of their landlord, who was a man of the most humane disposition, and was engaged in attending his duties in that House, at the time that this reverend gentleman was preaching a crusade among his tenantry. He was now going to detail to the House what he considered to be a great grievance; and he was sorry that his hon. friend, the member for the city of Lincoln, was not in his place. He was going to produce a placard, which was pasted up on many a wall in the county of Lincoln, and which bore the respectable signature of "Henry Dymoke, Champion of England." It had been posted on a window-shutter in the city of Lincoln, and strange as it might appear, on one side was the placard of the Champion of England, and on the other that of the celebrated Dr. Eady. This placard implored the inhabitants of the different parishes to petition against concession to the Catholics; it recommended those who were anxious to sign such petitions to apply to the clergymen of their different parishes, who would provide them with the necessary forms; and it desired them, after they had signed such petitions, to forward them to him, and he would have them sent to the proper quarter. The Champion of England had kept his promise of sending them to the proper quarter by transmitting them to his hon. colleague. But was this, he would ask, a proper mode of exciting the county of Lincoln? He considered it very disgraceful to the Champion of England to have his name placed on every post by the side of that champion of the constitution Dr. Eady [a laugh]. It was not very long since he had thrown down his gauntlet in defiance of the enemies of his king: he was now employed in exciting the country against the gracious Speech which had recently been delivered by His Majesty to his Parliament. The Champion of England was the source whence all these Lincolnshire petitions were derived. He could have wished that the Champion of England, instead of viewing this measure with hostility, had seen that it was more calculated than any other to immortalize the reign of his august sovereign, George the Fourth.

said, that the best answer he could give to the attack which his hon. colleague had made upon the clergy of Lincolnshire, was to inform him, that the Champion of England, Mr. Dymoke, was not a clergyman. Out of the numerous petitions which he had presented against Catholic emancipation from the county of Lincoln, not more than seven had been sent to him by Mr. Dymoke. He should like to know why Mr. Dymoke, if he chose to call for petitions against Catholic emancipation, should be censured for doing so. Besides, why should his hon. colleague couple the name of Mr. Dymoke with that of Dr. Eady, or of any other doctor? It was an unfair attack upon these petitioners, to say that their petitions were not sent by them spontaneously to the House, but were got up by the exertion of undue influence. It was notorious that, in the county of Lincoln, no influence had been exerted on this question either way. He denied that the clergy had ridden up and down the county beating up for petitions.

was of opinion, that the hon. baronet deserved the thanks of the House for the manner in which he had exposed the arts used to get up these Lincolnshire petitions. He knew that certain gentlemen had gone, like itinerant hawkers, through that county, on a sort of roving commis sion for petitions; that in some cases they had attached fictitious names to petitions; and that in others they had attached real names, but without the consent of the persons to whom they belonged.

said, that as to the petitions which had been presented by his hon. friend, he had looked over them, and could bear testimony to the respectability of the signatures. If he knew of any name which ought to have weight with the House, it was that of the Champion of England. He had proved that he was worthy of that honourable title, by being the Champion of Protestantism.

said, that he had that morning received from Rotterdam a petition, which purported to come from H. W. Masterson, an English merchant who resided at that place, but who was a landowner of Middlesex. The petitioner stated, that his residence abroad, in a Protestant country, where Roman Catholics laboured under no civil disabilities, had given him an opportunity of forming an opinion as to the consequences which were likely to result from the removal of the civil disabilities affecting the Roman Catholics in this country. He declared his belief, that such a measure would prove beneficial to this country: and he confirmed his declaration by saying, that though he had resided fourteen years in Rotterdam, where the population consisted of sixty thousand Protestants, and of twenty thousand Roman Catholics, who were each equally entitled to take a part in the municipal establishments of the town, he had never heard of an instance in which either party had been accused of exerting an undue influence over the people, in favour of the professors of their own religious creed. The greatest harmony existed between the Protestant and Catholic population of that city, and all the relations of public life were carried on most regularly, without the slightest regard to any differences of religion.

in presenting the petition from Whitchurch against the forty-shilling freeholders' disfranchisement bill, said, it was easy for an Irish county member to vote for the disfranchisement of that body, but for the representative of an Irish borough, it was requisite that he should at least state his reasons for such a vote. He had come down to the House last night to vote against this bill, but when the right hon. gentleman opposite de clared that it was inseparably connected with the general Catholic bill, he shrunk from the terrible responsibility of prolonging the misery and wretchedness of his fellow-countrymen. Many of his friends would probably deem him mad, not to have saved his popularity by joining the ill-assorted minority of last night, while he could have done so without endangering the principal bill. He scorned such a course of conduct, and never would be found voting for a measure which he wished to extinguish. He might also have sheltered himself under the specious neutrality of the right hon. member for Liverpool. In ordinary business a man might remain neutral, but this was a question which involved the peace and happiness of his country. He conceded, then, the principle of the disfranchisement bill, and held himself a free agent in its further progress.

said, he had always advocated parliamentary reform; but on such an occasion as the present, when so great a boon as the general bill was pending, he was ready to pay the price at which alone it could be obtained.

presented a petition from a person of the name of John Lawless, against the bill for the Disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders. The noble lord said, that on principle he decidedly objected to the disfranchisement, and admitted that it was a serious undertaking to deprive two hundred and fifty thousand persons of their privileges. In Waterford, Louth, Monaghan, and Clare, the forty-shilling freeholders had done themselves immortal honour; and though it was the fashion to talk of a priest-ridden population, he thought, instead of its being the vice of the priesthood, it was their virtue which had led to these advantages. His noble friend (lord Palmerston) who had gathered fresh laurels upon this question, had, however, failed to convince him that, under the circumstances, the sacrifice ought not to be made. The alternative which presented itself was most perilous; and he, for one, could not consent to risk the passing of the great measure of concession. He agreed with his hon. and learned friend, the member for Winchelsea, that the price was extravagant, because the good was inestimable.

having moved the order of the day, for going into a committee on this bill,

said, he was compelled, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to renew his opposition to this measure. He could assure the hon. member for Mallow that he was not induced to do so from any wish to seek popularity, but from a sincere desire, which he would evince by the resolution he meant to propose, to provide a real and bonâ fide principle of franchise, while he consented to get rid of an artificial acquisition. He considered the present measure as neither more nor less than a penal enactment against those counties where the freeholders were supposed to have misconducted themselves. What was the fault of the freeholders of Waterford? Much greater faults had been committed by the freeholders of many counties in England. The noble marquis, whose family had been ousted from the representation of that county, was a kind and a resident landlord; but he had been opposed as the head of the Protestant ascendancy, and on that ground was defeated. The same remark applied to Louth; and it was scarcely necessary to advert to the recent instance of the Clare election. The efforts that were made in all these places did not grow out of a defect in the elective system. They proceeded from other causes. By the operation of the proposed bill, all the freeholders in the country would be disfranchised for the moment; with the exception of the Protestant clergy. Now, he objected to this. He wished persons who held bonâ fide freeholds of forty-shillings to be allowed to re-register them, subject to the provisions of the act; and he would move a resolution to that effect, with respect to which he should take the sense of the House. The noble lord concluded by moving "That it be an instruction to the committee, that they have power to render the bill applicable to a due exercise of the elective franchise by forty-shilling freeholders, by preventing a fraudulent and fictitious registry; and to preserve to the people of Ireland their right of voting for representatives in Parliament as at present by law established."

in seconding the motion, regretted the necessity imposed on him to oppose the bill. He did so because he considered the present question as involving a great principle: in fact, it in volved a forfeiture of vested rights; as had been fairly stated last night by the right hon. member for Liverpool. If the elective franchise had been abused in Ireland, were there not abundant instances of its having been equally abused in England? Yet, on no occasion had we proceeded to interfere with the franchise as it was proposed to interfere with its exercise in Ireland. Look at the extreme caution with which we had proceeded in the cases of Grampound and Penryn. He did not complain of that caution; but, in the present case, we should not precipitately interfere with vested rights. Some years ago, it had been his fate to offer himself as representative for an Irish county; and, though friendly to Catholic emancipation, he had lost his election through the forty-shilling freeholders, who were brought up to vote against him. Still, he was opposed to the principle of the bill. This question had been considerably embarrassed; and he, in common with others, was placed in an unfair position by the manner in which it was connected with another measure; though, between the two, he could not conceive it possible for the slightest connexion to exist. Let the consequences be what they might, he felt bound to oppose the present bill; even although, by doing so, he should endanger the success of the other measure. However, he did not believe that such would be the consequence; for he fully concurred with the noble lord opposite in thinking, that the question of emancipation was one which must eventually be carried by its own weight.

observed, that the present measure appeared to him to be one calculated, not only to effect much good in Ireland, but to act as a great practical security, and remove many fears and apprehensions which must otherwise inevitably attend the adoption of the other measure with which it was connected: and, on this principle, he supported the bill. If we had been acting on a system of mutual concession and compromise in devising the present plan of Roman Catholic relief, the concessions from the other side should not be frittered down so as to afford no real security. He was happy to say, from the communications he had received from Ireland, that this measure had produced a great effect in removing the fears and prejudices of the more moderate and judicious of the opponents of the other measure among the Protestants; and further, that it had even had the good fortune to meet the requisitions of some of the greatest Brunswickers in that country. Many Roman Catholics, proprietors of landed property to a considerable extent, had also expressed their acquiescence in the measure. He supported the bill in preference to the resolution proposed by the noble lord, on the ground that by adopting the one course, we obtained adequate security; but that if we pursued the other, we had none.

regretted that his noble friend had brought forward his resolution. If the question had come before the House a res integra, or if it were to be discussed solely upon its own merits, the case would have been different; but it was intimately connected with another and a still more important question; and, although the hon. gentleman behind him had said, even if he were sure that by obstructing this bill we should lose the other, still he felt himself bound to oppose it, he (sir F. Burdett) was of a very different opinion. He had nothing to do with this measure as considered by itself; he gave his support to the right hon. gentleman's scheme, on the clear understanding, that this was to form a part of the great principle of compromise, intended not only to satisfy our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, but to allay the apprehensions of the Protestant inhabitants of Ireland. It was on this ground he thought that we should not hesitate about this necessary part of a measure, which would be manifestly incomplete if it were only intended to give satisfaction to the Catholics. He could not agree with the hon. member for Dorsetshire, that in consenting to this bill, they were acting on the Jesuitical principle, of doing evil that good might come of it. That was a mistaken notion. They were not called on to do evil that good might come of it, but they were simply called on to do, what they did every day of their lives; namely, that if they wished to gain an object, they must be ready to give an equivalent for it. The right hon. Secretary had had the particularly good fortune, in concocting these measures, to give each party complete satisfaction; and he felt it his duty to act for his Catholic fellow-countrymen as they would act for themselves, if they had an opportunity of making a decision upon their own ease. Having alluded to the hon. member for Dorsetshire, he would, with respect to him and his near relative, the hon. member for Corfe Castle, avail himself of the occasion to pay the tribute due to the fair, candid, and manly line of conduct they had pursued in opposing these measures. He was struck with the contrast it afforded to that of many other persons on that side of the question. Those hon. gentlemen were ashamed to have recourse to foul practices or base artifices. He was sorry that their minds seemed immoveable on the subject; but he must admit, that they had made a candid, fair, and manly opposition. The hon. member for Corfe Castle had shewn his sincerity by resigning the office he held under government; and in so doing, he had done as all those ought to have done, who meant to oppose government when engaged in passing measures of this character. They had, at the same time, acted with candour and manliness, and had not sacrificed the regard due to the private feelings of hon. gentlemen who were in opposition to them. He agreed with the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea, that the price that was demanded of them was dear; but he was willing to pay it for the purchase of so valuable a measure, and one, too, which had come from so unexpected a quarter. To the right hon. gentleman who had brought that measure forward he thought the country was most deeply indebted, as well for the measure itself as for the eloquent and convincing manner in which he had introduced it; and while some applauded him for one part of his conduct with respect to these measures, and some for an other, he would go further and say, Nil non laudandum aut dixit, aut sensit, aut fecit.

said, that the great interest which the forty-shilling freeholders felt in their right of voting, derived its origin from their eagerness for Catholic emancipation. In all other cases, they had never sought for that privilege, but had been pressed on to it by their landlords, who had paid the expense of the registration. That question, however, being now about to be settled, the interest which the freeholders had in their votes would be, in a great measure, done away with; and if they were to be, as heretofore, at the beck of their landlords, he thought that they themselves would prefer being without a privilege which would be of no advantage to them, and would only take them away from more useful pursuits. A great deal had been said about the influence which the Roman Catholic priests possessed; but he did not believe that it was so great as had been represented. At all events, he knew that at one contested election which he had stood in Ireland, the priests had been opposed to him, and yet he had carried the day; and with respect to the more recent case that had attracted the notice of the whole empire, he did not believe it was the priests who had been triumphant, but the cause of Catholic emancipation, which was the cause of every man, woman, and child in Ireland. The only thing that he had to object to was the haste with which this bill was carried on; the consequence of which would be, that if the other. measure should by any accident be lost; this bill would, nevertheless pass into a law.

said, that the reason why the committee on this bill was fixed for this evening, whilst the committee on the antecedent measure stood for Monday, was, that he was desirous that this bill should be committed to night pro formâ, in order to fill up two or three blanks in it, so as that the whole measure should be before the House in a more complete state. Its actual committal would correspond as to time, as nearly as possible, simultaneously with the Relief bill. As far as the good faith of a government could possibly be pledged, he and his colleagues were most anxious to carry both measures, and to render them strictly dependent one upon the other.

said, he had listened to the speech of his right hon. friend, the member for Liverpool, on the previous evening; and, often as he had had the pleasure of agreeing with his right hon. friend, he was sorry that he could not do so in the present instance. He had fully considered the different bearings of the question and the result was, that he should give a not reluctant consent to the present bill. And let it be observed, that he did not support what he considered to be ill, in order that good might come of it, but because he believed it to be a measure that would eventually be advantageous to the forty-shilling freeholders themselves. Those freeholders had never acted for themselves, except on extraordinary occasions. Indeed, in common parlance, the landlords always talked of them as "my freeholders." It therefore appeared to him, that the only remedy for the evil was to increase the value of the freehold. The legislature had, on former occasions, swept away whole classes of freeholders, and for less reason. He therefore did not see why, when the granting of this measure was to purchase so invaluable a blessing as Catholic emancipation, hon. gentlemen should object to its introduction. He should vote for the bill with the utmost pleasure, because he was satisfied that, in addition to its other advantages, it would have the effect of creating a better order of tenantry, and of materially improving the condition of the people.

said, he would also support the bill, not from its involving a question of parliamentary reform, nor altogether as an act of conciliation to Protestant feeling, but as one that facilitated the progress of a great measure, in the success of which he felt a deep interest. He confessed he approached the discussion of the bill with painful feelings; involving, as it did, the disfranchisement of thousands of freeholders, whose conduct at Louth, Clare, and Waterford, so far from exciting sentiments of indignation, gave birth to feelings of respect and admiration. Without a narrow investigation of the measure in all its bearings, no, confidence in any administration could induce him to give it his support. He would avow that, in supporting the bill, he was a party to the sacrifice of the forty-shilling freeholders; for it was too plain that they were sacrificed: but if they were, they would have their reward in the consciousness of having thrown open the doors of parliament and high office to their descendants, and of having sacrificed their own rights to the general weal. Sure he was, that those Catholics, whom the great measure would admit into that House, would look back with grateful recollections to the forty-shilling freeholders, who had sacrificed their right for the benefit of their religion and country. With respect to securities, he would say, that the securities he looked for would be created by the measure of relief itself; which would give the pure doctrines of the church of England what they never had had in Ireland, fair play, and by that means enable it to triumph over the superstitions of the Catholic religion.

also supported the bill, on the same principle which induced him to vote for a similar one in 1825. He conceived the forty-shilling leasehold franchise to be illegal unconstitutional, and contrary to the freedom of election; but not so the freehold franchise, against the abolition of which he would enter his protest. The present measure was not a punishment of the constitutional and honourable conduct of the forty-shilling freeholders, at the elections of Waterford, Louth, and Clare—which conduct, he confessed, occasioned the only embarrassment he felt in supporting the bill. He agreed with the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea, that it was an extravagant price for a great good, but a price which he was willing to pay. He spoke of the price so far as the freehold franchise was affected by the bill; for there was the evidence of Judge Day and Mr. O'Connell, before committees of that and the other House, to show, that the leasehold franchise was injurious to the poor tenant, and inimical to the purity and freedom of election. The former witness stated, that by means of the forty-shilling leasehold system one person was enabled always to nominate a representative for the county of Kerry. The bill, equally applying to the Protestant and the Catholic franchise, was a proof of its fairness. With this view of the question he should support the bill; but he entreated the right hon. gentleman to make some distinction between those who voted upon leaseholds, and those who voted from the possession of a fee simple; for it was of great importance to encourage the acquisition of property in Ireland. He denied the doctrine laid down by some hon. gentlemen, that a political franchise was an inalienable right which could not be interfered with. It was a political privilege, which should be regulated and controlled by the wisdom of the legislature, for the benefit of the whole community.

said, he supported this measure, because he considered it a security,—because it would do away with a freehold system in Ireland, which was one of gross fraud and deceit,—and because it would conduce to the carrying of the great measure of concession, which would tranquillize Ireland, knit together the people of both countries, and tend to the general advantage of the whole empire. It was said, that the perjury was not so extensive under the forty-shilling system as was supposed; but, at all events, that must be a system of gross Jesuitical evasion which enabled a man to swear to the value of a freehold, greater than that he possessed. This system, too, if it did not produce, supplied a great incentive to the splitting of land, and the increase of population in Ireland.

said, he had to complain, that, in respect to this measure, they had not been left free to exercise their judgment upon it; for they were told, that it was a necessary accompaniment of the other great measure, for the success of which they were all so anxious. He did not consider this the best remedy for the evils which existed in the elective franchise system in Ireland. The bill still left the franchise of a derivative nature, and it appeared to him that they might encourage a much better species of franchise, in that country. It would be well, if, instead of raising the franchise, they placed it on the same footing as it was in England. The measure which was introduced in 1825 by the hon. member for Staffordshire, was by no means the same as this; as it was not retrospective in its operation. Now, he thought it would be well to pay a regard to existing rights. He conceived that this bill, though it would diminish the number of voters, would not diminish the power of the aristocracy, nor prevent the registry of fraudulent and fictitious votes. The best way of creating an independent body of electors would be to establish a bonâ fide forty-shilling freeholder, who had his freehold in fee simple as in this country, and not on leasehold tenure as in Ireland. This was the only effectual mode, in his opinion, of introducing a body of independent yeomanry in Ireland; but whilst the derivative freehold was maintained, he had little expectation that the freeholders in Ireland would be relieved from that subserviency which was now so much complained of. It was under this impression that he approved of the instruction moved by his noble friend; but, at the same time, he wished it to be understood, that should his noble friend fail in carrying his instruction, he would not offer any opposition to the bill in its future stages, or do any thing that might have a tendency to defeat or retard the success of the greater and more important measure, of which they were told this bill was an indispensable accompaniment.

said:—I ought, perhaps, to apologise to the House for trespassing at all on their attention, but it is not my intention to do so at any length. I cannot bring myself to consider the question before us as one of a little better or a little worse mode of representation. I cannot bring myself to consider it as a question relating to a predominance of aristocratic or democratic influence. I consider it as a question which relates to the pacification of Ireland, to the real union of the two islands, and to the salvation of the empire. So considering it, my noble friend will excuse me if I cannot follow him through the course of argument into which he has entered. I am quite aware of the great sacrifices which have been made, which are making, and which are yet to be made, by hon. members with reference to this subject. It is a topic on which I can speak the more freely, as no sacrifice has been made by me. But I well know, that there are hon. members who, on the present occasion, are putting to hazard, not merely their seats in this House—for that, comparatively speaking, would be an ignoble consideration—but the attachment of a number of generous voters, who have hitherto supported them in their contests with political opponents. I well know that there are many hon. members who run a great risk, by their conduct on this question, of forfeiting the attachment of their constituents; a sacrifice as great as men of high honour and generous feeling can well be called upon to make. I am quite sure that my noble friend will agree with me in my estimate of that sacrifice. I am persuaded, however, that the generous and deliberate reason of the people of Ireland will reward the hon. members to whom I allude by redoubled confidence. The three measures which have been submitted to Parliament by his majesty's government are inseparable parts of an attempt to pacify Ireland, and to introduce into that country a civil, a legal, and, if possible, a free government—a government which it has never hitherto practically enjoyed—the possibility of its obtaining which is now greater than ever, and every moment of the delay of which will render more impossible of attainment. Sir, I repeat, that I consider the three measures which have been introduced by his majesty's ministers, in pursuance of the recommendation from the Throne, as inseparable, and that a blow at one of them would endanger the downfal of the whole. Under these circumstances I cannot hesitate to vote for the bill which is under our consideration. I confess I have arrived at this conclusion through a long course of perplexity and doubt, and not without many deep and painful regrets. But, having deliberately balanced the good against the evil, the former appears to me so greatly to preponderate, that whatever pain it may have cost me to come to the resolution of supporting this bill, I will support it, and will henceforward think and speak no more of the reasons which have rendered that determination difficult:—"Vestigia nulla retrorsum."—Sir, we have been told of Protestant Jesuits. I believe there are Jesuits in all communities and sects in the world,—but we have been told of Protestant Jesuits, who are prepared to do evil that good may come of it. If it be asserted, that moral evil may be done that good may come of it, I am most ready to acknowledge that no principle can be more execrable. It is a principle which I believe has never been avowed by any body of Jesuits, or by any other body out of Bedlam. But if, in questions of civil policy, we are obtaining the larger good by committing the smaller evil, the question assumes a very different character; for seldom, indeed, is it with reference to such questions that we have anything but a choice of evils. Whatever defects, therefore, I may consider to exist in this part of the measure proposed by his majesty's government for the tranquillization of Ireland, I am willing to adopt it, in the prospect of the great benefits which the adoption of the whole of that measure must produce, in pacifying that country, and establishing obedience to the laws, where no obedience has hitherto been paid to them.—Sir, it is singular that any opposition should be made to this particular bill. Any man who judged from first appearances would have concluded, that all parties in this House would concur in its support; though undoubtedly on different grounds. In the first place, it was to be expected that the hon. members for Ireland would support it, because it is the very measure prayed for in the Protestant petitions from Ireland; and because they could not oppose it, without cutting from under their feet the ground on which they have so strongly recommended an acquiescence, in those petitions to this House. Sir, it is the first time that I have heard the principle inculcated, that a blind acquiescence in the opinions of the petitions presented to it, was the bounden duty of the House of Commons. That is a doctrine which has been treated with scorn by all who have duly considered the British constitution as having no foundation either in law or in practice, as being inconsistent with reason and common sense, as taking away all the uses of the representative system, as converting the members of the House of Commons into the deputies of small confederated democracies, instead of being the free representatives of a great people, and as re-introducing all those evils which were the curse of antiquity, but to which the wisdom of subsequent periods applied a remedy.—If, Sir, I am justified in saying, that it might have been expected that the bill under our consideration would receive the support of those who have presented and advocated the petitions against the Catholic claims, it must be unnecessary for me to add, that it was to be expected that it would receive the support of those who advocated the measures introduced by his majesty's government. If I look at my honourable friends around me, who voted for the measure of 1825, I see those whose concurrence in the present bill was also to be calculated upon. I allow that there are, with reference to this measure, differences of opinion, such as must ever exist on all questions of an abstract description. But as to the text quoted from chief justice Holt and other legal authorities, with respect to freehold rights, I maintain that those texts apply as much prospectively as they do to an immediate deprivation of freeholders of their existing rights. I am far from saying that there is no difference in practical hardship, between the present measure and the measure of 1825. But it is vain to proceed on an abstract principle, without following it through all its consequences; and if you do not do so, you must admit, that the right of freehold is ever entire and inviolable, and can in no case be invaded. You must go back to the doctrine of major Cartwright, the advocate of universal suffrage,—a most pure and virtuous man,—and you must hold, that the statute of Henry the Sixth, which established the freehold system, is the grand evil of the constitution, which must be abolished before, justice can be done to the people. Still I allow that, as compared with the measure of 1825, the present measure is one of harshness; and that it is one of those tough morsels which I have been scarcely able to swallow. But then, again, the chance of success on the present occasion, appears to me as much greater than it was in 1825, as the present measure is harsher than the measure of 1825. And what success? Redemption for Ireland, safety for the British empire, and the union of all classes of his majesty's subjects are within sight, and, if there be faith in man, within reach.—With regard, Sir, to those who hold, that the Protestant religion is endangered by the measures now in progress, I can only say, that I am as warmly attached to the Protestant religion as any man—that I do not expect that they can divest themselves of their apprehensions at the present moment, but that I confidently look forward to the period, when they will wonder at their temporary delusion, and congratulate themselves on their defeat. On that subject I perfectly concur with my hon. friend, the member for Inverness; and I assent to every syllable which fell from my hon. friend yesterday evening. Sir, three weeks ago, and more, there appeared in this House a noble concurrence, on the part of all those who pledged themselves to support a conciliatory system towards Ireland—a concurrence which presented an impenetrable line extending over the whole House, and which no influence or authority could pierce. This was an iron wall which it appeared to be somewhat rash for any power to attempt to encounter. Nothing has since occurred to occasion any doubt of the firmness and stability of that union. For my own part, I consider it as secure and unalterable as it was on its formation; and under that conviction, and that alone, I am sanguine of the success of the measures which are in progress. It was soon after the manifestation of that union, that my hon. and learned friend, the member for Winchelsea, made that weighty declaration, to every syllable of which I most cordially assent; and I shall always be ready to contribute my feeble, but earnest endeavours, to carry to a triumphant termination this attempt to introduce an equality of civil rights into Ireland, and to establish a wise government in that country.

said, he had attended to all that had been advanced upon the subject, but he had not yet heard any satisfactory reasons why the measure for the relief of the Catholics could not be carried without the addition of the one now before the House. He gave the right hon. Secretary for the home department every credit for not proceeding on light grounds in the introduction of a measure which proposed to take away the liberties of four hundred thousand of his majesty's subjects, as secured to them by Magna Charta; but those grounds were yet to be explained. For his own part, though no member of that House felt more warmly towards the Catholic cause than he did, still he could not consent to support the bill under consideration. He would openly avow—and perhaps he should be solitary in that avowal—that rather than sacrifice men by robbing them of their birthright—rather than deprive a large body of his majesty's subjects of their liberties, rights, and franchises—he would risk the whole, and take his chance of gaining the other measure. Such an act he could not but consider as one of the most flagrant injustice and unwarrantable spoliation.

said, he was aware that the right hon. Secretary and the noble duke at the head of the government, had undertaken no ordinary task, in resolving to put an end to all religious distinctions of sects, and thus save the public from innumerable evils, whilst they were diffusing the greatest source of peace and happiness throughout all the relations of society. He had seen enough within that House, and had heard enough out of doors, to be convinced, that the difficulties they had had to encounter were very serious; but he was happy in the reflection, that the benefits to the country would be commensurate, and that both the right hon. gentleman and the noble duke would reap their reward in the gratitude of the present, and in the admiration of future ages. He thought the measures of government so complete and generous, that he could not withhold from them his confidence. With respect to the measure immediately before the House, he was disposed to support the bill on its own merits, as well as in its relation to the general measure; but there were parts of it, which he thought might be altered with advantage. He objected to the machinery by which the bill was to be enforced. The agents of great estates would do their duty in seeing the franchises on the property of their masters duly registered; but this would be neglected by single ten-pound freeholders, Many votes were lost in England by faulty assessments, and by the neglect of entries respecting the land tax. In the present bill, no effectual provision was made against fictitious and fraudulent votes. The registry of votes was not in itself conclusive, and the proposed scrutiny would be found practically inoperative, whilst the duty assigned to the assistant barrister was insufficient. These objections, however, could be removed only by altering the essential nature of the bill. Neither in England nor in any country, had there ever been found a defence against perjury, when oaths were opposed to the interests and passions of the people. The question was, whether the freehold qualification was the best adapted for discovering those who were most fit to exercise the important privilege of returning members to parliament. The legal definition of a freehold seemed to have been contrived for the purposes of favouring fraud and of creating doubts and litigation. Nothing could be more absurd and ridiculous, than that a lease for life, determinable perhaps at the death of an old person, should convey a right not conveyed by leases of a longer term to run. If the freehold qualification were the test of the right of voting, why was not that right attached to copyholds? Why were these points not entered into, now that government were making alterations in the law? He did not think that the present curtailment of the franchise would restrain the real expression of popular feeling in Ireland. The right hon. gentleman in bringing forward this measure, had been actuated by a sincere desire to give full effect to this popular feeling, and he had no desire whatever to punish the forty-shilling freeholders for the manner in which they had exercised their right of franchise. He doubted, however, if the right hon. gentleman would have credit for these motives, from those who saw that his measure was partial and incomplete, and who felt that it deprived them of old rights, without conferring any new. From the advance of wealth and civilization in this country, large classes of persons did not enjoy the elective franchise, who ought to enjoy it. The elective franchise in Ireland was not in the state in which it ought to be; although he by no means thought that giving the franchise to the lowest orders of the community was the right way to add weight to the popular voice, He dif fered with much that had been said upon expediency; for he conceived expediency to be an enlarged view of what was best calculated to promote the happiness of the community; and this expediency had been properly applied in the present instance.

said, he regretted extremely that the hon. member for Kilkenny had thrown the shell into their ranks, but no man in that House, who was the friend of civil liberty, would wish that its explosion should be disastrous to the great measure before parliament. That measure had for its object the termination of long-standing schisms. It had for its object the saving of the country from the evils of civil war, the putting an end to rival ambitions, and the diminution of the burthens of the people. It had for its object the increase of the wealth of the empire, and the invigoration of its strength. He was aware that such great benefits were not to be obtained without some sacrifices. The House had to deal with exaggerated pretensions, to which some concessions must be made. There could be no perfect benefit—no unalloyed good. He was always satisfied with a preponderance of benefit, and never expected a boon without some sacrifice. The first sacrifice which the House had been called upon to make, was the reposing of uncontrollable power in the hands of the lord lieutenant of Ireland. This had been granted in the confidence that it would be used for pacification, and not employed to harass, insult, or oppress. He had admired the proceedings of the Catholic Association, and most of all, he admired their self-dissolution at the first prospect of the improvement of Ireland. But the Association had been sacrificed, because the opposition party had recommended the principal of mutual concession. The opposition benches were now called upon to make sacrifices; and he for one would not shrink from the duty. He knew that many of the friends of civil and religious liberty, out of the House, had assented to the concession of extinguishing the forty-shilling freeholders, if it was to be the price of the general measure. What was the return for this sacrifice? The equivalent was to restore the dominion of the law in Ireland, and to put an end to the system which had so long destroyed that country—the system of tyrannical and arbitrary intolerance.—Some gentlemen had talked lightly of the evils which Ireland had suffered in 1798, but they had done so not in wantonness and wickedness, but in ignorance. He had been a witness of those evils; and he or any man who knew what they were, would be a savage, if he could anticipate their recurrence without horror. The House had always been told, that the sacrifice of the forty-shilling freeholders was the best security of the Protestant church; and now they were willing to vote for that sacrifice, they were told it was no security at all. He had always considered that the best security of the Protestant church was in the soundness of its doctrines, and in the merits of its ministers. One security against popery was to be found in a free press, and in the representative system. These securities had proved to be sufficient in other countries, and without referring to America, he might cite the example of France. If this was to be the last public act of his life, he assured the House that he would cheerfully close it in favour of a measure calculated to bring about the pacification of Ireland.

Lord Althorp and Mr. Trant rose amidst loud cries of "lord Althorp, lord Althorp!" The noble lord, however, instantly gave way, and

proceeded to address the House, amidst the cries of "oh, oh!" and "spoke, spoke!!" He said, he was decidedly opposed to the proposed disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders, because he felt convinced that the measure, instead of bringing about, would altogether destroy, the tranquillity of Ireland [cries of "oh, oh!" with coughing]. The hon. member, looking up toward the gallery, expressed a hope, that the proceedings then going on would go forth to the country as a warning, that upon this subject only persons who spoke upon one side of the question could expect a hearing.

expressed his regret at having heard the arguments of the noble lord opposite, in opposition to the proposed measure. Much had been said about the course taken by the hon. member for the county of Waterford, but the grounds upon which that hon. member gave his support to the bill were totally distinct from those upon which other hon. members acted. The hon. member for the county of Waterford had been returned by Catholic constituents, consist- ing mainly of forty-shilling freeholders; but he supported the proposed measure, solely because he felt that it would conduce greatly to the more important measure, which he was anxious to secure for the relief and tranquillity of his country [hear]. He would shortly state the ground upon which he meant to give his support to the bill; and that was the aid it would afford to the other bill. They had been told, that this measure had no necessary connection with the measure granting Catholic emancipation. That might be; but the House had the opinion of the right hon. Secretary for the home department to the contrary. He had been for a long time opposed in politics to the right hon. Secretary, but never had he heard from that right hon. gentleman an opinion which could lead him to suppose that the right hon. gentleman was not sincere. The right hon. gentleman had told the House, that the two measures were connected. Was it impossible, in the existing state of things, and the peculiar state of Ireland, that such should be the case? He confessed he did not clearly see the necessary connection between the two measures; but the right hon. Secretary had asserted, that such connection did exist, and he was bound to credit that statement. These measures would, he believed, be beneficial to both classes of society in Ireland—he meant the forty-shilling freeholders and the higher classes. Let any man look to the present state of the Irish population. They consisted of two classes; one a proscribed, an outcast body—the other a tyrannical and powerful body; but the proposed measures would amalgamate and equalise both. The instruction proposed by the noble lord, would undoubtedly be an improvement; but it would entirely alter the condition of the bill: and therefore, on the same ground that he gave his support to the right hon. Secretary, he must oppose this instruction.

Mr. Secretary Peel and Mr. Tuite having risen at the same time, the calls for Mr. Peel were loud and general. The right hon. gentleman, however, gave way to

who said, that he was anxious to state to the House a communication which he had received from the county he had the honour to represent, expressive of the satisfaction felt by his onstituents at the measures now before the House. A meeting had been held in the county of Westmeath, which was attended by Catholics and Protestants. The meeting expressed the high sense of gratitude and satisfaction, with which they viewed the measures brought forward by his majesty's ministers. Although they regretted the alteration to be made in the elective franchise, still, coupling it with the other measure, they considered that the two united would produce the most beneficial effects; and that it would be impolitic and ungrateful in them to risk the whole by opposing a part of the measure. The writer added, that he was further instructed to say, that the meeting expressed their unqualified thanks to his majesty's ministers, especially to the duke of Wellington and to the right hon. Secretary for the home department, for the great blessings which the measure they had brought forward would confer upon the country. The letter was signed, "C. Arabin, on the part of the meeting." The meeting had been attended by the most respectable Protestants as well as Catholics, including the 50l., the 20l., and the forty-shilling freeholders, in the country. All were unanimous in agreeing to the measure. He thought the county of Westmeath afforded a good criterion of the general feeling of the Catholics of Ireland.

rejoiced, that he had given way to the hon. member, for no speech could contain so conclusive an argument in favour of the measure. Here was the hon. gentleman, the member for Westmeath, returned in a manner as popular as the hon. member for Waterford, or for Clare, instructed by his constituents to acquiesce in the general measure, and told that they were prepared to make the concession required. This feeling was not confined to Westmeath. He believed that most, not of the Roman Catholic priesthood merely, but of the Roman Catholic gentry, entertained the same as to this measure, and that it was the wish of the great body of the constituents themselves. They had been told that it was wrong to take advantage of the enthusiasm which at that moment pervaded the Irish people. He did not believe that such enthusiasm did prevail; on the contrary, he thought that their determination was the result of calm and deliberate conviction. The Irish forty-shilling freeholders held the elective fran- chise as invaluable, so long as it afforded them the means of seeking the other more important measure of emancipation; but now that that measure was within their reach, they were ready to sacrifice the minor privilege for its attainment. As to the feelings of the Protestants of Ireland, he thought they were in favour of the measure; and, if a doubt existed on the subject, he, arguing à priori would refer to the feelings expressed in Ireland upon the subject within the last fortnight, as well by Protestants as Roman Catholics. With respect to the proposition of the noble lord, for rendering the measure prospective, he thought it had a tendency to take away the security of the measure altogether, and therefore he could not give his consent to it. In regard to the arguments of the noble lord opposite, that the bill would lessen the inclination of the 10l. and 20l. freeholders to register, the effect, as it appeared to him, would be precisely the contrary. At present, the 10l. and 20l. votes went for nothing: they were overruled by the vast majority of the forty-shilling voters; but take away the latter, and you gave the former an influential voice. In a county in Ireland, in which there were twenty thousand registered forty-shilling voters, he had been assured, by an authority competent to give an accurate account, that out of that number there had been only two registered on their own account. Therefore he contended, that the raising the qualification to 10l. would increase the disposition to register.—With respect to the application of the principle of the bill to the forty-shilling freeholders of this country, he thought it would open too wide a field of discussion. Those freeholds were established in feudal times, and it might not be proper to interfere with them. At all events, whatever might be his opinion of the propriety of such a measure, it was one which should be considered on its own basis, and without reference to the measure with which the present bill was connected.—The most important observation which had been made with respect to this measure, was that which suggested the propriety of excepting from the operation of the bill forty-shilling freeholds in fee simple. Now, of this he had the strongest doubts. The law made no distinction between the vote of the freeholder in fee, and that of the freeholder of any other class, But suppose he found that the effect of such an exception would be to disfranchise most of the Catholic forty-shilling freeholders, whilst it left many Protestants untouched, would he not be exposed, and justly, to a charge of partiality? He held in his hand the register of the forty-shilling freeholders of Ireland, and looking at that Catholic county, Waterford, he found that out of two thousand one hundred and nineteen forty-shilling freeholders, not one was registered from estates in fee; and in another county, out of eight thousand one hundred and eighty-four voters, only one hundred and twenty-seven were from estates in fee; so that if it should appear, as was he believed the fact, that nine out of ten of the forty-shilling voters in fee were Protestants, he should be justly exposed to a charge of partiality if he made that kind of tenure an exception to the bill. Under these circumstances, he could not adopt the suggestion, but, in that respect, would leave the bill as it was.—It might be proper for him now to state what was the course he intended to pursue in the committee. He intended to commit the bill pro forma, and then to add the amendments, technical and otherwise, which he proposed. Those amendments were of a nature rather to extend than to limit the exercise of the elective franchise. At present, the right of voting from freeholds was limited to those who had "a legal title,"—thus excluding those who might be equally possessed of the right by an equitable title,—he would therefore omit the words "legal title." As the bill now stood, it was said that the freehold should be "free from all incumbrances." Now this, in Ireland, where judgment-debts affected real property, might tend to make inconvenient disclosures, he purposed, therefore, to omit those words "free from all incumbrances," and to let the bill stand, "a freehold clear of parochial and other assessments." Another alteration he intended was, to allow an appeal where the value of the freehold was disputed, and where the case was decided by the assistant-barrister—not to the same barrister and a jury, but to a jury presided over by a judge of assize. These were the principal alterations, which, with some of a technical nature, he proposed to have inserted in the bill.

The House divided: for the instruction, 20; against it, 220, Majority 200, The House then went into the committee.