said, he had a petition to present from the minister and a great portion of the congregation of Protestant Dissenters meeting in Beresford Chapel, Walworth. He was desired by the petitioners to state, that though they were influenced by feel ings adverse to the concession of the Catholic claims, they would have been content to have left the measure of Catholic relief to the wisdom of parliament, but for two circumstances which had occurred in the course of the discussion, and against which they felt called upon to enter their protest. As Protestant Dissenters they disclaimed the right assumed by a set of ministers distinguished for their talents, their learning, and their influence, to arrogate to themselves the corporate character of being the representatives of the Dissenting Congregations of London. The petition from this body was represented as the petition of the committee of the three denominations of Protestant Dissenters meeting in Redcross-street; and, singular enough, and inconsistent enough it was, that while they charged the ecclesiastical authorities of the established church with being a body corporate, they had arrogated to themselves also a corporate capacity. It was stated, that those Dissenters acted an unwise and an ungrateful part who were hostile to the Roman Catholic claims. It was said, that they acted an ungrateful part, because, in the last session of parliament they were themselves relieved, by the assistance of the Roman Catholics, from the Test and Corporation Acts; but he denied that they had any reason to be grateful for that assistance, since it was a right, and not a favour, that the Protestant Dissenters demanded of the legislature. The petitioners likewise contended, that it was consistent with the principles of religious dissent to be adverse to concession to the Catholics. They stated, that the Catholics were the most strenuous advocates and supporters of religious establishments; and that in this country they were only Dissenters from necessity. They looked upon them as persons who were anxious to set up a rival establishment to the present establishment, and who were bent upon pulling down its temporal endowments. As Protestant Dissenters, they declared themselves to be adverse to all establishments; and, if they were not adverse, they were only schismatics. They further declared, that being compelled by circumstances to choose between two establishments, they preferred giving support to that which would tolerate and protect them, to giving support to that which was distinguished for its intolerant and persecuting spirit. So far as their definition of dissent went, he fully concurred with the petitioners; but he could not agree with them in their prayer, not because he thought that concession was due to the Catholics as a matter of right and justice, but because he felt it to be a matter of expediency, and he might almost say, of indispensable necessity.

had the honour of presenting to the House a petition from the county of Surrey, against the intended alteration of the constitution in favour of the Roman Catholics. When he stated that this petition had been agreed to at a very numerous and highly respectable meeting of that great, populous, and enlightened county, regularly convened, and at which the high-sheriff presided,—that it had been carried, after considerable discussion, by a very large majority,—it must be unnecessary for him to add, that if any petition of the people could be entitled to the attention of parliament, it was such a petition [Mr. Pallmer then read the petition]. He could add nothing to its irrefragable arguments; nor would he diminish their force by the weakness of his own observations. He had too frequently remonstrated with the House upon its dangerous and unconstitutional course, and he felt unspeakable gratification in the reflection, that this important petition had proved beyond all doubt, that he had done so in common with the feelings and the wishes of those who had for a time intrusted their rights and their interests to his care, and whose intelligence, education, information, wealth, and every other qualification, enabled them to form as sound a judgment upon this question as any other body of men either in or out of this House.

said, that to all that his hon. colleague had stated, as to the numbers, respectability, and property of the assembly at which the petition was agreed to, and to all that he had said respecting the great majority by which it had been carried, he gave his willing assent. But, from his hon. colleague's declaration, that it spoke the sense of the county of Surrey, he must express his total and unqualified dissent. He could not believe that a county which had been so long distinguished for its liberality of feeling had given its sanction to this petition. If it had sanctioned it, then, much as he might regret that he was obliged to differ from his respectable constituents, still he would not sacrifice his own character or his own con- sistency, by giving his sanction to such a petition, or by withdrawing his support from the concessions to the Roman Catholics now in contemplation—concessions, which were founded on expediency, on justice, and on every principle of civil and religious liberty. If this petition should prove to be a fair expression of the sentiments of the freeholders of Surrey, and if, in consequence of his entertaining different sentiments from them, he should not have a seat in that House in the next parliament, he should still reflect with pleasure that he had given his vote in support of the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and of the measures now proposed for the restoration of their civil rights to the Roman Catholics. He would state to the House one or two facts, in explanation of the spirit with which this petition had been got up. The roads leading to Epsom were almost covered with inflammatory placards on this subject, and individuals were seen distributing them among the people from packs of them, which they carried on their backs. At the meeting the gentleman who seconded the petition now presented, avowed that he was the circulator of that atrocious placard, entitled "Queen Mary's Days." He would take that opportunity of correcting a report which had gone abroad, that that placard was disseminated by the Religious Tract Society. He believed the fact was, that that paper had been printed as a religious tract, but had not been disseminated, by that society. The disseminator was the seconder of this petition. For himself, he looked upon the intended measure as deserving that character which Mr. Burke had given to the revolution in Poland in 1791; namely, that "it was likely to benefit all, and to injure none." He trusted that the bill would go successfully through all its stages; and if it did, he was sure that the right hon. Secretary, and the noble duke at the head of the government, would receive their reward in the gratitude of a loyal, brave, and enthusiastic nation, and in the prosperity of the sister kingdom, that most fertile but most neglected portion of the British empire; and that his majesty, when he had put his signature to the bill, would be the first sovereign in the universe.

rose, to present a petition from the county of Brecon, against concession to the Catholics. It had nine hundred and sixty signatures, among which were those of nineteen magistrates.

said, he did not rise to object to the bringing up of this petition, or to deny that it originated from a public meeting. Undoubtedly it was agreed to at a public meeting; but it was not signed there. It was agreed to on the 9th of March last, and had remained in the county till a very recent period. It had been hawked about from town to town, with indifferent success. When that was discovered, an active canvass was instituted in its behalf; and yet all these exertions had ended in gaining only nine hundred and sixty signatures, among which were many marks, out of a county which at the last election had polled upwards of two thousand freeholders. He had good reason for believing that the question, to which this petition referred, had been looked upon in the county of Brecon, in two erroneous lights. First of all, it was looked upon as a religious question, and parties were told, by persons who ought to be ashamed of spreading such a delusion, that they must make their choice between the Protestant and the Popish religion. Next, it was looked upon as an Irish question—as a question which, in some vague, indistinct, and scarcely intelligible manner, was to favour the lower classes of Irishmen, whom the Welsh generally looked upon with dislike; as they came into England after employment, and underworked them in the market.

said, that although he was perfectly aware it was natural and reasonable for the House to feel impatient at being occupied for any length of time in the discussion of petitions, yet he hoped they would not object to hear him state the nature of the present; more especially as he had not attempted to engross any portion of their attention on the general question. The petition which he held in his hand was from Edinburgh, in favour of the Roman Catholic claims; or, in other words, from four-fifths of those classes of society who were, until the levelling spirit lately broke in upon the lower benches of that House, called the most respectable classes of the community, in the ancient capital of the most Protestant part of this Protestant empire—a capital which, in his opinion, was, by the very act of presenting this petition to pray the legislature to pass this bill into a law, performing one of the most noble duties of its high office, as the guardian of the Protestant interests in Europe. This petition was agreed to by an assembly unparalleled in the history of Scotland; it was voted by a meeting attended by upwards of two thousand persons, and voted by four-fifths, some say by nine-tenths, of those who, until the late innovation upon the ranks of life, by some gentlemen in that House, were usually considered the most respectable classes of society. It was signed by a number somewhat under eight thousand; to the names of the individuals were attached their places of abode; a most severe scrutiny was made into the identity of every signature; all the precautions which could be devised were taken to prevent improper subscriptions; so that, whatever imprudence might have been committed by other persons employed in preparing petitions, these petitioners were free from the slightest imputation, Indeed, they had adopted a practice, which it would have been well if others had imitated—they had issued notices, disavowing all hand-bills and placards, except those which were issued under the signature of their own secretary. Very different had been the conduct of others in the city of Edinburgh, touching this subject. An author had been found to write a pamphlet, which he would not quote, unless he was compelled to do so by some more distinct allusion to it, but which was one of the most daring and treasonable libels against the House of Brunswick, as successors to the princess Sophia, under the Act of Settlement, that had ever been published. Of all the libels upon the House of Brunswick which had issued from the Scottish press, since the battle of Culloden, none had reached the daring of that to which he had alluded. Indeed, of it he would only say, that it required no little legal discrimination to draw the line between the seditious and the treasonable import of that work. When he pronounced this opinion upon its criminality, sorry should he be that the author should obtain the honours of martyrdom, to which he had perhaps aspired. In answer to the new democratists upon the lower benches, he was under the necessity of stating the character and names of some of the petitioners, in whose behalf he now claimed the attention of the House. This petition from the city of Edinburgh was signed by seven peers, sons of peers, or privy councillors, twenty-five knights of the Bath and baronets, one hundred and fifty-five gentlemen of considerable landed property, one hundred and thirty practising advocates at the Scottish bar, leaving scarcely a dozen names of the profession who had not signed it; thus completing that high and distinguished union, which was formed, upon this question, with the Protestant bar of England, whose petition was last night presented by his hon. and learned friend, its head and ornament (sir James Scarlett), and the Protestant and Catholic bar of Ireland, proudly recording the general consent of the legal profession in all parts of Great Britain and Ireland—of those official professors of British law throughout the kingdom, who opposed their opinions to those invaders of the constitution who denied the hereditary right of the reigning family to the Crown, and asserted the privilege of altering the succession at their pleasure. These exclusive doctrines have now received their fullest contradiction upon the authority of the united knowledge of the bar of the three kingdoms. The petition was also signed by fifty divines, comprehending the chief dignitaries of the church of England and Scotland, and several ministers of that church; and including likewise the signatures of those who were once more anti-papal than any other class of divines, and in that respect exceeding in orthodoxy all other dissenters from the church of Scotland. It was likewise honoured by the signatures of the Principal of the Scottish Metropolitan University, and of sixteen of the professors of that renowned body, forming a great majority of its members. There were the names of twenty-one bankers, in a city, too, where so much of the commercial business was transacted by banking establishments: there were the names of six general officers, forty colonels, thirty-two admirals, captains, and other officers of the navy; of one hundred and ninety-eight physicians and surgeons; and of six hundred gentlemen, of various other branches of the law, besides advocates; and of two hundred and fifty merchants and traders of great respectability. If any addition were wanting to give distinction to this list, he could add, that it was signed by all the considerable men of the two parties who had divided Edinburgh between them in conflicting opinions, until the happy introduction of this measure, which had sunk all party spirit into oblivion; with perhaps the exception of some few persons, against whose individual respectability he should not breathe one word. Had these names been arrayed six weeks ago in a petition, they would have been assigned to the Tories and Whigs; but now these distinctive appellations had been lost in the union of all parties, to perform a great act of national justice. There were, besides, appended to this petition no common names. At the head of the requisition, and near the head of the petition, was the name of a great and illustrious man, who might justly be called the most celebrated writer now living in the whole world, who had given more delight to the greatest number of human beings, in the same space of time, than any man who had ever preceded him in the walks of literature could boast of; and, what was perhaps still more pertinent to the present subject, a man as much above the common race of men in the attributes of common sense and sound understanding, as he was their universally admitted superior in genius and fame—he need not add, that the person to whom he alluded was the illustrious sir Walter Scott. Next that great name, he was entitled to place another, as connected with this subject, though not connected either by country or signature with this petition, and here he was at the same time doomed to indulge a melancholy reflection, Next to the first name in British literature he could place the first name in British science—he meant that of sir Humphry Davy; who, though now drooping on the bed of sickness, and suffering under the pangs of debility and disease, had yet mental firmness, and judgment sufficiently unbroken, to express by letter the glow of joy he derived upon hearing in a foreign land the glad tidings of the introduction of this bill, which, he said, he hailed as honourable to his religion and his country. At the head of those who took a most active part in the Edinburgh meeting was sir James Moncrieff—he who was elected by unanimous suffrage dean of the Faculty of Advocates, and who, independent of that high honour, enjoyed a more extensive legal practice than any of his great predecessors had ever approached. And here he would cite—not to exasperate passions, but to appease and conciliate them—that sir James Moncrieff was the son of one of the brightest lights of the church of Scotland, whose venerable presence still rose in his mind, combining as it did the character of one of the primitive fathers of the church, with the port and bearing of a gentleman of ancient blood, in a degree which he had never before seen united in any man. Sir James Moncrieff inherited all the virtues of his father, and. was, like him, the firm supporter of the Protestant church. As such, with heart and hand he had subscribed this petition; and he had no doubt his revered father, had he lived to this time, would have set him the example of doing so. He would call their attention, in the next instance, to an individual who had signed this petition, than whom no man was more eminent for exemplary piety, extensive learning and information, or for sincere anxiety for the welfare of the Protestant faith—he felt they must already be aware he alluded to that ornament of his profession, the learned, the philosophical, the eloquent, the pious Dr. Chalmers. Whatever might be the sentiments of that intelligent and eminent man on parts of this great question, he begged that no one would imagine for a moment, that it was possible Dr. Chalmers could consider this concession as the effect of a struggle between the Popish and Protestant religion. He, on the contrary, begged with he utmost sincerity that the legislature would disencumber the established church from the deceitful protection derived from disabilities imposed on our Catholic fellow-countrymen—that the House would relieve religion from the ambiguous armour which could add nothing to its capability of defence. He felt as that eminent father of the church, St. Austin, was related to have felt many ages ago, when the aid of the civil or armed power of the state was tendered to him by the pro-consul, for the protection and support of the African church. That excellent and exemplary divine replied, that he should indeed despair of the African church, if it stood in need of the military interposition of the pro-consul of Africa. He would ask hon. members who differed with himself, where could they find amongst the lights of the age and country in which he lived, a name more eminent than bishop Jeremy Taylor? And that, he thought with the petitioners in this instance, and with St. Austin in the case alluded to, was proved from the remarkable expression to he found in his works, where, speaking of the aids which might be derived by religion from civil institutions, he, in language forcible and bold as the subject required, described all reliance on such aids, as a distrust in God to maintain his own cause and his own people. He felt it necessary here to defend those who were in the situation of the petitioners, from an inference attempted, very unfairly, to be drawn by the enemies of concession; namely, that toleration was, in this particular case, a mark of indifference to the interests of religion. As well might it be assumed, that we exposed our established church to the hazard of being supplanted by the idolatrous worship of the Brahminical religion, because we, in our vast empire in India, maintained the strictest union with the profesors of that false and idolatrous faith, exercising the most watchful care over their interests, the protection of their persons from violence, and their property from invasion or injustice, and contributing largely to the maintenance of seminaries endowed for the very purpose of spreading the most absurd doctrines and idolatrous creed.—He would only trouble the House with one more remark, which he felt himself called on imperatively to make. It referred to the effect which the conduct of the legislature in removing Catholic disabilities would probably have on the Protestants scattered throughout the other countries of Europe. That effect it might be difficult to calculate, but it assuredly would be great. It was certain that at present Protestants were completely shut out from a vast number of places of trust and political station, in the two countries south of the Pyrennees; that in Italy they were only capacitated by a palpable evasion; that in France, where they were very numerously scattered, they were disqualified in many instances, although many situations were open to them, both there and in Austria. There was every reason to believe, that a liberal line of conduct towards the Catholics of this country would produce an assimilated liberality on the part of those governments towards their Protestant subjects; but it was perfectly certain, that the worst consequences towards the numerous professors of the Protestant faith would result from the defeat of the present liberal and enlightened attempt of our own government to relieve our Catholic fellow-countrymen from civil disabilities. It would become those who professed themselves so anxious for the Protestant cause, to ponder well what might be the possible retaliative measures resorted to by other governments towards their Protestant subjects; or what might be the injuries or injustice to which those subjects of governments, in some instances arbitrary, and in more than one tyrannical, might be exposed, should the beneficent intentions of his majesty and his ministers be thwarted and successfully opposed by their own absurd prejudices, and unjustifiable hostility. Mr. Burke had denominated sir George Saville's bill in 1778, as a bill framed for the toleration of Protestantism all over Europe. That such was the fact no one would deny; but how much more truly might it be predicated of the measure now in progress through parliament? To entertain alarm for the Protestant faith, and make that alarm the ground for the rejection of this measure, was worse than absurd, in these days of general enlightenment. In fact, the arguments were all the other way, and went distinctly to prove, that the effect of these concessions would be to support, secure, and strengthen our Protestant constitution, and Protestant faith; nor could the opposers of the measure, he thought, after they had reflected on the possible, or rather certain, consequences which its rejection would have on the fate of the Protestants of other countries, shelter themselves from the imputation—an imputation replete with disgrace and dishonour—that they had, by their triumphant opposition, rather proved their hatred to their Catholic fellow-countrymen, than their love for their Protestant brethren.

said, he did not mean to deny the high characters given of the individuals who had signed this petition by his right hon. friend. On the contrary, he was cordially disposed to subscribe to all he had said on that subject. His right hon. friend had been pleased to talk of a levelling principle or feeling, which he described as prevailing among the opponents of these measures; and his right hon. friend had also talked of the "new democratists,"—a word he had never before heard of—as expressive of a class occupying a certain station in the House. If the term was applied to induce those with whom he acted to shrink from the discharge of their duty, he for one would declare, that he never would surrender, or consent to weaken the right of the lowest class of the people, to represent their feelings and opinions to that House, in the same degree, as the men of intellect and knowledge—even of the modern Athens. In what had fallen from his right hon. friend as to the "new democratists," he was reminded of the time when his right hon. friend was at the head of the meeting, where "the majesty of the people" was the prevailing sentiment. In the olden time, his right hon. friend had no objection to maintain "the majesty of the people." He remembered that "the sovereignty of the people," and such like terms, were frequently used by his right hon. friend, and those who were politically connected with him. His right hon. friend had made allusions to several professors of law, physic, divinity, and poetry, in the modern Athens. He had stated, that they were the most eminent individuals in Scotland, and that their opinions were all in favour of Catholic emancipation. That, however, was not the general feeling of the people of that country; for he had himself presented petitions from several places in Scotland, against concession to the Catholics. The ministers, by whom the petition was drawn up, had stated, that the sentiments expressed in it, were those generally felt in that part of the country. His right hon. friend had also ridiculed some of those who opposed the Catholic relief bill, because he considered that religion had nothing to do with the question. Now, he would insist, that religion had a great deal to do with it. He would prove it by a letter he had received from Ireland; and he was sure the House would agree with him, when he related a scene that had lately taken place in public, on the celebration of the tutelar Saint's day, on the 17th of March, when several green flags were paraded about among the Protestants, who were required to bow down and worship them. Other excesses took place; and, in the midst of them, a bible was burnt. Surely, when this was done, it was time to say, that religion had something to do with the question. Let his right hon. friend and the philosophers of Edinburgh say what they would, the people of England and Wales, the Protestants of Ireland, and the people of Scotland, would not be persuaded that this was not a religious question. As to the charge, that he and his friends were actuated by a levelling principle, because they maintained the rights of the lower classes of the people, he would, whatever his right hon. friend might do or say, adhere to that principle to the last day of his existence.

said, the right hon. gentleman had asserted, that the question was one not between Protestant and Catholic. Now, he would insist, that it was not a question—as that right hon. gentleman had said, between toleration and intolerance. It was one of the greatest, and, in this case, the most mischievous error that any man could fall into, to state this to be a question of toleration, instead of describing it, as it was, a question of admission to political power; and he could not but regard it as a gross perversion of the language of bishop Jeremy Taylor, for what he had said had reference to religious toleration, and by no means to political power. The right hon. gentleman had said, that the Roman Catholics had on their side the highest authority in the Scotch church. To that he would reply, that, on the other side, there was at least the second authority in that learned and venerable body. The petitions which had been presented to the House proved that not only a majority of the clergy, but of the laity of Scotland were opposed to further concessions to the Catholics. There had been petitions from ministers, elders, inhabitants of parishes, synods, and almost every form which Scotch society assumed; and yet, in the face of all those petitions, they were told, that the people of Scotland were favourable to the proposed innovation upon the constitution.

participated in the gratification so eloquently expressed by the right hon. and learned presenter of the petition, at finding the views of his majesty's government sanctioned by the approbation of so many men, whose genius and talents had raised them to deserved eminence. The means which had been resorted to by the opposers of the measure of conciliation, were as discreditable to the feelings of that party as they were unfair. He would only allude to a placard which had been circulated in, and posted on the walls of, Edinburgh, which, after asking, what was to be the issue of concession to the papists, replied in these terms:—"You are hereafter to have a Popish king, a Popish parliament, a Popish provost, and Popish lords justices of session, and Popish professors in your colleges, and teachers in your parish schools." After such an unblushing tissue of falsehoods, assumed as arguments against the necessity of concession to the Catholics, the House and the country would duly appreciate the degree of intelligence which those persons possessed who could themselves adopt as true, or attempt to inculcate on ignorant minds, inferences as alarming as they were totally destitute of foundation.

asked the hon. member for the university of Oxford, whether he thought it quite correct to assert, that the Roman Catholics had nothing to complain of, when a professor of that religion, born not only to the possession of great property, but also of rights and privileges still more valuable—those which belonged to the peerage of the country—should be called upon to renounce the exercise of those rights and privileges, unless he would renounce his religion? This treatment Might be called policy—it might be termed expediency—it might by possibility be said to be necessity—but toleration it could not be called.

admitted, that in some parts of Scotland there did exist a strong feeling against the Catholic claims; and he had no doubt that names of great weight and respectability might be cited on that side of the question. This was not the first time that unfounded alarms had been spread through Scotland. The same fears had been excited a hundred and thirty years ago by the Union. The petitions then presented to parliament were still preserved as memorials of the sensitiveness of the Scottish people, and the petitions on this question would soon only remain as memorials of their sensitiveness on the present occasion.

denied, that the general opinion of the ministers of the Scotch church was against the bill of relief. Attempts had been made at the general assemblies of the Scotch church, at different times, to get up petitions against the Catholic claims; but the anti-Catholics had never been able to prevail on a majority to support them. The lower orders had been instigated in great numbers to sign petitions; but it was by misrepresentations, as to the question whether they should be a Protestant or a Popish country. The constituency of Scotland were not averse to concession; and the proof was, that only five Scotch members had voted against the Bill of Relief.

said, that in rising to move, that it be an instruction to the committee on the Qualification of Freeholders' Bill, that they have power to extend the operation of the bill to corporate and other towns sending representatives to parliament, and also power to preserve the existing rights of Protestant freeholders. He wished to state the grounds on which he was prepared to support the bill. There were two classes of persons who came forward to support the measure now before the House. Of these two classes, the one considered the disfranchisement of the elective franchise in Ireland as a price for the granting of emancipation, and the other considered it as a security to the Protestants for the same measure. He was particularly anxious, when he gave his support to the bill, that he should have an opportunity of explaining distinctly what the grounds were upon which that support was given. As a security for the measure of emancipation he disclaimed it altogether. He supported the bill upon the general principle of raising the elective franchise, and of guarding and protecting it from the fraud to which it had been subjected. He thought it ought to be carried into effect upon its own merits, and upon its own distinct grounds, and without reference to any other measure. As a distinct and separate measure it would be wise and useful; for, while it promoted the general improvement of the Catholic people of Ireland, it would protect them from the spiritual interference and domination of the Roman Catholic priesthood. It was under this impression that he had given his support to the measure, and, when he proposed that an instruction should be given to the committee to extend the operation of the bill to all boroughs, cities, and towns corporate, he could not help feeling, that every one of the grounds upon which he supported the bill required that such an addition should be made to it. When his right hon. friend stated his intention of excluding cities and towns corporate from the operation of this bill, it was upon the ground that they had the power of creating freemen. That ground, give him leave to say, was wholly inapplicable to a class of boroughs which appeared to have been overlooked in this bill. He meant that class of boroughs where freeholders alone were allowed to vote. These representative towns, in his opinion, required all the protection intended to be afforded by the bill, as much as any class of towns in Ireland. There was a petition from one of those towns at that moment before the House, stating the situation in which the Catholic freeholders of that town were placed; and he did not doubt that similar petitions might be presented from many other towns in the same situation. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. gentleman would not object to the extension of the bill to those towns. The introduction of a few words would render the machinery of the bill complete, and make it much more beneficial to the interests of Ireland. With respect to what had been said of the indefinite power of cities and corporate towns, he would beg leave to state that, in his opinion, the bill now before the House would not only be inadequate to effect the object of his right hon. friend as respected them, but would in its operation be highly mischievous to a corporate body. His right hon. friend proposed this measure as an equipoise be-between the freeholders and the freemen; but in his opinion it would not apply. The principle of his right hon. friend applied to cases in which a struggle was to be maintained between the two great bodies of electors—between the corporation and the freeholders. But, wherever a struggle of that kind took place, the power of the corporation would be carried into effect to such an extent, that the proposed counterpoise would be overthrown, and inadequate to afford the protection intended by the legislature. This being the case, let the House see what the consequences would be to both constituent bodies. He would first take the body of freeholders. How easy it was to extend the limits of the freehold bodies in many towns. In large corporate towns the limits of freeholds were not confined to houses and streets. Large portions of waste ground surrounded or lay in the immediate neighbourhood of many towns, which might be broken up into small freeholds, and thus, by a fraudulent and fictitious registry, the number of freeholders might be multiplied to a very great extent. Against this the machinery of the bill was incapable of guarding. Supposing this power to be exercised by the freeholders, as it most probably would, what would it lead to? It would undoubtedly lead to a corresponding exercise of power on the part of the corporation—to that very thing which he had heard so much deprecated in that House—he meant to the increase of freemen. The corporate bodies felt themselves called upon, whenever attempts were made fraudulently or fictitiously to increase the number of freeholders, to increase the power which was vested in them of increasing the number of freemen. Under these circumstances, he thought the House must be convinced of the necessity of extending the bill to cities and large towns, where the populace, it would not be disputed, were not of a purer or more moral character than in the country. He believed that, in every city or town corporate, there was an acting officer such as a recorder. In his opinion, it would be better if a clause were introduced at the end of the bill giving to the recorder or his deputy the same power as was given to the assistant barristers who presided at elections. He took the liberty of suggesting to his right hon. friend the propriety of inserting a short clause to that effect. Its was right, in his opinion, that the principle of the bill should extend to the cities and towns to which he had alluded at the commencement of his speech, where the purity of registry was just as much required as in the country. In conclusion, the hon. member moved, "That it be an instruction to the committee, that they have power to extend the operation of the bill to boroughs, and cities, and towns corporate in Ireland."

said, he would not detain the House long in stating the reasons which induced him to oppose the proposition of the hon. member for Dublin. The hon. member had stated the grounds on which he thought the machinery of the bill ought to be applied to all places returning members to parliament. The hon. member had stated, that his right hon. friend had supported the bill as it stood, on the principle, that it was a counterpoise to the predominant influence of corporations. For his own part, he had no recollection of his right hon. friend having used those terms; but he did recollect his right hon. friend having said, that in addition to other considerations, which his right hon. friend stated, it ought to be remembered, that in the greater part of the towns and cities there existed the right of extending the elective franchise indefinitely, and that for that reason the bill could not be applied to cities and towns, without giving an unfair advantage to corporations. He perfectly concurred in this view; and he must say, that when the principle of these measures was, to confer an equality of civil rights, it did appear to him not a little inconsistent to propose, that the representation should be placed exclusively in corporations. There was a very considerable difference between the franchise in towns and the franchise in counties. It was undoubtedly true, that the freehold districts in towns were not confined to streets and houses; but surely the hon. member did not mean to contend, that there was, in and about the towns of Ireland, that very great, almost undefined, extent of ground, which would lead to such abuses as might be practised in counties. As to the power vested in corporations of creating an unlimited number of freemen, he could only say, that if there was any one circumstance more likely than another to endanger the rights of great corporations, it was the exercise of this power for the purpose of creating a predominant influence in elections, instead of for the purposes for which they were invested with the power. If there was any case—and the hon. member for Dublin would know if there was—of a corporation admitting freemen, not by name, but as members of certain political clubs, in order to control elections, he did think that the fact would weigh with the House against, and not for, a proposition, the avowed object of which was to diminish every other influence which could be opposed to that of corporations. The hon. member had said, that it would be easy to add a clause to this bill which would carry his proposition into effect. Now, he should protest altogether against the measure being coupled with this bill, even if it were one in which he was inclined to acquiesce. He meant no disrespect when he said, that it was impossible for gentlemen to be wholly free from the influence of the interest by which they were returned to parliament; and he must say, that if the proposition of the hon. member for Dublin was to be agreed to, without raising the qualification, it ought to be the subject of a subsequent measure, and at another time, though, for his own part, there would be no time at which he would consent to increase the power of corporations to so great an extent. The hon. member for Dublin had said, that there were judicial officers in towns and cities which corresponded to the assistant barrister. Now, if there was any one thing which he liked more than another in the bill, after raising the qualification, which elevated the Irish voter, and gave to the Irish member a character which he had never yet possessed, it was the selection of the persons to whom the powers given by the bill were confided. No body of men had greater claims for their independence, for the excellence of their deportment, for their strict impartiality, and for the extent of their knowledge, than the gentlemen who presided at sessions in Ireland; and the Catholic gentlemen who had lately been raised to these stations were not inferior to the most eminent of the body. But, on the other hand, the recorder was an officer elected by the corporation. The hon. member had himself been a candidate for that office in Dublin; and the hon. member for Drogheda (Mr. Van Homrigh), who was at that moment speaking to the hon. member for Dublin across the gangway, was himself the recorder of Drogheda. Speaking with all respects of the hon. member for Dublin, he must say, that such a recommendation as this, coming from the hon. member, was not very likely to be attended to. His objection, however, was to the principle of the instruction. Far from conferring an equality of civil rights, it was calculated to recreate the most odious ascendancy; and he did, therefore, implore the hon. member not to press his motion. After the opinion which the House had expressed of these measures for tranquillizing Ireland, he could not understand on what principle any one could say, "I see you will accomplish what you want, but I will throw that in the cauldron which shall make it abortive."

said, he had never heard a proposition so extraordinary, so injurious, or so well calculated to revive those occurrences which they all deprecated, as the proposition which had been made by his hon. colleague. It went much further than the right hon. gentleman who spoke last, seemed to think. Its object was exclusion—the repeal of the act of 1793, which conferred the elective franchise on Roman Catholics, and at the same time the security of the rights of Protestant electors. The hon. member had certainly withdrawn the latter part of his motion, but it stood as he had stated it upon the notice; and this showed the spirit by which the hon. member was actuated. It was strange that his hon. colleague, in his zeal against the Catholic forty-shilling freeholders, had overlooked one very important fact; namely, that there were but fifteen such in the city of Dublin; and another equally striking fact, that the corporation of that city had made not less than one thousand two hundred Protestant freemen in one day, for no other reason than that those persons happened to have attended a Brunswick meeting. Was it fair to object to a franchise to which the Catholics were so frugally admitted, and of which the Protestants had in corporations almost a monopoly? Indeed, it was a work of supererogation; for it was a curious fact, that more Catholics had voted in corporate towns immediately after the act of 1793 than in 1806; years after they had been legally admitted to a privilege of which his hon. colleague's proposition would deprive them.

hoped the hon. member for Dublin would see the inexpediency of pressing his instruction to a division; the rather, as the bill of which it was intended to be an amendment, was one that many hon. members supported, not on its own merits, but from its being an appendage to a most beneficial measure. He thought the Catholics would gain by the one bill, more than they would lose by the other; and therefore he would support them both in their combined form. By the Franchise act of 1793, the Catholics were eligible to be electors: by the bill of the right hon. Secretary, they would be eligible to be elected: so that, though the disfranchisement bill would curtail their present privileges, the other measure would confer more than counterbalancing advantages.

said, he was not one who had drank of the Lethean waters of oblivion, recommended by the noble duke at the head of the government, in a certain letter written shortly before the opening of parliament, and therefore he could not forget the arguments which hon. members had advanced against a similar measure to that before the House, brought forward in 1825 by the hon. member for Staffordshire. Upon that occasion, the hon. member for Dorsetshire contended, that disfranchising the forty-shilling freeholders could be no satisfactory security for the Protestant establishments, and lie appealed to the hon. member for Limerick, who maintained that it would be an efficient security, and that it would benefit the Protestant interests, whether Mr. O'Connell did not admit in his evidence, that the Catholics would be the persons benefitted by raising the rate of franchise? He agreed with Mr. O'Connell, and would therefore support the hon. member for Dublin's proposition.

said:—I cannot agree in the opinions expressed by the hon. member who has just sat down, and by the hon. gentleman who has moved this instruction. On the contrary, I think the bill now before the House, will be a great national security to Protestant interests, and to the Protestant church; and if I had not felt the strongest conviction of the correctness of this opinion, I would never have given my consent to the introduction of the other measure, which I conceive to be inseparably connected with this; and to which I have afforded a most reluctant support, from a conviction that it was a measure of a most overwhelming necessity. Doubts have arisen in the minds of some persons, in consequence of a suggestion thrown out by the noble lord who represents the University of Cambridge; and who, founding his suggestion on something that had fallen from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, suggested, that although emancipation was to be for ever—this raising of the qualification might be limited in its duration. Sir, the right hon. Secretary of State gave a most satisfactory reply to that suggestion, and I allude to it, only because I know it made a strong impression upon the minds of others as well as upon my own; and if I could, for a moment, entertain a doubt as to the two measures going hand in hand, I would instantly withdraw my support from the bill for concession. My noble friend, the member for the University of Cambridge, is as honest and straight-forward a man as any in this House: but if the suggestion bad proceeded from some old and wily political tactician, I own I should have thought it was intended to shake the faith of those who support the bill for concession, because it is accompanied by this bill for raising the elective qualification. But, Sir, independent of its being a security, this bill has peculiar intrinsic merits of its own—it is calculated to redeem the gross legislative errors of 1793, which conferred political power upon an ignorant rabble, and withheld it from persons of education and property; and it will go far towards curing the evils of that system, some of which are the subdivision of lands, and an increase of population, which produces dependance, beggary, and perjury—while the advantages of the new system will be, that in endeavouring to acquire a franchise which will no longer be a degradation, men will labour and become industrious, and, in the course of their efforts, will acquire a taste for comforts which is so great a desideratum in Ireland. Hitherto the freehold system in Ireland has been a system of slavery, though latterly they have changed masters;—the priest has succeeded the landlord, and with this disadvantage to the poor man, that in his ecclesiastical helotism, he incurs the enmity and displeasure of the landlord, on whom depends his prosperity and comfort. I hope the consequence of this bill will be, the production of a respectable yeomanry in Ireland. Sir, there is one peculiar feature in all these transactions which challenges my approval and admiration—they have nothing to do with negotiation, with pope, or association; but they have been devised and prosecuted in the true spirit of legislation.

supported the bill, but expressed his disapprobation of the instruction moved by the hon. member for Dublin, which he thought would have the effect of rendering the members of corporations omnipotent in their respective boroughs.

The motion was negatived.

then moved, "That it be an instruction to the committee, that they have the power of preserving the existing rights of Protestant freeholders." The hon. member said, that the bill now before the House was intended to punish those Catholic freeholders who had, under the dictation of their priests, produced so much mischief in Ireland, and destroyed that connection which ought to subsist between landlord and tenant. He contended, however, that the Protestant freeholders had never been guilty of such proceedings, and that it was a gross injustice to subject them to the operation of the disfranchisement. The Protestants of the north of Ireland were some of the most intelligent and best educated of his majesty's subjects, and he should be guilty of a dereliction of duty, if he failed to point out the difference between them and the Catholics, and the necessity of drawing some line of distinction. The Catholics who obeyed their priests, were, in his eyes, objects of pity, rather than of punishment. This, however, was a great political measure, and being so, it was necessary to avoid placing the innocent in the same condition as the guilty. He would say, "Sic utere tuo, ut alienum non lædas," and in the spirit of that maxim he proposed to refer the rights of the Protestant freeholders to the consideration of the committee.

thought his hon. friend had acted wisely in not pressing his former resolution to a division. He also thought that when his hon. friend considered that his present motion was founded on a religious distinction, and not on political grounds, he would see the expediency of withdrawing it also. His hon. friend must see that it would not be fair to grant the Protestant freeholder a privilege which they took from the Catholic, because, as his hon. friend stated, the Protestants in the north of Ireland were respectable and uncontrolled in the exercise of their franchise by spiritual influence; for his hon. friend must know, that very many respectable Catholic freeholders, who had voted in favour of Protestant candidates, undismayed by popular clamour, would be disfranchised by the bill before the House, no less than the Protestant freeholders. There then existed no valid ground of distinction, so far as respectability and freedom from spiritual influence were concerned; and would his hon. friend rest his proposition on a religious distinction? He was sure he would not, and that the force of the maxim quoted by his hon. friend, "Sic utere tuo, ut alienum non lædas," would induce his hon. friend to withdraw his motion.

said, he could not but feel that there would be a great balance against the Protestant interests in Ireland; and therefore he would support the motion of his hon. friend.

felt himself bound to state, that lie had never suffered one expression of censure or dissatisfaction to escape him, in consequence of the opposition given to him at a late election by the forty-shilling freeholders, and that he had never suffered himself to be at all influenced in his support of the present disfranchisement bill, nor to be at all influ enced in his private or public conduct, by that opposition. If he had any resentful feelings in consequence of that event, he had kept his word given at the time, that it should not at all influence the course of conduct which he had so long undeviatingly pursued towards his Catholic fellow-subjects. He had not deviated from that course; so that he might repeat the language of his right hon. friend and say "he had his revenge"[hear]. He supported this bill because he considered it a security which ought to satisfy the Protestants of the country. He supported it as affording the best reformation of the elective franchise in Ireland, and the most effectual means for the regeneration of that country. It was on these grounds, and on the grounds which had been detailed by his right hon. friend in introducing the measure, that he supported it; and no personal feelings whatever mingled with his advocacy of the measure.

The motion was negatived without a division.

said, he was anxious to state, before the House went into a committee on this bill, that though he had not altered his views with respect to it, for he still considered it a measure equally unnecessary and unjust, yet after the sense of the House had been so decidedly expressed upon it, and after the right hon. gentleman had declared, that he and his colleagues viewed this bill in no other light but as a portion of the great measure of Catholic relief, he should not take up the time of the House by giving to the bill any further opposition [hear].

entirely concurred in the sentiments expressed by his noble friend. He also should feel it his duty to give no further opposition to the bill, lest, by so doing, he might impede the success of the great measure of emancipation.

also conceived, that it would be only wasting the time of the house, to offer any further opposition to the bill. He wished it, however, to be understood, that in so doing he was not at all influenced by a desire to promote the success of the other measure of which this was an accompaniment, and to which measure he still entertained the most decided hostility.

concurred as to the inutility of offering any further opposition to the bill, but he trusted that when in the committee, a clause which he intended to suggest in reference to those forty-shilling freeholders who held in perpetuity, would meet with the support of the right hon. gentleman.

said, he had been in many minorities, but he had never seen such a minority as that which voted against this bill. Never before had he seen extremes meet more completely than in the persons who composed that minority. He had opposed this measure, because he considered it an infraction of popular rights. He entertained the same opinion of it still; but he should do nothing further in the way of opposition, lest he might thwart, the great measure of emancipation. He had voted against this bill as a reformer, a radical reformer; and on the principle, that the elective franchise should be given to every man who was of age, paid taxes, and discharged all the public duties required by the state. This bill would unjustly disfranchise many hundred thousands of freeholders in Ireland. Those freeholders had been guilty of no crime to justify such a punishment. In three or four contested elections which had occurred in Ireland, instead of displaying any disposition to riot, they had acted in a manner so peaceable that he would challenge any member to produce an example of similar moderation at any election in England. By the way, he would direct the attention of the House to the miserable state of the elective franchise in Scotland. An individual there, who possessed not an acre of land, but who held land as a tenant at a nominal rent, had a vote, while the substantial freeholders were excluded from the franchise. He trusted the right hon. Secretary would hereafter introduce a measure for remedying the defects in the state of the elective franchise in Scotland, with a view to introduce a substantial yeomanry in that country.

observed, that, in his opinion, this measure of disfranchisement was altogether unnecessary. The abuse of the franchise was said to have taken place on account of the anxiety of the people of Ireland to promote the measure of emancipation; but as that object would be shortly attained, the inducement to the abuse of the franchise would no longer exist, and, therefore, he considered the bill quite unnecessary.

thought the measure of disfranchisement would be beneficial to Ireland, as it would tend to create a better and more substantial class of yeomanry in Ireland. He did not think it advisable, that the great body of the freeholders of a country should be moved by some great absentee landlords residing at Bath or Cheltenham. It was also a perfectly constitutional measure; for that House had repeatedly made arrangements connected with the regulation and control of the elective franchise. He thought that the inestimable advantage of equality of civil rights would infinitely more than compensate for any partial dissatisfaction that might be attendant upon the passing of this measure.

said, he had opposed a similar bill to the present in 1825, and he would also oppose the measure now before the House. But at the same time that he protested against it, he did not think his majesty's ministers blameable for introducing it. The blame was due to those on whose representations and at whose suggestions they were obliged to introduce it. He was still of opinion, that the measure would give great dissatisfaction and be fatal in its effects.

The House resolved itself into the committee. On the clause, raising the qualification from forty-shillings to 10l. being read by the chairman,

rose, to propose, as an amendment, that the words "twenty pounds" be inserted instead of "ten pounds." All the communications which he had received from Ireland concurred, he said, in stating, that the bill would not accomplish the purposes for which it was intended, unless the qualification was raised to 20l. As far as his own observation and experience went, he concurred in that opinion, and he therefore begged leave to move an amendment to that effect.

said, he should give his most decided opposition to such an amendment. If his hon. friend would but look to the clauses which regulated and determined the 10l. franchise under this bill, he would see, that the present qualification afforded the most ample security, under such restrictions for its beneficial exercise, and a far better security than the raising of it to 20l., under the existing system, would supply. He objected to this amendment also, because it would go to take the elective franchise from the counties, and to throw it into the great towns—to deprive the landed proprietors in the counties of their influence, and to throw it into the hands of the shopkeepers in the great towns: The machinery of the bill imposed a severer test of the qualification, than the mere oath of the party, which was now the only test required. He certainly thought 10l. was a proper medium to preserve. It would not so much restrict the popular constituency as 20l.: it would, therefore, give more satisfaction, and, in his opinion, would be found quite sufficiency for the protection of those interests which it was designed to guard.

said, it appeared from the evidence given by Mr. O'Connell in 1825, that the raising of the franchise to 10l. would increase the Catholic, and diminish the Protestant, influence in Ireland.

replied, that that evidence referred to the raising of the qualification to 5l. as contemplated by the bill of 1825; from which bill the present differed, not only as to the amount of the qualification, but as to the regulations under which the franchise was to be registered.

conceived, that the raising of the franchise to 20l. would be more likely to establish a race of respectable and independent yeomanry and freeholders in Ireland.

maintained, that in his opening speech on this subject, the right hon. Secretary had laid great stress upon the evidence of Mr. Blake, who had given it as his opinion, that it would be better to raise the qualification to 20l. The right hon. gentleman would of course rely more upon that authority than on the authority of Mr. O'Connell, as the respectability of the parties would bear no competition. Now, he would take a middle course, and would propose that the qualification should be raised to 15l.

said, he had had as much experience and knowledge as the gallant admiral, of the elective franchise in Ireland, and he was convinced that a 10l. franchise, with the machinery accompanying it, was sufficiency and ample to secure the objects contemplated by the measure.

said, he supported this measure on the principle that it was intended to remedy the evils of an unreal and imaginary franchise. He thought this object would be amply attained by the qualification of 10l., and he could not consent that it should be raised to, a higher value. He was at a loss to reconcile the conduct of those who objected to alter the forty-shilling franchise, and were yet ready to jump at once at the high standard of 20l. The higher. qualification would disfranchise a large body of Protestants in the north of Ireland.

thought, that if the qualification were raised, there would be more Protestant than Catholic freeholders, and that it would prove extremely injurious to the Catholics.

after mature consideration, thought that the 10l. qualification, coupled with the machinery of the bill, would produce the desired effects.

remarked, that the right hon. Secretary had said, that the evidence of Mr. O'Connell referred to the raising of the qualification to 51. Now he would refer the right hon. gentleman to that evidence to convince him of his mistake. He would read an extract from a speech made by the right hon. gentleman on this subject in 1825. The right hon. gentleman at that period said—"He would now examine how far the measure would affect the Protestant interest in Ireland. Mr. O'Connell had stated in his evidence, that this bill would have the effect of lessening the power of the aristocracy, and of increasing the influence of the Roman Catholics." What were the effects which the right hon. gentleman then attributed to the bill, which was then before parliament, and which he himself contended at the time went to raise the qualification to 101.? The right hon. gentleman then said—"He would now beg the House to consider what the effects of this measure would be. Was it desirable, he would ask, to hold out a bonus to the multiplication of 101. freeholds? Would it give Ireland such a yeomanry as its friends would wish to see established in it?" To be sure this was in 1825; and wonderful things had come to pass since. Mr. O'Connell stated in his evidence, that the raising of the qualification to 101. would increase Catholic influence, and diminish that of the aristocracy. The right hon. gentleman fully agreed in that opinion in 1825, but in 1829 be was himself the person to introduce a bill raising the qualification to 101. That was rather extraordinary, even in these extraordinary times.

said, it was true, as his hon. friend had stated, that wonderful things had happened since 1825 [hear, hear!]. His hon. friend was one of the greatest plagiarists he had ever known; he had always his book ready to refer to [hear, and a laugh]. He would say to his hon. friend, "Pereant, qui ante nos nostra dixerunt" [hear, hear!]. Though his hon. friend was now adverse to the measure proposed by his majesty's ministers, yet, if a general election were to take place to-morrow, during the present state of the franchise, his hon. friend would be soon convinced of the necessity of adjusting this question in the way in which he hoped the House would now adjust it.

The committee then divided: For the Amendment 16; Against it 112. Majority 96.

The other clauses were then agreed to. The House resumed, and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.