capital in Ireland; nobody would five in it who could avoid it. If the bill before the house were passed, he was convinced that Government might withdraw every soldier from Ireland. Ireland would then be kept quiet with the assistance of the Catholics themselves. Col. Trench was of opinion, that the unhappy situation of Ireland had resulted from the system of misgovernment which had long however, been altered; the good seed was sown, but it could not be expected that the crop should be reaped directly. Capital to a large amount had, he knew, been carried into that country; that capital would produce industry, and industry would produce tranquillity. He opposed Catholic Emancipation, because in Ireland the iminense mass of the people was in an ignorant and degraded state, and were entirely under the influence of the priesthood, whom he believed to be directed, in their turn, by political feelings. Catholics would not be content with what Parliament would give them; they would never be content until they obtained possession of supreme power (hear). He had no objection to admit the Catholics to the privilege of a silk gown, about which so much had been said, but he would exclude them from the sacred circle of the Protestant constitution. The This was the cool expression of the feelings of the right reverend doctor. In the recent instance of a petition which had been prepared at Wetherby, a Roman Catholic gentleman of great wealth and importance had alluded to the profanation of the churches and abbeys, once Catholic, and which were now devoted to the Protestant worship. Could it be doubted, that if this gentleman should be returned to Parliament, he would propose or promote any mea-prevailed in that country. That system had, sure which should restore things to their ancient state? The hon. member then quoted a passage from the preface to the Roman Catholic version of the New Testament, written, as we understood, by the reverend Dr. Troy in 1816, where the burning of all heretical books, particularly the English Bible, was particularly enjoined, and where the prayers of the Protestants were said to be no better than the howlings of wolves, and not heard in Heaven. This was enough, he thought, to show the house that the Catholics of 1825 were not in spirit wholly different from those of 1725; he would say with an hon. member who was crossing the floor (here Sir J. Sebright happened to be going out of the house, and loud and reiterated cheers followed this allusion), that he was ashamed to see the House of Commons discussing the Catholic question in these times (cheers). He (Sir T. Lethbridge) was astonished at their doing so; and he wondered, that in these times any ministers would dare -he did not mean this in a personal sense-to bring forward a measure, the object of which was to abrogate the securities which had been provided for the preservation of the constitution The Speaker said, nothing which he had heard (hear, hear). He felt that he had said more or read had relieved his mind from the serions than he ought (a laugh), and he thanked the apprehensions with which it was filled with house for their indulgence. He felt it to be a regard to this great, and, as he thought, most duty to protest against the vicious principle of dangerous measure (hear, hear). However the bill, and the violation of the solemn oath painful it might be to him to differ from the which it would occasion. Oaths were of the majority of the house-to differ from those on utmost importance in general. He had taken whose opinions he in almost every case placed an oath to perform his duty; and he never the greatest reliance; and above all, notwithwould take an oath which he afterwards in- standing he felt that the course he was now tended to alter or violate. He could say, in pursuing was a great evil, and to be justified spirit with the late beloved Monarch, who pre-only by the necessity of the case, still feeling ceded the present, that "he was ready to de- that a question of this kind admitted of no scend from the throne, he was ready to descend compromise, so long as he retained his conscito the cottage, he was ready to lay his block entious objections to the question of emanciupon the head-(here loud cheers and cries of pation, he should be ashamed of himself if hear, hear! interrupted the hon. member he did not declare them. He had been for a considerable time. After silence had been anxious not to remain silent with regard to the restored, he proceeded, receiving much atten- present bill, the only public measure with tion from the house)." He was ready to de- which he had interferred since he had had the scend from the throne-he was ready to descend honour to fill the chair (bear, hear). to the cottage he was ready to lay his head upon the block, but he was not prepared to violate the oaths he had taken." So he (Sir T. Lethbridge) would say; he was not prepared to violate the oath of supremacy he had taken, before this house and all the country. Mr. Peel said, it was hardly necessary for him to state that he acquiesced in the proposition that the Speaker should leave the chair, only because he would have another opportunity of taking the sense of the house on the question. His objections to the bill now under consideration, were strengthened by the vote to which the house had come on a former night, and by which they were pledged to make a provision for the Roman Catholic church (hear). Mr. Butler Clarke said it was impossible that Ireland could remain in its present state. Under present circumstances nobody would invest The house then resolved itself into a committee of the whole house, Mr. Macdonald in the chair. The bill having been read a first and second time, Sir H. Parnell took that opportunity of observing that the hon. member for Somersetshire (Sir T. Lethbridge), in reading the oath taken by Roman Catholic bishops, had omitted a very important passage, in which they stated that their relations with the Pope could in no way shake their obedience to the King and Royal Family; what appeared to be the objectionable parts of the oath, had been explained to be harmless by high Catholic authorities. The words salvo meo ordine were introduced to separate the spiritual obedience which the Catholics owed to the Pope, from that which they owed to their Sovereign. On the motion of an hon. member, that the form of the Catholic oath should be amended by substituting the words "present Protestant Church Establishment," for "present Church Establishment," Mr. Plunkett objected to the alteration, on the ground that casuists might call it an admission that there was some other established church, besides the Protestant, existing in England. The oath already called for a disavowal by the Catholics of doctrines which no man in his senses could suspect them of entertaining. But in the year 1821, the Catholic advocates had been taunted by their adversaries for not employing the full and formal oath provided in the year 1793; and, in order to satisfy as far as possible all scruples, that oath of 1793 was now returned to. Mr. Peel concurred in thinking the addition of the word" Protestant" superfluous; and still further as to the needlessness of many of the disavowals called for by the oath. He could not think it necessary to call upon the Catholic, at this time of day, to swear that he would not destroy or murder any person under the plea of that person's being a heretic. The clause was then agreed to. To the next clause, providing that no Catholic should be eligible to be Lord Lieutenant or Lord Deputy in Ireland, Mr. Robertson proposed as an amendment the following words :-" Or of being returned as member to serve in parliament for any of the Universities in that part of Great Britain called England and Scotland." The amendment was negatived without a division. The Chairman having put the clause containing the regulations touching the appointment of bishops and deans of the Roman Catholic church in Ireland, Mr. Brougham, after reading the following words of the clause, " And whereas it is expedient that such precautions should be taken, in respect of persons in holy orders professing the Roman Catholic religion, who may at any time hereafter be elected, nominated, or appointed to the exercise or discharge of episcopal duties or functions in the Roman Catholic church in Ireland, or to the duties or functions of a dean in the said church, as that no such person shall at any time hereafter assume the exercise or discharge of any such duties or functions within the United Kingdom, or any part thereof, whose loyalty and peaceable conduct shall not have been previously ascertained, as hereinafter provided," wished to add to them these words" And whereas, it is fit and requisite to regulate the intercourse between the subjects of this realm and the see of Rome, be it therefore enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for his Majesty, his heirs and successors, by two several commissions, to be issued under the great seal of Ireland, to nominate and appoint such persons in holy orders professing the Roman Catholic religion, and exercising episcopal duties or functions in Ireland, as his Majesty, his heirs, and successors shall think fit to be commissioners under the act for the two purposes before-mentioned, and that the person first named in the said commissions should be the president thereof." As he had before stated the grounds on which he recommended these securities, he should not now repeat them. The objection to this provision was, that by agreeing to it the house would legalize the spiritual authority of the Pope. He asserted that the house would do no such thing; it would merely regulate the Mr. Brougham said, that the oath was required to be taken only by those who were called to exercise some public function. Some hon. members objected to the oath as an insufficient security, while an absolving power was retained by the Pope. But what other security bad they at present besides that oath (hear, hear)? What was there to hinder his learned friend, Mr. O'Connell, from coming into the house at the present day but an oath? There were many parts of Ireland-he would not name them, lest he should give alarm to some of the Irish members-at all events there were places in England, where, if Mr. O'Connell presented himself as a candidate, his election would be certain. What was it that prevented him, but an oath (hear, hear)? "Oh, but," said the opponents of this bill," the Pope may absolve him from that oath." "No," replied Mr. O'Connell, "I do not believe that he or any other authority has that power, and therefore I will stay out of Parliament, because I cannot conscientiously take it" (cheers). To doubt the obligation of these oaths on Catholics was one of the most marvellous instances of human inconsistency: Why, the thing was quite plain, and he did not despair of making it understood even by the hon. member for Bristol (Mr. Bright), who had somehow or other got his head filled with all sorts of extraordinary prejudices on this subject (cheers). The hon. member, however, and his consort the member for Surrey (Mr. H. Sum-existence of that which had existed for many ner), who sailed together on this question, turned round and said this was not sufficiently strong as a security. Why, in the name of Heaven, or he would say, as perhaps something of greater weight with those who were Dow so much alarmed for the security of the Protestant establishment, in the name of Dr. Duigenan himself (cheers and laughter), what security could they have greater than that which they already possessed? What, he would repeat, prevented the Catholic from coming into Parliament without the intervention of any bill, but his respect for the sanctity of an eath, and his consequent unwillingness to take one from which he knew he could not be absolved (hear, hear)? For his own part, he was not anxious for any oath, because he did not believe any such security necessary; but he consented to an oath being embodied in the bill, because he knew that he had to conciliate prejudices. years, in spite of its enactments. That the Pope exercised spiritual authority in this country could not be denied. For instance, if the Pope were to ordain him a priest (a laugh), and the King were to appoint him to the bishopric of Durham (a laugh)-one of the most lucrative appointments, by the bye, in his gifts, and the best trade of all now going (laughter)-he would be entitled to become a bishop per saltum, and would not require ordination from any person qualified to confer it in the English church. Mr. Peel said, that Bishop Horsley drew a distinction between the different authorities exercised by the Pope of Rome, which well deserved the attention of the house. He admitted the Pope was bishop of Rome, and that he had liberty to confer degrees within his own jurisdiction; but he denied that the Pope had any liberty to do so in this country. The proposed provision he (Mr. P.) esteemed worse than nugatory. No objection which he felt to the removal of the Catholic disabilities would be removed by the existence of such securities. If any gent. would get up and say that these securities would be effectual securities to the Protestant Church in Ireland, he would waive the objection which he now felt to them; but he objected to them on the ground that they imposed on the Crown an obligation to appoint two permanent commissions, composed exclusively of ecclesiastics. Besides, they provided that if the bull, dispensation, or other document received from Rome were of an innocent nature, it should be sent to the parties to whom it was directed, but did not provide for what was to be done in case it should appear to be of a dangerous description. There was no penalty attached to any bishop who should exercise episcopal functions without having received such a certificate as was mentioned in the present clause. Add to this, no commissioner would like to impeach a man of disloyalty who had not been convicted of some disloyal act. There was nothing more vague than the ideas attached to the words loyal and disloyal; and he would therefore wish to know what construction the learned gent. intended to put upon them? Mr. Plunkett would have no objection to throwing these securities overboard, if by so doing he could ensure the company of his rt. hon. friend to the conclusion of his voyage; but as he could not flatter himself with such a hope, and as he knew that the abandonment of these securities would deprive him of the support of several of the crew with whom he was then embarked, he felt bound to keep them at all hazards. For his own part, he thought these securities effectual and essential to the success of the bill. It was known that Catholics lived under the spiritual control of their priests were influenced by it to a certain degree in their political conduct, and were, by means of their priests, in constant connexion with the Court of Rome. He held it to be no inconsiderable security, that when the people were so much under the influence of their priesthood, that priesthood should be brought into connexion with the state, and should give to it full assurance of its peaceful and loyal behaviour. The objection that loyalty was a vague term might have had some weight, supposing they had been framing an act of Parliament to punish a want of loyalty. In that case it might have been necessary to define clearly the meaning of loyalty in order to ascertain the extent of crime which was concealed under a want of it; but in the present case, no such niceness of language was required, He admitted that the securities of the present bill were not the same with those of the bill which he had introduced in 1821. By the bill of 1821, the commission was to consist of certain prelates, certain laymen, and certain ministers of the Crown. By the present bill, no laymen, nor ministers of the Crown, would be admitted into it, but it would consist exclusively of Roman Catholic prelates. He considered the security of the present bill to be equally good with the securities of the bill of 1821. He should not have suggested any change in those securities, if it had not been his duty to furnish the committee with such measures as would be thankfully received by the Catholic population; and he was informed, on good autho rity, that to a commission of this nature no part of it would object. He took it for granted that the Roman Catholic prelates were good subjects-were honest men whose oaths could be relied on; if that were admitted, was it not a great security that the Crown should be allowed to select individuals from their body, by whose certificate it could be assured that every person enrolled amongst their number was a loyal subject, and not only that he was a loyal subject, but that his nomination had been domestic and had not proceeded from the Pope, or from any foreign power. Domestic nomination had been considered, from the commencement of these discussions, as a security equal to a direct veto on the part of the Crown. The people of Ireland were ready to grant domestic nomination without a murmur, whereas the veto could not have been given to the Crown without great difficulty, and perhaps not without entering into an express concordat with the Pope. Even if the question of Catholic Emancipation could not be carried, he should consider an arrangement of this nature to be highly essential to the security of the empire, and to the tranquillity of Ireland, The clause was then agreed to. Upon the clause for regulating the reception of bulls from the Church of Rome, Sir Francis Ommanney complained that the homage paid to these bulls ought not to be encouraged-it was contrary to the second commandment, which prohibited idolatry (a laugh). Mr. Brougham assured the hon. gent. that he might retire to, or rather continue his night's rest (a_laugh), without any fears upon that head-for these bulls were not the animals with horns, that were sometimes calculated to scare a man, but quiet and inoffensive bulls upon paper (a laugh), which were merely received by the Catholics with some pious tokens of adoration and respect. This clause being agreed to, the house resumed Elective Franchise. MONDAY, MAY 9.-Mr. Littleton moved, that the house do resolve itself into a committee on the bill for regulating the Elective franchise in Ireland. The question having been put, Mr. Grattan entered his protest against the bill, as one of the most unjust and unconstitutional measures ever brought under the consideration of Parliament. He was astonished that the House of Commons should appear disposed to pass the bill without information, when the gentlemen connected with Ireland themselves entertained the most opposite opinions with regard to it. If the house distrusted the Catholics, why did they propose to grant them emancipation? It was said that the people of Ireland did not value their privilege. That, however, was not true; and if it were, they would not deserve emancipation. By passing the bill, the house would involve themselves in a system of legislation which would lead to the most fatal consequences. Mr. V. Filzgerald said, that so far from compromising any existing popular rights, the present measure went to confirm them, inasmuch as no new votes could now be created. He wished, however, to make the bill a measure of general reform; and he objected, therefore, to that clause which exempted one class of voters, the forty shilling fee-simplementary reform to oppose this obnoxious bill freeholders, from its operation. (hear). It was impossible to foresee to what an extent the principle of such a measure might be carried. Was Parliament to deprive, upon charges by no means satisfactorily or to a sufficient extent established, the many of this elective right, in order to vest it in the few? Want of political virtue was by no means peculiar to the poor; on the contrary the rich were much more prone to sacrifice the interests of the public: the poor exhibited much more independence than it was usual to give them credit for. Before they advanced a step fur Mr. Leslie Foster said, that if the bill passed in its present shape, they would only pass from one scheme of fraudulent voting to another. Landlords would merely give the tenant disfranchised by the present bill a fee-simple in the wretched cottage which he inhabited, and so constitute him, afresh, to all intents and purposes, an efficient voter; the slight pecuniary loss sustained by the giving up of the cottage being made up by an additional rentcharge laid upon the land. Mr. Dawson said, that the three bills respect-ther in the present business, let the house obing Catholic Emancipation, the elective tain the information which it was necessary to franchise, and the Catholic priesthood, were so possess on the matters recited in the bill; and blended together, that it appeared to him that if it should be found that the abuses charged be could not vote for one of them without did exist, let Parliament endeavour to correct voting for them all. He was upon principle them, and instead of abolishing the franchise of decidedly opposed to the bill for the relief of the forty shilling freeholders, teach them to the Catholics; and as the bill then before the exercise it with more honour to themselves and house was merely introduced to promote the advantage for Ireland. They ought not to success of the former bill, he should give his vote blame the people of Ireland for being under against it, though he considered it in itself a the influence of their landlords, but to punish wise measure. He would raise the qualifica- the landlords for exerting that influence in the tion to 201., which would prevent the system of shape of terror to procure an unwilling vote. fraud and perjury now existing, and would in- The same influence was universally exercised troduce into Ireland what was much wanted-in England and in the same way. He begged namely, a substantial yeomanry, to stand between the highest and the lowest classes of the community, in defence of British liberty. Mr. Hume, in objecting to this bill, begged to state, that it did not in the slightest extent alter the principles of that support which he bad ever felt disposed and determined to afford to the great measure of Roman Catholic Emancipation. But had the substance of this measure been introduced as a clause into the bill for the Emancipation of the Roman Catholics, he would rather have voted against that great bill itself, while it possessed any such contents, than support such an invasion of the rights and privileges of so large a class of the people, as this bill for the abolition of the forty shilling freeholder's franchise went to effect (hear). There was no evidence before Parliament of a nature to be relied on-that could at all justify or bear out the recital of the abuses which were said to render this bill necessary. Every question which was addressed to the witnesses examined before the committee was put in this manner "Would you have any objection to such a measure, provided we gave you such another ?"-making Emancipation, as it were, the alternative. This was altogether unfair, and he should move for the appointment of a committee, to inquire into the real state of the elective franchise in Ireland (hear). In the case of Grampound, for example, where it was a question to disfranchise only between 50 and 60 electors, it should be remembered what reluctance the house bad shewn to begin any measure of this kind, and the remedy provided was to extend the franchise to thousands who had not enjoyed it before (hear, hear). Was it fair to visit the forty shilling freeholders of Ireland with a measure of this kind, and not to extend the same limitation to the forty shilling freeholders of England? If there were any one principle which more than another ought to be kept in view by those who were friendly to the reform of Parliament, it was the further extension of the elective franchise; and upon that principle he now called on all the advocates of Parlia in conclusion to move "That a select committee be appointed to inquire what faults and abuses exist in the exercise of the elective franchise in Ireland; and to ascertain whether any and what measures can be adopted with a view to correct the same" (hear, hear). Col. Johnson seconded this amendment. He had been stationed for a long time in Ireland, and witnessed many elections in that country; but he did not remember to have witnessed such abuses as were supposed to exist in the exercise of the elective franchise by the Irish forty shilling freeholders. The measure before the house was a wanton violation of popular rights, for all the evils which it pretended to remedy might be obviated by taking the votes by ballot. Mr. Martin (of Galway) observed it had been said that on the present occasion Irish members particularly were to be listened to; but they were the very last men in the world who ought to be listened to (a laugh). He himself was the last man who ought to be listened to (a laugh) on this subject. All Irish members were here incredible witnesses. He could easily understand that at a recent meeting of 30 or 40 Irish members, the bill should be a favourite bill; for as it went to disfranchise so many freeholders, the effect would be that gentlemen, instead of having to canvass a whole county, containing some thousands of electors, would have to canvass 10 or 20 free holders. He compared the bill to the nostrum of a French quack, who professed to cure the tooth-ache. His patient took the medicine till every tooth dropped out of his head, the sound as well as the decayed teeth. There followed a process in the Tribunal de Cassation, and the matter was gravely pleaded. The judge was of opinion that the patient had been robbed and deluded. The quack defended himself by the terms of his contract. He had undertaken, he said, to cure the tooth-ache, and that he had done. The preservation of the teeth was no part of the bargain. This was the policy of the bill. He supported the bill, but it was with reluctance: it was for the sake of obtaining Emancipation. He had persuaded himself of the propriety of doing a little wrong, for the purpose of obtaining a great good. and laughter), but which were very different from those which the noble lord meant to insinuate (great laughter). The house then divided, when the numbers were-For the amendment, 53-Against it, 168 Majority, 115. Mr. Laribton declared that if the bill before the house, and the bill in favour of the Catholics, were to be considered as necessarily connected, his mind was made up that he should vote against the latter. Mr. Hobhouse entreated his hon. friend (Mr. Lambton), to reconsider what he had just said. He thought that as his hon. friend had made his opinions known on the disfranchisement bill, he might still continue his support to the great measure of Catholic EmanciIt would be only playing into the hands of the antagonists of the Roman Catholic question to vote against that measure, because it was coupled in appearance with one not so agreeable to his feelings. Mr. S. Rice said, it appeared to him, that when the deficiency of evidence was complained of, the contents of the minutes were strangely overlooked. He approved of this bill, because he was a friend to Parliamentary reform. It would effectually enlarge the number of real constituents. There was no analogy between Ireland and England as to this subject. The law was the same: the practice was different. The bill would cure the evils of numbers and poverty. Not that he objected to those qualities in a sound body of constituents; but only where they made parties exercising the franchise more wretched and dependent than they would be if they had no such privi-pation. lege. From the evidence of Judge Day, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. O'Connor, Colonel Currie, and General Burke, it appeared that the raising of the qualification to 101. would not abolish one good vote. It would also tend to make the gentry reside in Ireland: they would not then be able, as now, to command votes at pleasure; instead of driving men up to the hustings, they must solicit them. This would make them attentive to the wants and wishes of the people, and would create something like public opinion in Ireland. It would be a different consideration if the bill touched the votes of fee-simple. Had this bill gone to affect them in any degree, he would not have supported it. It only went to leaseholds of a very questionable nature. Mr. M'Naghten opposed the bill altogether, as it went to disfranchise innocent men and posterity, and left the rogues who had comnitted the fault unpunished. The freeholders in the north of Ireland were sufficiently independent. Lord Milton intended to support the bill, less on the ground of its own value than from its connexion with the greater and ulterior measure. Its merits had, he thought, been a good deal exaggerated, but the independence of forty shilling freeholders had been perhaps not less over-rated. The hon. member for Orford, for instance, had borne witness to the freedom of voters in the north of Ireland; and yet, the circumstances under which that hon. gent. spoke, formed a curious commentary upon his assertion. The hon. member (Mr. M'Naghten) had, until lately, himself represented a considerable county in the north of Ireland; at present, he appeared sitting for a small borough on the eastern coast of England; and how was this change to be accounted for? Simply by an instance of the independence of the electors of Ireland. The hon. member sat for the county of Antrim, until a certain member of a certain illustrious family (Lord Yarmouth) came of age. That noble personage then received the support of the uncontrolled freehold ers of Antrim, and the honourable member was transferred to a borough, the property of the family of that noble personage-to wit, the borough of Orford (hear, hear, and laughter). What he (Lord Milton) desired was to prevent these transfers in future. Mr. M'Naghten said that the noble lord was in entire ignorance of all the facts relating to the matter to which he had addressed himself (laughter). He(Mr. M'N.)had ceased to be member for the country of Antrim in 1812, from motives which were understood by himself (hear, Mr. Hume declared that he would rather vote against the measure of Catholic Emancipation than support it, coupled with the bill for disfranchisement. Mr. Brougham: The hon. member for Durham could not feel more deeply than he did the objections which applied to the measure now before the house. But he conjured his hon. friend, and those who coincided with him in opinion, by the political friendship which subsisted between them-by the love they bore to their country-he called on them by their sense of public and private duty-not to pursue the course which they had stated their intention of adopting. He hoped to be listened to by them while he told them the reason why they should not adopt the line of conduct which they proposed. If they did not vote for the Catholic question, it must necessarily follow that they did not act under the influence of their own opinions—that they were not free agents (hear). It would appear that they did not declare themselves for or against the measure, because they were in their own minds convinced that they ought to vote for or against it. No; it would be seen that they voted for the bill on one day, because they approved of its principle, and opposed it on another, because a measure was introduced that was not connected with it-because the house had sanctioned that measure, and adopted an opinion contrary to theirs (hear). If he were, on account of the freeholders' bill, to vote against the Catholic Emancipation bill, he should be voting against his own conviction, on one question, for no other reason but because on another question the house differed from him in opinion (bear), He called on those hon. members who declared that they would adopt another line of conduct to re-consider their opinion. He did not wish them to say a single word to-night; but he conjured them by to-morrow night to turn the subject in their minds-to consult their feelings-to awaken their better judgment; if they did so, he felt the most confident hopes that his appeal would be attended with success (hear, hear). Mr. Lambton said, the last clause of the bill now before the house was so intimately connected with the Emancipation bill, that they appeared to bim to be one and the same thing. They could not, it was provided, pass the one without the other (hear, hear). Now, as he |