would increase the resident and diminish |ther, than see the old fee simple freeholds the absentee interest and in both effects destroyed. But it was said, that great would conduce to the interests of the proprietors would maintain some influence country." They had the evidence of even over the fee simple votes. True, but Judge Day also, stating, in his opinion, the it would be influence, not authority; and passing of such a measure would, amongst even as influence it would only be of that many other advantages, increase the in- indirect kind which no legislature can fluence of the resident proprietors, and prevent. Indirect influence the rich had diminish that of the absentees. Would and would have; it was impossible to be not that be a desirable object, and fully altogether free from it, as long as human worth the sacrifice of minor consider- nature continued to be what it was; but ations? Some hon. gentlemen had when it appeared openly, and became argued, that the hon. member for Staf dangerous, he knew how to deal with it, fordshire meant to disfranchise the whole independent of the remedy of a total de40s. freeholders. Nothing could be more struction of the fair and honest fee-simple incorrect; he disfranchises none, but freehold. He rejoiced that this bill was leaves them in possession of the full ex- accompanied by other measures; but, tent of their franchise, that he may pre- great as he thought the good to be observe the principle of vested rights un- tained from Catholic emancipation, still touched. But, even supposing that his he was of opinion that this bill was a great hon. friend would disfranchise the present good in itself, independent of any other 40s. freeholders at once, where would be good with which it might be mixed up; the loss? Why, they had the evidence and he begged unhesitatingly to declare, of Mr. O'Connell, that very few of the that even if the Catholic bill had not been really independent freeholders would be introduced, he was so thoroughly condisfranchised by fixing a ten pound quali- vinced of the benefit to be derived from fication, and this they had from a man this measure, that he would have supwho went so far as even to advocate ported it alone; for he wished to see a universal suffrage. The words of Mr. pure constitutional body of electors supO'Connell are important: he observes "I porting their rights against the oligarchies think few voters really independent would which sought to rule over them. The be disfranchised by raising the qualifica- hon, member then alluding to the unanition to 10%. In talking of derivative mity now prevailing in Ireland, and derights very few who vote according to claring that unanimity to be the surest their own wishes would be disfranchised." mode of carrying the question, and a He would ask, therefore, whether they power against which no cabinet, united or would continue to support any but the disunited, could contend, concluded, after real 40s. freeholders ? But they might passing some encomiums upon the conthink Mr. O'Connell not an impartial wit- duct of Mr. Brownlow, by imploring the ness. Would they not trust the evidence hon. member for Staffordshire not to allow of colonel Curry? He says, that in the fee simple freeholds to be touched; every respect, in his opinion, the real 40s. for if he did, the English members were freeholder will remain the same as before; bound to step forward and defend those so that, by these accounts, even if the tenures, as the only means by which they hon. member for Staffordshire was to could hope to protect their own. To exmake his bill operative now, none of those tinguish the fraudulently manufactured evil effects would follow, which hon. gen- votes was, he trusted, the object of the tlemen anticipate. If, therefore, the hon. gentleman's bill, and he therefore House wished to see a fair and honest gave it his unqualified assent. constituency in Ireland, they would give their consent to go into the committee; and that it was the method to produce that fair and honest constituency, he would maintain: but if it should affect the fee simple freeholds-if it should be brought in any way to injure them, he begged now to be understood, that he would object to it altogether, either with Catholic emancipation, or without it; for he would rather lose Catholic emancipation altoge Mr. M'Naughten declared himself to be altogether opposed to the bill. It was one of disfranchisement; but, who were to be disfranchised? Not the delinquents; not they, whose acts justified the proceeding; but the liberties of those who were unborn were to be strangled. It was an unconstitutional, an absurd, and an unjust measure. It was to cut off both hands of a man, in order that he might the better be able to defend his person. He could not believe that the voters would suffer themselves to be driven as had been described. He felt assured that the effort to drive them would be resisted, and that they would turn round upon their drivers. If there was complaint of the abuse of the franchise, there ought to be a committee of inquiry, before any alterations were proposed. Sir F. Blake supported the bill on the principle that it tended to produce a very salutary reform. The 40s. freeholders, though nominally they had votes, yet ac tually had no votes at all. They would lose nothing, therefore, by disqualification; but they would gain greatly by participating in those blessings of freedom which the main measure now in progress through the Houses would yield them. Captain O'Grady said, he had heard with as much astonishment as any English member, the description which had been given of the conduct, appearance, and character of the 40s. freeholders in Ireland. He had been a witness of contested elections in that country, but he had never seen the electors driven or led up to the hustings like hordes of cattle, as it was said, to give their votes at the command of some master. He, however, gave his entire concurrence to the bill, as he believed it would have the effect of setting aside the unsubstantial voter, and confirm the bona fide freeholder in the possession of his proper share of weight and influence. Mr. Dominick Browne said, he would support the bill upon its own merits. He believed that the 40s. freehold system was one of the leading causes which entailed beggary and misery upon Ireland. A greater incentive to perjury in any country could hardly, by possibility, be devised. Colonel Trench supported the bill on its own merits, and totally apart from its connexion with any other measure. He considered it to be an honest, useful, and effective bill; and one, that, if passed into a law, would confer a great blessing on Ireland. Lord Milton said, he would support the bill, not so much on its own merits, which he thought had been exceedingly exaggerated, but because its success would conduce to the success of the main measure of emancipation. The 40s. freeholders in Ireland had been described by an hon. member on the second bench opposite, as perfectly independent; but, he must say, that the opposition which that hon. member gave to the bill under consideration, was, with him, an additional reason for agreeing to it. He would state to the House a few facts. The hon. member to whom he alluded, and who was now member for a borough on the east coast of England, some years ago represented a county in the north of Ire land. It happened, however, that a member of a noble and powerful family came of age; and immediately that young nobleman entered the House as member for the county of Antrim, the hon. member took his seat for the borough of Orford [hear!]. Such was the independence of Irish freeholders! That was the kind of system that he wished to destroy; and although he confessed the present bill was not exactly the measure he would have chosen for the purpose (for he disliked the sound of the word "disfranchisement"), yet as it was calculated in some degree to diminish the evil, it should have his support. In his opinion, considerable benefit would be derived from allowing a longer time to elapse between the acquisition of the right of voting, and its exercise. He also thought the registering system an exceedingly bad one, and that it ought to be at least regulated, if not entirely destroyed. In the next session of parliament, he might perhaps submit these propositions to the consideration of the House. In the mean time, he would vote for the present bill. Mr. M'Naughten, in explanation, declared that the noble lord was quite wrong in what he had stated respecting him; for that it was not the fact that he ceased to be a member for the county of Antrim when the heir of a noble family came of age. He ceased to be member for the county of Antrim on grounds best known to himself, and which had been approved of by all his friends. Lord Milton explained. He had not said the heir, but a member of a noble family. Mr. Becher supported the bill, upon the ground, that whatever objection there might be to it in theory, it would be found, in its practical results, to favour purity of election. But he principally supported it, because it facilitated the great measure of Catholic emancipation. The principle of the present bill was called for by Protestants; it was agreed to by Catholics; and opposed only by those who were without any practical knowledge on the subject. ~~ The main question being put, "That the speaker do now leave the chair, the House divided Ayes 168. Noes, 52. Majority 116. Mr. Lambton 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 to vote against the latter. Mr. Hobhouse entreated his hon. friend, 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 with greater safety still continue his support to the great measure of Catholic emancipation. If there was any error in combining the two bills, the error was not his hon. friend's; and it would be only playing into the hands of the antagonist 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. Hume saw no reason why his hon. friend should not maintain his consistency as a friend to parliamentary reform, by voting against the bill. For his own part, if the two measures of Catholic emancipation and disfranchisement were identified, he would rather vote against the Catholic emancipation, than against the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders. Mr. W. Smith said, that ever since he had been a member of that House, he had always voted both for parliamentary reform and Catholic emancipation. It would hardly be supposed that, at the present moment, he could feel any inducement to resign his claim to consistency; but as he could see no inconsistency in voting for the present measure, he would do so with all his heart, as the means of obtaining great and permanent advantages for the Catholics. Mr. Brougham said, he would, on every principle of public duty to which he had been attached during his political life, support the Catholic Relief bill. On the principle of right, as well as of political expediency, it should receive his best assistance; and if he had any weight with his esteemed friend, the hon. member for Durham, and with the hon. member for Aberdeen, he would entreat of them to receive what he was now about to say with that kindly consideration, which he hoped it would be found to deserve. He had not, it should be observed, given, by his vote, any sanction to this measure. He had, on the contrary, with great pain to himself, argued at length, boldly and frankly, against this bill-a bill which he was exceedingly sorry had ever been coupled with the Catholic question. He could not see how that bill had ever come in conjunction with the bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics. Nothing, in his opinion, but an hallucination of intellect, the evil effects of which were shown by the proceedings of that night, could have connected those two measures together. If any gentleman was in favour of the freeholders' bill (to which certainly he would not give is support), let him advocate it on its own intrinsic merits. Why should it be mixed up with the Catholic question, with which it had no natural connexion? His hon. friend, the member for Durham did not feel more deeply than he did the objections which applied to the measure now before the House. But if he had been prevented from defeating it-if a large majority had voted in favour of it, and he had been defeated in an attempt to check the progress of it, that was no reason whatever for his altering one iota, or swerving one hair's breadth from his opinion, which was founded, not on the freeholders' question, but upon the merits of the case, upon principles of right and justice, and motives of the highest political expediency. would not give up the consistency of his whole life. He would not give up his honest and conscientious conviction, that the Catholic question in its pure unsophisticated shape, was absolutely necessary for the salvation of Ireland. He conjured his hon. friends to listen to the voice of that country, in whose welfare they had a deep stake. He himself was willing to sacrifice all for its interests. He conjured them, by those public and private motives of attachment to their duty, and he conjured them, not hopeless of being listened to by them, still to do their duty; and he would tell them the reasons which should make them do their duty. If they did not vote for the Catholic question, this consequence followed, that they did not choose their own opinion for themselves; that they were not free agents; that they could no longer say they would vote for the Catholic question or against it, because they would vote for it one day and against it another, according as a majority of the House on another question, not necessarily connected with it, might or might not choose to adopt an opinion in which they did not concur. He No man should make him vote against his own opinion, by taking a line of conduct on another question to which he was adverse. If he were now, because the House differed from him on the Irish Elective Franchise bill, to alter his vote on the Catholic Relief bill, he should be giving himself up, tied hand and foot, into the power of the House, and voting against his own conviction, upon one question, for no better reason than because on another question the House differed from him. This he declared to be his feeling; and he earnestly put it to his two hon. friends to review their opinions; not to retract what they had said, but to reconsider what they had said, and before to-morrow night should come, to consult their pillows, and in that better judgment he had the most confident hopes of success. Mr. Brougham wished to put it to any hon. member-it was a large challenge, as he believed there were nearly three hundred present-whether he would get up and say, that there had been any thing in the tone of what he had ventured to submit which could be considered as an attempt to browbeat? If any hon. member would say, there was any thing beyond affectionate and respectful remonstrance, he would admit that he had been guilty of a great offence against good feeling, and good manners. then Colonel Johnson repeated, that he did. not think Catholic emancipation was worth the price of this bill. Mr. James said, that although he was an advocate for universal suffrage, he would vote for the present bill; because he looked upon its consequences as no disfranchisement at all. The freeholders were voters in name, but not in reality. The House then went into the committee. Mr. Littleton said, that at so late a period of the night, he did not think it advisable to propose any amendments to the bill. He would merely suggest, that the blanks should be filled up, and that it should be recommitted for Thursday. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Mr. Mr. Lambton observed, that the hon. and learned gentleman who had just spoken, and the hon. member for Westminster, had seemed anxious to take the opportunity of attacking him and his motives in consequence of what he had stated. The hon. member who had just sat down was quite mistaken as to the reasons on which he (Mr. L.) grounded his proceeding. It was not in consequence of being in a minority on this Elective Franchise bill, that he had determined to vote against the other bill. He had announced his opinion some time since, that he never could vote for the Catholic ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] question when disfigured by this bill. Doherty said, that the right hon. the He considered it so intimately connected Secretary for Foreign Affairs, being unable with the Catholic question, that they were to attend in his place that night, had reone and the same thing. He had heard quested him to present the petition which nothing to induce him to alter his opinion. he held in his hand. It was the petition He never gave a vote from interested of the Protestant nobility, magistrates, motives; but from a sincere conviction, and gentry, of the county of Galway, in that by so doing he best served the prin- favour of the bill now pending for the reciples which he supported, and it would moval of the disabilities under which their not be the misfortune of differing from Roman Catholic brethren had so long, any hon. friend, which would induce him and, in their opinion, so unjustly laboured. to alter that course. If the House were The House would judge of the respectato carry emancipation, accompanied by bility of the signatures to the petition, the Elective Franchise bill, he thought when he stated that amongst them were it would be doing greater evil than leav-to be found those of the marquis of Sligo, ing the thing as it was at present. In and lord Clanricarde. He moved that thus expressing his sentiments, he had the petition be brought up. not expected to have been called upon to retract. What he had done was what he conceived the best course for the good of the country. He was not to be browbeaten into another course; and so help him God! he would pursue the same course, even though with the loss of the dearest friendships he enjoyed in the world. Mr. V. Fitzgerald begged to assure the House that there was not a Protestant nobleman or gentleman of rank in the county, who was not decidedly favourable to the claims of the Catholics; and it was worthy of remark, that this petition came from a set of noblemen and gentlemen who resided in a county peculiarly Catholic, and who were therefore the better able to judge of the feelings and opinions of the Catholics by whom they were surrounded. He was happy to have an opportunity of adding his feeble testimony to what had been said by his hon. friend, in presenting the petition. Mr. Doherty said, that as that was in all probability the last petition from the Protestants of Ireland before the decision of the question, he was anxious to say a few words upon the whole number of petitions which had come from Irish Protestants, either for or against the question. He was the more anxious to do this, as the Irish Protestants were the best able to appreciate the propriety and expediency of such a measure as that to be discussed that night. Against the bill no more than nine petitions had come from Irish Protestants. Of these nine it was not his wish to say much, but he must observe, that four of them came from parishes in a county not the most likely to view the subject impartially, as, unfortunately, party spirit and party feelings were two prevalent there. On the other hand, he found that seventeen petitions had been presented from Irish Protestant bodies in favour of the bill, making a majority nearly equal to the whole number on the other side. He was aware, that the number of petitions in its favour was small compared with the entire Protestant population; but the House must bear in mind, that if the feeling of the great body of Protestants had been against the measure, the majority of petitions would have been infinitely greater the other way. He was one of those who had ever thought it impossible to conciliate the Roman Catholics without also conciliating the Protestants. This, it appeared to him, they had now the power to do; and if the House in its wisdom should think with him, he called upon them to do both by carrying the bill now before them. Mr. S. Rice observed, that the feelings of the Protestants of Ireland were daily and hourly becoming more favourable to the interests of their Catholic brethren. The feelings of the Irish representatives were decidedly in its favour; and if the present bill were lost, it would be lost in consequence of British feelings and British interests being opposed to it. He implored the House to weigh seriously the alarming consequences of such an opposition. It would be looked upon as nothing less than applying the axe to the root of British connexion and British intercourse. VOL. XIII. Mr. Butterworth could not agree with hon. members, that the feelings of the Protestants of Ireland were in favour of the Catholic Relief bill. He had received letters from Ireland, which informed him, that the feeling was strongly the other way, and that several of the signatures to the Protestant petitions in favour of the Catholics had been obtained through fear and intimidation. Mr. V. Fitzgerald begged, as an Irish gentleman, and an Irish representative, to put his personal knowledge and experience in opposition to the communication made to the hon. member for Dover. He took leave to give the utmost latitude of denial to the statement, but most of all, to that part of it which said that the signatures of Protestant gentlemen had been obtained through menace. If the Protestants of Ireland were opposed to the bill, instead of sending seventeen petitions in its favour, they would have covered the table with petitions against it. He assured the House, that the feeling in its favour was daily increasing in Ireland; but chiefly amongst those who were best calculated to form a correct opinion upon it. Lord Althorp was glad that the hon. member had put his personal knowledge in opposition to the anonymous information of the hon. member for Dover. It was to him somewhat singular, that they should now have heard of that information for the first time. The hon. member must have been aware that a Committee had been sitting up stairs, and that he might, if he had so pleased, have called any number of witnesses before it. He would not take upon himself to say, that the Protestants who signed the petitions in favour of Roman Catholics had done so through intimidation; but he would say, that the Protestant gentlemen who gave their evidence before the committee, had not been in any way intimidated, and he appealed to every member present, whether they were not decidedly in favour of the bill? He could not help thinking, that the hon. member had been misinformed, and that the answer given by the right hon. member opposite, was that which the House ought to rely upon. Mr. Sykes said, that the hon. member had made his statement from a letter which he had not read, and upon an authority which he had not named. He was bound, in fairness, to read the letter and name its author; in order to give the 2 I |