state of Ireland ?—I am speaking entirely with reference to leaseholders; and speaking with regard to leaseholders, I may perhaps be considered too aristocratical in my notion, but I should say the qualification ought to be, to the extent of twenty pounds a-year; having reference to another object which I mentioned in a former part of my evidence, that of creating, if possible, in Ireland, a respectable yeomanry, and preventing the sub-division of land; but I have thought more of the principle than of a standard for regulating it.

Do you think, generally speaking, that the forty-shilling freeholders exercise any free choice at elections?—My opinion is, that they have none.

How do you think they are controlled?—I believe they are controlled either by an absolute landlord, or by the sort of interference through religious feelings which I have already mentioned.

Can you state to the Committee, the kind of control that is exercised over those forty-shilling freeholders, so as to command their votes ?—I can speak only from hearsay; the landlord of course has the power of distress; the priest or other partisan may act upon their religious feelings or prejudices.

Do you believe that those measures, which you have stated as likely to be beneficial with respect to the raising the qualification voters, ought not to be considered as completely dependent upon being combined with their complete emancipation; that is, do you conceive that the raising the qualifications, and depriving, of course, the forty-shilling freeholderof his right, could be effected without occasioning the most serious discontent, unless it were accompanied with the other measure you have suggested ?—I have already, I think, stated an opinion, which must be considered as an answer in the affirmative to that question; at the same time, I should wish to understand, what is meant by emancipation, in the question now put. If by emancipation, is meant the universal removal of all disabilities, my opinion does not go to that extent; but it does go to the extent of representation in Parliament, and admission to the Bench. I do not think, that if representation in Parliament were conceded, and the Bench were open, that there would be much objection to some extent of exclusion from political office; the other exclusions, from Parliament and the Bench, are the exclusions particularly felt.

What should you say with respect to corporate offices?-Corporate offices were not in my view particularly; with regard to corporate offices, there is at present a means of

relief to Roman Catholics, which is not generally known; the Crown may exercise a dispensing power in corporations.

Have you known it exercised?-I have not known it exercised, and I do not know that the Crown could be well advised now to exercise it; because a class of statutes must constitute a policy calculated to fetter the discretion of the Crown.

If the law were to be altered in other respects, so as not to form an exclusion from Parliament and the Bench, would not that affect your opinion as to the propriety of exercising a discretion in corporate offices ?-It certainly would; there would be no longer existing in the law that policy, or supposed policy against the exercise of it, which the present state of the law, I think, creates.

Do you consider that it would be sound and good policy to leave at the discretion of the Crown, or of the advisers of the Crown, the exercise of this power, in such corporations as it might think fit, without its taking place at all?-I did not mean to express any opinion upon that; I only mention the fact of the law creating a difference between the two cases of offices under the Crown and corporate offices; I think exclusion from corporate offices may be felt, and would be felt as a very severe grievance; but if you can produce a beneficial effect in any way, I do not think the theory is of so much importance. With respect again to Ireland, I believe there is a misapprehension, very general, upon another point; I believe it is generally understood, that the Test Act is in Ireland repealed; the sacramental test is not repealed in Ireland; it is only repealed as to Protestant dissenters; a circumstance which forms a curious principle in the law. A protestant of the church of Ireland may be ruined unless he receives the sacrament, but a dissenter is safe. The Act of 1782, which relieved the Protestant dissenters from the Test Act, provided only that His Majesty's Protestant dissenting subjects should not be bound by it; and I apprehend it would be necessary to plead, that you were a Protestant dissenter, if an action was commenced against you, and you wished to have the benefit of the statute.

Do you then think the Catholics generally would acquiesce in the proposal of raising the qualification for voting, provided it was accompanied with Catholic emancipation, or with the admission to Parliament and the Bench ?-My belief is, that they would; a belief founded upon extensive communication with them; but I speak only of the principle of a rise, not of the extent to which the rise should go. I have not dis

cussed the amount at which the qualification should be fixed with many persons.

Do not you think a considerable outcry would be raised in Ireland, if it was proposed to raise the qualification of forty, shilling freeholders ?-If the forty-shilling freeholders were persons of independent property, exercising through their property a free choice, I think it would produce a very serious outcry; but I do not think they are persons of a description likely to have much feeling upon the subject.

Do you apply the observations you have made with regard to forty-shilling freeholds, to forty-shilling freeholders in cities and towns ?-Certainly not, for a very obvious reason; I speak of those places in which property is the qualification; if in cities and counties property were the entire qualification, I would have it raised there; but, if property be not the entire qualification, then the question stands there upon quite different grounds; if a man who serves an apprenticeship of seven years be entitled to vote without regard to property, there is no reason why the freeholder of forty shillings a-year should not vote also.

In point of fact you mean to limit your observations to counties? To counties.

Do you know whether in point of fact the description of forty-shilling freeholders who vote in cities or counties, are in point of property the same description of persons who vote as forty-shilling freeholders in counties at large?—I apprehend quite otherwise.

Are they not in many instances merchants and persons of property, who acquire forty-shilling freeholds in order to give them a political right ?—The persons who are forty-shilling freeholders in cities, are generally speaking merchants or respectable tradesmen; they are not paupers, as most of the people who call themselves forty-shilling freeholders in counties are.

In case the forty-shilling franchise were to be altered in cities and towns in the same way as you have described in counties at large, would not the practical effect be to throw the return altogether into the hands of the freemen?-I cannot say that I am sufficiently acquainted with the state of property in corporate towns to answer that question.

Have you ever formed any rough calculation of what number of persons in Ireland, a change of the qualification to twenty pounds would disfranchise?-I have not considered the extent to which it would go; but I have considered the class to which it would go; and the more extensive that class, the more necessary in my judgment the change.

136

From your experience, are you able to say whether the feeling of the great body of the lower orders of the people is strong and keen upon the subject of what is generally called the Catholic question?—I believe it to be so; I do not think I ever spoke to a Roman Catholic, high or low, that did not betray something like irritation upon the subject.

Do you think that feeling begets any want of confidence in the administration of justice in any of its departments, particularly amongst the magistrates?-I am acquainted only with the superior courts of Ireland; I may have a little feeling upon the subject, as belonging to one of them, but I am conscientiously satisfied that they administer justice as purely and honestly as any courts upon the face of the earth. If I were to say what influence I think the Catholic disqualifications have upon them, I should say it was to turn their feelings in a direction favourable to the Roman Catholics; the lower orders however think the contrary; they think that the Judges being all Protestants, have a leaning against the Roman Catholics; they consider the exclusion of the Roman Catholics unfair; that the object of it is to give the Protestants an undue advantage in the distribution of justice.

You are speaking of the higher courts ?-Yes, with which alone I am really acquainted.

Can you state what effect the plan of raising the qualification would have upon the Protestant interest of the country? I think the Protestants constitute, to a very considerable extent, the landed proprietory interest of Ireland; and therefore, in proportion as you increase the power of the proprietory interest, and diminish the power of mere numbers without property, you strengthen the Protestant interest. At present the Protestants insist upon the ascendency, the Roman Catholics seek equality; this equality, to the extent of their property, they ought to have, but no farther; if equality to this extent were established, it would, I think, satisfy the Roman Catholics, and certainly would not prejudice the Protestants; it would take from the Catholic multitude the vast political power which they now possess, and would open to the Catholic gentry the capacity of enjoying another species of political power which they do not now possess, the capacity of sitting in Parliament, a capacity however from which they could only derive any benefit through the will of the property, Protestant and Catholic, of the country. This would not shake the true legitimate ascendency which belongs to the Protestants, in proportion as they form the preponderating proprietory interest of the country; on the contrary, it would secure that ascendency on a rock, upon the genuine sound

principle of the British constitution, which makes property the basis of all political power and ascendency in the state; while the Protestants claim ascendency on other ground, the Catholics will consider it hostile, and oppose it; but once put on its true ground, the hostile character would cease, Protestants and Roman Catholics might then regard each other as fellow-citizens, and uniting as such, render their common country happy and prosperous.

Can you state whether the subject is viewed in that way, at present, by the Protestant proprietory of the country?-It would not be right for me to mention names; but I have certainly conversed with gentlemen in Ireland, who I know have been adverse to what are called the Catholic claims, who told me they would be favourable to a settlement upon that principle.

The twenty pounds freeholder would be in a situation to exercise his franchise, without any regard to his landlord?— I should rather think the contrary; I think there must be a connexion between the landlord and the tenant at all times, and that the tenant would be inclined, though not from the same slavish feeling as at present, still to follow his landlord's interest; I have found that to be very much the case in England.

You mean, that it would be a more honourable feeling ?It would be a more honourable feeling; indeed I should say that a twenty pound freeholder would feel it more his interest to go with his landlord, than the mere wretched forty-shilling freeholder, for he has an interest to secure which the other has not.

You have stated in a former part of your examination, that under the present state of the law, there is an impossibility in framing a covenant by which the landlord can prevent alienation?-There is a difficulty approaching to an impos

sibility.

In looking to an alteration of the law, by way of giving the landlords an efficient control over their property, can you suggest any regulations which would be calculated to meet that object?—I already alluded to the principle of the statute of Quia emptores; I should think that regulations might be framed to give effect to that principle; for instance, if it were provided by law, that no person should underlet without the consent of the landlord, that the landlord should be a party to every lease, or to every sub-lease or sub-contract, and that the tenant paying a rent according to the reservation in that sub-lease or sub-contract, should be free and discharged from all liability; you would in that way, I think, in a great