degree prevent sub-letting, because the landlord would not be very willing to give his consent to sub-letting in such cases; and on the other hand, you would prevent one of the present mischiefs of it, because the sub-tenant would no longer be subject to those double and treble distresses.

Do you mean that it should be provided by law, that there should be no sub-letting, without a special consent to sub-let? -Without the landlord being a party to the instrument by which the land was sub-let.

And that all sub-letting should be ineffective, unless the head landlord was a party to it?-That all sub-letting should be ineffective, unless the head landlord was a party to it; and I would go further, and provide that the person attempting to sub-let otherwise, should be without any remedy for the recovery of his rent; this, I think, would be an effectual means of preventing it.

How would you have the power of recovering the rent in a sub-lease?-That rent being paid according to the redendum, the tenant should be freed and discharged.

Supposing the rent is not paid according to the redendum, it forms part of the landlord's rent, as well as part of the mesne tenant's rent; would you give a power of distress both to the landlord and the mesne tenant?-No; only to the person to whom the rent was made payable.

Would not the landlord be unwilling to join in that?-I think he would; and I think so much the better.

That would go to prevent sub-letting?—To a certain de gree. It constantly occurs in London; the granting of leases, to which the head landlord is a party, in which the rent is reserved either to him or the middle man, and by which the tenant paying the rent, is completely discharged.

Then the landlord, in the event of his becoming a party to such a lease, would have no remedy against his immediate tenant; except his having made a contract with him to that amount, he would have no power of distress ?-He would have no power of distress as against that part of the land granted to the under-tenant, unless to the extent of any rent reserved by that under-lease to him; if rent is reserved to the head landlord, it might be distrained for by the head landlord; if not reserved to the head landlord, but to the middle man, it might be distrained for by the middle man. I am speaking very loosely upon these subjects, merely answering at the

moment.

Do the Committee understand you rightly to say, that the existence of Roman Catholic disqualification is a common grievance, which enables the priests to exercise an influence

at an election?-It creates a feeling of discontent, of a religious nature, through which feeling the priest is enabled powerfully to act at elections, he is enabled to say to them, for instance, this man is against your religion, this man is for your religion; Iam told, he has said so.

You conceive, that by removing the Roman Catholic disqualification, you would deprive the priest of that power?I do not think I should, entirely; I should lessen the temptation to the exercise of it, and I should diminish the power also, by setting at rest the Catholic question, and raising the qualification from 40s. to 207. a year, or to such sum at least as would raise the class of freeholders entitled to vote, so as to render them, in some degree, persons of intelligence and property, likely to have a will of their own.

Would not the exclusion of all freeholders under 201. a year, exclude a great number of persons who have considerable capital on their farms?—I do not think it would.

The Committee understand you to state, that in cases in which persons swear to 40s. freeholds, they have, in many instances, little interest, if any, in the lands; do not you conceive that even in the case of 201. freeholds, persons might swear to those freeholds, who had a very inferior interest in the lands than that?-I do not think they would; I think common decency and shame, and the obvious means of instant detection, would operate to prevent it; a man, who comes to swear to 20%. must have some property in his hands.

A man in Ireland, who would have an interest of 201. is of a totally different class from the 40s. freeholder ?-Yes.

Would it not, in your apprehension, exclude in towns a considerable number of persons who are householders, who have not an interest above the rent they pay for their houses, to the amount of 20%. ?—I have already stated that I do not mean my observation to apply to towns.

The freehold runs in virtue of residing in a house; would it not exclude in towns a very large proportion of persons, who derive their freeholds from residing in those houses alone, without any regard to land ?—I am not sufficiently acquainted with the state of towns to speak upon this subject; I had in my mind the general appearance of the 40s. freeholders, which is the appearance of a rabble. There may be persons of respectability having only 40s. freeholds; there is no general rule without particular exceptions; but I think the injury which they might sustain would be as nothing, compared with the benefit the state would sustain from the general regu lation.

You are not aware that a very large proportion of 40s. free

holders in towns, do derive their freeholds in virtue of holding houses in towns, without having land?-No.

Do you apply the 201. qualification to the rent that the freeholder pays, or to the profit that he makes?—I mean that whatever rent he may pay, to whatever extent he may pay it, he should be able to swear that he has an interest beyond that rent, to the amount of 201. a year; that if he pays 500l. a year, the property should be worth 5201.

Would not that have the effect of excluding a very large number of persons, possessed of considerable capital, compared to the capital of those who now vote?—I should apprehend not, because a capitalist taking land in Ireland, with a. view to improvement, would certainly, if he acted to any extent, soon gain an interest in it through improvement, to the amount of 201. a year.

Do you not conceive that the raising of the franchise to 201. would disqualify, in towns and cities, a large proportion of the out-freeholders, and would create great discontent and disturbance in those towns ?-When one is considering any proposed measure, one is not be governed by the evils which may be in your way, according to a particular view of it; you must look to the right and to the left; you must judge by comparison, weighing advantages against advantages, and disadvantages against disadvantages; and I think the satisfaction to be produced by the measure in question would be much greater, and much more important, than any dissatisfaction that would be produced by it.

Are you not aware that a great number of 40s. freeholders, who exercise the right of franchise in Ireland, are not of so respectable a class as voters from towns ?—I consider the mass to be mere rabble.

Has not the effect of the Act of the year 1793 very much tended to induce the landlords to split their land into very small portions ?-I apprehend, inasmuch as it enabled Roman Catholics to vote at elections, that it has induced landlords to make Roman Catholic freeholders; and as the Roman Catholics are the most numerous body, they are enabled to manufacture freeholders to a much greater extent, under the operation of that Act, than they could before, and consequently to split their land.

If the elective franchise was confined to freeholders of 201. a year, would not that have a great effect in consolidating the land? I think it would, and that that would be one of the benefits that would result from it.

Might not it have the effect of turning adrift a vast number of people, who now have considerable interest in the

land? The persons who now have an interest in the land would not, so far as their interest in the land goes, be affected by such Act; it might prevent landlords from creating new freeholders; it would not enable the landlord to turn the present freeholders out.

Are you aware of the state of property, and sub-division of property, upon collegiate and bishops' lands, where no freeholds can be created ?—No, I am not.

Daniel O'Connell, Esquire, called in; and Examined.

HAVE you had opportunities of becoming acquainted with the condition of the lower orders of the people of Ireland, in an extensive district of that country?—I may venture to say, that I have had many, and long.

Have you observed any very great increase of numbers in the districts with which you are acquainted?-Very great; I know many instances, in the remoter parts particularly; for example, I know of farms upon which I remember but two dwellings, I speak of two farms that I have in my mind at this moment, upon which there are at present, I believe, nearly a hundred families.

Can you inform the Committee, about what period the great increase of numbers commenced ?-No, because it has been increasing as long as I recollect; I was out of Ireland from the year 1789 till 1795, between France and England.

Was there any great progressive increase of population throughout the early part of the last century in Ireland, up to the period of 1789 ?-That I only know as matter of history.

Can you state to the Committee any circumstances, that you consider as causes of the modern and very great increase of the population ?-Perhaps it is prejudice, but we have been apt to attribute it to the relaxation of the penal code in 1778, which, for the first time since the reign of Queen Anne, enabled the Roman Catholics to take leases, and have tenures, and thereby fix them more to the soil, allowing the productive qualities of Irish soil to come into operation; and as I consider it to be capable of feeding four times the number of its present inhabitants, I think that the law, allowing the people to become holders of the soil, must necessarily have had the effect of increasing the population.

What, under your observation, is the state of the lower orders in respect to their modes of living?-The state of the lower orders, in my observation, is such, that it is astonishing to me how they preserve health, and above all, how they

preserve cheerfulness, under the total privation of any thing like comfort, and the existence of a state of things that the inferior animals would scarcely endure, and which they do not endure in this country.

Is that state of circumstances of the people general through. out the part you are acquainted with ?-It is general in the labouring classes throughout a great deal of the part I am acquainted with; it is varied by local circumstances in particular districts, for example, the facilities of procuring firing, change very much the comfort of the Irish peasant; in the richer districts of Tipperary and Limerick, the peasant is a most miserably circumstanced creature, he wants firing, and frequently is at a distance from water, in the mountain districts particularly; in the remoter one of Kerry and Cork there is water in great abundance, and he can have firing with great facility, and that adds to his comfort much, and to the duration of human life also.

What particular parts of Ireland do you speak of ?-The parts of Ireland that I am best acquainted with, are the counties of Clare, Limerick, Kerry, and Cork; I have gone that circuit for many years; I have some property extensive in itself, but inconsiderable comparatively in value, in the county of Kerry, and I am well acquainted with those counties.

What is the general state of the habitations of the lower class? It is impossible, I think, (I express myself strongly,) it would be extremely difficult to have any thing worse; the houses are not even called houses, and they ought not to be; they are called cabins, they are built of mud, and covered with thatch partly, and partly with a surface which they call scraws, and any continuance of rain necessarily comes in. I have observed at night, however, that there is this advantage in their being built so there, that where they have firing the entire house warms, and it is like a stove, and it produces almost the effect of a vapour bath upon the inhabitants.

What sort of furniture have they in their houses ?-Nothing that can deserve the name of furniture; it is a luxury to have a box to put any thing into; it is a luxury to have what they call a dresser for laying a plate upon, or any thing of that kind: they may have, they generally have little beyond an iron cast metal-pot, a milk tub which they call a keeler, over which they put a wicker basket, in order to throw the potatoes, water and all, into the basket that the water should run into this keeler; that is frequently the extent of their furniture.

With regard to their bedding, what does that consist of?Nothing but straw and very few blankets in the mountain dis