landlord would be benefitted by having a richer class of te

nantry.

How do you conceive that such a measure would act upon the interest of the tenant ?—I cannot exactly say.

If the system of dividing holdings into 40s. freeholds has been injurious to the landlord in dividing the land, might not the system of throwing a great number of those small holdings into one large one, for the purpose of making one freehold, be injurious to those who are now occupiers of the land ?—I think it would.

Do you conceive that the subdivision of land which has been going on in Ireland, promotes, in any respect, the comforts of the tenantry?—I should think it does. I believe that in some instances, landlords, for the sake of having a freehold interest, consult the comfort of their tenantry; but I speak here not of my own knowledge.

In a former part of your examination, your lordship was drawing a distinction between the 51. qualification and the 107., and suggesting, that a qualification so high as 10. might be too great an encroachment upon the popular principles of our representation; do the same observations apply to 51. ?—No, I think that 51. would not encroach too much upon the political privilege of popular representation.

What description of holding, or what amount of rent, do you think would leave to the tenant an interest of 51. per annum in his holding, upon your own estate, for instance ?—I cannot possibly answer that question in a moment.

What is the size of those holdings, upon which at present the lessees will swear that they have a 40s. interest, as far as your own knowledge goes ?-About two acres with a house; from two to four and five acres.

That, of course, must depend upon the rent?—Yes.

What rent is generally paid, as far as your personal and local knowledge goes, for those holdings of three or four acres? Those four acres, with a house, will let from 21. to 50s. per acre. That would make it a holding of 77. 10s. a year ?—The question, I understood, referred to my father's estate.

Then a rent of about 71. or 81. paid to the landlord, will leave a 40s. interest to the lessee ?-Yes.

The land in the county of Meath is very rich ?-Generally very good; there are parts of the county very rich, and other parts, where those freeholders are made generally, are not so good.

Do you not know instances of a very large quantity of ground being in the possession of a farmer, who will register a 40s. freehold only ?--I do not know of any such instance.

If the increased qualification for voting was to be made 57. do you not think that such change of qualification would be a wise measure for Ireland?-If I am asked that question distinctly, and unconnected with what is called the question of Catholic emancipation, I should say it is not politic or wise.

As accompanying the grant of the Catholic claims, do you think such a change of qualification expedient?—I think it would be; in fact, I am not quite prepared to answer that question, because my own mind is not quite made up on the subject. If the alteration were proposed without Catholic emancipation, I know it would produce very bad effects; if accompanied with Catholic emancipation, I think it might perhaps be beneficial. The increased qualification would tend to check the subdivision of land ?-I think it would.

And the multiplication of paupers ?—Yes.

You stated, that you thought that the existence of the 40s. franchise, and the desire that many landholders have to extend their freehold interest, induced them to add to the comforts of their tenantry; in what way do you mean to state that to occur? I did not state that of my own knowledge; but I had heard instances had occurred, where landlords have been induced to give a good tenure and a house, and have so far benefitted their tenantry.

Then the benefit of the tenantry is, in fact, giving them a freehold lease?-Certainly, giving them an interest in their farm.

Does not the giving that freehold lease, coupled with the same desire of extending a freehold interest, add very much to the system of multiplying small holdings?—Yes.

How many have you known to be registered out of one holding as freeholders?—I think I never heard of more than one. Is the system of joint-tenantry extensively acted upon in the county of Meath ?-I believe not.

Has there been a contested election in the county of Meath, lately?-Never, never since the union.

Has there been one since the elective franchise was granted, in the year 1793?—I believe there was one not long before the union; I do not recollect it myself.

Then, in point of fact, the system of multiplying freeholders, which ha prevailed in other parts of Ireland, has not existed to any great extent in the county of Meath ?—No, excepting in the boggy districts where poor people crowd together for the advantage of fuel, which is very scarce in that county.

Would your lordship venture upon an opinion, as to what impression would be produced upon the minds of those persons,

who are now 40s. freeholders, in the event of their being disqualified, in consequence of the raising of the qualification of freeholders to 5l.? As I stated before, I think if it was made a part of the question of Catholic emancipation, they would not be so adverse to the measure; but if it were proposed without that measure, I am quite certain their feelings would be hostile to the change.

Does it appear to your lordship, that the general class of 40s. freeholders take much pride, or set much value upon the possession of the elective franchise? As I was asked jnst now; whether we had ever had a contested election, and as I answered that we have not had one, I can give no very decided answer to that question.

Have you ever heard, in any one county in Ireland, of a candidate canvassing the 40s. freeholders of the county ?—It is not usual.

In point of fact, whom does the candidate generally canvass, when a contested election is apprehended in other counties? Generally the great landed proprietors.

Did you ever know an instance of a candidate going about canvassing the 40s. freeholders ?-No.

Does not your lordship think those 40s. freeholders attach a good deal of value to the circumstance of their being freeholders, and that they may look up to the successful representative for whom they vote, for some little advantage after they have given him their services?—I have no doubt that they do.

Do you not apprehend, that the proprietor of those votes is more in the habit of looking up to the successful candidate, than the 40s. freeholder himself?-I should think, both landlord and tenant place some value on it.

Your observations, with regard to the franchise, are applied solely to counties, not to cities and towns?-Only to counties. Are there not, in the county of Meath, several very considerable towns, in which the inhabitants are 40s. freeholders, which are not corporate towns or cities?-There is only one town, in the county of Meath, that returns a member.

Are there other considerable towns besides that, which do not return members?—Yes.

What would be the effect upon persons who reside in those towns, in the event of their being deprived of their franchise, or by the qualification being raised to 5l. ?-I should imagine that they would view the alteration with jealousy.

Are they not equally deriving their interest under some great landed proprietor; or does your lordship mean, that the freeholders in those towns are fee simple proprietors ?-In the towns

of which I speak, I believe they are chiefly deriving under great landed proprietors.

And following the interest of their landlords in the same inanner as other freeholders?-Yes, generally.

Is it not pretty much a matter of notoriety in Ireland, that those voters are driven to elections ?—I have heard of its having happened.

Generally speaking ?-Generally speaking.

Have you ever heard of the voters of a particular landlord being kept in confinement until they voted, to prevent communication with other parties?-I have never heard of that.

Or of their being put into the pound?-No.

Do you happen to know how many voters there are in the county of Meath ?—I heard some time ago, that there were not above a thousand registered voters.

Possibly, the majority of those are not merely 40s. freeholders?-Many of them are.

Do you not apprehend that many of the 40s. freeholders in the county of Meath, from the largeness of their tenures, might register themselves 201. freeholders, if they chose to do so? Some might, but not what are commonly called the pauper 40s. freeholders.

Have you ever heard that a landlord has made it a personal quarrel with a candidate for canvassing his tenantry?No, I never heard of that.

Does your lordship believe that a provision for the Catholic clergy, made by the state, would be acceptable to the clergy of the Catholic church in Ireland, being made a part of, and being accompanied with or following Catholic emancipation? -I have had no communication whatever with any of the Catholic clergy upon the subject, but as far as my own opinion goes, I should think there would be no objection to it.

Does your lordship think that any objection would be felt by their flocks, by those holding the Roman Catholic persuasion? -I see no reason why there should be, after Catholic emancipation.

Would it be received, on the contrary, as a great boon on the part of Parliament, to those who now complain of having to support two establishments?-Always speaking of it as connected with Catholic emancipation, I believe the peasantry would have no objection to such a measure.

Is your lordship apprized generally, of the amount of income of the parish clergy of the Catholic church ?—I have heard that some parishes produce perhaps 3007. a year; but I believe there are very few instances.

What is the average, do you suppose, in

your own county?

-I should think, as with us the population is not very great, perhaps from 100%.to 150l. would be a fair average.

Is that exclusive of the stipend to the curate or coadjutor, as he is called in the Catholic church; has the clergyman to pay out of that his assistant?-Certainly; the curate is generally paid by the parish priest.

Has he no sources of income, except what he receives from the parish priest?-I fancy not; the curates are very poor.

Are you aware of the income of the clergy of the city of Dublin for instance, or Cork; have you ever heard any estimate of their incomes? The parishes in Dublin, some of them, are very valuable.

Of what value do you suppose?—I have heard some of them are as high as 500l. per annum.

Your lordship having stated, that you conceive the measure of a provision for the Roman Catholic clergy would be acceptable to them and to the laity in Ireland, if accompanied with Catholic emancipation; does your lordship mean to suggest, that unaccompanied with that measure, a provision for the clergy would not meet with such acceptance?—I am quite sure it would not.

Can your lordship form any opinion whether the payment of the Roman Catholic clergy by the state, would be followed with an abandonment, on the part of the Roman Catholic clergy, of the fees they are now in the habit of taking ?-That would depend in a great measure on what the amount of the provision was to be."

Do you think there would be any objection on the part of the Catholic body at large in Ireland, to allow the Crown the power of a veto upon the appointment of the Roman Catholic bishops? -Very strong indeed.

Do you think the same objection would extend to the interference of the Crown in the appointment of all the Catholic clergy?—I do.

Would there be any objection to confining the appointment to what is called Domestic nomination, so as to exclude altogether the power of the Pope in originating the nomination?I am inclined to think that the inferior or second order of clergy would like what is called Domestic nomination.

Will you explain what you call Domestic nomination ?—It is very difficult for a layman to do that.

You confined your opinion respecting the attachment felt to domestic nomination, to the inferior clergy; was that from accident or from any intentional limitation of meaning ?-By the inferior clergy, I mean the parish priests; what are called the second order of clergy.

Why should the superior clergy not be of the same opinion?