be less likely to give you fair information upon that subject;" but the right hon. member's conscience made him speak out, for he added" but if you can prevail upon the forty-shilling freeholders in England, and upon the forty-shilling freeholders in the north of Ireland, who are a very sturdy race of men; if you, can prevail upon them, you can do it with the Roman-catholics, but most undoubtedly it must be a general measure; if the object is a free and fair election-if the object is, that a man should represent the fair sense of the county, undoubtedly the fortyshilling freehold system is entirely against that." He proceeded to say-"That the present election laws are all for the encouragement of fictitious votes, because they give no power of examining at all; any man that is registered must vote; and as to going to a petition afterwards, that is quite out of the question; we can hardly stand the expense of an election, much less of a petition." Now, the measure which was at present before the house, was intended entirely to remove those fictitious votes; and he was really surprised that any gentleman should oppose such a measure. He was asked"Are not, in point of fact, the small freeholders so much under the influence and in the power of the landlords, that they dare not act against them?-I think they are: I think they would be very daring to do so, because they owe us generally double what they have to pay us." It was quite clear, (continued Mr. Littleton) that if an individual dared to consult his own opinion in voting, he would be reminded of the half

year's rent which was in arrear, and, under the influence of fear, he would be obliged to vote contrary to his conscience. The house might here see the demoralizing effects of this system: and he really thought that the hon. member (Mr. D. Browne) was entitled to the thanks of the house for the candour which he had manifested in exposing it. If one of these freeholders, at the general election, dared to vote against his landlord, the reward of his temerity would be an ejectment from his residence. What further proof was necessary of the demoralization which must be produced by such a system, than the fact, that landlords did not only pursue this course, but that they pursued it with impunity? · In another part of his examination Mr. Blake was asked-“ Do not you think a considerable outcry would be raised in Ireland, if it was proposed to raise the qualification of forty-shilling freeholders?" and his answer was-" If the forty-shilling freeholders were persons of independent property, exercising through their property any influence, I think it would produce a very serious outcry; but I think the present forty-shilling freeholders are not persons likely to feel it." This was indisputably the fact. The Irish fortyshilling freeholder had nothing to lose. Such a loss as that of voting, would, in fact, be a real gain. He would lose a disgusting qualification, which enabled him to live by perjury; and certainly that would be a benefit. But if the bill of the hon. baronet passed -and he did not desire that the measure he now proposed should be carried without the other- then

would

would the Irish catholic enjoy the gratifying feeling that he was placed on an equality with his protestant brother. To the nobility and gentry of Ireland the act which he now endeavoured to have carried into effect, would be one of inappreciable value, for it was a measure which would bind them all to abstain from cutting up their estates and incomes by the roots, which they were now continually doing, by raising those immense armies of fictitious freeholders. They would be obliged to dépend, as the nobility and gentry of England did, on the force of public opinion. They would have no other influence beyond that which was attached, and would always be attached, to the possession of extensive property. There was another feature of demoralization arising out of this system, which he could not pass over in silence. It was the growing neglect and indifference of the lower classes of Ireland to the sanctity and solemnity of oaths. This was stated in the evidence to be produced by the multiplication of oaths in that country. They were, in consequence, looked upon without awe, and were frequently violated. Mr. O'Connell, in his evidence, had given a very interesting, and, he believed, a very faithful statement on this point. He was asked-"Do you conceive that the multiplication of oaths has had the effect of lessening their sanctity in the eyes of the lower orders in Ireland?" His answer was, Yes; the frequency of oaths has had a most demoralizing effect on the peasantry of Ireland;" and he farther said"This is principally evident in the minor courts of justice in that

66

country. To have a conscience is bad. The man who has one can do his friend no good; but a witness who is free from such tie is invaluable. The peasantry employ their children, at a very early age, to act as their witnesses, and the consequence may be easily imagined." Now he would ask, what hope was there of amelioration in a country where landlords were constantly encouraging the disregard and neglect of a form which was of the most sacred character and nature? He had no hesitation in saying, that amongst the evils of the system which he had been describing, this, to which he now referred, was almost the greatest. Before he entered more particularly into the provisions of this brief bill, he would state, that there was no novelty in its principle. Formerly, in this country, freeholders of every description, without respect to the amount of their income, were allowed to vote; and he believed that, with respect to the election of coroners, that principle still prevailed. But, by the statute of Henry the Sixth, the right of voting was restricted to those who had 40s. a year, or upwards, of clear, actual property. According to the value of money at present, and in the reign of Henry VI., it might be argued that the qualification ought to be raised. But it ought to be observed that there were very few freeholders in this country who did not possess a more extensive property than that which would barely qualify them to vote; and when he considered their independence, and the intelligence they possessed, they appeared to him to be so admirably qualified for the discharge of their duties,

that

that the propriety of altering the qualification had never entered into his mind. When in 1793 the elective franchise, under the same qualification, was granted to the Roman-catholics of Ireland, it was foretold by every man of sense in the Irish parliament, that the catholic clergy and laity would raise the number of voters too high, and that frauds of every description would be resorted to. This was soon verified; and the act of 1795 was passed, which made occupancy the condition of voting. It was by that act provided, that no individual should vote for a knight of the shire in Ireland, unless he was in actual occupation of the ground from which he claimed the right of voting. The evil, however, not only continued, but increased. A law was in consequence enacted, which provided that no 40s. freeholder should be allowed to vote, unless his freehold was registered for one clear year prior to the day of election, and it also provided that the registration should be renewed every seven years. Here, then, a clear distinction was made between the 40s. freeholder and the 401. or 501. freeholder. But this was not all. By an act of parliament passed in the month of June last, which was known as Mr. Browne's act, joint-tenants were prevented from voting. The preamble set forth that certain joint tenants were in the habit of voting for members of parliament, to the material prejudice of the improvement of the people, the right thus assumed being a colourable one only; and the bill declared that no joint tenants, as described in the preamble, should be thereafter allowed to vote. Here, then, was

a prospective disfranchisement of a large body of people, and especially of Roman-catholics. That bill was agreed to by a large body of those who considered it as a step towards procuring catholic emancipation. But now the same persons who were still anxious for catholic emancipation objected to the present bill, although it was intended as a powerful instrument for achieving that_great_measure. He did not know how the parties who were friendly to the bill of last year, could consistently oppose the present. On this point he should be glad to hear their explanation. The whole question, it appeared to him, resolved itself into the amount to which the qualification should extend; for the principle, he had shown, had already been recognized. What the qualification should be, it was in the breast of the house to determine. Three sums had been spoken of-51. a-year, 10l. a-year or 20l. a-year. If the qualification were as low as 5l. a-year, it would only increase the evil. He was sure there were but few landlords who created freeholders under a rack-rent of 40s. a-year, that could not, with equal facility, get his tenant to swear that he had an interest in the land of 5l. ayear, although he only derived that sum from his labour. If the amount of the qualification should be raised to 20l., he should fear that it would have the effect of reducing the electors to too small a number for the fair expression of the public opinion. His own individual wish, therefore, favour of the qualification being limited to 10., and this he believed would be sufficient to guard against perjury, which was so great

was in

an

an evil in the present system, because no person would commit so barefaced a fraud as to swear to that, unless they were really in possession of it. He would now come to the advantages which this regulation was likely to produce to the country. In the first place, it would operate as a bounty for creating that valuable class of men, a yeomanry, the absence of which in Ireland had, it was admitted universally, been the cause of many of the evils under which that country laboured. In the second place, it would tend to strengthen and confirm the protestant interest, and the protestant establishment in that country. If it were true, as was generally be lieved, that the population of Ireland was catholic, while the possession of property was in the hands of the protestants, surely any measure which tended to strengthen and to raise the respectability of the latter class was one which must be approved of by persons of every description of political opinion. In support of this view of the subject, he would beg permission to quote the opinions which had been given in evidence on the committee to inquire into the state of Ireland, by the honourable member for Lowth, (Mr. L. Foster) and by Mr. Blake. It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to find any persons better qualified than those gentlemen to give opinions on this subject, or opinions which or opinions which were more satisfactory in themselves. This question was put to the hon. member for Lowth"What is your opinion of the effect of the operation of the elective franchise, in respect to 40s. freeholders, since the act of 1793?"

His answer embraced some of the moral and political evils of the system, which he (Mr. Littleton) begged to read, although it was only the conclusion which went directly to the point. He said"I have no hesitation in saying (and I never met with any gentleman who would differ from me in private, whatever he might say in public), that however beautiful in theory it may be to admit persons possessed of 40s. freeholds to a participation in electing their representatives, in practice it tends. to any thing but their own freedom, or the assertion of their own privileges; and that it has had the operation of adding very considerably to the number of the existing population in Ireland, and still more to their misery. A more mistaken view of the subject could not be, than to suppose there is any freedom of choice practically existing on the part of those persons it is a clear addition of weight to the aristocracy, and not to the democracy, in elections. It tends to set aside any real value or importance that the substantial freeholders of 50l. or 20l. might otherwise have; it bears them down by a herd of people, each of whose votes is of as much consequence as their own, and who are brought in to vote, without any option on their part. The only doubt that ever arises is, whether they are to give their votes according to the orders of their landlord or of their priest. The only parties that ever come into contact in deciding which way a Roman-catholic 40s. freeholder shall vote, are the landlord and the priest; the tenant in neither case exercises any other choice than to determine which he will

encounter

encounter-the punishment he may expect from his landlord in time, or that which he is told awaits him in eternity." "Has not it also contributed greatly to the demoralization of the people, in respect of oaths? Certainly; there is no end to the perjury in qualifying for the franchise." He was then asked, "Do you think, from your knowledge of Ireland, the influence of the priest, if generally exerted, would have greater weight than the influence of the landlord?" "I have no doubt" (he replied)" that the priests could drive the landlords out of the field. I think they have done it wherever they have tried. The consequences are extremely to be deprecated, in reference to the unfortunate tenantry. Subsequent to the election, the landlord necessarily loses the good feeling which otherwise he might have had towards the individual who has deserted him; the rent is called for, and it is in vain for the voter to look to his late advisers for any assistance to meet it. There have fallen within my own knowledge, frequent instances of the tenants, having been destroyed in consequence of their having voted with their clergy." The subject was pursued by the hon. member in his subsequent answers. "Do you not think that a protestant member of parliament, depending entirely for his election on Roman-catholic constituents, would vote very much as a Romancatholic member of parliament elected by the same persons?-I think he would, and that he does, though not with the same sincerity.' "Do you think, that that portion of the Irish protestants, whom you have stated to be ad

verse to the claims of the Romancatholics, would be more disposed to entertain the consideration of those claims, if they thought any modification of the right of voting might be a part of the arrangement?—I think a great many of them would be very much influenced by that consideration, and decided by it." "A large proportion?-I cannot speak to the very proportion; but there are many, I have no doubt." "Does not that apply to the three provinces of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught; how would it affect Ulster?-I conceive that in Ulster, with the exception of the county of Cavan, the protestant freeholders are so predominant in numbers, that the Roman-catholic freeholders cannot produce the inconveniences contemplated. In Cavan, I think, the parties are more nearly balanced." "What would be, in your opinion, the inconvenience of depriving the fortyshilling freeholders in those parts of the country of the right of voting?—I think the consequence would be to diminish the influence of the aristocracy in elections, and to give to the substantial yeomanry of the north a new and important influence. I dare say the fortyshilling protestant freeholders in Ulster might feel a little mortified at the passing of the law; but I beg to say, that even with respect to the protestant freeholder, I do not think it would be any real loss to him, for I do not consider that even the protestant freeholders of Ulster exercise their own judgment. They, to, are in the power of their landlords." "What do you apprehend would be the effect of the alteration of the elective franchise in the other three

provinces