The Sun.
London, England, 1829-04-10 00:00:00

FREEHOLDERS' QUALIFICATION BILL.

The Duke of WELLINGTON moved the Order
of the Day for the committal of the Irish Free.;
holders' Qualification Bill.

.The Marquis of LANSDOWNE expressed his
wish to state, in a few words, how he felt with re-
spect to this Bill, before their Lordships went into
the Committee—a proposition, however, to which
he did not mean to offer any opposition. He did
tict concur entirely with either of two Noble Friends
of his—one of whom had supported it solely on the
ground of its connection with another measure ; and
another on the ground of its own merits. Ile sup-
ported it on its own merits as far as it was prospective,
but he certainly had considerable difficulty in support-
ing that part of it which vvis retrospective. In as
far as it was prospective, it depended entirely on
considerations of public policy, and he had no doubt
that it would, in . that view, be extremely bene-
ficial ; but in as far as it was retrospective, it pro-
ceeded on the principle of a penal measure.—
The mode in which the elective franchise in Ire-
land was condUcted, as far as tlie 40i; freeholders

were concerned, was, to be sure, a matter of notorie.
ty ; but some much more distinct and precise ground/,'
ought to be lahl before one could,with perfect satin.
faction, deprive people of their vested rights rights
which were indeed of little value to the great !nags
of forty-shilling freeholders, but which still must:
affect the rights of many by whom those rights have
been fairly acquired, and honestly exercised. He dig
not, however, mean to say that be would oppose the
Bli on this ground under all circumstances,. but
merely that he had a difficulty on this point. line"
ther reason which made him desirous that the ies
sure should be gradual rather than immediate,. %cal
a consideration of the state of the population of Ire'
land; and in this opinion he was joined by 00°
Noble Lords, who were best acquainted with the
political state of the country. I was one of these
who thought that the population of Ireland was
much too great for the means of subsistence in that
country. The effect of the measure for the creation
of the forty-shilling freeholders in that country had
been to raise the population beyond its natural,
and proper limits, and that, too, for the purpose'
which had not the least reference to the interests of
the people themselves, or the increase of their
dustry and comforts, but for objects of a widely (lira
ferent description. The effect of that measure Wail
to operate as a stimulus to the landlords to crow °
their estates with forty-shilling freeholders, who
were entirely dependant on them, and whose We",
at elections they could command at pleasui_e;
and one reason why he dreaded the effect of this
measure, in as far as it was retrospective, was, that,
it would operate as too strong a stimulus the other
way, and form a temptation to the landlords to re*.
move the population too suddenly from their estate!t•
a kind of re-action which was even already in Ppe'
ration. It was one of the most difficult things
which a landlord had to encounter in the pre'.
sent state of Ireland, when he wished to
diminish the numbers on his estate for the sake.
of improvement, to ascertain where and how the
people whom be might be desirous to remove'
could be accommodated; for he must be a man, he
would not say of strong, but of iron nerve', who
could turn out great numbers from his estate wide'
out knowing where they could be. harboured.---'
(Hear, hear.)—lt was no answer to say that these
people had leases, for the leases of the greater por
tion of these forty-shilling freeholders formed ne
protection whatever, for they were entirely at the
mercy .of the landlords; and it certainly
required
both great judgment and delicacy in the landlords
in ren.oving the superabundant population on their
estates, although they had unquestionably the legal
right so to do. He hoped, however, that the,
good sen.e and good feeling of the landlords would
prevent them from yielding to the inducement, fro,'"
this or any other measure, to turn out the people
without great caution and consideration, for these
people felt this in the light of an act of banishment'
and it ought to be remembered that they were the
population of the country, and, as such, entitled t'9.
the care and attention of the landlords.—(Hert'
hear, hear.)—But this apprehension, together with
the other reasons which he had stated, would hale,
formed in his mind a strong objection to that part r
the Bill which was retrospective, were it not that
lie was very averse to insist on any objection that
might staid in the way of the attainment of .that
settlement of the great question which was now °n
the eve of completion. Their Lordships would,
what might appear to be most objectionable in
be-
sides, have an -opportunity of amending hereafter
the
measure. With respect to that part of the Bill
which related to the Assistant Barristers, he ad-
mitted that the power entrusted to them was vet/.
great, but at the same time he did not know how
the matter could have been otherwise better av
ranged; but at the same time he hoped that thji
subject would be further considered at a futtge
riod by his Majesty's Ministers, with a view to s•
modification of these powers.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said a • feA
words in explanation of his statement as to the maw-
ber of the ,freeholders.

Earl BATHURST was of opinioonf,i:hamt
sure of this description was necessary to aeconipani-
itrhseelof,thbeer
agdrmeaitttemdetabsaurres;omt:leth.poaurgrsh, considered
by
be
rather ohiectionable. As to the effect On the pop'
lation of the country, it would have none, except r°
deprive many of the poorer people of the poorer of
voting; but as to their landlords,_ they would be
exactly in the same situation as before. But. 17
difficulty was, that, without a measure of this tilic
the great measure for the settlement of the Clt':°,lE
Question would have the effect of producing a '1,„;13-
excitement in that country. At the first elect'
for Members of Parliament after the Roman Cati'°--
lies should become eligible, if the forty-shilling.tOr
holders remained, the Catholic candidates would os'
turally look to them for support, and greater exCitr
ment would be produced than could otherwise ye
reasonably apprehended. In 170 the Roman. CO);
lies petitioned to be admitted to freeholds of 204,10,'"
this was rejected ; but in the year following :..Pe
forty-shilling freeholders were created, without.s4
serious opposition from the great landlords of the
South of Ireland. The Protestants obtained byirel'66.
of the increase in the numbers of freeholders, al-
though those freeholders were Roman Catholics, a
greater degree of influence : they overwhelmed.the
Roman Catholic interest by those votes. The con-
sequence,itsiem t
dt
hadltat
been
fetnucrneesdc hiacfchaitililse
Protestants t
ptll:c ienstt: ainthd hada
!di dboeredidr:aerytool devolved intoof
itth, e
it hualltsul s
neces'lof the
n
rid
to pass this Bill, by which both parties Wouloe.
protected, and the remaining grounds of dissensio!l.
removed.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE explained,
The Earl of HADDINGTON referred to What
had fallen from him on this subject on a fornier Right
and repeated that he objected to theprineiple,Ou
to the preamble of the Bill. He did not mein CP
say that the measure would operate injurii4lY:ln
Ireland; but its beneficial operation did not.reirP,Y" ,
his objections.
The Earl of WICKLOW agreed that the retro-
spective part of the measure was. highliobjecti°":
able; and he should have thought the
jection to it insurmountable, but for the-urkePat
necessity for the measure. If the Itiffi7:o!'!`.
ling freeholders were allowed to exist fora time, an
inducement would still be held to the Roman Pa'
tholic agitators in Ireland, people iteciisterned.,to
public speaking, to endeavour to force thernSeli#
in o Parliament ; they might avail .themselVe .of
that short period to accomplish the purpoie'irithii.:Pls
them had in view. He did not say that any-Objec-
don would arise from- their introduction into:J.oe
House of Commons, but it would be a most serto_ts
evil to the forty-shilling freeholders, upon
necks these agitators would mount to. the,olije4,
their ambition.—(hear, hear.)—Much had bete"
said on these discussions as to the condUct 43(01
forty-shilling freeholders at the last election, 'Bou
particularly for the county of Clare. I can
means (said his Lordship) coincide in the CondenOr
tion of them ; and I will add, that I think the coildto
of the Roman Catholic Priests no more brijusi,-.llor,
tnore illegal, than the conduct of the proprietor(
the soil.—(Cheers.)—On the occasion to-which , i
allude, the forty-shilling freeholders, exereised; for
the first tittle, the privilege of forming a judgtiOt;
because, although they did
,not carry, that !exer,Ojea
to the extent of deciding between two rival. e;toi7
dates, yet they did undertake to decide
,for; tbeir
selves whose dictation, with relation to. titeit% vote,
they would servilely follow.—(Hear4-4-For- the
purpose of protecting the forty-shilling freeholder'
—of preserving the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, .
and of establishing a just and equitable mode of elf'
don, I feel disposed to waive the great 'objehtloll I
feel to the principle of the Bill,ind:tO aidopriPlle, •
it stands. • - •
The Duke of RICHMOND—I tippreherkd that
I could vindicate my ieti-sti!ice.' 05 this tiqbirte ‘:
speech of every Noble lAA -who' •
fit V our. If I had not.previoosly:tinin •
on The subject, the'speeek ior."*.iy;tlblliel(• ` ' 111 r
the President of the-Cottkii;tibuld have convinced

the that I ought not to vote for a measure of this
description. If I understood him and other Noble
Lords rightly, this Bill does not depend upon its.
ID!trk merits, but it is to be passed because it is con-
necied iiithgeneral emancipation. I beg to be un-
derstood as no convert to the propriety of such bar-
ter itt legislation.—(Hear.)-1 cannot consent to do
that Which I am satisfied is wrong, merely upon the
dQuhtful event that good may come of it. Some
Noble Lords on the other side of the House have
objected to the Bill, as I think, upon fair constitu-
tional grounds, that Parliament has no right, with-
out inquiry, to wrest the elective franchise from any
daindividuals.—(Hear.)—The Noble Marquis (Lans-
downe) has truly stated, that at present we know
bow many will be disfranchised, and how many will
remain in possession of their right to vote. What
evidence have you that you ought to disfranchise
ten thousand? I may think that the number de-
prived of their rights is five thousand ; another
Noble Lord may say it is twenty thousand, and who
is to decide between 11, ? What investigation has
taken place before the House came to this important
determination ? None : I declare that on a Turn•
Pike Bill better evidence would be required than has
been taken before we are called upon to disfranchise
many thousands. When had we any information—
evidence I cannot call it—upon the subject ? Not
since 1825 and when that Report was laid before
the other House of Parliament, a Bill was brought ;
and what did that say ? Did it say that the sub-
sisting rights of all the freeholders were to be de-
stroyed ? Did it attack the freeholders ? No : it
attacked no man alive; it only declared that the
piaetice was inconvenient ; and that it was expedient
to correct the prevailing abuses and mal-praetiees,-
1t Was my intention to have moved an instruc-
ton to. the
,Committee; but it has been suggested
to. me that that would be an inconvenient
course,
an
d I shall therefore move an amendment in the
Committee; the effect of it will be, to make the Bill
Prospective only, and I shall follow it by another
clause—to exclude from its operation those who
old in fee. My objections, however, extend to
eery part of it, and among other things, to the
regulations regarding Assistant Barristers. I do
HA pretend to know much about Ireland, or whether
the Assistant Barristers are, or are not, fit to be
trasted with this power; but if I am not much mis-
taken, Ministers will have to come again to Podia-
itnt, to amend the Act in this respect. I allude
iefly to the precedent established by the Bill.
Are there no forty-shilling freeholders in England ?
hear.)—Are there no freeholders in this
country upon leases ? It is notorious that there are
_many. Then, say Noble Lords, the franchise ought
to be raised to 101., in order that property may be
represented. What, let me ask, is the property re-
presented in a borough like Preston, where the right
of election is pot-walloping ? No property at all ;
atidu
Pon ,the principle that no property is repre-
flirted by the Irish forty-shilling freeholders, the
right of election at 'Preston and other places of the
4me kind may be abolished. I will consent to no
Measure that destroys the Constitution ; I have no
iso:,i‘i-e, for my conduct but a desire to preserve what
eatable; and no interest in the result, as 1 have
furtherlrish prresopent', erty.
only I I shallhope, t troubhatle thin te Hheouse no
at p Corn-
ttir;i!tee,
You will allow me to speak again, recollect-
-114. that one of a minority of 17 has a right to be
heard Oftener than one of a majority of 140.
i,;.jard LAUDERDALE supported the Bill on
tielrround that it was a necessary concomitant of
he Bill of Relief.
tjhe • Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that
"a belief that harmony would be restored in Ire-
land by the passing of this Bill, or that tranquillity
Nuld be endangered by its rejection, he humbly
tePneeived, with all due deference to great authori-
'lP,• to be founded upon erroneous premises. The
al rgron of the Irish constituency would not be
altered by altering.the amount of the qualification;
"d the prim would exert his influence over the
104 freeholder, as he had done over the forty-
%liar nig freeholder, whether against or in favour of
thiae Opinions of the landlord. The only excuse for
fig away the vested rights of the fortshillin
ehOlders was, that the measure of relief y-
would beg incomplete without it. He gave credit to the Noble
Duke for the completeness of this Bill—it was as
oMplete a Bill of spoliation as ever was brought
!n to Pacliament ; only 100,000 individuals would
be dePriyed of their rights at the moment when
success had enabled them to appreciate their value.
In 1825, when it was first proposed to disfranchise
the freeholders, it was asserted that they were the
tools of the landlordi; the freeholders repelled the
injustice of the charge. Next, it was argued that
theY,Were the instruments of the Association; and
h°* they were the creatures of the priests. To
forget. and forgive was a laudable doctrine, but lie
wRs surprised their Lordships so soon forgot the
kqs of 'the Association. On the ground of huma-
4ty only, it behoved the House to reflect before it
t,dapted this . Bill. -The Irish peasant would be
driven from.his home—a home which he cherished,
hough not replete witleluxuries; arid compelled
ta seek a living in a foreign country, either as a
"rggar or a bandit. Some Noble Lords had com-
Atinefi of the invasion of England by the lower
°Wet of Irish ; but if this Bill were passed, the
NI would be increased as far as related to this
'ettntry, and it would be extended to others. The
Peasants might say—

" At noslinc alii sitientes ibimus Afros,
Pars Scythiam et rapidum Cretan veniemus Oaxem,
Efi penitus toto divisor orbe Britannos."
11°re than it was generally supposed understood the
poorag he had quoted, and that a great number of
4;, Irish would hereafter be found among the
--an7ii there could be no doubt.
hThe Duke of WELLINGTON—The persons
oW under diseu-sion are called freeholders, and the
t) bli
f •Marquis supposes that we are depriving them
,;ilelt• vested rights; yet the same Noble Marquis,
410° knows the country perfectly well, tells us also,
" 41Most in the same breath, that they hold under
ekses---that their rent is in arrear—and that nothing
:ymore easy than for their landlords to eject them,
(1 to deprive them of their vested right.—(Hear,
r')`-.-Thris a landlord may do, when lie pleases,
t which Parliament is never to be permitted to
oh; But I did
i not rise to confute the Noble Mar-
rs, who has n fact confuted himself; but to refer
0,
ft point noticed by another Noble Peer, who re-
it:Jed to the subject of the Assistant-Barristers. lie
1140 whether that officer, who is to act under this
111 •
4 ovill be independent t I can assure him that
„iblernment will pay the utmost attention to this
ti Ref", and will take care that no Assistant•Bar-
tilteal` shall be appointed to preside over the registra-
it,?l, of freeholds, who is not entirely unconnected
th,t" the Comity for which he is to act. I believe
6014, tit present the Assistant-Barristers are not
th erwise connected with the counties in which
'leY Act.
Lord GORT referred to certain returns he had
bred for, and obtained from different parts of Ire-
hold) ill order to show that the forty-shilling-free-
to days had been rapidly increased in the corporate
10'0 s Of Ireland. He contended that the Bill ought
ave applied to corporate towns as well as to
ntieg. The forty-shilling freeholders were, he ad-
di!,,ed, the objectionable part of the system, and he
1„14,-,9f.see why they should be permitted to remain
tthvna when they were removed from the counties.
to Passing this Bill why would not their Lordships
gove the evil entirely ?
thh,lllWEarl of LIMERICK did not think that the
applied to freemen as to the forty-
Ing freeholders, for it was known that the latter
t} ne.ttme only,used the benefits they possessed for
e advantage of their landlords, and at another for
h
,their fanatic priests. He considered that
Ititt Act, as it respected the forty-shilling freeholders,
the boon to the.country at large, and no less so to
'o4;2forty-shilling freeholders themselves than to
V.Persous„ .What was the great evil of Ireland ?
a large, he might say an immense population,
%%Tut employment; and out of that body of men
'pe-7 4110E4 :those freeholders who, without inde-
'7fleeratoted according to.the wishes of those

who happened at the moment to have the most con-
trol over them. _

Lord FARNHAM intendeLl to propose a clause
in this Bill when it went into Committee, the effect
of which would be to produce the extension of its
provisions in the manner described by the Noble
Lord. He would not propose to raise the franchise
higher than it was at present, but he would have
the same investigating tribunals to decide on the
claims of the electors in towns as in counties. He
thought the machinery could as well be applied to
the former as to the latter.

The Earl of CAERNARVON would give his
vote for not going into the Committee if he believed
the principle of this Bill was one of spoliation; but
he did not think that the elective franchise, which
their Lordships were now about to deal with, was
a vested property, not disposable at the will of Par-
liament. He thought too that the retrospective
part of the Bi!1 was almost the best portion of it,
and that if it was made merely a prospective mea-
sure but little good would be done. At the same
time that he was thus favourable to the Bill, to a
great extent at least, and certainly favourable to the
chief object of it, there were provisions in it to
which he felt he must object. These were those
which affected the rights of persons who held small
freeholds in fee. There was one part of the Bill
which he thought pressed hard upon those whom it
might affect—he meant that clause which regarded
decisions of the assistant barrister, and which al-
lowed no appeal from his judgment. He thought
that clause ought to be altered.
The House then went into a Committee, and one
or two clauses were agreed to without discussion.
On the clause that the franchise should only be
vested in persons possessed of freehold property to
the amount of- 101. per. annum,
The Duke of RICHMOND proposed the inser-
tion of the following words—" That nothing in this
Act shall.be construed to extend to prejudice the
rights of those who were in actual possession of
bona fide freeholds of 405., previously to the passing
of this Act."

Earl DARNLEY opposed the Amendment.
Lord ORIEL was about to make some observa-
tions upon the rights which the freeholders in fee
had had since 1793, but he was informed that the
law relating to them would properly come under
consideration in the next clause, and he contented
himself with observing that the Irish freeholders in
fee were, most of them, in such a miserable condition,
that they would suffer nothing from the deprivation
of their rights. . . .

Lord CARBERY concurred in the measure it-
self, but not in the Amendment.

The Duke of HAMILTON was in favour of the
Bill, and could not reconcile himself to any captious
clauses in opposition to it.
Lord MALMESBURY opposed the Bill.

Lord PLUNKETT contended that this was not
a right of property, but a political right. The ob-
ject of the Bill in this instance was not to take away
the freehold, but to regulate the right. The former
exclusion of the Roman Catholics from Parliament
was the privation of a political right which it was
found ought to yield to expediency. So, in the in-
stance of the forty-shilling freeholders, the right
given to them must yield to expediency. In the
Acts of Union with Scotland and Ireland the num-
ber of Members was restricted, and several boroughs
in both countries were deprived of the right of voting,
and this without any saving of existing rights. The
principle of the Constitution is, not that you shall
bring the greatest possible number of votes at elec-
tions, but that the greatest possible number of free
and independent wills shall be congregated together
for such purpose. It was because he thought this
measure a most salutary measure of reform, inde•
pendently of its connection with the other measure,
that he supported it. He was no advocate of wild
arid theoretical reform ; but while he found reform
not only practicable but F,afe, he felt bound to advo-
cate it.

The Duke of RICHMOND thought that the
abuse complained of ought to be shewn to him be-
fore he was called.upon to legislate for its removal.
They were told that the forty-shilling freeholders did
not understand the value of their privilege. What
did their Lordships forget the election of Clare ?
(Hear, hear.)—Now the Irish were called untutored
savages—formerly they were called a fine, a gene-
rous, a magnanimous nation.—(Hear, hear.)—Their
Lordships must see the injustice they were about to
do. They were told that this Bill was coupled and
bound up with the other; but he called upon them
to do what was in itself right and just, without look-
ing to the consequences of such a vote.
Lord LONGFORD contended that the abuse of
the forty-shilling freeholders was so fully proved, that
it furnished abundant ground for supporting the pre-
sent Bill.

The Marquis of SALISBURY was opposed to
the motion, and contended that the elective fran-
chise was inseparable from the right of freehold, and
ought not to be separated from it.
Lord SIDMOUTH thought that no further evi-
dence of the abuse of the forty-shilling freeholds was
required to induce their Lordships to accede to the
present Bill. The measure would not only conduce
to the tranquillity and peace of Ireland generally, but
would materially conduce to the benefit of the forty-
shilling freeholders themselves.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord HOLLAND read a letter, in which the
manlier of getting forty-shilling freeholders was de-
scribed. In one instance it was stated a little man
was seen heading a party of Irish freeholders into
town, he being mounted on a wretched mule; he
held in his hand a whip, but the writer did not say
that he applied it to the voters; he, however, stated
that it must have been intended for them, as it was
much too long to be applied to the mule—(Loud
laughter.)—The Noble Lord, after a few additional
observations, concluded by supporting the motion.
The Earl of MALMESBURY wished to read
one sentence from the evidence on this subject given
by Daniel O'Connell, Esq. He stated, when ques-
tioned as to the forty-shilling freeholders in Ireland,
and the alteration to be adopted, that he felt it dif-
ficult to answer that question. The forty-shilling
freeholders in Ireland were differently placed from
those in England. There were in Ireland many
forty-shilling freeholders who held in fee simple, and
with these he .presum'ed the Legislature would not
meddle. These were the opinions of Mr. O'Con-
nell.

After a few words from the Duke of RICHMOND,
the amendmeNt was negatived.

The Duke of RICHMOND would not consent
to disfranchise the forty-shilling freeholders but
upon the most absolute necessity. The Noble and
Learned Lord on the cross-bench (Lord Plunkett)
had, on a former occasion, opposed this measure,
exclaiming, " Would the House carry the principle
to the length of disfranchising the freeholders of
England ?" He hoped the Noble and Learned
Lord would be consistent.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that the re-
sult of his inquiries had convinced him that there
was no class of freeholders to whom the Bill ought
to refer more than to that class which the Noble
Duke had described. Those people had acquired
the right of voting without possessing any title what-
ever to property. He had no doubt that his Noble
and Learned Friend would be able to explain what
had been imputed to him as an inconsistency.

The Earl .of NIALMESBURY differed from the
Learned Lord who had just sat down. The free-
holders alluded to were as much entitled to the pro-
tection of that House as any landholder of ten thou-
sand a-year. The freeholders had originally esta-
blished themselves on the mountains, as the poor of
England established themselves on commons. They
were an industrious body of persons, and their free-
holds were as perfect as any other.
Lord ORIEL said, that the freeholders were idle
and ignorant, and possessed the privilege of voting,
not in right of property, but only by an Act of Par-
liament passed eight years ago. It was no right
possessed by inheritance, but had been held only for
the short period of eight years.
Lord FARNHAM said that many of these free-
holds had been originally granted to the soldiers of

Cromwell. The right of voting bad not been given
by the Act alluded to by the Noble Lord; for that
Act had done no more than regulate the registry of
the freeholds and right of voting. The freeholders
upon the mountains were of the worst description;
they were little better than gypsies.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that it was ad-
mitted that the freeholders alluded to were most
corrupt; and as it was impossible to distinguish
them in the Bill, he could not consent to lose the
general benefit of the measure for the sake of pro-
tecting these people.
Lord PLUNKETT explained, that the passage
of his speech quoted by the Noble Duke (of Rich-
mond) had been used only in reply to an Honourable
Member who had refused to support the Bill, be-
cause it did not go far enough.
The Committee then divided—
Contents
Non- Contents
Majority
On our entering the House, we found the Duke
of 'WELLINGTON on his legs, addressing the
House upon the clause relative to the freeholders of
towns that were counties. He did not think that it
was necessary to extend the Bill to such persons. It
was not in the power of the House to curb or check
the freeholders in such places. There might be
great abuses in voting in such places ; and should
any Noble Lord bring in a Bill to prevent the evil,
he would pay every attention to it; but he did not
think it right that Government should interfere on
the subject.
Lord GORT thought that the evil could not be
prevented by any powers possessed by the Corpora-
tion themselves.

The cli.use vas then put and carried.
Upon putting the clause relative to the Registiy
of Freeholders,

Lord FARNHAM said, that the provisions of
the Act upon this subject were unconstitutional. He
should propose that the Assistant Barrister should be
associated with the Magistrates in the performance
of that duty, so that they might be a check on each
other.

The clause was then agreed to.
On the clause appointing the Assistant Barrister
to superintend the business of registration,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said—l ought to
apologise to your Lordships for expressing any opi-
nion on a subject in which a local knowledge of Ire-
land is necessary to form a correct opinion. It is
the object of his Majesty's Government, and we
have with great attention directed our attention to
the subject, in the endeavour to obtain the best pos-
sible tribunal to decide the question of right in the
ease of every freeholder in his claim of the elective
franchise. The result of that consideration and in-
quiry was, that it would be extremely injurious to
the lights and interests of the freeholders of Ireland,
to vest the power of decision in the local Magi-
strates; and I appeal to those Noble Lords who are
acquainted with Ireland, whether we did not come
to a correct dec:sion.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—lt then
occurred to us that the Assistant Barrister was the
best qualified to fill the office of Judge for this pur-
pose; and I think that every Noble Friend who is
acquainted with Ireland will concur with me in my
approbation of the fair, and impartial, and consi-
derate manner in which those who are appointed to
these situations do, to the satisfaction of the coun-
try, perform the important functions entrusted to
them. The Noble Lord remarks that they are paid
by the Crown, and that they are to be paid an addi-
tional sum for the duties they are to be called upon to
perform by this Act. Now I think he states that point
incorrectly to your Lordships. With respect to the
first registration, there can be no doubt that it will be
a great additional burthen and duty thrown on the
Assistant Barristers, and it was reasonable that
when a new burthen was so added, the new duty
should receive adequate remuneration. But there
is no provision for any pecuniary remuneration to
the Assistant Barrister for the future, and there-
fore I think the observations of the Noble Lord on
this point are not entitled to much weight. It is
provided by the Bill, that these Assistant-Barristers
and Judges shall take an oath to be faithful in the.
discharge of their duty. When they will have to
inquire into the freeholds of several hundreds of in-
dividuals, is it reasonable to suppose that they can
attain any object, even if they were disposed to do
so, by departing from the correct line of their duty ?
Besides, the registration is not done with a view to
any particular election, but to operate prospectively
for eight years. As to the right of appeal reserved
to parties whose claims are rejected, to the Judges
of Assize, the Noble Lord objects to it, because, he
says, it cannot be carried there under 3/. or 4/. I
have made inquiries as to this point ; and I find the
result of my information from professional persons is,
that the appeal will entail a very trifling expense.
The freeholders nearly all attend at the Assizes, and
their personal expenses would therefore be little,
and beyond them little more is necessary. The
whole proceeding is of a summary nature. I was
told as the result of my inquiry, that an appeal might
be conducted at an expense nor exceeding ten
shil-
lings. The Noble Lord objects to the appeal being
only in the cases of rejected freeholds. Suppose
that the Assistant Barrister should establish some
freeholds improperly, and put them on the register;
is this binding ? When the election comes, the can-
didate may object to the decision of the Assistant
Barrister, which is not final. If it were allowed to
appeal against the votes admitted, it would give rise
to contests of the most troublesome character. I
think, therefore, my Lords, there is no question as
to the propriety of the course that has been pursued,
and that no better mode of conducting the inquiry
could have been adopted; nor do I believe that any
better plan could have been suggested to give effect
to this measure.—(Cheers.)
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY agreed with
what had been said by other Noble Lords, that the
duties performed by the Assistant Barristers were
discharged in a most impartial and effective manner;
but there were particular situations or localities
where the came Assistant-Barristers always went to
the same county. This was particularly his own
case he might say, or rather that he was speaking of
a very near relative of his own, an individual who
had been the representative of a county in Ireland,
but was not so now, though it had happened that his
brother was appointed Assistant-Barrister of that
county. No doubt he was an honourable man, but
he thought that his going constantly into that county,
and registering the freeholders, was not strictly pro-
per; and he must view with suspicion any individual
so connected, lest he might be influenced by some
degree of partiality. He did concur in what the
Noble Lord had said as to the expellee of appeals.
Lord PLUNKETT—The Assistant-B-rristers
have been chosen, there can be no doubt, with pecu-
lair propriety, and the result is, that individuals fill
that office to whom no objections can be urged as to
their general conduct in the discharge of their duties.
The Noble Duke stated that the Assistant-Barrister
is removable at the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant,
and lie may be sent from one county to another ; and
the Noble Duke declared, that he had taken care
that such transfers should be made that no local pre-
judices should operate. With respect to the joint
aid of the County Magistrates, the great objec-
tion is, that the Assistant-Barristers were adopted
to provide against the very evil which the
Noble Lord proposes to reintroduce ; for it was
for this purpose the Assistant Barrister was
chosen, and the Magistrates excluded. • Besides
the Magistrate must be local in his jurisdic-
tion ; he must act in the county ; and if they did,
they could not go on with the inquiry ; for they
would know nothing useful to it, as they would not
be in habits of intimacy with the gentlemen residing
there, and would not be able to perform the func-
tions entrusted to them. lam glad I can put the
Noble Lord right as to this point ; lie did not hear
the explanation of the Noble Duke, and I am quite
sure, that finding this power left in the hands of the
Lord Lieutenant, he will be satisfied that the As-
sistant Barristers will discharge this duty with the
same degree of impartiality and justice as in all
other causes.

Lord FARNHAM said that a professional gentle-

man might give a good opinion as to the law of the
case, but he thought that the opinion of a tavern-
keeper would be a better opinion as to the probable
expense of an appeal. It would be no extravagant
supposition to place the law expenses alone at ten
shillings; but when the man had to travel forty or
fifty miles to the Assize town with his witnesses,
if they could avoid incurring a much greater ex-
panse, they must be the most economical people in
the world. The Noble and Learned Lord had said,
that the decision of the Assistant Barrister was not
final, and that if a freeholder was not admitted, that
error would be corrected at the next following elec-
tion. That he denied—in the first place, the Noble
and Learned Lord said it was to be corrected before
a Committee of the House of Commons, whete the
same process would- be gone through. He would
leave it to those Noble Lords who, before they
were Peers, had the misfortune to go before a
Committee of that House, whether by the present
law of Ireland the Sheriff had any power of inquiry
into the validity of a freeholder, or only into
the form ? By the Act of Parliament, the Sheriff
had the power of putting certain oaths to free-
holders; but speaking from recollection, he would
say, that the only means the Sheriff had of investi-
gating the validity of the freehold was the oath of
the freeholder himself. By the Act, certain queries
were prescribed. As to the payment of the as-
sesssors, he had prepared a clause for that purpose ;
for he took it as a general principle that services
done for the Crown should be done for a fixed sum,
and not left at the discretion of the Crown. He
had intended to move fourteen or fifteen amend-
ments ; but to save trouble, he did not feel disposed
to press them. Perhaps he had better not have told
their Lordships so.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY remarked
that the charge could not be vested in the County
Magistrates, but in the Assistant Barristers. If any
doubt would arise, the freeholder might appeal to
the Judge of Assize. There could be no apprehen-
sion of unfair decision.

Lord FARNHAM said, that all these arguments
proceeded on confidence, and not on principle.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, the elec-
tion law of Ireland was analogous to that of Eng-
land. He did not give a positive opinion on the
subject, and therefore he refrained from giving an
express contradiction to the Noble Lord.

Lord PLUNKETT rose to give what he trusted
would be a satisfactory explanation of the election
law of Ireland, which differed hardly at all from that
of England. He had not had the advantage of that
experience which the Noble Lord had said he had
dearly bought, and which was the more likely to
make a deep impression on him. He spoke too,
like the Noble Lord, merely on recollection. The
case in Ireland was this—that the Sheriff should
appoint a certain number of Assessors, who sat in
different booths, and by the Act of Parliament were
limited to put seven questions only to the free-
holders.— Beyond that the Assessor had no power
to go; but the Sheriff himself could institute an in-
quiry into the entire validity of the vote, and hear
evidence on the question. If the Assistant-Bar-
rister rejected a just claim, the vote might yet be
offered at the election to the Sheriff, who might de-
cide it; or in the House of Commons, before a
Committee. Therefore the Bill was right in each
respect.

The amendment was negatived, and the clause
agreed to.
On the clause respecting the appeal from the
Assistant Barrister to the Judge of Assize,

Lord FARNHAM intended to move an Amend-
ment, which he was certain would have been ad-
mitted, but that he believed there was a determina-
tion to carry the Bill without permitting any Amend-
ments to be made in it. It was, that when the ap-
peal was allowed, the freeholder should have the're-
gistry dated back to the same time as if it had been
originally admitted.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that would
be the case of course, at present. •
The clause was agreed to.

On a clause relative to the Oaths to be taken,

The Earl of hIOUN TCASHEL hoped the
Covenanters of the North of Ireland would be allowed
merely to give their affirmations, instead of taking
their oaths.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, the Cove-
nanters did not refuse to take oaths in our Courts
of Law. All they asked was the liberty of holding
up their hands.
On the clause stating the amount of the qualifi-
cation,
Lord FARNHAM wished to know whether this
was to be understood as the old currency of Ireland,
or the present currency of the United Kingdom ?
The LORD CLIANCE.LLOR said, it was, of
course, the currency passing by law when the Act
would commence.

The clause was agreed to.
The rest of the clauses were then agreed to,
without observation or amendment. The House then
resumed, the Report was received, and the Bill
ordered to be read a third time to-morrow (this day.)
Their Lordships then adjourned at a quarter
before Eleven o'clock.