FIVE REPORTS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 COMMITTEE 
 
 OF 
 
 THE PRECURSOR ASSOCIATION, 
 
 TO WHOM IT WAS REFERRED, 
 
 TO ENQUIRE AND REPORT 
 UPON THE RELATIVE STATE AND NATURE OF THE 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISES 
 
 AND 
 
 MODES FOR THEIR IDENTIFICATION 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 WITH 
 
 & HeJxtcattou to tyt Einslj people, 
 
 BY 
 
 DANIEL O’CONNELL, ESQ., M.P. 
 
 DUBLIN : 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY 
 
 RICHARD GRACE, BOOKSELLER, 45, CAPEL STREET. 
 
 1839. 
 

2 > 8 ' 7 ^ 
 
 TO 
 
 THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND. 
 
 “ Hereditary Bondsmen, know ye not, 
 
 “ Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow.” 
 
 FELLOW-COUNTRYMEN. 
 
 I am a Repealer. It is my deep and conscientious conviction, 
 that even if it were possible, that Ireland could be well 
 governed, by an Imperial Parliament, it is to the last degree 
 improbable, that she should be so governed. There are these 
 three obstacles to that Parliament, being competent to govern 
 us properly. 
 
 First, — The gross ignorance of the real state of Ireland, — 
 of the relations between the different classes of its people, — 
 and especially of the real intelligence, morality, and patriotism 
 of the humbler classes of the Irish population. 
 
IV 
 
 DEDICATION. 
 
 This ignorance does not consist merely in not knowing the 
 truth; it goes far beyond that, it is so “crass” to use a 
 modern coinage, that it actually consists of a belief in another 
 and quite different state of society, manners, and morals, 
 from that which actually exists. 
 
 Such ignorance, alone, would disqualify the Imperial Par- 
 liament from being able to give us good Government. 
 
 The second obstacle consists in the remnant, a large and 
 vivid remnant, of the ancient English antipathy, to the Irish 
 name and Nation. This sentiment consisted for many years of 
 contemptuous indifference, — it afterwards rose to malignant 
 hatred, and it now is composed of a somewhat mitigated, but 
 still powerful admixture of hatred and contempt. 
 
 The third obstacle is the most powerful of all. It consists 
 of good, sheer, substantial Protestant Bigotry, — a Bigotry, 
 Political, as well as Religious. I should rather call it a 
 Politico-Religious Bigotry, — the hatred of Popery, mixed 
 up with a strong and glaring apprehension, that Protestantism 
 would wither in Ireland, if justice were done to the Irish 
 People. This Bigotry places Protestantism in Ireland, in a 
 most unenviable position ; because it suggests powerfully and 
 distinctly, to the Irish Nation, that the Established Church 
 in Ireland, is the great and perpetual obstacle to having 
 justice done, and the rights and liberties of the Irish People 
 established, on a firm and constitutional basis. 
 
DEDICATION. 
 
 v 
 
 Add to these, the natural apathy of men, respecting the 
 affairs of others* It is not in human nature, that a number 
 of men should have the necessary zeal and activity to attend 
 practically to the affairs of others, as they would do to their 
 own. 
 
 It is quite true, and I readily admit it, that there are several 
 individuals in the House of Commons, sincerely and ardently 
 anxious for the welfare of Ireland. We have several patriotic, 
 intelligent and sincere friends in the Legislature ; constituting 
 in themselves, a party entitled to esteem, respect and grati- 
 tude, — but still, comparatively consisting of a miserable mi- 
 nority. Besides, Ireland is the battle-plain, upon which the 
 Tories fight their political contests. To the bigoted and ma- 
 lignant Tory party, every advantage obtained by the Irish 
 People, appears a triumph obtained over Tory policy,— 
 whilst that party exists, and comprises so much of the nobi- 
 lity, landed gentry, commercial aristocracy, and above all, 
 Clergy of the Established Church, there can be little hope for 
 Ireland. 
 
 With these opinions fixed on my mind, opinions the result 
 of long experience, minute observation, and much reflection, 
 I can entertain but little expectation of deriving any sub- 
 stantial benefits for Ireland, save by a Domestic Legislature. 
 Whether that Legislature shall be subordinate or supreme, is 
 quite another question, which I am not now to decide ; though 
 I am quite ready to admit, that even a subordinate Legisla- 
 ture, would produce great advantages to Ireland. The mode. 
 
VI 
 
 DEDICATION. 
 
 however, of obtaining either the one or the other, is by con- 
 vincing every dispassionate and rational man, that it is abso- 
 lutely impossible to obtain Justice, from the Imperial and 
 United Parliament. 
 
 It is with this view, that the following Reports have been 
 prepared. They demonstrate the flagrant and enormous in- 
 justice perpetrated against Ireland, by the Reform Act. The 
 laboured exclusion of the People of Ireland from the enjoy- 
 ment of an adequate Elective Franchise ; the painful contrast 
 between the Parliamentary suffrage, as it exists in England, 
 and that inflicted upon Ireland, — all the vexations which 
 accompany and surround every attempt on the part of the 
 People of Ireland, to register a vote, — and above all, the 
 contemptuous disproportion of Representatives between 
 Ireland and England. , 
 
 All these iniquitous oppressions are put forth in plain and 
 distinct language, in the following Reports. These Reports 
 will be placed in the hands of every Member of the British 
 Legislature, — and the result will demonstrate, whether the 
 People of Ireland are to submit to, or resist the continuance 
 of the present Legislative Union. 
 
 If Justice shall be done us, now we, of the present ge- 
 neration, are bound to submit to that Union. If Justice shall 
 be refused, the Irish People would be the basest of Slaves, if 
 they did not exert every energy in their power, by legal, 
 peaceable, and constitutional means, to obtain the Repeal of 
 the Union. 
 
DEDICATION. 
 
 vii 
 
 JUSTICE, or REPEAL — we offer the alternative — 
 we may be mocked and derided for the offer — it is made in good 
 faith, and we entertain no doubt, under the Blessing of God, 
 that Ireland will be able, without a crime, and without a stain, 
 to right herself, unless the British Parliament will do her 
 JUSTICE ! 
 
 We are near NINE MILLIONS ! ! ! — and the period is 
 gone by. when a Nation of Nine Millions, could be insulted 
 and degraded with impunity, and without redress. 
 
 I have the honour to be, 
 
 % 
 
 Your ever faithful and devoted Servant, 
 
 DANIEL O'CONNELL. 
 
 Merrion Square, 
 
 February 18tb, 1839, 
 
' . : r - 
 
 
 
 
FIRST REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 COMMITTEE 
 
 UPON THE 
 
 FRANCHISES IN COUNTIES. 
 
 Your Committee have most anxiously applied their attention, to 
 the subject thus referred to them. They feel its paramount im- 
 portance — the}' have been long, as individuals, aware of the 
 insulting manner, in which the Irish franchise was first restricted in 
 the year 1829? and the still more galling insults offered to the Irish 
 people, by the stinted and limited nature of the Reform Act conceded 
 to Ireland : but they have suppressed every impassioned feeling, 
 and have considered the subject with all the coolness and deliber- 
 ation, which a topic of such vital interest to the liberties of Ireland 
 demands. 
 
 In this Report, your Committee confine themselves to the consider- 
 ation of the county franchise. The new Parliamentary franchise of 
 cities and towns, will afford ample materials for a second Report. 
 
 The most striking feature in the deficiencies of the Irish Reform 
 Act, is afforded by the contrast between the Parliamentary franchises 
 enjoyed in England and Scotland, and those to which the people of 
 Ireland are entitled. To bring this matter, therefore, into as nar- 
 row a view as possible, we proceed to state what the English county 
 franchises are, 
 
 In England there are the following nine Parliamentary franchises, 
 or rights of voting in counties : 
 
 First — The franchise of 40s. freehold for a life or lives. This 
 franchise requires occupation. 
 
 Second — The franchise of 40s. freehold, arising from an estate 
 in fee-simple — that is, in perpetuity. This franchise does not re- 
 quire occupation. 
 
 Third — The franchise of 10/. clear yearly value, for a life or 
 lives, or in fee. This franchise does not require occupation. 
 
 F. 
 
2 
 
 FIRST REPORT 
 
 Fourth — The franchise of 10/. clear yearly value, in a copyhold 
 estate. This franchise does not require occupation. 
 
 Fifth — The original lessee or assignee of a term, originally of 
 sixty years or upwards, of the clear yearly value of 10/. This 
 franchise does not require occupation. 
 
 Sixth — The original lessee or assignee of a term, originally of 
 at least twenty-years, of the clear yearly value of 50/. This fran- 
 chise does not require occupation. 
 
 Seventh — The sub-lessee or assignee of a sub-lease of a term, 
 originally not less than sixty years, of the clear yearly value of 10/. 
 This franchise does require occupation. 
 
 Eighth — The sub-lessee or assignee of a sub-lease of a term, not 
 less originally than twenty years, of the clear yearly value of 50/. 
 This franchise requires occupation. 
 
 Ninth — Any tenant whatsoever, bona fide liable to a rent of 50/. 
 a year, whether he have any profit or not. This franchise does re- 
 quire occupation. 
 
 Thus then, in the counties in England, there are nine separate 
 and distinct franchises or rights of voting, of which no less than 
 seven were, for the first time, created by the English Reform Act. 
 
 Of these nine rights of franchise, no less than five do not require 
 that the voter should occupy the premises. There are only four 
 therefore, that require actual occupation, and one of these four is 
 the 40s. freehold franchise for a life or lives. 
 
 Your Committee further state, that whilst in the counties in 
 England, these nine rights of voting are enjoyed, thus extending 
 the franchise to such various classes of persons, there are but five 
 rights of voting in Ireland, and of these, the two principal require 
 actual occupation. 
 
 The five Parliamentary franchises for counties in Ireland are as 
 follow : 
 
 First — A freehold of the clear yearly value of 10/. This fran- 
 chise does require occupation. 
 
 Second — The lessee or assignee of a term, of not less originally 
 than twenty years, having a beneficial interest therein of the clear 
 yearly value of 10/. This franchise also requires occupation. 
 
 Third — A freehold of the clear yearly value of 20/. This fran- 
 chise does not require occupation. 
 
 Fourth — The lessee or assignee of a term, of not less originally 
 than sixty years, and having a beneficial interest therein of the 
 
ON THE FRANCHISE IN COUNTIES. 
 
 3 
 
 clear yearly value of 10/. This franchise does not require 
 occupation. 
 
 Fifth — The lessee or assignee of a term, of not less originally 
 than fourteen years, and having a beneficial interest therein of the 
 clear yearly value of 20/. This franchise does not require occu- 
 pation. But all sub-lessees, or the assignees of an under lease of 
 any of the above terms, do require occupation. 
 
 It is quite true, that they have given us a copyhold franchise, 
 simply because there are no copyhold tenures in Ireland. 
 
 Your Committee beg leave particularly to point public attention, 
 to the gross injustice of withholding from the people of Ireland, the 
 40s. freehold franchise, whilst that franchise is enjoyed by the 
 people of England and Wales ; thus enabling persons in the richer 
 country of the two, to vote upon the smaller qualification, and en- 
 hancing the qualification enormously to the people of the poorer 
 country. This contrast must strike every rational man, with the 
 strongest sense of injustice and oppression, and we despise the Irish- 
 man who does not feel indignant at such injustice. It is as insult- 
 ing as it is iniquitous. 
 
 It is true, that by the English Reform Act, the actual occupation 
 of any 40s. freehold, for a life or lives, is rendered necessary, in 
 order to enjoy the Parliamentary franchise, but the people of Ire- 
 land do not seek for the franchise in any other shape than that, in 
 which it is at present enjoyed by their English brethren. Equality 
 alone is that which they contend for. 
 
 Your Committee therefore deem it essential to the continuance 
 of the Union, that the 40s. franchise should be restored to Ireland. 
 There can be no indentification with England, without such a restor- 
 ation — for it must be always remembered, that the Union was 
 framed upon the basis of such a franchise. The constituencies of 
 sixty-four out of the 100 members allotted to Ireland at the Union, 
 consisted principally of 40s. freeholders, and the deprivation of the 
 rights to vote of those persons was, as far as they are concerned, 
 a direct repeal of so much of that Act. Let those, therefore, 
 who are anxious that the unrepealed residue of the Act of 
 Union should be preserved, show their respect for the provisions of 
 that statute, by restoring this most important feature in it to its 
 original state. 
 
 Your Committee also insist, that the Irish people are entitled to 
 the restoration of the 40s. franchise in fee, which does not require 
 occupation. This franchise also existed in Ireland at the time of 
 
4 
 
 FIRST REPORT 
 
 the Union, and its restoration therefore is essential to the duration 
 of that measure, as it is to an equalization of rights between the 
 English and the Irish people. 
 
 Your Committee further remark, that there are the following 
 differences also existing, between the English 10/. freehold franchise, 
 and the 10/. freehold franchise in Ireland. 
 
 First — That no 10/. Freeholder in England need attend the re- 
 gistry, or make any proof of his title, unless his right to register shall 
 have been publicly objected to, and a specific notice of such ob- 
 jection served upon him. 
 
 In Ireland every 10/. Freeholder must attend, and prove his case, 
 and be liable to a cross-examination upon oath, and he must also pro- 
 duce his title deeds, or account upon oath for their non-production. 
 
 Secondly — The occupation of the premises by the voter is not 
 necessary for a 10/. freeholder in England. Fie is entitled to re- 
 gister, although he never was in possession, provided he received 
 one half year’s rent ; and he is entitled to vote the moment after 
 being registered. 
 
 On the contrary, in Ireland the 10/. freeholder must have been 
 in the actual occupation of the premises, for six months, previous to 
 registry, and he cannot vote for six months after registry. 
 
 Thirdly — The English 10/. franchise has this additional advantage 
 over the Irish, that any number of joint tenants, tenants in common 
 or in coparcenery, may register in England, provided the property 
 be of sufficient value to give to each, a clear profit of 10/. a-year. ^ 
 
 Thus in England, on a freehold tenure of 30/. a year, each of 
 the three joint tenants, or tenants in common, may register his 
 vote ; whereas in Ireland, according to most decisions, upon a 
 similar tenure of equal value, no person can register a vote ; nay, 
 no matter what the extent of the value of the property may be, 
 if the lands be held in joint- tenancy, or tenancy in common, sub- 
 sequent to 1823, no person in Ireland can register a 10/. vote out 
 of such a tenure. Thus the English 10/. Freeholder has enormous 
 advantages over the Irish. In fact, ten times the number of 10/. 
 freeholders may exist, and be qualified to vote in a county in 
 England, that can be qualified to vote in an Irish county, though 
 the wealth and population of each may be the same. 
 
 We select one example. There may be five hundred 10/. free- 
 holders in a county in England, not occupying, but receiving the 
 rents of the premises, and five hundred more, resident or occupy- 
 ing freeholders, having each 10/. profit over their rents, who may 
 
ON THE FRANCHISE IN COUNTIES. 
 
 5 
 
 also be qualified to vote ; and it is even true, that in England, both 
 classes may be so qualified out of the self-same lands and premises, 
 but no such thing is practicable by the Irish law. 
 
 Your Committee dwell upon this subject with the more anxiety, 
 to draw public attention to it, because it demonstrates at once upon 
 how broad a basis the English franchise is placed, when compared 
 with the narrow, stingy, and stinted basis of the Irish franchise. 
 We by no means intend to say, or suggest, that the English fran- 
 chise is sufficiently extensive — on the contrary, we deem a further 
 extension of franchise in England absolutely necessary. Rut we 
 merely contrast its present extent, with the still more limited nature 
 of the Irish franchise, thus showing how much more the Irish have 
 to complain of, than the English. 
 
 In short, the English Reform Act is intended to increase and ac- 
 cumulate the number of voters. The Irish Reform Act, on the 
 contrary, was drawn up with the concealed and distinctly dis- 
 avowed, but real desire to restrict and limit the elective franchise, 
 and to exclude from the right of voting, as many of the Irish people 
 as possible. 
 
 This plan, so derogatory to Ireland, as to make the Irish 
 Reform Act as limited and as unsatisfactory as possible, was carried 
 into effect under the management of Lord Stanley, whose hatred 
 to the people of Ireland is the most conspicuous feature of his con- 
 spicuous character, and by the instrumentality of the then Solicitor 
 General for Ireland, Mr. Crampton. 
 
 It is now quite manifest, that this learned gentleman, now Mr. 
 Justice Crampton, contrived, by some mistake or other, to draw 
 the Irish Bill in a manner, so little consistent with the instructions 
 which he received from the Cabinet, that he has himself, as a judge, 
 pronounced an opinion, that the construction of the Act is directly 
 opposite to that, which the ministers intended by their instructions 
 to him. 
 
 The point upon which this contradiction arises, relates to the 
 value of the 10/. franchise ; and your Committee are in a position 
 to prove, that Mr. Solicitor General Crampton distinctly stated, 
 that he had in this respect, complied with the instructions he had 
 received, although his own opinion now is, that the instructions to 
 which we now allude, have not been complied with. 
 
 To make this matter more easily understood, it is our duty to 
 bring public attention to the construction which several of the Irish 
 judges are reported to have put upon the Irish Act, with respect to 
 
6 
 
 FIRST REPORT 
 
 the mode of calculating the value of the property, comprised in the 
 franchise. 
 
 This is a matter of vital importance, as such construction actually 
 raises the pecuniary value of the franchise, to one of 20/. a year 
 value or thereabouts, instead of the 10/. franchise intended by the 
 Legislature. 
 
 The first Act which introduced the 10/. franchise into Ireland, was 
 the 10th of Geo. IV. ch. 8, and which was the first Act that in- 
 troduced the present form and mode of Registry into Ireland. 
 
 By the 6th section of that Act, it was made necessary for the 
 claimant, to entitle him to register, to prove, beside his title and 
 occupation of the land, that a solvent and responsible tenant could 
 afford to pay, fairly and without collusion, for his premises, the 
 annual sum of 10/. as an additional rent; and in the affidavit 
 which the claimant was bound to make, upon being declared en- 
 titled to register, he was, by the 6th schedule of the 10th Geo. IV. 
 ch. 8, made to swear in these words, “ and that a solvent and re 
 sponsible tenant could, as I verily believe, afford to pay for the 
 said premises, as an additional rent, fairly and without collusion, 
 the annual sum of 10/. over and above all rent, to which I am liable 
 in respect thereof.” 
 
 It was easily perceived, that the rent which a solvent tenant 
 could pay, over and above the rent payable by the claimant, was not 
 a fair test of the profit arising in due course of husbandry out of 
 the lands, to the occupying tenant ; because any solvent tenant who 
 paid, for example, 10/. a-year more than the rent payable by the 
 claimant, would and ought to realise out of the premises, by due 
 course of husbandry, an additional or further profit ; and such 
 additional profit, though bona fide produced by the land, and 
 though a bona fide income to the person in possession, was not, ac- 
 cording to the 10th of George IV. to be taken into calculation at 
 all, in estimating the value of the 10/. franchise. And in like man- 
 ner the actual profit and income derived by the claimant, fairly 
 and bona fide out of the lands, was not to be taken into consider- 
 ation, though it should amount to 10/. a year. Nay, though it 
 should be greater than 10/. a year, unless it were so much greater, 
 as to induce a solvent tenant to pay an additional rent of 10/. a 
 year, with a fair prospect of obtaining his natural agricultural 
 profit from the additional advance. 
 
 The oppressive effect of this franchise, as established by the 8th 
 of George IV. was so universally felt, that it was one of the mis- 
 
ON THE FRANCHISE IN COUNTIES. 
 
 7 
 
 chiefs which required Reform, and, accordingly, in the Irish Reform 
 Act, 2d and 3d Wm. IV. chap. 88, the words introduced to de- 
 scribe the 10/. franchise were, “ having a beneficial interest in the 
 premises, of the clear yearly value of not less than 10/. over and 
 above all rent and charges.” 
 
 It is further to be observed, that the 10th of Geo. IV. was re- 
 pealed by the 2d and 3d Wm. IV. in every thing that related to the 
 Registry, and in the new Registry, there was nothing said of what 
 a solvent tenant would or could pay ; and, instead of proving any- 
 thing respecting a solvent tenant, the claimant, in addition to proof 
 of his title, was directed to prove the property in respect of which 
 he sought to be registered, to be “ of the value and nature by this 
 Act prescribed and in the schedule to the Reform Act, (see sche- 
 dule C, No. 6,) the affidavit for Registry, under the Reform Act, is 
 set out in substance, the same with the affidavit in the 10th of Geo. 
 IV., save in this one most important particular, namely, that the 
 words relating to what a solvent tenant could pay, are totally 
 omitted. 
 
 It was upon this point, that the then Solicitor General Crampton 
 stated, that he had complied with the instructions of the Cabinet, to 
 make the “ beneficial interest” the test of the 10/. value. It is 
 said, however, that Mr. Justice Crampton has given on the bench, 
 an opinion — we know not whether judicial or extra-judicial — that 
 the “ beneficial interest” was not made the test of the value of the 
 franchise, under his own Irish Reform Bill. Whether it be true, that 
 he gave such an opinion or not, is, after all, uncertain ; but it is 
 quite certain, and part of history, that he solemnly assured a 
 Cabinet Minister, that he had in that Bill, made the “ beneficial 
 interest” the test of the franchise. 
 
 We submit that the propriety of the tept of value, for which the 
 Irish people have so often in vain contended, is elucidated by the 
 Scotch fteform Act ; for the Parliamentary franchise in coun- 
 ties in Scotland, is upon an equally liberal foundation, as it is 
 extended to “ all persons, who are owners of any lands or tenements 
 in the county, of the yearly value of 10/. and which shall actually 
 yield, or be capable of yielding that value to the claimant, above 
 feu duty or rent, or other considerations which he may be bound 
 to pay for the same.” 
 
 We cannot quit this subject without referring in terms of pro- 
 found respect and admiration, to the very able and lawyer-like 
 
8 
 
 FIRST REPORT 
 
 judgment, of that most learned and dignified judge, Mr. Baron 
 Richards, in the case of a person of the name of Feigney, decided 
 by him at the Sligo summer assizes, for 1837 — a judgment, which we 
 think, ought to have set the question at rest, in the mind of any 
 impartial and enlightened lawyer. But as it has not done so, there 
 is no doubt that a perfect case is made by the Irish people, for 
 legislative relief. 
 
 If such a case for relief had been made for the English or the 
 Scotch people, it is manifest that the Legislature would set the 
 matter right. For even the House of Lords itself, however indis- 
 posed to improve the provisions of the Reform Act, even in England 
 or Scotland, could not long resist the demand of Englishmen or 
 Scotchmen, for justice in so plain a matter. But we are bound to say, 
 and we state it with poignant regret, that the people of Ireland 
 have no present chance or prospect of relief, even in the plainest 
 case. 
 
 The House of Lords is doggedly determined against any conces- 
 sion of franchise, or of popular rights, to the Irish nation ; and 
 in the House of Commons, Toryism and religious bigotry prevailed 
 to such an extent, that even in that House, the greatest impediments 
 are likely to be placed in the way, of any rational improvements of 
 our situation. 
 
 Your Committee, therefore, call upon the people of Ireland to 
 bestir themselves. Nothing but the unanimous voice of an insulted 
 nation, can make our claims heard and attended to. 
 
 The result of the injustice done to the people of Ireland by the 
 restriction of the elective franchise, is made manifest, by a contrast 
 between the population of the several counties in England, and the 
 number of registered voters therein, with the population and num- 
 ber of registered voters of the different Irish counties. We take 
 our statement of numbers from the Parliamentary papers, and by 
 comparing the least populous counties in England with the most 
 populous in Ireland — Westmorland and Cork, for instance, we find 
 the following result : — The rural population of Westmorland is 
 43,464, and its number of registered voters after the Reform Act, 
 amounted to 4,392. Nearly one out of every ten inhabitants. 
 Whereas, in the county of Cork, the population is 703,716, and 
 the number of electors registered after the Irish Reform Act, was 
 only 3,835, being scarcely one out of every two hundred of the 
 inhabitants. 
 
ON THE FRANCHISE IN COUNTIES. 
 
 9 
 
 We ask, therefore, is this to be endured ? 
 
 Here is Westmorland, with less than one-fourteenth of the popu- 
 lation of Cork, and yet it has an absolute majority of 557 registered 
 voters ! Is this to be called reform ? 
 
 Again, take the county of Bedford, with a rural population of 
 88,524 inhabitants ; its registered voters under the Reform Act were 
 3,966, whilst Antrim, with a population of 316,909? had only 
 3,487 registered voters — that is, Bedford had an absolute majority 
 of nearly 500 voters over Antrim, notwithstanding the enormous 
 disproportion in the number of its inhabitants. 
 
 Hertford, with a population of 95,977 inhabitants, had 5,013 
 registered voters, while Galway, with 381,564 inhabitants, had 
 only 3,061 electors. 
 
 Rutlandshire, the smallest county in England, with only 19,385 
 inhabitants, had 1,296 voters, while Longford, with 112,558 inha- 
 bitants, had only 1,294, absolutely two less than Rutlandshire. 
 
 Again, Huntingdon, with a population of 47,779 inhabitants, 
 had 2,647 voters, while Donegal, with a population of 289,149? 
 had only 1,448 voters ; and Limerick, one of the wealthiest coun- 
 ties in Ireland, with an opulent agricultural population of 248,801 
 inhabitants, had only 2,565 electors. 
 
 Nay, even the Isle of Wight, with only 28,731 inhabitants, had 
 1,167 voters, while Mayo, with 366,328 inhabitants, had only 
 1,350 voters, and Protestant Tyrone, with a population of 310,000 
 inhabitants, had only 1,151 electors, absolutely 16 voters less than 
 the Isle of Wight. 
 
 The Island of Anglesea also, with a population of only 33,508 
 inhabitants, had 1,187 voters; while Kildare with 108,424 inhabit- 
 ants, had only 1,112 voters ; and Kerry with 265,126 inhabitants, 
 had only 1,161 voters, just 26 voters less than Anglesea, and 6 less 
 than the Isle of Wight. 
 
 Even if we compare the largest counties in both countries, 
 Yorkshire, with an agricultural population of 913,738 inhabitants, 
 and Cork, with a population of 703,716, we will find that the 
 English county had 33,154 electors, while the Irish one had only 
 3,385. 
 
 We find, therefore, that England, in her rural population of 
 8,336,000 inhabitants, had 344,564 county voters, while Ireland, 
 in a similar proportion of 7,027,509 inhabitants, had only 60,607 
 registered electors. 
 
 Your Committee state, that they have taken these numbers from 
 
 c 
 
10 
 
 FIRST REPORT 
 
 the Parliamentary papers, which contain an account of the registry 
 immediately after the Reform Act ; but this is the manner calculated 
 to give the most favourable view of the number of Irish voters, 
 because, at the first registry, the facilities for obtaining registra- 
 tion, were infinitely greater than since that period. Few objections 
 were taken by the Orange party, and scarcely any by the popular : 
 and at that period, the quibbles as to value, were scarcely urged 
 at all. The difficulties which have since been raised, and so much 
 cherished by Tory decisions, were not at that time, opposed to the 
 claimant. We are thoroughly convinced that, upon a general re- 
 registry, not more than one- third of the number of persons would be 
 allowed the franchise, though upon a fair and just construction of 
 the statute, they w r ould be entitled thereto. Thus, unless a de- 
 claratory Act, or a further extension of the suffrage becomes law, 
 the voice of the people of Ireland, in a legitimate mode of Par- 
 liamentary representation, will be stifled, and the people will be 
 driven to other courses, which we anxiously deprecate, because 
 they must be dangerous to the peace and tranquillity of the 
 Empire. 
 
 If it shall be said, that the smaller number of voters in Ireland, 
 is a proof of the comparative poverty of that country, when con- 
 trasted with England, let it be conceded, that it is such proof : 
 then this follows, as an inevitable consequence, that it is essentially 
 iniquitous to raise the amount of the qualification for the franchise 
 in the poorer country, to a higher rate than in the richer one ; and 
 this iniquity is the more obvious, because the franchise qualification 
 is, in some instances, twenty times, or, at the very least, ten times 
 higher in the poorer country, Ireland, than it is in the richer 
 country, England. 
 
 Your Committee also draw attention to this fact, that if, by the 
 property qualification, it is intended to produce an independent 
 class of electors, the man in Ireland, with five pounds a year clear 
 profit, is in a state of greater comparative independence, than a 
 man in England with ten pounds a year ; so that upon every view 
 of the question, Ireland is wronged, and insulted, and ill-treated, 
 and degraded — and it is in vain for statesmen to prattle about the 
 solemnity and sanctity of the Union, because there is no Union but 
 slavery and oppression, as long as the English Tories support and 
 maintain the present system. 
 
 We will not further pursue this disgusting contrast. As far as 
 the law can go, it is a virtual exclusion of the people of Ireland 
 
ON THE FRANCHISE IN COUNTIES. 
 
 11 
 
 from the right of representation ; and we cannot avoid again saying, 
 that we must deem the man base indeed, who would regard the Union 
 complete, or'practically think that there was any Union at all, when 
 this debasing contrast between the mode of legislating for both 
 countries, is presented to the view. 
 
 Your Committee have now to suggest, that petitions, signed by 
 the adult population of Ireland, should be presented to Parliament, 
 requiring an identification of the Parliamentary franchise in the 
 counties of England and Ireland, by extending to Ireland, all the 
 county franchises which England now enjoys, and by extending to 
 England, the chattel franchise of 10/. a year, on a tenure of twenty 
 years, as expressed in the Irish Reform Act; 
 
 It will be said— -for falsehood is the natural ally of injustice — 
 that the Irish Catholics consented to abandon the 40s. franchise, 
 as a consideration for obtaining the Emancipation Act of 1829- 
 This has been said before, but we brand it as a total and foul 
 falsehood ; so far from it being true, the fact is directly the reverse. 
 There were in London, during the passing of the Emancipation 
 Act, sixty-three Catholic noblemen and gentlemen, members of the 
 Catholic Association, then lately dissolved, and who attended in 
 London as the virtual delegates and representatives of the Catholic 
 body. As soon as the Bill for annihilating the 40s. franchise was 
 brought into the House of Commons, these noblemen and gentle- 
 men held a meeting at the Thatched House Tavern, in St. James’s- 
 street, and unanimously agreed to petition Parliament, against the 
 disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders. That petition was drawn 
 up by one of the present members for the City of Dublin, and it 
 actually called emphatically upon the House of Commons, totally to 
 reject the Emancipation Bill, rather than disfranchise the 40s. free- 
 holders; and that petition stated, that the Catholics of Ireland 
 would prefer remaining un-emancipated, to the accepting of Eman- 
 cipation, upon the terms of such disfranchisement. 
 
 That petition was presented to the Blouse of Commons, by the 
 present Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Spring Rice, and can, 
 of course, beTound in the printed journals of that House. 
 
 It is quite true, that in 1825, an alteration in the 40s. franchise, 
 arising from precarious tenures, might have been assented to ; but 
 even then no one thought of the extinction of that franchise alto- 
 gether, and it was this agitation of the matter in 1825, that caused 
 the Delegates of 1829, to place the sentiments of the people of 
 
12 
 
 FIRST REPORT. 
 
 Ireland on this subject, on perpetual record, by their expression 
 of abhorrence of any disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders. 
 
 There is, therefore, no pretext for any compact, express or implied, 
 upon the subject ; nor, indeed, were there adequate parties to form 
 any such compact. 
 
 The Act of 10th Geo. IV., c. 8, to annihilate the 40s. franchise 
 was passed, not with the consent, but with the express reprobation 
 of the Catholics of Ireland, and the claim of the Irish people to an 
 equalization of the franchise is rendered only the more strong, by 
 reason of the generous rejection of any political advantage, as pur- 
 chaseable by a sacrifice of popular rights. 
 
 Your Committee cannot close this, their first Report on the Par- 
 liamentary franchise, without emphatically calling upon all that is 
 honest and independent amongst the men of Ireland, to rally with 
 us in our distinct demand for “ Justice to Ireland” in this particular ; 
 and let that man who shrinks from the present duty of endeavour- 
 ing to render the Union, in this respect, complete, be assured, that 
 he will be stamped with infamy, in the case of the Irish people 
 being hereafter driven to seek the Repeal, if he, who now shrinks 
 from aiding our efforts, shall then be found impeding those, whoever 
 they may be, who may then seek for that at home, which has been 
 refused to them abroad* 
 
 Signed, 
 
 DANIEL O’CONNELL, 
 
 Chairman of the Committee. 
 
SECOND REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 COMMITTEE 
 
 ON THE 
 
 J/rantfjtse in Attics, ©ofcms autt Bovottgfjs, 
 
 Your Committee having at considerable length, and they trust, 
 with sufficient distinctness, detailed the unjust and insulting nature 
 of the conduct of the Imperial Parliament, in limiting, and almost 
 annihilating the Parliamentary franchise in the Irish counties, now 
 proceed in this, their Second Report, to shew, that the same spirit 
 prevailed in the enactments regulating that franchise, in our cities, 
 towns and boroughs. 
 
 Your Committee beg leave to state, that in Ireland, before 
 the passing of the Reform Act, there were in the open towns and 
 boroughs in Ireland, five distinct classes of voters. 
 
 1st. — Freeholders of 40s. holding in fee simple or perpetual estate. 
 
 2nd. — Freeholders of 40s. for a life or lives. 
 
 3rd. — Freemen by right of birth, servitude, or marriage. 
 
 4th. — Freemen by grace especial. 
 
 5th. — Persons occupying houses of 51. annual value. 
 
 Your Committee cannot repress their just indignation, when they 
 state, that of these franchises, four have been annihilated by the 
 Reform Act, and the only one preserved is that of Freemen by birth, 
 servitude, or marriage — the most obnoxious, as we shall shew, in 
 its practical results, of any franchise that could well be imagined— 
 the nuisance of Freemen by grace especial always excepted. 
 
 We ought, perhaps, to observe in passing, that, the Freemen by 
 grace especial, and the 405. freeholders if residents, were preserved 
 for the lives of the persons entitled thereto, and in existence at the 
 time of the passing of the Reform Act. 
 
 Your Committee complain bitterly of the fact, that although by 
 the Irish Reform Act, as it passed the House of Commons, the four 
 rights of the 405. Freeholders and of Freemen were preserved during 
 
14 
 
 SECOND REPORT ON THE 
 
 the lives of persons then qualified, but were not to be renewed or con- 
 tinued to any other persons, yet the Duke of Wellington in the 
 House of Lords, at the instigation of the faction hostile to his native 
 country, having insisted, that the Freemen by birth, servitude, and 
 marriage, should be preserved in Ireland ; Lord Grey, with ready 
 complacency assented, but did not insist, that the resident 40s. 
 Freeholders should be equally preserved. Thus giving a decided 
 advantage to the Orange faction, who were already in possession of 
 the Corporations, and enabling them to commit the gross and flagiti- 
 ous frauds, which we shall detail more at length hereafter. 
 
 It will be observed, that there are two classes of cities and towns 
 that come within the scope of our present Report. 
 
 The first class consists of the cities and towns in England and in 
 Ireland, that are counties in themselves. Secondly, cities and towns 
 that are not counties, and in the word “ towns,” we mean to include 
 all boroughs. 
 
 Let us take the first class in England, which comprises a great 
 number of cities and towns, and there are the following Parliament- 
 ary franchises in them. 
 
 1st. — Freeholders of 40s. annual value, for a life or lives as in 
 counties — this franchise requires actual occupation. 
 
 2nd. — A Freehold in perpetuity of 40s. value — this does not re- 
 quire actual occupation. 
 
 3rd. — The enjoyment of certain tenures, called Burgage tenures, 
 without any reference to value — this franchise does not require 
 occupation. 
 
 4th. — Occupation of any house, ware-house, counting-house, 
 shop, or other building , of the clear yearly value of 10/. — this 
 franchise requires occupation. 
 
 5th. — Freemen admitted in respect of birth or servitude. 
 
 In the Irish counties of cities and towns, the two first of these 
 franchises are annihilated, that is, the two classes of 40s. freeholders 
 — it is perfectly manifest therefore, that a great number of voters 
 are thus destroyed. 
 
 The third class, namely, the holders of Burgage tenures, never 
 existed in Ireland. It follows, therefore, that there is an entire 
 class in England, to multiply the comparative number of voters 
 there ; and there are two classes more, which were preserved in the 
 favoured country, England — but were destroyed in Ireland — thus 
 creating another of these odious contrasts which make the flesh 
 
FRANCHISE IN CITIES AND BOROUGHS. 
 
 15 
 
 creep, at perceiving the vile injustice done to the Irish people, by 
 depriving them of rights, which their English neighbours enjoy. 
 
 Your Committee emphatically call upon those who are for con- 
 tinuing the Legislative Union between both countries, now to say, 
 whether they will acquiesce in this degrading disparity of franchise, 
 or come forward now to assist this Society, in procuring that 
 equality, without which there may be a nominal, but cannot be a 
 real Union. 
 
 Having specified the franchises in the English counties of cities 
 and towns, we proceed to mention those in similar places in Ireland. 
 They are these — 
 
 1st. — 10/. freeholders — this franchise requires actual occupation. 
 
 2nd. — Leaseholders of a term originally of 20 years, of the value 
 of 10/. a year — this requires occupation. 
 
 3rd. — Householders, occupying any house, ware-house, counting- 
 house, or shop, of the clear yearly value of 10/. — this franchise 
 requires actual occupation. 
 
 Your Committee desire to bring the attention of the Irish public 
 to this important fact, that the third of these three franchises in- 
 cludes the other two— each of the three requires actual occupation, 
 and 10/. annual value — so that it really is an impudent attempt at 
 delusion, to create nominally three franchises, as if a great boon 
 was offered the Irish, while, in reality, there is but one ; and, there- 
 fore we shall treat them but as one, and justly denominate as the 
 second franchise. 
 
 2nd. — The freehold of the clear yearly value of 20/., which 
 franchise does not require occupation ; and as the 
 
 3rd. — The lessee or assignee of a term, originally of 60 years, 
 of the annual value of 10/., which does not require occupation. 
 
 4th. — The lessee or assignee of a term of 14 years, of the annual 
 value of 20/., which does not require occupation. 
 
 5th. — Freemen admitted in respect of birth, servitude or marriage. 
 
 These are the entire of the Irish franchises, in cities and towns. 
 We may remark that such of these property franchises as require ac- 
 tual occupation, are those likely to be in the hands of the poorer 
 classes, while in those that are more valuable, either by a greater dur- 
 ation of the term, or by the encreased annual income being in the 
 hands of wealthier persons, their owners are exempt from the bur- 
 then of actual occupation. Thus affording another contrast, even in 
 Ireland itself, between the harshness exhibited towards the poorer 
 classes, and the accommodation afforded to the richer. 
 
16 SECOND REPORT ON THE 
 
 We now proceed to the other class of cities and towns, namely, 
 those which are not counties in themselves — these are commonly 
 called boroughs. 
 
 In England the rights of voting in boroughs, are as follow, 
 
 1st. — 10/. Householders requiring occupation. 
 
 2nd. — Freemen by birth and servitude. 
 
 In Ireland also, there are also two franchises in boroughs — 
 
 1st. — 10/. Householders requiring occupation. 
 
 2nd — Freemen by birth, servitude, or marriage. 
 
 We should, however, observe that another right to vote seems 
 to have been worked out by judicial decisions. It is that of the 12 
 or 13 burgesses which formed the Parliamentary constituency in 
 each of the boroughs instituted by James the 1st, no less than 40 
 of which were created by him in one day. 
 
 This addition, of course, is unfavourable to the Irish people, and 
 the importance of such an addition will appear, when we come to 
 consider the extreme paucity of electors in our boroughs. 
 
 Your Committee next deem it their duty to designate the points, 
 in which the Reform Act of England has been more favourable to 
 English cities and towns, than the Irish Reform Act has been to those 
 in Ireland. We will follow the classification already adopted, and 
 will begin with cities and towns which are counties in themselves. 
 
 The advantages of the English over the Irish are these— 
 
 1st. — The admissability of large classes of voters as AOs. Free- 
 holders. 
 
 2nd — The encrease of such voters, by it not being necessary to 
 occupy the premises when held in perpetuity. 
 
 3rd. — The persons possessed of Burgage tenures, and who can 
 register and vote without occupying the same. 
 
 Let it be remembered, that England, though the richer country, 
 has these three class of voters in its cities and towns being counties, 
 whilst the last of them never was in existence at all in this country. 
 The other two were in existence in Ireland, but were taken away 
 by the iniquitous Act of the 10th George IY. and were not re- 
 stored by the Irish Reform Act at all. 
 
 4th. — The 10/. freehold franchise in counties of cities or towns 
 in England, does not require actual occupation ; whereas in Ireland 
 it does require actual occupation, and requires that such occupation 
 should be continuous. 
 
 It is manifest, therefore, that this distinction of the necessity of 
 occupancy in Ireland, and its being dispensed with in England, tends 
 
FRANCHISE IN CITIES AND TOWNS. 
 
 17 
 
 to increase the number of voters, and the facility of voting in En- 
 gland, and in the same proportion, to diminish them in Ireland. 
 
 We should here introduce the subject of joint-tenancy, but that 
 we shall have to speak of it, in treating of the constituencies of 
 boroughs ; as also, of another difference respecting the nature and 
 description of the premises, which give the occupation vote to 
 resident Householders. 
 
 We also reserve for further consideration, the injury that is 
 suffered by the Irish constituencies, by the interposition of the 
 preserved Freemen. 
 
 Your Committee come next to the consideration of the constitu- 
 encies in the boroughs in England and in Ireland ; especially as 
 relates to the 10/. Householders, who ought to form the effective 
 constituencies of these boroughs. 
 
 The English, in this particular, have the following advantages — 
 
 1st. — That the premises, which in England give the franchise, 
 consist not only of a house, ware-house, counting-house, or shop, 
 to which they are limited in Ireland, but expressly include any 
 other building whatsoever. 
 
 Now it would be difficult to estimate a priori , the difference 
 which the omission of the term “ other building ” has made in the 
 Irish borough registries. Tory Assistant-Barristers have held, that 
 corn-stores, and provision-stores, nay, even manufactories of every 
 kind, were not “ ware-houses ,” under the meaning of the Act. 
 
 It has also been held, that stables, belonging to coach and car- 
 owners, do not confer a right to vote under the Irish Act, though 
 they would clearly under the English one ; and the argument for 
 rejecting the claims of the owners to register, has been fortified by 
 the fact, that the words “ other building” were included in the 
 English, and excluded from the Irish Act. 
 
 The second great advantage which the English 10/. Householders 
 possess over the Irish, consists in this — that the actual occupation 
 prior to registry, by the voter, need not be continuously in the 
 premises, out of which he seeks to vote, but may be in any pre- 
 mises of similar value within the borough. 
 
 In Ireland, on the contrary, the claimant must occupy conti- 
 nuously the same identical premises, for six months prior to, and for 
 six months after the registry, before he can vote ; any change of 
 residence during that time, deprives the claimant of the right to 
 register, or of the right to vote. 
 
 D 
 
18 
 
 SECOND REPORT ON THE 
 
 The third advantage which the English 10/. householders have 
 over the Irish, consists in this, that in England, joint occupiers of 
 houses, or other sufficient premises, can register and vote, if the 
 value of the premises, when divided by the number of occupants, 
 gives 10/. to each. By this means partners, however numerous, 
 may become electors, and the joint occupancy, for the purposes of a 
 lucrative trade, augments the number of voters for an English bo- 
 rough, in the ratio of partnerships carrying on business within 
 that borough. It is quite the reverse in Ireland— none of the 
 persons in joint occupation can become an elector, by virtue of 
 premises so held. 
 
 Suppose in England premises are held in a borough, of the clear 
 value of 50/. a year, by a firm consisting of five partners, each 
 of them can register, and become an elector. But in Ireland 
 not one of them could become an elector ; nay, if only two part- 
 ners held premises in Ireland, worth 1000/. a year, neither one nor 
 the other of them can register. 
 
 This is a monstrous inequality between the two countries, and 
 gives a proportionate advantage to England over Ireland, which is 
 utterly inconsistent with an Union between them. 
 
 The fourth, and the greatest difference between the boroughs in 
 England and Ireland, consists in the rate paying clauses — 
 
 In England the 10/. householder can register, and vote, upon 
 payment of two taxes — 
 
 First — The poor rates — and 
 
 Secondly — The assessed taxes. 
 
 He has an easy access to the rate books of the collector of both 
 these taxes — he can have no difficulty in making the payment of 
 them — they are always receivable without any inconvenience. 
 
 But in Ireland the case is widely different. The 10/. Householder, 
 especially in the cities, is liable to the payment of a number of 
 taxes, before he can register, or vote, including Grand Jury Cess. 
 
 In Dublin, for example, there are the following rates, which 
 must be paid before registry, and afterwards before voting : — 
 
 1st. — Grand Jury Cess. 
 
 2nd — Paving and Lighting Tax. 
 
 3d. — Pipe Water Tax. 
 
 4th — Wide Street Cess. 
 
 5th. — Police Tax. 
 
 One great inconvenience attending these taxes is, that they are 
 uncertain in their amount, depending very much upon antient 
 
FRANCHISE IN CITIES AND TOWNS. 
 
 19 
 
 valuations, and pressing most heavily therefore, upon streets, and 
 houses in streets, that were formerly occupied by the wealthier 
 classes, but which are now inhabited by the poor and struggling 
 members of society. 
 
 Again, there is a difficulty in ascertaining the exact amount of 
 several of these taxes ; instead of pressing for payment, the col- 
 lectors frequently allow them to run into arrear, so as to embarrass 
 the franchise, and at the approach of a registry, or of an Election, 
 great difficulty is experienced in finding out to whom, or where these 
 taxes are to be paid. 
 
 To meet this last difficulty, a clause was introduced into the Irish 
 Municipal Reform Bill of the last Session, enabling the rate payers to 
 deposit the amount of these taxes in the Bank of Ireland, to the 
 credit of the collectors. 
 
 This clause, so reasonable and so just, was of course struck out 
 in the House of Lords, because it would facilitate the registry of 
 Irish Electors. 
 
 Another great difficulty as to these taxes arises from the fact, 
 that in an immense number of instances, the owner of the tene- 
 ments are the persons assessed by name, and bound to pay the 
 taxes, without any contribution from the occupying tenants, except 
 in the shape of an increased rent, and several of the owners have 
 divided what was formerly one tenement, and continued to be 
 assessed as such, into several houses. 
 
 Under these circumstances, almost inextricable difficulties arise 
 in the way of the occupants becoming electors, and there can be no 
 doubt, that hundreds and thousands of persons, are thus precluded 
 from enjoying the Elective Franchise. 
 
 These undertenants are called upon to prove, that the taxes of the 
 entire tenement are paid, tho’ each of the claimants for registry may 
 occupy a house, being only part of such tenements ; and this proof 
 they have it not in their power to make. 
 
 Another difficulty arises thus — suppose some of such occupiers of 
 houses, as we have last alluded to, may discover the amount of the 
 taxe£ due by their landlords, and may be both able and willing to 
 pay those taxes, in order to entitle themselves to register or vote ; if 
 they make such payments voluntary , that is, without compulsion, 
 or a threat of compulsion, they cannot, in point of law, stop the 
 amount out of their rents, or compel the repayments by their 
 landlords. 
 
20 
 
 SECOND REPORT ON THE 
 
 These difficulties and vexations are not a little enhanced by the 
 mistakes of Registering Barristers, who seldom shew any disposi- 
 tion to facilitate the registry of voters in town and cities. 
 
 It certainly does appear to your Committee, that several of these 
 difficulties are created without warrant of law ; but it is vain to 
 complain, or to expect any alleviation, without an enactment ex- 
 pressly removing these impediments. And yet, why should your 
 Committee hold out any hope of Parliamentary Relief, in the pre- 
 sent disposition of the House of Lords, and of the House of 
 Commons. There is no prospect but that of aggravating and en- 
 creasing the present difficulties ; there is no genial, generous, or 
 friendly disposition towards Ireland : on the contrary, there is a 
 repugnancy, and a hostility, which can be encountered only by a 
 unanimous combination of all that is liberal and enlightened in this 
 country. In fact, we believe, that Ireland and the Irish People 
 would be more favourably treated by the Turkish Divan, or Russian 
 Senate, than by the great majority of the British Parliament, 
 
 Your Committee again call attention to the fact, that before the 
 Reform Act, there was a franchise in such of the Irish boroughs as 
 were open, enjoyed by occupants of each house of 5/. annual value 
 Let it be recollected, that in England, no property franchise what- 
 soever was destroyed or taken away. The Reform Act in England 
 left in existence all the former franchises, and encreased and 
 augmented them, but not so in Ireland. This 5/. franchise was 
 taken away, yet it is perfectly manifest, that if justice was intended 
 to this unhappy country, the 5/. household franchise, instead of being 
 taken away from the boroughs, in which it existed, would have been 
 extended to all. It would have been the proper franchise for the 
 Irish boroughs. It is ridiculous, to the highest degree of absur- 
 dity, to give a 10/. household franchise to London, and to 
 Ennis and Athlone at the same time, and to call such a system, 
 equality of franchise ; indeed, it does savour of the ridiculous, to 
 give the same property qualification to London, and to the smaller 
 boroughs in England and Scotland. 
 
 The consequence of all these defects in the Irish Reform Act is, 
 that the disproportion between the number of electors in English 
 and Irish cities and boroughs, when compared to the relative po- 
 pulation, is as great as in the counties. For we find from the same 
 returns, that after the Reform Act, Exeter, with a population of 
 27,932 inhabitants, had 3,426 voters — Hull, with 46,746 inhabit- 
 ants, had 4,275 electors, while Waterford, with a population of 
 
FRANCHISE IN CITIES AND TOWNS. 
 
 21 
 
 28,821 inhabitants, had only 1,278 electors, being in the ratio of 
 3 to 1. 
 
 Again, comparing the largest cities and boroughs in Ireland, 
 with the smaller ones in England, we find the following results : 
 
 Worcester, with a population of 27,313 inhabitants, has 2,608 
 voters, while Limerick, with a population of 66,554 inhabitants, 
 has only 2,850 electors. 
 
 Chester, with only 21,363 inhabitants, has no less than 2,231 
 voters, while Belfast, the wealthiest and most commercial city in 
 Ireland, with 53,000 inhabitants, had only 1,926 electors. 
 
 The city of Cork, with 110,000 inhabitants, had only 3,650 
 electors, including the non-resident Freemen, while Newcastle 
 upon Tyne, with a population of 42,260 inhabitants, has 4,952 
 voters. Preston, with a population of 33,112 inhabitants, had 
 4,204 electors— both of them more than Cork, which last city 
 has more than treble the number of inhabitants, of either of the 
 other two; and Bristol, with 104,338 inhabitants, not equal to 
 the population of Cork, has 10,347 voters, being three times 
 the constituency of the Irish City. 
 
 If too we compare the smaller boroughs in both countries to- 
 gether, we find that those which barely escaped schedule A, with 
 populations varying from 2 to 3000 inhabitants, have more electors 
 than the boroughs in Ireland, retained by the Act of Union, with 
 from 10 to 12,000 inhabitants. 
 
 For example, Wallinford, Launcestown, Wareham, Arundel, 
 have all under 3,000 inhabitants, while the electoral constituencies 
 in all exceed 300 voters. However, in Athlone and Bandon, with 
 over 10,000 inhabitants in each, the voters do not exceed 250, and 
 in many others, such as Kinsale, Coleraine, and New Ross, the 
 available constituency falls far short of 200 voters. 
 
 If also we compare the metropolitan constituencies of both coun- 
 tries, where an equality in household value may be expected, we 
 will find that Dublin, with a population of 210,000 inhabitants, 
 had only 9,081 voters, including all the bad Freemen lately manu- 
 factured by the Corporation, while the city of London, with a po- 
 pulation of only 122,000 inhabitants, had 18,584 electors, and only 
 17,315 houses above 10/. value. 
 
 Nothing can more clearly illustrate the disadvantages under which 
 the Irish cities labour, with respect to the 10/. household fran- 
 chise, than the comparison of the number of houses of 10/. a year 
 
22 
 
 SECOND REPORT ON THE 
 
 clear value in London, and the number of electors upon that qua- 
 lification, with the number of similar hduses in Dublin, and of 
 similar electors. 
 
 These facts appear from Parliamentary returns. The number of 
 10/. houses in the City of London are 17,315, and the number of 
 electors appear to be 18,584 ; whilst in Dublin, the number of houses 
 of 10/. value, according toSherrard’s valuation, amounted to 14,105, 
 while the number of electors only amount to 9,081. Thus in the 
 City of London, there are more electors than 10/. Householders, 
 whereas in the City of Dublin, the aggregate of electors does not 
 amount to within one- third of the number of 10/. Householders. 
 
 Your Committee have no document by which they could state 
 how many of the electors in London are Householders, neither do 
 the Parliamentary Papers shew, how many of the Dublin electors 
 are 10/. Householders. But there is a most important fact elicited 
 at the last election, that although every possible exertion was made 
 to poll out the constituency, yet the Poll Books gave this result of 
 10/. Householders, that there voted for the Sitting Members 1,830 
 — for the Orange Candidates 652 — making a total of 2,482. Of the 
 Leaseholders and Freeholders 1,590 voted for the Sitting Members, 
 and 1,065 for the Orange Candidates — making together 2,655 
 Leaseholders, Freeholders — and in all 5,137 property voters. 
 
 Now several of the Freeholders could not possibly be included in 
 the 10/. household franchise ; but taking the entire 5,137 to inhabit 
 houses of the clear yearly value of 10/. at the least, and deducting 
 that number from the 14,105 houses of more than 10/. value, it 
 leaves 8,967 houses in Dublin, of more than 10/. annual value, not 
 giving one single elector, that is, within 33 of 9,000 houses. 
 
 Thus your Committee shew, that speaking in round numbers, 
 the 10/. household franchise, which might produce 14,000 electors, 
 does not produce more than 5,000, and that there are 9,000 such 
 houses not producing one single elector. 
 
 Your Committee are bound to add, that there is abundant evi- 
 dence, that the public documents relative to the City of Dublin, fall 
 very short of the real number of 10/. houses in Dublin. The valuation 
 by Sherrard did not extend all over the city. The entire inhabitants 
 of Dublin in 1831, were, 265,316. Sherrard valued the houses 
 of 204,153 only. The valuation of the difference between the two 
 has been made under the Police Act. There is no official return of 
 the number, but we have evidence to shew, that the additional 10/. 
 
FRANCHISE IN CITIES AND TOWNS. 
 
 23 
 
 houses exceed 6,000 — making in all, more than 20,000 houses of the 
 value of 10/.; so, that the real deficiency of 10/. Householders is 
 much greater than that shewn by the Parliamentary Papers, there 
 being, in fact, only one-fourth of the number of 10/. Householders 
 registered as electors, out of the entire number ; that is, 5,000 
 electors out of 20,000 houses, capable of conferring the franchise. 
 
 They submit, that nothing can more clearly demonstrate the 
 hardships and vexations which intervene, to prevent the Registry of 
 10/. householders in Dublin, than the simple statement of numbers 
 thus given. 
 
 It will be observed, that we have omitted entering into details 
 respecting the Freemen ; a class of voters affording the greatest 
 facility for an augmentation, by fraudulent contrivances ; but the 
 subject is too important, and the frauds are too complicated not to 
 require a separate Report ; and accordingly, your Committee beg 
 to obtain authority to make such Report, for which they conceive, 
 that they have abundant materials. 
 
 Your Committee, however, cannot close without recommending, 
 that some of the Irish Members of Parliament should bring in a 
 Bill to equalize the franchise in cities, towns, and boroughs, in both 
 countries — to extend the freehold franchises to Irish cities and 
 towns, precisely as they exist in the English cities and towns — to 
 extend also to Irish cities and towns the 10/. household franchise, 
 with respect to occupation previous to Registry, and above all, to 
 joint-tenants, and tenants in common, precisely as they exist in 
 English cities and towns — to extend the franchise to 5/. House- 
 holders in all the smaller boroughs in England and Ireland ; and to 
 do away in cities, towns and boroughs, in both countries, the rate 
 paying clauses, and all the consequent vexation and difficulty 
 attendant upon them. 
 
 This last suggestion, we deem of the utmost importance, as well 
 to England as to Ireland. 
 
 Signed, 
 
 DANIEL O’CONNELL, 
 
 Chairman of the Committee. 
 
THIRD REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 COMMITTEE 
 
 on 
 
 THE PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE 
 
 ENJOYED BY FREEMEN 
 
 IN CITIES AND TOWNS. 
 
 Your Committee beg to draw public attention, in the first place, 
 to the state of the Parliamentary franchise enjoyed by Freemen, in 
 cities and towns in Ireland, prior to the Reform Act. 
 
 There were two classes of such Freemen. The first class con- 
 sisted of persons who had a right to their freedom, by reason of 
 birth, servitude, or marriage. This class, upon proving the facts 
 which constituted the right, could not legally be refused to be ad- 
 mitted and sworn in. If any refusal took place, they could apply 
 to the Court of King’s Bench for a Mandamus, and could thus en- 
 force their rights. In short, in the towns in which these rights 
 existed, they were like all other legal rights, accompanied by dis- 
 tinct and adequate remedies ; there is no such thing known to our 
 1 aw, as a right, without a remedy. 
 
 The second class of Freemen consisted of persons who had no 
 right to the freedom, but possessed claims to the favour of the 
 Corporators. These persons, if refused, could not enforce their 
 freedom — they depended altogether on the good will and bounty of 
 the Corporators, and were generally denominated “ Freemen, by 
 grace especial.” 
 
FRANCHISE IN CITIES AND TOWNS. 
 
 25 
 
 These two classes did not subsist in many of the cities and towns, 
 returning Members to Parliament — that is, in some there were both 
 classes, but in most there was only one, that by “ grace espe- 
 cial” 
 
 In Limerick, and in Cork, there existed, for example, the two 
 classes — Freemen by right, and Freemen by grace — both, after being 
 admitted and sworn in, could vote for Members of Parliament 
 The Freemen of right, could vote immediately after their admission 
 was complete. The Freemen by grace, could not vote until six 
 months after their admission was complete. This distinction was 
 made by an Irish Act of Parliament. 
 
 We have stated, that in Limerick, and Cork, and some other 
 towns, both classes of Freemen subsisted, and familiar instances 
 have occurred, in which persons having the right to their freedom, 
 for example, in Limerick, by birth, servitude, or marriage, and in 
 Cork, by birth or servitude, enforced these rights, and compelled the 
 Corporation, by process of law, to admit and swear them in, after 
 the Corporation had refused to do so. 
 
 On the other hand, take the cases of Youghal and of Dublin. 
 Several years ago, in Youghal, persons claimed their freedom, some 
 by birth, and some by servitude ; and having been refused admis- 
 sion, they applied to the Court of King’s Bench for Writs of 
 Mandamus. The writs issued, and proceedings were had thereon ; 
 the question on each was tried by a jury, and verdicts were given 
 against the right, upon which final judgment was entered up, record- 
 ing the solemn decision of the Court of King’s Bench, that no such 
 right existed in Youghal. 
 
 Similar decisions have recently taken place in Dublin. It has been 
 solemnly decided by the Court of King’s Bench, that no person can 
 compel the Corporation of Dublin to grant him his freedom. A 
 person, although the eldest son of a Freeman, although he may be 
 married to the daughter of a Freeman, and although he may have 
 served a regular indented apprenticeship of seven years, to a Freeman, 
 cannot compel the Corporation to admit him to his freedom. It is 
 decided, that in Dublin, the son, or apprentice, or husband of the 
 daughter of a Freeman, has no species of remedy, if the Corporation 
 think fit to refuse him his freedom. It follows therefore, of inevitable 
 necessity, that no right to the freedom can exist, because, as we 
 have said before, there is not in our law, and cannot be any such 
 thing as a legal right, without a legal remedy, in case of its 
 violation or refusal. 
 
 K 
 
26 
 
 THIRD REPORT ON THE FRANCHISE 
 
 Your Committee, in further elucidation of this acknowledged 
 state of the Law, with respect to the right of freedom by birth, 
 servitude, or marriage, in the Corporation of Dublin, before the 
 passing of the Reform Act, are in possession of an order made by 
 the House of Commons in the year 1831, “ for a return of the num- 
 “ ber of Freemen created in each Corporate Town in Ireland, return- 
 “ ing Members to Parliament, from the 1st of April, to the 20th July 
 “in said year, 1831 ; distinguishing those who had been declared 
 “ entitled to their freedom as of right to which order a return was 
 made by the Town Clerks, the proper Officers of the Corporation, 
 in these words : — 
 
 “ Dublin City. 
 
 “ Number of Freemen created in the City of Dublin, from the 
 “ 1st April to the 20th July, 1831 — 20 Freemen.” 
 
 And the return proceeds to state, in these words : — “ The Cor- 
 “ poration of Dublin do not declare any Persons entitled 
 “ to their Freedom, as of Right. The Freemen created by 
 46 the Corporation of Dublin, during the above period, are alone 
 “ qualified to vote for the return of a Member of Parliament. 
 
 “ Signed, 
 
 “ GREEN & ARCHER, 
 
 4t Town Clerks, 
 
 “ Corporation of Dublin.” 
 
 This return is of the utmost importance ; it shews, that the Cor- 
 poration of Dublin, deliberately asserted to Parliament, pending the 
 Reform Bill, that no right existed in that city, to the freedom thereof, 
 and that it was only such persons, as the Corporation should think 
 fit to grant their freedom to, at their discretion or caprice, that 
 could then enjoy the elective franchise as Freemen. 
 
 Your Committee have further to state, that it is still distinctly 
 asserted by the Dublin Corporation, that no person can compel the 
 Corporation to grant him his freedom ; nay more, that there are 
 two bodies, each of which has the absolute power to prevent any 
 person they please from becoming a Freeman. The two bodies 
 are, the Board of Aldermen, and the Common Council. The Board 
 of Aldermen can reject the claim of any person they please to his 
 freedom: TheCommon Council can also reject the claim of any person 
 they please to his freedom ; nay, one of these bodies may admit the 
 claim, and consent to a person getting his freedom ; but even after 
 
OF FREEMEN IN CITIES AND TOWNS. 
 
 27 
 
 that, the other body can reject the claim, and prevent the person 
 from being admitted a Freeman. 
 
 In short, there is this anomaly in the City of Dublin, that in 
 other towns, if one governing body consents to admit a man 
 to his freedom, it is sufficient, and his claim to be sworn in, is estab- 
 lished ; but in Dublin, the party must go through two ordeals, be- 
 fore two separate and distinct bodies, and must have a majority of 
 each in his favour, before he can be sworn in as a Freeman. 
 
 This is the most plain and clear proposition, that in the City of 
 Dublin, no person can have a right to his freedom by birth, by 
 servitude, or by marriage, because it is quite clear, that each of the 
 governing bodies have a distinct right to reject the claim, however 
 well founded, and indisputable in point of fact ; there cannot pos- 
 sibly be in our law such an anomaly, as that one man shall have 
 a right to his freedom, and another man, or set of men, a right to 
 prevent his obtaining his freedom ; the right to reject, and the right 
 to obtain, are utterly inconsistent ; and as the right to reject, cer- 
 tainly exists in Dublin, it follows, of inevitable necessity, that the 
 right of the claimant does not, and cannot, exist. 
 
 We have been thus particular, on account of the gross and 
 abominable frauds committed in the City of Dublin, by the manu- 
 facture of Freemen since the Reform Act. 
 
 The mode in which these frauds are perpetrated is this— by the 
 ninth section of the Irish Reform Act, 2nd and 3rd Wm. IV. ch. 88, 
 it is provided, “ that all persons who, by reason of birth, marriage, 
 or servitude, shall be admitted to their freedom, in any city, town 
 or borough, sending Members to Parliament, shall have and enjoy 
 such right of voting, as fully as if that Act had not passed and 
 it is also, in the same section, further provided— 
 
 “ That no persons who shall thereafter be admitted as Honorary 
 Freemen, shall be entitled, by virtue of such admission, to vote or 
 register as a Freeman, under that Act.” 
 
 Thus the Legislature, made the clear distinction between those 
 who had a right to freedom, and those who could obtain it only as 
 a favour. The Legislature totally took away from the Corporation 
 the power of making Freemen, at their discretion or caprice: re- 
 cognizing at the same time, and continuing the other class of 
 Freemen, namely, those who having a legal right, by birth, servi- 
 tude, or by marriage, could enforce that right in a Court of Law. 
 
 This right was not taken away, but the discretionary power of 
 Corporations was expressly abolished. 
 
28 
 
 THIRD REPORT ON THE FRANCHISE 
 
 It is perfectly clear, that the object of the Legislature was, to 
 prevent the Corporations from selecting their own partizans, and 
 giving them the Elective Franchise exclusively. 
 
 It would, indeed, be an absurd species of Reform, to allow in 
 corporate towns, Householders to vote, and at the same time to 
 permit the Corporations to swamp the Householders altogether, by 
 making persons, without property, and without a legal right, Free- 
 men, and thereby Electors. 
 
 A question has been raised, as to the meaning of the words — 
 “ Honorary Freemen” — -but your Committee conceive, that such 
 meaning is perfectly obvious* It includes, necessarily, all persons 
 who are liable to the caprice or discretion of the Corporators for 
 their freedom ; it means, all those who may be rejected, or ad- 
 mitted, at the will and pleasure of the Corporators, and it is con- 
 tradistinguished from, and contrasted with, persons having a legal 
 right to freedom, by birth, servitude, or marriage, and who can 
 enforce their right against the will, and in defiance of the Cor- 
 poration. 
 
 The construction put upon these words, however, by the Cor- 
 poration, is actually ludicrous. They state, (and this is proved by 
 the evidence of their Town Clerk,) that they conceive the Reform 
 Act instituted new modes of creating Freemen ; that is, enabled 
 the Corporations to make as many persons Freemen, capable of 
 being Parliamentary Electors, as they could trace any connexion 
 between, and any person who was a Freeman, before the 
 passing of the Reform Act, leaving them, at the same time, the 
 unlimited power of rejecting the claim of any person, whom they 
 should think fit to reject. Thus keeping it in their power, to make 
 a selection of their own friends and partizans, and to reject all 
 those, of whose Coincidence of opinion with themselves, they may 
 entertain any doubt or suspicion* 
 
 The Dublin Corporation have accordingly acted in the most 
 wanton and profligate manner, in accumulating the number of 
 Freemen in their own interest. They have admitted, by right of 
 birth, not only the sons, but the alleged grandsons, and great- 
 grandsons of persons, who were Freemen before the year 1831 ; 
 and without any reference in the case of sons, as to whether they 
 were born before, or after the parent became a Freeman. They 
 have also admitted persons, as Freemen by servitude, who never 
 were indented apprentices at all, and other persons, who served 
 apprenticeships in London, and other towns. They have, in addi- 
 
OF FREEMEN IN CITIES AND TOWNS. 29 
 
 tion, introduced a right to freedom, by marriage, although it is 
 avowed, that before the passing of the Reform Act, no such right 
 was ever heard of, and was never even stated in the petition to the 
 Corporation, commonly called “ a Beseech” presented by persons 
 seeking for the favour of being admitted Freemen. 
 
 It cannot be denied, that this claim, by marriage, was never 
 heard of in the Corporation of Dublin, until after the passing of 
 the Reform Act. 
 
 In the Corporation of Dublin, therefore, it stands thus : — 
 
 A man may be the eldest son of a Freeman, and claim his freedom 
 as such. If the Corporation consider him a person devoted to their 
 party, they will admit him in right of birth, and he will be allowed 
 to register and vote for a Member of Parliament ; but if he be of 
 liberal principles, or even he or his family suspected of any such 
 principles, he will certainly be rejected. 
 
 In this manner the creation of these fictitious votes has multiplied 
 enormously in Dublin ; and the spirit and letter of the Reform Act 
 have both been grossly violated. The object of the Reform Act 
 was to give a property qualification to the Electors, hence the 10/. 
 Householders were the lowest upon the scale of value. The Free- 
 men as of right, were afterwards introduced into the Act, but then 
 it was but reasonable to suppose, that the Legislature considered 
 the legal right, as standing in the place of property. 
 
 Your Committee have to add, that the point, as to the validity of 
 the votes of such Freemen, came directly before the last Committee, 
 upon the Petition against the return of the present Sitting Members 
 or the City of Dublin. It arose thus : — About 90 Freemen, who 
 had been registered as such, claimed to be entitled to vote at the last 
 Election, though registered for a shorter time than six months. 
 Before that Committee, the Town Clerk of the City of Dublin was 
 examined upon his oath, and there was an unanimous decision of 
 the Committee against the validity of these votes, thereby deciding 
 that such Freemen were not entitled, by right of birth, servitude, 
 or marriage ; and thus, in fact, ruling, that the Corporation of 
 Dublin are creating fictitious votes, under the pretended rights of 
 birth, servitude, or marriage ; but, notwithstanding this decision, 
 and in utter contempt of it, the Corporation continue to create such 
 fictitious votes. 
 
 Your Committee regret to be obliged to state, that the legal 
 authorities in Ireland, have not obtained much of the public confi- 
 dence, by their decisions upon election cases. We should dwell 
 
30 
 
 THIRD REPORT. 
 
 longer on this painful and melancholy subject, but, that in a future 
 Report, we shall have to go at greater length, into the defects and 
 evils of the system of Registry of Votes in Ireland. 
 
 We cannot conclude however, without emphatically calling the 
 attention to this extraordinary fact ; that in a city, like Dublin, 
 four-fifths of the inhabitants of which are Roman Catholics, who 
 include amongst them persons of rank, fortune, mercantile, legal, 
 and scientific eminence, not one single Catholic has ever been 
 admitted to the freedom of this City, although admissable to that 
 freedom, in point of law, for the last forty-seven years ! ! This is a 
 proof of practical bigotry, which we trust has had few examples, 
 and we earnestly hope, will have no imitators. 
 
 Your Committee, therefore, are convinced, that without a de- 
 claratory law, these gross frauds will continue to be perpetrated, to 
 the manifest injury of the bona fide constituency of the City. 
 
 Signed, 
 
 DANIEL O’CONNELL, 
 
 Chairman of the Committee. 
 
FOURTH REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 COMMITTEE 
 
 UPON THE 
 
 Patftmweutavg Ivcpvcscntattou of Ewlantf. 
 
 Your Committee do not hesitate to say, that the greatest prac- 
 tical injury and injustice to Ireland, resulting from the manner in 
 which the Union was carried, consists in the inadequate Represen- 
 tation of the Irish people, in the United Parliament. 
 
 Our present object is to prevent the necessity of applying for a 
 Repeal of the Union Statute, by causing the most prominent 
 grievances to be redressed, arising from the enactments of that 
 law ; and we beg leave emphatically to repeat, that the greatest of 
 these grievances, is the want of a sufficient number of Irish Repre- 
 sentatives in the House of Commons. 
 
 Upon every question interesting to Ireland — upon every question 
 involving the rights, liberties, or franchises of the Irish people — the 
 Irish members are swamped by the hostility and bigotry, principally 
 of the English and Welch ; and even those whose dispositions are 
 not so adverse, are prevented, not only by their prejudices, but 
 much more by their ignorance, from being capable of legislating 
 properly for Ireland. 
 
 Let these two things be recollected — first — That the franchise in 
 Ireland is so restricted and limited, that the Isle of Anglesea, with 
 28,000 inhabitants, has a greater number of registered voters, than 
 several of the largest counties in Ireland, containing a population 
 each of them, of upwards of 300,000 inhabitants. 
 
32 
 
 FOURTH REPORT ON THE 
 
 Secondly — That the number of the Representatives of the Irish 
 people is, in a frightful degree, less than in the English counties, 
 and enormously less than our just and adequate proportion. 
 
 At the time of passing of the Act of Union, England had 513 
 members, and Scotland 45, making together 558. 
 
 The patricidal Castlereagh having, by intimidation and corrup- 
 tion of the most profligate kind, obtained a majority in the Irish 
 Parliament, left the terms of the Union to the dictation of the 
 English minister, and of the then rampant Tory faction in England — 
 a party which, in good fortune, or under adverse circumstances, has 
 never varied in the intensity of its hatred of the Irish people. 
 
 Pitt was in fact the Dictator, because he was the mouth-piece and 
 oracle of that faction, and the terms which he dictated, as to the 
 the representation, were these — 
 
 First — He took the Irish population at much less than one-half 
 the population of England — that is, in fact, at only two-fifths. At 
 that time, there was no actual census of the population of either 
 country. The subsequent enumerations have shown, that the ratio 
 of population in Ireland, instead of being two-fifths only of that in 
 England, is in fact, more than two- thirds ; and, according to the 
 fraudulent statement of the population by Pitt and Castlereagh, the 
 Irish people were at the Union, allowed for relative population, as 
 one of the ingredients of the calculation, only 202 members, instead 
 of the number they ought to have been allowed upon that item, 
 considerably exceeding 300. 
 
 Second — The next item in the calculation in the number of the 
 Irish members, was the relative exports of the two countries ; and al- 
 though the exports of Ireland at that period, when Ireland supplied the 
 British forces in almost every quarter of the Globe, equalled at 
 least, if not exceeded, two-fifths of the exports of England, yet 
 Pitt and Castlereagh took them at only about one-fifth, and gave 
 Ireland upon that ratio — that is, the ratio of exports — a right to 
 only 100 members. 
 
 Third — The third item to make out the Pitt and Castlereagh 
 calculation, was the relative amount of imports ; and in this the 
 fraud was probably much greater, certainly as great, for Ireland 
 was allowed in the ratio of imports, for 93 members only. 
 
 Fourth — The only additional item allowed, was the comparative 
 revenue of the two countries ; and upon this head, Ireland was most 
 egregiously defrauded, because the calculation was made upon 
 a supposition, that the revenue of Ireland, did not amount to any- 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION. 
 
 33 
 
 thing like one-twelfth of the then revenue of England ; and, accord- 
 ingly Ireland was allowed upon this item, a ratio of only 39 
 members. 
 
 Fifth — There was one item left out of the calculation, which 
 ought certainly to have been introduced, if fairness or justice was in- 
 tended — namely, the comparative rental ; and this item was omitted 
 for no other reason, than that it would have made the balance ap- 
 proach to justice, and have given to Ireland nearly 50 additional 
 members, as the result of the entire five items. 
 
 The manner in which Castlereagh made out the whole of this 
 calculation, will be shown by the following scale, drawn up by him, 
 and exhibited to the Irish Parliament. That scale is as follows : — 
 
 For Population, 
 
 — Exports, 
 
 — Imports, 
 
 — Revenue, 
 
 MEMBERS. 
 .. 202 
 .. 100 
 .. 93 
 
 .. 39 
 
 434 
 
 The mean of these quantities gave 108 ^4 5 so that, according to 
 Lord Castlereagh’s own calculation, Ireland, even then had a right 
 to more than 108 members. This was most fraudulently lower than 
 the proper number 5 but Pitt and Castlereagh, who exaggerated 
 towards Ireland every injustice, struck off at their good will and 
 pleasure, nearly one-eleventh of the entire — and, instead of 108 to 
 109 members, allowed to Ireland but ONE HUNDRED ! 
 
 We hazard nothing in saying, that among the most atrocious 
 violations of justice, public or private, nothing can exceed, and 
 scarcely anything equal this wrong, taken altogether, done to our 
 country. 
 
 Even at the time of the Union, the gross injustice of Castlereagh’s 
 calculations, was demonstrated by a gentleman, who had been many 
 years in the Irish Parliament — a man of honest intentions, and of 
 great political and scientific knowledge, Mr. Newenham. He de- 
 monstrated, that the calculation ought, upon Castlereagh’s own 
 principles, to have been made thus : — that is, that Ireland ought 
 to have — 
 
 F 
 
34 
 
 FOURTH REPORT ON THE 
 
 For Comparative Population, 
 
 MEMBERS. 
 
 228 
 
 — Exports, 
 
 179 
 
 — Imports, 
 
 168 
 
 — Revenue, 
 
 85 
 
 — Rental, 
 
 186 
 
 
 846 
 
 The mean of these five quantities is 169% ; and thus, upon the 
 principle of the Union, Ireland ought to have had 169 members. 
 Those who talk of adhering to the Union at all hazards, should be 
 called upon to respect its principles. Consenting at present to that 
 Union, the Irish people are entitled to the benefit of its principle, 
 and nothing can be more degrading and insulting to the Irish Nation, 
 than practically to tell them, that they shall have the Union for all 
 its burthens and evils, and shall not have it for its benefits. 
 
 Your Committee have taken this view, principally because it was 
 that adopted by the framers of the Union Statute themselves. It 
 is shown, that the authors of that measure were utterly inconsistent 
 with their own professions, when any substantial act of justice was 
 to be done to the Irish people. 
 
 Your Committee, however, have taken up the subject in another 
 point of view. They are aware that the theory of the Reform Act 
 and its principle, have placed representation upon the double basis 
 of numbers and property. 
 
 And again, it has been said, and perhaps not inaccurately, that 
 property is ascertainable by the revenue it produces to the state. 
 
 We adopt this basis, population and property, when we find that 
 there are fortunately more accurate data to act upon. We allude to 
 the population returns of 1821 and 1831, and the Finance Reports. 
 
 Take the population in 1821 in round numbers: it gives for 
 England twelve millions, and to Ireland seven millions of inhabitants. 
 
 Let us reduce also, for the sake of clearness and round numbers, 
 the Representatives of England to 500, and the result will be, that 
 for comparative population taken as above, Ireland would be en- 
 titled to 291 Representatives. 
 
 We have not before us the comparative revenue of 1824, but we 
 have the Report drawn up by Mr. Rice, now Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, as Chairman of the Irish Committee that sat in the 
 year 1830, and we can clearly show, that Ireland in that year, paid 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION. 
 
 35 
 
 much more than one-eighth of the entire revenue. For example, 
 upon the four items of wine, sugar, coffee, and tobacco, the revenue 
 produced in England was 11,576,713/., while Ireland produced 
 1,665,718/. ; that is, in fact, more than one-seventh. But we use 
 this fact to demonstrate, that we do not exaggerate in saying, that 
 Ireland paid full one-eighth of the revenue paid by England. 
 
 We have, however, the Finance Report of the year 1831. That 
 Report attributes to Great-Britain, the production of a revenue of 
 48,325,215/., while it attributes to Ireland only 4,560,897/. ; but 
 this is avowedly, as it is egregiously, fallacious ; because Great- 
 Britain gets credit for the duties of customs, paid in fact by Ire- 
 land. For example: teas, silks, spices, drugs, &c., the duty of 
 which was paid in England in the first instance; but these articles 
 being consumed in Ireland, the latter country should get the credit 
 for them. Besides, the greater part of the duties paid on timber, sugar, 
 cotton, coffee, paper, glass, wine, and various other articles imported 
 from England to Ireland, are paid in England, and credited therefore to 
 England, whereas it ought to be deducted from the revenue in Eng- 
 land, and credited to Ireland. We are quite aware, that in the last year 
 in which a separate account was kept for Ireland, the duty on teas 
 alone, paid by the Irish, exceeded half a million sterling. There- 
 fore, to state the revenue accurately, it should be taken thus : 
 
 Revenue credited Great Britain, 
 
 Deduct Teas consumed in I ~ * AA AAA 
 Ireland, j £ 500 ’ 000 
 
 Deduct for all other cus-1 
 
 tomable articles, con- > £1,000,000 
 
 sumed in Ireland, \ 
 
 Real Revenue of Great-Britain, 
 
 Revenue credited to Ireland, 
 Add the above, 
 
 £48,325,215 
 
 £1,500,000 
 
 £46,825,215 
 
 £4,560,897 
 
 1,500,000 
 
 Actual Irish Revenue, 
 
 £6,060,897 
 
 Thus it is manifest, that Ireland paid in the year 1831 — that is 
 the year before the passing of the Reform Act — considerably more 
 than one-eighth of the revenue of England, in fact, of the revenue of 
 Great-Britain; for of the foregoing forty- six millions, more than 
 two millions were paid by Scotland ; and, therefore, in calculating 
 
36 
 
 FOURTH REPORT ON THE 
 
 the ratio of representation, as founded upon revenue, we ought to 
 calculate upon 558 members, and not upon 500 only, as we have 
 taken it for the sake of round numbers, and to avoid exaggeration. 
 
 Upon such calculation, though made in a manner highly un- 
 favourable to Ireland, she is entitled — 
 
 MEMBERS. 
 
 For Population, to ... ... 291 
 
 For Revenue, one-eighth, .. 62 
 
 Total, ... ... 353 
 
 The one-half as the mean of these two numbers, gives Ireland 
 a clear right to 176 members. 
 
 It will thus be seen, that taking the population return of 1821 at 
 seven millions in Ireland, and twelve millions in England, and taking 
 the revenue of Ireland as only one-eighth, a case clear to demon- 
 stration is made out for Ireland, to claim and insist on 176 members. 
 
 But your Committee are ready, even after making further con- 
 cessions, to demonstrate, that at the time of the passing of the Re- 
 form Act, Ireland, upon the comparative population and revenue, 
 was, under the most unfavourable circumstances — that is, taking 
 everything most adversely for Ireland — entitled, at the time of the 
 passing of that Act, to 178 members, to the 500 which, in round 
 numbers, England then had, and by England we always mean to 
 include the principality of Wales. 
 
 Here are the data on which we make our claim : — 
 
 1st — The population returns of 1831 gave England a population 
 of thirteen millions, Ireland a population of eight millions. Now, 
 the thirteen millions in England had a representation of 500 mem- 
 bers on thirteen millions ; consequently, Ireland would be entitled 
 on her eight millions, to at least, 307 members — that is, taking po- 
 pulation alone as the basis. 
 
 2dly — The revenue of 1831 we have seen : that was, for Great- 
 Britain, 48,325,215/.; for Ireland 4,560,897/.; add to the Irish 
 revenue the half million for teas consumed in Ireland, being a 
 quantity proved by Parliamentary documents — that is, by the last 
 account printed by the House of Commons, of the separate con- 
 sumption of tea in Ireland. That will raise the Irish revenue to 
 5,050,897/., and will, by the same amount, reduce the British re- 
 venue to 47,825,215/. Now, call the Irish revenue only one-tenth 
 of the British — though it is considerably more — and thus the matter 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION. 
 
 37 
 
 stood between the two countries at the time of the passing of 
 the Reform Act ; — 
 
 MEMBERS. 
 
 Ireland, for population 8 to 13 on 500 gives ... 307 
 
 Revenue, 1 to 10 on 500 ... ... 50 
 
 357 
 
 The mean of those two, being one-half, entitles Ireland to 178 
 members. 
 
 Your Committee may here be allowed to remark, that the pro- 
 portion of Irish population, capable of bearing arms was, accord- 
 ing to the returns of 1821, 1,664,467, while that of Great Britain 
 was only 2,928,951. 
 
 The propositions were still more favourable to Ireland, accord- 
 ing to the population returns of 1831 — returns which, in themselves, 
 were more accurate ; but we do not desire to dwell upon a subject, 
 which we thonght worthy merely of a passing remark. 
 
 Your Committee beg leave to recapitulate, that they have de- 
 monstrated these things : — 
 
 1st — That, according to the detested 'Castlereagh himself, Ireland 
 ought to have had 108 members, from the time of the Union 
 Statute; the Reform Act has given us only 105. 
 
 2dly — According to Castlereagh’s calculation, corrected by 
 Newenham, Ireland ought, by the Union Statute, to have 169 
 members — she has but 105. The consequence is, that upon Castle- 
 reagh’s own principle, Ireland is defrauded of 64 members. 
 
 3dly — Upon the combined basis of population and revenue, 
 taking the Return of 1821 for the population, and taking the re- 
 venue of Ireland as one-eighth, she ought to have 176 members — 
 she has but 105 ! Ireland is, therefore, defrauded of 71 members, 
 upon this calculation. 
 
 4thly — Taking the population Return of 1831, immediately be- 
 fore the passing of the Reform x\ct, and estimating the Irish re- 
 venue as only one-tenth, yet Ireland, at the passing of that Act, 
 was entitled plainly and demonstratively, to 178 members, and 
 the Reform Act therefore defrauded her of 73 members. 
 
 Let any basis be taken, that our worst enemies may choose — 
 population, exports, imports, rental, revenue, fighting men — tak- 
 ing it in any way, or viewing it in any shape, here is gross, glaring, 
 palpable violation of every rule of right and justice ; and this 
 violation is still the more afflicting, from the insulting indifference 
 
38 
 
 FOURTH REPORT ON THE 
 
 of the people of England to the demands of the Irish, to have this 
 injustice set aright. 
 
 Now, let us see how the system works. Take, for example, 
 Cumberland. The population of Cumberland, in 1831, was 126,681. 
 By the Reform Act, Cumberland got two additional members; there 
 are four members for that county. Contrast it with Cork county. 
 The population of Cork county amounted to 713,716; that county 
 got no additional representative. Cumberland has four to represent 
 126,681 persons; Cork has two to represent 713,716 persons. 
 
 Northamptonshire had a population in 1831 of 179,276; Down 
 in that year had a population of 337,571* The Reform Act gave 
 Northamptonshire two additional members — it was an English county; 
 the Reform Act gave the county Down nothing — it is an Irish 
 county. The 179,276 inhabitants of Northamptonshire have four 
 representatives — the 337,571 persons in Down have but two re- 
 presentatives. 
 
 Take Leicestershire. In 1831, it had 197,276 inhabitants; 
 Tipperary, in that year, had 380,598 inhabitants. The Reform 
 Act gave to Leicestershire two additional representatives ; it gave 
 to Tipperary nothing; and then the English Tories whine and cant, 
 and affect to say, that Tipperary ought to be contented and 
 satisfied. 
 
 We ask them if the tables were turned, and that Leicestershire 
 had 380,598 inhabitants, and but two representatives, and that 
 Tipperary, with 197,276 inhabitants, had four representatives, 
 would the men of Leicestershire be content and satisfied ? If they 
 were so, we should deem them paltry slaves. But the truth is, that 
 no minister would dare make such an insulting contrast between 
 Leicestershire and Tipperary — that is, a contrast so unfavourable 
 to Leicestershire. They have made it the contrary way, and are 
 careless of the consequences ; yet these consequences will, in due 
 time, tell trumpet-tongued against them. 
 
 We next come to Worcestershire — it has a population of 21 1,356. 
 The Reform ministry gave it two additional representatives — it has, 
 therefore, four. The county of Galway has a population of 
 381,407* It has only two representatives. The Reform Act gave 
 it nothing — so much again for Ireland ! 
 
 Again, Wiltshire has only 239,181 inhabitants — its representa- 
 tives have been encreased by the Reform Act from two to four . 
 Tyrone has 302,943 inhabitants — it has only two representatives, 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION. 
 
 39 
 
 and of course got nothing from the Reform Act. So much for 
 Protestant Tyrone ! 
 
 Nottinghamshire has 225,320 inhabitants — its Representatives 
 have been doubled by the Reform Act. Antrim county has 
 323,306 for its population — it has but two members, and got 
 nothing by the Reform Act. Nottinghamshire has four. 
 
 Derbyshire has a population of 23 7, 170 — it has four members. 
 The Reform Act, as usual, having doubled them. 
 
 Dublin County has a population of no less than 186,964. It has 
 only two Representatives. Nothing from the Reform Act. 
 
 We could continue the contrast, through many other disgusting 
 details. We will, hoWever, refer only to one other instance. It 
 is this : The population of Monmouthshire is but 98,130 — it got 
 by means of the Reform Act a third member. But Mayo with 
 367,953, Limerick with 248,080, Clare with 252,262, Kerry with 
 219,989, Donegal with 298,104 — not one of these got a single 
 additional member. 
 
 There is but one county in Ireland, (that is the county of Carlow,) 
 the population of which is so low as Monmouthshire. The popula- 
 tion of every one of the other thirty-one counties exceeds that of 
 Monmouthshire. Yet it got an additional member ; and the Irish 
 counties, with a population from one and a half to nine times the 
 population of Monmouthshire, are left without any additional 
 members. 
 
 There is another view of the great injustice done to Ireland. 
 Wales, with a population of only 805,236, got an encrease of four 
 members by the Reform Act. Ireland, with a population of eight 
 millions, got an encrease of only five ; and one of these was given 
 to the Protestant College of Dublin ; in other words — the 805,000 
 Welchmen were estimated within less than one-fifth of the value of 
 the eight millions of Irishmen. 
 
 Scotland, on the other hand, with a population of 2,365,807, 
 got an increase of eight members. Ireland, with a population of 
 eight millions, got an increase of only five members. 
 
 Your Committee scorn to take the trouble of calculating the 
 amount of this insult to Ireland. They leave these scathing in- 
 sults to become visible in their own time. They add but one 
 comparison more : — 
 
 Wales, before the Reform Act, had 24 members. She obtained 
 by that Act an increase of one to every six. 
 
40 
 
 FOURTH REPORT ON THE 
 
 Scotland had already 45 members. Scotland obtained an addition 
 only one to of one to every five. 
 
 Ireland had 100 members. Ireland obtained an addition of 
 one to every twenty. 
 
 Scotland increased in the ratio of one to five. 
 
 Wales one to six. 
 
 Ireland one to twenty ! ! 
 
 Let those who imagine, that the youth of Ireland will not brood 
 upon these facts, until the heart-rending contemplation ripens into 
 combination, concentration, and constitutional action, flatter them- 
 selves as they please. We venture to assert, that Ireland will not, 
 shall not, endure the degrading comparison. 
 
 Take up Wales again, and contrast a population of 805,000, 
 having 28 representatives, with the county of Cork, whose popu- 
 lation is nearly equal, and yet it has only two representatives. 
 
 Your Committee deem it their duty earnestly to recommend a 
 fixed and determined line of conduct, on the subject of the increase 
 of the Irish Representatives. 
 
 They are aware that no political improvement can be obtained 
 without its participating to a certain extent in compromise. They, 
 therefore recommend, that a Resolution should be entered into, and 
 adopted as extensively as possible, limiting the demand of Ireland 
 to 150 members, but insisting on that number. They wish to pro- 
 nounce it emphatically as their opinion, that it would be derogatory 
 to the honour, and fatal to the interests of Ireland, to leave the 
 Union Statute unrepealed, unless that nqmber, 150 members, are 
 granted to Ireland. 
 
 By the English Reform Bill, as first brought into the House of 
 Commons, the number of English Representatives was actually 
 diminished, To about the amount of the addition now required by 
 Ireland. We require, that that principle should now be adopted 
 and acted upon in our behalf, and that the smaller, and also the 
 more notoriously corrupt boroughs, should be disfranchised to 
 augment the schedule A in the Reform Act, of the former class — 
 namely, of boroughs with too low a constituency. We instance 
 Harwich, of the corrupt class, and that sink of iniquity, Norwich. 
 Nothing in the annals of corruption could exceed the profligate 
 bribery at the last election in Norwich. There will be no difficulty 
 in sufficiently extending each of these classes, so as to leave an ade- 
 quate number to supply the deficiency in Ireland, and that without 
 increasing the actual number of the present House of Commons. 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION. 
 
 41 
 
 Your Committee have further to observe this fact, that a great 
 part of the rental of Ireland is spent in England ; consequently 
 the revenue of England is augmented by the amount of duty paid 
 upon the articles consumed by means of such expenditure, and thus 
 the revenue of England gets credit for the duties paid out of the 
 Irish Absentee Rents. Now, these duties ought, in fact, to be 
 deducted from English revenue, and credited to the Irish. But the 
 direct contrary takes place, and thus these Irish rents, which ought 
 to go in augmentation of the number of Irish Representatives, as 
 depending upon property, are converted into a cause of diminution 
 of such number — that is, the Irish pay for doing an injury to 
 themselves ; and such are the blessed effects of the Union. This 
 consideration, however, only tends to show how much lower our 
 claim of 150 members is, than that to which Ireland's rightfully and 
 in point of justice entitled. 
 
 Your Committee gladly abandon these disgusting details, to the 
 contemplation of the Irish people. The English of all parties, treat 
 this grievous injustice to Ireland, as almost beneath their attention. 
 Thus they add contumely to injustice— They accumulate insult 
 upon injury — They laugh us to scorn, when we demand that the 
 Union should be real and practical, or should not exist. Let them 
 take their choice. The Precursor Society will tender that choice 
 to them, and if they select the continuance of shameful iniquity, let 
 them do so : Let them however, recollect, that there are nine millions 
 of inhabitants in Ireland, and sooner or later the peaceable and 
 moral, but determined combination of her sons, will convince the 
 scorners, that our country will not continue the object of oppres- 
 sion, mixed with insolent mockery and misrule. 
 
 Signed, 
 
 DANIEL O’CONNELL, 
 
 Chairman of the Committee. 
 
 G* 
 
FIFTH REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 COMMITTEE 
 
 ON THE 
 
 lltgtettg of T’utcs (n ^wglanSy antr Utelantr, 
 
 Your Committee have now arrived, at one of the most important 
 of all the important topics, which have been submitted to their 
 consideration* It relates to the mode of registering votes. Our 
 intention is, first, to contrast the Irish with the English registry 
 system, and next, to state the facts which naturally suggest some 
 of the many improvements required in the latter, it being our 
 intention to claim an improved system for both countries. 
 
 It is indeed admitted by all parties, that there are many and 
 great defects in the English system of registration ; yet such is the 
 injustice committed to Ireland, that the English registry, with all 
 its defects, rises into comparative perfection, when contrasted with 
 the law of registry in Ireland. 
 
 Defective as is the English system, ours is ten times worse. 
 
 To understand the contrast, we will proceed to give an abstract 
 of the mode of registering in England. 
 
 In England the register of persons entitled to vote, is to be made 
 out thus : — 
 
 First — The Overseers of every parish are bound on every 20J,h 
 of June, to affix on all churches, chapels, and public places in the 
 parish, a notice, calling on every person claiming a right to vote, 
 to send in his claim in writing. 
 
 Secondly — A full month is given to send in such claim, and if 
 the claim be lodged on the 20th of July, it is quite sufficient ; it 
 may be lodged any day during such entire month. 
 
REGISTRIES IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND. 43 
 
 Thirdly — Each person claiming to vote, has no other trouble than 
 to hand in his notice in his own parish, to the overseer, and pay 
 him one shilling. The shilling is the entire expense, and no loss of 
 time is incurred. 
 
 Fourthly — The Overseer is then to make out an alphabetical list 
 of the persons so claiming to be voters. He is to put the words 
 “ objected to,” opposite the name of any person he has reason to 
 believe, not to be entitled to vote. The list is then printed, and 
 published, and affixed on all churches, chapels, and public 
 places, and a copy is kept by the Overseer, which is open for public 
 inspection, for two weeks, without payment of any fee. 
 
 Fifthly — Any person claiming a right to vote, is at liberty to 
 object to the claim of any other person on the list ; but he must 
 give notice in writing of his objection, not only to the Overseer, 
 but to the person objected to, and a separate list of persons thus 
 objected to is printed and published. 
 
 Sixthly — The lists are then transmitted through the High Con- 
 stable, to the Clerk of the Peace, and the lists of the persons 
 objected to, including a statement of their respective residences, 
 are transmitted to the Registering Barrister, in order that he may 
 appoint proper places for holding Courts, to consider the objections. 
 
 Seventhly — Every person not specially objected to by the Over- 
 seer, or by some elector, is put on the register, and becomes 
 entitled to vote, without more trouble or expense. 
 
 Let it be observed, that unless an elector be specially objected 
 to, he thus has his right to vote ascertained, without any consumption 
 of his time or any expense, save one shilling. 
 
 If he be specially objected to, he has the satisfaction of knowing 
 who it is that objects to his right to vote, and he can examine that 
 person upon oath, as to the motives and reasons for such objection. 
 
 Eighthly — A Barrister is appointed to decide the claims thus 
 objected to. His appointment is made thus: the senior judge on 
 each circuit at the Summer Assizes, names a Barrister for each 
 district or locality. The trial of the objections takes place before 
 one Barrister; no other person shares the responsibility with him, 
 and it will be seen, that his responsibility is not merely formal, but 
 direct, personal, and, indeed, pecuniary. 
 
 Ninthly — The Barrister thus appointed, gives notice of the 
 times and places for holding Courts, to decide the claims objected to ; 
 it is his duty to hold these Courts, as near the residence of the 
 persons objected to as possible. 
 
44 
 
 FIFTH REPORT ON THE 
 
 Tenth] j — The Barrister decides in favour of the claim of any 
 elector objected to by a third person, unless that third person attends 
 the court himself, or by his agent, to sustain the objection. The 
 elector, in this case, is put to no trouble by the Barrister, nor is any 
 investigation gone into of his qualification, unless such third person 
 attend the Court. 
 
 Eleventhly — It is only in the case of objections made by the 
 Overseer, or by a third person, who attends the Court, that any 
 investigation of the claim of the elector becomes necessary, or takes 
 place; but it then takes place by the Barrister calling on the elector 
 simply “ to prove his qualification.” These are the words of the 
 Act ; if the elector proves his qualification, then the Barrister is 
 bound to throw upon the objector, the proof of incapacity, and 
 unless that proof be given, the voter is put upon the list or register, 
 and his right to vote is established. 
 
 Let it be observed, that there is no direction to investigate title, 
 or to produce any deeds, by or under which the elector claims to 
 vote or derives title. 
 
 Twelfthly — The Barrister is empowered to examine on oath, the 
 Overseer, as to every matter connected with the list, and with his 
 objections to particular persons. This is a most important and 
 valuable power, as it will manifestly deter Overseers from making 
 malicious or frivolous objections. 
 
 Thirteenthly — The Barrister is entitled to correct all mistakes 
 and omissions of name, residence, description of tenures, and all 
 other errors in the list. He then signs the list, which is to be 
 printed and published, and from that Roll the electors are, without 
 further trouble, entitled, without the production of any other 
 document, to vote at each ensuing Election. There is a great 
 simplicity and certainty in this mode, and it tends to the greatest 
 facility and expedition in polling at a contested Election. 
 
 Fourteenthly — A Barrister is thus annually to revise the lists ; 
 but an elector, once on the list, is not bound to give in any fresh 
 claim, or to pay a second shilling, or to take any trouble, unless he 
 shall be formally objected to in any one year, and notice of such 
 objection given to him, and the [lists are to be printed annually, 
 and sold to any person willing to buy them. 
 
 Lastly, and this is the most important of all — The responsibility 
 of the Barrister is real and substantial, because it is provided, that 
 if any Overseer, Barrister, &c., shall wilfully contravene or disobey 
 that Act, with respect to any matter or thing which he is thereby 
 
REGISTRIES IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND. 45 
 
 required to do, he becomes liable to be sued in an action of debt, 
 by any candidate, elector, or other person aggrieved, and a sum of 
 500/. may be recovered against him, and if a verdict be had against 
 him for one shilling, he will be bound to pay “ full costs of suit” 
 besides. 
 
 This is a clause of inestimable value. It is the surest and most 
 efficient check to misconduct. Where is the Barrister who will 
 venture to misconduct himself, when he knows that a verdict of a 
 jury may punish his delinquency by a heavy penalty, and a total 
 loss of character for life ? 
 
 The mode of Registry in Ireland, on the contrary, furnishes the 
 following unfavourable contrasts with the English : — 
 
 First — No person can register as a voter in Ireland, without first 
 giving to the acting Clerk of the Peace, a notice in writing of his 
 claim, twenty clear days before the first day of each registering 
 Session, to be appointed by the Assistant Barrister. 
 
 Now observe, that the Irish elector may thus be obliged to send 
 a messenger with the notice some distance, varying in some coun- 
 ties, from one mile to 50 or 60 ; 20 miles is not an unreasonable 
 average distance for each voter. 
 
 Secondly — In Ireland the notice to be served is extremely com- 
 plicated, and such as requires the aid of an attorney to draw it up, 
 an aid not always to be had gratuitously. 
 
 In England the notice is extremely simple ; any person can draw 
 it from the Schedule of the Act. It requires the elector to set out 
 only his name, place of abode, the situation of the freehold or 
 franchise land, and “ such a description of the property as may 
 serve to identify it.” These are the words in the English Act. 
 
 In Ireland, on the contrary, besides the elector’s name and place 
 of abode, he must also specify “ the right in respect of which he 
 intends to apply, and the nature and particulars of the qualification 
 relied on by him, as entitling him to be registered ; the description 
 of the property, with the names of the Barony, Townland, or place 
 where situate.” 
 
 In England, the Barrister is entitled to correct, and is bound to 
 correct any mistakes in the notice or list of claims ; the elector is 
 set right, and is entitled to vote, notwithstanding any blunder or 
 mistake in matter of form. 
 
 In Ireland, on the contrary, the Assistant Barrister has no such 
 power. A mistake in so complicated a notice is a ground of 
 rejection ; and the elector, after incurring great trouble and expense, 
 
46 
 
 FIFTH REPORT ON THE 
 
 has to begin over again. In practice, the rejections on points of form 
 in the notice are exceedingly numerous. In Dublin, the rejections 
 on this ground are many. See what a contrast is here. In 
 England the Barrister corrects the errors in the form of the notice. 
 The law empowers and requires him to do so. In Ireland the elector 
 is defeated, and has to go over all his trouble at a future Session, and 
 if there be any informality in his notice the law authorizes the 
 Barrister to reject the claimant. 
 
 Thirdly — The next important step in Ireland is the attendance at 
 the Session. The list of claimants is to be read over by the Clerk 
 of the Peace, the first day of the Session ; and if the claimant 
 should by accident be out of Court, when his name is called, he 
 loses all his labour, and has to begin over again for a future Session. 
 We have known an instance in which a list of 400 names was called 
 over, before half-past nine o’clock, the first morning, and before any 
 elector attended. They were all, therefore, turned round to serve 
 new twenty days’ notices, and attend another and a distant 
 Sessions ! ! ! 
 
 In Ireland every elector must attend the Sessions, we have said 
 already, at an average journey of twenty miles in most counties. 
 Every elector must attend, no matter how well known his right 
 may be. 
 
 In England no elector need attend, save an elector especially and 
 by name objected to. 
 
 In Ireland the attendance at Sessions is the general, indeed the 
 universal rule. 
 
 In England it is only the exception. 
 
 In Ireland the place of Sessions is fixed for other purposes, and 
 without any possible reference to the residence of the elector. 
 
 In England it is the duty of the Barrister, and he has the power 
 to bring the Court to try the disputed claims, as near to the 
 residence of the elector interested in the trial, as he possibly can. 
 
 We should observe, that when we say, that in Ireland ever}' elector 
 must attend the Sessions, we mean all the poorer classes of electors. 
 The richer classes are accommodated in this respect. The 50/. 
 Freeholders need not attend at sessions ; so that the rich, who have 
 leisure to attend, are not obliged to attend. The poorer classes, 
 whose time is so valuable to them, are put to the loss of time, 
 trouble, and expense in attending. 
 
 Fourthly — In Ireland each elector, as soon as he is named, is 
 called upon to go on, and prove his entire case ; although no one 
 
REGISTRIES IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND. 47 
 
 objects to his right of voting, he is required to produce his lease 
 or other title] deeds, and to show it to be duly stamped ! ! ! A 
 mistake committed in the stamp duty will, after perhaps 50 years’ 
 possession, be fatal to him ; he must either produce his title deed, 
 and expose it to all possible adverse discoveries, down to the 
 amount of stamp-duties, or lose his right to vote. 
 
 We ask, would the people of England submit to such an odious 
 inquisition, and above all, would they allow any human being to 
 call that a Reform Act, which required of every Englishman to 
 prove his title, or to forfeit his right to vote ? The great objection 
 of the landed interest in England to the measure of a general 
 registry of deeds, (the value of which, in the abstract, every 
 rational man must admit) — the great objection to the registry of 
 deeds is, that it would expose men’s title deeds to public inspection ; 
 and yet a single individual in Ireland, will not be allowed to establish 
 at Sessions, his right to vote, without submitting to scrutiny, all the 
 muniments of his title; and this is what is called, the Irish Reform Act. 
 
 Fifthly — When the deed or lease is produced, then the trial 
 commences ; the elector is put to prove his case, as if he had 
 brought an ejectment ; and although in possession an ejectment is 
 actually tried. The Assistant Barrister is required to make the 
 claimant show the nature of his tenure, and he is to decide on the 
 validity or invalidity of his title, and to examine in support 
 of or in opposition to his claim ; and any person in the com- 
 munity is at liberty to come forward, and without any previous 
 notice, to controvert by evidence, the claimant’s title. 
 
 In Ireland, in addition to all these particulars, every elector is 
 bound also to produce evidence of his qualification in point of value ; 
 and upon the point of how the value is to be calculated, there are most 
 adverse and contradictory decisions. The Barrister, according to 
 his capacity, or the natural bias of his Tory principles, decides the 
 one way or the other, and leans in favour of one class of witnesses 
 or the other, as he pleases ; the litigation, the vexation, the trouble 
 and the expense thus created, are excessive. The impression made 
 by the decisions of many Barristers, leave the public mind in a 
 state of more than doubt, as to the fairness of judicial deter- 
 minations. 
 
 Thus, in Ireland, there is a double trial in every individual case of 
 registry under the Reform Act — a trial of the title and a trial upon 
 the value — with liberty to any body or everybody to take the 
 elector by surprise, and give any contradictory evidence he may 
 
48 
 
 FIFTH REPORT ON THE 
 
 please, to destroy the title or lessen the value. Besides, the un- 
 fortunate elector has no process allowed him to compel the attend- 
 ance of witnesses ; neither can he enforce the production of any of 
 the title deeds of the persons under whom he derives. He is, in 
 short, tied hand and foot, and bound to show the weakness of his 
 title, and disabled from proving its strength, unless he be a mere 
 tool in the hands of his landlord or his agent ; and then, indeed, he 
 may, with some greater facility, register for them, and not for 
 himself, or his country. 
 
 Now, contrast Ireland with England — the Irish with the English 
 plan. In England no elector is called upon at all, to prove his 
 qualification, save an elector specially and particularly objected to 
 in writing. In England, therefore, the case of such an elector is 
 the exception. 
 
 In Ireland, on the other hand, every elector must make that 
 proof ; it is the general, the universal rule. 
 
 Should this be so ? Should anybody in Ireland be called upon 
 to prove title — and nobody in England called on to do so, save a 
 person specially and particularly objected to ? 
 
 There are a thousand other forcible points of view, in which we 
 could place the contrast in this respect ; but we fear to be too te- 
 dious, and besides the facts speak for themselves, and show that the 
 English system is intelligible and considerate, favourable to the 
 elector, and reasonable in point of trouble and expense ; whilst the 
 Irish system, if intelligible, is only so by reason of its distinct 
 harshness and oppression. It is inquisitorial and tyrannical to the 
 elector — it is most unreasonable in point of labour, trouble, 
 and expense. 
 
 In England no elector has any occasion to employ a professional 
 man, to secure his right of voting. It is quite obvious that it 
 would be perfect insanity in any elector in Ireland, to trust himself 
 into the Sessions Court, to register a vote, without the aid of a 
 skilful attorney. This alone would create such an expense, as to 
 preclude the far greater number of persons from attempting to re- 
 gister their votes, but that there are in most of the counties in 
 Ireland, a class of independent and patriotic Attornies, who volun- 
 teer their services in aid of the electors ; and thus in this, as in so 
 many other instances, Irish public spirit tends to counteract the 
 evil effects of British misgovernment. 
 
 We will pursue the contrast between the English and Irish Act, 
 only in cne more case. 
 
REGISTRIES IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND. 49 
 
 Take an English elector, whose right to vote is clear — suppose 
 an Irish elector of the same class. 
 
 The English elector consumes two minutes of his time, in draw- 
 ing up and handing to his parish Overseer, his notice of claiming a 
 right to vote. He pays one shilling, and there is at once an end 
 to all expense, and to all trouble. 
 
 The Irish elector has an equally clear right to vote, yet he must 
 first either venture to draw up a very intricate notice himself, 
 which will cost him much time, or employ an Attorney to draw up 
 that notice, which he will seldom get done for nothing. Secondly, 
 he must transmit that notice ten, twenty, thirty, or forty miles — 
 say on an average twenty miles, to the acting Clerk of the Peace. 
 Thirdly, he must attend in person at the Sessions. Here is a loss 
 of three days consumed or spoiled in going, remaining at Sessions, 
 or returning home. There is also the actual money expended during 
 these three days. Fourthly, he has his title ransacked in open court, 
 and is harassed by, in fact, two trials — first, of title, and secondly, 
 of value. Fifthly, he has next to pay one shilling, in order to ob- 
 tain evidence of his right to vote. 
 
 Now, all this vexation and expense take place in every case in 
 Ireland, even in the cases most free from doubt or difficulty. The 
 Englishman, for one shilling, and in less than than three minutes, 
 completes his title to vote. It will cost the Irishmen at least three 
 entire days, and, at the lowest possible calculation, one pound in 
 money, to complete his title to vote. 
 
 But mark this distinction. The English elector pays one shilling, 
 and no more ; he can earn that shilling by half a day’s labour at 
 the utmost ; he pays no stamp duty. 
 
 The Irish elector pays at least two shillings and sixpence, even 
 when an attorney volunteers for him. He cannot earn these 
 two shillings and sixpence, by less than five day’s labour. Thus, 
 what the English elector pays for, by half a day’s labour, the Irish 
 elector must consume five day’s in labouring for this tax alone. 
 
 But the greatest advantage to the English elector is still unex- 
 pressed. It is this — if the Barrister in England shall presume to 
 contravene or to disobey in any one particular, the English Reform 
 Act, the English elector need not complain to any great man, or 
 to any public body. He has a remedy in hisowu hands ; he brings 
 his action, he appeals to a jury, he obtains compensation, and full 
 costs of suit. 
 
50 
 
 FIFTH REPORT. 
 
 In Ireland what a melancholy contrast ! The Irish elector has no 
 remedy whatever against the Assistant Barrister, who may harass 
 the elector — who may detain him, and postpone him, and dismiss 
 his claim to register, upon the most idle, the most frivolous, the 
 most vexatious pretext. This the Assistant Barrister in Ireland can 
 do, with the most perfect impunity — no action lies against him — 
 no compensation can possibly be obtained from him — no recourse 
 to a jury — perfect impunity awaits him. 
 
 The Barrister, under the English system, is deeply, imme- 
 diately, personally, and in a pecuniary way responsible. 
 
 To be sure, if the Irish Barrister were foolish enough publicly to 
 boast, or to admit that he acted from corrupt motives, he might be 
 punished ; but it is alone in the impossible case of any man being 
 so insane as to make such an avowal, that any punishment could 
 follow — yet, even then, the elector could get no compensation. 
 
 In England the rights of the electors are secured, and the per- 
 formance of the duty of the Barrister, is insured by a perfect and 
 complete responsibility. In Ireland there is no security for the 
 rights of the elector, or for the performance of the duty, because 
 the Barrister is perfectly and completely irresponsible. 
 
 We conclude our Report, by calling on the people of Ireland to 
 insist, in their petitions to Parliament, upon the extension of the 
 English system of Registry, in an improved shape, to Ireland, 
 improved for both countries, and equally applicable to each. 
 
 Signed, 
 
 DANIEL O’CONNELL, 
 
 Chairman of the Committee. 
 
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CENTRAL REGISTRATION BOARD 
 
 UPON 
 
 THE MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE QUALIFICATION, 
 
 AS PROPOSED 
 
 BY SIR ROBERT PEEL, 
 
 WHEN COMPARED WITH THE PARLIAMENTARY 
 HOUSEHOLD FRANCHISE, 
 
 (Setter, Ctnim# aiH m IwtewH, 
 
 July 2, 1838. 
 
 Your Committee have fully investigated the effect of a 10/. Poor Rate 
 qualification, in the different towns in Ireland ; and, after much deliberation 
 on the subject, have come to the following conclusions : — 
 
 “ That by the valuation, which took place in the City of Dublin, in the 
 year 1828, commonly called Sherrard’s Valuation, it was found that there 
 were 1,860 houses, within the boundary of the Circular Road, valued at 
 from 10/. to 1 51 . a year, inclusive. A great number of these are old, but 
 still large and valuable houses, constituting the most important parts of 
 Dublin before the Union. Being however, situated in depressed neighbour- 
 hoods, they are generally set in small tenements, to lodgers or roomkeepers, 
 &c. Some of them are held by single tenants, who occupy portions, and 
 underlet the remainder. Of these 1,860 houses, therefore, two-thirds, at 
 least, are held by small occupiers, above-mentioned, exclusively — so that 
 upwards of 1,200 of them cannot possibly possess any franchise, Municipal 
 or Parliamentary, under existing circumstances. 
 
 “ The next class of houses enumerated by Sherrard, amount to 1,332, and 
 are valued at from 15/. to 20/. a year. They are similarly situated — set to 
 
52 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 lodgers or under-tenants, so that two-thirds, or about nine hundred of these, 
 cannot enjoy the franchise. The taxes upon these two classes are nearly 
 equal, and being apportioned at a time when they were much more valuable 
 than now, are very high, averaging from 6/. to 9/. a year ; and in some cases 
 a great deal more. 
 
 “ It is an undoubted fact, that household property in the old parts of 
 Dublin, has declined so much since the year 1828, that in some cases, this 
 class of houses have been set at one-half the value put upon them by Sher- 
 rard ; and we may estimate the depreciation in all cases, at thirty per cent, 
 at least : so that if a valuation were to be now made, exclusive of taxes, &c. 
 those houses, then valued at from 10 /. to 15/. a year, would be reduced be- 
 low 10/. — and the other class at 20/. a year, would be brought so near 10/. 
 that it would be very doubtful, if any of them would come under the test 
 proposed by Sir Robert Peel, and obtain the franchise. 
 
 “ The rating clause in the Poor Law Act is as follows : — 
 
 “ * Every such rate shall be a poundage rate, made upon an estimate of 
 the net annual value of the several hereditaments rated thereunto — that is to 
 say, of the rent at which, one year with another, the same might in their 
 actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year, all rates, taxes, 
 and public charges, if any, (except tithes,) and the probable average cost of 
 repairs, insurance, and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the he- 
 reditaments in their actual state, being paid by the tenant.’ 
 
 “ If, therefore, we apply the above test — namely, 10/. a year, under the new 
 valuation, exclusive of rates, taxes, charges, and expenses, there can be no 
 doubt that the 3,192 houses above-mentioned, all of which, strictly speaking, 
 are now entitled to the Parliamentary Franchise, and many of which possess 
 it, would be totally excluded : and we may go so far as to include many of 
 the next higher class, those from 20/. to 2 51. a year rent, amounting to 400 
 at least, similarly situated, which would share the same fate. 
 
 “ Let it be remembered, that all these houses are within the Circular Road, 
 and do not include the large tract of houses situate at St. Mary’s, Donnybrook 
 parish, containing at least 500 houses, set at from 10/. to 15/. a year, and all 
 of them now entitled to the Parliamentary Franchise ; as also a vast num- 
 ber of small houses built in the outlets since 1828, also setting at from 10/. 
 to 15/. a year, and amounting at least to 1,000 houses more, and now equally 
 entitled to the Parliamentary Franchise ; so that here again we have 1,500 va- 
 luable houses, at least, inhabited by respectable classes of society, who 
 would be totally excluded from the exercise of municipal rights ; the bare 
 fact of the landlords paying all the taxes, charges, and expenses of repairs, 
 bringing them under the exclusive provisions of Sir Robert Peel’s proposal. 
 
 There is another large class of persons — the proprietors of shops — who 
 are at present registered, or entitled to be so, who would be similarly situated. 
 These generally pay 5s. to 7s. a week, or 12/. to 15/. a year, bulk rent, in- 
 cluding their proportion of rates, charges, &c. and form a respectable por- 
 tion of the community. Taking, therefore, the value of the shop, usually 
 estimated in places of business at half the value of the house, including rent 
 and taxes, or rather at one-third the value in the class of houses above- 
 mentioned, we will find that if one-third of the taxes, charges, and repairs 
 of a house, the shop of which is set at 13/. a year, or 5s. a week, amounting 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 53 
 
 to 10/. at least, are brought against this class of shops, there can be no doubt 
 that they would be reduced under 10/. a year rating value, and, therefore, 
 almost entirely excluded from the Municipal Franchise. This objection also 
 applies to butchers holding stalls in the different markets, almost all of whom 
 possess the Elective Franchise at present, but who would be totally excluded 
 from the municipal one, though they may contribute to the payment of more 
 taxes, and circulate more money and capital, than double the number of 
 wealthier citizens in tlie^same city. There are about 500 such shops regis- 
 tered at present, and there may be about 1,000 more entitled to register ; so 
 we will estimate the number at 1,200, at least, that would be thus ex- 
 cluded. 
 
 “ The result of these calculations stands thus — 
 
 Houses valued under Sherrard’s valuation, from 10/. to 20/. a 
 year, possessing, or entitled to possess, the Parliamentary 
 Franchise, and which, from the depreciation of household 
 property, would be valued under 10/. rating, according to Sir 
 Robert Peel’s proposal, ... ... ... 3,192 
 
 Ditto, valued at from 20/. to 25/. a year, ... ... 400 
 
 Ditto, in the parish of St. Mary’s, Donnybrook, the Black 
 Rock, Merrion, Sandymount, &c., not included in Sherrard’s 
 valuation, but let at the present time at from 10/. to 15/., or 
 even 18/. a year, but which would not be included in the 
 10/. rate paying test, ... ... ... 500 
 
 Additional houses, built within the Circular Road, since 1828, 
 and let at the same rates, which would be equally excluded 
 by the proposed test, ... ... ... 1,000 
 
 Shopkeepers, butchers, and victuallers* stalls, &c. including 
 those registered, and those possessing an undoubted Parlia- 
 mentary qualification, and which would be excluded, as 
 above, ... ... ... ... 1,200 
 
 Total 6,292 
 
 “ Here then we have upwards of 6,000 houses and shops by calculation, or 
 allowing for errors, &c. 5,000, at least, capable of enjoying, and entitled to 
 the Parliamentary Franchise, which would be undoubtedly excluded under 
 the proposed Municipal qualification of Sir Robert Peel. 
 
 “ The consideration of the mode of valuing houses in Dublin will bear 
 out this view of the case completely. The valuators are in the habit of taking 
 off one year’s rent, on an average of seven years for non-occupation, and 
 another year’s rent to cover the cost of repairs, &c. equal to more than two- 
 sevefiths, or 33 per cent, at least, including the reductions arising from in- 
 surances, &c. ; so that on valuing houses, paying 10/. to 16/. a year rent and 
 taxes, (prima facie evidence hitherto of a 10/. and 20/. a year Parliamentary 
 value, or value in the market,) they would be reduced under 61. and 10/. a 
 year respectively, and therefore deprived of their Municipal Franchise ; so 
 that, in fact, houses paying 10/. a year rent, absolutely, would not be able to 
 qualify for a 7/ rate paying Municipal Franchise, and so on in proportion. 
 
54 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 4 ‘ From the above facts, therefore, it is manifest that Sir Robert Peel's 
 proposal would absolutely double the amount of value required for the Muni- 
 cipal Franchise, as contradistinguished from the Parliamentary ; and instead 
 of establishing a bona fide 10/. test, would raise it to a positive 20/. qualifi- 
 cation throughout the Kingdom. The amount of taxes paid, being evidently 
 entitled to be added to the rent of the house, on estimating its intrinsic 
 value. 
 
 “ There are also many reasons existing in Dublin, and other large towns, 
 why the Household Franchise is so limited, even under the Parliamentary 
 system, when compared to the number of houses in existence. In the first 
 place, nearly one-fourth of the houses in Dublin are cut up by being let in te- 
 nements as above-mentioned, none of the occupiers possessing a legal quali- 
 fication, except a few shopkeepers, of the classes above alluded to. There 
 are also many persons who job or trade in these sort of houses to a great 
 extent, which they rent and sub-divide in this way, and being, like other 
 proprietors, strongly opposed to the ^extension of the franchise, they have 
 great powers in preventing their under-tenants from enjoying it. 
 
 “ Secondly — The want of permanent residence, and the necessity for cer- 
 tain periods of Occupation, before registering, or voting, increase the perish- 
 able nature of the household constituencies greatly. 
 
 “ Thirdly — The impossibility, in many cases, of finding legally authorised 
 persons to receive the different taxes, and the difficulty of paying them 
 punctually from the obstacles thrown, by interested persons, in the way. 
 
 “ Fourthly — The difficulty a shopholder has getting credit for his taxes, in 
 his rent, from a hostile or reluctant landlord, where he has paid them in the 
 first instance, to make sure of his franchise. 
 
 “ Fifthly — The trouble and loss of time incurred by men of business, the 
 difficulty of proving the taxes paid, or of swearing that they are not due, 
 and the influence of the Conservative gentry, who deal with those shop- 
 keepers, and who make it a regular i sine qua non,' that they shall not clothe 
 themselves with the elective franchise at all, as a condition for their future 
 countenance and support. 
 
 “ It is the opinion, therefore, of the Committee, that these causes which 
 operate so strongly against the extension of the present Parliamentary Fran- 
 chise, would, in many cases, operate as forcibly, and in some cases more so, 
 against the Municipal qualification, whatever it may be. 
 
 “ That the valuators, either in their desire to relieve the poorer classes of 
 houses from the burthen of taxation, or to diminish their value from corrupt 
 or interested motives, have it in their power, by steering just along the line 
 of this class of houses, to sink them only a few shillings below the 10/. rate- 
 paying value, and thus to exclude the great bulk of the community from en- 
 joying those privileges, to which they are justly and undoubtedly entitled. 
 
 “ That the obj ections above-mentioDed, which thus apply to Dublin, are 
 applicable in a much greater degree, to the towns and cities of fewer inhabit- 
 ants, inasmuch as the houses decrease considerably in value, in proportion to 
 the number of inhabitants, and ought not therefore to be submitted to the 
 same test of qualification. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 55 
 
 ** That considering the immense number of houses and shops in Dublin 
 paying 15/. a year rent, and under it, whose right to the Municipal Franchise 
 would be thus placed at the mercy of the valuators, and considering the 
 different causes that would thus operate against them, this Committee view 
 with alarm any proposal or attempt, which would have the inevitable effect 
 of reducing the Municipal constituencies of the proposed corporate towns of 
 Ireland, far below the present Household constituencies, under the Reform 
 Act. 
 
 “ That the inhabitants of Dublin amount to 257,316 persons, and that the 
 greatest number of Leaseholders and Freeholders which ever voted at any 
 election amounted to 2,655 — and of Householders to 2,482. — Total, 5,137. 
 If, therefore, we abstract the 50/. and 20/. Freeholders and Leaseholders 
 from the first class, who do not require residency or occupation, and add the 
 entire of the available household constituency to the remainder, it would not 
 give us an available elective body of 5,000 voters at farthest, even under 
 the present Parliamentary test of household qualification. Being also of 
 opinion that the proposed municipal test of Sir Robert Peel, would re- 
 duce the present household constituency one-half at least, and, adding 500 
 at farthest, for such Freemen as may be also enabled to qualify as House- 
 holders, the proposed municipal constituency, capable of being brought into 
 the field, could not possibly exceed 4,000 voters, scarcely one-fifth of the 
 houses above 10/. in value, and a miserable proportion for such a number of 
 inhabitants. 
 
 “ Signed, 
 
 “ EDWARD BXJLLEN, 
 
 “ Chairman of the Committee.” 
 
 Note — The mode in which the Corporation of Dublin have taken advantage 
 of the different decisions upon the Freemen, is remarkable. The first case that 
 came before the Judges since the Reform Act, was that of Robert Coulter, 
 on an appeal to the Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, at the Spring Assizes 
 for the Couhty of Louth, in 1833. (See Alcock’s Registry Cases, p. 7.) 
 The only evidence produced was an entry in the Corporation Books, to the 
 effect, that the claimant was admitted a Freeman by birth ; and on cross- 
 examination of the Town Clerk, he admitted, that he never neard of an ad- 
 mission by birth, but all by special favour. Counsel for the Appellant 
 insisted, that they could not question the Corporate Act, which was con- 
 clusive and final ; that they could not go behind it ; and that the Appellant 
 being de facto a Freeman, must be considered one de jure , until disfranchised 
 by the judgment of the Court on a quo warranto. On the other >hand, it was 
 contended, that although the adjudication might be final and conclusive, as 
 between the Corporation and the Freemen themselves, yet that it was only a 
 fictitious mode of manufacturing illegal voters ; that in fact, the Appellant 
 was only an Honorary Freeman, and that the Barrister, and consequently the 
 Court, were fully authorized and bound to enquire into and decide these 
 questions. 
 
 The Twelve Judges were unanimous in rejecting the vote. 
 
56 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 This set the question at rest for some time, until a more favourable tribunal 
 was found for raising the question ; accordingly, in Carolin’s case, Trinity 
 Term 1835, it was brought before the late Chief Baron Joy, on an appeal. 
 The Appellant’s claimed to be admitted on the following evidence : First — 
 The Town Clerk’s certificate. Secondly — The Roll of Freemen, and Thirdly 
 — A small book, containing Abstracts from the “ Beseech,'* with the name 
 and right only, in which the claimant was admitted a Freeman. He was 
 rejected, on the authority of Coulter’s case. 
 
 The claimant’s were opposed on several grounds, which it was then sought 
 to bring before the Court, in the same manner as they had been raised before 
 the Registering Barrister. 
 
 The late Chief Baron overruled all the objections, and admitted the claim- 
 ant’s without further enquiry or evidence. He held, that the Roll and the 
 Little Book , were conclusive evidence of the right to be registered, and that 
 no other question should be asked by the Barrister, at the time of Registry. 
 The consequence was, that thenceforth the process of registering for a Freeman 
 was mere matter of form and dumb shew. If a negro appeared, he could 
 hardly be asked a question, and must be admitted accordingly. The 
 following Table will shew the use the Corporation made of this decision 
 since 1835. 
 
 Number of Freemen registered as Electors of the City of Dublin , and the 
 respective Years when registered , since the passing of the Reform Act : — 
 
 ♦General 1 
 Sessions. 
 
 Total 
 
 Freemen. 
 
 Old 
 
 Freemen. 
 
 Honorary 
 
 Freemen. 
 
 1832, 
 
 1,960 
 
 
 
 
 
 1833. 
 
 13 
 
 11 
 
 2 
 
 1834, 
 
 11 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 1835, 
 
 395 
 
 166 
 
 229 
 
 1836, 
 
 299 
 
 46 
 
 253 
 
 1837, 
 
 CO 
 
 19 
 
 298 
 
 1838, 
 
 230 
 
 9 
 
 221 
 
 | 3,225 
 
 259 
 
 1,006 
 
 It will be perceived, that during the years 1833 and 1834, only twenty-four 
 Freemen were registered. When, however, the flood-gates were thrown 
 open by Carolin’s case in 1835, no less than 395 Freemen were admitted in a 
 single year ; and 1241 Freemen of all sorts and descriptions, including 1,000 
 and odd fictitious ones, were pawned as voters on the City of Dublin, up to 
 the present time. Thus was the constituency swamped by one fearful act of 
 judicial responsibility, too painful to dwell upon, until the unanimous deci- 
 sion of the twelve judges in Disney’s case, set the question at rest only a 
 few days since. 
 
 THE END. 
 
THTES, 
 
 ENGLISH 
 
 COUNTIES. 
 
 [ 
 
 ES. 
 
 Populatioi 
 
 j 
 
 Rutlandshire, .... 
 
 
 
 QO/I 
 
 
 :::::: 
 
 73,953 
 
 93,225 
 
 1,248 
 
 1,025 
 
 The Isle of Wigh 
 
 tl 
 
 (b, .. 
 
 . 112,558 
 
 . 136,872 
 
 ■ 121,557 
 
 1,465 
 
 1,395 
 
 1,740 
 
 Westmoreland, . 
 
 . 1 , ... 
 mty, 
 
 147,364 
 
 144,225 
 
 141,524 
 
 1,640 
 
 1,526 
 
 1,388 
 
 Huntingdon, 
 
 3o.'," 
 
 176,012 
 
 169,945 
 
 176,826 
 
 2,748 
 
 1,760 
 
 1,850 
 
 Herefordshire, .... 
 
 , ... 
 
 195,536 
 
 142,714 
 
 108,424 
 
 2,151 
 
 1,494 
 
 1,244 
 
 Cumberland, 
 
 
 227,933 
 
 255,579 
 
 248,801 
 
 2,248 
 
 1,161 
 
 2,565 
 
 
 
 Sussex, 
 
 
 251,621 
 
 249,613 
 
 207,848 
 
 2,518 
 
 1,776 
 
 2,172 
 
 
 n,... 
 
 ry, 
 
 Derbyshire, , , 
 
 
 289,149 
 
 381,564 
 
 337,876 
 
 1,448 
 
 3,061 
 
 3,130 
 
 a 
 
 
 Somersetshire,... . 
 
 
 301,325 
 
 380,435 
 
 366,228 
 
 720,000 
 
 O 1K1 
 
 Lincolnshire, 
 
 
 lOl 
 
 Devonshire, 
 
 
 1,350 
 
 3,835 
 
 Lancashire, 
 Yorkshire, * 
 
 
 13 English Counlo 
 
 •unties. 
 
 i 
 
Sdjcirttlc, No. I. 
 
 SHEWING 
 
 THE POPULATION AND NUMBER OF VOTERS 
 
 IN CERTAIN OF 
 
 THE ENGLISH, SCOTCH, AND WELCH COUNTIES, 
 
 AS COMPARED TO 
 
 THE IRISH COUNTIES. 
 
 ENGLISH 
 
 COUNTIES. 
 
 Population. 
 
 QJ 
 
 SCOTCH 
 
 COUNTIES. 
 
 Population. 
 
 O) 
 
 o 
 
 WELCH 1 
 
 Population. 
 
 <u 
 
 o 
 
 IRISH 
 
 COUNTIES. 
 
 Population. 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 COUNTIES. | 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 19,385 
 
 1,391 
 
 
 19,440 
 
 10,578 
 
 725 
 
 Radnorshire, 
 
 16,241 
 
 1,857 
 
 Sligo, 
 
 162,482 
 
 73,953 
 
 824 
 
 
 Peebleshire, 
 
 690 
 
 
 Carlow, 
 
 1,248 
 
 
 
 
 Selkirkshire, 
 
 6,833 
 
 561 
 
 
 
 
 Louth, 
 
 93,225 
 
 1,025 
 
 The Isle of Wight, 
 
 28,731 
 
 1,167 
 
 Berwickshire, ... 
 
 32,273 
 
 1,244 
 
 Anglesea 
 
 33,508 
 
 2,350 
 
 Longford, 
 
 112,558 
 
 136,872 
 
 1,465 
 
 
 Westmeath, ... 
 
 1,395 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Wicklow, 
 
 121,557 
 
 1,740 
 
 Westmoreland, ... 
 
 43,464 
 
 4,392 
 
 Roxboroughshire, 
 
 40,046 
 
 1,321 
 
 Breconshire, 
 
 42,737 
 
 2,255 
 
 Fermanagh, ... 
 
 147,364 
 
 1,640 
 
 
 
 
 King’s County, 
 
 144,225 
 
 1,526 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Leitrim 
 
 141,524 
 
 1,388 
 
 Huntingdon, 
 
 49,882 
 
 2,744 
 
 Edinburghshire, 
 
 44,711 
 
 1,682 
 
 Flintshire, 
 
 29,329 
 
 2,151 
 
 Dublin Co., ... 
 
 176,012 
 
 2,748 
 
 
 
 Kilkenny Co., 
 
 169,945 
 
 1,760 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Meath, 
 
 176,826 
 
 1,850 
 
 Herefordshire, 
 
 95,907 
 
 7,175 
 
 Lancashire, 
 
 85,873 
 
 3,721 
 
 Montgomeryshire, 
 
 51,187 
 
 2,846 
 
 Monaghan, ... 
 
 195,536 
 
 2,151 
 
 
 
 
 
 Waterford, ... 
 
 142,714 
 
 1,494 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Kildare 
 
 108,424 
 
 1,244 
 
 Cumberland, 
 
 126,871 
 
 9,029 
 
 Perthshire ._. 
 
 121,390 
 
 4,155 
 
 Pembrokeshire, 
 
 70,998 
 
 3,866 
 
 Cavan, " 
 
 227,933 
 
 2,248 
 
 
 
 Kerry, 
 
 255,579 
 
 1,161 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Limerick, 
 
 248,801 
 
 2,565 
 
 Sussex, 
 
 186,354 
 
 7,946 
 
 A yr shire 
 
 112,322 
 
 3,985 
 
 Denbighshire, ... 
 
 79,381 
 
 3,538 
 
 Clare, 
 
 251,621 
 
 2,518 
 
 
 
 
 Roscommon, ... 
 
 249,613 
 
 1,776 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Londonderry, 
 
 207,848 
 
 2,172 
 
 Derbyshire, 
 
 219,547 
 
 12,040 
 
 - - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 Glamorganshire, 
 
 80,836 
 
 4,370 
 
 Donegal, 
 
 Galway, 
 
 289,149 
 
 381,564 
 
 1,448 
 
 3,061 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Downshire, ... 
 
 337,876 
 
 3,130 
 
 Somersetshire, 
 
 213,777 
 
 17,385 
 
 
 
 
 Carmarthenshire, 
 
 86,612 
 
 5,210 
 
 Tyrone, 
 
 301,325 
 
 2,151 
 
 Lincolnshire, 
 
 274,207 
 
 347,530 
 
 651,875 
 
 800,169 
 
 18,380 
 
 18,835 
 
 27,743 
 
 49,189 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tipperary 
 
 380,435 
 
 2,369 
 
 Devonshire 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Mayo, 
 
 366,228 
 
 720,000 
 
 1 ,350 
 
 Lancashire, 
 
 
 
 
 
 — > 
 _ \ 
 
 
 Cork Co 
 
 3,835 
 
 Yorkshire 
 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 13 English Counties. 
 
 9 Scotch Counties 
 
 9 Welch Counties. 
 
 28 Irish Counties.