Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books 
 are reasons for disciplinary action and may 
 result in dismissal from the University. 
 
 University of Illinois Library 
 
 p p r -1 
 
 () iorp 
 
 
 ^ijv - 1 '^ 
 
 ' i ( 
 
 
 mi ' 
 
 '•.'«V. ' ' ' 
 
 
 \ 
 
 OCT 1 
 
 5 ^'^r.i: 
 
 
 SEP i 'J 15 
 
 '0 
 
 
«ft.9te9 <■ 
 
 
 
 
 .1 
 
 '1^'-=^ 
 
 . -> 
 
 . V.«' 
 
 <^- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■•■'-•■ &C. Ac. Ac.' • ■■ :v . ■«.■■..■• '-f;' ' ""->*" ♦ 
 
 
 
 ! ^^-i ■ V^' ' -£i 
 
 
 :^^ 
 
 
 > ' -^.■,^,- ; ^i-^gL. ■ v' ■ ■ . ■ -lite- " 
 
 fe--^- ■■■■ -vf-^.. :-^^1#m#6s^:-^ 
 
 
 
 
-w^»«-^'*'^-.-,-,., - .^ ,,. ^,_-,. -. ,•:.■■;■■■•»*(-.■'•-■ r,'.,.; _•' \'7g'^^•■'ifiif^0P'- 
 
 ■. v 
 
 -'!«? * 
 
 •^ 
 
 '■■4 ■*"■"■-' %v 
 
 ' t>i:*-: 
 
 -i 1,1. i.,t. ■ 
 
 tt 
 
 mist? 
 

 
 'i'-^^-y^^'^^' 
 
 TO THE 
 
 PATIENT AND BRAVE PEOPLE 
 
 OF 
 
 IRELAND. 
 
 " Hereditary BondsmeD, know you not. 
 Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow ?" 
 
 ^? 
 
 
 Fellow Countrymen, 
 
 1 DEDICATE these Letters to you — they 
 were written to assert your rights, and to expose 
 your enemies. 
 
 It was one object of mine to shew the British 
 nation how much we are wronged. It was, and 
 is another object of mine, that every one of you 
 should know and feel that a majority in the Im- 
 perial Parliament are ready to treat Ireland with 
 injustice a,nd insult. » 
 
 Convinced as I am of the value, and of the 
 connexion between both countries, and of the 
 necessity of re-establishing that connexion, on 
 the basis of .separate Legislatures, in order to. ^ 
 make it perni||ient, I have felt it my duty toi^ji .«< 
 demonstrate, J^b^Uresistible evidence of fact^ 
 how alien fr^^^^KmB/^^^ and regardless of 
 Irish interes^^^^^^^^Hffeil^t must inevtta-. 
 
 % 
 
 j'i^ 
 
 W-- 
 
 wW':mc: 
 
 

 
 -V 
 
 ■•»;.- " 
 
 YW^^W^'^ 's^^.. 
 
 IV 
 
 bly be. This is certainly the fittest moment to 
 make the conclusive experiment ; because this, in 
 V the first place, is a reforming Parliament — a Par- 
 lt«inent warm in the pursuit of political justice. 
 In the second place — all Reformers in this coun- 
 try must admit that a debt bf gratitude is due by 
 them to their Irish fellow-labourers. In the 
 third place — ^the House of Lords, who are sup- 
 posed to entertain an hereditary hatred to Ireland, 
 were iievier so weak and impotent as they are at 
 this moment. Xbey have dragged their honours 
 through the mire with a dexterity of filthiness 
 which has exceeded the hopes of their worst 
 enemies. They never were less capable of resist- 
 ; ing, althopgh many of them may be as ready as 
 ever to resist a popular and beneficent measure 
 for Ireland. 
 
 This, then, is the time to demonstrate the truth 
 
 of my theory, " That the Bntish Parliament, 
 
 ^1 even under the most favourable circumstances, is 
 
 incompetent — utterly incompetent to do justice to 
 
 Ireland.'^ 
 
 ■ They are, I repeat, utterly incompeteiit.' In- 
 trigues at Court — old jealousies of Ireland newly 
 revived- — the natural distaste of the Peers to look 
 on us in any other point of view than that which 
 combines hatred witlj contempt — and even in the 
 House of Commons, almost a total want of sym- 
 pathy—save from one generous spirit here, and 
 another there, thinly scattered through the House. 
 ' But, without entering into further details, I again 
 
 9 1.. 
 
 
■ Ct*; •:."■*" i*!^- 
 
 :;:^*' 
 
 pronounce 'the moi'al inconipetency of the Britiidi 
 Parliament to do us justice. 
 
 I hold the iprc»of of it in my faands-^the Irish 
 Reform Bill. Here it is, witli its paltry endea- 
 vour to keep from the people of Ireland all parti- 
 cipation in the^, franchises of the British Consti- 
 tution. Here it is, perpetuating, in the name of 
 Reform^, and consecrating aM the foul injustice of 
 the Peel- Wellington disfranchising measure, and 
 giving- us a machinery of registration, almc^t too 
 audacious for the bold bad men who perpetrated, 
 as they imagined, the total aftnihilation of the 
 popular spirit in Ireland^ — ^a machinery rendered 
 still worse by the R^orm Bill ! ! ! 
 
 I have not written these Letters with the vaia 
 and foolish hope of obtaining justice for Ireland ; 
 I totally disclaiitt that folly. 
 
 But I did write them to prove my candour'— to 
 shew that 1 would not onploy the insulting in- 
 sufficiency of the Irish Reform Bill as an argument 
 for the repeal of the Union, without first enipba^ 
 tically warning those who now have dwr destinies 
 in their hands, that, unless they deprive me of 
 that argument, it will be my sacred duty .to use it 
 with all the energy of my mind, and all the 
 earnestness and perseverance of a eharacter, which 
 has been formed by love for ttiat country, in whose 
 cause 1 have already contributed, in some degree, ' 
 to the achievement of a bloodless, stainless, but 
 most important victory. - '- v 
 
 Surely, after it shall have been, hy the adoption ^^-^ 
 
 
f 
 
 / 
 
 VI 
 
 of this Reform Bill, demonstrated, that the Par- 
 / ; . liamcnt in this country is not in a position to do 
 . ' us justice, there will not be found one Irishman 
 
 / who has ever professed patriotic feeling, so re- 
 
 creant to his country^s cause, as not. to join me in 
 seeking, by all le^al and constitutional means, 
 for the repeal of the Union. 
 
 People of Ireland ! — ^you have passed through a 
 gloomy period of oppression. Your business now 
 is, to be reconciled, the one to the other. Party 
 feuds — religious dissensions — ancient animosities 
 — modern quarr^s — should all be buried in one 
 common oblivion. The time is come, when we 
 should no longer divide from each other, under 
 any nicknames, or peculiar appellations. We 
 have one common country — we have one common 
 interest — ^the peace, prosperity, and freedom of that 
 country. These cannot be attained, save by and 
 through a resident Legislature. The moment is 
 fast approaching, when we will forget our recipro- 
 cal injuries and injustices to each other — ^and, at 
 ■that moment, our constitutional independence 
 must be restored, and no longer the serf, or the 
 bond slave of Britain, but, combined with her in 
 interests and affections, and united only by the 
 golden and cherished link of the Crown, we shall 
 be the best customer and consumer of Britain in 
 peace, and her firmest support, and ready partner, 
 in the dangers and victories of war. 
 
 Let no despair come over your minds. It is 
 .well that this pi-oof should be given of the impos- 
 
Vll 
 
 sibility of obtaining justice for Ireland in this Par- 
 liament. This will secure a combination and com- 
 munity of exertion in Ireland, and place us Re- 
 pealers beyond the reproach of the wise and the 
 got)d in this country. 
 
 There were many men who told me that they 
 would not look for the repeal of the Union, because 
 they believed that a reformed Parliament would 
 attend to the wants and wishes of the people- of 
 Ireland. This class of persons will now see, that 
 not only was their expectation unfounded on any 
 known fact, or circumstance, but that Ireland is 
 actually refused any thing approaching, in the 
 most remote degree, to common justice. She is, 
 in truth, refused a Reform Bill, — because the name 
 does not constitute the thing. She gets one in 
 name — she is refused it in reality. 
 
 I am just informed-, by authority of a very high 
 description, that care has been taken by the Com- 
 missioners of Division in Ireland, to manage mat- 
 ters so, that the Duke of Devonshire is to have 
 no less than three Close Boroughs — Dungarvon, 
 Youghal, and Bandon ; and, mark this particularly 
 — Stanley has not, up to this moment, published 
 the detail of the population returns in Ireland^ nor 
 the maps of the new boundaries of Boroughs — and 
 yet, to-morrow, we are to go into Committee on 
 this very Bill ! ! ! 
 
 Men of Ireland — Catholics ! — Protestants ! — 
 Presbyterians, and Dissenters of every Christian 
 denomination ! — ^this Bill is insulthig and injurioui^ 
 
Vlll 
 
 to us alJ — we are all Us victims. A haughty and 
 contemptuous perseverance by the Ministry in 
 wrongi includes^ and involves us all in one com- 
 mon contumely. The struggle to hand over to an 
 absentee Oligarchy the representation of Ireland, 
 equally oppresses the inhabitants of Ireland, of 
 every class, and of every creed. Irishmen of every 
 class and cneed, hoard this injustice in your inmost 
 souls; and recollect, that you have only to will 
 the remedy, in order to be certain of attaining it. 
 
 Wb are Eight Millions! !! 
 
 • 
 
 1 have the honour to be, 
 
 Feli,ow Countrymen, 
 Your most devoted, faithful Servant, 
 DANIEL O'CONNELL. 
 
 Parliament Street, 
 
 London, , 
 
 l2tkJune, 1832. 
 
TO THE 
 
 REFORMERS OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 / 
 
 Brother Reformers, LorJlm, May 22, 1832. 
 
 I APPEAL to you from the contemplated injustice 
 of the Irish department of the British Ministry. I 
 respectfully solicit your aid to prevent another act 
 of gross iniquity, another vile insult from being 
 inflicted on the people of Ireland. 
 
 My cause of complaint is this: — the Reform 
 Bill prepared for Ireland by the present Adminis- 
 tration is defective, partial, oligarchical^ unjttst, 
 waA daringly insulting. 
 
 My object is twofold : — firsts to prove the truth 
 of these assertions ; and, secondly, to solicit your 
 assistance, in order to prevent the consummation 
 of this iniquity. 
 
 But, as a preliminary, you have a right to knotv 
 what species of Reform Bill I require for Ireland. 
 I do not hesitate one moment to g^ve you that in- 
 formation. I ask^ in the name' of the Irish people, 
 for just such a Reform Bill for Ireland as you 
 have obtsdned for England — that is all. Is my 
 
 B 
 
demand unfair or unjust ? I anticipate an uni- 
 versal reply in the negatiye. 
 
 I ask, then, for Ireland a Reform Bill vihich 
 shall be identical with the English Bill^ wherever 
 an identity of institutions and of other circum- 
 stances allows it to be identical. Wherever insti- 
 tutions or other circumstances are not precisely 
 annilar. I then demand that the Reform Bill for 
 Ireland should as closely resemble as possible the 
 English Act — that it should be as similar in its 
 provisions as possible^ and that the extent of Re- 
 form in Ireland should be equivalent to, and 
 equally satisfactory with that in England. 
 
 I ask for the people of Ireland the same measure 
 of Reform which the people of England receive. 
 I will not be— I ought not to be content with less. 
 
 ln< other words, I look for as completcjaa equa- 
 lity of Refonti in both countries as possible. 
 
 But the Ministerial Bill for Ireland is^dicactly the 
 reveiise. < vit is, I repeat it^.parl;iaiy reacted, un- 
 just^ and insulting. It is coastitfited .to sacrifi^ 
 the Irish Reformers to the Irish Tories — who, by 
 the by«, constitute the very \vraratidaas. of .Tories 
 in e;cistebce. ;■. ' : '..;yi\. .; f:-.V\',i\i\, \ ,, . . ' 
 
 I proceed to point out the principal particulars 
 in which the Irish Referai <BiU< idiffers i &oin . the 
 English. They are these:; — , i... , . , . 
 ' Finl^^The English Bill greatly ^nlaiges the 
 elective franchise in the counties of England. The 
 Irish Bill, on the whole^ diminishes .tfie number of 
 voters in the Irish ;a>unties« The Bill £dr Scotland 
 exceedingly increases the number of voters, in 
 Scotch counties. The Irish Reform> Bill diminishes 
 the number. 
 
 Secondly^ — ^The Irish Bill creates too high and 
 
too Aristocratic n franchise in the Irish towns and 
 cities : it alters the present law to the prejudice of 
 the pe«f>}e and in favour of the Oligarchy. 
 
 Thirdly — ^Although the Irish Reform Bill de- 
 stroys the indiyidual and direct power of nomina- 
 tion in sixteen boroughs, it substitutes so exceed- 
 ingly narrow a basis of franchise as effectually to 
 vender those Boroughs Close Boroughs, and to 
 make theni liable to the most gross and profligate 
 corruptioh. 
 
 Fourthly — It renders the registration of a vote 
 almost impossible for any but a rich man, and thus 
 deprives the middle and poorer classes of their 
 vote^ This is effectual by complication of de- 
 tain in the registry, and by the pre«sure of gneat 
 delay and jendrmoiis.expence. 
 
 FifHily — It lea^ves the registry of the votes to a 
 set oi} persons, who, taken iii the ag^egate, are, 
 from want of siiffident aptitude, and al^ by reason « 
 of^their zealous Tory principles, the most unfit 
 to have that power. ... 
 
 Sixthly — It continues all the enormous expcnce 
 abd delays, of contested elections; which in En- 
 land; under your Reform Bill, niust be over in two 
 or 'three days-r-but in Ireland, by our jReform Bill, 
 may last full fifteen days, as before. 
 
 Seventhly— The Irish Reform Bill does not giye 
 Ireland her d^e and fair proportipQ, pf Represen- 
 tatives^ in Parliament. 
 
 Ei^tUy-^The Irish Reform Bill glaringly, and 
 1 may say gratuitouidy,» insults the people of Ire- 
 lEttid by gwing an action of only five Menabers 
 to all Ireland, while it allocates one out of the five 
 to' a aingle College— the College of Dublin; a 
 
 B 2 
 
4 
 
 College having already one Member, without any 
 adequate or just right to any representation. 
 
 Upon the whole, my decided and dehberate con- 
 viction is, that with the exception of throwing 
 open the representation of Belfast, Cork, Galway, 
 and Dublin, the Irish Reform Bill will make mat- 
 ters worse than they are at present in Ireland with 
 regard to the right and power of the people to 
 choose Representatives. In short, that it should be 
 entitled, " An Act to restore to power the Orange 
 ascendancy in Ireland, and to enable that faction 
 to trample with impunity on the friends of Reform 
 and of constitutional freedom.'' 
 
 Such is the plan matured at a third attempt, by 
 Mr. Stanley, for the Reform in Ireland. He is, I 
 know, determined to persevere in his measure. I 
 also know that he will be supported by all the 
 Tories in the House, and by a vast and overpower- 
 ing majority of the Whigs. Indeed, I have greatly 
 to complain of the total disregard to Ireland — ^I 
 believe I ought to call it contempt for Ireland — 
 exhibited by the English Whigs and Reformers in 
 Parliament, with some, and but few exceptions. 
 
 I proceed now to prove the truth of my asser- 
 tions. I take up my eight heads of complaint 
 seriatim ; and if the Reformer of England and 
 Scotland will condescend to read these Letters — ^for 
 I must extend them to at least three or four — I 
 pledge myself satisfactorily to demonstrate that 
 every one of my objections is well founded, and that 
 the Irish Reform Bill is a Reform Bill only in name 
 — that it is a practical blunder, such as Irishmen 
 never commit — that while it purports to reform, 
 it renders matters worse ; and, in short, that it is 
 
one of those base delusions which could originate 
 only in the brazen audacity and cold heart of an 
 English Tory, who found himself placed in the at- 
 titude of an English Whig, with controul over the 
 present fortunes of unfortunate, long oppressed, 
 much insulted, but, thank Heaven, no longer weak 
 or powerless Ireland. 
 
 My first complaint is, " that Stanley's Reform 
 Bill for Ireland ought to augment, but will, in fact, 
 diminish the number of voters in Irish counties." 
 
 Now the great principle of the English Reform, 
 as, indeed, of all reform, is " enfranchisement," that 
 is, to increase the number of votere. The princi- 
 ple of the Irish Reform Bill is disfranchisement^ 
 that is, to diminish the number of voters. This 
 principle of disfranchisement, I must say, is not 
 confined to counties. I shall show, before I have 
 done, that it applies to some of our boroughs. 
 
 'I'his complaint is still more strong than any 
 Englishman, not acquainted with the details of 
 Irish affairs, could possibly conceive, and for this 
 reason ;- — When the veracious Wellington and 
 candid Peel were compelled by the people of Ire- 
 land to concede religious freedom to the Protestant 
 Dissenters of England and Catholics of Ireland, 
 they exerted a vicious ingenuity to make that con- 
 cession as little valuable to popular liberty as pos- 
 sible. Accordingly they annihilated — they totally 
 annihilated, the 40s. franchise in Ireland, not only 
 where it depended on a freehold of a life or lives 
 subject to a heavy rent, and therefore capable of 
 being abused — but also where it arose from a fee- 
 simple estate, not subject to any rent whatsoever. 
 This was not all — they raised the franchise to what 
 is an enormously high valuation in a poor country 
 
 B 3 
 
6 
 
 — that is, to ten pounds annual value over rent and 
 charges ; and that, I rejMsat, in a vc^ poor country, 
 where ten pounds a year is certainly of three times 
 the importance of tlmt sutn in this country. But 
 even this y^oA not all—- they rendered actual resi- 
 dence and occupation of the entirefreehold — mark, 
 of the entire freehold — necessai^ to constitute a 
 Tote. But even this was not all — ^they superadded 
 a most tedious, vexatious, expensive, and, in inany 
 instances, totally impracticable mode of registry of 
 voters, as a preliminary to the right of voting. 
 
 I wish to dwell upon this point, that the British 
 Reformers may clearly comprehend Jiow outra- 
 geously unjust it is still to augment the difficulties 
 in the way of the right to vote in Ireland, and still 
 further, positively, and directly, to diminish the . 
 number of Irish voters in Irish counties. 
 
 I will illustrate the atrocious working of the 
 Peel-Wellington Disfranchising Bill by some in- 
 stances of its practical operation. Most of those 
 instances are taken from the counties in which the 
 Orange interest prevails. For example: In Ar- 
 magh there were 8,419 voters on the40«. franchise. 
 These were replaced by 1,087 ten pound voters — 
 that is, seven eighths were annihilated. In Cavan, 
 5,195 replaced by 781. In Down, 10,775 replaced 
 by ] ,902. In Donegal, 2,310 replaced by only 66. 
 In Dublin County, the Metropolitan County, 2,490 
 replaced by 109. In Londonderry, 4,457 replaced 
 by 839. 
 
 In Monaghan, 12,452 replaced by 946; in 
 Mayo, 23,672 replaced by 335; Roscommon, 
 T,777 replaced by 470 ; Sligo, 4,551 replaced by 
 303; in Tyrone, 6,468 replaced by 701; in 
 Galway, 32,055 replaced by 1812. 
 
I need not continue the catalogue. These num- 
 bers show that the Peel-WelMngton measure took, 
 in twelve counties in Ireland, their vot% from 
 110;612 voters^ and replaced: them by ooly 9>351. 
 TMts, in little more Hian one^hird of that country, 
 destroying th^ franchise to the extent of more than 
 ]00,000Voter8;:'Fhe result (^ the lists of voters 
 in the reriiaiiiiti^' counties, would be found not; to 
 diSer materiaUy from those I have above enume- 
 rated. 
 
 I -now appeal to every honest and candid Re- 
 former in Great Britain, whetho* the first step to a 
 real and not mock or delusive Reform in Ireland, 
 should not be to increase, not diminish, the fran- 
 chise. Many of otir counties were reduced to the 
 station of Close Borou^. The popular rights 
 were nearly destroyed. If Stanley intended to 
 give us Reform, reab Reform, honest Reform, would 
 not hi^ first effort be to increase the franchise, to 
 augment the voters, and to give, at least, a reason- 
 able portion of the people a voice in the choice of 
 Representatiines ? 
 
 Judge, then, honest and manly Reformers of 
 Great Britain, of the grief and indignation with 
 which your equally honest and determined brother 
 Reformers of Ireland receive the Stanley Reform 
 Bill, the operation of which is, not to augment, but 
 still further to diminish, the number of our county 
 voters. ■ ■.'.• -i • • ■'■ '-yr ■ . ■, .. . ;, 
 
 Reflect on this, which is the literal and plain 
 fact, that the Tories coijtrived, under the shadow of 
 the Catholic Relief Bill, to render as oligarchical, 
 as close, and of course as corrupt as they possibly 
 could, all the Irish counties — and that the only 
 county Reform to be given us by Stanley is, to 
 
 B 4 
 
8 <j 
 
 make those counties more oligarchical, more close, 
 and therefore more liable to corruption. 
 
 Let any one of you after this ask; why is Ireland 
 discontented ? Why is Ireland disturbed ! Alas ! 
 do you not perceive ike principle on which Whigs 
 and Tories, with indiscriminate recklessness, go- 
 vern Ireland? — The principle of never doing us, 
 in any instance, justice, lest we should become so 
 strong as to be able to put an end to our other 
 oppressions. 
 
 What I assert and insist on is^ that the Irish 
 Reform Bill ought to augment the franchise and 
 increase the number of voters in our counties, as 
 the English and Scotch Reform Bills have aug- 
 mented the one and increased the other. It would 
 be unjust to leave us stationary when the other 
 parts of the empire increase the quantity of human 
 freedom. It is doubly unjust to leave us stationary 
 while we are suffering under a recent and most 
 iniquitous diminution of our franchises, and when 
 there is an increase in the other divisions of the 
 empire. But it transcends in injustice when the 
 other parts of the empire are augmented in fran- 
 chise, to have an actual diminution take place in 
 Ireland. 
 
 No country in the world was ever treated so 
 badly by an unnative Government as Ireland has 
 been by the Government of England. I could 
 demonstrate that Poland had never so much reason 
 to complain of Russia, nor Greece of the Turks — 
 but I confess that the conduct of this reforming 
 Administration towards Ireland fills me with more 
 of resentment than all the past. 
 
 Reformers of Great Britain, you have no interest *" 
 in Ireland's being ill governed. On the contrary. 
 
9 
 
 your interest is that we should be well governed 
 and prosperous. I therefore, but muchjmore rea- 
 dily, relying on your generous sympathies, appeal 
 to you from the injustice and insult now offered us. 
 
 Recollect that there will be, by your Reform 
 Bill, the following rights of suffrage— the follow- 
 ing franchises established in England : — 
 
 1. The franchise of 40s. freeholders for a life, 
 or lives. This franchise requires occupation of the 
 freehold by the freeholder. 
 
 . S. The franchise of 40s, freeholders in fee-sim- 
 ple. I'his franchise is to continue in England, and 
 does not require actual occupation. 
 
 3. The franchise of £10. clear yearly value for 
 any freehold estate, whether for life or in fee. This 
 franchise does not require actual occupation by the 
 freeholder. 
 
 4. The franchise of similar value to copyholders. 
 This franchise is, for the first time, given by the 
 English Reform Bill, and introduces a numerous 
 class of new voters. 
 
 5. The original lessee, or the assignee of a term 
 originally of at least sixty years, of the clear yearly 
 value of <£ 10. This is a new franchise, and does 
 not require actual occupation. 
 
 6. The original lessee, or the assignee of a term 
 originally of at least twenty years, of the clear 
 yearly value of £50. This is a new franchise, and 
 does not require actual occupation. 
 
 7. The sub-lessee, or assignee of a sub-lease of a 
 term not less, originally, than sixty years, with a 
 clear profit of £10. This is a new franchise, but 
 requires actual occupation. It is the first franchise 
 in England which is encumbered by the necessity 
 of actual occupation. 
 
 A 
 
to 
 
 8. The sub-tessee, or assi^ee of a sub-lease of a 
 terin'Yidt lefts, '*»rt^ttally, than ti^enty years, of the 
 clear ariilttal^tttliie of JEW). TTiis i» a new fran- 
 chise, but it requires actual 'occupation. 
 
 0. Any tfefaafrt wbatsdcver, liable to a hoiiajide 
 rent of i&50.-a-year. This is a sew- franchise, and 
 requires actnia.1 occupation'. • 
 
 • ■■ ■ M. • .;,■».. ■ . , ■ , , . ■ 
 
 Such is to be the state of the elective franchise 
 in England. It consists altog<^ther of nine different 
 classes of yoters, and is an augmientation of former 
 rights by no less than seven classes, and some of 
 those classes are teuHtitudinOus in their nature — 
 that is, capable o# giving rights of voting to many 
 individaalsout of one property.: — ^How melancholy 
 aild mliserable is the contrast which t^e state of 
 Ireland is destined to afford. 
 
 fn Ireland we are to have but four classes of 
 
 voters. '■-•' ' ''-- ■' ^- i ' . . ..'i ^. :-.. .. .. 
 
 1. The existing one, a freehold of £10. dear 
 annual value. This franchise requires actual occu- 
 pation. ■* 
 
 '2. The existing right of freehold of £20. clear 
 annual valuel. This does not require actual occu- 
 pation. 
 
 3. The lessee, or assignee of a term of originally 
 not less th^n fourteen years, of the clear yearly 
 value of £20. This is a new franchise, and does 
 not require aictual occupation. 
 
 4. The sub-lessee, or assignee of a sub-lease of a 
 term of not less, originally, than fourteen years, of 
 the clear annual ^alue of £20. This is a new fran- 
 chise, and requires actual occupation. ' 
 
 These are aH-^and thus England has, at present. 
 
11 
 
 two franchisies, and acquires^ by the^ Reform Bill, 
 seven additional franchises. Ireland has at present 
 two franchises^ and acquires^ by the Keioxm. Bill, 
 only two more. 
 
 England, a rich country, has two franchises of 
 40«., multitu^nous in their nature, and only one 
 requiring actual occupation. Four franchises of 
 £10., one only of which requires actual occupation; 
 besides . two franchises of £50. annual value, one 
 only of which requires actual occupation ; and one 
 franchise of mere payment of £50. a year r^it. [ 
 Mark the contrast with Ireland— Ireland, a 
 poor country, has no 40«. franchise,. has. only one 
 £10. franchise, and even that franduse requk%s 
 actual occupation. Ireland has, then, but Huee 
 franchises of the enormous- value to ttt of £20< 
 annual value, and one of these three requires ^c 
 tual occupation. 
 
 To put this matter in a still more clear point <^ 
 view-^Let me take in England a single estate wordi 
 £^0. a year, and in the hands of an occupying te- 
 nant who pays that rent for it. Now such a pro- 
 perty as that could, in England, qualify no less 
 than twenty-six persons to vote, while in irelaucj 
 such a property could not possibly qualify more 
 than thre^ persons to vote. 
 
 Thus^ then, the English are to have the advan- 
 tage, and I heartily rejoice at it, of seven new 
 classes of voters — of nine classes in all ; Ireland is 
 to have but four classes — two only being new 
 classes ; that is, in new classes the English BUI i^ 
 to the Irish as seven to two ; in classes generally, 
 as nine to four. But this approxinisti<m in the 
 general classes is proved to be quite delusive, when 
 you recollect that, in point of valued property, Enr 
 
12 
 
 gland has an advantage equal to twenty-six against 
 three, or more than eight to one. 
 
 Thus, in new franchise, the English Bill is seven 
 to two better than the Irish. In popular character 
 as arising from property, it is more than eight, very 
 nearly nine to one better than the Irish Bill; and 
 let it always be recollected, that this difference is 
 enormously aggravated by the fact, that Ireland is 
 beyond comparison the less wealthy country. 
 
 Let me not be misunderstood — I do not in the 
 least desire to diminish the advantages which En- 
 gland possesses. On the contrary, I say it with 
 the utmost sincerity, my ardent desire would be to 
 augment these advantages. I am a radical Re- 
 former, and on principle think every Englishman 
 ought to have a right to vote. I quote, therefore, 
 the advantages of the English Reform Bill — ^and 
 they are very great — only tcf show how defectively 
 "the Irish Bill is, as I firmly believe, wilfully and 
 designedly made. 
 
 This Letter has run into such length, that I must 
 pause, and reserve the residue of this my first com- 
 plaint for another Letter. 
 
 1 have hitherto confined my attention to show 
 the necessity that exists to augment the number of 
 voters in our counties, and to prove that no sensi- 
 ble augmentation can take place under the Irish 
 Reform Bill. I have shown the to us insulting con- 
 trast of the increase of franchises and of voters 
 given to England. In my next Letter I will prove, 
 that the practical effect of the Irish Bill will be to 
 diminish the number of voters, although an in- 
 crease is so imperatively required by every princi- 
 ple of justice and common sense. 
 
13 
 
 Reformers of Great Britain, recollect that we 
 have honestly and zealously stood by you in the 
 contest for Reform. When your Reform Bill was in 
 danger, we flung overboard our own grievances and 
 our just resentments — nay, more — ^had Wellington 
 found any set of men mad enough to join him, in 
 attempting to govern- the country to the exclusion 
 of Earl Grey, and had a resort been made to Polig- 
 nac Ordinances instead of Acts of Parlianient, you 
 would have found your constitutional liberties sup- 
 ported by one million of Irishtnen in arms^ true to 
 your sacred cause to the last of their blood and 
 their breath. British Reformers, do not we deserve 
 your peaceable but determined assistance to com- 
 pel the Administration, and to induce the Parlia- 
 ment to give us a Reform Bill equally satisfectory 
 with that of England or of Scotland ? 
 
 I have the honour to be, 
 
 your faithful Servant, 
 
 DANIEL O'CONNELL. 
 
14 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 '^* Tluris enenlSally a Gonservative ibeasure." — Speech of 
 CnimpUmt Solidtor-GeHtralfor Ireland,' on the aecond reading 
 of the Jkitk Reform BUI * 
 
 • London, May 29, 1032. 
 
 Brother Reformers — Look to my motto — see 
 how it has verified my worst fears. The candid 
 biut indiscreet avowal of the Irish Law Officer^ by 
 whose hand this Insh Reform Bill was drawn up, 
 places beyond a doubt the real intentions of the 
 Irish Government, and the real nature of the 
 Irish Reform Bill. 
 
 It is " a Conservative measure/' English Re- 
 formers, mark that, I most earnestly implore you. 
 If you have any sympathy for Ireland — ^if you re- 
 gret her wrongs, and the c(»nplicated injustice 
 which she has for centuries endured at the hands 
 of the British Government, and which she never 
 endured with more of harshness and pf contumely 
 than from the Anglesey-Stsmlej Administration, 
 now inflicted on that unhappy country. If, I re- 
 peat, you have sympathy for her sufTerings, or 
 indignation at the injustice done and intended to- 
 wards Ireland, rouse, I entreat you, now, and res- 
 cue us from the fatal effects of this " Conservative 
 measure." How I thank the Solicitor-General for 
 the word ! ! 
 
15 
 
 'Shall I despiiir (^ ebnoperaticNi i Ironn the Britnii 
 Rdbrmers ? Alas, I fear thait the compluBts of the 
 miseries inflicted on Irehuid, and of the insults now 
 offered her; will fall aa the didj cold eai^iof British 
 apatliyxis the complaints and groans^f former pe- 
 riod hare wasted ithemselves in useless attempts to 
 rouse atfentioki, and to procure rpdress, 
 5 1; hdwerer, shall haye done mry duty ; ^and aU 
 though J may do it here invYain^ I ao^tnot^^without 
 resources — ^nor shall any sickness of the heart come 
 over me. I am one of those who hare taught the 
 " hCTeditary bondsmen*' of Ireland^ that they who 
 conttod for freedom must principally' rely on their 
 own exertions; -, . t, ^ .. 
 
 I retom with: heaviness- and sorrow to the. Irish 
 Reform BilK Imd proceed tavjustify Mr. Oafppton, 
 and to show 1m>ww«11 that Bill merits the appella- 
 tion h^ gstve iio6a«*^'Gonsei^Mive mws,ur^<'' r.i 
 
 In my first Lett^r^ afiter stating the eight distinct 
 topics of great magnitude on which the Irish Re> 
 form Bill fulls glaringly sbort: of tbp, rights and 
 pririleges whi<^ Reform wii^ giye to En^aud and 
 to Scodand, I proceeded to. deyiel<^e-_the ,firs4 fOf 
 them — that which rdated to the most important of 
 all—rnamely, the extension of the elective firan- 
 chiset^.; • ^ •• ,' ■ • -.> 
 
 It will bet recollected 4hat I iniifist^d thatlrdand 
 had peculiar ^laim^. for agre^t et^nmm^ <dyGnai' 
 chise, OB account {>rineip9dly oUihe gi;<»sJMiiustice 
 inflict 0&{her in ^o* spoliation of that right by 
 the iWelUngton-Peel A^i^istration. . . . f^ i 
 
 Let me remind, 'Bay x4!fitS(^s»Jik9l^l shewed* by a 
 ref^ence to twelve : counties. only^^^t the voters 
 in< f^M)se iQountiesfjwere din^^inifthod ^^by^ > ih^ ^Wel- 
 lington-Peel measure, from 110,612 to the compa- 
 
16 
 
 ratively small number of 9^351. I produced the 
 d^ils, in order to justify the conclusion that the 
 reduction of voters was equally great all over the 
 entire country. I owe to myself to add that mif. 
 Stanley, in his speech on the second reading of the 
 Irish Reform Bill, has shown that I have under- 
 stated the argument and underrated the calculation 
 to my own prejudice ; for he distinctly admitted 
 that the £10. voters who replaced the 40«. free- 
 holders did not exceed 20,000. 
 
 Now the 40s. freeholders were admitted to be 
 more than 200,000. . . 
 
 This, therefore, may be taken as a conceded and 
 undoubted truth, that we come to the consideration 
 of the Irish Reform Bill with the fact unquestion- 
 ed and unquestipnable, that Ireland has recently 
 suffered this injustice — namely, that her voters 
 have been diminished from 200,000 to 20,000; a 
 sacrifice, at once, of no less a number than 180,000 
 voters! ! ! ' 
 
 Add to this, that England^ where the voters are 
 not for the present diminished in anything — I meai^ 
 in counties — gets seven additional classes of voters, 
 and Ireland gets only two classes. 
 
 I refer to nay former Letter for these details. I 
 mention them now only to show how imperative it 
 is in point of justice, honesty, and common sense, 
 to give Ireland an increase of franchise. 
 
 I have, however, asserted, arid I will soon pro- 
 peed to prove, that the Irish Reform Bill, insteaid 
 of increasing— -as it plainly ought— our county 
 electors, actually diniinishes their number ! ! ! 
 
 Let me, before I go into that proof, placie the 
 injustice done to Ireland iii another, and I think a 
 striking point of view. I complain with the more 
 
iHtterness of the injustice of lessening our county 
 vomers, because England gets a very great addition 
 to fci^r county voters, and Scotland gets an enor- 
 mous increase to her county voters. , 
 
 England, as I have shown^ in addition to her 
 present two classes of voters, gets seven multitudi- 
 nous new classes. Scotland profits still more ex-- 
 tenavely in the change. Her present county voters 
 do not exceed 1,100 ; her new county constituency 
 will exceed 30,000. This fact* I have from the 
 men in iScotland best suited to ascertain its perfect 
 accuracy. I do not hesitate, therefore, to pledge 
 myself to its truth. Scotland multiplies her county 
 voters by nearly thirty times their present number. 
 She has 1,100; she gets more than 30,000. ^ 
 
 But, if such be the case of England, as it cer- 
 tainly is, with her voters multiplied by at least four ; 
 and if such be the case of Scotland, with her voters 
 multiplied by thirty ; what ought to be the case of 
 Ireland? I ask, whether I am unreasonable when 
 I say, that Ireland ought to have her voters multi- 
 plied, not by thirty — I do not ask that — ^but at least 
 by four. I do ask and insist on that addition. , 
 
 But) in point of fact, the number of county 
 voters is to be diminished by the Irish Refonn 
 Bill. I proceed to prove the truth of this assertion. 
 
 I take up, in order to avoid all cavil or dispute, 
 the calculations made by Mr. Stanley himself. I 
 will do nothing more than correct these calcula- 
 tions where they are manifestly and beyond contro- 
 versy mistaken — mistaken, not wilfully on his 
 part, but by reason of his ignorance of the details. 
 
 l^r. Stanley calculated the Irish voters thus ; 
 £dO. freeholders at 22,000, and he is borne out by 
 the Parliamentary Returns ; £20. freeholders, at 
 
18 
 
 9,000, and he is also borne dbt by the Parlia- 
 mentary Returns; and £10. freeholders, at 20,000, 
 ^nd he is borne out by the Parliamentary Returns. 
 
 This would give for Ireland 52,000 voters, and 
 so Mr. Stanley stated it. But 52,000 on a popu- 
 lation of eight millioins is exceedingly small. 
 However, I do not rest for the present on this 
 point. I proceed to show the error in Mr. Stan- 
 ley's calculations, though it is drawn, I admit, from 
 Parliamentary Returns. 
 
 Let me just allow that the calculation of £10. 
 freeholders is accurate ; there are of them 20,000, 
 in round numbers. But the returns show the £50. 
 freeholders to be 22,000, in round numbers ; and 
 the £20. freeholders to be 9,000, making together 
 31,000. 
 
 Here lies Mr. Stanley's mistake. He did not 
 know that the reason of the accuracy of the return 
 of the ^10. voters is, that it comprises a space of 
 only three years, and, therefore, that the list of 
 casualties is small, few have died ofTin that period, 
 few have disposed of their freeholds. But the re- 
 turn of the £60. freeholders comprises the space 
 of forty-one years, beginning so long ago as the 
 year 1790, and including grandfathers and fathers, 
 as well as persons of the present generation ; in 
 short, including many who are dead, ten, twenty, 
 thirty, and more years. 
 
 The return of the £20. freeholders is pretty much 
 in the same predicament — it goes back in all cases 
 eight years, and in many to the year 1795. It 
 includes a multitude of persons who have been 
 dead many years. The practical result at the late 
 elections has been, that the £50. and £20. voters 
 have never been found to equal . one-sixth of the 
 
19 
 
 number of names on the registry roll— not near 
 one-sixth in many cases^-perhaps, not one-nindL 
 I, who have been elected for three counties, <iaii 
 speak with confidence on this subject. 
 
 We shall now see what the amount of the voters 
 in Ireland is by taking up Mr. Stanley*s calcu- 
 lations, corr^ted only where his ignorance of 
 Irish subjects makes that correction necessary. 
 The ultimate and accurate result will be thus: — 
 Of £10. freeholders - - - 20fi00 
 0( £50. and £20. less than one-sixth 
 of31,000, say one-sixth of 30,000 5,000 
 
 Total r^stered voters in Ireland 35,000; 
 
 But to this is to be added a formidable list of 
 voters of another description— -namely, the clei^- ' 
 men of the Established Church, who have a ri^ft 
 to vote out of thdr benefices. They amount to, at 
 the lowiest computation, 1,100 ; but as I take every 
 things in the most unfavourable way to my argti'^ 
 ment, I will write them down only 1,000 — making 
 altogether for Ireland 36,000 voters-^of whwri, 
 however, four to the hundred are parsons — men, 
 who, with very J oery, feW texceptions, vote for 
 Anti-Reformers, Tories, and Orangeists. 
 
 This, then, is the state of Ireland at pf'e^Kt. 
 There are 26,000 voters, of whom 1,000 aref viofent 
 enemies of popular rights and liberties. 
 
 These 26,000 are all that are entitled to vote out 
 of a population of severt tnillions. I will show» 
 presently, why I say seven millions. ' 
 
 When the Union was established between En- 
 gland and Ireland, the representation of the latter 
 was based on a franchise, which was, in 1829, found 
 to comprise near 220,000 voters of all classes. If 
 
 c2 
 
20 
 
 Ireland now got, as, England gets, seven new classes 
 of voters, surely our voters ought to 'be .370,000 at 
 the least. Lord Althorpe has repeatedly declared, 
 that the new franchise, given to England, would 
 bring in half a million of new voters. Of these 
 take hut 300,000 for the counties; then the case 
 would stand thus.: — ^The English counties, as com- 
 pared with the Irish, in point of population, 
 appear, by the returns of 1821, to be as 12 to 7; 
 but take them to be as 12 to 6. Observe now, I 
 sink and diminish the case of Ireland in every in- 
 stance, that no man should by possibility say I am 
 unreasonable ; but taking it to be 6 to 12 instead of 
 7 to 12, yet England getting 300,000 new votes in 
 her counties, Ireland ought to get 150,000, which, 
 being added to her former 220,000, on the. basis of 
 the Union^ would give her 370,000 county voters. 
 
 Mark, British Reformer — ^honest British Reformer 
 ■—that Ireland has but 26,000 voters instead of 
 370,000— an injustice to the extent of 344,000 
 voters. But, what ought to be my sensations of 
 disgust and indignation, when I know, as I shall 
 prove, that the 26,000 existing voters, instead of 
 being increased by the Reform Bill, are to be ac- 
 tually diminished ? , 
 
 Take this injustice in another point of view. 
 Scotland, with a population of only 2,365,807, 
 has an agricultural population certainly not ex-) 
 ceeding one million and a half. The cities of 
 Edinburgh and Glasgow alone have, the former 
 162,156, and the latter 202,426 inhabitants, ma- 
 king together 364,582. I do not, therefore, un- 
 derrate the agricultural population of Scotland at 
 one million and a half. 
 
 Now, the exceedingly defective and avowedly 
 
21 
 
 partial enumeration of Ireland gives a return of 
 7,734,365 inhabitants. 
 
 In the almost total failure of trade and manu- 
 factures in Ireland, I am confident no man will 
 accuse me of exaggerating the agricultural popu- 
 lation of Ireland at seven millions. 
 
 Now, contrast Scotland, under the Reform Bill, 
 with Ireland. 
 
 Scotland, for one million and a half of her in- 
 habitants, will have a constituency of 30,000 
 voters. 
 
 Ireland, for seven millions of her inhabitants, 
 will have a constituency not exceeding, as I shall 
 presently show, 25,000 voters. I implore every 
 man, who values justice and fair dealing, to look at 
 that picture, and at this. If we were Scotch, we 
 should have 140,000 voters — we are Irish, and we 
 are allowed in all only 25,000. 
 
 If we were English, we should get 150,000 ad- 
 ditional voters — that is, mark, 150,000 in addition 
 to 220,000. We do not get one additional voter 
 because we are Irish — ^not one — nay, our present 
 number is to be diminished. 
 
 Follow me in this last point, and 1 thinkl will 
 make it demonstration that this Bill will diminish 
 the voters in our counties. Thus, at present, every 
 qualified pierson in twenty-five boroughs having 
 representatives in Parliament, are entitled to vote 
 in county elections ; they are so entitled, whether 
 they have votes for the borough representatives or 
 not. These county voters are persons in trade or 
 of independent means, residing in the towns, and 
 are, beyond any comparison, the most patriotic 
 and liberal portion of the constituency; they were, 
 and are Whigs, and Reformers almost to a man; 
 
 c 3 
 
22 
 
 they «re, accordingly, to be struck out of the county 
 constituency by the Comsertatiyx Measure of 
 the Irish Reform BiH. 
 
 Let me, for example, take my own county, the 
 county of Kerry. The £10. registei«d voters in 
 my county are only 178, and of the voters more 
 than 80 are in the town of Tralee. These 80 voters 
 will be struck out of the county by the Irish Reform 
 Bill, and thusthe county constituency, in its po- 
 pular shape, will be reduced to 99 ! ! ! 
 
 In the county of Clare, there will be a loss in 
 the town of Ennis of near one hundred voters to 
 the county. In the county of Cork, the county 
 will lose the independent voters of Mallow, Ban- 
 don, Kinsale, and Youghal. Tipperary will lose 
 the voters in Cashel and Clonmel. In short, in 25 
 towns, voters, on an, average of at least the number 
 of a hundred in each town, will be lokt to the inde- 
 pendent county interests. I understate the loss of 
 the entire at 2,&0Q annual voters. 
 
 On the other hand, there will of course be some 
 increase, by reason of the two new classes of chattel 
 voters. But taking all Ireland, as it really is, at 
 25,000 freehold votes, I defy any man seriously to 
 asfaert, that the chattel voters will, at £20. clear pro- 
 fit, (for that is the qualification,) amount ta 1,250. 
 Yet I will go beyond any possible exaggeration, 
 and I will suppose the chattel voters will amount to 
 1,500. Yet, as the counties lose on the borough 
 tQwns 2,500 votes, as I have already shown, it will 
 have an ultimate loss of county votes, amounting to 
 1000, on a total of 26,000, reducing our county 
 constituency to only 25,000. 
 
 Of these 25,000, full 1000 will be beneficed 
 clergymen — leaving all Ireland but 24,000 county 
 
23 
 
 vpters, and the Clergy of the Established Church 
 four per cent, on the entire. 
 
 Yes, this is indeed a Conservatlye mjbasure. 
 It places Ireland in a state of degradation and 
 contumely, not to be thought of without pain and 
 disgust. 
 
 Scotland changes the county constituency from 
 1^100 fictitious voters to 30,000 real and substantial 
 ypters. 
 
 England adds 300,000 to her county voters, 
 whilst Ireland, struck down by Wellington and 
 Peel to 26,000 county voters, receives, for her only 
 consolation^ a gifting of scenery, and a real and 
 substantial diminution of 1,000 county voters. 
 
 I confess I cannot bear this injustice; it exceeds 
 my endurance ; but I will not waste my breath in 
 idle anger.; 
 
 In the first place, I appeal to the Reformers of 
 Great Britain. In the House of Commons, the 
 Reformers have little sympathy for us Irish— plenty 
 of Kp service ; but, upon eyery division, they will 
 vote in shoals against the extension of Irish rights. 
 As to the Tories, 1 repeat what I have already 
 said — ^they will, on every division, vote with the 
 Ministry for the restriction of the Irish right of 
 suifrage, and against us, who will struggle to, the 
 last, to obtain for Ireland as good a Bill as is to be 
 immediately the law in (England. Against Ireland 
 the Ministers will comniand many, very many, of 
 the Whigs, and all the Tories, to the last man. 
 
 In conclusion, I demand these things for Ireland; 
 I refuse to accept, with satis&ction, any thing less ; 
 I will take any instalment of public liberty, but I 
 will not release one particle of my entire claim. 
 
 c4 
 
24 
 
 A ask for the counties in Ireland these fran- 
 chises: — 
 
 First— The restoration of the forty shilling fran- 
 chise in fee, and perpetual freehold. - 
 
 I ask this franchise, because it is preserved and 
 made perpetual in England. 
 
 Second — I ask for Ireland, that the £10. fran- 
 chise, on terminable freeholds, should be reduced in 
 Ireland from a £10. qualification to one of £7. an- 
 nual value — £7. in Ireland being a larger qualifi- 
 cation relatively to all the necessaries of life, than 
 £10. in England. 
 
 Thirdly — I demand a similar £7. franchise in 
 Ireland in chattel leases of 14 years, being the 
 usual occupation tenure on extensive tracts in Ire- 
 land, and that term being recognised in the Act 
 relative to the qualification of Deputy Lieutenants 
 in Ireland, and also in the Irish Reform Bill; 
 
 Fourthly — I dem'ahd^that no freeholder in towns 
 should be disfranchised in the counties of which 
 such towns hav^ been and are parts. No town in 
 Ireland getsa Member eitfao* original oradditional — 
 Why should the existing right be taken away ? 
 This was one of the principles of representation on 
 which the Union was formed. Why should it now 
 be unjustly, as well as capriciously taken away ? 
 The Refonn Bill will be both unjust and insulting 
 if it interferes with this right. On behalf of the 
 people of Ireland, I respectfully, but firmly insist on 
 its continuance. 
 
 Reformers of Great Britain, we deserve your co- 
 operation, we seek nothing but what is just and 
 reasonable, we will not be content with less. If 
 Stanley's Conservative Measure is carried, the 
 
25 
 
 people of Ireland^ wounded in their just pride, ^o& 
 affected in their national interests, will feel it neces- 
 sary to counteract Stanley's plans of Oligarchy by 
 increased and continued agitation and excitement. 
 In short, we toill not be insulted and done injustice 
 to with impunity. 
 
 Reformers of Great Britain, it is not to you, but 
 in aid of your liberties, that we make those decla< 
 rations, which may be called threats. We ask your 
 aid, we deserve your good will. We have stood by 
 you, and we are ready again to share your battle; 
 but we should not deserve your co-operation, if we 
 did not feel a confidence of ultimate, and, perhaps, 
 more complete success by our own means, and 
 from our own resources. 
 
 Aid us, then, because we deserve your aid. 
 
 I have die honour to be. Brother Reformers, 
 
 Your most faithful Servant, 
 DANIEL O'CONNELL. 
 
26 
 
 >. ' 
 
 LETTER III. : 
 
 "This is esBenUally a conservative measure." — Lord Cramp- 
 t0Hf Solieitor-Generalfor Ireland. 
 
 Brotheb, Reformers, 
 
 Limdon, May 31, 1832. 
 
 I PBOCEED in the painful task of developing the 
 injurioms aod insulting nature of the Reform Bill 
 intended for Ireland. 
 
 Of the eight objections which I stated to that 
 Bill, I have already fully canvassed but one. It 
 was that which related to the franchise in counties 
 at large. 
 
 I undertook to show, and I have shown, that — 
 " Whilst the English Reform Bill greatly enlarged 
 the elective franchise in the English counties, and 
 the Scotch Bill exceedingly increased that fran- 
 chise in Scotch counties, the Irish Rdbrm Bill 
 does not increase the county franchise at all ; but, 
 on the contrary^ diminishes the number of county 
 voters.^' 
 
 The abstract of my argument is fit to be re- 
 peated. It is this— England acquires for her coun- 
 ties at least 300,000 additional voters-— Ireland 
 will acquire no increase. 
 
 Scotland converts her 1,100 fictitious and parch- 
 ment county voters into 30,000 substantial voters 
 — ^Ireland actually diminishes the number of her 
 county voters. 
 
27 
 
 I attempted to calculate the amount of that 
 diminution. I estimated it at 1^000 — that is, Ire- 
 land^ having at present 26,000 voters. I draw this 
 inference^ that there would be a diminution of 
 1,000. I draw that inference^ rather from local 
 knowledge, than from Parliamentary documents. 
 Nay, the Parliamentary documents are framed 
 more to weaken my calculation of the precise 
 amount of the loss, than to confirm it. But the 
 maps, which would point out the errors in those 
 documents, are not as yet printed. It is, therefore, 
 impossible for me to be certain as to the intended 
 contents of each of our future Boroughs, particu- 
 larly whether or not they comprise entire parishes^ 
 or only portions of parishes. 
 
 Under these circumstances, 1 prefer running no 
 risk of inaccuracy, and I, therefore, abandon, the 
 calculation I had made of an absolute loss of 
 1,000 voters^ and leave the amount of the diminu*- 
 tion of voters unascertained. It must be large, 
 because no less than twenty-five towns are to be 
 deducted from our county constituency. Yet, as- 
 the exact loss is disputatious^ I consent to give 
 Mr. Stanly this advantage^ namely, that it may be^ 
 smaller than I have stated it. But, at all events^ it 
 must be considerable. 
 
 This result, however, is inevitable, that whilst 
 Ireland, with an agricultural peculation of seven 
 millions, is to have a constituency of only 26,000 
 voters, Scotland, with an agricultural population 
 of only one million and a half, is to have a county 
 constituency of 30,000 voters. .' 
 
 Having dismissed the county constituency, I now 
 proceed to that of the cities, towns, and boroughs. 
 My assertion is— and this is my second objection. 
 
28 
 
 to Stanley's Bill— ** That the. Irish Reform Bill 
 creates too high and too Aristocratic a franchise in 
 the Irish towns and cities. It alters the present 
 law to the prejudice of the people, and in favour 
 of the Oligarchy. 
 
 I proceed to prove this my second objection. 
 To perceive the force of my proof, it is necessary 
 to understand the present situation of our Bo- 
 roughs. 
 
 They consist of eight cities and towns that are 
 counties of themselves, and twenty-five towns, that 
 are now portions of the surrounding counties. 
 
 Of these, the eight first are what, under the ex- 
 isting system, may well be called open places ; of 
 the twenty- five Boroughs, ten, and only ten, are 
 pur€ Nomination Boroughs, by means of their 
 original constitution ; eight more have become 
 Nomination Boroughs by mere usurpation, having 
 been originally free ; and seven are, or rather ought 
 to be, open and free. There is, besides these, one 
 other, the rottenest and worst of the entire — the 
 College of Dublin. 
 
 In the open Boroughs in Ireland are to be 
 found, at present, a constituency, not exactly the 
 same in all, but between them are to be found a 
 constituency of this description in the following 
 classes : — 
 
 1. Freeholders of 40s. and upwards in fee. 
 
 2. Freeholders of 40s. for terminable freeholds. 
 
 3. Freemen by birth, servitude or marriage. 
 
 4. Freemen by grace especial. 
 
 5. Householders of £5. annual value. 
 
 Now these five classes are to be swept away by 
 the Reform Bill ! — that is, they are to be allowed 
 to drop off" until the entire shall be extinct, and in 
 
29 
 
 their place there is to be substituted an immediate 
 and continuous franchise of householders of £10. 
 annual value. 
 
 The five classes which belonged to the operative 
 and humble classes are to be extinguished, and the 
 higher and more Aristocratic right is alone to re- 
 main. The £10. franchise, besides, is far too high 
 for our towns. Let any man only think that this 
 £10. qualification is that which is to subsist in 
 London, and also in Portarlington, and also in 
 Ennis. Is ft not plain, that the class of persons 
 who thus will have a right of voting in London, 
 (and nobody rejoices more at the extent to which 
 it is carried in London than I do)^ but is it not 
 plain that the right in London will extend to the 
 poorer classes, whilst in Portarlington, Ennis, 
 Kinsale^ &c. &c., the occupiers of £10. houses ex- 
 clude the poorer classes, and are, beyond any 
 comparison, of a more wealthy, at least, com- 
 paratively wealthy class ? The £10. house fran- 
 chise shuts out from the right of voting very few 
 in London. It will shut out from that right nearly 
 four-fifths of the inhabitants of the smaller towns 
 in Ireland. 
 
 But why should the JE5. householders be dis- 
 franchised ? Had this been an enfranchising — 
 that is, really a Reform Bill — would it strike, off 
 the ancient right of the £5. householders, to sub- 
 stitute the more narrow right of £10. house- 
 holders *? Why does this Reform Bill at once 
 double the amount of the qualification ? It would 
 operate in directly the reverse manner if it were 
 really a Reform Bill. It is, therefore, idle to call 
 it any thjng else than a *• Conservative," that is, 
 an Anti-Reform measure. 
 
30 
 
 Alas fat Ireland ! how little of sympathy or sup* 
 port does she obtain from English Reforaners. 
 Here is a Bill, purporting to increase, our popular 
 privil^es. It strikes off five popular rights, It 
 takes the highest of the pecuniary qualifications in 
 these rights, foid it doubles that qualification ; and 
 then Stanley says^ that this is a Reform Bill ; and 
 the Reformers of England are satisfied with bis 
 high and haughty dictation, and leave us to our 
 fate. ^ 
 
 But I persevere — I continue to denAonstrate the 
 iniquity of treating Ireland thus— I stop to point 
 out some of the atrocious consequences. Take 
 Downpatrick ; the present number of resident 
 voters is 493— the Reform Bill will reduce the 
 number to 220 ; that is, by way of reforming 
 Downpatrick, Mr. Stanley strikes off, at a single 
 blow, more than. one half of the resident voters. 
 He strikes off 273, leaving only ^0. At Newry, 
 he reduces the resident voters from 936 to TOO — 
 only 235 struck off. In Mallow, he finds a con- 
 stituency of 524 ; whereupon, by way of reform, 
 he reduces them to 200. In Dungarvon, he finds 
 871 voters, and he reforms them by his usual pro- 
 cess of reduction to 210, striking off no less 
 than 661. 
 
 Now this is called a Reform Bill for Ireland ! ! 
 and it is thus that the honest Irish Reformers are 
 to be treated by the contemptuous iniquity of the 
 Irish side of the British Ministry. 
 
 Having thus estabHshed my second objection, 
 and shown that the Irish Reform Bill is, in our 
 towns and cities, a mere filching of the rights c^ 
 the humbler classes, in order to vest the power of 
 
etection in an exclusive and excluding Oligarchy, 
 Ip^bceed to my third objection:- — 
 
 '* That, although the Irish Reforta Bill takes 
 away the dil'ect power of non^ination in frotn ten' tO 
 eighteen boroughs, yet it substitutes so narrotf^ a 
 basis of rejjresentation, as effectually to rendet 
 those boroughs close boroughs, liable to the most 
 gi*oss and prbfligate corruption." 
 
 Let it be borne in mind, that the Onfy permanent 
 franchise in our towns is to be the £10. house 
 franchise. 
 
 In a poor country like Ireland^ this is an enor- 
 mously high rate of franchise. I have already ob- 
 served on the difference between £10. in London 
 and £10. in Tralee. They are, to be sure, the 
 same in nominal and legal amount^btit th6 man 
 with an income t)f £10. a year in London is next 
 to a pauper. With such an income in Tfalefe, Of 
 EbniSj he is rather in comfortable circumstaticek. 
 But i do not leave the matter in theory — I come 
 to the practical workingf of the mock Reforth Bill. 
 
 Under the new Bill, the perfnanent constituency 
 of Athlone, for instance, is set dOWn in the" Parlia- 
 mentary Return as arising from 220 houses. ' Now, 
 as amongst the occupiers of such houses^ there will 
 be of course womeii and minors, it is not too little 
 to take off ten per cent, so as to find the actual' vo- 
 ters— thus, Aliilone will have but 198 voters. .Baa- 
 don has 240 houses to confer votes ; there will, on 
 this scale, be only 226 voters; Cdshfel, on a siniilar 
 calculation, will have but IBO^ votets ; Coleraibe, 
 170 voters ; Dungannon, only 146 voters ! Port- 
 arlington, 167 voters ! 
 
 Let this paucity of voters but be looked at, arid 
 then let me ask, whether this is not just the species 
 
32 
 
 of constituency most exposed to corruption P In 
 England, iatai experience has shown, that the most 
 profligate bribery and corruption have prevailed in 
 Boroughs, ranging from 150 to 250 voters. This 
 number, however, is to be the Reform constituency 
 in very many towns in Ireland. In such boroughs 
 as these, the briber has only to buy a simple ma- 
 jority. He then commands his return. Three or 
 four thousand pounds will, therefore, command the 
 return after the Reform, as it does under the pre- 
 sent system — with this deplorable difference, that 
 at present the transaction of the sale of these bo- 
 roughs is one of great comparative innocence. It 
 is siniply a sale between two individuals : the one 
 merely pays his money, and the other merely fills 
 up, on parchment, a return to Parliament duly 
 signed ; and so the business closes. There is nei- 
 ther riot, drunkenness, perjury, or other immorality, 
 save the sale of the right of legislation. .But in the 
 half-open boroughs, it is quite different. The voter 
 must get liquor, as well as money. Liquor for 
 weeks, perhaps, months, before the election. Then, 
 there is the direct bribery ; and then there is the 
 Bribery Oath ! 
 
 But I will go no farther. I will simply taunt 
 the High Church Stanley. I will ask him, is this 
 your Protestantism ? Is this your veneration for 
 religion ? How can you dare to call that a 
 Reform, which, while it takes away from one 
 individual the unlawful power to name a legislator, 
 throws before one hundred the strongest tempta- 
 tion to make that nomination through the horrible 
 and God offending means of drunkenness, bribery, 
 and soul-destroying perjury ? 
 
 Stanley, you are warned. On you Uiere will be 
 
33 
 
 t\u^ gttilt of opening the door to crime, unless you 
 consent honestly to enlarge the towrn constituency. 
 
 But there is one way to dissipate the templa- 
 tion, and to counteract the tendency of this Reform 
 Bill. It is by rousing the, higher impulses of 
 patriotism and virtue— -and this, I inform Stanley, 
 we toill do in Ireland. ;It will be neces»u*y, to be 
 sqre, to continue public excitement, and to . in- 
 crease the resourpes of patriotic agitation. . Excite 
 and agitate we will, because it will be our bounden 
 duty thus to shut out bribery and perjury. 
 
 Yet what a Statesman is this Stanley, who leaves 
 us no other alternative^ but either to submit to 
 the consequences of public corruptionjOr to keep 
 alive that higher tone of political feeling, which 
 it is, often difficult to manage, ,and ofttimes dan- 
 gerous to attempt to control. . 
 
 liOrd Grey ought to understand, that the people 
 of Ireland are as determined to insist on^ and to 
 exercise, constitutional privileges, as the peopl^rr- 
 the triumphant people of England. _Let. him re- 
 .flect on this question— whether it would not. be 
 better to allow the Irish to enjoy those p(iyileges 
 in the quietude of the ordinary tide of a0airs, 
 rather than to make it necessary for thepi to rajiae 
 .the storm of political passions^ in order to, en- 
 force and secure that enjoyment? 
 
 I have now to observe, that, in few of the towns 
 in England is there to be any diminution of tiie 
 ex;istiag resident voters. In many of the towns in 
 Ireland there is to be great reduction of the, r.esi- 
 dent voters — and this by what is called a Reform 
 Bill!!! V :. . .; 
 
 . I have next to observe, that in all the borough 
 towns in Scotland an immense increase will take 
 
34 
 
 place in the pesident votere. Alaa for poor lie- 
 land ! Behold the na^atioboly, the heart-feackening 
 coBttrast in Ireli«id<^ther0 is in matiy towns to 
 be a great diminution of resident voters ! ! !->-aad 
 this by If hat is c^tled li Reform Bill ! ! ! > 
 
 Wby-^why, in the name of common sense,* not 
 sen^ Loopd Anglesey as Govemor-Oeneral to India, 
 and make Stanley Commander in Chief of the 
 Army ! He is really more fit for that than for 
 Ireland. 
 
 I conclud^^ by stating my demands on behalf 
 x^ the Irish people^ with regard to our cities and 
 towns. 
 ^ I demand then these franchises: — 
 
 First — The perpetuation of the firanchises of all 
 resident freemen^ entitled to their freedcwn as of 
 right, by birth, servitude^ or marriage. 
 
 i ask for this franchise, because it is in aub- 
 stan^e pres^nred in the English Borough towns, 
 ^md jfi reasonable iit itself. ' v 
 
 , Seeon<&y — I ask that, in our tou^ns and ci^, 
 beHM counties iu themselres^ the occupying f^«e- 
 botdfers' in fetyoc of pei^petual freeh^d of 40ls. and 
 tfpwa^s, siiould be preserved as they ar« in 
 Roland. 
 
 Thirdly — I ask that, in such town and eilie»r^ 
 that is, being counties ixi themselves, the £SO. 
 freelstoklerBi though not oeci^fy^ing^ sbouid b^ J|l- 
 k>wed to vote. , ^{ • - 
 
 Fourthly — in, the towns, not being cooBtie» in 
 themselves^ occupying fre^olders of 40«., seized 
 in fee, or of perpetual fi*eefaold, should be dilowed 
 to retain, as in England, the elective franchise. 
 
 Fiflthly— I ask, that the occupiers of bouses of 
 £5. annual value, instead of ten pounds, should 
 
85 
 
 be allowed to vote, fhh k the old, lotlg ireeog- 
 taiBeA right of krtisehdlder Stiffrage iii, tri^ tOWnS. 
 It ourfit not to be destroyed, ot mfrtnged tipOii j 
 aadj lea^ bf all, should it be wahtoftiv dedtiroyed 
 by A Bill, parportbg to be & ftefortn Kll. / ; ' 
 
 There is otily one altemtion raort, tJiiat* I>eek 
 in this section of the Reform Bill — ii fe,^iat it 
 
 should not atinihiute the right of any freeliolder, 
 in toWfis, not being couAti^ of the(AS6lve^ to Vote 
 ^r the county at large. l£l^ l^A nt pmetA 
 exists only in occojy^g freeholdeird of teti pbundft 
 deaf valtie> mA inadt fMiotdeifs of twenty pouuds 
 and upwards, dear \^tue. Why should thelf Yigtit^ 
 be dtflitoyed under the pretence— the ^se pre- 
 •nfce— of a Refonn ? 
 
 Refortnei^ of England— tecoUeet that t hate 
 thus demonstrated these two things:— 
 
 Jirst— That Stanley's ttefotm Bill will k^p ^« 
 constituency of all the cOtUlti^ iu ttelaud (batiAg 
 att agricultu)tel population of at least seven niil- 
 lions) so low as about ^,0ti6 voters ; au^ M^ 
 while fiitgland greatly incfeases hei eojtin^ m^ 
 stitueuey ; and Scotland, for a million aud it ttdf 
 of agricultural population, will have ^j<l0& t^ 
 ters— that is, Scotland will have abottt ttve ^ed 
 a greater rehittve number of couuty voiet« than 
 Ireland, and i&ngland about twenty dme^ a greater 
 number. Is this just ? Is this fkir > Why are the 
 people of treland to be thus insulted and out- 
 raged ? Is it because Wellington and ^eel ftiost 
 unjofftly deprited the Irish people of one right, 
 that Stanley s^l be empowered by Earl Grey to 
 perpetuate and increase the outrage— and, by 
 contrast with England and Scotland, to add insult 
 to injury? 
 
 D 2 
 
36 
 
 Must not the Irish perceive— are we so stiipidt 
 as not to perceive — that the giving an enlarge<^ 
 and libera], Reform to England, and an enlarged 
 and liberal Reform to Scotland, and then flinging 
 to Ireland a stingy, limited, restrictive, and almost 
 mock, Reform Bill, can originate only in one of 
 two feelings ? 
 
 Either a deliberate judgment, that the people of 
 treland are unfit for, or unworthy of, equal con- 
 stitutional privileges with the people of England 
 and of Scotland : 
 
 Or a deliberate^ base, contemptuous, insulting 
 Jiatred of Ireland, and of the Irish people. 
 
 Let Earl Grey, and Mr. Stanley, take their 
 choice of these excuses. It is nearly immaterial 
 to us, whether they undervalue or despise us. 
 
 We are not disposed to submit to either in- 
 justice, or to contumely — we will not submit to 
 either the one or the other. 
 
 Reformers of England, I say it not in vain boast- 
 ing, much less in the spirit of more vain threat- 
 ening — but we are— we are — we are Eight Mh,- 
 LiONs.— Eight millions of brave, but patient — re- 
 solute, but combining beings — Eight millions who 
 already compelled Wellington and Peel to strike 
 their ascendancy colours, and to liberate the Pro- 
 testant Dissenters of England, as well as the 
 Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland ; and that 
 without violating any law, or injuring either 
 person or property. 
 
 We are eight millions who have again peaceably, 
 and without violating any law, rendered abortive 
 the tithe system, and set the example tp Great 
 Britain of each man paying only bis own cler- 
 gyman. 
 
37 
 
 British Reformers, what is it we require? Why, 
 nothing more than an equal measure of Reform 
 witli England and Scotland. Shame upon the 
 Irishman that would be content with less. 
 
 I have the honour to be, Brother Reformers/ 
 
 Your faithful Servant, 
 
 DANIEL O'CONNELL. 
 
 t li ■' ' 
 
 ■V M, 
 
 .,1. 
 
 lU.i . 
 
 n 3 
 
n i ■;.•.■:.'. V/ : • li 
 
 Brother RfiroiiMRks, 
 
 ParHaauaa Stnei, Jwie 8, 1832. 
 
 It is my duty to commence this Letter, «s I did my 
 last, with a retraction of part of my f<M'mer Ltitteis. 
 I do so with a heavy heart. 
 
 I have said, and repeated more than once, that 
 what the people of Ireland demand is a Refoi'm 
 Bill for Ireland, similar in its concessions of po- 
 pular rights with that obtained by the people of 
 England. 
 
 Alas ! I was mistaken. I greatly exaggerated 
 the extent of our demands. We do not ask for a 
 Bill equivalent to the English Bill, or any thing 
 like it We do not ask for the English franchises, 
 or for any thing near in extent, or number, to 
 those of En^and. Ours is a beggarly solicitation 
 of some feeble approach to the English Bill. We, 
 with ** bated breath," and humble demeanour^ 
 ask only a feint, a distant resemblance to the 
 English Bill. 
 
 That Bill passed the House of Commons with 
 great and extensive franchise newly bestowed, on 
 the people of England — ^but those franchises have 
 since been much extended, and the rights of voting 
 enormously increased by the Hpuse of Lords. 
 
 This has been done in two ways. First, by 
 perpetuating the qght to vote of forty shilling 
 
39 
 
 freeholders for terminable interests ; and secondly, 
 by making the pecuniary qualification, in almost 
 all the new classes of franchise, depend on the 
 value of the estate—^not on the income of the vdter. 
 Thus, if the freeliold estate be of the value of 
 d610. and 5s., there may be at least two voters 
 qualified by that property — ^the one having an 
 income of only 6s. and the other of £l(y. 
 
 In fact, it is almost incalculable to what an ex- 
 tent the right of voting may be carried under the 
 ISTfglish Reform Bill, in pursuance of the amend- 
 ments made in it by the House of Lords. ^^ *- • ^ 
 
 It is certainly somewhat singular, that the po- 
 pular ftutichises should have beeii raidered more 
 extensive by the Hotise of Lorcb than they were 
 by the Conraions. I hope it is not to be accounted 
 fyr by this, that ^eihinchises are rendered by 
 the Lords so extensive and comprehensive, as to 
 grve rocMnfor the creation of very many fictitious 
 and paper vrrters. 
 
 I return from this digression to the Irish Re- 
 form Bill-^I have already pointed out its gross, 
 ^ring, and contumelious defects, with ref«pence 
 to the voters in Irish counties, cities, and boroughs. 
 These defector were the . subject of my three first 
 objections to that Bill. The three ne«t ensuing 
 objections relate to the mode of regi^ering voters, 
 and of taking the poll in Ireland. I v^ill postpone 
 these for the pi^esent, and in this Letter take up my 
 seventh objection, and ishow its accuracy and 
 force. 
 
 The seventh objection is; " That the Irish 
 Reform Bill -does not give Ireland her due arid 
 fair proportion of Representatives.*^ 
 
 The number of Irish Members, under the Irish 
 
 d4 
 
40 
 
 Reform Bill, is but one hundred and five— an in- 
 crease of only five. , v,v 
 
 Now Wales, wiUi a population of only 805,236, 
 gets an increase of four Members. Ireland, with a 
 population of eight millions, gets an increase of 
 only five. That is, in other words/ dght hun- 
 dred thousand Welchmen are within . one-fifth of 
 being as valuable as eight millions of Irishmen. 
 We humbly thank the English Ministry for this 
 flattering compliment ! ! ! 
 
 And there are men who believe that the peo- 
 ple of Ireland will tranquilly bury in oblivion an 
 insult of this overgrown magnitude. 
 
 Agaiuj Scotland^ with a population of 2,365,80T, 
 gets an increase of eight Meinbers. Ireland, with 
 a population of eight millions, gets an increase of 
 only five. Who will condescend to take the 
 trouble of calculating the exact ratio of insulting 
 preference ? Not I, truly. It is written with a 
 pen of fire on hearts of adamant, and it will be- 
 come legible in its own good tinie. 
 
 But this comparison is still more outrageous, 
 more debasingly insulting, when we look at these 
 relative proportions in another point of view. 
 Wales has already twenty-four Members. Wales 
 obtains an addition of one to every six. Scotland 
 has already forty-five Members. Scotland obtains 
 an addition of une to every five. Ireland has 
 already one hundred Members. Ireland obtains 
 an addition of one to every twenty ! ! ! 
 
 Mark— Scotland increases one to five — Wales, 
 one to six — Ireland, one to twenty ! And I, an 
 Irishman, live to write all this — and to write it 
 without one particle of hope of present redress. 
 
 I may, however, defy any person to point out, in 
 
41 
 
 the history of any country in the world, instances 
 of such flagrant injustice— of such deep, studied^ 
 malignant conttimely-^I mean of any country in 
 the world, Ireland alone excepted. -But in Ireland, 
 the instances are not few, nor rare, nor far between. 
 They have been oft and oft repeated, from the 
 treacherous massacre of Mullemart, where the 
 Jrjsh chieftains were invited to a feast, and assas- 
 sinated- so soon as they laid aside their good swords, 
 down to that «temal stain on English annals— 
 the profligately disgraceful breach of the Treaty 
 of Limerick. Yes, in the records of English do- 
 mination of Ireland, there are many and many 
 transactions of equal turpitude. I will not, there- 
 fore, accuse Stanley of more than he merits. He 
 is only the administrator de malts non — the execu- 
 tor of the stored, and, as yet, unapplied malignant 
 mischiefs, treasured up for future use by former 
 chief Governors, chief Secretaries, and English 
 Managers of Ireland. 
 
 It may be said, that this invidious comparison 
 might be, if not justified, at least palliated^ on the 
 groimd that the former proportion of Irish Mem- 
 bers exceeded, or even equalled, what Ireland was 
 fairly and justly entitled to. I do readily admit, 
 that if Ireland had already a more ample propor- 
 tion, or even an exact proportion of Members with 
 Wales or Scotland, we should have little or no right 
 to complain. But the feet is,' unhappily, the other 
 way. Ireland, instead of having a fair proportion 
 of Members at present, is already sufleriiig great 
 and unmerited injustice in that respect. The Union 
 did not give her any thing like a due number of 
 Representatives. • ' 
 
 This will appear quite clear, if we look to the 
 
42 
 
 tiHMMier IB wludii Ihe vepraaeiitatioii of Ireiwid wai 
 
 iBMiagcd at the Union. -The parricide CastlereAgb^ 
 a name ever odious to the Irish ear, tiettled the pror 
 portion oC Irifh Members on a comparative ratio 
 of population — exports, imports, and revenue, ytUk 
 Engliind. The materials of his calculation were 
 naturally exaggerated in favour of England, and 
 understated for Ireland. This was to be expected ; 
 but even on his mostttn&vourablecalculatioD, the 
 matter stood thfos — ^he allowed Ireland— r- 
 
 Fot Population 
 
 . . 308 Members, 
 
 Exports 
 
 ; . ItX) 
 
 Imports . . 
 
 .93 
 
 Revenue , . 
 
 . . 39 
 
 484 
 
 The mean of these four <|uantifies being 108^. 
 
 Such was Castlereagh's calculation, interested as 
 he wa» to diminish, as much as postihle, the rights 
 of Ireland. It wi^} be seen that he left out a 
 most important ingredient — namelji comparatiye 
 rented. 
 
 No matter ! Let us take it on Castlereagh s own 
 calculation. Tbys it is — it gave . Ireland, after all 
 imaginable reductions of calculation, 10^ Memr 
 berg^ Now I do not mean to quarri^l about the half 
 of an Irishman. But what did Castlereagk do? 
 Why, without any one plausible pretext, he at 
 Quce, and without ceremony, cut down bis own 
 proved right,, and struck off at once eight Membeis> 
 giving to Ireland only one hundred Members.. 
 And why ? — precisely, because he could and would. 
 Nothing more. 1 1 was i ndeed — Sic volo, sic jubeOf 
 slat pro rationc voluntas. 
 
Jfark, British Reformers — if any tiling Irish can 
 ooBMlMind yoifr attention— markv I pray yoa, this 
 fact>— Tbfl^lrekind was, at the Union, spoliated of 
 eight Members, -provedl by Castlereagh to be ber 
 
 if Stanley, and Lord Altfaorpe, and Lord 
 Jotm ilussell, had one angle particle of respect for 
 decency, where Ireland is concerned, they would, 
 at all mnts, hare giTen us these eight Members. 
 Thfig^na-y now prate about the Dm&tx as long^ as 
 tJbuQy ^ke ; Ireland despises such chattering. Here 
 is tb« lnssiX o£ thdir regard for Ireland — the claim to 
 eight Mflmbeni m, in reason, commoa sense, justice, 
 and itooeufpy, iFiesistible. They condescend to 
 give b«r fiY«, wliile Ihey transfer the eight to Scot- 
 land, who had no such claim. 
 
 , Is Ib^e any rea^n in tb^ world why we should 
 not get the eigbt-^he Union eigbt^tbe Castle- 
 reagh'^oic^? 
 
 1 hftre^ hoiwever,. said, that Casllereagh deaigii- 
 edly Qmkkhed one ingredient, namely, the compa- 
 mtive renliU of botbi countries. His omission was 
 supplied, and the gross perversions by which he 
 dimnisbed the rights of Irdand to an adequate 
 r^fffestnteliffiir were ftiUy exposed in a vakiabiie 
 b^, printed by Mir. Newenhan, a gentleman 
 who had been many yeiurs, a Member of the Irish 
 Parliament, an accomplished scholar^ lind a patriot. 
 
 The followng v^tbe result of Mr. Newenham's 
 demoiwitratioui^ It ^wtd that. Ireland was, in 
 truths entitled to representation in the £ollowing 
 rotiQ :— 
 
44 
 
 '. ' 
 
 Members. 
 
 For the comparative Population 
 , . Exports 
 Imports 
 Revenue . 
 
 - 238 
 . 179 
 
 . 168 
 
 85 
 
 Rental 
 
 . 186 
 
 846 
 The mean of these five quantities is 16&^. 
 
 Again I tlirow off the half— but thus I show", 
 that the fair proportion of Ireland was, at the 
 Union, 169 Members. We, therefore, did not get 
 two-thirds of our propor proportion of represen- 
 tatives, when the deplorable Union was forced on 
 Ireland by the combiuation of ft-aud^ bribery^ and 
 blood\ ' ■ ' 
 
 We ask at present only 125 Members. High as 
 our rights are, we merely ask to be put into a 
 situation of comparative liberality. Perhaps we 
 deserve the neglect we experience from English 
 Reformers, ^nd the contempt with which the 
 Ministry deal with us, for being so mean and piti- 
 ful as to accept of less than justice. 
 
 : But it has been said, and repeated, and re-echoed, 
 that the representation in England has a double 
 basis, namely, population Sind renenue. Thjsdsby 
 no means universally, or generally true ; but I will 
 consent to take it so. ' ' 
 
 Let us then see what the result of the calculation 
 will be, taking for ingredients, nothing more than 
 population and revenue. 
 
 I wish to impress this part of the case of Ireland 
 as strongly as I possibly can on the minds of British 
 Reformers ; and for this excellent reason — that this 
 has been supposed to be the weakest part of our 
 
ciaise— although, in fact and truth, it is quite the 
 strongest and most irresistible. 
 
 Recollect, my present basis consists of population 
 and revenue. 
 
 I will take care that there shall be no cavil, nor 
 any dispute about the data I go upon, either with 
 respect to population or revenue. I will take the 
 revenue in the most palpably unfavourable way 
 for Ireland-^and I will take the population sepa- 
 rately, on the returns of 1821, and of 1832. In 
 short, I defy any man to controvert either my can- 
 dour or the certainty of my data. • 
 . Now, upon the Population Returns of 1821, the 
 population of England was, in round numbers, 
 twelve millions — of Ireland seven millions. But 
 the twelve millions' in England have 500 repre- 
 sentatives^ The seven millions in Ireland are, 
 therefore, on the. score of comparative population, 
 entitled to 291 representatives. 
 
 However, the revenue must be taken into 
 account. I will, in the first place, refei^ to the 
 Report drawn up in 1830 by Mr. Rice, as Chairman 
 of the Irish Coounittee, and printed by the House 
 of Commons, in three volumes. It appears, by 
 the details of that Report, that the Irish pay a Aill 
 qne-seventh of the revenue. Take the prindpal 
 items of wine, sugar, coffee, and tobacco; the 
 revenue from these articles was, in the preceding 
 year, in England. £11,576,713., while it was in 
 Ireland, £1,665,718., being more than one-seventh. 
 1 am content, however, to take it at one-eighth. 
 
 It will be seen that this is a most moderate 
 demand. The entire revenue of Great Britain 
 last year was, according to the Fioance Account 
 published by Parliament, £48,325,215.— -while 
 
46 
 
 Ihfit attributed to Ireland was oqly £4,560)807» 
 But this estimate is ^rc^omly and plripably &1U' 
 oious ; because Ireland does not get, credit for the 
 for greater part of the duties of Customs which are 
 paid by her inhabitants/ neither for ttaH, nor for 
 any olker^ the produce of the Basteni world^'^aoh 
 as silks, spices, drugs, &c., none of vdiicfa ftfttMB** 
 ported direct into Ireland; neither doea riie get 
 credit for the amount of duty on timber^ anigar> 
 cotton^ coffee, paper, glass^ wine, and various other 
 articles, which are imported into Ireland firom 
 England. Now it is ascertained by the last sepa- 
 nte, account kept for Ii«kind« that for teas alone, 
 Ireland paid duty to the extent of half a million 
 annually, and as scarcely any one article, liable to 
 Cu8tom$' duty, is now imported direct into Ireland, 
 surely it is not too much to say, that the inhabi- 
 tants of Ireland actually contribute on all those 
 articles, exclusive of teas^ to the amouitt of one mil^ 
 lion sterling. This will bring the account of com- 
 parative revenue to this exact state. — 
 
 HeTcttne credited Great Britain . j^48,$26,21& 
 
 D^dact t«M consamed ia Ireland £500,000 
 Deduct for all odier Cutomabte ar- 
 
 tickiQQBSiitned in Ireland « 1,000,000 1,600,000 
 
 Raal rcwnae ot Great Britain 46,026,216 
 
 Revenue jqredited to Ireland . . 4,660,807 
 
 Add duty on teas consumed in Ireland, 500,000 
 Add'dudte oti all btUer Customable ' 
 
 Mtielea ittiMftfld iVofn England .1,000,600 1,660,000 
 
 *t-- 
 
 i^^A^ 
 
 Total Iruh Revenue . . * . 6/)60,897 
 
 It is thus plain that Ireland pays tnore than oneu 
 eighth of the revenue paid by Gt^^t Britain. Let 
 it not be forgotten, that I moke these calculations 
 
47 
 
 in ^ unfavourable a way for If elands that I give 
 En|^Uiid (with her 500 Members) credit^ on the 
 score of revenue, for at least two' miUions paid 1^ 
 Scotland. Tidying, therefore^ the Population Re- 
 turn of 1821, and this, estimate of Irv^ rerenue at 
 one-ei^htb— 4he right of Irelaeid to representation 
 will stand thus-^ 
 
 For Population, on 500 J V , '4*^ - '• 
 For Revenue, on 500^ . . . 6t'>' r 
 
 - The oDChfaalf as the ine<HuB| . 1^ ; ? 
 
 So that, taking the Populati6n Return of 1S21, 
 tks ^vin^ seven millions in Irdand to tw^ein 
 England, and- thfe Irish revenue so low as one- 
 eighth of the Englisib, I rtiiike a clearcftse for lio 
 less than 176 Metnbers fbt Irelatidi 
 
 Bat it tday be said, that there are errors iit'm^ 
 estimate of the revenue, and that, therefiwte,' rt^ 
 conclusion is &llacious. This assertiion ii true 
 only to this extent-^bat my estimate is erroti€fous 
 to Uie loss and disfavour of Ireland^ — and that my 
 conclusion is Mlacious, because Ireland is really 
 entitled to many more thagi 176 Members. *'' 
 
 Hb\rever, I defy any persbni to cavfl with ano- 
 ther^ and the last estimate ^t I shdt make on iMs 
 subject. 
 
 I take up liie Populatibn Return of 1832. En- 
 gland has, by that return, a popul8ti<m o^ thirteen 
 millions — Ireland,- a pcputfttion ctf" eight milliiMis — 
 on a representation of 500 Members for Englmid, 
 on thirteen millions^ Ireland Woiild be eiititM ftr 
 her eight millions ta at least 307 Members. 
 
 Now come back to the revenue. Gtieat Britain 
 £48,325,21^.--frelaiidi £4^660,897. Credit Ire- 
 
48 
 
 land with the diity on teas aloniej Parliamentary 
 evidence shows that to be at leaslt half a million ; 
 add that half million^ as you are bound to do, to 
 the Irish, revenue, and you raise it to £5,060,897. 
 You must, at the same time, deduct that half milr 
 Hon from tJie British revenue, and you sink it to 
 £47,825,215. Though it will be seen that this 
 deduction is by no means necessary to my argu- 
 ment. 
 
 All I claim for Ireland is one-tenth of the reve- 
 nue of Great Britain— that is all. 
 , Look at the foregoing specifications of the re- 
 venue, and see whether it be possible for any one 
 to deny that Ireland pays one-tenth of the revenue 
 —qne full tenth.. I have shown she pays much 
 more, but I rest on one-! tenth. 
 
 Resume with me the calculation, and you will 
 find, that Ireland, on the combined basis of popula- 
 tion and revenue^ has the tbllowing rights : — 
 
 ' Populationv 8 to 13, on 500, gives 307 
 Revenue, 1 to 10, on 500, gives 50 
 
 ' • '■' ■ '-; • ' ^357 ■ 
 
 H.: One half as the medium . . . . 178 
 
 |f justice w,ere done to Ireland, if any thing 
 approaching to justice were do^e to Ireland, she 
 would have 178 Members ; and the case, on tte 
 qombined, basis of population and revenue, is quite 
 ir;resistible to the mind of every fair and just man. 
 _. It jpfiay, perhaps, be amusing to recollect that, oh 
 the return of 1821, the proportion of Irish popu- 
 lation,, capable of bearing arms, was 1,664,437, an^ 
 that of Great Britain, was 2,928,951. The pro- 
 portions are still more favourable to Ireland on the 
 last returns, and thus Ireland has a large claim 
 
40 
 
 for increased representation, as sustained by phy- 
 sical jforce, 
 
 I recapitulate these points. 
 
 First. — According to the vilest of the vile, Cas- 
 tlereagh, Ireland ought to have 108 Members, 
 We get but 105. Ireland, therefore, in this, the 
 most al](ject and degrading view, is defrauded of 
 three Members. 
 
 Secondly. — According to the view of the docu- 
 ments on which Castlereagh made his calculation, 
 as corrected by Newenham, we ought to have 169 
 Members. We get but 105. Ireland is therefore 
 defrauded, in this view, of no less than 64 Members. 
 
 Thirdly. — According to the combined basis of 
 population and revenue — ^taking the return oi 
 1821 — and the revenue of Ireland as pne^eigfadb 
 Ireland ought to have 176 Meuibers. ^le gets but 
 105 Memba*s. She is, therefore, defrauded to the 
 extent of 71 Members. 
 
 Fourthly. — According to the same coml»ned ba- 
 sis of population and revenue, takiqg^ 4ip jAe popu- 
 lation returns of 18^2, and cwtiiwitiog the . Irish 
 revenue so very low as one-tenth, Ireland is entitled 
 to 178 Membem— as we get but 105, we are thus 
 defrauded of no less than 73 Members. 
 
 Thus it will be seen that the most recent and 
 most incontrovertible data give us the highest claim 
 to an increase of Members. We are entitled, on the 
 basis of population and revenue^ to 17S-— we ask 
 <IJfLY FOR 125. We give up 53 of what we are 
 entitled to, and thereupon we are scouted by the 
 Bjritish L^slature — we are negleted and aban- 
 doned by the British Reformers, whom we aasia^^ 
 at their nefd, afid we are left to our resources — to 
 
 1 ""'"'■ ' 
 
50 
 
 our own uncoiiqii^ed and unconquerable 4^ter- 
 mination to obtain justice for Ireland. ■-- 
 
 Take up the calculatiodinany way — population, 
 exports, imports, rental, revenue, fighting-meu — 
 view it in aiiy way, or in any mode, and the wrong 
 petpethited on Ireland is the most gross and glar- 
 mg. Siiice the world began, there never was so 
 unjust a proceeding. The British Minister has a 
 strong tnajority of real and mock Reformers — and 
 in the plenitude of his strength, it pleases Mr. E. 6. 
 Stanley to perpetrate these outrages on Ireland, 
 and they are perpetrated accordingly. Irestrain 
 my indignation, my honest indignation, and merely 
 i^tate £icts. 
 
 In distributing the increase of Members in En- 
 glandj th^ Ministers have acted on the scale of 
 pOpu^tipn alone. Now Ireland, on that-: scale, 
 would be entitled to no less than 307 MeUibers. 
 
 But let us go into some details, which will serve 
 to place the contrast between the favour done one 
 country, and the injustice done the other, iit a still 
 more striking light 
 
 Mark this enormous preference. The county of 
 Cumberland, with a population of only 169;681, 
 gets two additional Menibers — ^that is, it will in fu- 
 ture send four Members to Parliament. 
 
 The county of Cork, with a population of 
 ^l[)7,366, does not get one additional Member. It 
 will continue to send two only. 
 
 That is just saying, in so many words, 169,681 
 people in Cumberland, are of twice as much value, 
 in Parliament, as 807,366 in the county of Cork. 
 Ask for a reason — Oh, the smaller number are 
 English — the greater are IHsh. — Q. E. D. 
 
51 
 
 - Noriff^ptonshire gets two aOdHlcinal Memb^fs. 
 Atioflier Cabinet Minister sits for it. Its p6g^- 
 lation is only 179,376. It will send four Meml>ers 
 tdP^Hsinent. 
 
 D6wn hds a population of 352^571. It gets no 
 iticrie^ of Members. ' 
 
 Leic^tershiffi hsls 197;276 inhabitants. It in- 
 creaifeeis its Representatives from two to four; 
 
 Tipperafry has 403,998 inh'abifairits. It mii^t be 
 fcoiitent witb tWo Members. I, however, dotibt 
 much whether Tipperary will be satisfied. 
 
 Worce^ershire, with a pdj^ulation of 211,356, is 
 to have four Representatives. 
 
 Gal way county, with a populaitioh of 427,467, 
 remains with two. 
 
 Wiltshire, with only 239,181 inhabitants, i^ to 
 command four Rejwesentatffesl f " 
 
 TyroniB,' with 302,948 iub^bitahis, is to bavie'biit 
 two: , . , 
 
 Nottinghamshire has 225,320 fdi* its popMation, 
 accbrdingty it is to have four Meilibers. : 
 
 Antrim county has 323,306 for its popalaiioii, 
 accordirigly it is to have but two Representatives. 
 
 Derbyshire had a population of 2^,170— it. wiVl 
 have foui* Mi^mbers. Stanley is at home here, I 
 suppose. 
 
 Dublin County has a populatipn of no less than 
 886,964. Not brie additional Member— not on^. 
 
 But why shbiitd I piirsue the painftd, the hu- 
 ntilia^ing contrast? 1 caiiriot avoid noticing just 
 one instance more. 
 
 Monmouthshire gets a third Member, thbiigli its 
 population is but 98,130. 
 
 Mayo; tvith 367,953 ; Limerick, with 300,0^; 
 
 .e2 
 
52 
 
 Clare, with 358,262; Kerry, with 219,989; Do- 
 negal, with 298,104 — not one of them gets any in- 
 crease — not one ! 
 
 There is but one county in Ireland, that is the 
 county of Carlow, the population of which is so 
 low as that of Monnaouthshire. The population of 
 the other thirty -one counties all exceed Monmouth- 
 shire ; yet it gets an additional Member, and Irish 
 counties, with a population from one and a half to 
 nine times the population of Monmouthshire, are 
 left without any addition. 
 
 Is this fair? Is it just? Is it reasonable? 
 Ought Ireland to be content ? Ought the Irish 
 people to be satisfied ? Yes, provided they be the 
 very basest of slaves that ever crawled on the face 
 of the globe. 
 
 I cannot close without one honest burst of in- 
 dignation at the injustice, and, I will add, ingra- 
 titude of the British Reformers to their fellow- 
 labourers in Ireland. 
 
 I have demonstrated the contumelious .injuries 
 inflicted on us by this Reform Bill. My Lettprs are 
 long before the public. They have been unre- 
 futed, uncontradicted, in any one of their details. 
 And with this case of atrocious injustice to Ire- 
 land placed before the Reformers of Britain, what 
 assistance, what sympathy do we receive ? Why I 
 have got some half dozen drivelling letters from 
 Political Unions and political characters, asking 
 me whether I advise them to petition, or bestir 
 themselves on our behalf! Bah ! 
 
 Reformers of Great Britain, I do not ask you 
 either to petition, or to be silent. I do not advise 
 you to petition, or to do any other act, in favour of 
 
- 53 
 
 the Irish. You will consult your own feelings of 
 justice and generosity, unprovoked by any advice 
 or entreaty of mine. 
 
 For my part, 1 never despaired of Ireland ; 1 do 
 not, I will not ; I cannot dare to despair of my 
 beloved country. She has, in my view, obtained 
 fi'eedom of conscience for others, as well as for 
 herself She has shaken off the incubus of tithes, 
 while silly legislation was doling out its folly and 
 its falsehoods. She can, and she will obtain for 
 herself justice and constitutional freedom; aiid 
 although she may sigh at British neglect and in- 
 gratitude, there is no sound of despair in that sigh, 
 nor any want of moral energy, on her part, to 
 attain her own rights by peaceable and legal 
 means. 
 
 One word more. My fifth and last Letter will 
 demonstrate, that all the iniquity of the Irish Re- 
 form Bill, in its refusal of franchises, and narrow- 
 ing of elective rights, sinks into comparative in- 
 significance, when compared with the expensive, 
 tedious, vexatious, unjust, and almost impracti- 
 cable modes of registration of votes prescribed by 
 the Irish Reform Bill. With that Letter I will 
 close. 
 
 I have the honour to be, Brother Reformers, 
 
 Your faithful Servant, 
 
 D. O'CONNELL. 
 
 e3 
 
54 
 
 LjETTER V. 
 
 Pfirliament-street, June 11, 1832. 
 
 This Letter cIq^^ my commentary on the infa- 
 fOQUS l^qriji B}\\ for Jn^jgqd. I hopp no liQn^t 
 ina.n ig j^ngland or in Scotjan^, ^iU insult the 
 Irish people by includijig, in their rejoicing^, the 
 Irlsl) Bill. Let them, as they ou^ht to do, rejoice, 
 heartily r^oice at the overthro'w of the sordid 
 Oligarchy ih'England and in Scotland, l^t them 
 rejoice, heartily rejoice, that in England one hun- 
 dred and twelve Swiss are flung out of Parliament 
 by tke ma^ic of 3c|»fidub 4-, and thai all Scot- 
 l^lid is pi;t intg a simil^f glQr;^^i|s Sphedule. Thi,<i 
 i^^Jndie^, a mp$t j^st cause of triumpd, aqd t[ie 
 people of Ir^lanfi wil[ join in that rejoicing^ and 
 will heartily concur in the shouts or triumph at 
 the achievement or English and Scottish liberty. 
 
 But "l do most earnestly implore of the Reformers 
 of Great Britain to abstain from offering so gross, 
 so unmerited, so provoking an insult to the- peo- 
 ple of Irelafid, as to express joy for that which will 
 be to us a cause of the bitterest affliction, the 
 passing of Stanley's mock Reform Bill for Ireland. 
 Lpt British Reforpcjers recollet, that it is avowed to 
 hie a conservative measure. 
 
 I now come to my fourth and fifth objections to 
 the Irish Bill ; they relate to the registry of votes 
 — they are these : 
 
 Fourth. The Irish Reform Bill continues a 
 mode of registry of voters, complicated in its de- 
 tailg^ extremely dilatory^ and expensive^ and al- 
 
■5^ 
 
 most impossible to be complied im^h by fimfperson, 
 but a man of fortune. 
 
 Fifth. It leaves the registry of votes in the 
 
 hands of persons totally irresponsible^ and who, taken 
 
 in the aggregate, are most unfit for tJ^at purpose ; 
 
 first, from want of sufficient aptitude ; and, se- 
 
 condly, by reason of their zealous Tory principles. 
 
 Before I proceed, I wish to state explicitly to the 
 English Reformers, what it is the Irish want in rela,- 
 tion to the registry of their votes. 
 
 We desire the mode of registry enacted for 
 England; that is the precise amount of our de- 
 mand. 
 
 As far as the registry is involved in the Reform 
 measure, our institutions are either precisely the 
 same, or preferable to those of England ; we waiit, 
 therefore, the same machinery for registratioi^ oF 
 voters, and entitling the voter to vote as is adopted 
 by, and enacted for England. 
 
 We want a r^stry of voters as cheap and as 
 effectual as the English registry — why should this, 
 our reasonable demand, be refused us r 
 
 For no other reason than thi&r— that oiirmlprs 
 are determined to disfranchise Ireland^ under the 
 name of Jieform ; and, therefore, they keep on foot, 
 and even aggravate considerably, a-nd seek to per- 
 petuate a system of registry, introduced by the, 
 Feel -Wellington Administration, w'ith the un£s- 
 guised purpose of converting every county in Ire^ 
 land into a Close Borough, 
 
 1 solemnly and conscientiously declare, that 
 if the Irish Reform 3ill had given the people of, 
 Ireland the same liberal and extensive franchisel^, 
 which the English Bill preserves for, or nearly 
 grants to the people of England, the effect of even 
 so liberal a Bill would be almost totally lost, if 
 the machinery for registry, and taking the votes, 
 which is inserted in the Irish Bill, were to become 
 aw. 
 
 Jn short, the machinery of the Irish Bill is bad 
 
 E 4 
 
56 
 
 t^wo extraordinary an extent, that it would heu-> 
 t^ize the benefits of a Reform BiU» most liberal 
 in its franchise. Judg^e^ then, what a Bill this is — 
 that has only two faults. First, it restricts popu- 
 lar rights ; and, Secondly, it gives the worst pos- 
 sible machineiT ! ! ! 
 
 To prove this, to demonstration, I will now 
 proceed to point out the details of the r^istry and 
 mode of voting in the £nglish counties, and then 
 contrast with these the provisions, which 1 again 
 deliberately call infamous and atrocious, of the 
 mock Reform for Ireland. 
 
 In England, the register of persons entitled to 
 vote, is to be made out thus : 
 
 FiAST. — The overseers .of every parish in En- 
 gland are, on every 20th 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 irthe claim be lodged on the !!^th 
 of July, it is' quite sufficient; it may be lodged 
 any day during such entire month. 
 
 Thirdly. — Eath person claiming to vote, has 
 no other trouble than to band in his notibe in his 
 own parish, to the overseer, and pay him one shil- 
 ling. The shilling is the entire expend, 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 
 to be printed and published, by affixing it on all 
 churches, chapels, and public places, and a copy 
 to be kept by the overseer, which is to be open for 
 public inspection for two weeks, without payment 
 of any fee. 
 
 Fifthly. — Any pei*son claiming a right to vote, 
 is at liberty to object to the claim of any other 
 
57 
 
 perscM) in the list; but he must g^ive notice iii wri- 
 ting of his objection, not only to the overseer, but 
 to the person objected to ; and a separate list, of 
 persons thus objected to is to be printeil 'and 
 published. * ' . ., , 
 
 Sixthly. — The lists are then to be transmifted, 
 through the high constable, to the clerk of the 
 peace ; and the lists of the persons objected to, in- 
 cluding a statement of their respective residences, 
 are to be transmitted to the registering Barrister, 
 in order that he may fix proper places for holding 
 courts to consider the objections. 
 
 Seventhly. — Every person not specially ob- 
 jected to by the overseer, or by some other 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. ' '7 
 
 If he be specially objected to, he will have the 
 satisfaction of knowing who it is that objects, to 
 his right to vote ; and he can, as I shall presently 
 shew, examine that person upon oath, as to the 
 motives and reason for such objection. ' ' 
 
 Eighthly. — A Barrister is to be appoitited, to 
 decide the claims thus objected to; his appoint- 
 ment is to be made thus — the senior judge on- each 
 circuit, at the summer assizes, is to name a Bar- 
 rister for each district, or locality. Now this is 
 just as it should be, in point of responsibility. One 
 judge makes the appointment. He is responsible 
 to the public for its fitness No other person shares 
 that responsibility with him. The trial of the objec- 
 tions is to take place before one Barrister. No 
 other person shares the responsibility with ll^m ; 
 and it will be seen that his responsibility i$^|iot 
 merely formal, but is direct, personal, and, inifced, 
 pecuniary. . - 
 
 Ninthly. — The Barrister thus appointed; is to 
 
58 
 
 give notice of the times and places for hol^ioig 
 courts to decide the claims objected ^o. It w4U 
 ]>e his duty to hold these courts as near the re^r 
 (leno^ of the persons objected to as possible. 
 
 Tbnthly. — ^The Barrister is to, decide in fayour 
 of the plaim of any elector objected to by a third 
 person, unless that third person attend the coni*t 
 by himself, or his agents to sustain the objection, 
 'fne elector, in this case, is put to no trouble, npr, 
 is any investigation gone into of his qualification, 
 unless such third person attend the court. 
 
 Eleventhly. — It is only, in the case of p|jjec- 
 tions 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 quali- 
 fi^alionr these are the words of me Act. If the 
 elector proves his qualification, then the Barrister is 
 bound to throw upon the objection, the proof of 
 incapacity; and unless that proof be given, the 
 voter is put on 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 deed, Vjy, or 
 under which, the elector claims to vote, or derives 
 title. 
 
 TwBLFTHLY. — 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 impoilant aiKl 
 valuable power, as it will manifestly deter over- 
 seers from making malicious or frivolous objec- 
 tions. 
 
 Thip-teenthly. — The Barrister is €;ntitled to 
 correct all mistakes and omissions of name, resi-, 
 dehce, 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 elec- 
 tors are, without further trouble, entitled, without 
 
59 
 
 the pfdfhictjon tjif any other docunii^nt, to vote at 
 e^tph §^^uing election, l^&re is great 8irppli<;ity 
 and certainty in this mode, and it tends to the 
 gref^te$t facility and expedition, |p pgllipg ?it a 
 contested election- 
 
 I^pui{.T^ENTHLY,-— A Barrister is thijs anni^Uy 
 to revise the list ; but an elector, once on the list, U 
 not bonnd to give in any fre§h claim, or to pay 
 a second shilling, or to take any trouble, unless he 
 sh^l be formally objected to in §ny Qpe year, and 
 notice of such obiection given to him J apd the lists 
 are to be printed j^nnuaily, and sold to any persop 
 willing to buy. 
 
 Lastly.^^**^ this is the most important of 
 all. The responsibility of the Barrister is real and 
 sul^tantial, becapse it is provided that if any Over- 
 seer, Parristjch, &c. shall wilfully contra- 
 vpNB, or DISOBEY that Act, with retspect to a^y 
 matter qr thiny which he is therebg required to do, 
 he becomes liable to be sued in an action of debt 
 by any candidate, elector, or other persop ag- 
 grieve^ ; and a sum of JE50Q. may be recpvered 
 against hip^ ; and if a verdict be had against him 
 fqr only one shilling, he will be bound to pay 
 ** full costs of suit'^ also. 
 
 This is a clause uf inestimable value. It is the 
 si^fe^l and most efficient check to misconduct. 
 Where is t\\e barrister who will venture to miscon- 
 duct hirnself, when he knows that a verdict of a 
 jury nn^y punish his delinquency by a heavy 
 penp^Uy^ 3^^ ^ total loss of character for life? 
 
 Suc]^ is tl)e plain and simple plan of registry, 
 spch is the cheap, expeditious, and well-guarded' 
 pl§.n of registry adopted in England. No Eng- 
 lishman can be, by wantonness or folly, deprived 
 of his right as an elector— he cannot be wilfully 
 df:|^yed or postponed for an hour, without having 
 an ipimediate and easy appeal to a jurj', and abun- 
 dant redress from, and abundant piinishm^ut for, 
 th^ delinqu^t. 
 
60 
 
 Let us now see what the machinery is under 
 the Irish Bill. It is, however, fit to be observed, 
 that this machinery is new, that is, has been in ex- 
 istence only about three years. It was introduced 
 to make the Catholic Relief Bill as valueless as 
 possible to the people of Ireland. It was intro- 
 duced to exclude from the right to vote, as many 
 persons as possible. It, of course, has had that 
 effect; and by means of this machinery, and the 
 other enactments of the anti-popular accompani- 
 ment to emancipation, the number of voters in 
 Ireland was brought down from 200,000 to less 
 than 20,000. 
 
 Now, if our Irish Rpform contrivers had been 
 sincere, they would certainly have, at all events, 
 abolished the machinery of delay, vexation, and 
 expense, invented by the Wellington Administra- 
 tion, to punish the Irish people for having ex- 
 torted emancipation. The Whigs are continuing 
 that punishment. 
 
 I put these questions by themselves : — If our 
 machinery were good^ as it had been tried for three 
 years, and its practical etfects ascertained, why, 
 instead of inventing new, was not this tried 
 machinery introduced into England? It could be 
 so by the single alteration of a temporary or li- 
 mited^ for a general or permanent Barrister. Why, 
 I say, if it were good^ was it not introduced into 
 England, instead of inventing a new and quite 
 different machinery for England ? The reason to 
 me is obvious, because no man would dare to pro- 
 pose such machinery to the people of England. 
 
 My next question is, — Why, as this machinery 
 is so loudly and universally complained of by all 
 the Irish people, except the Orange or Conserva- 
 tive party. — Why, I say, is it not got rid of, and 
 the plan in the English Bill, which we demand, 
 conceded to us } Let this also be observed, that 
 all the Anti-Reformers of Ireland are zealous ad- 
 vocates of Stanley's Registry Plan — all the real 
 
61 
 
 Reformers detest it — and we, the Reformers, are 
 at pnce sacrificed by Stanley, Lord Althorpe, and 
 Lord John Russell, to the wishes of the Irish 
 Tories. .. 
 
 That we most justly complain of the machinery 
 of Stanley's Bill, will appear from the following 
 analysis : — 
 
 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 Bar- 
 rister. 
 
 Now, observe, that the Irish elector will thus 
 be obliged to travel, or to send a messenger with 
 the notice some distance, varying in our counties 
 from one mile to fifty or sixty. Twenty miles is 
 not an unreasonable average distance for each 
 voter. Thus, two days are lost in Ireland in 
 merely giving notice of a claim to roister ; one 
 day going, and one day returning. Two minutes 
 will suffice in England. In Ireland, the voter is 
 put to the expense and labour of travelling during 
 two days. In England, there is no labour,, and, 
 of course, no expense of travelling. , . , 
 
 Secondly. — In Ireland, the notice to be served 
 is extremely complicated, and such as will require, 
 as it does require, the aid of an Attorney to draw 
 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 pro- 
 perty 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 abod^, he must also specify, 
 " The right in respect of which he intends to ap- 
 ply, and the nature and particulars of the quali- 
 
62 
 
 fication 'tetied upon hy hirhi as entiiUny hirmto be 
 
 ■ i^^gistered; the description of the property^ wHK 
 
 the immes of the barony, townlahd, or place te^ere 
 
 situate; the nature of his interest in the property ; 
 
 Trtie DATE OF THE DEED GIVING TITLE ! ! 
 Tflt PARTIES NAMES THERETO ! ! ! AND THE 
 YEARLY VALUE J ! ! ! AND THE YEARLY 
 RENT ! ! ! ! I" 
 
 In England, the Barrister is entitled to correct, 
 and is bound to correct any mistakes in the notice, 
 ar list of claims; and so the elector is set right, and 
 is entitled to vote, notwitwithstanding any blunder 
 or mistake in matter of form. • 
 
 In Ireland, on the contrary, the assistant Bar- 
 ristier has no such power. A mistake in so com- 
 plicated a notice, is a ground of rejection ; and the 
 elector, after incurring great trouble and ex- 
 pense, has to b^in over qgain. 
 
 Thirdly. — ^Ine next important step in Ireland, 
 is the attendance at the Session. The list of claim- 
 ant's is to be read over by the acting Clerk of the 
 Peace. Wliat day? Whatever day, or Hour^ the 
 alssistJEint Barrister chooses ! The Sessions lasts 
 ffolii three to ten days — ^the elector may be there 
 from the first to the last day before the list is called 
 over — he may thiis be kept absent many days 
 frdm his business and his family — he has to sus- 
 tain, at the least, the loss of tv^o, or, indeed, three 
 days — perhaps six ; and if he should, by accident, 
 b^ out of Court when his name is called, he loos^ 
 all His labour, arid has to begin over again for a 
 futtife Siessiori. 
 
 In Ireland, every elector must attend the Ses- 
 ^oris ; I brave 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 a,fl 
 elector especially, and by name objected to. 
 
63 
 lii Ireland, the attendance at Session is the 
 
 O^ERAL INDEED^ THE UNIVERSAL RULE. 
 
 lii England, it is only the exception. 
 
 In Ireland, the place of Session is fixed for 
 other purposes^ and without any possible refe- 
 rence to the residence of the elector. 
 
 In £lngland, 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. 
 
 Fourthly. — In Ireland, each elector, so soon 
 as he is named, is called upon to go on, and prove 
 his entire case, although no one objects to his 
 right of voting ; he is required to produce his 
 lease, or other title deed, and to shew it to rb 
 DULY STAMPED ! ! ! A mistake, committed in the 
 stamp duty, will, after perhaps fifty years possess- 
 ing, be fatal to him. He must eitner produce his 
 title deed, and expose it to all possible adverse dis- 
 coveries, down to the amount of the stamp duty, or 
 loose his right to vote. 
 
 I ask, would the people of England submit to 
 such ap odious inquisition, and, above all, would 
 they allow any human being to call that a Re- 
 form Bill, which required every Englishman to 
 enforce his title, or to forfeit hb right to vote ? 
 Wliy, the great objection of the landed interest in 
 England, to the measure of a general r^istry 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 you will 
 not allow a single individual in Ireland to establish 
 at Sessions his right to vote, without submitting to 
 scrutiny all the muniments of iiis title; and this is 
 called the Irish Reform Bill ! ! ! 
 
 Fifthly.— When the deed, or lease, is pro- 
 duced, then the trial commences, the elector is put 
 to prove his case, as if he had brought an eject- 
 ment; and, although in possession, an ejectment is 
 
64 
 
 actually tried, the assistant Barrister is required 
 to make the elector shew the natu're of his tenure, 
 and he is to decide on the validity y or invaKd^f 
 of the elector's title ; and to examine/ in support^ 
 or in opposition to his claim ; and any person in 
 the community is at liberty to come forward, and, 
 without any previous notice, to controvert, by evi- 
 dence, the elector's title. 
 
 In Ireland, in addition to all these particiilars, 
 every elector is bound also to produce evidence of 
 his qualification in point of value. 
 
 Thus, in Ireland, there is a double trial in every 
 individual case of a registry under the Reform 
 Bill — a trial of the title, and a trial upon the 
 value — -with liberty to any body, or every body, to 
 take the elector by surprise, and give any contra- 
 dictory evidence he may please, to destroy the title, 
 or lessen the value. 
 
 Besides, the unfortunate elector has no process 
 allowed him, to compel the attendance of wit- 
 nesses, 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 shew the weakness of his title, and dis- 
 abled from proving his strength, unless, indeed, he 
 be a mere tool in t^ne hands of his landlord, or his 
 agebt ; and then, indeed, he may, with some gre^ier 
 facility, register for them and not for himself. 
 
 Can any body now be surprised, that, in. the 
 County of Kerry, with a population of upwards of 
 ^40,000 persons, there should be but 178 electors 
 at £10. entitled to vote ; that is, in the siugle popu- 
 lar franchise, only one person out of ev«ry one 
 thotisand three hundred and forty-eight is entitled 
 tdvotelt! 
 
 I do vetiture to ask Lord Althorpe, whether he 
 really thinks it honest to insist on continuing such 
 aisystemas this ; and next, whetiier he thinks it 
 Consii^tent with truth, to call the Bill which conti^ 
 nues sdch a system, a Rdbnii Bill ; and if it be 
 
66 
 
 U)(»ii8isteiit with honesty and truth, what shaU I 
 caft it ? — Why, something so coarse, as to shock 
 •* ears polite," but which will be re-escboed 
 throughout Ireland. > 
 
 Now, contrast Ireland with £ngland«— the Irish 
 with the Engliflh plan. In England, no elector 
 is at all called on to prove his qualification, but 
 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 any body in Ire^ 
 land be called on to prove title — -and nobody in 
 England called on to prove qualification, save a 
 pei^on specially and particularly objected to ? 
 
 There are a thousand other forceable points of 
 view in which I. could place the contrast in this 
 req[)ect— but I fear to be too tedious— and, be- 
 sides, the facts speak for themselves, and shew 
 that the English system is intelligent and consi- 
 derate — favourable to the elector, and reasonable^ 
 in point of trouble and expense. Whilst the Irish 
 system, if intelligible, is only ik>by reason of its 
 distinct harshness and atrocity. It is inquisitorial 
 and tyrannical to ^ eleetor. It is .most un- 
 reasonable, in point of labour and trouble. 
 
 Jfl England, no elector has any occasion to 
 employ a professional roan, to secure his right of 
 voting. It is <pite obvious, that it would be |)er- 
 fect insanity, m an^' elector in Ireland, to trust 
 himself into the Session Court to raster a vote, 
 without the aid of a skilful Attorney. This', alone, 
 would create siich an expense, as to preclude the 
 hue greater number of persons, from attempting to 
 regii^r their votes; but that there are, m most 
 of the counti^ in Ireland^ a class of independent 
 and patriotic Attomies, who volunteer .t}ieir.aBr* 
 vices in aid of the electors ; and thus, in this, as 
 
66 
 
 in so many other instances^ Irish public spirit 
 counteracts the evils of British nMsgovernment. 
 
 I will pursue the contrast between the English 
 and Irish Bill, only in one case more. 
 
 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 drawing 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 a 
 very intricate notice himself, which will cost him 
 much time, or employ an Attorney to draw up that 
 notice, which ought to cost him not less than ten 
 shillings at the very least. 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. Thus are two days time, 
 and tne expense of near two days travelling, ex- 
 pended. Thirdly. — He must attend in person 
 at the Session. Here is at least a loss of three days 
 consumed, or spoiled, in going, remaining at Ses- 
 sion, and returning home. There is also the actual 
 money expenditure during these three days. 
 Fourthly. — He has his title ransacked in open 
 court, and is harassed by, in fact, two trials— of 
 title and of value. Fifthly. — He has next to pay 
 a stamp duty of two shillings and six- pence, in 
 order to obtain evidence of his right to vote.. 
 
 JNow all this vexation and expense takes- place 
 in every case in Ireland ; even in a case most free 
 from doubt, or difficulty. The Englishman, for one 
 shilling, and in less than three minutes, completes 
 his title to vote. It will cost the Irishman, at least, 
 five entire days, and, at the lowest possible cal- 
 culation, one pound in money to^ complete his title, 
 to vote. 
 
67 
 
 But mark this distinction. The English elector 
 pays one shillings and no more — ^he can earn that 
 shilling bj half a days labour. He pays no stamp 
 duty. 
 
 The Irish elector pays in stamp duty alone^ two 
 shillings and six-pence : he cannot earn these two 
 shillings and six-pence by less than five days 
 labour. Thus, what the English elector pays for 
 by half a days labour, the Irish elector must con- 
 sume five days labour in tax alone. 
 
 But the greatest advantage to the English elec- 
 tor, is still unexpressed— it is this. If the Barrister 
 in England shall presume to contravene, or to dis- 
 obey, in any one particular, the English Reform 
 Bill, the English elector need not complain to any 
 great man, or to any public body. He has a remedy 
 in his own hands ; he brings bis action, he appeals 
 to a jury, he obtains compensation, and full costs 
 of suit 
 
 In Ireland, what a melancholy contrast ! The 
 Irish elector has no remedy whatsoever 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-r-no action lies 
 against him — no compensation can possibly be 
 obtained from him — no recourse to a jury-^per- 
 fect impunity awaits him. 
 
 The Barrister, under the English system^ is 
 deeply, immediately, personally, and pecuniarily 
 responsible. 
 
 The Barrister, under the Irish system, is com- 
 pletely irresponsible. 
 
 To be sure, if he were fool enough publicly to 
 boast, or to admit that he acted from corrupt mo- 
 tives, he might he punished ; but it is in the im- 
 possible case of any man being so insane, as to 
 make such an avowal alone, that any punishment 
 
 F 2 
 
coiildfoHow ; yetj'even tti^n, the electoT could get 
 
 Ho c<»npensation. V ' '• ^ ■ •" 
 
 ; in England, th6 rights 6f ^be electore dre feecm^ed, 
 and the performance of the duty of the Barrister 
 is insured, by "a perfect and complete responsi- 
 bility. 
 
 . In Ireland, there is no security for the rights of 
 the elector, or for the perforinance of the duty, 
 becau^ the Barrister is perfectly and completely 
 irresponsible. 
 
 .One more extremely ^reat advantage is pos- 
 sessed by thie English elector— -the evidence or his 
 right to vote is but upon record-; — it consists of 
 the county rbll. He has only to point out his name 
 on the list, and then his right to rote accrues, 
 
 Hitherto, the Irish toter had soniething of a 
 similar privilege. When an elector succeeded 
 under the present law in getting his vote re- 
 gistered, his affidavit of registry remained among 
 the records of the county ; and, at the election, 
 that affidavit was referred to, as the primary and 
 perfectly sufficient evidence of the elettor's right 
 to vote. The elector could thus vote withoiit 
 entering into any controversy, or personal alterca- 
 tion with his landlord. The evidence of his ri^ht 
 yra£ preserved for him on the public record. 
 
 Now this advantage, Stanley takes away from 
 the elector by bis Reform Bill. It is beheved that 
 this flagrant injustice is the contrivance of the 
 very decided, and not a little virulent Tory, that 
 fills th6 influential office of Attorney General in 
 Ireland, under the present most liberal and Whig 
 Administration. Who is it could imagine it pos- 
 sible that this advantage should be taken away by 
 Stanley, and that by a Reform Bill ? The affida- 
 vit is still to be made, and filed, and preserved in 
 the county records, but to no purpoise, for no ob- 
 ject; because it is no longer tne evidence of the 
 voter's right to vote. ' ' ' 
 

 - The resalt is this — an elector in Ireland may 
 have the good fortune to go through t^hegauntliet of 
 the Session Court, through all the tHaJs^ all die 
 journeys, and all the expenses of registering. His 
 right may have been adjudicated upon in his 
 favour ; his name placed in the county book ; his 
 affidavit of registry duly signed by tlie Court of 
 Quarter Session, filed, and preserved of record. 
 All this evidence is forthcoming; under these 
 circumstances, he, as the law ' now standis, can vot6 
 at onoe, without difficulty. 
 
 But here is Stanley's knack at reforihing. He, 
 by the new BilU destroys the force of all this co- 
 gent and conclusive evidence. He takes away its 
 cogency — ^he annihilates its conclusive nature — 
 and, by way of reform, he substitutes for this evi- 
 dence of record — What ?— A ca-tificate of registry, 
 signed, by the assistant Barrister and by the acting 
 Clerk of the Peace ! ! '.—This, indeed; is reforming 
 with a vengeance ! ^ -^ ' 
 
 Yet this change, which at first sight seems to be 
 mere folly and absurd drivelling, is not so in reality. 
 It has an object — Stanley, like great Caesar, ne'er 
 does wrong without just cause. He Has an excellent 
 reason of his own for this strange alteration. It is 
 simply this-^he intends to put into the hands of 
 the landlord an absolute pouter of preventing his 
 tenants from voting at all, unless tney vote as he 
 pleases. . 
 
 It cannot be, as he rather unblushingly pre- 
 tends, to secure the payment of the stamp duty of 
 2sw 6rf. ; because that duty might, with greater 
 propriety, be attached to the affidavit of registry. 
 No, no — his. object is purely and simply to take 
 away all self-will from the voter, and to make his 
 vote the property of his landlord. 
 
 This he intends to effectuate thus— He knows 
 . full well that the Irish landlords have hitherto been- 
 in the habit of holding the custody of such certifi- 
 cates as have as yet been used only as an additional 
 
70 
 
 mode of fecilitatipg* the proof of r^istry. It is ex * 
 ceedingly dijfficult' for a tenant to register without 
 the aid of his landlord ; and he has no chance of 
 keeping his certificate from the custody of his 
 landlord, unless he is prepared to quarrel with his 
 landlord, and to set him at defiance three, four, or 
 five years before an election, and at a time when 
 no political excitement may exist — when, at all 
 events, no candidates arq, or can be named — wheii 
 no interest is roused as to the mode of voting. 
 Stanley knows that thus the landlords will easily 
 
 get possession of the certificates — ^they will thus • 
 ave in their power the evidence on which alone 
 the tenants can vote — ^the consequences are ob- 
 vious—the tenants must vote as the landlord 
 chooses, or not vote at all. 
 
 I observed very strongly on this piece of trick 
 and dexterity in one of my Letters to the Political 
 Union, Stanley, in his last edition of the Irish 
 Bill, has attempted a delusion on this point. But 
 it is, indeed, a wretched attempt. He provides 
 for the case of the certificate being withheld from 
 the voter, by allowing him to procure a duplicate 
 — a ^tamped duplicate — mark that — 2s. Qd^ more, 
 on payment, also, of a fee of one shilling. 
 
 But this is a pure— I should call it, a shabby 
 delusion — for at what time is the certificate likely 
 to be withheld ? Why, at, or immediately before 
 a contested election — and, I ask, where is the 
 Assistant Barrister then to be found ? An ob- 
 vious motive of delicacy would remove him from 
 the county, during a political contest. But we 
 need not give him so high a motive. His per- 
 sonal and professional interest will take him to 
 Dublin, when the Session is not sitting — the dupli> 
 cate certificate will be of no value, without his 
 signature ; and even if a journey to Dublin were 
 to be taken by each voter- — rather an expensive 
 thing from the more distant counties — yet the 
 Barrister would not be warranted, or, at least. 
 
:!v 
 
 71 
 
 could not be required, to sign JjP^plicate certi- 
 ficate, without having the qinnty book before 
 him, which he could not l^C out of the county 
 itself. • 
 
 This piece of delusion |^ almost on a par with 
 the introduction of a £10/ chattel franchise, on 
 terms of sixty years, in Stanley's Bill, after my 
 first Letter. But he certainly had the candour to 
 admit, that he made that concession in favour of 
 the Orange counties of the Norjh of Ireland, where 
 alone he alledged he had evidence that tenures of 
 that length of years existed. I restrain my natu- 
 ral indignation on this topic. It only proves how 
 truly I described Stanley's Reform Bill as an 
 Orange, or Conservative measure, calculated solely 
 to advance the interests, and increase the power, 
 of the Irish Tories, and virulent A nti -Reformers, 
 and to ofier every species of injustice, insult, and 
 contumely, to the Irish Reformers, and the magr 
 nanimous Irish people. ' 
 
 British Reformers, I have not described many, 
 and many' of the defects which the Irish Reform 
 Bill displays. I have, however, shewn you that 
 its franchises are restricted and Aristocratic ; its 
 details insulting and injurious ; its machinery 
 contrived to annihilate all independencie, and to' 
 reduce the electors of Ireland to the station of the 
 burgage tenants of your late most rotten Boroughs. 
 
 I now conclude ; I have done thus much, and 
 thus much only of my duty. British Reformers^ 
 whatisyours? ; - - ^^'/^ 
 
 I have the honour to be, ■ '^^ 
 
 Brother Reformers, . ^^ 
 
 Your very taithful Servant, m^; 
 DANIEL O'CONNELl!^ 
 
 ■ ^ ' -M 
 
 Tilling, Printei, Chelsea 
 
 
^. 
 
 
 
 ^^Ty-^A^^MfTiW^m^M'wIkWitfQS and SPEECJIBft ; 
 F: !^i#r|>Oftt> fttlOIJGHAMMkb a MBMetIk of Ids LIFE, in M T^l 
 
 ^ : Is tJke Preit^/mj^^rnHmifia be published, ' ^ ; T 
 
 ■' Tli^;i»ARMAl^NfKy #^ MISCBLLANm^US 
 
 SPeeq^^of tke RIGHT iff N. HGNRY, LORD BftOUeHAM 
 MtHT^t^ Loi-lt Higfc Chancellor of Great Britain. 
 
 :^ 
 
 m 
 
 M.V, 
 
 
 Mr. CANNIN(^i--^^J &coim/ Edition. 
 
 ,?«!, 
 
 '•Cjv 
 
 
 K.' 
 
 .:*;:. 
 
 .-■/■!&• 
 
 
 ■i.. . 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ^ if .,^5**. ■?• ;>Q,; J.,'' v--^ :.*^ifafi4£. 
 !:^;!faE SPEfiCJEgS ef ihc RIGHT HONOUHABtEV 
 
 lUmtrated by a fine Portrait, Fae-9i«4les of bit Hand-writing, aPl«t« 
 <^xUbitiye of Us rmhIo of dorrectiagayd reviting his Speeches, &e. InTWo 
 important Passapis in the celebrated one on Portugal. 6 vols. Svo. 3<. tilfti 
 
 ** Yon most allow me to addif.4^^Kk.-t|ts|M * flteM P^^fjlkm^ th;^^ ) 
 './^-llf^ have recorded the private ft»MW|ii«44'j^Mp(fcj^^||iM 
 ' 'Vi«hsi«ted 8* hmg, whhoet Intemtptnn« liirtwen ilr. <!!^m^Wd my* 
 pHalf, hi a wovk wUfeh is destined toeottvey to porterlirjr tbe ren^ of^ 
 fijUs spIaadkl|a|Mta as 'anjOrator — ta exhibit his p^|^u*i|^a as a statesum ' 
 . a nd to show wit^' wbait energy antd «nceess he carried those prio^^Ies ' - ; 
 into MeeoliMi M a nbdHer of the crown." 
 
 Tfie SPJBECHEt of the H»NQtJ]I^BfI/E T|m%A8 
 
 (;rfterward9^ LORD) ERSKINE, tiliin i«( th<i;|N«y ^ Siitgeeis «t>n- . | 
 |K|et»d witii the liberty of d»e Press, v4 H f ^ f oynf^rti? e Treupn^ ' 
 
 << These Speeches, sfarftdaf^ef/yre with :d^P^ pimeta^mi i 
 IrhM*, tire fint moral sentloMtnts, and the par<wi'm«oHeal beaatiea. Re ' 
 gakriajed eariaendy to enlighten, and permanently te n Ja ntn ' t l ie j are 
 ffn^^n pWsefwn not only wuer, bal*elter— te npftfUIMt^gtifif 
 tv 0l^}»mwiiadig»eMt and to aaMd^orate tbek hearts-^K f|afllHlp«m 
 to fMMM llw llettte* nf doty at every prio and peril, and fa q^ld the 
 ^ btefeata^jwianHir fat,«rwy sphere and* seasen*"— Jformag CftrwnMe. 
 
 ** We Ukk'ltt^ oiMb^ «/fl>« coontiy, and of every |^.rt of &e we#l 
 ^^re Ae hmj^ige to nuieiitood, ta be tiwtef the matt ahboan^ jtd- 
 iiiralion of these citq a t i dt e tpecimens of jadicial oratory, and ^J|^i«t. 
 . 4(>itga^en* to the Ed^ df the collection,"— Edia. JZte. Vol.xix. "' ^ ' >~s 
 
 4 
 
 ■■':a 
 
 r 
 
 •Speeches of sir sahuel romilly, in th& 
 
 -. Ifonae^of CoauiMnM, with Memoirs of hit. Life. By William Pcte*, E«|. 
 'Hj|B.rri^} Qlnitrated by a fine Portrait, by Rcymolos, after 0ir T. 
 
 
 ^1'. 
 
 ^^^ 
 

 
 f'?*? 
 
 5-^^^^;aV- 
 
 
 
 
 '^^^^^^i^^*?!^^!!^^ ^