1828.] Six Words on the late Election in Ireland. 183 
tenantry, stands thus. Their “ freeholds” (much to the abuse of the 
name) are portions of his property, entrusted to them by him specifically 
for his use, and, for the holding of which, subject to his application or 
appointment, they receive a consideration: this stipend is received in the 
shape of a right to cultivate some bog, or, of a strip of land for a 
potatoe garden, the rent of which gets into arrear, and while the tenant 
gives satisfaction, is not expected to be punctually paid. Now, this is a 
bad description of contract. And it jis a bad description of contract 
by which a man sits in the House of Commons—counterfeiting the 
position of an independent member—who, in reality, takes his seat for a 
private borough, to vote and act as the proprietor of that borough shall 
direct. But, unless all the bonds are to be dissolved, by which society 
exists and is held together, both these are contracts, as to which, when 
entered into, faith is to be kept. The Irish freeholder knows the bargain 
which he makes, and seeks it. He receives, and enjoys the advantages 
which result from it- He may become a free agent if he pleases, by 
cancelling the bond, and restoring the consideration: but he is a robber, 
if, for his own interest or passions, he violates its conditions, and trusts 
to the lawless state of the community in which he lives, to escape the 
infliction of its penalty. 
This latter species of independence, however, is that which has been 
asserted by the voters of the county of Clare; and it is worthy of remark, 
that this violation of faith and honour has been recommended and en- 
forced by their spiritual advisers as a duty. Those ministers of religion 
who best knew how fully and entirely binding in conscience the contract 
was, were the very men, who, by entreaties, and even by threats, induced 
them to break it. But, the state of affairs exhibited upon the whole 
(for our space runs short) is this—it is pretty evident that the peasantry 
of Ireland, or at least, a very large proportion of them, are at the com- 
mand, not at all of the legitimate government of the state, but of the 
priesthood and of the knot of adventurers who are raising money and 
trying to get into notice by disturbing it ; and the question that follows 
is twofold—“ Must such a state of things be allowed to continue >” and 
« Ts it probable that concession will alter or remove it?” The answer is, 
that such a state of things ought, at all hazards to be changed : and that 
a great many of those who have been the advocates of conciliation, begin 
now to be afraid that very little is to be expected from it. It would be 
_ arguing in the teeth of demonstration, to suppose that any concessions 
_ that ever England will make, or ought to make, will satisfy—(and 
* satisfy” too, quotha!)—the priests, and the self-elected Catholic 
leaders. And, for the lower classes—is it believed, that any human con- 
_ cessions that ever could be devised can ever deprive men, who are dis- 
: ed to turbulence, of a pretext for it? The Catholic tenantry of Clare 
lice abandoned their pledges to their landlords; an allegiance—we 
_ speak the fact out, let those who can contradict it—which has ten times 
_ more practical influence over them than any allegiance they ever bore 
the British government :—they have abandoned this allegiance, and run 
all the hazard of ruin and ejectment from their farms and livelihoods 
likely to be consequent upon it—for the sake of styling a man for a 
few weeks “ Member of Parliament” whom they know is incompetent to 
sit in Parliament; and who three years voted for a measure which was 
to exclude them for ever from returning members to Parliament at all. 
And, can it be supposed, that men who have hazarded all they possess 
for such an object as this, can ever be at a loss for an excuse for sedition, 
or for riot? or, that there is any spell in the measure of “ Catholic 
Emancipation” which can deprive them of the disposition for it ? 
