The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-12 00:00:00

—next of 501. rent-chargers who are not bound, and do not re-
side--of 201. freeholders and 201. rent-chargers who do not re-
side ; and from the 6th class of 10/. freeholders and leaseholders
will the municipal constituency be found. There are, there
fore, certainly only one-sixth of these 2,452 who being 10/.
freeholders and householders will be at once transferred to
municipal electors, if the municipal law and the Parliamentary
franchise are to be synonymous. Add 600 to these, and you
will have 2500 or 3,000 at the utmost—infinitely too
small a franchise. Take it at 4,000 and the franchise is
still miserably small, and is there any man in this House
who would be disposed to lessen this franchise? Take the
towns in England—take Leeds, which has a population of
150,000, and you will find that they have there 25,000 voters.
Take Dublin, and behold what your Reform Bill has done for
us—see what a gross injustice has been perpetrated in the shape
of a Parliamentary Reform Bill—you have struck doan
by your vexatious regulations, in a population of 265,000—
nearly double that of Leeds—the voters are only 5,000 at the
utmost. The Hon. and Learned Member proceeded to say,
was that to be made the basis of inflicting upon Dublin a
greater wrong? He might be asked, what it was that prevented
franchise being more extensive in Dublin ? He would tell the
House it was the high state of the taxation which might
be placed under five separate heads ; the voter could not be
registered unless he had paid those taxes—he must pay the
Watching and Paving Tax ; he must pay the Wide-street
Cess, and the Pipe Water Cese ; and in addition to this he
would now be called upon to pay the Poor-rate, the Insurance
of the value of the premises, and the annual estimate of the
repairs ; those three additional taxes must be paid before a
party could register. What would be the consequence of
introducing such taxes ?—( Cries of " Hear.") The Hon.
Baronet proposed a Poor-rate, and that there should be
a 101. franchise. Who was to pay that ? Not the landlord.
In Ireland the landlords never paid such taxes. He never paid
taxes for keeping premises in repair, or the insurance to the
value of the premises, and the consequence therefore would
be that upwards of one thousand voters would be dis-
franchised.—( Hear.) If the House meant by this measure
to insult Ireland, as it had been so often insulted, it perhaps
was a matter of little moment; but if they meant to effect
,good for that country, he called upon them to, hesitate before
they sanctioned a scheme that would be productive of so
much injury. The Right Hononourable Baronet had said
that all that ha wanted was a criterion of the value. Was
such a thing, he( Mr. O'Connell) would ask, wanted in Dublin?
The fact was, that when the Right Honourable Bart. was
in the Ministry he had passed a Bill to value the whole
of the houses in Dublin, and a Commission was is-
sued. Two Tory surveyors were appointed, who had valued
the whole of the houses in the city of Dublin.
They had not only valued the houses, but they had given
a description of what each tenement contained, and a
more complete or particular valuation had never taken place.
Before the Committee on fictitious votes the case of Dublin
was many days considered, and there was no proof
that there were any in that city—the only evidence
on the case was that of a popular elector who gave the
Chairman, who was a Conservative, the credit to say
that he was too particular. They had already de-
graded Ireland ; were they then to go on and increase the
burden and vexation already existing ? In the Scot-
tish Bill the Municipal franchise was the same as the
Parliamentary one. Why, then, not allow the same principle
to prevail in Ireland ? He wanted no more than that the
franchise should be only that which had been clearly admitted
on the records of the House. If the House consented to the
adjournment which he proposed, he would be able to lay before
them a statement which would demonstrate the injustice of
persevering in such a course as was pointed out by the Right
Honourable Baronet. If the Bill were once carried, he
knew how he would be met with the cry of " the Church in
danger" and "No Popery." He knew the difficulty of in-
creasing the franchise, and he did not wish to decrease it.
Up to the period of the Parliamentary Reform Bill the rights
were not only unknown but negatived. The Common Council
or the Board of Aldermen could refuse any man who applied for
his freedom in right of birth, servitude, or marriage, without as-
signing any reason. Nobody sympathised with him, but there
was, forsooth, exceeding danger of letting in the Parlia-
mentary franchise; and what was the Parliamentary franchise
after all? it was the management of the town, the
keeping of the peace of the town, superintending the watch
and superintending the police, furnishing streams of water
to the town, and doing all those things that interest every
individual. It was on this franchise that all their apprehen-
sion of having poor voters admitted existed. Upon the
great Parliamentary franchise, that was to be the source of
legislation for the nation, and government to the country,
they were careless. They were ready to augment the number
of freemen, but they had been taken away from the town
and the Municipal institution, and had inflicted them with a
sort of paralytic stroke—the Municipal side was dead, but they
were in life on the other side—the Parliamentary franchise.
He suggested the propriety of postponing this, in order that
he should be able to give in detail to the House this enormous
diminution of the franchise—not in the general terms in which
he had given it now, but in the arithmetical exactitude in which
be should be able to give it them, and the House would then have
the opportunity of deciding upon it. He wished to call the
attention of the House to the enormity which existed at present
in the elective franchise, which they wished to perpetuate in
the municipal franchise. They wanted to perpetuate the
payment of ell taxes. No burgess, according to this plan, could
register until he had paid all taxes, except those rated within
the three preceding months. The Grand Jury Cess was laid
in Dublin from the sth of January in every year, for that
year prospectively. That was a monstrous inconvenience.
The words in the Reform Bill appeared to be equivocal on the
subject, and two Committees which had sat had decided that the
voter was not bound to pay that tax in advance, but the
Barrister registered no one who had not paid in advance.
He wanted to bring all those details before the House, so as
to leave no doubt, and he claimed the short postponement for
one week, when he would be prepared with documents to show
that the present Bill would not give more than a consti-
tuency of one-half per cent., or not more than 1,500 or 2,000
for the whole constituency. Should the House persevere, he im-
plored them to remember that the extent of his demand was
to identify Ireland with England and Scotland. Let there
be no difference between the three parts of the empire, as it
was said they were identified by the Union.—( Hear, hear.)
He called on the House to give Ireland the same muni-
cipal institutions with England or Scotland.—( Hear, hear.)
He was instructed by his constituents that he would have in
his hands the fullest details, and he would therefore move as
an amendment that the Bill be committed, or as the forms of
the House were, that the Speaker do leave the chair that
day week.
Mr. HUME seconded the motion.
No Member having risen for some moments after the
Speaker had put the question and amendment, much laughter
was excited on the Opposition side of the House, when—
Lord J. RUSSELL eventually rose to address it. The
Noble Lord said he was not aware how his rising on such a
question could occasion any laughter in the House. If it
were the opinion of the House that the Bill should he post-
poned for a short period he would have no objection to con-
cede to the wishes of the House.--( Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL conceived the Noble Lord had charge of the
Bill. If he ( Sir R. Peel) had made such a proposition at so
advanced a period of the Session, it might naturally be in-
ferred that he wished to postpone the consideration
of the Bill for another Session.--( Loud cheers. ) If the
Noble Lord made his election to postpone the Bill, standing
there as the representative of the Government, the House
could not interfere.—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir R. Peel) cer-
tainly would not recommend its postponement. He would
leave it to the Noble Lord to determine whether he would
postpone the Committee or not.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought it would be much better
for the House to go into Committee to-night. Considering
the number of Members present, he thought whatever was
determined in Committee that an opportunity should be
afforded to the Hon. and Learned Member of stating the facts
to which he hid adverted, relative to the city of Dublin. lie
thought that the facts showed a difference between the condi-
tion of the City of Dublin and other towns in Ireland and this
country, and he thought the Bill ought not to pass through
the House, without the case of Dublin being considered. But
the House might now go into Committee, and take the gene-
ral question of the franchise.

The question was then put on the amendment and nega-
tived without a division, and the House went into Committee.
Clauses 1 and 2 were disposed of.
Upon clause 3 being read,
Mr. O'CONNELL moved that in addition to the words...—
" That from and after the passing of this Act no person shall
be elected, made, or admitted a burgess or freeman of any
borough by gift or purchase," should be added the words
"or at the discretion of any body or of any individual." The
Honourable and Learned Member continued to say that his
object was to do away with the discretionary power hitherto
most unfairly used by the corporation of Dublin in the admis-
sion or rejection of freemen. Pending the Reform Bill the
House of Commons sent an inquiry to the Dublin corporation
upon this subject, and the answer they sent through the town
clerk, and of course under the direction and legal advice of the
Learned Recorder, was, that no persons were admitted of right
to the corporation of Dublin. Since the Reform Bill, how-
ever, that had been changed ; they had admitted freemen as of
right in shoals. The corporation at present, in fact, reject
whoever they please, and admit whoever they please, without
assigning any reason. It was quite evident what use might
he made of this for political purposes. It was an undefined
power, and which could be used without responsibility. He
wished to abolish this system. It was for this reason that he
proposed to insert the words he had read.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that another clause
would render that amendment unnecessary. If a person had
an inchoate right a mandamus would lie ; if no inchoate right,
then, under the Reform Hill, he was not entitled to admission.
If the Court of Queen's Bench refused the mandamus in a
case uhere the right lay a person might proceed by a writ of
error, and in a case where there was an improper admission,
the right could be tried by a quo warrant°. Under these cir-
cumntances he thought the words " gift or purchase" as they
stood in the clause were quite sufficient.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that on the showing of the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman he ought to vote for the addition to
the clause, for they were now denied in Ireland that corporate
freedom to which they had an inchoate right if the Corpora-
tion wished. He had applied upon thoe grounds for a man-
damus to the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, and it was
refused to compel the Corporation. So that the Honourable
and Learned Member would deny them that right fur which
a mandamus would not lie. With respect to the quo warranto,
he had also tried that, and the King's Bench refused it be-
cause they would give an unqu difi,-d ouster, and this they were
unwilling to do. What remedy, then, had they in Ireland ?
They were I.,erfeetly at the discretion of the Ctrpocat ion. To
remove this unqualified discretion was the sole purpose of his I
suergestion.

Mr. Sergeant JACKSON, on the part of the Corporation
of Dublin, objected to the insertion of those words.
Mr. O'CONNE Li, would ;elf. it to the 14.• - mci
Learned Geetfeinan whether a man might not have tuitiLie
all the conditions supposed to give him a right to the freedom
of the City of Dublin, and yet be rejected on his application
for admission thereto, either by the board of Aldermen or
Common Council, without reason assigned. If that was °<e*
fact, what become of the inchoate right ?
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON differed with the Honourable
and Learned Member in his construction of the ninth section
of the Reform Act, as it regarded honorary freemen.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
that a case had been made out in favour of some remedy for an
evil of which he did not before know the exclusive existence:
The exceptain in this instance claimed by the Colporation.Ot
Dublin was but a fraudulent excuse for the retention of poll'
tical power.
Sergeant JACKSON—It has existed time immemorial.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would put
the question to a short issue. The Stamp Act only recog.
nized two classes of freemen as entitled to admission. Were
the Corporation of Dublin to create a third class ? Of tuei.
abuse of this assumption, he need only instance the case 0'
Lord Plunket's son, the son of the Lord Chancellor of Ire-
land, who claiming to be admitted a freeman by birthright'
was rejected by the Corporation for political causes. felt
inclined to adopt some ammendment which would have the ef-
fect of getting rid of the anomalous state of things in question..
Sir W. FOLLETT should remark, without giving an °P.
nion on the subject then, that a right not very dissimilar t 0
that claimed by the Corporation of Dublin was at present
claimed and exercised by the Cor ge
poration of London in regard
to the admission of individuals to the Court of Aldermen.
should, however, beg to observe that, after all, there was notsufficient information before the Committee on which to come
to any decision on the subject ; and he therefore should Ole
against the amendment.
After a few words from Mr. O'CONNELL, Lord G. So-
aIERSET, and Mr. FRENCH,
Lord J. RUSSELL was not prepared to say that trr
amendments of the Honourable and Learned Member 0
Dublin were those he should adopt, and under these circum-
stances he thought it would be better to postpone the cleric
for further consideration.
Sir R. PEEL intreated the Committee to pause ere it pro-
ceeded further in the matter. It was a new question ; and
it involved the subject of rights, he hoped that time w u'.
be afforded to consider it sufficiently before any decision were
come to.

Mr. O'CONNELL acceded at once.
After a sort conversation the amendment was then wltll.-
drawn, and the clause postponed for further consideration.
Clauses 4 and 5 were likewise postponed.
On clause 6 being proposed, some verbal amendments were
agreed to in the earlier paragraphs, on the suggestion of cit,
R. PEEL and Mr. O'CONNELL.
After a words from Mr. Sergeant Jackson, Mr. Hume, ?dr'
Baines, Sir E Sudden, Mr. Warburton, and Lord John Ru.s;
sell, on that part of the clause being read which involves ta
question of a 10/. or a 51. municipal "franchise,
Sir R. PEEL rose and said—Sir, the Hon. and Learn it
Gentleman the Member for Dublin has stated that the sperm,
delivered by me in this House some days ago, expressive 0r e
hope that the three questions respecting Ireland bad "or
mained so long unsettled might be brought to a satisfaettnis,
issue bad been received in that country with unanimous to
faction and applause, but that I had subsequently spoken Ito
manner to disappoint the hope which that speech pie.
created. Now, I am sure it will be in the ree,°"ti
tion of all who heard me on the occasion to which
Honourable and Learned Member alludes that
tinctly stated on that eccasion t hat I was willing t°
oft
draw my opposition to the Municipal Corporation Bill,Ze
grounds which I then fully eiplained.--(Cheers.)
grounds were that the municipal franchise in Ireland sh:"11,
-e
be a 101. franchise of a clear value to that amount. an(' ;ee
the test of that value should be the test of rating. Upon -tbhs
point there could be no mistake.—(Cheers.) This 'la'd
ground and this was the proposition on which I consente net
withdraw all opposition to the Irish Municipal Bill. Let
this question be looked upon as a party question, or as „,-
jt
•
which it is intended by me to offer any insult to Ireland'
is impossible to give a fair or full cousideration to my Proper
ti,a:
sition without examining the state of the three
questions ,
affect Ireland. Whatever may be done with the tithe anrfi
priation principle we are secure in our own strengthu ate i
power upon that question, and can defeat any arrangemeat
it. Ido not speak in the tone of triumph. I wish for a 7 lc!
factory adjustment, and not to give offence to the Pe°l3,
Ireland.—( Cheers.) With respect, then, to the Mun'e
Corporation Bill, I consented to waive all objection to th
principle of establishing Corporations in Ireland, and I Pr"tra
posed that eleven principal towns, of a population of fiftc...l
thousand each, should have Corporations positively
without any option, but that in the smaller toevne
should be an cption to have Corporations or not, tl
cording to the decision of a majority of the
pal electors rated at 10/. The Honourable and Lear'
e scsl-
Member fur Dublin says that he wishes to reducets:_
local taxation in Dublin, but that might be done by the
r. 70
blishment of Boards. I suggested that although the syc
qualification should prevail in Dublin as in the other 1 i!i-c
towns, yet that I thought there should be a separate leer anl
tion for Dublin as there was for London. My propos:l6°n
to the franchise is this :—I first propose that there s'aall be
uniform franchise throughout all Corporate towns.
that that franchise shall be ten pounds clear, ths.t is, -that thy
house or tenement shall be worth the clear annual valet,: of tell
pounds beyond the rent and, thirdly, I propose that the va"
lue shall not be ascertained by the oath or the opinion of the
party holding, but that the value shall be ascertained by the
more satisfactory test of rating.—(Cheers.) These are thre°
constituent elements of my proposition as to the franchise. 14
there, I ask, anything in this that implies an insult or an l".
justice to the Irish people ? The Hon. and Lereraed Gentl(.'e
man says that my object is to keep a monopoty of power "I
the hands of the Orange party in Ireland ; bu t sec with what
justice he makes the assertion. The uniform. franchise 15 tr),,
rule that is established in England and Scotl and. The No_uni
Lord opposite proposed a 101. franchise for certain towns,
a 5/. franchise for others. This was not tree uniform francw
that prevailed in England or Scotland, and do I propose _v
insult to Ireland when I offer the same principle to that coun-
try that governs England and Scotland ? I ask, is it 'ef
that 10/. should be the franchise, or that rating should be 0.l ;
test ? In England it is three years' occupancy, and the Pa ic.
meat of all rates and taxes, and I doubt if that is not fol
equal to the Parliamentary franchise of 101. The Hon• anne
Learned Member for Dublin says that he will be quite conted,
with the same franchise for Ireland that Scotland ha sr,
that he will not consider that an insult to Ireland. NU leare
what the franchise in Scotland is. It is the same fora o
liamentary voter and for a municipal elector. The S cone•
Bill says that the tenant shall reside six months on fhe ten
or
ment, and that it shall be of the clear annual vaitee °f
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman says, give menee on
but things. Here Ido give him things, not words.
" Nusquam tuts fides." toh
(Cheers.) Scotland, then, has the franchise of a clear
value
Mr. lIUME—Not clear.
Sir R. PE E L--Did you not mean a clear francs Ise or 11°34
or did you mean a fraud? What I want for Irelal .d iS
annual value of 101. as the franchise. With thr t. 1 lectiort
satisfied, but with nothing less. I wish to take: the e
out of the power of the landlords, which a 51. .nebi.Lse 101.
not do. What was the opinion of Lord Jeffrey as to tueablisfs
franchise for Scotland? Why that it was better to est iciral
a uniform system, and that the qualification for -a manic
elector ought to be as high as that for a Parliarrier eseaS
one being of as much importance as the other. The Proltie
Speaker, then Mr. Abercroinby, had expressed.
tr°abe'''.
merits. ( Here the Right Hon. Baronet reads ;xt racts '"
speeches of Lord Jeffrey and Mr. Abercroint,y to the of 13
effect.) The Noble Lord opposite, also, 'in spealu"id.
15., the
gy
land in the measures of corporate reform. 'lt may be ail 0,0
clause in the Ref,rm Bill by which the 10/. rate 4214
arranged as a qualification of voting, haci said, " "ye..
be prepared to defend that part of the Bill as 'ea'
fectly unassailable." In fact, the principle now
vocated was that adopted both by England and fora
our opponents that they are exceedingly anxious to exteteeite
measures of English and Scotch Corporation Reform tf,
land, adjusted to a 10/. qualification, but adopting as vie tab'
the principle of rating for a test, that that vitie tei4tty !dv
entire, and converts the booninto an insult.
you shrink from a test which only goes to se cure o be?
the qualification shall be that which it profess, ;s t
Nor shall I be justly accused by Reformers of inr.esauvtlid
insult to Ireland if I show them that, in the iirst itaaee!. to
English Reform Bill required the amount ,3f quail ficatio And
be based on and decided by the rating of the Poor. rate. wet
why was this mode of rating abandoned? The sole„g;-freria
was that in different towns and in different parish lei Queots-e"
scales of rating existed with respect to these ao,3ssfreellice
,
differences which it was impossible to reconcile so ..a3
there"
them to any uniform numerical expression of value . awned thefore the Noble Lord opposite very properly ate
rt is
test, as one which would be of unmanageable it ,equal. Al'
practice. I well recollect the objections made .IV,",°„ntteo
thorp and Lord J. Russell to my propositions in t-'°,;eatiel:
of adopting the Poor-law rating as the basis of qua"d, stet;
for a 101. vote. They said that my principle wa s so° lity 01
would be practically unobjectionable if we had .te eclu,, But,
Poor-rate established throughout the whole c-oo otry• u wait
said they, "the feet is far otherwise at preserit,:and if Y% long
till that desirable uniformity is established you ay wa,; Nowt,
enough, and the Reform Bill must stand stilt mean. while.
:„ie or
however, a similar objection no longer applies. Ant ivy prine'r to
,„
rating is to be applied in Ireland, and the arrang. ement may
introduced with perfect uniformity according to. the mod aie
.°
tro,
proved of by the Noble Lord, and which he
wof ild have °Bee
duced into England if circumstances had perneif .ted him. or
it has beer, objected to me that I am going eee raise the P:O4,
man's franchise in Ireland. No. lam goi as to make a„
franchise altogether, not going to raise t.he Amount of
qualification unless it had heretofore been. previously unto:"
taken at far less than it is sworn to be.
--(Hear.) Dc Y°Ll.
._a
think it right that the possession of the: franchise in frel
the
ought to depend on the opinion of the parties clainf.ng ht
privilege ?—( Cheers.) I would request eny man who thought
such a state of things desirable to refer to the procee dings re,
the Fictitious Voters Committee, and especially tce the evidet,'.o
given before it by Mr. James Lane, respecting the practiles
that prevails in registering the Parliamentary elect, ers in
city of Cork. It is said that we ought to be mild ous in
,re-
ceiving this evidence, that Mr. Lane ought to be T ejected 1,1.,t,
the violence of his opinions? Let him answer .for himsel
He was asked in the Committee—
. What are your political opinions?. Mrs Lame rePite:4l
" I have no objection to say that I am what is eaj%ed a Liberal
" Have you voted yourself?"—" I have."
MIA
" For whom did you vote ? " I voted for Map ft