The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-17 00:00:00

DUBLIN.

The Committee assembled this morning at the usual hour.
Mr. WRANCHAM proposed to place on the poll of Messrs. West and
Hamilton to vote of William Hare Maunsel, freeman—date of registry,
:Id March, 1837—Rejected by the assessor, on the grcund of his
not having been registered six months previous to the testing of
the writ.

Mr. Archer was then called, and produced the affidavit of registry.
Mr. WRANGIIAM the proposed to put in the certificate of the admis-
sion of the voter to his freedom.

Mr. AUSTIN objected to the admission of this document. They
could not go into the title of an Irish voter beyond the affidavit, or in
the absence thereof, the certificate of registry. The effect of the ad.
mission of this evidence would be the opening of the registry.
Mr. WRANGIUM said that although the document in question was
not material to the object which he had in view, he thought it mght be
of some use, to the Committee when they came to consider the different
rights, whether of birth, marriage, or servitude, by which the freemen
were admitted.

Mr. AUSTIN said that by the Irish Reform Act the registry was con-
clusive ; and the affidavit or certificate were the only documents by
which the vuter could prove his title.

111 r. EVANS apprehended that if they allowed a document to be pro-
duced in the one case which was anterior to the registry, they should
admit it in the other ; and thus they would be opening the entire
registry.
The room was then ordered to be cleared, and, on the admission of
strangers, the Chairman announced that the Committee had decided.
that they could not admit the document in question.
The witness, Archer, was then recalled, and asked by Mr. Wrang.
ham, if among the various classes of persons in Dublin, there were not
what were called freemen by statute.

Mr. Hutton objected to the question ; it was only another means of
establishing that which the Committee had decided ought not to be put.
Lord SILY3IOI7R said that the Committee were of opinion the question
might be put.
On its being again repeated, the witness replied that there was no such
class of persons in the Corporation as freemen by statute.
Mr. AUSTIN—Now, Mr. Archer, as that question has been put to you,
I will ask you a few more. Did you give evidence before the Fictitious
Votes Committee? Witness—l did.

Did you state before that Committee that the Corporation of Dublin
admitted no right to the freedom of the city, and that they had the ab.
solute discretion of admitting or rejecting freemen who claimed by any
right, whether of birth, servitude, or marriage, as they pleased ?—I did.
Do you abide by that evidence ?—I do.
Is it not the fact that before the Reform Bill persons claiming in
right of marriage were admitted by grace especial ?—lt is.
The right by marriage before the Reform Bill did not constitute a
distinct claim by itself?—No.
Have not persons been admitted since the passing of the Reform Bill
under that distinct head ?—Yes.
Now, Sir, have you any doubt on your mind that the object of so
admitting these persons was to enable them to become voters of the
City ? I have no doubt that such was the object.
How many freemen are there in Dublin ? Are there 2,000 ? Oh, more.
Are there 2,500 ? About that.
Are they not all in the babit of voting in the same interest ?
Mr. WRANGIIANI objected to the question being put, and after some
discussion it was finally waived by Mr. Austin.
Witness to Mr. Austin—Has only heard of one instance in which
right by birth has been admitted in the female line, that is, where the
son of a freeman's daughter was admitted, the father himself not having
been a freemen.

Mr. AUSTIN—How many freemen have been admitted since the pass-
ing of the Reform Bill ?—About a thousand.
Mr. WIANGIIAM said that as the evidence in support of the vote bad
been concluded, it became his duty now to argue the affirmative of the
proposition, that a freeman of the city of Dublin was not excluded by
the Reform Bill from exercising his franchise, even within six
months from the date of his registration. The Learned Gentleman
then proceeded to contend that a freeman who had been admitted by
birth, servitude, or marriage, had a right, by previous Statute, to exer-
cise the franchise immediately after his admission, and that the two
sections of the Reform Act, which directed that an interval of six
months should elapse between the date of registration and his voting,
did not override that right.