The Sun.
London, England, 1840-02-25 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION.

would simply state what his amendment was. Clause
6 related to the Parliamentary franchise' to free-
men. The object of this Bill related solely
to the regulation of municipal corporations, and
it was not intended to make any alteration in
the Irish Reform Act. He thought, therefore, the Noble
Lard would admit it was not necessary to make any
change that was not required for the machinery of this Bill.
The principle for which he contended had been agreed
upon by both Houses in 1838. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman concluded by moving an amend-
ment to the clause, the object of which was the
reservation of the parliamentary franchise to freemen
leaving the provisions of the Irish Reform Act unaffected
by this Bill.
Mr. PIGOTT called upon the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman to point out any clause in :ne Bill in which
the Parliamentary rights of the freemen were net fully
preservr.d and provided for. That clause was framed to
do precisely what the Right Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man wished to do. He was not now discussing clauses
7 and 8 ; these stood unr.rs a perfectly distinct foundation,
might be dealt as the House should think fit,
but he was debating the clause now proposed, and which
had been proposed with a view of prcviding for the pre-
servetion of the Parliamentary rights of the freemen,
and he would here affirm that no possible case could
be imagined for which this clause had not provided,
and he would call on the Hon. Gentleman opposite
to point out any such case, and having done so, he
would state the strong objections there were to the
course proposed to be pursued by the Right Hon.
and Learned Gentleman opposite. They had to pro-
vide for the preservation of the Parliamentary rights of
the freemen. Now, what were those rights he would
ask ? and he would beg the House to come to the con-
sideration of the subject, and not debate on mere terms of
phraseology. That clause provided for all such cases,
and he would ask the House whether it was not better
to provide for those rights, without any ambiguity of
language, which might let in a great deal which it pro-
fessed to exclude. The rights which were to be prc...
vided for might be divided into two classes--Ist, those
who had been admitted to their freedom—and, 2d,
those who had not. The first class might also be
divided into two sections—lst, those who had
been admitted to the freedom and were on the
list of Parliamentary electors ; and, 2dly, those who had
been admitted to their freedom, who were trot on the
rogisicr of Parliamentary electors. Now this clause pro-
vided completely for the preservation of the rights of the
first class of freemen ; they could not possess any ima-
ginable right which was not provided for by this clause.
He called upon the Learned Gentlemen opposite to
point out to him what more clear or specific legislation
could be applied to effect two objects ; first, the pro-
tection of the rights of every registered and admitted
freeman who was entitled to be registered as a Par-
liamentary elector ; and secondly, not to confirm
any right that was contrary to law. He courted the
most searching inquiry on this subject, and he challenged
his Hon. and Learned Friend to point out a single case
which the words he had alluded to did not meet.
He could not understand why this amendment had been
moved. The words of the Act were, " That all persons
now entitled to vote, should continue to enjoy such
right, as if this Act had never passed." Now, the
amendment might be construed to mean (which he was
sure the Right Hon. Gentleman did not intend), that
every person now a freeman wasentitled to vote.---( Hear.)
IHe did not see any necessity for the proposed addition—in
fact, every case was provided for in the Bill, and he
trusted the Right Hon. Gentleman would abandon the
attempt to introduce equivocal language into the Bill, in
which every possible ease was provided for. He trusted
the Right Hon. Gentleman would withdraw his amend-
ment;' but if not, he trusted he had said enough to induce
the House to abide by the plain language employed in
the Bill.
Mr. SHAW thought the words of the clause had been
a great deal more discussed than they deserved ; but the
speech of the lion. and Learned Gentleman opposite sa-
tidi
ed him that he had an object in inserting this clause,
which he (Mr. Shaw) had before suspected. He felt con--
vinced from the arguments of the Learned Gentleman,
that he sought by this clause to introduce some more strin-
gent construction of the 7th and Bth clauses than their plain
and ordinary words would bear. If, however, the Learned
Gentleman would strike out the 7th and Bth clauses, he
(Mr. Shaw) would offer no opposition to the 6th. He
could not help thinking but that the phroscology of the
6th clause had been framed with a view to the 7th and Bth
clauses, and if the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General
would give up these clauses he would not press his amend.
ment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was unable to per-
ceive any connection whatever between the clause now
under discussion and the 7th and Bth clauses. The
6th elause had been framed without the slightest notion
of any effect to be produced by the Bth clause. The Lord
Chancellor last
.year, in another place, made precisely
the same objections to the clause which he (the Soli-
citor-General) now made to the clause of tile Right
Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and he could assure the
Right Hon. Gentleman that in framing it he had no inten-
tention of affecting the claims of any human being.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that confusion always resultsi
when people jumbled up two or three separate matters to-
gether. They ought not to mix up the consideration
of the 7th and Bth clauses with the 6th. The Right
lion. Gentleman bad been challenged to point out any
person who would lose a right in consequence of the 6th
clause—he had not only not done so, but be had ad-
mitted that the clause as originally proposed did not
materially differ from his amendment. He therefore ad-
mitted that the clause as it stood by itself, was one that
ought to pass ; he would thereforiesay they ought to pass
it ; and if the 7th and Bth clauses were found to affect it
improperly, the Right lion. Gentleman would. afortiori,
have a strong argument against those clauses, as impro•
perly interfering with what the House had already agreed
to. He hoped the House would allow the 6th clause to
be passed, and proceed to the discussion of those clauses
which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) him-
self said were the only clauses to which be really objected.
Mr. SHA W thought the phraseology of his amendment
was better than that in the clause, but he had no objection
to withdraw his amendment.
After a few words from Sir R. PEEL and Mr. Picom
the amendment was withdrawn, and clause 6 was ordered
to stand part of the Bill.
On clause 7 being proposed,
Mr. SIIAW said that previous to the Reform Act,
there was no right of admission in consequence of mar-
riage. Now, be Shad looked closely into the subject, and
he found that the right had existed for at least a hundred
years, but it was called the right of courtesy.
Mr. PIG OT said that the clause of the Bill now
quarrelled with, so far from being framed with any refs
rence to the sixth clause, adopted the phraseology of the
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite. He was ready to con-
cur in any modification that would secure the existence of
any right that was interfered with by it at present.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said this was not a Bill pro
fessing to deal with the Parliamentary Franchise. That
was the object of the Bill he had introduced. Consider-
ing it a subject of first-rate importance, and one which
the Government had systematically neglected, his only
object was to effect a bona fide registration of Voters in
Ireland. But this was not to be made an argument for
trying to bring in now a heterogenous collection of
clauses.
Mr. O'CONNELL asked why should not this, as
well as any other opportunity be taken of effecting a de-
sirable object? All these clauses related to freemen;
and it was only sought to put the law, on this bead, on the
same footing as in England. The Learned Sergeant bad
certainly treated the question in a conciliatory manner.
Right had been talked of. Now, did the law ever give a
right without conferring the remedy? No remedy now
existed to enable a freeman to claim his right by birth,
servitude, or marriage. It had been tried repeatedly at
the bar without effect. Else, would the Catholics, for
forty years, have been excleded from the corporation of
Dublin ? That being the case, where was the right ?
Could these things co-exist.—a right to have a freedom,
and a right in a corporation to take it away ? For the
corporation of Dublin could refuse to allow the right,
unless with the sanction of the Aldermen, as well as citi-
zens. No man conld be a freeman without the sanction
of both branchis of the corporation : at present the Bill
could not be left as it was, and it was fairly altered by
these clauses.
Mr. SHAW said, Chief Baron Joy had give% a most
elaborate judgment in favour of the existence of the right
in freemen.
Mr. O'CONNELL denied the fact.
Mr. SHAW re-asserted it. He protested against the
changing the law in a Bill not designed for the purpose.
Mr. PIG OT (across the table) assented to some modi-
fication of the clause : what it was nobody heard, except
those just opposite him.
Mr. LITTON said, that the Learned Solieltor-Gene-
ral for Ireland had declared that he did not wish to alter
the law as to freemen ; yet these clauses would create a
disability not existing now. The Learned Member for
Dublin's argument was, that the clauses could destroy ao
right, for that none existed. If the right did not Lxibt,
how could the clauses be needed? But he (Mr. Litton)
declared the right did exist, and that question was to
be decided. Why should the House be called on now to
alter the Irish Reform Bill, not now in question, uor legi-
timately before them ?
Lord MORPETH said, existing rights ware not to be
affected ; but the clauses referred to practices which could
not ho defended as rights—such as conferring freedoms on
the sons and daughters of honorary freemen. That was an
abuse which was now sought to be remedied. The clause
was—or, at least, the Government were willing to make it
—ldentical with the parallel clause in the English Bill.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said, the Noble Lord was
going to oo what the Irish Reform Bill had not been
strong enough to do. The Irish Courts of Law had ch.-
eideci that the freemen had the right, though the corpora-
tion had a discretionary power to refuse it.
Mr. O'CONNELL said a right might certainly exist,
qualified by a power in a higher tribunal to take it away for
any moral objection. But the Irish corporations had the
power to take away the right without assigning a reason.
To call that a right was quibbling. Why in England a
freeman who was refused his right might have a mandamus
directly, notwithstanding all the rest of the corporation
were against him. That was indeed a right.
Sir R. PEEL did not wish to pronounce on the merits
of the question, but be wished those provisions to be made
the subject of a distinct statute. There was a Bill called
a Municipal Bill, with 130 pages. 230 clauses. An altera-
tion was wanted in the Reform Bill of Ireland, and on this
bad principle of introducing alterations that had nothing to
do with the Bill, the amendment was forced in here.
Mr. LYNCH said the only object was to confirm the
Irish Roform Bill.—(" No," from the Opposition.)
Mr, SIIA \V said no freeman had the right but by birth.
Mr. O'C 0 N NEL L—l am happy to hear the admission.
Numbers have been admitted, not one of them whose father
I was free.