be fair that special legislation should be resorted to. He would therefore move his Amendment to the hon. Gentleman's Motion, CAPTAIN ARCHDALL seconded the Amendment. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the first word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Citizen to serve in this present Parliament for the City of Dublin, in the room of Sir Arthur Edward Guinness, baronet, whose Election has been determined to be void," -(Mr. Collins,) -instead thereof. Judge did not say, as had been reported, that 2,600 voters had been found guilty of corruption. It was true there were 2,600 freemen in the borough; and it was true that Mr. Justice Keogh had found that fifty persons had been proved guilty of bribery. These, however, were very different statements from those made by the hon. Member (Mr. O'Reilly). He had been informed that at least 1,700 out of the 2,600 freemen were of the higher class of voters in Dublin, and perfectly incapable of being corrupted. But he did not rely upon this; he could only rely upon what the Judge had furnished to the Housethat corruption had extensively prevailed among the freemen-but that was not as much as to say that corruption extensively prevailed in the City of Dublin, the terms in which the Report should have been framed before a Commission should issue under the Act. Not content with that, however, Mr. Justice Keogh added that corrupt practices did not extensively prevail in the rest of the City. Would the House, then, subject the whole of the people of Dublin-innocent as well as guilty--to the expense of a Commission-for the expense would fall upon them-because of the improper conduct of a few freemen? Besides this, a great number of the freemen would escape the expense because they were non-resident. He was putting the question simply as a legal question, and a question of justice. He would ask if the Government had placed the matter before the Lord Chancellor so as to know whether his opinion was that the case was so clearly within the statute as to MR. SHERLOCK said, it became necessary to call attention to the circumstances of the case. The Judge reported that over 200 persons had given their services gratuitously; but that the agreement to do so was colourable, and he stated that he had reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed amongst the freemen. Now, what were the facts? The freemen numbered 2,600, and, when the Judge reported that corruption extensively prevailed, he was not asking the House to come to an erroneous conclusion when he stated that, within the purview of the Act, the existence of corruption was abundantly proved. The corruption of the freemen was so notorious upon the evidence that it had not been questioned; and when, out of 12,000 voters, it was found that corruption existed amongst 2,000, he thought that a suffi-justify the issuing of the Commission? cient proof that corruption extensively prevailed. MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, he entirely adhered to what he had stated upon a former occasion, that if the Judge reported in the terms of the statute, and a Motion was made by the Attorney General in his capacity as quasi judicial adviser, to the effect that a Commission should issue as a necessary consequence of the Report of the Judge, the Motion should be agreed to. But on this occasion there was no Motion by the Attorney General, nor did the Judge declare that corrupt practices extensively prevailed in the borough. To resolve that a Commission should issue under those circumstances would be most unjust. The His reading of the Act led him to the conclusion that the Act would not justify the issue of a Commission. But apart from this he deprecated all discussions upon these questions; they would inevitably lead to the raising of most painful subjects. Practically, cases of bribery had already been raised, and it was most imperative that the House confined itself to the Report of the Judge. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN) said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had stated that this was not a Motion by the Attorney General. Now, the Motion was placed on the table before the evidence was printed. It was not given with his assent, and, in his opinion, | one case of bribery, and extensive treatit was given too soon. But the Notice being ing was held not to be corruption within on the table, he thought it would have been unreasonable to take it out of his hon. Friend's hands. The Notice having been given, and the Report of the Judge being now before the House, he begged it to be understood that he supported the Motion just in the same way, and under the same responsibility, as if he had given the Notice himself. Taking upon himself that responsibility, he begged to say a few words on the subject, which was one of vital moment. The hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) was incorrect in his statement on two or three points; and especially in his statement that the House never acted in respect of a particular class of the constituency without inquiring into the whole. The freemen of Great Yarmouth were disfranchised by Act of Parliament without inquiry beyond the Report of the Select Committee. The learned Judge had not yet reported on the Youghal Election, and that illustrated again the great inaccuracy that pervaded the hon. Member for Boston's statement. The terms of the Act of 15 & 16 Vict. were to the effect that a Commission of Inquiry should issue upon the Joint Address of both Houses to Her Majesty, stating that a Committee of the House of Commons had reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed, or that there was reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at any election, &c. The words of the statute were not that corrupt practices extensively prevailed throughout the constituency, but that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at any election. But, according to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Öxford University, if the freemen constituted the whole constituency, with the exception of one voter, and if the Judge reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed among the freemen, a Commission of Inquiry could not issue, because one voter happened not to be a freeman. ["No!"] That was the logical conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman's argument; and, in order to test it, he put that extreme case. In the case of Clitheroe, which had been referred to, there was extensive and systematic treating, with other corrupt practices. One tailor was proved to have been bribed with £30. There was but the meaning of the statute. But what a libel it would be on their legislative proceedings if, when the Judge reported, in reference to an election where the votes were pretty evenly balanced, that among 2,700 freemen, he believed that corrupt practices extensively prevailed, no action could be taken by that House in the matter. That was not the law, he was glad to say. He had consulted with the Attorney General and Solicitor General for England, and they concurred with him in thinking that the Report in this case of Dublin was a Report of corrupt practices under the statute. In answer to the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman, he believed he could say that the Lord Chancellor had also been consulted on the matter. The Motion had been made with the greatest deliberation and under the gravest sense of responsibility. The learned Judge who tried the petition reported that out of the number of the constituency, 2,700 were freemen, and that almost the whole of them voted for Sir Arthur Guinness and Mr. Plunket, and he had found that he had reason to believe that corrupt practices did extensively prevail among the freemen voters at the last election for Dublin. Now, if the learned Judge had left out the words "freemen voters,' his report would have been in the very words of the Act, and the putting them in did not make it the less so. They formed an important part of the constituency, and the learned Judge, by his Report, meant that corrupt practices extensively prevailed amongst an extensive portion of the constituency. They were not to be hair-splitting on the words of the Act of Parliament; and, as a lawyer, he rose superior to such miserable quibbles; it was a reproach to the legal profession that they could not take an enlarged view of an Act of Parliament, but he rose above. it on that occasion. What was the meaning of the words in the statute-"Reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed?" They were inserted in the statute because it was not easy to trace actual bribery except among a certain number. There was no doubt that there were many respectable men among the freemen, but they might be registered as leaseholders and householders, and by remaining on the freemen's list they only served to cover the delinquencies of the corrupt. The elec-, tion of Dublin hung upon a balance, and the learned Judge found that corrupt practices prevailed to the extent that he had named. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University had expressed a wish to have the Report of the learned Judge he (the Attorney General for Ireland) would have moved the adjournment of the debate. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: I apapplied to the hon. Member at an early period of the evening.] He was then ready to move the adjournment of the debate if the House desired it, because he desired very much to see the learned Judge's Report. It appeared, from the notes of the evidence, that the wretched men who were bribed immediately after they had voted went into a lonesome place and there had a used railway ticket handed to them. One of the witnesses stated that when he got the ticket he was told to go to 76, Capel Street, where a man was waiting, who pointed to the door of the parlour. The witness went in, and was told to knock at a door, one of the panels of which was broken at the top. A hand was put out, and he gave the ticket, when an envelope, with a £5 note enclosed, was handed to him. Witness after witness deposed to this miserable organization, and if these corrupt practices were not inquired into they might as well shut up the statute book. MR. STAVELEY HILL expressed his sorrow that he was not able, like the learned Attorney General for Ireland, to rise above the miserable quibbles of an Act of Parliament. He would en deavour, notwithstanding the excited harangue to which they had just listened, to bring the House back to consider that what they were now doing was to discuss, as accurately as they could, the absolute meaning of an Act of Parliament, by which the Commissioners, if a Commission should issue, would, most certainly, be bound. If the Commission issued irregularly, it would spread at once that it was invalid, and the orders which the Commissioners might issue would be disobeyed. It was most essential, therefore, that the matter should not rest on what the Attorney General believed to be the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, but upon something far higher. If the House would be well advised, let them consider the proper construction of the Act. By Section 15 of the Election Petitions Act, which was VOL. CXCV. [THIRD SERIES.] passed last year, and which was identical with the provision of the Corrupt Practices Act, it was enacted that if a Judge stated in his Report that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, or if there was reason to believe that they had extensively prevailed at the election, the House might promote an Address for a Commission. Now, Mr. Justice Keogh thoroughly understood what he was about when he drew up his Report, and in that Report he absolutely negatived the idea of corrupt practices having extensively prevailed by the words "And I do further report that, save as I have reported respecting the said Freemen, corrupt practices have not been shown to have extensively prevailed, nor is there reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the Election to which the said Petition relates." He found that a considerable number of freemen had been bribed. He said "I have reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed among the Freemen Voters at the said Election for the County of the City of Dublin." And he absolutely laid down to what extent corrupt practices did prevail among the freemen voters. He said that fifteen persons whom he named, and twenty-five who were not named, making up fifty freemen, had been bribed. Because, under a further section of the Act of last Why did he name them? those named by the Judge. The Judge Session, penalties would be dealt out to named the parties who had made themselves amenable to justice, but he found that the borough was not amenable to for what purpose did he add the words justice. ["No, no!"] If he did not, he had quoted?— "And I do further report that, save as I have reported respecting the said Freemen, corrupt practices have not been shown to have extensively prevailed, nor is there reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the Election to which the said Petition relates." This was really no party matter. The Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the Attorney General for Ireland, knew that to-morrow morning this matter would go forth to be canvassed by the Bench and the Bar of England and Ireland as to what should be the right construction of the law. He hoped the House would carefully weigh the subject. For himself, he was quite content to be bound by the judgment formed on the view which those on that (the Opposition) side of the House had taken, for 2 T been bribed; but his hon. and learned Friend had omitted to notice that part of the Report in which Mr. Justice Keogh spoke of 200 voters who had signed agreements undertaking to give their services gratuitously to Sir Arthur Guinness, and which agreements the learned Judge said were colourable and framed with the object of evading the law. Under all the circumstances, he believed the Report was within the Act, and he trusted that the House would take that view of it. MR. O'REILLY DEASE said, that very few men had given the same attention to the subject of the freemen of Dublin as himself, because about ten years ago he was invited to contest the City. He therefore gave the matter his most anxious consideration. The whole thing lay in a nutshell. There were about 2,600 freemen, about 1,600 or 1,800 of whom were among the most highly educated voters in the kingdom. There were, however, also about 400 of the most corrupt in the world. The House would learn nothing more than it already knew from a Commission. If they abolished the freemen, they would do no injustice whatever to the respectable portion of the body, because they possessed the franchise already in other ways; and the only result would be that, instead of voting in a separate booth, they would mix with their fellow-citizens and vote with them. He opposed a Commission as a waste of time and money. he felt sure, after the most careful con- and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Staveley sideration of the clause, that the Com-Hill) said there were less than fifty voters mission could not legally issue under reported by Mr. Justice Keogh as having that Act, and except under the Act of Parliament it could not issue at all. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, some allusion had been made to the opinion of the Lord Chancellor upon the subject, and as he (the Attorney General) had been challenged on the point by the late Home Secretary, he might say that he had every reason to believe that the Lord Chancellor entertained the opinion that the Commission could issue. After the very able argument of the Attorney General for Ireland, he did not think it necessary to trouble the House at any length. He himself had no doubt that the Report of Mr. Justice Keogh was in the very terms and according to the letter and spirit of the statute. The Report of the Judge stated that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed in his belief at the last election; and it was not the less a Report to that effect, because the learned Judge had designated the class among whom the corrupt practices prevailed. The Judge designated them for the purpose of directing the inquiries of the Commission. Because corrupt practices prevailed chiefly, or only, among a certain class, was it to be held that they did not prevail on the constituency? If a Judge reported that corrupt practices prevailed only among the voters below £10, or only among the shopkeepers, would any man say that that was not a case for inquiry? And that was not a hypothetical but an actual case, for Mr. Baron Martin, in the trial of the Norwich election petition on which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Hardy) himself warmly supported the Motion for a Commission, reported that the corrupt practices were principally confined to one class. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: I deny that.] Baron Martin reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed in the borough, and then went on to say, in the next sentence-"So far as the evidence went the voters bribed were of one class-namely, work-people in the receipt of daily wages." The two Reports were, in substance, precisely the same. Would any man say that a Commission ought not to issue unless every class of voters was proved to be corrupt? In that case the law would not apply to any town except Totnes, where he believed every man was bribed. His hon. DR. BALL said, he regretted to be obliged to differ from the Attorney General as to the construction of the statute. It obliged the Judge to find that corrupt practices prevailed at the election if such were the fact, and, although the corruption was confined to a particular class. What the Act contemplated was, that the Judge should find the corruption co-extensive with the borough; and that, if it were confined to a class, the corruption should, nevertheless, bear a sufficient proportion to the whole constituency. The House was asked to take upon itself to limit the inquiry to the corrupt practices of the freemen, although the Act of Parliament gave no such power as issuing an inquiry confined to a particular class. He happened to be familiar with this subject, having been Chairman of the Bribery Commission had reported that corruption extensively that sat in Galway. There was no bri- prevailed within a large portion of the bery in Galway except among the free- constituency of Dublin, the House were, men; but the Committee reported that on the ground that the Act did not percorruption extensively prevailed in the mit a Commission to issue, to issue a borough, and they were justified in doing Writ for a new election, and thus allow that because of the proportion of the free- those who had been guilty of bribery to men to the householders. There were exercise the franchise. On this account 2,630 freemen in Dublin. To 2,000 of he would vote with the hon. and gallant that body no one imputed any malprac- Member (Mr. O'Reilly) though he was tices; and why should they open an in- not quite sure whether it would not have quiry as to the whole 12,000 electors, been better, under the circumstances, to which would necessitate an inquiry, not pass a special Act authorizing an inquiry only into the last election, but into the as to the corrupt proceedings of the freeelection before, and even into the elec- men of Dublin. tion before that? MR. CHARLEY said, he had no objection to the names of two of the Commissioners-Mr. Stephen Woulfe Flanagan and Mr. Charles H. Tandy-but he did object to the name of Mr. Hugh Law. He occupied a high position at the Irish Bar, but he was the Blackstone of the Irish Catholics; and it was impossible that the Protestants of Dublin could have any confidence in Mr. Hugh Law, when he sat in judgment on the Protestant freemen of Dublin. Question put. The House divided:-Ayes 192; Noes 120: Main Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth : Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Subjects, the Commons of the in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to Your Majesty, that Mr. Justice Keogh, one of the Justices of the Court of one of the Common Pleas in Ireland, and Judges selected for the trial of Election Petitions, pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, has reported to the House of Commons that corrupt practices did extensively prevail amongst the Freemen voters at the last Election for the City of Dublin, and that save as reported respecting the said Freemen corrupt practices have not been shown to have extensively prevailed, nor is there reason to be. lieve that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the said Election. SIR GEORGE GREY said, he had listened with close attention to the discussion, and he was not free from some doubt whether the Report of the Judge brought the case within the Act of Parliament. The case was a new one, and the peculiar terms of the Report of the Judge made it one of some difficulty; but, after hearing the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) below him, he could not take Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause We therefore humbly pray Your Majesty, that upon himself to say that it might not be inquiry to be made pursuant to the Provisions of brought within the terms of the Act, be- the Act of Parliament passed in the sixteenth cause the Judge reported that exten-year of the reign of Your Majesty, intituled, " An sive bribery prevailed, although it was limited to a certain class. He had no doubt as to another question, and that was that, whether it was held that the Judge's report came within the terms of the Act or not, the Writ ought not to issue for the City of Dublin until some means had been taken for purifying the Address to be communicated to the constituency from these corrupt prac-Lords, and their concurrence desired tices. The House might, if it pleased, proceed independently of the Act. At Yarmouth, he believed, when it was shown that corruption had extensively prevailed among the class of freemen, a special Act was passed, and they were MR. FAWCETT-who had given nodisfranchised. It would be casting con- tice of a Motion for a Select Committee tempt upon these inquiries, and laying to inquire whether the provisions of the the House open to the imputation of Inclosure Act, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 118, so far screening corruption, if after the Judge as they relate to the Labouring Poor, Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament," by the appointment of Stephen Woulfe Flanagan, esquire, one of Her Majesty's counsel, Hugh Law, esquire, one of Her Majesty's counsel, and Charles H. Tandy, esquire, one of Her Majesty's counsel, as into the existence of such corrupt practices. Commissioners for the purpose of making inquiry thereto. INCLOSURE ACT. MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE. |