HC Deb 20 August 1831 vol 6 cc359-65

On the question that the Committee sit again on Tuesday next,

Lord Stormont rose and said, before the House adjourned, he had something to state relative to the Dublin election, and a question to put upon that subject to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. From accounts which he had that day received, he had been informed, that an improper interference on the part of Government had taken place in the election now going forward for the city of Dublin, and he wished to know from the noble Lord, whether such interference had the sanction of the Administration? Probably the noble Lord would reply in the negative, but the House would recollect, that on a previous occasion, the right hon. Gentleman, the Irish Secretary (Mr. Stanley), in reply to some observations charging the Government with an improper interference at the last election had asserted, that no such interference had taken place, and when the report of the Dublin Election Committee was presented, it showed that a most undue influence had been exercised. He would, therefore, call upon the noble Lord to write that evening to the Irish Government, in order that no time might be lost, to put a stop to the undue influence which was now exercised at the Dublin election.

Lord Althorp

replied, that he knew nothing whatever of any interference on the part of any member of the Irish government with the election, never having, until that moment, heard of such a charge; and, therefore, he begged to decline communicating with the Irish Government in the manner suggested by the noble Lord.

Mr. O' Connell

said, he had received communications from Dublin relating to the Dublin election. The noble Lord had misapprehended the right hon. Gentleman, the Irish Secretary, in what that right hon. Gentleman had said relating to the last Irish elections. He (Mr. O' Connell) had a perfect recollection of what the right hon. Secretary had stated, for he particularly noticed it at the time; and it was to this effect—"That there never was an election in which the Government interfered less." He was ready to bear his testimony to the accuracy of that statement of the right hon. Gentleman. In every election within his recollection, every Government had much more distinctly and unequivocally interfered than in that alluded to. Probably the question was put by the noble Lord for another purpose, as there was a report in Dublin about a change in the Administration, and something had passed about the declining popularity of the Reform Bill.

Lord Stormont

was anxious to know whether the noble Lord would, upon the statement which he had made, and upon the accuracy of which he would pledge himself, that very evening write to Dublin to put a stop to such proceedings as those of which he had complained, inasmuch as no time should be lost.

Mr. Lefroy

said, from information which he had that day received, communicating facts as to interference in the election, which interference was so objectionable, that he considered it the duty of Government to put a stop to it—he begged to state, that a Police Magistrate was sent for from the country, who had craved leave of absence on account of his bad state of health, to give his votes at the election. In addition to this, there had been interference of another kind. The Under Secretary for Ireland (Sir William Gossett), had actually gone about with the candidates, canvassing for them. He did not know what was a gross and undue influence of Government at elections if this were not. He had these facts from a source upon which he placed the utmost reliance; and he hoped, that his Majesty's Government would do something to put a stop to such proceedings as he had described. He hoped, at all events, that the House would hear a declaration from the noble Lord, that such proceedings had not his concurrence.

Mr. O' Connell

said, he could explain what was called interference with a Police Magistrate. The Committee of Mr. O' Loughlin and Mr. Latouche waited on Alderman Darley, who had voted for the Reform candidates, and proposed one of them on the last election, to ask him to propose one of the Reform candidates on the coming election; and this was what was called interference. He hoped Government would not say, that they would not interfere, as proposed by the noble Lord, for that would be to admit his charge, that they had been interfering. What the Secretary for Ireland had said on the occasion of the former election was, not as stated by the noble Lord, that there had been no interference, but that there had never been an election in Dublin in which there had been so little interference. What was really asked by the noble Lord was, that Ministers should interfere for the Corporation candidates. They had, no doubt, often heard of such interference, and even of considerable sums of money having been so expended.

Lord Milton

concurred in what the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had just addressed the House, said. It was a singular course to take, to call upon his Majesty's Ministers to write to put a stop to certain proceedings alleged to have taken place, on the authority of letters, of which neither the contents, nor the names of the writers, were known to the House.

Mr. Crampton

looked upon the matter as a mere election trick, and the noble Lord who had commenced the discussion, as well as the hon. and learned Gentleman who had spoken to the same effect, had been made the tools or instruments of a party. He very much wished to know, from whom the statement made to the House had come. He did not believe that Sir William Gossett had interfered at the election; and he wished to know who the individual was, that had maligned the character of that gentleman.

Mr. Lefroy

said, that the statement which he had made he had received from a quarter incapable of wilful misrepresentation, and he repelled the insinuation that he had been made a tool of in the transaction. The two gentlemen, Mr. Latouche, and Mr. Sergeant O' Loughlin, might have interfered in the manner described by the hon. and learned member for Kerry, but, according to the information which he had derived from a friend, upon whose accuracy and responsibility he could rely, Mr. Alderman Darley had been written to by Sir William Gossett, requesting him to go to Dublin to give his vote. There was also another fact connected with Sir William Gossett's interference, which he had already named, and about which he had himself no doubt—viz., that Sir William Gossett had gone about the city of Dublin canvassing.

Mr. Crampton

did not mean to cast any imputation upon the hon. and learned Member, but he would still persist in designating the affair as an election trick—probably emanating from the Corporation of Dublin. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not stated his authority, nor had he named from whom the information was derived respecting the alleged communication to Mr. Alderman Darley. It was, however, a well-known fact, that Mr. Alderman Darley had supported, at the last election, the Reform candidates, and if he were now called upon by a Committee, or any other person, friendly to the candidates, who were also favourable to the cause of Reform, to give his vote to them, he was only supporting his own character for consistency in that cause.

Lord Stormont

said, he would give the authority on which he made the statement. It was that of a noble Lord, one of the candidates for Dublin, late a Member of that House. No one who knew that noble Lord's character would suppose, that he could be a party to an electioneering trick, or that he would allow himself to be a tool in the hands of others for such a purpose; and for his own part he was equally incapable of allowing himself to be made a tool of.

Mr. Crampton

said, he must still persist in his opinion, that the affair was an election trick; but he must do the noble Lord, the candidate for Dublin (Lord In- gestrie) the justice to say, that he did not believe him capable of originating it, nor of wishing to make others instrumental in it. What he maintained was, that the noble Lord had been made a tool of: however the noble Lord who brought forward the subject (Lord Stormont) might dislike that phrase, he must be allowed to repeat it without meaning any offence—and must even affirm, that the noble Lord himself had also been made a tool of in the transaction.

Mr. O'Connell

said, he had understood that Mr. Peter Fitzgibbon Henchey had written to some Members of that House, forwarding a statement relative to the Dublin election. For his part he was convinced, that the noble Lord, the candidate for Dublin, had been imposed on, as it was impossible to believe him capable of desiring to mislead the House; and he was of the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor General for Irelaaid, that at the bottom the affair was an election trick.

The Attorney General

said, it having been mentioned that Sir William Gossett had been actively canvassing—now that was a fact, supposing it to have taken place, which would be known to many individuals; but it had been asserted, that Sir William Gossett had written a letter to Mr. Alderman Darley; if so, it was undoubtedly a private letter, and how came that to be known? He should like to know who could feel himself justified in making known the contents of a private letter, unless it were done by the consent of the parties?

Mr. Lefroy

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think, that the interference of Sir William Gossett was the only instance he referred to; but Alderman Darley had been seen canvassing in Dublin. The House, however, would hear more of the subject, and in a more formal manner.

Mr. Sheil

observed, that the noble Lord (Lord Stormont) had given up his authority; but the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Lefroy) had not followed the noble Lord's example.

Dr. Lushington rose to order. This course was contrary to all the rules of proceeding which had been acted upon since he had had a seat in the House. The noble Lord (Stormont) had asked a question of a most extraordinary nature, and the discussion which was now going on would lead to the greatest inconveniences.

Sir Thomas Fremantle

thought, that the question, which was a grave and important one, had been treated with a degree of levity on the Ministerial side of the House which the subject would not warrant. If the charge had come before the House in a confirmed statement, then doubtless it would be the duty of the House to take up the matter with a view to ulterior proceedings. Had the hon. Members who sat opposite been on the Opposition side of the House, and had such a charge been made against any party in the Government, they would have exercised more vigilance than at present; and would not have treated the question as one of no moment. He had the honour of being acquainted with Sir William Gossett some few years ago, and he believed him to be a very honourable man. He hoped, that the statement made affecting him had been somewhat exaggerated by the parties communicating with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had spoken to that statement. He thought it would be more becoming in that House, instead of requiring the noble Lord to cause a letter to be sent to Dublin, at once to take up the matter, and send one of its own messengers—to stop the interference of Sir W. Gosselt in the election. For if the matter were long delayed, the election would be terminated, and the interference would be like locking the stable-door after the horse was stolen.

Mr. Warburton

expressed great surprise at the suggestion just made, and would put it to the hon. Baronet, whether he could seriously wish that House to pass a resolution such as must take place were his suggestion acted upon, without having any evidence before it, excepting the statement of an hon. Member, founded upon what was to the House an anonymous communication?

Sir Thomas Fremantle

It was not anonymous. An hon. Member stated, that an individual had been seen canvassing.

Mr. O'Connell

Yes, but the name is withheld. It is a private letter, and not to be made use of.

Mr. C. W. Wynn

observed, that if any hon. Member, on his responsibility, brought forward a complaint against an officer of Government, of improperly interfering with an election, it was a subject for the House to consider, if it was pressed.

Lord Granville Somerset

said, they were placed in a peculiar situation with regard to the Dublin election. They had evidence that persons connected with Government had unwarrantably interfered, and they were bound to provide against the recurrence of the evil. If election tricks had been resorted to on one side, they had been equally resorted to on the other.

Question, that the Reform Committee sit again on Tuesday, agreed to.