HC Deb 24 May 1833 vol 18 cc96-102
Mr. O'Connell

Said, he had a similar case to bring forward—that of the borough of Carrickfergus, the time for not issuing the writ for which expired that day. He would beg that the Report of the 15th of April be read, which was done as follows:—'That the most gross and scandalous bribery appears to have prevailed on both sides at the late election for the town and county of the town of Carrickfergus; and that, although it does not appear that Conway Richard Dobbs, Esq., did personally take any part in such bribery, yet that his return was procured by his agents and friends by bribery; that a great proportion of the constituency, composed of freemen of the corporation, have been influenced solely by bribery in giving their votes at the late election; and it appears to the Committee, that similar corrupt practices have prevailed at former elections for the said town and county of the town of Carrickfergus.' The hon. Member then proceeded; it was his intention to comprise what he had to say in the shortest possible compass. His purpose was, to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the total disfranchisement of the borough of Carrickfergus. If it were possible to bring the whole evidence before the House, he entertained no doubt of his being able to induce them to permit him to bring in the Bill which he proposed. The county of Antrim, in which the borough of Carrickfergus was situated, returned five Members exclusive of that borough, and therefore he thought that the district in which the borough was situated was already sufficiently represented. There was another ground on which he considered it adviseable to disfranchise the borough—he meant the smallness of the constituency. It consisted of a single parish containing 8,698 inhabitants. Before the passing of the Reform Bill, the voters consisted of thirty-nine freeholders and 812 freemen; in all 851. Out of all these there were only thirteen 40s. freeholders. The present number of voters was 1024, of whom 948 voted at the last election, 498 for the sitting Member, and 450 for Sir A. Chichester. The influence in the borough had been disputed between the Earl of Donegal, and the Marquess of Downshire, and the former had in the end prevailed; but the bribery had been universal. He had analysed the poll-books—dividing the particulars into isolated cases, as explained in the evidence which had been laid before the House. The first cast to which he would refer was that of Alexander Hallerton—a case which showed the effrontery with which bribery had been carried on. The next case to which he would refer was that of James Hunter, who had received bribes from both parties; 7l. 10s. for the sitting Member, and 5l. for the candidate he voted for. Another case to which he would call the attention of the House, was one of the most open, undisguised, and profligate character, where the wife of a voter was paid 20l. in the street, for the vote which her husband had given. He regretted the hour was so late, as he had prepared a digest of evidence, which would not fail to satisfy the most sceptical, of the gross proceedings which had taken place. He would, however, mention a fact connected with the bribing of a family named Harper. There were three of them, having a vote each: the father and two of his sons. One came; he was offered 10l., under the supposition that he was the only one possessed of the right to poll. A second came; and he was offered 10l. also. A third came; and the agents struggled hard to run his price down to 7l. It was resisted; and at length a pocket-book was procured, notes to the amount of 30l. were deposited in it, and it was confided to the care of a trustee. The trio went up and polled, and immediately afterwards, in the open street, without the slightest concealment, the pocket-book and its treasure was handed over to the profligate voters. Another witness who had been examined before the Committee, was George M'Cann, who admitted he got, at one time, upwards of 120l. for general election purposes. He was not, he said, exactly an agent, but he was very active indeed. This money he got from one Legg; and, in reply to a question why, and on what ground he had got it, his reply was, "Most likely to give it to voters." The voters he negociated with were in the interest of Mr. Dobbs; and he did not deny, nay, he admitted, that he who gave him the money expected, "most likely," that it would be distributed amongst the wives of the voters. James Penny, another general agent for bribery, actually produced to the Committee a list of those individuals whom he had corrupted, acknowledging the sums which he had given, none of which exceeded 10l. per vote. The money, according to his own words, was given him "to make the best use of he could." He managed to get one vote so low as 1l. 17s. Well, then, he came to this Legg, Daniel Legg, attorney, Lisburne, Antrim, who admitted baving given money for these vile purposes, and whose hesitation was only as to the amount thereof. He admitted they bribed everyone they could, and, as an excuse for such conduct—a fact which showed the enormity of the system he wished to annihilate—said they were forced to it by the opposite party, and that they had allowed that party thirty-six hours' start before they began to bribe. They corrupted, he said, the great mass of electors, for they were poor, and could not withstand their offers. There was, however, equal bribery amongst the 10l. householders. An agent of the name of Cohen, swore that he knew of some hundreds who had been bribed, not one of whom received under 5l. This witness said, he had himself bribed upwards of 200 to vote for Sir Arthur Chichester, and as an excuse, said there was no getting them to the poll at all without doing so. But the evidence which spoke most emphatically to his mind was that of the Reverend G. Chaine, a clergyman of the Church of England, who swore, that he gave 950l. to Legg for the purpose of corruption—500l. of which he had obtained from the Conservative Society of Ireland, and the rest he bad borrowed on his own account from Mr. Luke, a banker, at Belfast. "The impression on his mind (said the Reverend Gentleman) was, that the election could not be carried by any other means than bribery." After such evidence, he (Mr. O'Connell) put it to the House as a solemn duty, to act boldly and decidedly. It might be said, that he, who proposed this measure, ought to suggest where the franchise would be advantageously bestowed. That duty did not by right fall upon him. He declined such responsibility for many reasons. One of them more particularly was on the score of delicacy, differing, as he did, in his religious opinions from those entertained by the inhabitants of that part of the country. The House would not, therefore, think him wrong in disclaiming all responsibility upon that part of the question. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following Resolution. "That the most gross and scandalous bribery appears to have prevailed on both sides, at the late election for the town and county of the town of Carrickfergus; and that although it does not appear, that Conway Richard Dobbs, Esq., did personally take any part in such bribery, yet that his return was procured by his agents and friends by bribery."

Mr. Shaw

had received a petition, and presented it to the House, from the town of Carrickfergus, most respectably and numerously signed, disclaiming, on the part of the petitioners, all participation in any system of bribery, and praying, that in any measure adopted by the House, the innocent might not be confounded with the guilty. It would be un can did not to admit, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) had made out a prima facie case; and as he proposed a course which would give to all parties a full and fair opportunity of defending themselves, he should not feel justified in opposing the present stage of the proceeding.

Sir Robert Bateson

said, that he had been intrusted with a petition from the guild of fishermen of Carrickfergus, stating, that they were not bribed at the last election, and that an attempt having been made to bribe them which they resisted, and then having voted contrary to the wishes of one of the parties, a conspiracy was formed to deprive them of their hereditary rights. They claimed the privilege of being heard in that House before rights were taken from them. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated, that the county of Antrim already possessed five Members, and he insinuated, that he thought that more than its share. The House, however, ought to recollect, that Belfast, the greatest commercial town in Ireland, was situated in that county, and that the county of Antrim itself was the seat of the only manufacture which Ireland could now boast of. No person could reprobate the practice of bribery more than he did; he would say, that the House was bound to put a stop to it. He trusted, however, that the displeasure of the House would fall equally upon the bribers and the bribed, and that whatever means might be taken to punish the guilty, the innocent portion of the constituency would not suffer. The hon. and learned Gentleman had drawn a very glowing picture of the baneful effects that must follow bribery. He coincided in opinion with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but as yet he was glad to state the morals of the inhabitants of Carrickfergus had not been contaminated. The three last Assizes in that town had proved maiden, and the Judges of Assize were presented on each visit with a pair of fringed gloves. The jails were, in fact, without a single prisoner. The rules of the House did not permit him to present the petition at that time, but he thought it right to state its contents.

Mr. Emerson Tennant

said, that in any observations which he should make on the Motion of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, he would not be understood as wishing to screen those whose guilt had been most unequivocally proved; but to prevent the innocent from being visited indiscriminately with the consequences of the delinquency of the guilty. He conceived, that sufficient proofs could be adduced both from the statements of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, as well as from those parts of the evidence to which he had appealed, which he had not thought proper to read, that a case had not been made out for the disfranchisement of the town, however there might be for the disfranchisement of the freemen, against whom the bribery had been proved. The House, too, should recollect, that in dealing with those they had to do with a body of men whose practice had not only been proved to be corrupt, but whose franchise was of an evanescent value, and must end with the lives of the present electors. Was it therefore fair to inflict a permanent injury on the town for the derelictions of a body of men who could be regarded as exercising merely a temporary privilege? Besides, the hon. and learned Member himself had shown, that of the 800 freemen who enjoyed the franchise, not much more than thirty-five were freeholders, and these of the lowest class. He happened to know the localities of Carrickfergus, and he was convinced other Members in the House could attest his accuracy, when he stated that if such was the present state of the franchise, it was imperfect, and very many more of the inhabitants must be entitled to qualify than had yet claimed—in fact, that the electors were imperfectly registered. And again, what was the state of the case as to those two distinct classes of electors, the freemen, and the freeholders? Bribery had certainly been proved against the one, but he denied, that it had been so proved against the other. The very evidence which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to would suffice to prove this. It would be proved by the very agents of the parties themselves; by the very men who conducted the bribery complained of. And what did they state? At page 99, of the Committee's Report, Mr. David Legg, the agent of Mr. Dobbs, is asked whether he was aware of bribery on the part of any of the new constituency—that is the householders, and what is his answer? "No, I cannot at this moment recollect any, Do you know of a case of any householder being bribed? I do not." Then, on the other hand, there was the friend of Sir Arthur Chichester, equally cognizant of the facts, stating the same opinion. Mr. Cohen, when asked whether of the 200 electors whom he knew to be bribed, any were householders, replied that he did not know an instance of any householder but one. As it seemed to be the feeling of the House, that the hon. and learned Gentleman should be permitted to bring in his Bill, he would not oppose its introduction; but he most certainly should give a decided opposition to any attempt to deprive the whole town of its franchise for corruptions confined exclusively to one class of the electors.

Lord Althorp

said, that after the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, there was not a Member who could not think that it was right a bill ought to be introduced. According to that statement, the bribery was so general, that it was difficult to make any distinction as to any part of the constituency; but in giving his hearty consent to the bringing in the Bill, he reserved to himself the right, if he found any one class sufficient to form a constituency which had not been bribed, to prefer a partial to a total disfranchisement.

Mr. Wynn

said, there never had been a clearer case for the interference of Parliament; at the same time every facility ought to be afforded to the electors who wished to make out a case.

Sir Robert Bateson

said, that he could not permit that occasion to pass without stating, that the circumstances that occurred in Carrickfergus, were without the knowledge or consent of the late Member, Mr. Dobbs. It was clearly proved in the face of the evidence, that such was the fact, but were it not so, no person who had the pleasure of his acquaintance could, for a moment, suppose him capable of sanctioning such conduct. A more upright or estimable man than Mr. Dobbs did not exist.

The Resolution was agreed to.

The Issue of the Writ for the borough of Carrickfergus was suspended until the 1st day of July, and the hon. and learned Member obtained leave to bring in a Bill to disfranchise the borough.