§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the Special Report made by Mr. Justice Keogh on the recent Sligo Election, stating that—
A system of intimidation and violence was organized and carried out for months previous to and during the said last Election for the said Borough of Sligo, subversive of freedom of Election, and endangering the lives and properties of the 974 Electors, and that outrages were committed previous to and during said Election, which were calculated to deter, and did in fact deter, Electors from exercising their franchise at said Election;and that—it was proved before him that such intimidation was continued in said Borough of Sligo from the time of said Election down to and during the trial of said Election Petition:and, whether he does not consider that this Special Report affords a fitting case for the House of Commons to exercise the powers reserved to it by s. 14, 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125, and to order an inquiry into the organized and long-continued intimidation thus reported by Mr. Justice Keogh?
MR. GLADSTONESir, I am very much obliged to my noble Friend for calling my attention to the subject. There can be no doubt at all as to the propriety and the importance of the object which he has in view. The only doubt that exists is as to the language of the law. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland has moved for a Commission of Inquiry into the corrupt practices at Sligo, and it is quite evident that it is desirable the law should look upon intimidation as a corrupt practice. As to the sufficiency of the grounds laid down by Mr. Justice Keogh, there is no doubt that his Report affords ample reason for the inquiry. But the House of Commons has no power to proceed except under the terms of the statute, and those terms do not allow us to issue an inquiry into anything but into corrupt practices. We have no power to explain what corrupt practices are; that will be a subject for the Commissioners to consider. But I am informed by my right hon. and learned Friend that in his opinion intimidation ought undoubtedly to be a corrupt practice. There are many other practices, such as personation, which may be considered corrupt practices; and although popularly the name "corrupt practices" attaches only to bribery and treating, yet it is plain that according to common sense these others should be included. But the only position open to us to take up is to say that if it should prove, according to the opinion of competent authorities, that upon the law as it stands corrupt practices do not include intimidation, then undoubtedly they ought to do so.