HC Deb 20 April 1869 vol 195 cc1270-86

MR. O'REILLY, in rising to move that an Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that She would order a Commission to be issued to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices at the late General Election for the City of Dublin, took occasion to explain that he had given notice of the Motion before he had any communication with his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland on the subject, and briefly stated the facts of the case to show that corruption had extensively and systematically prevailed at the election in question. It had been positively decided in that House that the decision of the Judge should be accepted, whenever he reported that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, and that a Commission should consequently issue. The petition against the return of Sir Arthur Guinness had been tried by Mr. Justice Keogh, who must be well remembered in that House, which he had adorned by his eloquence, and who since his elevation to the Bench had conferred honour upon it by his clear and lucid decisions. The candidate against whom the petition was presented was the son of one of the previous Members, a distinguished citizen of Dublin, and might fairly hope to represent the constituency without resorting to any unworthy means to secure that object. The first fact, however, which was brought under the notice of the Judge was that a very large amount of money had been expended for the purpose of securing Sir Arthur Guinness's return. The total number of the constituency of Dublin was 12,800, of which number 5,587 polled for that gentleman, in obtaining whose votes 800 paid agents were employed. The total amount expended on the election by Sir Arthur Guinness, including the expenses of the registration immediately connected with it, was £15,850. The remark of the Judge on so large an expenditure was that it was impossible money could be scattered broadcast in that way and to expect that corruption would not be the result. It was satisfactory to find that, so far as a class of voters were concerned of which the House seemed to entertain some apprehension when the Reform Bill was being discussed—he meant lodgers—the cases of corruption were extremely few. One thing remarkable in connection with the election was that there was in existence an organization which pointed directly to corrupt practices. There were ward committees in every one of the wards. There were presidents and vice presidents, secretaries and assistant secretaries, and there was scarcely any committee which did not number among its members a clergyman or a staff officer, all of whom were paid. The colonel had his car-hire given him, and the captain, who canvassed, got his weekly wages, which increased as he went on. There were, as he had already stated, 800 paid agents employed, and that circumstance brought him to the first and most remarkable means of corruption resorted to. Voters could not, of course, expect to be paid, and Mr. Thomas Fell White, a solicitor, was forced to have recourse to a very ingenious plan to obviate the difficulty. Every voter employed as a canvasser was called upon to sign a declaration that he would accept no payment for his services; but that declaration, with his name and residence, was to be carefully recorded and kept for the purpose of future reference after the election was over. About 300 or 400 of those documents were, it appeared, recorded, the natural conclusion to be drawn from the fact being, as Mr. Justice Keogh had observed, that the system was resorted to with the view that the persons who signed them should re- ceive some consideration after the election. It appeared, moreover, that some of the poor working men, who were employed to canvass gratuitously, were sent to canvass the Provost of Trinity College. The next form of corruption resorted to had reference to the correspondence as to the payment of travelling expenses with out-voters, of whom Mr. Williamson was employed on behalf of Sir Arthur Guinness to make out a list; but it seemed that the box in which the correspondence had been kept had mysteriously disappeared. A telegram was sent to every out-voter in the name of James William Johnson, and all the telegrams sent professed to be in reply to letters received. It had been ascertained that seventy of the persons telegraphed to in this mysterious manner went up to Dublin and voted for Sir Arthur Guinness. Then came the question as to the systematic corruption of the freemen through the medium of the Freemen's Guilds. This was not the first time that the freemen of Dublin had been censured for corruption. In 1857, there was a Committee of that House investigating the election, of Dublin, which reported that the sitting Members were duly elected, but that a certain proportion of the freemen voted under the expectation that they would be paid for their votes. Hopes were held out to many that they would be paid after the period for the presentation of a petition to the House had expired. At the last election, he might remark, 2,000 out of the 2,600 freemen recorded their votes for Sir Arthur Guinness. As Mr. Justice Keogh remarked, in delivering his judgment, the most extraordinary care appeared to have been taken of these freemen. The hon. Gentleman was proceeding to quote from the judgment especially in reference to the proceedings of a man named Robinson, when—

MR. GATHORNE HARDY, interposing, pointed out that the judgment had not yet been placed before the House. The hon. Gentleman had again and again quoted what purported to be Mr. Justice Keogh's judgment, of which, however, the House had not at present any authoritative cognizance. If the hon. Gentleman chose to use the document from which he was quoting in support of his argument, he was, no doubt, at liberty to do so; but for his own part he protested against it being quoted as the judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh, which, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had stated, had not yet been placed before the House. He had never seen the judgment, but was anxiously waiting for its being laid upon the table.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that the document from which the hon. Gentleman had been quoting could not be accepted as an authentic record.

MR. O'REILLY

said, he hoped the House would merely regard what he had quoted as if it were his own language. The evidence showed that Mr. Foster, who held a public office, engaged offices in Capel Street, hired a man named Marquis—which seemed to be Irish for the Man in the Moon—and then whenever a freeman voted he received a mysterious intimation to go to this house, where he passed an old, used railway ticket through a slit in the door, like the slit of a railway station, and in return an envelope was handed out to him containing a £5 note. There was no dispute about these facts, and he wished an inquiry that they might be still further investigated. The Judge had no doubt done his best, but Mr. Foster, who was the prime agent in all this corruption, had absconded, and there were several other agents in the matter who were not examined. In conclusion, the House had frequently had a painful duty to perform, and that was, when extensive corruption had been reported, to deprive of representation in Parliament the place so vitally tainted with it. He regretted that it had been found necessary to deprive an historical borough like Lancaster of its representation through such a cause; and he should, of course, doubly grieve if it should be deemed requisite to inflict such a sentence on the capital of his country. But even if the Commission should be obliged to report the existence of corruption in the great me facts to which he had referred, he was tropolis of Ireland, in the sense of the glad to think that they might look reasonably forward to being able to address that City in the words addressed by Hamlet to his mother— O, throw away the worser part of it, And live the purer with the other half!

COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENT

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth: Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to Your Majesty, that Mr. Justice Keogh, one of the Justices of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, and one of the 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 believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the said Election. We therefore humbly pray Your Majesty, that Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause inquiry to be made pursuant to the Provisions of the Act of Parliament passed in the sixteenth year of the reign of Your Majesty, intituled, 'An 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 Wolfed 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 Commissioners for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of such corrupt practices."—(Mr. O'Reilly.)

MR. COLLINS

said, he would not follow the hon. Gentleman through the evidence he had quoted, because he held that it was their duty in that House to abide by the Reports of the Judges in those cases; and it was not without pain and regret that he had observed the attempts made on previous occasions to call in question the Reports of the Judges—a course of proceeding which was more likely to bring the House itself into contempt than the eminent persons who had been appointed to try these matters. Lord Lyndhurst, an authority who would be listened to by hon. Gentlemen on both sides, had said in "another place," in regard to another election, that he thought their Lordships had no right to refer to the Report of a Commission or its evidence for the purpose of extending or varying that Report. The Judge who had heard the evidence was far more likely to form a correct opinion as to the course which ought to be pursued than the House could be. Now, the hon. Gentleman asked for the issue, not of an ordinary Royal Commission, but of a Commission under a very special statute, which gave the Com- missioners very special powers, and, before such, a Commission was issued, they ought to take care that it was not void ab initio; that it could legally administer oaths, commit for contempt, and take all the steps necessary to be taken in investigating questions of that kind; otherwise the House would merely stultify itself. If the Commission were void ab initio, perjury could not be assigned against any witness swearing falsely before it, and an action for false imprisonment would lie against any person presuming to commit a witness for contempt. Therefore, the House ought to be careful that it acted according to law, and not upon its own fancy in such a matter. One of the conditions precedent required by the Bribery Commission Act was that a Judge must have reported that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed in any county, city, or borough, or that he had reason to believe that such practices had prevailed there. Now, the question was whether the Report of the Judge in the present case was a Report to that effect. Was saying that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed among one class of voters in a particular constituency equivalent to saying that such practices had extensively prevailed among the constituency generally? In other words, was the part equal to the whole? He did not fairly see how the Judges, in a penal statute, could say—"You have fairly set this Commission on its legs." Many Commissions were issued under that useful Act; he believed there were fourteen in all; but there was one case which, though not exactly on all fours with the present, yet was very like it, and that was the case of Clitheroe. That case was as bad a one as ever came before the House, and Mr. Milnes Gaskell the Chairman of the Committee reported that there had been wholesale treating, that there had been bribery on a great scale—£40, £50, and even £100 having been given for avote—and that intimidation also had been employed, bludgeon-men having been hired for the purpose. The words of the Report were—"That extensive and systematic treating, with other corrupt and illegal practices, had prevailed at the late election." Now, it might be said that when it was reported that extensive treating had prevailed, that was equivalent to treating had extensively prevailed; but, according to the Commis- sion Act, treating was not a corrupt practice within the meaning of the statute. The question of issuing a Commission for Clitheroe, however, came before the House; but it was opposed by those distinguished lawyers Sir Alexander Cockburn, the present Lord Chief Justice, and Sir Fitzroy Kelly, now Chief Baron of the Exchequer, on the ground that the words of the Report were not such as to justify the issuing of a Commission. The House of Commons, however, by 141 to 58, passed the Motion for an Address on the subject, and the concurrence of the House of Lords was invited. In the House of Peers the matter was not viewed through the medium of party atmosphere, and Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Campbell at once declared that the words of the Report were not equivalent to the terms required by the Commission Act. Lord Aberdeen thereupon said he would not proceed with the Clitheroe Commission. After the authorities he had quoted, there could be no doubt whatever that unless the words in the Report were the precise words used in the statute, or equivalent to them, the House had no power in law to issue a Commission. But if they were not to issue a Commission, what were they to do? There were three courses that might be pursued. They might either suspend the Writ, bring in a special Act to disfranchise part of the constituency or the whole, or issue a Commission under a new statute. But with regard to the first course, it would be unconstitutional to suspend a Writ unless with a view to ulterior proceedings. As for passing a Bill to disfranchise a portion of the constituency, that was a course which neither that nor the other House would ever consent to without investigation. Then the only other question was, ought they to have special legislation in reference to this case? He did not say but that special legislation might be required in some instances. The case of Youghal was yet to come before the House, where it appeared that some £5,000 or £6,000 had been spent on a constituency of a couple of hundreds, and a question might arise by-and-by whether special legislation might not be required. But in the case of a large City like Dublin, where there had not been a single Member unseated for corruption, since 1832, it would not 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.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

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 sufficient 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 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 House—that 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 justify the issuing of the Commission? 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 Ms assent, and, in his opinion, it was given too soon. But the Notice being 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 Oxford 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 one case of bribery, and extensive treating was held not to be corruption within 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 election 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 applied 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 endeavour, 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 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. Why did he name them? Because, under a further section of the Act of last Session, penalties would be dealt out to those named by the Judge. The Judge named the parties who had made themselves amenable to justice, but he found that the borough was not amenable to justice. ["No, no!"] If he did not, for what purpose did he add the words 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 lie 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 he felt sure, after the most careful consideration of the clause, that the Commission could not legally issue under 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. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) said there were less than fifty voters reported by Mr. Justice Keogh as having 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.

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 that sat in Galway. There was no bribery in Galway except among the freemen; but the Committee reported that corruption extensively prevailed in the borough, and they were justified in doing that because of the proportion of the freemen to the householders. There were 2,630 freemen in Dublin. To 2,000 of that body no one imputed any malpractices; and why should they open an inquiry as to the whole 12,000 electors, which would necessitate an inquiry, not only into the last election, but into the election before, and even into the election 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.

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 upon himself to say that it might not be brought within the terms of the Act, because the Judge reported that extensive 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 constituency from these corrupt practices. 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 disfranchised. It would be casting contempt upon these inquiries, and laying the House open to the imputation of screening corruption, if after the Judge had reported that corruption extensively prevailed within a large portion of the constituency of Dublin, the House were, on the ground that the Act did not permit a Commission to issue, to issue a Writ for a new election, and thus allow those who had been guilty of bribery to exercise the franchise. On this account he would vote with the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. O'Reilly) though he was not quite sure whether it would not have been better, under the circumstances, to pass a special Act authorizing an inquiry as to the corrupt proceedings of the freemen of Dublin.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 192; Noes 120: Majority 72.

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 Subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to Your Majesty, that Mr. Justice Keogh, one of the Justices of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, and one of the 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 believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the said Election. We therefore humbly pray Your Majesty, that Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause inquiry to be made pursuant to the Provisions of the Act of Parliament passed in the sixteenth year of the reign of Your Majesty, intituled, "An 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 Commissioners for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of such corrupt practices.

Address to be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.