HC Deb 17 June 1869 vol 197 cc126-34

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [14th June], That 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 Guinness, baronet, whose Election has been determined to be void."—(Mr. Noel)

And which Amendment was, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "leave be given to bring in a Bill for disfranchising the Freemen of the City of Dublin,"—(Sir George Grey,) —instead thereof.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."

Debate resumed.

MR. HENLEY

said, he had no intention to offer any opposition to the first stage of the proposed Bill; he must however, be allowed to express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) had brought back into the House one of those questions which they had been doing all they could to keep out of it. He deeply regretted it, because the precedent set by so high an authority would not be easily forgotten. With regard to the matter itself, he confessed it shocked his sense of justice when it was said that there was a case for inquiry, and then without any inquiry they were called upon to condemn. He also regretted that the subject was brought before the House for a special reason. The House would recollect that last year there was a discussion upon the subject of the freemen of Ireland on the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen). The House would not forget the grounds upon which they were then asked to disfranchise the freemen of Dublin. Corruption was not the main ground, but the position they took in regard to the connection of this country with Ireland. Would it be possible for people to believe that this question had been brought up because forty or fifty freemen of the City of Dublin were corrupt, or would they not, on the other hand, be convinced that it was because these freemen were of a particular way of thinking in political matters? He especially regretted the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, because the Members on his side of the House had been dealing with the Irish Church with a strong hand. The hon. Member for Clare last year used the same argument with regard to the freemen of Ireland which he had used as to the Irish Church. Did they not believe that the land question would follow? How were they to separate them? If a right hon. Gentleman on the other side brought forward this Motion on a colourable pretence, why should it not apply to the land question, which was as much a badge of ascendancy as the Irish Church? He regretted the introduction of this Bill, because he believed there was much more inconvenience in taking this course than in permitting the corruption to pass unnoticed.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said that, independently of the respect he entertained for the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he desired to say a few words to explain the course he had taken. It was impossible for the House to maintain its character for desiring to check corruption if it allowed the Dublin Writ to issue, and took no steps to purify the constituency. "When the House of Lords, for reasons which he was far from regarding as unsatisfactory, declined to join in the Address to the Crown for a Commission, there were two courses open to the House of Commons, but not, in his opinion, a third; yet that third course had been taken by the hon. Member (Mr. Noel), who, representing the party opposite, had moved the issue of the Writ. With such a Report from Mr. Justice Keogh, if they allowed the Writ to issue, the corrupt portion of the freemen would again exercise the franchise, and with the same desire to make as much private profit as possible out of the election. A Bill might be proposed to authorize a Commission of Inquiry according to the precedent adopted in the cases of Sudbury and St. Albans, but in that case the inquiry would not be completed before the end of the Session, and the Writ could not issue until the beginning of next year. On the other hand, the case of the freemen of Dublin fell exactly within the precedent of Yarmouth, where gross and extensive bribery having been proved before a Committee of that House to have existed among the freemen of the borough, the House passed a Bill for disfranchising the freemen on the Report of its own Committee, and without further inquiry. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) and others who opposed this Motion whether they had read not only the Report of Mr. Justice Keogh, but also his elaborate judgment, which had been laid upon the table? It was said that only a small number of the freemen had been proved corrupt. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance) said he had reason to know that if the learned Judge who made that Report had had reason to believe that the House would proceed against the Dublin freemen in the way now proposed he would not have made that Report. [Mr. VANCE: If the House were to proceed without further inquiry.] But if the hon. Gentleman would read the judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh, he would be satisfied that the corruption of the freemen of Dublin had been not only extensive, but gross and systematic. It was true that only fifteen freemen were named as having been guilty of corrupt practices, but between 280 and 290 were specified, although not by name, as having been equally guilty of corruption. The learned Judge added that a considerable number had been seen asking for payment for the votes they had given for Sir Arthur Guinness. He was glad that the learned Judge entirely exonerated that gentleman from personal participation in any act of corruption. A "Mr. Foster" was designated by the learned Judge as "the great contriver of this system of corruption." Mr. Foster was called upon the trial of the petition, but he was not to be found, and it was ascertained that he had gone to England the day before he was wanted, and that the evidence to identify the freemen was insufficient, owing to Mr. Foster's absence. If the Writ, consequently, were now to be issued, only fifteen freemen would be disqualified from having been named in the Report, while the 280 who were proved to have been corrupted would be still enabled to exercise the franchise. No doubt existed in the mind of Mr. Justice Keogh as to the extent of corruption among the freemen. The learned Judge, at the conclusion of his judgment, said— I shall furthermore declare—because it has been proved by Mr. White, one of the principal solicitors for Sir Arthur Guinness, acting for him at the election, and now acting for him on this petition; proved by Campbell, whose agency has been established, and whom Mr. Goodman described as best acquainted with the freemen; proved by that document, the most artful of all, which was to be delivered at No. 3, Dame Street, after the election, and which was printed and paid for at 76, Capel Street, at the desire of Henry Foster; proved by what appears to me the most conclusive evidence, direct and circumstantial—that the freemen of this city have been shown to a great extent to be corrupt voters, and I shall leave the House of Commons to deal with their case and the constituency as affected by them. If the Writ had been issued without any notice being taken of such a state of things, the House of Commons would, in his opinion, have been justly chargeable with screening bribery and encouraging those freemen to believe that they might continue their corrupt practices with impunity. He hoped, therefore, that he was justified in interposing between the House and the issuing of the Writ. Hon. Gentlemen opposite asked for further inquiry; but if he had proposed a Bill for a Commission he should have been laying himself open to the charge of wishing to delay indefinitely the issuing of the Writ. He would, however, test the sincerity of hon. Gentlemen opposite by dropping his Bill, in case a Motion for further inquiry should be brought forward by them, if it were understood that the Writ should not issue in the meantime. He hoped that, before the Bill came on for a second reading, either some alternative proposal would be made with the object of preventing the freemen exercising the franchise without further inquiry, or that hon. Gentlemen would read the judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh, and with a full knowledge of the facts disclosed in it, agree to the present Bill.

MR. HUNT

said, he had perused the shorthand writer's notes of the judgment, and his impression was that the Report to the Speaker exactly followed from what the learned Judge remarked in delivering his judgment. It appeared that a great many suspicious circumstances struck the learned Judge's mind as to the manner in which the freemen were induced to vote, but that they were not of a kind to justify his reporting to the Speaker that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed. What the learned Judge said in his judgment entirely coincided with his official Report, and they both seemed to point to further inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir George Grey) had said that the Writ ought not to issue until the corrupt part of the constituency had been eliminated; but it should be borne in mind that, under the 45th section of the Act passed last Session, every person found guilty of corruption was disqualified from voting for the period of seven years. Therefore the present state of things was altogether different from that which existed when the ease of the Great Yarmouth freemen was brought before the House. If a new Writ were to issue for Dublin, the thirteen or fifteen freemen mentioned by name in the Judge's Report would not be able to vote. The right hon. Baronet had offered to withdraw the present Motion and to substitute a Motion for Inquiry. ["No!"] Such a proposal made it questionable whether the Bill he asked leave to introduce was justifiable. He would offer no opposition to the Bill on the present occasion; but he thought it would be a great injustice to the 2,700 freemen, who could not be regarded as being included in the charge made by the Judge, if the Bill were read a second time in its present shape.

SIR GEORGE GREY

explained that he had not proposed to substitute inquiry for the present Motion, but had merely suggested that some hon. Member opposite might do so.

MR. J. LOWTHER

contended that the case of Great Yarmouth was not analogous to the present, and it should also be remembered that the course adopted with regard to Yarmouth had not been attended with much success. He also wished to point out that the object of purifying the constituency of Dublin would not be attained if, as was likely, a considerable number of the persons disfranchised as freemen should come upon the register as householders.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, he represented a constituency containing many freemen, and he wished to state distinctly that any vote he might give upon this question would not imply any opinion as to the impropriety of continuing freemen upon the electoral roll. One of the devices of the party opposite at the last election was to circulate in every borough, a statement that it was the intention of the Liberals to disfranchise the freemen as soon as possible; and he had not the slightest doubt that when it was convenient to make that assertion again it would be made, and with as little foundation as it was made at the last election. He did not desire to disfranchise freemen generally; but, if they were corrupt, he did not see why they should not be disfranchised just as much as any other class of a constituency. With reference to this particular measure, he was glad to think, if a determined attempt had been made to cast a shield over corruption, it had not been made by the Liberal majority of the House of Commons. The position in which they were placed was this—there was a certain statutory power under which, if a Judge reported that extensive corruption prevailed, a Commission could be issued, and the statute required that there should be an Address to the Crown from both Houses of Parliament. As a Member of the House of Commons, he could not understand upon what ground an Address from the Lords should be necessary for such a purpose. It ought to be the exclusive privilege of the House of Commons to guard the purity of its own constituencies. If the House of Lords wished in a Committee of Privileges to inquire as to the rights by which an individual claimed a seat in the Upper House, they did not come to the House of Commons to ask for their assent to such an inquiry. He did not understand upon what principle it was that the House of Commons had not the right to address the Crown of its own intrinsic authority, and ask the Crown to issue a Commission for an Inquiry as to corrupt practices in a constituency returning Members to this House. This House had already assented to an Address to the Crown for an Inquiry in this case, and the question was then referred to the House of Lords. With the greatest respect for the eminent authorities who said, that the law did not apply to this case, his judgment concurred with that of the Lord Chancellor, that the distinctions drawn by the Opposition lawyers were extremely technical and unsound. The Lord Chancellor gave this illustration. He said that if, in the case of the cattle plague, a statute prescribed that cattle were to be slaughtered if extensive disease and rinderpest prevailed, and it happened to be reported by an inspector that rinderpest prevailed extensively among black cattle, then, according to the contention on the other side, you could not slaughter any cattle at all. That seemed to him to be a pretty complete reductio ad absurdum of the argument on the other side. However, the House of Lords determined they would not address the Crown for an Inquiry; and hon. Gentlemen opposite, having by their majority in the Lords prevented an inquiry, came to this House and said—"You cannot disfranchise the freemen, because there has been no previous inquiry." But whose fault was it that there was no inquiry? It was not the fault of the House of Commons; they wished to have it; and now the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) put a searching test to hon. Members opposite by inviting them to move for an Inquiry if they wished for one. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Hunt), speaking with all the authority of his position, reserved his answer to that question; but the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) less bound by official prudence, said he would have no inquiry at all, but would resist such a proposal to the death. What, then, became of the statement of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were opposing this Motion because there had been no previous inquiry? By a sort of special demurrer, which was got rid of in Westminster Hall fifteen years ago, and which seemed to have been revived in the law of election petitions, they had opposed the inquiry which the House wished to make, they had used the power they had in the Lords to prevent it, and then they came to this House and said—"You shall not deal with this matter, because there has been no previous inquiry." He ventured to predict that until some measure of the kind had been taken the Writ would never issue from the House of Commons. If hon. Gentlemen opposite, by this species of election special pleading, chose to resist this Bill, they would simply deprive the constituency of one Member. Individually, he should prefer inquiry, as the House of Commons did; but, it having been reported that an integral portion of the constituency was corrupt, the House would take care, either by inquiry or disfranchisement, that no Writ was issued until a real and substantial attempt had been made to purify the constituency and vindicate the character of the House.

SIR LAWRENCE PALK

deprecated the tone of the speech they had just heard. The question was one of the simplest, for they were all professing to desire inquiry; and he did not see what was to prevent the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) from proposing it, instead of bringing in a Bill to disfranchise the freemen of Dublin, whether they were guilty or innocent. He protested against that in the name of common justice, and still more because last Session election petitions were handed over to another tribunal. He considered it cause for regret that these questions were always turned into party questions. He thought nothing was so discreditable as the bribery that existed, and every means ought to be taken to check it by proceedings against those who had bribed.

MR. WHITBREAD

said, the House had only committed to the new tribunal the duty of deciding whether an election was valid or not, but it still reserved the power to act upon the report of a Judge or of a Commission. On that side they were satisfied with the inquiry which had been made; if the other side desired more inquiry, by all means let them have it, but let it be remembered that the cost of inquiry fell upon the City of Dublin. Next time he hoped that Mr. Henry Foster would be forthcoming.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

ventured to say that, under the statute referred to, a Commission could not issue. The Attorney and Solicitor General had endeavoured to set him down by declaring his reading of the statute to be unsound; but when the matter came before the House of Lords his opinion was upheld by Lord Westbury, Lord Chelmsford, and Lord Cairns, and with such support he was perfectly satisfied.

COLONEL FRENCH

complained that a majority in the House of Commons should be used for the purpose of keeping an important constituency for a time without its share of representation. Moreover, the Lords having determined that there was not sufficient evidence to justify inquiry, would not be likely to stultify themselves by passing this measure.

Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for disfranchising the Freemen of the City of Dublin," put, and agreed to.

Bill [Dublin Freemen Disfranchisement], ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. O'REILLY, and Mr. WHITBREAD.

Billpresented, and read the first time. [Bill 168.]

Forward to