§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
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 Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Meath (Southern Division), in the room of Patrick Fulham, esquire, whose election for the said County has been declared void."—(Colonel Nolan.)
§ (4.57). MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)I wish to bring to the attention of the House the circumstances connected with the Petition with regard to the Division for which the Writ has just been moved, and I desire also to move an Amendment. I am well aware that in inviting the House to take a step of a character so grave and important as that which I am about to ask it to take on this occasion, it will be necessary for me not only to justify the terms of the Amendment, but to show that on previous occasions the House has taken steps of an even greater gravity, and exercised more stringent authority with regard to cases of a much less heinous character. The Report which has just been presented to the House by the Judges who tried the Petition with regard to the Southern Division of the County of Meath states that the election has been voided through the exercise of undue influence and spiritual intimidation. Now, Sir, those who are acquainted with the eases in which this House has interfered with the issue of a Writ after the Report either of a Committee of this House or of Judges directed to try an Election Petition, are aware that in most cases 62 the issue of a Writ has been suspended on account of allegations of corrupt practices, principally connected with the bribery of the constituency. But corrupt practices, Sir, are not confined to mere questions of bribery, and I shall be able to invite the attention of the House to a case which is almost exactly parallel with that which has been revealed by the trial of the Petitions for the Divisions of South and North Meath, and a case in which, having heard the statement of the Chairman of a Committee appointed to consider the question, the House proceeded to take steps of a much more stringent and grave character than that which I invite it to take on the present occasion. In the year 1857 Colonel French moved the issue of a new Writ for County Mayo, upon which occasion the Chairman of the Committee, who had been engaged in trying the allegations connected with the Petition with regard to that county—Mr. Schofield—rose to call the attention of the house to the fifth resolution of the Report. As the allegations contained in that Petition were practically of the same nature as those which have resulted in unseating Mr. Fullam in the South Division of Meath, I think I shall not be intruding on the House if I try briefly to call attention to some of the allegations which were proved before that Committee and which were brought to the notice of the House on that occasion by Mr. Schofield. Mr. Schofield said the House would see by the evidence that the proceedings of the election began with the issuing of a most unseemly electioneering mandate signed by the Archbishop of Tuam in favour of Mr. Moore against Colonel Higgins. He went on to say that this had been followed by unceasing activity OD the part of the priests, by spiritual intimidation, and by incentives to violence until the county was in such a state of excitement that it was not possible for Colonel Higgins' voters to go to the poll except they were escorted by the military. Further than that, they were not safe even in the booths. I do not think it necessary to trouble the House with the details on this occasion which Mr. Schofield on that occasion brought to the notice of the Members who were present. But those Members of the House who are curious on the matter will find that 63 in the case connected with the Mayo Writ in 1857 there is to be found an absolute parallel with the circumstances of the Election Petition tried for the Southern Division of the County of Meath. Mr. Schofield summed up the opinion of the Committee by saying that they had felt it was not a question of Protestantism as opposed to Catholicism, but that it was a question of the freedom of election as against priestly intimidation. So viewing it the Committee discharged their duty faithfully. And although he had always done his best to maintain the civil and religious privileges of his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, he considered it to be his bounden duty to see that the priests did not infringe upon the civil liberties of the people. On that occasion there was a Debate of some considerable length, in which many Members of the House joined. The Leader of the House then was Lord Palmerston, and he supported an Amendment which had been moved by Mr. Schofield and which was eventually agreed to by a majority of 107. It was an Amendment of a much more stringent character than that which I now invite the House to support. It was on that occasion proposed by Mr. Schofield to suspend the issue of the Writ for the County of Mayo for the whole of that Session of Parliament. I have noticed that in all the Debates that have taken place in this House with regard to the inherent power of the House to suspend the issue of Writs, it has never been denied by any authority whatever that there is in the House absolute power to deal with a Writ in any way it chooses. Now, the circumstances which have taken place in the two elections in Meath—which may practically, for the purpose of this Debate, be treated as one election—are of so grave a character that I presume the House is justified in intervening. I feel that I also have to justify the actual form of the Amendment which I intend to propose. That Amendment is this: To leave out all the words after the word "that" in the Main Proposition of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway, and to insert the following words:—
The Writ for the election of a Member for the Southern Division of the County Meath be suspended until the evidence taken on the trial of the South Meath Election Petition has been considered by this House.64 That Amendment is in the precise form of the Motion that came before the House in regard to the proposal made in 1875 by Mr. Whalley, the Member for Peterborough, in respect of the Norwich Writ. Again, when Mr. Lewis, the then Member for Londonderry, proposed the issue of a Writ for the borough of Stroud, the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed his Motion, and in that opposition was supported by the then Leader of the House, the late Lord Beaconsfield. The Chancellor of the Exchequer so opposed the Motion because it proposed to take away from Stroud the right of representation, and the House, he held, ought not to do away with the representation of any particular constituency. I do not propose to go so far as Mr. Lewis did on that occasion, neither do I propose to go as far as Mr. Schofield did in the year 1857. All I ask the House to do now is to do what was unanimously agreed to be done in the year 1875 under a precisely similar state of circumstances. In 1875, as I have already stated, Mr. Whalley moved the issue of a Writ for the borough of Norwich, and the then Attorney General got up and opposed the Motion. He said he had been taken by surprise, as the moment he received the shorthand writer's notes of the evidence and the Report of the Judges, he made a Motion that they should be printed and laid on the Table of the House. Surely it is quite impossible for the House on the present occasion to agree to the Motion which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, if for no other reason than that of precedent. I say that we are entitled, and that every Member of the House is entitled, to learn, from an authorised copy of the transactions, what took place in the Court House at Meath; what were the circumstances and what was the evidence upon which the election was upset. On the occasion of the moving of the Writ in 1875, to which I have referred, an Amendment was proposed by Mr. York in the terms of the Amendment which I am to-day inviting the House to consider, and so strong were the arguments advanced in support of it that the Attorney General of that time intervened in the Debate; and Mr. Herschell, who now occupies a very responsible position in the present Government, supported 65 the Amendment, and it was agreed to without a Division. I cannot help thinking that the House must see that under such circumstances as these it would be inadvisable to proceed with the Motion to issue the Writ which the hon. and gallant Member for Galway has proposed. I should like to remind the House that never before has such an attempt as this been made to issue a Writ under these circumstances at the very commencement of a new Parliament. In former days it was customary, by a Sessional Order, to preclude any such writs being issued until after a period of seven days, although I believe that in more recent times the House has contented itself with a Sessional Order that no such Writ shall be moved for until after a period of two days has elapsed. And if that Sessional Order had been in existence at the present moment, it would not have been necessary for me to have intervened on this occasion, because those of my friends who desire to take action in this matter would have had an opportunity of putting the terms of this Motion on the Paper of the House in due course, and they also would have had a full opportunity of considering what were the circumstances which were necessary to be brought to the attention of the House. I feel certain that the House will pardon me for intervening on this occasion, and I am sure that the older Members of this Assembly—those who have more experience in the business of the House, and are better acquainted with its precedents —will agree that I have a somewhat ample justification for the course Which I have taken to-day. I do not propose to argue at any very great length the questions which arose in the Court House in Meath, but I should like to refer for one moment to a passage which occurred in the Judgment of Mr. Justice O'Brien, because, as I before pointed out, the case or the South Meath Electing Petition is precisely parallel with the Mayo Petition, in regard to which the House, at the invitation of Mr. Schofield, took far stronger measures than I now ask it to adopt. Mr. Justice O'Brien, after alluding to various matters in the pastoral and the law applicable thereto, said—I now come to the particular grounds on which the validity of this election is questioned, and the first and gravest is the pastoral of the 66 Most Rev. Dr. Nulty, which was read in all the churches on July 3, setting forth as it did the Divine authority of the Church, the obligations of the Moral Law which Mr. Parnell had violated, and the responsibility of those who supported Parnellism.Then he goes on to comment on the character of the pastoral, and he concludes that portion of his charge with the following words:—'Invincible ignorance,'—I quote the words —that exception which it identifies the condemned doctrine with heresy, was allowed possibly to excuse misguided men and women, for it was laid down authoritatively that no intelligent or well-informed person could remain a Catholic and continue to cling to Parnellism.'It is not necessary for me to comment at length on the whole of this Judgment. All I desire now to do is to call the attention of the House to the concluding words of Mr. Justice O'Brien's powerful charge. Referring to the clergy generally, he said—I have no doubt a strong obligation of obedience to their own Bishop, and Whether or not in conformity with their own opinions and sentiments, did use language calculated to convey to the minds of the voters in this division that their conduct in this election involved the question of eternal condemnation or the contrary. Now, having expressed that opinion, it remains to me to say one word concerning the legal aspects of the evidence concerning this question in relation to agency, and upon that apparently very little difficulty seems to me to arise. I consider if there ever was a case of agency established it was in this particular case Mr. Fullam was named as the candidate from the very beginning of the contest; he attended all the meetings held; he attended there with clergymen; he named them as his agents, as his personation agents in many instances; he received the subsidy of money provided for the expenses of the election from them or some clergyman; he, upon the public occasion when the victory was celebrated, thanked publicly the clergy for the services they hard rendered, and the only question that would remain on my mind as the result of the evidence is the application of this term agent at all, and of the possible application of any such term to the position the clergy assumed. They appear to me to have fulfilled positions of principals, while Mr. Fullam was only the agent, and upon that part of the matter, there fore. I have formed my opinion. We have heard a great deal, of course, of the importance of this question, and this trial, and a great many arguments and observations had been made concerning it. I am quite conscious of the great importance of it—that it is a struggle between great Parties and great interests, and, it may be, of great consequences. But with the consequences I have no concern whatever. My concern is with justice; my allegiance is to justice alone, and in the fulfilment of that obligation I am constrained in justice to declare that, in my opinion, the election for the South 67 Division of Meath, both under the Statute and the Common Law, is void through undue influence, and must be set aside.Having, Sir, read the concluding sentences of this Judgment, I venture to say there is not a Member of this house, no matter on sole he may sit, who will not feel that these grave and important, words demand at least the attention of the House, and that I am not asking diem to assent to a Motion which goes beyond what can legitimately be asked. All I ask is, that before any step is taken in issuing a new Writ, before any further opportunity is given to those who have already trampled on the liberty of individual opinion in the South Meath electorate, before they are again allowed to exercise such intimidation mid undue influence, as a Judge of the I Ugh Court reports to have been exercised there. Every Member of this House should have the fullest opportunity of acquainting himself with the evidence given on the Petition and with the terms of the Judge's charge. I take it the Government can hardly see its way to agree to the issue of this Writ. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Gladstone), who has been one of the most distinguished and careful custodians of the Precedents of this House, will for one moment sanction a departure for a Precedent which is completely on all fours with the course I now invite the House to take, and winch in the year 1875 had the sanction of his present Lord Chancellor (Lord Herschell). I think I have said sufficient, to justify the Motion I now make, seeing that it will give the House at some future date—after hon. Members have acquainted themselves with what took place in the Meath Court Ilouse—an opportunity of deciding what steps, if any, should be taken with regard to the issue of a new Writ. Amendment proposed,To leave out front the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words the Writ for the Election of a Member for the Southern Division of the County of Meath be suspended until the evidence taken on the trial of the Election Petition for that division has been considered by the House,"—(Mr. Macartney,)—instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,) Edinburgh, MidlothianI can assure the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that I am by no means insensible of the grave nature of the allegations contained in his speech, and the proposal that I have to make will imply no disposition on my part to disparage them; neither, on the other hand, do I intend to enter in any manner upon the merits of the original Motion itself; but what I wish to put before the House is that there is a prior consideration, which was glanced at by the hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. Macartney), and which ought to preclude the House from proceeding with the Debate at the present moment. My objection, as far as it is an objection when considered in the view of the forms and usages of the House, is undoubtedly an objection not so much to the Amendment as to the original Motion itself. There is no such thing, I believe, as a Standing Order of the House applicable to the question I am about to raise. I do not know that there is so much as a Sessional Order of the House, which the hon. Member believes to exist; but there is a usage of the House which is supported by so much practice and authority, that it forms a pave fact in the case, and is, I think, so obviously reasonable that nothing ought to be done to weaken the force of that usage. Usage has been glanced at by the hon. Member for' Antrim, and I invite him to consider in an impartial spirit the reference I am about to make to it, a reference in respect to which I am bound to say I should feel myself very greatly confirmed in the view I take of the matter, provided you, Sir, with your great authority in the. Chair, are disposed to advise the House in the same sense in respect to this, rather important question of its Forms of Procedure. It is an established usage of the House, when any seat has been vacated in consequence of the sentence of a competent tribunal that the election has been vitiated by corrupt and illegal practices, that no Writ shall be moved for the purpose of filling the vacancy until a notice has been regularly given and placed upon the Votes; arid that two days shall intervene before the Motion call he entertained by the House. I think that that is obviously a reasonable practice, and I believe it is also an 69 established practice. If I might venture to make a suggestion, I would say we should most completely conform to the practice. Were the hon. and gallant Gentleman to ask leave for the present to Withdraw his Motion, and then to place a regular notice upon the Votes, I have little doubt, from tile spirit of Ids speech, that the Mover of the Amendment would place no impediment in. the way of the proceeding. It is not in my power in any manner to enforce that method of procedure, or to make a Motion directly in support of it but what I can do in order in some degree to attain that object, if there is a general concurrence of view upon the subject, is to move that the Debate he now adjourned. The effect of that would be to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman time for consideration. If the view I have expressed should he supported by t he weight of your authority, I would venture strongly to recommend the hon. and gallant Member to adopt this course. It would then be in his power to take steps to re-commence the proceedings, and he could raise t he question at a more convenient moment. I venture, therefore, to put in your hands for the present the Motion I have indicated, bearing in mind the great assistance which would be afforded to the House should you be prepared to give an opinion as to the best course to he adopted. I beg to move that this Debate he now adjourned.
§ *MR. SPEAKERAfter the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, I may say that it is generally the case that there is in force an Order passed by this House that in cases such as those referred to, two days' clear notice should be given of a Motion to issue a new Writ. But it is not a Sessional Order; it is not a Standing Order, though I think it ought to be made a Standing Order, but there is now no Order in force. The reason, therefore, why I have not interfered is because I have no order to act on. But in the course, probably, of to-morrow or next day, in accordance with usage, it will be competent for Her Majesty's Government to move that in all cases, such as those referred to, two days' notice should be given. But this is the first day of the Session, and the consequence is that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) is perfectly entitled to bring forward this Motion. I would, however, venture to make the 70 suggestion, not that the debate should be adjourned, but that the previous suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury Should adopted, and that both the Motion and the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that two clear days' notice should he given. The spirit of the Order, which I am sure the house will pass, will then be complied with.
§ *MR. W. E. GLADSTONEI may say in explanation that, at all events, we are agreed as to the present prosecution of the debate. But if there be a disposition to go a little further back and to recommence the debate later on, I shall be delighted to withdraw the Motion I have made.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)After what has fallen front you, Sir, I hope there will be no hesitation on the part of the hon. Gentleman who initiated the debate to follow the advice which von have tendered. So far as I can gather from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt that if the course you suggest should be pursued, he would see it followed with sincere gratification. I therefore hope, Sir, that we will defer the debate until Friday next.
§ MR. JOHN E. REDMOND (Waterford)I ask the permission of the House to make just one remark. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan), in making his Motion, had no desire to violate the usage of the House. All that we desire is that the Writ should be moved as soon as practicable. The suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, that the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend should be withdrawn, that he should give now a new notice to move for this Writ in two days' time, is a suggestion which I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will adopt. I can scarcely take the view of the right hon. Gentleman who has last spoken that that is the spirit of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, because the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman was an Amendment directed to the suspension of the Writ until there has been a discussion on the merits of the evidence which would be in due course laid on the table of the House. But what I want to safeguard myself against is that in agreeing to postponing the Motion for the Writ on the suggestion of the First Lord of the 71 Treasury, that I am agreeing also to the idea that the Writ should he suspended until the evidence is laid on the table, and until there has been a discussion on the evidence. The evidence, I presume, will be laid on the table in due course, and the fact that this Writ has been moved for, and that an election has taken place, will not ill the slightest impede the consideration by the House of the undoubtedly grave questions raised by the Petition. I suggest, therefore, to my hon. and gallant. Friend that he should adopt time suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury, on the understanding that if, having given two days' notice, he moves for the Writ, he shall not be met by an attempt, such as that made by the Amendment, to raise the entire question, and that the Writ shall be suspended until the matter has been considered. [Ironical Opposition Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen, then, have no right to cheer their leader. The right hon. Gentleman said that was the spirit animating the speech of the mover of the Amendment. I therefore hope that when the Writ is moved for again I shall not be met by the same kind of Motion, but that two days having expired we will then have time Writ issued for a new election, and that the House will consider the questions raised in the Petition in a proper and regular way hereafter. That course will not be impeded in the slightest degree by the issuing of the Writ. Speaking for those who brought the Petition, and against whom these influences were directed, and who were only beaten by 80 votes, we desire above all things that there should be a speedy new election, and that we should again appeal to the suffrage of the people as soon as possible.
§ COLON SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)I shall be sorry if there were any misapprehension of the course we intend to pursue with regard to this Writ. We oppose the issue of the Writ, and we shall oppose it when it is moved two days hence. I hope, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member will not be under the misapprehension that we will allow the Motion to pass when it is moved for two days hence.
§ MR. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)Seeing the senior Conservative Whip (Mr. Akers-Douglas) in his place, I desire 10 ask he considers that the Con- 72 servative Party has a right to move the Writs in the case of Rochester, Hexham, mind Walsall where Members of his Party have been unseated, the previous occupants of the seats having been Liberals? This question, I think, involves a matter of considerable importance in regard to the rotations of parties in this House. If it is left open to any skirmisher to move a Writ which is generally supposed to be in the hands of the Commander of the Forces of the Regular Army, I need not point out the inconvenience to this House and the obstruction of its business if the moving of Writs were allowed to be sprung upon it, and further the impossibility of the present relations between the Parties as to the moving of Wits being adhered to. For instance, suppose in regard to the Writ for. Rochester that some Irish Member on the Nationalist side got up and moved the Writ on some Wednesday when a Tory Bill was on, and that some other Member got up afterwards and moved the Motion that the Member for one of the Divisions for Antrim (Mr. Macartney) has now moved, it would be impossible fm. the Tory Party, or the Liberal Party, or any other Party in this House to continue time working of its business in the usual spirit that prevails between Parties if hon. Gentlemen who have the proper carriage of Writs were not allowed to intervene. I believe there is also the usage that the Whip of every Party in the House shall receive notice that it is the intention of some other Party to move the Writ. I do not know, so flit as regards the right hon. Gentleman the Whip of the Conservative Party, or the right hon. Gentleman the Whip of the Ministerial Party, whether in this case that practice has been carried out; but I submit it is as much incumbent on the Lender of Her Majesty's Opposition as much as on the Prime Minister to see that nobody has the carriage of Election Writs except the Party that has vacated the seat. I submit that as a proposition that ought to carry with it the general and unanimous sense, of the House. The object of the present case is plain. Hon. Gentlemen suppose that they may have a benefit in moving for the Writ for South Meath before the Writ for North Meath. They think they have an advantage, but it has always been supposed that it is the party that vacates 73 the seat that should within a reasonable limit of time move the Writ. I think I have good reason to complain that not only has the usual order that two days' notice, which we conceive ourselves we are bound to give, has not been followed, but also what I may call the comity of Parties has been broken into by the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Galway. I hope that this question will be considered by the Whips, both Ministerial and Opposition, and I trust we may have some explanation on the subject.
§ MR. T. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)Before the Whips answer the question put to them. I should like to say a few Words on the Motion nude by my hon. and gallant Friend, and on the late South Meath Election. The seat for Which the Writ was moved was occupied by a member of the Party to which my hon. and gallant Friend belongs. I assume that when an election has been voided by the Judges the seat is not in the possession of the Member elected, but reverts to the position it occupied before the election was voided, and that therefore the Whip of the Party to which it belonged before the voided election has the right to move for the Writ. If the views of the hon. Member who has just addressed the House hold good, I see no way of moving for the Writ except through the Judges Who voided the seat. The seat in this case has been vacated by the decision of the Judges who tried the Petition. The seat had been held by a Member of the Party to winch the hon. and gallant Member for Galway belongs; and I think it is thoroughly in accordance with precedent that the Party which held the seat before the corrupt election which has been set aside should now move for the Writ.
COLONEL, NOLAN (Galway, N.)I wish to say that I do not wish for one moment to violate any of the rules of etiquette of this House. I thought the rules of procedure were all on my side. Before this election the seat was held by Mr. Mahony— no, Mr. Shiel held the seat, and Mr. Shiel was a Member of our Party. The illegal Member elected at the last election was in only long enough to give one vote, and in my opinion it is really our seat for the present until it is filled. Some of the hon. Members around me will be claiming my 74 scat next, and indeed they tried hard to get it. The Judges declared that this election in South Meath was not a true election, and therefore it was no election at all. I am not giving any word of my own—that is the opinion of the Judges. They declared that in North and South Meath there was so much intimidation mid undue influence that they were not free elections, and all election is not free it is no election whatsoever. Therefore I say that as we held the seat before au illegal election put Mr. Fullam into possession we have the right to move for the Writ. I may be wrong, but I do not see what is to prevent me moving for the Writ unless due Whips of this House—the Conservative Whips and the Government Whips—come together and say I was Wrong. If they declare that I am wrong I will not go on except in this way—I Will take what is the usual coarse will go to the Whip of the Party who should move for this Writ and say, "If you don't move this Writ on such and such a day I will move it." That is the rule and custom of this House. I have often seen it done in the last twenty years, and that is what I will do if the Whips declare that I am wrong. As to why the Writ for South Meath should be issued first, I moved for it because the Report of the South Meath Petition was first read by the Speaker.
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)I rise to order. I wish to ask whether this discussion is germane to the question before the Chair?
COLONEL NOLANI am justified in answering what the hon. and learned Member for Louth said. He called me a skirmisher. I suppose the hon. and learned Member knows a great deal about law; but I should say his tactical knowledge is not up to date, for this reason—that battles are now almost exclusively decided by skirmishers. Whole lines are made by skirmishers, and I have no objection to be called a skirmisher in that sense of the word. I am anxious to say that if I have sinned against any rule I did it through bone fide reasons. I will accept the proposition of the Leader of the House; that is, I Will give notice that I will trove for the Writ for South Meath next Thursday. I suppose that is two clear days. There are so many meanings now given to three clear days that I must be sure on that point, but I 75 call that two clear days. I will move for the Writs for South and North Meaths on Thursday, unless the point of etiquette is settled by the Whips against me, and that the Writ will be moved on that day by the Whip properly concerned. I now beg to withdraw my Motion for the Writ, Mr. Speaker.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Motion, by leave, Withdrawn.
§ SIR THOMAS LEA (Londonderry, N.)I wish to ask, Mr. Speaker, will there be two clear days' notice if the Motion is made on Thursday and not oil Friday?
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe Motion cannot he put On the Paper till Wednesday, and therefore, it would not naturally come on till Friday.