however, which was brought under the ceive some consideration after the elecnotice of the Judge was that a very large tion. It appeared, moreover, that some amount of money had been expended of the poor working men, who were emfor the purpose of securing Sir Arthur ployed to canvass gratuitously, were sent Guinness's return. The total number of to canvass the Provost of Trinity College. the constituency of Dublin was 12,800, The next form of corruption resorted to of which number 5,587 polled for that had reference to the correspondence as gentleman, in obtaining whose votes to the payment of travelling expenses 800 paid agents were employed. The with out-voters, of whom Mr. Williamson total amount expended on the election was employed on behalf of Sir Arthur by Sir Arthur Guinness, including the Guinness to make out a list; but it expenses of the registration immediately seemed that the box in which the corconnected with it, was £15,850. The respondence had been kept had mysteremark of the Judge on so large an ex-riously disappeared. A telegram was penditure was that it was impossible sent to every out-voter in the name of money could be scattered broadcast in James William Johnson, and all the that way and to expect that corruption telegrams sent professed to be in reply would not be the result. It was satis- to letters received. It had been ascerfactory 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

tained 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

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

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 stul-Justice, and Sir Fitzroy Kelly, now tify itself. If the Commission were void Chief Baron of the Exchequer, on the ab initio, perjury could not be assigned ground that the words of the Report were against any witness swearing falsely not such as to justify the issuing of a before it, and an action for false impri- Commission. The House of Commons, sonment would lie against any person however, by 141 to 58, passed the Mopresuming to commit a witness for con- tion for an Address on the subject, and tempt. Therefore, the House ought to the concurrence of the House of Lords be careful that it acted according to law, was invited. In the House of Peers the and not upon its own fancy in such a matter was not viewed through the mematter. One of the conditions precedent dium of party atmosphere, and Lord required by the Bribery Commission Act Lyndhurst and Lord Campbell at once was that a Judge must have reported declared that the words of the Report that corrupt practices had extensively were not equivalent to the terms reprevailed in any county, city, or borough, quired by the Commission Act. Lord or that he had reason to believe that such Aberdeen thereupon said he would not practices had prevailed there. Now, the proceed with the Clitheroe Commission. question was whether the Report of the After the authorities he had quoted, Judge in the present case was a Report there could be no doubt whatever that to that effect. Was saying that cor- unless the words in the Report were the rupt practices had extensively prevailed precise words used in the statute, or among one class of voters in a particular equivalent to them, the House had no constituency equivalent to saying that power in law to issue a Commission. such practices had extensively prevailed But if they were not to issue a Comamong the constituency generally? In mission, what were they to do? There other words, was the part equal to the were three courses that might be purwhole? He did not fairly see how the sued. They might either suspend the Judges, in a penal statute, could say Writ, bring in a special Act to disfran"You have fairly set this Commission chise part of the constituency or the on its legs." Many Commissions were whole, or issue a Commission under a issued under that useful Act; he be- new statute. But with regard to the lieved there were fourteen in all; but first course, it would be unconstitutional there was one case which, though not ex- to suspend a Writ unless with a view to actly on all fours with the present, yet ulterior proceedings. As for passing a was very like it, and that was the case Bill to disfranchise a portion of the of Clitheroe. That case was as bad a constituency, that was a course which one as ever came before the House, and neither that nor the other House would Mr. Milnes Gaskell the Chairman of the ever consent to without investigation. Committee reported that there had been Then the only other question was, ought wholesale treating, that there had been they to have special legislation in referbribery on a great scale-£40, £50, and ence to this case? He did not say but even £100 having been given for avote that special legislation might be reand that intimidation also had been em- quired in some instances. The case of ployed, bludgeon-men having been hired Youghal was yet to come before the for the purpose. The words of the Re- House, where it appeared that some port were "That extensive and sys- £5,000 or £6,000 had been spent on a tematic treating, with other corrupt and constituency of a couple of hundreds, and illegal practices, had prevailed at the a question might arise by-and-by whelate election." Now, it might be said ther special legislation might not be that when it was reported that extensive required. But in the case of a large treating had prevailed, that was equiva- City like Dublin, where there had lent to treating had extensively pre-not been a single Member unseated vailed; but, according to the Commis- for corruption, since 1832, it would not

64

be fair that special legislation should be Judge did not say, as had been reported, resorted to. He would therefore move that 2,600 voters had been found guilty his Amendment to the hon. Gentle- of corruption. It was true there were man's Motion,

2,600 freemen in the borough; and it CAPTAIN ARCHDALL seconded the was true that Mr. Justice Keogh had Amendment.

found that fifty persons had been proved Amendment proposed,

guilty of bribery. These, however, To leave out from the first word " That” to those made by the hon. Member (Mr.

were very different statements from the end of the Question, in order to add the words, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk O'Reilly). He had been informed that of the Crown in Ireland to make out a new Writ at least 1,700 out of the 2,600 freemen for the electing of a Citizen to serve in this pre- were of the higher class of voters in sent Parliament for the City of Dublin, in the Dublin, and perfectly incapable of being room of Sir Arthur Edward Guinness, baronet, whose Election has been determined to be void,” corrupted. But he did not rely upon -(Mr. Collins,)

this; he could only rely upon what the -instead thereof.

Judge had furnished to the House

that corruption had extensively prevailed Question proposed, “That the words

among

the freemen-but that was not as proposed to be left out stand part of the

much as to say that corruption extenQuestion."

sively prevailed in the City of Dublin, MR. SHERLOCK said, it became the terms in which the Report should necessary to call attention to the circum- have been framed before a Commission stances of the case. The Judge re- should issue under the Act. Not content ported that over 200 persons had given with that, however, Mr. Justice Keogh their services gratuitously; but that the added that corrupt practices did not exagreement to do so was colourable, and tensively prevail in the rest of the City. he stated that he had reason to believe Would the House, then, subject the that corrupt practices had extensively whole of the people of Dublin-innoprevailed amongst the freemen. Now, cent as well as guilty--to the expense of what were the facts ? The freemen a Commission-for the expense would numbered 2,600, and, when the Judge fall upon them-because of the improper reported that corruption extensively pre-conduct of a few freemen? Besides vailed, he was not asking the House to this, a great number of the freemen come to an erroneous conclusion when he would escape the expense because they stated that, within the purview of the were non-resident. He was putting the Act, the existence of corruption was question simply as a legal question, and abundantly proved. The corruption of a question of justice. He would ask if the freemen was so notorious upon the the Government had placed the matter evidence that it had not been ques- before the Lord Chancellor so as to know

and when, out of 12,000 voters, whether his opinion was that the case it was found that corruption existed was so clearly within the statute as to amongst 2,000, he thought that a suffi- justify the issuing of the Commission? cient proof that corruption extensively His reading of the Act led him to the prevailed.

conclusion that the Act would not justify MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, he the issue of a Commission. But apart entirely adhered to what he had stated from this he deprecated all discussions upon à former occasion, that if the upon these questions; they would inJudge reported in the terms of the evitably lead to the raising of most statute, and a Motion was made by the painful subjects. Practically, cases of Attorney General in his capacity as bribery had already been raised, and it quasi judicial adviser, to the effect that a was most imperative that the House Commission should issue as a necessary confined itself to the Report of the consequence of the Report of the Judge, Judge. the Motion should be agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR this occasion there was no Motion by IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN) said, that the Attorney General, nor did the Judge the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne declare that corrupt practices extensively Hardy) had stated that this was not a prevailed in the borough. To resolve that Motion by the Attorney General. Now, a Commission should issue under those cir- the Motion was placed on the table becumstances would be most unjust. The fore the evidence was printed. It was not

tioned ;

But on

given with his assent, and, in his opinion, | one case of bribery, and extensive treatit was given too soon. But the Notice being ing was held not to be corruption within on the table, he thought it would have the meaning of the statute. But what been unreasonable to take it out of his a libel it would be on their legislative hon. Friend's hands. The Notice having proceedings if, when the Judge reported, been given, and the Report of the Judge in reference to an election where the being now before the House, he begged votes were pretty evenly balanced, that it to be understood that he supported the among 2,700 freemen, he believed that Motion just in the same way, and under corrupt practices extensively prevailed, the same responsibility, as if he had no action could be taken by that House given the Notice himself. Taking upon in the matter. That was not the law, himself that responsibility, he begged he was glad to say. He had consulted to say a few words on the subject, which with the Attorney General and Solicitor was one of vital moment. The hon. General for England, and they concurred Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) was with him in thinking that the Report in incorrect in his statement on two or this case of Dublin was a Report of corthree points; and especially in his state- rupt practices under the statute. In ment that the House never acted in re- answer to the challenge of the right spect of a particular class of the consti- hon. Gentleman, he believed he could tuency without inquiring into the whole. say that the Lord Chancellor had also The freemen of Great Yarmouth were been consulted on the matter. The Modisfranchised by Act of Parliament with- tion had been made with the greatest out inquiry beyond the Report of the deliberation and under the gravest sense Select Committee. The learned Judge of responsibility. The learned Judge had not yet reported on the Youghal who tried the petition reported that out Election, and that illustrated again the of the number of the constituency, 2,700 great inaccuracy that pervaded the hon. were freemen, and that almost the whole Member for Boston's statement. The of them voted for Sir Arthur Guinness terms of the Act of 15 & 16 Vict. were and Mr. Plunket, and he had found that to the effect that a Commission of In- he had reason to believe that corrupt quiry should issue upon the Joint Ad- practices did extensively prevail among dress of both Houses to Her Majesty, the freemen voters at the last election stating that a Committee of the House for Dublin. Now, if the learned Judge of Commons had reported that corrupt had left out the words "freemen voters,' practices extensively prevailed, or that his report would have been in the very there was reason to believe that corrupt words of the Act, and the putting them practices extensively prevailed at any in did not make it the less so. They election, &c. The words of the statute formed an important part of the conwere not that corrupt practices exten- stituency, and the learned Judge, by his sively prevailed throughout the consti- Report, meant that corrupt practices extuency, but that corrupt practices exten- tensively prevailed amongst an extensive sively prevailed at any election. But, portion of the constituency. They were according to the argument of the right not to be hair-splitting on the words of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ox- Act of Parliament; and, as a lawyer, he ford University, if the freemen con- rose superior to such miserable quibbles; stituted the whole constituency, with the it was a reproach to the legal profession exception of one voter, and if the Judge that they could not take an enlarged view reported that corrupt practices exten- of an Act of Parliament, but he rose above sively prevailed among the freemen, a it on that occasion. What was the meanCommission of Inquiry could not issue, ing of the words in the statute-“Reabecause one voter happened not to be a son to believe that corrupt practices exfreeman. ["No!"] That was the logi-tensively prevailed?" They were incal 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

serted 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