Michael D.Heath-Caldwell M.Arch.

Monday 15 August 1831

---

James Heath R.A. - aged 73/74                          
Mary Heath (ne Phillipson)  - aged 73/74 

          
George Heath  Serjeant-at-Law - aged 51/52                               
Anne Raymond Heath (ne Dunbar) - aged 43/44     

Julia Anna Harrison (ne Heath) - aged 23/24        
John Moore Heath - aged 22/23              
Douglas Denon Heath - aged 19/20           
Dunbar Isidore Heath - age 15/16               
Leopold G. Heath RN - age 13/14            
Emma Jane Whatman    - aged 9/10 

---

Monday 15 August 1831
Morning Post.

Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the City of Dublin Election Petition.

Mr William Long called in, and sworn; examined by Mr. Serjeant Heath, as follows:-

Are you a freeman of Dublin? - Yes.
Are you coachmaker to the Marquis of Anglesey? - I was; I am not now.
Do you know Captain Hart? - I do.

What is he? - A comptroller of the establishment of his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant; either the Comptroller or the House Steward; Comptroller.

Did you receive any communication from him on the subject of voting for the Representatives at Dublin on the last election? - I did.

Did he come to you? - He did.
What did Captain Hart say to you?  - (The question objected to.) 
Mr.Serjeant Ludlow was heard to object that this was not a legitimate mode of proving agency.
Mr.Harrison was heard in answer to the objection.
Mr.Serjeant Ludlow replied.

The Committee room was cleared.

The Counsel and Parties were called in, and informed that the Committee had resolved, That the Objection taken by Mr.Serjeant Ludlow, that Capt. Hart must be proved to be an agent before Evidence could be taken as to the conversation, be overruled. Mr. Long re-called; and further examined by Mr Serjeant Heath as follow:-

What did Capt. Hart say to you on the subject of the Election? - He said he wished to speak to me respecting it; I asked him what he had to say? He said he had  been directed to come to me by the Lord Lieutenant, and that his Excellency had directed him to request my vote for the Reform Candidates at the Election; I asked if I was to understand he came to me officially, and he said, I was; I said I was sorry I could not comply with the request, inasmuch as that I was very much interested for a particular friend of mine who was one of the Candidates, Mr Shaw; he said that he was sorry that I was not able to do as required, inasmuch as if I did not, he had to be the bearer of a disagreeable message, and he would rather be the bearer of an agreeable than a disagreeable one; he said that he was ordered to tell me that if I did not vote as he required I should be discontinued coachmaker to his Excellency; I said I was sorry for it. I asked him if I was to understand that I was thenceforward to be discontinued; he said, yes, I was, and he took his departure, first having stated that it was not to me alone that he was to go, but to go to all the tradespeople, and he shewed me a list, which I did not read; he said it was a list of the tradespeople he was to go to, according to orders.

Have you been dismissed? - Yes, I have.
Have you voted? - Yes.

For whom did you vote?  - For Mr.Shaw and Mr.Moore.

You have been dismissed since that time?  - I have.
From being coachmaker? - I was dismissed from the time of Captain Hart's interview; that was previous to my voting.

Who came to you next after seeing Captain Hart; do you know Sir John Byng?  - I know him, having communication in the way of trade.

He is Commander-in-Chief of the Forces? - He was.
Did he come to you after Captain Hart?  - I was told by the people in my office that Captain Byng had been there.

Did you see him?  - I went to him in consequence.

Where? - At his residence, the the Royal Hospital.

State what passed? - I stated to him, when I was introduced to him, the object of my visit, hearing he had waited on me the day before; he said he was anxious to see me on a subject he understood I was interested in, in consequence of a communication with Captain Hart; he was sorry to hear it;he wished to know the particulars himself.I stated to Sir John, I dare say, nearly the same words as I have stated to the Committee, at least in substance, what had occurred between me and Captain Hart; he was kind enough to express his regret at what had occurred ; he said for my interest he would speak to Lord Anglesey, and try and set the matter right; I was grateful, and I asked to be allowed to call again the following day. Sir John said he had seen Lord Anglesey on the subject; he was glad to tell me that Capt. Hart had exceeded his instructions, and he said Lord Anglesey, fearing he might have been misunderstood in the directions he gave, took the precaution of making a memorandum of the orders he had issued at the time of giving those orders; and he said, "To show you that these orders were exceeded, he has given me a memorandum to show to you," and he handed me a paper. 

Did you read that paper? - I did, twice.
You read it? - Yes, I did.

Do you know the handwriting? - No; I never saw Lord Anglesey write.
What did you do with it when you had read it? - I returned it to Sir John Byng.
He stated that that was a memorandum that Lord Anglesey had made?  - I asked him if that was Lord Angelsey's writing; he said it was.

Sir John Byng K.G.H., called in, and sworn, examined by Mr.Serjeant Heath.

Do you know what has become of that paper? - I declare on my word and honour I do not.

That paper you showed to Mr. Long? - I state most positively to the Committee, that, before coming away from Dublin, I examined every paper I had, to destroy some, and to leave others for my successor; but on bringing away my luggage I was asked about it before I left Dublin; I did not now that I had not given it to Mr.Long. It was given into my hands for publicity; I have endeavoured to find it.

Do you believe it to be lost? - I cannot say it is lost; it was given to me for publicity.
In whose handwriting was that paper? - Lord Angelsey's.

He gave it to you? - Yes, he did in consequence of what had been said.
Mr.Long, re-called; and examined by Mr.Serjeant Heath, as follows:-
You said you read that over twice? - Yes.

Can you tell the contents to the Committee? - Not verbatim, I cannot; I can tell the Committee the purport of it and the effect. 

As nearly as you can? - It commenced by stating that Lord Angelsey desired it to be communicated to several persons employed by him, that their votes are requested for the Reform Candidates at the City of Dublin Election. With respect to persons holding officers under Government, or receiving the pay of Government, the case is different, their votes are expected;the first was requested, the other expected.
After that did you see Captain Hart? - Yes, I did; in consequence of what occurred subsequently with Sir John Byng, I went to Captain Hart the next day; I asked of Sir John if it was to be understood that I was to be dismissed? He said Lord Anglesey said no. I went to Captain Hart and said, "I understand you have mistaken your instructions, and that I am not to be dismissed;" he said his recollection of his instructions was exactly as he communicated, and he had received no orders to reinstate me, and if he did receive orders he would communicate them.
Have you ever been reinstated? - No, never; he said he was positive he had communicated to me the orders received.

If he received any orders to reinstate you he would let you know? - Yes, he would be glad of having an opportunity to do it; he should not like to do an unkind thing.

(The witness having committed to writing the communication of the Lord Lieutenant soon after reading it, and having received his notes from Dublin, the following extract was read before the Committee on the succeeding day:-)

"Lord Anglesey desires it to be communicated to the several persons employed by him, that it is his request that their support at the Dublin Election should be given to the Reform Candidates, at least that they should not become partisans against the persons supported by the Government of which he is the head. With respect to persons holding office and receiving pay from the Government the case is different; Lord Anglesey expects their votes to be given as directed."

S.W. Tyndal Esq. Alderman of the City of Dublin, examined by Mr.Serjeant Heath
During the late Election did you wait on Baron Twyll? - Yes.
Did you wait on him in consequence of some one leaving a message?  - I did.
Do you know who it was that came to you? - Colonel Morris. 
In consequence of his coming, you went to Baron Twyll? - Yes. 

State to the Committee all that passed on that interview? - Baron Tyrell said to me that he sent for me to speak to me on the subject of the City of Dublin Election; that it was expected that gentlemen holding official situations under Government should vote for the Government  Candidates; I said to Baron Twyll that it was my anxious desire to obey any wishes or commands of the Government, but that I would beg to state to him the very embarrassing situation in which I was placed with respect to the Dublin election; I stated to him that I had been recently elected to the situation I held by the Corporation of Dublin; that they had given a very decided opinion on the subject of the Dublin election. I stated to him that Mr.Shaw, the Recorder, was a Candidate, that he was my relative, and the dearest friend I had; that Sir Robert Shaw, the Recorder's father, was my early friend; that I had served the office of Sheriff with him; that he had brought me forward in the Corporation, and was assisting me in obtaining neuter on this election, not to have voted at all, and that I would respectfully request him to lay a statement of my case before his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, and I hoped I would be permitted to remain neuter, and not vote at all on the election. I stated that I had been a friend of the Recorder in former elections, that I was one of his Committee, that I took an active part, that at present I did not intend to do so, and that I would, if permitted, remain neuter. Baron Twyll said he could not make that application, for that if my request were acceded to, gentlemen similarly circumstanced might expect the same indulgence to be afforded to them.
Examined by the Committee - He would not make that application to the Lord Lieutenant?  - As I understood him to say; I do not recollect any thing particular that passed afterwards.

Did he say he could not make that application to the Lord Lieutenant? - I think so, if my recollection serves me; that is the purport of what he said.

Did he use the Lord Lieutenant's name in his communications to you? - I am not certain of that.
You requested him to make application to the Lord Lieutenant to suffer you to remain neuter, and he said he could not do it? - That it would be useless; that it would be unavailing.
Did you vote or remain neuter at the Election? - I voted.

For whom?- For Sir Robert Harty and Mr.Perrin.
Your words were, if you were suffered to remain neuter you would? - Yes.

Mr.George Studdart called in, and sworn; examined by Mr.Serjeant Heath.

What are you? - A Sheriff's Peer.
That is a person who has passed the office of Sheriff? - Yes.
Are you a Police Magistrate? - I am.
Are you one of the Police Magistrates appointed by the Corporation? - Yes.

Did you go to the Castle to Baron Twyll, in consequence of any communication made to you? - Yes, I did.
Who made the communication to you; who requested you to go? - It was Colonel Maurice.
Will you state to the Committee, without being led, as accurately as you can, the whole of the conversation that passed between you and Baron Twyll? - He told me that he had sent for me to say that it was expected I would vote for the Reform Candidates.

What did you say to that intimation? - I told him it would be very distressing to my feelings to be obliged to do; that the other Candidates were personal friends of mine; that I had supported them at the former election, and that I intended to do so on the present occasion. l also said that it would be unpleasant to me on another principle, that I had been elected to a situation I held by the Corporation, and that it would be voting against their interest by supporting the Reform Candidates. Baron Twyll said, I am aware you are elected by the Corporation, but you should recollect you are paid by the Government.

Are those the very words? - I should say positively they are the exact words, as far as I can recollect; I have been thinking of them for some time; I am sure there is no doubt they were. I think I then said I could not mistake the nature of the communication; that I would do as he had said was expected of me; that I would vote for the Reform Candidates; and after that he said he knew I had some influence in the city, and that he expected that I would exercise it in favour of those Gentlemen. I told him I should be deceiving him if I promised any thing of the kind, for I was sure my friends would vote the other way. I stated I had received a letter from my brother-in-law, Colonel Beecher on family matters, in which he said that if it was necessary he would come to Dublin and vote against the Lord Mayor.

The Lord Mayor is Sir Robert Harty, one of the sitting Members? - Yes.
What did you say about your own votes? - I said I would vote as he said he expected.
Did you vote? - Yes.

For whom? - For the Lord Mayor, Sir Robert Harty.
If you had not had that interview with Baron Twyll, for whom would you have voted? - I would have voted certainly for Mr.Shaw and Mr.Moore.

John Robinson, called in, and sworn.
What are you? - A coachmaker by trade.
Are you a freeman of Dublin? - I am
Do you know a person of the name of Charman? - I do.
What is he? - He is an upholsterer.
Was he very active at this Election? - He was very active.
For what party? - Harty and Perrin.
Did Charman, when he came to you, come in a carriage? - Yes. 
Did he take any other voters up but you? - Only me.
Did you pay for the carriage? - No.

Tell the Committee what Charman said; narrate all that passed from the time Charman came to you in the carriage? - He told me if I would vote for Harty and Perrin, I should be paid.
What did he say to you? - He said, if I would go and vote for the Lord Mayor and Mr.Perrin, I should be paid.

What did he say to you? - He said, if I would go and vote for the Lord Mayor and Mr Perrin, I should get five.

What do you think he meant? - I think he meant 5/.
What did you say to that? - I said I did not wish to part with my franchise for a trifle of money; he said it was the wish of the Government and his Majesty, and it was better I should vote that way than the other.
John Grantham called in, and sworn.

Did you vote at the late Election? - I did, your Honour. For whom? - Perrin and Harty. As a freeholder? - As a freeholder. How far do you live from Dublin? - I live twelve miles and a half.
By the Committee. - Irish miles? - Yes.

By Mr. Serjeant Heath - You voted as a freeholder; where is it? - In Cold Blow Lane, between Donnabrook and Dublin.
In Cold Blow Lane? - Yes.

Did you ever see your Freehold? - I did when I went to get it, and never since.
When was that? - I cannot say; about five or six years ago.
How large is your Freehold? - I cannot say, it is a space of land; I do not know how much is in it.
As big as this room? - Nearly as big as this room; I do not know, I never saw it measured or surveyed.
Is it part of a garden-ground? - Yes.

Do you know how many other freeholders there are of that garden? - I cannot tell.
Who came from Kilmarcanock to Dublin to vote? - I cannot say how many.
How did you come? - In a car.

Who brought you? - I do not know the man; he brought a number of people; I cannot tell you how many.
How many do you think? - About twenty, I suppose, or upwards. 
Were they all freeholders of this garden ? - Yes, part I suppose, I cannot say.
You think about twenty came up together? - Yes.
Did you receive any rent for this? - I did; 2/. 5s.
When? - At the election.

From the time you got the freehold to the time of your receipt of tis 2/.5s. at the election, did you ever receive any rent? - No; but we got the hold in our hand.

Did you vote about this before? - No; at the election we received 10/. and I returned 7/.15s. of it back.
What, you received five years rent? - Yes.

All at once? - Yes
Who is your tenant that paid you? - The man that paid me was a man of the name of Hicks.
Is he your tenant? - No.

Who is your tenant? - Mr.Grattan's agent, of the name of Berwick.
Who is your landlord where you live? - Mr. Berwick.

Who is your landlord? - I suppose Mr.Grattan; I cannot say; I am not in possession of any other.
Then you never had any rent till you came to vote? - No, I never looked for it.
You do know who came for you? - No, I do not.
Whoever it was, you went up? - Yes.

What did he say? - He said Mr.Grattan had given us in trust to.Harty and Perrin, to vote for him at the election; by that means we all went with the man that came.
Where did you go when you first came to Dublin? - To Cork Hill.
To what house? - Really, I cannot say; I believe it was an election house.
Were there any bills posted over the house? - Yes.
Whose bills? - Harty's and Perrin's. 

Where were you paid your rent? - I cannot exactly say the place; I do not know the name of the house, but it was at Green Street.

In a house there? - Yes, between the two.
Who paid you? - A man of the name of Windfield Hicks.
Did you ask for your rent? - We did.

Before you voted? - Yes.
What did you say? - We asked him to pay our rent for the time we were bound; he handed us money; 10/. a piece.

Did you ask for the rent the day before? - Yes, he told us we should have 4/.; we were too late to vote, but we should be settled with the next day.

The next day, at Green St, you received 10/.? - Yes, and returned 7/. 15s.
Why? - He told me every man had done so, and I did so.
Who told you so? - Mr.Hicks.

Then you went and voted? - Yes.
Did Hicks give you any money of it afterwards? - He gave me 2/. 5s.
When you went up to vote you had received your rent? - Yes.
Though you had handed it over to Mr.Hicks? - Yes.

Having voted, Mr.Hicks gave you 2/.5s? - Yes, that is the way it was; that is the whole that passed.
John Farrell called in and sworn.

(Gave the same evidence as the preceding respecting the freehold at Cold Blow.)
Do not you know what rent was paid you? - Forty shillings a year.
Was it counted out to you?- Yes.

Was it in a bundle? - Yes, it was reckoned out to me, and then I took some out, and returned the rest; it was reckoned out either 10/. or 12/.

You do not know how much rent is due to you? - That was due to me year; I was looking at it, but I do not recollect whether it was five or six years.

You do not know whether you paid that? - I was paid the full amount; I think it was five years, and coming six; I was paid five year; I did not know but I was paid six.

What did you do with the money? - I kept out my year's rent, and returned the rest of it.
How long did you keep the bundle of bank-notes in your hand before you gave it to somebody else? - Before I left the room; not long.

Who did you give it to? - The man that gave it me.
Did you go and poll then? - Yes.

When did you receive it? - I gave it back, all but one year's rent.
You did not give it all back? - No.

You kept it back before you polled? - I kept a year's rent entirely.
Did you not poll first, before this man gave you back 2/.5s? - No, I had the 2/. the year's rent; I did not get 2/. 5s. at all. 
You only took 2/.? - No.

John Bassegeo, called in, sworn, and examined by Mr.Serjeant Heath.
You are a Frenchman by birth? - A Swiss.
Are you a freeman of the city of Dublin? - I am
Do you hold any situation in the Battle-Axe Guard? - I am the first sergeant of the Battle Axe Guard.
Did you purchase that? - I did.

You remember the late Election for Dublin? - I do.
Did you take any part in the canvass in the early part of the Election? - I did.
On what side were you? - On the side of Mr. Shaw and Mr. Moore.
You canvassed for them? - I did not; I spoke in favour of them in my own Hall. I am a representative in the Common Council of the Barber Sergeon's Guild.

And in your Guildhall you spoke for the Candidates, Mr.Shaw and Mr. Moore? - Yes.
Did any thing happen to you on that account, on account of having spoken in Guild on this occasion? - The meeting had been on Friday the 29th of April, and on Sunday  the 1st of May I received a letter from the Castle to announce my dismissal.

From whom? - From the Colonel of the Battle-Axe Guard.
What is his name? - Sir John Kingsmill.

What has become of that letter? - At the time of my re-appointment to the place, Sir John Kingsmill asked me, "Will you keep that letter or destroy it."
You have been re-appointed? - Yes.

Upon that re-appointment by Colonel Kingsmill, did you destroy it? - I agreed with him to give the letter back, or destroy it; I thought it better to destroy it than give it back.
You did destroy it? - Yes.

You recollect it? - Yes, every word by word, I have it by heart.
Do you know the Yeoman Guard? - No; they differ entirely I believe.
Will you state the contents of that letter? - The contents of it were - "Sir, I am desired by the Lord Lieutenant to have you discharged as one of the Sergeants of his Majesty's Battle-Axe Guard. Signed by Kingsmill." Nothing else.

Afterwards you were re-appointed, on destroying that letter? - Yes.
Did you vote at all upon the Election? - I did not.

Should you have voted upon that Election, if you had not heard this business about the Guard? - Certainly, that made me uneasy; I should have voted. I thought I should do no harm if I voted for Mr.Moore and Mr.Shaw.

You did not in fact vote? - No, I did not.
What prevented your voting? - Upon my word, I assure the Committee, on recollecting, taking into consideration right and left, I thought it better not to vote at all.

Should you have voted if you had not had this letter? - By all means, certainly.
And for Mr.Moore and Mr.Shaw? - Certainly.

James O'Connel called in and sworn.
Did you ever see Mr.William Kurtland? - Yes.
What was he in this election? - He appeared to be a very active agent, and resides at 135 Capel Street, a shopkeeper.

He was an active agent for whom? - For the present Members.
Now did you ever see him at either the tally-room of the sitting Members or at the Committee room? - I saw him at each of those places by appointment; I saw him at Cork Hill.

State what passed between you and Kurtland in the Committee room? - The meeting at Cork Hill was the result of a previous conversation in Altiman St; the meeting at the Committee room at Cork Hill resulted from a previous conversation in Altiman St the night before.

State what it was that Kurtman said to you? - He said, "I understand your name is O'Connel?" I said, "It is." He said, "I understand you have some voters." "I do not know how you could know that," says I, "it could not be by inspiration." He laughed. The conversation with Mr.McCauseland was only five minutes before that. I said, "I had a conversation with another Gentleman. He said, "I am the person now to treat with you."

Finding him in possession of what you five minutes before told Mr.MacCauseland, you had no hesitation with him? - No, it could not be more than five minutes.

Go on with that conversation. - Says he, "I understand you have some voters;" this conversation was subsequent to the conversation with Mr.McCauseland.

By the Committee - Previous to your meeting him at Cork Hill?  - Yes, the night before the meeting at Cork Hill; this was on the Thursday, the 14th of May.

By Mr.Serjeant Heath. - That is at the middle of the election? - Yes, Mr.McCauseland took out a tablet or case so take my name and address; that was previous to the conversation with Kurtland. "How many of these persons have you," he said, "I am certain of five; there is a promise of four more; that will make nine." "Yes," says I. I had seen these voters at Dublin; they came under the denomination of Coal Blow Lane men; I had a conversation with these men the day before; one of these I knew particularly; he said, "He had come to town to make money." Mr.McCauseland took down my address on the tablet; and then, after asking the number, I told him what they expected, which was 10/.; he said that was too much.
By the Committee - Ten pounds for each man? - Yes; he walked off, and Kurtland came up and got into conversation; he resumed the conversation I had had with Mr.McCauseland; it was then agreed upon that they were to have 5/. a-head.

That was agreed with Mr.Kurtland? - Yes; but in the event of nine, I said, "I can't be positive there will be nine, but I am sure of five." "Well," says he, "we will say nine;" says he, 5/. a-piece, save 50/.; you know what the other 5/. are for." I understood that was for myself. I said, "I think I do." "But." says he, "for as many as you can bring you shall have 1/. for each man."

For yourself? - Yes, and they shall have 5/. a-piece.

By the Committee. - One pound per man for conducting money? - Yes, as a complitment for my trouble."When will you have these men forthcoming?" I said, "I think at an early hour tomorrow morning." He said, "Well, where are we to meet?" I said to Kurtland, "I shall meet you at the Committee room," where they took the car for the conveyance of them to the poll, where they were to poll.
(Sunday 28 August 1831 - John Bull)

Here then the reader has the evidence before the Committee; which, if it does not inculpate the Lord Lieutenant, certainly brings home to persons holding high official situations, something extremely like and "undue interference."

Lord Anglesea's admitted and written opinions upon the subject go only to the exercise of influence such as it is quite fair for governments to use; although, to be sure, we little expected to live to the day when the high-minded Noble Marquis of Anglesea should be induced to direct that influence to promote the return of Reform Candidates; but there is a prodigious difference between the expecting those who receive the pay of the Government to support the Government which supports them, and interferring with the conduct and consciences of magistrates, the very essence of whose office ought to be its independence and impartiality; and yet, in the teeth of all this detail, Mr.Stanley moves a Direct Negative to the following resolution of Mr.Robert Gordon:-

Resolved:- "That it appears by evidence adduced before the Select Committee appointed to try and determine the merits of the Petition of James Scarlett, William McCleary, and others, severally complaining of an undue election and return for the City of Dublin; that that official influence has been unduly exercised by the Irish Government, at the said Election; and that such influence, as exercised by Captain Hart and Baron Twyll in favour of the late Members, was a gross violation of the privileges of the House, and a direct contravention of the law of Parliament as laid down in the Resolution of this House in 1779."

To this Resolution we repeat, Mr.Stanley moved a direct negative, and was supported by a majority of Staunch Reformers, and advocates of the Reform Bill amounting to no less a number than two hundred and seven.

That the Irish Secretary should defend the Irish Government is not surprising; but that Mr.Stanley, being one of the Reform Cabinet, should hold the doctirnes he did - that being the Colleague of Lord Althorp, who has declared that he never would belong to any Government which could only exist by patronage - being, moreover,one of those so dreadfully scandalized at the misconduct of the Duke of Newcastle and the Marquess of Exeter, and others who fancied, like Lord Anglesea, that those who were dependent on them "should not be partizans against them" - that these Ministers , we say, should meet by a decided censure upon the most open and unblushing interference that ever was recorded, is indeed most marvellous; and that they could find 207 staunch Reformers, shocked at abuses and tremblingly alive to the horrors of corruption, to crush the Resolution of the Chairman of the Committee, is still more strange; because the people out of doors, who see the same 207 gentlemen voting every night for the disfranchisement of this place and the mutilation of that place, all for the sake of Purity, will being to think that their profession and their practice in some sort disagree - that they are bound to Ministers rather to serve themselves than the country, and that while, by pledged majorities, they are depriving hundreds and thousands of honest men of their birth-right,they combine to sanction, by a vote of Parliament, the most glaring case of influence, "and doing what one likes with one's own," that ever came before the public.
  - - - 
If anything were wanting to show the feeling that has been created - and the absence of that influence which the Government in this case dared not exercise - we only call the attention of our readers again and again to the triumphant expulsion of the Government Candidates for Dublin at the Election just close. We have already remarked upon that glorious triumph; but we never can too often recur to it. - Again and again we repeat, let the country look at the proceedings in Parliament connected with the case we have here submitted, and leave the people to judge, the real meaning of Reform, and the Real Principles and Objects of its Advocates.

---

Monday 26 September 1831
Albion Star

House of Commons - Saturday, Sept 24.
Dublin City Election

The select committee, to which the petition complaining of an under election and return for the city of Dublin had been referred, assembled this morning, purruant to adjournment, at 11 o'clock.

Mr.Serjeant Heath (in the absence of Mr.Serjeant Merewether, who conducts the case) proceeded to state the case on behalf of the petitioners. He said that, within the last month, he had appeared before a committee of the House of Commons, as counsel on a petition against the return of Sir Robert Harty and Mr.Perrin, and in that committee he had succeeded in proving such a case of bribery as to vacate the seats of those two gentlemen, and to disqualify them from being again returned. That petition was from some electors of Dublin, of the names of McCleary and Scarlett, and these two gentlemen immediately on the new writ issuing (if he was rightly instructed) were most active in a system of bribery and treating in favour of the present sitting members, and to an extent that showed the necessity of some legislative enactment to correct the corruption which it would appear prevailed in Dublin; for nothing less than an extreme measure could by possibility eradicate the system. 

The law relating law relating to bribery and treating was too well known to require him to detail it; but the petition likewise contained two or three other grounds on which, if proved, the late election would be void.
These were the undue and partial conduct of the sheriffs and their deputies, a violation of the statute 1st and 2nd Geo. IV., chap. 58, which regulates the fees payable to counsel and agents of candidates, and which, if exceeded, the act provides that the seat shall be forfeited; and the last ground was one which affected Mr.Shaw along, namely, his ineligibility, from his office of Recorder of Dublin, to sit in Parliament. 
The bribery had been managed very adroitly, as was generally the case; and the price of each vote, which varied from three to five pounds, was communicated to the voter by the agents, not by holding up so many fingers, as in the last case, but by infliction of as many blows as price of the day might be. The voter was then taken to the poll, and was afterwards, in some instances, conveyed to the house of a Mr.Lindsay, a hosier, in the vicinity of the place of polling, and on the announcement "all's right," an unknown hand supplied the sum which had been so agreed upon.

Another plan was this: after voting, the electors were taken to a public-house, when the agent called over their names, and as he named them, dropped a piece of paper on the floor, which the man whose name was called picked up, and found it to contain 3/. In this instance the sum agreed upon had been £4, and it was probably this breach of contract which had led to the information being acquired by the petitioners. 
With respect to the allegation in the petition as to treating, he should prove that no less than five public-houses were kept open by the agents of the sitting members. The conduct of the sheriffs and their deputies complained of was the want of proper arrangement of the booths, whereby the polling was retarded; and also in permitting the inspectors of Mr.Shaw and Lord Ingestrie vexatiously to retard the proceedings. The manner in which this was accomplished would be detailed in evidence. 

The other points rested on the statutes he had named; but on the whole of the case he felt satisfied, that when it was in evidence, it would be impossible for the committee to come to any other conclusion than that the present members must submit to the law, and forfeit their seats. 

---

Friday 30 September 1831
Albion and the Star

House of Commons - Thursday
City of Dublin Election Committee.

The proceedings of the sixth day were gone through yesterday, and the result seemed to leave the case pretty much in statu quo.

The committee occupied some short time with the point which was left with them the day before undecided, and at length gave it as their judgment, "that the line of examination pursued by counsel for the petitioners towards the witness (Rogers) might be continued;" in other words, that the acts of Rogers, as an agent, might be received in evidence.

Rogers was then again called in, and between his examination and that of two other witnesses, one of whom (Sharman) was examined before, the whole day was occupied.

The examination of Rogers went on until he stated that he did nothing of his own accord, but that he conveyed messages from Brierly to the different voters.

Upon the question then being asked of him, what message did he convey from Brierly, the individual alleged to be the chief briber on the occasion, to the voters.

Mr.Harrison objected that Brierly was not an agent; and the committee decided "that the question could not be put."

Mr.Serjeant Heath then asked the honourable committee what were the grounds which led them to the decision which they had pronounced.

Rogers was then asked several questions, but declined answering, from an apprehension that his answers would tend to criminate himself; and he was told by the committee that he was at liberty, under such an impression, to do so.

Some of the questions were - DId you by sign or intimation induce Bell and Dodd to vote?  Witness would not answer. Did you by sign or intimation induce Matthews to vote? Witness again would not answer. Witness, when asked as to 12 other votes, would not answer, alleging that he declined to do on the grounds above stated - that he would criminate himself. When asked, Did he give tickets? he would not answer. He would not either tell the purpose for which he brought a person named Sproll to Lindsay's, nor what he said to Butler at Lindsay's respecting Sproll.

Again; witness told Cottingham (one of the acknowledged agents) that he must have money for refreshments, for the kind of canvassing which was going on would not do. He would not answer whether he sent voters to Daly's (the place where it is alleged they were treated). He, however, subsequently admitted that he did. Witness gave tickets for refreshments indiscriminately. He sought to be employed, first by Long, but Long saying that his list of agents was filled up, witness went direct to Cottingham (the chairman of the committee) who engaged him.

This witness was cross-examined at considerable length by Mr.Follett. The main point of the cross-examination was to prove the witness venal - that he would be "all things to all men" - that he had, which he denied, been expelled from the York club - that he had never produced his accounts of moneys, which he admitted, but assigned, as his reason, the offensive nature of the letter which was written to him - that he had given information, &c. to government, and to Mr.O'Connell - (great laughter) - he did not mean Mr.O'Connell's government. He was soliciting subscriptions for the Most Rev.Dr.Murray's Schools. 
He applied to Mr.O'Connell for his subscription, and this circumstance witness said was thrown up against him, as being in collusion with Mr.O'Connell.

The second witness, Supple, was examined, with the view to prove the writing as regarded a person named McCleary. As the agency of McCleary had not been established, the committee, after strangers had withdrawn, decided that anything regarding McCleary could not be received.

McDonnell was recalled by Mr.Follett, with a view of impeaching his testimony. He did not answer.
Sharman was then called, and he was asked in the course of his examination, when you were canvassing a certain voter, did you promise him anything?
This was objected to.
Mr.Serjeant Heath, with much skill and ability, and at great length, contended that this should be received, and when Mr.Harrison stood up in reply, the Speaker was announced to be at prayers, and the committee adjourned, leaving the arguments unfinished, and, of course, the point undecided.

---

Friday 5 August 1831
London Evening Standard.

Dublin Election Petition - This day.

The committee assembled again this morning at ten o'clock. Mr.Hicks, whose examination in chief occupied a great portion of yesterday, was examined at very considerable length.

The witness said, that he had received from £200 to £300 which for the most part he had expended in bringing voters from Queen's County. They were freeholders, and they had their expenses paid, and also one year's rent, and remuneration for loss of time.

Mr.Winkfield Hicks, brother to the last witness, examined by Mr.Sergeant Heath - Witness was engaged in the late election, for the Lord Mayor and Mr.Perrin. His brother was inspector in the tally room, and at first he acted under hm, but he was subsequently employed by Mr.Hitchcock in receiving the 40s. freeholders whom his brother sent from the country and paying their expenses.

Mr.Sergeant Heath - Did you pay them any thing more than their expenses? 

The witness wished to know whether he was obliged to answer that question.

Mr.Sergeant Ludlow objected to the question. The witness could not be called upon to give evidence that might criminate himself, and, therefore the question ought not to be answered.

The Chairman of the committee thought they ought not to press the question, but if it was not, the learned counsel would recollect the impression that it would not fail to leave on the minds of the committee.
The examination of the witness was then continued, he being first cautioned that he need not answer any question that would criminate himself. 

He continued - No one had prompted him to give his last answer; his own mind suggested to him the impropriety of divulging the confidence that had been place in him. He paid the men nearly £3. each, but not quite that sum. He received somewhat about £200 from Mr.Hudson, and about that sum from Mr.Hitchcock.

Witness certainly put more money in the hands of the freeholders previously to their voting. He did not count it; it was a roll of notes; there might be £100 or more; this was to enable them to take the oaths. After they had voted, they returned the notes. I kept an account of what I received and what I paid, which account I gave to Mr.Hudson.

 In his cross-examination this witness said that he had been told by a gentleman who was a stranger to him, and who he has not since seen, that he might have £200 if he would give information respecting this election; but he refused to turn informer.

John Power, one of the 40s. freeholders, was paid £10 by the last witness, seven pounds ten shillings of which he paid back. He had seen his freehold. 

Who is your tenant?  - Mr.Grattan.

Who is your landlord? - Mr.Grattan. (Loud laughter).

Mr. Sergeant Heath said that he had finished his case as far as the production of witnesses, and he should now proceed to sum up the evidence, and in doing so he should divide it into two general parts - first, to inquire how the examination, which had now lasted five days, proved the undue and unconstitutional influence that was exercised by the vice-regal government - and secondly, the proof they had received of bribery and corruption. 

The latter he felt, of itself, be more than enough to void this election; but he should not confine himself to so narrow a ground; he would be indeed but ill performing his duty to his clients if he did not call the serious attention of the committee to one of the most improper and unconstitutional tamperings with election which had ever been exposed. 

He would now proceed to state the facts of this interference as they had been proved, and proved too, it should be recollected, by such a list of respectable and veritable witnesses as could seldom or ever by collected to support any case. 

This influence might be divided into two parts - the first that exercised over those who held government officers or situations in the household, and the other the influence exercised over the tradesmen appointed to serve the Viceroy. 

It was well known that a nobleman was by law prevented from exercising the least influence over any individual in election matters; but if this was a case where a nobleman, in the exercise of that influence which his rank and fortune naturally gave him, had swayed the minds of his tradesmen, he (Mr.Sergeant Heath) would never have thought of troubling the committee with it. 

But this was a a widely different and a much more serious case. Here was the Viceroy of Ireland, and all but Sovereign of that country, in his desire for the prosperity of the Reform Bill, interesting himself, and actually exerting the enormous influence which his exalted station commanded, in favour of the reform candidates. That such influence had been exerted had been proved to demonstration, and in consequence the election itself was altogether void. 

In remarking upon the evidence that had been adduced, he would begin with that of Mr.Long, and he did so, because that gentleman's testimony was the only one that his learned friends had in their cross-examination endeavoured to shake. The committee would recollect, however, how completely they had failed in that object; but as he thought it more than probable that the other side would not, by calling witnesses, give him an opportunity of replying, it was the more necessary for him then minutely to refer to these cross-examinations, and to be more diffuse upon the whole case than he could wish. 

Mr.Long said that when Capt.Hart, through whom the communication from Lord Anglesay to him was made, was Comptroller of the Household, whereas it happened that Sir John Byng held that office. It was, however, clear, that Captain Hard performed all the duties of that office, in which, as Sir John Byng had himself told them, he had never once interfered. 

What, then, could be more natural than for the witness to call him the Comptroller? It being made a subject of accusation against him that he had done so, and urging such a mistake for the purpose of weakening his testimony was most ridiculous and unjust. 

The committee would recollect the manly and straight-forward manner in which this gentleman had given his evidence, and they would then decide whether such quibbling objections should be suffered to invalidate it. It was true Mr.Long was a partizan on the other side,and it was equally true that the influence exerted by the government was not successful in his case; as he very honestly said "With me it did not weigh a feather; I was determined to vote for my friends, and I did vote for them." But it not being successful was a matter of no importance to his argument; it was proved that it had been tried, and that was all he wanted - In consequence of this application to Mr.Long, and some account that appeared in the Dublin newspapers  about it, Sir John Byng saw that gentleman, and afterwards proceeded to the castle, and had an interview with the Marquis of Anglesey; upon which occasion his lordship said, that Capt.Hart had exceeded his instructions, adding, that it was fortunate that he had them in writing; and he gave them to Sir John to show to Mr.Long, who read them once or twice, and afterwards made a memorandum of their substance. 

(The proceedings were going on when we went to press.)

---

Saturday 6 August 1831
Dublin Evening Packet

From our Private Correspondent

Thursday evening, seven o'clock

At the last moment I have to inform you, that up to 12 o'clock this day the sitting members had a prospect of retaining their seats; but from what occurred afterwards, little doubts are entertained that they will be unseated - of course there will be a new election.

The evidence today was decidedly most important. The grossest bribery against Harty and Perrin awas proved by their own employed Agents, Messrs Gallagher Harrison, and Hicks. The sum given varied from £5 to £7. Grattan's Colddow Lane Freeholders got an able sifting by Mr.Sergeant Heath; four were examined and proved having got from £2.5s. to£2.10s. for their votes, sometimes before, and sometimes after polling.The Committee-room was crowded to excess.
 

- - 

---