THE MAYO ELECTION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VIII, Issue 516, 14 October 1857, Page 3

THE MAYO ELECTION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE.

(From the Times.)

The committee on the Mayo Election have decided that Mr. George Henry Moore was not duly elected, on account of the undue influence exercised by his agents. The importance of this judgment can hardly be overrated. The power of recent legislation to put a stop to such practices as have for years disgraced Irish elections is now established. The committee declare " that undue influence and spiritual intimidation prevailed to a considerable extent at the last election for the county of Mayo," and that "the Rev; Peter Conway and the Eev. Luke Ryan were so prominently active that the committee deem it their duty to reporb their conduct to the House, in order that such steps may be taken as may seem to the House to be proper and necessary." It is to be hoped that the precedent-6f this case will govern the decisions of all future "committees, and that" spiritual intimidation" may take its place among the offences for which a! seat is forfeited. Should the House be able to inflict any punishment on Fathers Conway and Ryan for their gross abuse of their sacred functions, we shall rejoice extremely; but, in any case, let it be known that such transgressions will only bring defeat on the parties whom they are intended to befriend. The great thing is to establish that such interference and such terrorism as have been proved against these Irish priests is illegal, and vitiates an election. - The present decision makes this point no longer doubtful, and from this time we may look for the abatement of a most scandalous evil.

It is generally admitted that bribery and intimidation must be repressed with a strong hand. Whatever strength there may be in the cry for the Ballot arises from the fact that in bygone years, and in some degree at present, men have been seduced or forced from the proper exercise of their electoral privilege by influences which it seemed impossible to remove, and which, therefore, it was necessary to evade. Bnt lately we find that these abuses are becoming less and less. No one caa pretend that the late elections iv the United Kingdom did not represent most accurately the spirit of the country. We are living down bribery, corruption, and intimidation. A landowner or an employer of labour may use his power unfairly in a few cases, but as a general rulei the man whose opinions are most popular with the constituency obtains his seat. This is partly owing to improved public morality, partly to the fear of public censure, partly to the stringent legislation of the last few years. Parliament has proceeded to cut the ground from under the supporters of the Ballot by removing the abuses which caused men to look to secret voting as their only hope. In^ the course which it has commenced it will do right to continue until all the traditional excesses of election have passed away. Now, when landlords and manufacturers are giving up their habits of interference, when even Government abstains from forcing the consciences of Dockyard labourers, the spiritual despots of Ireland must also learn moderation. As to Archbishop M'Hale's theory, that the vote of. a Catholic should be determined by the opinion of his priest, it cannot be assented to for a moment. Certainly, with any colloquy between shepherd and sheep we have nothing to do. If every voter in Mayo were to consult his parish priest or his bishop, and willingly follow his advice, no onei would have the right to interfere, or could prove any cause for interference; but when the clergyman seeks to impose his wishes on unwilling laymen, when he denounces future perdition, to the ignorant, in order to terrify them into compliance, still more when directly or indirectly he threatens them with popular vengeance or social excommunication, then the country will interfere. It is decided that " spiritual intimidation" comes within the meaning of the term " undue influence," and, as undue influence unseats the candidate in whose favour it is employed, the holy canvassers of the sister island must learn what prudence they can. In the present case it was proved that the priests made political harangues' from the altar; that they threatened damnation to the voters for Colonel Higgiris, denouncing them collectively and by name; that, on account of these inflammatory speeches, many of the electors were in danger of their lives, and that such arts were mainly the cause of Mr. Moore's victory. It is also known that two witnesses who deposed to these facts before the committee have been severely beaten since their return to Ireland, and that one of them1 now lies in a precarious state. If our election system is to be brought to anything like freedom and purity, such doings must be put down. To unseat an English member for employing too large a number of messengers at a few shillings a-head; and to spare an Irish member whose priestly agents had been guilty of intimidation in its most atrocious form, would indeed be a perversion of justice. So Mr. CL H. Moore must bid adieu to Mayo, and be content to stand as a warning for Catholic aspirants to political eminence. _____^ _'