TIMES PAST: A Politician behaving badly in 1783
Jonathan Smyth's latest column takes a look at election bribery in 1783...
Silver-tongued promises are nothing new you might say. Under the heavens, there is nothing that has not gone on before down the centuries to the present day. The tale that you are about to read epitomises corruption or to be more accurate, bribery. The devil’s promise is sweet they say, but on gaining trust, will walk you into the ground. Beware of promises of great gain and treat them with caution.
In 1783, a case of bribery came before the select committee. In the month of February, the committee gathered to hear what had happened during the days leading up to the Irish Parliamentary elections. The petitioner, the honourable J. James Maxwell came forth to elaborate on ‘the point of bribery’ linked to the sitting Cavan member of the Dublin parliament, Charles Stewart MP. The petitioner’s counsel was Mr. Duquery and the sitting members counsel was Mr. Sheridan. The case began by giving Maxwell the opportunity to say what the corruption issue was about and then to allow the sitting member, Stewart, to rebut the charges levied at him. The Maxwells were no doubt irked having lost the election.
There can be no smoke without fire and Maxwell produced James McMinn, his witness whom he relied on to describe what took place. McMinn said that he was friendly with Charles Stewart MP and was there at the previous election where he polled for Mr. Montgomery and Charles Stewart. Next, into the fray, comes a character named Pat Smyth from Bailieborough. On the Friday before the election, Smyth approached McMinn’s wife and questioned her about who her husband would vote for and asked if it would be Charles Stewart. Smyth was out looking for votes for Stewart. But, Mr. McMinn, whose landlord was Clements, had promised his landlord’s agent that he would vote for Maxwell. When Pat Smyth encountered Mr. McMinn in Cootehill, he invited him into an entry and asked, ‘had he not the vote.’
McMinn replied that he had indeed. Well, asked Smyth, ‘who do you intend to give it to?’
Bribery
McMinn said he did not know who to vote for because he was at that moment experiencing problems. Smyth pressed McMinn to say what ‘ailed him’ and he relented, telling him about his dilemma. McMinn had been processed that day for an outstanding debt. Older people will remember the fear of the ‘pross’ server turning up on the doorstep to serve documents from the courts. McMinn owed Mr. Stewart of Cootehill who had served the notice on him. The amount was for £2 2s 9d. McMinn’s pecuniary problem lay in the fact that he did not have the means to pay. Smyth instructed McMinn to stay put till he came back and off he went to find Stewart but there were two Mr. Stewarts, the local clergyman, and the politician.
A while later a messenger told McMinn to go over with him to Brennan’s Pub where they met both Mr. Stewart and the Revd. Stewart. The clergyman pulled McMinn to one side and said, ‘Why tell me, Jemmy, can you, or durst you vote against your landlord for a small reward?’ It was the witnesses opinion that the candidate Stewart could hear what the reverend had said. McMinn gave a vague answer: ‘I don’t know, but I might,’ he responded.
The Revd Stewart asked him to shake on it and promised to reward him highly and to ‘be his friend forever’ if he voted for the said candidate. Witness McMinn wondered if the clergyman would give up the process he was taking against him. The wily rector said he would of course but not until after the voting, ‘for fear of the bribery oath’ and assured him of receiving a great deal more and promised that the candidate would be ‘a particular friend to him.’ The clergyman summoned the candidate over. Having come up to McMinn, he whispered in his ear that everything promised by the reverend gentleman would be carried out and requested the witness to sign his name in the election candidate’s notebook; but he refused to enter his name on the page.
McMinn went to Revd Stewart on the following Monday. The man of the cloth announced, ‘as sure as God is in heaven, if you don’t vote for Mr. Stewart, I will prosecute you, and lay you in gaol, if I can.’ But the unfortunate Jemmy McMinn begged to know how he could trust the clergyman at his word, to which he summoned Jemmy to follow him to Mr. Giles’s place down the street. The Revd.
Stewart produced the original process note and handed it to Giles, he stated that Giles on seeing McMinn vote for candidate Stewart, he must tear up the note. But should the vote be for another candidate, then Giles would ensure its return to the clergyman.
McMinn stuck to his word and voted for Charles Stewart. Afterwards, he received a certificate from Robert Clements (a cousin of the candidate) to prove that he did vote as requested. The candidate in turn would pay Jemmy McMinn’s debt owed to the clergyman. Local enquiry revealed people’s feelings towards the Revd. Stewart; they called him ‘a very great rogue’ while others thought him a ‘very honest man.’
However, the committee dismissed the case, and Maxwell’s petition against Charles Stewart was ‘speedily withdrawn.’ In 1783, both Charles Stewart and Mr Montgomery went to represent Co. Cavan as MP’s in the Irish Parliament. But what became of McMinn, and the interesting Revd Stewart? It appears little happened, aside from them having their reputations exposed to a select committee.
As they say, promises of great gain may not be what they seem.
READ MORE TIMES PAST: