) V'UQ { Cornell University Library 
 
 I^JD* KD 4381.A3 1853 
 
 A ^ Reports of the decisions of committees o 
 
 3 1924 017 182 068 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 </3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Qi 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Oi 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 ca 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 «5 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 :3 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 •< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C) 
 
 
 2 
 
 > 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 1 
 o 
 
 
 13 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 4 
 
 r 
 
 
 < 
 
 Si 
 
 s 
 
 d 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 u 
 
 C/1 
 
 «f« 
 
 •§ 
 
 o 
 
 </i f 
 
 ■a 
 
 c 
 
 •J 
 ttJ 
 
 35 
 
 j^ 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 u. 
 
 c 
 
 < s 
 
 CO 
 
 ■o 
 
 > 
 z 
 
 1 
 
 C 
 
 ^ 
 £ 
 
 1 
 
 •a 
 
 ■4-1 
 1 
 
 c 
 z 
 
 
 j2 
 
 z 
 
 D 
 
 H 
 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 
 a 
 
 fa 
 
 0^ 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 __ 
 
 •a 
 
 
 DU 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 B 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 • 
 
 U] 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 S 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 << 
 
 or 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 -) 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 V3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 (U 
 
 
 
 
 
 
i/^ BEPOETS- 
 
 OF TUB ~>»/ 
 
 DECISIONS OF COMMITTEES 
 
 \ 
 
 OF Tli]] 
 
 ?&on£l0 of CommoiifJ 
 
 IS THE Tlll-U, GP 
 
 OONTROYERTED ELECTIONS, 
 
 DUBlIfQ TUB 
 
 FIFTEENTH PARLIAMENT 
 
 OF TUB 
 
 SanitEti Bingbom. 
 
 AT 
 
 DAVID POWER, Esq., 
 
 &ECOBDBS OV lI-~V^lCn; 
 
 IIUNTEE ROD WELL, Esq., 
 
 OF rnfl UIDDLB lEMPLB; 
 
 AND 
 
 EDWARD L'ESTRANGE DEW, Esq., 
 
 OF 7HB iKirxR teupl:b, i.in) 
 
 ORE OF TITE OOUMlTtJCB CLEBU8 OF TUX UOUSB OF COXUONS. 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 LON^DON : 
 
 V. & U. STEVENS AND G. S. NORTON, 
 
 ILsSd ISookstlltrs anlJ IJublisfjEts, 
 26, BELL YAKD, LINCOLN'S INN. 
 
 MDCCCLIII. 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis bool< is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924017182068 
 
REPORTS 
 
 OP THE 
 
 DECISIONS OF COMMITTEES 
 
 OP THE 
 
 i^ousE of OTommons 
 
 IN THE TEIAL OP 
 
 CONTROYERTBD ELECTIONS, 
 
 DUEING THE 
 
 SEVENTEENTH PAELIAMENT 
 
 OP THE 
 
 WLniUti mtitBliom. 
 
 BY 
 
 ¥. S. P. WOLFEESTAN, Esq., 
 
 OF THE INNER TEMPLE, BABRISTER-AT-tAW ; 
 
 AND 
 
 KDWARD L'ESTRANGE DEW, Esq., 
 
 OF THE INNER TEMPLE, BARRISTEU-AT-LAW, AND 
 ONE OF THE COMMITTEE CLEBK^ OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 LONDON : 
 V. & R. STEVENS AND G. S. NORTON, 
 
 26, BELL YAED, LINCOLN'S INN. 
 
 MDCCCLIX. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The present Volume of Reports comprises the deci- 
 sions of the thirty-three Committees on Controverted 
 Elections, which sat during the last Parliament. Of 
 these, in twenty-one cases the evidence and proceed- 
 ings were printed ; of the remainder, the only records 
 are the original minutes. 
 
 During this period many very important questions 
 of election law were determined, amongst which may 
 he mentioned the refusal to open the Register for a 
 Scotch Coimty in the Peeblesshire case ; the decisions of 
 the Dublin Committee upon the Irish franchise (a) ; the 
 exact definition of the limits to which a Committee 
 will go in opening the English Register, as decided iu 
 the First Harwich case, 1851; and the eflect of the 
 
 (a) See 13 & 14 Vict. c. 69, for the present law with respect 
 to the Irish franchise and registration of voters. 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 disqualification of a candidate for bribery and treating 
 at a former election upon the votes given in his favour 
 at the ensuing election^ on which the Cheltenham and 
 Horsham Committees came to apparently conflicting 
 decisions. 
 
 Many resolutions were also come to with respect to 
 the course of practice to be observed on the trial of 
 Election Petitions, which form valuable precedents for 
 the guidance of future Committees. 
 
 The object which the Editors had in view was to 
 present these decisions to the public in a concise and 
 available form. They have spared no pains to insure 
 accuracy; and they beg to acknowledge the ready 
 courtesy with which assistance has been afforded to 
 them by the Counsel and Agents who were engaged in 
 the various cases. 
 
 Temple, Bee. 1852. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CASE I. 
 BOROUGH OF GREAT YARMOUTH. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Preliminary resolutions ...... 1 
 
 Recriminatory evidence ..... 3 
 
 Witness not bound to criminate himself . ... 4 
 
 Primd facie agency ...... 5 
 
 Report ........ 6 
 
 CASE II. 
 
 COXmTY OP GLOUCESTER, WESTERN DIVISION. 
 
 Practice as to proof of sittii^ member's qualification . . 11 
 
 Sitting member limited to declaration of qualification . . 13 
 
 Report ..... . . 13 
 
 CASE III. 
 
 BOROUGH OF GREAT MARLOW. 
 
 Lists under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103, b. 54, not required in petition for 
 
 bribery ....... 15 
 
 Admissibility of declaration of voter, alleged to have been bribed . 16 
 
 Report ........ 17 
 
Vlll CONTENTS. 
 
 CASE IV. 
 BOROUGH OP KINSALE. 
 
 PAGE 
 Admissibility of poll-books in evidence, although memorandum of 
 
 oaths taken under 35 Geo. III. c. 29, s. 9, omitted . . 19 
 
 Refusal of Committee to order person out of room, on ground that 
 
 his presence might influence witnesses . . . .20 
 
 John JSealey's case. — ^Vote having been retained by Committee, no 
 
 further objection allowed . . . . .21 
 
 JohnFa/rley's case. — ^Vote given under corrupt influences struck off 21 
 Damd Kealei/'s case. — ^Vote retained where voter treated . 23 
 
 Report ........ 23 
 
 CASE V. 
 BOROUGH OF LYME REGIS. 
 
 Practice where petition alleges bribery and treating, and prays 
 scrutiny . . . . . . . 26. 28. 30 
 
 Adjournment granted ...... 27 
 
 Admissibility of poll-book, although not sealed and endorsed . 28 
 Admissibility of declaration of voter alleged to have been bribed 29. 32. 
 Witness compelled to answer question which would prejudice sitting 
 
 member ........ 30 
 
 Transactions previous to election, sillowed to be inquired into . 31 
 Treating : order for particular entertainment must be shown to have 
 
 been given by candidate or agent .... 33 
 
 Costs, where charge of bribery abandoned ... 34 
 
 Candidate not admissible as witness .... 34 
 
 Objection to a petition that a third party was to pay expenses thereof 35 
 
 John Wilson Coolc's case. — ^Loan given to voter disqualifies . 38 
 
 Report ........ 39 
 
CONTENTS. ix 
 
 CASE VI. 
 BOROUGH OF LANCASTER (1st CASE). 
 
 FAGB 
 
 Adjou^mnent refused ...... 42 
 
 Prevarication of witness . . . . . .42 
 
 Recriminatory evidence .... 43 
 
 Acts sufficient to prove agency and treating . . .44 
 
 Report ........ 45 
 
 CASE VII. 
 SHIRE OF PEEBLES. 
 
 Refiisal to open register . . . . . .47 
 
 Report ........ 48 
 
 CASE VIII. 
 BOROUGH OF BOLTON. 
 
 Admissibility of declaration of voter alleged to have been bribed . 50 
 Evidence of bribery allowed to be given in order to discredit witness 51 
 Acts insufficient to establish prvmd facie agency . . .52 
 
 Report ........ 53 
 
 CASE IX. 
 CITY OF CARLISLE. 
 
 Spedal resolution that treating not at expense of sitting member . 59 
 Fact of sitting member's disqiialification required to be proved, 
 
 although seat not defended ..... 60 
 
 Report ....••■• 61 
 
X CONTENTS. 
 
 CASE X. 
 BOROUGH OF BEWDLEY. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 General notice to produce, sufficient . . . .64 
 
 Committee will not exercise authority over a witness not sworn . 66 
 
 Bribery : costs, as to charges ahandoned, refused . . .67 
 
 Inadmissibility of declaration of voter alleged to have been bribed 
 
 made to agent not mentioned in bribery lists . . 68 
 
 Report ........ 70 
 
 CASE XI. 
 BOROUGH OP HARWICH. 
 
 Preliminary objection, that petitioner had no right to vote . 72 
 
 General notice to produce sufficient . . . .73 
 
 Report ........ 74 
 
 CASE XII. 
 
 CITY OF LINCOLN. 
 
 Proposed witness allowed to remain in room . . .77 
 
 Inadmissibility in evidence of an act of bribery, on part of one not 
 named in lists ...... 77 
 
 Report .-•..... 78 
 
 CASE XIII. 
 
 BOROUGH AND HUNDREDS OP AYLESBURY. 
 
 Vote unobjected to at revision conclusive as to right to vote . 82 
 Admissibility of letter from returning officer, and identification of 
 
 poll-books ...... 84 
 
 Insertion in treating list of public-house accidentally omitted . 86 
 
 Witness who has been in room allowed to prove handwriting . 86 
 
 Report ■••.... 87 
 
CONTENTS. XI 
 
 CASE XIV. 
 BOROUGH OF DXJKDALK. 
 
 PAfiE 
 
 Production of poll-books by clerk of peace sufficient . . 91 
 
 Natural-bom subject of Great Britain bom in America, not an alien 92 
 Omission to make declaration of qualification on request . . 95 
 
 Thomas Byrne's ease. — List of objections omitting to specify wbich 
 
 of two persons of same name on poU . . . .97 
 
 Patrick Garstin's case. — Kesumption of qualification requires fresh 
 
 certificate of registry . . . . . .97 
 
 Report ........ 98 
 
 CASE XV. 
 BOROUGH OF DERBY. 
 
 Bribery lists amended ...... 100 
 
 Costs refused ....... 104 
 
 Report . . . . . . . .105 
 
 CASE XVI. 
 
 BOROUGH OP HORSHAM (1st CASE). 
 
 Evidence required of treating, although treating admitted . . 108 
 
 Powers of 5 & 6 Vict. i;. 102, s. 1, as to compromise exercised . 110 
 
 Report ........ 109 
 
 CASE XVII. 
 TOWN AND PORT OP RYE. 
 
 Notice of election insufficient . . . . .113 
 
 Costs given to sitting member, although election void . .114 
 
 Instructions to parliamentary agent, a privileged communication 116 
 
 Report ........ 116 
 
XU CONTENTS. 
 
 CASE XVIII. 
 BOEOUGH OP SLIGO (1st CASE). 
 
 PAGB 
 
 Notice of declaration of qualification bacl, where fees not tendered 120 
 
 Sitting member restricted to declaration of qualification . . 122 
 
 A judgment recovered a specific charge . . . 127 
 
 Report . . . . . . .128 
 
 CASE XIX. 
 BOROUGH OF BODMIN. 
 
 General notice to produce sufficient .... 131 
 
 Costs refused . . . . . . .133 
 
 Treating lists need not state time .... 133 
 
 Agency to be proved before treating . • . . 134 
 
 Refusal to add to lists of treating .... 134 
 
 Separation of cases of bribery and treating . . . 135 
 
 Practice where members sever in their defence . . 135 
 
 Report . . . . . . . .137 
 
 CASE XX. 
 COUNTY OF LONGFORD. 
 
 Verification of poll-books ...... 140 
 
 Affidavit of registry, sufficient proof of voter being on register . 141 
 
 Refusal to open register ...... 141 
 
 Costs refused ...... 142 
 
 Report . . . . . . . .143 
 
 CASE XXI. 
 
 BOROUGH OF LANCASTER (2nd CASE). 
 
 Sobert Gfibson's case. — Objection to list of objections . . 147 
 
 On objection, but one counsel heard on each side . . 151 
 
CONTENTS. XIU 
 
 PAOE 
 
 Adjournment granted ...... 152 
 
 Thomas Marshall's case. — Parochial relief . • . . 153 
 
 In scrutiny, evidence restricted to particular case . . . 155 
 
 Counsel's speeches on scrutiny ..... 155 
 
 Anthony Taylor's ease. — Parochial relief .... 156 
 
 James Tovmley's case. — Parochial relief; identity of party . 158 
 
 Thomas Whiteside's cowe.— Parochial relief after teste of writ . 160 
 
 John Preston's case. — Proof of marriage before registrar . 161 
 
 William Harrison's case. — Parochial relief to child of voter . 164 
 
 John Wilkinson's case. — Wtat sufficient residence . . 167 
 Moffer Garth's case. — Objection not entertained, where none made 
 
 before revising barrister ..... 169 
 
 Joseph Norman's case. — Non-residence .... 171 
 
 Eeport ........ 173 
 
 CASE XXII. 
 BOROUGH OF LEICESTER. 
 
 Recognizances objected to .... . 175 
 
 Fresh recognizancs entered into ... . 175 
 
 Witnesses allowed to remain in room by consent . . 176 
 
 Agency must be proved before treating .... 176 
 
 Report .... . . 177 
 
 CASE XXIII. 
 
 BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM (1st CASE). 
 
 Recognizances objected to and amended . . . 181. 183 
 
 Admissibility in evidence of conversation by an aUeged agent with 
 
 voter 184 
 
 Costs in case of bribery ..••■• ^86 
 Report 189 
 
XIV COHTBNTS. 
 
 CASE XXIY. 
 CITY OF DUBLIN. 
 
 PA&E 
 
 Recognizance amended ...... 192 
 
 Practice where petition involved scrutiny and want of qualification 193 
 
 Parol evidence of total of poU admitted .... 193 
 
 Nicholas Carhernfs case. — ^Affidkvit of registry, objection to : bo- 
 rough rate a municipal cess, and demand necessary . . 194 
 Felix Bermingliam's case. — Insufficient demand of borough rate 195 
 Joseph Shorlfs case. — Paving rate a municipal cess, and demand 
 
 necessary ....... 196 
 
 Frederick Hamilton's case. — Demand of paving rate, by whom to 
 
 be made ....... 197 
 
 John Chreen's case. — Time within which demand of paving rate 
 
 must be made ....... 198 
 
 FatricJc FoMlkner's case. — Misnomer .... 199 
 
 Thomas Dmm^s case. — Objection to affidavit of registry . . 199 
 
 Roiert Laceifs case. — ^Demand of grand jury cess necessary . 200 
 
 James Lamley's case. — Misnomer in list of objections . 200 
 William La/ngton's case. — Warrant of collector of Wide Street cess 
 
 must disclose authority ...... 201 
 
 Andrew Doyl^s case. — ^Voter, how proved in arrear of Wide Street 
 
 cess ........ 203 
 
 William, SrodeHcifs case. — Pipe-water rent not a municipal tax. 
 
 Adjournment granted ...... 204 
 
 Separation of case not allowed ..... 204 
 
 Report ........ 205 
 
 CASE XXV. 
 
 BOROUGH OP SLIGO (2nd CASE). 
 
 Certificate of registry, proof of right to vote . . . 210 
 
 On objection, but one counsel on each side heard . . 210 
 Adjournment granted ...... 210 
 
 Objection to notice of election ..... 211 
 
 Acts insufficient to constitute primd facie agency . . . 212 
 
 ^port ••-.... 213 
 
CONTENTS, XV 
 
 CASE XXVI. 
 COUNTY OF CHESTEB, NORTHERN DIVISION. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Petitioner, if required, to prove Ms right to vote . . 215 
 
 Admissibility of declaration of voter .... 217 
 
 Admissibility of declaration of agent .... 218 
 
 Agency must be proved aliunde before treating . . . 219 
 
 Committee refuse to alter resolution as to bribery . . 219 
 
 Admissibility of declaration of a person at time of canvassing a voter 221 
 
 Acts insufficient to constitute primd facie agency . . . 222 
 
 Report . ...... 223 
 
 CASE XXVII. 
 
 BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM (2m) CASE). 
 
 Inquiry as to ^bribery and treating at former election allowed . 225 
 
 Petitioner not competent witness .... 227 
 
 Name of petitioner on poU-book sufficient evidence of right to pe- 
 tition ........ 227 
 
 Witness who had been in room not allowed to be examined . 228 
 
 Admissibility in evidence of conversation with an alleged agent . 229 
 Course pursued by Committee where witness alleged to have been 
 
 tampered with ....... 230 
 
 Votes given to sitting member not thrown away . . 235 
 Report . . . . . . . .238 
 
 CASE XXVIII. 
 
 BOROUGH OF HORSHAM (2iO) CASE.) 
 
 Inquiry as to bribery and treating at former election allowed . 242 
 
 Notice to electors of disqualification of candidate . . 245 
 
 Objection as to admissibility of poll-books . . . 248 
 
 Admissibility of declaration of voter alleged to have been bribed 249 
 Agency must be proved before treating .... 250 
 
XVI CONTENTS. 
 
 PAOE 
 
 Facts sufficient to constitute primd facie agency . . 251 
 
 Witness who had been in room allowed to be examined . . 253 
 Evidence of treating not allowed to be giTen, where sitting member's 
 
 liability repudiated ...... 254 
 
 Agent proposed to be called as witness not allowed to remain in 
 
 room ........ 254 
 
 Committee refiise to intimate opinion in progress of case . 254 
 
 Practice as to summing up case ..... 255 
 
 Votes given to sitting member thrown away . . . 256 
 
 Report ........ 259 
 
 CASE XXIX. 
 
 BOROUGH OF KIDDERMINSTER. 
 
 Preliminary resolutions ... . 260 
 
 Objection to poll-books .... . 262 
 
 Agency to be proved before treating .... 263 
 Treating list must name public-house .... 265 
 
 Witness, when not allowed to be re-called . . . 265 
 
 Declaration of wife of voter, when admissible . . . 266 
 
 Witness recalled by Committee after close of case . . 267 
 
 Report ...... . . 267 
 
 CASE XXX. 
 BOROUGH AND HUNDREDS OF AYLESBURY. 
 
 Conversations, when admissible in evidence . . . 269 
 
 Agency and treating, when proved together . . , 271 
 
 Report ........ 274 
 
 CASE XXXI. 
 
 BOROUGH OF ST. ALBAN'S. 
 
 Objection to heading of petition ..... 279 
 
 Adjournments . . . 280. 282. 286, 287 
 
CONTENTS. XVll 
 
 PAGSE 
 Petitioner called as witness .... 283 
 
 Reftisal to give copy of warrant of committal of witness . 283 
 
 Witness imder duress examined . . 284 
 
 Report . . . 287 
 
 CASE XXXII. 
 
 BOROUGH OP HARWICH (1st CASE). 
 
 Qualification ... ... 292 
 
 Practice : case of scrutiny taken before bribery . . 300 
 William Hood's case. — Extra tide-waiter is disqualified . . 300 
 Classes of objections, how to be taken . . . 303 
 Vote refiised to be entered on, unless expressly decided on by revis- 
 ing barrister ....... 303 
 
 Practice as to calling revising barrister . . 305 
 
 John Attwood's case. — Residence ..... 306 
 
 lEdma/rd Chapman's case. — Vote of town clerk . . 307 
 
 Cha/rles Sparrow's case. — Qualification of occupier . . 308 
 
 John Sorlock's case. — Right to vote generally inquired into . 309 
 
 Practice where scrutiny, bribery, and treating alleged in petition . 311 
 
 Soiert John Bagshavfs ease.— Practice in scrutiny . 312 
 
 Report .... ... 312 
 
 CASE XXXIII. 
 
 BOROUGH OP HARWICH (2ni) CASE). 
 
 Bribery lists need not state time or place .... 317 
 
 Proof of signature to petition . . 318 
 
 Practice — separation of case ... • 319 
 
 Adjournment of poll in case of riot .... 319 
 Report .... 
 
 320 
 
TABLE or CASES. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Petition. 
 
 Grounds of Petition 
 proceeded upon. 
 
 Result. 
 
 Page. 
 
 1848 
 
 Aylesbury . 
 
 Treating . 
 
 Member unseated 
 
 81 
 
 1851 
 
 Aylesbury . 
 
 Bribery and treating 
 
 Member unseated 
 
 268 
 
 ■1848 
 
 Bewdley 
 
 Bribery, treating, scrutiny 
 
 Member unseated 
 
 62 
 
 1848 
 
 Bodmin 
 
 Bribery, treating, qualification 
 
 Members duly elected 
 
 129 
 
 1848 
 
 Bolton , 
 
 Briber}' and treating 
 
 Members duly elected 
 
 49 
 
 1848 
 
 Carlisle 
 
 Treating and disqualiiication 
 
 Members unseated 
 
 55 
 
 1848 
 
 Cheltenham (1) . 
 
 Bribery and treating 
 
 Member unseated 
 
 179 
 
 1848 
 
 Cheltenhtim (2) 
 
 Disqualification— Bribery and 
 treating at former election 
 
 Member unseated 
 
 224 
 
 1848 
 
 Cheshire, North . 
 
 Treating .... 
 
 Member duly elected 
 
 214 
 
 1848 
 
 Derby . 
 
 Bribery and treating 
 
 Members unseated 
 
 99 
 
 1848 
 
 Dublin City . 
 
 Scrutiny — Want of qualifi- 
 cation . . . < 
 
 Members duly elected 
 
 190 
 
 1848 
 
 Dundalk 
 
 Qualification (alien) — Ne- 
 glect to make declaration 
 of qualification, scrutiny 
 
 Candidate seated . 
 
 89 
 
 1848 
 
 Gloucestershire, West 
 
 QuaUAcation . 
 
 Member duly elected 
 
 9 
 
 1848 
 
 Harwich 
 
 Bribery and treating 
 
 Member unseated 
 
 71 
 
 1851 
 
 Harwich (1) . 
 
 Qualification, scrutiny . 
 
 Member unseated 
 
 289 
 
 1861 
 
 Harwich (2) 
 
 Premature closing of poll 
 
 Member unseated 
 
 314 
 
 1848 
 
 Horsham (IJ . 
 
 Treating . 
 
 Member unseated 
 
 107 
 
 1848 
 
 Horsham (3) . 
 
 Disqualification— Bribery and 
 treating at former election 
 
 Candidate seated . 
 
 240 
 
 18S0 
 
 Kidderminster . 
 
 Bribery and treating 
 
 Member duly elected 
 
 260 
 
 1848 
 
 Kinsale . 
 
 Bribery, treating, scrutiny 
 
 Member unseated 
 
 18 
 
 1848 
 
 Lancaster (1) 
 
 Bribery and treating 
 
 Member unseated 
 
 41 
 
 1848 
 
 Lancaster (2) 
 
 Scrutiny . 
 
 Member duly elected 
 
 146 
 
 1848 
 
 Leicester 
 
 Bribery and treating 
 
 Members unseated 
 
 174 
 
 1848 
 
 Lincoln . 
 
 Bribery and treating 
 
 Member unseated 
 
 76 
 
 1848 
 
 Longford 
 
 Scrutiny 
 
 Member duly elected 
 
 138 
 
 1848 
 
 Lyme Regis . 
 
 Bribery, treating, scrutiny 
 
 Member duly elected 
 
 25 
 
 1848 
 
 Marlow . 
 
 Bribery and treating . - 
 
 Members duly elected 
 
 14 
 
 1848 
 
 Peebles-shire 
 
 Scrutiny 
 
 Member duly elected 
 
 46 
 
 1848 
 
 Eye . . 
 
 Insufiiciency of notice of 
 election . 
 
 Member unseated 
 
 112 
 
 1848 
 
 Sligo (1) 
 
 Qualification 
 
 Member unseated 
 
 118 
 
 1848 
 
 Sligo (2) . . 
 
 Informality of notice of elec- 
 tion— treating 
 
 Member unseated 
 
 208 
 
 .1851 
 
 St. Alban's . 
 
 Bribery .... 
 
 Member duly elected 
 
 276 
 
 1848 
 
 Yarmouth 
 
 Bribery and treating 
 
 Members unseated 
 
 1 
 
REPORTS OF DECISIONS 
 
 IN CASES or 
 
 CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS. 
 
 CASE I. 
 BOROUGH OE GREAT YARMOUTH. i848. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 8th of February, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Henry Ker Seymer, Esq., Dorsetshire, 
 {Chawmcm). 
 
 Charles Lushington, Esq.' 
 Westminster. 
 
 Henry Stuart, Esq., Bed- 
 ford. 
 
 Edward Ellice, Jun., Esq., St. 
 
 Andrew's district. 
 William Chicheley Plowden, 
 
 Esq., Newport, Isle of 
 
 Wight. 
 
 Petitioners: — 1. Electors. 2. Francis Henry Goldsmid, one 
 of the Candidates. 
 
 Sitting Members : — ^Lord Arthur Lennox, and Octavius Edward 
 Coope, Esq. 
 
 Coimsel for Petitioners : — Mr. Serjeant Wrangham, Mr. 
 Serjeant Kinglake, and Mr. Calvert. 
 
 Agents : — ^Mr. Stephens and Mr. Finch. 
 
 Cotmsel for Sitting Members : — Mr. Biggs Andrews, Q. C, 
 and Mr. O'Malley. 
 
 Agents : — Mr. Harvey, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Raper. 
 
 The Committee agreed to the following Reso- Feb. 9. 
 lutions with respect to the conduct of the case : — Preliminary 
 1. "That the coimsel will not be allowed to 
 
ELECTION CASES. 
 
 go into matters not referred to in their opening 
 statement without a special application to the 
 Committee for permission to do so." 
 
 2. "That if costs he demanded hy either 
 party, under the Act 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103, the 
 question must he raised immediately after the 
 decision on that particular case." 
 
 3. " That the Committee expect that with 
 respect to cases of bribery, which it is intended 
 to bring home to the sitting member or his 
 agents, the counsel for the petitioners will now 
 state the names of the electors bribed, and 
 those of the persons who actually gave the 
 bribes." 
 
 4. "The Committee, however, reserve to 
 themselves a power, upon the special apphca- 
 tion of counsel, to proceed with any case which 
 tends to inculpate any principal or agent, the 
 knowledge of which case has been brought out 
 before the Committee in the progress of the 
 investigation, with the circumstances of which 
 the parties could not be reasonably supposed to 
 have been previously cognizant." 
 
 5. "That with respect to treating, the Com- 
 mittee will expect counsel to state the times 
 and places where such treating is alleged to 
 have taken place." 
 
 6. "The Committee, however, reserving to 
 themselves a discretionary power as in the cases 
 of bribery." 
 
 7. " That no witness shall be examined who 
 shall have been in the room during any part of 
 the proceedings." 
 
BOROUGH OF GREAT YARMOUTH. 3 
 
 The petitions, which were of a similar charac- Petition. 
 ter, after stating that at the last election for the 
 borough of Great Yarmouth, Charles Edmund 
 Rumbold, Esq., Francis Henry Goldsmid, Esq., 
 and the sitting members, were candidates, and 
 that the latter were returned, alleged bribery Bribery and 
 and treating against both the sitting members, *'^^^''"S- 
 by themselves and agents, and prayed the House 
 to declare their election and return to be null 
 and void. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham opened a case of bribery 
 and treating ; but no evidence was given as to 
 the latter charge. 
 
 William Thomas Clarke was asked, in cross- where seat 
 
 examination by Mr. Andrews, a question with '^ ""', 
 
 *' . ' ^ . prayed, re- 
 
 reference to the dehvery of refreshment tickets criminatory 
 by the agents of the unsuccessful candidates ; and ™s"5^ 
 
 •'^ ^ ' madmis- 
 
 being further asked, " WiE you venture to say sible, unless 
 that Mr. Goldsmid did not tell the people they ^rposg ^f 
 should be paid for their loss of time?" impeaching 
 
 + Vj p credit 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham objected to the ques- ofwitness. 
 tions, on the ground that recriminatory evidence 
 could not be received upon the present inquiry, 
 as the petition contained no prayer for the seat. 
 
 Mr. Andrews stated that his object was to 
 show what the conduct of the witness had been 
 at the last election, for the purpose of impeach- 
 ing his credit before the Committee. 
 
 The Committee directed counsel to confine his 
 cross-examination to matters affecting personally 
 the credibility of the witness. 
 
 b3 
 
ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Feb. 10. 
 
 A witness is 
 not bound 
 to criminate 
 himself by 
 answering a 
 question 
 which goes 
 to charge 
 him with 
 having re- 
 ceived 
 money for 
 his vote. 
 
 Witnesses were called to prove that bribery- 
 took place at a room in the Angel Hotel, the 
 head-quarters of the sitting members and the 
 " Eed " party, and where their committee-room 
 was. 
 
 Benjamia Brown, a freeman, stated that on 
 the day of polling, between 11 and 13 o'clock, he 
 went to the Angel, and upstairs in. the passage 
 saw some voters, who were admitted one by one 
 into a room, where Mr. Coble, an alleged agent 
 of the sitting members, and others were as- 
 sembled. When witness was admitted into this 
 room, he was asked by Mr. Coble whether he 
 had voted, to which he replied in the negative. 
 On the following question being put to the wit- 
 ness by Mr. Serjt. Kinglake, " What was done, 
 what took place then?" the witness appealed to 
 the Committee as to whether he was bound to 
 answer the question. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That the witness is 
 not boimd to answer the question, in so far as 
 it may, in his opinion, tend to criminate him- 
 self." 
 
 The witness then stated, that Mr. Coble gave 
 him three sovereigns, and told him to go and 
 vote. 
 
 Feb. 11. It was proved in evidence that a person of the 
 
 Repeated name of Costerton;L.^lio had been frequently in 
 
 canvassing t^e Company of the sitting members and had 
 
 with sitting attended them in their canvass, on an occasion 
 
 members i t -i « i i • 
 
 held to con- shortly beiore the election, left the sitting mem- 
 
BOROUGH OF GREAT YARMOUTH. 5 
 
 bers and came across the river to a witness by stitute 
 the name of Banks, and pressed him to come-?""™"/""* 
 
 rr -^ J- case of 
 
 over and speak to them ; Banks m reply said to agency. 
 Costertonj " No, you ought to heal up the old 
 sores before you briag any fresh ones out;" on 
 which Mr. Serjt. Wrangham put the following 
 question, " What did you mean by that ? " 
 
 Mr. (yMalley objected to the conversation be- 
 tween the parties being given in evidence, on the 
 ground that there was nothing to show any con- 
 nection with or authority from the sitting mem- 
 bers, or that it was a part of any transaction in 
 which the sitting members were engaged ; that 
 Costerton was not charged with bribing the wit- 
 ness ; that a conversation between the voter and 
 a third person cordd not be evidence against 
 the sitting members unless agency was esta- 
 bhshed ; and that the mere circumstance of can- 
 vassing with them would not constitute agency. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Wrangham contended that the re- 
 peated acts of canvassing with the sitting mem- 
 bers, which had been proved, made out such a 
 case of prima facie agency on the part of Cos- 
 terton as to render his statements admissible. 
 He also cited the Ipswich case (a). 
 
 The Committee determined that the question 
 might be put. 
 
 Mr. Cory, a solicitor at Yarmouth, was proved other acts 
 
 ,- : — ^ 1.1 -ij. sufficient to 
 
 to have been constantly at the committee-room establish 
 
 (a) K. & O, 343. 
 
b ELECTION CASES. 
 
 primd facie at the Angel, where in the momings he was 
 
 Tenc' engaged in writing, and in the business of the 
 
 election, and in the afternoon in attending 
 
 meetings of the committee, at which the sitting 
 
 members were frequently present. 
 
 James Gohen, a witness, stated that he re- 
 ceived, through the medium of Mr. Cory, the 
 sum of 200/. or 250/. for the payment of clerks 
 and others employed in the election. Being 
 asked whether Mr. Cory said anything to him, 
 as to the parties by whom he was employed, 
 
 Mr. Andrews objected to any statement of 
 Cory on the subject to the witness being re- 
 ceived in evidence, as it had not been esta- 
 blished that Cory was the agent of the sitting 
 members. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake supported the question. — 
 The evidence before the Committee establishes 
 a. primd facie case of agency on the part of Cory ; 
 his declarations are consequently admissible in 
 evidence. 
 
 Mr. Andrews replied. 
 Feb. 12. The Committee resolved, " That such a primd 
 facie case of agency, on the part of Mr. Cory, 
 has been established, as to entitle his statements 
 to be received in evidence." 
 
 Feb. 14. The Committee came to the following final 
 resolutions, which were reported to the House : 
 
 Final reso- 1. "That the Honourable Arthur Lennox, 
 
 lutions. ' 
 
 commonly caJled Lord Arthur Lennox, and 
 
 Octavius Edward Coope, Esq., are not duly 
 
BOROUGH OF GREAT YARMOUTH, 
 
 elected burgesses to serve in this present parlia- 
 ment for the borough of Great Yarmouth." 
 
 2. " That the last election for the said borough 
 is a void election." 
 
 3. "That the Honourable Arthur Lennox, 
 commonly called Lord Arthur Lennox, and 
 Octavius Edward Coope, Esq., were, through 
 their agents, guilty of bribery at the last election 
 for the borough of Great Yarmouth." 
 
 4. ''That it was proved to the Committee 
 that E. Woolmer had been bribed with 31. ; 
 Curtis HaU, 31. ; Robert Cobb, 3^. ; W. Lincoln 
 Thorpe, 3^. ; W. Holt George, 31. ; W. Jones 
 Hare, 3^. ; Benjamin Brown, 31. ; Edward 
 Bowles, 3^. ; Richard Rant, 31. ; James Souls- 
 by, 3^. ; Samuel Amis, 31. and 4^. ; Jos. New- 
 man, 31. ; Samuel Drury, 3/., and 31. given him 
 for his brother ; Phillip Andrews with 10«." 
 
 5. " But that there was no evidence to show 
 that these acts of bribery were committed with 
 the knowledge and consent of either the said 
 Honourable Arthur Lennox, commonly called 
 Lord Arthur Lennox, or the said Octavius 
 Edward Coope, Esq." 
 
 6. " That the Committee are of opinion, from 
 the evidence given before them, that gross, 
 systematic, and extensive bribery prevailed at 
 the last and at the previous election for the 
 borough of Great Yarmouth amongst the free- 
 men of that borough. The Committee consider 
 it their duty to express to the House their unani- 
 mous opinion, that the freemen of the borough 
 
ELECTION CASES. 
 
 of Great Yarmouth should be disfranchised, 
 and that no writ should be issued for the said 
 borough until legislative measures shall have 
 been taken for the purpose of such disfranchise- 
 ment" (ffl). 
 
 (a) "An Act (11 & 12 Vict. c. 24) for disfran- 
 chising the Freemen of the Borough of Great Yar- 
 mouth,'' received the Eoyal Assent on the 30th June, 
 1848 ; after which a new writ was issued for the Bo- 
 rough. 
 
CASE II. 
 
 WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE. i848. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 11th of February, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members: — 
 
 Thomas Colpitts Granger, Esq., Durham City, 
 {Chawma/ri). 
 
 Charles Lennox Gumming 
 
 Sir John B. Walsh, Bart., 
 
 Radnorshire. 
 Henry Aglionby Aglionby, 
 
 Esq., Cockermouth. 
 
 Bruce, Esq., Elgin and 
 Nairnshire (a). 
 Bichard Greaves Townley, 
 Esq., Cambridgeshire. 
 
 Fetitioners : — Electors. 
 
 Sitting Member : — Hon. George Cliarles Grantley Fitzhardinge 
 Berkeley. 
 
 Cotmsel far Petitioners : — Mr. Serjeant Wrangham, Mr. Ser- 
 jeant Einglake, and Mr. Merewether. 
 
 Agents : — Messrs. Fearon and Clabon. 
 
 Counsel for Sitting Member: — Mr. Crowder, Q. C, Mr. 
 W. H. Cooke, and Mr. Westoby. 
 
 Agents : — Messrs. Dorington and Co. 
 
 The Committee agreed to the following pre- Feb. is. 
 liminary resolution : — Prelimi- 
 
 " That aU witnesses do withdraw, and that no \l^^ ^° 
 
 {a) Mr. Brace not being present for the purpose of 
 being sworn, within an hour of the meeting of the 
 House, was ordered to betaken into the custody of the 
 Serjeant-at-Arms, and the swearing in of the members 
 of the Committee was adjourned until the 14th. 
 
 b3 
 
IQ ELECTION CASES. 
 
 witnesses shall be examined who shall have heen 
 
 present during any of the proceedings, except 
 
 the agents on each side." 
 
 Petition. The petition alleged that the sitting member 
 
 Want of was not duly qualified by estate to serve in par- 
 
 tion.' '^*' liament for any county or any division of a 
 
 county; that in accordance with a request of 
 
 two registered electors, made on the day on 
 
 which the sheriff made the declaration of the 
 
 return, the sitting member made the following 
 
 declaration of his qualification : — 
 
 " I, the Honourable George Charles Grantley 
 Fitzhardinge Berkeley, do solemnly and sincerely 
 declare that I am, to the best of my knowledge 
 and belief, duly qualified to be elected as a 
 member of the House of Commons, according 
 to the true intent and meaning of the Act passed 
 in the second year of the reign of Queen Vic- 
 toria, intituled 'An Act to amend the Laws re- 
 lating to the Qualification of Members to serve 
 in Parliament ;' and that my qualification to be 
 so elected doth arise out of lands, tenements, 
 and hereditaments, situate in the several pa- 
 rishes of Berkeley, Slimbridge, Wotton-under- 
 Edge, North Nibley, Cam, Coaley, and else- 
 where, in the county of Gloucester, out of which 
 1 am entitled, for the term of my natural life, 
 to an annuity or yearly rent of seven hundred 
 pounds, and also out of personal estate, consist- 
 ing of public funds or government securities, to 
 the dividends of which I am entitled for my life, 
 and which are vested in the names of the Right 
 
WEST GLOUCESTERSHIKE. 11 
 
 Honourable William Fitzhardinge Berkeley, 
 now Earl Fitzhardinge, Sir Jolm Swinburne, 
 Baronet, and William Henry Meyrick, the trus- 
 tees of my marriage settlement as hereunder 
 set forth, out of the lands, tenements, and here- 
 ditaments aforesaid, an income of seven himdred 
 pounds a year for my life, and out of the said 
 dividends an income of six hundred pounds and 
 upwards a year for my Hfe. 
 
 "G. C. Grantley F. Berkeley." 
 
 The petitioners denied the truth of the facts 
 stated in the declaration, and prayed the House 
 to declare the election and return of the sitting 
 member to be null and void. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Kinglake, on behalf of the peti- The effect 
 tioners, submitted that, inasmuch as the peti- statute 
 tioners alleged a disqualification in this case, it i & 2 Vict, 
 was inciimbent on the counsel for the sitting subsequent 
 member first to set up his ground of quahfica- repeal of the 
 
 , „ , . standing or- 
 
 tion, in order that the counsel for the peti- der of Nov. 
 
 tioners might then adduce evidence to show^*'}'^'''^ 
 o ^ ^ not to cast 
 
 that the qualification was not sufficient to enti- upon the 
 tie the sitting member to retain his seat. He^g^^rthe 
 cited the following cases in support of his argu- burden of 
 ment : Penryn and Falmouth case (a) ; New- quaHto- ' 
 castle-under-Lvme case (b). *'°" }"** 
 
 v Tir first in - 
 
 Mr. Crowder having been heard contra, Mr. stance. 
 Serjt. Kinglake replied. 
 
 (a) Bar. & Aust. 431. (h) Bar. & Aust. 438. 
 
12 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 The Committee determined that there was no 
 case made out to induce them to depart from 
 the usual practice^ and directed Mr. Seijeant 
 Kinglake to proceed with his case. 
 
 Committee Thomas Clarke, a solicitor, produced a deed 
 admit in" °^ settlement made upon the marriage of the 
 evidence a sitting memher, dated August 14, 1824. He 
 tiement^^ ' ^'^ attested the execution of the deed by the 
 made on sitting member as his solicitor, and was also 
 riage of the employed by the trustees of the settlement, 
 sitting The deed had been left in his ofiSce since the 
 
 memberand . . 
 
 left with his mamage, and he now produced it m obedi- 
 solicitor. gmjg ^Q ^jjg Speaker's warrant without consult- 
 ing the sitting member. He further stated 
 that he would not part with it to the sitting 
 member if asked, as he was also concerned 
 for the trustees. 
 
 Mr. Crowder objected to the reception of the 
 deed. — The evidence shows that the witness 
 was employed by the sitting member as his 
 solicitor in this matter in 1824, and paid for his 
 services, the deed being then deposited with the 
 witness in the character of solicitor. It is true 
 that the witness has received a summons from 
 the House of Commons to produce the deed, 
 and he is here for that purpose ; but the ques- 
 tion is, whether the Committee will insist on the 
 production of the deed, contrary to the ordinary 
 principles obtaining in courts of law, which up- 
 hold the privileges between attorney and client, 
 and protect both from the production of docu- 
 
WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE. 13 
 
 ments in the possession of the attorney in that 
 character. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Kinglake, haviag been heard in 
 answer to the objection, 
 
 The Committee unanimously resolved, " That 
 the deed should not be received in evidence." 
 
 Proof having been given of the declaration of Where peti- 
 quahfication made by the sitting member, it ap- ^^nt^rf ^^^ 
 peared in evidence that a portion of Bank stock qualifica- 
 belonging to Mr. Berkeley, under his marriage member'"^ 
 settlement, was invested not in the names of the limited to 
 three trustees named in the declaration, but in set forth in 
 the names only of Sir J. E. Swinbimie and a declaration. 
 Mr. Simpson. 
 
 Mr. Merewether having objected that this 
 portion of the amount of stock could not be 
 brought in aid of the qualification. 
 
 The Chairman intimated that the sitting mem- 
 ber must be limited to the qualification set forth 
 in his declaration. 
 
 Mr. Crowder stated, that if such was the opinion 
 of the Committee, he would not press the point. 
 
 After further evidence had been given, and 
 counsel had been heard on both sides. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That George Charles Feb. 16. 
 Grantley Fitzhardinge Berkeley, Esq., commonly Final reso- 
 called the Honourable George Charles Grantley 
 Fitzhardinge Berkeley, is duly elected a knight 
 of the shire to serve in this present parliament 
 for the western division of the county of Glou- 
 cester." 
 
CASE III. 
 1848. ^ BOROUGH OP GREAT MARLOW. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 11th of February, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Sir John S. Pakington, Bart., Droitwich, 
 {Chawmcm). 
 
 Hon. Edward Mostyn Lloyd 
 
 Mostyn, Flintshire. 
 Sir John T. B. Duckworth, 
 
 Bart., Exeter. 
 
 Sir Robert Price, Bart., 
 
 Hereford {a). 
 Hon. Henry Pitzroy, Lewes. 
 
 Petitioners : — Electors. 
 
 Sitting Members : — Thomas Peers Williams, Esq., and Lieut. - 
 Col. Brownlow Knox. 
 
 CovMsel for PeUtioners : — Mr. Serjeant Wrangham, Mr. 
 Serjeant Kinglaike, and Mr. D. Power. 
 
 Agents : — Mr. W. D. Cooper, and Mr. W. Tyler. 
 
 Counsel for Sitting Members : — ^Mr. Alexander, Q. C, and 
 Mr. Edwin James. 
 
 Agents : — Mr. Ellison, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Ward, and Mr. 
 Marltham. 
 
 Feb. 15. The usual preliminary resolutions were agreed 
 
 Prelimi- to (6). 
 
 nary reso- 
 lutions. 
 
 (a) Sir E. Price not being present for the purpose of 
 beiag sworn, witkin one hour of the meeting of the 
 House, was ordered to be taken into the custody of 
 the Serjeant-at-Arms, and the swearing of the Commit- 
 tee was adjourned until the 14th February. 
 
 (6) Ante, p. 1. 
 
BOROUGH OF GREAT MARLOW. 15 
 
 The petition contained charges of bribery and Petition, 
 treating against both, the sitting members and Bribery and 
 their respective agents, and prayed the House "^^^ "'^" 
 to declare the election and return of both or one 
 of them to be null and void. The petition also Want of 
 alleged the want of qualification of Lieut.-Col. ^"f^f ^ol 
 Brownlow Knox, but this allegation was not Knox, 
 proceeded with. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham, in opening the case of 
 the petitioners, stated that he proposed to show 
 that the agents of the sitting members, and 
 through them the sitting members themselves, 
 had been guilty of bribery. 
 
 Mr. Alexander objected to the case proceed- The lists 
 ing, or evidence being heaxd with respect to ^e'^^ven in 
 bribery, on the ground that no lists had been under 7 & 8 
 delivered in. of the voters charged to have been 5 54 ^^g ' 
 bribed, in compliance with the terms of the 7 & 8 J")* appli- 
 
 Vict. C. 103, S. 54. cases in 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham, in support of his right ^'"^ P^'i- 
 to proceed, stated that the lists were intended seeks to 
 only to be delivered in in cases of scrutiny, f7°"^ ^^^''' 
 
 •1 •" tion on 
 
 whereas in this case the petitioners only sought ground of 
 to avoid the election. In all cases of a similar Jgat'ng*" 
 description to the present, it had never been 
 the practice to deliver in lists. 
 
 Mr. Aleceander replied. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That inasmuch as 
 it appears to have been the general practice of 
 Committees under the various Acts which have 
 regulated the trial of controverted elections (in 
 
16 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 the propriety of whicli practice the Committee 
 mianimously concur) to consider that the clauses, 
 requiring lists of the voters to he ohjected to 
 shall be given in. at a certain period before the 
 trial of the petition, are not applicable to cases 
 in which the petition only seeks to void the 
 election on the ground of bribery and treatiag, 
 this Committee cannot allow the objection now 
 taken by the counsel for the sitting members." 
 
 The poU-books were received in evidence. 
 
 Feb. 16. One Twitchen, a voter, was alleged to have 
 
 Upon ge- l)een bribed bv an agent of the sitting member. 
 
 neral case ./ o o ^ 
 
 of bribery, It appeared by the evidence of John MOler, that 
 
 declaration j^g j^g^ Canvassed Twitchen, who had promised 
 
 of a voter ' ^ 
 
 alleged to to vote for Sir W. Clayton. On the day of 
 
 bribed aX V^Oiag, the witness Miller asked Twitchen to 
 missibie in come to the poU. The witness was then asked, 
 " What did Twitchen say when you asked him 
 ' to go to the poll?" 
 
 Mr. Alexander objected to the question. — The 
 declaration of a voter, where it is sought only to 
 avoid the election, is iaadmissible. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake, ia support of the ques- 
 tion, relied on the 4 & 5 Vict. c. 57, the Sud- 
 bury case {a), \heFirst Nottingham case [b), and 
 the Second Nottingham case (c), contending that 
 inasmuch as a substantial act of bribery was 
 
 (a) Bar. & Aust. 245. (h) Bar. & Am. 168. 
 
 (e) Bar. & Am. 195. 
 
BOROUGH OF GREAT MARLOW. 17 
 
 alleged to have taken place at the election, and 
 the name of the voter Twitchen was given in as 
 a party who had been bribed, his declarations 
 were admissible in evidence. 
 
 The Committee decided that the question 
 might be put. 
 
 Mr. Seqt. Wrangham, on behalf of the peti- Feb. 17. 
 tioners, having abandoned the farther prosecu- 
 tion of their case, 
 
 The Committee came to the following reso- 
 lutions, which they reported to the House : — 
 
 1 . " That Thomas Peers Williams, Esq., is duly Final rego- 
 elected a burgess to serve ia this present parlia- ^"tions. 
 ment for the borough of Great Marlow." 
 
 2. "That Lieut.-Col. Brownlow Knox is duly 
 elected a btirgess to serve in this present parlia- 
 ment for the borough of Great Marlow." 
 
18 
 
 CASE IV. 
 1848. BOROUGH OF KINSALE. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 15th of February, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Hon.. Edward Pleydell Bouverie, Kilmarnock, 
 (Chavrmtm). 
 
 William Cripps, Esq., Ciren- 
 cester. 
 
 A. D. R. W. Baillie Cochrane, 
 Esq., Bridport. 
 
 Henry W. Tancred, Esq., 
 
 Banbury. 
 John Salusbury Trelawny, 
 
 Esq., Tavistock. 
 
 Petitioner : — William Henry Watson, Esq., the unsuccessiiil 
 Candidate. 
 
 Sitting Member: — Bichard Samuel Guinness, Esq. 
 
 Cotmsel for Petitioner : — ^Mr. Seijeant Wrangham, Mr. 
 Serjeant Kinglake, and Mr. Manisty. 
 
 Agents : — Mr. Baker, and Mr. O'Brien. 
 
 Coimsel for Sitting Member : — Mr. Biggs Andrews, Q. C, 
 and Mr. Merewether. 
 
 Agents : — Mr. White and Mr. Fitzsimons. 
 
 Feb. 16. The petition, after statiag the election, charged 
 Petition, bribery and treatiag against the sittiag member 
 treating.*" ^^^ ^^ agents, and also alleged that the major- 
 Scrutiny, ity of Mr. Guinness was apparent and colourable 
 only, as divers persons voted for bim who were 
 disqualified for various reasons ; and that in fact 
 the petitioner had a majority of legal votes at 
 
BOROUGH OF KINSALE. 19 
 
 the election. It prayed the House to declare 
 that Mr. Guinness was not duly elected, and that 
 the petitioner was duly elected; or to declare 
 that the last election was wholly null and void. 
 
 The Committee came to the following preli- Preiimi- 
 minary resolution with regard to the conduct of °j^"^° "" 
 the case : — 
 
 " That no person be examiaed as a witness 
 who shall have been present during the proceed- 
 ings in Committee, except the agents of either 
 parties, whose names have been put in." 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham opened a case of bribery 
 and treating, and also a scrutiny. 
 
 The clerk of the peace for the county of Cork The want of 
 produced the poU-books, which he had received ^^"""^e 
 from the under-sheriff of the county of Cork polling 
 immediately after the election, with the usual j^^^g, 
 affidavit annexed. The under-sheriff stated that turning offi- 
 he received them from the poU-clerks at the deputies 
 close of the poU, and that they remained in his had taken 
 
 .,,,,. , , , 1 , the oaths 
 
 possession until he delivered them to the clerk required by 
 
 of the peace. ^5 Geo. 3, 
 
 ^ . . c. 29, s. 9, 
 
 Mr. Andrews objected to their reception, on does not 
 
 the ground that no memorandum was entered ^^^/g*^^"^ 
 
 upon them that the returning officer and his de- bility in 
 
 puties had taken the oaths, as required by the ^^ 
 
 statute 35 Geo. 3, c. 39, s. 9. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That the objection 
 
 to the admissibility of the poll-books was not 
 
 tenable." 
 
20 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Feb. 17. During the examination of one of the wit- 
 Application nesses, Mr. Andrews applied to the Committee, 
 order^out'of ^^^ ^^- Mnrphy, a Roman Catholic parish priest, 
 Recommit, might not he allowed to stay in the room, as his 
 a Roman presence might influence the witnesses. 
 Catholic ]V[j.. Serjt. Kinglake opposed the application, 
 
 the ground as being contrary to all precedent. 
 
 that his rpj^g Committee refused the application, 
 
 presence ^'^ 
 
 might in- 
 
 whneTse^.^ The case of the petitioner as to bribery being 
 Feb. 21. closed, evidence iu rebuttal was given on behalf 
 
 of the sitting member. 
 Feb. 25. The Committee resolved, " That Richard Sa- 
 muel Guinness, Esq., was not duly elected a 
 burgess to serve in this present parliament for 
 the borough of Kinsale" (a). 
 
 (a) TTpon tlie room being cleared, it was moved, 
 " That E. S. Guinness, Esq., was not duly elected a 
 burgess to serve in this present parliament for the 
 borough of Kinsale." An amendment was proposed to 
 leave out aU the words after " That," and to insert the 
 following words : " there is no evidence of bribery or 
 treating on the part of the sitting member or his agents, 
 which, in the opinion of this Committee, can be rehed 
 upon to invalidate the election." The Committee di- 
 vided on the question, " That the words proposed to be 
 left out stand part of the question." Ayes, 3 : Mr. 
 Bouverie, Mr. Tancred, Mr. Trelawny. Noes, 2 : Mr. 
 Cochrane, Mr. Cripps. The Committee then divided 
 on the main question : Ayes, 3 ; Noes, 2 : the same 
 members voting in the majority and minority as in the 
 first division. 
 
BOROUGH OF KINSALE. 21 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake then proceeded with the Feb. 26. 
 scrutiny, with a view to establish the right of 
 the petitioner to the seat. 
 
 John Healey's Case. 
 This voter had been objected to on the ground Where a 
 that he had been bribed by payment of his rates, been oblec- 
 The Committee, however, after evidence had tedto "ider 
 been given, came to a resolution that the vote of objeo- 
 should be retained. , tio^s, and 
 
 . 1l Committee 
 
 Mr. Ser)t. Kinglake then stated that he would had come to 
 pass from the class of objections of bribery by fJ^^^"/^'"'" 
 payments of rates, and proposed to strike the vote should 
 name of the same voter off the poU, on the \^^cf^f' 
 
 ground " that he had not at the time of polling mittee will 
 
 ■ J T_- , „ nothearany 
 
 paid his rates." f„tb„ ^^i 
 
 The Committee, however, resolved, " That the jections to 
 vote having been retained, the Committee can- 
 not hear any further objections ;" and they re- 
 quested to be put in possession of every objection 
 to a vote before they were called upon to decide 
 upon the validity of the same. 
 
 Vote retained. 
 
 John Fakley's Case. 
 
 This voter was objected to as having voted Feb. 28. 
 under corrupt influences. Where 
 
 It was proved that previous to the election the yoted under 
 voter was frequently at Sisk^s pubhc-house inco'^up*'": 
 
 ^ ■' . . fluences his 
 
 Kinsale, where the sitting members' committee- namestruck 
 room was, and that he and others who were pre- °^ *^ P°''* 
 sent on different occasions, being chiefly voters. 
 
22 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 had whatever they pleased to drink without pay- 
 ment, and that the voter on one occasion said, 
 " Drink boys, Mr. Guinness will pay for aU.^' It 
 was also ia evidence that the voter stated that 
 his clothes had been released out of pawn, and 
 that he stopped and ate and drank and slept at 
 Sisk's house for some days previous to the elec- 
 tion; and further, that he had been promised 
 200/. and a situation as soon as the petition was 
 over. The following letter from Mr. Guinness 
 to the voter was received in evidence : 
 
 " Baronstone, BaUinacargy, Westmeath, 
 "28th October, 1847. 
 
 " My dear Jack, — When I return to Dublin, 
 I shall do all I can to recommend you to the 
 Ballast Board, as you request ; but send me, to 
 Dublin, an account of your claims and the situa- 
 tion you wish, and where it is, and, depend upon 
 it, I will do all I can for you, for you are an 
 honest, firm, and steadfast friend. 
 
 "Yours most truly, 
 (Signed) "E. S. Guinness. 
 
 " Mr. John Farley, 
 
 " SciUy, Kinsale." 
 
 Vote struck off (a). 
 
 (a) TLe Committee divided on tlie question, " That 
 the vote of John Farley be retained on the poll." Ayes, 
 2 ; Mr. Cripps, Mr. Cochrane : Noes, 3 ; Mr. Bouverie, 
 Mr. Trelawny, Mr. Tancred. 
 
BOROUGH OF KINSALE. 23 
 
 David Keiley's Case. 
 
 Evidence was given that the voter^ who stayed Where 
 at Sisk's for two or three days before the elec- p"oygj to 
 tion, was frequently seen drinking there with have been 
 others. One witness deposed that on one occa- ^^^^ ^el 
 sion he dined there ia company with the voter^ tained. 
 the voter's wife and others, but none of them 
 paid either on that or any other occasion for any 
 refreshment which was supplied. 
 
 Mr. Manisty was heard against the vote. 
 
 Mr. Andrews, contra. 
 
 Vote retained (ffl). 
 
 Mr. Manisty after this decision abandoned 
 the scrutiny. 
 
 The Committee resolved, — Final reso- 
 
 1 . " That the last election for the said borough 
 was a void election." 
 
 2. "That the said Richard Samuel Guinness, 
 Esq., was, by his agents, guilty of bribery at the 
 last election for the said borough." 
 
 3. "That it was proved to the Committee 
 that William Aheamwas bribed by the payment 
 of 81. 9s. lid. on account of his having voted at 
 the said election, and James Mahoney by a 
 similar payment of 51. 7s." 
 
 (a) The Committee divided on tlie question, " That 
 the vote of D. Xeiley be retained on the poll." Ayes, 
 4 ; Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Cripps, Mr. Trelawny, Mr. Coch- 
 rane : Noe, 1 ; Mr. Tancred. 
 
24 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 4. " That there is no evidence that these acts 
 of bribery were committed with the knowledge 
 and consent of the said Richard Samuel Guin- 
 ness" (a). 
 
 (a) These resolutions, together with that of February 
 25 {ante, page 20), were reported to the House. 
 
25 
 
 CASE V. 
 BOROUGH OF LYME-REGIS. 1848. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 15th February, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Lord Ashley, Bath, 
 (Chairman), 
 
 Lord Seymour, Totness. 
 William Keogh, Esq., Ath- 
 lone. 
 
 Sir John McTaggart, Bart., 
 
 Wigton Burghs. 
 Hon. Colonel James Lindsay, 
 
 Wigan. 
 
 Petitioners : — Electors. 
 
 Sitting Member ; — ^Thomas Neville Abdy, Esq. 
 
 Co^msel for petitioners : — ^Mr. Serjeant Wrangham, Mr. 
 Alexander, Q. C, and Mr. Edwards. 
 
 Agents : — Mr. G. D. O'Kelly Templer, Mr. James Templer, 
 Messrs. Clowes and Wedlake. 
 
 Counsel for Siting Member : — ^Mr. M. D. Hill, Q. C, 
 Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, and Mr. Wordsworth. 
 
 Agents : — Mr. Harris, Mr. Henry Franks Waring, and 
 Mr. Bennett. 
 
 The petition, after statiag that at the close Petition. 
 of the poll the number of votes was, 
 
 for Mr. Abdy . . .146 
 for Sir F. KeUy . . 143 
 
26 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Scrutiny, alleged that the majority of Mr. Abdy was colour- 
 able ; that the real majority of good and valid 
 votes was for Sir F. KeUy; that persons not 
 entitled to vote had voted for Mr. Ahdy, and 
 that the names of certain other persons who had 
 tendered their votes for Sir F. KeUy at the elec- 
 tion ought to be added to the poll. It also 
 Bribery and charged bribery, treating, and intimidation 
 treating, against the sitting member and his agents, and 
 prayed the seat for Sir F. KeUy. 
 
 Feb. 16. The following preliminary resolution was 
 
 Prelimi- agreed to by the Committee : — " That no per- 
 
 h^ionr"" ^°^ ^^ ^^ examined as a witness who shall 
 
 have been present during the proceedings of the 
 
 Committee, except the agents of either parties, 
 
 whose names have been put in." 
 
 Where peti- Mr. Seqt. Wrangham opened the case, 
 tion alleges charging direct bribery against the sitting 
 treating member. He stated that, although the Com- 
 s^g' mittee had not passed any formal resolution on 
 member or the subject, he was prepared to foUow the usual 
 and'also^' Practice in such cases, viz., to name the par- 
 prays a ties . bribed, and the persons by whom the 
 Committee bribery was committed; that he proposed first 
 will coDQpel to enter into a scrutiny of the votes, as in the 
 
 charges 
 
 both of bri- event of the unsuccessful candidate being there- 
 treaWng'^to ^^ Placed in a majority, it would be unneces- 
 be pro- 
 ceeded with before scrutiny is entered upon (a). 
 
 (a) Post, pp. 28 and 30. 
 
BOROUGH OP LYME-REGIS. 27 
 
 sary for him to enter into the general case of 
 bribery. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That where there 
 is a charge of bribery against the sitting member 
 or his agents, it ought to be gone into first, and 
 not reserved imtil after a scrutiny" (a). 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Wrangham, not being prepared Adjourn- 
 with witnesses to prove the general case of JJ|,*enty-four 
 bribery, applied for an adjournment until thel'O"" 
 18th of February. ^''"""^• 
 
 Mr. Hill opposed the application on the ground 
 of expense, to his clients. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That the Com- 
 mittee do adjourn for a period not exceeding 
 twenty-four hours, after which they will expect 
 the counsel for the petitioners to proceed with 
 one at least of the cases of bribery." 
 
 The Chairman further stated, that the Com- 
 mittee found, on reference to the Lyme-Regis 
 case of 1842, the following paragraph ia the 
 Report of the Committee, which contained strong 
 reasons why this Committee should push to the 
 utmost the inquiry into the alleged cases of 
 bribery : — 
 
 "That, in the opinion of this Committee, a 
 practice so insidiously corrupting and demo- 
 ralizing," (referring to bribery,) "is peculiarly 
 adapted to interfere with the free and honest 
 
 (a) For further resolution, see p. 30. 
 
 c2 
 
38 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 exercise of the franctise, especially in small 
 constituencies ; tliat it tas had this effect in 
 the borough of Lyme, and that it deserves 
 serious attention and inquiry on the part of the 
 House." 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham stated, that the cases 
 
 of bribery against the sitting member and his 
 
 agents, which he had opened, were all in the list 
 
 of bribed voters objected to, and that the deter- 
 
 miaation of the Committee might be carried out 
 
 by the petitioners being directed to proceed with 
 
 the bribery class of objected votes. 
 
 Case of The Chairman stated, that the object of the 
 
 allowed' to Committee was to go iato those cases that di- 
 
 be goneinto rectly implicated the sitting member ; and if 
 
 charges of the petitioners proved their case of bribery, the 
 
 bribery and Committee would instantly go into the case of 
 
 treating on . . 
 
 both sides bribery on the other side ; that they should not 
 been dis-* enter upon the scrutiny until the case of bribery 
 posedof.(a) had been disposed of on both sides. 
 
 Where poll- The poll-books being produced, it appeared 
 not been that Sir FitzToy Kelly, one of the candidates, 
 sealed by j^^^ ^q^ sealed them, but that the returning offi- 
 
 one of the i i i i j- n • t 
 
 candidates, ccr had made the foUowmg endorsement on one 
 i'eftboro''ugh °f *^^ poll-books : "Not sealed by Sir Fitzroy 
 before re- Kelly, he having left the borough of Lyme-Regis 
 o7poii,^and previous to my return of the state of the poll, 
 returning Robert Holmcs, returning of&cer." 
 
 officer had 
 
 made endorsement upon it to that eifect, admitted in evidence. 
 
 (a) See pp. 27 and 30. 
 
BOROUGH OF LYME-UEGIS. 29 
 
 The poll-books were then received in evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Richard Sellers, a witness in a case of bribery^ Feb. 19. 
 
 wherein it was alleged that one WiUiam Grlyde, Upon gene- 
 
 , 111 • • . . 1 ral case of 
 
 junior, whose name had been given m to the bribery, 
 
 Committee, as a voter who had been bribed, had declaration 
 
 ... of voter 
 
 received a promise of a situation from an agent alleged to 
 of the sitting member, and siace the election had ?*.^ J**? 
 obtained an appointment, was asked in examina- missible in 
 tion by Mr. Serjt. Wrangham as to conversa- ^^' *"'^* 
 tions which he had had with the voter previous to 
 the election, with reference to the way in which 
 Glyde intended to vote, and why he intended so 
 to vote. 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth objected to the conversation 
 being given in evidence, on the ground that 
 declarations of voters, upon a general case of 
 bribery, were not admissible in evidence. 
 
 The Committee allowed the question to be put. 
 
 The evidence on the three cases of bribery to Feb. 21. 
 which the petitioners confined their charges 
 under that head being concluded, 
 
 Mr. Alexander was about to sum up the evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Mr. Seqt. Kinglake interposed. — The peti- 
 tioners have handed in a list of treating cases, 
 which, in conformity with the usual practice, 
 ought now to be proceeded with as part of the 
 general case. 
 
 Mr. Alexander. — Treating was not mentioned 
 
30 
 
 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 in the resolution of the Committee («). The 
 petitioners did not anticipate that they should 
 he called on to proceed with the treating cases 
 until the cases of brihery on both sides were dis- 
 posed of. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That the counsel 
 do now proceed with any cases of treating against 
 the sitting member ;" the Chairman stating that 
 treating and bribery were so aMn in their na- 
 ture and spirit, that the investigation of the one 
 ought to be inseparably connected with that of 
 the other, and that counsel must proceed at 
 once, or give them up. 
 
 After this intimation, Mr. Alexander aban- 
 doned the cases of treating, and summed up the 
 evidence as to bribery. 
 
 Feb. 22. 
 
 Witness 
 compelled 
 to answer 
 question 
 whicli he 
 said would 
 prejudice 
 sitting 
 member, 
 but would 
 not crimi- 
 nate him- 
 self. 
 
 Evidence in answer to the charge of bribery 
 was then given. 
 
 Mr. Henry Franks Waring, in cross-examin- 
 ation by Mr. Alexander, was asked this ques- 
 tion : " When you say that you and Mr. Bennett 
 were Mr. Abdy's agents at the election, you 
 mean paid agents, remunerated for your ser- 
 vices ?" The witness appealed to the Committee 
 as to whether he must answer the question. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake. — The Committee ought 
 not to allow the witness, without a proper cau- 
 tion, to answer any question which might tend 
 in any way to criminate himself. 
 
 {a) Ante, p. 27. 
 
BOROUGH OF LYME-REGIS. 31 
 
 Mr. Alexander. — The answer to the question 
 put will not crinunate the witness. 
 
 The Committee, assenting to the doctrine 
 that the witness was not bound to answer a 
 question which would tend to criminate him, 
 and having ascertained from the witness that 
 the answer would not criminate him, hut that it 
 would prejudice the sitting member, directed 
 the witness to answer the question. 
 
 The Committee subsequently resolved unani- Feb. 24. 
 mously, that the charges of bribery against the 
 sitting member were not proved. 
 
 The general case of bribery and corruption Feb. 25. 
 against the unsuccessful candidate and his 
 agents was then proceeded with. 
 
 Albion Lavers, in examination by Mr. Hill, Parties al- 
 being asked as to whether, in the year 1845, he in7o^trans^-° 
 did not make an application to Mr. Templer action 
 (Mr. Attwood's soHcitor at Lyme) upon the piaee two 
 subiect of a house at Lyme, of which the wit- y^a" P^e- 
 
 Tiously, on 
 
 ness was proprietor, under- 
 
 Mr. Alexander submitted, that the transac- '»'"»?''' 
 
 ' . . show its 
 
 tions of 1845 could not be inquired mto. It connection 
 had not been opened by Mr. HiU that Attwood q^Jrybefore 
 was the agent of Sir F. Kelly, and therefore Committee, 
 this evidence could not be received. 
 
 Mr. Hill, in support of the line of examina- 
 tion. — We propose to connect the transactions 
 of Mr. Attwood in 1845 with the election of 
 
33 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 1847, at which Sir F. Kelly, who was Attwood's 
 nomiaee, was a candidate. 
 
 Mr. Alexander having replied. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That this Com- 
 mittee win receive evidence on the transaction 
 that issued, according to the statement of coun- 
 sel, in the 'corrupt contract to abstain from 
 voting' at the election of 1847." 
 
 Feb. 28. Joseph Moore, in examination by Mr. Hill, 
 Deciara- ^^g asked as to a conversation which James 
 
 tion of a . 
 
 voter ai- lindlc — a voter, who was alleged to have given 
 leged to jj^g yg^g jj^ favour of Sir F. KeUy, under a threat 
 
 have voted . . 
 
 under un- that he would lose his farm unless he did so, — 
 due in- stated to the vntness that he had had with one 
 
 nuance, 
 
 respecting John Hooke previous to the election, 
 made^t'o™ ^^- Serjt. Wrangham objected to the evi- 
 him by a dence as hearsay evidence, which could not he 
 son .allowed received by transmission through the memory of 
 to be given a third person. 
 
 in 6vid6ncG> 
 
 Mr. Hill, in support of the question, founded 
 the course which he was pursuing upon the evi- 
 dence which had been admitted in the case of 
 G-lyde (a). 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham replied. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That the evidence 
 admitted on the part of the petitioners be also 
 admitted on the part of the sitting member" {b). 
 
 {a) Ante, p. 29. 
 
 (h) Upon the room being cleared, it was moved — 
 ' That the question put to Joseph Moore, as to what 
 
BOKOUGH OF LYME-REGIS. 33 
 
 Mr. Seqt. Kinglahe proposed to ask William On charge 
 Pyke, a -witness called in support of the case of ?^ "[bating, 
 
 . f- inquiry as 
 
 treating, as to tne conversation and acts of one toaparticu- 
 Hingeston, with reference to an entertainment J*[n^ent' 
 given at the Lion Inn. not allowed 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham objected to the pro- goneinto 
 posed course of examination. — Admitting Hin- ""tjl <"■<*«'■ 
 geston to be an agent of Sir F. Kelly, neverthe- tohavebeen 
 less, the entertainment in question must beSi^*?*"? 
 
 • T/.11- candidate 
 
 proved to have been ordered or paid for by him orhisagent. 
 as such agent, or by the candidate, before any 
 other fact connected with the entertainment can 
 be given in evidence. 
 
 Mr. Hill and Mr. Serjt. Kinglake against the 
 objection. — The admission that Hmgeston was 
 the agent of Sir F. Kelly is sufficient to allow of 
 the proposed evidence being given, without prov- 
 ing that the order for this treating came either 
 from him or from Sir F. Kelly. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham having replied. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That evidence 
 
 James Bridle said that John Hooke had stated to him, 
 is not evidence, and ought not to be put." An amend- 
 ment was proposed to the question, to leave out aU the 
 words after "that the," in order to insert the fol- 
 lowing words — " evidence admitted on the part of the 
 petitioners be also admitted on the part of the sitting 
 member." The Committee divided on the question 
 " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of 
 the question." Aye, 1. Mr. Keogh ; Noes, 4. Lord 
 Ashley, Sir J. McTaggart, Colonel Lindsay, Lord 
 Seymour. The question was then amended and agreed 
 to. 
 
 c3 
 
34 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 must be given to coimect Mr. Hiageston with 
 the order given for the treating." 
 
 Feb. 29. The general case of bribery and corruption 
 against Sir F. Kelly and his agents being con- 
 cluded. 
 Costs will Mr. Serjt. Wrangham applied, under the 7 & 8 
 awarded to Vict. c. 103, s. 92, for costs, -with respect to the 
 a person allegation charging the Vicar of Lyme with 
 
 not sitting ^ ° . . ., 
 
 member, or bribery, but on -which allegation no evidence 
 rlinst""' ^^ ^^^"^ offered; that gentleman had been 
 whom a kept tuider a serious imputation for a length of 
 
 charge of ^■ 
 
 bribery has ^'^^• 
 
 been made Mr. Hill and Mr. Serjt. Kinglake opposed 
 
 doned. the application. — By the terms of the Act the 
 Committee have no power to award costs to any 
 other party than the petitioners. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That the Com- 
 mittee wiU not award costs in this case." 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Wrangham stated, that he would 
 proceed to call witnesses to rebut the charges 
 which had been brought forward against Sir 
 F. KeUy. 
 
 On Sir F. Kelly being called as a witness, 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake objected to his being exa- 
 mined, inasmuch as he was a party interested. 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth was heard on the same side. 
 Candidate Mr. Serjt. Wrangham urged the injustice 
 against ^f,^\a.ch would be douc to Sir F. Kelly, if he 
 
 whom a p 
 
 personal were not allowed to rebut the personal charges of 
 birfbm h'as Corruption brought against him. In answer to 
 
BOROUGH OF LYME-REGIS. 35 
 
 the Committee, he admitted that he had no pre- been made 
 cedent for the course proposed. °°', «<^i"is- 
 
 . ^ ^ sible as a 
 
 Mr. Ser)t. Kinglake replied. witness (a). 
 
 The Committee resolved " That the evidence 
 of Sir F. KeUy is not admissible " (6). 
 
 The Chairman further stated, that the Com- 
 mittee, seeing that the evidence in. two or three 
 cases affecting Sir F. Kelly personally, rests on 
 the statements of one witness only, and that 
 Sir F. KeUy has not been permitted to give his 
 testimony ia contradiction, will consider those 
 charges which rest on single and unsupported 
 evidence with many grains of allowance. 
 
 Mr. Hill applied to the Committee to stay aU March 3. 
 further proceedings in the matter of this petition. The fact of 
 
 J. • , 1 • J t. J.1 a third per- 
 
 m consequence oi its havmg appeared by the ^^^ haTing 
 evidence of Mr. O'KeUy Templer, that Mr. Att- agreed to 
 wood would pay the expenses of the petitioners, expenses of 
 and that therefore the petition was not borm fide **>« P^*^'- 
 
 • /• 1 ■ tioners, 
 
 that of the petitioners, but was in lact the peti- does not 
 tion of Mr. Attwood. His obiection was foimded aof^oflff 
 
 "" _ Committee 
 
 on the known principle of English law, which to stay 
 visited barratry and maintenance with heavy Pg^^^^* ° 
 penalties, and which had guided decisions of 
 committees of the House of Commons in many 
 cases ; as the Honiton case (c), 2nd Canter- 
 
 (a) See now 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99. 
 
 (b) Tte Committee divided on the question — " That 
 the evidence of Sir Pitzroy KeUy is admissible." 
 Ayes, 2. Colonel Lindsay, Mr. Eeogh ; Noes, 3. Sir 
 J. McTaggart, Lord Seymour, Lord Ashley. 
 
 (c) 3 Lud. 155. 
 
36 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 bury case [a), Herefordshire case {b), Sligo 
 case (c). 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham, against the application. 
 — If the objection prevailed, Sir F. Kelly would 
 he shut out from the benefit of the decision of the 
 Committee, which he had a right, for the sake 
 of his public character, to expect. The real 
 question was, whether the fact of Mr. Attwood 
 having agreed to bear the expenses of this in- 
 quiry, destroyed the bona fide character and 
 position of the petitioners. Notwithstanding the 
 payment of the expenses by Mr. Attwood, the 
 interest of the petitioners was preserved ; there 
 was no foundation in law for the objection : 
 it did not matter who paid the costs of the 
 petition : if petitioners were obliged to pay the 
 costs of petitions, the result would be, that in- 
 quiries would be stopped, and corruption escape 
 unpimished. 
 
 Mr. Hill replied. 
 
 It was resolved: "That the Committee will 
 not come to a decision on the application made 
 by Mr. Hill, until they have had an opportimity 
 of examining Mr. Attwood, who had been invited 
 to attend the Committee for the purpose of such 
 examination." 
 
 The Committee intimated to counsel their 
 wish, that, in summing up, attention should he 
 more particularly directed to the three cases of 
 
 (a) Cliff. 361, 362. (b) Peck. 221. 
 
 (c) F. &F. 565. 
 
BOROUGH OF LYME-REGIS. . 37 
 
 LaverSj Purchasej and Guppy, as tlie Committee 
 attached but little importance to the other cases. 
 
 The Chairman read a letter received from Mr. March 4. 
 Attwoodj who was a member of the Hpuse, to 
 the effect that he could not explain any circum- 
 stance connected with his transactions at Lyme 
 in a better manner than his solicitor, Mr. Tem- 
 pkCj had already done. 
 
 The Committee resolved, that in no case 
 brought before them was Sir F. Kelly guilty of 
 bribery by himself or by his agents. 
 
 At the next sitting, the Committee resolved March 6. 
 unanimously, 
 
 " That the Committee having seriously deH- 
 berated on the corrupt relation between Mr. 
 Attwood and certain of the voters, and having , 
 ascertained that Mr. Attwood was virtually the 
 petitioner in this case, considered the propriety 
 of stopping the further progress of this petition. 
 
 " That, under the existing law, they have no 
 such power. 
 
 " That, in entering on this scrutiny, the Com- 
 mittee will first proceed to strike off the votes of 
 those parties against whom it has been proved, 
 or shall be proved, that they have received loans 
 in connexion with their votes.'' 
 
 Mr. Hill stated, that the votes affected by the 
 loans from Mr. Attwood were votes mentioned 
 
38 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 in the general list given ia by the sitting mem- 
 ber of bribed cases ; that the Committee had not 
 stated whether or not they decided that Mr. 
 Attwood was an agent of Sir Fitzroy Kelly. 
 
 The Chairman stated, that the Committee had 
 deliberated upon that point, and that, after a 
 very anxious investigation of the matter, they 
 had come to the decision, that there was no legal 
 proof of the agency of Mr. Attwood. 
 
 John Wilson Cook's Case. 
 
 Where In this case it appeared that the voter, who 
 
 loans ]jg^ previously effected a mortgage upon his pro- 
 accepted by perty, came to Mr. Templer, the agent of Mr. 
 thrunder- -A-ttwood, about two yeaxs before the election, 
 standing and stated that he was anxious to get rid of the 
 will sup- mortgage from the person who had it, and that 
 port the if Mr. Templer could get the money for him, he 
 party in the woiild always Support Mr. Attwood's interest. 
 
 borough, n appeared further from Mr. Templer's evidence, 
 
 TOtesstruck ^f^ 
 
 off. that he communicated what had passed between 
 
 himself and Cook to Mr. Attwood, and that 
 shortly afterwards the money was advanced. 
 Mr. Templer also admitted, that it had been 
 part of Mr. Attwood's plan for obtaining influ- 
 ence in the borough, to lend money to persons ia 
 the borough. 
 
 Mr. Hill, upon these facts, proposed to strike 
 the voter's name off the poll. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Wrangham, being asked whether he 
 had any objection to make to the name being 
 
BOROUGH OF LYME-REGIS. 39 
 
 struck off, stated that he should offer none, after 
 the decision of the Committee. 
 Vote struck off. 
 
 Cases of Joseph Dirk and Samuel Warren 
 puddicombe. 
 
 Mr. Hill sought to strike off the votes of these 
 parties, upon the ground that loans had been ad- 
 vanced to them for the purpose of influencing 
 their votes. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham admitted, that if the 
 Committee adopted the principle, that a loan by 
 parties seeking pohtical influence in the borough, 
 to voters, would invalidate such votes, he should 
 not attempt to support them. 
 
 Votes struck off. 
 
 Mr. Hill proceeded to call John Attwood, March 7, 
 Esq., M.P., as a witness, when 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Wrangham interposed, and, ad- 
 dressing the Committee, informed them, that on 
 the part of the petitioners on behalf of Sir F. 
 KeUy, he had retired from the contest. 
 
 The Committee then resolved imanimously : 
 
 1. " That Thomas NeviUe Abdy, Esquire, was Final reso- 
 duly elected a burgess to serve in this present " '°°*' 
 Parliament for the Borough of Lyme Regis." 
 
 2. "That the names of John Wilson Cook, 
 Joseph Dirk and Samuel Warren Puddicombe, 
 were struck off the poU, it having been proved 
 
40 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 to the Committeej that they had received money 
 upon loan for the purpose of influencing their 
 votes." 
 
 3. " That it appears from the evidence, that 
 an Honourable Memher of the House, John 
 Attwood, Esq., has since the year 1843 pur- 
 chased a considerable property in the neighbour- 
 hood of Lyme, and that he has been in the habit 
 of granting loans of money on property to voters, 
 on the condition that such voters should, on any 
 fature occasion, vote for him, or any one whom 
 he might appoint to be a candidate for the repre- 
 sentation." 
 
 4. " That the Committee have ascertained that 
 the petition was set on foot at the desire of Mr. 
 Attwood and his agent Mr. Templer, who per- 
 sonally requested the parties to become peti- 
 tioners, making a promise that they should be 
 at no expense ; that Mr. Attwood, having made 
 such contracts with certain of the electors, bore 
 the entire expense of such petition, including 
 the possible forfeiture of the recognizances ; and 
 that the same gentleman bore the expenses of 
 the former petition in 1843, which amounted to 
 nearly 9000Z." 
 
 5. " The Committee desire to impress upon 
 the House the necessity of putting an instant 
 check to such transactions, which operate as a 
 grievous snare to the voter, and totally destroy 
 all freedom of election" (a). 
 
 (a) These Eesolutions were reported to the House. 
 
41 
 
 CASE VI. 
 
 BOROUGH OF LANCASTER. i848. 
 
 (first case.) 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 22nd February, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 WUliam Deedes, Esq., Kent, East, 
 {Ohai/rma/a). 
 
 Visconnt Mahon, Hertford. 
 Sir Thomas E. Colebrooke, 
 Bart., Tavmton. 
 
 Charles Aaron Moody, Esq., 
 
 Somerset, West. 
 Sir Benjamin Hall, Bart., 
 
 Marylebone. 
 
 PettUcmer : — Edward Dodson SaUsbury, Esq., the defeated 
 Candidate. 
 
 Sitting Member petitioned against : — Samuel Gregson, Esq. 
 
 Cotmsel for Petitioner : — ^Mr. Seqeaut Wrangham, Mr. 
 Wordsworth, and Mr. Clerk. 
 
 Agents : — ^Mr. Strutt and Mr. Clarke. 
 
 Counsel for Sitting Member : — ^Mr. Seijeant Kinglake and 
 Mr. Edwin James. 
 
 Agents : — Mr. Coppock, Mr. Maxted, and Mr. Cutts. 
 
 Feb. 23. 
 
 The usual prelimiaary resolutions were agreed Prelimi- 
 , , , nary reso- 
 
 to {«)• lutions. 
 
 The petition, after stating that at the last Petition, 
 election for the borough of Lancaster, Samuel 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 1. 
 
42 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Gregson, Esq.j Thomas Green, Esq., and th( 
 petitioner were candidates, and that the tw( 
 former were returned as the sitting members 
 Bribery and charged bribery and treating against Mr. Greg- 
 treating, g^^ ^^^^ jj^ agents, and prayed the House tc 
 declare the election and return of Mr. Gregsoi 
 to be null and void. 
 
 Adjourn- Mr. Seijt. Wrangham applied to the Com- 
 CTound'that ™^ttee for an adjournment of the case until tb 
 witnesses next day, as he was not in a state to open th( 
 yet been wholc of Ms case. Letters which had been ssnl 
 examined Taj the London agent to the solicitor at Lan 
 agent re- caster had miscarried, and consequently the 
 fused. greater portion of the witnesses had only jusi 
 
 arrived, and had not yet been examiaed by thf 
 
 agent. 
 
 Mr. James objected to the adjournment. 
 The Committee resolved, "'That Mr. Seijt, 
 
 Wrangham do proceed with the case." 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Wrangham then opened a case ol 
 bribery and treatiag. 
 Feb. 24. James Dodgson, a witness, having prevaricatec 
 Course j^ ffiving his evidence before the Committee, 
 
 pursued mi ^ • 1 n mi -r T-. 1 
 
 where a The Committee resolved, " That James Dodg- 
 
 witness had g^^ jjg reported to the House for prevaricating ii 
 
 prevanca- ... . 
 
 ted in giving giving his evidence before the Committee, anc 
 before the* *^^* *^® Chairman be directed to issue his war 
 Committee, rant to Commit the said James Dodgson to th( 
 custody of the serjeant-at-arms." 
 
 On the report being made to the House, th 
 
BOROUGH OF LANCASTER (IST CASE). 43 
 
 House resolved that Dodgson. was guilty of a 
 breach of the privileges of the House, and ordered 
 him to be committed to the custody of the ser- 
 jeant-at-arms, and that the seqeant-at-arms 
 should bring him from time to time to the Com- 
 mittee, as often as they might require, and that 
 warrants should be issued accordingly. On the 
 following day Dodgson was brought in custody 
 before the Committee, who reported to the 
 House, at its next sitting, that the witness had 
 answered to the satisfaction of the Committee all 
 questions which the Committee thought he was 
 boimd to answer ; and the prisoner was then, by 
 order of the House, discharged from custody 
 without payment of fees. 
 
 John Hoyle, a witness, being asked in cross- On cross- 
 examination, " Did you not know that the pub- f.^^°"°*- 
 
 ' ■' ^ tion of one 
 
 lie-house where you got the refreshment ticket of the peti- 
 
 was the house at which Mr. Salisbury's Com- ^°tne'ss\s 
 
 mittee was held ?" (the seat 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth objected to the course of ex- ciaimedThe 
 
 amination. — The petition does not pray the seat^ .'J'^.^'''^'^' 
 
 and therefore recriminatory evidence cannot be not know 
 
 given. *''t',*''* 
 
 ° . public- 
 
 Mr. James, in support of the question. — The house where 
 
 object of this examination is not to prove cor- j°f"gf^' * ^ 
 
 rupt influence, but to show that the practice of ment ticket 
 
 giving these tickets was nothing more than a Zmae at 
 
 which the 
 petitioner's committee was held?" question being objected to, as it was going 
 into recriminatory evidence, the Committee allowed it to be put, on the 
 ground that it had not that tendency. 
 
44 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 custom which had been always observed at 
 former elections. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That if the evi- 
 dence is intended as recriminatory evidence, it 
 cannot be received;" but they intimated their 
 opinion that the evidence had not at present 
 that tendency. 
 
 Acts held It appeared from the evidence, that treating 
 
 consTftute*" ^^ Carried on to a great extent, both vrithin 
 
 agency and and without the borough, after the teste of the 
 
 * "'^" writ and during the time of the election, such 
 
 treating being principally confined to freemen ; 
 
 and that, at one of these entertainments, the 
 
 sitting member was himself present and made 
 
 a speech. Mr. Wise, an alleged agent of the 
 
 sitting member, was present on that occasion, 
 
 and also at several other entertainments at 
 
 diflferent public-houses, for some of which he 
 
 paid the bills himself, and to which he invited 
 
 voters. 
 
 Feb. 28. Mr. Wise, on being called on behalf of the 
 
 sitting member, stated that the payments which 
 
 he made came from his own pocket, and that he 
 
 acted during the election not as an agent, but to 
 
 keep the interest of the sitting member on a par 
 
 with that of Mr. Salisbury, who was treating the 
 
 freemen. 
 
 Feb. 29. The Committee came to the following final 
 kitions.^'" resolutions for report to the House :~ 
 
 1. "That Samuel Gregson, Esq., is not duly 
 
BOROUGH OF LANCASTER (IST CASe). 45 
 
 elected a burgess to serve in this present Parlia- 
 ment for the borough of Lancaster." 
 
 2. " That the last election for the said borough, 
 so far as relates to the election of the said Samuel 
 Gregson, Esq., is a void election." 
 
 3. "That the said Samuel Gregson, Esq., was 
 by himself and his agents guilty of treating, for 
 the purpose of unduly iafluenciag the electors of 
 the said borough at the last election" («). 
 
 4. "That it was proved to the Committee 
 that John Hartley had been bribed with the 
 payment of 2Z. 10s.; Richard Casson with 3Z. 105.; 
 Thomas Woodman with 11. ; James Dodgson 
 with 3^. 10*. ; and Robert Radwin with 21. 10s. ; 
 but that it was not proved by evidence that the 
 said acts of bribeiy were committed with the 
 knowledge and consent of the said Samuel 
 Gregson, Esq." ♦ 
 
 (a) The Conxmittee divided on the question — " That 
 the words ' himself and' stand part of the resolution." — 
 Ayes, 4. Sir B. Hall, Mr. Moody, Lord Maiion, Mr. 
 Deedes : Noe, 1. Sir T. E. Colebrooke. 
 
46 
 
 CASE VII. 
 
 1848. " PEEBLESSHIRE. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 22nd of February, 
 1848, and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Lord Robert Grosvenor, Middlesex, 
 {Chmrman). 
 
 Sir William Clay, Bart., Tower 
 
 Hamlets. 
 Joseph Warner Henley, Esq., 
 
 Oxfordshire. 
 
 James Graith Marshall, Esq., 
 
 Leeds. 
 Sir William Hylton Jolliffe, 
 
 Bart., Petersfield. 
 
 Petitioners : — Alexander Gibson Carmichael, Esq., the unsuc- 
 cessful Candidate, with Electors. 
 
 Sitting Member : — WiUiam Forbes Mackenzie, Esq. 
 
 Cotmsel for Petitioners : — Mr. Andrews, Q. C, Mr. Logan, 
 and Mr. Forsyth. 
 
 Agents: — Messrs. Webster, Mr. Irving, and Mr. 
 Fotheringham. 
 
 Covmsel for Sitting Member : — ^Mr. Serjeant Wrangham, and 
 Mr. David Mure. 
 
 Agents : — Messrs. Dyson & Co., Mr. James Robinson, and 
 Mr. Inglis. 
 
 Feb. 23. The Committee came to the following pre- 
 
 Prelimi- liminary resolutions : — 
 
 ticmsr°° " " That all witnesses do withdraw, and that no 
 person shall be examined who shall have been 
 present during any of the proceedings of the 
 
PEEBLESSHIRE. 47 
 
 Committee, except the agents on each side, whose 
 names have been given in. 
 
 " That counsel will not be allowed to go into 
 matters not referred to in the opening state- 
 ment, without special application to the Com- 
 mittee to do so." 
 
 The petition involved a scrutiny. Petition. 
 
 Mr. Andrews opened the case of the peti- Scrutiny, 
 tioners. 
 
 "William Scott's Case. 
 
 This voter was objected to as having a ficti- Committee 
 tious qualification. It appeared that he had not J^rta?" an° 
 been objected to, either at the last registration, objection to 
 in August, 1846, or at any previous one. whose 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham objected to any further ?*™*' ••*" 
 proceeding upon this case, contending, that as no register for 
 objection had been made to his vote before the " ^°°}^'^ 
 
 " . . _ _ county, was 
 
 sheriff, at the time of registration, the Commit- unobjected 
 tee had no right to enter into the voter's qualifi- ghgrfff^at * 
 
 cation. theregistra- 
 
 Mr. Andrews, in answer to the objection, gj t^g ^l^^ 
 relied upon the express words of the proviso to °f "^^ ^l*"- 
 sect. 25 of the statute 2 & 3 WUl. 4, c. 65 : *'*"'" 
 " nothing herein contained shall be held to limit 
 or restrain the powers of a committee to take 
 into consideration the validity of any vote or 
 claim for registration admitted or rejected by 
 the sheriff, or the judges of appeal." In the 
 present case, Scott's name had been admitted 
 upon the register upon which the election 
 
48 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 had taken place ; the proviso therefore expressly 
 reserved to the Coramittee the power to investi- 
 gate the validity of such vote. 
 Mr. Seijt. Wrangham replied. 
 Feb. 24. The Committee resolved unanimously, " That 
 the vote of William Scott, being on the former 
 registers, and not having been objected to before 
 the sheriff at the registration of 1846, which 
 was in force at the time of the last election, and 
 not having therefore been then judicially decida^ 
 upon by the said sheriff, it is not competent foP 
 the Committee to enter upon the question of his 
 quaHfication to be on the register of voters." 
 
 Mr. Andrews then proposed to enter upon the 
 cases of voters who had been objected to at a 
 previous registration, but who were not objected 
 to at the registration of 1846. 
 
 The Committee, however, stated that their 
 decision was intended to preclude him from 
 going into the case of any voter who had not 
 been objected to at the registration of 1846. 
 
 Mr. Andrews thereupon abandoned the case 
 on behalf of the petitioner. 
 Final reso- The Committee finally resolved : " That Wil- 
 liam Forbes Mackenzie, Esq., is duly elected a 
 commissioner to serve in the present Parliament 
 for the Shire of Peebles." 
 
 lution. 
 
49 
 
 CASE VIII. 
 BOROUGH OF BOLTON. 1848. 
 
 ^Slie ConuniUee was appointed on the 25th of February, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 George Alexander Hamilton, Esq., Dnblin University, 
 "^ {Chairmari). 
 
 Bight Hon. William Bingham 
 
 Baring, Thetford. 
 Hon. Charles Wentworth 
 
 Howard, Cumberland East. 
 
 Edward Stanley, Esq., Cum- 
 berland, West. 
 Colonel Salwey, Ludlow. 
 
 Petitioners : — Electors. 
 
 Sitting Member petitioned against : — Willia.m BoUing, Esq. 
 
 Cownsel for Fetitioners: — ^Mr. Seqeant Wrangham, Mr. 
 Wheeler, and Mr. Brotherton. 
 
 Agents: — Mr. W. D. Cooper, Mr. Hicken, and Mr. 
 Bichardson. 
 
 Caimsel for Sitting Member: — Mr. Seijeant Kinglake, 
 Mr. E. James, and Mr. Cross. 
 
 Agents: — ^Messrs. Dyson & Co., Mr. E. Haworth, jun., and 
 Mr. Buckley. 
 
 Feb. 26. 
 The usual preliminary resolutions were agreed. Preliminary 
 
 , . resolutions. 
 
 to [a] . 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 1. 
 
50 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Petition. The petition alleged that Mr. Boilings Dr. 
 
 Bowring, and Mr. Brooks were candidates at 
 the last election for the borough ; that after a 
 poU the two former gentlemen were by the re- 
 turning of&cer declared to have had a majority 
 of votes, and were returned as the members; 
 that the election and return of Mr. BoUiag were 
 Bribery and procured by bribery, treating, corruption, aad 
 treating, intimidation, and that such illegal practices 
 rendered bim inehgible to serve in this Parha- 
 ment for the said borough. It prayed the 
 House to declare the election and return of Mr. 
 Boiling to be null and void, and to give to the 
 petitioners such other relief as to the House 
 should seem meet. 
 
 Conversa- ^^ support of the cbarges of bribery and treat- 
 tions with a iag^ James Green was called, who stated that he 
 leged to '^^ ^ voter, and that a fortnight before the 
 h*If H ^™ election one Turner, an engineer in the employ- 
 to the' ment of Mr. Boiling, inquired of him how he 
 ber' "ev'i" '^^^^ ^ote. Beiag asked by petitioner's coun- 
 dence,al- sel, " What did he say to you ? " 
 takingpiace ^^- '^'^^^^ objected to the question. Evi- 
 in the pre- dence of a conversation could only be given, 
 sitting where the conversation had occurred at the time 
 member or of the receipt or offer of a bribe ; or where 
 
 agency had been proved. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler, in support of his right to put 
 
 the question, cited the Ipswich case (a), in which 
 
 (o) Bar. & Aust. 257. 
 
BOROUGH OF BOLTON. 51 
 
 it was held that the effect of 4 & 5 Vict. c. 57, 
 was such as to render a similar question admis- 
 sible, inasmuch as the sitting member could 
 not be affected, unless agency were proved. By 
 the 4 & 5 Vict. c. 57, it was made necessary 
 that the whole evidence of any imputed bribery 
 should be received for the purpose of a " separate 
 and distinct report," to be made to the House ; 
 such evidence, therefore, might be gone into 
 before any agency at all should be proved. 
 
 Mr. James repHed. 
 
 The Committee decided, "that the question 
 might be put." 
 
 Feb. 29. 
 
 Mary Scarborough having been called to Generalevi- 
 prove that her husband had been bribed by the brrbCTy by 
 agents of Mr. Boiling stated, on cross-examina- petitioners 
 
 . - „ , , , tf -t i> allowed to 
 
 tion, that "the other party offered money, be given, ai- 
 Shewas then asked, "What party?" and an- ^'"'si' «eat 
 
 . not prayed, 
 
 swered " Mr. Brooks's and Dr. Bowrmg's." avowed ob- 
 Mr. Wheeler objected to the course of cross- '^^^^°^^^^' 
 examination. If evidence of this sort were ad- being to 
 mitted, evidence ia reply should also be given, ^'^tnew! 
 which the Committee were not in a position to 
 receive. The petitioners did not pray the seat ; 
 and it had been decided inthe Aylesbury case («), 
 that no evidence could be given to affect a can- 
 didate not a petitioner, and not complained of 
 in the petition. 
 
 Mr. James, ia answer to the objection, stated 
 
 (a) 2 Peck. 261. 
 
53 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 that he had put the question, not with a view of 
 entering upon recriminatory evidence, but to 
 show that the witness might be supposed to be 
 influenced in her evidence agaiust Boiling by 
 the conduct of the other parties. The Aylesbury 
 case, therefore, did not apply. He would have a 
 right to ask a witness, on cross-examiuation at 
 Nisi Prius, whether he had not received a con- 
 sideration from the other side to ioilnence his 
 evidence ; and he submitted, that in like manner 
 he could ask a witness who came before the 
 Committee tcr prove bribery agaiast,one party, 
 whether he had not received a consideration 
 from the other party. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler replied. 
 
 The Committee allowed the examination to 
 proceed, but intimated that they wonld stop it 
 the moment it appeared to them to have a 
 tendency to criminate absent parties. 
 
 March 1. It appeared from the evidence of Richard 
 Actsinsuffi- Eccleston, a beer-seller, that on the day before 
 
 cient to . . •' 
 
 establish a the nomination day Henry Knight was at wit- 
 casro/""* ness's house, and jroBflised-±o^>^t4an,^5yjiaM^|^ 
 agency. ale for witn ess's votej^ hat Knight -vaPi^^xid 
 ~ gave ^ ^ m~two ord ^ of Ti"^^ " ^^^^'^ each on a 
 brewer, one order being to supply half a barrel 
 on that day, and the other order, half a barrel 
 on the day foUowrng ; that, in exchange for the 
 one order, which was produced, he received from 
 the brewer half a barrel of ale that night ; that 
 on the same day, after the orders were written. 
 
BOROUGH OF BOLTON. 53 
 
 he went -with Knight to the Elephant and Castle, 
 and having had some drink proceeded to Mr. 
 Boiling's committee-room. The witness further 
 stated, that Luke Fowler, a timber-dealer, gave 
 him ten shillings to vote for BoUing j and that, 
 after voting, one Haslam gave him eighteen 
 shillings for the purchase of a quarter of a 
 barrel of ale, and also paid for more drink in 
 witness's house. . . . 
 
 The evidence to connect Knight and Haslam 
 with the sitting member was the fact of thd r 
 havingj been seen in his committee- room. 
 
 Further evidence was adduced, from which it 
 appeared that treating took place chiefly by 
 orders for beer at pubhc-houses, given by book- 
 keepers and managers in factories, and by shop- 
 keepers in Bolton. Mr. Boiling was never seen 
 canvassing a voter in company with any of the 
 men who gave the orders and bribes; and it 
 appeared that Mr. Bolliag, being in bad health, 
 did not canvass in person, the canvass being 
 conducted by his friends on his behalf. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler summed up the case of the pe- 
 titioners. 
 
 Mr. Seqt. Kinglake addressed the Committee 
 on behalf of Mr. BoUing, but called no wit- 
 nesses. 
 
 The Committee imanimously came to the fol- 
 lowing resolutions, which were ^reported to the 
 House :— Pi„^l „^„. 
 
 1. "That William Boiling, Esq., is dulylations. 
 
54 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 elected a burgess to serve in this present Parlia- 
 ment for the borough of Bolton/'' 
 
 2. "That it was proved to the Committee 
 that James Green was, on his own acknowledg- 
 ment, bribed by the gift of two pounds." 
 
 3. " That Richard Eccleston was, on his own 
 acknowledgment, bribed by the gift of three- 
 fourths of a barrel of ale, and by half a sove- 
 reign." 
 
 4. " That William Chadwick was, on his own 
 acknowledgment, bribed by the promise of five 
 pounds." 
 
 5. " That such payments were not proved to 
 be made by the sitting member or his agents, 
 or with the knowledge and consent of the said 
 William Boiling, Esq." 
 
55 
 
 CASE IX. 
 CITY OF CARLISLE. 1848. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 29th- of Februaay, 
 1848, and conasted of the followiag Members : — 
 
 Edward Divett, Esq., Exeter, 
 {Chairman). 
 
 Hon. Charles S. Clements, 
 
 Leitrim. 
 C. B. Adderley, Esq., Staf- 
 
 shire North. 
 
 William R. C. Stansfidd, Esq.: 
 Huddersfield. 
 
 Viscount Barrington, Berk- 
 shire. 
 
 PeUUoners : — 1. Electors against the return of Mr. Hodgson, 
 2. Electors against the return of Mr. Dixon. 
 
 Sitting Members: — ^William Nicholson Hodgson, Esq., and 
 John Dixon, Esq. 
 
 Counsel for Petitioners against the retwm of Mr. Hodg- 
 son: — Mr. Serjeant Wrangham, Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, 
 and Mr. Burcham. 
 
 Agent: — ^Mr. Cooper. 
 
 Counsel for Petitioners against the return of Mr. Dixon : — 
 Mr. Alexander, Q. C, and Mr. Edwin James. 
 
 Agents: — Messrs. Law, Holmes, and Co. 
 
 Counsel for Sitting Member, Mr. Sodgson : — Mr. Alexander, 
 Q. C, Mr. E. James, and Mr. Merewether. 
 
 Agents: — ^Messrs. Law, Holmes, and Co. 
 
 No parties appeared in defence of the return of the Sitting 
 Member, Mr. Dixon. 
 
 The petition against the return of Mr. Hodg- March i. 
 --IT. allp^ed bribery and treating by himself and Petition 
 
56 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 against Mr. his agents, and prayed the House to declare the 
 Hodgson, election and return of Mr. Hodgson to be hull 
 
 Bribery and -, . , 
 treating. and VOld. 
 
 Petition The petition against the return of Mr. Dixon 
 
 against Mr. alleged " that John Dixon prior to, or at the time 
 
 Dixon. „.,, .,,. 
 
 Govern- ''^^ ^^ smcc the said election and return, had 
 ment con- directly or indirectly himself, or by some person 
 in trust for him, or for his use and benefit, or on 
 his account, undertaken, and did then hold and 
 enjoy in the whole, or in part, a certain contract, 
 agreement, or commission, made or entered into 
 with, under, or from the Master- General, or 
 Board of Ordnance, or with some other person 
 or persons, for or on account of the public ser- 
 vice, and had also knowingly and willingly fur- 
 nished and provided, in pursuance of such con- 
 tract, agreement, or commission, and did furnish 
 and provide in pursuance thereof, certain wares 
 or merchandise to be used or employed in the 
 service of the public j by reason of which con- 
 tract, agreement, and commission, and also by 
 reason of the said furnishing and providings 
 aforesaid, the said John Dison then was and is 
 incapable of being elected at the said election, or 
 of sitting or voting as a member of the House of 
 Commons, by virtue of the statute in such case 
 made and provided." 
 
 t^reS-^"^ ' '^^^ P^*^^«"^ ^1^0 charged bribery and treating 
 against the sitting member and his agents, and 
 prayed the House to declare the election and 
 return of Mr, Dixon to be void. 
 
CITY OF CARLISLE. 57 
 
 The Committee came to the usual resolutions Preliminary 
 with regard to the conduct of the case (a). resolutions. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Wrangham opened a case of treat- March 2. 
 rag against Mr. Hodgson. 
 
 Several witnesses in support of the petitioner's 
 case having been examined, from whose evidence 
 it appeared that an extensive system of treating, 
 by tickets on public-houses, was carried on dur- 
 iag the last election, 
 
 The Chairman intimated, that it was the 
 opinion of the Committee that there had been 
 such an organized system of treating in force 
 at the last election for Carlisle, that it would be 
 unnecessary to carry the evidence upon the 
 point farther; that the nature of the evidence 
 was of such a character that the Committee did 
 not see how it could be refdted. 
 
 Mr. James said, that he understood the opi- 
 nion of the Committee to be to the effect that 
 treating had existed, but that it had not been 
 traced to the sitting member. 
 
 The Chairman stated that, in the opinion 
 of the Committee, there was a great deal of evi- 
 dence affecting Mr. Hodgson, who had been 
 proved to be very busy canvassing with all those 
 parties who were concerned in the election. 
 
 Mr. James stated, on behalf of the sitting mem- 
 ber, that he should be able to rebut or explain a 
 great deal of the evidence which had been given. 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 1. 
 
 d3 
 
58 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 The Chairman mtimatedj that if the counsel 
 for the sitting member could distinctly say that 
 they had the means of rebutting the evidence, as 
 connecting the sitting member with the exten- 
 sive treating which had been carried on, it would 
 be the duty of the Committee to hear any addi- 
 tional evidence that should be adduced on the 
 other side, and leave the coimsel for the peti- 
 tioners to conduct their case in such manner as 
 they thought best. But the Committee were at 
 present of opinion that there was ^conclusive evi- 
 dence of the most extensive system of treating 
 having been carried on at and previous to the 
 election, on the part of those who were conduct- 
 ing the election of Mr. Hodgson. 
 
 Mr. Burcham stated that he had other wit- 
 nesses to call, but after the above intimation, 
 the counsel for the petitioners considered that 
 the best course they could adopt was to close 
 their case. 
 
 March 3. Mr. Alexander, on behalf of the sitting mem- 
 ber, called a witness, Mr. Head, a banker of 
 Carlisle, who stated that he had advanced the 
 funds which were expended in refreshment 
 tickets issued to the voters in Mr. Hodgson^s 
 interest. 
 
 March 6. Mr. Serjt. Wrangham rose to address the 
 Committee in reply, when the Committee inti- 
 mated their opinion that the election of Mr. 
 Hodgson was void ; but that, imder the circum- 
 stances, Mr. Hodgson, the sitting member, was 
 not disqualified by reason of the practices that 
 
CITY OF CARLISLE. 59 
 
 took place at the last election, from being again 
 a candidate. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Wrangham tlien addressed the 
 Committee on behalf of the petitioners, con- 
 tending that the system of treating proved ought 
 to disqualify Mr. Hodgson from being again a 
 candidate. 
 
 The Committee resolved, — 
 
 1. "That William Nicholson Hodgson, Esq., Final reso- 
 is not duly elected a citizen to serve in the pre- '"'•°°s- 
 sent Parliament for the city of Carlisle." 
 
 2. " That the last election for the said city of 
 Carhsle, so far as regards the return of the said 
 William Nicholson Hodgson, Esq., is a void 
 election." 
 
 3. "That Wmiam Nicholson Hodgson, Esq., 
 was by his agents guilty of treating at the last 
 election for the said city." 
 
 4. " That it was not proved that these acts of Special 
 treating were committed at the expense of the ""^solution, 
 said WiUiam Nicholson Hodgson, Esq., Mr. ing not at 
 Head, a banker of Carlisle, haviag advanced gfj"^™^^ °* 
 funds to the extent of more than 1200/., the member, 
 greater part of which was expended by means 
 
 of tickets for refreshment, issued to the voters 
 at Mr. Hodgson's committee-room during three 
 weeks previous to the election, and up to the 
 close of the poU, and receivable at numerous 
 public-houses." 
 
 5. "That it was proved to the Committee 
 that the expenses of the conveyance of several 
 
60 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 non-resident freemen were paid to the place of 
 polling, and that, subsequent to polling, a sum 
 of money was paid to several of them, which ex- 
 ceeded the necessary expense of their return 
 journey and loss of time. The opinion of the 
 Committee is, that practices of this character, if 
 not strictly illegal, must always he open to the 
 most serious abuses, and require regulation by 
 some definite enactment" (a) . 
 
 Upon peti- Mr. Alexander, in opening the case on behalf 
 a member'* °^ the petitioners, against the return of Mr. 
 on ground Dixon, on the ground that he was a partner in a 
 was a government contract, mquired whether the Com- 
 government mittec would be disposed to take a letter of the 
 letter of ' agents, containing notice of non-defence of the 
 his agent ggg,* as sufi&cient evidence of the fact. 
 
 containing mi /-^ • • i n r. 
 
 notice of The Committee required proof of the facts 
 not defend- g^^ted by Mr. Alexander. 
 
 ing the seat, •' 
 
 not suffi- 
 
 e'ridence re- ^^^ foUowing letter was put in and proved : — 
 
 quired of 
 
 ^^' f " Carlisle Election. 
 
 member 
 
 being such « Gentlemen,— We beg to inform you that 
 
 government ' o j 
 
 contractor, it is not the intention of Mr. Dixon to defend 
 his seat for the borough of Carlisle. 
 
 "Yours, &c., 
 (Signed) " Fearon and Clabon." 
 
 (a) Mr. Hodgson became a candidate, and was re- 
 turned at the next election, and was not petitioned 
 against. 
 
CITY OF CARLISLE. 61 
 
 Evidence having been also given that Mr. 
 Drson was a partner in the Blenkinsop Coal 
 Company, who at the time of the election had 
 a contract to supply the Ordnance Department 
 with coal, 
 
 The Committee resolved, — 
 
 6. " That John Dixon, Esq., is not duly Final reso- 
 elected a citizen to serve in this present Parlia- ""<'"^- 
 ment for the city of Carlisle." 
 
 7. " That the last election for the said city, 
 so far as regards the return of the said John 
 Dixon, Esq., is a void election " (a) . 
 
 (a) These two resolutions, together with the five pre- 
 vious resolutions, page 59, were reported to the House. 
 
62 
 
 CASE X. 
 BOROUGH OF BEWDLEY. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 3rd of March, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 William Battie Wrightson, Esq., Northallerton, 
 (Chairmmi). 
 
 Viscount Castlereagh, Down 
 Comity. 
 
 William Hutt, Esq., Gates- 
 head. 
 
 WiUiam Tatton Egerton, 
 Esq., Cheshire, North. 
 
 Sir Thomas Bernard Birch, 
 Bart., Liverpool. 
 
 Petitioners : — ^Electors. 
 
 Sitting Member: — Thomas James Ireland, Esq. 
 
 CouMsel for Petitioners: — Mr. Serjeant Wrangham, Mr. 
 
 Serjeant Kinglake, and Mr. Edwin James. 
 
 Agents: — Messrs. Pearon and Clabon, Mr. Elgie, and 
 
 Mr. Watson. 
 
 Cotmsel for Sitting Member and for JElectors admitted to 
 defend the return .—Mr. Alexander, Q. C, Mr. Words- 
 worth, and Mr. Clerk. 
 
 Agents: — Mr. Strutt, Mr. Heath, Mr. Pritchard, and 
 Mr. Pardee. 
 
 The usual resolutions with regard to the con- 
 duct of the case were agreed to by the Com- 
 mittee (a). 
 
 The petition charged bribery and treating 
 against the sitting member and his agents, and 
 prayed a scrutiny, and the seat for Sir T. E. 
 Winniagton. 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 1. 
 
BOROUGH OF BEWDLEY. 63 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham opened a case of bribery 
 and treating, and also of scrutiny. 
 
 The poll-books were received ia evidence. 
 
 William Lawley, a voter, in examination by March 6. 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake, was asked as to a conver- 
 sation whicb he had with one Tart, previous to 
 the election. 
 
 Mr. Alexander objected. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake stated that he was in a 
 condition to show hereafter that Tart was an 
 agent, and, under these circumstances, he was 
 entitled to give in evidence anything done by 
 him even before he was proved to be an agent ; 
 that any act done by Tart in the progress of 
 the election would be material by and by, when 
 the Committee should come to consider the 
 question of agency. He cited the Cambridge 
 case {a). He admitted that the question had 
 no relation to the case immediately before the 
 Committee ; but his object was to show that 
 Tart was an agent, and the present was a con- 
 venient time for doing so. 
 
 Mr. Alexander, in support of the objection. — 
 He did not object to acts done being given in 
 evidence; but he did to declarations made not 
 in the presence of the principal. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake explained that the course 
 which he was about to pursue was not to prove 
 a mere conversation, but a conversation in con- 
 
 (a) B. & Am. 179. 
 
64 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 nection with an offer made to the voter, which 
 was therefore evidence of an act. 
 
 Mr. Alexander further contended, that a de- 
 claration which might have a tendency to injure 
 Mr. Ireland's case could not be given in evi- 
 dence until the party making it was shown to 
 be an agent of Mr. Ireland's ; and also argued 
 the point upon the general principle, that hear- 
 say evidence was not admissible. 
 
 The Committee allowed the examination to 
 proceed, stating that if it should turn out to be 
 a mere declaration, they would attach no value 
 to it. 
 
 March 7. In the course of the case, it was shown that a 
 General biU for printing notices and circulars had come 
 produce!" iato tlie hands of Mr. Pardoe, one of the sitting 
 where suffi- members' agents. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham stated that Mr. Pardoe 
 had been served with a warrant to produce all 
 papers and accounts connected with the elec- 
 tion ; and he would avail himself of the power 
 which he had to call upon him to produce them, 
 without putting him into the box as a witness. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham then called upon Mr. 
 Pardoe to produce the documents on the war- 
 rant served upon him, and, among others, the 
 bill delivered by the last witness for printing 
 connected with the election. 
 
 Mr. Alexander submitted, that the notice to 
 produce was not sufficiently specific ; that it did 
 not direct particular attention to the precise 
 document wanted, but merely to accounts in 
 
BOROUGH OF BEWDLEY. 65 
 
 general terms; and therefore that it was in- 
 sufficient, and did not entitle the other side 
 to call for the production of the document in 
 question. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham submitted, that the at- 
 tention of Mr. Pardoe had been directed to the 
 accounts of the last election for the borough of 
 Bewdley ; that his clients could not be supposed 
 to know precisely what accounts or documents 
 were in the hands of particular witnesses ; that 
 the practice in these cases, from the nature of 
 them, was in conformity with the notice here 
 given, and must inevitably be so, seeing that 
 the precise facts were concealed from the anta- 
 gonist party ; that here they had been as specific 
 as they possibly could be, namely, by saying the 
 accoimts connected with the election; if they 
 were required to go further, no accounts would 
 be produced at all, inasmuch as they could not 
 specify them more minutely ; that he now de- 
 sired Mr. Pardoe to produce upon his warrant 
 all the accounts in his possession ; that he did 
 not want a part of the accounts, but the whole of 
 them, and therefore they had been described as 
 all the accounts of the election. He cited the 
 Youghal case (a), where a notice in precisely 
 those general terms was objected to, but held to 
 be quite sufficient. 
 
 The Chairman stated that the Committee were 
 of opinion that the notice was sufficiently spe- 
 cific. 
 
 (a) F. & F. 387. 
 
66 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Wrangham then called on Mr. 
 Pardoe upon the warrant to produce the ac- 
 counts of the election ; and on his stating that 
 he had not got them, 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham contended that a wit- 
 ness served with a subpoena duces tecum was 
 bound to bring into court any document in- 
 cluded in it ; in this case they had specified docu- 
 ments, but Mr. Pardoe had not produced them. 
 He called upon him to obey the Speaker^s war- 
 rant. 
 
 The Chairman inquired whether he was asking 
 Mr. Pardoe for accounts only. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham replied, that he was 
 
 only asking for all accounts in his possession. 
 
 He now called upon him to produce all the 
 
 accounts in his possession ; one account, namely 
 
 the printer's biU, had already been traced to him ; 
 
 if Mr. Pardoe refused to produce them, he must 
 
 call upon the Committee to take further steps. 
 
 March 8. After an adjournment the Chairman stated that 
 
 Unless a the Committee had been applied to by the coun- 
 
 regularly sel for the petitioners, to adopt certain proceed- 
 
 sworn, jjigg ^th respect to Mr. Pardoe : that the Com- 
 
 Committee r ,, 
 
 will not mittee would not take the proceedings that were 
 
 their autho- ^^g^^ted, unless the petitioners chose to make 
 rity. him a witness by having him sworn in the re- 
 
 gular way. 
 
 March 10. The Committee subsequently resolved : — 
 Final reso- 1. « That Thomas James Ireland, Esq., is not 
 
 lutions. jiini 'IJ 
 
 duly elected a burgess to serve in this present 
 Parliament for the borough of Bewdley." 
 
BOROUGH OF BEWDLEY. 67 
 
 2. "That it was proved to the Committee 
 that Edward Price had been bribed by the pay- 
 ment of 15/. by James Banks, an agent of the 
 said Thomas James Ireland, Esq." 
 
 3. "That it was not proved to the Committee 
 that the said act of bribery was committed with 
 the knowledge and consent of the said Thomas 
 James Ireland, Esq." 
 
 4. "That the said Thomas James Ireland, 
 Esq., did. by his agents commit acts of treating 
 for the purpose of imduly influencing the elec- 
 tors of the said borough." 
 
 Mr. Alexander applied to the Committee for where ge- 
 
 costs in the cases of alleged bribery which had "*''"* , 
 ° •' charge of 
 
 not been gone into by the petitioners. Ten bribery has 
 cases appeared in the list furnished to the agents b^ghed*'*' 
 of Mr. Ireland, three only of which had been Committee 
 brought before the Committee : he therefore gran" costs 
 submitted, that under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103, inrespectto 
 sect. 92, he was entitled to costs upon seven cases which 
 
 cases have been 
 
 abandoned. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham and Mr. Seijt. King- 
 lake, against the application, contended that the 
 section merely referred to the general allegation 
 of either bribery or treating, and not to the 
 specific cases included in the lists, which were 
 not delivered in under the Act, but under pre- 
 liminary resolutions passed at the discretion of 
 each Committee ; that the Committee, by their 
 resolutions just passed, had declared that both 
 the allegations of bribery and treating were 
 sTistained. If parties were compelled to enter 
 
68 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 into every case after they were satisfied that they 
 had estabUshed enough for their purpose, it 
 would lead to an unnecessary prolonging of in- 
 quiries of this kind; that one case was as good 
 as one hundred for this purpose ; and that it was 
 clearly within the discretion of the petitioners 
 to stop when they pleased, without incurring the 
 penalty of costs now claimed. 
 
 Mr. Alexander, in reply, contended that the 
 words of the section were applicable to the spe- 
 cific cases alleged before the Select Committee 
 appointed for the trial of the petition. 
 
 The Committee decided that they would not 
 accede to the application as to costs. 
 
 March 11. Mr. Alexander opened a recriminatory case 
 of bribery and treating against Sir T. Winning- 
 ton, as weU as acts of intimidation. 
 Declaration George Bennett, a voter, in examination by 
 by a voter ]y[j, Wordsworth, was asked as to a conversation 
 
 alleged to . . „ 
 
 have beea With one Davis, m reference to his vote. 
 aUe'^ed'"*" ^^' ^^^*- Wrangham objected to any conver- 
 agentj sations being given in evidence to affect Sir T. 
 of laHer^did Wnuington, unless those conversations were 
 not appear held with an agent of Sir T. Witinington, or by 
 bery lists ^ person whom it was intended to charge as an 
 handedinto agent. Lists had been deUvered in, in which it 
 mittee, not was stated that George Bennett had been bribed, 
 
 admissible ^nd the parties bribing were also given: but 
 in evidence, -r. . o » 
 
 Davis's name was not included. 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth. — The first objection is met 
 
 by the 4 & 5 Vict. c. 57, which dispenses with 
 
 the proof of agency in the first instance. As to 
 
BOROUGH OF BEWDLEY. 69 
 
 the second objectioiij it is not necessary to in- 
 clude all the names in the lists. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Wrangham replied. — The 4 & 5 
 Vict. c. 57, does not dispense with the necessity 
 of giving legal proof. The lists will become a 
 mere nullity, if conversations with any other 
 persons than those in the lists are allowed to 
 be given in evidence. 
 
 The Committee decided that the question 
 should not be put. 
 
 In answer to the case made against Sir T. March 16. 
 Winnington, A surety to 
 
 Mr. Seqt. Wrangham proposed to call his is a com- 
 agent, Mr. Elgie. petentwit- 
 
 o ' o ^ ness under 
 
 Mr. 'Alexander objected to his being examined, 6 & 7 Viot. 
 as he was a surety to the petition. ^^^ 8 Viot 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Wrangham and Mr. Seqt. King- >=. 103, 
 lake contended that the effect of 3 & 4 Will. 4, 
 c. 42, and 6 & 7 Vict. c. 85, was to render com- 
 petent a person who had a mere pecuniary and 
 collateral interest in the suit, such as that aris- 
 ing from being a surety ; and cited Sinclair v. 
 Sinclair (a). 
 
 Mr. Alexander in reply. — The objection does 
 not arise upon Lord Denman's Act, but upon 
 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103, sect. 77, which empowers a 
 Committee to examine a petitioner, " unless it 
 shall otherwise appear to such Committee that 
 
 (a) 13 M. & W. 640. 
 
70 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 such person is an interested witness/' The case 
 
 of Sinclair v. Sinclair does not apply («). 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That Mr. Elgie 
 
 may be examined as a witness." Ayes, 3 ; Mr. 
 
 Wrightson, Sir T. Birch, Mr. Hutt : Noes, 3 ; 
 
 Mr. Egerton, Viscount Castlereagh. 
 March 17. The Committee finally resolved : — 
 Final reso- 1. "That the last election for the borough of 
 lutions. Bewdley is a void election." 
 
 2. "That Sir Thomas Edward Wumington, 
 Bart., a candidate at the last election for the 
 borough of Bewdley, was by his agents guilty of 
 treating, by giving meat, drink, and entertain- 
 ment after the teste' of the writ." 
 
 3. " That it was proved before the Committee 
 that a practice prevailed at the borough of 
 Bewdley in the last election, as well as in that 
 of 1841, of carrying away and treating electors, 
 and that, in consequence of this system, large 
 bodies of men were employed on both sides for 
 the alleged protection of voters; that almost 
 every pubhc-house and beer-house in the bo- 
 rough was kept open during the week of the 
 election, and drink given away to a large ex- 
 tent" {b). 
 
 (a) See now 11 & 12 Vict. o. 98, s. 83, and 14 & 15 
 Vict. c. 99. 
 
 (J) These resolutions, together with the four of 10th 
 March, cmte, p. 66, were reported to the House. 
 
71 
 
 CASE XI. 
 BOROUGH OP HARWICH. 1848. 
 
 The Committtee was appointed on the 7th of March, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Eight Hon. J. A. Stuart Wortley, Buteshire, 
 (Chairman). 
 
 Sir W. Molesworth, Bart., Hon. J. E. Elliott, Esq., Eox- 
 
 Southwark. hurgshire. 
 
 William Beckett (a), Esq.. Sir Edmund S. Hayes, Bart., 
 
 Leeds. Donegal. 
 
 PeUtioner : — An Elector. 
 
 SitUng Member petitioned against : — John Attwood, Esq. 
 
 Cowmel for Petitioner: — Mr. Seijeant Wrangham, Mr. 
 Serjeant Kinglake, and Mr. D. Power. 
 
 Agent : — ^Mr. T. Baker. 
 
 Conmsel for Sitting Member : — ^Mr. Biggs Andrews, Q. C, 
 Mr. Alexander, Q. C, and Mr. E. James. 
 
 Agents : — Messrs. Law and Co., Messrs. Elmslie and Preston, 
 and Mr. George Rusk. 
 
 March 8. 
 
 The usual resolutions with regard to the con- Preiimi- 
 duct of the case were agreed to (6). tionV^°°'"" 
 
 {a) Mr. Beckett was not present on the 10th of 
 March, within one hour after the time to which the 
 
 (h) Ante, p. 1. 
 
72 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Petition. The petition, which was headed " A Petition of 
 Henry John Philbrick, an Elector of the Borough 
 of Harwich, in the County of Essex, who had 
 and claims to have had a right to vote at the 
 last Election of Members to serve in Parlia- 
 ment for the said borough," set forth "that 
 the petitioner was, at the last election of mem- 
 bers to serve in this present Parliament for the 
 said borough of Hanvich, an elector of the said 
 borough, and was registered as such elector, 
 and had a right to vote for members for the said 
 borough at the said election, and did vote there- 
 Briberyand at." It then alleged bribery and treating against 
 treating. -^^ Attwood and his agents, and prayed the 
 House to declare the election and return of Mr. 
 Atwood to be null and void. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Wrangham opened a case of bribery 
 and treating against the sitting member and his 
 agents. 
 
 The poll-books were received in evidence, and 
 
 the name of the petitioner appeared therein, as 
 
 having voted. 
 
 Having Mr. Andrews objected to the petition being 
 
 vo*te" and" proceeded with, on the ground that the petitioner 
 
 having had no right to petition, not having had a right 
 
 Committee was adjourned. The Committee therefore 
 adjourned till the next day, and reported his absence to 
 the House. A physician was examined at the bar of 
 the House, who stated that Mr. Beckett was too 
 imwell to attend the Committee, and the House ordered 
 him to be discharged from further attendance. 
 
BOROUGH OF HARWICH. 73 
 
 to vote. Although the petitioner's name is on actuaUy 
 the register, and although the fact of his name '?'«?> »"ffi- 
 hemgon the register entitled him to goto the poll, title a party 
 and to tender his vote, yet that does not make his 1,?,^* * •■'''■ 
 vote a good vote, so as to give him the right to 
 petition. In the present case, it is proposed to 
 give evidence to show that the petitioner parted 
 with his qualification between the time of regis- 
 tration and that of poUing. By the proviso to 
 sect. 79 of 6 Vict. c. 18, continuous residence 
 up to the day of poUing is necessary. ' 
 
 The Committee, without calling on the other 
 side to answer the objection, resolved ''That the 
 petitioner having claimed to vote at the election, 
 and having actually voted, the Committee are 
 of opinion that they must proceed with the 
 case" (a). 
 
 James Smith, a printer at Harwich, being March ii. 
 asked, in examination by the counsel for the Notice to 
 petitioner, to refer to his book with reference to "'aii^win- 
 an account sent in to Mr. Rusk, the secretary t^rs' bills," 
 of the sitting member, for lists of voters, books, let in se- 
 
 (a) The statute of 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103, enacts, " That no 
 election petition shall be received by the House, unless 
 at the time it. is presented it shall be subscribed by 
 some person claiming therein to have had a right to 
 vote at the election to which the same shall relate.'' 
 The corresponding provision in 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98, is 
 as follows : " which petition shall be subscribed by some 
 person who voted, or had a right to vote, at the election 
 to which the same relates." 
 
74 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 condaryevi- and other documents supplied to Mr. Haste, an 
 Mcounf *" alleged agent of the sitting memher, for the pur- 
 sent in by poses of the registration in 1847, 
 tJ'secretary ^^- Andrews objected to the reception of se- 
 of sitting condary evidence. — The words " aU printers' 
 for'books, bills," in the notice to produce, are too general 
 &c., fur- to include the account in question, and there- 
 
 nished to an . . „ . 
 
 alleged lore secondary evidence cannot be given oi it : 
 agent of sit- moreover, this account being a biU for the lists 
 
 ting mem- ' p i i • 
 
 ber for pur- of voters at the registration of 1847, has nothing 
 girtration^' *° ^o ^*^ *^^ election of 1847, which proceeded 
 upon the registration of 1846. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake, in answer to the objec- 
 tion, contended that the notice to produce was 
 sufficient to include this account. 
 
 The Committee decided that the notice to 
 produce was sufficient. 
 
 The Committee finally agreed to the follow- 
 ing resolutions, which were reported to the 
 House : — 
 March 14. 1. "That John Attwood, Esq., is not duly 
 Final reso- elected a burgess, to serve in this present Par- 
 liament for the borough of Harwich." 
 
 2. " That the last election for the borough of 
 Harwich, so far as regards the return of the said 
 John Attwood, Esq., is a void election." 
 
 3. "That the said John Attwood, Esq., was 
 by his agents guilty of bribery at the said last 
 election." 
 
 4. " That Edward Saxby was bribed to vote 
 for John Attwood, Esq., by an advance of money 
 
BOROUGH OF HARWICH. 75 
 
 to the amount of 41 Z. and upwards, for the 
 purpose of discharging a debt due from him, 
 and releasing his vessel, which had heen seized 
 as the security for that deht; but it was not 
 proved that this bribery was committed with the 
 knowledge and consent of the said John Att- 
 wood, Esq." 
 
 5. " That it was proved to the Committee 
 that John Horlock received 201., and James 
 Knight received 16Z., under the pretence of loss 
 of time and demurrage on the detention of them- 
 selves and their vessels during the election ; but 
 it was not proved to the Committee that such 
 sums of money were paid to procure or influ- 
 ence their votes for the said John Attwood, 
 Esq." 
 
 6. "That it was proved to the Committee 
 that there was treating to some extent, but not 
 by whose orders or authority it was supplied." 
 
 E 2 
 
76 
 
 CASE XII. 
 1848. CITY OF LINCOLN. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 7th of March, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Morgan John O'Conncll, Esq., Kerry, 
 (Chairmcm). 
 
 William Miles, Esq., Somerset, 
 
 East. 
 James H. Langston, Esq., 
 
 Oxford, City. 
 
 William Lockhart, Esq., La- 
 
 nartshire. 
 John Benjamin Smith, Esq., 
 
 Stirling district. 
 
 Petitioners : — Electors. 
 
 Sitting Member petitioned against : — Charles Seely, Esq. 
 
 Cotmselfor Petitioners: — Mr. Seijeant Wrangham and 
 Mr. Wordsworth. 
 
 Agents: — ^Mr. H. WiUiams, Messrs. Taylor and CoUison, 
 and Mr. E. Knight. 
 
 Cownsel for Sifting Member: — Mx. Seijeant Kinglake, and 
 Mr. E. James. 
 
 Agents: — Mr. Coppock, Mr. Kealey, and Mr. Keyworth. 
 
 March 8. The Committee agreed to the usual pre- 
 Prelimi- liminary resolutions (a) . 
 
 Tiarv rpjin. * ^ ' 
 
 nary reso- 
 lutions. 
 
 Petition. The petition alleged bribery and treating 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 1. 
 
CITY or LINCOLN. 77 
 
 against the sitting member and his agents^ and Bribery and 
 prayed the House to declare the election and*""'"^" 
 return of Mr. Seeley to be null and void. 
 
 At the commencement of the proceedings, a person 
 
 when the names of the agents on each side were ?"' * P™" 
 , ° lessional 
 
 handed m, man, but a 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Wrangham objected to Mr. Key- ^^J[°^' "^ 
 worth and Mr. Kealey remaining in the room member, 
 as agents, on the ground that they were notj^^^^nin 
 professional men, Mr. Keyworth being a partner, ^^^ '■oo™ »« 
 and Mr. Kealey being a clerk of the sitting though he 
 member, and that they were persons whom, in "'6i>' ^ 
 all probability, the petitioners would have to call witness, 
 as witnesses. 
 
 In support of the right of Mr. Kealey and 
 Mr. Keyworth to remain in the room, the 
 Second Ipswich case {a) was relied on. 
 
 The Committee decided that Mr. Keyworth 
 the partner might remain, but that Mr. Kealey 
 the clerk ought not to remain ia the room. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham opened a case of bribery Evidence 
 aiid treating. "[-"^J^ 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth, in attempting to connect on the part 
 Alderman Gresham with a case of bribery, alleged °j™d°° 
 to have taken place at the " Black Goats " pub- lists handed 
 lie-house, asked a voter, Joseph Talkes, in exami- joittee in-' 
 nation, what Alderman Gresham said to him and admissible. 
 his friends on the occasion referred to. 
 
 (a) Bar. & Aust. 586. 
 
78 
 
 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Mr. James objected to the statement of Gre- 
 sham to the witness being received in evidence, 
 on the ground that Gresham's name was not 
 contained in the lists delivered in of persona 
 alleged to have given bribes, it being stated in 
 such Usts that the witness was bribed by 
 " Whelpton and Kealey, and others imlcnown." 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth, in support of his right to 
 put the question, contended that it was sufficient 
 to have given in the names of some of the parties 
 connected with the act of bribery. 
 
 The Committee were of opinion that no evi- 
 dence of any act of bribery on the part of Gre- 
 sham could be given, as he had not been named 
 in the lists handed in to the Committee. 
 
 March 10. 
 
 Final reso- 
 lutions. 
 
 Further evidence having been given as to the 
 bribery and treating alleged in the petition. 
 
 The Committee agreed to the following final 
 resolutions for report to the House : — 
 
 1. "That Charles Seely, Esq., is not duly 
 elected a citizen to serve in this present Parlia- 
 ment for the city of Lincoln." 
 
 3. " That the last election for the said city, 
 so far as regards the return of the said Charles 
 Seely, Esq., is a void election." 
 
 3. "That Charles Seely, Esq., was by his 
 agent guilty of bribery at the last election for 
 the said city." 
 
 4. " That it has been proved to the Committee 
 that John Shaw was bribed by the payment of 
 10*. made after the election, by Joseph Kealey, 
 
CITY OF LINCOLN. 79 
 
 an agent of the sitting member, Charles Seely, 
 Esq. ; but there is no evidence to show that this 
 act of bribery was committed with the know- 
 ledge and consent of the said Charles Seely, 
 Esq." (a). 
 
 5. "That Charles Seely, Esq., did, directly 
 and indirectly, provide and knowingly allow to 
 be provided, wholly or partly at his expense, 
 drink and entertainment for several persons 
 before the election, for the purpose of corruptly 
 influencing such persons to give or refrain from 
 giving their votes at such election." 
 
 6. " That it appears to the Committee that a 
 system of treating has for a long time prevailed 
 in the city of Lincoln, at and previously to elec- 
 tions, by the candidates or their agents opening 
 the houses of publicans, and distributing gra- 
 tuitously to the electors and others, drink and 
 entertainment, for the purpose of corruptly in- 
 fluencing the votes of such electors, and also of 
 the publicans whose houses were thus opened." 
 
 7. "That it was proved to the Committee, 
 that subsequent to polling, sums of money were 
 paid to several non-resident voters, for the ex- 
 penses of their journeys and loss of time, which 
 exceeded the necessary expenses on those ac- 
 counts. It is the opinion of this Committee 
 that practices of this character must always be 
 
 (a) The Committee divided on tlda resolution; 
 Aj/es, 3 : Mr. MUes, Mr. Lockhart, Mr. O'Connell. 
 Noes, 2 : Mr. Langston, Mr. Smith. 
 
80 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 open to most serious abuses, and require regula- 
 tion by some definite enactment ; but that clause 
 20 of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 103, is so general and in- 
 definite, as necessarily to lead to varied and 
 contradictory reports from election committees. 
 
 » 
 
»1 
 
 CASE XIII. 
 
 BOROUGH AND HUlfDREDS OF 1848. 
 
 AYLESBURY. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 10th of March, 1848, 
 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Robert Palmer, Esq., Berkshire, 
 
 (^Chairman). 
 
 John Lewis Bicardo, Esq., 
 
 Stoke-npon-Trent. 
 Matthew Elias Corbally, Esq., 
 
 Meath County. 
 
 George Walker Heneage, 
 
 Augustus Stafford, Esq., 
 Northamptonshire North. 
 
 Petitioners : — 1. Acton Tindal, an Elector, against the retuHi 
 of John Peter Deering, Esq. 
 2. Electors, against the return of Lord Nugent. 
 
 Sitting Members : — John Peter Deering, Esq., and Lord 
 Nugent. 
 
 Cotmsel for Petitioner against the retwm of J. P. Deering, 
 Usq. : — ^Mr. Alexander, Q. C, and Mr. W. H. Cooke. 
 
 Agents ; — Messrs. Wilkinson and Gumey. 
 
 !• Petitioners against the return of Lore 
 Mr. Edwin James. 
 
 Agents : — ^Messrs. Law, Holmes, & Co, 
 
 'or Sitting Member, J. P. Deering, 2 
 race Twiss, Q. C, and Mr. Edwin Ja 
 
 Agents: — ^Messrs. Law, Holmes, and Co., and Mr. Hatton, 
 
 Counsel for Sitting Member, Lord Nugent: — Mr. M. D. 
 Hill, Q. C, and Mr. Wordsworth. 
 
 Agents : — ^Messrs. Sudlow and Eingdon, and Mr. Watson. 
 
 Counsel for Petitioners against the return of Lord Nugent : — 
 Mr. Edwin James. 
 
 Counsel for Sitting Member, J. P. Deering, &q. : — Mr. 
 Horace Twiss, Q. C, and Mr. Edwin James. 
 
 The Committee agreed to the usual prelimi- March ii. 
 
 nary resolutions (a)? Prelimi- 
 _^^^.^_^ nary reso- 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 1. '"t>ons- 
 
 £3 
 
82 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Petitions. The petition against Mr. Deering, which was 
 headed "A Petition of Acton Tindal of Ayles- 
 biuy, Gentleman," set forth "that the petitioner 
 was at and during the last election of members 
 for the borough of Aylesbury, a registered elec- 
 tor, and had a right to vote at the said election." 
 
 Briberyand It then alleged bribery and treating agaiast Mr. 
 
 treating, p^g^^jj^ ^^^ ]jis agents, and prayed the House 
 to declare the election and return of Mr. Deer- 
 ing null and void. 
 
 The petition against Lord Nugent was of a 
 similar nature, and prayed that the election and 
 return of Lord Nugent might be declared void. 
 
 The evidence given on the first petition was 
 confined to treating. 
 
 Where pe- Mr. Alexander was proceeding to open the 
 
 naiMhad ^^^ °^ *^® petition against the return of Mr. 
 
 been al- Deering, when Mr. Tvnss objected to Mr. Alex- 
 
 remain on o-nder being heard, on the ground that Acton 
 
 register Tindal, the petitioner, had no right to vote at 
 
 jection at the last election, as alleged in his petition, and 
 
 lastrevi- therefore had no locus standi before the Com- 
 
 sion, Com- 
 mittee mittee. 
 refuse to rpj^g following dates and facts were admitted 
 
 enter upon ^ 
 
 question of by Counsel, and agreed to be taken as proved : — 
 
 his right to „ rpij^^ tj^g rf^^ Qf j^^g^ jg33^ ^^g ^j^g ^^^ ^^ 
 
 which the Royal assent was given to the Reform 
 Bill. 
 
 "That Acton Tiadal did not come of age 
 until the 20th of July, 1833 ; that he was of 
 
BOROUGH AND HUNDREDS OF AYLESBURY. 83 
 
 age at the time of the first registration under 
 the Reform Bill, and that he voted at aU subse- 
 quent elections. 
 
 " That he had heen twice objected to on regis- 
 tration, and the objections had been overruled. 
 
 "That he was on the register, and claimed 
 the right to vote on one of the reserved rights of 
 the borough of Aylesbury, namely, as an Ayles- 
 bury freeholder. 
 
 " That he had not been objected to on the last 
 revision." 
 
 Mr. Twiss then argued, that under the Reform 
 Act no person coidd have the right to vote for 
 an Aylesbury reserved freehold, who would not 
 have had such right to vote on the 7th of June, 
 1832 ; and inasmuch as Mr. Tiadal was not then 
 of age, he was, by statutory enactments, pre- 
 vented from having that right, and could never 
 afterwards acquire it ; and that, with regard to 
 the 98t& section of the 6th Vict. c. 18, there was 
 reserved to the Comnuttee the power of inquir- 
 ing into the right to vote of any pei-son who was 
 under a statutory disqualification, whether ob- 
 jected to before the revising barrister or not. 
 
 Mr. Alexander, in answer, contended that 
 Acton Tindal, having claimed a right to be a 
 voter for the borough of Aylesbury, was entitled 
 to petition, and that there having been no ob- 
 jection to his vote upon the register in force at 
 the time of the election, there was no power in 
 the Committee now to open the register, and to 
 enter into the question of his right tp vote ; but 
 
84 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 if they did so, under the construction of the dif- 
 ferent Acts of Parliament, Acton Tindal was en- 
 titled to be placed upon the first register after 
 the Eeform Bill, and in consequence was entitled 
 to vote, and therefore to become a petitioner. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That Mr. Alex- 
 ander do proceed with the case in support of the 
 petition "(a). 
 
 March 13. Mr. Naylor, on producing the poll-books from 
 
 Where a the office of the Clerk of the Crown, stated that 
 
 porting to they had been received by post in the ordinary 
 
 come from course, and that by the same post a letter had 
 
 the return- , . 
 
 ing officer also been received, purportiag to be signed by 
 Crot^ Of! ^^^ Constables and Returning Officers of Ayles- 
 
 fice by the bury. 
 
 as°thepoll. ^'^ ^^- Alexander proposing to read this 
 
 books to letter, 
 
 refers, such ^^- Tkoiss objected, that the letter could not 
 
 letter is ad- ^e read without proof beiag given that it was in 
 
 evidence, the handwriting of the Constables and Returning 
 
 andidenti- Officers. 
 
 nes the 
 
 poll-books The Committee directed the letter to be read, 
 
 Joof of ^^^^^ ^^ ^ fo^o^s =— 
 
 hand- 
 
 '"''"S- " Aylesbury, 29th July, 1847. 
 
 " SiK, — "We have the honour to acquaint you 
 
 {a) Upon the room being cleared, it was moved 
 " That the objection taken by Mr. Twiss to the right of 
 Acton Tindal to petition is sustained." The Com- 
 mittee divided: Ayes, 2: Mr. Stafford, Mr. Pahner. 
 Noes, 3 : Mr. Eicardo, Mr. Heneage, Mr. Corbally. 
 
BOROUGH AND HUNDREDS OF AYLESBURY. 85 
 
 that by this nighf s post we have transmitted a 
 parcel addressed to you, containing the six poll- 
 books at the election of Members to serve in 
 Parliament for the borough and hundreds of 
 Aylesbury, pursuant to the statute 6th Vict. c. 
 18, sect. 93. 
 
 "We have the honour to be, 
 
 ' " Sir, your most obedient servants, 
 
 "William Cross, Lawrence- 
 
 Wootton, 
 "Richard Stedman, 
 " David Ferguson, 
 
 " Constables and Returning Ofl&cers 
 of the Borough and Hundreds of 
 Aylesbury. 
 
 " To the Clerk of the Crown in her 
 Majesty's High Court of Chancery." 
 
 Mr. 7\viss then further objected, that under 
 the words of 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 93, " the return- 
 ing oflScer is required at the time of transmit-' 
 ting such poll-books as aforesaid through the 
 post-office, to address and forward a letter by 
 the same post to the clerk of the crown, inform- 
 ing him of such transmission, and giving the 
 number and description of such poll-books so 
 transmitted." Unless, therefore, proof be given 
 that this letter came from the returning officers, 
 as the letter and the poll-books did not come in 
 the same packet, there is nothing to identify 
 
86 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 these poll-books as being those of the borough 
 of Aylesbury. 
 
 The Committee, without calling on Mr. 
 Alexander, decided that the poll-books were 
 admissible in evidence. 
 
 March 17. The Committee, on an application by Mr. 
 ^"^ Alexander, which was opposed by M.v..Twiss, 
 house has allowed the Nag's Head Inn to be inserted in 
 d^nt^i""'' *^^ ^^®* °^ public-houses handed in under the 
 omitted 5th preliminary resolution, such house having 
 handed in ^^^^ accidentally omitted from the list, although 
 to Com- the name of the house and of the landlord had 
 included in ^^en included in a notice furnished to the sit- 
 notice to ting member's agents. 
 
 other side, 
 leave given 
 
 to insert it. j^j.. Alexander proposed to put in evidence 
 certain documents and addresses; but Mr. 
 Twiss objected to their reception, as the hand- 
 writing had not been proved. 
 Witness Mr. Alexander called a witness to prove the 
 
 beenin^ handwriting, when Mr. James submitted that 
 room the witness having been in the room while 
 ceedings, ' ^^^ discussion as to the reception of the docu- 
 *rov«hand ™®°*® '^^ going ou, his evidence ought not to 
 writing. be received. 
 
 Mr. Alexander. — The rule of the Committee 
 could not be intended to go to this length, that 
 a party who had been fully examined, when any 
 matter subsequently arose upon which it was 
 necessary to give evidence, should be excluded 
 
BOROUGH AND HUNDREDS OF AYLESBURY. 87 
 
 from being examined in consequence of his 
 being accidentally in the room. 
 
 The Committee were of opinion, that under 
 the circumstances the examination might pro- 
 ceed. 
 
 The evidence showed that, previous to the 
 election, treating had taken place on a large 
 scale at several public-houses, at which one or 
 more of the parties whose agency had been esta- 
 blished was present. The bUls for such treat- 
 ing, which consisted of dinners and suppers, 
 had not been paid. After polling, each voter 
 on application received a five shilling ticket, 
 which was exchanged for refreshment at one of 
 the public-houses. This system of tickets was 
 always customary on both sides at elections for 
 Aylesbury. 
 
 Witnesses were called on behalf of Mr. Deer- March 20. 
 ing, to disprove the agency of Bradford and 
 Bull. 
 
 The petition against the return of Lord March 21. 
 Nugent was abandoned. 
 
 The Committee finally resolved: — ■ 
 
 1 . " That the Right Honourable George Lord Final reso- 
 Nugent, Baron Nugent, of that part of the •"''°"'- 
 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 
 called Ireland, is duly elected a burgess to serve 
 
88 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 in this present Parliament for the borough and 
 hundreds of Aylesbury." 
 
 2. " That John Peter Deering, Esq., is not 
 duly elected a burgess to serve in this present 
 Parliament for the borough and hundreds of 
 Aylesbury." 
 
 3. "That the last election for the said 
 borough and hundreds of Aylesbury, so far as 
 regards the return of the said John Peter 
 Deering, Esq., is a void election." 
 
 4. " That John Peter Deering, Esq., was by 
 his agents guilty of treating at the last election 
 for the said borough and hundreds " (a). 
 
 (a) The Committee divided on each of the three last 
 resolutions : — At/es, 4 : Mr. Heneage, Mr. Corbally, Mr. 
 Eicardo, Mr. Palmer.— iVbe, 1 : Mr. Stafford. 
 
89 
 
 CASE XIV. 
 BOROUGH OF DUNDALK. 1848. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 14th March, 1848, and 
 consisted of the following Members: — 
 
 Lord Harry Vane, Durham South, 
 {Chairmmi). 
 
 Sir James Buller East, Bart., 
 
 Winchester. 
 John Evelyn Denison, Esq., 
 
 Malton. 
 
 Colonel Jonathan Feel, Hun- 
 tingdon. 
 George Duncan, Esq., Dundee. 
 
 Fetitiotiers : — Electors. 
 
 Sitting Member: — Charles Carrol MTavish, Esq. 
 
 Counsel for Fetitioners: — ^Mr. Seqeant Kinglake, Mr. 
 Calvert, and Mr. James Haig. 
 
 Agent: — ^Mr. G. L. Smyth. 
 
 Conimsel for Siting Member, and for parties admitted to 
 
 defend the retrnn : — ^Mr. Rogers, Q. C, Mr. Serjeant 
 
 Wrangham, and Mr. Macqueen. 
 
 Agent: — Mr. Stephens. 
 
 The usual preliminary resolutions were agreed March 15. 
 
 to (a). Prehmi- 
 
 nary reso- 
 lutions. 
 
 The petition stated, that at the last election Petition. 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 1. 
 
90 
 
 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Scrutiny. 
 
 That sitting 
 member an 
 alien. 
 
 Want of 
 qualifica- 
 tion. 
 
 Intimida- 
 tion. 
 
 the sitting member and William Torrens M'Cul- 
 lagh were candidates, and tliat the former was 
 returned^ the numbers at the close of the poll 
 being— for M'Tavish, 124 ; for M'CuUagh, 121 ; 
 that this majority was made up of fictitious and 
 illegal votes of persons who were not qualified, 
 or who had become disqualified to vote, for 
 various reasons set forth ; and that the majority 
 of good votes was in favour of Mr. M'CuUagh : 
 
 That Mr. M'Tavish, at the time of the elec- 
 tion, was, and is now, incapable to be elected, 
 or to sit as a member, by reason of his being an 
 alien, and not a natural born British subject, 
 within the meaning of the statutes in that be- 
 half; that the incapacity of the sitting member, 
 as an ahen and native citizen of the United 
 States of America, to be elected, was before, at, 
 and during the election, matter of public no- 
 toriety in the borough ; that notice of his dis- 
 qualification was served on each of the electors 
 who voted for him, to the effect that all votes 
 given in his favour would be thrown away : 
 
 That the sitting member was not at the time 
 of the election duly qualified by estate to be 
 returned; and that he did not, at the request 
 of two electors, make a declaration of his quaU- 
 fication, as required by the Act : 
 
 That a system of intimidation, tumult, riot, 
 and abduction of voters was carried on at the 
 election; and that armed mobs, parading the 
 streets of the borough, prevented the freedom 
 of election. 
 
BOROUGH OF DUNDALK. 91 
 
 It al^o alleged bribery and treating against Bribery and 
 the sitting member and his agents ; and, finally, '^* '°^' 
 prayed the House to declare that the sitting 
 member was not duly elected, but that Mr. 
 M'Cullagh was duly elected ; or to declare the 
 last election to be void, and to direct a new 
 writ to issue for another election. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake, in opening the case of 
 the petitioners, stated that he should contend 
 that the return was illegal, for the following 
 reasons : — 1. The sittiag member was not qua- 
 lified to sit, being an alien born in America. 
 2. He had neglected or refiised to make a de- 
 claration of his qualification at the request of 
 two electors. 3. He had not the necessary 
 property qualification. 4. He had, by himself 
 and his agents, been guilty of bribery and 
 treating. 5. He had not a majority of legal 
 votes. 
 
 The clerk of the peace for the county of in an Irish 
 Louth produced the poU-books, together with borough 
 the usual affidavit. He stated that this was the where the 
 first time that the poU-books had been delivered htdTeen"" 
 to him J that the corporation of Dundalk had dissolved, 
 been dissolved, the bailiff of which had at former ghenfF 
 elections been the returning officer ; that he °^ *''^ 
 was not aware in whose keeping the records of the return- 
 the borough were: and that the High Sheriff •"g°*<=.«'' 
 
 o ' " production 
 
 of the county is now the returning officer. of poll- 
 
 Mr. Rogers objected to the reception of the gje'^^of'^tiig 
 
93 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 peace suffi- poll-books, as not being produced out of the 
 
 '''^°*- custody of the proper officer. The hooks ought 
 
 to have been lodged with the party in whose 
 
 custody the records of the borough are kept, as 
 
 required by 1 Geo. 4, c. 11, s. 3. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake. — The corporation having 
 been dissolved, there was no other officer but 
 the clerk of the peace for the county to whom 
 they could be intrusted. 
 
 The Committee resolved " to receive the poll- 
 books as tendered by the agents for the peti- 
 tioners." 
 
 Theeonofa It appeared in evidence that the father of the 
 born'sub- sitting member was a Scotchman, and had been 
 jectofGreat British Consul at Baltimore since 1834. In 
 though' 1816 he married the mother of the sitting 
 bora in member, a lady bom in Maryland, but who was 
 
 America of ' •' ■ i i • t 
 
 an Ameri- the daughter of an Englishman by birth. The 
 u n™*an*'' fitting member was educated in England, where 
 alien, so as he went in 1839, and where he has resided ever 
 Ws^'dJeti'on siuce, with the exception of six months, 
 for an Irish Mr. Calvert summed up the evidence. — Al- 
 tuency. though the sitting member, upon the evidence 
 March 16. ^^^^> "^^^ ^^o* incapacitated on the ground of 
 being an alien from representing an English or 
 Scotch constituency, yet as it has been proved 
 that he was born hors de ligeance, he was dis- 
 qualified from being elected for an Irish county 
 or borough. The statutes 7 Anne, c. 5 ; 4 Geo. 
 2, c. 31 ; and 13 Geo. 3, c. 21, have reference 
 only to Great Britain. The law upon this mat- 
 
BOROUGH OF DUNDALK. 93 
 
 ter, as it affects the election for an Irish consti- 
 tuency, remains as it was before the passing of 
 these statutes. (Roe on Elections, vol. i. p. 99.) 
 Mr. Rogers, in his book on Election Law (a), 
 correctly states the law, as it was before the 
 passing of these statutes. He says, "By the 
 common law, all born hors de ligeance were 
 aliens ; and, till the Act of Settlement, 12 & 13 
 W. 3, c. 2, Scotch and Irish were not eligible. 
 Glanville, 122; 1 Joum. 798. 831; viii. 42. 
 That Act declared, that none born out of Eng- 
 land, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions 
 thereto belonging, though naturalized, or made 
 a denizen, unless bom oi English parents, should 
 be capable of the Privy Council, or of either 
 House of Parliament. Vide also 25 Ed. 8, st. 2 ; 
 Cro. Car. 601 ; 1 Bl. Com. 373. It therefore 
 excluded all bom hors de ligeance, both of whose 
 parents were not English." Inasmuch, there- 
 fore, as the mother of the sitting member was 
 an American subject, and he himself was bom 
 in America, he was disqualified from being 
 elected for the borough of Dundalk. 
 
 Mr. Rogers and Mr. Macqueen, for the sitting 
 member. — The question is not, as has been 
 stated on the other side, one of Irish law, but 
 is a question of British law, viz : whether or 
 not the sitting member is a British subject. If 
 the Committee are satisfied that in poiut of law 
 he is a British subject, then the objection fails. 
 Now the statute 4 Geo. 2, c. 21, explaining the 
 
 (a) 7th Ed. p. 45. 
 
94 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 statutes 7 Annej c. 5, and 10 Anne^ c. 5, de- 
 clares and enacts, " that all children born out 
 of the ligeance of the Crown of England or of 
 Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be bom 
 out of such ligeance, whose fathers were or shall 
 be natural bom subjects of the crown of Eng- 
 land or of Great Britain at the time of the birth 
 of such children respectively, shall and may be 
 adjudged and taken to be, and all such children 
 are hereby declared to be natural bom subjects 
 of the crown of Great Britain, to aU intents, 
 constructions, and purposes whatsoever." Under 
 these words, therefore, it is clear that the sit- 
 ting member, his father being a natural born 
 subject of Great Britain, must be considered to 
 be a natural bom subject of this country. In 
 Lord Trimlestown' s case (a), the petitioner 
 claimed to vote at the election of Peers of Ire- 
 land to sit in parliament. It appeared in evi- 
 dence, that the father of the petitioner married 
 a French subject, and that the petitioner, the 
 issue of that marriage, was bom and educated 
 at Toulouse, in France ; yet the Committee of 
 the House of Lords resolved, "That it is the 
 opinion of this Committee that John Thomas, 
 Baron Trimlestown, of that part of the United 
 Kingdom called Ireland, hath made out his 
 claim to be admitted as a temporal peer of Ire- 
 land, to vote at the election of the lords tem- 
 poral to represent the peerage of Ireland in the 
 
 (o) House of Lords' Journals, March 12, 1832. 
 
BOROUGH OF DUNDALK. 95 
 
 Parliament of the United Kingdom." That is 
 a decision distinctly in point here. They cited 
 also Wall's case {a) ; Vattelj b. i. c. 19, s. 20 ; 
 Huber, b. 3, f. 3 & 12 j Co. Litt. 129. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake was heard upon the cases March 17. 
 cited. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That it has not 
 been proved that the sitting member, Charles 
 Carrol M'Tavish, Esq., is disqualified as an alien 
 from sitting for the borough of Dimdalk." 
 
 The case against the sitting member was next Where sit- 
 proceeded with, upon the ground of his refusal beTwTs*"'' 
 or neglect to make the declajation of his quaM- served with 
 fication within the time required by 1 & 2 Vict, gth'of Sep- 
 c. 48, s. 3. Due notice was proved to have been tember, re- 
 served on the sitting member in London, on the him to 
 9th September, 1847, requesting him to make "atedecla- 
 
 11- /. 1 • 1^^ • 1 • • ratiouof 
 
 a declaration of his quauncation. The sittmg quaiifica- 
 member, however, neglected to comply with the J'°^2 vS 
 request until the 17th September, when he c 48, and 
 made the required declaration in due form. ^ d°o'To ul 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake, for the petitioner. — The tiithei7th, 
 words of the statute are clear, that " the election return°hdd 
 and retm'n of any, person who, upon such re-^"''^' 
 quest as aforesaid, shall wilfully refuse or ne- 
 glect to make ■ and subscribe the declaration 
 within twenty-four hours after such request 
 shall have been so made, shall be void." Here 
 eight days elapsed between the day of the re- 
 
 (a) 6 Moore, 216. 
 
96 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 quest being made and the declaration by the 
 sitting member. 
 
 Mr. Rogers, for the sitting member. — The 
 petitioners have not shown the request made on 
 the sitting member to be " reasonable/' as re- 
 quired by the Act ; nor have they proved the 
 sitting member to have acted "wilfully" in 
 refusing or neglecting to declare his qualifica- 
 tion. The declaration made in London eight 
 days after demand was within a fair and reason- 
 able time, not being longer than was requisite, 
 in order that the sitting member might com- 
 municate with his solicitor at Dundalk. 
 
 The Committee resolved unanimously, " That 
 the election of Mr. Charles Carrol M'Tavish for 
 the borough of Dundalk is void, by reason of 
 his having neglected to make and subscribe a 
 declaration of his qualification, according to the 
 requirements of the statute 1 & 2 Vict. c. 48, 
 s. 3"(a). 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Kinglake abandoned the charges of 
 
 (as) Upon a subsequent day, after the scrutiny had 
 been proceeded with and some votes struck off, appli- 
 cation was made by the counsel of the sitting member, 
 for a rehearing of the case upon this point, on the 
 ground that the decision had taien them by surprise, 
 and that they were now prepared with evidence to show 
 that the sitting member had not been guilty of any neg- 
 lect. Mr. Serjeant Kinglahe resisted the application, 
 and the Committee resolved — "That they could not 
 allow the case to be re-opened." 
 
BOROUGH OF DtJNDALK. 97 
 
 bribery and treating, and proceeded with the 
 scrutiny. 
 
 Thomas Byrne's Case. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham objected, that there where two 
 being two persons of the name of Thomas Byrne Persons of 
 
 ijD6 SfllllC 
 
 on the poll, and it not being specified in the list name on 
 of voters objected to, to which of the two per- [(""^f q"!'^ 
 sons it was intended to object, the petitioners jections did 
 could not go iuto the vote. No proper infor- ^hich^f ^ 
 mation had been given, so as to enable the ti^ese was 
 sitting member to identify the person meant. Committee 
 The Committee decided that the vote could refused to 
 
 ~. . -11 entertain 
 
 not be gone into, as sufficient notice had not objection to 
 been given to identify the person whose vote '"'**• 
 was objected to. 
 
 Patrick Garstin's Case. 
 
 This vote was objected to, on the ground that where a 
 the voter since his registration had parted with ^<"er had 
 his qualification. There were two houses ad- the quaiifi- 
 joining each other,, the one large and the other '^'I"" °" 
 small. The voter lived in the small house from obtained 
 1840 to 1843, when he moved into the larger e*t/^f^t" 
 house, where he remained until 1846, when he gistry, but 
 again moved into the small house, in which he gamed'it 
 was residing at the time of the election. The without Ob- 
 voter's certificate of registration datpd 1840, fresh certi- 
 and another dated 1842, both being for the J^f '«■ ^"^ 
 
 . ° ' held bad. 
 
 small house, were put in. 
 Vote struck off. 
 
98 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 March 18. Other votes were afterwards struck off, on 
 the ground of the voters having parted with 
 their qualification; and Mr. M'Cullagh being 
 now in a majority on the poll, Mr. Rogers stated, 
 that as Mr. M'Tavish could not retain his seat, 
 he should not proceed with the scrutiny against 
 Mr. M'CuUagh. 
 
 Final reso- The Committee then came to the follow- 
 ing resolutions, which were reported to the 
 House : — 
 
 1. "That Charles Carrol M'Tavish, Esq., is 
 not duly elected a burgess to serve in this pre- 
 sent Parhament for the borough of Dundalk." 
 
 2. "That WUliam Torrens M'CuUagh, Esq., 
 is duly elected, and ought to have been returned 
 a burgess to serve in this present Parliament for 
 the said borough." 
 
 3. " That the Committee have altered the 
 poll taken at the last election for the said bo- 
 rough, by striking out the names of the follow- 
 ing persons, as not having had a right to vote 
 at such election, viz. : — Patrick Garstin, Eed- 
 mond Macgrath, Roger M'Grehan, and William 
 M'Dermott." 
 
99 
 
 CASE XV. 
 BOROUGH OP DERBY. 1848. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the l7th Marcli, 1848, and 
 consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 John Walbanke Childers, Esq., Malton, 
 {CJiairman). 
 
 William Henry Stanton, Esq., 
 
 Stroud. 
 Sii- Edmimd C. W. Mae- 
 
 ns^hten, Bart., Antrim. 
 
 Sir Henry Robert Ferguson 
 Davie, Bart., Haddington 
 district. 
 
 Philip Beimet, Esq., Suffolk 
 "West. 
 
 Petitioners : — Electors. 
 
 Sitting Members : — Eight Hon. Edward Strutt, and Hon. 
 Frederick Leveson Gower. 
 
 Counsel for Fetif loners : — Mr. Wordsworth, and Mr. 
 Merewether. 
 
 . Agents: — Messrs. Clarke, Pynmore and Fladgate, and Mr. 
 Flewker. 
 
 Counsel for Sitting Members : — Mr. Serjeant Wrangham, Mr. 
 Serjeant Kinglake, and Mr. James. 
 
 Agents: — Messrs. Fearon and Clabon, Mr. Barber, and Mr. 
 Johnson. 
 
 _, „ . , , , March 18. 
 
 The Committee agreed to the usual pre- Preiimi- 
 
 liminary resolutions (a) . nafy reso- 
 
 lutions. 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 1. 
 
 r2 
 
100 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Petition. The petition, after stating the last election, 
 Briberyand aUeged bribery and treating against the sitting 
 treating, members and their agents, and also the pay- 
 Payment of ment, in the name of head-money, or under 
 
 ^^^^' some other name or pretence, of divers sums of 
 money. ^ . , -. 
 
 money and other valuable considerations, m order 
 
 to procure the election of the sitting members : 
 that notorious and systematic bribery prevailed 
 at the election, whereby the dtting members 
 were and are iaeligible to serve in Parliainent 
 for the borough. It prayed the House to de- 
 clare the said election and return to be whoUy 
 null and void. 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth opened a general case of 
 bribery and treating against the sitting members 
 and their agents, and also a case of personal 
 treating against the sitting members. 
 
 List, giving Mr. Seijt. Wrangham objected to the list 
 forty-two handed in under the third prehmiaary resolution 
 persons as of the Committee, on the ground that after the 
 bribed a name of the first elector bribed, instead of the 
 voter, held name of the person who actually gave the bribe, 
 
 not in com- ,„,, „. 
 
 piiancewith he found the names of forty-two persons, who 
 
 res^o'iut^on'^ were alleged to have given the bribe, which, in 
 
 andordered fact, afforded no information. 
 
 ^mended. ^''- Merewether, in support of the Hst. — The 
 money was paid at the committee-room, and 
 as the petitioners could not teU exactly by whose 
 hand the bribes were given, they gave the names 
 of all the committee. If the Committee thought 
 
BOROUGH OF DERBY. 101 
 
 the information was not specific, he wotild lessen 
 the number to five. 
 
 Mr, Seijt. Wrangham replied. — The reduc- 
 tion lessened the objection, but did not remove 
 it : he would admit the list to be good, where it 
 coidd be shown that the bribe was the act of the 
 committee, but for any act of an individual the 
 list was no notice at all. 
 
 The Chairman stated, that he was instructed 
 to say, that the Committee had had very great 
 difficulty upon this point, because it certainly 
 was their unanimous view that the intention of 
 the resolution was, that any person who was 
 charged with being bribed should know disV 
 tinctly who was charged with bribing him, first, 
 so far as the Committee itself was concerned, 
 and, secondly, practically to save expense. At the 
 same time, the Committee having taken the whole 
 point into consideration, and bearing in mind 
 that five names were mentioned in the opening 
 flpeeeh, and as probably those gentlemen were 
 present, there would not be any practical diffi- 
 culty in allowing the petitioners to retain those 
 names ; but, that if between that time and Mon. 
 day they could amend the list, by inserting 
 the names of those who actuaUy were supposed 
 to have been the bribers in each case, it would 
 be more consonant with their opinion of what 
 the resolution laid down. 
 
 Mr. Merewether afterwards stated that the March 20. 
 petitioners had amended the list in compKance 
 with the directions of the Committee ; that in a 
 
102 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 great many instances the names of the five 
 selected persons, or some of them, appeared; 
 that in other cases, other names appeared in 
 conjunction with one of the five names; and 
 that they had added those other names when- 
 ever it appeared that they had taken the pre- 
 hmiaary steps towards giving the bribe. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham objected to a new list 
 beiag given in, which had names other than the 
 five selected names ; that the individual names 
 of the parties bribing were not specified in the 
 list ; but that names were introduced as bribers, 
 other than those of the five persons whose 
 names were given on Saturday. 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth, in answer. — In the list now 
 furnished there was not an instance in which the 
 whole five names were put down as bribers. He 
 understood the Committee, not that the petition- 
 ers were to be limited to those five names in 
 each individual case, and that they could not put 
 down other names in particular instances, but 
 that they should not give more than five names 
 opposite the name of each iadividual voter. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham replied. — The original 
 list had alleged " the aforesaid committee " of 
 forty-two persons as the parties bribing through- 
 out. He understood at the last sitting of the 
 Committee, that the list of bribers was to be 
 confined to five names, whereas it was now con- 
 verted into a list of thirty-three. The peti- 
 tioners ought to be confined to the list of five 
 before chosen. 
 
BOROUGH OF DERBY. 103 
 
 The Chairman stated, that the Committee 
 considered this an application to alter the ar- 
 rangements entered into on Saturday, and that 
 they could not allow any names, except the five 
 already given, to he placed on the list against 
 the name of any voter bribed ; but that in case 
 of special application of counsel, they should 
 not fail to proceed with any case, the knowledge 
 of which might be brought out before the Com- 
 mittee in the progress of the investigation, in 
 accordance with their resolution. 
 
 In the progress of the case Mr. Serjt. Wranq- March 22. 
 ham inquired of the petitioners whether it was 
 intended to adduce any further evidence, tend- 
 ing personally to criminate the sitting mem- 
 bers. 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth replied in the negative : 
 whereupon Mr. Serjt. Wrangham stated, that 
 he should offer no further opposition to the 
 avoidance of the election, as it appeared that 
 payments of an illegal character had been made 
 by the agents of the sitting members ; but that 
 he should confine himself to the personal charge 
 affecting the sitting members, viz. Stainsbery's 
 case. 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth offered to withdraw Stains- 
 bery's case. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham was not satisfied with 
 the terms of the withdrawal, and called evi- 
 dence to rebut the charge of personal treating 
 against the sitting members. 
 
104 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Mr. Merewether having replied on the evi- 
 dence, 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That in the case 
 of David Stainsberjr, the sitting members were 
 not proved to be cognizant of the treating 
 alleged." 
 
 Costs Mr. Wordsworth then applied for costs under 
 
 retused. the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103, s. 89, on the ground 
 that the opposition to the petition was frivolous 
 and vexatious. The other side, after allowing 
 the petitioners to proceed for some days, had 
 admitted the case ; they possessed the know- 
 ledge that bribery had been committed by 
 the acknowledged agent of the sitting mem- 
 bers, Mr. Barber; and knowing the facts of 
 the case, they ought not to have opposed the 
 petition. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham. — In admitting the 
 case he had admitted what the other side ought 
 to have discovered themselves; he had saved 
 them the trouble of superfluous proof; he had 
 withdrawn his opposition, as soon as the evi- 
 dence on the personal charge against the sitting 
 members had been completed. While Mr. 
 Barber possessed the knowledge that iUegal 
 practices had occurred at the election, he knew 
 also that the personal charge was not true. Was 
 it frivolous or vexatious to contradict that alle- 
 gation, or rather, was not it fiivolous and vexa- 
 tious to have made that charge ? He admitted 
 that there was ground for petitioning, but there 
 
BOROUGH OF DERBY. 105 
 
 was also ground for his opposition up to the 
 point at which he had stopped. 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth replied. 
 
 The Committee decided against the applica- 
 tion for costs. 
 
 In answer to Mr. Merewether, Mr. Seijt. 
 Wrangham stated that he conceded the seats 
 on the ground that the payments made under 
 the peculiar circumstances, by persons connected 
 with the sitting members as agents, were illegal 
 payments which the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, s. 20, 
 declared were to be deemed bribery. 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth stated that he relied upon 
 both parts of the case, viz. treating and bribery. 
 
 The Committee came to the following final Final reso- 
 resolutions, which were reported to the House : " "'"^' 
 
 1. "That the Right Honourable Edward 
 Strutt and the Honourable Frederick Leveson 
 Gower are not duly elected burgesses to serve 
 in this present Parliament for the borough of 
 Derby." 
 
 2. " That the last election for the borough of 
 Derby is a void election." 
 
 3. "That the Right Honourable Edward 
 Strutt and the Honourable Edward Frederick 
 Leveson Gower were by their agents guilty of 
 bribery and treating at the last election for the 
 borough of Derby." 
 
 4. " That it was proved to the Committee, 
 that Richard Clarke was bribed with 1/. 5*. ; 
 
 r3 
 
106 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 William Dallison, II. ; Samuel Roberts, 1/. 5s 
 Thomas Roberts, 1/. 5*.; Thomas Keys, II. 
 Thomas Butler, II.; Gervase Bancroft, 15s. 
 David Stainsbery, 1/. 5s. ; James Marshall, 51." 
 
 5. " That it was not proved to the Committee 
 that these acts of bribery or the treating were 
 committed with the knowledge and consent of 
 the said Right Honourable Edward Strutt and 
 the said Honourable Edward Frederick Leveson 
 Gower." 
 
 6. "That the Committee also find that a 
 practice has existed in the borough of Derby, at 
 the last as well as former elections, of placing 
 freemen as members on a nominal committee, 
 and paying them for pretended services; the 
 Committee believe that this practice has ob- 
 tained very extensively in the said borough, and 
 they consider it their duty to report it to the 
 House." 
 
107 
 
 CASE XVI. 
 BOROUGH OP HORSHAM. i848. 
 
 (first case.) 
 
 The Commitee was appointed on the 21st of March, 1848, and 
 consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Viscount Courtenay, South Devon, 
 (Chairman). 
 
 James MiMes Gaskell, Esq., 
 
 Wenlock. 
 Richard Brinsley Sheridan, 
 
 George Bankes, Esq., Dorset- 
 shire. 
 R. A. Shafto Adair, Esq., 
 
 Esq., Shaftesbury. I Cambridge borough. 
 
 Petitioners : — Electors. 
 
 Sitting Member: — John Jervis, Esq. 
 
 Coimsel for Petitioners : — Mr. M. D. Hill, Q. C, Mr. 
 Calvert, and Mr. Merewether. 
 
 Agents ; — ^Mr. George Wangh, Messrs. Coppard and 
 Rawlinson, and Mr. Padwick. 
 
 Counsel for Sitting Member .■—Mr. Serjeant Wrangham, Mr. 
 Clarkson, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Wordsworth. 
 
 Agents : — Messrs. Fearon and Clahon, and Mr. Thomas. 
 
 March 22. 
 
 The usual preliminary resolutions were agreed Prelimi- 
 
 i. f \ nary reso- 
 
 to («)• lutions. 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 1. 
 
108' ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Petition. The petition alleged that the register of 
 
 Defective voters was defective and void ; that the sitting 
 
 register, jjjember was under 21 years of age at the time 
 
 WanTof °^ *^® election ; and that he was otherwise dis- 
 
 qualifica- qualified. It also contained charges of bribery 
 
 g""' , and treating, and prayed the House to declare 
 
 treating, the election and return nuU and void. 
 
 Although Mr. Hill was proceeding to open the case on 
 mitt'edf * behalf of the petitioners, when 
 Comndittee Mr. Serjt. Wrangham stated, that before 
 dence on" ^^- Hill proceeded to open the case, he wished 
 which to to state, on the part of the sitting member, that 
 solutions, although he was prepared to defend the return 
 on all the other grounds alleged against its vali- 
 dity in the petition, he admitted that treating 
 to a considerable extent had taken place under 
 the authority of the agents of the sitting 
 member, so as to avoid the election, and render 
 Mr. Jervis incapable of being a candidate at 
 the next election* 
 
 Mr. Hill, on the part of the petitioners, 
 stated that he had been taken by surprise by 
 the course pursued on the part of the sitting 
 member, and should therefore pray an adjourn- 
 ment of the Committee until to-morrow morn- 
 ing, in order to consider whether he would pro- 
 ceed further with the petition. 
 
 The Committee, after deliberation, resolved 
 to consent to the application of the petitioners 
 for an adjournment till to-morrow; but they 
 also announced to the parties, that notwith- 
 
BOROUGH OF HORSHAM. 109 
 
 standing the charge of treating had been admit- 
 ted by the counsel for the sitting member, they 
 would require the evidence of one or two wit- 
 nesses to establish that point, as a ground for 
 their resolution. 
 
 On the following day, March 23. 
 
 Mr. HiU called two witnesses to prove the 
 allegation in the petition as to treating, and the 
 counsel for the sitting member having declined 
 to cross-examine them, 
 
 The Committee called upon Mr. Hill to state 
 his views upon the other parts of the petition. 
 
 Mr. Hill stated, that he did not intend to 
 proceed any further in the prosecution of the 
 petition. 
 
 The Committee then resolved : — 
 
 1 "That John Jervis, Esq., is not duly elected Resolu- 
 a burgess to serve in this present Parliament for *'*""• 
 the borough of Horsham." 
 
 2 " That the last election for the said borough 
 is a void election." 
 
 3 " That John Jervis, Esq., was by his agents 
 guilty of treating at the last election for the said 
 borough " (a) . 
 
 4. "That, with reference to an allegation 
 contained in the petition, of the existence of 
 bribery at the last election for the borough of 
 Horsham, the counsel for the petitioners be re- 
 
 (a) These three resolutions weie reported to the 
 House. 
 
110 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 quested, in accordance with the resolution of the 
 Committee, to produce the list of the names of 
 the electors alleged to have been bribed, and 
 those of the persons who are charged with having 
 given the bribes." 
 
 Mr. Hill stated, that, with reference to the 
 last resolution of the Committee, though he had 
 been prepared to substantiate by evidence, as 
 far as he could judge from the instructions con- 
 tained in his brief, the charges alleged in the 
 petition; yet, having now, as counsel for the 
 petitioners, obtained all that he required, he 
 withdrew from any further prosecution of the 
 petition. 
 
 The Chairman asked Mr. Hill whether the 
 Committee were right in inferring, from what 
 he had stated, that he had been prepared to 
 substantiate those charges of bribery. 
 
 Mr. Hill answered in the affirmative. 
 
 The Committee then resolved, "That the 
 agents be called in, and examined with reference 
 to any circumstances which may have led to the 
 forbearance to prosecute the charges of bribery 
 alleged in the petition." 
 Powers of The Committee then examined the agents on 
 I. lul^'."]*! '^°*^ ®^^®®' under the provisions of 5 & 6 Vict. 
 
 as to com- c. 102, S. 1. 
 
 ercUed! ^^" ^^- ^^^*- Wrangham stated, in corroboration 
 of the evidence of the witnesses, that he had 
 withdrawn from the contest entirely as a matter 
 of discretion on his part, as counsel for the sit- 
 
BOROUGH OF HORSHAM. Ill 
 
 ting memljer; that he was not cognizant of 
 any arrangement between the parties, and that 
 he fully believed that there was no such arrange- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Hill also stated, that he had not been aware 
 of the course which Mr. Serjt. Wrangham, on 
 the part of the sitting member, was about to 
 take, until he that morning came into the room; 
 but that he had been fully prepared to contest the 
 case throughout. 
 
 The Committee then came to the following 
 resolution : — 
 
 "That the circumstances attending the for- 
 bearance to prosecute the charges of bribery 
 contained in the petition, do not appear to the 
 Committee to call for any special report with 
 reference to such forbearance." 
 
112 
 
 CASE XVII. 
 1848. TOWN A.ND PORT OF RYE. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 24th of March, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Edward Divett, Esq., Exeter, 
 {Chawmari). 
 
 Sir Henry Halford, Bart., 
 Leicestershire, South. 
 
 John Henry Vivian, Esq., 
 Swansea. 
 
 Hon. Francis Wemyss Char- 
 teris, Haddingtonshire. 
 
 Martin Joseph Blake, Esq., 
 Galway Borough. 
 
 Petitioners : — Electors. 
 
 Sitting Member: — Herbert Mascall Curteis, Esq. 
 
 CovMsel for Petitioners : — Mr. E. James. 
 
 Agents: — Messrs. Law, Holmes, and Co., and Mr. Jenner. 
 
 Counsel for Sitting Member : — Mr. M. D. Hill, Q. C, and 
 Mr. J. J. Johnson. 
 
 Agents : — Messrs. Wright and.Kingsford, and Mr. Dawes. 
 
 March 25. The usual preliminary resolutions were 
 Prelimi- agreed to (a). 
 
 nary resolu- 
 tions. 
 
 Petition. The petition, after stating that at the last elec- 
 tion for theTown and Port of Rye, which was held 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 1. 
 
TOWN AND PORT OF RYE. 113 
 
 on the 23rd December, 1847, the sitting mem- 
 ber was the only candidate, and was returned 
 as duly elected^ alleged that no notice was given 
 of the day appointed for the said election until 
 Monday, the 20th day of the said month of 
 December last; that on the said 20th day 
 of December, notice was given by the said 
 returning officer, that Thursday, the 23rd day 
 of the said month of December, was the day 
 appointed for the said election, and the said 
 election was accordingly holden on the day last 
 mentioned ; that the said notice was not a good, Insuffi- 
 valid, or sufficient notice for the purpose of the "o«cJ of 
 said election, in pursuance of the statute in that "^*y °^ ^l^c- 
 case made and provided, inasmuch as the said 
 statute requires that three clear days' notice at 
 least be given of the day appointed for the 
 election, exclusive of both the day of proclama- 
 tion and the day appointed for the election; 
 that by reason of no good, valid, or sufficient 
 notice having been given of the day appointed 
 for the said election as aforesaid, the said elec- 
 tion and return of the said Herbert Mascall 
 Curteis were and are illegal, and wholly nuU 
 and void. 
 
 The petition further alleged bribery and treat- Briberyand 
 ing against the sitting member and his agents, 
 and prayed the House to declare the last elec- 
 tion for the town and port of Rye to be illegal 
 and void, and to direct a new writ to be issued. 
 
 Mr. James opened the case of the petitioners. By 3 & 4 
 
114 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Vict. c. 81, withdrawing the charges of bribery and treating 
 thenoHceof jjQ^^g^jjjg^ in the petition, and confining his 
 must be case to the allegation that the returning officer 
 fum^ dllT ^^^ ^°* gwea three clear days' notice from the 
 before day day of proclamation to the day of election of the 
 fore°ectk)n; day on which the election was to take place, 
 where,' contending that, by the terms of the statute 
 
 therefore ' j 
 
 noticegiv'en 3 & 4 Vict. c. 81, the notice of the election 
 ?? ^"'^ must be three clear days before the day ap- 
 
 December ■' ./ i 
 
 that eiec- pointed for the election. 
 
 takepkce •'■* appeared from the evidence, that the crier 
 
 on 23rd, of the town made a proclamation, and also posted 
 
 eUction ^'^^, On the moming of the 20th of December, 
 
 on that notifying that the election would take place on 
 
 daywasnuU « i -r^ 
 
 and void, the 23rd December. 
 
 A. protest signed by five electors, alleging the 
 illegality of the proceedings, was proved to have 
 been delivered in to the returning officer in the 
 Town Hall, where the election was held, but 
 not until after the returning officer had declared 
 the sitting member duly elected. 
 Where pe- That being the case of the petitioners, 
 taineV°° ^^^- -^oA^isow, on behalf of the sitting member, 
 inter alia, admitted that the return must be declared void, 
 brfbery a'nd ^^* stated, that inasmuch as the petition con- 
 treating tained charges of bribery and treating against 
 ting mem- the sitting member and his agents, and as those 
 ber, which charges were now withdrawn, he should show 
 
 were aban- , „ .... 
 
 doned on that from the Situation in which the sitting 
 
 opening of member was placed, there was no foundation for 
 
 petitioners ■*■ 
 
 case, on such charges, and he should call on the Com- 
 
 sitting mittee to declare that the allegations in the 
 
TOWN AND PORT OF RYE. 115 
 
 petition of bribery and treating were unfounded, member 
 and to order tbe costs and expenses to which g^i^j™ e ^ 
 the sitting member had been put, by reason of that such 
 such unfounded allegations, to be paid by the ^e*re^un- 
 petitioners, as the sitting member would at once founded, 
 
 1 1 T 11TP oi- •ft Committee 
 
 have abandoned the defence ot his seat, ii those gave costs 
 charges had not been made against him. °^ meeting 
 
 Evidence was then given that the sitting sitting 
 member took no part whatever iu the election ; ^o" hthg ' 
 that there was no canvass ; and that no agents declared 
 were employed ; but that there was a spon- bg ^oid on 
 taneous movement in favour of the sitting other 
 member by the electors of aU parties. No ex- 
 penses were incurred in the election but a fee 
 to the Lord Warden's registrar. 
 
 Mr. Hill. — Upon the evidence given, the 
 Committee ought to give costs to the sitting 
 member, under the authority of the Act 7 & 8 
 Vict. c. 103, sect. 92. 
 
 Mr. James did not dispute the authority of 
 the Committee to give costs, but submitted that 
 under the circumstances costs ought not to be 
 given, inasmuch as no agents having appeared 
 previously to the present time for the sitting 
 member, it was impossible to have given previous 
 notice to them of the intention to abandon the 
 charges of bribery and treating. 
 
 In proof of this statement, 
 
 Thomas Knox Holmes, the agent for the peti- 
 tion, was called, who deposed that he had received 
 no notice whatever; that the question of the re- 
 turn was uncontested as a void return; that he 
 
116 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 could not ascertain that any agent was em- 
 ployed for the defence of the sitting member; 
 that the petitioners were bound to support by 
 evidence the allegation in the petition that the 
 election was void ; and that when the Committee 
 was chosen no one appeared to whom he could 
 make a communication that the other charges 
 were withdrawn. 
 Instruc- In cross-examination by Mr. Hill, the witness 
 
 celved by ^^® asked whether Mr. Jenner, whose name was 
 parliament- handed in as one of the agents for the petition^ 
 from M)°ici- ^*^ instructed his firm as to inserting the alle- 
 tor of peti- gations of bribery in the petition, 
 viieged Mr. James objected to the question, on the 
 
 ground that Mr. Holmes was not bound to dis- 
 close his instructions. 
 
 The Committee intimated that Mr. Holmes 
 was at liberty to decline answering the ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Hill waived his reply on the evidence. 
 
 Final reso- The Committee came to the following resolu- 
 tions for report to the House : — 
 
 1. " That Herbert Mascall Curteis, Esq., is not 
 duly elected a baron to serve in this present 
 Parliament for the town and port of Rye." 
 
 2. " That the last election for the said town 
 and port of Rye is a void election." 
 
 3. " That inasmuch as in the petition there 
 are certain specific allegations of bribery and 
 treating on the part of the sitting member and 
 his agents, in proof of which no evidence was 
 
 communi- 
 cation. 
 
TOWN AND PORT OF RYE. 117 
 
 offered to the Committee, the Committee are of 
 opinion that such allegations are unfounded, 
 and were made without any reasonahle or pro- 
 bahle ground, and are frivolous and vexatious." 
 4. "That the Committee have thereupon 
 ordered that aU. costs and expenses of, and 
 relating to the said allegations, shall be forth- 
 with paid by the petitioners and their surety, 
 to the said Herbert MascaU Curteis, Esq." 
 
118 
 
 CASE XVIII. 
 
 BOROUGH OF SLIGO. 
 
 (first case.) 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 24th of March, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Thomas Colpitts Granger, Esq., Durham City, 
 (Chairman). 
 
 George Ponlett Scrope, Esq., 
 
 Stroud. 
 Benjamin Disraeli, Esq., 
 
 Buckinghamshire. 
 
 James Heywood, Esq., Lan- 
 cashire, North. 
 
 Sir John Johnstone, Bart., 
 Scarhorough. 
 
 Petitioners : — 1. An Elector. 2. Electors. 
 
 Sitting Member : — John Patrick Somers, Esq. 
 
 Coimselfor 1st Petition, : — Mr. Calvert, and Mr. Merewether. 
 
 Agents : — Mr. Charles (VHara, and Mr. Hind. 
 
 Cormsel for 2nd Petition .—Mr. M. D. Hill, Q. C, Mr. 
 Hindmarsh, and Mr. H. Stonor. 
 
 Agents : — ^Messrs. Dorington and Co., Mr. Cantwell, and 
 Mr. Innes. 
 
 Counsel for Sitting Member: — Mr. Seijeant Wrangham, 
 and Mr. Peroival Banlcs. 
 
 Agents : — Messrs. Law and Co., Mr. R. P. Graham, and Mr. 
 W. Kelly. 
 
 March 25. The Committee came to the following preli- 
 minary resolution : — 
 
BOROUGH OF SLIGO (IST CASE). 119 
 
 " That no person shall he examined as a wit- Prelimi- 
 ness who shall have been in the room during ^"7 '^^^°' 
 any of the proceedings, with the exception of 
 the agents, whose names have been handed in, 
 without the special leave of the Committee." 
 
 The first petition stated, that at the last elec- Petitions, 
 tion the sitting member and Thomas Dixon, Esq., 
 were candidates, but that the latter could not 
 be put in nomination, owing to the violence and Riot, 
 riotous conduct of the sitting member and his 
 supporters. It then alleged that the sitting want of 
 member was not duly qualified by estate to q»a'>fi<»- 
 serve in Parliament for the borough of SUgo; 
 that on the 14th of August, 1847, a request by 
 two registered electors was served on the sitting 
 meniber at Castlebar, calling on him to make a 
 declaration of his quahfication, but that the sit- Neglect to 
 ting member neglected to do so ; that on the "^j^^^ ^ *" 
 30th August, 1847, a request by two registered quaiifica- 
 electors was served on the sitting member at 
 Dublin, calling on him to make a declaration 
 of his qualification, but that the sitting member 
 neglected to do so ; that on the 17th September, 
 1847, a request by two registered electors was 
 served on the sitting member at Sligo, calling 
 on him to make a declaration of his qualifica- 
 tion, with which request the sum of 5s. was 
 tendered and paid to the sitting member, but 
 that the sitting member neglected to make 
 such declaration. On these grounds, the peti- 
 tion prayed the House to declare the election 
 
130 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 and return of the sitting member null and 
 void. 
 
 The second petition contained similar allegar 
 tions as to riot and violence, and also as to the 
 want of qualification of the sitting member. It 
 complained that the sitting member neglected 
 to make a declaration of his qualification at the 
 request of two electors, served on him on the 
 5th August, 1847, and prayed the House to 
 declare the election and return of the sitting 
 member null and void. 
 
 Mr. Hill stated, that as both the petitions 
 contained similar allegations, the counsel for 
 the two petitions had mutually agreed that 
 there should be but one opening; and he ac- 
 cordingly opened the case on behalf of both 
 petitions. 
 Notice It appeared from the evidence, that a request 
 
 sittin^'^''°° ^^^ ^een made on the sitting member at Castle- 
 member to bar, in Ireland, on the 14.th August, 1847, to 
 daration of ™^^^ and subscribe a declaration of his qualifi- 
 quaiifica- cation : but that the sum of 5«., the amount of 
 where fees f^es for administering the declaration, making 
 prescribed ^he Certificate, and filing the same, as prescribed 
 
 bv 1 & 2 
 
 Vict. c. 48, by 1 & 2 Vict. c. 48, s. 5, was not tendered to 
 8. 5 not iji^ at the time. 
 
 tendered to 
 
 him at the After hearing counsel on both sides, 
 ''°'^- The Committee resolved, "That the notice 
 
 served on the sitting member to make a decla- 
 ration of his qualification was not sufficient 
 under the circumstances." 
 
BOROUGH OF SUGO (IST CASe). 121 
 
 Evidence was then given of the service of* 
 notice on the sitting member and all his agents, 
 on the 14th March last, to produce a request 
 to make and subscribe a declaration of his 
 qualification, which was served on the sitting 
 member at Shgo, on the 17th September, 
 1847, on which occasion the sum of 5«. was 
 tendered. 
 
 Lawrence Macterman, a solicitor of Sligo, 
 produced an ofiice copy of a declaration of 
 qualification from the Petty Bag Ofiice in Ire- 
 land, as follows : — 
 
 " Borough of Sligo ~l I, John Patrick Somers, 
 to wit. J do solemnly and sin- 
 
 cerely declare that I am, to the best of my 
 knowledge and belief, duly qualified to be 
 elected as a member of the House of Commons, 
 according to the true intent and meaning of 
 the Act passed in the second year of the reign 
 of Queen Victoria, intituled ' An Act to amend 
 the Laws relating to the Qualification of Mem- 
 bers to serve in Parliament,' and that my qua- 
 lification to be so elected doth arise out of a 
 rent-charge of 300Z. sterling per annum for my 
 own life, which said rent-charge is chargeable 
 upon and payable out of the lands of Toonagh, 
 BaUylie, and Caperbrisley, situate, lying, and 
 being in the parish of Dyart, in the barony of 
 Inchiquin, and in the county of Clare, and also 
 upon all that and those the lands of Craigleigh, 
 
133 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 in the parish of Inch, in the barony of Islands, 
 in the said county of Clare. 
 
 "John Patrick Somers." 
 
 "Taken, acknowledged, and declared before 
 me, at Sligo, this 18th September, 1847, a jus- 
 tice of the peace for the county of Sligo, pur- 
 suant to the 1 & 3 Vict. c. 48, s. 3, before the 
 hour of twelve o'clock on said day. 
 
 " Martin Dillon Manning, J. P. 
 
 " Received 16th December, 1847." 
 
 The same witness also produced office copies 
 of judgments at the suits of various parties 
 against the sitting member, amounting alto- 
 gether to the sum of 11,955Z. 8s. 3|d, and costs 
 54/. Us. lid. 
 
 Sitting Mr. Calvert now contended that these judg- 
 
 rtlibert°to™^^*® destroyed the qualification which the 
 
 pray in aid sitting member relied on in the declaration, 
 
 lification' inasmuch as the statement in the declaration 
 
 any pro- -vpas Conclusive, and estopped the sitting member 
 
 included in from showing that he was possessed of property 
 
 his declara- ^q g, greater amount than the 3001. per annum. 
 
 The Chairman stated, that it was his opinion 
 
 that the sitting member could not travel out 
 
 of his declaration, and referred to the West 
 
 Gloucestershire case (a). 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham, contra. — If the sitting 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 13. 
 
BOROUGH OF SLI60 (IST CASE). 123 
 
 member had an estate in Ireland against which 
 certain unsatisfied judgments were standing, 
 leaving only a small surplus on that original 
 estate, and he had also a rent-charge of 300/. 
 a-year, to which these judgments had not been 
 extended, surely he would do right to declare 
 upon the unburthened rent-charge. Or, if the 
 other side meant to contend that there were 
 charges affecting the whole of his property to 
 a greater amount than the value of it, these 
 incumbrances should be proved now and at 
 once. 
 
 The Chairman. — Mr. Calvert has a right to 
 assume, for the purposes of his argument, that 
 all the sitting member's property is comprised 
 in this 300/. a-year ; and it devolves upon Mr. 
 Serjt. Wrangham to prove that the sitting mem- 
 ber has other property which would satisfy these 
 judgments ; and thereupon it would be open to 
 Mr. Calvert to show that there were incum- 
 brances affecting that property. 
 
 Mr. Calvert. — This declaration must be taken 
 to be a declaration of the qualification of the 
 sitting member, in compliance with the request 
 made September 17th, or it was nothing at aU. 
 If he could show that that declaration contained 
 a statement of property which did not give him 
 a qualification, then that was not such a declara- 
 tion as was required by the statute. It must be 
 the declaration of a qualification belonging to 
 him, and it must be to the amount of 300/. a-year. 
 
 He proceeded to argue upon the effect of the 
 
 g3 
 
134 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 proof of the judgments upon the qualification. 
 By the new law, the judgments affected all the 
 property belonging to the sitting memher ; and 
 he ought to have put into his declaration suffi- 
 cient to cover aU liabilities, and to give him, over 
 and above, a qualification of 300/. a-year. If 
 the petitioners show a judgment only to sixpence 
 in value, that would be sufficient to cut down 
 the value that the statute required of 300/. over 
 and above all iucumbrances. The question is, 
 are the judgments specific charges ? The old law 
 was, that the judgments were general charges, 
 to be enforced by execution; but by 3 & 4 Vict. 
 c. 105 (a), a judgment entered up, or to be en- 
 tered up, should operate as a charge upon all, 
 lands, &c., of which such person shall at the 
 time be seised. All the petitioners have to show 
 is, that the sitting member has not in his decla- 
 ration set out the 300Z. a-year clear, which is 
 indispensable for establishing the qualification. 
 The petitioners have brought the judgments to 
 bear as charges affecting the property; and 
 there is not therefore upon the evidence, as it 
 now stands, 300/. a-year clear. If the other 
 property had been included in the declaration, 
 the petitioners would have made inquiries re- 
 specting that property, which they were not led 
 to do. 
 
 The Chairman again stated, that the sitting 
 member could not avail himself of any property 
 
 (a) Irish Act. 
 
BOROUGH or SLIGO (IST CASE). 135 
 
 out of his declaration. If he had two estates, 
 and only included one in his declaration, he 
 could not avail himself of the other. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham woidd admit, that if 
 the estate declared on was below the statutory 
 amount required by law, the sitting member 
 could not avail himself of another j hut if he 
 coTild show that the charges alleged as incum- 
 brances on the estate mentioned in the declara- 
 tion were charges upon another estate not de- 
 clared on, he might meet the case by proving the 
 other estate. 
 
 The Chairman. — I think that could not be 
 done. If the sitting member chose to confine 
 himself to one estate, he could not prop up that 
 by showing other property. If it could be shown 
 under the statute that the judgments were not 
 charges upon the 300^. a-year, that might be 
 given in evidence. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham submitted, that if he 
 could prove that, notwithstanding the iacum- 
 brances affecting both estates, there was a clear 
 surplus of 300^. a-yeax, it would be monstrous 
 to shut him out of that proof. The question 
 was, was the declaration to bind the sitting 
 member ? In the Dover case [a) there had been 
 one declaration at the hustings, and a second in 
 the House of Commons, and a third given as a 
 voluntary notice to the opposite party. There 
 the member was allowed to prove a qualification, 
 
 (a) P. & K. 413 ; S. C, C. & E. 481. 
 
126 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 which was not the qualification upon which he 
 had declared at the hustings. 
 
 Mr. Calvert.— That was previous to the pass- 
 ing of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 48. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham.—'Bj statute 9 Anne, 
 c. 5, there was always required a declaration to 
 be made, just in the same way as at present. 
 All the provisions are common to the two sta- 
 tutes, the only difference beiag, that it was 
 formerly made upon oath, and now it was a 
 simple affirmation. In the Dover case, the de- 
 claration had been made of property in the 
 borough of Warwick, and in the parish of St. 
 Pancras; but at the table of the House the 
 declaration included also certaia other lands in 
 the parish of St. Mary, Dover, and several other 
 parishes in the county of Kent. Subsequently, 
 and before the petition was filed, the sitting 
 member having failed to comply with a standing 
 order of the House (a), now no longer in exist- 
 ence, sent a notice to the petitioners, in which 
 he stated that he did not intend to rely on the 
 qualification at Warwick and St. Pancras, the 
 only property on which he had declared and 
 sworn to at the hustings, but that he did intend 
 to rely upon the rest of the declaration, viz. : 
 the various parishes enumerated in Kent. Ob- 
 jection was taken to that course by the counsel 
 for the petitioners; but, after argument, the 
 Committee resolved in effect, that he was en- 
 
 (a) 23rd Nov. 1717. 
 
BOROUGH OF SLIGO (IST CASE) . 127 
 
 titled to rest upon a qualification not even 
 alluded to in his declaration at the hustings; 
 for they resolved that he was duly elected. The 
 petitioners beiug prepared to disprove the qua- 
 lification at Warwick and St. Pancras, the only 
 property included in the declaration, it was ad- 
 mitted by the honourable member that he could 
 not qualify upon thatj but he proceeded to 
 qualify out of other property, and the Com- 
 mittee admitted him to do that. That, there- 
 fore, was a case ia support of the position for 
 which he contended : that was upon the ground 
 that the onus of disproving the qualification lay 
 upon the party attacking it. The parties ought 
 not to confine themselves to the declaration, 
 but they ought to make inquiry as to whether 
 the member did or did not possess any other 
 property. This was stronger than the Dover 
 case. 
 
 The Chairman inquired whether the parties 
 wished for a decision of the Committee upon 
 the point of the sitting member being confined 
 to his declaration before they went further; 
 and being answered in the affirmative. 
 The Committee resolved imanimously : — 
 " That the sitting member is not at liberty to 
 pray in aid of his qualification, any property 
 not included in the declaration made by him on 
 the 18th of September, 1847, in compliance 
 with the request of two electors.'' 
 
 Mr. Calvert then contended that the judg- A judg. 
 
128 
 
 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 ment re- ments were a specific lien upon the rent-charge, 
 operat-s as ^^^ *^^t t^^ election was void. 
 a specific f^^^ Serjt. Wranffham, contra. — The point fca* 
 upon ttii the the decision of the Committee is, whether the 
 lands of the j^^jjjgjj^g woidd be considered as an actual 
 
 person ** "^ 
 
 against Specific charge upon the land, when nothing had 
 obtained.'^ been done by the judgment creditors against 
 
 this particular portion of the estate, viz. the 
 
 rent-charge. 
 
 The Committee, without calling on Mr. 
 Calvert to reply, came to the following final 
 resolutions for report to the House: — 
 
 1. "That John Patrick Somers, Esq., is not 
 duly elected a burgess, to serve in the present 
 Parliament for the borough of Sligo." 
 
 2. " That the last election for the said borough 
 of Sligo is a void election." 
 
 Final reso- 
 lutions. 
 
129 
 
 CASE XIX. 
 BOROUGH OF BODMIN. 1848. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 28th of March, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members: — 
 
 George Alexander Hamilton, Esq., Dublin University, 
 (Chairman). 
 
 John Hodgetts Hodgetts 
 Foley, Esq., Worcestershire, 
 East. 
 
 Col. the Hon. George Rice 
 Trevor, Carmarthensiiire. 
 
 Fitzstephen French, Esq., 
 
 Eoscommon. 
 Sir Edmund Pilmer, Bart., 
 
 Kent, West. 
 
 Petitioner : — Sir Samuel Thomas Spry, Knight, a Candidate 
 at the election. 
 
 Sitting Members : — James Wyld, Esq., and Henry Charles 
 Lacy, Esq. 
 
 Counsel for Petitioners : — Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, Mr. 
 Merewether, and Mr. Selwyn. 
 
 Agents : — Messrs. Gregory and Co., London ; Messrs. Smith 
 and Roberts, Truro ; and Mr. Pears, Bodmin. 
 
 Counsel for Sitting Memher, Mr. Wyld : — Mr. Words- 
 worth, and Mr. Edwin James. 
 
 Agent : — Mr. Coppock. 
 
 Comisel for Sitting Member, Mr. Lacy : — Mr. Serjeant 
 Wrangham, and Mr. Eowe. 
 
 Agents : — Messrs. Dyson and Co., Mr. Williams, and Mr. 
 Taunton. 
 
 March 29. 
 
 The usual preliminary resolutions were agreed Preiimi- 
 
 . „ /„v nary reso- 
 
 tO W- lutibns. 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 1. 
 
 g3 
 
130 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Petition. The petition contained charges of hrihery, 
 Briberyand treating^ and other corrupt practices against 
 treating. ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ sitting members^ and alleged that 
 Scrutiny, the majority of votes declared by the returning 
 officer at the close of the poll to be in favour of 
 the sitting members, was but a colourable ma- 
 jority procured by the means set forth in the 
 petition ; that the real majority of good and valid 
 votes was in favour of the petitioner over one or 
 both of the sitting members ; that one or both 
 of the sitting members' names ought to be 
 erased from the return ; and that the petitioner 
 ought to be declared duly elected as one of the 
 representatives of the borough. 
 Want of The petition also alleged that Mr. Wyld was 
 quahfioa- ^^^ ^^ly qualified by estate to sit in Parliament. 
 
 Wyld. 
 
 The scrutiny was not proceeded with. 
 
 March 30. After a discussion upon the validity of the 
 recognizances entered into in this case, which 
 terminated (the statute 11 Vict. c. 18, not hav- 
 ing at that time passed through Parliament), in 
 a resolution of the Committee, " That it is not 
 within the jurisdiction of this Committee to de- 
 cide upon the validity or invalidity of the recog- 
 nizances ; and further, that the circumstance of 
 the bill pending did not warrant them in apply- 
 ing to the House for an adjournment " (a), 
 
 (a) Now by 11 & 12 Vict. o. 98, s. 13, the judgment of 
 the examiner upon the validity of the recognizance is 
 final and conclusive, to aU intents and purposes. 
 
BOROUGH OF BODMIN. 131 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake opened the case against 
 the return of the sitting members, on the ground 
 of bribery and treating, and also on the ground 
 of want of qualification in the case of Mr. 
 Wyld. 
 
 The question of qualification was first pro- 
 ceeded with. 
 
 Service of a notice on Mr. Wyld to produce General 
 certaia documents was proved. The notice re- p°o"„(.e" 
 quired him to produce, inter alia, " all docu- " all docu- 
 ments, deeds, muniments of titles, conveyances, g^c" suig. 
 or other papers relating to or concerning your ''e"*^- 
 qualification, as contained or expressed in your 
 declaration in that behalf, and whereby or by 
 means or reason whereof you claim to be duly 
 qualified as a burgess to sit in Parliament for 
 the borough of Bodmin, and all other letters, 
 papers, and documents relating to or concerning 
 the said late election." 
 
 The declaration of qualification made by Mr. 
 Wyld at the table of the House was then put in. 
 It was as follows : — 
 
 " Statement of the lands, tenements, and 
 hereditaments, or of the interest therein, or 
 arising therefrom, whereby I make out my 
 qualification as a member to serve in Parlia- 
 ment pursuant to the Act of the first and second 
 years of the reign of her Majesty Queen Victoria, 
 intituled 'An Act for amending the Laws re- 
 lating to the Qualification of Members to serve 
 in Parliament.' 
 
laz 
 
 ELECTION CASJSS. 
 
 "Note. — If the member qualifies in respect 
 of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, he must 
 state the barony or baronies, parish or parishes, 
 township or townships, preciact or precincts, and 
 also the county or counties in which such lands, 
 tenements, or hereditaments are situate, and 
 also the estate in the said lands, tenements, or 
 hereditaments, or in the rents and profits there- 
 of, of or to which he is seised or entitled. 
 
 Barony, parish, town- 
 ship, or precinct in 
 which the lands, te- 
 nements, or heredi- 
 taments are situate, 
 
 Stockport. 
 
 St. James, Westmin- 
 ster. 
 
 Estate in the lands, 
 tenements, or he- 
 reditaments, or in 
 the rents or profits 
 thereof, of or to 
 which the party is 
 seised or entitled. 
 
 Estate for life in lands, 
 tenements and he- 
 reditaments. 
 
 James Wyld." 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake called on the counsel 
 for Mr. Wyld to produce the deeds of the lands 
 and tenements to which the declaration referred, 
 and out of which the qualification was stated to 
 arise. 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth objected, that the notice to 
 produce was not sufficient. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake and Mr. Selwyn con- 
 tended that the notice to produce the documents 
 was sufficient. 
 
BOROUGH OF BODMIN. 133 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth replied. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That the Com- 
 mittee are of opinion that the sitting member 
 must either produce his deeds of qualification, 
 or else the petitioner may proceed with his 
 case." 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake, on that decision of the 
 Committee, called for the production of the 
 deeds. 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth stated that he did not at 
 present produce any deeds. 
 
 Secondary evidence was then given for the 
 purpose of proving that Mr. Wyld did not pos- 
 sess the property mentioned in the declaration. 
 
 Mr. Merewether summed up the evidence March .si. 
 against the qualification, but the Committee, 
 without calling on the coimsel for Mr. Wyld, 
 decided that the petitioner had not proved the 
 disqualification . 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth applied for costs incurred Application 
 by Mr. Wyld, by reason of the objection to his ^"^g^'^'^g 
 qualification, on the ground that such objection Vict. c. 103, 
 was frivolous and vexatious. ^%ei. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That the Com- 
 mittee are of opinion that the case is not ©ne 
 in which an order for costs ought to be made 
 under the 92nd sect. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103." 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth objected to the list of public- in ust of 
 houses where treating took place, which had '^^^^^ °^ 
 
 ° . . treating not 
 
 been handed in by the petitioners, on the necessaryto 
 
 state time. 
 
134 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 ground that the time when the treating took 
 place was not mentioned, in conformity with 
 the preliminary resolution of the Committee (a) . 
 The Committee considered the list sufficient, 
 and directed Mr. Seijt. Kinglake to proceed with 
 the case. 
 
 April 1. John Bate, in examination by Mr. Seijt. Kiug- 
 Evidence of ^g,^g beine asked as to what passed between him 
 
 treating not jo 
 
 allowed to and Thomas Pearce and WiUiam Scantleberry 
 
 be given ^^ ^^g ^^^ ^f poUing at the mayoralty, which 
 
 agency was the house where Mr. Wyld lodged, 
 
 prove . jyj-^ Wordsworth objected to the course of 
 
 examination, on the ground that there was no 
 
 evidence to show that either of these parties 
 
 were agents of Mr. Wyld. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake supported the question. 
 Mr. James replied. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That the question 
 must be expunged, as, in the opinion of the 
 Committee, it would go to establish treating 
 without the agency of Thomas Pearce and 
 William Scantleberry being first proved." 
 
 April 3. Mr. M. D. Hill, Q.C., appeared as counsel in 
 
 the absence of Mr, Serjt. Kinglake. 
 April 4. Mr. Hill made an application to the Commit- 
 
 Additions 
 
 (a) " That, with respect to treating, the Committee 
 will expect counsel to state the times and places where 
 such treating is alleged to have taken place; the 
 Committee, however, reserving to themselves a discre- 
 tionary power, as in the case of bribery. 
 
BOROUGH OF BODMIN. 135 
 
 tee under their preliminary resolution [a), which, refused to 
 
 under peculiar circumstances, permitted an ad- ^^g^~ '° 
 
 dition to be made to the list of places and times lists, no re- 
 
 at which the treating was alleged to have taken t^g pigggj 
 
 place. soughttobe 
 
 added 
 
 The Committee refused the application, inas- haTingbeen 
 much as there was no reference in the opening """^^ *° 
 
 '■ . ° opening 
 
 speech to any hut the puhlic-houses m.entioned speech of 
 
 in the list. petitioners' 
 
 counsel. 
 
 The evidence of the petitioner as to bribery April 5. 
 and treating being concluded, Wherepeti- 
 
 , tion alleged 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That no case of bribery and 
 bribery has been proved against either of the ^^^J^^j 
 sitting members or their agents.'^ on close of 
 
 The Chairman intimated that the counsel for ^f'i"°°^f 
 the sitting members should confine themselves to a resolu- 
 to the rebuttal of the charges of agency and ^ng siting 
 
 treating. member 
 
 and agents 
 of bribery, 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth, on behalf of Mr. Wyld, ^"^^^^^^^ 
 applied for costs with reference to the allegations counsel to 
 of bribery. ^PP'^t 
 
 Mr. Rome, on behalf of Mr. Lacy, made a buttal of 
 
 ■1 ^• ±1 charges of 
 
 similar application. agency and 
 
 The Committee postponed the consideration treating- 
 of the question until the whole case was con- 
 cluded. 
 
 Mr. Wordsworth wished the direction of the Where at- 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 134. 
 
136 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 ting mem- Committee as to the course whicli he should 
 mtheir'^^P^'s^Si whether he should address them now 
 detcoces, on behalf of Mr. Wyld, or postpone his address 
 only pro- i^iitil the Case of Mr. Lacy, with regard to which 
 poses to call j^g understood that eyidence vrould be tendered, 
 
 evidence in i t • 
 
 answer to was ended. On behalf of Mr. Wyld, no witness 
 petitioner's ^Quld be called, and as soon as his defence was 
 
 case, Com- ' 
 
 mittee re- Concluded, the case, as regards that gentleman, 
 to^a deter^^ would be ripe for a decision. He hoped the 
 mination Committes would at once proceed to such deci- 
 rasTuntii^"^ sion, as in the reply to which the counsel for the 
 all evidence petitioner would be entitled as regarded the case 
 them. of Mr. Lacy, the two cases might be mixed up, 
 possibly to the prejudice of Mr. Wyld. 
 
 The Committee decided that the counsel for 
 
 Mr. Wyld must proceed with his case according 
 
 to his own judgment, and that the Committee 
 
 would not come to any decision with respect to 
 
 ,Mr. Wyld tiU they had heard the whole case. 
 
 April 6. Mr. Wordsworth postponed his address on 
 behalf of Mr. Wyld until after the evidence in 
 defence of Mr. Lacy. 
 
 Evidence was then given to disprove the 
 charges of agency and treating against Mr. 
 Lacy and his agents ; on the conclusion of which, 
 Mr. Wordsworth stated that in consequence of 
 the course pursued by Mr. Serjt. Wrangham, it 
 had become necessary for him, with the permis- 
 sion of the Committee, to call witnesses. 
 
 The permission was granted, and the evidence 
 
BOROUGH OF BODMIN. 137 
 
 being concluded, Mr. Serjt. Wrangham summed 
 up the evidence on behalf of Mr. Lacy, and Mr. 
 Wordsworth that on behalf of Mr. Wyld. 
 
 Mr. Hill having replied on the whole case on 
 behalf of the petitioner. 
 
 The Committee finally resolved : — 
 
 1. "That James Wyld, Esq., is duly elected Final reso- 
 a burgess to serve iu this present Parliament for •"*'<'°s- 
 the borough of Bodmin." 
 
 2. " That Henry Charles Lacy, Esq., is duly 
 elected a burgess to serve iu this present Parlia- 
 ment for the borough of Bodmin." 
 
 3. "That a practice prevailed at the last elec- 
 tion, and also at former elections ia the borough 
 of Bodmiu, of issuing priuted tickets, bearing 
 the value of 5s. each, to voters after poUing, 
 vrhich tickets were exchanged for refreshments 
 to that amount ; but it has not been proved that 
 at the last election those tickets were issued, or 
 the refreshments given, with the knowledge or 
 at the expense of either of the sitting members 
 or their agents'^ (a). 
 
 4. " That the Committee see no reason to give Costs 
 costs in any matter arising out of the present 
 case." 
 
 {a) These three resolutions were reported to the 
 House 
 
138 
 
 CASE XX. 
 
 1848. COUNTY OF LONGFORD. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 9th of May, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Hon. Edward Pleydell Bouverie, Kilmarnock, 
 (Chai/rmcm). 
 
 Lord Henry William Scott 
 Bentinck, Nottingham- 
 shire, North. 
 
 Robert Aglionby Slaney, Esq., 
 Shrewsbury. 
 
 William Henry Pole Carew, 
 Esq., Cornwall, East. 
 
 Thomas Emerson Headlam, 
 Esq., Newcastle-on-Tyne. 
 
 Petitioner : — Anthony Lefroy, Esq., an unsucoesafiil 
 Candidate. 
 
 Sitting Member petitioned against : — Bichard Maxwell 
 Fox, Esq. 
 
 Counsel for Petitioner : — • Mr. Serjeant Wrangham, and 
 Mr. Thomas Lefroy. 
 
 Agent : — Mr. Thomas Courtenay. 
 
 Counsel for Sitting Member : — Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, and 
 Mr. Calvert. 
 
 Agents .•—Mr. Walsh, and Mr. G. L. Smyth. 
 
 May 10. The Committee came to the following pre- 
 naryresolu- li^inary resolution, " That aU witnesses do 
 tion. withdraw, and that no person shall be examined 
 
COUNTY OF LONGFORD. 139 
 
 who shall have been present during any of the 
 proceedings." 
 
 The petition, after stating that Samuel Wens- Petition. 
 ley Blackall, Esq., Richard Maxwell Fox, Esq., 
 the Hon. Lawrence Harman King Harman, and Scrutiny, 
 the petitioner, were candidates at the election, 
 and that the two former were returned, alleged 
 that the votes of many persons who had been 
 illegally, unduly, and erroneously registered, 
 and of persons who, since the time of registra- 
 tion had ceased to be qualified, and of persons 
 whose claim to be registered had been adjudi- 
 cated upon by Committees of the House of 
 Commons, on the occasion of former elections, 
 and whose votes were then declared to be bad, 
 but who notwithstanding had been re-registered, 
 and of persons disqualified for other reasons, 
 were tendered at the election for Mr. Fox, and 
 were received; whereby, and by other means, 
 Mr. Fox obtained a colourable majority, but that 
 the real majority of legal votes was in favour of 
 the petitioner. 
 
 The petition also alleged that Mr. Fox was Want of 
 not duly qualified by estate as a member to ti^„^of o^g 
 serve in Parliament for any county, and prayed of the sit- 
 the House to declare that Mr. Fox was not duly terl™^""' 
 elected, but that the petitioner was duly elected 
 and ought to have been returned, or to declare 
 the election of Mr. Fox to have been null and 
 void. 
 
140 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham opened a case of scru- 
 tiny, abandoning the charge of the want of 
 qualification of Mr. Fox. 
 Iq an Irish The clerk of the peace for the county of Long- 
 affidivit'of ^°^*^ produced the poU-hooks. The affidavit of 
 returning the returning officer verifying them, stated "that 
 "'they are' *^®y ^^ *^^ three Several poll-books of the said 
 the three election Upon which the return is founded." 
 poii-'books Mr. Serjt. Kinglake objected to the poll-books 
 of the said being received in evidence. — The affidavit of the 
 upon which returning officer annexed to the poU-books is 
 the ''*''"■", not in conformity with the provisions of the Act 
 heidsuffi- 1 Geo. IV. c. 11, s. 3, which requires the re- 
 c'aHo'nTf ' ^^^^^E officer to verify on oath " that the poU- 
 poii-books books which he delivers in are the original poU- 
 them^ad- ^ooks of the election upon which the return was 
 missible. founded." The affidavit only states " that they 
 are the three several poU-books of the said 
 election upon which the return is founded;" 
 and for anything, therefore, that appeared on this 
 affidavit, the poU-books now produced are copies 
 and not the original poll-books. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham submitted, that as the 
 affidavit stated that they were "the several poU- 
 books of the said election upon which the return 
 was founded," that was the same as a statement 
 that they were the original poU-books. 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake having replied. 
 The Committee decided that the affidavit was 
 sufficient, and that the poU-books were suffi- 
 ciently proved. 
 
COUNTY OF LONGFORD. 141 
 
 The register of the county of Longford was. 
 produced by the clerk of the peace. 
 
 Mr. Lefroy proposed to strike oflf the vote of The affida- 
 Patrick KeUy. ^'^^ 
 
 The affidavit of registry of the voter was pro- cient proof 
 
 J 1 of voter 
 
 duced. being on 
 
 Mr. Serit. Kinqlake obiected to the affidavit register, 
 
 „ . T . "^ . ■' -,. , . without 
 
 01 registry being put uij contending that notice production 
 ought to have heen given to the voter to produce of certifi- 
 
 _ CcLlc or rc~ 
 
 his certificate of registration, which was the gistration. 
 proper document to be put in evidence. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Wrangham submitted, that the 
 affidavit of registry and certificate were the 
 register, and that therefore the affidavit now 
 produced was the correct document on which to 
 proceed. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Kinglake replied. 
 
 The Committee overruled the objection, and 
 decided that the proof adduced was sufficient. 
 
 The affidavit and certificate were received ia 
 evidence. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham now proposed to ad- The open- 
 duce evidence that the voter was not entitled to ^jl\^xJc re- 
 be placed on the register. fused. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Kinglake stated, that it must now 
 be assumed, after the decision of the Committee, 
 that Patrick Kelly was on some register of voters 
 which entitled him to vote at the last election, 
 and he therefore had now to object to the register 
 being opened, or the right of Patrick Kelly to 
 vote being brought in question before the Com- 
 
143 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 mittee, the matter alleged as the ground of 
 objection to the vote not having arisen since the 
 registration, so as to bring the case within the 
 59th section of the Irish Reform Act. 
 May II. Mr. Serjt. Wrangham was heard in support of 
 the jurisdiction of the Committee to go into the 
 vote of Patrick KeUy, 
 
 And Mr. Serjt. Kinglake having replied («), 
 May 12. The Committee, after deliberation, unani- 
 mously resolved, "That they could not hear 
 objections to Patrick Kelly's right to have been 
 placed on the register." 
 
 In answer to Mr. Serjt. Wrangham, the Com- 
 mittee stated, that the effect of the decision was, 
 that the Committee would not open the register. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Wrangham, in consequence of this 
 decision, withdrew from further proceeding on 
 the petition. 
 
 Costs Mr. Serjt. Kinglake applied for costs incurred 
 
 re use . -^^ ^j^g sitting member, with reference to the alle- 
 gation in the petition of want of qualification. 
 
 The Committee declined to order costs with 
 respect to this allegation. 
 
 (a) The arguments of counsel were similar to those 
 urged on former occasions, when the question has 
 been, whether the Irish Register should be opened. 
 See Longford, P. & K. 179 ; Galway, P. & K. 308 ; 
 C. & E. 398 ; Carlow, P. & K. 394 ; 'cionmell, P. & K. 
 427 ; C. & E. 454 ; Carlow, P. & F. 3 ; Longford, 
 P. & P. 223 ; and Longford, B. & A. 234. 
 
COUNTY OF LONGFORD. 143 
 
 The Committee then agreed to the following Final reso- 
 resolutions, which were reported to the House : '""°°'- 
 
 1. " That Richaxd Maxwell Fox, Esq., is duly 
 elected a knight of the shire, to serve iu this 
 present ParHament for the county of Longford." 
 
 2. "That the Committee, in virtue of the 
 82nd section of the Act to amend the Law for 
 the Trial of Controverted Elections, beg to im- 
 press upon the House the importance of speedily 
 clearing up, by a legislative measiu'e, the difii- 
 ctdty and doubts which surround the question, 
 whether the admission of a voter on the register 
 in Ireland, is conclusive evidence before a Com- 
 mittee of this House of his right to be re- 
 gistered." 
 
 3. " That the Committee find that the return 
 for the county of Longford was disputed and 
 tried in the year 1838, before a Committee of 
 this House, which specially reported to the 
 House, ' That it seemed to them highly desir- 
 able that some declaratory Act should be passed, 
 in order to insure uniformity of practice and 
 decision, respecting the true meaning and intent 
 of certain clauses of the Act to amend the Re- 
 presentation of the People in Ireland ;' and they 
 suggested that 'Parliament should decide, by 
 some distinct enactment, whether the admission 
 of voters to the registry by the assistant barrister 
 ought to be deemed conclusive of their right to 
 vote; or whether such registry ought to be 
 opened, either partially or entirely, by an in- 
 
144 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 quiry into such voter's right, before a Committee 
 of the House of Commons.' " 
 
 4. "That in the year 1842, the return for 
 the county of Longford was again disputed, and 
 tried before a Committee of this House ; and the 
 said Committee, in a special report, ' desired to 
 call the instant and serious attention of the 
 House to the state of the law, as it materially 
 affected a very considerable portion of the par- 
 liamentary franchise in Ireland.' They stated, 
 that ' they alluded especially to the conflicting 
 decisions which were so frequently given by 
 Committees of this House in respect of the 
 issue, technically termed "the opening of the 
 registry," ' and to another question therein men- 
 tioned; and they reported, 'that they were 
 unanimously of opinion that, without some de- 
 claratory Act on the part of the legislature, it 
 would be altogether impossible for future Com- 
 mittees to arrive at any consistent or satisfactory 
 conclusion'" {a). 
 
 5. "That the Committee on the present oc- 
 casion, with respect to this important question, 
 have come to an unanimous decision, which, 
 while it accords with that of other Committees, 
 is at variance with the one arrived at by both of 
 the Committees previously mentioned ; but they 
 have not done so without being strongly sensible 
 
 (a) By the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 69, s. 104, the law upon 
 this subject is assimilated to that of England. 
 
COUNTY OF LONGFORD. 145 
 
 of the extreme difficulty with which the question 
 is perplexed; and they think it their duty to 
 report their unanimous opinion to the House — 
 that, so long as the law remains as it is at pre- 
 sent, this question must continue to create un- 
 certainty with respect to the Irish franchise, 
 and to invite costly and harassing htigation he- 
 fore Committees of this House." 
 
]46 
 
 1848. 
 
 CASE XXI. 
 
 LANCASTER BOROUGH. 
 
 (second case.) 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 16th of May, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Viscount Courtenay, Devon, South, 
 (ChawmoM). 
 
 William Pinney, Esq., Somer- William Ewart, Esq., Dum- 
 
 setshire. East. fries, &c. 
 
 Viscount Adare. Hon. Octavius Buncombe, 
 
 York, N. Kiding. 
 
 PeUtioner: — Hon. Edward Henry Stanley, the imsuccessftil 
 Candidate. 
 
 Sitting Member: — Robert Baynes Armstrong, Esq. 
 
 Counsel for FeUiioner ; — ^Mr. Serjeant Wrangham, Mr. 
 Merewether, and Mr. Clerk. 
 
 Agents ! — Messrs. Law, Holmes, and Co., and Mr. C. T. Clark. 
 
 Counsel for Sitting Members: — Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, Mr. 
 Edwin James, and Mr. Higgin. 
 
 Agents : — Mr. Coppock and Mr. Maxted. 
 
 May 17. 
 
 Prelimi- The usTial preliminary resolutions were 
 
 naryreso- agreed tO (fl). 
 lutions. ° ^ ' 
 
 Petition. The petition, after stating the election, and 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 1. 
 
LANCASTER BOROUGH (2nD CASe) . 147 
 
 that the sitting member and petitioner were Scrutiny, 
 candidates, complaiaed of the improper rejection 
 and reception of votes on various grounds ; and 
 prayed that the election and return of the sitting 
 member might be declared void, and the peti- 
 tioner be declared duly elected. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Wrangham opened the case. The 
 election took place on the 9th day of March, 
 the teste of the writ beiag dated the 1st day of 
 March. 
 
 Robert Gibson's Case. 
 
 This voter was objected to on the ground of Where 
 having received parochial relief between the objections" 
 registration and the day of election. g"en in 
 
 Before this case was entered upon, an objec- g vict. c. 
 tion was taken that the list of obiections de- ^"^j ^- ?*• 
 
 : . was headed 
 
 livered in by the agents of the petitioner were "The foi- 
 i-«^cient. }»™/„,^,« 
 
 The list of objections was written on several ing the 
 sheets of paper, and was headed on the first page "heToters 
 
 thus: — objected to 
 
 by and on 
 
 " The following is a list containing the behaifof the 
 names of the voters intended to be objected to „itii t^e se- 
 bv and on behalf of the petitioner, with the ""^ ^leads 
 
 "' of objection 
 
 distin- 
 guishing the same, against each voter named ;" and after each head of 
 objection names were written occupying several pages until next head of 
 objection was come to, the intermediate pages having no heading whatever, 
 list held sufficient. 
 
 h2 
 
148 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 several heads of objections, distinguishing the 
 same, against each voter named. 
 
 " First Class. 
 Non-Besidents. 
 
 The objection to each of the voters named in 
 the following list is, that he had not, ever since 
 the time of registration, that is to say, since the 
 31st day of Jidy, 1847, and before the time of 
 voting, resided, or continued to reside, or that 
 he had ceased to reside, within the said borough 
 of Lancaster, or within seven statute miles from 
 the place where the poll for such borough has 
 been usually taken." 
 
 There then followed several names, written 
 one after the other, and occupying the remainder 
 of page 1, and also page 2. To page 2 there 
 was no heading. Page 3 was thus headed : — 
 
 " Second Class. 
 Paupers. 
 
 The objection to each of the voters named 
 in the following list is, that he has received 
 parochial relief or other alms, which by the law 
 of Parliament disqualified such person from 
 voting in the election of members to serve in 
 Parliament for the said borough, or that such 
 rehef has been furnished to some one or more 
 members of the family of such voter for whom 
 he was himself boimd by law to provide," 
 
LANCASTER BOROUGH (3nD CASe). 149 
 
 The names of the voters in this class occupied 
 the remainder of page 3, and also pages 4, 5, 
 and 6 — and these three pages had no heading. 
 At page 7 there was a fresh class, headed, and 
 with the names comprised in it written in a 
 similar manner to the two preceding classes. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake, in support of the objec- 
 tion.— The 54th sect, of the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103(a), 
 requires all parties complaining of, or defending 
 a return, within a certain specified time to " de- 
 liver in to the clerk of the General Committee, 
 lists of the voters intended to be objected to, 
 giving in the said lists the several heads of ob- 
 jections, and distinguishing the same against 
 the names of the voters excepted to." The pre- 
 sent list does not comply with these reqidsi- 
 tions. The objection to a voter is a question be- 
 tween himself and the petitioner, to be dealt with 
 as a separate case, he being entitled to his costs. 
 The object, therefore, of this section being to 
 give information to the voter, the legislatiu'C 
 requires that there shall be separate heads of 
 objections to his vote, and that the same shall 
 be distinguished against his name. It is not to 
 be left to inference, but a substantial objection 
 must be placed against the name of the voter in 
 some way or other, so that the instant the voter 
 looks to his name he may be informed of the 
 specific objection. By the 54th section of the 
 
 {a) Sect. 55 of the new Act, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98, is 
 identically the same with sect. 54 of 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103. 
 
150 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 statute the lists are to be handed in to the clerk 
 of the General Committee of Elections, and bjr 
 the 70th section, the hsts are referred, together 
 with the petition, to the Select Committee, in 
 order that the Committee may judge of the suf- 
 ficiency of those lists; and the 80th section 
 enacts that no evidence shall be given before the 
 Select Committee, or before any Commission 
 issued by the Committee as to Irish elections, 
 against the validity of any vote not included in 
 the list, or upon any head of objection other 
 than that specified against the voter's name in 
 such list. It follows, therefore, that the Com- 
 mittee have no power to enter upon the scrutiny 
 unless the Act of Parliament has been compHed 
 with. Now in the present case there is a head- 
 ing to the general list m these terms : — " The 
 following is a list containing the names of the 
 voters intended to be objected to by and on 
 behalf of the petitioner, vrith the several heads 
 of objections, distinguishing the same, against 
 each voter named." By the phrase, "the ob- 
 jection to each of the voters named in the 
 following Hst," what list is meant? It does 
 not say, as far as regards the 1st class, or the 
 3nd, or point out to what portion of the list 
 it is appHcable. There is, therefore, nothing 
 to give it a pointed application to the names 
 set out in the three or four first pages, more 
 than to the pages beyond them. The objec- 
 tion being stated at the head of page 1 of 
 the document, and not repeated in page 3, 
 
LANCASTER BOROUGH (2nD CASE). 151 
 
 or any one of the subsequent pages, those 
 pages are left unexplained. How can a party 
 last named in page 4, know what the ob- 
 jection to his vote is? The question is not, 
 whether, by some process of reasoning, the 
 voter may not extract what the nature of the 
 objection is, but whether the Act of Par- 
 liament has been strictly complied with. The 
 voter is not to be compelled to turn to any 
 heading to find the objection to his name, but it 
 ought to be set against his individual name. In 
 support of his argument he cited the Middlesex 
 case (a), the Bedfordshire case {b), the Wey- 
 mouth case (c), and the L/yme-Regis case {d). 
 
 Mr. James rose to speak on the same side. On arguing 
 Mr. Merewether submitted, that it was not one counsel 
 usual to hear two counsel on a point of objection, on each 
 
 side oqIt 
 
 Mr. James stated that that course had been heard, 
 followed in several cases, where a question of 
 law arose. 
 
 The Committee unanimously determined to 
 hear only one counsel on each side in a question 
 of this sort. 
 
 Mr. Merewether. — The list is sufficient. The 
 object of the Act of Parliament was to give a 
 fair and distinct notice of the nature of the ob- 
 jection to the party objected to. The argument 
 of Mr. Cockburn, in the Jjyms-Begis case(e), 
 
 (a) and Peck. 45. (S) 2nd Luders, 390. 
 
 (c) Bar. & Aust. 108. {A) Bar. & Aust. 462. 
 
 (e) Bar. & Aust. 463. 
 
152 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 and which was adopted by that Committee, is 
 equally applicable here. The object of the Act 
 of Parliament is accomplished as perfectly by a 
 reference such as has been made in this list, as 
 if the objection were repeated at length against 
 each individual name. In the headings here, the 
 specific nature of the objection is given to each 
 class, which must be taken to end at the point 
 where the next heading of a class commences. 
 The 54th section requires that the several heads 
 of objection should be given and distinguished 
 against each name ; this has virtually been done 
 here. The 80th section merely requires that 
 nothing should be gone into except that which is 
 included in one of the heads of objection specified 
 against the voters. The heading of the objection 
 is what conveys information to the voter's mind, 
 and that has been given in this case. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Kinglake replied. — There is no 
 analogy between the terms " head of objection," 
 and "> heading of the list." The Act requires 
 that the several heads of objection should be 
 distinguished with respect to each name ; that has 
 not been done here. The word " against" means 
 " opposite." 
 
 The Committee unanimously resolved, " That 
 the objections taken by Mr. Serjt. Kinglake to 
 the lists are not valid." 
 
 Adjourn- Mr. Seijt. Kinglake applied to the Committee 
 Ranted, in *o adjoum, in order that the agents on both 
 order that sides might have an opportunity of agreeing 
 
LANCASTER BOROrOH (2nD CASE). 153 
 
 upon what votes miglit he given up, and there- both sides 
 fore struck out. All cases upon which the "'^^'^*^^j^ 
 agents could not agree, technical or otherwise, cases in the 
 would be reserved for the Committee to adjudi- jecUo°ns° 
 
 cate upon. should be 
 
 The counsel for the petitioner assenting to this 
 proposition. 
 
 The Committee adjourned for this purpose 
 until next day. 
 
 Cases of Receipt of Parochial Relief (a). 
 
 Thomas Marshall's Case. 
 
 Tliis voter was objected to on the ground of May is. 
 having received parochial rehef since the regis- To render a 
 tration, and before the election. The clerk of the ground that 
 Board of Guardians of the Lancaster Union pro- ^"H"' ^^^ 
 
 . received pa- 
 
 duced the relief books, from which it appeared roohial re- 
 that the voter was admitted into the Union 'l**^'^"*" 
 
 cient to 
 
 Workhouse on the 7th December last, and was show that 
 still an inmate, receiviag there meat, drink, and ueverin* 
 accommodation of bed and board with the other Union 
 
 Wo rlc h o US 6 
 
 inmates ; but no evidence was given to show that without 
 any parish of the Union had been charged with P™°f °^ 
 the relief so given. The Union consisted of any parti- 
 eighteen parishes. ^"^^_'P*- 
 
 Mr. Merewether proposed to sum up the evi- 
 dence against the vote. The Committee inti- 
 mated that they did not wish to hear the sum- 
 ming up unless counsel desired it. 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 148, Second Class. 
 h3 
 
154 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake, in support of the vote. — 
 It is for the other side to strictly satisfy the 
 Committee that there has been such an amount 
 of relief given in this case as disqualifies the 
 voter. The evidence is, that in a Union-house 
 containing the paupers of eighteen parishes, this 
 man was receiving certain sustenance. But 
 this is not sufficient ; it ought to have been fur- 
 ther proved that it came out of the funds of the 
 parish to which the voter belonged. The new 
 Poor Law Amendment Act, 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, 
 s. 26, enacts that each parish shall remain 
 hable for its own poor, and the way in which 
 relief is to be administered and provided for 
 is laid down. The evidence leaves it perfectly ia 
 doubt as to which parish made the contribution 
 towards the sustenance of the party in question. 
 Under the Act, there must be an order of the 
 Board of Guardians to sanction the relief, and 
 that particular relief must be paid for by the 
 particular parish so charged. Formerly, in set- 
 tlement cases, in order to prove relief to have 
 been given by the particular parish from which 
 the pauper was sought to be removed, it was 
 necessary to call evidence to show that the 
 amount supplied was out of the fund of the 
 particular parish sought to be charged, and that 
 the authorities of that parish had assented to 
 it. Now, by 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 69, in order 
 to save the trouble of going through all the 
 steps of proof, a certificate under the common 
 seal of the Union is made sufficient, evidence of 
 
LANCASTER BOROUGH (2nd CASE). 155 
 
 the fact. The question therefore is, whether the 
 Committee will disfranchise a voter in the ab- 
 sence of this proof. 
 
 The Committee decided that the vote was 
 bad. 
 
 In the progress of the above case, a witness was Upon scru- 
 asked by Mr. Serit. Kinqlake, in cross-examina- V°y' ™" 
 
 11 ■;.»,,., deuce must 
 
 tion, whether at the time oi the election he saw be confined 
 
 a man called Lawrence Holden actinar with re- *° part'-cu- 
 
 '^ lar case De- 
 
 ference to the election. fore Com- 
 
 Mr. Merewether objected to the question, as """^^• 
 not being pertinent to the present inquiry. 
 There was no question now before the Com- 
 mittee as to Lawrence Holden. 
 
 Mr. Seqt. Kinglake submitted, that he had a 
 right to put a question to the witness which 
 might be important, as applying to another 
 matter which would probably dispense with the 
 attendance of this witness for a considerable 
 time. 
 
 Mr. Merewether. — The inquiry should be kept 
 distinct as to the specific point immediately 
 before the Committee. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That the question 
 be not put" (a). 
 
 A discussion arose among the counsel as to In case of 
 
 (a) The Committee divided on the question, " That 
 the question be put :" Ayes, 2 ; Mr. Pinney, Mr. Ewart: 
 Noes, 3; Viscount Adare, Mr. Buncombe, Viscount 
 Courtenay. 
 
156 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 scrutiny, the course of proceeding in each case ; and the 
 parties as- Committee decided that there should be one 
 
 saiUngvote, 
 
 restrictedto speech, either in the shape of an opening or 
 eitheHn"*' Summing up, on the part of those who impugned 
 opening the tjje vote, and that there shoiild be one speech on 
 summing the part of those who defended the vote, except 
 "P- in the case where witnesses were called, which, 
 
 of course, would give the right to the party 
 attacking the vote to have a reply; that the 
 one speech should be either in opening or sum- 
 ming up. 
 
 Anthony Taylor's Case. 
 
 A voter ap- The facts proved in this case were, that the 
 ^^\^"ft'" ^otei'j ^^ able-bodied man, having applied for 
 parish offi- relief, was required to work, receiving Is. on 
 employed ^^*^ January, and afterwards 4*. 6d. per week, 
 by them The Order of the Board of Guardians, requiring 
 of Board of work to be done, was made on the 22nd of 
 Guardians, January, but was not confirmed till after the 
 for such time of the election. By that order each able- 
 work.under ijodicd man who went to work imder the order 
 
 the usual 
 
 rate of was to rcceivc a shilling as his day's wages. 
 
 disquaii" Sixty or seventy persons were thus employed. 
 
 fied. Mr. Clerk, against the vote. — This vote must 
 
 be struck off. The wages given by the parochial 
 authorities under this order were in the natm'e 
 of parochial relief. In the Bedford case [a), it 
 was distinctly held, that payment for labotir 
 
 (a) C. & K. 75 ; 8. C, P. & K. 128. 
 
LANCASTER BOROUGH (2nD CASE). 157 
 
 from the parish, paid at a lower rate than the 
 usual run of wages, amoiinted to parish relief, 
 so as to disqualify the voter. 
 
 Mr. Seijt, Kinglake. — The vote should he re- 
 tained. The 36th section of the Reform Act 
 disqualifies persons from heing registered who 
 have within twelve calendar months received 
 parochial relief, or other alms, which, by the 
 law of Parliament, disqualified persons from 
 voting. The question therefore is, whether this 
 is parochial relief. This is employment given 
 under the 43rd Elizabeth, and not an adminis- 
 tration of the funds raised for the support of the 
 poor. It is not a money relief, distributed 
 among persons incompetent to provide for them- 
 selves in the ordinary way. If the parish had not 
 employed these persons, they must have em- 
 ployed others ; and it is to be presiuned that the 
 parish had an equivalent in return for the pay- 
 ment so made. The meaning of parochial re- 
 lief is, that the recipient is utterly unable to 
 support himself. That is not the case here. 
 Prior to the Reform Act, no case can be found 
 where payment for work has been treated as 
 parochial relief, and that Act only continued the 
 previous disqualifications. Again, there was no 
 confirmation in this case until after the period 
 of the election. The relief must be such as 
 has been ordered by the Guardians. The deci- 
 sion in the Bedford case has never been con- 
 firmed by any subsequent decision, and is one 
 which has given great dissatisfaction. 
 
158 ElECTION CASES. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That it is the 
 opinion of this Committee that the money given 
 to the voter objected to, was parochial relief 
 within the meaning of the Act 2 Will. IV. c. 45, 
 s. 36." 
 
 Vote struck off. 
 
 James Townley's Case. 
 
 No such name as James Townley appearing 
 in the relieving officer's book. 
 Where The relieving officer was asked by Mr. Mere- 
 
 James T. ^g^^g^ whether he saw one John Townley vote? 
 
 WflS ODJ6C11' f 
 
 ed to on Mr. James objected to the question as irre- 
 
 tha" he had l^vant, inasmuch as it was leadtag to an inquiry 
 received into another vote than that which was then be- 
 relief, evi- fore the Committee, contrary to their resolu- 
 denceof tionfffl). 
 
 officer that Mr. Merewether stated that the object of the 
 John T., question was to show that the person who voted 
 
 who voted ^ _ ^ • i • j. 
 
 as James as James Townley had received parochial rehef. 
 ceVved pa^ ^^^ question before the Committee was, whether 
 rochiai re- that voter had received parochial relief; he did 
 mitted, and ^^^ ^^^ to go beyond that ; the evidence was 
 vote struck all applicable to the same man, and did not ia- 
 troduce a new case. 
 
 Mr. James va. reply. — In the present class of 
 objections the question was not, whether there 
 was a personation by one party of another, but 
 simply whether James Townley received paro- 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 155. 
 
LANCASTER BOROUGH (2nD CASE). 159 
 
 chial relief. When the question of personation 
 should arise, it would be time enough to dis- 
 cuss the matter. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That evidence 
 may be admitted to show that the individual 
 who voted as James Townley received parochial 
 reUef." 
 
 The relieving officer proved that James Town- 
 ley, who voted, was the John Townley whom 
 he relieved, and whom he had often reheved 
 before as John Townley ; that he saw him vote. 
 
 Mr. Merewether summed up the case, con- 
 tending that the voter had been identified as the 
 party who had received parochial relief. 
 
 Mr. Seqt. Kinglake. — The identity of the 
 party on the register with the party who voted 
 has not been made out. This would have been 
 a good objection against the voter, on the ground 
 of personation. The only evidence here is, 
 that John Townley received relief, and that he 
 personated the James Townley who is upon 
 the register. There is no evidence to show 
 that the person on the register was the person 
 who received the relief. James Townley was a 
 registered voter, and the Committee ought not 
 to strike him off on the ground that John 
 Townley voted as James Townley. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That the vote of 
 James Townley should be struck off the poll." 
 
160 election cases. 
 
 Thomas Whiteside's Case. 
 
 Parochial TMs voter was proved to have received paro- 
 to'votfr''^" chial relief on the 4th March, being three days 
 after the after the teste of the writ, 
 writ! and*^ ^^- Merewether, against the vote.— The fact 
 before poll- of relief being given after the teste of the writ 
 qmi'iifies makes no difference. The only material thing 
 1"™- to show \s, that the rehef was given between re- 
 
 gistration and polling. If the Committee should 
 hold that the receipt of relief within four days of 
 the election did not disqualify, they would open 
 the door to great confusion and uncertainty. The 
 language of the 69th sect, of 6 Vict. c. 18, which 
 enacts, that an appeal pending in the Court of 
 Common Pleas " at the time of the issuing the 
 writ " for an election shall not affect the right 
 of voting thereat, may be relied upon by the 
 other side, but that section has no reference to 
 the present question one way or the other, but 
 is altogether confined to the case of an appeal 
 pending against the decision of the revising bar- 
 rister. Previous to the passing of the Reform 
 Act, persons "having received parochial rehef 
 within twelve months before the election were 
 thereby disqualified from voting." — (Heywood 
 on Elections, p. 272). 
 May 19. Mr. Serjt. Kinglake, in support of the vote. — 
 The date of the teste of the writ must be taken 
 to be the period of the commencement of the 
 election, for the purpose of governing the period 
 
LANCASTER BOROUGH (2nD CASE). 161 
 
 of disqualification ; and the voter must be taken 
 to have voted at the period of the teste of the 
 writ, irrespective of the actual moment at which 
 he voted, which might be governed by various 
 accidental circumstances. Under the statute of 
 Will. III. meat and drink must be given after the 
 teste of the writ, in order to avoid the election. 
 Committees have held, under the old law, that 
 freemen admitted after the teste of the writ 
 were not qualified for voting at the election. 
 Norwich case (a). The 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 69, goes 
 to show that the teste of the writ is the period 
 from which to judge aU questions arising as to 
 the right to vote. 
 
 The Committee resolved: "That the voter 
 having received relief, previously to the time at 
 which he tendered his vote, was thereby dis- 
 qualified." 
 
 Vote struck off. 
 
 John Preston's Case. 
 
 In this case there was evidence of rehef having To prove 
 been given in December, 1847, to two children ™efOTe the 
 of the ages of seven and nine years respectively, registrar by 
 whose mother, Margaret Aray, a widow, was al- register, 
 leged to have been married to the voter on the attesting 
 24th November, 1846. In order to prove this entry must 
 marriage, the superintendent-registrar of mar- ^^e called : 
 riages for the Lancaster district was called, who Committee 
 
 (a) 13 Joum. 791. 
 
162 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 had de- produced the Marriage Register book, in which 
 cided, that \ . ?,t ■ n j.i. i. 
 
 by absence there was an entry of the marriage of the voter 
 
 of such at- ^^jj Margaret Aray, which was signed by the 
 
 ness mar- witness, as the person before whom the marriage 
 
 proved"' '^^^ solemnised, and as registrar ; and also by 
 
 theyre- two attesting witnesses (a). One of these attest- 
 
 aiiowitto ™S witnesses was proved to have been dead; 
 
 be proved the other was an old man eighty years of age, 
 
 present residing at Lancaster, 
 thereat, -^j, gej.;^. Kinqlake submitted, that as there 
 
 or by evi- . . . ■. ■■ 
 
 denceofre- was an attesting Witness, he ought to be pro- 
 PJJ^J'g°f°^^jduced; the rule was invariable, that wherever 
 to allow an there was an attesting witness to a document 
 menrfor i^^'^ ^®^® i* ^^ required by Act of Parliament), 
 purpose of that attesting witness must be produced. No- 
 evidence to thing could dispense with the production of the 
 show that attesting witness at law ; even if the execution 
 
 attesting o t t'iii 
 
 witness was of a document were admitted by the party him- 
 too infirm jf ^.j^^ yfo\M not do without Calling the at- 
 
 to attend. '_ _ o 
 
 testing witness. 
 
 Mr. Clerk. — Even without the production of 
 the register, the evidence of a person present at 
 the marriage, as this witness was, would be suf- 
 ficient to prove the marriage. The 45th section 
 of 6 & 7 WUl. IV. c. 85, incorporates that Act 
 with the Act for Registering Births, &c., and 
 
 (as) 6 & 7 W. rV. 0. 85, s. 23, enacts that " every 
 entry of such marriage shall be signed by the person 
 by or before whom the marriage shall have been solem- 
 nised; if there shall be any such person, and by the re- 
 gistrar, and also by the persons married, and attested 
 hy two witnesses. 
 
LANCASTER BOROUGH (2nD CASE). 163 
 
 makes a certificate of the register proof of the 
 marriage. Here we have much stronger proof — 
 the register itself, and the evidence of the super- 
 intendent-registrar, who made the entry, and 
 was present at the marriage. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake repHed. — The Act making 
 a certificate evidence, required that a certified 
 copy, sealed with the seal of the Registrar- 
 General, should he evidence ; but this was qidte 
 another document. By the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 92, 
 district registers of non-parochial marriages were 
 not evidence until they had been transferred to 
 the Registrar-General and had been certified by 
 him under his seal. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That sufficient 
 legal evidence has not been produced to esta- 
 blish the marriage of John Preston and Mar- 
 garet Aray " (a) . 
 
 James Grant was then called by Mr. Clerk, 
 who proved that he was present at the marriage 
 of the parties. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake objected, that this was 
 the same evidence as had already been given 
 and decided upon. 
 
 Mr. Clerk. — The evidence of a person present 
 at the marriage was sufficient to prove it. In 
 
 (a) Upon the room being cleared, the Committee 
 divided on the question, "That the evidence of the 
 superintendent-registrar to prove the marriage be 
 admitted." Ayes, 2 ; Mr. Pinney, Mr. Buncombe : 
 Noes, 3 ; Viscount Adare, Mr. Ewart, Viscount Cour- 
 tenay. 
 
164 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Taylor on Evidence, p. 296, it is laid down, and 
 many authorities cited in support of the pro- 
 position, that a marriage may be proved by parol 
 testimony, although a memorandum of the event 
 may have been entered in the register. 
 
 The Committee said, that they considered 
 that the best legal proof of the marriage had not 
 been given ; and they did not think that they 
 were authorized to admit any but the best 
 proof 
 
 Mr. Clerk then asked James Grant whether 
 the parties lived together as man and wife. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake objected. 
 
 Mr. Clerk. — Evidence of reputation has always 
 been held suflBcient to prove the fact of marriage. 
 — (B/Oscoe's Evidence, p. 3 ; Taylor on Evidence, 
 p. 371.) 
 
 The Committee refused to re-open the case. 
 
 Mr. Clerk apphed to the Committee to ad- 
 journ the case, with a view to obtaining a cer- 
 tificate from a medical man to show that the 
 attesting witness was too ill and infirm to 
 attend. 
 
 The Committee refused to accede to the ap- 
 plication. 
 
 Vote retained. 
 
 William Harrison's Case, 
 
 Receiptor Mr. Clerk stated, that the objection to this 
 
 relief bf an ^°*®'" '^^^' *^^* ^®^®^ ^^ ^^®^ fumished to a 
 unemanci- member of the voter's family, whom he was 
 pated child ^^^^ ^.Q support. The chUd who had been 
 
LANCASTER BOROUGH (2nd CASE). 165 
 
 relieved was seventeen years of age, residing of voter, 
 with the father as an imemancipated child, the '''"of d|. 
 relief having heen given upon the joint applica- teen years, 
 tion of the child and his mother, a few weeks disqualify 
 previous to the election. Rehef given to a child tim. 
 under such circumstances was rehef given to 
 the father, and would hy the law of Parlia- 
 ment disqualify the parent from voting. This 
 would come under the law as it existed prior 
 to the passing of the Poor Law Amendment 
 Act. By the latter Act the father was hound 
 to maintain the children of a person whom 
 he married, whether they were legitimate or 
 illegitimate, until the age of sixteen ; and by the 
 56th sect, rehef given to the wife or to such 
 children was to he considered as relief given to 
 the father, provided that nothing in the Act was 
 to affect the provisions of the Statute of EHza^ 
 beth, which made the father, grandfather, mother, 
 and grandmother liable to maiutain any poor 
 clrild. Prior to the Poor Law Amendment Act 
 the father was bound to maintain the children, 
 and any relief given to them disqualified him 
 from voting, whether he was at the time of 
 voting of sufficient ability to maintain himself 
 or not. In this case the child was seventeen, 
 but the law ia reference to disquaHfication on 
 the ground of rehef to the child remained the 
 same as it did before the Poor Law Amendment 
 Act. The law under the Statute of Elizabeth, 
 in this respect, had not been altered by the Poor 
 Law Amendment Act. 
 
166 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Evidence having been given of the facts as 
 opened hj Mr. Clerk, 
 
 Mr. Seqt. Kinglake was heard in support of 
 the vote. — By the 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 76, it vi^as 
 enacted, "That from and after the passing of 
 I this Act aU rehef given to pr on account of the 
 ' wife, or to or on account of any child or children 
 under the age of sixteen, not being bliad or deaf 
 i and diunb, should be considered as given to the 
 husband of such wife or to the father of such 
 child or children, as the case may be," involving 
 two cases of constructive relief under the prior 
 law, as to relief either to the child or wife. 
 There had been a variety of conflictiag decisions 
 upon that subject prior to the passing of that 
 statute; and to clear away those doubts the 
 clause which he had just read, and which defined 
 expressly what for the future should be the cha- 
 racter of relief given under those circumstances, 
 was passed. Prior to the passing of that Act, 
 no voter could have been disqualified by other 
 than parochial rehef given to him either directly 
 or to some member of his family, for whose 
 maintenance he was liable, out of the parochial 
 fund, and whereby he became chargeable to the 
 parish; and the Poor Law Amendment Act 
 limited the age of the child during which the 
 liability of the father remained, to the age of 
 sixteen. The Statute of Elizabeth had nothing 
 to do with the question of parochial relief. The 
 7th sect., called "the ability section," showed that 
 to be the case. By that section the father was 
 
LANCASTER BOROUGH (3nD CASE). 167 
 
 compelled to maintaiii his child, being of ability 
 so to do, under a penalty to be awarded by a ma- 
 gistrate. That provision did not affect the ques- 
 tion as to whether parochial relief given to A. 
 should be taken to be parochial relief given to 
 B., but it applied to the case of a poor child 
 having a rich parent who refused to contribute 
 to its maintenance. The saving clause in the 
 Poor Law Amendment Act as to the Statute of 
 Elizabeth merely preserved the right of the poor 
 child to call upon his wealthy relative, being of 
 ability to maintain him, but did not affect the 
 other enactments of the statute as to parochial 
 relief. 
 
 The Committee here stopped Mr. Serjt. King- 
 lake, and resolved, " That the vote should be re- 
 tained." 
 
 Vote retained. 
 
 Cases of Non-residence (a). 
 
 John Wilkinson's Case. 
 
 The facts proved in this case were, that the May 20. 
 voter, a freeman, and by trade a cabinet maker, Facta held 
 left Lancaster in August, 1847, taking his tools constitute 
 with him, in search of work, as had been Jiisiffisideiicein 
 
 ' \ caseoffree- 
 
 habit ; that he went to Penrith, where he was man. 
 hired by the week, and remained there five 
 months j that he afterwards went to Carlisle, 
 Liverpool, and then to Ireland in search of 
 employment; that in passing through Lan- 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 148, First Class. 
 
168 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 caster about a week before the election, on his 
 way to Penrith, where he had left his tools, he 
 heard of the election, took a lodging, and re- 
 mained in Lancaster until the election was over, 
 when he left Lancaster again ; that he had no 
 house in Lancaster, but that whilst there he 
 always lived in lodgings. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham, against the vote. — 
 There has been a clear cessation of residence 
 between the time of registration and the time 
 of voting. By the 6th Vict. c. 18, s. 79, the 
 being upon the register gives the right to vote 
 for the year, provided the party continues to 
 reside within the borough. The object of the 
 79th section is to strike off non-resident voters 
 in order to save expense, and to avoid specious, 
 payments under the head of expenses. The 
 words of the proviso in that section are clear, 
 that the party registered shall not be entitled to 
 vote "imless he shall, ever since the 31st July, 
 have resided, and at the time of voting shall 
 continue to reside, within the borough." Here 
 there has not been a continued residence, so as 
 to satisfy the requirements of that proviso. 
 ^Mr. James. — The reqtdrement of continued 
 residence does not mean that there must be a 
 continuous unbroken residence, and that the 
 voter may not be absent for a day or two, or 
 that the residence shall be more strict after the 
 registration than before it. The right construc- 
 tion of the Act is, that the sort of residence for 
 which the voter was registered must continue 
 until the period of the election. This is not 
 
LANCASTER BOROUGH (2nD CASE). 169 
 
 the case of a houseliolder who must retain his 
 house, but of a freeman, who might live at an 
 inn, or in lodgings, or any where else. The 
 question is, whether this freeman had a con- 
 structive residence. This voter's home was the 
 borough of Lancaster. The test of residence 
 under these circumstances is, did there exist in 
 the mind of the voter an intention of return- 
 ing, and was there a power of so returning? 
 In order to disqualify the voter, it should have 
 been proved that he intended to reside at 
 some other place than Lancaster. Here there 
 is no such evidence, but on the contrary, the 
 animus reveriendi is shown. If the intention 
 to return can be traced, that is enough, not- 
 withstanding the length of absence. 
 Vote retained (a). 
 
 EoGER Garth's Case. 
 
 In this case the voter was a freeman, and where dis- 
 rented a farm at Barbon, seventeen miles from qiaiifica- 
 
 . tion existed 
 
 Lancaster ; he had been there two years, during at time of 
 which time he had no other house. He was^P^istra- 
 
 tion, and 
 
 not objected to before the revising barrister at voter not 
 the registration for 1847. before^re-" 
 
 Mr. Merewether summed up the evidence vising bar- 
 against the vote. — It is no defence of this vote, ^^^^^^ ^\\\ 
 
 (a) The Committee divided on the question of re- 
 taining the vote : — Ayes, 3 ; Mr. Pinney, Mr. Ewart, 
 Mr. Buncombe. Noes, 2 : Viscount Adare, Viscount 
 Courtenay. 
 
170 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 not enter- that the voter was not objected to before the 
 «on to^*'' revising barrister. He was not qualified at the 
 vote. time of the last election, and that is the only 
 
 question to be decided. 
 
 Mr. James in support of the vote. — The prin- 
 ciple upon which Parhainentary Committees 
 have decided this question, amongst other cases, 
 in the Lyme Regis case {a), and the Wigan 
 case (b), was, that if there was an objection which 
 could have been taken before the revising bar- 
 rister, it must have been taken at that time, ia 
 order to invahdate the vote. The object of the 
 Act was, to render the register final, in order 
 to avoid expense ; the parties had no right 
 to lay by for two years, and then open the 
 question. The register was final, except in 
 cases of disqualification occurring since July 31. 
 The Horsham case (c). There have been two 
 opportunities of questioning this vote before the 
 revising barrister, the man having been absent 
 two years. The petitioners ought not to harass 
 the sitting member with a costly inquiry, upon 
 a point which might have been raised before the 
 revising barrister. 
 
 The Committee resolved : " That, as the ob- 
 jection to this vote was not taken before the 
 revising barrister, the Committee do not con- 
 sider themselves authorized to open the register, 
 and that the vote must be retained." 
 Vote retained. 
 
 {a) Bar. & Aust. 510. (b) Bar. & Aust. 179. 
 
 (c) E. & O. 272. 
 
LANCASTER BOROUGH (2nD CASE). 171 
 
 Joseph Norman^s Case. 
 
 The voter, a freeman, had been employed Semite, 
 
 since the 31st of July by a Mr. Barker of Preston, ^eeman of 
 
 who had employed him for some years pre- L., em- 
 
 vioTisly, as one of the crew of a canal boat plying canal boat 
 
 between Preston and Kendal : on the day before pjying from 
 
 ■' P. to K., 
 
 the election he went to Lancaster, and slept at and on 
 
 his father's, and after the election received 20s. ''"^■"J"/ 
 
 ^ ... wmcn he 
 
 for expenses. Upon his occasional visits to usually 
 Lancaster, he always slept at his father's, who times^X^' 
 was resident there, where a bed for him was sited L., 
 kept. At other times he slept on board the occasions 
 boat; since the 31st of July he had only slept slept at his 
 three nights at his father's, and that was at the housethere, 
 time of the last election. ^^"f ^ ""^^ 
 
 for him was 
 
 Mr. Merewether did not take the objection on kept, that a 
 the ground of the disqualification ; that might ^"gj^gnce 
 have been objected to before the revising bar- by him in 
 rister. Here the witness, took a situation sub- (^j„ j,;, 
 sequent to the 31st of July ; the disqualification, right to 
 therefore, which afterwards arose, could not have 
 been established before the revisiag ■ barrister. 
 The voter was only a visitor when he went to his 
 father's house. The parties on the other side 
 by their acts showed that they did not con- 
 sider him to belong to Lancaster, having sent 
 for htm and paid him 30«. for his expenses, 
 treating him therefore as a person belonging to 
 another place. 
 
 Mr. James.— This is like the case of a wag- 
 
 i2 
 
172 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 gonerj or a seafaring maiij irliose occupation 
 takes Tiim from his home for a time, sleeping on 
 such occasions either in the waggon or on board 
 the ship, but having a home at which to sleep, 
 whenever he came to his place of residence. 
 The place of residence of the owner of the 
 barge makes no difference; there might be a 
 captain living in London, who navigated a ship 
 belonging to a Sunderland owner ; that would 
 not change the residence of the captain, Wigan 
 case (ffl) . The mere incidental circumstance of 
 the man being absent from Lancaster on his 
 business, at one or other terminus, and being 
 paid for coming to Lancaster, could not affect 
 the question, he having probably to pay another 
 man to take care of his barge in the interval ; 
 secondly, the state of facts with respect to this 
 voter being the same at the time of registration, 
 and he not being objected to then, the Commit- 
 tee, in accordance with their last decision, wiU 
 not strike this vote off. 
 Vote retained (6) . 
 
 May 22. ^'^^ '^^^^ ^^1' *^^ further prosecution of the 
 Final reso. petition was abandoned, and the Committee 
 '"*'o°'- resolved :— 
 
 (a) Bar. & Aust. 189. 
 
 (J) It does not appear upon what ground the Com- 
 mittee decided to retain the vote, — whether because the 
 evidence was sufficient, or because the voter had not 
 been objected to before the revising barrister. 
 
lANCASTER BOROUGH (3ND CASB). 173 
 
 1. " That Robert Baynes Armstrong, Esq., was 
 duly elected a biirgess to serve in tliis present 
 Parliament for tlie borough of Lancaster." 
 
 2. " That the Coimnittee had altered the poll 
 taken at the last election for the said borough, 
 by striking off the names of John Gardner, &c., 
 (in all thirty-three names,) as not having had a 
 right to vote at such election." 
 
174 
 
 CASE XXII. 
 1848. BOROUGH OF LEICESTER. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 23rd of May, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Henry Ker Seymer, Esq., Dorsetshire, 
 (Chairnimi). 
 
 Samuel Christy, Esq., New- 
 
 castle-under-Lyme. 
 John Fergus, Esq., Eifeshire. 
 
 Sir John Trollope, Bart., Lin- 
 colnshire, South. 
 
 David Morris, Esq., Carmar- 
 then district. 
 
 FeUtiomers : — Electors. 
 
 Sitting Members : — Sir Joshua Walmsley, Knight, and 
 Richard Gardner, Esq. 
 
 Comtsel for Petitioners : — Mr. Biggs Andrews, Q. C, and 
 Mr. Macaulay. 
 
 Agents : — Messrs. Berridge and Macaulay, Leicester. 
 
 Counsel for Sitting Members : — -Mr. Crowder, Q. C, Mr. 
 Mellor, and Mr. Atkinson. 
 
 Agents : — Messrs. Dyson & Co. 
 
 May 24. The usual preliminary resolutions Were agreed 
 
 Prelimi- tO (ft) . 
 nary resolu- 
 tions. 
 
 Petition. The petition alleged bribery and treating 
 
 Bribery, 
 
 ^'■^'"^"S- {a) Ante, p. 1. 
 
BOROUGH OF LEICESTER. 175 
 
 against the sitting members and their agents, 
 and prayed the House to declare the election 
 and return of the sitting Members null and void. 
 
 Mr. Crowder took a preliminary objection to Recogni- 
 the validity of the recognizances entered into ^™™^g^"g' 
 under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103, upon the ground that Vict.cios, 
 the recognizances entered into by the two peti- wher™each 
 tioners were severally for the sum of 500Z., in- of two 
 stead of one petitioner being bound for 1000^., ^ad entered 
 or of there being a ioint recoffnizance for lOOOZ. ''^"' * *^P*- 
 
 .^ , . '' . °,, .^ , raterecog- 
 
 Aiter hearmg counsel on both sides, the nizance for 
 Committee resolved, " That the recognizances ^'*"'- 
 are void" (a). 
 
 Mr. B. Andrews then applied for the peti- 
 tioners to be allowed to enter into fresh recog- 
 nizances. 
 
 Mr. Crowder and Mr. Mellor then argued. Fresh re- 
 that the invalidity of the recognizances being in cogo'^ances 
 some degree attributable to the neglect or laches be entered 
 of the petitioners or their agents, the Committee "ommittee^ 
 had no power to amend them in pursuance of satisfied by 
 the provisions of the 11 Vict. c. 18. that^lrre- 
 
 Mr. B. Andrews. — The Committee have fuU gularity in 
 
 {a) Upon the room being cleared, it was moved, 
 " That the recognizances are valid." Ayes, 2. Sir J. 
 Trollope, Mr. Morris. Noes, 3. Mr. Seymer, Mr. 
 Fergus, Mr. Christy. The taking of recognizances is 
 now regulated by statute 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98 ; and by 
 sec. 13, the judgment of the examiner as to the vali- 
 dity of the recognizance is made final and conclusive, to 
 all intents and purposes. 
 
176 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 former re- power, and under the circumstances will be per- 
 not attribu- fectly justified in allowing the petitioners to 
 table to amend the recognizances, 
 petitioners. Evidence was then given to show that the 
 May 25. recognizances were not invalid through the 
 neglect or laches of the petitioners. 
 The Committee resolved, 
 "That the invalidity of the recognizances is in 
 no degree attributable to the neglect or laches 
 of the petitioners or their agents." 
 
 "That the petitioners have permission to enter 
 into new recognizances." 
 
 The examiner of recognizances attended the 
 Committee, and new recognizances were entered 
 into by the same parties. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That the new re- 
 cognizances entered into by the petitioners are 
 vaUd." 
 
 Witnesses Mr. Foster, a reporter for a local newspaper, 
 remain in ^^^ ^^' Stone, the town clerk of Leicester, were 
 room by ^y consent of the parties, and with the permis- 
 
 consent of . /.,/-( . i - • i 
 
 parties. sion 01 the Conmuttee, allowed to remam m the 
 room during the investigation, notwithstanding 
 that it was intended to call them, and that they 
 were actually called as witnesses in the case. 
 
 The poll-books were received in evidence. 
 
 May 26. In the progress of the case the petitioners 
 Evidence of gave evidence which was, apparently, tending- 
 admitted to prove treating before agency. This course 
 
BOROUGH OF LEICESTER. 177 
 
 was objected to by the counsel for the sitting before 
 
 members, and the Committee determined that P™"^ °^ 
 ' _ agency. 
 
 they would not admit any evidence of treating 
 until agency had been proved. 
 
 At the conclusion of the inquiry the Com- May 3 land 
 mittee came to the following resolutions, which "°* ' 
 were reported to the House : — lutions. 
 
 1. "That Sir Joshua Walmsley, Knt., and 
 Richard Gardner, Esq., are not duly elected 
 burgesses to serve ia this present Parliament for 
 the borough of Leicester." 
 
 2. "That the last election for the said borough 
 is a void election." 
 
 3. "That Sir Joshua Walmsley, Knt., and 
 Richard Gardner, Esq., were, by their agents, 
 guilty of bribery, at the last election for the 
 borough of Leicester." 
 
 4. " That it was not proved that these acts of 
 bribery were committed with the knowledge and 
 consent of Sir Joshua Walmsley, Knt., and 
 Richard Gardner, Esq." 
 
 5. " That it has been proved before the Com- 
 mittee, that Robert Fellows was bribed with 
 \l. 2s. 6d., and the gift of a new hat ; William 
 CoUins, with 17s. 6d.; Daniel Collins, with 
 175. 6d.; Robert Overton, with 1^. 3s. 6d. ; 
 Thomas Clarke, with 19s. 6d. ; James Preston, 
 with 17s. ; Henry Marvill, with 17s. &d. ; John 
 Burton, with 17s.; Neale Ross, with 17s. 6d.; 
 James Staines, with II. 3s. ; Joseph Manship, 
 with 17s. 6d. ; Henry Hitchcock, with 17s. Qd. ; 
 
 i3 
 
178 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 George Lenitt, with II. 3s. 6d. ; Thomas Holy- 
 oak, with I7s. 6d. ; Samuel Eoss, with \l. ; 
 John Shipley, with 17s. Qd. ; Edward Carter, 
 with \l. \s. ; and John Cooke, with 10«." 
 
 6. "That these sums were principally paid 
 under the pretence of remuneration for services 
 as messengers and runners during the election, 
 no adequate services having in reality been per- 
 formed." 
 
 7. " That James Taylor was bribed with the 
 gift of a brewing of malt, of the value of 71., 
 claimed by him as the balance of a bill incmred 
 by him at the election of 1841 ; "William Bur- 
 nett, with 3Z. 15*.; John Whatsize, with 21. \Qs.; 
 and Thomas Foulds Monk, with 1^. 15s., under 
 similar pretexts." 
 
 8. " That it appeared to the Committee, that 
 the system of bribery and corruption carried on 
 at the last election for the said borough of Lei- 
 cester was such as to demand the attention of 
 the House." 
 
179 
 
 CASE XXIII. 
 BOROUGH OP CHELTENHAM. 1848. 
 
 (first case.) 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 23rd of May, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Morgan John O'Connell, Esq., Kerry, 
 (Chairman). 
 
 Right Hon. J. W. Fltzpatrick, 
 Queen's County. 
 
 Hon. W. Bagot, Denbigh- 
 shire. 
 
 Sir George R. Philips, Bart., 
 
 Poole. 
 Alexander Smollett, Esq., 
 
 Dumbartonshire. 
 
 petitioners : — Electors. 
 
 SitHng Member : — Sir WiUoughby Jones, Bart. 
 
 Counsel for petitioners: — Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, Mr. 
 Edwin James, and Mr. Phinn. 
 
 Agents ; — ^Mr. Coppock, and Mr. Boodle. 
 
 Comnsel for Sitting Member : — ^Mr. Whately, Q. C, Mr. 
 Keating, Q. C, Mr. Peacock, and Mr. Merewether. 
 
 Agents : — Messrs. Lyon, Barnes, & Ellis, and Mr. Gwinnett. 
 
 The Committee agreed to the usual pre- May 25. 
 liminary resolutions (a). Preliminary 
 
 resolutions. 
 
 The petition, after stating that Sir W. Jones, Petition, 
 the Hon. Craven F. Berkeley, and Captain E. 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 1. 
 
180 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Carrington Smith were candidates at the elec- 
 
 tioiij and that Sir W. Jones was returned^ con- 
 
 Briberyand tained charges of bribery and treating against 
 
 treating, ^j^g sitting member and his agents. It also 
 
 Scrutiny, complained of the improper reception of votes 
 
 in favour of Sir W. Jones on various grounds, 
 
 and prayed that the election and return of Sir 
 
 W. Jones might be declared void, and the 
 
 Honourable Craven Berkeley be declared duly 
 
 elected. 
 
 The scrutiny, however, was not entered on by 
 the petitioners, the claim for the seat on behalf 
 of Mr. Berkeley having been abandoned in the 
 course of the trial of the petition. 
 
 ObjectioES Certain objections to the recognizance, which 
 to recogni. ^^^.^ appended to the petition by the general 
 committee of elections, were also referred by the 
 House to the Committee. They were to the 
 effect, " that the recognizance entered into for 
 the payment of costs and expenses consequent 
 upon the petition is not in the form prescribed 
 by the Act 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103, for that the pro- 
 vision for the payment of the costs and expenses 
 due and payable to any witnesses summoned on 
 behalf of the petitioners, or to the party who 
 shall appear in opposition to the petition, in case 
 the petitioners should be allowed to withdraw'," 
 their petition, is for the payment of all such 
 costs and expenses due and payable by Thomas 
 Henney, William Gyde, Thomas PUkington, 
 Edward Dangerfield, Richard Hulbert, and 
 
BOROUGH OP CHEtTENHAM (IsTCASE). 181 
 
 Charles Wilson^ (being the parties who signed 
 the petition,) aud not to such costs and expenses 
 due and payable by the petitioners " and each 
 of them," as is the form prescribed by the said 
 Act : that the omission of such words " and 
 each of them" not only materially alters the 
 legal effect of the recognizance, and prevents it 
 being put in force in the events contemplated 
 by the said Act, but that such recognizance is 
 wholly void, and cannot be enforced even in any 
 event provided against/' 
 
 Mr. Whately, on behalf of the sitting mem- Where the 
 ber, before the case of the petitioners was jeeogm- " 
 opened, took a prehminary objection to the re- zance under 
 cognizance, when c. 103, J,\; 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake interposed. — Although ^,""'"^|'l' 
 the petitioners denied the assumption of the allowed pe- 
 other side, that the recognizance was faulty, yet '•'J'"'^'' *° 
 they were prepared, with the leave of the Com- fresh one 
 mittee, to enter at once into a fresh recognizance v^c"„. ig. 
 under the 11 Vict. c. 18, s. 2 (a). 
 
 The Committee decided against the proposal 
 of Mr. Serjt. Kinglake, and directed Mr. PFhate- 
 ley to proceed with his objection, the Chairman 
 
 (a) This Act was passed to remove certain doubts as 
 to the validity of recognizances entered into under 
 "^ the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103 ; but the taking of recognizances 
 is now regulated by 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98, and by sect. 13, 
 the judgment of the examiaer as to the validity of the 
 recognizance is made final and conclusive to all intents 
 and purposes. 
 
183 ELECTIO.V CASES. 
 
 intimating that it must be shown that the re- 
 cognizance was defective or doubtful, and a case 
 for amendment be made out. 
 
 Mr. Whately and Mr. Peacock then con- 
 tended that the recognizance was invahd, inas- 
 much as the exact form of words in the schedule 
 to the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103, had not been followed. 
 In this case the words " and each of them" were 
 omitted, so that the costs which might be ad- 
 judged would only be payable by the recogni- 
 zances jointly, and ia case of the death or with- 
 drawal of either of them would not be recover- 
 able at all, and cited the Leicester case (a) . 
 May 26. Mr. Seijt. Kinglake and Mr. James, for the 
 petitioners, challenged the other side to produce 
 any case in. which a variance in the condition of 
 the recognizance, not affecting its legal opera- 
 tion, had been held to be fatal. The defect in 
 the Leicester case was not in the condition, but 
 in the recognizance itself. The recognizance in 
 this case was complete, and would be the docu- 
 ment sued on, without setting out the condition. 
 The proposition of the other side, that in a joint 
 petition the witnesses on that petition must have 
 a remedy against each of the joint petitioners, 
 could not be supported. The words " and each 
 of them" were not a substantial part of the Act. 
 Even should the Committee be of opinion that 
 the recognizance was defective, it was a case of 
 such doubt that the petitioners would be entitled 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 175. 
 
BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM (IST CASE). 183 
 
 to amend the recognizance^ as the intention and 
 spirit of the Act had been complied with. 
 
 Mr. Peacock replied. — The Committee were 
 asked to say that the words "or either of them," 
 in the 4 & 5 Vict. c. 38, and the words " and 
 each of them," in the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103, were 
 used without any purpose. Those words were 
 introduced for the purpose of imposing a joint 
 and several liability. It was not contended that 
 the leaving out of immaterial words would affect 
 the recognizance ; but if words were left out to 
 which a legal effect attached, thereby altering 
 the legal liability, the recognizance was rendered 
 substantially defective. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That the validity 
 of the recognizance is doubtful" (a). 
 
 The Chairman informed the counsel for the 
 petitioners, that it was competent to them either 
 to amend the recognizance or to enter into a 
 fresh one, in conformity with the provisions of 
 the Act. 
 
 A fresh recognizance was then entered into. 
 
 (a) Upon the room being cleared, it was moved, 
 " That the recognizance is void;" to which an amend- 
 ment was proposed, to leave out all the words after 
 "the," in order to add the words, "validity of the 
 recognizance is doubtful." The Committee divided on 
 the question, " That the words proposed to be left out 
 stand part of the question." Ayes, 2 : Mr. SmoUett, 
 Mr. Bagot. Noes, 3 : Mr. Fitzpatriok, Sir G. Philips, 
 Mr. O'Connell. The question was then amended and 
 agreed to. 
 
184 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 and certified by the examiner of recognizances 
 to be in due conformity with the provisions of 
 the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103. 
 
 The Committee then resolved " That this re- 
 cognizance is a valid one." 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake then proceeded to open 
 the case of the petitioners, and handed in lists of 
 parties alleged to have been bribed, and also of 
 times and places at which treating was alleged to 
 have been carried on. He abandoned the scrutiny. 
 
 Mr. Whately applied for the costs incurred in 
 the preparation for a scrutiny. 
 
 The Committee decided, that the application 
 should be made at a future time. 
 
 The poll-books were received in evidence. 
 
 May 27. Samuel Morris, who voted for the sitting 
 Converaa- member at the election, was asked in examina- 
 alieged tion by Mr. James, "When Hawkins called 
 agent with a ^pon you for your vote, do you recollect what 
 posed to he said to you ?" 
 
 fnliidence ^^- ^^^^^^V objected to evidence of what 
 with view passed between Hawkins and the witness, inas- 
 a corrupt^ much as it could not be evidence against Sir W. 
 contract Jones, who was not proved to be present thereat, 
 
 with him, ti-, ,i,.,t 
 
 admissible ^^^ did it appear that at the time in question 
 m evidence Hawkins had ever been in company with Sir W. 
 agency Jones. If any authority were shown to have been 
 proved. given to Hawkins by Sir "W. Jones, the evidence 
 would be admissible : no proof, however, had been 
 given that Hawkins was the agent of SirW. Jones. 
 
BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM (IsT CASE). 185 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake, in support of the ques- 
 tion. — According to the common rules of evi- 
 dence, the principal cannot be affected by the 
 act of the agent until that relationship had been 
 established between them; but by the 4 & 5 
 Vict. c. 57, the common and ordinary rule 
 of law is dispensed with in these cases. The 
 answer to the present question wUl not affect 
 the sitting member, unless it be eventually 
 proved that Hawkins was his agent. The 
 Ipswich case (o) is in point, where agency was 
 assumed for the purpose of allowing questions 
 to be put ; also First Nottingham case {b), and 
 Second Nottingham case (c). Moreover, proof 
 of a positive act of bribery is here tendered ; and 
 Committees are expressly empowered to report 
 upon facts of bribery, although not committed 
 with the knowledge and consent of the sitting 
 member. 
 
 Mr. Whately in reply.— The 4 & 5 Vict. c. 
 57, merely goes to the extent that the fact of 
 bribery may be proved before agency, but it 
 must be proved by the ordinary rules of legal 
 evidence {d) ; whereas a declaration of this sort 
 would be inadmissible in any court of law. 
 
 The Committee resolved, ""That the question 
 might be put," the Chairman intimating that 
 the question would only be taken as affecting 
 
 (a) Bar. & Aust. 257. (S) Bar. & Am. 168. 
 
 (c) Bar. & Arn. 193. {d) Eogers, 210. 
 
186 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 • this particular individual, unless in some other 
 way his agency was, established. 
 
 May 29. Mr. Whately stated, that since the adjourn- 
 ment of the Committee the counsel and agents 
 for the sitting member had considered the cir- 
 cumstances of the case, and had come to the 
 conclusion that it would not be right, from what 
 had transpired, to proceed further with the de- 
 fence of the seat. At the same time it was due 
 to Mr. Gwinnett to state, that he had not been 
 a party to, or aware of, the improper practices 
 that had prevailed during the election ; that the 
 correspondence which had been alluded to in the 
 opening had been bona fide entered upon for the 
 purposes of reasonable employment, and Mr. 
 Gwinnett was not aware, until the proceedings 
 before the Committee, that that purpose had 
 been abused. Under these circumstances, he 
 took the earhest opportunity of withdrawing 
 from the contest. 
 Inapetition Mr. James applied to the Committee for the 
 of ^ib"ry, costs of prosecuting the petition, as applicable 
 in order to to the allegation of bribery, which had now 
 tioners to been admitted to be well-grounded. It was 
 costs from ^q^^v that the other side must have been aware 
 
 the sitting 
 
 member, of the truth of that charge, or at any rate had 
 be^dear"^' it iu their power to obtaia the information, 
 proof of which they were bound to do before putting the 
 of the^ci^- petitioners to the expense of proving it. He 
 cumstances should produce evidence to show that such was 
 " the case by caUiag Hawkius, who had been the* 
 
BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM (IST CASE). 187 
 
 chief agent in the matter. From his evidence 
 it would appear that he had been ia communi- 
 cation with the agents of the sitting member 
 after the election, and made a fuU statement to 
 them of what he knew with respect to it. 
 George Hawkins having been examined, 
 Mr. James summed up the evidence ia sup- 
 port of his application. He submitted that the 
 petitioners were fairly entitled to ask from the 
 Committee an indemnity against the costs in- 
 curred for the prosecution of this petition, so 
 far as related to that charge which alleged 
 systematic bribery. The ground of objection to 
 the application was that Mr. Gwinnett was not 
 wrong in the advice he had given the sitting 
 member to defend the seat. From the evidence, 
 Mr. Gwinnett must have known, or at any rate 
 had had an opportunity of inquiring, whether 
 the seat was defensible or not, and whether he 
 was therefore entitled to put the petitioners to 
 the expense of prosecuting the petition; the 
 result showed that he was not justified in going 
 on .with the defence of the seat. It was clear 
 that Hawkins having been engaged so largely in 
 these transactions, would be the party watched 
 and communicated with immediately on the pe- 
 tition being lodged. He recapitulated the evi- 
 dence, as proving that there had been immediate 
 communication with Hawkins, such as must 
 have put the parties in possession of the trans- 
 actions in which he had taken a part ; this com- 
 munication had been made two months ago. If 
 
188 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 parties either attacked or defended a seat with a 
 knowledge of facts which would not justify them 
 in doing so, they must be responsible for the 
 costs incurred by the parties against whom they 
 proceeded. He was not instructed to press a 
 knowledge of the bribery against Mr. Gwiimett, 
 but all he contended was, that Mr. Gwinnett 
 had sufficient means of knowledge of the whole 
 transactions to have enabled him to come to the 
 resolution upon this matter before goiftg into 
 the inquiry. He merely asked for the costs ap- 
 phcable to the case which had been gone into. 
 
 Mr. Whately rose to reply. 
 
 The Chairman stated that the Committee 
 would not call upon Mr. Whately to reply. In 
 order to make the sitting member hable for 
 costs, there must be clear proof of knowledge of 
 the circumstances on the part of Mr. Gwinnett. 
 It did not appear to the Committee that there 
 had been any effort to keep the witness Hawkins 
 out of the way, inasmuch as he had been living 
 in London, both at Spring Gardens and Hunger- 
 ford Market, both public places. The case in 
 that respect, therefore, had signally failed. The 
 sitting member was quite justified in taking care 
 of his own witness, and on that ground there 
 was no reason for imputation. As to the ques- 
 tion of costs, it appeared that the counsel for 
 the sitting member had taken the first feasible 
 opportunity of withdrawing from the contest, 
 and that therefore it would be very hard under 
 those circumstances to visit him with costs. 
 
BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM (IST CASE). 189 
 
 The Committee then came to the following Final reso- 
 resolutionsj which were reported to the House : — i^'io^s- 
 
 1. "That Sir WDloughby Jonesj Baronet, is 
 not dtily elected a burgess to serve in this pre- 
 sent Parliament for the borough of Chelten- 
 ham." 
 
 2. " That the last election for the said borough 
 is a void election." 
 
 3. "That Sir WUloughby Jones, Baronet, 
 was, throtigh his agents, guilty of bribery at the 
 last election for the borough of Cheltenham." 
 
 4. "That it was proved to the Committee 
 that Samuel Morris was bribed with 11. 15s., 
 WiUiam Durbiu with 11. 5s., John Pitt with 
 2110s., and "William Isher with 21. 10s." 
 
 5. "That in the first three cases these sums 
 were paid under the pretence of remuneration 
 for services as messengers during the election, 
 no such services having in reahty been per- 
 formed." 
 
 6. " That it was not proved that these acts of 
 bribery were committed with the knowledge and 
 consent of Sir WUloughby Jones." 
 
190 
 
 CASE XXIV. 
 
 1848. CITY AND COUNTY OF THE CITY OF 
 
 DUBLIN. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 26th May, 1848, 
 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Lord Eohert Grosvenor, Middlesex, 
 
 {Chavrmari). 
 
 Marquis of Granby, Stamford. 
 Matthew Talbot Baines, Esq., 
 Hull, {a). 
 
 Thomas Henry Sutton So- 
 theron, Esq., Wiltshire, 
 North. 
 
 JohnBright,Esq., Manchester. 
 
 Petitioners : — 1. Electors, against the return of John Eey- 
 nolds, Esq. 
 2. Electors, agaimt the return of Edward Gro- 
 gan, Esq., and in defence of the seat of 
 John Reynolds, Esq. 
 Sitting Members: — Edward Grogan, Esq., and John 
 K«ynolds, Esq. 
 Counsel for Petitioners agavnst the return of John Heynolds, 
 Esq., and for Sitting Member, Edward Grogan, JEsq.: — Mr. 
 Serjeant Murphy, Mr. P. Murphy, and Mr. Norton. 
 Agents : — Mr. Baker, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Long, and Mr. Wilson. 
 Counsel for Petitioners against fhe return of Edward Orogam, 
 Esq., and for Sitting Member, John Heynolds, Esq. : — Mr. 
 Serjeant Kinglake, Mr. Eowe, and Mr. E. James. 
 Agents : — Mr. 6. L. Smyth, Mr. O'Beime, Mr. Hickie, Mr. 
 John Reynolds, jun., and Mr. Crean. 
 
 May 27. The usual preliminary resolutions were agreed 
 
 Preliminary to (b) , 
 
 resolutions. 
 
 (a) Discliarged from furtlier attendance on the 24th 
 (6) Ante, p. 1. 
 
CITY OF DUBLIN. igj 
 
 The petition of Francis Jolinston and others. Petition 
 presented to the House on the 35th November, "S""*' ''^^ 
 1847, after stating the election, at which the Reynolds.'' 
 sitting members and WUham Henry Gregory, 
 Esq., were candidates, complained of the return 
 of Mr. Reynolds, alleging that the majority of Scrutiny, 
 votes in his favour was fictitious and colourable, 
 and that the real majority of good votes was in 
 favour of Mr. Gregory over Mr. Reynolds. It Refusal by 
 further stated, that Mr. Reynolds did not, in ^'""s 
 pursuance of the statute in that behalf, make a mX^deda- 
 declaration of his qualification, though dulv™*',°^°* 
 
 1 , , . , ' ° •> qualifica- 
 
 required by notice so to do, and that he was not tion after 
 quahfied by estate to be returned, and prayed '"^'l'''"- 
 the House to declare Mr. Reynolds not duly ^aMca- 
 elected, and that Mr. Gregory was duly elected, *'°"- 
 or to declare the return of Mr. Reynolds to be f««'P"y«d 
 
 .J •'for unsuc- 
 
 VOld. cessful can- 
 
 didate. 
 
 The petition of Richard RusseE and others. Petition 
 presented to the House on the 7th December, against re- 
 1847, against the return of Mr. Grogan, alleged Mr°Gro- 
 bribery and treating against Mr. Grogan and^^"* 
 Mr. Gregory; that the majority of votes in^ead^r"*^ 
 favour of Mr. Grogan was fictitious and illegal ; 
 that the arrangements of the returning officer 
 with regard to the poll-books and the taking of 
 the poll were imperfect and insufficient; and 
 
 Jvlj, on account of the dangerous illness of a near 
 relatiye. 
 
192 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 that the poll-books were incapable of being 
 Neglectand verified. It prayed the House to admit the 
 iSs^i^part petitioners to defend the return of Mr. Reynolds, 
 of return- and to declare Mr. Grogan not duly elected, and 
 ing cer. ^^ order a new election of a member in his 
 
 room, or to declare the election void, by reason 
 
 of the irregularities and illegal conduct of the 
 
 returning officer. 
 
 The number of votes at the close of the poll 
 
 were — for 
 
 Grogan 
 
 3353 
 
 Reynolds 
 
 3239 
 
 Gregory 
 
 3125 
 
 May 29. After some discussion, the Committee decided 
 on proceeding with the petition of Johnston and 
 others against the return of Mr. Reynolds. 
 
 Mr. Rowe took a preliminary objection, al- 
 leging the invalidity of the recognizance entered 
 into by F. Johnston and others, on the ground 
 that certain material words had been omitted 
 therefrom. 
 
 In answer to the Committee, 
 Recogni- Mr. Serjt. Murphy was prepared, with the 
 consent of the parties, to amend the recog- 
 nizance, in conformity with the provisions of 
 the 11 Vict. c. 18, if the Committee considered 
 it doubtful. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That this recog- 
 nizance is doubtful and may be amended." 
 
 zance 
 amended. 
 
CITY OF DUBLIN. 193 
 
 The recognizance was then amended by the 
 insertion of the words, '' or either of them." 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That the recog- 
 nizance so amended is good." 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Murphy opened the case of the' Where a 
 petitioners, F. Johnston and others. He pro- ^oi'vedan" 
 posed to begin with the scrutiny, and to take objection to 
 the question of qualification afterwards, if the member's 
 case of scrutiny should not be successful. quaiifica- 
 
 Mr. B-owe contended, that it would be unjust as a scru- 
 to Mr. Reynolds not to take the question of '"y- ^°"" 
 
 " . "■ mittee de- 
 
 want of qualification first. dined to 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Murphy rephed. interfere to 
 
 o . . compel 
 
 The Committee declined to interfere, allowing petitioners 
 the counsel for the petitioners to take their own mencrwith 
 
 course. objection 
 
 to qualifi- 
 cation. 
 
 OnMr. Seijt. Kinglake calling a witness to show Paroi evi- 
 that the poll-books had not been correctly cast ^^''j !'". 
 up by the sherifl|, and that the majority for Mr. given that 
 Reynolds was larger than that stated by the P°J:J.g^j,y"' 
 returning officer, . oas' »p- 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Murphy objected to any evidence 
 being then given for any such purpose. 
 
 The Committee overruled the objection, and 
 allowed evidence to be given of the incorrectness 
 of the total of the poll-books. 
 
 After some evidence had been called for that 
 purpose. 
 
 The Committee stated, that the better course 
 
194 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 would be for the agents on both sides to examine 
 the poll-books, and to state the result ; and for 
 the scrutiny to begin at once. 
 
 Cases with refekence to the Borough 
 Rate. 
 
 Nicholas Cakberey's case. 
 
 Affidavit of The voter's affidavit of registry was produced 
 produMd ^y *^® clerk of the peace ; but no proof of the 
 by clerk of handwriting of the deputy-chairman of the ses- 
 mhsfblein sions before whom it had been sworn was 
 
 evidence, gdvcn. 
 
 hand. Mr. Seijt. Kinglake objected to the reception 
 
 vpnting of (jf ^jjg affidavit in evidence, upon the ground 
 
 barrister, that it had not been verified by proof of the 
 
 wliomit handwriting of the party before whom it was 
 
 vfas sworn, swom. 
 
 not prove . rjij^g Committee overruled the objection. 
 Affidavit of Mr. Seijt. Kinglake then objected, that the 
 held otM- ^^^^* could only be received as secondary 
 nai evi- evidence in the absence of the certificate, and 
 righTto t^** ^^ notice to produce the certificate had 
 vote. been proved to have been given. 
 
 The Committee were of opinion that the affi- 
 davit itself was original evidence. 
 A borough The town-clerk of the city of Dublin produced 
 untothlr *^^ borough rate-book of the corporation of Dub- 
 3 86 4 Vict, lin for the year 1846, the rate in question being 
 irilhMn^! ^^^ under the provisions of the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 
 cipai Cor- 108 (the Irish Municipal Corporation Act) . The 
 
CITY OF DUBLIN. 195 
 
 oter had not received notice that the money poration 
 or the borough rate was owing by him ; but a ^°*^. '? *, 
 )ublic notice had been given. It was also cess within 
 >roved that Carberry was several times applied -^g ^^j^"" 
 o for the rate soon after 22nd July^ 1846. o&tt in the 
 
 The Committee, before deciding on the vote^ iv. c. 88. 
 lesired to hear the point argued, whether a 
 jorough rate, which was created for the first 
 ime by the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 108, subsequent to 
 ;he passing of the 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 88, was to 
 36 considered as a municipal cess, or rate, or 
 ;ax, within the meaning of the oath in the 2 & 3 
 Will. IV. c. 88. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Kinglake having been heard on the June 3. 
 joint, and Mr. Seijt. Murphy in reply. 
 
 The Committee decided that the vote was bad. To make 
 
 The Committee also resolved, " That in order ''°™"s'' , 
 
 ' rate due and 
 
 to make the borough rate legally due and pay- payable, de- 
 ible within the meaning of the 2 & 3 WiU. IV. "asa.yf 
 :. 88, a demand is necessary." 
 
 Felix Bermingham's Case. 
 
 The voter was a butcher. The collector did in order to 
 aot know him personally, but demanded the ^^n^^of*' 
 borough rate of a person at his stall; and a borough 
 printed notice of demand had been previously joJfggtor ' 
 served at his house. It was not proved that the must be 
 collector had been furnished with a warrant and h™rhad 
 
 copy of applotment. warrantand 
 
 It was resolved, " That the Committee are of piotment 
 rminion. the noint havinff been distinctlv raised ""^^"^ 
 
196 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 9 Geo. IV. in this case before them for the first time, that, 
 t. 8 , ». . ^ order to make the demand valid, it should 
 have been proved that the collector had been 
 furnished with such a warrant and copy of ap- 
 plotment as are required by the 9 Geo. IV. c. 82, 
 s. 40." 
 
 June 12. Mr. Rowe applied to the Committee, to make 
 
 On applica- an Order that a list of the voters about to be 
 
 counsel for objected to On each day, should be furnished by 
 
 sitting the petitioners to the agents of the sitting 
 member, , .n j t. <• 
 
 committee member, the day before. 
 
 ordered jyjj.^ Murphy opposed the application, 
 
 should be The Committee resolved, " That the counsel 
 coTnsef for^ ^^^ *^^ petitioners shall furnish the counsel for 
 petitioners the sitting member with a list of the twenty 
 the twenty ii^mes they intended next to proceed with ; but 
 names to be that in case any necessity should arise, the 
 ceeded Committee will allow the petitioners to proceed 
 with. ^th the names of any other voters who were 
 
 objected to." 
 
 Cases of Paving, Lighting, and Cleansing 
 Tax. 
 
 Joseph Short's Case. 
 June 20. Evidence having been given of the demand of 
 The paving this rate upon the voter, and its non-payment, 
 
 rate of the ht t, • »■. 
 
 City of Mr. Howe m support of the vote, contended, 
 
 ™!^1!.U?. ^ ^^*' *^^* *^® paving rate could not be considered 
 cess, and as a mumcipal cess within the meaning of the Act 
 some de- ^f Parliament ; and secondly, that the demand 
 
CITY OF DUBLIN. 197 
 
 had not been proved to have been made within mand of 
 
 the proper time. payment or 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — No demand was necessary, the cessary in 
 rate being due and payable on the day the Sify"*^"" 
 assessment was made. voter. 
 
 The Committee intimated, with reference to june 21. 
 this paving rate, that they considered some 
 demand or notice was necessary. 
 
 Vote struck off. 
 
 Frederick Hamilton's Case. 
 
 It appeared that a witness, named Henry June 23. 
 White, had been appointed by the commissioners A demand 
 to coHect the tax in the name of his father, the t^^L 
 collector, who was incapacitated by illness, and son of the 
 that he gave receipts for the tax in his father's appointed 
 name, but there was no evidence that the voter ^y ommis- 
 
 , J, ^, . , , sioners to 
 
 Knew 01 tne appomtment. act during 
 
 Mr. Rowe objected, that the father under his |}j^g*g''"'^ 
 warrant could not delegate the power of collect- there being 
 ing to his son ; proof, therefore, of a demand "haf^'ote""^ 
 by the son and non-payment to him was not knew he 
 
 ax ■ , was an au- 
 
 suflicient. thorized 
 
 Mr. Murphy read the minutes of the Com- collector, 
 
 missioners of Paving, of January 18, 1845, ap- Aiiter, 
 
 pointing Henry White collector for three months, ^^"^7^*^'^ 
 
 luring his father's illness; and stated that the he was such 
 
 ippointment had been continued down to the "oiig""'^* 
 
 Dresent time, but that he had not the minutes tor (a). 
 
 (a) See note, p. 198. 
 
198 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 containing the continuation of the appointment, 
 but that they could be procured. 
 Jane 24. It was resolved: "That the Committee are 
 of opinion that they cannot decide the question 
 definitely until the further evidence is produced. 
 That the counsel for the petitioners are at Hberty 
 to proceed with the case, the Committee reserv- 
 ing their decision until such further evidence is 
 produced." 
 
 On a subsequent day (June 29), the further 
 minutes of the Commissioners of Paving, con- 
 tinuing the appointment of Henry White as col- 
 lector, during his father's illness, were produced. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That a demand 
 made by Henry White was not a sufficient 
 demand" (a). 
 
 John Green's Case. 
 
 June 26. In the course of the inquiry into this case, 
 
 A demand ^he Committee stated that it was not necessary, 
 of paving , " 
 
 rate of City in the casc of the paving rate of the city of 
 
 °^^^"^^" . J Dubhn, to prove a demand made more than 
 
 made three three months before the election, 
 months be- 
 fore the ~~~~~ 
 
 {a) In a subsequent case (Peter 0'E«illy's case), 
 where it appeared that the voter knew that Henry 
 White was the person who acted as collector, having 
 on former occasions applied to him for time to make the 
 payment, and having paid him former rates, the Com- 
 mittee held that a demand by Henry White was suffi- 
 cient, and the vote was struck ofiFthe poU. 
 
city of dublin. 199 
 
 Case of Misnomer. 
 Patrick Faulkner's Case. 
 
 The voter was described in the poll-hook as July 8. 
 Matthew Paulkiier. Thefactofa 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Kinglake. — The objection to this should have 
 
 vote cannot be entered iato, as the Committee l"^*" «*«'e^ 
 
 are bonnd by the statement in the poll-book ia objections 
 
 which the name of Matthew Fanlkner appears, ''*°^*'* '"• 
 
 whereas ia the list of voters objected to, the Matthew 
 
 name of Patrick FauUmer alone appears. Faulkner, 
 
 ^ , objected to 
 
 Mr. Murphy ottered to prove that the name as Patrick 
 
 of Matthew Faulkner was inserted in the poU- ^"""^"er, 
 
 '■ refused to 
 
 book by mistake, and that the real name of the be entered 
 voter was Patrick Fanlkner. ""°" 
 
 The Committee decided that the fact should 
 have been stated ia the list of objections, and 
 that the validity of the vote could not now be 
 questioned. 
 
 Thomas Dunne's Case. 
 
 The affidavit of registry, dated February 2nd, July lo. 
 1847, was produced. ^^/avVof 
 
 Mr. Murphy, against the vote. — The vote registry 
 must be struck off the poll, as the affidavit upon ^T^^^f" 
 which the voter voted was not dated six months voted was 
 anterior to the teste of the writ. ^jj^j^ ^j^ 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake proposed to put ia evi- months of 
 dence the affidavit of registry of the vote dated ^t! voter's 
 February 6th, 1840. P™"''"^ 
 
200 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 affidavit of Mr. Murphy objected to the reception of that 
 lowedTo be ^^^^^*» on the ground that the Committee 
 giveninevi- miost be boimd by the statement in the poll- 
 
 dence of , ^ 
 right to "00k. 
 
 vote. The Committee decided that Mr. Serjt. 
 
 Kinfflake was entitled to put the latter affidavit 
 in evidence. 
 
 The affidavit of 6th February, 1840, was 
 accordingly given in evidence. 
 
 Vote struck off. 
 
 Cases of Non-Payment of Geand Jury Tax, 
 
 Robert Lacey's Case. 
 
 July 12. In this case there was no direct evidence of 
 
 To disqua- any demand of the rate having been made upon 
 
 for non- the voter. 
 
 th^G™'d^ Mr. Murphy, in summing up the case against 
 
 Jury cess the vote, submitted that, with respect to the 
 
 oTDubiin'^ grand jury cess, no demand was necessary. 
 
 some evi- Mr. Seijt. Kinfflake, contrci. 
 
 demand of '^^^ Committee decided that, with respect to 
 
 payment or the grand jury cess, some notice or demand was 
 notice ne- 
 cessary, necessary. 
 
 Vote retained, 
 
 James Lanley^s Case. 
 July 20. Mr. Rome objected, that the voter's name, as 
 lilt^of obec ^PP^^^S ^^ t^^ poU-book, was not in the list 
 tions deli- of objections delivered by the petitioners, 
 vered by ]^j, jff^rphy, in answer to the objection, — 
 
CITY OF DUBLIN. 201 
 
 The name is in the list ; but there was a mis- petitioners 
 
 take of the letter N for D, The voter's title in jer's name 
 
 list of objections was Ladley. as "Lad- 
 
 The Committee decided that the objection was real name 
 
 well founded. as it ap- 
 
 Vote retained. the poll- 
 
 book being 
 " Lanley," Committee refused to entertain objection to vote. 
 
 Wide Street Cess Cases. 
 
 William Langton's case. 
 
 Mr. Murphy stated the origia and nature of July 27. 
 the tax (a) . 
 
 A document, purportiog to be an account of 
 the presentment and monies levied by the Com- 
 missioners of Wide Street having been received 
 in CAddence, 
 
 Mr. Murphy proposed to put in certain docu- 
 ments, produced from the treasurer of the city 
 of DubUn, called supplemental sheets to the 
 police valuation of 1846. 
 
 Mr. Bjowe objected. — The documents are not 
 properly authenticated, and there was no date 
 to them. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That without fur- 
 ther evidence, the supplemental sheets now ten- 
 dered cannot be received as a portion of the 
 police valuation fpr St. Mark's parish for Easter 
 term 1847." 
 
 (a) See F. & F. 180. 
 
 k3 
 
203 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 July 28. Further evidence of the authenticity of the 
 
 documents was given by the chief clerk in the 
 
 office of the treasurer of the grand jury, and the 
 
 documents were admitted in evidence. 
 
 The war- Mr. Mwphy tendered in evidence the books 
 
 lector of°'' of *^6 coUector of the Wide Street cess for 1846 
 
 WideStreet and 1847, and the warrant of the collector. 
 
 ot'^Dubiia'' ^^- Rowe objected to the reception of the 
 
 should dis- warrant, and also the collector's books ; first, 
 
 close autho- , ,, , . , it 
 
 rity under because the warrant was not stamped ) and, se- 
 
 whichrate condly, because it did not disclose the authority 
 
 is raised* 
 
 if it do not, under which the rate was levied. 
 
 jjook of col- ]y[j. Murphy having been heard in answer to 
 
 warrant not the objection, 
 
 rn"n!re. Mr. 2?oz.e replied. 
 July 29. 1*^^ Committee resolved, " That the warrant 
 and books tendered in evidence are inadmissible, 
 inasmuch as the warrant does not disclose the 
 authority under which the rate was to be as- 
 sessed and levied" {a). 
 
 On a subsequent day (August 2nd), the point 
 
 (a) The room being cleared, and the above resolution 
 being moved, it was moved as an amendment, to leave 
 out all the words after " That the," in order to insert 
 the following words : " Committee are of opinion that 
 the Act 1 Vict. c. 51, inserted in the warrant, alters 
 the basis from the Watch Tax valuation, and makes the 
 warrant admissible." The Committee divided on the 
 question, "That the words proposed to be left out 
 stand part of the question." Ayes, 3 ; Mr. Sotheron, 
 Mr. Bright, Lord E. Grosvenor : Noe, 1 ; Marquis of 
 Granby. 
 
CITY OF DUBLIN. 203 
 
 being again raised, the Committee came to a 
 resolution, " That the Committee will adhere to 
 their former decision, that the warraat and books 
 are not receivable in evidence" (a). 
 
 Mr. Edwin James appeared as counsel for Mr. 
 Reynolds. 
 
 Andrew Doyle's Case. 
 
 After evidence had been given against this To prove 
 vote, and counsel on both sides had been heard, ^^g^r of 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That the warrant Wide Street 
 contaming the assessment tor St. Catherme s of Dublin, 
 parish, though proved to have been delivered to warrant of 
 the collector, not having been produced, the containing 
 Committee are of opinion that it is not esta- ^^^t'^^"' 
 blished that Andrew Doyle was iu arrear of the produced. 
 Wide Street cess at the time of the election." 
 
 Vote retained. 
 
 Pipe Water Rent Case (5) . 
 William Broderick's case. 
 
 Upon the counsel for the petitioner proceed- August 5. 
 ing to call evidence against this vote, 
 
 Mr. Howe objected to evidence beiag given, August 7. 
 inasmuch as the rent in question was not a rate 
 at all ; or that, if it were a rate, it was not a 
 
 (a) Ayes, 3 ; Mr. Sotheron, Mr. Bright, Lord E. 
 Grosvenor : Noe, 1 ; Marquis of Granby. 
 
 (6) For the account of the Acts relating to this rent 
 or rate, see Falconer and Fitzherbert's Keports (City 
 oflhibUn case), p. 142. 
 
204 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 municipal cess within the meaning of the 
 statute. 
 Pipe water The Committee unanimously resolved, " That 
 the pipe water rent is not a municipal tax within 
 
 rent not a 
 municipal 
 
 tax. the terms of the Irish Reform Act." 
 
 August 10. Mr. Murphy then abandoned the scrutiny. 
 Committee j^^^ applied to the Committee to obtain leave 
 
 obtainleave '^^ 
 
 to adjourn of the Housc to adjourn until Tuesday next, 
 j^J^g""* in order that the witnesses who were to prove 
 order to Mr. Reynolds' want of qualification might be 
 
 enable peti- i 
 
 tioners to procured. 
 
 procure Mr. Bowe and Mr. James opposed the appli- 
 
 witnesses 
 
 from Ire- Catxon. 
 
 land for ]y[r_ Murphy replied. 
 
 case, 
 
 branch of The Committee decided that they would grant 
 the application, and that they would apply to 
 the House for an adjournment tiU. Tuesday, and 
 that, if it was then found that time was required 
 by the sitting member to procure rebutting evi- 
 dence, they would grant a further adjournment. 
 Leave was given by the House to the Com- 
 mittee to adjourn accordingly. 
 
 August 15. Mr. Murphy opened the case as to the want of 
 Upon peti- qualification, contending, in the first place, that 
 member' on ^^^ declaration put in by the sitting member, 
 ground of Mr. Reynolds, at the poll and at the table of the 
 
 wantofqua- j i ■ 
 
 lification, House, was not a declaration in conformity with 
 
 referi'tr *^^ ^'^^ (**)' ^^^ proposed taking the opinion of 
 entertain the Committee at once upon that point. 
 
 (a) 1 & 2 Vict. c. 48. 
 
CITY OF DUBLIN. 205 
 
 Mr. Bmoe objected to the course proposed, question 
 and contended that the whole case of want of j^er" detia- 
 qualification must be taken by the petitioners at ™tion of 
 
 qualifica- 
 ^^^^- tion was in 
 
 The Committee decided that the whole case conformity 
 should be gone mto before they came to any until the 
 decision on the sufficiency of the declaration. ^l^^ al-^^ 
 
 leged want 
 
 Evidence was then given as to the alleged °^j?"* '^J^ 
 want of sitting member's qualification. before 
 
 them. 
 
 Mr. Rome, on behalf of the sitting member, August 19. 
 having called some evidence. 
 
 The Committee iaterposed, stating that they August 22. 
 were of opinion that, upon the evidence before 
 them, Mr. Reynolds was duly qualified. 
 
 After this resolution, the Committee adjourned August 23. 
 until the following day, when the petition against 
 the return of Mr. Grogan was abandoned. 
 
 The Committee then came to the following Final reso- 
 resolutions for report to the House : — 
 
 1. " That John Reynolds, Esq., is duly elected 
 a burgess to serve in this present Parliament for 
 the city of Dublin." 
 
 2. " That the Committee have altered the poU 
 taken at such election, by striking ofi' the names 
 of Nicholas Carberry, &c. (in all 97 names), as 
 not having had any right to vote at such elec- 
 tion." 
 
 3. " Your Committee find that a former Com- 
 
206 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 mittee, wMch sat in the years 1835 and 1836, 
 made a special report, as follows : — 
 
 ' That they had found a very general irregu- 
 larity to prevail in the assessment and collection 
 of the municipal taxes in Dublin; and that, 
 from the absence of all public notice of their 
 imposition, the imcertainty attending their col- 
 lection, and the liability to payment attached, 
 in many instances, to various occupiers of the 
 same premises, the exercise of the franchise is 
 frequently subject to impediments and difficrd- 
 ties, which the Committee cannot believe were 
 contemplated by the Legislature.' " 
 
 4. " In the opinion thereia stated of the vex- 
 atious nature of the restrictions placed upon the 
 franchise, your Committee entirely participate ; 
 and they cannot refrain from expressing their 
 regret that the House should have permitted 
 that report to have remained unnoticed during 
 the space of twelve years." 
 
 5. " The result has been, that twice since 
 that period the validity of elections for the city 
 of Dublin has been called in question before the 
 Parliamentary tribunal; and upon the present 
 occasion the several parties interested in the 
 representation of that metropolis have been in- 
 volved in a most serious expense; and your 
 Committee has been engaged seventy-two days 
 of actual sitting, upon what has appeared to 
 them a most unsatisfactory inquiry." 
 
 6. " Your Committee therefore beg to press 
 upon the House the necessity of taking this 
 
CITY OF DUBLIN. 207 
 
 subject into their consideration at tlie earliest 
 possible periodj in order to prevent a recurrence 
 of evils which cannot be obviated, if the law, as 
 it now stands, shall be suffered to remain unal- 
 tered." 
 
208 
 
 CASE XXV. 
 
 1848. BOROUGH OP SLIGO. 
 
 (second case.) 
 
 The Conimittee was appointed on the 16th of June, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 William Battle Wrightson, Esq., Northallerton, 
 (ChairmoM). 
 
 Hugh Edward Adair, Esq., 
 
 Ipswich. 
 Charles Wykeham Martin, 
 
 Esq., Newport, Isle of 
 
 Wight. 
 
 John Evans, Esq., Haver- 
 fordwest. 
 
 Hon. Col. Pennant, Carnar- 
 vonshire. 
 
 Petitioners : — Electors. 
 
 Sitting Member: — Charles Towneley, Esq. 
 
 Counsel for Petitioners : — Mr. Merewether, Mr. Clerk, 
 and Mr. O'Dowd. 
 
 Agents: — Mr. Robert Peyton Graham, Mr. James Walker, 
 and Mr. Michael Gallahcr. 
 
 Counsel for Sitting Member: — Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, Mr. 
 E. James, and Mr. Cadogan. 
 
 Agents: — Mr. Coppock, and Mr. Cantwell. 
 
 June 17. The usual preliminary resolutions were agreed 
 
 Preliminary to (a) . 
 resolutions. 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 1. 
 
BOROUGH OF SLIGO (2nD CASE). '209 
 
 The petition, after praying for a scrutiny on Petition. 
 
 various grounds, and charging treating and bri- Scrutiny. 
 
 bery against the sitting member and his agents, Bribery and 
 
 alleged the want of qualification of the sitting -^^^^ ^^ 
 
 member, and also a refusal on his part to make quaiifica- 
 
 and subscribe a declaration upon a request „ ,' , 
 J 1 1 -1 1 n n -XT- Refusal to 
 
 duly made, as prescribed by 1 & 2 Vict. c. 48, makedecia- 
 
 S. 3. ration of 
 
 ' ' qualifica- 
 
 It further alleged, that in the statute 1 Geo. tion. 
 IV. c. 11, s. 5, it was directed, among other Informality 
 things, that the mayor of any borough should prockj^^."'' 
 hold the election for the same, &c., having in tion of time 
 the usual pubhc place caused to be affixed a fg, howfne 
 notice under his hand of the time and place of ^eelec- 
 holding such election; that the notice which 
 was affixed on the door of the court-house, or at 
 any other public place situate in. the borough of 
 Sligo, by Robert M 'Bride, Esq., the mayor of 
 said borough, of the time and place of holding 
 the said last election, was not signed by or given 
 under the hand of the said mayor, as is required 
 by the said statute in such case made and pro- 
 vided, and according to the true intent and 
 meaning thereof; and that by reason of the said 
 requisition of the said statute respecting the 
 said notice of election not having been complied 
 with, and the said notice having been as afore- 
 said defective and informal, the said election 
 and return of the said Charles Towneley was 
 null and void. 
 
 The petition also contained charges of intimi- Intimida- 
 dation, and prayed the seat for Mr. Somers, '°"" 
 
310 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 The allegation of the want of qualification of 
 the sitting member, as well as the scrutiny, were 
 not proceeded with. 
 
 Mr. Merewether opened the case. 
 Certificate The certificate of registry of the petitioners, 
 dvdy^slgned, signed by the assistant barrister and the deputy 
 sufficient clerk of the peace, was produced. 
 petitioner's Mr. Scrjt. Kinfflake objected that the proper 
 right to proof had not been given of the right of the 
 petitioners to vote. The affidavit, signed and 
 sworn before the barrister, and delivered to the 
 clerk of the peace and filed, and kept among the 
 records of the Court of Quarter Sessions, enti- 
 tling the parties to vote, ought to be produced. 
 The petitioners were not proved to be entitled to 
 vote, and had therefore no right to petition. 
 In arguing j|V[].. James rose to follow on the same side ; but 
 tion,oniy Mr. Merewether objected to two counsel being 
 one counsel i^gard on the same side on any obiection. 
 
 to be heard ™, ~ . rf J 
 
 on each The Committee resolved, " That only one 
 
 '^^" counsel on each side should be heard on any 
 
 objection." 
 
 The Committee overruled the objection, with- 
 out calling on Mr. Merewether. 
 
 Adjourn- WiUiam Allen, town clerk for borough of 
 granted to Sligo, was Called to produce the poll-books, 
 givetinie jjg howcver was not present, as some misun- 
 
 for produc- -"^ ' . 
 
 tionofpoU- derstanding appeared to have arisen with regard 
 books. ^Q ^jjg ^y Qj^ Tjpiiicli he had received notice to 
 attend. 
 
BOROUGH OF SLIGO (2nD CASE). 211 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake objected to the case pro- 
 ceeding uatil the production of the poll-books. 
 On the application of Mr. Merewether, the 
 Committee adjourned tiU Monday, June 19, in 
 order that the attendance of Allen might be 
 procured. 
 
 The poU-books, and the affidavit of the mayor June 19. 
 of Sligo which accompanied them, having now 
 been produced by AUen and verified, the poU- 
 books were received ia evidence. 
 
 Mr. Clerk proceeded with the allegation in signature 
 the petition, which complained that the notice *° "ot'^e 
 which was affixed on the door of the court- Geo. IV. c. 
 house, or at any other public place situate in not^bg'"„*^ 
 the borough of Shgo, by the mayor of the said hand-writ- 
 borough, of the time and place of holding the ^fing^t^!^ ^ 
 said last election, was not signed by or given 
 under the hand of the said mayor, as required 
 under the provisions of 1 Geo. IV. c. 11, s. 5, 
 and contended, that ia consequence of such 
 omission the notice was not legal. 
 
 The evidence went to show that the mayor 
 gave a notice to the printer with his signature 
 attached, which was afterwards printed in that 
 form and so affixed to the court-house. 
 
 Mr. Clerk contended, upon these facts, that 
 the notice given was a bad notice, and that the 
 election was therefore void. 
 
 The Committee, without calling on Mr. Serjt. 
 Kinglake, overruled the objection. 
 
212 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Actsinsuffi- With reference to the agency of a Mr. Stonor, 
 
 CO "stitute i* ^^ proved that he had accompanied the sit- 
 
 primd facie tiQg member from London to Sligo, and had 
 
 agency. lived with him 4^T^Q»-oj_t><nt hp hl'^ ^p"" "p*^" in 
 
 company wdth MrTCant aaell. the agent of the 
 
 sitting member, in his committee-room at the 
 
 Hibernian Hotel ; thatinj he commercial^ room 
 
 of that hotel he had made a speec h t o elec tors 
 
 who were there; and that he had been seen 
 
 arm in arm with the sitting member on hi s 
 
 canvass. 
 
 mr. Merewether then proposed to put in and 
 read a letter from Mr. Stonor to a Mr. M'Gar- 
 raghan with reference to the election. 
 
 Mr. Seqt. Kinglake objected to its reception 
 in evidence. 
 
 The Committee decided ^bpt \\\p. letter was 
 not _a toiissibls i" pvidpTifp. 
 
 Mi. Merewether then asked the witness — "You 
 have told me that you did not hear what Mr. 
 Stonor said, in addressing the people assembled 
 at the Hibernian : — Can you teU what the 
 speech was about ?" 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake objected to the question, 
 on the ground that Stonor had not been proved 
 to be the agent of the sitting member, and submit- 
 ted, that before the question could be answered, 
 it must be proved that Stonor acted as the 
 election agent for the sitting member, and that 
 he was doing some act within the scope of the 
 authority delegated to him by the sitting mem- 
 ber. The law did not allow anything said by 
 
BOROUGH OF SLIGO (3nD CASE). 213 
 
 an agent to be given in evidence against Ms 
 principal, unless it were within the scope of his 
 authority. The acts proved before the Com- 
 mittee were insufficient to constitute Stonor 
 agent for the sitting jaember. 
 
 Mr. Merewether contended that a prima 
 facie case of agency as against Stonor had been 
 established. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake replied. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That upon the June 22. 
 evidence as it stands, the declarations of Mr. 
 Stonor cannot be received." 
 
 Mr. Clerk summed up the case on behalf of June 24. 
 the petitioners. 
 
 Evidence on behalf of the sitting member 
 having been given, Mr. Merewether replied on 
 the.jvhole case. 
 
 The Committee came to the following resolu- June 26. 
 tions, which were reported to the House : — 
 
 1. " That Charles Towneley, Esq., is not duly Final reso- 
 elected a burgess, to serve in this present Parlia- " '°°'' 
 ment for the borough of SHgo." 
 
 2. " That the last election for the borough of 
 Sligo is a void election." 
 
 3. " That Charles Towneley, Esq., was by his 
 agents guilty of treating at the last election for 
 the borough of SUgo" («). 
 
 (a) The Committee divided on each of the above 
 resolutions : — Ayes, 4 : Mr. Adair, Mr. Martin, Mr. 
 Evans, Col. Pennant. — Noe, 1 : Mr. Wrightson. 
 
314 
 
 1848. 
 
 CASE XXVI. 
 NORTH CHESHIRE. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 2lBt of July, 1848, 
 ajj^d consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Visconnt Courtenay, South Devon, 
 {Chcw/rmari). 
 
 Right Hon. Sidney Herbert, 
 South wats. 
 
 Sir De Lacy Evans, West- 
 minster. 
 
 Captain Boldero, Chippenham. 
 Ross Donnelly Mangles, Esq., 
 Guildford. 
 
 Fetitioners : — Electors. 
 
 Sitting Member .—George Cornwall Legh, Esq. 
 
 Counsel for Petitioners: — Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, Mr. 
 Edwin James, and Mr. Phinn. 
 
 Agent : — Mr. Coppock. 
 
 Coimsel for SitlAng Member : — Mr. Merewether and Mr. 
 Cole. 
 
 Agents : — ^Messrs. Law, Holmes, & Co. 
 
 July 22. The Committee came to the usual preliminary 
 Preiimi- resolutions la). 
 
 nary reso- 
 lutions. 
 
 Petition. 
 
 The petition, ■which was from registered elec- 
 tors, setting forth that they had a right to vote, 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 1. 
 
NORTH CHESHIRE. 215 
 
 anddidvote at the last election, stated, that at such 
 election George Cornwall Legh, Esq., and Francis 
 Dukinfield Palmer Astley, Esq., were the candi- 
 dates, and that, after a poU, the former gentle- 
 man was returned ; that before, during, and after 
 the election, Mr. Legh was by himself and his 
 agents, guilty of treating ; and that bribery, Bribery and 
 treating, iutimidation, and other corrupt prac- Seating, 
 tices were carried on at such election by the 
 agents, friends, managers, and partisans of Mr. 
 Legh, whereby his return was procured. It 
 prayed the House to declare the election aud 
 return of Mr. Legh to be null and void. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Kinglake opened a case of treating, 
 abandoniog the charges of bribery contained in 
 the petition. 
 
 The poll-books were received in evidence. 
 
 Mr. Merewetlier submitted, that before the Petitioners, 
 case could be gone iuto, it must be proved that must^rove 
 the petitioners whose names were attached to t^^eir right 
 the petition had a right to vote, and did vote, at 
 the election in question. The petition must be 
 by persons qualified to vote at the election : it 
 was one of the allegations of the petition that 
 they were so, and that fact must be prelimi- 
 narily determined [before the inquiry could pro- 
 ceed. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake and Mr. James against 
 the objection. — This was not a question for the 
 
216 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Committee to try at all : it must arise in the 
 House at the time of the presentation of the 
 petition. The petition had, iinder the 7 & 8 
 Vict. c. 103, been presented to and received by 
 the House, and had been referred to the General 
 Committee of Elections, for the purpose of 
 choosing the Select Committee, which Commit- 
 tee was sworn to try the matter of the petition. 
 A similar objection to the present had been 
 overruled in the Harwich case (a) . — In the Bod- 
 min case (b), an objection had been taken to the 
 validity of the recognizances entered into under 
 the Act ; but the Committee decided that they 
 had no jurisdiction to entertain the question. 
 It had consequently been necessary to pass an 
 Act, 11 Vict. c. 18, to enable Committees to go 
 into such inquiry, which would not have been 
 the case if such matters could be brought before 
 Committees appointed to try the merits of pe- 
 titions. 
 
 Mr. Merewether replied. — As to the question 
 of recognizances, there was an officer of the 
 House appointed to examine those matters, and 
 therefore Committees would not afterwards go 
 into the question. The argument that the peti- 
 tion had been received by the House under the 
 Act would only go to the extent that it had 
 been received for the purpose of being inquired 
 into by the Committee, and would not therefore 
 remove his objection. The Committee were 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 73. (6) AnU, p. 130. 
 
NORTH CHESHIRE. 211 
 
 to inquire into all the allegations of the peti- 
 tion. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That the peti- 
 tioners must prove that they had a right to 
 vote at the last election for the Northern Divi- 
 sion of Cheshire before proceeding further." 
 
 Mr. Henry Coppock was then called, and es- 
 tablished the right of the petitioners to vote at 
 the last election. 
 
 William Burdett was a voter who had been juiy 24. 
 canvassed by a Mr. Service, and after voting Where a 
 received from him a refreshment ticket. proTed°to 
 
 Mr. Phinn having asked Burdett, " "What did be an agent 
 Mr. Service say to you when he gave you the voter, 
 
 ticket?" giving him 
 
 Mr. Merewether objected. — Before this ques- arefresh- 
 tion could be asked it must be proved that Ser- "entticket, 
 
 . , rni deolara- 
 
 vice was an agent of the sitting member. The tion at time 
 evidence with reference to Service was merely g„gfj"i°ket 
 that he was bringing persons up to the poU ; admissible 
 that did not make him an agent. 
 
 Mr. Phinn. — The declaration of Service, in- 
 asmuch as it accompanied an act done, was ad- 
 missible in evidence. Declarations accompany- 
 ing an act are part of the res gesta, and there- 
 fore admissible. That was the case in this 
 instance. — Taylor on Evidence, vol. 1, p. 375. 
 
 Mr. Merewether replied. — The question is 
 asked with a view of proving a case of treating, 
 and, therefore, cannot be put, as Service is not 
 proved to be an agent. The decision of Mr. 
 
218 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Justice Butter in the Cricklade case {a), on the 
 point of agency, favours this view. 
 
 Mr. Phinn contended that the Cricklade case 
 was not ia point. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That the question 
 may be put." 
 
 July 25. Edward Reddish, junior, who was on the staff 
 Declara- of his father, one of the sub-agents of Mr. Legh 
 party who ^* *^^ election, had, on the first polling day, 
 had given a given One Burdikin, a messenger, a refreshment 
 menuioket ticket : Burdikiu, in company with a voter named 
 upon the James Dennerly, brought this ticket back to 
 brought^'"^ Reddish, when Dennerly stated that Starr, the 
 backtohim, pubUcan, was not satisfied with it, but wanted 
 
 admissible , f n -i i • i 
 
 in evidence to know the exact amount 01 refreshment which 
 
 '!'*°".* he was to supply. Dennerly was asked by Mr. 
 
 being pro- James, "What Reddish did or said when the 
 
 ^'"^^- ticket was given back to him ? " 
 
 Mr. Merewether objected to what Reddish said 
 beiug given ia evidence without the production 
 of the document. 
 
 Mr. James in support of the question. — He 
 was not giving ia evidence the contents of the 
 ticket, but merely what the principal ia the 
 transaction said with reference to that ticket 
 when it was refused. It did not follow that 
 what the party said was incorporated as part of 
 the contents of the document. 
 
 Mr. Merewether replied. ? 
 
 (a) Eogers on Elections, p. 226. 
 
NORTH CHESHIRE. 219 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That the question 
 may be put." 
 
 Mr. James asked a witness, WiUiam Warren, Before 
 what a man named Swindells was doing at Bol- {"/"^"in" 
 lington on the evening of the day on which the agency 
 
 ., n J o ' must be 
 
 Witness polled f proved 
 
 Mr. Merewether. — If the object of these ques- aliunde. 
 tions was to prove treating by Swindells, the 
 agency of Swindells must be first proved. 
 
 Mr. James. — The agency could only be proved 
 by acts which he was here going to show. If 
 those acts were not brought home to the princi- 
 pal, of course the evidence would be struck out. 
 
 Mr. Merewether having replied, 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That agency 
 must be proved aliunde before treating is at- 
 tempted to be proved on the part of the supposed 
 agent." 
 
 The witness, in farther examination, having Where 
 stated that he was induced to vote for Mr. Legh bribTry°had 
 through James TrafiFord proffering him 15s., been aban- 
 
 Mr. Merewether objected to the coiu-se of p^ftofpeti- 
 examination. — If this was any thing, it was tioners by 
 
 1 counsel in 
 
 bribery : the charge or bribery had not only his opening 
 been abandoned at the commencement, but by statement, 
 
 . ** Committee 
 
 the Act the parties were obliged to deliver a list refused to 
 six days before the meeting of the Committee, j^^J." ^^' 
 vvhich had not been done. an act of 
 
 Mr. James. — Proof of the payment of the "''^''y- 
 money was admissible. It had transpired in the 
 
 I. 2 
 
220 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 course of the inquiry, that instead of 15«. worth 
 of meat, drink, beer, &c., heing, as he had sup- 
 posed, given to the voter to be consumed, 15s. was 
 given as a sum of money. It was objected, that 
 that did not come within the definition of treat- 
 ing, but constituted the graver offence. It 
 might be both. It was, however, admissible 
 as an act of treating ; but should the Committee 
 think that it was not so admissible, he would 
 make an application that the inquiry should go 
 on with reference to the payment as a bribe, on 
 the ground that it had been brought put in the 
 course of the inquiry, and might therefore be 
 gone into under the 4th preliminary resolution. 
 
 Mr. Merewether against the admissibility of 
 the evidence. — The other side had stated that 
 they did not intend to go into any cases of 
 bribery, but relied on cases of treating alone. 
 The Committee had decided that treating could 
 not be gone into untU agency should have been 
 proved aliunde, and therefore this could not be 
 gone into until the agency was proved. This, 
 however, was bribery, as defined by 5 & 6 Vict. 
 c. 102, sect. 20, and could only be gone into 
 tmder the 4th resolution, upon proof that the 
 parties could not have been previously cognizant 
 of it. The petitioners must have been cognizant 
 of it, as every incident in the case appeared to 
 be within their knowledge. 
 
 Mr. James having replied, 
 
 The Committee put certain questions to the 
 witness with reference to the 15»., and resolved. 
 
NORTH CHESHIRE, 221 
 
 "That fhe case is one of bribery, and that 
 having reference to the abandonment of the 
 charges of bribery by the petitioners at the 
 commencement of the case, and to the terms of 
 the 4th preliminary resolution of the Com- 
 mittee, it is not open to the petitioners to pro- 
 ceed upon it." 
 
 Mr. James proposed to ask Thomas Hocken- July 27. 
 hall, a voter, what Thomas Koylance said on Dedsfa- 
 
 , . tions of 
 
 canvassmg lum. a party not 
 
 Mr. Merewether obiected, that that could not Proved to be 
 
 . -11 1 •, *" *Sent at 
 
 be gone mto until the agency was proved; thetimeofcaft- 
 statement that it was a declaration accompany- ^^^"'S * 
 ing an act would not let it in ; treating coidd missibie in 
 not be proved before agency was established. *'' *""*■ 
 
 Mr. James, contra. — ^Any statement accom- 
 panying an act done was part of the res gestae, 
 and might be given in evidence ; the statement 
 of Roylance, accompanying the act, might be 
 struck out if the agency were not ultimately 
 proved. 
 
 Mr. Merewether admitted, that in Courts of 
 Law such declarations were admissible, but 
 there was a specific rule governing Commit- 
 tees, that agency must be proved before proof of 
 treating could be given. The argument, that 
 the ultimate eflFect of the evidence of treating 
 would depend upon whether agency were proved 
 or not, involved an injustice to the sitting mem- 
 ber, inasmuch as it would have produced an ad- 
 verse eflFect upon the mind of the Committee 
 
222 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 which no striking out of the evidence could 
 remove. 
 
 The Committee resolved^ " That the question 
 objected to may be put, but that the Committee 
 rely on the counsels' compliance with their pre- 
 vious resolution, that agency must be proved 
 aliunde before treating be attempted to be 
 established." 
 
 Mr. Phinn proposed to ask James Walton 
 what Mr. Braithwait said when he gave him a 
 card after the nomination. 
 
 The Chairman suggested that that came with- 
 in the prohibitory rule laid down by the Com- 
 mittee. 
 Acts insuf- Mr. Phinn stated that in this case they fixed 
 coIfBritute Braithwait as being an active member of the 
 primd facie co mmittee, wh ose name was placarded over the 
 town; that was the distinction between the 
 cases of Braithwait and Roy lance (o). The 
 question was, how far they had advanced in the 
 proof of agency. 
 
 The Committee were of opinion that there 
 w as no sufficient proof of ag ency in the case of 
 Braithwait. 
 
 July 28. Mr. Phinn having summed up the evidence 
 on the part of the petitioners, 
 
 Mr. Merewether addressed the Committee on 
 behalf of the sitting member, and called evidence. 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 221. 
 
 case of 
 agency. 
 
NORTH CHESHIRE. 223 
 
 Mr. James replied on the whole case. jai. 29. 
 
 The Committee came to the followiag final 
 resolutions for report to the House : — 
 
 1. " That it appears that at the last election for Final reso- 
 the Northern Division of the county of Chester, •"*'°°=- 
 meat, drink, and entertainment were provided 
 
 to a great extent for the refreshment of the 
 voters and others." 
 
 2. "That no sufficient evidence has heen 
 brought before the Committee to connect the 
 sitting member or his agents with the providing 
 such meat, drink, and entertainment." 
 
 3. "That George Cornwall Legh, Esq., is 
 duly elected a knight of the shire to serve in 
 this present Parhament for the Northern Division 
 of the county of Chester" (a). 
 
 (a) The Committee divided on each of the two last 
 resolutions ; Ayes, 3 : Viscount Courtenay, Mr. Sidney 
 Herbert, Captain Boldero. Noes, 2: Sir De Lacy 
 Evans, Mr. Mangles. 
 
224 
 
 CASE XXVII. 
 
 18*8. BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM, 
 
 (second case). 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 11th of August, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Sir W. Clay, Bart., Tower Hamlets, 
 (Chawmari). 
 
 Savile C. H. Ogle, Esq., 
 Northranberland, South. 
 
 Roundell Palmer, Esq., Ply- 
 mouth. 
 
 Ralph A. Thicknesse, Esq., 
 Wigan. 
 
 Hon. Captmn Harris, Christ- 
 church. 
 
 Petitioners : — Electors. 
 
 Sitting Member: — Hon. Craven Eitzhardinge Berkeley. 
 
 Covmelfor Fetitioners: — ^Mr. Russell Gnmey, Q. C, and Mr. 
 Merewether. 
 
 Agents ; — Messrs. Lyon, Barnes, and Ellis, Mr. Gwinnett, 
 and Mr. Lingwood. 
 
 Covmsel for Sitting Member: — Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, 
 Mr. Edwin James, and Mr. Phinn. 
 
 Agents : — ^Mr. Coppock, Mr. Boodle, and Mr. Williams. 
 
 August 12. The Committee agreed to the usual prehminaiy 
 PreUmi- resolutions (a). 
 
 nary reso- * ' 
 
 lutions. 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 1. 
 
BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM (2nD CASe). 225 
 
 The petition stated that the Hon. Craven Petition. 
 Berkeley, and James Agg Gardner, Esq., were 
 candidates at the last election, held on the 29th 
 June, 1848, and that the Hon. C. Berkeley was 
 returned: that the preceding election held in 
 1847, at which Sir WiUoughby Jones was 
 returned, the Hon. C. Berkeley heing an un- 
 successful candidate, was by a Committee of 
 the House of Commons declared void : that 
 before, during, and after such election of 1847, 
 the Hon. C. Berkeley was, by himself and his 
 agents, guilty of bribery and treating: that at Bribery and 
 the last election of June, 1848, public notice former eiec- 
 was given to the electors, before the taking of tion. 
 the show of hands, and also before the taking of 
 the poll, of the disqualification of the Hon. C. Notice of 
 Berkeley by reason of such bribery and treating J^^^^ ' ' 
 practised at the preceding election: that by 
 reason of the premises the votes of those persons 
 who voted at the last election for the Hon. C. 
 Berkeley were lost and thrown away, and that 
 Mr. Gardner ought to have been returned. It Seat 
 prayed the House to declare that the Hon. C. ^ 
 Berkeley was not duly elected, and to declare 
 Mr. Gardner to have been duly elected, or to 
 declare the last election to be wholly null and 
 void. The petition also contained charges of 
 bribery, treating, intimidation and coercion, at 
 the last election of 1848, but those charges were 
 not gone into. 
 
 Mr. Gnrney proceeded to open the case in A petition 
 
 o havingbeen 
 
236 
 
 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 presented support of the petition, and stated that he pro- 
 of in-ibery posed to call evidence to impugn the validity of 
 and treat- the return, on the ground that the sitting mem- 
 seat for un- ber, having heen a candidate at the previous 
 successful election for the borough, in 1847, was at that 
 
 candidate , . , , . 
 
 (such claim election, by himself or through his agents, &c., 
 of seat, OTulty of sundry acts of bribery and treatiag, 
 
 however, ^ >/ J ^ J o^ 
 
 being aban- and vras thereby rendered incapable of being 
 g^^^jj^^g^f elected or sitting for the borough, during the 
 inquiry be- present Parliament. 
 
 mi'ttee),"nd ^^- •^<'"'*6* objected, that it was not compe- 
 eiection tent to Mr. Gurney to take the course pro- 
 declared posed. On the trial of the petition with 
 Toid,-upon reference to the previous election, in which 
 
 S6C0DQ gIcC- 
 
 tion unsuc the seat was claimed for Mr. Berkeley, this 
 cessful can- charge ought to have been brought forward as 
 first eiec- inculpating that gentleman, there being a right 
 and was°re- ^^ recriminate in such cases ; and no such charge 
 turned. On having been then brought forward, the parties 
 petition , j p • • j. -j. 
 
 against him '"'ere estopped from now gomg mto it. 
 
 for bribery Mr. Gumey supported his right to go into the 
 
 andtreatins; . 
 
 at first mquiry. 
 
 election, The Committee resolved, " That it is compe- 
 
 Held,thatit , . . . ^ 
 
 was compe- tent to the petitioners to give evidence with 
 tent for pe- j-ggpect to acts of bribery and treating, alleged 
 give evi- to have taken place at the election for the bo- 
 therTOf rough of Cheltenham, held on the 30th day of 
 
 July, 1847." 
 
 Mr. Gurney then completed his opening on 
 
 behalf of the petitioners. 
 
 The poll-books relating to the election in 
 
BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM (2nD CASE). 227 
 
 1847, and also those relating to the election in 
 
 1848, were produced. 
 
 John Sermon Cox was called as a witness ; Petitioner 
 but it appearing that he was one of the pe- "°5 *'"'"?r 
 titioners, ness to 
 
 Mr. James objected to his being sworn and ^Xt^to'* 
 examined in support of the petition, as he was petition. 
 a party thereto. 
 
 Mr. Merewether supported his right to exa- 
 mine the witness. — In order to prove the right 
 of the petitioners to petition, he might examine 
 them, as being the best evidence on the point. 
 
 Mr. James replied. — The witness has not been 
 shown to be an elector. It was not competent 
 to prove by the witness himself his identity 
 with the John Sermon Cox whose name was 
 pointed out on the poU-book. 
 
 The Committee were of opinion that the wit- 
 ness could not be examined on this point. 
 
 Mr. MereivetheriheTi called a witness to prove The name of 
 that he knew Cox, and that he was on the poU. *^ P^"' 
 
 ^ ■■■ tioner ap- 
 
 The poU-book of the last election having been pearing on 
 handed to the witness, booksuffi- 
 
 Mr. James objected, that the poU-book wascientevi- 
 
 , . . dance of 
 
 not evidence upon this point. right to pe- 
 
 The Committee, however, held that they must t'ti""- 
 admit the poU-book as evidence of the claim to 
 vote. 
 
 Mr. Merewether proposed, with the leave of August 14. 
 
228 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 A witness the Committee, to examine Mr. Stafford the 
 beeii in the i^eturjung oflScer, who he admitted had been in 
 room dur- the room during part of the proceedings. The 
 that evf- petitioners were not aware until recently that 
 dence was they should have to call him, as the necessity 
 not allowed for SO doiug had arisen during the course of the 
 tobeexa- inquiry^ viz., during the examination of Mr. 
 Hasell. 
 
 Mr. James. — If the witness were to prove 
 anything in his official capacity, he would not 
 object to him, but anything beyond that he 
 should object to. 
 
 Mr. Merewether. — It was to prove a fact, not 
 in his ofiBcial capacity. 
 
 Committee (to witness). — Were you in the 
 room while Mr. Hasell was being examined ? — 
 The latter part of his examination. I heard 
 perhaps twenty questions put to him with re- 
 ference to some tickets. 
 
 Mr. James. — Did you hear the examination 
 by the honourable member for Plymouth? — I 
 heard that gentleman ask him several questions. 
 I am quite ignorant of the nature of the ques- 
 tions that are about to be put to me. I did not 
 expect to be called tiU to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. James objected to the witness being exa- 
 mined under these circumstances, as his evidence 
 would have a very great bearing on the case. 
 He referred to the prelimiaary resolution of the 
 Committee. 
 
 The Committee were of opinion that, however 
 reluctant they might be to exclude any evidence. 
 
BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM (3nD CASE). 229 
 
 it was better to adhere to the rule, and therefore 
 that this witness could not be examined. 
 
 James Smith, in examination by Mr. Mere- Conversa- 
 wether, having stated that cards and circulars ^iwrd *" 
 were fiUed up and directed at the "Young Prince agent al- 
 of Wales" public-house on the evening of thegi^g„i„g^i. 
 nomination day of the election in 1847, and that dencebe- 
 
 -I , . 1 ;i 1 ^'""s agency 
 
 messengers were m attendance to take them out, established, 
 was further asked, " Did you hear anything said °" gi"<"j»'l 
 
 , n -, ■ ■, • thatcTi- 
 
 about the gentlemen of the committee taking dence of 
 some themselves ?" ff 1"=? *". 
 
 that parti- 
 Mr. James objected, that this could not be cnlar case 
 
 evidence until the parties present were proved be^separat- 
 to have been agents, as this evidence was di- ed from 
 
 , T . , J. J , J evidence of 
 
 rected to treatmg, and agency was not proved, treating, 
 Mr. Merewether, in support of the admissi- but snch 
 
 6Tidt!nc6 to 
 
 biHty of the evidence. — It was to prove a fact, be consi- 
 a uart of the res qestce, not a mere conversa- dered as 
 
 . ^ " ' worthless, 
 
 tion. unless such 
 
 Mr. James having replied, ^ eventually 
 
 The Conxmittee resolved, " That the question established, 
 may be put, but the Committee wish to intimate August 15. 
 that they do not by that permission desire it to 
 be imderstood that they consider the agency of 
 the persons attending at the " Young Prince of 
 Wales " to be proved. They do not, however, 
 feel themselves to be at present in a condition 
 to judge whether the evidence of agency in this 
 particular case can be separated from the evi- 
 dence of treating ; they therefore allow the exa- 
 mination to proceed upon that understanding." 
 
230 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 The witness was again called in. 
 
 Mr. Merewether stated that he did not con- 
 sider that he was proving agency now, but that 
 his questions were with respect to another point. 
 
 The Chainnan stated, that the Committee must 
 have agency proved if the sitting member was to 
 be made liable for the acts of the parties in ques- 
 tion; it must be brought home in proof that 
 those parties were agents. The examination was 
 merely permitted on the understanding that the 
 Committee could not very well see how to draw 
 the line at this point, but that they should con- 
 sider the evidence as worthless, unless ultimately 
 connected with agency. 
 
 Augast 16. In the course of the examination of Henry 
 A charge Wootton, Mr. Gumev proposed to put some 
 
 that parties . » , . 
 
 had at- questions, vnth a view of showmg that attempts 
 tempted to j^^^^ ^Q^o. made by certain parties to induce 
 
 tamper with •' '^ 
 
 a witness the witness to keep out of the way since 
 inquired ^ *^^ Speaker's warrant had been served upon 
 
 into by \am. 
 
 as part of Mr. James submitted, that the inquiry was 
 'ff^^h iiierely to try the merits of the petition ; unless 
 Committee it were stated by the other side that the charge 
 wiii.ifadvi- jjjg^j^g could be brought home to any of the per- 
 
 sable, con- ° .; jr 
 
 duct such sons connected with the conduct of the defence of 
 after "th'e^ the sitting member it could not be gone into. If 
 merits of evidence were given on such a charge, he should 
 have'been ^^ Compelled to caU evidence in answer, quite ir- 
 decided on, relevant to the merits of the petition. This charge 
 
 without the „ , . ■,;r t. i i • , ■ 
 
 was not alleged agamst Mr. Berkeley m the peti- 
 
BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM (2nD CASE). 231 
 
 tion ; it had occurred subsequently, and there- assistance 
 fore had nothing to do with the charge which " '''"■"** ' 
 Mr. Berkeley was present to contest, and could 
 not be made the subject of inquiry in this stage 
 of the proceedings. If the other side could 
 state that they could bring it home to the par- 
 ties conducting the defence of the petition, it 
 might be brought before the Committee, but 
 not otherwise. The sitting member ought not 
 to be put to the expense of meeting cases of 
 this sort. 
 
 Mr. Gurney, in support of the admissibility 
 of the evidence. — This could not have been in- 
 serted in the petition, inasmuch as it had oc- 
 curred subsequently ; and, of course, he did not 
 state it in his opening, because minute circum- 
 stances were not incorporated on those occa- 
 sions. The sitting member was interested in 
 the value of this witness's evidence as well as 
 the petitioners. This circumstance, if proved, 
 would go to support his evidence. He should 
 prove that parties taking a great interest in this 
 inquiry, and who had been present in this room 
 during it, had dealt with the witness in the 
 manner to which he had referred; the same 
 thing had been done with reference to Mr. 
 Dauncey ,whom they could not now find. It was 
 necessary that he should go into this evidence, 
 to account for the absence of other parties. 
 
 Mr. James was heard in reply. 
 
 The Chairman inquired whether any case in 
 point could be cited. 
 
233 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Mr. Merewether cited the Ipswich case (a). 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That the Com- 
 mittee are of opinion that the charge that some 
 parties had been guilty of an attempt to tamper 
 ■with a witness served with the Speaker's war- 
 rant is not relevant to the immediate issue 
 which they have heen deputed to try; but, 
 having regard to the dignity and privileges of 
 the House, the Committee reserve to themselves 
 the power of examining into the matter, should 
 they, on further consideration, deem it advisable 
 to do so ; but in such event, they will' take the 
 inquiry into their own hands, and proceed with- 
 out the intervention of counsel [b) . 
 
 (a) K. & O. 359, 360. 
 
 (6) An investigation was subsequently made by the 
 Committee, as to an offer of money made by one 
 Wheeler to Henry Wootton, in order to induce him to 
 keep out of the way, and the Committee after hearing 
 Wootton's evidence and Wheeler's explanation and 
 statement, Eesolved, — " That it is clearly proved that 
 an attempt was made by Mr. Wheeler to induce the 
 witness, by the offer of a sum of money, to absent him- 
 self from his usual place of abode, in order to avoid 
 giving evidence before the Committee ; but as there is 
 no evidence to show that Wheeler was cognizant of the 
 witness having received the Speaker's warrant, the 
 Committee do not deem it necessary to report the cir- 
 cumstances to the House." The Chairman was further 
 instructed to state to Mr. Wheeler, that his conduct in 
 tampering with a person whom he evidently believed 
 would in all probability be required to give evidence 
 before a Committee of the House of Commons, was in 
 the highest degree reprehensible. 
 
BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM (2nD CASe). 233 
 
 Mr, Merewether summed up the evidence on 
 behalf of the petitioners. 
 
 Evidence on behalf of the sitting member was 
 then given. 
 
 Mr. James summed up the case on behalf of August 18. 
 the sitting member. 
 
 Mr. Gurney replied. 
 
 The Committee resolved, 
 
 1. " That the HonourableCravenPitzhardinge Resoiu- 
 Berkeley is not duly elected a burgess to serve *'°°'' 
 in this present Parliament for the borough of 
 Cheltenham.'^ 
 
 2. "That the Honourable Craven Fitzhardinge 
 Berkeley being a candidate at the election for 
 the said borough, held on the 30th of July, 
 1847, vrsis through his agents guilty of treating 
 at such election ; and that the said Honourable 
 Craven Fitzhardinge Berkeley, in consequence 
 thereof, was at the last election, held on the 
 29th day of June last, incapable of being 
 elected or sitting in Parliament for the said 
 borough." 
 
 Mr. Gurney now put in the following notice August 24. 
 of disqualification, and claimed the seat for Mr. 
 Gardner (a). 
 
 (a) The fact that the number of electors served with 
 this notice was suflScient to put Mr. Gardner in a 
 majority, if it were held that the votes of such electors 
 were thrown away, was, at the suggestion of the 
 
234 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 "Borough of Cheltenhaaij to 'wit. 
 
 To the Electors of the said Borough. 
 
 We, the undersigned burgesses of the borough 
 of Cheltenham, do hereby give notice, that the 
 Honourable Craven Fitzhardinge Berkeley, a 
 candidate at this election, was guilty, by him- 
 self or his agents, as well of bribery as of treat- 
 ing, and other corrupt practices at the election 
 for the said borough, held on the 30th day of 
 July last, and is thereby rendered ineligible and 
 incapable of being elected to serve as a burgess 
 in Parliament for the said borough upon the 
 present vacancy ; and that all votes given for the 
 said Honourable Craven Fitzhardinge Berkeley 
 at this present election wUl, on account of his 
 being ineligible and incapable as aforesaid, be 
 lost and thrown away. Dated this 27th day of 
 June, 1848. 
 
 H. P. Wallace. 
 
 J. Irving. 
 
 E. W. Shewell. 
 
 Thomas Fortescue. 
 
 W. H. Gwinnett. 
 
 John S. Cox. 
 
 Robert Sole Lingwood. 
 
 W. H. Hamerton. 
 
 Baynham Jones, jun. 
 
 C. P. Kennedy." 
 
 Committee, admitted by the counsel of the sitting 
 member. 
 
BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM (2nd CASE). 235 
 
 Mr. Gurney. — We now contend that Mr. Upon peti- 
 Berkeley must be held as not in esse as a can- w"„g ^is- 
 didate for the purposes of the last election ; that quaiifica- 
 aU votes given for him must be considered as 1° ^^]^_ 
 thrown away, and that Mr. Gardner must be •'S'- for 
 held to have had a majority of votes, and to be treating at 
 entitled to the seat. The other side admit that formereiec- 
 
 . . tion, and 
 
 the notice was sufficiently served, but intend to that due 
 raise an objection to the form of the notice and "^gj^of j^^j 
 its sufficiency to nullify the votes given in favour been gWen 
 of the sitting member at the last election. We °^^^ ^ucV 
 submit that the form of the notice is good, and sitting 
 
 TYlPm DPI* 
 
 that the defeated candidate is entitled to the having been 
 seat. The decisions of Committees in the foUow- ^" unsue- 
 
 1 • • ■ • -^r T 1 cessful can- 
 
 ing cases are authorities m pomt : Maiden case (a) , didate at 
 
 Cockermouth case (b), Fife case (c), Flintshire ^?'^^ ^}"[' 
 ^ " •> ^ " tion, but a 
 
 case {d) , Second Southwark case (e), Kircudbright petitioner 
 case (/), Second Drogheda case {g), Cork County *|*„"„' \^ 
 case [h), Wakefield case (i). These decisions are ground of 
 analogous to those given in our courts of law. treating, 
 R. V. Hawkins [k), R. v. Parry {I), Claridge v. and liaving 
 Evelyn (m), and Taylor v. Mayor of Bath{n). seat,(wiiich 
 
 claim was 
 
 (a) 18 Journ. 
 
 129. 
 
 (5) 18 Joum. 673. 
 
 (c) 1 Lud. 455. 
 
 (d) 1 Peck. 536. 
 
 (e) Cliff. 130. 
 
 (/) 1 Lud. 72. 
 
 (g) -K. & O. 211. 
 
 {h) K. & 0. 391. 
 
 (i) Bar.&Aus. 319. 
 
 (k) 10 East, 211. 
 
 (I) 14 East, 549. 
 
 (m) 5 B. & A. 81. 
 
 (n) 3 Lud. 324. 
 
thrown 
 away, 
 
 236 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 however The dictum of Lord Mansfield in R. v. Bris- 
 
 abandoned i / \ j^ ^i • 
 
 at com- *^^ vvi lavours this View. 
 
 mencement Mr. James, against the claim of Mr. Gardner 
 
 quiry) :— to the Seat. — Although the decision of the Com- 
 
 llesolved, mittee has declared the incapacity of Mr. Berke- 
 
 that sitting ... -r, T 
 
 member ley to Sit m this present Parhament for the 
 "ualified ^orough of Cheltenham, no case has been made 
 but that out to entitle the unsuccessfcd candidate to the 
 ^n hU fa^" ^^^*' '^^^ notice is in form not sufficient to 
 Tour not nuUify the votes of the electors on whom it was 
 served, and who had voted for Mr. Berkeley. 
 The electors were to be satisfied of Mr. Berke- 
 ley's disqualification; the acts of treating and 
 of bribery should therefore have been stated. 
 But even if the notice were sufficient in form, 
 yet as it was not founded either on a de- 
 claratory resolution of a Committee of the 
 House of Commons, or on the determination of 
 the fact by a competent tribunal, or on some 
 * fact generally notorious or admitted at the time, 
 or capable of immediate ascertainment by the 
 electors, it would not have the effect of render- 
 ing these votes lost. In this case it did not 
 amount to more than a mere allegation of 
 disqualification, neither proved, admitted, noto- 
 rious, nor capable of immediate ascertainment 
 at the time it was given, but, on the contrary, 
 one in the * proof of which the Comnaittee 
 
 (a) Heywood on County Elections, 537. 
 
BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM (2nD CASE;. 237 
 
 have been occupied many days. In the Second 
 Southwark case, and the Kircudbright case, 
 the disquahfication of the candidate was directly 
 brought' to the knowledge of the electors by 
 the production of the resolution of the Com- 
 mittee that the candidate had been guilty 
 of bribery and treating at the former election : 
 here the disqualification was not proved. In 
 the Second Dungarvon case {a), where the 
 Committee on the former election had de- 
 clared the election to be void, without stating 
 any grounds for their decision, the Committee 
 declared the sitting member duly elected. In 
 the Colchester case {b), the Committee avoided 
 the election, as the disqualification of Mr. Potter 
 occurred subsequent thereto. In the Penryn 
 case (c) the Committee declared the election 
 void, where it was successfully argued, that 
 although bribery was notorious at the election, 
 it was merely the charge of a fact that was 
 notorious, not the fact itself; that the fact could 
 not be notorious without inquiry, and that the 
 charge alone could not disqualify till the judg- 
 ment of a Committee or of a court of law had 
 been had upon it. And. in the Abingdon 
 case {d), where the disqualification might have 
 appeared in some measure doubtful, the peti- 
 tioner was not seated, but it was merely held 
 
 (a) K. & O. 6. (6) 1 Lud. 415. 446. 
 
 (c) C. & D. 55. (rf) 1 Doug. 419. 
 
238 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 to be a void election. In the present case, in- 
 stead of the fact being notorious to the electors, 
 Mr. Berkeley publicly contradicted it on the 
 hustings. 
 
 The Committee, interrupting Mr. James, 
 stated that if Mr. Berkeley had contradicted 
 the report as to his disqualification, the fact of 
 such contradiction should be proved. 
 
 Mr. James Boodle was called accordingly, 
 and proved that Mr. Berkeley publicly at the 
 hustings, before the show of hands, contradicted 
 the report, assuring the electors that the alleged 
 disqualification did not exist j and that witness 
 also wrote a counter placard himself on the 
 night of the nomination, copies of which wei'e 
 stuck about the borough. 
 
 Mr. Gwney replied. 
 
 The Committee resolved: — 
 Final reso- 1 • " That the last election for the borough of 
 lutions. Cheltenham is a void election" [a). 
 
 2. " That Joseph Dauncey was bribed with a 
 gift of three sacks of flour at the election of 
 
 (a) Upon tlie room being cleared, it was moved, 
 " That James Agg Gardner is duly elected, and ought 
 to have been returned a burgess to serve in this present 
 Parliament for the borough of Cheltenham.'" On the 
 question being put, the Committee divided. Ayes, 2 ; 
 Capt. Harris, Sir W. Clay : Noes, 3 ; W. Pahner, Mr. 
 Ogle, Mr. Thioknesse. 
 
BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM (2nD CASe). 339 
 
 1847, but it was not proved that such bribe was 
 given with the knowledge or consent of the afore- 
 said Hon. Craven Pitzhardinge Berkeley" («). 
 
 (a) These resolutions, together with those in page 233, 
 were reported to the House. 
 
240 
 
 CASE XXVIII. 
 
 1848. BOROUGH OF HORSHAM. 
 
 (second case.) 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 11th of August, 1848, 
 and consisted of the following Memhers : — 
 
 Thomas W. Bramston, Esq., South Essex, 
 {Chairman). 
 
 Eight Hon. Henry L. Corry, 
 
 Tyrone. 
 Dr. Bowring, Bolton. 
 
 William Mousell, Esq., Lime- 
 rick County. 
 
 Edward Herbert Bunbury, 
 Esq., Bury St. Edmunds. 
 
 Petitioner: — Lord Edward Howard, the unsuccessful 
 Candidate. 
 
 Sitiinff Member : — William R. Seymour Fitzgerald, Esq., 
 
 Counsel for Petitioner: — Mr. Serjeant Kinglake (in his 
 absence, Mr. Crowder, Q. C), and Mr. D, Power. 
 
 Agents: — Mr. Coppock, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Stedman, and 
 Mr. Medwin. 
 
 Comisel for Sitting Member : — Mr. M. D. HiU, Q. C, Mr. 
 Calvert, and Mr. Pickering. 
 
 Agent's: — ^Messrs. Waugh and Mitchell. 
 
 August 12. The Committee agreed to the usual pre-' 
 Preliminary liminary resolutions, id) 
 
 Tesolutions. •' ' 
 
 Petition. Tte petition stated, that the election held in 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 1. 
 
BOKOUGH OF HOKSHAM (2nD CASE). 241 
 
 July, 1847, at which John Jervis, Esq., and 
 William Robert Seymour Fitzgerald, Esq., were 
 candidates, and at which Mr. Jervis was re- 
 turned, was by a Committee of the House of 
 Commons declared to he a void election ; that 
 before, during, and after such election of 1847, 
 Mr. Fitzgerald was by himself and his agents 
 guilty of bribery and treating, and was thereby Bribery and 
 disqualified and ineligible to be a candidate, or ^^^^^^"s 
 to be returned to sit in this present Parliament election, 
 for the said borough, on the vacancy occasioned election 
 by the avoidance of such election, in conse- 
 quence of which avoidance a new election was 
 held on the 28th June, 1848 ; that at such new 
 election, Mr. Fitzgerald, notwithstanding his in- 
 capacity, and the petitioner, were candidates; 
 that before the show of hands a notice under the 
 hands of two electors was publicly delivered to 
 the returning officer in the presence and hearing 
 of the electors present, objecting to the nomina- 
 tion of Mr. Fitzgerald on the ground of his 
 having been guilty of treating at the former 
 election, and that all votes given for him would 
 be thrown away; that notwithstanding such 
 objection Mr. Fitzgerald was put in nomination, 
 and after a poll declared duly elected and re- 
 turned ; that at this last election Mr. Fitzgerald 
 was guilty of bribery and treating ; that before, 
 during, and after the poU, the incapacity of Mr. Notice of 
 Fitzgerald was notorious to the electors, who had pjt^"^''*" 
 full notice of the same previotis to their voting, 
 by the posting of placards and notices to that 
 
 M 
 
243 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 effect, and by the delivery personally to each 
 elector of a notice duly signed of the said in- 
 capacity {a) ; that the votes of aU persons who 
 voted for Mr. Fitzgerald after such notice ought 
 to be struck off the poll; that the number of 
 persons (if any) who voted for Mr. Fitzgerald, 
 to whom the incapacity was unknown, is much 
 less than the number of good and valid votes 
 given at such election for the petitioner, who by 
 reason of the premises ought to have been re- 
 Seat turned. It prayed the House to declare that 
 prayed. -^^ Fitzgerald was not duly elected, and that 
 the petitioner was duly elected and ought to 
 have been returned, or to declare the last elec- 
 tion to be null and void. 
 
 Petitioa Mr. Hill inquired of Mr. Seijt. Kinglake 
 
 havingbeen whether it was his intention to proceed upon 
 
 presented , ^ 
 
 against the allegations in the petition with regard to 
 member for transactions which took place at the election of 
 
 bribery and July 1847. 
 
 but"'no^t' Mr. Serjt. Kinglake having replied in the 
 
 claiming affirmative, 
 
 succes°s'fui'' Mr. Hill objected to Mr. Serjt. Kinglake 
 candidate, ijgjjig permitted to go into such allegations. In 
 election the 2nd Montgomery case {b) counsel were not 
 deJiTred^^" allowed to open acts of treating at the prior 
 
 (as) The notice was set forth in the petition, and was 
 similar to that served on the returning o£Scer, post, 
 page 245. 
 
 (b) P. & K. 462 ; S. a, C. & E. 343. 
 
BOROUGH OF HORSHAM (2nD CASE). 343 
 
 void election as part of the case against the same roid, upon 
 candidate at the second election. tfon'uifpuc- 
 
 Mr.Serjt. Kinglake. — The point was not argued cessfulcan- 
 ia the Montgomery case, — it was a mere ques- former elec- 
 tion there as to the conduct of the case. But ^^°°'^ ^"^ 
 in the New Malton case (a) the point arose ; it turned. On 
 was argued on both sides, and the Committee petition 
 
 ° ' . against him 
 
 decided that the evidence of bribery and treating for bribery 
 at the former election should be admitted. That ""f "^''"^ 
 
 at lorroer 
 
 case has never been overruled. Although in election, 
 fact there have been two elections during the ^^^ compe- 
 present Parliament for this borough, the two tenttopeti- 
 elections constitute but one in point of law ; gi^e evi- 
 the exigency of the writ is not satisfied until <ie'"=« 
 there is a good retTim; Newcastle case (6), 
 Maidstone case (c), Dungarvon case {d) , As the 
 seat was not claimed upon the former petition 
 for Mr. Fitzgerald, it was impossible to give 
 evidence of bribery and treating by him and his 
 agents on that occasion; it is only upon this 
 petition that he can be made to answer for the 
 acts committed by him at the former election. 
 He cited upon this point Rogers on Election 
 Law p. 75, Roe on Elections, p. 149, and the 
 Seaford case (e) . 
 
 Mr. Hill in reply. — The Malton case is the 
 only decision to be found in support of the pro- 
 position contended for by the other side. The 
 
 (a) Minutes, May 18, 1808. 
 (5) B. & A. 577. (c) F. & F. 671. 
 
 ((£) E. & O. 19. (e) 3 Luders, 1. 
 
 m3 
 
244 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 resolutions of Mr. Roebuck's Couunittee, re- 
 ported in an Appendix to the Nottingham case (a), 
 correctly state the law upon this subject. " Two 
 parties/' they say, " at an election, both being 
 equally guilty of bribery, one being successful 
 at the poll and the other defeated, may expe- 
 rience a very different fate in consequence of the 
 present state of the law. If the defeated candi- 
 date present a petition against the return of his 
 successful opponent, and simply pray that the 
 election may be adjudged to be a void election 
 on the ground of bribery and corruption, but do 
 not ask for the seat, he may luiseat his opponent 
 and render him incapable of being again re- 
 turned ; but as he himself does not pray for the 
 seat, it has in some instances been determined 
 that a case of retaliation cannot be entered into 
 as respects the petitioner by the sitting member. 
 Thus the petitioner, though equally guilty, may 
 again propose himself and be returned in conse- 
 quence of the very bribery practised at the pre- 
 ceding election, and into which no inquiry was 
 permitted." The passage in 3 Luders, pp. 110, 
 111, explains the ground upon which the Sea- 
 ford case was decided. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That the counsel 
 for the petitioner be allowed to go into evidence in 
 support of the allegations in the petition of bri- 
 bery and treating at the election in July 1847 {b). 
 
 {a) B. & Am. 144. 
 
 (b) Ayes, 4 : Mr. Corry, Mr. Bunbury, Dr. Bowring, 
 Mr. Monsell. Noe, 1 : Mr. Bramston. 
 
BOROUGH OF HORSHAM (2nD CASE). 245 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Kinglake opened the case on behalf August 14. 
 of the petitioner. 
 
 The poll-books relating to the election in 
 1847, and also those relating to the last elec- 
 tion in 1848 were produced, 
 
 Thomas Prance, as deputy of the sheriff, there 
 being no returning officer for the borough of 
 Horsham, stated that he had received the fol- 
 lowing notice and protest, signed by electors, 
 which was placarded all over the town, and on 
 the poll-booth, but which he refiised to read, 
 considering it libellous : — 
 
 "To Sir Sotherton BranthwaytPeckhamMickle- 
 thwayt, Bart., Sheriff of the county of Sussex, 
 (and to Thomas Prance, his deputy,) the re- 
 turning officer of the borough of Horsham, in 
 the county of Sussex. 
 
 " Whereas at the election of a member to Notice to 
 
 serve in the present Parliament for the said bo- disquaUfi- 
 
 rough of Horsham, which took place in July, "^''O" 
 
 . . . . of caadi- 
 
 1847, John Jervis, Esquire, and William Robert date. 
 
 Seymour Fitzgerald, Esquire, were candidates, 
 and at such election the said John Jervis was 
 returned as member elected to serve in this pre- 
 sent Parliament for the said borough: And 
 whereas after the said return of the said John 
 Jervis, a humble petition of certain electors of 
 the said borough was presented to the House of 
 Commons, complaining of the said election, and 
 
246 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 of the return of the said John Jervis : And 
 whereas, after the presenting of the said peti- 
 tion, a Select Committee was duly appointed hy 
 the said House to hear and determine the mat- 
 ters thereof, and to report upon the same, and 
 the said petition came on in due course to 
 he heard and tried before the said Committee, 
 and the said Committee, after duly considering 
 the said petition, came to certain resolutions, 
 which were in substance : — That the said John 
 Jervis was not didy elected a burgess to serve 
 in this present Parliament for the borough of 
 Horsham; and that the last election for the 
 said borough was a void election; whereupon 
 the said determination was ordered to be entered 
 in the journals of the House, and a new writ 
 was afterwards ordered by the House to be 
 issued for the electing of a burgess to serve in 
 this present Parliament for the borough of 
 Horsham, in the room of the said John Jervis, 
 whose election had been determined to be void, 
 as above stated, and the said writ has been 
 issued accordingly : And whereas the said Wil- 
 liam Robert Seymour Fitzgerald has declared 
 himself to be a candidate at the present election 
 of a member to serve in Parliament for the said 
 borough : Now we, the undersigned, Pilfold 
 Medwin and James Angus, being electors of 
 the said borough of Horsham, do hereby give 
 notice, that before, during, and after the said 
 last-mentioned election, which has been held to 
 be void as aforesaid, the said William Robert 
 
BOROUGH OF HORSHAM (2nD CASE). 247 
 
 Seymour Fitzgerald did, by himself or by or 
 with some person or persons, or in some manner 
 directly or indirectly give or provide, or cause 
 or knowingly allow to be given or provided, 
 wholly or partly at his expense, or pay wholly 
 or in part divers expenses incurred for meat, 
 drink, entertainment, or provision to or for 
 divers persons having votes at the said election, 
 for the purpose of corruptly influencing such 
 persons to give or to refrain from giving their 
 votes in the said election, or for the purpose of 
 corruptly rewarding such persons having votes 
 at the said election, for having given or refrained 
 from giving such votes at the said election : 
 And we do hereby give you further notice, that 
 the said William Robert Seymour Fitzgerald 
 having been so guilty of treating at the said last 
 election, is incapable of being elected or sitting in 
 Parliament for the said borough on the present 
 vacancy, and therefore we, the undersigned, do 
 accordingly object to and protest against, the 
 nomination of the said William Robert Seymour 
 Fitzgerald as a candidate, and against the elec- 
 tion and return of the said William Robert 
 Seymour Fitzgerald as a member to represent 
 the said borough at the present election : And 
 we do hereby give you notice, that all votes 
 given in favour of the said William Robert 
 Seymour Fitzgerald at this present election of a 
 member to serve in Parliament for the said bo- 
 rough will, on account of the ineligibility of the 
 
248 
 
 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 said William Eobert Seymour Fitzgerald, he of 
 no effect, but entirely lost and thrown away. 
 Dated this 38th day of June, 1848. 
 
 (Signed) "Pilfold Medwin. 
 
 " James Angus. 
 
 " Witness, 
 
 " Edward S. Dendy, 8, Storey's-gate. 
 " David More, St. James-square." 
 
 Where 
 returning 
 officer 
 had not 
 sealed up 
 the poll- 
 books, be- 
 cause not 
 having 
 parted with 
 the posses- 
 sion of them 
 until he de- 
 livered 
 them to the 
 clerk of the 
 crown, he 
 thought it 
 unneces- 
 sary, and 
 had not ten- 
 dered them 
 to the can- 
 didates to 
 be sealed, 
 because 
 they had 
 left the 
 town before 
 he had an 
 opportunity 
 of doing 
 
 It appeared farther from the evidence of 
 Mr. France, that he had not tendered the 
 poll-books relating to the election of 1848 to 
 the candidates to be sealed, as they had left 
 the town before he had had an opportunity of 
 tendering them ; and that he had not sealed up 
 the books, considering such a proceeding to be 
 unnecessary, as they were never out of his pos- 
 session until he delivered them personally to 
 the clerk of the crown on the 30th of June, 
 1848. In one of the books there was this en- 
 dorsement, " I hereby certify that both candi- 
 dates neglected to seal this and the other book. 
 T. F. Returning Officer." 
 
 Mr. Hill objected to these poU-books being 
 received in evidence, on the ground that they 
 had not been sufficiently authenticated, the pro- 
 visions of the 6 Vict. c. 18, sect. 93, not having 
 been observed. There had been two very dis- 
 tinct acts of omission with respect to these poll- 
 books on the part of the returning officer; first. 
 
BOROUGH or HORSHAM (2nd case). 249 
 
 he had not sealed the poU-hooks at all, which so, Com- 
 he was directed to do forthwith ; and secondly, thatThey^ 
 he had not tendered them to the candidates to "'ere never- 
 he sealed by them ; and the endorsement, which ceWabie in 
 shoidd have been made forthwith upon their evidence, 
 refusal, was inside a book which ought to have 
 been sealed up at the time the endorsement was 
 made. Upon these two breaches of the Act of 
 Parhament, these books were not the poll-books 
 which the law made it imperative upon the 
 Committee to have before them in evidence. 
 Inasmuch, therefore, as there were no poll- 
 books in the eye of the law upon the table 
 of the Committee, the Committee could proceed 
 no further in the case. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake, in his argument against 
 the objection, was stopped by the Chairman, 
 who stated that the opinion of the Committee 
 was, that the poll-books were sufficiently proved. 
 
 Dewdney Stedman, in examination by Mr. August 15. 
 Power, having stated that Charles Feist, a voter Declaration 
 whose name had been given in as a party who aHeged to 
 had been bribed, had brought him five sovereigns ^a^e been 
 on the Saturday before the nomination, was made at the 
 asked, " What did he say at the time he brought *™« "^^ 
 you those sovereigns ? " the money 
 
 Mr. Hill objected to the question, as not being *° ^^^^^^ 
 admissible to affect Mr. Pitzgerald. party, re- 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Kinglake, in support of the ques- evidence. 
 tion, relied upon the following authorities, in 
 which conversations similar to the present had 
 
 M 3 
 
250 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 been admitted : Sudbury case {a), Great Marlow 
 case{b), 1st Nottingham case{c), Ipswich case{d), 
 Southampton case{e), Cambridge case(f), 2nd 
 Nottingham case {g). 
 
 Mr. Hill in reply. — The conversation at- 
 tempted to be iaquired into in the present 
 instance, was not a part of an alleged contract 
 of bribery, but merely a report of a past trans- 
 action; the present case is therefore distin- 
 guishable from those cited. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That the question 
 may be put." 
 
 Evidence of It appeared from the evidence of Joseph 
 
 for^efr^sh! Cantoni, a waiter at the "Richmond Arms" Inn 
 
 ments not at Horsham, kept by one Stanford, that the 
 
 be gTv^en be- ^^g^ room in the Inn had been prepared for a 
 
 fore agency meeting on the night of the 8th July, 1847 ; 
 
 ^ ' that one Stapleton, a clerk of Mr. Padwick, an 
 
 alleged agent of the sitting member, passed 
 
 people into the room ; that Mr. Fitzgerald came 
 
 in his carriage to the Inn about eight o'clock, 
 
 and soon afterwards proceeded to the large room, 
 
 where Padwick, Rawlinson, Coppard, and a large 
 
 party were assembled. OnMr. Fitzgerald's arrival, 
 
 wine and pimch were supplied to the party, and 
 
 Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Coppard made speeches. 
 
 (a) Bar. & Aus. 245. (6) Ante, page 16. 
 
 (c) Bar. & Axn. 168. {d) Bar. & Aus. 257. 
 
 (e) Bar. & Aus. 381. (/) Bar. & Am. 184. 
 
 (cf) Bar. & Arn. 195. 
 
BOB.OUGH OF HORSHAM (2nd CASE). 251 
 
 There was also another room, downstairs, pre- 
 pared that evening, in which several persons 
 were assembled, and among them the coachman 
 of Mr. Fitzgerald. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake then asked Cantoni, 
 " Did you receive any orders from the coach- 
 man, which orders you were to take to Mr. 
 Stanford?" 
 
 Mr. Hill objected to the question, submitting 
 that the agency of the coachman must be first 
 proved. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake supported the question. — 
 It had been held that evidence of treating might 
 be admitted before proof of agency, where the 
 evidence of the one could not be separated from 
 that of the other. It was so decided in the 
 Cambridge case [a), and also on this very day 
 in the 2nd Cheltenham case {b), to which deci- 
 sion he invited the attention of the Conmiittee. 
 
 Mr. Hill repHed. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That the question 
 cannot be put." 
 
 In order to estabUsh a prima facie case of August I6. 
 agency against a Mr. Padwick, a soHcitor at ^*<"s ^"*^- 
 
 . cient to es- 
 
 Horsham, it was shown that Mr. Padwick was tabiish pn- 
 present acting on behalf of Mr. Fitzgerald when »*"' /""^ 
 
 CASC Ol 
 
 the polling arrangements were made with the agency. 
 town clerk ; that he canvassed for and with Mr. 
 Fitzgerald; that on one occasion he introduced 
 
 (a) Bar. & Am. 184. (J) Ante, p. 230. 
 
253 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgerald to a voter, saying, " You know 
 where Mr. Fitzgerald lives ; Mr. Jervis has no 
 seat like Mr. Fitzgerald; neither shall he have 
 a seat ia the House of Commons if we can help 
 it ;" that he brought up voters to the poll ; that 
 at the previous registration his clerk had at- 
 tended, together with Mr. RawUnson, the avowed 
 agent of Mr. Fitzgerald, before the revising 
 barrister; that at an entertaimnent given to 
 voters at the " Richmond Arms,'^ on the 8th 
 July, at which Mr. Fitzgerald was present, Mr. 
 Padwick was iu the room which the landlord 
 had been directed to keep private for the friends 
 of Mr. Fitzgerald, with Mr. Rawlioson, and was 
 subsequently seen ia conversation with Mr. Fitz- 
 gerald, and talking to the landlord. 
 
 Stanford, the landlord, being asked by Mr. 
 Serjt. Kinglake, "Did Mr. Padwick give you 
 any orders with reference to the supply of any 
 of the liquor which was taken into the large 
 room at the ' Richmond Arms ' on the night of 
 the 8th July, 1847?" 
 
 Mr. Hill objected to the question, and in sub- 
 mitting that the agency of Padwick had not 
 been established, cited the London case (a), the 
 Wigan case [b), and the Cambridge case (c). 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake, — This question may be 
 put. First, as the evidence stands, there tas 
 been a prima facie case of agency made out. 
 
 ia) F. & P. 660. [b) Bar. & Am. 792. 
 
 (c) Bar. & Am. 189. 
 
BOROUGH OF HORSHAM (3nD CASE). 253 
 
 New Windsor case {a), Norwich case {b). The 
 New Windsor case lias never been overruled, ex- 
 cept by tbe London case, the decision in which it 
 is impossible to support. The Wigan case and the 
 Cambridge case are not in point. Secondly, he 
 had a right to put the question, upon the ground 
 of the presence of Mr. Fitzgerald himself, at the 
 entertainment at which the particular acts had 
 been done. 
 
 Mr. Hill haviag replied. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That there is suffi- 
 cient prima facie evidence of Henry Padwick's 
 agency to authorize the question to be put." 
 
 George Peter Bacon being called as a witness, August 17. 
 stated on the voir dire that he had been in the ^ witness 
 
 who had 
 
 room two or three mmutes that day, and also on been in 
 a previous day ; that he had heard no evidence, '■°'"° l?"^ * 
 but merely the speeches of counsel; and that, he and had 
 had quitted the room on being told to do so. sneechesof 
 
 Mr. Hill. — The rule laid down in the pre- counsel 
 liminary resolution of the Committee should not ^e exam-" 
 be departed from. Great Marlow case (c). 'oed on a 
 
 Mr. Crowder. — The matter had not been opened by 
 opened by Mr. Serjt. Kinglake, and therefore <=o""sel. 
 the witness had not been tutored by the speech 
 of counsel as to his evidence. In the Sudbury 
 case [d) a witness was allowed to be examitied 
 under similar circumstances. 
 
 (a) 2 Peck, 194. (6) P. & K. 565. 
 
 [c) B. & Aust. 97. [d) B. & Aust. 251. 
 
254 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 The Committee allowed the witness to be 
 examined. 
 
 Evidence of Evidence was then received as to refresh- 
 treatingnot mgj^tg given at pnblic-houscs, and with which 
 
 allowed to ^ °, . , ^ ■, , , ■ 
 
 be given, Mr. Padwick was connected by his presence 
 "''^'it^sent Qj. otherwise, and in the case of a breakfast 
 
 of sitting ' 
 
 member at the " King's Head" Inn ; it appearing ia the 
 dfate'd''"' course of the examination of John Walder, that 
 sitting Mr. Padwick had distinctly repudiated the lia- 
 liabUit/to bUity of Mr. Fitzgerald to pay for refreshments 
 pay for which wcre being supplied, no further evidence 
 
 of treating upon that occasion was allowed to be 
 
 given. 
 
 Agent who Mr. Hill applied to the Committee for per- 
 charged" mission for Mr. Padwick to be in the room, as 
 with treat- he was assisting as an agent in conducting the 
 ^hiin" case of the sitting member, 
 counsel Mj.. Qrowder obiected to the application. — 
 
 proposedto u t_ • ■ i • c i 
 
 call as wit- it would 06 m Violation of the prehmmary 
 ness.not al- resolution of the Committee, inasmuch as the 
 
 lowed to re- . ' 
 
 main in Other side proposed to tender Mr. Padwick for 
 Committee- examination. 
 
 room. 
 
 The Committee refused the application. 
 
 August 28. Mj. Calvert requested the Committee to inti- 
 wiii not, at mate, whether it was necessary for him to adduce 
 ^^sgestion evidence in answer to a charge of bribery, which 
 for sitting had been made against a person by the name 
 thni'ose''of °^ I'ickett, and affecting the sitting member, 
 petitioner's The Committee resolved, " That it would form 
 
BOROUGH OF HORSHAM ^XND CASE). ^55 
 
 an inconvenient precedent for the Committee, case.inti- 
 at the suggestion of counsel, to declare their ^pf„^io*"ag 
 opinion upon a part of the case, and that Mr. to whether 
 Calvert be desired to proceed on his own dis- "uiar'feot of 
 
 cretion." the peti- 
 
 tioner's case 
 has been 
 
 The evidence on behalf of the sitting member ^^^ ""*• 
 being brought to a close, p°^"? 
 
 Mr. Calvert proposed to sum up. to summing 
 
 Mr. Crowder stated, that he proposed to call ^Pg^^e"'! 
 witnesses in contradiction to a portion of case where 
 the evidence on the other side, but that one of ^'^* ° es * 
 his witnesses. Sir John Jervis, the Attorney- proposed to 
 General, was absent from London at the Liver- ^gpjy „^ 
 pool Assizes. Under these circumstances he sug- unavoid- 
 
 - . „ , . . , ably absent. 
 
 gested that the counsel for the sittmg member 
 should now sum up ; that the Attorney-General 
 should be examined to-morrow ; that the other 
 side should make observations on his evidence ; 
 and that he should have the general reply. 
 
 Mr. Calvert opposed the application. 
 
 The Committee decided that they would now 
 hear the evidence of the witnesses (other than 
 the Attorney-General) whom Mr. Crowder 
 wished to call ; and that tbe Committee would 
 communicate with the Attorney- General by 
 electric telegraph, requesting his attendance to- 
 morrow. 
 
 Mr. Calvert stated, after consultation with 
 his clients, that he had no objection to proceed 
 with the summing up of the case after the wit- 
 nesses (other than the Attorney- General) had 
 
256 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 been called ; but in case the summing up of the 
 sitting member's case should be concluded to- 
 day, and Mr, Crowder proceeded with the 
 general reply, he should claim the right of 
 making any observations which might arise 
 upon the evidence of the Attorney-General to- 
 morrow. 
 
 August 31. This course of proceeding was adopted, and 
 subsequently the Committee resolved : — 
 Sept. 1. 1. "That William Robert Seymour Fitz- 
 gerald, Esq., is not duly elected a burgess, to 
 serve in this present Parliament for the borough 
 of Horsham." 
 
 2. "That William Robert Seymour Fitz- 
 gerald, Esq., being a candidate at the election 
 for the borough of Horsham, held on the 29th 
 day of July, 1847, was, by himself and his 
 agents, guilty of treating at such election ; and 
 that the said William Robert Seymour Fitz- 
 gerald, Esq., in consequence thereof, was, at 
 the last election, held on the 29th day of June, 
 1848, incapable of being elected or sitting in 
 Parliament for the said borough." 
 
 Upon peti- Mr. Power stated, that he now proposed to 
 le°Ui*'that proceed with the case as a case of scrutiny, and 
 sitting would prove the service of notice of the disqua- 
 "™£iisq„a. lification of the sitting member on all the elec- 
 lified from tors who poUed at the last election. He would 
 candidate ^^^ attack the vote of Abel Feist, and sub- 
 by reason of mitted, that if he succeeded in striking his vote 
 
BOROUGH or HORSHAM (2nd case). 257 
 
 ofif the poll, a number of other votes given for bribery and 
 the sitting member must also be struck off in a forle°eiec- 
 similar manner, until the petitioner should be *'""• ^"^ 
 
 , „ . . . ,- that notice 
 
 leit m a majority on the poll. thereof had 
 
 Evidence of the service of notice of disquah- ''««» g"en 
 
 ^ to all who 
 
 fication (a) having been given, Mr. Power con- voted for 
 tended that the votes given to the sitting s™;'^™'' 
 member must be considered to have been metpber 
 thrown away, and relied upon the following an^nsuc™ 
 authorities : — Taylor v. The Mayor and Alder- cesafui can- 
 men of Bath {b), Rex v. Hawkins (c), Claugh v. former elec- 
 Evelyn {d), The Mitchell case (e), Kirkcudbright ''""^jj^g^* 
 case (/), 2nd Southwark case (g), 2nd Canter- against the 
 bury case {h), Newcastle case (i), Fife case {k), "o"™^ °" 
 Cockermouth case (1), Flintshire case {m), Maiden bribery and 
 case (w), Leominster case (o), Cork County case (p), tho^ugifnot' 
 Belfast case (q), Wakefield case {r), and distin- claiming 
 guished the Abingdon case («), and the Penryn committee 
 
 case {t) . resolved, 
 
 Mr. Calvert resisted the application to declare member 
 Lord Edward Howard duly elected, on the ''^s guilty of 
 
 , . treating at 
 
 ground that the fact of Mr. Fitzgerald's disqua- such former 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 245. (b) 3 Lud. 324. 
 
 (c) 10 East, 211. (d) 5 B. & A. 81. 
 
 (e) 10 Joiim. A.D. 1690. (/) 1 Lud. 72. 
 
 (g) Cliff. 130. (h) Cliff. 853. 
 
 (i) B. & Aust. 576. (k) 1 Lud. 455. 
 
 (I) 18 Joum. 673. (m) 1 Peck. 526. 
 
 (n) 18 Journ. 129. (o) C. & D. 15. 
 
 (p) K. & O. 391. (j) F. & P. 595. 
 
 (r) B. & Aust. 270. (s) 1 Doug. 419. 
 
 (if) C. & D. 55. 
 
258 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 election, lification had not been proved at tlie time of 
 
 dUqiTaMed *^^ ^^«* election, either before a Committee of 
 
 from being the Housc of CommonSj or any other properly 
 
 titt votes'"* constituted tribunal. He therefore called on 
 
 given in his the Committee to declare the last election for 
 
 thrown the borough of Horsham to be a void election 
 
 ^'"^7- only. He commented upon the cases cited, and 
 
 relied upon the Abingdon case, and the Penryn 
 
 case, and upon the decision recently come to in 
 
 the 2nd Cheltenham case (a). 
 
 Mr. Crowder in reply : — The 2nd Cheltenham 
 case differs from this, inasmuch as in the petition 
 against the return of Sir Willoughby Jones, 
 where the seat was claimed for Mr. Craven 
 Berkeley, it was competent for the unseated 
 member to have proved the disqualification, 
 which he had not done; that in the petition 
 against the return of Mr. Jervis for the borough 
 of Horsham, the seat was not claimed for Mr. 
 Fitzgerald, and consequently no opportunity 
 was given for proving such disqualification; 
 the rule of law on the subject is, that if it 
 was afterwards proved that in point of fact a 
 disqualification did exist at the time of election, 
 and that due notice thereof was given to the 
 electors, the votes of such electors given for 
 such candidate must be deemed to have been 
 thrown away. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That the vote of 
 Abel Feist is a bad vote, and must be struck off 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 235. 
 
BOROUGH OF HORSHAM (2nD CASE). 259 
 
 the poll." Ayes, 3 : Dr. Bowring, Mr. Bunbury, 
 Mr. ManseU. Noes, 2 : Mr. Corry, Mr. Bram- 
 ston. 
 
 Other votes were also struck off the poll, in 
 accordance with this resolution, until the peti- 
 tioner was in a majority upon the poll. 
 
 The Committee then resolved, Final reso- 
 
 " That the Eight Honourable Edward George 
 Pitzalan Howard, commonly called Lord Ed- 
 ward Howard, is duly elected, and ought to 
 have been returned a burgess to serve in this 
 present Parliament for the borough of Hor- 
 sham "(a). 
 
 (a) Ayes, 3 : Dr. Bowring, Mr. Bunbury, Mr. Mon- 
 sell. Noes, 2 : Mr. Corry, Mr. Bramston. This reso- 
 lution, together with those of the 1st September, in 
 p. 356, were reported to the House. 
 
260 
 
 CASE XXIX. 
 
 1850. BOROUGH OF KIDDERMINSTER. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 16th April, 1850, and 
 consisted of the following Members: — 
 
 Hon. Edward P. Bouverie, Kihnamock, 
 {Chairman). 
 
 David Morris, Esq., Carmar- 
 then. 
 
 Sir William H. Jolliffe, Bart., 
 Petersfield. 
 
 Viscount Enfield, Chatham. 
 Augustus Stafford, Esq., 
 Northamptonshire North. 
 
 Petitioners : — Electors. 
 Sitting Member: — John Best, Esq. 
 
 Counsel for Petitioners: — Mr. Seqeant Kinglalse, Mr. 
 Edwin James, and Mr. D. Power. 
 
 Agents : — Mr. Coppoct, and Mr. Batham. 
 
 Counsel for Sitting Member : — ^Mr. Alexander, Q. C, and 
 Mr. Montagu Smith. 
 
 Agents : — Mr. H. Brown, and Mr. Tudor. 
 
 April 17. The foUowing resolutions with regard to the 
 
 Preiimi- conduct of the case were agreed to : — 
 
 "utions!^ ' 1- "That counsel will not be allowed to go 
 
 into matters not referred to in their opening 
 
 statement, without a special application to the 
 
 Committee for permission to do so." 
 
BOROUGH or KIDDERMINSTER. 261 
 
 2. "That if costs be demanded hj either 
 party, under the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98, the ques- 
 tion must be raised immediately after the deci- 
 sion on that particular case, unless the Committee 
 shall otherwise decide." 
 
 3. "That the Committee expect, that with 
 respect to cases of bribery, which it is intended 
 to bring home to the sitting member or his 
 agents, the counsel for the petitioners will now 
 state the names of the electors bribed, and those 
 of the persons who actually gave the bribes." 
 
 4. " The Committee, however, reserve to 
 themselves a power, under the special applica- 
 tion of counsel, to proceed with any case which 
 tends to inculpate any principal or agent, the 
 knowledge of which case has been brought out 
 before the Committee in the progress of the 
 investigation, with the circumstances of which 
 the parties could not be reasonably supposed to 
 have been previously cognizant." 
 
 5. "That with respect to treating, the Com- 
 mittee will expect counsel to state the times and 
 places where such treating is alleged to have 
 taken place." 
 
 6. "The Committee, however, reserving to 
 themselves a discretionary power, as in cases of 
 bribery." 
 
 7. "That no person shall be examined as a 
 witness who shall have been in the room during 
 any of the proceedings, with the exception of 
 the agents, whose names shall be handed in, 
 without the special leave of the Committee." 
 
262 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Petition. The petition, after stating that at the last 
 election, Thomas Gisborne, Esq., and John Best, 
 Bribery and Esq., were Candidates, and that the latter was 
 treating. j.g|.^j.^g^^ alleged bribery and treating against 
 the sitting member and his agents, and prayed 
 the House to declare the election and return of 
 the sitting member to be nuU and void. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake opened the case of the 
 petitioners. 
 
 The pro- Mr. Naylor from the Crown Office produced 
 vi^ons of ^jjg poll-books, which had been received by post, 
 18, B. 93, but unaccompanied by any letter from the 
 to tender 'of ^^ti^'^^g officer. The fact of this omission 
 poll-books having been notified to the returning officer, he 
 d°t'e^s? and ^^^^ ^^ proper letter to the clerk of the crown 
 sending on the 9th of September. On No. 1, of the 
 
 Ifittcr &C- 
 
 company- poU-books was the following endorsement : 
 
 ingthemto " Thcsc poll-books were sealed by me, the re- 
 clerk of . . J ' 
 crown, di- spective candidates having neglected or refused 
 
 onTv"^^ to seal the same. Dated this 5th of September, 
 1849. W. M. Roden, Returning Officer." 
 
 Mr. Alexander objected to the poll-books 
 being received in evidence. — First, the endorse- 
 ment required to be made by the returning 
 officer upon the poll-books, under 6 Vict. c. 18, 
 s. 93, has not been made in this case. The 
 words of the statute are imperative, that the 
 returning officer shall forthwith inclose and seal 
 up the several poll-books, and tender the same 
 to each of the candidates to be sealed by them 
 
BOROUGH OF KIDDERMINSTER. 363 
 
 respectively, and in case " they shall neglect or 
 refuse," he is directed to "endorse on one of 
 such poll-hooks the fact of such neglect or re- 
 fusal." There cannot be a neglect or refusal, 
 unless a tender has heen made; and in this 
 endorsement there is no mention of a tender 
 having been made. Secondly, no letter accom- 
 panying the poll-books was sent by the returning 
 officer to the clerk of the crown, as required by 
 the same section. This also is a fatal omission. 
 
 Mr. Seqt. Kinglake, contra. — The enactments 
 of the statute with respect to the matters omit- 
 ted to be done by the returning officer in this 
 case, are not compulsory: they are directory 
 only. 
 
 Mr. Alexander having replied. 
 
 The Committee determined to admit the poll- 
 books. 
 
 Thomas Tattersall was at a meeting at the Agency 
 " Hen and Chickens" pubhc-house, a few nights p"^^*^^ j,g. 
 before the electionj Mr. Alfred Talbot and fore treat- 
 Mr. Boycot, alleged agents of the sitting '°^' 
 member, were also there, and made speeches, 
 and Mr. Best's health was drunk. The witness 
 was proceeding to state that there was a com- 
 plaint about drink, some of those assembled 
 having imderstood that they were to be at no 
 expense, when 
 
 Mr. Alexander objected to the course which 
 the evidence was taking, and submitted that 
 agency mtist be proved in the first instance. 
 
264 EliECTION CASES. 
 
 before the act of treating could be given in evi- 
 dence. He cited the Cambridge case («) . 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake in answer to the objection, 
 admitted the authority of that case, but con- 
 tended that the present came within the first 
 resolution in that case. 
 
 Mr. Alexander replied. 
 
 The Chairman inquired whether Mr. Serjt. 
 Kinglake tendered this evidence as evidence to 
 prove agency. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake stated that he did, and 
 that he could not separate the evidence. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That Mr. Serjt, 
 Kinglake having stated that he tenders the evi- 
 dence of Thomas TattersaU as proof of agency, 
 he is requested to confine his examination to 
 such questions as tend to elicit such proof, and 
 to avoid going into previous evidence of treat- 
 ing J or if it is more convenient to call other 
 
 {a) Bar. & Arn. 184. 
 
 These resolutions were as follows : — 
 
 1. " That the statute 4 & 5 Viot. c. 57, cannot be 
 taken to apply to treating, .unless such treating can be 
 shown to have influenced some particular vote." 
 
 2. " That counsel must not go into evidence as to acts 
 of treating which cannot be shown to have influenced 
 some particular vote, unless such acts are charged to 
 have been committed by parties previously shown to be 
 agents of the sitting member, except where the evi- 
 dence which is intended to prove the treating cannot be 
 separated from that which is intended to prove the 
 agency." 
 
BOROUGH OF KIDDERMINSTER. 365 
 
 witnesses, the Committee will sanction sueL. a 
 course, and subsequently Mr. Serjt. Kinglake 
 can recall Thomas TattersaU." 
 
 Mr. Seqt. Kinglake having asked Edward April 19. 
 Wyre a question with reference to the " Weary p"'Jf °<=« °f 
 
 •' ^ ■' treating at a 
 
 Traveller" Inn, and Mr. Alexander having oh- pubiic- 
 jected to the question, on the ground that such memioned 
 inn was not contained in the list furnished to in list not 
 
 ,, r^ •,. allowed to 
 
 the Committee, be given. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That the question 
 be struck off the minutes." 
 
 It being proposed to recall a witness named Witness 
 Micklewright, who had been examined in an ^gg° j* 
 earlier stage of the inquiry, room after 
 
 Mr. Alexander submitted, that as the witness nation, not 
 had frequently been in the room, he ought not f""^^'',,'", 
 to be further examined. to prove 
 
 Mr. James stated, that he wished to call the •'*"'?■ 
 
 • 1 1 1 writing. 
 
 witness for the purpose of proving the hand- 
 writing to a document ; and that it was in the 
 discretion of the Committee whether he was 
 to be precluded from proving a fact of that kind 
 in consequence of the witness's presence in the 
 room. 
 
 Mr. Alexander submitted, in point of law, 
 that this witness could not be heard, inasmuch 
 as he had been backwards and forwards in the 
 room, contrary to the resolution of the Com- 
 mittee, which ought to be strictly upheld. 
 
266 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That the witness 
 be not further examined." 
 
 April 22. Henry Silcock stated, in examination, that he 
 
 Declara- was at the " King's Head " on the evening of 
 
 of a voter ^^^ election day ; that Jesse Cook and his wife 
 
 alleged to came in, and the subject of the election being 
 
 have been iin- i li 
 
 bribed, at discussed, she put her hand mto her pocket to 
 tiie time of p™ for a quart of ale, and pulled out a purse 
 
 producing . . . ■ 
 
 the money Containing sovereigns, a crown-piece, and half- 
 e'7'=?''"J.- crowns. 
 
 missible in 
 
 evidence. Mr. Power then asked the witness, " When 
 she puUed out that purse, did she say any- 
 tHng?" 
 
 Mr. Alexander objected to the question. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake and Mr. James, in sup- 
 port of the right to put the question, submitted, 
 that anything done was admissible in this in- 
 quiry ; that in the Sudbury case (a) evidence 
 was admitted of the conversation of persons 
 engaged in alleged acts of bribery, such persons 
 being first shown to be voters, though it did not 
 take place in the presence of the sitting member, 
 or of any person proved to be his agent. 
 
 Mr. Alexander in reply. — This was evidence 
 given by a witness of statements made by a per- 
 son who might be called herself, and the Com- 
 mittee would be opening a wide and dangerous 
 door if they admitted this evidence. The Sud- 
 
 (a) B. & Aust. 245. 
 
BOROUGH OF KIDDERMINSTER. 267 
 
 bury case was not corroborated by any other 
 case. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake stated that it was corro- 
 borated by the Nottingham case («). 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That the question 
 might be put." 
 
 Mr. James summed up the evidence on behalf April 24. 
 of the petitioners. 
 
 Mr. Alexander addressed the Committee on 
 behalf of the sitting member, but did not call 
 any witness. 
 
 After Mr. Alexander had concluded his ad- April 25. 
 dress, the Committee recalled a witness, Jane witness 
 Dalley, and examined her with reference to a Committee 
 statement made by one of the witnesses called *f' *"■ ?*^® 
 
 . . closed on 
 
 on behalf of the petitioners, and which state- both sides. 
 ment phe contradicted. 
 
 The Committee resolved unanimously, 
 
 " That John Best, Esq., is duly elected a Final reso- 
 burgess to serve in this present Parliament for "'"'°" 
 the borough of Kidderminster {b) ." 
 
 (o) B. & Arn. 168. 
 (J) This resolution was reported to the House. 
 
 n2 
 
368 
 
 CASE XXX. 
 
 1851- BOROUGH AND HUNDREDS OF 
 
 AYLESBURY. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 28th of March, 1851, and 
 consisted of the following Members ; — 
 
 George Alexander Hamilton, Esq., Duhlin University, 
 {Chairmari), 
 
 Hon. J. W. Portescue, Barn- 
 staple. 
 
 Sir Edmund S. Hayes, Bart., 
 Donegal. 
 
 J. B. Smith, Esq., Stirling 
 
 district. 
 W. Miles, Esq., Somerset, 
 
 East. 
 
 Petitioners :■ — Electors. 
 
 letting Member : — ^Frederic CaJvert, Esq. 
 
 Ctnmsel for Petitioners: — Mr. Edwin James, Q. C, and 
 Mr. Eodwell. 
 
 Agents : — Messrs. Thompson, Dehenham, and Brown, and 
 Mr. Parrott. 
 
 Cotmsel for Sitting Member : — Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, Mr. 
 Merewether, and Mr. Phinn. 
 
 Agents .—Mr. Coppock, Mr. Tindal, Mr. James, Mr. Watson, 
 and Mr. Benson. 
 
 March 29. 
 
 PreUmi- The usual preliminary resolutions were agreed 
 
 nary reso- | / \ 
 lutions. w^a;. 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 260. 
 
BOROUGH AND HUNDREDS OF AYLESBURY. 369 
 
 The petition^ after stating that at the last Petition, 
 election for the borough of Aylesbury, Frederic 
 Calvert, Esq., and John Houghton, Esq., were 
 candidates, and that the former was returned as 
 the sitting member, charged bribery and treating Bribery and 
 against Mr. Calvert and his agents, and prayed ^'eating. 
 the House to declare the election and return of 
 Mr. Calvert to be null and void. 
 
 Mr. James, in the course of his opening on the 
 part of the petitioners, stated that the bribery was 
 eflFected by orders given upon various publicans 
 in the borough of Aylesbury to supply refresh- 
 ment upon production of certain tickets, accord- 
 ing to a previous arrangement between them and 
 the agents of the sitting member; that the 
 publicans, who were voters, had received money 
 for such tickets in advance; that in some instances 
 little or no refreshment had been supplied ; that 
 in other instances the publicans, after polling, re- 
 ceived 5s. tickets upon their own houses; and 
 that an extensive system of treating was carried 
 on by means of refreshment tickets furnished to 
 those electors who voted for the sitting member. 
 
 WiUiam Locke, a voter, the landlord of the Conversa- 
 " Saracen's Head" (one of the public-houses at tw°en Voter 
 which orders had been given by a stranger, who re- 
 known as the "Man in the Moon," for thep^„*ho 
 supply of refreshments to parties producing ^^e re- 
 certain tickets), stated that, after voting, he ticket as a 
 went to the "Bull Inn," and received from the bribe ad- 
 
270 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 missibie ia " Man in thfe Moon" a 5«. ticket. On being 
 
 wVtho^t^ asked by the counsel for the petitioners the fol- 
 
 proof of lowing question, " Before the man gave you the 
 
 "gency. g^ ticket, did he say anything to you about 
 
 where you would have it for — for what house ?" 
 
 and the witness, in answer, having stated, " I 
 
 told him I would have it for home, if he pleased. 
 
 ' Aye,' he said, ' the Saracen's Head.' " 
 
 Mr. Merewether objected to the evidence, as 
 being evidence of treating. — It had not been 
 proved that Mr. Calvert, or any person whom 
 the Committee had yet declared to be an agent 
 of Mr. Calvert, had been at the meeting in 
 question. 
 
 Mr. James, in support of the line of examina- 
 tion, stated that he charged this as part of the 
 system of bribery to which he had referred in his 
 opening speech, and called upon the Committee 
 to receive evidence of the facts, before he gave 
 evidence of agency. 
 
 The Chairman stated, that at present the 
 charge, in reference to this particular case, par- 
 took more of the character of bribery than of 
 treating ; that, under those circumstances, the 
 wordsof the statutebeing very large withreference 
 to the evidence which might be given in cases 
 of bribery, the Committee were of opinion that 
 the conversation which was objected to might be 
 given in evidence as regarded the " Man in the 
 Moon." 
 
 March 31. Henry Wheeler, a voter, stated in examina- 
 
BOROUGH AND HUNDREDS OF AYLESBURY. 271 
 
 tion that he was canvassed by Mr, Calvert, in Where evi- 
 company with Mr. James, Mr. Charles Wheeler, ^*°°^ °l^^ 
 and John and William Ward, and that he voted treating 
 for Mr. Calvert at the election j that he "was sgp°°atg''j* 
 asked by Charles Wheeler to a supper at the not neces- 
 " Rising Sun " Inn two or three days before the prove" 
 election, at which WilMam and John Ward were agency in 
 
 the first in- 
 
 present, the latter presiding ; and that he there stance. 
 met several other voters. Having stated, in an- 
 swer to a question by Mr. Rodwell that brandy 
 and water was supplied, 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake submitted that if Mr. 
 Rodwell was establishing acts of treating, he had 
 no right to aflfect the sitting member without 
 having previously proved agency. 
 
 Mr. Rodwell, in support of the course pur- 
 sued by him, submitted that under the resolu- 
 tions in the Cambridge case (a), which were the 
 guiding resolutions upon the subject, an excep- 
 tion was made where the evidence intended to 
 prove the treating could not be separated from 
 the evidence iatended to prove agency. The 
 same evidence which proved the treating at the 
 " Rising Sun " would tend to prove the agency of 
 other parties, and the connexion between them 
 as agents for the purposes relating to the elec- 
 tion of the sitting member. He did not profess 
 that the evidence which he was now giving 
 directly affected the question of bribery, but it 
 
 (a) B. & Am. 184, ante, p. 264. 
 
ELECTION CASES. 
 
 was evidence of treating, wMch he could not 
 separate from the evidence of agency, and was 
 therefore admissible. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake having replied. 
 The Chairman stated, that the Committee 
 felt a difficulty in separating the evidence which 
 related to treating from the evidence which 
 might relate to bribery, and that they felt it to 
 be necessary, in a great measure, to defer to the 
 discretion of counsel j that, considering the na- 
 ture of the evidence which had been already 
 adduced, it would be a hazardous thing for the 
 Committee to say that they would shut out 
 evidence which might have a fair effect upon 
 bribery ; that they would, therefore, permit the 
 examination to continue, hoping, at the same 
 time, that the counsel would keep in mind the 
 principle of law which was clearly established, 
 that, under the name of bribery, evidence could 
 not be given of a case of treating without agency 
 having been previously proved ; that there was 
 one other consideration which would make the 
 Committee anxious not to shut out evidence, 
 namely, that the witnesses who had been hither- 
 to examined had been very unwilling witnesses. 
 
 The voter further stated, that he did not pay 
 for the supper, nor had he ever before been 
 treated to a supper by Charles Wheeler. 
 
 Joseph Hill, a voter, who had been at the 
 supper at the " Rising Sun," on the polling day 
 
BOROUGH AND HUNDREDS OF AYLESBURY. 273 
 
 went to the " Bell Inn," where he saw Charles 
 Wheeler and WiUiam Ward, the former of 
 whom gave him a ticket, which he took to the 
 " Oxford Arms," and for which he had a bottle 
 of wine. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Kinglake submitted that this was 
 only a case of treating. 
 
 Mr. Rodwell being asked whether the other 
 evidence which he iatended to give was of a 
 similar description, stated that he was about to 
 show similar practices at other public-houses, 
 which would also involve the question of agency. 
 The Chairman stated that Mr. Rodwell need 
 not give further evidence to prove that certaia 
 voters had been treated; that by the mere 
 accumulation of evidence proving treating, the 
 counsel would not establish a case of agency 
 with reference to treating, unless he could give 
 proof of agency, which, iu a case of treating, 
 properly speaking, would be applicable; that 
 if, on the other hand, he thought that by ad- 
 ducing evidence of this kind he could establish 
 a case of bribery in the one or two instances in 
 which it was possible that a case of bribery 
 might be established, he must use his own dis- 
 cretion in going on. 
 
 Mr. Rodwell stated that he had other cases 
 of treating very much resembbng those of which 
 he had already given evidence, but that in the 
 case which he was about to prove, it would ap- 
 pear that refreshment had been supplied by a 
 publican, the bill for which, after having been 
 
 N 3 
 
274 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 sent in to Mr. Calvert's committee, had been 
 paid by one of the Wards. 
 
 The Chairman stated, that this evidence might 
 be material in order to prove agency with refer- 
 ence to the Wards. That the coimsel. now 
 understood the feeling of the Committee, and 
 that the Committee would not exclude any evi- 
 dence which the counsel for the petitioners took 
 upon themselves to say that they considered ma- 
 terial. 
 
 April 2. Mr. Rodwell summed up the evidence on be- 
 half of the petitioners. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Kinglake addressed the Committee 
 on behalf of the sitting member, and several 
 witnesses were called for the purpose of dis- 
 proving the agency of the parties who had issued 
 the refreshment tickets, and who were alleged 
 to have been connected with the various acts of 
 treating proved. 
 
 Mr. James having replied on the whole case, 
 
 April 3. The Committee unanimously resolved : — 
 Final reso- 1. "That Frederic Calvert, Esq., is not duly 
 
 lutions. 1 J 1 . . 
 
 elected a burgess to serve m this present Par- 
 liament for the borough and hundreds of Ayles- 
 bury." 
 
 2. " That the last election for the said borough 
 and hundreds of Aylesbury is a void election." 
 
 3. " That Frederic Calvert, Esq., was, by his 
 agents, guilty of treating at the last election for 
 the said borough and hundreds." 
 
BOROUGH AND HrNDREDS OF AYLESBURY. 275 
 
 4. "That it was not proved to the Com- 
 mittee that the acts of treating were committed 
 with the knowledge and consent of the said 
 Frederic Calvert." 
 
 5. "That the Committee also find that a 
 practice prevailed in the said borough at the 
 last election of issuing printed tickets for re- 
 freshmentSj to the extent of five shillings each, 
 both before and after polling." 
 
 6. "The Committee believe that this prac- 
 tice has obtained very extensively in the said 
 boroughj and they consider it their duty to 
 report it to the House {a}." 
 
 (a) These resolutions were reported to the House. 
 
276 
 
 CASE XXXI. 
 1851- BOROUGH OP ST. ALBAN'S. 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 28th of March, 1851, 
 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Edward Ellice, Jun., Esq., St. Andrew's District, 
 
 {Chm/rmtm). 
 
 Henry Stuart, Esq., Bedford. 
 Hugh E. Adair, Esq., Ips- 
 wich. 
 
 Hon. Francis Wemyss Char 
 
 teris, Haddingtonshire. 
 Sir Benjamin Hall, Bart. 
 
 Marylehone. 
 
 Petitioners : — Electors. 
 
 Sitting Member: — Jacob Bell, Esq. 
 
 Covmsel for Fetitioners : — Mr. Serjeant Wrangham, 
 Mr. Merewether, and Mr. Clerk. 
 
 Agents : — Mr. Law, and Mr. Lowe. 
 
 Counsel for Sitting Member: — Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, and 
 Mr. E. James, Q. C. 
 
 Agents : — Mr. Coppock, and Mr. Blagg. 
 
 March 29. The usual preliminary resolutions were agreed 
 
 Prelimi- to (a) . 
 
 nary reso- 
 lutions. 
 
 Petition. The petition, after stating that at the last 
 election Robert Walter Garden, Esq., and the 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 260. 
 
BOROUGH OF ST. ALBAN's. 277 
 
 sitting member were candidates, and that the 
 latter was returned, charged bribery and corrup- Bribery, 
 tion against the sitting member and his agents. 
 It further stated, that at the time and place of 
 the said election for the said borough, that is 
 to say, on the said 24th day of December, 1850, 
 at the said borough, at the commencement of 
 the taking of the said poll, a notice under the 
 hands of two of the electors of the said borough, 
 who were well known to be duly qualified and 
 registered as electors of the said borough, was, 
 on behalf of such electors, publicly delivered to 
 the said returning officer at the said election, 
 which said notice was in the words and figures 
 following, that is to say : — 
 
 ' Saint Alban's. — We, the undersigned, being Notice of 
 electors for the borough of Saint Alban's, hereby j""*^*"''^ 
 give notice, that Jacob Bell, Esq., has by him- 
 self and by his agents been guilty of bribery 
 and treating, both before and during this elec- 
 tion for the borough of Saint Alban's, and is 
 thereby incapacitated from sitting in the present 
 Parliament ; and that all votes given for the said 
 Jacob Bell wiU be thrown away. 
 
 (Signed) John Horner Rumball. 
 
 William Bennett. 
 
 December, 24th, 1850.' 
 
 That at the time and place of the said election 
 for the said borough, that is to say, on the said 
 24th day of December, 1850, at the said borough. 
 
378 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 at the commencement of the taking of the said 
 poll, a notice (a), under the hands of two of the 
 electors of the said borough, who were well 
 known to be duly qualified and registered as 
 electors of the said borough, was, on behalf of 
 such electors, publicly delivered to the said 
 Jacob Bell. 
 
 That at the time and place of the said election 
 for the said borough, that is to say, on the said 
 24th day of December, 1850, at the said borough, 
 at the commencement of the taking of the said 
 poll, and before the voting of the persons who 
 voted or claimed to vote at the said election for 
 the said borough, a notice (a) under the hands of 
 two of the electors of the said borough, who 
 were well known to be duly qualified and re- 
 gistered as electors of the said borough, was, on 
 behalf of such electors, publicly delivered to each 
 and every of the voters for the said Jacob BeU, 
 by persons who were placed at the entrance of 
 each polling place for the said borough, for the 
 purpose of delivering such notice to every voter 
 for the said Jacob Bell as he came to the poU. 
 
 That copies of the said notice were exhibited 
 before the said poll was taken, on placards iu 
 front of the hustings at the said election, and 
 also placed on the walls of buildings immediately 
 
 (a) The notice was tie same as that delivered to the 
 returning officer, p. 277. 
 
BOROUGH OF ST. ALBAN's. 279 
 
 adjacent thereto; that by reason of the said in- 
 capacity as aforesaid, and of the said notices so 
 given as aforesaid, the votes of those persons 
 who voted at the said election for the said Jacob 
 Bell were lost and thrown away, and ought not 
 to have been counted on the poU ; that by reason 
 of the said incapacity as aforesaid, and of the 
 said notices so given as aforesaid, the said re- 
 turning officer ought not to have returned the 
 said Jacob BeU as duly elected to serve in Par- 
 liament for the said borough, but on the contrary Seat 
 the said Robert Walter Garden was duly elected, P"^^ " 
 and ought to have been returned to serve in 
 Parliament by the said returning officer. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake objected to the petition Objection 
 being considered by the Committee, on t^e *° '^^g*^^'?^ 
 ground that it did not state on the face of it to not enter- 
 what tribunal it was addressed, inasmuch as the """ ' 
 words, " To the Commons of the United King- 
 dom, in Parliament assembled/' or words to 
 that effect, were altogether omitted. 
 
 The Committee overruled the objection, on 
 the ground that the fact of the petition having 
 been received by the House, sufficiently de- 
 signated it as a petition to the House of Com- 
 mons. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham then applied to the 
 Committee for an adjournment, on the ground 
 that certain persons who were material and ne- 
 
280 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 cessary witnesses for establishing the case of the 
 petitioners, had, either after having been served 
 with a Speaker's warrant, or in order to avoid 
 service of such warrant, disappeared from the 
 borough of St. Alban's ; that with respect to 
 two of such witnesses, he was prepared to show 
 that they had been carried off by certain agents 
 of the sitting member from the charge of two 
 persons who were conveying them to London, 
 for the purpose of giving evidence before the 
 Committee. 
 
 Evidence having been given with a view to 
 corroborate the above statement, the Committee ' 
 resolved, "That the Committee will proceed 
 with the case, in so far as regards the cases not 
 affected by the evidence of the witnesses said to 
 be withdrawn. That in respect of the cases 
 affected by such evidence, the Committee wiU 
 accede to the adjournment applied for, upon the 
 understanding that on the re-assembling of the 
 Committee, the case of the petitioners is strictly 
 to be confined to those cases." 
 
 The petitioners not being prepared to proceed 
 with any case, in which the evidence of the 
 absent witnesses was not material, Mr. Serjt. 
 Wrangham, on the application of Mr. James, 
 undertook to supply the other side with a list of 
 the cases proposed to be brought forward on the 
 re-assembling of the Committee. 
 
 March 31. The agent for the petitioners having stated 
 
BOROUGH OF ST. ALBAN's. 281 
 
 that nothing had been heard of the absent wit- 
 nesses, the Committee agreed to make the fol- 
 lowing special report to the House : — 
 
 "That it having been proved to the satisfac- Special 
 tion of the Committee that certain witnesses, "?'"'''• 
 whose evidence is stated by the petitioners as 
 material in proof of their case, have either been 
 withdrawn, or have absented themselves, for the 
 purpose of avoiding the service of the Speaker's 
 warrant, and that at least in one instance a 
 witness, upon whom the Speaker's warrant has 
 been served, has been conveyed away by a 
 number of persons, one of whom has been iden- 
 tified as an active promoter of the election of 
 the sitting member, the Committee have in- 
 structed the Chairman, upon the application 
 of the counsel for the petitioners, to apply to 
 the House for leave to adjourn till eleven of the 
 clock on Thursday next, in order to afford a 
 further opportunity for producing the witnesses 
 stated to be necessary in support of his case." 
 
 On the re-assembling of the Committee after April 3. 
 the adjournment, which was granted by the 
 House (a), 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Wrangham stated, that five out of 
 the nine missing witnesses, to whose cases the 
 
 {a) The legality of this adjournment was subse- 
 quently questioned in the House of Commons, on the 
 ground that the Committee had omitted to meet for 
 the purpose of formally adjourning, in accordance with 
 the permission granted by the House. 
 
282 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 charges of bribery were now confinedj had this 
 morning made their appearance ; but that, inas- 
 much as the agents for the petitioners had not 
 yet had an opportunity of ascertaining what 
 evidence they were prepared to give, he apphed 
 to the Committee for an adjournment, in order 
 that the agents might have such opportunity ; 
 and he farther called upon the Committee to 
 make another special report to the House in 
 reference to the abduction of the vritnesses. 
 
 Evidence having been given as to the alleged 
 abduction by the agents of the sitting members 
 of two witnesses (Lines and Atkins), who were 
 on their way to London ia company with parties 
 employed by the agents of the petitioners on 
 the night of the 25 th March, and also as to the 
 steps taken by the agents of the petitioners for 
 the recovery of the absent witnesses, 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake opposed the application 
 for an adjounmient, and called on the Com- 
 mittee to direct the petitioners to proceed with 
 the five cases with reference to which it had 
 been stated that the witnesses were now present. 
 
 The Committee, however, agreed to adjourn 
 till the next day. 
 
 April 4. Mr. Seijt. Wrangham opened the case of the 
 petitioners. 
 
 The poll-books were received in evidence. 
 April 5. Mr. Merewether proposed to call WUliam 
 
BOROUGH OF ST. ALBAN's. 283 
 
 Bennett, one of the petitioners, for the purpose Petitioner 
 of contradicting John Biggs, a previous witness. be^Iued as 
 
 The Chairman stated, that the Committee a witness, 
 were disposed to allow Bennett to be examined 
 as to any matter in direct contradiction to facts 
 stated by the witness Biggs. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake objected to Mr. Bennett 
 being called as a witness, inasmuch as being 
 one of the petitioners against the return of the 
 sitting member, he was a party interested in the 
 result of the inquiry. 
 
 Mr. James, on the same side, contended that 
 the petitioner could not be called as a witness 
 until the issue directed to be tried as to the seat 
 was at an end. 
 
 Mr. Merewether and Mr. Clerk were heard in 
 answer to the objection. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake hawg replied. 
 
 The Chairman stated, that the Committee had 
 had considerable difficulty in arriving at a con- 
 clusion upon the subject; but that, upon the 
 best consideration they could give to it, they 
 had determined to admit the evidence (a). 
 
 A witness named William Lines, having in wiiere wit 
 the opinion of the Committee misconducted "^^^''^"'^ 
 himself in giving his evidence before the Com- mitted for 
 mittee, the Committee resolved, tion^ Com- 
 
 (a) The Conmiittee divided on the question, — " That 
 William Bennett be examined as a witness." Ayes, 3 ; 
 Sir B. Hall, Mr. Ellice, Mr. Charteris : Noes, 2 ; Mr. 
 Stuart, Mr. Adair. 
 
384 
 
 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 1. "That William Lines be reported to the 
 
 mittee re- 
 fused copy . . . I , . 
 of warrant House for prevarication and other misbehaviour, 
 
 tai'^'^T''" ™ S^'"'^? ^® evidence before the Committee." 
 evidence on 3. " That the Chairman be directed to issue 
 founded"*" ^^ warrant for the committal of the said Wil- 
 liam Lines to the custody of the Seijeant-at- 
 arins, or his deputy or deputies," 
 
 WiUiam Lines was, under the Chairman's 
 warrant, then given into the custody of the 
 messenger attending the Committee. 
 
 Mr. James formally applied to the Committee 
 for a copy of the warrant under which William 
 Lines was committed, and also for a copy of the 
 evidence which he had given, as he might have 
 to apply to a judge for a writ of habeas corptis. 
 The Committee, however, declined to make 
 any order on the subject. 
 
 AprU 7. 
 Witness 
 under du- 
 ress ex- 
 amined. 
 
 Mr. Clerk this morning applied for the pro- 
 duction of Lines, for the purpose of proceeding 
 with his examination. 
 
 • WUliam Lines, being in the custody of the 
 Serjeant-at-arms, was brought up, and cau- 
 tioned by the Chairman to answer all questions 
 in a straightforward manner, and to the best of 
 his abiKty. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake objected to the witness 
 being examined, on two grounds; firstly, be- 
 cause he was in duress ; and, secondly, because 
 of the caution given by the Chairman. 
 
 The Committee decided, "That the examina- 
 tion of Lines should be continued." 
 
BOROUGH OF ST. ALBAN's. 285 
 
 The examination in chief of the witness being 
 concluded, 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake declined, under the cir- 
 cumstances, to cross-examine him. 
 
 Several other witnesses having been examiaed, 
 
 Mr. Merewether stated, that of the nine cases 
 of bribery included in the list handed ia to the 
 Committee, he had examined into five; that 
 there still remained the cases of Waggett, Foster, 
 Skegg, and Burchmore, the two last being wit- 
 nesses whose examinations had been taken by 
 the agent for the petitioners previously to their 
 absenting themselves; and that, inasmuch as 
 neither of such four witnesses were forthcoming, 
 he applied to the Committee for a further ad- 
 journment of the investigation, or that a special 
 report of the circumstances should be made to 
 the House. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake was heard against the 
 application for an adjournment, and submitted 
 that the counsel for the petitioners should be 
 directed to proceed with their case, or that, if 
 they had closed their case, the Committee should 
 proceed, upon the evidence before them, to ad- 
 judicate upon the right of the sitting member to 
 retain his seat ; it being open to the Committee 
 afterwards to make such further report, or insti- 
 tute such further inquiry, as the Committee 
 might deem advisable. 
 
 The Committee resolved to adjourn until the 
 following day, to make a special report to the 
 
J86 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 House respecting the abduction of the wit- 
 nesses. 
 
 April 9. The counsel for the petitioners having stated 
 that the absent witnessses were not yet forth- 
 coming, Mr. Seqt. Kinglake applied to the 
 Committee to proceed without any further ad- 
 journment to the determination of the ques- 
 tion, whether or not the sitting member was 
 duly elected for the Borough of St. Alban's at 
 the last election ; and submitted that, under the 
 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98, sees. 86, 87, the Committee 
 were not empowered to make any special re- 
 port to the House on matters connected with 
 the election till they had first decided upon the 
 right of the sitting member to retain his seat. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham opposed the application, 
 and called on the Committee to ask leave of the 
 House for a further adjournment, in order to 
 enable the officers employed to discover and ap- 
 prehend the absent witnesses. 
 
 The Committee agreed to ask leave of the 
 House to adjourn until the 14th April; and 
 such leave was granted by the House (a) . 
 
 April 14. On the re-assembliQg of the Committee, the 
 Chairman directed the counsel for the petitioners 
 to proceed with the case. 
 
 (a) The legality of this adjournment was also ques- 
 tioned in the House of Commons, upon the ground 
 referred to in the note, p. 281. 
 
BOROUGH OF ST. ALBAN's. 287 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Wrangham stated, that not having 
 yet been able to procure the attendance of the 
 witnesses, on account of whose absence the 
 Committee had adjourned on a former occasion, 
 he was not in a condition at present to proceed 
 with the case of the petitioners, and applied to 
 the Committee for a iurther adjournment over 
 the Easter recess. 
 
 The Committee refused to entertain the appli- 
 cation for a farther adjournment. 
 
 The case of the petitioners being closed, — 
 The Committee came to the following reso- 
 lutions, which were reported to the House. 
 
 1. "That Jacob BeU, Esq., is duly elected a Final reso- 
 burgess to serve in this present Parliament for '"'">"*• 
 the borough of St. Alban's." 
 
 2. " That, notwithstanding successive special 
 adjournments of the Committee for the purpose 
 of procuring the attendance of persons whose evi- 
 dence was proved to be most material to the 
 prosecution of the case of the petitioners, such 
 evidence has not been produced ; and that, al- 
 though all diligence has been used for the pur- 
 pose of securing the attendance of the parties 
 required, such endeavours have been unsuc- 
 cessful." 
 
 3. "That it has therefore been impossible 
 for the Committee to investigate thoroughly 
 the allegations of the petition referred to them. 
 
 4. " That it has been distinctly stated by some 
 witnesses, and the general tenor of the evidence 
 
288 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 given leads the Committee to believe^ that a sys- 
 tem of gross corruption prevailed at the last 
 election for the borough of St. Alban's, and also 
 on former s imil ar occasions." 
 
 5. " That it is the opinion of the Committee, 
 that further inquiry^ by means of a commission 
 under legislative authority, should be made into 
 the corrupt practices alleged to be customary 
 at elections for the borough of St. Alban's" [a). 
 
 (a) In accordance with this resolution, a Committee 
 of Inquiry was appointed by the House, whose report 
 resulted in an Act for the disfranchisement of the 
 Borough. 
 
289 
 
 CASE XXXII. 
 
 BOROUGH OF HARWICH. i85i. 
 
 (first case.) 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 1st of May, 1851, 
 and consisted of the following Members : — 
 
 Henry Ker Seymer, Esq., Dorsetshire, 
 {Chairman). 
 
 John Tollemache, Esq., 
 
 ChesMre, South. 
 Right Hon. R. Vemon Smith, 
 
 Northampton. 
 
 Joseph Randolph Mullings, 
 
 Esq., Cirencester. 
 C. L. GrenviUe Berkeley, Esq., 
 
 Cheltenham. 
 
 Petitioners : — Electors. 
 
 Sitting Member: — Henry Thoby Prinsep, Esq. 
 
 Cotmselfor Petitioners : — Mr. Edwin James, Q. C, and Mr. 
 Phinn. 
 
 Agent : — ^Mr. Coppock. 
 
 Comisel for Sitting Member: — ^Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, Mr. 
 Montagu Smith, and Mr. Willes. 
 
 Agent : — Mr. Elmslie. 
 
 May 2. 
 The usual preliminary resolutions were agreed Preiimi- 
 
 to (a). ?"y '•«^»- 
 
 ^ ' lutions. 
 
 (a) Ante, p. 260. 
 
290 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Petition. The petition stated^ that at the last election 
 Robert Wigram Crawford and Henry Thoby 
 Prinsep were candidates ; and that, after a poll 
 demanded and taken, the said Henry Thoby 
 Prinsep was by the mayor and returning officer 
 declared to have been elected a member to 
 serve in this present Parliament for the said 
 Want of borough ; that the said Henry Thoby Prinsep 
 tion. was not at the time of his election and return 
 
 duly qualified to be elected a member of the 
 House of Commons for the said borough, inas- 
 much as he was not seised or entitled for his 
 own use and benefit of and to an estate legal 
 and equitable in lands, tenements, or heredita- 
 ments situate, lying, or being within the United 
 Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or ia 
 the rents and profits thereof, for his own life, or 
 for the Mfe or lives of any other person or per- 
 sons then living, or for a term of years, either 
 absolute or determinable on his own Kfe, or on 
 the Hfe or lives of any other person or persons 
 then living, of which term not less than thirteen 
 years were at the time of his election unexpired, 
 such estate being of the clear yearly value of 
 not less than 300?. over and above all incum- 
 brances affecting the same ; nor was he possessed 
 or entitled for his own use and benefit, at law or 
 in equity, for his own life, or for the hfe or 
 lives of any other person or persons then living, 
 of which term not less than thirteen years were 
 unexpired, of or to personal estate or effects of 
 any nature or kind whatsoever, situate within the 
 
BOROUGH OP HARWICH (IsT CASE). 291 
 
 said United Kingdom, or the interest, dividends, 
 or annual proceeds of any such personal estate 
 or effects, such personal estate or effects, interest, 
 dividends, or annual proceeds, actually producing 
 the clear yearly income of not less than 300^. over 
 and above aU incumbrances affecting the same ; 
 nor was he possessed of more than one of the seve- 
 ral kinds of qualification hereinbefore mentioned, 
 being, jointly with the other qualification, of 
 sufficient value to qualify a person to serve in 
 Parliament for any borough, according to the 
 provisions of the Act of Parliament of the 1 & 3 
 Vict. c. 48, whereby the election and return of 
 the said Henry Thoby Prinsep was and is void ; 
 that the said Henry Thoby Prinsep did not com- 
 ply with the provisions and enactments of the 
 said Act, 1 & 2 Vict. c. 48, and his election and 
 return was and is thereby void ; that the quali- 
 fication set forth in the paper signed by the said 
 Henry Thoby Prinsep, and delivered to the 
 clerk of the House of Commons, at the table of 
 the said House, is not a qualification according 
 to the true intent and meaning of the said 1 & 2 
 Vict. c. 48, and the election of the said Henry 
 Thoby Prinsep is therefore void. 
 
 The petition also involved a scrutiny, and Scrutiny, 
 contained charges of bribery and treating against Briberyand 
 the sitting member and his agents. It prayed ''gating. 
 the House to declare that the sitting member 
 was not duly elected ; but that Robert Wigram 
 Crawford, Esq., was duly elected, and ought to 
 have been returned. 
 
 o2 
 
293 ELECTION CASES, 
 
 Annuity of Mr. James opened the case for the petition- 
 
 1000/. from gj.g 
 
 the Bengal 
 
 Civil Ser- The declaration of qualification made by the 
 
 nui^tj^Fund fitting member at the election, and also that 
 does not given in. by him at the table of the HousBj was 
 
 confer « ,, 
 
 qualifica- aS toilOWS :— 
 tion under 
 1 & 2 Vict. 
 
 u. 48. " I, Henry Thoby Prinsep, Esq., do solemnly 
 
 and sincerely declare that I am, to the best of 
 my knowledge and belief, duly qualified to be 
 elected as a member of the House of Commons, 
 according to the true iatent and meaning of the 
 Act passed in the second year of the reign of 
 Queen Victoria, intituled 'An Act to amend 
 the Laws relating to the Qualification of Mem- 
 bers to serve in Parliament ;' and that my quali- 
 fication to be soi elected doth arise out of an 
 annuity or annual payment of the sum of 
 lOOOZ., payable quarterly to me during the 
 whole term of my life by the Honourable East 
 India Company, and receivable at the East 
 India House, situate at Leadenhall-street, in 
 the city of London ; and that the said annuity is 
 wholly free and unincumbered ; and also out of 
 a certain mansion-house, messuage, and heredi- 
 tament, situate, lying, and being in Hyde Park 
 Gardens, in the county of Middlesex, to which 
 I am absolutely entitled for a term of years, 
 whereof not less than thirteen years is at the 
 time of this my election imexpired, such estate 
 being of the clear yearly value of not less than 
 300/., over and above all incumbrances affecting 
 
BOROUGH OF HARWICH (] ST CASe). 
 
 the same. And I do farther declare, that the 
 said anmiity doth stand in the books of the 
 East India Company in my name free and un- 
 incumbered. 
 
 (Signed) " H. T. Prinsep." 
 
 With respect to the first branch of qualifica- 
 tion, it appeared that the Bengal Civil Service 
 Annuity Fund is created by contributions of the 
 civil servants iu India, each of whom, from the 
 time of commencing his duties, pays a sum at 
 the rate of four per cent, upon the salary which 
 he receives. The management of the fund is 
 vested in trustees residiug in Calcutta, who have 
 the sole direction and control over the fund, but 
 who act under certain rules sanctioned by the 
 Comrt of Directors of the East India Company. 
 A civil servant, after twenty-two years' actual 
 residence in India, is entitled to a pension for 
 life out of this fimd, but he is required to pay to 
 the institution, previous to the date at which the 
 annuity is to commence, the difierence between 
 one half of the actual value of the annuity on 
 his life and the accumulated value of his previous 
 contribution, in case the latter quantity shall be 
 less than the former. The remainder of the 
 fimd is made up by the large amount of interest, 
 six per cent., which at the close of each year 
 the Company allow upon whatever balance may 
 remain to the credit of the fund. The annuity 
 is payable either iu India or England. It is 
 payable in England under the twenty-seventh 
 
294 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 rule, which provides for it in the following 
 terms : " In discharge of each annuity of 10,000 
 rupees granted by the fund, the sum of 1000/. 
 sterling shall be paid to the annuitant, through 
 the Company's treasury in London, at the close 
 of the year in which the annuity may commence, 
 the managers of the fund imdertaking at that 
 period to pay over to the Government of Bengal 
 the sum of 10,000 rupees for each annuity so 
 payable under the principles upon which the 
 Company's contribution to the fund is to be 
 regulated." 
 
 Mr. Prinsep was originally admitted an an- 
 nuitant in India in 1840, and he received his 
 annuity in India from 1st March, 1840, to the 
 31st January, 1843, after which, on his becoming 
 resident in England, it was made payable in 
 England under the following certificate, which 
 was signed by eight of the managers of the fund : 
 " We, the undersigned managers of the Bengal 
 Civil Service Annuity Fund, do hereby certify 
 that Henry Thoby Prinsep, Esq., lately a civil 
 servant in the Honourable the East India Com- 
 pany's Bengal Establishment, subscribing to the 
 said fund, and qualified by service and residence 
 in India to retire on an annuity, having received 
 credit in account with the said annuity fund for 
 the full sum required, under the rules of the said 
 fund, to entitle him to an annuity continued to 
 the date of his decease, at the rate of 1000/. 
 sterling a year, commencing from the 1st day of 
 February, 1843, and ending with the day on 
 
BOROUGH OF HARWICH (IST CASE). 295 
 
 which he may die, payable quarterly ; the said 
 Henry Thoby Prinsep, Esq., is accordingly en- 
 titled to demand and to receive from the Honour- 
 able the Court of Directors of the East India 
 Company in London, the sum of 250Z. sterling 
 on the 1st day of May, 1843, and a sum of 2501. 
 sterling on the 1st day of every succeeding 
 August, November, February, and May, during 
 the continuance of his natural life ; and we do 
 hereby further certify, that on the death of the 
 said Henry Thoby Prinsep, Esq., his executors, 
 admioistrators, or assigns are entitled to demand 
 and to receive from the aforesaid Honourable 
 Court in London on the day whereon the next 
 payment of a part of this annuity would have 
 become due, if the said Henry Thoby Prinsep, 
 Esq., had been alive on that day, whatever por- 
 tion of this annuity may have accrued to the 
 said Henry Thoby Prinsep, Esq., on the day of 
 his death, and may not have been already paid." 
 The money was received by him from the Bank 
 of England, the bankers' of the East India Com- 
 pany, under the following warrant : — " East 
 India Company. To the Cashiers of the Bank 
 of England. You may pay to Mr. H. T. Prin- 
 sep, late of the Bengal Civil EstabUshment, or 
 bearer, 242/. 10s. 2d., annuity for the quarter 
 ending 30th April, 1843." At a corresponding 
 period with the date of this warrant it would be 
 the duty of the managers of the fund in India 
 to credit the Company with an equivalent to 
 250/., that is to say, 2500 rupees. The sum of 
 
296 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 71. 9*. \0d. deducted from the 250/. was for in- 
 come tax. It further appeared that the practice 
 at the East India House, in case of an annuitant's 
 death in a current quarter, was upon probate or 
 letters of administration being produced to pass 
 the amoxmt due to the legal representatives of 
 the deceased. 
 
 With respect to the second branch of qualifi- 
 cation, it appeared that the house in question 
 was held by the sitting member under a lease 
 for ninety-two years, at a ground rent of 60/. 7s. 
 6d. ; that a sum of 6000/. had been advanced 
 by the trustees of his marriage settlement, out 
 of money in which he had a life interest, on a 
 mortgage of the house, and out of which sum 
 a previous mortgage of 3000/. had been paid ; 
 that by the evidence of two house-agents, the 
 house would not let to a tenant for more than 
 350/. a year ; that it was assessed to the pro- 
 perty tax at 350/. a year. The solicitor of one of 
 the trustees imder the miarriage settlement, how- 
 ever, stated on cross-examination that the value 
 of the house in his estimation was 400/. a year. 
 
 May 3. Mr. Seijt. Kinglake consented to the point of 
 the qualification being taken separately, from 
 the other parts of the case. 
 
 Mr. Phinn summed up the evidence. — With 
 respect to the first branch of qualification, the 
 statute of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 48, — which for the first 
 
BOROUGH OF HARWICH (IST CASE). 397 
 
 time gave a qualification in respect of personal 
 property-j — requires specifically that such pro- 
 perty shall be situated within the United King- 
 dom. The 2nd section^ so far as affects the 
 qualification to be elected for a borough, arising 
 out of the possession of personal property, enacts 
 that no person shall be capable of beiag elected 
 a member for any borough, " unless he shall be 
 possessed or entitled, for his own use and benefit, 
 at law or in equity, for his own life, or for the 
 life or lives of any other person or persons then 
 living, or for any term of years either absolute 
 or determinable on his own life, or for the life 
 or lives of any other person or persons then 
 living, of which term not less than thirteen 
 years shall be at the time of his election un- 
 expired, of or to personal estate or efifects of any 
 nature or kind whatsoever, situate within the 
 said United Kingdom ; or the iaterest, dividends, 
 or annual proceeds of any such personal estate 
 or effects, such personal estate or effects, iate- 
 rest, dividends, or annual proceeds, actually 
 producing the clear yearly iucome of not less 
 than three hundred pounds, over and above all 
 incumbrances affecting the same." 
 
 The fund out of which the sitting member is 
 paid the annuity upon which he relies as a quali- 
 fication, is a fund situated not in the United 
 Kingdom, but in India ; it appears to be in the 
 nature of a mutual assurance company, of which 
 all the civil servants are members; the East 
 India Company not being iu law responsible for 
 
 o3 
 
298 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 the payment of the annuity, but only acting as 
 agents in England for the managers of the fund 
 in Calcutta. Such an annuity no more confers 
 a qualification, than would the possession of 
 Spanish Stock or French Rentes, wtich are pay- 
 able by agents in this country. The question 
 is not, where the annuity or interest is payable, 
 but where the corpus of the fund out of which 
 it is paid is situated. 
 
 With respect to the second branch of qualifica- 
 tion, upon the evidence given, the clear yearly 
 value of the house in question is under 300/. a 
 year, even if the mortgage is not taken into ac ■ 
 count ; but it has been proved that there is a 
 mortgage of 6000/. overriding the whole of the 
 property. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake for the sitting member. — 
 The annuity in question is in the nature of per- 
 sonal property. It has been said, that the fund 
 out of which the annuity is derived has no 
 locahty in this country, but the money which 
 constitutes the annuity is payable in this country. 
 Is it to be held that money derived from a fund, 
 bearing a Bengal stamp, payable in this country, 
 is not to be looked upon, as respects the reci- 
 pient, as personal property in the United King- 
 dom ? The well known rule of law is that 
 personal property, though situate abroad, follows 
 the domicilium of the person entitled to it. Real 
 property is of a fixed character, but personal 
 property is capricious and has no fixity. The 
 situs of the fund being in Bengal is immaterial, 
 
BOROUGH OF HARWICH (IST CASe). , 299 
 
 as the sitting member is domiciled in England, 
 whither his personal property followed him. Is 
 this property in any sense Indian property ? It 
 is paid, not in rupees, but in pounds sterling ; 
 the sitting member is entitled to no portion of 
 it until it arrives in England, and it is then paid 
 in effect by theEast India Company. They act, it 
 has been said, merely as agents. On the contrary, 
 the effect of the evidence as to the contributions 
 of the members of the Bengal Civil Service is, 
 that this is a mode by which the Company pay 
 to retired civilians the pensions to which a long 
 period of service entitles them, the annuitants 
 having contributed in payments to the amount 
 of one half only of their respective annuities. 
 
 With respect to the other branch of qualifi- 
 cation, he contended that the house had been 
 sufficiently proved to be of the clear yearly 
 value of 300/. 
 
 No evidence was called on the part of the 
 sitting member. 
 
 The Committee resolved : — ,, . 
 
 May 5. 
 
 " That Henry Thoby Prinsep, Esq., not being 
 qualified according to the provisions of the Act 
 1 & 2 Vict. c. 48, intituled " An Act to amend 
 the Laws relating to the Qualification of 
 Members to serve in Parliament," is not duly 
 elected a burgess to serve in Parliament, for the 
 borough of Harwich '' (a). 
 
 (a) Upon the room being cleared, it was moved, — 
 
300 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Scrutiny Mr. James now proposed to proceed with the 
 
 entered 
 
 into before scrutiny. 
 
 charges of ]y[j.. Seijt. Kinglake applied to the Committee 
 to direct that the petitioners should either pro- 
 ceed at once with the charges of bribery agaiost 
 the sitting member and his agents, or abandon 
 those charges, before they should be allowed to 
 enter upon the scrutiny. 
 
 Mr. James and Mr. Phinn opposed the appli- 
 cation. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake having replied. 
 The Committee resolved, " That the coimsel 
 for the petitioners do proceed with the scrutiny." 
 
 William Hood's Case. 
 Extra or This, voter was objected to on the ground that 
 waiter not he held an office under the Customs, and as such 
 disqualified ^^^ disqualified from voting, by virtue of 22 
 
 from voting ^ o> ./ 
 
 by 22 Geo. Geo. III. C. 41. 
 
 41 M From the evidence laid before the Committee, 
 
 it appeared that ordinary tidewaiters were officers 
 
 appointed directly by the Lords Commissioners 
 
 of her Majesty's Treagury, and that their duty 
 
 was to board vessels entering the port for the 
 
 " That Henry Thoby Prinsep, Esq., is duly qualified 
 as a member to serve in this present Parliament." On 
 the question being put, the Committee divided: — 
 Ayes, 2 ; Mr. Mullings, Mr. Seymer. Noes, 3 ; Mr. 
 Tollemache, Mr. Vernon Smith, Mr. Berkeley. 
 
 (a) This decision has since been overruled. Pownall 
 v. Hood, 21 Law Journ. 12. H(^(R,. SL^ 
 
BOROUGH OP HARWICH (IsT CASE). 301 
 
 purpose of watching and taking charge of the 
 cargoes, until they could be examined by the 
 proper officers of the Customs ; but there being 
 sometimes a glut of business of that description, 
 owing to the arrival of a great number of vessels 
 at once, the collector of customs (himself an 
 officer appointed by the Lords of the Treasury, 
 on the selection and recommendation of the 
 Board of Customs), was empowered by a general 
 authority from the said Board, to keep a list of 
 persons who were to be ready to act as occa- 
 sional or extra tidewaiters, whenever the busi- 
 ness of that department might be in excess, and 
 who were for that reason called extra or glut 
 tidewaiters. These persons were selected and 
 nominated by the collector of customs, by virtue 
 of the aforesaid general authority, at his own 
 sole discretion, and their appointment was con- 
 firmed by the Board of Customs as a matter of 
 course. When appointed and placed upon the 
 said list they were liable to be called upon to 
 act, as tidewaiters, whenever there might be 
 occasion for their services; being paid by the 
 job, according to a certain rate of remuneration, 
 by the collector of customs, who made a monthly 
 report of such payments, and of the work in 
 respect of which they were made, to the revenue 
 department. These extra tidewaiters made, once 
 for all, the same declaration of office that was 
 made by all other officers of the Customs on 
 their appointment, and when once placed upon 
 the said list, they remained there imtil they 
 
303 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 resigned or declined to act when called upon^ or 
 were discharged for misconduct. 
 
 The voter, Wniiam Hood, was placed upon 
 the said list in November, 1849, and was on it 
 at the time of the election, although not in 
 actual employment at that precise time : he had 
 made the usual declaration, and had received the 
 usual instructions. 
 
 Mr. James against the vote. — By 22 Geo. III. 
 c. 41, s. 1, it is enacted, " that no commissioner, 
 collector, controller, searcher, or other officer or 
 person whatsoever, concerned or employed in 
 the charging, collecting, levying, or managing 
 the Customs, or any branch or part thereof, 
 shall be capable of giving his vote for the elec- 
 tion of any knight of the shire, commissioner, 
 citizen, burgess, or baron, to serve in Parlia- 
 ment." By the same section penalties are im- 
 posed upon parties voting, and their votes de- 
 clared void. The voter in this case comes within 
 the meaning of the statute ; he is an officer or 
 person employed in the charging, collecting, or 
 levying the customs. Ordinary tidewaiters are 
 undoubtedly within the meaning of the above 
 section. The only difference between a tide- 
 waiter and the voter is, that the former is more 
 constantly employed, and paid by a salary, 
 whilst the latter is occasionally employed, and 
 is paid by the job. He receives a regular ap- 
 pointment, and is liable to be called upon at any 
 moment, and he is within the mischief intended 
 to be provided against by the statute. He is 
 
BOROUGH OF HARWICH (IsT CASE). 303 
 
 subject to the control of the Commissioners, 
 both as regards employment and remuneration. 
 
 jNIr. Seijt. Kinglake, contra, relied upon the 
 Kinsale case {Harris Fudger's case) [a). 
 
 Vote retained. 
 
 jNIr. James now proposed to take the case of a One class 
 voter whose name appeared in a different class of °. °°J^'=" 
 
 ^^ tions must 
 
 objections from that in which the last case was be exhaust- 
 
 . J ed before 
 
 Uiserted. another can 
 
 ^Ir. Serjt. Kinglake objected to a voter in a be entered 
 fresh class being taken until all the other cases 
 in the class in which Hood's name appeared 
 (Class 5) were exhausted. 
 
 The Committee decided that the counsel for 
 the petitioners must proceed with the remaining 
 cases in Class 5, or withdraw them. 
 
 Cases of John Cobbold and John May 7. 
 
 Chevalier Cobbold. 
 
 These voters were objected to upon the grounds 
 of non-residence and insufficient occupation. 
 
 Sir Walter Riddell, the revising barrister, committee 
 was called as a witness by the petitioners, and will not in- 
 on being asked as to what ]\Ir. J. C. Cobbold ^ote* unless 
 said with respect to his vote, htvl been 
 
 ]Mr. Serjt. Kinglake objected to the question expressly" 
 being asked, until the preliminary point, namely, decided^ 
 whether the vote had been retained upon the list revising 
 
 hftrristpr. 
 
 barrister. 
 
 {a) F. & F. 353. 
 
30-i ELECTION CASES. 
 
 by the decision of the revising barrister, had 
 been determined. 
 
 Mr. James and Mr. Phinn supported their 
 right to put the question. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake replied. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That before the 
 Committee will enter into the case of any vote 
 decided upon by the revising barrister, they 
 require evidence that the vote was specially re- 
 tained or expunged from, or inserted in, the 
 list by his express decision, except that the Com- 
 mittee will receive evidence of any legal dis- 
 qualification arising since the 31st July, 1850." 
 
 It appeared that the voters had been objected 
 to before the revising barrister, upon the grounds 
 of non-residence and insufficient occupation ; 
 and that he, having heard evidence and the 
 parties on both sides, decided that the names 
 should be expunged from the list. It appeared, 
 however, that he had not at the time struck out 
 the names from the list, in accordance with his 
 usual practice; hxii that upon the following morn- 
 ing the agents on both sides came to an arrange- 
 ment, by which it was agreed that the objections 
 should be withdrawn, and the votes retained. 
 May 8. ^^- J",''^^^ admitted that he was in a con- 
 dition to enter into the merits of the voters' 
 qualification. 
 
 Counsel on both sides having been heard. 
 The Committee resolved, " That the evidence 
 adduced before the Committee has not esta- 
 
BOROUGH OF HARWICH (IsT CASe). 305 
 
 blislied the fact that the votes of John Cobbold 
 and John Chevalier Cobbold were specially re- 
 tained oHj or expunged from, or inserted in the 
 register by the express decision of the revising 
 barrister." Ayes, 3; Mr. ToHemache, Mr. 
 Seymer, Mr. Mullings : Noes, 3 ; Mr. Vernon 
 Smith, Mr. Berkeley. 
 
 Considerable discussion arose with regard to Practice as 
 the examination of the revising barrister. Upon '" facing 
 
 . ° '■ and exa- 
 
 ms bemg asked by the counsel for the peti- mining 
 
 tioners as to what took place before him in the ['"'^{"J^^ 
 revision court, with reference to the expimging 
 or retaining of these votes, he stated that he 
 had no objection to communicate to the Com- 
 mittee the decisions at which he had arrived, 
 with a view to assist them in determining their 
 jurisdiction to inquire into any particular vote, 
 but protested, inasmuch as he held a judicial 
 office, against being called as an ordinary wit- 
 ness to prove facts which were given in evidence 
 before him, and which were capable of proof by 
 other parties. 
 
 The Committee declined to stop the examina- 
 tion of the witness, leaving him to object to 
 any particular question which he desired not to 
 answer. 
 
 On a subsequent day (May 13th), it was pro- 
 posed by Mr. Serjt. Kinglake to call Sir W. 
 RiddeU, for the purpose of ascertaining from 
 him whether any and what objection was made 
 before him to the vote of John Horlock, and he 
 
306 
 
 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Facts in- 
 sufficient 
 to consti- 
 tute resi- 
 dence. 
 
 May 10. 
 
 applied to the Committee for a fresh summons 
 to compel his attendance. 
 
 Mr. Phinn stated, that if Sir W. Riddell 
 were calledj it would be necessary for him to 
 examine him as to a variety of details, in order 
 to bring the facts to his recollection. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That the counsel 
 for the sitting member should call some witness 
 or witnesses who were present at the registra- 
 tion, to answer or contradict the evidence given 
 on behalf of the petitioners, before the revising 
 barrister is examined on the question now be- 
 fore the Committee; and that if any doubt 
 should then exist on the minds of the Com- 
 mittee, they will examine the revising barrister 
 for such explanation as they may deem neces- 
 sary." 
 
 John Attwood's Case. 
 
 This voter was objected to on the ground of 
 non-residence. The vote had been objected to 
 before the revising barrister upon the same 
 ground, but retained by him in consequence 
 of the arrangement between the parties already 
 referred to. 
 
 It appeared that the house which is called 
 " HoUy Lodge " was furnished ; that the gar- 
 dener and his wife lived there and took care of 
 it for two years, and that they left off sleeping 
 there at Christmas, 1850, and went to live at 
 the lodge, which, with a meadow, the gardener 
 had hired of Mr. Attwood. Since Christmas 
 
BOROUGH OF HARWICH (IST CASE) . 307 
 
 no one had lived at Holly Lodge, neither did 
 the gardener ever know of Mr. Attwood during 
 that period of two years sleeping in the house. 
 Neither the gardener or his wife received wages, 
 but they were allowed to make what they could of 
 the produce of the garden. They stiU looked 
 after the house, the wife lighting the fires and 
 airing the beds, Mr. Attwood paying for coals. 
 
 Mr. Phinn was heard against the vote. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake in its support. 
 
 The Committee resolved, that the vote was 
 bad. 
 
 Vote struck ofl'. 
 
 Paid Agents. 
 Edward Chapman's Case. 
 
 This voter was objected to on the grovmd of Vote of a 
 being a paid agent. Mr. Chapman was town JJ'™^"^'^'''' 
 clerk of the borough of Harwich. After the been paid 
 election was over he sent ia an account to the ^^^ ^^ 
 candidates, headed, " Expenses incurred by the penses with 
 Mayor in the Election, &c.," and containing, m ^^ ^^^ ^■^^^_ 
 addition to other items, this item, "Town clerk's tion held 
 
 .1 good. 
 
 costs and expenses, 9/. 19*. ^d." Evidence was 
 given by Mr. PownaU, who had been under- 
 sheriff of SuffoDc, that it was usual in all the 
 boroughs of that county for the candidates to 
 pay a fee of five guineas to the town clerk for 
 his trouble and loss of time, which was probably 
 included in the sum of Ql. 19«. ^d. 
 The voter was not examined. 
 
308 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Mr. James, against the vote. — This was a fee 
 which the town clerk had no right to claim. 
 He was clearly employed during the last elec- 
 tion, and for the purposes of that election, and 
 he accepted, in reference to that employment, a 
 sum of money from the candidate. He was 
 therefore disqualified from voting hy virtue of 
 the 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 37. He cited the Wind- 
 sor case {a). 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake. — This was a bill of the 
 mayor's, not of the town clerk's. The town 
 clerk is not employed by the candidates but by 
 the mayor ; and the payment by the mayor of 
 the legitimate expenses incurred by the town 
 clerk does not work a disqualification under the 
 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 37. 
 
 Vote retained. 
 
 Chakles Sparrow's Case. 
 
 To qualify T^ie voter was objected to on the ground that 
 
 house and his Occupation was of insufficient value. 
 
 ^X^^^r "^® ^^^ been objected to at the registration 
 
 of Reform for 1849, when the revising barrister had decided 
 
 neeVno^ Upon retaining the vote; a statement of facts 
 
 be contigu- was then agreed upon for the opinion of the 
 
 Court of Common Pleas. The appeal, however, 
 
 was not proceeded with, but the voter was again 
 
 objected to at the registration for 1850. It was 
 
 then agreed by the agents on both sides, that 
 
 this statement of facts should be taken to be 
 
 {a) E. & O. 185. 
 
BOKOUGH or HARWICH (IST CASE). 309 
 
 the existing state of things on July 31, 1850. 
 The revising barrister decided to retain the vote. 
 By the statement of facts, which was put in, it 
 appeared that the voter occupied for the time 
 required by the 27th section of the Act 2 Will. 
 IV. c. 45, a cottage standing upon an incon- 
 siderable piece of land, and also another more 
 considerable piece of land, being a quarter of an 
 acre, situated fifty yards from the cottage, which 
 cottage and two pieces of land were all held by 
 the voter under the same landlord, and were de- 
 mised to him at one and the same time. The 
 said cottage and two pieces of land were to- 
 gether of the value of 101. per annum ; but the 
 cottage and piece of land on which it stood were 
 not of the value of 101. per annum. The said 
 quarter of an acre of land could be approached 
 from the cottage only along a public high road, 
 or by a public footpath. 
 
 Mr. Phinn, against the vote. — Under the 27th 
 section of the Reform Act, it is necessary that 
 all the land should be contiguous to the building. 
 In the present case the larger portion of the 
 land occupied was altogether separated from 
 that portion which was occupied with the cottage. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake, contra. 
 
 Vote retained. 
 
 John Horlock's Case. ^ j2 
 
 The ground of objection was, that the voter where re- 
 was not in the occupation of a house of sufficient ''^^^^l 
 
 value. expressly 
 
310 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 decided on The evidence given, with reference to this 
 avote,Com- ^^ before the revising barrister, was to the 
 
 mittee will ' i 
 
 inquire into following effect : — There had been a recent 
 vote' gene- valuation made at Harwich on behalf of the 
 rally. parish, and many houses which had been rated 
 at 10/. were now assessed at a rental considerably 
 below that sum. A class of voters of this de- 
 scription, of which Horlock was one, and who 
 paid 10/. a year rent, was singled out, and the 
 question discussed before the barrister was, whe- 
 ther the recent assessment which had been made 
 was to be taken as deciding the voter's qualifica- 
 tion, or whether the qualification was to be the 
 actual bona fide amoimt of rent paid. The bar- 
 rister decided that the actual amount of rent 
 paid should be the criterion of value. The evi- 
 dence, however, was not clear, as to whether, in 
 accordance with an alleged understanding be- 
 tween Pownall and Lawrence, the agents of 
 the respective parties, before going before the 
 barrister, this was to be the sole question to 
 be raised before him, or whether the more ge- 
 neral question, that the house occupied was of 
 insufficient value, was also raised. 
 May 13. Mr. James now proposed to give general evi- 
 dence that the house in question was of less than 
 the requisite value. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake contended that the peti- 
 tioners were restricted to the question actually 
 raised before the barrister, — contending, that 
 upon the evidence the only question raised before 
 the barrister was, as to whether the criterion of 
 
BOROUGH OF HARWICH (IST CASE.) SH 
 
 value was to be according to the assessment, or 
 according to the rent bona fide paid. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That in cases 
 where an express decision on a vote was made ■ 
 by the revising barrister, the Committee will 
 inquire into and decide upon the right to vote 
 generally." 
 
 The case was then proceeded with, and evi- 
 dence as to the actual value of the voter's house 
 given. 
 
 After hearing which, the Committee decided 
 that the vote was good. 
 
 Vote retaiued. 
 
 Other votes having been struck off, and Mr. May 17. 
 Crawford being now in a majority on the poll. Petitioner 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Kinglake applied to the Committee placed in a 
 to direct that the counsel for the petitioners "^j""'? "" 
 
 scrutiny, 
 
 should either now proceed with their allegation of Committee 
 the disqualification of Mr. Prinsep, on the ground (.q^'"'] ^°„, 
 of bribery by his agents, or abandon it, before then to go 
 the counsel for Mr. Prinsep proceeded to impugn o"'bribe"y ^' 
 the votes given on behalf of Mr. Crawford. andtreating 
 
 Mr. James and Mr. Phinn were heard against tfng mem- 
 the application. ^"' '•"' 
 
 ^^ . allowed 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake replied. scrutiny to 
 
 The Committee declined to accede to the ap- ^1^^°^ 
 plication (a). with. 
 
 (o) Upon the room being cleared, it was moved : — 
 " That the counsel for the petitioners be called upon to 
 proceed now with the charge of bribery against Mr. 
 Prinsep, or to abandon it." On the question being 
 
313 
 
 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Although 
 sitting 
 member 
 disqualified 
 by resolu- 
 tion of 
 Committee, 
 not thereby 
 debarred 
 from at- 
 tacking 
 votes of 
 petitioner. 
 
 May 19. 
 
 Robert John Bagshaw's Case. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake proposed to strike off 
 this vote. 
 
 Mr. James objected to Mr. Serjt. Kinglake 
 proceeding to strike off any votes given for 
 Mr. Crawford, as Mr. Prinsep had been de- 
 clared by a resolution of the Committee to be 
 disqualified, and not duly elected a member. 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kinglake and Mr. Willes against 
 the objection. 
 
 Mr. James replied. 
 
 The Committee resolved, "That Mr. Serjt. 
 Kinglake do proceed with the scrutiny." 
 
 After evidence had been given against this 
 vote, and counsel on both sides heard, 
 
 The Committee decided that the vote was 
 bad. 
 
 Mr. Phinn then stated that it was not the in- 
 tention of the petitioners further to prosecute 
 the scrutiny. 
 
 Final reso- 
 lutions. 
 
 The Committee resolved : — 
 
 1. " That the last election of a burgess to 
 serve iu this present Parliament for the borough 
 of Harwich, is a void election." 
 
 put, the Committee divided: — Ayes, 2; Mr. ToUe- 
 mache, Mr. Mullings. Noes, 3 ; Mr. Vernon Smith, 
 Mr. Seymer, Mr. Berkeley. 
 
BOROUGH OF HARWICH (IST CASE). 313 
 
 2. " That the Committee have altered the poll 
 taken at the last election, by striking off the 
 names of Alfred Read, John Attwood, Daniel 
 Dawson, Thomas Cutting, George Nalborough, 
 William Pinner, and Robert John Bagshaw, as 
 not having had a right to vote at such elec- 
 tion "(a). 
 
 (a) These resolutions, together with that in page 299, 
 were reported to the House. 
 
314 
 
 1851. CASE XXXIII. 
 
 BOROUGH OF HAEWICH. 
 
 (second case). 
 
 The Committee was appointed on the 10th of July, 1851, 
 and consisted of the foEowing Members : — 
 
 William Deedes, Esq., East Kent, 
 (Cliavrmmi). 
 
 John Fergus, Esq., Fifeshire. 
 Sir Henry Willoughby, Bart. 
 Evesham. 
 
 James Kershaw, Esq., Stock- 
 port. 
 
 George Arkwright, Esq., Leo- 
 minster. 
 
 PetiUoTiers : — Electors. 
 
 Sitting Member : — Eohert Wigram Crawford, Esq. 
 
 Counsel for Petitioners: — Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, and 
 Mr. EodweU. 
 
 Agent: — Mr. Elmslie. 
 
 Counsel for Sitting Member : — ^Mr. Edwin James, Q. C, 
 and Mr. Phinn. 
 
 Agent: — Mr. Coppock. 
 
 July 11. The usual preliminary resolutions were agreed 
 
 Prelimi- to (a). 
 nary resolu- 
 tions, rjj^g petition alleged that the petitioners are 
 etition. electors of the borough of Harwich, and were 
 (a) Ante, p. 260. 
 
BOROUGH OF HARWICH (2nD CASE) . 315 
 
 ntitled to vote and did vote at the last election 
 f a member to serve in Parliament for the said 
 lorough ; that the said election commenced on 
 he 27th day of May, 1851, and that Francis 
 •Reeling Hart, Esq., Mayor of the said borough, 
 ras the returning officer at the said election ; 
 hat Henry Thoby Prinsep, Esq., and Robert 
 rt'^igram Crawford, Esq.,* were the candidates at 
 he said election, and a poU having been de- 
 nanded was granted and proceeded with, and the 
 laid Robert Wigram Crawford was, by the said 
 Mayor and returning officer, declared to be 
 ;lected a member to serve in this present Parlia- 
 oaent for the said borough, and was returned 
 iccordiogly; that the petitioners voted at the 
 said election for the said Henry Thoby Prinsep ; 
 that the poUing at the said election commenced 
 before the said returning officer, at eight of the 
 clock in the forenoon of the said 28th day of 
 May, being the day next following the day fixed 
 for the said election, but that the poU was finally 
 closed by the said returning officer before four of 
 the clock on the afternoon of the same day ; that 
 the poll was prematurely and unlawfully closed Premature 
 by the said returning officer before the expiration poU. 
 of the time fixed by law, without any sufficient 
 cause for or notice of such closing; that after- 
 wards, and after the said closing of the poll 
 on the said 28th day of May, the said returning 
 officer declared that the said Robert Wigram 
 Crawford had 133 votes, and the said Henry 
 Thoby Prinsep had 127 votes, and thereupon 
 
316 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 that the said Robert Wigram Crawford was duly 
 elected a member to serve in Parliament for the 
 said borough; that at the time when the said 
 poU was so closed a large number of voters of 
 and for the said borough, and who were entitled 
 to vote at the said election, remained unpolled ; 
 that by reason of the poU being so improperly 
 and unlawfully closed, several voters of the said 
 borough were prevented from giving their votes 
 for the said Henry Thoby Prinsep, as they would 
 have done had the poU. been kept open until the 
 proper time allowed by law for polling ; that 
 persons entitled by law to tender votes at the 
 said election, and who were ready to have ten- 
 dered the same for the said Henry Thoby Prin- 
 sep, were by the irregular and undue closing of 
 the said poll prevented from so tendering their 
 votes ; that by the said improper and unlawful 
 closing of the poU, divers persons who were en- 
 titled to vote at the said election, and exceeding 
 in number the majority declared to have been 
 polled for the said Robert Wigram Crawford 
 remained unpolled, and were thereby deprived of 
 the opportunity and right of voting at the said 
 election, and that by reason of the premises 
 aforesaid, the said election was and is null and 
 void; that the proceedings at the said election 
 were, before the said final closing of the said 
 poll, interrupted and obstructed by open vio- 
 lence, and that the said returning officer ought 
 not to have finally closed the pollj but was 
 bound by law to have adjourned the same until 
 
BOROUGH OF HARWICH (2nD CASE). 317 
 
 the following day, and that by reason thereof the 
 said election for the said borough was and is null 
 and void. 
 
 It contained also charges of bribery and treat- Briberyand 
 ing against the sitting member and his agents, *'"«*"|'g- 
 and prayed a scrutiny and the seat for Mr. ' 
 Prinsep. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Kinglake opened two cases of in bribery 
 bribery, and delivered in a list containing fifteen ''*'* ""' 
 
 •" o_ necessary 
 
 cases of bribery, but it did not state time or to state 
 
 1 time or 
 
 place. plaee. 
 
 Mr. Phinn objected that the list was not suffi- 
 ciently specific, as it did not state time and 
 place, and that all the cases of bribery ought to 
 be opened. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Kinglake contended that it was not 
 necessary to open any cases at all, and that the 
 present list was in conformity with the general 
 practice. 
 
 The Committee were of opinion that the list 
 satisfied the requirements of the resolution, but 
 that it would be convenient for counsel for the 
 petitioners to state the cases with which they 
 proposed to proceed, and that the Committee 
 woiild consider the remainder, if any, withdrawn 
 from the list. 
 
 A list containing five names was handed in on 
 the following morning. 
 
 The writ, return, and poU-books, were re- 
 ceived in evidence. 
 
318 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 On evidence being called on behalf of the pe- 
 titioners, 
 Signature Mr. James submitted, that under the 11 & 13 
 of petition- yip^. c. 98, sect. 2, it must be first proved that 
 cessaryto the petition was subscribed by the individuals 
 be proved, ij^jiose names it bears. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Kinglake contended, that the peti- 
 tion having been regularly referred to the Com- 
 mittee by the proper authorities, it must be 
 treated by them as regular, the time for inquir- 
 ing into its regularity being before its reference 
 to the Committee. 
 
 The Committee overruled the objection. 
 
 July 12. It appeared from the evidence that a voter of 
 the name of Woods went to the poU four or five 
 minutes before four o'clock ; that the returning 
 officer was there with the clerks and poll-books ; 
 that the witness tendered his vote for Mr. Prin- 
 sep ; and that while the poll-clerk was writing 
 down his name, a disturbance took place and 
 the proceedings were interrupted by the mob, 
 who, in accordance with a local custom, con- 
 sidered themselves entitled to the hustings when 
 the poUwas closed; that during some discussion 
 as to administering the bribery oath, a cry was 
 raised that "Time is up;" that the hustings 
 were speedily demolished; that the Mayor re- 
 fused to take the vote, and that the poll was 
 finally closed before four o'clock in the afternoon. 
 Mr. Rodwell was proceeding to sum up the 
 evidence on this branch of the inquiry. 
 
BOROUGH OF HARWICH (2nd CASE). 319 
 
 Mr. James objected to such a course. — The Where 
 whole case had been opened^ and ought to be p''''»° »i- 
 exhausted, before he was called upon to an- lawful cios- 
 swer it. ingofpoii, 
 
 - . . andprayed 
 
 Mr. Serjt. Kmglake, m support of the course » scrutiny, 
 proposed.— If this question were decided in his ^iTdhpoTe 
 favour, the inquiry would at once terminate. °^ ^'^t 
 
 The Committee resolved, " That the counsel before°pro- 
 for the petitioners do proceed to close their case <'««'i'"g 
 
 ,1 j2 11 -PI • . vuh scru- 
 
 on the tiTst allegation of the petition, viz. the tiny. 
 premature and unlawful closing of the poU." 
 Ayes, 4 : Mr. Fergus, Sir H. WiUoughby, Mr. 
 Arkwright, Mr. Deedes. Noe, 1 : Mr. Ker- 
 shaw. 
 
 Mr. Rodwell, in summing up, contended that Ji^'y l<- 
 the election was void, inasmuch as the returning of s^^' g°* 
 officer ought to have adjourned the poll, under Wiii. 4, c. 
 the 5 & 6 Wm. IV. c. 36, s. 8, which also to adjourn! 
 prohibits his finally closing it ; that the negative ™6"' ^nd 
 words there used rendered the statute impera- pou in case 
 tive; and rehed on the iudgment of Lord °'^"''.'™" 
 
 "' ^ . . peratire 
 
 Tenterden in H. v. Leicester (a) as pointing and not di- 
 out the distinction between imperative and ""'•"'y- 
 directory enactments. With reference to the 
 question, "What language will make a statute 
 imperative, if the 54 Geo. III. c. 84, be not 
 so? Lord Tenterden remarked, "Negative 
 words would have given it that effect ; but those 
 used are in the affirmative only." 
 
 (a) 7 B. & C. 12. 
 
320 
 
 ELECTION CASES. 
 
 Mr. Phinn, for the sitting member, without 
 admitting the facts as deposed to by the peti- 
 tioners' witnesses, argued that the 5 & 6 Will. 
 IV. c. 36, s. 8, which provides that the polling 
 should commence at eight, and that no poll 
 should be kept open later than four of the clock 
 in the afternoon, merely prohibited the conti- 
 nuance of the polling beyond a certain hour, 
 without positively directing that it should re- 
 main open until that hour ; that the discre- 
 tion which was vested in the returning officer 
 before the Reform Act still continued in him. 
 He relied also on the Limerick case [a) and the 
 Roxburgh case {b). 
 
 Evidence was then called on behalf of the 
 sitting member, to show that the poll was not 
 closed before four o'clock. 
 
 Mr. Seijt. Kinglake having replied. 
 
 The Committee came to the following re- 
 solutions : — 
 Final reso- 1. "That iu the opinion of the Committee 
 the evidence adduced shows that at the last elec- 
 tion for a burgess to serve in this present Parlia- 
 ment for the borough of Harwich the poll was 
 closed before four of the clock." 
 
 3. " That the evidence shows the proceedings 
 at the said election to have been interrupted and 
 obstructed by open violence." 
 
 3. " That ia consequence of such interruption 
 
 (a) P. L K, 355. (6) F. & F. 502. 
 
BOROUGH OF HARWICH (2nd CASE.) 321 
 
 and obstruction by open violence, James Woods, 
 an elector of the borough of Harwich, who 
 tendered his rote, was prevented recording the 
 same." 
 
 4. "That the last election of a burgess to 
 serve in this present Parliament for the borough 
 of Harwich, is a void election." 
 
 5. "That the returning officer should not 
 finally have closed the poll." 
 
 6. " That Robert Wigram Crawford, Esq., is 
 not duly elected a burgess to serve in this pre- 
 sent Parliament for the borough of Har- 
 wich" («). 
 
 Evidence was not gone into on the remaining 
 allegations in the petition. 
 
 (a) Resolutions 4 and 6 were reported to the House. 
 The Committee divided on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th reso- 
 lutions. Ayes, 4: Mr. Fergus, Sir H. WiUoughby, 
 Mr. Arkwright, Mr. Deedes. Noe, 1 : Mr. Kershaw. 
 
 p3 
 
INDEX. 
 
 A. 
 ADDITIONS, 
 
 refused to be made to lists of treating, no reference to the places 
 sought to be added having been made in opening speech of pe- 
 titioner's counsel, 134. 
 
 ADJOURNMENT, 
 
 on unexpected decision of Committee, 27. 
 
 refused on ground that witnesses had not yet been examined by 
 London agent, 42. 
 
 granted in order that agents on both sides might agree upon cases 
 to be given up, 152. 
 
 reftised for purpose of obtaining evidence to show that witness was 
 too infirm to attend, 161. 
 
 leave for obtained by Committee, to enable petitioners to procure 
 witnesses, from Ireland for fresh branch of case, 204. 
 
 granted, to give time for production of poll-books, 210. 
 
 provisions of 5 & 6 Will. TV. c. 36, s. 8, as to, in case of riot, im- 
 perative and not directory, 319. 
 
 AFFIDAVIT OF REGISTRY, 
 
 sufficient proof of voter being on register, without production of 
 certificate of registration, 141. 
 
 original evidence of right to vote, 194. 
 
 produced by clerk of peace, admissible in evidence, although hand- 
 writing of assistant barrister before whom it was sworn not 
 proved, 194. 
 
 previous, allowed to be given in evidence when the voter voted on 
 one given within six months of teste of writ, 199. 
 
 AGENCY, 
 
 repeated acts of canvassing with sitting members held to consti- 
 tute ^^VBifJ/beJe case of, 4. 
 
324 INDEX. 
 
 AGENCY — contimued. 
 
 other acts sufficient to establish prwiA facie case of, 5, 251. 
 
 acts held sufficient to constitute, 44. 
 
 acts insufficient to establish a primd facie case of, 52, 212, 222. 
 
 evidence of treating not allowed to be given before proof of, 134. 
 176. 
 
 must be proved aliunde before treating, 219. 
 
 before proof of evidence of orders given for refreshment, not al- 
 lowed to be given, 250. 
 
 agency to be proved before treating, 263. 
 
 where cannot be separated &om treating, not necessary to prove 
 in the &st instance, 271. 
 
 AGENT, 
 
 who had been charged with treating, and whom counsel pro- 
 posed to call as witness, not allowed to remain in Committee- 
 room, 254. 
 
 conversation with. See Conveesation . 
 
 ALIEN, 
 
 son of a natural bom subject of Great Britain, although bom in 
 America of an American mother, not an alien, 92. 
 
 ANNUITY, 
 
 from Bengal Civil Service Annuity Fund, does not confer qualifica- 
 tion under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 48, 292. 
 
 APPLOTMENT, 
 
 in order to make a demand of borough rate valid, collector must 
 be proved to have had copy of, under 9 Geo. IV. c. 82, s. 40, 
 195. 
 
 ATTESTING WITNESS, 
 
 must be called to prove marriage before the r^istrar, 161. 
 
 B. 
 BOROUGH RATE, 
 
 to be due and payable, demand necessary, 195. 
 under the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 108, a mnnicipal cess, 194. 
 to make a demand of, valid, collector must be proved to have had 
 warrant and copy of applotment, under 9 Geo. IV. c. 82, s. 
 40, 195. 
 
INDEX. 325 
 
 BRIBERY, 
 
 when petition alleges, and also prays a scrutiny, Committee will 
 
 compel charges of to be proceeded with before scrutiny, 26. 
 loan accepted by voter on understanding that he would support 
 
 the lender's party in the borough, bribery, 38. 
 conversation as to, with a voter alleged to have been bribed, 
 
 evidence, although not taking place in the presence of the 
 
 sitting member or an agent, 50. 
 when charges of abandoned, costs allowed, 114. 
 where on dose of petitioner's case, dtting members and agents 
 
 acquitted of, counsel directed to rebut agency and treating, 
 
 135. 
 in petition on ground of, in order to entitle petitioners to costs 
 
 from the sitting member, there must be dear proof of know- 
 ledge of the circumstances on his part, 186. 
 where char^ of abandoned by counsel in his opening. Committee 
 
 refiised to let. in evidence of an act of bribery, 219. 
 at former elections, allowed to be gone into, 225. 
 when candidates disqualified for, at former elections, votes at 
 
 ensuing election not thrown away, 235. 
 scmtdny entered into before charge of, 300. 
 lists of, need not state time or place, 317. 
 See also CoinTEBSiTiON, Costs, Ettdbncb, Lists, Peacticb. 
 
 C. 
 
 CANDIDATE, 
 
 not admissible as a witness, 34. 
 
 CANVASSING, 
 
 repeated acts of, with candidate, primd facie ^ency, 4. 
 
 CERTIFICATE 
 
 of registry necessary where a voter having parted with his quali- 
 fication, had resumed it, 97. 
 
 of r^istry duly signed, sufScient proof of petitioner's right to 
 
 vote, 210. 
 
 CLASS, 
 
 of objections, one to be exhausted before another entered upon, 
 
 303. 
 
 CLERK OF PEACE. See Poll-Books. 
 
326 INDEX. 
 
 COMMITTEE. See Peactice. 
 
 witness recalled by, after case closed on both sides, 267. 
 COMPROMISE, 
 
 powers of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, s. 1, as to, exercised, 110. 
 
 CONTRACTOE. See Govebnment Conteaotor. 
 CONVERSATION, 
 
 with a voter alleged to have been bribed, admissible in evidence, 
 
 50. 
 by an alleged agent with a voter, admissible in evidence, 184. 
 with alleged agent, allowed to be given in evidence, when, 229. 
 between voter who received, and party who gave refreshment 
 ticket, admissible in evidence, 269. 
 CORRUPT INFLUENCES, 
 
 where a voter has voted under, name struck off the poll, 21. 
 COSTS, 
 
 when refused, 133, 137, 142. 
 
 not awarded to a person not a sitting member, or petitioner 
 against whom a charge of bribery has been made, but aban- 
 doned, 34. 
 will not be awarded in respect to particular cases of bribery, which 
 
 have been abandoned, 67. 
 awarded by Committee on charge of bribery abandoned, although 
 
 election void on other groirads, 114. 
 to entitle petitioners to, there must be clear proof of knowledge 
 of the circumstances on part of sitting member, 186. 
 COUNSEL, 
 
 one only heard on each side, on arguing objection, 151, 210. 
 
 D. 
 
 DECLARATION, 
 
 of voter alleged to have been bribed admissible in evidence, 16, 29. 
 of voter alleged to have voted under undue Influence respecting a 
 
 statement made by a third person, admissible in evidence, 32. 
 of voter alleged to have been bribed, to an alleged agent, where 
 
 name of latter did not appear in the bribery lists handed into 
 
 Committee, not admissible in evidence, 68. 
 of a party at time of giving a refreshment ticket, admissible in 
 
 evidence, 217. 
 
INDEX. 327 
 
 DUChARATlON— continued. 
 
 of party who had ^ven refreshment ticket, upon the same being 
 brought back to Wm, admissible in evidence without ticket itself 
 being produced, 218. 
 
 of party not proved to be an agent at time of canvassing a voter, 
 admissible in evidence, 221. 
 
 by voter alleged to have been bribed, made at the time of giving 
 up the money to an agent of opposite party, admissible in evi- 
 dence, 249. , 
 
 of wife of voter alleged to have been bribed at the time of pro- 
 ducing the money given, admissible in evidence, 266. 
 DECLARATION OF QUALIFICATION, 
 
 omitted to be made by sitting member, 95. 
 
 notice served upon sitting member to subscribe, bad where fees 
 prescribed by 1 & 2 Vict. c. 48, not tendered, 120. 
 
 sitting member not allowed to pray in aid of his qualification, 
 any property not included in, 13, 122. 
 
 DEMAND, 
 
 necessary to make borough rate under Irish Municipal Reform 
 Act due and payable, 195. 
 
 of such borough rate not valid, unless collector proved to have 
 had warrant and copy of applotmeut, under 9 Geo. IV. c. 82, 
 ». 40, 195. 
 
 of paving rate of the city of Dublin, necessary, 196. 
 
 a demand of paving rate of city of Dublin, sufficient if made 
 three months before election, 198. 
 
 necessary in case of the grand jury cess for the city of Dublin, 
 200. 
 DIRECTORT, 
 
 provisions of 6 Vict. t. 18, s. 93, as to poll-books are, 262. 
 
 provifflons of 5 & 6 WiU. IV. c. 36, s. 8, as to adjournment and 
 dose of poll, in case of riot, 319. 
 DISQUALIFICATION, 
 
 to render a vote bad on ground that voter had received parochial 
 relief, sufficient to show that he was relieved in union work- 
 house, without proof of charge to any particular parish, 153. 
 
 a voter applying for relief to parish officers, and employed by 
 them under order of board of guardians, and paid for such 
 work under the usual rate of wages, is disqualified, 156. 
 
328 INDEX. 
 
 DISQUALIFICATION— eoBiswed. 
 
 parochial relief given to voter after the teate of the writ, and 
 
 before polling, disqualifies him, 160. 
 existing at time of registration, and voter not objected to before 
 
 revising barrister. Committee refuse to inquire into vote, 169. 
 of sitting member for bribery and treating at former election, 
 
 at which an unsuccessful candidate, 235, 256. 
 of candidate, notice to electors of, 245. 
 of extra or glut tide-waiter, 300. 
 
 DUBLIN, 
 
 the paving-rate of, a municipal cess, and some demand of payment 
 
 or notice necessary in order to disqualify voter, 196. 
 demand of paving-rate of, sufficient if made three months before 
 
 the election, 198. 
 for non-payment of the grand jury cess of, to disqualify voter some 
 
 evidence of demand of payment or notice necessary, 200. 
 the warrant of collector of Wide Street cess should disclose 
 
 authority under which rate is raised ; if it do not, book f 
 
 collector and warrant not admissible in evidence, 202. 
 to prove voter in arrear of Wide Street, cess of, warrant of collector 
 
 containing assessment must be produced, 203. 
 pipe-water rent of, not a municipal cess, 204. 
 
 DURESS, 
 
 witness under, examined, 284. 
 
 E 
 EVIDENCE, 
 
 recriminatory, inadmissible unless for the purpose of impeaching 
 
 the credit 6{ witness, unless seat prayed, 3. 
 declaration of voter alleged to have been bribed admissible in, 16, 
 
 29. 
 parties allowed to go into, of transaction which took place two 
 
 years previously, on undertaking to show its connection with 
 
 inquiry before Committee, 31. 
 declaration of a voter alleged to have voted under undue influence 
 
 respecting a statement made by a third person admissible, 32. 
 of bribery by petitioners allowed to be given, although seat not 
 
 prayed, avowed object of examination being to discredit 
 
 witness, 51. 
 
INDEX. 329 
 
 EVIDENCE— co«<tn«ed. 
 
 of act of bribery by one not named in list inadmissible, 77. 
 conversation by an alleged agent with a voter, when admissible 
 
 in evidence before agency proved, 184. 
 of treating, not allowed to be given before agency proved, 134, 
 
 176. 
 must be confined to particular case before Committee in scru- 
 tiny, 155. 
 previous aiEdavit of registry when admissible in, to prove right to 
 
 vote, 199. 
 where a party not proved to be an agent canvassed a voter, giving 
 
 him at the time a refreshment tidcet, his declaration at the 
 
 time of giving such ticket admissible in, 217. 
 declaration by party who had given refreshment ticket, upon the 
 
 same bmng brought back to him admissible in, without ticket 
 
 itself being produced, 218. 
 of act of bribery not allowed to be given where charge of bribery 
 
 hod been abandoned on part of petitioner's counsel in his 
 
 opening statement, 219. 
 declaration of a party not proved to be an agent at time of can- 
 vassing a voter, admissible in, 221. 
 of bribery and treating at former elections allowed to be given, 
 
 225, 242. 
 the name of the petitioner appearing on the poll book sufficient 
 
 evidence of right to petition, 227. 
 of conversation with an alleged agent allowed to be given before 
 
 agency proved, 229. 
 of identity of poll books, 248. 
 declaration by a voter alleged to have been bribed, made at the 
 
 time of giving up the money to an agent of opposite party, ad- 
 missible in, 249. 
 of orders given for refreshment not allowed to be given before 
 
 agency proved, 250. 
 of treating not allowed to be given where agent of sitting member 
 
 had repudiated sitting member's liability to pay for same, 254. 
 of treating at a public-house not mentioned in list inadmissible, 
 
 265. 
 declaration of wife of a voter alleged to have been bribed at the 
 
 time of producing the money given, admissible in, 266. 
 conversation between voter who received, and pai-ty who gave re- 
 
330 INDEX. 
 
 EVIDENCE— co«fe'»«e(J. 
 
 refreshment ticket as a bribe, admissible in, without proof of 
 agency, 269. 
 of agency and treating, where they cannot be separated, not ne- 
 cessary to prove agency in first instance, 271. 
 See also Notice to Pboduob, Witness. 
 EXPENSE, 
 
 special resolutions that treating not at expense of sitting member, 
 59. 
 EXPENSES. 
 
 The feet of a third person having agreed to pay all the expenses 
 of petitioners, does not authorize Committee to stay progress of 
 petition, 85. 
 
 F. 
 
 PEES, 
 
 if not tendered, notice served upon sitting member to subscribe 
 declaration of qualification, bad, 120. 
 
 POEMER ELECTION, 
 
 bribery and treating at, allowed to be ^ven in evidence, 225, 242. 
 FREEMAN, 
 
 facts held sufficient to constitute residence, in case of, 167, 171. 
 PRIVOLOtrS AND VEXATIOUS, 
 
 where petition held, to be, 114. 
 
 G. 
 GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, 
 
 petition on ground of sitting member being, 60. 
 GRAND JURY CESS, 
 
 for nonpayment of, to disqualify, some evidence of demand of pay- 
 ment or notice necessary, 200. 
 
 H. 
 HANDWRITING, 
 
 witness who had been in room during proceedii^s, allowed to 
 
 ^ve evidence of, 86. 
 witness who had been in room after his examination, not allowed 
 
 to be recalled to give eridence of, 265. 
 
INDEX. 331 
 
 HANDWRITING— co»feK«/. 
 
 signature to notice under 1 Geo. IV. <;. 11, s. 5, need not be in 
 handwriting of party giving it, 211. 
 
 HEADING, 
 
 what sufficient, in case of list of objections, 147. 
 
 of petition, objection as to, not entertained by Committee, 279. 
 
 HOUSE AND LAND, 
 
 to qualify occupier of, they need not be contiguous, 308. 
 
 I. 
 IMPEEATIVE, 
 
 provisions of 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 36, s. 8, as to adjournment and 
 close of poll, in case of riot, imperative and not dwectory, 
 319. 
 
 IRELAND, 
 
 the son of a natural born subject of Great Britain, although born 
 in America of an American mother, is not an alien so as to 
 prevent his election for borough in, 92. 
 
 affidavit of returning officer of county in, a£ to verification of 
 poll-books, what sufficient, 140. 
 
 J. 
 JUDGMENT 
 
 recovered, operates as a specific charge upon all the land of the 
 person against whom it is recovered, 127. 
 
 L. 
 LISTS, 
 
 required to be given in under 7 & 8 Vict, c 103, ». 54, axe not 
 
 applicable to cases in which petition only for bribery, 15. 
 act of bribery by one omitted from bribery lists not allowed to 
 
 be given in evidence, 77. 
 where public-house has been accidentally omitted from list handed 
 
 in to Conunittee, but included in notice to other side, leave 
 
 given to insert it, 86. 
 giving names of forty-two persons as having bribed a voter, held 
 
 not in compliance with preliminary resolution, and ordered to 
 
 be amended, 100. 
 
333 INDEX. 
 
 LISTS — contimted. 
 
 additions refused to te made to treating lists, no reference to the 
 places sought to he added having been made in opening speech 
 of petitioner's counsel, 134. 
 evidence of treating at a public-house not mentioned in, iot 
 allowed to be given, 265. 
 LIST OP OBJECTIONS, 
 
 not specifying which of two persons of the same name on poll-book 
 was intended. Committee refused to entertain objection to vote, 
 97. 
 what sufficient compliance with 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103, s. 544 with 
 
 respect to, 147. 
 where voter's name misspelt in. Committee refused to entertain 
 objection to vote, 200. 
 LOAN, 
 
 where accepted by voters on the understanding that they would 
 support the lender's party in the borough, votes struck off, 38 
 LOST VOTES. See Votes. 
 
 M. 
 MAERIAGE, 
 
 proof of, before re^strar, 161. 
 
 MISNOMER, 
 
 fact of must be stated in the list of objections handed in, 199. 
 
 MXHSriCIPAL CESS, 
 
 a borough rate made under the Irish Mnnicipal Corporation Act, 
 
 a municipal cess, 194. 
 pipe-water rent not a munidpal cess, 204. 
 
 N. 
 NOTICE 
 
 to sitting member to make declaration of qualification, 95. 
 to sitting member to make declaration of qualification bad, if fees 
 prescribed by 1 & 2 Vict. c. 48, not tendered to him at the 
 time, 120. 
 under 1 Geo. IV. c. 11, s. 5, signature to, need not be in hand- 
 writing of party giving it, 211. 
 to electors, of disqualification of candidate, 234, 245, 277. 
 
INDEX. 333 
 
 yfOTICE— continued. 
 
 of election, under 3 & 4 Vict. c. 81, must be given three clear days 
 before day appointed for election, 113. 
 NOTICE TO PEODtJCE, 
 
 general, when sufficient, 64, 131. 
 
 " all printer's bills " sufficient to let in secondary evidence of an 
 account furnished by a printer to secretary of sitting member 
 for book, &c., furnished to an alleged agent of sitting member 
 for purpose of registration, VS. 
 
 0. 
 OBJECTIONS. See Lists. 
 
 where a voter has been objected to under one class of objections, 
 and Committee had come to a resolution that the vote should be 
 retained, the Committee will not hear any further objections to 
 such vote, 21. 
 where disqualification existed at the time of registration, and 
 voter not objected to before revising barrister. Committee will 
 not entertain objection to vote, 169. 
 to heading of petition not entertained, 279. 
 one class of, must he exhausted before another entered upon, 303. 
 OPENING REGISTER, 
 
 for a Scotch county refused, 141. 
 
 OPENING SPEECH. 
 
 additions refused to be made to lists of treating, no reference to 
 the places sought to be added having been made in opening 
 speech of petitioner's coimsel, 134. 
 
 P. 
 
 PAROCHIAL RELIEF, 
 
 to render a vote bad on ground of, sufficient to show that he was 
 relieved in union workhouse, without proof of charge to any 
 particular parish, 153. 
 
 where James T. was objected to on ground of, evidence of relieving 
 officer, that James T. who voted as James T. had received paro- 
 chial relief admitted, and vote struck off, 158. 
 
 given to voter after the teste of the writ, and before polling, dis- 
 qualifies him, 160. 
 
334 INDEX. 
 
 PAEOCHIAL RELIEF— co«<i««erf. 
 
 receipt of, by an nnemancipated child of voter, above the age of 
 sixteen years, does not disqualify him, 164. 
 
 PAVING RATE, 
 
 of CSty of Dublin, demand of, suiEcient, if made three months be- 
 fore the election, 198. 
 
 of CSty of Dublin a municipal cess, and some demand of payment 
 or notice necessary in order to disqualify voter, 196. 
 
 effect of demand of by collector's son, 197. 
 
 PETITION. See Stoett. 
 
 where alleged bribery and treating. Committee on close of peti- 
 tioner's case came to a resolution acquitting sitting member and 
 agents of bribery, and directed his counsel to apply himself to 
 rebuttal of charges of agency and treating, 135. 
 
 objection to heading of, not entertained, 279. 
 
 PETITIONER, 
 
 having claimed to vote, and having actually voted, sufficient, 72. 
 
 name of, appearing on register, when sufficient, 82. 
 
 if required, must prove right to vote, 215. 
 
 signature of, to petition, need not be proved, 318. 
 
 not a competent witness to prove his right to vote, 227. 
 
 allowed to be called as a witness, 238. 
 
 having been placed in a majority on scrutiny, Committee declined 
 to compel him then to go into a charge of bribery and treating 
 against sitting member, but allowed scrutiny to be proceeded 
 with, 311. 
 
 PIPE WATER RENT, 
 
 not a municipal tax, 204. 
 
 POLL, 
 
 parol evidence allowed to be given that it was incorrectly cast 
 
 up, 193. 
 where petition aBeged unlawful closing of, and prayed a scrutiny, 
 Committee will dispose of first question before proceeding 
 with scrutiny, 319. 
 provisions of 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 36, s. 8, as to adjournment and 
 close of, in case of riot, imperative and not directory, 319. 
 POLL BOOK, 
 
 want of a memorandum on, that the returning officer and his 
 
INDEX. 335 
 
 POLL BOOK— continued. 
 
 deputies had taken the oaths required by 35 Geo. III. c. 29, s. 
 9, does not affect their admissibility in evidence, 19. 
 
 where not sealed by one of the candidates, he having left borough 
 before return of state of poll, and returning officer had made 
 endorsement upon it to that eflfect, admitted in evidence, 28. 
 
 what sufficient identification of, 84, 248. 
 
 production of, for Irish borough, by derk of peace, when suf- 
 ficient, 91. 
 
 in an Irish election, affidavit of returning officer that " there were 
 several poll-books of the said election, upon which the return is 
 founded," sufficient verification of, 140. 
 
 where voter appeared in as " Lanley," and list of objections stated 
 name to be " Ladley," Committee refused to entertain objection 
 to vote, 200. 
 
 the name of the petitioner appearing on, sufficient evidence of 
 right to petition, 227. 
 
 provisions of 6 Vict. u. 18, o. 93, as to tender of to candidate, 
 directory, 262. 
 PRACTICE, 
 
 where decision has been given on a vote under one class of objec- 
 tions, no ftu^her objection will be entertained, 21. 
 
 as to costs, 34, 67, 114, 186. 
 
 although disqualification admitted, evidence of fact of member 
 being a Government contractor required, 60. 
 
 if witness not sworn. Committee will not interpose their au- 
 thority, 66. 
 
 a surety to petition a competent witness, 69. 
 
 evidence of an act of bribery on the part of one not named in lists 
 handed in to Committee inadmissible, 77. 
 
 a list givir^ names of forty -two persons as having bribed a voter, 
 held not in compliance with preliminary resolution, and or- 
 dered to be amended, 100. 
 
 powers of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 102, s. 1, as to compromise exercised, 110. 
 in list of treating cases, not necessary to state time, 133. 
 
 refusal to make additions to treating lists, no reference to the 
 places sought to be added having been made in opening speech 
 of counsel, 134. 
 
 where sitting members severed in their defences, and one only pro- 
 posed to call evidence in answer to petitioner's case, Committee 
 
336 INDEX. 
 
 VnACTlCE—coniimied. 
 
 refused to come to a detennination upon either case untU all 
 evidence before them, 135. 
 
 where petition alleged bribery and treating. Committee, on dose of 
 petitioner's case, came to a resolution acquitting sitting member 
 and agents of bribery, and directed his counsel to apply himself 
 to rebuttal of charges of agency and treating, 135. 
 
 on arguing objections, one counsel on each side only heard, 151, 
 210. 
 
 upon scrutiny, evidence must be confined to particular case be- 
 fore Committee, 155. 
 
 upon scrutiny, parties assailing vote restricted to one speech, 
 either in opening the case or summing up, 155. 
 [ where a petition involved an objection to sitting member's quali- 
 fication, as well as a scrutiny. Committee declined to interfere 
 to compel the petitioners to commence with objection to 
 quahfication, 193. 
 
 on application of counsel for sitting member. Committee ordered 
 that he should be furnished by counsel for petitioner with a 
 list of the twenty names to be next proceeded with, 196. 
 
 upon petition against member, on ground of want of qualification. 
 Committee refused to entertain question as to whether declara- 
 tion of qualification was in conformity with Act, until the whole 
 case of the alleged want of qualification was before them, 204. 
 
 petitioners, if required, must prove their right to vote, 215. 
 
 where charge of bribery had been abandoned on part of peti- 
 tioners by counsel in his opening statement. Committee refused 
 to let in evidence of an act of bribery, 219. 
 
 witness who had been in room during time of evidence being 
 given, allowed to be examined, 228. 
 
 a charge that parties had attempted to tamper with a witness 
 will not be inquired into by Committee as part of the case, 
 although Committee wUl, if advisable, conduct such an inquiry, 
 after the merits of the petition have been decided, without the 
 assistance of counsel, 230. 
 
 Committee vrill not, at suggestion of counsel for sitting member, 
 at the close of petitioner's case, intimate an opinion as to 
 whether any particular fact of the petitioner's case has been 
 made out, 254. 
 
 as to summing up sitting member's case, where some of the 
 
INDEX. 337 
 
 P'RACTlC^—continwed. 
 
 witnesses proposed to be called in reply are unavoidably 
 absent, 255. 
 
 scrutiny entered into before charges of bribery, 300. 
 
 one class of objections to be exhausted before another entered on 
 303. 
 
 as to calling and examining revising barrister, 305. 
 
 petitioner having been placed in a majority on scrutiny. Com- 
 mittee declined to compel bim then to go into charge of 
 bribery and treating against sitting member, but allowed scru- 
 tiny to be proceeded with, 311. 
 
 bribery lists, need not state time or place, 317 
 
 where petition alleged unlawful closing of poll, and prayed a scru- 
 tiny, Comnuttee disposed of first question before proceeding 
 with scrutiny, 319. 
 
 See ABJOTTENMBifT, Agenct, Bkibebt, EviDEirci;. 
 
 PRELIMINABT RESOLUTIONS, 1, 260. 
 
 PREVABICATION, 
 
 course pursued, where witness guilty of, 42. 
 
 where witness had been committed for. Committee refused copy 
 
 of warrant of committal and evidence on which it was founded, 
 
 283. 
 
 PRIEST. 
 
 application refused to order out of the Committee-room a Roman 
 Catholic priest, on the ground that his presence might influence 
 the witnesses, 20. 
 
 PRrVILEGED COMMUNICATION. 
 
 instructions received by parliamentary agent &om solicitors to 
 the petition a privileged communication, 116. 
 
 QUALIFICATION, 
 
 The statute 1 & 2 Vict. c. 48, and subsequent repeal of the Stand- 
 ing Order, November 23, 1717, do not cast upon the sitting 
 member the burden of proving his qualification in the first in- 
 stance, 11. 
 
 where petition alleged want of, and prayed a scrutiny, Committee 
 
338 INDEX. 
 
 QUALIFICATION— co«<m«ed. 
 
 declined to interfere to compel petitioners to commence with 
 
 objection to qualification, 193. 
 upon petition against member for want of. Committee refused to 
 
 entertain question as to whether declaration of quaJification 
 
 was in conformity with Act until the whole case of the alleged 
 
 want of qualification was before them, 204. 
 annuity of lOOOZ. from the Bengal Civil Service Annuity Fund 
 
 is not sufficient under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 48, 292. 
 
 R. 
 RECOGNIZAlSrCES, 
 
 other allowed to be entered into where Committee satisfied by 
 evidence that irregularity in former recognizances not attri- 
 butable to laches of petitioners, 175. 
 
 under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103, held void, where each of two petitioners 
 had entered into a separate recognizance for 500Z., 175. 
 
 where vahdity of, under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 103, doubtful. Committee 
 allowed petitioner to enter into a fresh one under 11 Vict. c. 
 18, 181. 
 
 amended, 192. 
 
 RECEIMINATOEY EVIDENCE, 
 
 what not recriminatory evidence, 43. 
 
 REaiSTEE. See Petitionee. 
 for a Scotch county, final, 47. 
 
 voter appearing on, and not being objected to at revision, when 
 conclusive evidence of right to vote, 82. 
 
 REGISTRATION, 
 
 where disqualification existed at the time of, and voter not ob- 
 jected to before revising barrister. Committee will not enter- 
 tain objection to vote, 169. 303. 
 
 if voter objected to before revising barrister. Committee will 
 inquire generally into right to vote, 309. 
 
 REGISTRY, 
 
 certificate of, duly signed, sufficient proof of petitioner's right to 
 vote, 210. 
 
 RELIEF. See PAEOOHiAii Relief. 
 
INDEX. 3'39 
 
 RESIDENCE, 
 
 facts held sufficient to constitute in case of freeman, 167, 171. 
 sufficient to constitute, 306. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS, 
 
 preliminary, 1, 260. 
 
 special, that treating not at expense of sitting member, 59. 
 
 REVISING BARRISTER, 
 
 Committee will not inquire into vote unless shown to have been 
 
 expressly decided upon by, 303. 
 practice as to calling and examining, 305. 
 
 where vote expressly decided on by. Committee wUl inquire into 
 right to vote generally, 309. 
 
 RIGHT TO PETITION, 
 
 the name of the petitioner appearing on the poll-book sufficient 
 evidence of, 227. 
 
 RIGHT TO VOTE, 
 
 when register conclusive evidence of, 82. 
 
 where the affidavit of registry upon which the voter voted was 
 dated within six months of teste of writ, voter's previous affi- 
 davit of registry allowed to be given in evidence of, 199. 
 
 certificate of registry duly signed sufficient proof of, 210. 
 
 S. 
 
 SAME NAME, 
 
 where two persons of the same name on poll-book, but the list of 
 objections did not speciiy which of these was intended. Committee 
 refused to entertain objection to vote, 97. 
 
 SCRUTINY, 
 
 where petition alleges bribery and treating against sitting member 
 or his agents, and also prays a scrutiny. Committee will compel 
 charges both of bribery and treating to be proceeded with be- 
 fore scrutiny is entered upon, 26. 
 
 case of, not allowed to be gone into until charge of bribery and 
 treating on both sides disposed of, 28. 
 
 in case of, counsel in each case restricted to one speech, either in 
 opening the case or in summing up, 155. 
 
 <J2 
 
340 INDEX. 
 
 SCnVTmY—conUimed. 
 
 evidence must be confined to particular case before Committee, in, 
 155. 
 
 where a petition involved an objection to sitting member's quali- 
 fication as well as a scrutiny, Committee declined to interfere 
 to compel the petitioners to commence with objection to quali- 
 fication, 193. 
 
 on application of counsel for sitting member, Committee ordered 
 that he should be furnished by counsel for petitioners with a 
 list of the twenty names to be next proceeded with, 196. 
 
 entered upon, before charges of bribery, 300. 
 
 although sitting member disqualified by resolution of Committee, 
 not thereby debarred from attacking votes of petitioner, 312, 
 
 where petition alleged unlawful closing of poll, and prayed a scru- 
 tiny. Committee disposed of first question before proceeding 
 with scrutiny, 319. 
 
 SEVEKANCE OP DEFENCES, 
 
 where sitting members severed in their defences, and one only 
 proposed to call evidence in answer to petitioner's case. Com- 
 mittee refused to come to a determination upon either case 
 imtil all the evidence before them, 135. 
 
 SIGNATURE, 
 
 to notice, under 1 Geo. IV. c. 11, ». 5, need not be in handwriting 
 
 of party giving it, 211. 
 of petitioners, not necessary to be proved, 318. 
 
 SITTING MEMBER, 
 
 special resolution that toeating not at expense of, 59. 
 
 SURETY, 
 
 to petition, competent witness, 69. 
 
 TESTE OP THE WRIT, 
 
 parochial relief given to voter after and before polling disqaalifies 
 him, 160. 
 
 TIDE-WAITER, 
 
 disqualified from voting by 22 Geo. III. c. 41, 300, note. 
 
INDEX. 341 
 
 TOWN CLERK, 
 
 who has been paid his costs and expenses with reference to the 
 election, not disqualified, 307. 
 
 TKEATING, 
 
 where voter proved to have been treated, vote retained, 23. 
 on charge of, inquiry as to a particular entertainment not allowed 
 to be gone into until order for it shown to have been given by 
 candidate or his agent, 33. 
 acts sufficient to constitute, 44. 
 
 special resolution that treating not at expense of sitting mem- 
 ber, 59. 
 where public-house had been accidentally omitted from list of, 
 handed in to Committee, but included in notice to other side, 
 leave given to insert it, 86. 
 although admitted. Committee required evidence on which to 
 
 ground resolutions, 108. 
 additions refused to be made to lists of, no reference to the places 
 sought to be added having been made in opening speech of 
 petitioner's coimsel, 134. 
 evidence of, not allowed to be given before agency proved, 134, 
 
 176, 219, 263. 
 where petition alleged bribery and treating. Committee on close 
 of petitioner's case came to a resolution acquitting sitting mem- 
 ber and agents of bribery, and directed his counsel to apply 
 himself to rebuttal of charges of agency and treating, 135. 
 before proof of, agency must be proved aliimde, 219. 
 conversation with an alleged agent allowed to be given in evidence 
 before agency established, on ground that evidence of agency 
 in that particular case could not be separated from evidence of 
 treating, but such evidence to be considered as worthless unless 
 agency eventually established, 229. 
 evidence of orders given for refreshment, not allowed to be given 
 
 before agency proved, 250. 
 evidence of treating not allowed to be given where agent of sit- 
 ting member had repudiated sitting member's liability to pay 
 for same, 254. 
 evidence of, at a public-house not mentioned in list, not allowed 
 
 to be given, 265. 
 where evidence of agency and treating cannot be separated, not 
 necessary to prove agency in the &st instance, 271. 
 See Bbibebt, Lists, Peactice. 
 
342 INDEX. 
 
 V. 
 
 VERIFICATION, 
 
 of poll-books, what sufficient, 140. 
 
 VOTE, 
 
 bad, voter having received relief in Union Workhouse, although 
 no proof of chai'ge to any particular parish, 153. 
 
 where disqualification existed at the time of registration, and 
 voter not objected to before revising barrister. Committee will 
 not entertain objection to, 169. 
 
 Committee will not inquire into, unless shown to have been ex- 
 pressly decided upon by revising barrister, 303. 
 
 where revising barrister has expressly decided on. Committee will 
 inquire into right to vote generally, 309. 
 
 VOTER. 
 
 Where a voter had been objected to under one class of objections, 
 and Committee had come to a resolution that the vote should 
 be retained, Committee will not hear any further objections to 
 such vote, 21. 
 
 declaration by, alleged to have been bribed by an alleged agent, 
 where name of latter did not appear in the bribery lists handed 
 in to Committee, not admissible in evidence, 68. 
 
 conversation by an alleged agent with, proposed to be given in 
 evidence with a view of showing a corrupt contract with him, 
 admissible in evidence before agency proved, 184. 
 
 declaration of wife of, alleged to have been bribed at the time of 
 producing the money given, admissible in evidence, 266. 
 
 VOTES 
 
 not thrown away, 235. 
 thrown away, 256. 
 
 W. 
 WARRANT, 
 
 in order to make a demand of borough-rate valid, collector must 
 be proved to have had warrant and copy of applotmcnt, under 
 9 Geo. IV. c. 82, s. 40, 195. 
 of collector of Wide Street cess, of City of Dublin, should disclose 
 authority under which rate is raised; if it do not, book of 
 collector and warrant not admissible in evidence, 202. 
 
INDEX. 343 
 
 WARRANT— conimued. 
 
 to prove voter in arrear of Wide Street cess of City of Dublin, 
 warrant of collector containing assessment must be produced, 
 203. 
 
 WARRANT OF COMMITTAL. 
 
 Where witness had been committed for prevarication, Committee 
 refused copy of warrant of committal, and evidence on which 
 it was founded, 283. 
 
 WIDE STREET CESS, 
 
 the warrant of collector of, of City of Dublin, should disclose 
 authority under which rate is raised ; if it do not, book of col- 
 lector and warrant not admissible in evidence, 202. 
 to prove voter in arrear of, warrant of collector containing asses- 
 ment must be produced, 203. 
 
 WITNESS, 
 
 not bound to criminate himself by answering a question which 
 goes to charge him with having received money for his vote, 4, 
 
 compelled to answer question which he said would prejudice sit- 
 ting member, but would not criminate himself, 30. 
 
 candidate against wbom a personal charge of bribery has been 
 made, not admissible as, 34. 
 
 course pursued where a witness had prevaricated in giving his 
 evidence before the Committee, 42. 
 
 if not sworn. Committee will not interpose their authority, 66. 
 
 surety to^jetition competent, 69. 
 
 a person not a professional man, but a partner of sitting member, 
 permitted to remain in the room as agent, though he nught be 
 called as, 77. 
 
 who has been in room during proceedings allowed to prove hand- 
 writing, 86. 
 
 allowed to remain in room by consent of parties, 176. 
 
 petitioner not competent to prove his right to vote, 227. 
 
 who had been in the room during time that evidence was being 
 given, allowed to be examined, 228. 
 
 a charge that parties had attempted to tamper with, will not be 
 inquired into by Committee as part of the case, 230. 
 
 who had been in room for a short time, and had only heard 
 speeches of coimsel, allowed to be examined on a point not 
 opened by counsel, 253. 
 
344 INDEX. 
 
 WITNESS— contimted. 
 
 agent, who had been charged with treating, and whose counsel 
 proposed to call as witness, not allowed to remain in Committee- 
 room, 254. 
 
 who had been in room after his examination, not allowed to be 
 recalled to prove handwriting, 265. 
 
 recWled by Committee, after case closed on both sides, 267. 
 
 petitioner allowed to be called as, 283. 
 
 having been committed for prevarication. Committee refused copy 
 of warrant of committal, and evidence on which it was founded, 
 283. 
 
 under duress, examined, 284. 
 
 See Attesting- Witness, Evidbnob. 
 
 LONDON ! 
 
 stevens and co., pb1ntee5, bell yakd, 
 
 Lincoln's inn. 
 
 ,!"»