SWVITTIA "dC NATTA poe NVWOUVO" ‘W *V Joqq3neq puw ona sty Mg OOHOS 3H1 30 NVBG LSHId NVWdavogd ssv19n0qgd apanr dO AYOWAL NI £6g1 ‘FI Arenigs,; powoesaig puy = AJISIOATU Ni [[feusoz Jo APT Jo JOOYDS oY aod GASVHDaNd WOH}DAI10D VOW oyL AUVAGI] AMV] ALISUFAINQ, TIENYOD ‘ornell University Library “Timi REPORTS OF THE DECISIONS OF COMMITTEES OF THE House of Commons IN THE TRIAL OF CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS, DURING THE SEVENTEENTH PARLIAMENT OF THE Anited Bingdom. —>—- BY F. 8. P. WOLFERSTAN, Ese., OF THE INNER TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW; AND EDWARD L’ESTRANGE DEW, Esa, OF THE INNER TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW, AND ONE OF THE COMMITTEE CLERKS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, VOL. I. LONDON: Vv. & R. STEVENS AND G. S. NORTON, Daw Booksellers and Publishers, 26, BELL YARD, LINCOLN’S INN. MDCCCLIX. LONDON: WILLIAM STEVENS, PRINTER, 37, BELL YARD, LINCOLN’S-INN-FIELDS. CONTENTS. CASE I. COUNTY OF MAYO. Preliminary resolution, . % . . Witness allowed to give in English the auitidlanter of what he heard spoken in Irish ‘ . Special report as to snistirestment of wiles for evidence given Evidence of undue spiritual influence intimidation % Report . 3 : . CASE II. BOROUGH OF CAMBRIDGE. Payment of travelling expenses Employment of messengers Chairman’s reasons for decision igh in this case byibery Be ihe above means had not been committed ‘ Harrison’s case.—Vote good, where travelling expenses paid Halsey’s case-—Vote bad, where travelling expenses paid, but voter did not travel PAGE “AIN OD iv CONTENTS. Stamford’s case.—Vote bad, where voter influenced by payment as messenger . ‘ . a é - ye Mills case.—Vote bad, where voter obtains parent of travelling expenses by misrepresentation . , Edward’s case.—What not sufficient edideriva of “ sqcediny hy tier persons for employment” . . . Nicholson's case.—Non-residence . * . Lyon's and Maddison’s cases.—What sufficient residence Practice as to rehearing case - . Bavey’s case and Gaylor’s case.—Non- judideme é Beart’s case.—Vote not inquired into, where vote not objected ds before revising barrister s Evidence on objection not specified in list of ites objected to sot allowed : . ‘ Pryme’s case.—What guftlelent ‘ttn : Nutt’s case.—One vote struck off of voter who voted Bedice, Bevill’s case.—Non-residence ‘ - ° Moore’s case.— What sufficient evidence of parol tender of sot Amey’s case.—Vote good of voter who voted at wrong booth Youngman’s case.—Successive occupation. Not necessary to deliver to general Committee lists of voters intended to be added to poll Payne’s case.—What an occupation as “ tenant” ‘ Report . : ‘ . . ci os CASE III. BOROUGH OF ROCHDALE. Postponement of a witness’ examination refused. 5 Committee pursue a particular course of examination, though they have previously decided that counsel cannot ‘ ‘ Hearsay evidence admitted in a case of bribery . . j Evidence disallowed of what took place at meeting of non-electors . Agency proved before evidence of undue influence given * Report . . . PAGE 43 44 45 46 47 47 48 50 50 51° 52 52 53 55 58 60 61 64 65 65 65 65 66 CONTENTS. Vv CASE IV. BOROUGH OF PONTEFRACT. PAGE Case contained in lists, but not mentioned in opening, gone into . 69 Name of person to whom bribe is offered must be mentioned in list 70 Evidence relating to a case brought out in course of inquiry, allowed 71 What not sufficient evidence of treating . ‘ ‘ « ah Report. ! z 2 2 ; 74 Costs refused F : 3 é 76 CASE V. BOROUGH OF MARLBOROUGH. What sufficient declaration of qualification ‘ SC Onus of proving qualification lies on S. M. on primd facie pioot by petitioner of want of it Deed of rent-charge sufficient primd facie pinot of ‘quitfication $1 What liability is not sufficient to invalidate qualification i Costs refused : 3 < 4 a4 Report . . : é ae OH CASE VI. BOROUGH OF WAREHAM. Preliminary resolutions amended. “ . sb Where two petitions with different allegations, first dispose of before opening second ‘ so Harris’s case.—Vote good, where eavelling expenses ‘paid to aaitet 83 Hatchard’s case.—What sufficient residence - = s 89 Davis's case.—Voter bribed and unduly influenced. « 90 vi CONTENTS. : . PAGE Pike’s case.—Vote of promisor of bribe, or of person guilty of undue influence, bad ‘ * a « 91 Meaden’s and Best's cases. —Votes of bibers: baa ‘ - 91 Baker’s case.—Vote bad, of voter influenced. « » 92 Chaffey’s case.—Every neon of parochial relief a fred disquali- fication : 7 : 93 Baker’s case.-—What express diegisign of revising tiarititee . 94 Abandonment of petition a, seat does not destroy right to recriminate % ‘ ‘ - . 95 Acts insufficient to constitute apeney : F : - 95 Report si ‘ 5 ‘ ‘ . « #& 98 CASE VII. BOROUGH OF MAIDSTONE. Witness who had been in room, allowed to be examined. . 103 Evidence of drinking in presence of S. M. admissible pro tanto - 104 Report . é : . . » » 105 CASE VIII. CITY OF OXFORD. Preliminary resolutions amended . : ‘i 106 Facts sufficient to constitute agency. 5 : oe TOF Colourable employment of messengers, bribery - ‘ - 108 Report ‘ z . . * r » . 109 CASE IX. BOROUGH OF TEWKESBURY. Treating inquired into before bribery '< ‘ - 112 An agent “for election expenses”’ is a general agent for ilies purposes of the election . . : . z » « 2 CONTENTS, vii PAGE Insufficient evidence of corrupt treating » 13 Evidence not allowed, of matters connected with Jemneh destin 115 Adjournment refused ; : fi : « -« W15 Report 7 F ‘i é = ‘ x oo TS Costs refused ‘ “ ‘ ‘ . 1i6 CASE X. BOROUGH OF BURY. Name of non-professional man struck off list of agents . lls Lists of persons unduly influenced, if not specific, must be anid 119 Treating lists must specify “ time’ and “ place” ‘ 119 Husband not compellable to give evidence of communication ste to him by wife. : ‘ ‘ 7 « 320 Evidence of what a mob said, not alowed , 120 Facts insufficient to establish agency ‘ B 3 12) Adjournment granted . : 121 Though only part of petitioner’s case requires an answer, yet Gousisé for petitioner are not debarred from cross-examining S. M’s. witnesses generally : : ‘ : . 122 Sitting Member examined by osicaities i é sw» 123 Report . ‘ ‘ . i ‘ ‘ « 123 CASE XI. BOROUGH OF BURY ST. EDMUNDS. Where treating lists sufficiently specific ‘ wo ape B25: Witness who had been in room, allowed to be ccaatinel - 125 Number of messengers employed . e z y . 126 What not sufficient proof of agency . : a . 126 Report “ ‘ . , 7 7 , « 127 vill CONTENTS. CASE XII. BOROUGH OF LAMBETH. PAGE Name of agent added after list handed in : c 130 Where allegation of bribery by wholesale treating, not necessary to furnish lists i . s : é 130 Adjournment refused ‘ . : : - . 132 Employment of paid canvassers, not illegal : ‘ . 132 Petition frivolous and vexatious : Z : » » 134 Report . 3 5 Z ‘ Z . 134 CASE XIII. BOROUGH OF GALWAY. Petition sufficient, though without address. . » . 137 ‘Where scrutiny cannot be gone into . : 7 - 138 What sufficient production of poll-books - 138 Expenses of witnesses to enable them to come nefare Cornmittes, must be paid . - ‘ 4 « 139 Bribery and treating decided — semtiay : . - «+ 139 What sufficient proof of agency. F ‘ ‘ - 140 Report a a ‘ “ ‘ x » « 14 CASE XIV. CITY OF BATH. Batchelor’s ease.—When entry of vote by poll-clerk complete . 146 Walmsley’s case.—Non-residence ¥ . » » 447 Gerrish’s and Cooke’s cases.—What sufficient nesilanew ‘ 148-149 Stamp’s case.—Non-residence i : : » x 150 CONTENTS. ix PAGE King’s case.—Vote not inquired into, where voter not objected to before revising barrister . . 152 Crisp’s case.—Voter not disquatised by temporary atieenee in gaol as insolvent debtor . ‘ » . 183 Dunscombe’s and Dolphin’s cases. eles of promisor and promisee of bribe, bad i rt . 153 Bright’s case.—What not an express decision of revising tarietee . 154 Report : ‘ - 3 , s . 155 CASE XV. BOROUGH OF WEYMOUTH. Hearsay evidence in a case of bribery, admitted F . . 158 Costs refused “ = ‘ : 7 » 159 Report . - . 3 - 3 . « 160 CASE XVI. BOROUGH OF MALDON. What not sufficient evidence of bribery = - 3 . . 163 Petition frivolous and vexatious A . : : 165 Report. z : * a : 3 164- 165 CASE XVII. FALKIRK BURGHS. Interlineations and erasures in petition z . «. 168 Production and custody of poll-books i ‘ . 168 ’ x CONTENTS. PAGE Statements after election, of what took place before election ad- mitted : i ; » «+ 168 What sufficient proof of ee ‘ P s 5 - 169 What sufficient evidence of treating . 3s ‘ » . 170 Report : : - F $ . 171 CASE XVIII. BOROUGH OF IPSWICH. Declaration of agent after election, not admitted : » «+ 175 Amendment of bribery list, not allowed . é 4 » 175 Contradictory evidence of agency S 7 F - 175 Travelling expenses 3 ‘ : . » 17 What sufficient evidence of hittece 6 3 top AES A brother not an agent. ; a « p - 178 What not sufficient evidence of agency E ‘ - 179 Report ‘ ‘ a - . ‘ ‘ 176-180 CASE XIX. BOROUGH OF GREAT YARMOUTH. Amendment of bribery list, not allowed A : » . 183 Witness who had been in room, not examined i x » 183 Not necessary to close one case before proceeding te another . 184 Witness committed to custody C , 7 _ . 184 ‘What sufficient evidence of agency ‘ - . 184 Report . 5 . . é 3 - 186 CASE XxX. CITY OF GLOUCESTER. In cross petitions of one S. M. against another, recriminatory evidence not allowed . : ji é ~ «+ F89 CONTENTS, xi PAGE Report j s . - 190-191 Costs refused 3 e 4 5 : - 191 CASE XXI. COUNTY OF HUNTINGDON. Double return. Counsel for member whose name is first in return, opens proceedings . 193 Ward's case.—Facts insufficient de jnvalidate wate on ground of treating : . ‘ e - . 194 Declaration of voter ediniteed ix in scrutiny . 196 Garka’s case.—Vote good of voter who, having sini ualiitestion, votes on wrong qualification by mistake 5 197 Owen’s case.—Omission by revising barrister, cat be eseited by committee . ‘i 198 Rowledge’s case.—What ‘“ rombkian om io office, "aitiin 2 Will 4, c. 45, 8.18. ‘ ‘ é ee ee Fisher’s case.—What not sufficient ae change” upon property, within 2 Will. 4,c.45,5.19 . 7 is 3 . 200 Report i e ‘ » . 204 CASE XXII. BOROUGH OF DROGHEDA. Where more than one petition presented to house, the one first in order in Votes first considered . - 5 . . 207 Costs refused . . : c - «+ 208 Witness who had been in room, not exacanein 5 : ~ 209 A member of self-constituted committee, not an agent - » 209 Facts sufficient to constitute primd facie agency . - 21 ‘Facts insufficient to avoid election, on ground of riot, ere tion &e. . 3 : . : a 2 210 Report. ‘ ; i ‘ ; : - 212 xi CONTENTS. CASE XXIII. BOROUGH OF BEVERLEY. Duplicate of demand of qualification, admitted What sufficient evidence of insufficiency of qualification Notoriety of disqualification not sufficient without express notice Report Costs refused . j 3 ‘ . CASE XXIV. BOROUGH OF SLIGO. Who an agent for production of Irish poll-books . Dudgeon’s and Feenarty’s cases.—Votes wrongly recorded by pel. clerk, rectified by committee . é « Elliot’s case.—Vote of voter who did not ace ben off Ferguson’s and Gilbert's cases.—Votes improperly rejected by poll- clerk, added to poll by committee Report 1% CASE XXV. CITY OF DUBLIN. What sufficient prima facie proof of agency : ‘ Evidence of treating at times not mentioned in lists, refused Report i . “ - 2 . Costs refused PAGE 217 217 221 223 224 226 227 227 227 228 230 232 233 234 CONTENTS, Xi CASE XXVI. CITY OF LIMERICK. PAGE. What sufficient allegations in petition, to admit evidence of bribery . . ‘ . . ‘ . - 237 Sitting member examined at his own request . s x @ 238) Report =. . P 5 : . . « 238: TABLE OF CASES. Year. 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1858 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 she Grounds of Petition Its Page. Petition. proceeded upon. Hest Bath. . Scrutiny. . . 4 Member duly elected | 145 Beverley . , Qualification. Scrutiny Member unseated 214 i d Bury (Lancashire) Bribery, treating, aa ue Member duly elected | 117 * ibery ti due AEE St. Edmunds Bribery, trea Hing, und Member duly elected | 124 Cambridge . Bribery. Scrutiny s Member duly elected | 28 = 8 i influence. Drogheda ‘Treating a ndue vo m . | Member duly elected | 206 Dublin . Bribery, treating . . Members duly elected! 229 i a ib treati “undue Fallin Bribery, ence oT Rae ‘ Member unseated 167 Galway . Bribery, treating . . Member unseated 136 1 ae Brib treatin unde uucester Ee atieae : Be Members duly elected| 188 Great Yarmouth Bribery. . «© . Members unseated 182 Huntingdonshire Scrutiny. Double return | One Member duly elected . 192 Ipswich . Bribe: treatin, andue . indecae 5 Be Members duly elected | 173 Lambeth. . Bribery. . . . Member duly elected | 12 Limerick . . Bribery, treating, unile influence: Member unseated 235 Maidstone. . Bribery, treating, undue influence . Members duly elected | 102 Maldon . . Bribery, treating, undue influence . e fi Members duly elected | 162 Marlborough Qualification . : ‘ Member duly elected | 77 Mayo. asc 4 Violence, intimidation, had conduct of Roman’ Ca- tholic clergy. bribery, treating, undue influ- ence. Scrutiny. 2 Member unseated 1 Oxford * Bribery and treating . Member unseated 106 Pontefract. , Bribery, ereatings undue influence Member duly elected | 68 Rochdale . . Bribery, treating, undue influence ‘6 @ Member duly elected | 63 Sligo . . . Scrutiny . . S % Member unseated 225 Tewkesbury . Bribery, treating . . Member duly elected | 111 Wareham. Scrutiny. Bribery, treat- ing, undue influence Member duly elected | 85 Weymouth Bribery . . . . Members duly clected| 157 CASE I. COUNTY OF MAYO. 1857. The Committee was appointed on the 23rd June, 1857, and consisted of the following Members :— William Scholefield, Esq., Birmingham, (Chairman.) Sir John Hanmer, Bart., | Christopher Puller, Esgq., Flint District. Herts. Colonel North, Oxfordshire. George Tomline, Esq.,Shrews- bury. Petitioner :—Gecrge Gore Ouseley Higgins, Esq., the unsuccessful Candidate. Sitting Member petitioned against :—George Henry Moore, Esq. . Counsel for Petitioner :—Mr. O’Malley, Q.C., Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. W. P. Hale. Agents :—Messts. Holmes, Anton, and Turnbull, Mr. R. C. MacNevin, and Mr. John Griffin. Counsel for Sitting Member :—Mr. M. Smith, Q.C., Mr. J. B. Karslake, and Mr. Buchanan. Agent :—Mr. Theodore Martin. ———e Tar Committee agreed to the following preli- June 25. minary resolutions with regard to the conduct Preliminary of the case :— resolutions. 1. “That counsel will not be allowed to go into matters not referred to in their opening Y/ % 2 ELECTION CASES, Preliminary statement, without a special application to the resolutions. Committee for permission to do so.” 2. “That if costs be demanded by 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 Com- mittee 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, upon 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 cognisant.” 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, reserve 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 COUNTY OF MAYO. 3 any of the proceedings, with the exception of Preliminary the agents, whose names shall be handed in, '°ltions. without the special leave of the Committee.” 8. “That the Committee will only allow one counsel to address them on opening the case, and one counsel on the summing up.” 9. “That if any point of law should arise requiring argument, the Committee reserve to themselves the power of hearing only one coun- sel on each side.” 10. “That if the leading counsel are not pre- pared to sum up the case on either side when the evidence is terminated, the Committee will not protract the proceedings for the convenience of counsel who may be absent.” ll. “That, with respect to objected votes, the Committee expect counsel to exhaust one class of objections before proceeding to ano- ther.” The petition, after stating that at the last Petition. election for the county of Mayo, George Henry Moore, Esq., Roger William Henry Palmer, Esq., and the petitioner were candidates, and that the two former were returned, alleged that the majority for Mr. Moore was obtained “by vio- lent, illegal, unconstitutional, fraudulent, and outrageous means;” that “an organised and connected system of violence, intimidation, riot, aoe and agitation” was established by the said violence, G. H. Moore and his agents, and that voters Tee, were thereby deterred from giving their votes B 2 A ELECTION CASES. Conduct of for the petitioner; that the Roman Catholic Roman Catholic clergy. Bribery, treating, undue in- fluence. clergy in their chapels openly denounced the petitioner, telling those present that they would be “advancing the glory of God, saving their souls from eternal damnation, and bringing blessings upon their families” by voting for Mr. Moore, and were justified in preventing other persons from voting for the petitioner by intimidation, threats, assaults, &c.; that they addressed large meetings of electors in a similar strain, and threatened those who did not vote for Mr. Moore, that they should be assaulted, &c., and that no person should deal with them ; that they incited the crowd to prevent, and did by force, &c. prevent the petitioner from can- vassing’; that the same system was pursued at the different polling booths, where tumultuous crowds arrived with sticks, stones, &c., were incited by the priests to attack, and did attack, the voters of the petitioner, and that many were consequently deterred from voting; that the law agents, and agents to detect personation of the petitioner were not permitted by the crowd to approach the polling places; that in conse- quence of the rioting, &c., the poll at one place was adjourned; and that, but for “the system of violence, threats, denunciations, and intimi- dation above set forth,” the petitioner would have been returned. It then alleged bribery, treating, and undue influence against Mr. Moore and his agents, a want of qualification against Mr. Moore, and COUNTY OF MAYO 5 disqualifications of various kinds against those who voted for him; but all these allegations were subsequently abandoned. Finally, it prayed the House to declare the Scrutiny. election and return of Mr. Moore to be null and void, and also prayed a scrutiny and the seat for the petitioner. Mr. Edwin James opened the case. During the examination of a witness, who, it June 25. appeared, understood Irish, but could not speak ee or write it, the following question was put to stood, but him, with reference to a speech the witness had °2u!4 not ; - speak Irish, heard Mr. Conway, a Catholic priest, make :— allowed to “To the best of your understanding, what did ee. you hear him, (Mr. Conway,) say in Irish ? just of what explain it in English.” eee Mr. M. Smith objected to the witness giving that lan- his interpretation of what he heard said in an- eset other language ; he must give the exact words in the language in which they were spoken; they must then be properly interpreted by an impar- tial person, and it is for the Committee to judge of the effect of them. Mr. James.—The witness is himself an inter- preter on oath: there is no objection to the receipt of the evidence. Such evidence is, in fact, admitted, whenever a witness gives the sub- stance of a speech of which he forgets the exact words; and the fact that it happened to be in a foreign language makes no difference. Take it 6 ELECTION CASES. valeat quantum. He may be cross-examined as to the correctness of the interpretation. The Committee resolved, “That the witness may give his interpreta- tion of the words, it being, according to his statement, the only way in which he can give his evidence on this point.” July 9. In the course of the case, Mr. James stated es that information had been that morning re- forevidence ceived from Ireland by the petitioner that aoe two of his witnesses had, on their return Committee. tg Castlebar, been seriously maltreated in ii the consequence of the evidence they had given House. on a previous day before the Committee. He applied to the Committee for summonses to bring the offending parties before the Com- mittee, to be dealt with as the case required. Two letters, received by the petitioner, were then read, and the handwriting authenticated. The Committee, after deliberation, resolved upon the following special report to the House : “That two letters addressed to Colonel Hig- gins, and duly verified, had been produced before the Committee, alleging that one of the witnesses, John M‘Laughlin, examined before the said Committee, had been maltreated 3 and another witness, John Gannon, had been so seriously injured by a mob, led on by one John Sheridan, that his life is in danger, such mal- treatment and injury having been inflicted upon COUNTY OF MAYO. 7 them in consequence of evidence given before the said Committee: The Committee have therefore instructed him (the Chairman) to re- port the circumstances to the House, in order that the House may take such steps as may seem to the House to be proper and neces- sary” (a). It appeared in evidence that a systematic op- what suf. position to the petitioner was organised by the oe a. Roman Catholic priesthood throughout the undue spi- county. Opportunity was taken of the con. 7tval im secration of a chapel at Louisburg, (in Septem- ber, 1856), at which the Archbishop of Tuam, Dr. McHale, (who had great influence in the county,) was present, to introduce the sitting member to the people as a candidate; the per- son introducing him being a priest of the name of Curley. Ata meeting, subsequently held at the house of Dr. McHale, in Tuam, on Sunday the 22nd of March, 1857, for the purpose of the consecration of the Bishop of Galway, and com- posed mainly of bishops and priests, a resolution was drawn up by Dr. McHale, and signed by himself and three bishops present, to the effect that the clergy should use all their exertions to support the faithful member Mr. Moore ; that (a) On the presentation of this report the Attorney- General for Ireland informed the House that several persons had been already apprehended, and would be tried at the approaching assizes. Inflamma- tory pla- cards. ELECTION CASES. the resolution was passed for the purpose of conveying their (the clergy’s) sentiments upon the merits and demerits of the rival candidates to the electors. It did not appear what became of the original resolution, and Dr. McHale swore that no directions were given by him for its publication or dispersion among the priests ; but the following placard, (the latter part of which was admitted by Dr. McHale to be sub- stantially the same as the resolution above men- tioned,) was extensively circulated at the time of the nomination and election, and affixed to Moore and Palmer’s committee-rooms (a), at Castlebar, where the nomination was held :— « People of Mayo !—The voice of the Church now calls upon you to do your duty! Tipperary has already spoken. All Ireland now eapects your decision. With one combined effort elect your chosen candidates, G. H. Moore, Esq. and Captain R. W. Palmer, or by your apathy per- mit Mr. Ouseley Higgins to sneak in, and be for ever disgraced!! Hear the voice of your venerated bishops, ever your guide in the day of trial :—Resolved, at a meeting of the bishops and several of the clergy connected with Mayo, held in Tuam, That all the energies of the peo- (a) It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Moore, that he had no committee-rooms, strictly so called. Hehad a room, however, at the same inn where Mr. Palmer’s committee-rooms were, and the house was placarded on the outside with “ Vote for M. & P.” COUNTY OF MAYO. ple should be directed to the rejectionof Mr. Ouseley Higgins, who has been unfaithful, and to the return of Mr. Moore, who has been their honest, faithful, and uncompromising supporter in Parliament. (Signed) John, Archishop of Tuam. + Thomas Feeny. + T. Durcan. + John M‘Evily.” The former part of the resolution was not drawn up or signed by Dr. McHale or the three bishops, but was, it appeared, added by a Dr. McGreal. Dr. McHale was present, however, with at least ten other priests, at the nomina- tion, and several of them were on the hustings with Mr. Moore’s party; and the placard was never disavowed by him or any one else. On the contrary, the following public notification subsequently appeared :— “ Having seen a placard posted in this town and neighbourhood, bearing the signature R. A. O'Donnell, denying the authenticity of a resolution adopted by the Archbishop of Tuam and the Bishops of Killala, Achonry, and Gal- way ; we beg to state that we hold in our pos- session the autograph of the following document, and that we vouch for its authenticity. We remain, &c. “ Richard Hosty, Roman Catholic Curate. « Patrick Green, Roman Catholic Curate. “ Henry Cahill, Roman Catholic Curate.” B 3 10 ELECTION CASES. On the day following the mecting at Dr. McHale’s house, Monday, the 28rd of March, it appeared that a meeting of the Roman Ca- tholic clergy of the diocese of Tuam was held at Armstrong’s Hotel, in Castlebar, the Arch- deacon of Tuam in the Chair, at which three gentlemen attended on behalf of Captain Palmer, and the following resolutions were unanimously adopted :— Resolutions “ That it is the unanimous determination of ag this meeting that our trusted and faithful repre- clergy. sentative, George H. Moore, should receive the strenuous and cordial support of the clergy and people of this great county at the coming elec- tion, and that we deem it our imperative duty, imposed upon us by our relations with our re- spective faithful flocks, to recommend to them in the strongest terms to repudiate the preten- sions of Colonel Ouseley Higgins, who, by his wholesale and unscrupulous violation of the most solemn pledges, has betrayed the interests of a noble but too confiding constituency: and that, for the purpose of expelling him from the repre- sentation of this county, we therefore pledge ourselves to give our strenuous and active sup- port to any other candidate who may solicit the suffrages of the electors, except the same be a notorious and reckless violator of public and solemn engagements. That our chairman take such steps as he may think proper to ascertain to what extent we may expect the sup- port of the third candidate who may be in the COUNTY OF MAYO. field, and communicate the results to one clergy- man at least in every barony, with as little de- lay as possible; and that, in the event of that support being satisfactory, such candidate be cordially supported by us. That election com- mittees be forthwith organised in the several baronies, to carry into effect the object recom- mended in the foregoing resolutions, and that these committees adopt such measures severally as will secure the return of Mr. Moore, with as little pecuniary expense to himself as possible, as a mark of their high esteem for his talents and Services as a representative of this county. That this meeting do now adjourn to Monday next, the 30th inst., and that the clergy and freeholders of the county are hereby earnestly invited to attend on the occasion.” The above resolutions were signed by the Archdeacon and the Reverends Hosty, Green, and Cahill, and were placarded on Moore and Palmer’s Committee rooms at Castlebar, and about the town of Castlebar, for a week before, and during the election. The only additional documentary evidence pastoral produced was a pastoral letter of Dr. McHale, Fetter of published in the “ Freeman’s Journal” on Satur- bishop. day the 4th of April, by his directions, and for- warded to the parish priests throughout the county, and which, though strongly inculcating the avoidance of riot, intoxication, and bribery, and not mentioning the petitioner by name, was intended, and in fact operated, as an expo- ll 12 Denuncia- tions from the altar. ELECTION CASES. sition of his opinions with regard to the previ- ous parliamentary career of the rival candidates, and an indication of his wishes with regard to their support or otherwise. It appeared further, that the petitioner was in many instances denounced by priests from the altar, previous to the election (a). At Bohola, on Sunday the 29thof March, the curate, in the presence of the parish priest, told the people during service that the archbishops, the bishops, and priests had come to a resolu- tion to oppose the petitioner; that every good Catholic ought to support Mr. Moore; that Colonel Higgins was “a pledge-breaker ” and “a traitor,” and that the day the people should turn against their priests would be a sad day for themselves; that the non-electors might be of great use too, and ought to be forthcoming. At Castlebar, on Sunday, 22nd of March, the Rev. Luke Ryan (0) read from the altar during service the names of the freeholders on the register, commenting upon each as he read, calling those likely to vote for Colonel Higgins “ traitors,” “black-legs,” “black sheep,” and (a) It appeared it was not unusual for Irish priests to address their congregation on general subjects during the service. (b) This gentleman was the “administrator,” or curate, of Dr. McHale; Castlebar being one of the parishes attached to the Archiepiscopate. It was thirty-six miles from Tuam, where the Archbishop resided. : COUNTY OF MAYO. other names; that Colonel Higgins “had sold them and sold the country,” and (pointing to the body of the chapel, and striking his hand on the altar by way of emphasis), “ that if the devil came up there, he would rather vote for him than Colonel Higgins.” On the following Sunday (the 29th) the same gentleman told the people from the altar that “the curse of God would come down upon any one voting against his coun- try and his country’s cause, and voting for Colonel Higgins was doing so;” adding, “ that if they were dying he would not give the rites of the Church to any one voting for Colonel Higgins ;” that ‘the parish should keep their eyes upon the black sheep;” that he would “brand them for life,” and would have “ a sepa- rate chapel for those who voted for Colonel Hig- gins ;”’ and that “the congregation should not speak to them.” The same gentleman, after the election, during service at Kilmena chapel, desired those black sheep not to dare to give him any Easter offerings, for voting for Colonel Higgins, and again called them “traitors.” At Castlebar, on Sunday, 5th of April, the Rev. Mr. Cahill addressed the congregation during service ou the subject of the election, and, allud- ing to Dr. McHale’s pastoral which he had received, said, that Colonel Higgins had, in the estimation of the bishops and clergy, been found wanting; that he hoped the people would be guided by the clergy, as the interests of God 13 14 Addresses hy priests. ELECTION CASES. and of religion required them to vote for Moore and Palmer. At Bohola, on Sunday the 5th of April, the Rev. Mr. Joyce, addressing the congregation during service from the altar, told them that it was “the wish of the archbishop that they should not vote for Colonel Higgins.” At Ballinrobe, during service on Sunday, the 5th of April, and from the altar, the Rev. Mr. Con- way (a) said, “ But, as for Higgins, he is a most consummate scoundrel. He has deceived you in every point. Every promise he made to you at the last election he has broken. He has sold his country, his body, and his soul, yet he has now the presumption to come and ask for your support. But, believe me, the curse of God will follow every man who gives it him. You have a perfectly legal right to show your disapprobation of his conduct by shouting and hooting after every one who comes to support him ; but take care and do not molest or mal- treat any of the soldiers or police.” In many instances, too, the priests addressed the people against the petitioner, either immedi- ately after mass, or at other times and places dur- ing the election. In one instance in particular, on the 31st of March, when Colonel Higgins came in (a) This gentleman, it appeared, as well as the Rev. Messrs. Curley and Ryan, had been in London and in the lobby of the House since the commencement of the proceedings. They were not called as witnesses on behalf of the sitting member. COUNTY OF MAYO. to canvass Ballyhaunis (it was on market-day), he found a platform erected, and six or eight priests addressing a mob of about 2000 people; they called him “traitor,” and told the people that if they voted for him, they would vote against their religion, and called upon them, in the name of their religion, to vote for Moore and Palmer, and not to listen to Colonel Hig- gins. At Ballaghadereen on the following day, two priests endeavoured to induce a crowd whom Colonel Higgins was addressing to dis- perse, calling him “ traitor,” and telling them not to vote for him; and at Castlebar, on the 2nd of April, a priest, with a breviary in his hand, which he opened and showed the mob, encouraged them to drive away with some vio- lence Colonel Higgins’s supporters from the street round his committee-rooms, where they were assembled to greet him on his arrival. 15 After the above-mentioned placards had been Effect pro- issued, and denunciations and addresses made, there was a marked difference in the demeanour of the people. When canvassed for the peti- tioner, they appealed to the instructions which, they said, their priests had given them to support the sitting member. ' In Castlebar, out of twenty-five voters pledged to plump for petitioner, not more than five or six fulfilled their promises. Several serious collisions oc- curred; the voters became alarmed, and mili- tary escorts for those who voted for Colonel Higgins became universally necessary, both in duced on 16 Prominent part in elec- tion taken by priests, ELECTION CASES. the country and up to the booth (a). Several supporters of Colonel Higgins slept at the house of Mr. O’Donnell, near Newport, for fear of being taken away by force, in conse- quence of the Rev. Mr. Ryan’s denunciations on the previous Sunday. It was not safe during the Monday and Tuesday’s polling for Colonel Higgins’s voters to be seen in the streets of Ballinrobe without an escort, nor did Colonel Higgins himself ever go out without one; and his voters were brought up to the poll with considerable difficulty. The houses where Colonel Higgins and his supporters stayed were guarded with military or police ; Mr. Moore and his supporters, on the other hand, went about and voted without moles- tation. It was proved further that the priests generally took avery prominent partin the election. One of them, Mr. Conway, (at whose house Mr. Moore stayed during the election, and who, it appeared, had considerable influence in Ballin- robe,) canvassed voters personally with Mr. Moore, accompanied him in his carriage to the nomination, and stood at his right hand on the hustings. They frequently addressed mobs, both from Moore and Palmer’s committee-rooms and other places; went about accompanied by crowds of people both during the canvass and (a) This, it appeared, was usual in Mayo, at least for the voters on the unpopular side. COUNTY OF MAYO. and nomination, and appeared to have entire control over them; were frequently seen at Moore and Palmer’s committee-rooms at Ballin- robe ; attended Mr. Moore on his canvass, and in considerable numbers at the nomination; were most active in bringing Mr. Moore’s voters up to the poll, so conpicuously so in one instance, that of a voter named McDermott, (who had promised one vote to Col. Higgins, but who eventually plumped for’ Mr. Moore,) that the deputy sheriff inquired the name of the priest. They attended in considerable numbers around and in the polling booths, in some cases shak- ing their hands in the faces of those coming up to poll for Colonel Higgins, calling them traitors, and threatening them. In one instance, the conduct of three of them, (of whom Mr. Conway was one,) was so bad, in threatening voters, suggesting the candidates’ names to them when they hesitated, and suggesting to them the answers to the statutable questions allowed at the poll, that the deputy sheriff (Mr. Sharkie) threatened to have them taken into custody. They acted in many cases as the poll agents of Mr. Moore; at Castlebar polling-place there appeared to be none other but priests acting as poll agents for him, and but few besides priests engaged in bringing up voters to the poll. In some instances they treated voters. On one occasion, (on Sunday, 5th of April,) Mr. Conway got into Monaghan’s Hotel in Bal- linrobe, and addressed some voters of Colonel 17 18 ELECTION CASES. Higgins’s there, (who had been brought in ready to vote on the ensuing morning,) in an excited manner, asking them to go to mass &c., and was with difficulty gotaway. Some of these voters, who had promised to plump for Colonel Higgins, subsequently gave one vote to Mr. Moore. The samegentleman canvassed avoter named Feargus, who had previously promised to vote for Colonel Higgins, attended by a considerable crowd. Mr. Conway put it strongly to him that he was wrong in going against his priests and bishop, and the voter was, in consequence, induced to vote for Moore and Palmer. On another occasion, on Tuesday 7th April, aman named Sullivan, who was going to look after some stray horses of Colonel Higgins’s, was met by the Rev. Mr. Joyce, by whose orders he was beaten, plastered from head to foot with mud by the mob, and mud thrust into his mouth, Mr. Joyce saying he was assisting “that villain Higgins,” and threatening “to make a beggar of him and his crippled son.” In another in- stance two priests told a voter, one F. Brennan, that ifhe “voted for Higgins, his soul would be in hell ;” and the voter, in consequence, voted for Moore and Palmer. In another instance the Revs. Cahill and Hosty, told a voter, one J. Gannon, whom they were canvassing, and who had declared his intention of voting for Colonel Higgins, “that he (Hosty) would call him out in the four chapels, and announce him from each altar of God, in each chapel ;” and COUNTY OF MAYO. Cahill added, “that he would make an example of him if he did not vote for Moore and Palmer.” The same voter (he eventually voted for Colonel Higgins) was met by four priests the day after the election, accompanied by amob; one of the priests called him a “ bribed rascal,’ and said that “the devil was in his countenance.” He was hooted by the mob, and had not been to mass since, for fear of being denounced, and his Easter offering had been returned by the Rev. Mr. Cahill. 19 In addition to several individual instances of Instances violence on the part of the mob towards the cases were proved, in which the priest took a prominent part. On the morning of Sunday, the 5th of April, the day before the polling began, voters of the petitioner, to the number of about 100, under the charge of a Mr. Ruttledge, a magistrate and supporter of Colonel Higgins, and who had been selected by the sheriff of the county for the duty of escorting voters to the poll, were pro- ceeding from Claremorris to Ballinrobe to be ready for the poll there on the following day. Just after they had passed the Roman Catholic Chapel in Claremorris, about the time of the conclusion of mass, they were attacked with a shower of stones by a mob of about 300 or 400 people, some of whom came from the direction of the chapel, others out of the houses near, &c. One man was seriously hurt, and the others only of actual i violence, supporters of Colonel Higgins, the following spiritual 20 ELECTION CASES. saved by stooping down in the van in which they were riding. Several of the voters were much intimidated, and were with difficulty pre- vented from returning home. On nearing Ballinrobe, they heard that a mob had come out to meet them on the road by which they were entering Ballinrobe, and they accordingly sent in for an escort of military and police, and on their arrival made a circuit for the purpose of avoiding the mob of which they had heard, and entering Monaghan’s Hotel, where they were to stay, by a back Jane. Into this house it appeared that both the back part of Monaghan’s Hotel, and alsoof Gildea’s Hotel (Mr. Moore’s head-quarters at Ballinrobe), opened, and the voters had to pass this opening before arriving at their own quarters. On arriving opposite the opening into Gildea’s Hotel, the Reverend Peter Conway, with seven or eight other persons, appeared on the wall of Gildea’s back yard, and, taking off his hat, said in Irish, in a loud voice and solemn manner, and repeated several times, “The curse of God and the curse of the flock on any one who votes for Higgins.” The effect of this was an attack on the voters with stones, by a mob who issued from Gildea’s back yard. Several were struck and kicked. The mob tried to pull the voters off their horses (some were riding), seized the horses’ heads, and tried to back them upon one another, and threw handkerchiefs and hats in the horses’ faces to prevent them from entering Monaghan’s back yard; the dragoons accom- COUNTY OF MAYO. panying drew their swords. This continued for some minutes, till a Mr. Burke took out a pis- tol, and, presenting it towards Mr. Conway and the people with him on the wall, swore he would use it if the stone throwing continued. This had the desired effect, and the voters were got into Monaghan’s yard. Mr. Conway subse- quently got into the yard where Colonel Hig- gins’s voters were assembled, violently abused Mr. Ruttledge, and, turning round to the mob, said, “Boys, boys, do not kill a policeman or a sol- dier.’” The voters were subsequently with great difficulty got from Monaghan’s yard, which did not communicate directly with the hotel, into the hotel by two and three at a time with an escort. Subsequently to the above attack, on the same afternoon Mr. Conway addressed the mob from a window; said, the supporters of Higgins the traitor had come in, and that they had es- caped them ; that others were coming along the Neill Road, and that he wanted 200 men. Accordingly a mob of from 300 to 400 men, armed with sticks, with Mr. Conway on horse- back with them, proceeded along the road. The first party they met consisted of a car contain- ing a Mr. Burke, an old gentleman of 76, who, with his son and a man servant, were driving into Ballinrobe, to be ready for the poll on the fol- lowing day. On meeting them, Mr. Conway exclaimed, “‘ You are Colonel Higgins’s men. I wash my hands of you!”” He then rode away 21 22 ELECTION CASES. about 100 yards, remaining, however, in sight, and the mob immediately dragged Mr. Burke and his son from the car, and beat the old gen- tleman severely. Mr. Conway, on being appealed to by young Mr. Burke, took old Mr. Burke out of the hands of the mob, put him on the car, and, on his promising that he would not vote for the petitioner, allowed him to return home. Mr. Conway and the mob accompanied Mr. Burke’s car for a short time, and while doing so, met two carts which were conveying hay and straw into Ballinrobe for the use of horses engaged by Colonel Higgins. Mr. Conway said, in an ironical manner, “ Boys, do not scatter the hay and straw.” The mob imme- diately stopped the horses, scattered the hay and straw about the road, and made the drivers go home. Mr. Burke’s car then went home, and on their way met three or four cars conveying some supporters of Colonel Higgins into Ballin- robe, escorted by a party of dragoons, to whom they communicated what had happened. This party subsequently met the mob, Mr. Conway still being with them; on meeting them Mr. Conway asked them their names, and then referred to a register that he held in his hand, swearing some of them to vote for Moore and Palmer. The voters in one of the cars were so intimidated by what they had heard from Mr. Burke’s party, and by Mr. Conway telling them that several people had been killed that day in Ballinrobe, that they jumped off the COUNTY OF MAYO. cars and ran away. The other cars proceeded with the escort to Ballinrobe, but the party that run off were pursued by the mob, taken to Cong, Mr. Conway still accompanying them, and with some others who were met with on the road, were locked up in an hotel there during that day and night. They were visited during that night by Mr. Conway, who tried to induce them to vote for Moore and Palmer, and they were threatened by the mob, (some of whom were put in with them to look after them,) with the same object. On the Monday, the polling day, they were taken into Ballinrobe by the mob, and kept there in Gildea’s Hotel. Two of them, on promising to vote for Palmer and Moore, were taken by Mr. Conway to the poll, but it was past 4, Pp. m. and the poll was closed ; and on their refusing to go back to Gildea’s, Mr. Conway took them to his house, and they slept in his kitchen. It did not appear that they were subjected to any restraint while there, and on the Tuesday morning they left Mr. Con- way’s house, and eventually polled under a strong escort, splitting their votes for Moore and Colonel Higgins, the former vote given, as they declared, in consequence of the intimidation to which they had been subjected. One of these voters, it appeared, had been severely assaulted in Ballinrobe after he had been served with the speaker’s warrant, and several of them swore that they would be afraid for their lives if they now went into Ballinrobe. The same mob, on the 23 24 Adjourn- ment of ll. ELECTION CASES. Sunday evening, met Colonel Higgins driving into Ballinrobe in his phaeton, Mr. Conway still being with them. On ascertaining whose car- riage it was, Mr. Conway said, “ At him, boys !” on which a shower of stones was directed against the carriage, which was struck with thirteen or fourteen stones, and three were subsequently found in it. There was considerable uproar im Cong during the whole of the Sunday night. In consequence of the attack on Mr. Burke’s party, above described, application was on Tues- day made to Mr. Sharkie, the deputy sheriff for the Kilmaine booth, at Ballinrobe, to adjourn the poll, which was accordingly done at 1.30 p.m. on Tuesday, till the next morning. Application was at the same time made for a warrant to commit Mr. Conway on affidavits of the interruption of voters coming to the poll. Mr. Sharkie communicated the affidavits to Mr. Conway, and gave him till the, following morning to answer them, when he said, if not satisfactorily answered, the warrant would issue. For the previous two days, Sunday and Monday, the town of Ballinrobe was in a state of considerable excitement; mobs paraded the streets, and seemed to be in possession of the town; on Tuesday the excitement still con- tinued, stone throwing, and striking with blud- geons prevailed, and on one occasion the military were seen charging the mob with fixed bayonets. All Tuesday night the military were under arms, and the police patrolled the town; information COUNTY OF MAYO. was also sworn of an attack on Mr. Tighe’s ‘house, where Colonel Higgins was staying (a). On the Tuesday evening Mr. Conway left the town, and on the Wednesday morning, by his direction, appeared the following placard :— “To the People of Ballinrobe and Barony of Vilmaine. “St. Mary’s, Ballinrobe, Tuesday evening. “« My ever dear Friends, “J never asked a favour of you that you did not grant at once. I now ask one favour more of you this day, and I ask it in the name of the glorious Queen of Heaven, the Immaculate Mother of God; it is this—that no man, wo- man, or child shall appear on the streets of Bal- (a) Some very conflicting evidence was given on the general state of the town of Ballinrobe, from the Sun- day to the Wednesday, and several witnesses for the sitting member swore that not only Ballinrobe, but the county generally, was much quieter than usual during a contested election, in fact perfectly quiet, as far as actual violence was concerned, and that the troops and police acted with unnecessary precipitation on several occasions. It was admitted, however, that the mob was a one-sided mob, and that the supporters of Colonel Higgins did not appear in the streets. Major Hume, who commanded the troops in Ballinrobe, was proved to have been outside the Committee room at the House of Commons during the proceedings, but he was not called. The officer in command at Castlebar was called, and his evidence was to the effect that the town of Ballinrobe (whither he went on the Wednes- day) was quiet on that day, but that there were signs of excitement having taken place. Cc © or 26 ELECTION CASES. linrobe, except a freeholder, on to- “morrow, , Wednesday, or any other day, until I appear amongst you. Any one who does not take this my advice, he is my enemy, the enemy of Moore and Palmer, and the enemy of our coun- try. Victory is yours. “P. Conway.” The town during the whole of Wednesday was quiet, and the poll concluded. Conduct of | It further appeared that, after the election, priests after Colonel Higgins’s petition was read from the election. : altar in several chapels, and the people recom- mended to subscribe to a fund for defending Mr. Moore’s seat, and that the money was col- lected at the chapel door. Mr. Conway com- menced the reading by these words :-—“ Listen to the petition of the Catholic calumniator.” Archbishop McHale subscribed to the above- mentioned fund. There was also, it appeared, a “ Conway” fund, for the purpose of enabling that gentleman to come over to England and conduct the opposition to the petition; and it was proved that voters went, after the election, to Mr. Hosty “to get forgiveness for being a a Higgins man.” At the conclusion of the case, which lasted thirteen days, the Committee came to the fol- lowing final resolutions for report to the House: Final reso- 1. “That Henry George Moore, Esq., is not lutions. duly elected a knight of the shire to serve in this present Parliament for the county of Mayo.” COUNTY OF MAYO. 2. “That the last election for the said county, so far as regards the return of the said George Henry Moore, Esq., is a void election.” 3. “That George Henry Moore, Esq., was, by his agents, guilty of undue influence at the last election for the county of Mayo.” 4, “That undue influence and spiritual inti- midation prevailed to a considerable extent at the last election for the county of Mayo.” 5. ‘That in the exercise of such undue influ- ence and spiritual intimidation, the Rev. Peter Conway and the Rev. Luke Ryan were so pro- minently active, that the Committee deem it their duty specially to report their conduct to the House, in order that such steps may be taken as may seem to the House to be proper and necessary ”’ (a). 6. “That it does not appear to the Com- mittee that the said George Henry Moore, Esq., personally sanctioned, or was cognisant of, the said undue influence and spiritual intimidation.” (a) The Attorney-General was, in consequence, directed by the House to prosecute them, and the writ for the county of Mayo was suspended till after the prorogation of Parliament. 27 1857. June 25. 28 CASE II. BOROUGH OF CAMBRIDGE. The Committee was appointed on the 23rd of June, 1857, and consisted of the following Members :— Richard Deasy, Esq., Cork County, (Chairman.) : Marquis of Blandford, Wood- | Viscount Melgund, Clack- stock. mannan and Kinross. Allan Eliott Lockhart, Esq., | Marmaduke Wyvill, Esq., Selkirkshire. Richmond. Petitioner :—Robert Alexander Shafto Adair, an unsuccessful Candidate. Sitting Member petitioned against :—Andrew Steuart, Esq. Counsel for Petitioner :—Mr. Edwin James, QC., Mr. Power, and Mr. Coleridge. Agents :—Mr. Coppock, Mr. Eaden, and Mr. Cockerell. Counsel for Sitting Member :—Mr. Slade, Q.C., Mr. W. H. Cooke, and Mr. T. H. Naylor. Agents :—Mr. Barlow, and Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton. —_ Trt Committee agreed to the usual prelimin- Preliminary ary resolutions (a). resolutions. Petition. The petition, after stating that at the last election Kenneth Macaulay, Andrew Steuart, John Hibbert, Esqs., and the petitioner were (a) Ante, p. 1. BOROUGH OF CAMBRIDGE. 29 candidates, and that the two former were re- Bribery, : treating, turned, alleged bribery, treating, and undue and undue influence against Andrew Steuart, Esq., and his mfuence. agents, and complained of the improper reception and rejection of votes on various grounds. It prayed a scrutiny, and the seat for the petitioner. Scrutiny. Mr. Power opened a case of bribery by the payment of travelling expenses, and the colour- able employment of messengers. With regard to the payment of travelling ae expenses, it was proved that previously to the expenses election the opinion of a Queen’s Counsel had ™°* illegal. been taken on behalf of Mr. Steuart, how far the payment of such expenses to voters was legal, and that the opinion was to the effect that great caution should be exercised in the pay- ment of such expenses ; that in all cases it should be unconditional, and that, where possible, rail- way tickets should be purchased and presented to the voters inpreference to paying them money; that upon this, letters had been written by the Chairman of Mr. Steuart’s Committee, with the knowledge of Mr. Steuart’s agent for election expenses, to the voters, requesting their attend- ance to vote, and that at the bottom of the letter were these words, “‘ Your fare will be paid’ (a). The payment was made by Mr. Steuart’s agent (a) This was the form adopted in Cooper v. Slade, 6E. & B. 447; 25 L. J. (Q. B.) 324; the decision in which case was reversed in the House of Lords: 27 L. J. (Q. B.) 449. 30 Employ- ment of ELECTION CASES. for election expenses after the voter had voted, and, in most cases, several days subsequently to the election, either by himself personally at the Committee-rooms, or at his office, or by orders upon the election auditor, and the amount paid was what the voters were actually out of pocket i coming to vote, and the sum requisite for their return. The agent did not, at the time of pay- ment, ascertain whether they had voted, or for whom, but paid them the money, or gave them the order on their coming for it, and telling him that they had voted. It further appeared that the petitioner’s agent had given notice to the agents of Mr. Stcuart, that the petitioner did not intend to pay travelling expenses, and that if Mr. Steuart did so, he would be petitioned against on that ground. The fact that the peti- tioner would not pay travelling expenses was also proved to be notorious in the borough. The following entry in Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton’s bill, which was admitted by Mr. Steuart, and sent in to the election auditor for payment, was also relied on : ‘ “ Attending at Mr. Babey’s, &c. and arranging with him to go down to Cambridge, to vote for Macaulay and Steuart, and accompanying him to the Eastern Counties, paying for ticket, and handing the same to him, one guinea; paid cab hire and waiting, 7s. 6d. ; paid railway fare, 12s.”” With regard to the employment of messengers, it appeared that seventy-four messengers were BOROUGH OF CAMBRIDGE. appointed by Mr. Steuart’s agent for election expenses; that twenty-nine of that number were employed to see after the flymen engaged in bringing up voters to the poll, one to each fly ; that, of the remaining forty-five, three or four were appointed to attend the local committee- rooms, (of which there were five,) and were occupied in carrying messages from them to the central committee-room ; and that the remaining thirty were employed about the central commit- tee-room in carrying messages and parading the streets with the state of the poll. The principal reason stated for the employment of so many messengers was the fact, that the petitioner had four days’ start of Mr. Steuart in his canvass. Out of these seventy-four, seven were voters, but with the exception of one, who was employed as an extra messenger on the day of election, Mr. Steuart’s agent for election expenses swore that he was not aware of the fact when he appointed them, although it was subsequently brought to his knowledge. It appeared that the constituency of the bo- rough consisted of about 1700 voters, and that the polling place was within three quarters of a mile of the residence of all the voters, with the exception of a few detached farm-houses. On behalf of the petitioner, thirty-two mes- sengers only were employed, three of them being voters; and only six previous to the polling day. The petitioner had six local committee-rooms. 3] messengers not bribery. 32 ELECTION CASES. The remuneration paid to the messengers on both sides was fixed, by mutual agreement be- tween the opposing candidates, at 5s. per day, and 7s. 6d. on the day of polling. Mr. Power, in summing up the case on be- half of the petitioner, contended that, although the payment of travelling expenses sémpliciter was not within the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, yet that the circumstances of this case brought it within the law laid down in Cooper v. Slade (a); that here the agent for the sitting member wrote to the voters, telling them, in substance, thatif they voted for a particular candidate their travelling expenses would be paid; that the entry in Messrs. Baxter & Co.’s bill was strong evidence of a conditional contract entered into between the agent of Mr. Steuart and the voter; that this case was further distinguishable from Cooper v. Slade, in which case a return- ticket was presented to the voter; whereas, in the present case, his expenses to Cambridge only were paid, and the voter was thus under the strongest inducement to vote for Mr. Steu- art, to whom he would naturally look for pay- ment of his fare back; that if there had been evidence in Cooper v. Slade that the defendant authorized the writing of the letter mentioned in that case, the Court would have held that (a) See ante, p. 29, n. BOROUGH OF CAMBRIDGE. there was evidence of a conditional contract ; for one of the reasons for the decision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber in that case was, that Mr. Baron Parke had not left it to the jury whe- ther the writer of the letter was proved to have been the agent of the defendant or not. Here, however, the agency of the writer of the letter was undisputed. With regard to the employment of messen- gers, he contended that it was palpably colour- able, inasmuch as, firstly, seventy-four were employed on one side, and only thirty-two on the other; secondly, no flys were necessary at all, as the polling-place was within three- quarters of a mile of each voter’s abode; and, thirdly, that in each fly there was a member of the Committee to look after the fly-man, and that a second person was obviously useless for that purpose. He referred to the Leicester case (a). Mr. Slade, in reply, contended that the case of Cooper v. Slade did not apply to the circum- stances of this case. There was clearly no con- ditional contract. No member had ever been unseated for paying travelling expenses. Pre- vious to the late Act, the payment of such expenses had been held legal, and the late Act did not mention them. He cited the South- ampton case (b); Bayntun v. Cattle (c) ; Brem- (a) 1P.R.&D.178. = (8) 2P.R. & D. 53. (c) 1M. & R. 263. c 8 33 34 June 26, Judgment. ELECTION CASES, ridge v. Campbell (a); Clerk on Elections, 84; Rogers on Elections, 329. Secondly, the employment of messengers was not colourable. It was sworn that that num- ber was necessary, and that no voters had been knowingly employed. If a member was to be unseated because, coming into the field much later than his opponent, he had tried to make up lost ground by the employment of a few more messengers, no seat would be safe. The Committee resolved, “That it has not been proved that the sitting member has been guilty of bribery, either by himself or his agents” (0). The learned Chairman subsequently read the following reasons for this decision :— “Tn this case the Committee are asked to de- clare the sitting member unduly elected, on the ground of bribery committed by him or his agents. The case of the petitioner on this subject was :— 1, That the sitting member had been guilty (a) 5 C. & P. 186. (5) In several other cases, during the session of 1857, the payment of travelling expenses was proved; but, as the Committees adopted the law as here laid down, it has not been thought necessary to notice the ques- tion further. See ante, p. 29, n. BOROUGH OF CAMBRIDGE. 3 of bribery, by paying the travelling expenses of some voters who had voted for him. 2. That he had been guilty of bribery by colourably employing some voters as messengers, who voted for him, and who rendered no adequate services for the remuneration given them. The names of the voters alleged to have been bribed in each way were given in to the Com- mittee. The Committee were unanimously of opinion that the case of the petitioner had failed on each branch, and it is my duty now to assign the rea- sons which have influenced me in coming to the decision, not presuming, however, to bind any member of the Committee to complete acqui- escence in those reasons. With respect to the first branch of the case, Travelling viz., the payment of travelling expenses of voters “P°** who voted for Mr. Steuart, I think the law stands thus :—Before the passing of the Corrupt Practices Act, I think the law was, that the payment of such expenses, if made bond fide, and not as a cloak for bribery, was perfectly legal. Although such expenses were notoriously paid at elections, no member ever was unseated by reason thereof, and there is no decision of a Court of law, that the payment of such expenses was opposed to the provisions or the policy of the law. The decision in the Southampton case, to which we have been referred, is a distinct au- thority for us as a decision of a Committee of the House of Commons, that the payment ELECTION CASES. of such expenses is no ground for depriving a member of his seat. That decision, however, was before the passing of the Corrupt Practices Act, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, and it was contended before us, that the law was altered by that sta- tute, and that Mr. Steuart had, by paying the travelling expenses of persons who voted for him, brought himself within the provisions of the first section of that Act. That section professes to define bribery, and the first branch of the defini- tion relates to promises; the second branch of the definition relates to acts done. (Zhe Chair- man read the section.) My impression of the Jaw was, that that sta- tute had not made the bond fide payment of mere travelling expenses illegal. However, the sub- ject has been under the consideration of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, in the celebrated case of Cooper v. Slade (a). That case distinctly decided that a promise of a candidate to pay the travelling expenses of a voter, and the subse- quent payment in pursuance of that promise, is perfectly legal. It decided also that the promise to pay, and the subsequent payment, in pursu- ance of that promise, would be illegal, if the pro- mise were accompanied with a condition that the person to whom it was made should vote for the candidate by whom the promise was made. In other words, an unconditional promise by a candi- date to a voter to pay travelling expenses incurred (a) See ante, p. 29, n. BOROUGH OF CAMBRIDGE. by him, in going to and returning from the place of polling, is not within the first branch of the de- finition contained in the first clause of the section to which I have referred, and the subsequent pay- ment of the expenses, in pursuance of such pro- mise, is not within the second branch of the defi- nition. Accepting the law as laid down in that case (ante, p. 29), let us applyit to the present case. Is there evidence sufficient to satisfy us that Mr. Steuart has violated the law as expounded by the Court of Exchequer Chamber? We ought to be fully satisfied that he has, before we decide against him on that ground, If he has done so, he is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment; and though our decision would not subject him to those penal conse- quences, yet it would not only deprive him of his seat which he has acquired, but it would incapacitate him from sitting for the borough of Cambridge during the present Parliament. What, then, are the facts, as proved before us, to induce us to come to a decision so injurious to Mr. Steuart? It is not alleged that the payment of the travelling expenses was made a cloak for bribery, or that any one or more of the persons, whose names have been handed in, got more than the expenses actually incurred bythem ; on the contrary, the evidence of Mr. Barlow is very distinct that they did not. Was there, then, any promise to pay those expenses made in such a manner as to bring it within the rule laid down by the Court of Exchequer Chamber ? 37 38 ELECTION CASES. The facts proved are most clear, that the peti- tioner’s Committee, and Colonel Adair particu- larly, had resolved not to pay travelling ex- penses, and, with great fairness, they commu- nicated such intention to the agent of their opponents, and apprised him, at the same time, that they intended to make such payment, if made by their opponents, the ground of peti- tion. That was certainly calculated to put the sitting members and their agents on their guard, and impress them with the necessity of caution in their proceedings. Accordingly, it is proved that Mr. Steuart and Mr. Macaulay gave the most express directions to'their agent, Mr. Barlow, to keep within the limits of the law; and in order to enable him to do so, he laid a case before Mr. M. Smith for advice, in which Mr. Smith’s opinion was asked as to the legality of paying travelling expenses. Mr. Smith adverted to the decision in Cooper v. Slade, and impressed upon the person consulting him, the necessity of great caution. That imposed on the agent the duty of acting strictly in accordance with the directions contained in that opinion, and not perilling the seat of his principal by disregarding them. It should seem that there was a mode in which he could legally pay the travelling ex- penses of persons coming from a distance to poll for his clients, and the natural presumption from that is, that he would pay them in that manner, and not compromise his clients by promising to pay them, or paying them in a different manner. BOROUGH OF CAMBRIDGE. He had received express directions to do nothing that was illegal, and if, notwithstanding those directions, and in violation of them, he made a conditional promise to pay the travelling ex- penses of electors coming up to poll for Mr. Steuart, I think a serious question would arise, whether that would constitute a promise by, or on behalf of Mr. Steuart, which would bring him within the penal consequences of the first section of the Corrupt Practices Act, or deprive bim of his seat. However, it is not necessary to decide that question, because there is not, in the opinion of the Committee, sufficient evidence to satisfy them that Mr. Steuart did, through Mr. Barlow or otherwise, make any promise to pay the travelling expenses of any voter, conditional upon such voter voting in a particular way, or at all. Mr. Barlow has been produced, and he did not prove the making of any such promise. The only evidence of it were :— 1. The letter written to the out-voters ; and 2. The entry in the bill of Messrs. Baxter & Co. The letter was the subject of consideration in Cooper v. Slade, and the Court then did not decide that it was a conditional promise. We ought not, I think, to give that con- struction to it. It is quite capable of a dif- ferent construction, and the facts shew, I think, that it was intended to bear that construc- tion; because Mr. Barlow, with his attention called to the case of Cooper v. Slade, and to the 39 40 ELECTION CASES. importance to his clients of keeping within the line laid down in that case, copies the letter from that, evidently feeling sure that he was quite safe in writing and sending it to the persons who are alleged to have been bribed by it. The in- tention to act legally being established, and there being a mode of doing legally the act complained of, we ought to be satisfied by clear proof, that the illegal mode was resorted to instead of the legal before we come to a decision involving such serious consequences. The writing of the letter does not appear to me sufficient to shew that there was a conditional, and therefore illegal promise to pay the travelling expenses of the voters to whom it was addressed. The only other evidence of a conditional pro- mise to pay expenses is the entry in the bill of costs of Messrs. Baxter, Rose, & Norton. Now that is perfectly consistent with the innocence of the sitting member. Arranging with the voter to go to Cambridge does not necessarily mean an illegal arrangement, and illegality ought not to be presumed in the absence of proof. It is quite consistent with that, that the arrangement was legal, and the circum- stances lead to the conclusion that it was so. It was in the power of the solicitors to make an arrangement, which was perfectly legal; they were apprised of the distinction that separated legality from illegality ; and it is not to be pre- sumed that they overlooked that distinction. Indeed, they appear to have had Mr. Smith’s directions before them ; for they followed those BOROUGH OF CAMBRIDGE. 4] directions by purchasing a railway ticket for the voter. The only other evidence upon this branch of the case is the payment of the expenses of the voters. But that, according to the decision of the Exchequer Chamber, is perfectly legal if not made in pursuance of a previous conditional promise, and of the existence of such promise there is no sufficient evidence before us. With respect to the other branch of the case, Payment of viz. the payment of the messengers, we quite con- "*°"8*"*- cur in the soundness of the decision in the Lei- cester case —viz. that the colourable employment of electors, and the payment of sums of money to them, for which no adequate services were rendered, would be bribery. Here, the only evidence of that is, that a larger number of messengers were employed than was at all necessary: that seventy-four were employed by Macaulay and Steuart, whereas only thirty- three were employed by Adair and Hibbert. Upon the subject of the necessity of so many, we have had conflicting opinions. Mr. Barlow swore he thought seventy-four were necessary ; Mr. Cooper and Mr. Eaden, on the contrary, rather ridiculed that notion. It is not neces- sary to express any opinion upon that, because it is not proved that the employment of the persons in question was such as to bring the case within the rule laid down by the Lei- cester Committee. It is not proved here that adequate services were not rendered by those 42 June 27. Payment of travelling expenses does not invalidate vote. ELECTION CASES. persons. They were not paid more than per- sons similarly engaged for the petitioner, some of whom also were voters ; and it is sworn by Mr. Barlow that he did not know, when he em- ployed them, that they were voters. That evidence of his is not contradicted, and we are not at liberty to act in opposition to it; and, if it be true, the whole foundation of this part of the case against the sitting member fails.” The Committee then proceeded to the scrutiny. HARRISON’S CASE. This voter was objected to on the ground :— “that he did, before or during the last elec- tion, &c., by himself and by other persons on his behalf, receive, agree, or contract for money or some valuable consideration or employment for himself for voting, or agreeing to vote, at the said election.” The voter had been given an order by the agent for election expenses on the election audi- tor, for the exact amount of what he had spent in coming from Gravesend to Cambridge, and would spend in going back again. Vote good (a). HALSEY’S CASE. Objected to on the same ground as the pre- vious case. (a) See Wareham (Harris's case), post, p.88. BOROUGH OF CAMBRIDGE. 43 The voter had, it appeared, been paid 13s. 6d. Vote invali- as travelling expenses from Isleworth. It was ae proved that he was a servant at Jesus College, travelliug and that the election took place in term time ; eo that he was seen in Cambridge on Friday, >t in fact Saturday (the nomination day), Sunday, and yee Monday (the polling day), and that he had said that he had not been at Isleworth (where his sister lived) since last summer, and that he had not been out of Cambridge since Christ- mas. The payment of the money, on the part of the sitting member, had been perfectly bond fide. Vote bad (a) ; the Chairman saying that he thought this case came within the second branch of the third section of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102. STAMFORD’S CASE. Objected to on the same grounds as the June 29. previous cases. This voter had repeatedly stated in conversa-~ jf voter in- tion, that he would not vote unless he was paid a by for it; and that he would go and see “ Teddy messenger, Tawrence? He subsequently said he had been ¥°te bad. to Lawrence and had got put on all right. It appeared that he got a recommendation from Lawrence, to Mr. Steuart’s agent, and was told by the agent, Mr. Barlow, to consider himself as (a) The Committee divided on the question, “That the vote is a good vote.” Aye, 1, Mr. Lockhart; Noes, 4, Mr. Deasy, Lord Blandford, Lord Melgund, Mr. Wyvill. 44. ELECTION CASES. amessenger. It was proved, however, that he did next to nothing as a messenger, and spent the greater part of the day at a public house, drinking and smoking. Vote bad ; the Chairman stating that this case came within both the first and second branches of the third section of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102. MILL’S CASE. Objected to on the same grounds as the pre- vious cases. ee The voter was a plasterer, at work at a place ment of called Sawston, a few miles from Cambridge. ce He came into Cambridge (his home being there) misrepre- on the Saturday before the poll, which was on senaot Monday, and arranged with the Committee of Mr. Steuart for some conveyance to fetch him from Sawston on the Monday. A dog-cart was accordingly sent, for which he paid nothing. He had, however, it appeared, come from Saffron Walden to Sawston that morning, and had paid for that journey. He did not intend to charge travelling expenses at first, but on some friends saying it was legal, and that he might as well have it, he made a claim for 6s., viz. 1s. for his expenses from Saffron Walden to Sawston, and 5s. back from Cambridge to Saffron Walden, and this sum was paid. He had, however, never returned to Saffron Walden up to the time of the trial of the petition, although he said he still meant to go there. Vote bad; the Chairman stating that this BOROUGH OF CAMBRIDGE. ple or case came within the rule laid down in Halsey’s case. EDWARDS’ CASE. Objected to on the same grounds as the June 30. previous cases. The voter had, it appeared, complained that What not he had been very badly treated, that he had ap- “Wien plied to have his three sons employed as mes- “ agreeing sengers, but that only one was employed, and pee he was only paid 7s. 6d., although in the bill employ- for his services three days were stated, and that ee he would not vote for the party again unless they were paid. He had spent, it appeared, from 8 to 12 shillings out of his own pocket on the polling day. The payment of any part of the 7s. 6d. received by the son, to the father, was totally denied. Vote good; the Chairman stating that there was no evidence of a corrupt contract, or of the voter having received money. NICHOLSON’S CASE. Objected to on the ground :—“ that he did not, ever since the 31st day of July, 1856, and up to and at the time of his voting at the said last election, &c., reside or continue to reside within the said borough, or within seven statute miles thereof, or of any part thereof.” The voter, it appeared, had stated that he had Voter dis- left Cambridge on Ist November, 1856, and Waited by non-resi- dence. 46 ELECTION CASES. went to St. Ives to live with his mother ; that his mother had subsequently left St. Ives, and that he was keeping the house there himself. The last rate he had paid for the house at Cambridge was in July, 1856. He was rated to the next rate, made on the 13th November, but had not paid it. At the next, made on 8th January, the house was returned vacant ; the voter’s sign-board had been taken down in November, after the rate was made, and the house was now occupied by another person. Vote bad; the Chairman stating that the Committee had a right to inquire into this case as “a legal incapacity, which had arisen subse- quently to the expiration of the time allowed for making out the list of voters,”’ within s. 98 of 6 Vict. c. 18. LYON’S CASE. Objected to on the ground of non-residence. What not The voter, a draper in Cambridge, becoming ae of solvent, sold his business, in February, to a non-resi- man named Pratt, and went up to London, aes Pratt taking possession of the shop and pre- mises; but the voter paid rent to 25th March, and his wife continued to reside in Cambridge. The voter was backwards and forwards several times after February, till he was arrested in London. He passed through the Insolvent Court there, and on his release he went back to Cambridge and became clerk to his brother. BOROUGH OF CAMBRIDGE. A7 It did not appear that he went to London for any purpose except to pass through the Insol- vent Court there. Vote good ; the Chairman stating that they considered this a case of constructive residence by the wife. MADDISON’S CASE. Objected to on the ground of non-residence. July 1. The voter, a clergyman, and owner of the what not house for which he was registered, was proved sufficient _ by the rate collector of the parish, (the only 27nd Pace witness called,) to have been seen moving his ie furniture, &c., in August, 1856; he told the collector that he was leaving in a few weeks, and that that was the last rate he should have to pay him. At Michaelmas the house was empty, a notice “to let” in the window, and no ser- vant left in charge of it. It was urged that it was consistent with these facts, that the voter had merely moved to another part of the borough. Vote good. A subsequent application for a rehearing of Rehearing the case, on the ground that the counsel for bane petitioner were prepared with additional evi- pe dence, was refused by the Committee, who ee stated that they had previously agreed (in Hal- refused. sey’s case) to allow a matter of law to be re- argued; but that there was a wide difference between that and rehearing evidence of fact, 48 What suffi- cient evi- dence of non-resi- dence. What not sufficient evidence of residence. ELECTION CASES which would be a most unsatisfactory course to adopt. BAVEY’S CASE. Objected to on the ground of non-residence. The voter, a tenant of a house at Cambridge, at a month’s notice to quit, had left Cambridge for London in September, leaving his daughter and furniture in it. He left in consequence of pecuniary embarrassment, and said, that if things turned out pretty well, he might have gone back again. In the meantime, the land- lord had taken possession of the house, and taken the greater part of the furniture for his / rent, giving the remainder to the voter’s daugh- ter. The house was unoccupied at the time of the election. It was contended that in this case there was an animus revertendi whenever the voter’s af- fairs were settled, and Whithorn v. Thomas (a) was referred to. The voter did not occupy, but he still resided. His family were at Cambridge. Vote bad. GAYLOR’S CASE. Objected to on the ground of non-residence. The voter, a bootcloser by trade and a single man, had left Cambridge in April, 1856, where he had previously occupied a public-house, and come to London in search of work. He re- mained in London working at his trade till the (a) 7M. & G.1, per Erle, J. BOROUGH OF CAMBRIDGE. election, and returned there afterwards. His mother kept on the public-house for him after he left, and “accounted” to him for the pro- fits, 7. e., sent him money (sometimes clothes or meat) when he wrote for it. The voter pro- duced the receipts for the rent of the house, which his mother paid when he was away, and swore that he still considered it as his home. _He had, however, admitted that the house was ‘his mother’s. In November, 1856, the licence « Was taken out in his mother’s name, and her ‘name substituted for his over the door, and C after that, she applied to be, and was, rated for it; but this, it appeared, was necessary, in } order to obtain the licence. The voter had _returned to Cambridge in April, and it was rbery- in a private room. Dr. Browne put a red seal upon the ticket, and the voters then took the tickets to Oliver’s house, and upon putting their (a) The sitting member in his examination admitted that he had heard the evidence given with regard to the bribery, and had met Dr. Browne in London since the petition commenced, but had taken no steps to pro- cure his attendance before the Committee. 142 What not bribery. ELECTION CASES. hands through a broken pane in a window, re- ceived from a hand £2. Tickets without the red seal were refused. A witness, one J. Davis, a shopkeeper, had an old claim of £14 against the sitting member, partly for goods supplied during the election in 1847 to his committee, and partly for goods sup- plied to himself. He had several times applied to the sitting member for payment of this claim, and in 1856 he received £6. 2s. 5d. After this he, unsolicited, promised his support at the next election ; and subsequently to this, but in the same year (1856) he bought £10 worth of furniture at a sale of the sitting member’s effects. This he applied to set off against the balance of the old debt, but the sitting mem- ber objected. It was then agreed to refer it, but, im consequence of the absence of the referee, it never came to anything. Ulti- mately, just before the election, Davis wrote to the sitting member a letter (inclosing a cheque for £2) to the following effect :—that the ac- count was of long standing, and though he (the sitting member) disputed some portion of it, still it was a fair and honest one, and he (the witness) would not give up his right to a shilling of it; that he had always been a supporter of- the sitting member, and that it would be very odd if he was to bring him into a court of justice on the one hand, and support him politically on the other; that he hoped the cheque inclosed BOROUGH OF GALWAY. would settle the matter amicably, but that if not, he would be obliged by the return of it, and he would then take legal steps for the recovery of the debt. The witness also recol- lected writing this :—*“ I have already promised you my individual support, and that you shall have, as I have promised it; but if I have to take legal means for recovering this account, I will not promise to give you all the influence I might have.” The Committee were of opinion that this case did not require any answer. 143 The Committee came to the following final July 13. resolutions for report to the House :-— 1. “That Anthony O’Flaherty, Esq., was, by Final reso- his agents, guilty of bribery at the last election #™"s- for the said town and county of the town of Galway.” 2. “That Anthony O’Flaherty, Esq., is not duly elected a burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the town and county of the town of Galway.” 3. “That the last election for the said town and county of the town of Galway, so far as re- gards the return of the said Anthony O’Fla- herty, Esq., is a void election.” 4. “That it was proved to the Committee, that Edward Hynes, Thomas M‘Loughlin, Wil- liam M/‘Loughlin, James Connor, Benjamin Matthews, Timothy Newell, and Michael 144 ELECTION CASES. Codyre, were bribed by Dr. James Valentine Browne and John Oliver.” 5. “That David Corcoran, Malachi Maloney, John Duggan, Michael Murphy, Michael Codyre, and Patrick Glyn were attempted to be bribed by Myles Ward.” 6. “That it was not proved that these acts of bribery were committed with the knowledge or consent of the said Anthony O’Flaherty.” 7. “That the evidence given before the Com- mittee appears to establish the fact that syste- matic bribery of certain classes of the electors has prevailed at the last and former elections for the said town” (a). 8. “That cases of treating were proved at the last election for the said town, but the con- sent of the said Anthony O’Flaherty or his agents was not proved thereto.” (a) A Commission of Inquiry, under 15 & 16 Vict. c. 57, was appointed on this report. CASE XIV. CITY OF BATH. 1857. The Committee was appointed on the 8th of July, 1857, and consisted of the following Members :— Rt. Hon. Edward Horsman, Stroud, ( Chairman.) John Cheetham, Esq., Lan- | Viscount Galway, East Ret- cashire, South. ford. William Seymour Fitzgerald, | Sir Harry Verney, Bart., Esq., Horsham. Buckingham. Petitioner :—Arthur Edwin Way, Esq., the defeated Candidate. Sitting Member petitioned against :—William Tite, Esq. Counsel for Petitionvr :—Mr. Slade, Q.C., Mr. W. H. Cook, and Mr. Rodwell. Agents :—Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, and Mr. J. Williams. Counsel for sitting Member :—Mr. Phinn, Q.C., Mr. Clerk, and Mr. Karslake. Agents :—Messrs. Bircham, Dalrymple, and Drake. —_o— Tur Committee agreed to the usual preliminary July 10. resolutions (a). Pane (a) Ante, p. 106. 146 Petition. Bribery, treating, undue in- fluence. Scratiny. When en- try of vote by poll clerk com- plete. ELECTION CASES. The petition, after stating that at the last election Sir Arthur H. Elton, William Tite, Esq. and the petitioner were candidates, and that the two former were returned, complained of the improper reception and rejection of votes on various grounds, and alleged bribery, treating, and undue influence, against the sitting member and his agents. It prayed a scrutiny, and the seat for the petitioner. Mr. Slade abandoned the allegations of bribery, treating, and undue influence, and opened a case of scrutiny. WILLIAM BATCHELOR’S CASE. It appeared from the poll-book, that the voter voted for Way, and opposite to his name were the words, “afterwards tendered vote for Tite.” Mr. Clerk proposed to add the vote to Mr. Tites poll. Tt was proved in evidence that the voter, who stated that he intended to vote for Way and Tite, having answered the usual questions at the poll, was asked for whom he voted, to which he replied “ Way,” and then, after a short pause of not more than a minute, while, according to the voter, the clerk was putting down the first vote, added the word “ Tite,” but the clerk, after consultation with the returning officer, refused to record it, as not given at the same moment CITY OF BATH, 147 with the vote for Way. The voter had no communication with any one at the booth as to his vote. The poll clerk stated that he thought the voter had turned away, and was going or gone, when he gave the name “ Tite.” The voter remonstrated, upon which the poll-clerk made an entry of the tender. Mr. Slade, against the vote, urged that the voting was complete when the voter said ‘‘ Way” and stopped; and that, a vote once entered, and the entry of which was perfected, could not be altered. Monmouth case (a), Taunton case (0). Vote not added to Mr. Tite’s poll (c). WILLIAM HENRY WALMSLEY’S CASE. Non-residence. The agent of the owner of the house formerly July 13. occupied by the voter stated, that on the 3rd of What sufi. December, 1856, the voter last paid him rent dence of for the house, which was for the quarter up to 270. December 21st, when he said he was going to re- side at Brighton; that he received a letter from the voter, dated Brighton, 12th December, after (a) K. & O. 413. (d) F. & F. 299. (c) The Committee divided on the question, ‘That the vote be added to the poll of Mr. Tite. Ayes, 2; Sir H. Verney, Mr. Horsman: Noes, 3; Mr. Cheet- ham, Mr. Fitzgerald, Lord Galway. H 2 148 What not sufficient evidence of non-resi- dence. ELECTION CASES. which he took possession of the house ; and on the following day he saw the voter in Bath, who stated that he had just been to vote. The voter, on being examined, stated that he left his house in Bath on the 5th December, and moved out his furniture to a warehouse, for which he agreed to pay £12 a year, and in which he might, if necessary, have slept at any time; that he did not move his furniture from Bath to Brighton till after the election; that he was at Bath on business for a few days before the election, when he slept at a friend’s house ; and that, had he known there was a question as to sleeping, he would have slept at the ware- house the night before the election. Mr. Slade, for the vote. —Continuous residence from day to day is not requisite, so as to entitle the voter to vote. The voter returned to Bath, not to vote, but for his own private affairs ; and was there animo manendi at the time of the election. Vote bad. EDWARD GERRISH’S CASE. Non-residence. In September, 1856, the voter was in arrear of rent for a house rented by him in Bath from his cousin, who distrained his goods for the rent, and after retaining possession of the house for some time, let it to another tenant. The voter subsequently went to reside with his cousin at CITY OF BATH. Bathford within the borough, and had no other home; about Christmas he went to visit some friends, and was away till a short time before the election ; in going to visit his friends the voter left several of his things at Bathford, and stated that he always intended to return thither as to his home. His return to Bathford was not solely for the purpose of voting, but also on account of business connected with the settle- ment of his affairs. Mr. Phinn, against the vote, referred to the case of Whithorn v. Thomas (a). Vote good. JOHN COOKE’S CASE. Non-residence. 149 The voter owned a house in Bath, in which What sufi- cient evi- he resided up to Lady-day, 1856; he was, at dence of the time of the election, and still, living at Wes- residence. ton-super-Mare with his wife and family, for the benefit of his health, and left that place for Bath on the polling day, March 27th, in order to vote, returning the same day. Most of his fur- niture was moved from Bath previous to the polling day, but a few things were still in the house, and were not removed till March 31st; the house was still unlet, and continued in the voter’s keeping, who intended to resume his residence in Bath on regaining his health. Mr. Phinn, against the vote, contended that (a) 7M. & Gr.1; B. & Arn. 259, What suffi- cient evi- dence of non-resi- dence. * ELECTION CASES. here there had not been continued residence so as to meet the requirements of the 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 79, which took from the voter his right to vote, “unless he shall, ever since the 31st July, have resided, and at the time of voting shall continue to reside, within the borough.” The principle of “ubi uxor, ibt domus” applies here. Mr. Cooke, for the vote, admitted that if the election had been in April, it might have been argued that the 79th section operated against the voter, but here the goods were not all removed till March 31st, and there was in the voter an animus revertendi. Vote good. JESSE STAMP’S CASE. Non-residence. The voter, a builder, formerly lived at Bath, but got into difficulties in August, 1856, when his stock in trade, &c., was sold under a bill of sale; he then went with his family to reside with his mother at a place called Dunkerton, two miles from Bath, and they stayed there till March 25th, the voter himself having been in Taunton gaol from 2Ist January till 10th Fe- bruary, 1857, as an insolvent debtor. On March 25th the voter took a cottage at Dunkerton, and moved into it with his family: he gave his mother a present of 30s. for her house-room, and during his residence with her found food for his wife and family. The absence at Taunton CITY OF BATH. was compulsory, the voter having never intended . to leave the neighbourhood of Bath. Mr. Phinn, against the vote, contended that there was here a break im the residence for three weeks from the 2lst January, which vitiated the vote. He referred to 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, and R. v. Stonehouse (a). Mr. Cooke, in defence of the vote.—The voter was not at Taunton animo manendi, but, on the contrary, animo revertendi, when he should be set at liberty. Mr. Stephens, in speaking of the Reform Act, 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 27, says, “Tf A.B. have a residence in Dover, be im- prisoned in London for six months next previous to the last day of July in the year of registration, but his family or domestic servants remain at his residence in Dover, A. B. will have a suffi- cient residence in Dover to confer the elective franchise” (4). In Whithorn v. Thomas (c), Mr. Justice Erle said, “ If a man’s family are living in a borough, and he is absent for six months, but with the intention of returning, he will still be considered as residing there” (d). Vote struck off (e). (a) 4E. & B. 901. (6) Stephens’ Law of Elections, Vol. 1, 619. (c) 7M. & Gr. 1. (2d) And see P. & K. 16. (e) The Committee divided on the question, ‘That the vote of J. Stamp is a good vote.” Ayes, 2; Mr. Fitzgerald, Lord Galway : Woes, 3 ; Sir H. Verney, Mr, Horsman, Mr. Cheetham; but see Crisp’s case, post, 153. 151 152 ELECTION CASES. CHARLES KING’S CASE. Non-residence. Committee The voter stated that he was registered in 1856 ns ot in- for a house in Bath, which belonged to himself ; vote, that he removed from Bath to Castle Combe, irae a eleven miles distant, in December 1855, and from athe 2 Castle Combe to Halton, thirty miles from Bath, vising bar- in October, 1856; that he never slept in his rister. house at Bath since he left it in 1855; but that up to 27th April last, there were two rooms unlet in the house, with some of his furniture in them, which rooms he should have occupied if neces- sary; and that, since he left in 1855, he had frequently slept at his daughter’s house in Bath, for his better accommodation. Mr. Slade, against the vote.—The Commit- tee must decide, on the evidence given, that this vote is bad. It is no defence to say, that the voter was not objected to before the revising bar- rister. My. Phinn, in support of the vote.—No objec- tion having been made to this vote before the revising barrister, and the vote not having been, in the terms of 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 98, retained upon the register by the express decision of the bar- rister, it is not competent to the Committee now to entertain the objection. 2nd Lancaster case (a), lst Harwich case (6). Moreover, in this case there is a good continuous residence. The Committee resolved, “That the Commit- (a) 1P. BR. & D. 169. (6) 1P.R. & D. 303. CITY OF BATH. 153 tee will not inquire into the case of any voter who was not objected to before the revising barrister, and in whose qualification to vote there has been no change since his name was placed on the register.” Vote retained. JOHN CRISP’S CASE. Non-residence. The voter, a butcher at Bath, was in January Voter not last obliged to petition the Insolvent Court, and oe went to Taunton gaol, whence he was discharged ry absence on the 10th February. During his imprison- see a ment his business was carried on by his wife and solvent the creditor who took his goods in execution ; aan his name still continued over the door, and he was liable for the rent. Vote good. MARK DUNSCOMBE’S AND JAMES DOLPHIN’S CASES. The first was objected to as having been Votes of bribed, the second as being promised a bribe. Laie A few days before the election, the voter mals of (Dunscombe) was canvassed by Charles Moore, struck off. and promised to vote for Tite and Elton, having always voted for the liberal candidates. He stat- ed, that on the day of election, whilst he was at work in a Mrs. East’s garden, Captain Dolphin, in company with another gentleman, came to ask him to vote for Way; to which he replied that he should lose work by so doing; that H 3 154 ELECTION CASES. Captain Dolphin said that he would give him work; that he then accompanied them to the poll, and at Captain Dolphin’s desire voted for Way and Elton; that he would have voted for Tite, but for the inducement held out by Captain Dolphin in regard to finding him work, in case he lost his work by voting for Way; that since the election he had been to Captain Dolphin’s house about getting work, but did not find him at home. The votes of Mark Dunscombe and Captain Dolphin were struck off (a). HENRY BRIGHT’S CASE. Objected to on the ground (amongst others) that he was improperly inserted on the register by the express decision of the revising barrister. The inser: Mr. Slade was proceeding to state his case ton of a i, against this vote, when the Chairman inquired claimant on the register whether this case did not fall within the resolu- rus hanss tion of the Committee, of the 14th of July (2). ter notan = Mr. Slade contended that the resolution in express de- P ; i eisiant: question was not applicable to this vote.—The voter was a claimant, who is not in the same po- sition as a voter objected to. The claim must be proved to the satisfaction of the revising bar- rister, who, by inserting his name in the list, makes an express decision. The Committee is a court of appeal from the revising barrister, and the decision being express, the Committee are bound to entertain the case. (a) Ace. Wareham, ante, p. 91. (b) Ante, p. 152. CITY OF BATH. Mr. Phinn contended that this case came expressly within the meaning of the resolution of the 14th of July. The Committee resolved, “That the resolu- tion of the Committee, of the 14th July, viz., ‘That the Committee will not inquire into the case of any voter who was not objected to before the revising barrister, and in whose qualification to vote there has been no change since his name was placed on the register,’ shall be held to preclude inquiry into the case of those parties who have claimed to be inserted in the list of voters, and whose names were so inserted by the revising barrister in such list” (a). Mr. Slade having abandoned the scrutiny, the Committee came to the following final resolutions for report to the House :— OL or 1. “That William Tite, Esq., is duly elected Final reso- a citizen to serve in this present Parliament for the City of Bath.” 2. “That it was proved to the Committee, that Mark Dunscombe was bribed by James Dolphin, by a promise of employment, to vote in favour of Arthur Edwin Way, Esq., but that it was not proved that such bribery was com- mitted with the knowledge and consent of the said Arthur Edwin Way, Esq.” (a2) The Committee divided on this resolution: Ayes, 3; Mr. Cheetham, Mr. Horsman, Sir H, Verney: Noes, 2; Lord Galway, Mr. Fitzgerald. 156 ELECTION CASES. 8. “ That the Committee have altered the poll taken at the last election for the City of Bath, by striking off the names of Jesse Corbould, William Franks, John Smith, Francis Davis, Francis Clarke, William Smith, Edward Pearce, Thomas Brabazon Aylmer, William Reynolds, Daniel Breadman, Samuel Giles, Charles Cockle, Joseph Wood, Salvador Marchione, Daniel Thomas Green, William Henry Walmsley, Jesse Stamp, Edwin Bartlett, John Vaughan, Mark Dunscombe, James Dolphin, and George Lewis, as not having had a right to vote at such election; and have also altered the poll, by striking off the name of Benjamin Bailey from the votes given for William Tite, Esq., and by adding it to the votes given for Arthur Edwin Way, Esq.; and have also altered the poll by adding thereto the names of John Perry Sinclair, Joseph Perry Sinclair, William Moore, and Francis Yerbury, as having had a right to vote at such election.” 157 CASE XV. BOROUGH OF WEYMOUTH. 1857. The Committee was appointed on the 14th of July, 1857, and consisted of the following Members :— William Tatton Egerton, Esq., Cheshire, North, ( Chairman.) Henry Wickham Wickham, | Thomas Berry Horsfall, Esq., Esq., Bradford. Liverpool. Sir John B. Walsh, Bart., | William T. Fagan, Esq., Cork Radnorshire. City. Petitioners :—1. George Medd Butt, Esq., the defeated Candi- date, against the return of Mr. Campbell. 2. Electors, against the return of Col. Freestun. Sitting Members :—Robert James Roy Campbell, Esq., and Col. William Lockyer Freestun. Counsel for both Petitions :—Mr. Slade, Q.C., and Mr. Clerk. Agents :—Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, and Mr. R. Hare. Counsel for Sitting Members :—Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Phinn, Q.C., Mr. Power, and Mr. Lefevre. Agents :—Mr. Coppock, Mr. Tizard, and Mr. Charles. — Tur Committee agreed to the usual preliminary July 16. Preliminary resolutions (a). resolutions. (a) Ante, p. 106. 158 1st petition. Bribery, treating, undue in- fluence. Notices served on voters. Scrutiny. 2nd peti- tion, Bribery, treating, undue in- fluence. July 17. Hearsay evidence in cases of bribery, admissible. ELECTION CASES. The first petition (of G. M. Butt), after stat- ing that at the last election Colonel Freestun, R. J. R. Campbell, Esq., and the petitioner were candidates, and that the two former were re- turned, alleged bribery, treating, and undue influence against Mr. Campbell and his agents, and stated that notice of such bribery and treat- ing was given to the electors when they came to the poll, and that, if they voted for Mr. Campbell, their votes would be thrown away. It prayed a scrutiny and the seat for the peti- tioner. The second petition (of electors) alleged bri- bery, treating, and undue influence against both the sitting members and their agents, and prayed the House to declare their election to be null and void. Mr. Slade, on behalf of the first petition, opened a case of bribery against Mr. Campbell, both personally and by his agents. On the following question being put to a wit- ness under examination, by Mr. Slade, ““ What did the grand-daughter say ? Mr. Power objected to the question. Mr. Slade was heard to contend that the Committee, in cases of bribery, were bound to inquire into and report upon the whole matter, under the 4 & 5 Vict. c. 57, without requiring agency to be proved in the first instance; that BOROUGH OF WEYMOUTH. 159 the statute to that extent altered the common- law rules of evidence so as to make the recep- tion of hearsay evidence admissible. He re- ferred to the Bridgnorth (a) and 2nd Taunton cases (5). Mr. Power, in reply, contended that the sta- tute provided that evidence should be received of bribery before proof of agency, but that that did not authorise the Committee to receive what in fact was not evidence at all; that the statute was intended to facilitate proof of bribery, but had not altered the rules of evidence. He re- ferred to the Nottingham cases (c). The Committee decided that the question might be put. At the conclusion of the petitioner’s case, the July 21. Committee informed the counsel for the sitting ° member that they need only direct their atten- tion to the cases of Thomas Bonella, Samuel Edmonds, and Thomas Vile. At the conclusion of the case on behalf of the Costs re- sitting member, in answer to the petition of ™** Mr. Butt, and upon an intimation from the Com- mittee that they were of opinion that no bri- bery had been proved against Mr. Campbell or his agents, (a) 2P. RB. & D. 18. (b) 2P.R. & D. 274, (c) B. & Arn. 168, 193. 160 July 22. Final reso- lutions. ELECTION CASES. Mr. Slade, as counsel for both petitions, stated that the evidence in support of the alle- gations of the second petition being substanti- ally the same as that already adduced on behalf of the first, upon which the Committee had just expressed an opinion, he should not pro- ceed with the second petition (a). Mr. James applied to the Committee to de- clare the second petition frivolous and vexatious, under the 1] & 12 Vict. c. 98, s. 89. The Committee refused the application. The Committee agreed to the following final resolutions for report to the House :— 1. “That Robert Roy Campbell, Esq., is duly elected a burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis.” 2. “That Colonel William Lockyer Freestun is duly elected a burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis.” 3. “That it was proved to the Committee, that Samuel Simmonds bribed Thomas New- man, to induce Thomas Bonella to give his vote, with the sum of £6, forthe payment of his travelling expenses at a previous election.” (a) Mr. Campbell and Colonel Freestun had joint committee-rooms, &c. BOROUGH OF WEYMOUTH. 4. “That Samuel Simmonds bribed Samuel Edmonds, for the purpose of giving his vote.” 5. “That it was not proved to the satisfac- tion of the Committee that the said acts of bri- bery were committed with the cognizance or privity of the sitting members or their agents.” 161 1857. CASE XVI. BOROUGH OF MALDON. The Committee was appointed on the 14th of July, 1857, and consisted of the following Members :— Sir John Trollope, Bart., Lincolnshire, South, ( Chairman.) Henry James Baillie, Esq., | Hon. Henry Arthur Cole, . Inverness-shire. Fermanagh. William Edward Baxter, Esq., | Robert Duncombe Shafto, Montrose District. Esq., Durham, North. Petitioners :—1. G. M. W. Peacocke, the defeated Candidate, against the return of Mr. Western. 2. Electors, against the return of Mr. Bramley- Moore. Sitting Members :—Thomas Sutton Western, Esq., and John Bramley-Moore, Esq. Counsel for 1st Petition :—Mr, Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Slade, Q.C., and Mr, Rodwell. Agents :—Messrs. Baxter, Rose, & Norton, and Mr. Codd. Counsel for 2nd Petition :—Mr. Phinn, Q.C., Mr. Welsby, and Mr. Bushby. Agents :—Messrs. Digby & Son, and Mr. Cooper. Counsel for Mr. Western :—Mr. Phinn, Q.C., Mr. Charnock, and Mr. Bushby. Agents :—Messrs. Digby & Son, and Mr. Cooper. Counsel for Mr. Bramley-Moore :—Mr. E. James, Q.C., Mr. Slade, Q.C., and Mr. Rodwell. Agents :—Messrs. Baxter, Rose & Norton, and Mr. Hance. BOROUGH OF MALDON. 163 The Committee agreed to the first eight of July 16. the usual preliminary resolutions (a). preg The first petition (of Mr. Peacocke), after !stpetition. stating that at the last election Thomas Sutton Western, Esq., John Bramley-Moore, Esq., and the petitioner were candidates, and that the two former were returned, alleged bribery, treating, Bribery, and undue influence against Mr. Western and aes his agents, and prayed the House to declare the fluence. return of Mr. Western to be null and void. The second petition (of electors), after stating peti- the election, alleged bribery and treating against Bribery, Mr. Bramley-Moore and his agents, and prayed treating. the House to declare the return of Mr. Bramley- Moore to be null and void. Mr. James opened the case of the first peti- ela tion. It was proved that Mr. Western distributed bi ia £10 amongst the poor of Tollesbury, which is evidence of about seven miles from Maldon, in coals, at the P™>ey- Christmas before the election, and that he can- vassed the electors there shortly afterwards. No partiality, however, was proved in the distribution of the coals; all those had them who were in want of them, including freemen on both sides. The then sitting members, one of whom was Mr. Peacocke the petitioner, had, (a) Ante, p. 106. 164 July 21. Final reso- lutions. Election auditor, ELECTION CASES. it appeared, done the same thing at Maldon, to the amount of £50. At the conclusion of the case of the first peti- tion, the Committee came to the following final resolutions for report to the House :— 1. “That Thomas Sutton Western, Esq., is duly elected a burgess to serve in the present Parliamént for the borough of Maldon.” 2. “That it was proved to the Committee, that Joseph Riley attempted to bribe Henry Gozzet by the promise of a contract for work at a church of which the said Joseph Riley was the churchwarden.” 3. “That the said Joseph Riley offered to bribe Thomas Webb by the promise of a supply of flour for one year under the market price.” 4, “That the said Joseph Riley was proved to have engaged rooms at the Wellington Inn, where treating was extensively carried on upon the day of polling, but it was not proved, to the satisfaction of the Committee, that the acts of bribery or treating were committed with the cognizance or privity of the said Thomas Sutton Western or his agents.” 5. “That, in the opinion of the Committee, the meaning and intent of the Act of the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, s. 15, for the appointment of an election auditor, was rendered nugatory by tke fact, that the son and partner of the agent of the sitting member (a) held that office, (4) Mr. Digby, senior, the agent here mentioned, was BOROUGH OF MALDON. 165 whereby he became the auditor of his own accounts.” Mr. Phinn then opened the case of the second 2nd peti- petition. Upon his mentioning, however, that ie he should rely upon the evidence of one Charles Petition de- Gill to prove his case, the chairman intimated Sais that, from the manner in which Gill had given 24 vexa- his evidence on the previous petition, the Com- mittee could not place any reliance upon his statements. Mr. Phinn said that, after that intimation from the Committee, he would not proceed fur- ther with the petition. Mr. James then applied to the Committee to declare the same to be frivolous and vexatious, and proceeded to call evidence in support of his application, at the conclusion of which— The Committee came to the following final resolutions for report to the House. 1. “That John Bramley-Moore, Esq., is duly Final reso- elected a burgess to serve in the present Par- tions. liament for the borough of Maldon.” 2. “That the petition presented against the return of the said John Bramley-Moore, Esq., was frivolous and vexatious.” 3. “That the said petition was presented chiefly with the view of inducing other persons both the general agent, and the “agent for election ex- penses, ” of Mr. Western. 166 ELECTION CASES. to withdraw a petition presented against the return of Thomas Sutton Western, Esq.” (uw). (a) It appeared that the petition had been presented after a consultation between Mr. Western and his agent, Mr. Digby, and at their instigation; that Mr. Digby had prepared the evidence for it, and was in fact the solicitor for it, and that Mr. Western con- sidered himself solely liable for the expenses of it. 167 CASE XVII. FALKIRK BURGHS. The Committee was appointed on the 15th day of J uly, 1857, and consisted of the following Members: — Sir John Somerset Pakington, Bart., Droitwich, (Chairman.) J. Booker Blakemore, Esq., | James Kershaw, Esq., Stock- Herefordshire. port. Robert Steyning Holford, Esq., | Francis Wm. Russell, Esq., Gloucestershire, East. Limerick City. Petitioners :—Electors. Sitting Member :—James Merry, Esq. Counsel for Petitioners :—Mr. Edwin J ames, Q.C., Mr. Power, and Mr. Bourke. Agents :—Mr. Ritchie, Messrs. Baxter, Rose, & Norton. Counsel for Sitting Member :—Mr. Phinn, Q.C., Mr. Rodwell, and Mr. Hale. Agents :—Messrs. Holmes, Anton, and Turnbull, Mr. Wm. Burns, Mr. Robert Watt, Mr. D. H. Robertson, and Mr. James Lockhart. —~ 1857. Tue Committee agreed to the usual prelimi- July 17. nary resolutions (a). Preliminary resolutions. The petition (of William Forbes Esq., and an- petition, (a) Ante, p. 106. 168 ELECTION CASES. other), after stating that the petitioners were registered electors, and voted at the last elec- tion; that George Baird, Esq. and James Merry, Esq., were the candidates, and that the latter was Bribery, Yeturned, alleged bribery, treating, and undue treating influence against the sitting member and his fluence. agents; that the sitting member did not ap- Non-ap- point an agent for election expenses, as required ene by “the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act election 1854,” and that he provided music, flags, and ea banners, contrary to law. It prayed the House flags, &c. to declare the election and return of the said James Merry to be null and void. July 17. Mr. Phinn took a preliminary objection to the ee petition, in which there were several interlinea- erasnres in tlons anderasures. He contended that it should Petition. be shown that they were made previous to the signing of the petition. [The interlineations were of the most imma- terial character, being merely clerical errors, and opposite to them and the erasures the initials of the petitioners were placed.] Mr. James was heard against the objection. The Committee decided that the petition should be proceeded with. Mr. Edwin James opened the case. Production © The sheriff produced the poll-books which had on been deposited by him with the sheriff-clerk after books. the election. Statements On the following question being asked a FALKIRK BURGHS. 169 witness under examination by Mr. James, “What made sub- did Provost Adam say to you?” oo 3 ‘ : election Mr. Phinn objected, that this was a statement with refer- made after the election, and could not be ad- ecole mitted to affect the sitting member; even if . oe Adam was an agent at the election, his agency Hector terminated with it. adentssthle, Mr. James contended that the question re- ferred to matters that took place before the election, and that it was immaterial when the statement was made, if it had reference to a transaction which occurred at the election. The Committee decided that the question might be put. With reference to agency, it appeared from a July 20. statement by the Committee, that they consi- aoe dered the agency of one Provost Adam (who of agency. was the person who attempted to bribe Thomas Wyse) to be established. “The facts proved were as follows :—He can- vassed personally, not merely in company with the sitting member; he engaged the committee- rooms at the Red Lion in Falkirk, and was there in company with the sitting member ; he dined there with him on several occasions in company with six or seven more friends; the bill at the Red Lion, amounting to £95, and including £35 for refreshment, was sent in to him; he re-wrote the bill, omitting the item for refreshment, and paid the landlord £60, although the bill itself, I What suffi- cient evi- dence of treating. ELECTION CASES. on the face of it, appeared as if it had been paid by the election auditor. The sitting member was not examined, and no evidence to rebut the agency of Mr. Adam was given. It appeared, that both on the polling day and on the Saturday and Monday previous, eatables and drinkables were supplied to voters, without payment or stint, at the Red Lion in Falkirk, the Commercial Inn at Lanark, and the Meal Market Inn at the same place, at all which inns committee-rooms of the sitting member were established; that treating went on at the committee-rooms themselves ; that it went on at the Red Lion, where the bill for such came to £35 on the polling day, till one o’clock in the morning; that both at the Commercial and Meal Market Inns there were several dinners, at which large numbers sat down in the course of the polling day; that Mr. Burns, the agent for election expenses, ordered the refreshment at the Red Lion to be put down to the commit- tee. The bill there for refreshment, amounting to £35 (which had been struck out when the rest was paid,) had not been paid at the time of the hearing of the petition; but it appeared that Provost Adam had, about a week previously, asked the landlord for a detailed bill of the amount, although he said at the same time that it was very likely it would not be paid. FALKIRK BURGHS. At the conclusion of the petitioners’ case, Mr. Phinn stated that he would call no evidence on behalf of the sitting member, but would leave the case as it stood in the hands of the Com- mittee ; who came to the following final resolu- tions for report to the House :— 1. “That James Merry, Esq., was, by his agents, guilty of bribery at the last election.” 2. “That James Merry, Esq., is not duly elected a commissioner to serve in this present Parliament for the Falkirk District of Burghs.” 3. “That the last election for the said burghs is a void election.” 4. “That it was proved to the Committee that Patrick Quigley was bribed with the pay- ment of £10.” 5. “ That it was proved to the Committee that a bribe of £20 was offered to Richard Lyon, if he would give his own vote, and secure the vote of two other electors, named Wilson and Munro, in favour of the said James Merry, Esq.” 6. “That it was proved to the Committee that a bribe was offered to Thomas Wyse, through his wife ; but it was not proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that such acts of bribery were committed with the knowledge and consent of the said James Merry, Esq.” 7, “That James Merry, Esq., was, by his agents, guilty of treating at the last election ; but that it was not proved that such treating was committed with the knowledge and consent of the said James Merry, Esq.” 12 171 Final reso- lutions. 172 ELECTION CASES. 8. “ That it was proved to the Committee that the requirements of the Act 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, intituled, ‘An Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to bribery, treating, and undue influence at elections of members of Parliament,’ were not complied with at the last election for the said burghs, inasmuch as no agent or agents for election expenses were duly appointed by James Merry, Esq., in the manner specified in the 31st section of that Act (a) ; and that, of the total expenses of the election returned by Mr. Merry’s agents to the auditor, amounting to £2486 15s. 7d., only £1611 8s. 5d. were paid by the said auditor, as required in section 18 of the said Act, and the auditor does not know by whom the balance of £823 7s. 2d. was paid.” (a) It appeared that the election auditor had received - the agent’s “ declaration,” but not his appointment. 173 CASE XVIII. BOROUGH OF IPSWICH. 1857. The Committee was appointed on the 21st of July, 1857, and consisted of the following Members :— Lord Stanley, King’s Lynn, (Chairman.) Henry Austin Bruce, Esq., | Rainald Knightley, Esq., Merthyr Tydvil. Northamptonshire, South. John Hatchell, Esq., Wex- | Hon. Henry George Liddell, ford County. Northumberland, South. Petitioners :—1. Henry John Selwin, a defeated Candidate. 2. Electors, against the return of Mr. Adair. 3. Electors, against the return of Mr. Cobbold. Sitting Members :—Hugh Edward Adair, Esq., and John Chevallier Cobbold, Esq. Counsel for 1st and 2nd Petition :—Mr. Slade, Q.C., Mr. W. H. Cooke, and Mr. Rodwell. Agents :—Messrs. Baxter, Rose & Norton. Counsel for 3rd Petition and for Mr. Adair :—Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Phinn, Q.C., Mr. Welsby, and Mr. Power. Agents :—Mr. Coppock, Mr. Long, and Mr. Cooper. Counsel for Sitting Member, Mr Cobbold :—Mr. Slade, Q.C., Mr. Rodwell, and Mr. Wilkinson. Agents :—Messrs. Baxter, Rose, & Norton, and Mr. Patteson. 174 ELECTION CASES. July 23. THe Committee agreed to the usual preliminary Preliminary resolutions (a). resolutions. Istpetition. The first petition (of Mr. Selwin), after stat- ing that at the last election John Chevallier Cob- bold, Hugh Edward Adair, John Clark Marsham, Esqrs., and the petitioner were candidates, and that the two former were returned, alleged bri- Bribery, bery, treating, and undue influence against treating, 2 ‘ : undue ine Mr. Adair and his agents, and complained of fluence. the improper reception and rejection of votes Scrutiny. On various grounds. It prayed a scrutiny and the seat for the petitioner. 2nd Peti- © The second petition (of H. Orford, &c.) ae alleged bribery, treating, and undue influence esting. against Mr. Adair and his agents, and prayed undue in- the House to declare his election and return to fluence. be null and void. 3rd Peti- The third petition (of W. B. Faiers and an- mee: other) alleged bribery, treating, and undue Bribery, , : : treating, Influence against Mr. Cobbold and his agents, ee and prayed the House to declare his election and return to be null and void. Mr. Slade opened the case of the first and second petitions. July 24, On the following question being put to a (a) Ante, p. 106, BOROUGH OF IPSWICH. 175 witness, who had, in answer to a previous ques- Declaration tion, said that he had seen Mr. Cooper Mulley 028°" since the election, “What did Mr. Cooper tion not Mulley say to you?” ee Mr. Phinn objected, on the ground that Mr. Mulley’s agency having terminated with the election, his subsequent declarations could not be evidence against the sitting member. The Committee decided that the question could not be put. During the examination of one Lancaster, Mr. July 25. Rodwell applied to the Committee for leave to ee amend the bribery list by adding the name of bribery list, . . . d d Charles Fisk to that of Daniel Long, as having aneeesary bribed one Cocks.—The resolution to which the by resolu- Committee had come on the previous day (not Cee to receive hearsay evidence in cases of bribery) ae rendered this application necessary. : Mr. Welsby was heard against the applica- tion, and contended that the other side should not take advantage of their own laches. The Committee refused to accede to the ap- plication. With regard to the agency of James Fyson Contradic- Bedford and John Smith, it was proved by the (R?.¢%7 witnesses for the petitioners that they were agency. very active in the election generally, in canvas- sing, bringing up voters to the poll, &c. &c.; that they were frequently seen in what they called the Central Committee-room in Queen 176 July 28. Final reso- lutions. ELECTION CASES. Street, and also at the District Committee- rooms during the day of nomination and _poll- ing. With regard to John Smith, it was proved in addition that he was present when the mes- sengers, clerks, &c. were paid on the Monday after the election at the committee-rooms in Queen Street, and that, some dispute arising with regard to a person’s claim for half a day, on Mr. Smith saying, “It is all right,” the claim was allowed and paid by Mr. Head, Mr. Adair’s agent; that he ordered cabs, &c. The house in Queen Street was placarded as “ Adair and Marsham’s Committee.” On the other hand, Mr. Adair (the sitting member) swore that there was no committee whatever; that his head-quarters were at Queen Street, and he was there himself, but that the whole conduct of the election was deputed to Mr. Head, Mr. Long, and Mr. Lawrence; that anybody who liked came into the rooms in Queen Street, and he denied having given any authority to Messrs. Bedford or Smith, of any kind whatever, or that he had canvassed voters with them. The Committee came to the following final resolutions for report to the House :— 1. “That Hugh Edward Adair, Esq., is duly elected a burgess to serve in this present Parlia- ment for the borough of Ipswich” (a). (a) The Committee divided on this resolution :— BOROUGH OF IPSWICH. 2. “That it was proved to the Committee that Samuel Barber was bribed with the sum of £2 by James Fyson Bedford and John Smith.” 3. “That William Bowman was bribed with the sum of £2 10s. by John Feek.” 4, “That Henry King was also bribed by the same John Feek, but the amount given in this case was not proved.” 5. “That Stephen Kerridge Cook and Ed- ward Green were bribed by William Cook; the amount given in this case was not proved; but that it was not proved that such bribery was committed with the knowledge and consent of Hugh Edward Adair, Esq.” 177 The hearing of the third petition was then 3rd peti- proceeded with. With regard to the payment of travelling Travelling expenses, some were proved to have been paid &*Penses. before voting, but most after ; some voters were paid who had come in their own conveyances ; one was paid a fortnight after the election. The method adopted was this :—the out-voters were generally asked where they had come from, or how far they had come, and the agent, Mr. Jennings, then made an estimate and paid them the money, irrespective of their class of life, and whether they had paid the Ist, 2nd, or 3rd class railway fare. In one case the sum paid to voters who came from London included the expense Ayes, 4; Mr. Bruce, Mr. Hatchell, Mr. Liddell, Lord Stanley: Woe, 1; Mr. Knightley. ; I 178 What suffi. cient evi- dence of bribery. A brother not an agent. What suf- ficient evi- ELECTION CASES. of two beds at Ipswich, and money paid by the voter to a person in London to attend to his work there, which was that of a porter at an hotel. In one case where the agent (Mr. Jennings) knew that the person who claimed travelling expenses had never left Ipswich, pay- ment was refused. The facts of Chillman’s case were as follows :— Chillman met Pearce and asked him for “a day’s work,” or “the price of a day’s work.” Pearce refused and went away, but subsequently returned and said, “Jump into a cab and vote for us; I think you are going to vote.” They got into the cab together, and while they were in the cab, Pearce said, “I will give you a few shillings out of my own pocket, if you like to accept them.” He then gave Chillman 5s. Chillman swore he did not consider it as a bribe, and that there was no contract for his vote. With regard to the agency of Mr. Arthur Thomas Cobbold, it was proved on the one side that he was the brother of the sitting member, but nothing more. On the other hand, the sitting member distinctly denied having given him any authority whatever to act for him, and was not aware that he had interested himself at all in the election. The facts of Wells’ case were as follows :— Wells had taken a beer-house of Mr. Arthur BOROUGH OF IPSWICH. 179 Thomas Cobbold’s agent about a year and a dence of half before the election, at the annual rent of Pe: £14. In October, 1856, when the first half year’s rent was due, he represented to Mr. Cobbold that the trade of the house was very bad, and that, if he was to remain in the house, he could not afford to pay any rent. Mr. Cobbold said, “ Well, we never asked you;” and Wells then said, “ He should like to have that in writing.” Mr. Cobbold said he should, or could have it, and subsequently Wells applied for the agreement. Ultimately, on the morning of the poll he obtained it. The condition of the non-payment of rent was Mr. Wells paying all outgoings, keeping up the licence, having all his beer and spirits from Mr. Cobbold, and giving up possession on demand ; but this, it ap- peared, he was bound to do by the original agreement, and it appeared clearly from Wells’ evidence and Mr. Cobbold’s cross-examination, that there had been bargaining for the agree- ment before Wells would vote, on the morning of the polling day. Wells had previously told the “yellow” party, on their canvass, that he should like to vote for them, only he owed £20 rent. It appeared that Frederick Pearse was gene- What not rally busy in the election; that he engaged as district committee-rooms at the house of a agency. person named Keeble, and directed placards to be placed outside the house, &c., and that he ac- 180 July 31. Final reso- lutions. ELECTION CASES. companied Mr. Cobbold on his canvass on one or two occasions. Mr. Cobbold’s agent, in answer to a question, “Was Mr. Pearse in any way employed?” said, “ He was a great deal more,” (i.e. more than some other persons about whom he had just been asked), “in the rooms,” (te. the committee-rooms); “he was in the house and about, and did assist Mr. Cobbold. I did not consider him an agent. He was there with a number of other gentlemen who offered their services.” On cross-examination, it ap- peared that the assistance he rendered was in giving information about voters. The Committee came to the following final resolutions for report to the House :— 1. “That John Chevallier Cobbold, Esq., is duly elected a burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Ipswich ” (a). 2. “That Robert Chillman was bribed by Frederick Pearce with the sum of 5s.” 3. “That Edgar Boaree was bribed by George Frederick Butcher and Henry Guiver with the sum of £5.” 4. “That John Wells was bribed by Arthur Thomas Cobbold by an agreement releasing him from the payment of rent ; but that it was not proved that such bribery was committed with (a) The Committee divided on this resolution :— dyes, 4; Mr. Bruce, Mr. Knightley, Mr. Liddell, Lord tanley: Noe, 1; Mr. Hatchell. BOROUGH OF IPSWICH. the knowledge and consent of John Chevallier Cobbold, Esq.” 5. “That it appears by the evidence taken before this Committee, that the payments made to voters on account of travelling expenses have been systematically in excess of the actual dis- bursements of such voters, although it was not conclusively proved before the Committee that such payments were made with a corrupt in- tention” (a). (a) An amendment was moved to this resolution, to leave out all the words after “‘ expenses have been,” in order to add the words, “in some instances careless and extravagant, although there is no proof that such payments were made with corrupt intent.” The Com- mittee divided on the question, “ That the words pro- posed to be left out stand part of the question :” Ayes, 3; Mr. Bruce, Mr. Hatchell, Lord Stanley: Woes, 2; Mr. Liddell, Mr. Knightley. 181 1857. July 24. 182 CASE XIX. BOROUGH OF GREAT YARMOUTH. The Committee was appointed on the 22nd of July, 1857, and consisted of the following Members :— Earl of March, Sussex, West, (Chairman.) Henry Morgan Clifford, Esq., | William James Garnett, Esq., Hereford. Lancaster. Caledon George Du Pré, Esq., | Col. the Hon. James P. Max- Bucks. well, Cavan. Petitioners :—Electors. Sitting Members :—William Torrens M‘Cullagh, and Edward William Watkin, Esqs. Counsel for Petitioners :—Mr. O’Malley, Q.C., Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Clerk. Agents :—Messrs. Thompson, Debenham and Brown, and Mr. C. Cory. Counsel for sitting Members :—Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Slade, Q.C., Mr. Power, Mr. Rodwell, and Mr. O’Brien. Agents :—Messrs. Burchell, Messrs. Humphreys & Knight, and Mr. Costerton. —~—- Tux Committee agreed to the first eleven of the Preliminary usual preliminary resolutions (a). resolutions. (a) Ante, p. 106. BOROUGH OF GREAT YARMOUTH. 1838 The petition, after stating that at the last Petition. election Sir Edmund H. K. Lacon, Bart., Hon- orable Charles Smythe Vereker, W. T. M‘Cul- lagh, Esq., and E. W. Watkin, Esq., were can- didates, and that the two latter were returned, alleged bribery, treating, and undue influence Bribery, against the sitting members and their agents, aan ae and prayed the House to declare their election fluence. and return to be null and void. Mr. O’ Malley opened a case of bribery. In the course of the first day’s proceedings Amend- Mr. O'Malley applied to the Committee for Tibet leave to amend the bribery lists by adding the »tallowed. names of four persons as bribers. Mr. Rodwell opposed the application.—It was not even alleged that these cases had come out in the course of the inquiry. The Committee decided that no sufficient cause had been shown for amending the list. A witness, one Thomas Image, was objected July 25. to on the ground that he had been in the room aaa during the examination. It appeared he had rae been in twice on the preceding day, remaining to gain con- the second time twenty-three minutes, and had nuents a heard some of the evidence. Hesaid his reason te exam- for coming in was to give himself more confi- ied. dence in answering the questions when it came to his turn to be examined, and that he did not know anything about the order for the exclusion 184 ELECTION CASES. of witnesses, and being very short-sighted had not read the notice on the door. The Chairman stated that the Committee were of opinion the witness could not be-ex- amined. _ Not abso- At the conclusion of the examination of John lutelyne- Gibbons, on Leyton’s case, cessary to : close one Mr. Slade submitted that the counsel on the pester a opposite side must state whether he had closed to another. Leyton’s case, and contended that it was the invariable practice to close one case before pro- ceeding to another. Mr. Johnson was heard in support of his right to conduct the case without confining himself to terminating one case before proceeding to another. The Committee refused to lay down any such rule as that contended for, but suggested that counsel should as far as possible terminate one case before commencing another. July 28." One Charles Woolven refused to answer any Witness further questions, and, after being warned by refusing to Z . answer fur- the Chairman, was taken into custody by the a ea Serjeant-at-Arms, under the Chairman’s war- mittedto rant, and his “‘ prevarication and misbehaviour” custody. ordered to be reported to the House. What sufs With regard to the agency of William Spill- BOROUGH OF GREAT YARMOUTH. 185 ing (a), it appeared that he was a carpenter and ficient evi- builder ; that he took down to the officer acting (ence of for the mayor a list of “stavesmen,” whom it a was the custom in Yarmouth for each party to nominate in equal proportions to the mayor, and they were then sworn in as special consta- bles. The list was in the handwriting of the clerk of one of the sitting member’s agents, and the officer knew it, but stated that Spilling represented the persons on the list as persons whom he wished to be sworn in, and one staves- man at all events was added to the list at ‘Spilling’s request. Spilling had also appointed two doorkeepers at M‘Cullagh and Watkin’s principal committee-rooms, and a person at the same committee-rooms to mark off the voters as they polled. He was at the committee-rooms early on the morning of the polling day, and there gave instructions to the poll and check- clerks, the card-writers and card-carriers. He was present with a Mr. Brand when some of the persons employed were paid at the committee- rooms on the evening of that day, and in one instance directed Mr. Brand, who was the person actually paying the money, how much to give the witness, who had been appointed as doorkeeper by him. Others were paid on the following Monday, after a dinner which the (a) The facts proved of the other persons reported against as bribers, viz. J.C. Royall, W.R. Last, andJ.D. Chapman were not so strong as in the case of Spilling. 186 July 29. Final reso- lutions. ELECTION CASES. check clerks, &., to the number of forty-eight, had at the Norfolk Inn in the evening of that day. Spilling, Brand, and W. R. Last sat at the heads of the three tables at the dinner, and after it was over, Spilling, Last, Brand, and a man named Steward, adjourned to a private room, and there paid the remainder of the per- sons employed at the election, Steward being the actual payer, but Spilling, again, in one instance, directing the amount. These pay- ments were admitted in the election auditor’s account. On the other hand, Mr. Clowes, the agent for election expenses of both the sitting members, denied having given any authority whatever to Spilling, or even having spoken to him during the election, and the sitting members (one of whom did not know Spilling by sight) confirmed this. It appeared, however, that Mr. Clowes had allowed payment for the hire of three com- mittee-rooms, besides the one he used himself, although he did not know who had engaged them. The Committee came to the following final resolutions for report to the House :— 1. “That William Torrens M‘Cullagh and Edward William Watkin, Esqrs., were, by their agents, guilty of bribery at the last election for the borough of Great Yarmouth” (a). (2) To this the following amendment was proposed :— BOROUGH OF GREAT YARMOUTH. 2. “That William Torrens M‘Cullagh and Edward William Watkin, Esqrs., are not duly elected burgesses to serve in this present Parlia- ment for the borough of Great Yarmouth.” 3. ‘That the last election for the said borough is a void election.” 4, “ That it was proved to the Committee that George Woods was bribed with £6, and James Benstead with £3, by John C. Royal; Charles Reeve with £5, by William Robert Last; Wil- liam Benjamin Layton, by the offer of £10, made to him by James Denny Chapman; and George Watson and James Richard Emms, by promises of money made to them by William Spilling.” 5. “ That it was not proved to the Committee that the aforesaid acts of bribery were committed with the knowledge and consent of the said William Torrens M‘Cullagh and Edward Wil- liam Watkin.” To leave out from the word “ That” to the end of the question, in order to add the words, “ Several acts of bribery have been proved to the Committee to have been committed at the late election for the borough of Great Yarmouth, but such acts are not proved to have taken place with the sanction or knowledge of the sitting members or their agents.” The Committee divided on the question, ‘‘ That the words proposed to be left out stand pari of the question :” Ayes, 4; Mr. Du Pré, Mr. Garnett, Colonel Maxwell, Earl of March: Noe, 1; Colonel Clifford, 187 188 CASE XX. 1857. CITY OF GLOUCESTER. The Committee was appointed on the 22nd of July, 1857, and consisted of the following Members :— Lord Robert Grosvenor, Middlesex, ( Chairman.) Stephen Edward De Vere, | George Ridley, Esq., New- Esq., Limerick County. castle-on-Tyne. Edward Basil Farnham, Esq., | George Sclater, Esq., Hants, Leicestershire, North. North. Petitioners :-—1. Electors, against the return of Mr. Price. 2. Electors, against the return of Sir Robert Walter Carden. Sitting Members :—William Phillip Price, Esq., and Sir Robert Walter Carden. Counsel for 1st Petition and for Sir R. W. Carden :—Mr. Slade, Q.C., Mr. W. H. Cooke, and Mr. Clerk. Agents :—Messrs. Baxter, Rose, & Norton, Mr. Lovegrove, and Mr. Taynton. Counsel for 2nd Petition and for Mr. Price :—Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Phinn, Q.C., Mr. Neale. Agents :—Mr. Coppock, Mr. Wilton, and Mr. Ellis. —~_ July 24, THE Committee agreed to the first eleven of the Preliminary usual preliminary resolutions (a), and, in addi- resolutions. tion thereto, the following :— (a) Ante, p. 106. CITY OF GLOUCESTER. 189 ““Tnasmuch as the law applicable to the evidence necessary to establish a charge of treat- ing differs from that applicable to bribery, the Committee are of opinion that the part of the petition which relates to treating shall be pro- ceeded with previous to any evidence being adduced with regard to bribery. They there- fore request that counsel will confine themselves in the first instance to the charge of treating.” The first petition (against Mr. Price), after ‘iad stating that at the last election Sir R. W. ~ Carden, W. P. Price, Esq., and Sir Maurice Frederick Fitzhardinge Berkeley were can- didates, and that the two former were returned, alleged bribery, treating, and undue influence Britery, against Mr. Price and his agents, and prayed (rraune: | the House to declare his election and return to fluence. be null and void. The second petition (against Sir R. W. ao Carden) alleged bribery, treating, and undue Bribery, influence against Sir R. W. Carden and his treating, agents, and prayed the House to declare his ee : fluence. election and return to be null and void. Mr. Slade opened the first petition. A witness under cross-examination by Mr. July 25. i ked, “ ffered you money In cross Phinn, was asked, “ Had he o y y De to vote for Sir R. Carden pe? bie) sitting Mr. Slade objected, that as the Committee member 190 against another, re- criminatory evidence notallowed. July 27. 1st peti- tion. Final reso- lutions. ELECTION CASES. were now considering the petition against the return of Mr. Price, questions relating to the petition against the return of Sir. R. Carden could not be put. The Committee would have an opportunity of hearing that evidence on the consideration of the second petition. It was, in fact, giving recriminatory evidence twice over. Mr. Phinn was heard in answer to the objec- tion. The Committee decided that the question could not be put. At the conclusion of the case against the return of Mr. Price, the Committee came to the following final resolutions for report to the House :— 1. “ That William Philip Price, Esq., is duly elected a citizen, to serve in this present Par- liament for the city of Gloucester.” 2. “That it was proved to the Committee, that Thomas Mills had been unduly influenced by Charles Frederick Cooksey, by an offer of £5, to vote for William Philip Price, Esq.” (a). 3. “ That there was no evidence to show that the said act of undue influence was committed with the knowledge or consent of the said Wil- liam Philip Price.” (a) The only evidence with regard to the agency of Cooksey was, that the sitting member had on one oc- casion gone, at Cooksey’s request and in his company, from the hustings to Cooksey’s house to canvass a voter’ who was at work in his garden. CITY OF GLOUCESTER. 191 The evidence given on the second petition 2nd peti- ras of the most contradictory description. mon The Committee came to the following final July 29. -esolutions for report to the House :— 1. “That Sir Robert Walter Carden is duly Final reso- elected a citizen, to serve in this present Par- ™ons. liament for the city of Gloucester.” 2. “That the evidence in support of the petition against the said election and return of Sir Robert Walter Carden was of the most un- satisfactory nature.” Mr. Clerk applied to the Committee to declare Costs re- the petition against the return of Sir R. W. 4 Carden frivolous and vexatious. The Committee refused the application. 192 CASE XXI. 1857. COUNTY OF HUNTINGDON. The Committee was appointed on the 23rd July, 1857, and consisted of the following Members :— John Morgan Cobbett, Esq., Oldham, (Chairman). Sir John Johnstone, Bart., Esq., Southampton. Scarborough. William Watkin E. Wynne, Henry Paull, Esq., St. Ives. Esq., Merioneth. Thomas Matthias Weguelin, Petitioners :—1. Edward Fellowes, Esq., doubly returned. 2. Electors. 3. John Moyer Heathcote, Esq., doubly returned. Counsel for 1st Petition :—Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., Mr. W. H. Cooke, and Mr. Field. Agents :—Mr. R. H. Wyatt and Mr. Percival. [No person appeared in support of the 2nd Petition.] Counsel for 3rd Petition :—Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Power and Mr. Rodwell. Agents :—Mr. Coppock and Mr. Day. —>—. July 25. Tue Committee agreed to the usual preliminary aint 4 resolutions (a), (with the exception of that relat- (a) Ante, p. 106. COUNTY OF HUNTINGDON. 193 ing to the exclusion of witnesses from the room, which was omitted in accordance with the ex- press application of both parties). The first petition (of Mr. Fellowes), after 1stPetition. stating that at the last election James Rust, Esq., John Moyer Heathcote, Esq., and the petitioner were candidates, and that, after a poll taken, the returning officer “returned the said James Double re- Rust as one of the two knights to serve in the ™™- said Parliament, and further returned that, for the other of the said knights your petitioner and the said John Moyer Heathcote had been elected by an equal number of votes for each, to wit, one thousand one hundred and six votes for each,” complained of the improper recep- Scrutiny. tion and rejection of votes on various grounds, and prayed the House to amend the Indenture of Return by erasing therefrom the name of Mr. Heathcote. The third petition (of Mr. Heathcote), after sraPetition. setting out the election and return, complained of the improper reception and rejection of votes Scrutiny. on various grounds, and alleged bribery, treat- pripery, ing, and undue influence against Mr. Fellowes ee and his agents, and prayed the House to amend fuence. the return by erasing the name of Mr. Fellowes therefrom. Mr. O’ Malley, who commenced the proceed- K 194 ° ELECTION CASES. ings on behalf of Mr. Fellowes, whose name appeared before that of Mr. Heathcote in the return, stated that the case would be confined on both sides to a scrutiny, all general allega- tions as to bribery, &c., having been abandoned on both sides. The poll-books, and the register of voters then in force, as well as the previous one, were ad- mitted in evidence. WILLIAM WARD’S CASE. The voter was objected to on the ground that he was corruptly influenced to vote by having been treated. Facts in- The wife of the voter, who was a waterman at as Peterborough, stated that her husband told her, voteon before the election, that he should vote for Rust eae and Heathcote; that Mr. Percival, the agent for Mr. Fellowes, called at her husband’s house the evening before the polling and saw her hus- band, who told her that Mr. Percival wished him to vote for Fellowes instead of Heathcote, and that he had agreed to do so; that Mr. Percival called again that night, and told her that a fly would come next morning to convey her husband to Yaxley, to the house of a Mr. Bird, a substantial farmer, who would take him on to the poll at Stilton; that the fly accord- ingly came, and with it a person who told her that she and her husband need not breakfast at home, as there would be a breakfast at Yaxley ; COUNTY OF HUNTINGDON. that she and her husband, on arriving at Mr. Bird’s, had breakfast there in company with several voters, and then went on to the poll, ac- companied by Mr. Bird. Another witness deposed, that after the elec- tion the voter (who had previously promised him to vote for Mr. Heathcote) admitted that he had had a breakfast at Yaxley, and that when the witness told him that he had sold the election, he replied, that “he did as he pleased, and he should vote for them as would serve him best,”? and that he voted as he had done, “ be- cause they offered to give me a ride, while you refused to do so.” Mr. Percival, on being called, stated that the voter had never promised him a vote, but that the voter’s wife told him she would use her in- fluence with her husband for Rust and Fellowes ; that he had made arrangements with Mr. Bird for the collecting of voters in his district, and conveying them to the poll, and that not a word ever passed between him and Mr. Bird relative to a breakfast. Mr. Bird stated that he only made up his mind the day before the poll to give a breakfast ; that he held out no inducement; and that voters on both sides partook of the breakfast, for which he had made no preparation. Mr. O’ Malley, in defence of the vote.—To make the vote void under the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, s. 4, the entertainment must be cor- K2 195 196 ELECTION CASES. ruptly given by a candidate or agent, and must be given for the purpose of corruptly influenc- ing the voter. The evidence here fails to show that the breakfast was given corruptly, or that it affected the vote. Mr. Power, against the vote.—The question is, was the voter induced in any way, the guan- tum of inducement being immaterial, to break his promise to vote for Mr. Heathcote? Ifthe breakfast was calculated in any way to influence the voter’s mind, the vote is bad, as the voter must be free till the last moment of giving or witholding his vote, Allen v. Hearne (a), Chat- ham case (4). Vote retained. InScrutiny, In the course of the proceedings on the above ee vote, William Brown, a witness, having been missible. asked by Mr. James “‘ What did he (the voter) say in answer to that?” Mr. O’ Malley objected to the admissibility of the evidence, on the ground that the only parties to this inquiry are Mr. Fellowes and Mr. Heathcote, and that the business of the Committee is not to inquire into this or that man’s motives, but to inquire into facts. Mr. James.—A voter, in a scrutiny, when his vote is at issue, is considered a party to the suit, Rogers’ Elect. Comm. p. 122; Taylor on (a) 1T. RB. 56. (8) 2P.R. & D. 35. COUNTY OF HUNTINGDON. 197 Evidence, p. 601, Worcester case (a); and his declarations are admissible in evidence. Resolved, “That the evidence is admissible.” WILLIAM GARKA’S CASE. The voter was objected to on the ground that Poseroien he was not the person whose name appears on acl Saal the register as entitled to vote in respect of the fication, qualification annexed to the name of the voter. ea The name, W. Garka, appeared three times es, on the register, as Nos. 134, 656, and 1075. The vote good.’ father of the voter was registered in respect of the first two qualifications, and the son rented the property described in the last qualification, though he had no recollection of ever having made an application to be put upon the register. ‘When he went to poll, he handed in to the poll clerk a card for qualification, No. 134, which he had received from Mr. Fellowes’s committee, and the poll-clerk, having taken the card, looked at the register, and said it was all right, asked him where he lived, and for whom he voted. A vote was also recorded in respect of No. 656, but none in respect of No, 1075. Mr. Cooke, in support of the vote.—The voter had a right to vote at the election, though he happened to have given in a card with the wrong qualification, and if the poll-clerk had asked him the nature and description of his (a) K. & 0.173. 198 Omission by revising barrister, cannot be rectified by Committee. ELECTION CASES. qualification, the error would have been de- tected. By 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 98, the register is conclusive as to this voter’s right to vote, his name not having been objected to before the revising barrister. Mr. Power, against the vote.—If a voter votes for a qualification No. 184, he is estopped from saying afterwards that he voted in respect of another qualification, No. 1075. Opposite each of the numbers on the register is the name of William Garka, and without the addition of “senior” or “junior,” it must be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the parent was intended, as the son swears that he made no claim under 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 4, to be inserted in the register; Taylor on Evidence, p. 164. Vote retained (a). HENRY JOSEPH OWEN’S CASE. It was admitted that the voter was a claimant at the last registration, and that his claim was objected to. The objector appeared, but not the claimant, so the barrister decided to expunge the name, but by mistake the name was re- tained on the list. Mr. Power.—The Committee have no juris- diction to inquire into this ia as there was no (a) In most of the poll-books, the only entry was the voter’s name, his number on the register, and the candi- dates for whom he voted. COUNTY OF HUNTINGDON. 199 express decision of the revising barrister on it. It was a casus omissus on his part, which can- not be remedied. Can the Committee say that this name was retained by an express decision? or that it was expunged by an express deci- sion? Resolved, “That the vote of Henry Joseph Owen was not specially retained upon, or in- serted in, or expunged or omitted from the register by the express decision of the revising barrister.” Vote retained. JAMES ROWLEDGE’S CASE. This voter had been appointed, in 1840, pa- What “pro- rish clerk by the rector ; his salary, it appeared, oie arose from two swaths of grass, to which hei ae 18 of was entitled as clerk; but it appeared that the ee ‘ tenant of the land had for many years pre- viously paid the clerk for the time being 42s. per annum, by way of rent, in lieu of the grass. He had been objected to before the revising barrister. Mr. Power, against the vote, contended that the voter had not been “promoted” to his office of parish clerk within the meaning of sec- tion 18 of the Reform Act. He did not become parish clerk by “ promotion,” but by “ appoint- ment,” which were two widely different things. The word “promotion” means “ advancement” in the same office; but this is an appointment to a new one. He quoted 2 Peck, 138. 200 ‘ELECTION CASES. Mr. Cooke.—The word “ promotion” is equi- valent to “appointment” in the Reform Act. If the argument on the other side is correct, a dean would not obtain a vote on his appoint- ment, unless he had previously been a rector. Vote retained. July 30. JEREMIAH FISHER’S CASE. Objected to on the ground that his qualifi- cation was not sufficient in value. What not ~~ The voter, a general dealer at Ramsey, had a sufficient . “charge” copyhold estate which was let at £13 8s. per upon pre annum. In 1855, the voter borrowed of his perty within . : 2W.4,c. bankers £100 at5 per cent., and deposited with 45,319. them the title deeds of his estate, with a memo- randum to the following effect :—— Tyr Committee agreed to the usual preliminary July 31. Preliminary resolutions (a). resolutions. (a) Ante, p. 106. L 3 226 ELECTION CASES. Petition. The petition, after stating that at the last election John Patrick Somers, Esq., and the petitioner were candidates, and that the former was returned, complained of the improper re- ception and rejection of votes on various grounds, and the abduction of voters who would have Serutiny. voted for the petitioner. It prayed a scrutiny and the seat for the petitioner. My. Slade opened a case of scrutiny. Who an The poll-books were produced by a Mr. eas Clements, who had, it appeared, been appointed tion of — deputy to the Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper oe by the Lord Chancellor. The Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper had given him a tin box, in which he said, amongst others, were the poll- books in question. On Mr. Clement’s arrival in Londen he found he had not got them, and he consequently telegraphed to the Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper, who immediately forwarded them to him by a clerk in his office. Mr. Serjt. Thomas objected to the receipt of the poll-books, on the ground that they had not been produced out of the proper custody, within the meaning of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 69, s. 99. Mr. Clerk was heard in answer. The Committee decided that the poll-books were properly produced, and were admissible in evidence («). (a) See ante. p. 138. BOROUGH OF SsLIGo. 227 DUDGEON’S AND FEENARTY’S CASES.. These voters had tendered their votes for Mr. Sada Wynne, but the poll-clerk had entered them recorded for Mr. Somers. The facts were proved by the >y poll- i clerk recti- voter and Mr. Wynne’s inspector. fied by Votes struck off Mr. Somers’ poll and added Committee. to that of Mr. Wynne. ELLIOT’S CASE. This voter had not voted at all, but had been bes ss put on the poll for Mr. Somers. es Vote struck off. struck off. FERGUSON’S AND GILBERT’S CASES. These voters had given their names, one as Votes im- James H. Ferguson, the name on the register Coal by being James Henry Ferguson; the other as ray Francis Gilbert, the name on the register being Committee. Francis Yarde Gilbert, and had been rejected in consequence by the poll-clerk. Votes added to Mr. Wynne’s poll. Mr. Clerk stated that that gave Mr. Wynne a majority of one, and as the other side had handed in no list, he claimed the seat for Mr. Wynne. The Committee came to the following final resolutions for report to the House. 1. “That John Patrick Somers, Esq., is not Final reso- : : . lutions. duly elected a burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Sligo.” 228 ELECTION CASES. 2. “That the Right Hon. John Arthur Wynne is duly elected, and ought to have been returned a burgess to serve in this present Par- liament for the borough of Sligo.”’ 3. “That the Committee had altered the poll taken at the last election for the borough of Sligo, by striking off the names of William Dudgeon and Martin Feenarty from the votes given for John Patrick Somers, Esq., and by adding them to the votes given for the Right Hon. John Arthur Wynne; and had further altered the poll by striking off the name of Edward George Elliott from the votes given for John Patrick Somers, it having been proved that he did not vote at all at the said election ; and had further altered the poll by adding to the votes given for the said Right Hon. John Arthur Wynne, the names of James Henry Ferguson and Francis Yarde Gilbert, whose votes had been improperly refused at the said election.” 229 CASE XXV. CITY OF DUBLIN. 1857. The Committee was appointed on the 29th July, 1857, and consisted of the following Members: — Thomas Emerson Headlam, Esq., Newcastle-on-Tyne, (Chairman.) Acton Smee Ayrton, Esq., | Earl of Gifford, Totnes. Tower Hamlets. Hon. Francis Scott, Ber- Hon. Ralph Heneage Dutton, wickshire. Hants, South. ' Petitioners :—Electors. Sitting Members :—Edward Grogan, Esq., and John Vance, Esq. Counsel for Petitioners :—Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Mac Donough, Q.C., Mr. Phinn, Q.C., and Mr. Coffey. Agents :—Mr. Coppotk and Mr. Kernan. Counsel for Sitting Members :—Mr. O’Malley, Q.C., Mr. Slade, Q.C., and Mr. Rodwell. Agents :—Messrs. Thompson, Debenham, and Brown, Mr. Gibson, and Mr. Cusack. — Tur Committee agreed to the first eleven of the July 31. imi resolutions (a). Preliminary usual preliminary (a) Palin (a) Ante, p. 106. 230 ELECTION CASES. Petition. The petition, after stating that at the last elec- tion John Reynolds, Francis William Brady, ld- ward Grogan, and John Vance, Esqrs., were can- didates, and that the two latter were returned, Bribery, alleged bribery and treating against the sitting o ‘reat: members and their agents, and prayed the : House to declare their election and return to be null and void. The following facts were proved with respect to the agency of John Lilley :— Sufficient John Lilley was a sexton, and the president pret gine of the Protestant Freeman’s Fellowship Society, agency. which had been formed after the previous elec- tion in 1852, partly, it appeared, in consequence of the dissatisfaction that existed among the freemen in not having been remunerated for their votes at that election, partly for the sake of the means of organisation for political pur- poses, which such a society afforded, and partly as a benefit and burial club. The Society, it appeared, held several meetings shortly before the election, to promote the election of the sit- ting members, at their house in Ross Lane, at which meetings John Lilley was in the chair, and at one of which, on the Friday before the election, Mr. Vance was present and spoke; but for the week previous to the election their meeting-room was hired by the sitting members from Benson, the treasurer, by day, and used as a tally, or committee-room. It was proved that John Lilley was several times in the central CITY OF DUBLIN. committee-rooms of the sitting members; that he had taken voters to the poll; that he on one occasion engaged a man to bring up voters to the poll, and that this man was subsequently paid, by the direction of the sitting members’ agents, 13s. 10d.; that he had paid different persons to the amount of 26/. 14s. for “ascer- taining the state of the constituency, arranging lists, rent of committee-rooms, &c.,” which sum had been repaid to him bythe acknowledged agent of the sitting member, and appeared in the election auditor’s account. The heading of the bill was, “ Due by Grogan and Vance to John Lilley.” Other items of the bill were for the insertion of advertisements relating to resolu- tions passed at meetings of freemen, which John Lilley had paid; and these payments also had been allowed. Mr. Slade contended that the above facts were not sufficient to establish the agency of John Lilley, so as to let in evidence of treating by him; or, at all events, that they only proved a special, and not a general agency. He relied on the Dungarvan case (a), Fenn v. Harrison (6). Mr. McDonough, in answer, said that the Dungarvan case had been universally condemned, and the case of Fenn v. Harrison was not in point. He referred to Felton v. Easthope (c), Ridler v. Moore (d), Daniel v. Pitt (e). ee EEE (a) 2 P. R. & D. 300. p. 161. (b) 3'T. R. 757. (d) Cliff. 371. (c) Rogers’ Elec. Comm. (e) 6 Esp. 64. 3] 232 ELECTION CASES. The Committee resolved, ‘That there is suf- ficient primd facie proof of agency to let in acts of treating by John Lilley” (a). August 5, In the course of the examination of the Evidence treasurer of the Protestant Freemen’s Society, or treating “Mr. O'Malley objected to evidence being given mentioned of treating at times not mentioned in the lists ee handed in, in which the times stated were “ from 27th of March to the 1st of April.” Mr. McDonough stated that the list was only wrong by three days, and applied to amend it by inserting the 24th for the 27th of March :— The petitioners could not be cognisant of what the books of the Society contained. Mr. O’ Malley stated that they knew of the existence of the books, and had never even asked to see them. (a) Lilley’s agency was subsequently disproved (see the 4th Resolution of the Committee, post). It ap- peared he was appointed clerk to the Ross Lane Tally- rooms, jointly with one Downes, and that his duty was to look after the freemen; that, although in that ca- pacity he had attended at the central committee- rooms to report, &c., he had never been present at a meeting of the central committee; that the bill of £26 14s. was brought by him and Downes to the cen- tral committee, and was supposed to be the expendi- ture of the Ross Lane Tally-rooms, and that the words at the head of the bill, “Due by Messrs. Grogan and Vance to John Lilley,” were not on the bill when it was authorised by the election agent to be paid, but were subsequently placed there by the election auditor- CITY OF DUBLIN. The Committee resolved, “That they will not receive further evidence of treating before the 27th March (a) ; but, as the evidence already given on that subject has not previously been objected to, they will not allow it to be struck out.” The Committee came to the following final August 7. resolutions for report to the House :— 1. “That Edward Grogan, Esq., is duly Final reso- elected a citizen to serve in this present Parlia- ment for the City of Dublin.” 2. “That John Vance, Esq., is duly elected a citizen to serve in this present Parliament for the City of Dublin.” 3. “That a certain portion of the freemen voted at the last election under the expectation that they would be paid for their votes, but it does not appear that any distinct promise to that effect was made.” 4. “That, after the election, hopes were held out to certain of the freemen that they would be paid after the period for presenting petitions to this House had expired, but it does not ap- pear that this was done in a precise or definite manner, nor was it done with the cognizance of the sitting members, nor by any duly authorised agent on their behalf’’(d). 5. “That a sum of £16 16s. was applied by (a) See Bodmin, 1 P. R. & D. 133. (b) The person who held out these hopes was John Jilley. 234 Costs re- fused. ELECTION CASES. the treasurer of the Freeman’s Protestant Fel- lowship Society in treating and in direct pay- ment to voters, and that he applied to the agent of the sitting members to reimburse the funds of the Society for this payment ; that this tran- saction, however, was without the knowledge or authority of the sitting members, and when the application for the repayment was made to their agent, it was declined.” Mr. O’ Malley applied to the Committee to report the petition frivolous and vexatious, under the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98, s. 89. The Committee refused the application. 235 CASE XXVI. CITY OF LIMERICK. 1858. The Committee was appointed on the 5th of May, 1858, and consisted of the following Members :— Alexander Murray Dunlop, Esq., Greenock, ( Chairman.) Smith Child, Esq., Stafford- | John Henry Gurney, Esq., shire, North. Lynn. Charles Cowan, Esq., Edin- | William Stirling, Esq., Perth- burgh. shire. Petitioners :—Electors. Sitting Member :—George Gavin, Esq. Counsel for Petitioners :—Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Venables, and Mr. Sullivan. Agents :—Messrs. Holmes, Anton, Turnbull, & Sharkey, and Mr. Thomas Fagan. Counsel for sitting Member :—Mr. Slade, Q.C., and Mr. Phinn, Q.C. Agents :—My. Baker and Mr. John O’Donnell. ge Tur Committee agreed to the first eleven of the May 7. iminar: utions (a). Preliminary usual preliminary rosol (2) Ponies The petition, after stating that at the last Petition. (a) Ante, p. 106. 236 ELECTION CASES. Bribery and election George Gavin, Esq., and John Ball, undue in- fluence. Esq., were candidates, and the former was re- turned, alleged “that before, at, and after the said election, the said George Gavin, Esq., did, by himself and by other persons on his behalf, directly and indirectly, give, lend, and agree to give or lend, and offer and promise to procure, or to endeavour to procure, money or valuable consideration to or.for divers persons, in order to induce voters to vote, or to refrain from voting, and did also corruptly do such acts as aforesaid on account of such voters having voted or refrained from voting at the said election.” It then alleged bribery in the terms of the 2nd and 38rd clauses of the 2nd section of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, and undue influence in the terms of the 5th section, and charged “that the said George Gavin, Esq., was, by himself, his agents, friends, partisans, and by others on his behalf, guilty of bribery and undue influence before, during, and after the said election, and was thereby incapable of being elected or sitting in Parliament for the said County of the City of Limerick ; that by reason of the premises the said election and return of the said George Gavin, Esq., was and is wholly null and void.” Finally, it prayed the House to declare the election and return of George Gavin, Esq., to be null and void. Mr. Edwin James opened a case of bribery and intimidation. CITY OF LIMERICK. 237 John Doherty, a publican and a voter, de- What suffi- posed that in the beginning of the week of the ia election he was canvassed byone John McCarthy, petition to to whom he complained of not having received oe oS an order to supply drink, as promised by Mr. bribery. O’Donnell, the agent of the sitting member, and that thereupon McCarthy said that he would give him an order, and having obtained a piece of paper in the witness’s own house, wrote something thereon, and stated that he could not give the paper to the witness, but would give it to his daughter. On Mr. James asking this question, “ Now then, did your daughter give this paper to you?”’ Mr. Slade objected to the question, as not admissible within the terms of the petition.— There is no allegation in the petition which meets this case. The words of the 1st clause of the lst section of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, are “to procure any money or valuable consideration ¢o or for any voter, or to or for any person on behalf of any voter, in order to induce any voter to vote, &c.,” whereas the words in the petition e “to or for divers persons, in order to induce voters to vote, &c.”’ The words divers persons are not specific enough to denote the voter, and the words any person on behalf of any voter, which would have applied to the voter’s daugh- ter, are altogether omitted. Mr. James, in answer to the objection, con- tended that the words divers persons compre- hended the voter; and further, that the ques- 238 May 10. Sitting member examined at his own request. Final reso- lutions, ELECTION CASES. tion was admissible under the allegation in the petition, “that George Gavin, Esq., was, by himself, his agents, friends, partisans, and by others on his behalf, guilty of bribery.” Mr. Slade having replied, The Committee resolved, ‘‘ That the question may be put.” At the meeting of the Committee this morn- ing, Mr. Slade abandoned the defence of the seat, but requested the Committee to permit the sitting member to be examined to show that he had no knowledge of the illegal acts which had been committed. Mr. Venables offering no objection, the sitting member was examined by Mr. Slade. No evidence as to undue influence was gone into, and the acts of bribery proved are detailed in the 4th and 5th of the following final resolu- tions of the Committee, which were reported to the House :— 1. “That George Gavin, Esq., was, by his agents, guilty of bribery at the last election for the city of Limerick.” 2. “That George Gavin, Esq., is not duly elected a citizen to serve in this present Parlia- ment for the city of Limerick.” 3. “ That the last election for the said city of Limerick is a void election.” 4. “That it was proved to the Committee that John Doherty, a voter, was bribed by John CITY GF LIMERICK. McCarthy with two ‘orders’ for £2 and £6 respectively, and by Morgan R. Howard with an order for £2, in virtue of which orders he received the value of £10 in goods and money from James Fife, a grocer, to whom, after ap- ‘plication by post to John O’Donnell, the said sum of £10 was paid by the hands of Morgan R. Howard.” 5. “That John Brown, Jun., residing at O’Brien’s Bridge, in the county of Clare, and formerly an officer in the 15th Regiment of Foot, and afterwards in the Clare Militia, was bribed with £10 by Daniel Doyle to procure the votes of certain voters, tenants of his father, and that in consideration of such bribe he in- duced seven of those tenants to vote for the said George Gavin, Esq.” 6. “That these acts of bribery were com- mitted without the knowledge and consent of the said George Gavin, Esq., and contrary to his express instructions.” INDEX. A.* ADJOURNMENT OF COMMITTEE, granted, 121. refused, 115, 132. ADJOURNMENT OF POLL, 24. AGENCY, to be proved before evidence of undue influence can be given, 65. acts insufficient to constitute, 95, 121, 126, 179. facts sufficient to constitute, 107, 140, 169, 184, 210, 230. contradictory evidence of, 175. AGENTS, an agent for “ election expenses,” is a general agent for the purposes of the election, 112. the name of a non-professional man, proposed to be called as witness, struck off list of agents, and not allowed to remain in room, 118. name of agent added after list handed in, 130. a brother not an agent, 178. a member of a self-constituted committee, not an agent, 209. ALTERATION OF POLL, instances of, 61, 101, 156, 205, 228. AUDITOR, opinion of committee as to meaning of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, s. 15, in case of election auditor, 164, 172. improper conduct of election auditor, 75. 242 INDEX. B. BARRISTER. See Revisinc Barrister. BRIBERY. See also Lists, Evipence, Practice, TRAVELLING Ex- PENSES. employment and payment of messengers, not, 30, 41. payment of travelling expenses to voter, not, 29, 88, 177. colourable employment of messengers, is, 108. : bribery and treating decided before entering on scrutiny, 139. hearsay evidence allowable in cases of, 65, 158. systematic, reported to House, 144. what sufficient evidence of, 178. what not sufficient evidence of, 142, 163. what sufficient allegations in petition to admit evidence of, 237. Cc. CANVASSERS, employment of paid canvassers not illegal, 132. COLOURABLE EMPLOYMENT. Sce MEssencers. of messengers, bribery, 108. COSTS. See Petition. refused, 76, 84, 116, 159, 191, 208, 224, 234. D. DECLARATION of agent after election, not admissible, 175. of voter admissible, in scrutiny, 196. made subsequent to election, of what took place before election, ad- maissible, 168. See Eviprncr. DECLARATION OF QUALIFICATION, made twenty-four hours after request, sufficient, if member abroad, 80 duplicate demand of qualification, admissible, 217. DISQUALIFICATION, notoriety of, 219. notoriety of, not sufficient without express notice, 221. INDEX. 243 DOUBLE RETURN, counsel for member whose name is first in return, opens proceed- ings, 193. E. ELECTION, matters at former, not allowed to be gone into, 115. statements made subsequent to, as to matters which took place before, admissible,. 168. ELECTION AUDITOR. See Avprror. ELECTION AGENT. See Acenr. EMPLOYMENT OF MESSENGERS. See MessenceRs. EVIDENCE. See Practicz, Witngss, what sufficient of agency, 107, 140, 169, 184, 210, 230. what not sufficient of agency, 95, 121, 126, 179. contradictory of agency, 175. what sufficient of undue spiritual influence, 7. what not sufficient of ‘‘ agreeing by other persons for employment,” 45. what not sufficient of non-residence, 46, 47, 89, 148. what sufficieut of residence, 51, 149. what sufficient of non-residence, 45, 48, 147, 150. what not sufficient of residence, 48, 52. what sufficient of parol tender of vote, 53. hearsay allowable in cases of bribery, 65, 158. as to what took place at a meeting of non-electors, disallowed, 65. relating to a case brought out in the course of the investigation will be allowed, 71. what not sufficient of treating, 71, 113. what not sufficient of bribery, 142, 163. what sufficient of treating, 170. what sufficient of bribery, 178. what sufficient of bribery and undue influence to invalidate vote, 90. of drinking &c., in presence of sitting member admissible pro tanto, 104. relating to matters connected with former election not allowed, 115. husband not compellable to give of communication made to him by wife, 120. 244 INDEX. EVIDENCE—continued. as to what a mob of persons said, not allowed, 120. admissible of statements made subsequent to election as to matters which took place before election, 168. declaration of agent after election, not admissible, 175. where recriminatory not allowed. 189. facts insufficient to avoid election, on ground of riot, intimidation, &c., 210. duplicate of demand of qualification admissible, 217. what sufficient of insufficiency of qualification, 217. of treating at times not mentioned in lists, refused, 232. witness who understood, but could not speak Irish, allowed to give the substance of what he heard spoken in that language, 5. witness maltreated for giving before committee, causes special report thereon to House, 6. declaration of voter admissible in scrutiny, 196. on objection not specified in list of voters objected to, not allowed, 50. of notoriety of disqualification not sufficient without express notice, 22). FRIVOLOUS, petition frivolous and vexatious, 134, 165. G. GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ELECTIONS, not necessary to deliver to, lists of voters intended to be added to poll, 58. H. HEARSAY EVIDENCE. See Evipence. INFLUENCE, undue. See UNpuxz INFLUENCE. INSOLVENT DEBTOR, voter not disqualified hy temporary absence while in gal as, 153. INDEX, 245 L. LISTS. See also Acents. Evidence on objection not specified in lists of votes objected to, not allowed, 50. not necessary to deliver to General Committee lists of voters intended to be added to the poll, 58. case not contained in bribery lists, but mentioned in the opening may be gone into, 69. the name of a person to whom a bribe is offered, though not accepted, must be inserted in bribery lists, otherwise evidence relating to it will not be allowed, 70. of persons unduly influenced, if not sufficiently specific, must be amended, 119. treating lists must specify “time and place,” 119. treating lists specifying-the times as ‘‘ between 16th March and 2nd April,” sufficiently specific, 125 where allegation of bribery by wholesale treating, unnecessary to furnish lists, 130. amendment of bribery list not allowed, 175, 183. evidence of treating at times not mentioned in lists, refused, 232. M. MESSENGER, “ employment and payment of not bribery, 30, 41, 126. if voter influenced by payment as, vote bad, 43. what not sufficient evidence of ‘‘agreeing by other persons” for em- ployment as, 45. : colourable employment of, bribery, 108. N. NON-RESIDENCE. See RESIDENCE. 0. OBJECTIONS. See Lists. OCCUPATION, What an, as “ tenant,” 60. in cases of successive, if voter omitted from rate on premises lastly occupied, vote bad, 59. M 2 246 INDEX. P. PAROCHIAL RELIEF, every receipt of, a fresh disqualification to vote, 93. PETITION. See Practice. when two presented, which has precedence, 207. frivolous and vexatious, }34, 165. sufficient, although without address, 137. if no allegation that majority was colourable, or votes given for sitting member bad, scrutiny cannot be gone into, 138. what sufficient allegations in, to admit evidence of bribery, 237. interlineations and erasures in, 168. POLL, alteration of. See ALTERATION OF POLL. POLL BOOKS, what sufficient production of, 138, 168. ° who an agent for production of Irish, 226. POLL CLERK, when entry of vote by, complete, 146. vote wrongly recorded by, rectified by Committee, 227. vote improperly rejected by, added to poll by Committee, 227. PRACTICE. See ApsournnmeENT, AcEnt, Brisery, Lists, EVIDENCE, WITNESS. rehearing of case in order to produce additional evidence, refused, 47. treating proved before bribery, 103, 112. if voter votes twice, one vote struck off, 52. evidence on objection not specified in list of votes objected to, not allowed, 50. evidence as to what took place at meeting of non-electors dis- allowed, 65. not necessary to deliver to general Committee lists of votes intended to be added to the poll, 58. the examination of a witness will not be postponed till evidence given hy him before a select Committee is in the hands of the parties, 64. committee will sometimes pursue a particular course of examination, although they have previously decided that counsel cannot, 64. hearsay evidence allowable in cases of bribery, 65, 153. agency to be proved before evidence of undue influence can be given, 65. INDEX. 247 PRACTICE—continued. case not contained in lists, but mentioned in the opening may be gone into, 69. the name ofa person to whom a bribe is offered, though not accepted, must be inserted in the bribery lists, otherwise evidence relating to it will not be allowed, 70. evidence relating to a case brought out in the course of the in- vestigation will be allowed, 71. onus of proving qualification lies on S. M., on primd facie proof by petitioner of want of it, 81. where double return, counsel for member whose name is first in return, opens proceedings, 193. where two petitions, and allegations in first different from those in second, first petition disposed of before opening second petition, 88. where two petitions, abandonment of petition claiming seat does not destroy right to recriminate, 95. witness who had been in room not allowed to be examined, 183, 209. witness who had been in room allowed to be examined, 103, 125. evidence of drinking in presence of S. M. admissible pro tanto, 104. evidence relating to matters connected with former election not allowed, 115. adjournment granted in consequence of sudden closing of petitioner’s case, 121. adjournment to enable witness to arrive, refused, 115. name of non-professional man, proposed to be called as witness, struck off list of agents, and not allowed to remain in room, 118. husband not compellable to give evidence of communication made to him by wife, 120. although Committee desire part only of petitioner’s case to be an- swered, yet counsel for petitioner are not debarred from cross-ex- amining sitting member’s witnesses generally, 122. name of agent added after list handed in, 130. where allegation of bribery by wholesale treating, unnecessary to furnish lists, 130. adjournment to enable counsel to inspect accounts of election ex- penses just handed in refused, 132. petition sufficient, although without address, 137. if no allegation in petition that majority was colourable, or votes given for S. M. bad, scrutiny not gone into, 138. 248 PRA INDEX. CTICE—continued. production of poll-books by second clerk in Hanaper office, who re- ceived them from chief clerk sufficient, 138. expenses of witnesses to enable them to come before Committee must be paid,139. bribery and treating decided before entering on scrutiny, 139. committee will not inquire into vote, where voter not objected to before revising barrister, 50, 152. statements made subsequent to election of what took place before election admissible, 168. amendment of bribery list not allowed, 175, 183. not absolutely necessary to close one case before proceeding to another, 184. witness refusing to answer further questions committed to cus- tody, 184. in cross petitions of one sitting member against another, recriminatory evidence not allowed, 189. declaration of voter admissible in scrutiny, 196. omission by revising barrister, cannot be rectified by Committee, 198. where more than one petition presented to House, one first in order in Votes first considered, 207. as to special reports, 6, 27. who an agent for production of Irish poll-books, 226. PRIESTS, conduct of at election, reported to House, 27. PRELIMINARY RESOLUTIONS, 186, 106. Q. QUALIFICATION, declaration of made more than twenty-four hours after request sufli- cient if member abroad, 80. onus of proving lies on sitting member, on prima facie proof by peti- tioner of want of it, 81. a deed of rent-charge sufficient primd facie proof of qualification, 81. a liability as shareholder in a bank against which judgments to a large amount are entered up, or a liability to be made a contribu- tory under order of Court of Chancery, not sufficient to invalidate qualification, 83. duplicate of demand of admissible, 217. INDEX, arg QUALIFICATION—-continued. what sufficient evidence of insufficiency of, 217. notoriety of disqualification not sufficient without express notice, 221]. R. RECRIMINATION, where two petitions, abandonment of petition claiming seat does not destroy right to recriminate, 95. where not allowed, 189. REHEARING of case in order to produce additional evidence, refused, 47. RELIEF. See Parocaiar RELIEF. RESIDENCE, voter disqualified by non-residence, 45. what not sufficient evidence of non-residence, 46, 47, 89, 148. what sufficient evidence of non-residence, 48, 147, 150. what not sufficient evidence of residence, 48, 52. what sufficient evidence of residence, 51, 149. if voter cease to reside before July 31, and was not objected to before R. B. Committee will not inquire into vote, 50. REPORT, special, as to maltreatment of witness for evidence given before Com- mittee, 6 special, of conduct of Priests at election, 27. recommending issue of writ not to be suspended, 110. RESOLUTIONS, preliminary, 1, 106, 186. REVISING BARRISTER, what not an express decision of, 154. what an express decision of, 94. Committee will not inquire into vote, where voter not objected to before, 50, 152. omission by, cannot be rectified by Committee, 198. RIOT, facts insufficient to avoid election, on ground of, 210. 250 INDEX. SCRUTINY i cannot be gone into, if no allegation in petition that majority was colourable, or votes given for S. M., bad, 138. bribery and treating decided before entering on, 139. declaration of voter admissible in, 196. where double return, counsel for member whose name is first in return opens proceedings, 193. See also Vors. SITTING MEMBER examined by Committee, 123. examined at his own request, 238. SPECIAL REPORT as to maltreatment of witness for evidence given before Committee, 6. as to conduct of Priests at election, 27. SPIRITUAL INFLUENCE, what sufficient evidence of undue, 7. SPIRITUAL INTIMIDATION reported to House, 27. Te TENDER OF VOTE. See Vote. TRAVELLING EXPENSES, not bribery, 29, 35, 88, 177, 181. payment of does not invalidate vote, 42. payment of invalidates vote, if voter has not in fact travelled, 43. if voter obtains payment of by misrepresentation, vote bad, 44. TREATING. See Lists, EvipENcE, PRACTICE. what not sufficient evidence of, 71, 113. what sufficient evidence of, 170. proved before bribery, 103, 112. bribery and treating decided before entering on scrutiny, 139. facts insufficient to invalidate vote on ground of, 194. evidence of at times not mentioned in lists refused, 232. INDEX. 251 U. UNDUE INFLUENCE. See Vote, Lists. what sufficient evidence of undue spiritual influence, Ts agency to be proved before evidence of undue influence can be given, 65. invalidates vote, 91, 92. reported to House, 27, 99. Vv. VOTE, good, though travelling expenses paid to voter, 42. bad, where travelling expenses paid, but voter had not travelled, 43. ‘bad, if voter influenced by payment as messenger, 43. bad, if voter obtains payment of travelling expenses by misrepre- sentation, 44. bad, if voter disqualified by non-residence, 45, 48, 52. what sufficient evidence of parol tender of, 53. if voter votes twice, one vote struck off, 52. not invalidated by voter voting at wrong booth, 55. bad, in cases of successive occupation, if voter omitted from rate on premises lastly occupied, 59. what sufficient evidence of bribery and undue influence to invalidate vote, 90. bad, of promisor of bribe, or of person guilty of undue influence, 91. bad, of briber, 91. bad, if voter influenced, 92. bad, of recipient of parochial relief, 93. when entry of vote by poll-clerk complete, 146. bad, of promisor and promisee of bribe, 153. facts insufficient to invalidate, on ground of treating, 194. good, where voter having good qualification, votes on wrong qualifica- tion by mistake, 197. good, of voter “ promoted” to office within s. 18 of 2 Will. 4, ¢. 45, 199. good, where not sufficient “ charge” on property within 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 19, 200. wrongly recorded by poll-clerk, rectified hy committee, 227. of voter who did not vote, struck off, 227. 252 INDEX. VOTE—continued. improperly rejected by poll-clerk added to poll by committee, 227. where committee will not inquire iuto vote, 50. what a good, by occupation, as “ tenant,”’ 60. good, of person temporarily imprisoned for debt, 153. WwW. WITNESS. See Practicr, Ev1DENCE, who understood, but could not speak Irish, allowed to give the substance of what he heard spoken in that language, 5. maltreated for evidence given before the committee, special report thereon to House, 6. who had been in room allowed to be examined, 103, 125. who had been in room not allowed to be examined, 183, 209. expenses of to enable him to appear before: committee must be paid, 139. witness refusing to answer further questions, committed to custody, 184. examination of will not be postponed till evidence given by him before a select committee is in the hands of the parties, 64. WRIT, where issue of, recommended not to be suspended, 110.