BRADFORD ELECTION PETITION.-No. 2.

If I am to believe the evidence—and I do believe the evidence-this was not given in order to be elected, because the persons to whom it was given were all voters, and it was known how they were to vote; they were known to have their minds made up. In the next place I am of opinion that there is an absence of anything to satisfy us about its being corruptly done. In my judgment, therefore, that which was done, was bona fide honestly done. There was not meat and drink furnished to those persons who were so engaged in this election within the meaning of this 4th section, and therefore I think both objections to Mr. Forster's election fall, and it will be my duty to determine that his election is a valid election, and so report to the Speaker. The costs will follow the case.

Evidence-Restriction of particulars—Rule 7.

If in the order for particulars there is a restriction, it must be observed. Where there is no restriction, it should be taken as widely as possible. The object of imposing a restriction was experimental, and its retention depends upon the result of the experience of the judges.

Timothy Allan, examined by Waddy, said:

I live at 61, Daniel-street. I am a voter, and voted for Forster and Miall. I was not a canvasser. I did no work whatever for the election. I was canvassed by two men whose names I don't know. That was about a week or two before the election. On the night before the election a man named North saw me, who told me to go to the White Bear.

Ballantine, Serjt. You have not given us the name of North or Timothy Allan either.

MARTIN, B., asked if the order for particulars had been made by him or by some one else.

doubt whether it would bring Stephenson himself | mind, and that it must be done in order to be elected. within the meaning of this 4th section. It certainly would not bring Mr. Forster within it, and I am not prepared, by reason of that which is an act of Mr. Stephenson to declare that a man who has been perfectly honest throughout, and desired that nothing should be done which was in any way wrong, has thereby forfeited his seat. If I were a juryman I would never find a man guilty upon that evidence of a contravention of an Act of Parliament; if I had to try guilty or not guilty upon that evidence, I should say not guilty; therefore, I say, what has occurred before this election is not sufficient to invalidate Mr. Forster's election, and that the objection falls to the ground. The next question I have to consider is whether what was done upon the polling day-which is a thing altogether different-falls within this 4th section. In my opinion it does not. What was done upon the polling day was this-that a number of persons who were supporters of Mr. Forster had formed themselves into committees for the purpose of carrying his election, and in the very ward where this Act was done there were 1400 voted for Mr. Ripley, and 1400 odd voted for Mr. Forster, and 1200 odd voted for Mr. Miall, and in this ward there were sixty persons provided for, sixty refreshments given, administered by the tickets which had been provided. Now Mr. Wade is called; and it is admitted upon all hands that he is a man of respectability, and that he would not in this court or any other court state other than what he believed to be trne, and his account of the matter is that he gave consideration to this question, that he knew those people would be occupied in the election, which he truly says is infinitely more than eight elections in ordinary boroughs, during the whole day at these committee-rooms, carrying on the necessary business, and he says that he and Mr. Little on the other side had gentlemen attending at the poll for the purpose of checking the votes and ascertaining whether they were correct. He states that he and Mr. Little went before the town clerk, a gentleman not likely to do anything wrong, and he having said that he was obliged to make provisions for affording refreshments to the clerks who were taking the poll, Mr. Little and Mr. Wade agreed that the town clerk should provide refreshments for their clerks in the polling booths, and that they would afterwards repay the town clerk the expenses incurred in so doing. Both sides agreed in that as a necessary and essential thing to be done. They must necessarily be there during the whole day unless there were two sets of them, and no man could reasonably be expected to work from eight in the morning to four in the afternoon engaged in taking votes without receiving some refreshments. All sides agreed that that was an innocent act, an act which no person could complain of, which they all agreed to do and pay their share of the expenses. Well what was really done according to the evidence? It was precisely doing in the committee-rooms what was agreed to be done at the polling-booths, that refreshments should be given to the men who were necessarily there for the purpose of carrying on the election. Witness after witness swore that it was given to nobody, that care was taken that it was given to nobody, but persons engaged in the election. The question is whether that falls within this section of the Act of Parliament. I am of opinion that it does not. That which is provided against by this Act of Parliament is that a candidate shall not "corruptly" give any meat or drink in order to be elected. Now, I think that in the proper construction of this Act of Parliament a meaning must be given to the word corruptly, and as I have already said I take it to mean an evil

Price. The order was made by Mr. Justice Willes. [MARTIN, B.-If there is any restriction in the order you are bound by it.] Quite so. [MARTIN, B.- If it is otherwise you are quite free.]

Price said that he did not bring forward the man as having been bribed or treated.

Ballantine. Then I withdraw my objection.

MARTIN, B.-My own inclination is to leave the thing perfectly open and free, without any restriction. I may explain how this arose. There is in the 7th rule which was made by the judges, a clause that when a petitioner claims the seat for an unsuccessful candidate alleging that he had a majority of lawful votes, he shall six days before the day appointed for trial give the respondent a list of the votes intended to be objected to, and the heads of the objections, and no evidence shall be offered upon any head of objection not specified. That is in the case of a petitioner claiming the seat. It was then thought that inasmuch as there was this particular rule in the case of a petitioner claiming the seat, it was but reasonable to apply it to other cases which were not within the rule. That is the way it arose. At first it was thought it might be given as a matter of course, but it was then suggested that some limitation ought to be made upon it, for it would give an opportunity of tampering with the persons whose names were mentioned, by getting them out of the way, and that it might do more harm than good. The consequence was there was some limitation put upon it, and I believe we all agreed that we would wait and see what was the operation of the rule in the first five cases, and see whether it should be continued at all or not. Of course as far as you are restricted by Justice Willes' order I will restrict you, but I will restrict you no farther.

GUILDFORD ELECTION PETITION.

GUILDFORD ELECTION PETITION.

laid in proof was, that Mr. Onslow, by himself | Glynn. I consider these men together, and with or his agents, had been guilty of treating; that the exception that Corson was consistent throughis, of supplying voters with meat or drink for out, and Glynn seemed to have changed his mind in the purpose of ingratiating himself with them, his letter to Madame Postelle, they are in all reand inducing them to vote for him. In order to spects similar. It appears that they were in the establish that, witnesses were called for the purpose employment of the Ordnance Survey, and were on of showing that at several meetings, called some time the register prior to the election. Being so, they prior to the election by Mr. Onslow's orders, drink- had the power to vote; but before the election ing went on at the expense, it was suggested, occurred they ceased to reside at Guildford not of Mr. Onslow, because some of the witnesses temporarily, but permanently, and had no residence did not see whether the drink was paid for, and but that in Chester at the time they were written to because in two instances persons who had ordered by Mr. Onslow before the election. They had, theresmall quantities offered to pay for what they fore, no right to vote. Mr. Onslow has said he was had had, but were told by the landlord it was surprised to learn this, but it is clearly so laid down all right, and went away without paying. In in the Act. [His Lordship then read the 79th these two instances the witnesses were not voters; section of the 6 Vict. c. 18, and the proviso to that and with respect to the drink supplied, it was not section, which requires that a person to be entitled in excess of what might have been casually ordered to vote for a borough at a Parliamentary election by a body of persons congregated in a public- shall have resided ever since the 31st of July in the house; it was not a quantity likely to be drunk by year in which his name was inserted in the register the number of persons present, if drunk at the expense of voters, and at the time of voting shall continue of somebody else. The evidence on this head seems to reside within the borough for which he claims to to be insufficient; the meetings do not appear to vote, or within the statutory distance. His Lordship have been traps for voters fond of drink; they were also read the 98th section of the same Act.] These what Mr. White, their originator, would not object to persons had no right to vote, for the obvious reason call debating societies; but, by whatever name they that persons intended to represent a borough should went, they were evidently branch committees, sub- be elected by the residents of the borough, and if a stituted for the committee appointed by the member, person who has ceased to reside in the borough at which, under the old style of carrying on elections, the time of the election votes he filches from every it was usual to have during a contest. In the case voter who is resident in the borough a portion of of Linegar, to whom it was alleged Mr. Onslow his right, because he diminishes the effect of the gave a shilling and a half-crown, it is hard to voices of those legally entitled to vote. Although believe that Mr. Onslow would have given money Mr. Onslow was astonished at this, and I accept his to a voter to treat the company as he was going disclaimer, Mr. Quilley was aware of it; he knew away in his carriage, under the most public circum- these men were not entitled to vote, yet he thought stances. There is, then, no case of treating made it a fair tactic to take their votes upon the chance out. Secondly, it has been stated that Wilson, a of a scrutiny not being prayed, so that the votes scavenger, had been unduly influenced by being might be struck off. According to that doctrine threatened by Mr. Onslow with discharge from non-residents might actually swamp the residents in employment under the Local Board. Wilson had cases of narrow divisions and small majorities; you evidently talked over this case until he and might have a dozen persons having no right to vote others fancied there was something in it, and his for Guildford, and no defence for voting except that manner in the box makes me think I need say they were on the register, turning the scale, and nothing more about it. The cases of bribery are returning a member for a borough in which they next to be dealt with, and these form the only class did not reside. It was wrong for these two men to of objection to the election that now remains to be vote, because it is wrong to do a thing which a noticed. Rogers's case came first of the bribery person is not entitled by law to do, and which charges, and in this it appeared that Rogers, when infringes upon the rights of others. It struck me canvassed by Mr. Onslow, complained that Mr. at first that there might be an objection to the Long, a former Liberal candidate, had not paid some application of the law with respect to bribery in expenses of Rogers's; and thereupon it is alleged such cases, because it occurred to me that the that Mr. Onslow paid or procured payment of those person to be bribed must be a person who was expenses, with some 37. or 41. over, to induce Rogers entitled to vote, that when the Act speaks of "a to vote for him. I am far from saying there is no voter," it must mean a person who is entitled to evidence that Mr. Onslow used interest to get that vote; but I think that is not so. I think that "a debt paid; I think there is evidence that he did so voter is a person who primâ facie has a right to interest himself. I say that rather from Mr. vote, and that seems to be expressly enacted in the Onslow's own account of the matter than from Corrupt Practices Prevention Act 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. Rogers's statements. The bare fact of his c. 102), because it says (sect. 38) that "the word having urged Mr. Long to pay what was due, voter' shall mean any person who has or claims to if anything was due, is proof of this, and it have a right to vote in the election of a member or might be evidence of an intention in Mr. Onslow's members to serve in Parliament." These persons mind to influence a voter; but I think it is are persons who ought not to have voted. If I had not such evidence as I can safely act upon, nor at one time resided within the statutory limits of is the evidence of Rogers, considering the manner in the borough, and, my name being on the register, which it was given, evidence on which it would be some one had endeavoured to induce me to vote by safe to rely, in as far as it is not confirmed by Mr. saying, " You may never be found out; and unless Onslow's evidence to the extent necessary to estab- there is a scrutiny you may get in your man," I lish bribery. In Smith's case, in which it is sug- should have answered, "Stay; in order to strike me gested that Williamson had promised James Smith out on a scrutiny it may cost the person against "a tenner" out of his 300 profits, I cannot believe whom I vote 1000%. What right have I to put the Williamson intended Smith really to have "a risk of such a loss upon another?" If Ì, as a tenner," and I don't think the evidence of Smith is candidate, or as agent for a candidate, were to of sufficient importance to require me to send for apply to a person on the register, but a nonWilliamson. The proof of agency of Mrs. Gyatt in resident, to induce him to vote for me, I should the case of Sutcliffe has failed, and the evidence is be rightly classed with those who insufficient in the case of Bellchambers or that of Poulter. Now I come to the case of Corson and

"Would not play false, And yet would wrongly win."

GUILDFORD ELECTION PETITION.

GUILDFORD ELECTION PETITION.

Treating-Evidence-Case not included in particulars. Where a case is opened as one of systematic treating, and not as one of treating an individual at a parti ticular house, evidence of the proceedings at a certain meeting where treating is alleged to have been carried on will be admitted, although the meeting may not have been included in the particulars.

of treating. One of the witnesses called for this Evidence was first given to prove the charges purpose was Ebenezer Charles Ames, clerk to Mr. D. M. Stevens, who is a solicitor in Guildford, and secretary to the Liberal Registration Society, and who was before and at the time of the election, a kind of sub-agent for the parish of Stoke, on Mr. Onslow's behalf.

The witness having detailed the proceedings at various meetings at different public-houses where treating was alleged to have taken place, was then questioned with respect to two meetings at a publichouse called the Little John, which took place, it appeared, on the 8th Oct. and the 11th Nov. respectively.

Sargood, Serjt., upon this objected to the evidence of the second meeting being received, on the ground that the meeting was not included in the particulars Mathew. Our particulars appear to be inaccurate in that respect. We should ask your Lordship for leave to amend.

astute remarks of Mr. White, that agency may, I member by a promise of their expenses made by under the new system, assume a novel form in which Robert William Handford, and that after their it may be necessary for the court to recognise it; voting they asked and received from him in purbut, as a rule, and I do not feel disposed to make suance of that promise each 5., being a sum exceptions to rules without seeing very clearly that exceeding their expenses, respectively. It did not the exception is within the spirit of the rule, -as however, appear, that Handford knew of the excess, a rule agency to bind the member, would be agency or meant corruptly to reward them. With respect to canvass or to procure votes on his behalf. Such to costs, I must order that each party bear and pay agency is not proved on the part of Handford. their own costs of this petition. These are the circumstances on the petitioner's side, accompanied by the remarkable fact of 10. being freely paid by persons who, whatever interest they may take in the election, could not be expected to expend so much money on the part of even a favourite candidate. That is a case affording, it appears to me, a considerable, if not a strong inference that Handford must have been set to work to do this by some agent for Mr. Onslow. Now, on the other hand, Handford denies attending the committee at the White Lion, and, admitting he received various circulars respecting district_committees, there is nothing to outweigh his denial that he received any circular asking him to canvass on Mr. Onslow's behalf. He says he was not set a going by Mr. Quilley or Mr. Russell, but by Mrs. Hughes, on the strength of information gained from a corporal of Engineers. Mrs. Hughes confirmed this, and though she saw Quilley and Russell soon after the election, nothing passed between them respecting the election. Mr. Onslow denied receiving Corson's letter asking for his expenses. Mr. Russell and Mr. Quilley did the same. That is a summary of the evidence on the one side and on the other, and there are coincidences so strong in the date at which these men heard from Handford as compared with the date of Mr. Onslow's letter, and there is an improbability so strong that Mrs. Hughes should have advanced that 10. out of her own pocket under the circumstances, that it is exceedingly difficult to believe that the transaction could have been, as it is represented to have been by Mrs. Hughes and by Handford. But whatever that difficulty may be, I cannot exclude from my mind that, while upon the one hand there is evidence of exceeding strength in support of the petition, upon which I must have acted had not those witnesses been recalled upon the part of the respondent, whilst there is exceeding strength in the probabilities of the case in support of the affirmative, I cannot adopt the affirmative without believing that at least two persons have been guilty of perjury. I cannot bring my mind to that conclusion. I must, in order to arrive at the affirmative conclusion, which is founded upon inference only, and does not depend upon the direct testimony of any witness, reject the positive evidence of two persons. I must believe, more or less, that at least two other persons, certainly one, are concerned with those two in keeping back the truth. I am strongly impressed with this case as one most proper for examination; and, inasmuch as the petition was founded upon strong primâ facie grounds and attended with reasonable and probable cause for pursuing the inquiry to a termination, I cannot visit the petitioners with costs. The result is, that I determine that, the member whose return is complained of by the petition was duly elected and returned; secondly, that no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any candidate at the election; thirdly, that upon the evidence before me it does not appear that corrupt practices have, nor have I reason to believe that corrupt practices have, extensively prevailed at the election; fourthly, that two persons named James Corson (61) and John Glynn (93) whose names were upon the register for the borough, but who had ceased to reside in Guildford, were induced to vote for the sitting

Sargood, Serjt.-I apprehend that will preclude their giving evidence of the meeting on the 11th Nov. at this moment, unless your Lordship, on any application, should give them leave to amend. At present we have no particulars of that date.

WILLES, J.--I do not think I ought to exclude the evidence. The case is opened as a case not of treating an individual at a particular house, but of systematic treating, and I think I ought to receive this evidence to throw light upon what was done at the other houses.

Sargood, Serjt.-If your Lordship says so, I should not urge it for a moment.

WILLES, J.-I think so, as it is a question of motive, and this may throw light upon the character of the treating at other houses. I ought not to reject it.

Sargood, Serjt. Then I am quite satisfied if your Lordship thinks so.

WILLES, J.-Do not suppose I say for a moment, at present, that the case at the other houses is made out at all. This may by and bye become important, and it is better to admit the evidence. I will take a note that you have objected.

Sargood, Serjt.-If anything should turn upon it which requires time to answer, that will do justice. I am exceedingly anxious not to take objections to exclude evidence except where it appears to be my obvious duty upon the particular case at the moment.

WILLES, J.-The case is opened as a case which must be established as one of systematic treating or nothing. I do not think I ought to exclude any instance of treating.