WESTMINSTER ELECTION PETITION. It tion of general bribery or corruption was remarkable. | whether the Act required every voucher to be sent The petitioners had had three months to get up a to the returning officer, and at any rate an omission case against Mr. Smith. But, as the result, were in this respect would not vitiate the election. only able to offer evidence of bribery and treating Again, as explaining the large amount of Mr. in one district, and of bribery in another district. Smith's expenditure, it might be observed that he, But with regard to the other eleven out of the acting on the advice of Mr. Ford, his solicitor, and thirteen electoral districts into which Westminster with the object of avoiding all questions on the was divided, no evidence of any corrupt influence matter, included in the statement many expenses, whatever was given. The two alleged corrupt though they were incurred some weeks before districts were St. George's In Ward, and St. Mar- the dissolution, and what might be strictly garet's; in the former, bribery by the boards is said considered the commencement of his candidature. to have occurred; and in the latter, the bribery of As to the boards in the district of St. Georges's In Holland and Waterman. As to the boards, the Ward, this explanation would be offered. In the evidence was chiefly that of Charles Wheeler, a twelve other electoral districts, there was ample witness totally unworthy of credit, and who would opportunity for advertising in the ordinary way, be contradicted in all material particulars. but in the above district, which included Grosvenorwould appear that in all those cases in which he square and its immediate neighbourhood, there was alleges that he procured promises to vote for Mr. no such opportunity. In the whole of that district Smith by giving boards, either that the person was there were only one or two hoardings for the exhino voter at all, or that the vote had already been bition of placards. The question would be whether promised to Mr. Smith long before the boards were these boards were supplied with a corrupt intention mentioned, and that the votes were given entirely to influence the vote of the exhibitors. Such corindependently of any influence which the payment rupt intentions would be rebutted by the evidence. made for the exhibition of boards might be supposed All was done in the most open manner. The exhito have exerted. Though the amount expended by bitors were told to come to the Trafalgar Hotel, Mr. Smith at the late election was undoubtedly very and there each was paid and a receipt was taken for large, yet it would compare favourably with that of all such payments. In no case was there any sort Messrs. Mill and Grosvenor at the election of 1865, of secret bargain or secret payment. As to Overwhen the number of voters on the register was less ton's case (the learned counsel read the shorthand by some 5000 than in 1868. Doubtless it was in- writer's notes of the evidence that has been above cumbent on Mr. Smith to show that his large given, and said that) the evidence of John Wheeler expenditure was pure and justifiable, and this he was altogether unworthy of credit, and although it would be able to do. Mr. Smith would himself be was true that Overton had had a Liberal registracalled, and also those gentlemen who acted chiefly tion committee meeting at his public-house, yet it for him, and they would explain the expenditure of would appear that long before Charles Wheeler saw every shilling that was paid. It might be true that Overton or sent the boards to him, Overton was in some of the accounts were not strictly vouched, but every way pledged to Mr. Smith. He had voted for this omission arose from no desire to conceal the him in 1865, had signed the requisition to him details from the public, but simply because in the in July 1868, and had promised his vote at judgment of those who had to file the accounts with the late election. Doubtless, Overton did hesitate the returning officer, the vouchers given were when asked by Charles Wheeler to exhibit the sufficient. With regard to the employment of Mr. boards, but this was not because he wavered Edwards, it was untrue to say that he was employed in his adherence to Mr. Smith, but because he to introduce corruption. Mr. Smith, when he first thought that while he was allowing the Liberals engaged him, was ignorant of his antecedents, to meet in his house, it would not be fair to them and subsequently Mr. Edwards was employed in to hold himself out publicly as of the opposite party. deference to the wish of one of Mr. Smith's most Overton would himself give evidence on these points. active supporters, the Hon. Robert Grimston, who The learned counsel then dwelt upon various inconacted as the chairman of the committee of St. sistencies in the evidence of the Wheelers with George's In Ward, and who asked for Mr. Edwards regard to Overton, and circumstances affecting the as his secretary. As to the London and Westminster credit of John Wheeler, observing, among the latter, Working Men's Constitutional Association, it was a visit to Mr. Ford, shortly after the election, the doubtless true that the funds were chiefly provided intention of which could only have been to extort by the subscriptions and donations of noblemen money. And on the whole case of the boards it and gentlemen, but the members of the association would be proved, that of the eighty or so exhibited gave time and labour, and it would appear that the in the above district, twenty or thirty were at the association was organised not for the purpose of houses or rooms of non-voters, and that in no case promoting the return of Mr. Smith, but to advance was there a pretence for saying that any vote was the general interests of the Conservative cause. influenced by them. The price paid for the boards, The association was established in 1867, at a time viz., 7s. a week per board, would certainly be when Mr. Smith had abandoned all intention of extravagant if this were an ordinary case of bill again contesting Westminster, and though Mr. posting, but it was not so. And evidence would be Smith became the president of the association, yet called to prove that, considering the district, and he resigned the presidency previously to his candi- the scarcity of advertising space in it, and considerdature in 1868, and throughout the election the ser- ing the nature of the boards and the limited time vices of the association were given free from any during which they were to be exhibited, the above sort of control on the part of Mr. Smith or his price was by no means an extravagant one. The agents. Mr. Isaac Newton Edwards was engaged alleged treating at the "Merlin's Cave" would be in 1868, because the experience gained in 1865 fully explained by Mr. Smith and the landlord, showed that the services were necessary of some from which it would be seen that Mr Smith was not gentleman who could devote his whole time and only not cognisant of the character of the meeting, attention to the organising the canvass. Mr. I. N. but was disgusted with it, and that the champagne Edwards acted as Mr. Smith's principal canvassing was ordered by the landlord Walker of his own agent. He would be called, and would give every accord, and paid for by him. Charles Wheeler information as to his department of the expenditure. alleged treating by Holton, and Holton should himAs to the items in the accounts alleged to be un- self explain. As to the alleged direct bribery by vouched, they were in fact sufficiently vouched Davis; in the first place Davis, though connected within the Act of Parliament. It might be doubted with the London and Westminster Working Men's WESTMINSTER ELECTION PETITION. Association, was no agent of Mr. Smith's, and further, Davis would deny on oath the two charges of bribery made against him. Mr. W. H. Smith, M.P., was then called, and gave the following evidence on the matters referred to : I became connected with the London and Westminster Working Men's Association in 1867. It was without any reference to myself or any subsequent election, but because I considered such an association necessary to the success of the Conservative interest. I resigned the presi dency of the association on Sept. 30, 1868. The action of the association was entirely independent of myself. never attended their meetings except by invitation. I I never authorised any expenditure of money except such as could be legitimately accounted for. I have always wished it to be understood, from the very moment I contemplated entering Parliament that I would enter it, if at all, with perfectly clean hands, unsoiled by any corruption. I have never been guilty of corruption. I am not conscious that corruption has been exercised on my behalf, and I believe that there has been none. I was invited by Charles Wheeler to come to a meeting of a local committee of the association at the Merlin's Cave. I went there on Oct. 14 at half-past eight. I found to my great surprise and regret the room full of men with liquor before them. I was unable at once to withdraw as I should have wished to do. I sat down. Mr. Walker, within five minutes after, ordered up some champagne. My health was drunk, and I made a speech in reply. I went away as soon as I could. I afterwards complained to my agents that I should have been allowed to attend such a meeting, and it was rranged that I should go to no more meetings at publichouses. I did not directly nor indirectly pay for the champagne. Thomas Walker's evidence was to the effect that he was landlord of the Merlin's Cave, and that he supplied the champagne on the above occasion without authority and entirely at his own expense, and in cross-examination he denied that he had ever said that Mr. Smith would pay for the champagne. The Hon. Robert Grimston said: It I was the chairman of Mr. Smith's committee in the St. George's In Ward. Henry Edwards was my secretary. I had the greatest confidence in him. I would entrust my whole fortune in his hands. I asked Mr. Smith to engage him because he had the qualifications I required. Money for the week's expenses used to be sent to Henry Edwards by his son I. N. Edwards. He paid the canvassers and incidental expenses in my district, He was not authorised and had no means of making any other expenditure. was in my district that the boards were put up. It was very difficult to find any advertising space there. If I saw a spot where I thought I could get a bill up I used to make a note of it. In the St. George's In Ward district it was only in the poorer streets that we could get a bill or board placed. In Bond-street, though full of our supporters, we could not get a single one up. The arrangements for the boards were by my sanction. The boards were entirely for the purpose of advertisement. I am not aware, and do not believe, that a single farthing was improperly spent during the election. Cross examined: Henry Edwards settled the details about the boards. I did not know the price to be paid for them till a few days ugo. It was quite worth while to pay 7s. a week for these boards. It would have been worth while to pay 11. a week if you could not have got them up for less. If I could have put a board on the Duke of York's column I would have paid 101. a week for it. Mr. Henry Edwards: I was a district agent in the St. George's In Ward. My duty was to arrange for the canvassing, to give out the canvassing books, and make up the returns. I was always at the committee-room, and never myself canvassed a single vote. In St. George's In Ward there are very few public advertising spaces. I thought that the district could not be placarded in any other way than by these boards. There is no pretence for saying that the boards were issued with a view to influence voters. The number of boards issued was eighty, or rather more. I thought that was sufficient, but Mr. Grimston would have had more stuck up if possible. He had a strong feeling about it. It was never suggested that these boards should be given to anybody with a view to influence his vote. I thought the price paid was a reasonable one. Charles Wheeler was the secretary of one of the wards of the London and Westminster Working Men's Constitutional Association. The association had nothing to do with Mr. Smith's committee; it was quite distinct. We knew that they canvassed for us, but we canvassed for ourselves just as if the association did not exist. I sent in every day to the central committee a return of those whose votes were promised to Mr. Smith. I returued Overton's name on Oct 19. I did not know at all what would be the fair price to pay for the boards. I never consulted Mr. Grimston nor Mr. Isaacson. I sent in the demand and it was acknowledged, After the election I ordered Holton, who knew where all the boards had been placed, to send round notices to every. body to come to me at the Trafalgar Hotel and be paid, and on that notice they came. I desired Holton to make me out a list, and to fix 75. a board per week, and to let me have the list. The payment was made as well to voters as nonvoters. In the distribution of boards no consideration was paid to the question whether the exhibitors were voters or not. There was one board at an apple-stall in Mount-street -that was paid for at the same rate. and for Fitzjames Stephen, Q. C. proceeded to cross-examine the witness as to his implication in the corruption of St. Alban's in 1851 and previously, that purpose proposed to read portions of the report of the commission of inquiry into the state of the borough, and to question the witness thereon. The witness objected that if any the whole should be read, adn.itting that the report contained his evidence truly. [MARTIN, B.-You have a right to ask him any question as to the St. Alban's corruption in order to discredit him. But the witness tells you that the report is true, and he fairly says that if the book is to be read at all, it ought all to be read. You must therefore do so, or, what would perhaps be better, put the book aside, and question him independently of it.] We talked of the amount to be paid for the boards, but there was nothing fixed definitely till I told Holton to make me a list. I left it to Holton to select proper places for the boards. I made up my mind to pay 7s. a week for each board if the central committee should approve. It was submitted to them, and I was ordered to pay for the boards, and I received 2091, for that purpose. I did not consult any bill-sticker as to what would be a fair sum. I showed the list to Mr. Grimston, and I said, "It comes to a great deal, but I don't see how they can have less than 7s, a week." He said, "I think it very reasonable." Charles Wheeler made some of the boards. Holton's sons were employed in distributing the boards, and in re-sticking the bills on them when disfigured. Evidence explaining the system of payments, and the various items in the accounts, was given with much minuteness by Mr. Isaac Newton Edwards. It is impossible to do more here than give the substance of it on a few material points. He said: canvass. The I came to town on June 23 last, to make a preliminary canvass, in order to ascertain what chance of success Mr. Smith would have in the event of his again contesting Westminster. When Mr. Smith determined to stand, was engaged as his chief canvassing agent. I divided Westminster into thirteen districts, in order to organise the I was instructed to conduct the election on the principles of purity. The London and Westminster Working Men's Constitutional Association had no connection in any way with the committees appointed by Mr. Smith. agents in each district were appointed by Mr. Isaacson. I had my office at the central committee-room, at Charing. cross. I gave instructions to the district agents. Every week reports were made to me of the sums of money required for the expenditure in the several districts. The reports were made every Friday night or Saturday morning, and the exact amount appearing in the account was sent by me, through one of my clerks, to the district agent, with the account. The system as to all the wards was the same. Every Saturday I sent in my accounts to Mr. Isaacson, and received the money. I received nothing from him except for legitimate election expenses. I gave Mr. Isaacson receipts for the exact amount I received from him, week by week. The weekly accounts I sent to Mr. Isaacson contained the various items of the week's expenditure. MARTIN, B. said these weekly accounts ought to have been delivered to the returning officer as well as the receipts that passed between the witness and Mr. Isaacson. Hawkins, Q.C., then proceeded to take these accounts, item by item, explaining the expenditure in each case through the witness. MARTIN, B., said he should not think it necessary to explain the expenditure so minutely as this. It was said by the petitioners that the election expenditure of Mr. Smith was enormous, and that a number of vouchers was missing. An explanation was necessary, but so minute a one was impracticable. The witness then proceeded : WESTMINSTER ELECTION PETITION. There were seventy-six canvassers and thirty-three clerks at the central office, and twenty-five clerks at the district offices. This was the permanent staff. Their pay varied from 30s. a week to 61. One canvasser got 61. a week. This included expenses and salary. There were no receipts taken from the clerks and canvassers for their pay. These payments continued from July 23 till the time of the election. . . . Nothing was paid for any refreshments, except the necessary refreshments for those engaged in the work of the election. . . . On the day of the election 378 persons, besides the sixteen agents, were employed. voter was employed as canvasser or clerk.. Mr. Bennett, the secretary of the association, used to give me the returns of the promises made to the association's canvassers, that I might enter them in my book. These I sent to our district agents, so as to prevent the voters who had promised being called on again. Νο (The witness was asked the number of promises given for Mr. Smith, with the object of showing that these amounted to more than half the constituency, and so that resort to any corruption would have been unnecessary. The question was objected to, and the court decided that it was too remote.) Cross-examined: The preliminary canvass cost about 1041. It is not included in Mr. Smith's statements of expenses. These commenced on July 28. I took no receipt from clerks. MARTIN, B.-You should have vouchers for all tradesmen's bills; but you would hardly expect one for a clerk paid weekly wages. The accounts of the district agents were sent to me. I obtained the money and sent the amounts to the respective district agents. The agent signed the account and returned it to me, and I gave it to Mr. Isaacson. Mr. Isaacson : I was Mr. Smith's general election agent. I made the return of the election expenses to the high bailiff. The whole amount included in that return was paid through me. In that return I considered that I had fully complied with the requisitions of the Act of Parliament. If I failed in sending in any vouchers or documents, it was merely an error in judgment. All the money was paid in this way; Mr. I. N. Edwards every Saturday morning submitted to me the accounts received from the different districts. I compared and audited them. Where I saw any objection I made it. I returned with each account a cheque for the correct amount. There was not one single penny of the expenses as to which I did not, so far as I could, satisfy myself that it was properly incurred. Of the item of 6891. for advertising, 2551. was for advertisements in the newspapers. The association had nothing to do with us in the matter of organisation, though they were evidently desirous to secure Mr. Smith's return. No money over which I had the control passed to members of the association. The boards were issued purely for the purpose of giving publicity to Mr. Smith's candidature. I would not have paid the money for them had I thought that the boards were intended to get votes. Cross-examined : The reason why I sent in to the high bailiff the receipts given to me from week to week by Mr. I. N. Edwards, but not the detailed accounts of the district agents that he also sent me, was this: I considered that the accounts contained in the main the salaries and wages of persons who gave no vouchers to Mr. Edwards, while the receipts were an authentic record of each week's payment made to him by me. The cheque that I gave weekly to Mr. Edwards order was a sufficient discharge as between him and me. I may have been wrong, but I thought it unnecessary to deliver to the high bailiff the weekly accounts that I had returned to Mr. Edwards, in order that he might settle with the district agents. Benjamin Overton said: I am a licensed victualler, in Carrington-street, Mayfair. When I let my room I was not aware that it was for any political object. After the third meeting I found it was for some purpose on the part of the Liberals. I understood it was in order to put lodgers on the register. Then I was asked whether I would object to the room being used as a committee-room for Messrs. Grosvenor and Mill. I said it made no difference to me nor to my vote, and I told them my terms for the use of the room. They were to keep it clean and to pay for the gas. There was a Grosvenor and Mill bill up in the bar. John Wheeler canvassed my vote. I told him that I had promised my vote to Mr. Smith. Charles Wheeler asked me to have two boards. I would not consent to have the boards till it was decided to have no committee-room at my house. I never said to Charles Wheeler that I had not made up my mind which I should vote for. I did not promise my vote to either of the Wheelers. They knew all along that I was in favour of Mr. Smith. Charles Wheeler was never at my house half the night drinking and persuading me to vote for Mr. Smith. I never said to him "Damn it, I'll turn round." Cross-examined: I got a board from Holton, for a Mrs. Calvert. Mrs. Calvert, when she came to me and asked for a board, said her husband was going to vote for Mr. Smith, but that he would be at Brighton, and if she could have a board it would help to pay the expenses of her husband's coming up to vote. Mrs. Calvert knew that she would be paid 7s. a week. I told this to Holton, and a board was sent to Mrs. Calvert. When the Liberals met at my room I expected that the drink they took would pay me for the room. It did not; I was a loser. I did not charge for putting up Messrs. Mill and Grosvenor's bills, because they were only pinned up in the bar and there were no boards. But with Mr. Smith's boards I had the trouble of putting them out in the morning and taking them in at night. In order to show the reasonableness of the price paid for the boards, the following was the principal evidence. Mr. Willing: I am an advertising agent. At the time of the election there was only one permanent posting-place in St. George's In Ward. I have only to do with general bill posting, but I know from my experience that the price paid for these boards was very reasonable. 7s. a week per hundred is the common charge for theatrical bills which are placed about year by year. This is for shop boards. But election bills on boards are a different matter. You must make larger profits that if you had to do it all the year round. Mr. William Smith: I am the author of the book "How, and When and Where to Advertise." I know St. George's In Ward. I would not have undertaken an advertising job in that district, because it is so hard to get places. I have paid as much as 10s. a week for exhibiting a single bill, It was when Mr. Jullien brought out his army and navy quadrilles. The bills were in Bond-street, Park-lane, and some at Fulham and Brompton. We paid that because we could not get boards placed without, and Jullien said he would pay any amount of money. Edward Cutts, an advertising agent, said: Till I had ascertained whether I could get places for them, I would not have undertaken to exhibit these boards in St. George's In Ward for 78. a week. Henry Holton said: I am a hairdresser in Mount-street. I have been a Conservative all my life. I did not spend any money in treating voters with a view to influence their votes. I have paid money occasionally for wine and other drink when I met friends who were also engaged about the election. Sometimes I treated them, and sometimes they treated me. The price for the boards was talked of a few days after they were sent out. Mr. Edwards asked me what I thought would be a fair price, and I said 5s. 6s. or 7s. a week each. Mr. Grimston was anxious that the boards should be properly exhibited, and I and my sons went round frequently to see that they were in their proper places. Mr. Grimston directed me to put the boards where they could be seen well. Edward Davis said: I am a gas-fitter in York-street, Westminster. I am a member of the London and Westminster Working Men's Constitutional Association. I canvassed Holland for his vote. I was acting as a canvasser of the association, and I had no other instructions than those of the association's secretary. When I asked Holland for his vote, he said he worked at a saw-mill in the city, and should lose his day's wages if he voted, for he had to be at work at 6 in the morning. He asked if he could have his day's wages allowed him. I said I could not give him any answer about that, but I would inquire and let him know. I inquired of Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Smith's agent for the St. Margaret's district, and he said that Holland could not have his wages allowed, but that a private carriage could be sent for him to bring him to vote, and to take him back again. I wrote the following letter to Holland (copy produced). "Nov. 10, 1868. I have inquired whether you can have your loss of time paid for, as you say you work in the city, and have to be at work at 6 in the morning, and could not go to the factory if you stayed to vote. I am sorry to say nothing could be allowed, not even a penny to pay your boat to the city." I directed this properly to Holland, and posted it myself I made a copy of it on the advice of a friend of mine, John Shambler. I saw Holland the day after the election. He said he was very glad Smith got in by so large a majority. He said he had voted for Grosvenor and Smith. Afterwards a friend of mine asked me how it was that Holland had a vote, for he had not been in his lodgings six months. I met Holland and told him this. He got angry and said he would bet any money that he had been in more than six months. I said I would het him 5s. that he had not. On the next day I went to his landlord, Strong, and I learnt from him that Holland had been in his lodgings more than six months. On the next Saturday night I paid Holland the bet. This payment had nothing WESTMINSTER ELECTION PETITION. I know Waterman whatever to do with his vote. very well. I knew that he had no vote, but lived free in the rooms of the casual ward. I was a guardian when he was appointed superintendent of labour. I was never at the Albert Tavern when Waterman and Tomlin were there. I never asked Waterman for his vote, nor offered him money. It is a tissue of lies. I was thunderstruck when I I have never heard of the evidence given by Waterman. received a farthing from Mr. Smith or his agents. I worked gratuitously, canvassing as a member of the association. Cross-examined: I My name was on the list of Mr. Smith's committee. It was published without my authority. I sent in a promise to vote for Mr. Smith, as I had a circular asking me to do So. I did not object to my name appearing on the committee-list. I took no notice of it. I took an active part on the polling-day in bringing voters to the poll. wrote to Holland, because I was doubtful of him, thinking he might bring a charge of attempted bribery against me. My friend advised me to make a copy of the letter, and he copied it in a copying-press he had. Waterman's story is right-down perjury. To support Davis's account, the men he refers to, viz., Hamilton, Shambler, and Strong, were called, who confirmed the truth of his statement, so far as their share in the affair went. Henry Holton, the son of the former witness, said: I was employed under my father in bill-sticking at the election. I used to go round every morning to see that the bills were all right. My father was paid fifteen guineas on my account for the work I did. I got the greater part of it. George Nelson Holton said: I was not engaged in the election. What I did was to please myself. I asked Hole for his vote in September. This was long before the boards were thought of. He promised to vote for Mr. Smith. Afterwards he told me he had had a circular froin Messrs. Grosvenor and Mill. I told "Well, him he had promised to vote for Smith. He said, you shall have it; it shall be Smith and Grosvenor, for Mill is only a fireside philosopher, and an old woman.' A day or two after he asked me to send a board down to where he lodged, and it was sent. William Thomas Daws said: I am a voter in St. George's In Ward. I had a board for five weeks. I had promised to vote for Mr. Smith before I had the board. Charles Wheeler asked me to have the board. After I had promised my vote he said I had a fine corner position and had got no boards out. He said he would send me two, but only one was sent. The board had nothing to do with my vote. I never said to the Wheelers that I would not promise my vote because my opposite neighbour had a board, and I wanted one, too. Mrs. Calvert said: My husband had promised to vote for Smith while I was away at Brighton. The board had nothing to do with his vote. Cross-examined: Mrs. Overton said to me, "If your husband is going to vote for Smith, why don't you have a board ?" I said I knew nothing about it. She said there would be 78. attached to it, and I could get my little girl a frock with the money. I considered it for a week, and then I asked Mrs. Overton to get me a board. I did not say anything about the board's paying my husband's travelling expenses up from Brighton. I never spoke to Overton at all. Hawkins, Q. C. said that he was prepared to call every man who had a board, and should be able to show in each case that the voter had signed the requisition or had promised his vote to Mr. Smith long before boards were mentioned, and that in fact he was not in way corruptly influenced by having a board. MARTIN, B.-The evidence may afford a certain element in the matter, but it is a very slight one. The question is, not what was the motive operating on the mind of the voter, but what was the motive of the man who furnished the board. By the Act every person who shall directly or indirectly give money to a voter or a person on behalf of a voter, or to or for some other person in order to induce a voter to vote, is guilty of bribery. The question is not what passed through the mind of the person who received the bribe, but what was the intention of him who gave it. Hawkins, Q. C. then summed up the evidence on behalf of the respondent, and Fitzjames Stephen, Q. C. replied for the petitioners. MARTIN, B.-It seems to me that this case lies in a very narrow compass; and as I have in the course of the inquiry complained of the length of it, and of the number of witnesses who have been called, as it appears to me unnecessarily, I think I ought to state that I have never in my life heard a case more ably advocated on both sides than this has been on this day. The argument has been concise, it has been to the point, and I wish that all the gentlemen who appear before me in these election petitions which I have to try would make the address of Mr. Hawkins and the address of Mr. Stephen models. I am prepared to say that I never did hear a case more ably advocated than this has As I have stated, this case, been upon both sides. in my opinion, lies within a very narrow compass. If I thought that taking time to deliver my judgment would have any effect in altering the determination to which I have come in my own mind upon it, I would take until to-morrow to deliver my judgment, but as it is obvious that there is a very great deal of anxiety which is felt by many people with regard to this matter, I think it better at once to state my determination and judgment upon it. Now the petition is a petition by Mr. Beal and two other gentlemen, which alleges that Mr. Smith was, by himself and other persons on his behalf, guilty of bribery, treating, and undue influence, and that the result of that is, that he was incapacitated from serving in Parliament for the said city of Westminster. Now that petition is founded upon the Act of Parliament, which has been so frequently referred to, 17 & 18 Vict. c, 102, which is the Act relating to corrupt practices; and I apprehend that this petition is founded upon three sections of this Act of Parliament, the 5th, 4th, and 2nd, and the allegations are that Mr. Smith has been guilty of undue influence within sect. 5, of corruptly treating within sect. 4, and of bribery within sect. 2. There has been no evidence whatever of any undue influence, and therefore any effect of sect. 5 entirely falls to the ground. There was evidence given on behalf of the petitioner of treating within sect. 4, but it was very slight, and if that had been the only evidence adduced to affect Mr. Smith's election, I should have been prepared at the end of the petitioners' case to say that there was no case In the first calling upon Mr. Smith to answer. place there was no evidence that there was anything like general treating during this election or in respect of it, that is to say the opening of publichouses where voters receive drink generally and gratuitously. Nothing of that sort seems to have occurred, and therefore if there was treating it was treating in single instances, three of which, I think, have been given in evidence, but the material one was that which took place at the Old Merlin's The evidence which Cave, kept by Mr. Walker. was given on behalf of the petitioners was this (and it was given by one of these Wheelers), that upon a particular evening, I think it was the 14th Oct. there was a meeting held there, and that Mr. Smith came, and that he sat near to Mr. Walker, and that immediately or shortly after he entered, there came a quantity of champagne into the room, of which he partook, that his health was drunk, and that he made a short speech, and thereupon a very suspicious person might draw the inference that the history of that matter was that Mr. Smith came into the room, and that thereupon he, in a whisper or secretly, directed Walker to produce that champague, and that that champagne was produced for the purpose of treating corruptly the voters that were there. I should draw no such conclusion from WESTMINSTER ELECTION PETITION. that evidence. If it be desired to prove before me bility, at least I think if we had the whole that a man corruptly treats, I must have plain and truth of this matter, it would be found that positive evidence of it. But Mr. Smith is called, Mr. Smith was very much surprised upon being and he gives the plainest and clearest possible ex- called upon to pay this additional sum of 45007. planation of it. He says that he went to the room, after he had already paid 45000l., and I think and it seemed that Walker was then either drunk Mr. Smith must be judged with regard to this or half drunk, and that upon Mr. Smith's going in matter upon the expenditure of 4500/., and not upon Walker ordered champagne, and that he (Mr. Smith) the expenditure of 90007. I can only state that I was as much annoyed about it as any man could be, never formed an opinion more satisfactory to myself which I can very well understand; that he did not in my life than that Mr. Smith meant that this elecget up and leave the room-and I think that it could tion should be carried on honestly, that it should scarcely be expected that he would get up and do be carried on purely, and that it was his real and bonâ so-but he took a small portion of it and made a fide intention that the law should not be transgressed. short speech and left. I need not say, and indeed But that will not do, because if bribery has been Mr. Fitzjames Stephen has said it already, that committed by any person for whom Mr. Smith was the answer to that is specific, and therefore there is responsible, it would be sufficient to unseat him. no ground whatever for impeaching this election upon The law is a stringent law, a harsh law, and a hard the charge of treating. The next head is bribery, law, but I dare say the amount of corruption that and no doubt that is a material case, and there is no existed in this country, whereby boroughs were doubt there has been a great deal of evidence given bought wholesale, was such as to constrain the on this matter which is worthy of consideration. Legislature to pass this Act of Parliament to which This is the fifth case which I have had to try arising I refer. But, as I say, it is a very harsh law, and it upon this Act of Parliament, and the first inquiry does make a man responsible who has directly forthat I have made in every case has been whether it bidden a thing to be done, where that thing is done has been proved to my satisfaction that the can- by a subordinate agent. To hold that that which is didate bona fide intended that the election should be done directly against his authority is nevertheless conducted according to law; that he would himself to affect his capacity of sitting in Parliament is no be neither a party nor privy to any illegal conduct doubt a harsh law. It is, in point of fact, making in it; but that he bona fide and honestly meant to the relation between a candidate and his agent the carry out the Act of Parliament as it ought to be relation of master and servant, instead of the relation carried out; that he would not stand by and of employer and agent simpliciter; but that that is the know of bribery, treating, or undue influence being law I have no doubt. I think it is clearly the concommitted, but that he would set his face against struction of the Act of Parliament. It was what my it; and, as far as a man could himself do, prevent brother judges, together with myself, in consultations, illegal acts being done. That is the first inquiry so to speak, which we had upon this subject, unaniwhich I have made in the cases that have been mously arrived at, and it is what both Mr. Justice before me. And I must say that I am perfectly satis- Willes and Mr. Justice Blackburn have more than fied in this case that Mr. Smith bona fide intended not once declared to be the law, and I believe it to be merely that there should not be treating, for every the law. If I were satisfied that bribery was comman intends that and wishes it; but I am satisfied mitted by a man who was canvassing for Mr. Smith upon his evidence that he honestly and bona fide I should be prepared to declare that his election was meant that there should not on account of his void. But I think that I am justified, when I am election be any of these illegal acts done. I an about to apply such a harsh law to a matter of this satisfied of that from the whole course of the kind, in requiring to be satisfied beyond all reasonevidence; but I entirely believed Mr. Smith himself abie doubt that that act was done, and that unless when he stated in his evidence that he always the proof is strong and cogent-I should say very intended that if he entered Parliament he would strong and very cogent-I ought not to affect the enter it with clean hands; that he would have seat of an honest and well-intentioned man by the nothing to do with bribery or any illegal conduct, act of a person who is guilty of a thing of that and that, as far as he knew, he believed that sort. When I came to apply my mind to the intention had been carried out. I believe Mr. evidence I should require to see in the first place Smith in that matter, and therefore begin the that there is agency; in the second place I should inquiry by stating that Mr. Smith meant honestly require to be satisfied and certain that there could to comply with the law. But I think that there is be no mistake with respect to the alleged act of a matter which very much confirms Mr. Smith. bribery. I think that that is reasonable and right, That which strikes most against Mr. Smith, in my and upon that principle I have acted hitherto, and mind, is the enormous expenditure on this election. upon that principle I will continue to act. There I do not want to use language that would be are, as it seems to me, three cases or three heads of disagreeable to anyone, but it has been pro- cases to be considered with respect to this alleged nounced, even by Mr. Hawkins, profuse, and by bribery. I will first take the case of Davis. Mr. Fitzjames Stephen, as extravagant, and perhaps With regard to Davis, I am of opinion that another word might be used with regard to it, for Davis was not an agent of Mr. Smith for the an expenditure of nearly 90007. upon an election is purpose of affecting him with bribery. I really a thing which is almost incredible, and mean to give no opinion, for it is not necesbeyond belief. How people can spend such a sary, as to whether Davis was telling the sum of money for the purpose one cannot under- truth, or whether the other five witnesses were stand. But I think there is an observation wnich telling the truth. 1 avoid, as far as I possibly arises very strongly in favour of Mr. Smith. can, coming to the conclusion that one man Mr. Smith, and also Mr. Isaacson, gave an account is perjured or that another man is perjured. of the sums which the latter received of Mr. Smith, It is a very disagreeable duty for a single judge to and from that it appears that up to the election-day, arrive at a conclusion of that sort, espec ally if he which was the 17th Nov., Mr. Smith had advanced is called upon to give his reasons why he arrives at only 4500. I do not mean to say that that is not one conclusion more than another. It is easy a very large and a very extravagant sum, for I enough for a jury who are told that they must try think it is so; but Mr. Smith, upon the day when the case, and whose verdict depends upon whether his seat was either secure or not, knew only of one witness or another witness, or one set of wit45001, the residue was paid afterwards, and 20007. nesses or another set of witnesses, are perjured. It as late as the 16th Jan. last, and in all proba- | is easy enough, I say, for them to form an opinion MAG. CAS.-VOL. V. 2 L |