Page images
PDF
EPUB

WINDSOR ELECTION PETITION.

I cannot, for the reasons I have mentioned,
disabuse my mind of its importance, yet I
think it well to follow the course which has
been adopted by Parliamentary Committees in
similar instances. I pass over the Russell-street
case, because it falls within the same class.
[After adverting to two other cases which failed,
his Lordship said:] Smith's is the only case on
which it remains for me to comment. As to that
case I would merely observe that I agree in what
has been said as to its being an act of indiscretion
to put a sovereign even on its way to a voter so
shortly before an election as was done in this
instance. That is a view of the matter which I
think must occur to the mind of anybody. But,
taking the evidence of Mr. Carter (the clergyman),
I am quite satisfied that the circumstance, however
suspicious it might have appeared when it first came
to the knowledge of the petitioner and his advisers,
must be regarded as one in connection with which
payment was never perfected, as being unaccom
panied by any promise or condition to vote for Mr.
Eykyn; in point of fact, that the act was not corrupt,
but one done for charity and God's sake.

The recriminatory case was abandoned, and on doing so

O'Malley thought his Lordship must discriminate in the cases of the election petitions before him as to the extent to which either one party or the other should be saddled with costs.

I will therefore take the case of the Odd Fellows as my text. The evidence is that Mr. Eykyn was present in the chair at a dinner of that society, and the landlord of the inn at which the dinner was held has stated that Mr. Eykyn on that occasion ordered him to put wine on the table, in pursuance of which order a large quantity of champagne and other luxuries were produced and charged to Mr. Eykyn and to two of his supporters-Jones and Mason. It appears that there were some ninety-five persons present at the dinner, among whom were about seventy tradesmen and artisans, most of whom were voters for the borough, but divided in political opinion. Now the Odd Fellows is not a political society. Its constitution is of a benevolent character, and party politics are as a rule excluded from it, as from other societies of a similar description. The sting of this case lies in the fact that the dinner was held on the 25th Aug., not more than three weeks after the passing of the Act under whose operation I now sit, and within a fortnight or three weeks of the commencement of the actual canvass for the elections. Now, I am impressed with the objectionable character, to say the least of it, of any transaction by which an intending candidate may seek to ingratiate himself with electors, whether of his own side in politics or not, by profuse expenditure for luxuries. I must express the James expressed a hope that in making the order opinion, for I entertain it, that this is a questionable as to payment of costs, his Lordship would think it proceeding, and that it would be well if such pro- but right that the burden of defraying the expenses ceedings were refrained from in future; the more of the petition should not to any extent fall upon so because no one but a man possessed of wealth | Mr. Eykyn (the respondent). could afford to expend 277. in a single evening on drink for other people. If profuse expenditure of this kind may be resorted to, it seems to me that it must operate as something like an exclusion of men with moderate means from becoming candidates at elections. I am, at the same time, quite aware of the distinction between treating and bribing. The terms of the section of the Act of Parliament applicable to treating are very different from those applicable to bribery. I must bear that steadily in mind in dealing with cases of this description. There is, as we know, an express enactment with respect to treating, which forbids the giving of any refreshment to voters during an election, under a penalty which seems to imply that all hospitality is not struck at by the enactments as to treating. If every man at the Odd Fellows' dinner got 6s. 8d., or the price of the champagne which he drank, what would a Parliamentary Committee say to such a proceeding, and what must I say of it if there were not a distinction between bribing and treating? This case, however, is not, I think, altogether without precedent. Cases of a similar nature have, I find, been under the consideration of Parliamentary Committees, who have drawn a distinction between societies which have and those which have not a political object. I may refer to the decision in the Pontefract case, reported W. & D. 71, as bearing upon this point. The treating of Odd Fellows mentioned in that case, was to a much smaller extent than in the present instance, but it was held not to amount to treating within the Act, the society not being a political society. I may also refer to the Maidstone case, W. & D. 104, as bearing immediately upon this point, as showing that it appears to have been taken for granted, and no doubt correctly, that a similar treating of a society having a political character, if established in evidence, would have amounted to an offence within the Act of Parliament. I am not bound by the decisions of Parliamentary Committees except in respect of precedents not provided for by the rules laid down by the judges, and this is not such a case; but I may, possibly, refer to those decisions for my guidance. As to the case of the Odd Fellows, then, while

WILLES, J.-I am exceedingly obliged to the learned counsel on both sides for the great assistance which they have given me in the course of the inquiry. I only hope that I may have equally valuable assistance in trying the other petitions with which I shall have to deal in the course of this election circiut. I have now to state that I have written down the resolutions to which I have come in this case, and that I believe it is proper, if not necessary, looking at the terms of the 11th section of the Election Petitions Act, I should announce in court, in the form of a judgment, that which I propose to report to the Speaker of the House of Commons. I am very anxious, of course, to treat that great officer with the utmost respect, and I feel a little diffidence in saying whether it is intended by the section which I have mentioned that the judgment should go in the form of a certificate to the Speaker simply, so that he should be the first person to know officially what was the decision of the judge. I, however, think it is incumbent on the judge to announce at the time, in the form of an order or judgment in public, the conclusion at which he may have arrived. [His Lordship referred to the 13th and 14th sections of the Act 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125, and O'Malley observed that it was the practice of Parliamentary Committees of the House of Commons in election cases to read the resolutions at which they arrived to the parties assembled in the committee room before they were reported to the House itself.] I am of opinion that the course which I propose to take is, if not a necessary, a safe course. I deter mine as follows: "1. That the sitting member whose return is complained of by the petition was duly elected and returned to serve in Parliament as member for the borough of New Windsor. 2. That no corrupt practices have been proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any candidate at such election. 3. That on

NORWICH ELECTION PETITION.

the evidence before me it does not appear that corrupt practices have been resorted to, and there is in such evidence no reason to believe that they have extensively prevailed at the election to which the petition relates. 4. That at the close of the case for the petitioner, and after the address of the learned counsel for the respondent in answer thereto, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated in effect that his client felt that his case was not made out as he anticipated it would have been, and did not desire to proceed to a scrutiny. 5. That thereupon and upon the examination of the respondent and two of his agents, I was satisfied that this course was not the result of any compromise, and did not require the learned counsel for the respondent to proceed with any case of recrimination, nor did I consider it my duty to institute a general inquiry into the proceedings at the election." I shall certify to the Speaker accordingly. With respect to costs, inasmuch as I am convinced that the intention of the statute was substantially to put that question on the same footing as in ordinary actions, and that as a general rule the costs ought to be paid by the unsuccessful party, I am of opinion that although the petition is neither frivolous nor vexatious, yet as it has failed, and as there are no special circumstances to displace the general rule, I must order the petitioner to pay the costs of the respondent.

Scrutiny-Procedure.

In the case of a scrutiny an opening and reply will not be allowed on each vote.

WILLES, J. (to O'Malley).—In the event of your failing on the first point--the bribery--what do you propose to do?

O'Malley. To go into the scrutiny.

WILLES, J.-Then you propose to reserve your opening?

O'Malley. Yes, my lord. There is generally an opening on each particular vote.

WILLES, J.-Yes; but that is a practice I certainly do not intend to allow. It must be understood that your reserving your opening is by permission of the court, otherwise it might be drawn into a precedent. It was the opinion of the judges and of myself that it would be very inconvenient to have a separate opening and reply upon each vote. I do not think that is necessary with the present tribunal.

Evidence-Previous election.

The court will be reluctant to connect the pending inquiry with what occurred at a previous election. and especially so where the respondent was not a candidate at that election.

Robert Wilson examined.-I am a master chimney-sweep, and a voter of the borough. I was a voter at Sir H. Hoare and Mr. Labouchere's elecion. Mr. James Herbert canvassed me for Hoare nd Labouchere.

WILLES, J.-Then it can only take one of two forms-first, proof of agency, which is unnecessary, for there can be no doubt that James Herbert was an agent at the last election; and, secondly, proof that Herbert was a person who was acquainted with the ordinary movements of an election, and had that knowledge which would give a character to his acts, if they were illegal. But there can be no doubt as to that point also.

O'Malley. We propose to prove that at the former election Herbert gave a sum of money to Wilson to enable him to pay his rates and be placed on the register, on the understanding that he should vote for the Liberals, and that the same thing occurred again at the last election.

WILLES, J.-It may be a lawyer's prejudice, but I have the strongest feeling against going into evidence of what took place at the election of Labouchere and Hoare for the purpose of fixing any penal consequences upon people for being con

cerned in the last election.

The examination into the proceedings of the previous election was then abandoned.

NORWICH ELECTION PETITION.

Jan. 15, 16, and 18, 1869.

(Before Baron MARTIN.)

Bribery-" By or on behalf of"-Agency-Relation between candidate and agent that of master and servant -Form of petition.

The judges will not look at the form but at the substance of a petition.

[ocr errors]

A petition alleged (inter alia) that the respondent was by himself and other persons on his behalf, guilty of bribery, treating, and undue influence, before, during, and after the said election, whereby he was and is incapacitated to serve in the present Parliament,” and that the election and return were null and void. There was no allegation of bribery by agents:

Held, that the term "other persons on his behalf" included every person for whom the candidate was responsible, and that under the above clause it was competent to the petitioner to go into any act of bribery by the respondent himself, and further to go into any acts of bribery by any person for whom in law he was responsible, whether that person were an agent directly appointed by the respondent, or an agent by virtue of the construction which has been put on the Corrupt Practices Acts.

The law of agency for the purpose of vitiating an election is utterly different from that which would subject a candidate to a penalty or an indictment, and the question of his right to sit in Parliament has to be settled on an entirely different principle.

The relation between a candidate and his agent is more that of master and servant than of principal and agent: and as a master is responsible for an act of negli gence on the part of his servant, so a candidate is responsible for the act of his agent, although done in violation of explicit instructions.

WILLES, J.-Was Mr. Eykyn a candidate at that The moment bribery is committed by a candidate per

election ?

O'Malley.-No.

WILLES, J.-Then the burden is with you to show that you ought to go into that at all.

O'Malley. We are going to prove an act at the last election, by Herbert, which may be problematical in itself, and we propose to go into the previous election to give meaning to that act.

sonally, or on his behalf by a person for whom he is responsible, from that moment his status as a candidate is annihilated, and all votes given subsequently are null and void.

This was a petition presented by Jacob Henry Tillett against the return of Sir Henry Josias Stacey, Baronet, and claiming the seat for the petitioner Its terms being material, it is here set out verbatim: 1. Your petitioner claims to have had a right to be returned at the above election.

NORWICH ELECTION PETITION.

2. And your petitioner states that the election was holden | on the 17th Nov. 1868, when Sir William Russell, Bart., Sir Henry Josias Stracey, Bart., and your petitioner, were candidates, and the returning officer has returned the said Sir Henry Josias Stracey and Sir William Russell as being duly elected.

3. And your petitioner says that the said Sir Henry Josias Stracey was, by himself and other persons on his behalf, guilty of bribery, treating, and undue influence, before, during, and after the said election, whereby he was and is incapacitated to serve in the present Parliament for the said City of Norwich, and the said election and the return of the said Sir Henry Josias Stracey were and are wholly null and void.

4. And your petitioner says that many persons voted at the said election, and were reckoned upon the poll of the said Sir Henry Josias Stracey, who were bribed, treated, and unduly influenced to vote thereat for him the said Sir Henry Josias Stracey, and that the votes of all such persons were null and void, and ought now to be struck off the poll. 5. And your petitioner says that at the above election certain persons who voted for the said Sir Henry Josias Stracey did knowingly personate and falsely assume to vote in the name of certain other persons whose names appear upon the register of voters for the said City of Norwich, and such votes ought to be struck off the poll.

6. And your petitioner says that at the above election certain persons were admitted to vote and did vote for the said Sir Henry Josias Stracey who were not entitled by law to vote at the said election, and who were disqualified by law from voting at the same, and such votes ought to be struck off the poll.

7. And your petitioner says that at the above election certain persons voted respectively more than once for the said Sir Henry Josias Stracey, and such votes ought to be struck off the poll.

8. And your petitioner says that the majority of votes declared by the returning officer at the sald election in favour of the said Sir Henry Josias Stracey over your petitioner was only an apparent and colourable majority, inasmuch as the votes of divers persons were accepted and recorded on the said poll in favour of the said Sir Henry Josias Stracey who were not legally entitled and had no right to vote at the said election; and that the real majority of good and legal votes polled at the said election was in favour of your petitioner over the said Sir Henry Josias

Stracey, and that your petitioner was duly elected a member to serve in Parliamant, and ought to be returned as such. Wherefore your petitioner prays that it may be determined that the said Sir Henry Josias Stracey was not duly elected or returned, and that your petitioner was duly elected and ought to have been returned. Ballantine, Serjt., Keane, Q. C., and Simms Reeve, appeared for the petitioner.

Rodwell, Q. C., Sleigh, Serjt., E. L. O'Malley, and Cooper- Wyld, for the respondent.

The principal decision in this case had reference to the proof of agency for the purpose of affecting the respondent with the consequences of extensive bribery which admittedly did take place at the

election.

Ballantine, Serjt., in opening the case, addressing his Lordship, said.-In the old election inquiries it will be within your Lordship's knowledge that while bribery and treating were constantly proved, there was always a strong contention that agency had not been proved, and there was a great endeavour to disconnect the persons bribed from any person authorised on the part of the sitting member to bribe them. A vast number of the decisions of the House of Commons Committees have been decisions upon the subject of agency, and one of the inconveniences of those tribunals undoubtledly was the difficulty of reconciling the decisions of one committee with the decisions of another. And further, it seemed in many of the decisions that common sense had been to a very considerable extent lost sight of; and it seems to have occurred to gentlemen of acuteness and experience in other matters that people who had no money would pay a great deal-that people who had no interest would put their hands into their pockets-for a person whom they did not care for. And notwithstanding a very extensive system of bribery being proved, it was often contended, because the sitting member was not connected by any particular facts with the persons engaged in

bribery, that agency could not be inferred. I hardly think that the tribunals as at present constituted will lay down any rules of that description; and I shall contend, and I think successfully, before your Lordship, that if an extensive system of bribery is shown and an extensive system of treating, and one individual engaged in it, I have proved quite enough to support at all events a primâ facie case of agency; and the onus will lay upon my learned friend to shake the case after it has been proved. I make this observation, not because I assume I shall be unable more directly to prove the connection of Sir Henry Stracey with many of the persons engaged in these transactions, but because I wish at once to state what, upon consideration, I believe to be the proper construction of the Act of Parliament and the proper construction of the term "agent," to give your Lordship an opportunity either of correcting me by the judgment which you will pronounce, or confirming the accuracy of the view I have expressed.

A manager of a committee-room was called who proved that one Hardiment went out canvassing every day and occasionally in company with a son of the respondent, and that after the close of the poll the committee thanked him for his exertions. This evidence was corroborated by two other witnesses. His Lordship expressed his opinion that agency had been proved as regarded Hardiment "up to the hilt."

Rodwell proceeded to argue for the respondent upon the fact that there was no allegation of bribery by agents in the petition. In the third clause Stracey was, by himself and other persons on his the petitioner said "that the said Sir Henry Josias behalf, guilty of bribery, treating and undue influence, before during and after the said election, whereby he was and is incapacitated to serve in the present Parliament for the said city of Norwich, and the said election and the return of the said Sir Henry Josias Stracey were and are wholly null and void." [MARTIN, B.-What do you consider to be the meaning of the last averment?] In a case of this description other persons acting in behalf of a candidate put a candidate in a different position from a candidate who was charged with the acts of an agent; because, with regard to a principal and agent in matters of this description, there was, so to speak, a legal identity when the agency was proved. Assuming that this case of Hardiment's was proved, then he should admit that any corrupt practice or act which he was guilty of would be visited upon the sitting member as the principal of whom Hardiment was agent; but he maintained that there was a distinction between the person who committed the act on the part of the principal as an agent and the person who did so merely on his behalf. The learned judges had laid down that before they could make a person responsible for the acts of a person who had been acting in his behalf, that act must be done with the privity and knowledge and consent of the party for whom it was done. That was to say, it must be at his special request; he must be the person who had furnished or had given special orders for the act to be done before they could make the principal responsible for the act of that person. The first case to which he should call his Lordship's attention was the case of Hughes v. Marshall, 2 Tyrw. 134, a case under the Threatening Act, that being a petition in which very similar words were used to those in the petition before them. In that case a verdict was given for the plaintiff, and there was a rule for a new trial. In the course of Mr. Godson's (the counsel's) argument, Lord Lyndhurst said that the words "in his behalf" could only be taken to include acts done by the candidate's desire, or with

NORWICH ELECTION PETITION.

put upon his trial for any acts done by his agent, because it did not suggest or call upon him to answer any charge except that of personal bribery. It was from first to last a case of personal bribery. The point was present to his mind yesterday; but inasmuch as his Lordship's duty was not merely to try the question between the petitioner and the sitting member, but to make a special report on the state of the borough at the time, he thought it would be out of place for him to interpose when evidence was being given as to the transactions of Hardiment, because that was evidence bearing on another portion of the inquiry.

Without calling on Ballantine, Serjt. to reply,

his privity-acts which he procured to be done by | against Sir Henry Stracey, that indictment did other means than his own. This decision of Lord not contain any count by which he could be Lyndhurst and other judges showed what was the interpretation-and the limited interpretation, so to speak-they put on those words. Another case was that of Felton v. Easthope, sittings after Trinity Term 1822, quoted as a manuscript case in Rogers (11th edit.), p. 364. This was a case analogous to the one before his Lordship, and which he contended proved that the acts must be done with the knowledge and privity of the principal. In the petition before them there was no allegation that anything was done by the act of an agent, and he presumed that his Lordship would treat the petition in the shape of pleading or a record. If there were allegations which pointed out a particular offence or a particular state of things, his friend was not at liberty to encumber the sitting member with any other crime which might have been alleged in the petition, and a crime which involved him in other consequences. Having stated to his Lordship what he believed was the established and fixed law on the subject, and having assumed that this was a correct interpretation, and that there was a recognised distinction between the acts of an agent and the acts of a person who did a thing on behalf of another, he must now draw attention to the Corrupt Practices Act of 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 102). After the first five sections had defined what bribery was both as regards the briber and bribee, the conclusion of the 6th section was, that any person so offending should be guilty of a misdemeanor. This was the penalty that attached to any person who should have done certain things through another person acting on his behalf. The 36th section stated that if any candidate, at any election, should be guilty by himself or his agents of bribery, treating, or undue influence, such candidate should be incapable of being elected or sitting in Parliament. That clearly pointed out the penalty which should fall upon a person who should be guilty, by himself or agent, of bribery, treating, or undue influence at an election; but the person who was guilty of bribery through an agent was not guilty of a misdemeanor unless it could be shown that it had been done with his privity, knowledge, or consent.

MARTIN, B. said.-I am very clearly of opinion that under the 3rd clause in this petition it is competent for the petitioner to go into any act of bribery by Sir Henry Stracey himself, and further to go into acts of bribery by any person for whom in law Sir Henry Stracey is responsible, whether he be an agent directly appointed by Sir Henry Stracey, or whether he be an agent by reason of the construction that has been put on these Acts of Parliament-a construction which to some extent is binding on us. This allegation in the 3rd clause, "other persons on his behalf," means every person for whose act or conduct he is responsible. Under the Act of Parliament it is express, "every person who shall, directly by himself, or by any other person in his behalf." It is perfectly clear that the meaning which is to be given in this Act of Parliament, to the words "any other person on his behalf," is every other person other than the candidate, for whose act he is responsible. You have cited two cases with which I was familiar, and I apprehend they are perfectly well decided. If I were sitting here trying an indictment, or trying an action for a penalty, before the candidate could be made responsible for another for a crime or penalty, you would have to give evidence of direct bribery. But I am not trying a criminal case at all, but a civil case; and the rules applicable to a civil case are the rules applicable, I apprehend, to this. The law of agency, which will vitiate an MARTIN, B.-That is a true construction of the election, is utterly different from that which would two cases you have cited.

subject a candidate to a penalty or an indictment, Rodwell. I shall now call attention to the Act has to be settled on an entirely different principle. and the question of his right to sit in Parliament under which your Lordship is sitting.

MARTIN, B.-This is quite a new matter, and it is well to ascertain what your views are on the subject; but the matter has been most thoroughly considered by Blackburn and Willes, JJ. and myself, and we have quite made up our minds how to act upon it.

Rodwell. I would first call your Lordship's attention to the form of the petition.

MARTIN, B.-You need not trouble yourself on that point, as we have decided not to study the words, but the substance of the petition.

Rodwell.-Sect. 43 of the Act (31 & 32 Vict. c. 125) says, that where it is found that bribery has been committed" by or with the knowledge and consent of any candidate," such candidate shall be deemed to have been personally guilty of bribery; and sect. 45 imposes penalties on "any person other than a candidate" being found guilty of bribery. The Legislature clearly meant to draw a distinction between acts done with the knowledge and consent of the candidate, and acts done by an agent. Taking the petition as an indictment MAG. CAS-VOL. V.

I would not at this stage of the case have stated what is the opinion I hold, and which I shall act upon, except I had heard from you something which would have very much altered my mind; but after what Willes, J. has said at Windsor, I may say that Blackburn and Willes, JJ. and myself, unanimously came to a conclusion that any person authorised to canvass was an agent, and it does not signify whether or not he has been forbidden to bribe. If the candidate had told him honestly, "Do not bribe, I will not be responsible for it," and if bribery was committed, that bribery in my judgment would affect the candidate. Such is the opinion of Willes and Blackburn, JJ. and myself. The relation is more on the principle of master and servant than of principal and agent. It has been arrived at after full consideration, and it is a conclusion by which I am prepared to abide. Willes, J. expressed the same opinion at Windsor, as reported in the newspapers, and I apprehend he is dealing with the case there as a case more of master and servant than as principal and agent. A master is responsible for an act of negligence on the part of his servant, notwithstanding directions he may have given him, and if Sir Henry Stracey had told this Mr. Hardiment, who is now proved up to

NORWICH ELECTION PETITION.

the hilt to be an agent-three persons stated him to be a canvasser, and I am perfectly satisfied that he was-not to commit any illegal act, if he did so, Sir Henry Stracey is responsible for it. The fact that he had forbidden him to bribe is utterly immaterial, if the bribery is committed by him, and the effect would be to destroy his status as a candidate, and render him by law incapable of election; and every vote given for him would be void. I am obliged to Mr. Rodwell for stating his views, for it tends to shorten a case when you become aware what a judge will act upon, as you can keep your attention on material matters. Mr. Rodwell spoke of proof. I am not dealing with proof, I am dealing with evidence. Proof means that which is established. I have to deal at present with evidence.

Ballantine, Serjt.-We don't quite understand your Lordship's observation that every vote that was given to Sir Henry Stracey was void.

MARTIN, B.-The moment an act of bribery was committed by himself or a person for whom he was responsible, from that moment his status as a candidate was annihilated.

made out; but after the evidence did his Lordship feel construined to say that, for the purposes of the election, there was such a connection between Sir Henry Stracey and Mr. Hardiment as to involve him in the guilty transaction to which Mr. Hardiment was a party? As the case stood, that was not So. He again referred to Willes, J.'s ruling at Windsor as to an authorised canvasser being an agent. No voter had a right to assume, as no canvasser was appointed, that Hardiment or anyone else had authority to do that on behalf of Sir Henry Stracey. Should the decision be adverse to Sir Henry Stracey, no candidate would dare come into a borough, be cause any officious person might upset his election.

MARTIN B.-The real question to be decided in this case is whether or not the admitted act of bribery by Hardiment about two or three o'clock in the afternoon of that day is an act for which Sir Henry Stracey is responsible. I have no more doubt of that matter than I have upon any other matter of law, thousands of which have come before me in the course of my life. The facts are these: The elec tion took place on the 17th of November. Up to the middle of the day everything seems to have gone on honestly. I have no doubt that there are a number of people in this town who honestly and Bribery-Progress of Polling—Agency. conscientiously support both sides on the great Evidence was given to show that between half-past three questions of the day. Up to one or two o'clock and four on the polling day a number of voters who well show what was the real opinion of the constivotes no doubt were honestly given, and they pretty had been previously in treaty with the agent of the tuency of Norwich. About the middle of the day petitioner, issued from a public-house, and in a state of there was a considerable majority in favour of Mr. intoxication voted for the respondent; and to show fur-Tillett and the other gentleman who stood with him. ther that they had received a sovereign a-piece from one Hardiment. By evidence accepted as satisfactory it was proved that йardiment canvassed with a son of the respondent, and that upon the afternoon of the polling day he went to the said public-house and brought up the voters. It was further proved that between half-past three and four on that day 504 votes were polled for the respondent.

But the result of that day's polling was this-between three and half-past three in No. 3 Ward there were 40 votes polled for Sir Henry Stracey; between half-past three and four, the number was 121. In No. 6 Ward, between three and half-past three, the number voting for Sir Henry Stracey was 43; be tween half-past three and four it was 103. In No. 7 Ward, between three and half-past, 66 votes were

Held that Hardiment was an agent of the respondent; recorded for Sir Henry Stracey; and between half

and

past three and four, 123 voted for him. The result was that, between half-past three and four, out of

Held, also, that it was not open to the court to doubt that
the great majority of the voters polling for the
respondent between the hours named were bribed.
Circumstances under which the court will imply bribery.gaged
The main question discussed in this inquiry was
the agency of a man named Hardiment, who has al-
ready been mentioned in this report as canvassing
wi h a son of the respondent. The nature of his
acts affecting the respondent are referred to in the
arguments and the judgment below.

Ballantine, Serjt., in his opening referred to a house called the Woolpack in the Eighth Ward kept by a man named Mackley. A person known generally in Norwich as "Big-headed Ben," of strong political principles, took care of the doorway at the Woolpack, and if any of the petitioner's voters or agents took a glance at "Big-headed Ben," they did not attempt to go any further. He was thoroughly well known, and took very great care that none but friends should come into the house. He was informed that in that house Hardiment himself bribed, giving something like a pound each for votes in the afternoon of the day of the election.

Rodwell, in summing up the case for the respondent, said :-The transaction affecting Sir Henry Stracey most was that in which Hardiment is shown to have taken a prominent part. That resolved itself into a question which has often been discussed before committees, namely, whether, upon a review of the whole evidence there is a prima facie case of agency. As the case stood there was a prima facie case of agency

the constituency that has been mentioned, 504 votes
were polled for Sir H. Stracey; and it is stated in
evidence by three or four gentlemen who were en-
in taking the poll, that a very considerable
number of voters came up in a gross state of intoxica
tion, and in some instances they did not know who
were the candidates for whom they were going to vote.
It is further proved that in three public-houses at least,
and it may be in many more, there was a number of
men of the lowest class of voters waiting, or on the
look-out, according to the expression of one of them.
I have not the slightest doubt that these men were
collected in these public-houses waiting to be bribed.
I have not the slightest doubt that they were bribed,
and that the great proportion of that low class of
voters who voted in the afternoon of that day, be-
tween half-past three and four, were bribed voters.
The matter which affects Sir Henry Stracey in this
case is that which concerns Hardiment at the Wool-
pack, that took place somewhere about half-past
three. The landlord of the Woolpack was called,
and it appears from his statement that there had
been at the Woolpack a committee, or at least a
body of men, meeting there who were friendly to
the Liberal cause. They continued to come to his
house for some time—about three months-and, as
I collected from what fell from one of the witnesses,
they afterwards thought that they must give a
turn to some other man, and they removed from the
Woolpack to another house. Upon the day of elec
tion it was proved beyond a doubt that a considera-
number of voters were at this house. It was also
proved that Mr. Harper, who I collect took an

« PreviousContinue »