BRADFORD ELECTION PETITION.-No. 2. as It might be that votes were given to him which upon a scrutiny would be struck off; it may be the 23rd section of the Act of Parliament has been violated, but there is nothing in that 23rd section whatever to affect his seat or the status of the candidate who can only be affected by reason of this 4th section. I am clearly of opinion that the argument addressed to me to the 23rd section of the Act that a penalty was incurred by what was done in giving refreshments upon the polling day, contrary to the 23rd section-has no operation with regard to this 4th section except in so far as the same Act is evidence that may be used to establish the position that something was done by Mr. Forster which contravenes the 4th section of this Act. Therefore the question comes to this, has that been proved to have been done? Now, the evidence upon this case resolves itself into two periods. It resolves itself into what was done previous to the election, that is, previous to the polling-day, and what was done upon the polling-day. And the evidence is perfectly distinct upon these, and perfectly plain. But Mr. Price has stated that this case is analogous to the case against Mr. Ripley. But in reality there is not the slightest analogy between them. The case against Mr. Ripley was that he had opened public-houses in the sense in which that is commonly and generally understood, that they were public-houses selected by him or by his agents, that rooms were allotted in these houses where people went every night if they liked; that a messenger was put at the door, or some person for preventing others from coming there than persons in some way connected with the house, and the people who went nightly to these houses went there to get drink, only limited by this, that it was to be given in reason, and that it was not to be given in excess. I have referred to the evidence this morning of Kitcheman, who was the active agent in the election for Mr. Ripley, and he tells you that he was the person who opened these public-houses, and that his direction was to affoi refreshments to persons, but to afford it in reason, and not in excess. Now, that is what I call opening a publichouse, and that is the meaning which has always been attached to the opening of a public-house, whether or not it was at a period before the election -a sort of open house for voters to go to, and there to be supplied with drink at the expense of the candidate, at the will-you may say at the discretionof the landlord or of the landlady as to what might be in reason. But that is the meaning of opening a public-house, and the meaning in which that word is used in reference to an election. What reference has that to this case? Nothing in the world. You have gentlemen called before you-you had Mr. Wade, upon whom no imputation could rest-you had a number of gentlemen, every one of them chairmen of different committees in the ward, upon whom there was no imputation cast, and there was no cross-examination; and they swore to me upon their oath that the use made of public-houses in regard to Mr. Forster and Mr. Miall's election is as different as night from day compared with the case of Mr. Ripley, and that what was done was that they went to these places agreeing for the use of the room upon the nights when they went therenot every night, but merely that they should have these rooms upon the nights of the general meetings, when they went to these places to address persons. What resemblance has that to public-houses opened in Mr. Ripley's case? It is not the same thing at all. I believe by the evidence of Mr. Wade and the others that it was a hiring of rooms for the purpose of using them once a week or a fortnight, but during the remainder of the day of hire the rooms were to be used exactly like any other rooms in the public-houses. Bills of Forster and Miall were seen in the windows of those public-houses, and persons might have supposed that the qualification of the houses was similar to that of the houses taken for Mr. Ripley, but the public-houses as opened and occupied for Messrs. Forster and Miall were as different from the publichouses as occupied for Mr. Ripley, as it was possible one thing could be from another, and the only resemblance was that they were called public-houses. Therefore I dispose of that by saying that in my judgment, by the evidence of the gentlemen called, I think I can see clearly that this was not at all an opening of public-houses in the sense in which an opening of a public-house at an election means, and which was proved to exist in Mr. Ripley's case by the man Kitcheman, and Samuel Abel, who kept a public-house, and by his wife, that is, giving a room where committees may meet, where other persons go and are admitted, where drink is given, and where the supply is free to them during any night they go to the public-house. So much as to that. I then have to inquire whether it is proved that Mr. Forster has done anything. Now I should excessively regret if I felt myself compelled to declare Mr. Forster's election void, because from his evidence, and the evidence of Mr. Wade, and the evidence of the other gentlemen called. I am satisfied that, as far as these gentlemen are concerned, this was as honest an election as ever was carried on. Mr. Forster has sworn upon his oath that he intended it to be so; that he gave directions that it should be so; that after he became a candidate he went abroad, and that upon his return he was deter mined that the thing should not rest merely upon directions, but that he himself would personally investigate what was going on, for the purpose of preventing illegality. I have already said that in my judgment this case depends upon one section of the Act of Parliament. I have stated that the cases of alleged bribery utterly and entirely fail; but it will be necessary for me to state in a few words what I believe to be the true meaning of this Act of Parliament with regard to bribery. Now bribery is an utterly different thing from treating. I observe that my brothers Willes and Blackburn have taken occasion in the judgments they have given-Mr. Justice Willes in three, and Mr. Justice Blackburn in one-to state their views as to the distinction between the two things. Bribery is the giving of money; it is useless to go into the varieties of offers here, but it is in point of fact giving money for a vote. The enactment is that every person who shall give any money to a voter to induce that voter to vote is declared to commit an offence. There is nothing here about corrupt, nothing at all. It is the simple giving of money to induce a voter to vote, and it is declared to be an offence, for if done by a candidate, or by a person for whom he is responsible, the candidate loses his status, and cannot be elected. It says that every man must know that it is an unlawful thing, a wrong thing, and every man who receives a bribe must know-at least, a man in a certain condition of life feels-that it is doing a dishonourable and dishonest thing. But there the Act of Parliament stops. There is nothing about cor ruption in it. It does not apply to the mind of the man who offers or the mind of the man who takes. It condescends upon the fact of giving money to the man to vote, and that is the meaning of the Act of Parliament as shown beyond doubt by the next two lines, which go on to say, "or shall cor ruptly do any such act on account of such voter having voted;" and the section therefore imposes two distinctions and says-if you give a man money to vote before an election, it is ipso facto bribing him, and has the effect of disqualifying the candi BRADFORD ELECTION PETITION.-No. 2. date from being elected. It further imposes a was done unknown to them; and I certainly do think it would be an unfortunate thing that a man who came forward to stand honestly for the purpose of being elected for his native town, and who employed as respectable men as are to be found in it, and was scrupulously desirous to do nothing wrong should, nevertheless, have his seat affected by an act done by a partisan, and the only act that has in this case any weight upon my mind is that brought out by the evidence of Stephenson and Mrs. Hill. All the others are nothing at all. Their evidence is nothing but the evidence of persons who went in and got beer, and I have no doubt many of them confessed the truth. The truth is this: They were partisans of Messrs. Forster and Miall who were desirous of getting votes, who saw people at public-houses who were voters, as they thought; that they then gave them or treated them with pies, for the purpose, so far as they were concerned, of inducing people to vote; and the giving of the beer and the obtaining of the beer might possibly affect the votes of the individuals who took it. But there has not been a particle of evidence in this case, except in the instance of Stephenson, to connect Mr. Forster or any of the persons for whom he was responsible, with it; and it was as if a man went to canvass having no direction about it, but being a warm partisan, if you like, asked a person for whom he purposed to vote. This person would then state that he would rather vote for Ripley than the other men, and the partisan would then say, "I will satisfy you that Mr. Forster is the best man for whom you should vote; come over to a publichouse, and we will talk it over," and he would call for two glasses of beer, and pay 4d. for them. That is not bribery or treating in the sense of treating in this Act of Parliament. There is nothing corrupt in it. It is a natural and ordinary and common thing which the ordinary course of life leads to be done, and it has no resemblance whatever to corrupt treating within the meaning of this Act of Parliament. Therefore the real case and the only case, when the matter comes to be explained, which at all bears upon the matter is this case of Stephenson. Now the case of Stephenson in regard to that agrees with the evidence of Mrs. Hill. Stephenson said, we must do the best we can," that they must give a sup of something to the people who came in. Yet it was her account of it, and I am satisfied she was telling the truth. Stephenson's account is this-it does not appear what position he was in, beyond that of being a partisan and well-wisher of Mr. Forster 66 Price. He was a vice-chairman, my lord. MARTIN B.-Well, let it be so. He tells you that upon the Friday before the election he went to this Mrs. Hill's house, which, as I understand, is in the low part of the town, where those Irishmen live; that a quantity of people came to the house and said to him that the other side were treating largely and giving beer largely, and they complained that they did not get beer, and, as he said, the people were going away like a flock of sheep, and thereupon he said to her, give them some beer to keep them quiet. Now, that is the act of Mr. Lockwood Stephenson, and I have no doubt that really is the thing that occurred. Is that a corrupt act by him? Supposing an action had been brought against him for the forfeiture of 50%. by reason of that, would that be a "corrupt" act? I very much doubt it. I very much doubt whether there would be any evidence to go to a jury upon, and I think it would be the duty of a judge to stop it. But even that won't do. It must be a corrupt act by a candidate himself, a corrupt act done directly against the direction of the Act, an act done by a man not under a sort of pressure. I 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 64, 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 true, 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 ap pointed 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. (a) Jan. 19, 20, 21, and 22, 1869. (Before WILLES, J.) Treating-Evidence-Case not included in particulars -Bribery-Statement made by voter to a third person -Promise to pay voter's travelling expenses conditionally on voting-Corrupt Practices Prevention Act 1854-Agency-Authority to canvass not always the test of Costs. It was proved that two persons whose names were on the register of voters for a borough, but who had ceased to reside within the limits of the borough or within the statutory distance thereof at the time of the election, and who had consequently lost their right to vote at the election by virtue of the provisions of the 79th section of the 6 Vict. c. 18, had nevertheless voted at the election in favour of the sitting member. It was also proved that the same persons had been prevailed upon to travel from Chester, their then place of residence, and to vote at the election by a promise made to them by one Handford that their expenses should be paid, and that a sum of 51., which was greatly in excess of their expenses, had actually been paid to them by Handford on account of such expenses, and in pursuance of the promise made by him to them: Held, that the fact that these persons were not entitled to vote at the election made no difference, and that as they had prima facie a right to vote, the case was within the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 102), and that the promise to pay their expenses conditionally upon their voting for the sitting member, and the subsequent payment of those expenses, were consequently corrupt practices. Authority from a candidate or from his agent to canvass, or to procure votes on his behalf, is, as a rule, the test of agency; but agency will not in all cases be limited within those bounds, as it may under the new system assume a novel form, in which it may be necessary for the court to recognise it. Where the case as disclosed under a petition is proper for examination, and the petition is founded upon strong prima facie grounds, and attended with reasonable and probable cause for pursuing the inquiry to a termination, the petitioner will not be condemned in the costs of the respondent, although the result of the inquiry may be in favour of the latter. This was a petition presented by William Edmund Elkins, Thomas Bowyer, and William Triggs, three of the voters at the last election for the borough of Guildford, against the return of Guildford James Hillier Mainwaring Ellerker Onslow, Esq., as member to serve in Parliament for the said borough. The petition, omitting the more formal parts, was in the following terms: 1. Your petitioners are persons who voted at the above election. 2. And your petitioners state that the election was holden on the seventeenth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, when Guildford James Hillier Mainwaring Ellerker Onslow and Richard Garth, Esqrs., were candidates, and the returning officer has returned Guildford James Hillier Mainwaring Ellerker Onslow as being duly elected. 3. And your petitioners say that before and during the said election the said Guildford James Hillier Mainwaring Ellerker Onslow did, himself and his agents, and by other persons on his behalf, directly and indirectly, give, lend, and procure, and agree to give, lend, and procure, and did offer and promise to procure, and to endeavour to procure respectively, money and valuable considerations, and also offices, places, and employments to and for divers persons having votes at the said election, and to and for other persons on behalf of such voters, and to and for other persons in order to induce such several voters respectively to vote and refrain from voting at the said election, and to induce such voters and other persons respectively to procure, and endeavour to procure, the a) Reported by ROBERT WILKINSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. return of the said Guildford James Hillier Mainwaring Ellerker Onslow; and did also during and after the said election corruptly make such gifts, loans, promises, and offers of money and valuable considerations, and of offices, places, and employments to divers voters at the said election, and to other persons respectively on behalf of such voters and otherwise, on account of such voters, having voted or refrained from voting at the said election. 4. That before, during, and after the said election, the said Guildford James Hillier Mainwaring Ellerker Onslow corruptly by himself and his agents, and by and with other persons, and by other ways and means, on his behalf, directly and indirectly, did give and provide, and cause to be given and provided, and was accessory to giving and providing, and did wholly or in part pay expenses incurred for meat, drink, entertainment, and provision to and for divers persons respectively, in order to be elected and for being elected; and also for the purpose of corruptly influencing certain of such persons and other persons respectively to give or refrain from giving their votes at the said election, and on account of certain other such persons having voted or refrained from voting, or being about to vote or refrain from voting, at the said election. 5. That before and during and after the said election the said Guildford James Hillier Mainwaring Ellerker Onslow, by himself and his agents, and by and with other persons on his behalf, did, directly and indirectly, make use of and threaten to make use of force, violence, and restraint, and did inflict and threaten the infliction by himself, and by loss, and in other manner and other ways and means and through other persons, of injury, damage, harm, and practise intimidation upon and against divers persons in order to induce and compel certain of such persons respectively to vote or refrain from voting, and on account of certain other of such persons having respectively voted and refrained from voting at the said election; and did also by abduction, duress, and other fraudulent devices and contrivances, impede, prevent, and otherwise interfere with the free exercise of the franchise of divers voters at the said election, and did thereby compel, induce, and prevail upon divers voters respectively to give and refrain from giving their votes at the said election. 6. That the said Guildford James Hillier Mainwaring Ellerker Onslow, by himself and his agents, and by and with other persons on his behalf, directly and indirectly, did corruptly pay divers rates on behalf of ratepayers in the said borough, for the purpose of enabling them to be registered as voters, thereby to influence their votes at the said election, and also did pay divers rates on behalf of voters at the said election, for the purpose of inducing them to vote or refrain from voting thereat. 7. That the said Guildford James Hillier Mainwaring Ellerker Onslow was, by himself, his agents, friends, and partisans, and by others on his behalf, guilty of bribery, treating, and undue influence at the said election. 8. That by reason of such bribery, treating, and undue influence the said election and return of the said James Hillier Mainwaring Ellerker Onslow is not a valid election and return, and ought to be set aside. Therefore your petitioners pray that it may be determined that the said Guildford James Hillier Mainwaring Ellerker Onslow was not duly elected or returned, and that the election was void. Overend, Q. C., and J. C. Mathew appeared for the petitioners; and Sargood, Serjt., and the Hon. Evelyn Ashley for the respondent. The principal case against the sitting member was one in which it was proved that two persons named Corson and Glynn, who had resided in Guildford, and whose names were still on the register of Parliamentary voters for the borough, but who, at the time of the election, were resident in Chester, had been induced to come up from Chester to vote at the election by a promise made to them by one Handford that their expenses should be paid, and had actually received from Handford in pursuance of that promise the sum of 51. The facts of this, as well as of the other cases, are sufficiently referred to in the following judgment. WILLES, J.-This petition asks that the return of Mr. Onslow as member to serve in Parliament for the borough of Guildford should be declared void on several grounds, some of which, though laid in the petition, have not been supported by any evidence, and some of which, although evidence was offered with regard to them, have been disposed of in the course of the case. Those which remain I proceed shortly to dispose of now. The first charge 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 1000l. What right have I to put the Williamson intended Smith really to have “a risk of such a loss upon another?" If Ï, 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 Williamson. 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 66 "Would not play false, And yet would wrongly win." non |