TAMWORTH ELECTION PETITION. was not made, having plotted that for the purpose | of the other topics which have been urged upon the of getting in Sir Henry Bulwer, having succeeded court, that there was a joint action on the part of Sir in getting in his candidate, Sir Henry Bulwer, by Robert Peel and Sir Henry Bulwer. Let us take means of this and other arts which at another part the measure of the evidence to establish it. They of the case I was called upon to imagine existed, proceeded jointly, they were jointly represented at suddenly took it into his head to destroy the effects the registration. True, everybody knows the imof the plot which he had hatched and which he had portance of attending to the register, and everyaccomplished; because whilst a petition must have body also knows the importance of combining at been suspected and was possibly, and I have no the registration the forces of those who represent doubt was, expected upon the 30th Nov., a week one side in politics likely to be affected by the and more before the time for presenting the petition result; and I have no doubt from the notice expired, and when, to take the course he did would that has been produced and also from the proadd colour, if not, as it is said foundation, to the bability of the thing, that Sir Robert Peel and petitioner's case, he proceeded to give his notice of Sir Henry Bulwer anticipating the contest which was the 30th Nov. to Mr. Tolson. Why I must not only to take place, Sir Robert Peel, wishing well to hold Mr. Carmichael to be an oppressor as he is Sir Henry Bulwer, from beginning to end being called, I must not only hold him to be a knave in satisfied with his coming forward, and desiring that respect of Sir Henry Bulwer, and an oppressor in he should be returned with him, but not at his exrespect of these people, but I must also come to the pense, did unite with him in taking care that the conclusion that he is a fool. I cannot do that. I register was properly framed, and their interests believe that the charge against Mr. Carmichael in attended to. That registration would take place respect of these twenty-one houses explained by the about September. September went by, then October, evidence, the details of which it would be wearisome and then November. In the course of that period to go over, but from which I have drawn the conclu these gentlemen appeared to have pursued different sion I have already stated, is as groundless almost courses. Sir Robert Peel did not employ any person as the charge of bribery against Sir Robert Peel. to come down from London and make speeches and I say almost, because it may be that the petitioners inquiries on his behalf. Sir Henry Bulwer employed honestly believe that; but I cannot think they a gentleman named Haley; Sir Robert Peel did honestly believed that any judge would come to the not employ Mr. Shaw before Nov. 4. Sir Robert conclusion of the truth of the other. Now I come Peel did employ Mr. Neville, in whose room Mr. to the cases in which specific evidence is said to Shaw succeeded on the 4th Nov. Sir Henry Bulwer have been given in the case of Titterton, James did employ Mr. Shaw early in August; I think the Pallett, Alfred Walker, and James Clark, con- first week in August, and Sir Henry Bulwer did firmed as it is alleged by his wife Mrs. Clark. not employ Mr. Neville. There was no person who [Having dealt with these, he said]: Now I will make could be suggested as having been employed by Sir a remark, and I dismiss this case with it; Mr. Robert Peel. It has been denied by Sir Robert Carmichael was the land agent of Sir Robert Peel. Peel; he was not cross-examined upon this point, Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Carmichael have both though charges were made against him upon others. stated that he was forbidden to interfere in election | There was no person appointed by Sir Robert Peel matters, and that he did not interfere in election to represent him, except Mr. Neville up to Nov. 4. matters for Sir Robert Peel. It is alleged that Baraclough was appointed to represent, in a capacity he interfered for Sir Henry Bulwer; and it is which I must deal with presently, Sir Henry alleged that he did so, Sir Robert Peel looking on, Bulwer. Soon after, and before Mr. Shaw was and therefore that he bound them both. Glancing appointed, Mr. Haley came down. Witness after at the petition, I find that that was not the view witness asserted that meetings were held prewhich could have been entertained in respect to vious to that 4th Nov., at which these candidates this matter by those who advised the petitioners, unquestionably had the same agent, Mr. Shaw. I because there is no charge whatever in the decline to call him a common agent for the present; petition of intimidation against Sir Henry Bulwer, witness after witness was called, who said he was either directly or through an agent. The intimi- present at meetings that were held in favour of Sir dation was charged against Sir Robert Peel only. Robert Peel and Sir Henry Bulwer. Is that true? The intimidation suggested is an intimidation which Certainly not. They were people who acted upon would affect Mr. Carmichael, and Sir Henry Bulwer mere rumour; they were people who in that respect through him if Mr. Carmichael were his agent; but gave evidence which is unquestionably exaggerated. Mr. Carmichael was not an agent for Sir Henry Meetings were held up to a certain point, and I Bulwer. He was a land agent and not an election take it up to the first meeting that Sir Robert Peel agent for Sir Robert Peel, and I might have contented attended, which I think was certainly not earlier myself, in point of law, by stating these latter facts, than the 26th Oct., meetings were held in the which clearly show that the whole of the evidence interest of Sir Henry Bulwer, and local committees introduced with respect to Mr. Carmichael was were formed to get in Sir Henry Bulwer. Barairrelevant, and could not have arrived, in any clough, the person appointed for Sir Henry Bulwer, view of the case, however unfavourable to him, went round; he was not seen by Sir Robert Peel. at any useful end for the petitioners. Now I Those witnesses are therefore mistaken; they speak proceed to consider the next topic; and this is in that respect upon rumour or belief, and the evione in respect of which it has been said that the dence they give, instead of establishing a joint case of Sir Robert Peel and the case of Sir Henry action with Sir Robert Peel against the clear tesBulwer are especially identical. It was sought to timony of the leading facts to which I have referred, be made out they were identical from the beginning. rather shows that their evidence ought to be It was said that at all events they were identical, and scrupulously criticised in other points of view. to some extent they were after the 4th Nov., or per- There was a reason why Sir Robert Peel did haps after the 26th Oct., when Sir Robert Peel appears not join with Sir Henry Bulwer. He was himto have commenced to take active measures for the self sure of success. He did become anxious, and purpose of securing the interests of the new voters. he did become alarmed, shortly before the poll: I shall shortly dismiss that subject. I must make and why? I could easily imagine, as was suggested some remarks upon it, because, notwithstanding the in the course of the case, and some people even failure of proof, which was singularly obvious to thought that Sir Henry Bulwer might come in first. any observant mind in the course of the case, it was I could quite understand that, although Sir Robert insisted upon, in the reply at least, as strongly as any Peel may have thought he would come in as the TAMWORTH ELECTION PETITION. favourite if no foreign horse were brought into the | the policy of the law to certain agencies in which course, Sir Henry Bulwer might possibly get the it is thought well, for the benefit of the public, that advantage of him amongst the new voters in conse- the agent should be considered to represent his quence of the organised system which certainly was principal, whether he has actual authority from resorted to to get in the new voters in the country him or not, provided only he has an appointdistricts for Sir Henry Bulwer. That explains what ment as an agent. The rule applies, and none appears strange at first, and was commented on as of the exceptions, to the present case. What strange and almost incredible in the evidence of Sir was the effect of what took place between Robert Peel. He had a reason for getting anxious, Baraclough and Sir Robert Peel? It is said in reply and when he got anxious he then proceeded to do that that made Baraclough the agent of Sir Robert to some extent what Sir Henry Bulwer had been Peel by adoption. Well I can conceive that a man doing before, and what, so far as I can judge from may be made the agent of another by adoption. If, the accounts, Mr. John Peel did not resort to, or for instance, Sir Robert Peel were to adopt the act resorted to more sparingly than either of them of Mr. Carmichael in distraining for double rent on Baraclough was employed by Sir Henry Bulwer those two occasions on which that remedy was Why Sir Henry Bulwer should have selected Bara- resorted to, knowing what was done, he would clough, if he was the person who selected him as become liable, even though he had not authorised it his agent, it is difficult to divine. I suppose that at the time, because it was an act which was done Sir Henry Bulwer coming here unknown anticipated in his name, the character of which he was aware that it would be necessary to resort to the system of at the time of the ratification. I put that by to which I have referred, and to introduce himself way of illustration, because with respect to those at various rooms throughout the district (other distresses, they do not fall within my province to rooms than those of public-houses if he could find decide upon, as they are under the consideration of them, which he tried to do, but in most instances another tribunal before which I have no doubt failed to find) the large rooms which are usually to justice has been done, and if a mistake has been be found at public-houses, only in the sort of made in point of law in resorting to double distress, neighbourhood in which Sir Henry Bulwer spoke; which is not permitted by law in respect of an and I suppose that Baraclough, being a person adverse holding over by the tenant, the tenant will who himself kept a house of the description in recover, and I heartily wish he may recover, and which it might be necessary to hold meetings, with damages. I refer to it as an illustration of the was recommended to Sir Henry Bulwer by some- law of agency by which a man may become answerbody else, and that it was not upon the principle of able for the act of his agent, the act of a person who opposites coalescing to which at first Sir Henry was not his agent at the time, but who has done Bulwer, being rather a man of books than of the something in his name which he afterwards thinks world, I feel inclined to impute it that Bara- proper to adopt. The rule is plain that a raticlough and Sir Henry Bulwer found themselves fication after the act is equivalent to an authority in company. Baraclough was not engaged by Sir given at the time. The rule is also plain as Robert Peel, and Baraclough does not appear to limited to the case in which the principal, have come into contact with Sir Robert Peel till the person sought to be made liable as principal, after the election, and if the circumstance of is acquainted with the character of the act at the Baraclough applying to Sir Robert Peel for the time when he ratifies. Sir Robert Peel, in conmoney to pay the 130 men, and Sir Robert Peel senting that the men employed by Baraclough complying with his application had not been intro- should be paid, and paid out of his money, duced in evidence, I should have said there was no would be a sufficient adoption of the act, provided case against Sir Robert Peel to establish the affir-Sir Robert Peel at the time, was acquainted with mative of Baraclough representing him as agent. I must deal with that piece of evidence as it has presented itself. Baraclough was stated in the opening to be an agent of Sir Robert Peel in carrying out the joint system of destroying the independence of the borough. I wish to put it in the mildest form; perhaps I do not put it in the exact language; I am sure I do not put it in any language stronger than that in which it was asserted, which assertion has not been proved. He was first alleged to be the agent of Sir Robert Peel, in consequence of association between that gentle man and Sir Henry Bulwer. Upon that the evidence has wholly failed. Following out the track in which I commenced, by endeavouring to illustrate the law of agency, I think I may say (I am bound to speak clearly, and I will do so if I can) that Sir Robert Peel and Sir Henry Bulwer were no more answerable for the acts of their respective agents in the position of Baraclough as regards Sir Henry Bulwer, than, if they were sailing in their respective vessels in company or under convoy, each would be answer-expressed that which I presume Mr. Shaw also felt, able for the damage that was done by a collision occasioned by the negligence of the crew aboard the other. That is the broad principle of law. I shall endeavour to act upon the broad principles of law, which justly apply to the facts which have been proved before me. It is a broad principle of law that no man should be answerable for the act of another, except to the extent of the authority he has given him, or that he has allowed him to assume, or in respect of liabilities attached by the character of the act. He swears himself that he was not. He had employed not Baraclough, but Mr. Shaw his agent, who was also agent for Sir Henry Bulwer. Baraclough, acting for Sir Henry Bulwer, complained of the hostile feeling against him, and desired to be protected against an anticipated attack. Mr. Shaw and Mr. Baraclough described that as being a statement that a few men would be required. I think the authority given by Mr. Shaw to them was abused to a very gross extent by Baraclough in getting the 130 men, but I believe that Mr. Shaw was as astonished as a man could be when he learnt that abuse after the election was over. I am satisfied that Sir Robert Peel did not know of it. He says he did not. Mr. Shaw stated that he gave express directions not to employ voters. Sir Robert Peel says that he gave the authority in a few words under the supposition that the men had been emplyed, and without knowing anything of the details and without knowing that voters had been employed. Mr. Carmichael, who made the payment on the part of Sir Robert Peel, astonishment when he was informed by Baraclough that Sir Robert Peel had authorised the payment of the 130 men for his protection and the protection of the voters in the course of the election. But Mr. Carmichael paid because he was satisfied that Baraclough had the authority of Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Carmichael states that he did not know that there were any voters amongst them. The conclusion therefore is clear, not only upon the evidence given by Sir Robert Peel, but also looking at the support which TAMWORTH ELECTION PETITION. character of the election-it would have thrown a that evidence has received from the circumstances | I think it would have thrown a suspicion upon the TAMWORTH ELECTION PETITION. has had the happiness to form his acquaintance, and that it is possible that a patriot may be a little of a singularly sound in his views both of business and knave. Having said this much, I think it right at of law. That gentleman was Mr. Robert Ingham, once to add of Baraclough, whom I shall treat with the member for South Shields. There the committee all the respect which is due to him, whatever that had to perform a very delicate task, because in the may be, taking a reasonable view of his conduct in borough of Lambeth, to which their decision the transaction, I do not adopt either the one view applied, there was adopted an organised system of or the other. It appears to me that Baraclough is local committees and paid canvassers. Treating a man of considerable activity of mind, possibly with was charged, but was not proved; the bribery an intellect somewhat superior to that of the which it was sought to put in its place, consisted generality of his fellow workmen, who seem to make in the payments of members of the committees, him a sort of centre. It may be not quite so voters who were selected as paid canvassers in superior as he may represent it, if I may judge the borough. Some of the small tradesmen gave from the way in which he began to give his evidence, their services gratuitously, other voters were em- which certainly made an unfavourable impression ployed who would not give their services gra- upon me, but which was removed towards the endtuitously, and received various sums which it a man with an intellect not of so high an order as he was alleged were bribes, their services being would be inclined to rate it in his own mind; but colourable. The committee decided that that a man who for one cause or other certainly exercises system of organised canvassing, whatever abuses a great deal of influence amongst the body of workit might lead to, and they are many, though ing men, especially one class of them mentioned in the accompanied by the payment of the canvassers, course of the enquiry. He was a person who, in consewhich might be bribery, was under the circum-quence of those qualifications, was employed for the stances legitimate and did not defeat the election purpose of regularly organising the system of local though payments were made to the voters who committees for the added voters, and, as it were, were employed in the course of the system. I refer accidentally, and upon the occasion, to employ some particularly to those latter cases, because of the few men to protect himself, which few men were importance which attaches to them for the reasons magnified to the number of 130. Why did BaraI have stated. Then there is the case of Preston, clough employ those 130 men? for that is the question Wolf. & Brist. 76, in the year 1859, where the com- to be inquired into. I believe that Baraclough mittee had again to consider the subject of paid employed those 130 men because he desired to gain canvassers, and though they reported to the House popularity for himself, and because he desired to that the system of paid canvassers was, as it un- make a handle of their employment for the purpose questionably in my mind is, objectionable, yet they of gaining favour amongst the class to which the declined, as in the Lambeth case, to set aside the men belonged. I believe that he did it for the purelection on the ground of the system having been pose of making capital for himself, and I believe resorted to. These cases throw cross lights upon that in doing that he acted unfaithfully to his the question of the employment of the 130 men, and employer. I believe that he gave a notice to Mr. also upon the case of treating; because, substituting Shaw. He certainly gave none to anybody employed treating for bribery, and bearing in mind that the on the part of the members, nor was there any Parliamentary Elections Act 1868 directs that the means of discovering until after the election. He judge sitting here shall act upon the principles gave no notice that he was going to engage upon which election committees acted, where he this multitude at all. They were utterly usehas no light from the rules which his own less, and could be of no benefit to either of professional experience supplies him with, those the candidates so far as 101 of them were concases throw light upon the treating so far as cerned, because they were not voters-and it has it is properly to be referred to refreshments sup- not been suggested that any one of them was a plied to committeemen engaged in the local com- person of influence with voters, or likely to bring mittees, and they throw light upon the case of one in. It is inevitable to conclude therefore that the employment of the 130 men so far as the this person Baraclough, whatever may be his qualinumber consisted of voters. Now I must pro- fication, good or evil, in respect of the other porceed to deal with the facts, and I must re- tions of his employment, did, in employing those member that the principle to be acted upon may men, what was not to the advantage of his employer be represented by this question. Was the employ- -what was not to the advantage of Sir Henry ment of those 130 men a colourable device to cover Bulwer. On the contrary, what has brought strong bribery, or is it to be referred to motives and to suspicion and some degree of discredit to the cause action other than an intention to procure votes? of the side on which those men were employed, Here I am brought more closely into contact with and if after the strictest scrutiny of the evidence Baraclough, and I must state my view of the sort with respect to them, after carefully examining the of evidence which he gave. Baraclough was re- list and going through the register and the canvasspresented to the court by one of the learned counsel book, I had arrived at the conclusion that the intenfor the respondents-and I am deeply indebted to tion of employing those 130 men was to engage one both the learned counsel for the manner and matter voter to vote for Sir Henry Bulwer who would of their addresses to me upon Saturday evening; I otherwise have voted for Mr. John Peel, I should am deeply indebted to them for giving me credit have said this election is void. Ought I to arrive for a desire to decide this case upon the facts, and or to have arrived at that conclusion? Of those according to the law, and for supposing that I could 130 men to begin with, 101 were not voters at all, not, as I will not, if I can help it, be moved by any and they are not shown to have been in a position appeals to suspicion or to prejudice-one of those to influence voters-nineteen of them voted for Sir learned counsel would represent Baraclough as a Robert Peel and Sir Henry Bulwer; ten who were knave. I leave out the adjective. Another would voters did not vote at all; one who had promised designate him a patriot-and certainly they had Sir Robert Peel and Sir Henry Bulwer voted for the disadvantage which advocates to a certain Sir Robert Peel and Mr. John Peel, and one also extent representing the same side must neces- who had promised Mr. John Peel voted for Sir sarily have when they differ in their views of Robert Peel and Sir Henry Bulwer. I ought to a fact of some little consequence to ascertain mention that the nineteen who voted for Sir Robert the exact proportions of. It does not seem to Peel and Sir Henry Bulwer were persons all of have occurred to either of those gentleman that whom had promised to vote in that way, and that though a knave is very unlikely to be a patriot, yet only. One therefore who is shown, upon the part TAMWORTH ELECTION PETITION. of Mr. John Peel, to have promised him and to have was spent by way of profusion and show to attract voted the other way, is the person Allsop. Of others by its glitter; and for the reasons which I course there was an opportunity of showing if any have referred to, I come to the conclusion that it body else had been influenced in a similar way. was an act done by Baraclough for the purpose of That opportunity has not been taken advantage of, obtaining popularity for himself, and that it was and I cannot assume that it could have been taken not either in respect of the question of law, or upon advantage of. The question therefore is reduced the established fact, an act which I can designate as in reasoning to this: Am I to conclude that for having been bribery. I must leave it, however, by the sake of securing this one person Allsop, all the saying this, that it is an act in the course of this other 129 men were employed? Before I answer case that has weighed most heavily on my mind, that question, I must refer to another fact: five of which, so far as I judicially can, I reprehend and those persons were called as witnesses, and no one condemn and which if I thought it had been done of them says that he was asked to vote against by Baraclough with any view to advancing the the party for whom he had previously decided interests of his employer, or, if I believed even that to vote. Many of them state that they were it had advanced the interests of his employer, so employed to do nothing. To begin with; one that I must impute the intention to do that which of them, I think Farnsworth, first stated one was the natural consequence of the act, I must have thing and then another. Several of them upon held this election to be void. If such practices are being pressed admitted that they had attended at resorted to, those on whose behalf they are committed the poll booths, that they had brought up voters, must take the consequences of a less favourable that they had made way for voters. It is quite conclusion, where the circumstances do not allow of, obvious that those persons have been called as wit- or rather I should say call for, that at which my nesses before the court, who felt most favourably mind has arrived. There remains to be dealt with towards Mr. John Peel's, or rather (I ought not to that portion of the case to which the greater part of introduce Mr. John Peel's name so), towards the the evidence has been directed, which again, though petitioner's men, and who have given the best and not given to view circumstances which came before worst evidence, for the one party and the other, of me in any other than a dry way, certainly would which they are capable. Now, let me place this furnish to any person who was to decide upon a question in another way-How stand the accounts? simple and moral view of the matter a subject of 641. was charged for those nondescripts in the strong lamentation. I allude to the evidence which accounts. Assuming that the twenty-eight voters has been given to maintain the case of treating. I had been employed, I think, even with the force of think before I go on to that, in case anybody should police which we learn really was present at the be mistaken as to the mode in which I have disposed election, it would hardly have been said there was of the case of the 130 men, I ought to observe that no object in having some persons present for clear- by the 31st section of the Representation of the ing the way for the voters to come up to the People Act a voter who is employed loses his vote. polling booth; but, of course, the evidence would I think I ought to add another circumstance before have been less diluted, for there would have been a proceeding to this case of treating. Adopting the removal of the 101 parts of water which go to make conclusion that Baraclough meant to bribe at the up the 130 of the mixture. But following that up election, what was his conduct according to the by a reference to the figures, what is the state opening? Again, I cannot help going back to the of things as regards the employment of people opening, because nothing can be more true, either in of the description of messengers in the accounts of fact or in reasoning, than that people are sure to the respective candidates? I must turn first to Mr. diminish in the end what they stop to exaggerate. John Peel's account, which I have before me. I find In the opening it was said there was concealment, a charge in that account of posting and delivering people were going in one by one. You heard of a bills, journeys, &c. (messengers, I presume), man mysteriously pointing to a half-sovereign, 791. 6s. 10d. Then I find, for clerks and other per- instead of saying, "Take your wages." What is the sons (which I do not add to the 797. 6s. 10d., because fact in the evidence given? Why, that this crowd the other persons have nothing to do with this of people were allowed to assemble outside the matter), a charge of 721. 5s. Turning next to Sir tavern at which Sir Robert Peel had his committee Robert Peel's account, I find a charge independent rooms, and that upon the very day after the election. of 644.,'of, I think, 217.- for messengers, and booths, More might be said upon the subject. I have said 71. 8s. 6d.; messengers during the canvass and quite enough to explain the views in which I see election, 147. 10s.-21. in Sir Robert Peel's account very clearly that I ought not to arrive at the conas compared with 791. in Mr. John Peel's account. clusion-however I may condemn the act that it Nobody has suggested that Mr. John Peel has was an act properly designated as bribery. I think been guilty of any illegal practice at this election. it was an act of vanity to gain popularity for I am quite sure, in the heat of the proceedings, if Baraclough, and not an act of bribery for Sir he had, something must have oozed out showing he Henry Bulwer. I must now proceed to deal with had done, wrong. But if I were to compare the the charge of treating. The charge of treating is a accounts and to decide this matter by figures (of charge of extreme seriousness, and it must be dealt which it is said you may make anything if with with a determination to enforce the law, you try) I should draw a very unfavourable but at the same time with caution-not as one was conclusion, which is quite foreign to my mind at was invited to do on the part of the petitioners in present, comparing the account of Sir Robert Peel reply, to cleanse the boroughs and counties of and Mr. John Peel. But now coming to compare England, at the expense of doing an injustice, and each of them with the accounts of Sir Henry Bulwer, making an example of some person who has not apart from the 647., I find the sum of 53. 16s. in broken the law. The first question is to find your Sir Henry Bulwer's account, which amount includes corruptor, and then it will be time to consider what clerks, those persons being, as I have already is to be done with him. If there was corruption in mentioned, included in the second item of 721. 5s. of this case made out upon the evidence and traced to Mr. John Peel's account which I rejected; and I Sir Henry Bulwer or his agent, and for this purpose certainly cannot, either from any knowledge of my I should treat Baraclough as his agent, the election own, or from any experience of the character of was void. The question is whether treating in the this election, that I can gain from the figures sense of the Act of Parliament was established. appearing in the respective accounts, come to the In order to make corrupt treating, without reading conclusion that the 647. spent upon those people the words of the section, it is sufficient to state that |