Mr. Justice Mellor has unseated Mr. Albert Grant for Kidder-
minster, with costs, and with, we presume, the usual disqualifica- tion, though this is not mentioned in any synopsis of the judg- ment yet published. It appears that in 1865 Mr. Grant was a candi- date for Kidderminster, and was believed to have spent a sum of money there variously estimated at from £10,000 to £20,000. This made him popular, and at the last general election he promised those who voted for himan entertainment, which promise he renewed after the election. He sent down £1,000 for the purpose, and sanctioned a plan for giving medals and rosettes to all his guests, thinking that wearing them would be "a pleasure, which would get a good many friends over from the other side." The entertainment was at last abandoned under advice, but the Judge held that the promise was an act of corruption, furthered by the remittance of the money, and unseated the defendant. The most extraordinary feature in the case is the influence which an entertainment has, or is supposed to have, upon a class of the electors. It is assumed all round that in Kidderminster, as elsewhere, there are many electors who would sell their political rights for a meal and an evenings jollity. If that is really the case—and it is so, in times when the electors are uninterested—the apparent severity of the Judges is fully justified, but the case for manhood suffrage is certainly not improved. All these electors so tempted by a dinner have homes.