REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ELECTION PROCEEDINGS.

[In our last Postscript we announced the issue of the Report of Mr. Roebuck's Committee, and reprinted the section on the case of Nottingham : for the completeness of our file we now give the remainder of the cases. We omit the general introductory remarks, in which the Committee explain the principle on which their inquiry was conducted—the elucidation of a system, not the crimination of individuals.] Your Committee, prosecuting their inquiries upon the principle here de- scribed, found that in the case of

HARWICH,

at the last general election, Mr. John Attwood and Major Beresford were re- turned as duly elected Members for that borough; Sir D. Le Merchant and Mr. Bagshaw having been the opposing candidates. The state of the poll appears to have been as follows— Mr. Attwood 94

Major Beresford 94 • Mr. Bagshaw 84 • Sir D. Le Merchant 73

That three petitions having been presented against the return of Mr. J. Att- wood and Major Beresford, on the ground of bribery, treating, and corruption, (Bee Appendix A,) a compromise was entered into by the agent of Mr. Att- wood and Major Beresford on the one part, and the agent of Sir D. Le Mer- chant on the other ; and that the arrangements so made by the agents were sanctioned and acted on by their principals.

The terms of this arrangement were-

1. That Major Beresford was to retire, by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds, within a month after 31 May. . 2. That Sir 11. Le Merchant was to be allowed to stand, unopposed by Mr. Attwood and his agent. • 3. That Mr. Attwood should pay, by way of deposit, as guarantee, 2,5004 which was to be forfeited provided that the engagements entered into by Mr. Attwood on behalf of himself and Major Beres/bid were not fulfilled; Mr. Att- wood himself stating that be considered that he had paid the sum of 2,000/. out and out. The remaining 500/. was paid for Mr. Attwood by his agent, Mr. Curie.

4. That the petitions against the return of the sitting Members should all he immediately withdrawn. That the petitions were consequently withdrawn, and all further proceedings arrested.

The circumstances which induced the sitting Members to accede to this com- promise are stated, by themselves and agents to have been the belief that the seats of the sitting Members could not be held, in consequence of bribery by parties who would have been proved to be agents. (See the evidence of Mr. Curie; see also the evidence of Mr. Parkes.) The Committee also find that the electors, in number, are 182. That the sum of money expended by Mr. Attwood /or the election of him- self and Major Beresford was, as nearly as the Committee can ascertain, 6,3001.; and that of this sum a large portion was expended in direct bribery by the agents of the sitting Members, and paid chiefly at periods subse- quent to the election. This sum is exclusive of the money paid for the com- promise. The person said to be employed for the purpose of receiving the money, and engaging others to distribute it, was a banker of the town, who has died since the election.

That among thirty-three persons a sum of above 3,0001. was distributed in direct bribes.

That Major Beresford paid no part of this sum, he not having contributed to the expenses of the election. That the gross cost of the election on the part of Sir D. Le Merchant was, as nearly as can be ascertained, 1,500/. and that a part of this sum, how much does not appear, was spent- in an illegal manner; and 500/. went to pay cer- tain former outstanding accounts.

That the gross cost of the election to Mr. Bagshaw was 500/. And it appears also, that bills against Sir D. Le Merchant and Mr. Bagshaw, to the amount of between 3001. and 4001., remain yet unsettled. It

bribed would appear, also, that a large part of the whole constituency were That the sitting Members and the other candidates most distinctly state that neither before nor during the election had they personal cognisance of any bribery or corruption.

Ncrrrucattans.

[Inserted in our last Postscript.] The Committee find that at the last general election for the borough of

LEWES,

Mr. Summers Harford and Mr. Elphinstone were returned as duly elected; Mr. Fitzroy and Lord Cantelupe being the opposing candidates. The state of the poll was— Mr. S. Harford 411

Mr. H. Elphinstone 409 Mr. Fitzroy 407 Lord Cantelupe

That a petition was presented against the return of the sitting Members, by certain electors, on behalf of Mr. Fitzroy and Lord Cantelupe ; which petition, among other things, accused the sitting Members of having been guilty by themselves and agents of bribery, corruption, treating. (See Appendix C.) That a Committee was appointed to try the case of the said petition ; but that its investigations were suddenly arrested by a compromise entered into by the agents of the sitting Members on the one part, and of Mr. Fitzroy sad Lord Cantelupe on the other. This agreement by the agents was sanctioned and acted on by the principals: and the Committee beg leave to invite the serious attention of the House to the mode in which the stipulations of this agreement, so far as regards the al- teration of the poll were carried out, and as explained in the answer given to question 1,053. The terms of this agreement were, in fact, set down in writing ; but that writing itself has not been seen by the Committee: by the witnesses it is de-. scribed to have been as follows- 1. That the general case of bribery and treating should be withdrawn on the part of Mr. .Fitzroy and Lord Cantelupe. 2. That in case the agents should be unable to place Mr. Fitzroy in a majo- rity by a scrutiny, then one of the sitting Members should resign by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds, and that no opposition was to be offered to the return. of Mr. Fitzroy either by Mr. Elphinstone or Mr. Harford. 3. That all actions and indictments preferred respecting conduct at the elec- tion should on both sides lie withdrawn.

Mr. Fitzroy and Mr. Elphinstone were placed on the poll above Mr. S. liar- ford by a pre-arranged scrutiny, and Mr. Summers Harford Nati unstated. The circumstances which induced the sitting Members to make this arrange- ment were, first and chiefly, an apprehension that the accusations of the peti- tions would be proved against them ; their agent declaring, "We have only fourteen or fifteen hours to decide it in" (viz, whether an agreement should be made ;) "and after all you have heard, 1 can only say that it is lunacy to continue the contest, and you had better arrange it." The second cause for making the arrangement was the fear of incurring* heavy expense in a hopeless contest. The Committee also found that the number of electors was about 850; and that the gross cost of the election to Mr. Elphinstone and Mr. S. Ilarford on the one side was 5,000/. Of this sum, 2,000/. were expended in treating, and about 1,2001. or 1,5004 in, direct bribery. The two Members state that they were not personally cognisant of this bri- bery either before or during the election. The gross cost of the election to Mr. Fitzroy and Lord Cantelupe was, RR nearly as your Committee could ascertain, 2,0001. The manner in which this money was expended is explained in the evidence of Mr. Fitzroy ; who distinctly declares that none was spent in direct bribery, but states that a portion was expended in keeping open houses before the testa of the writ.

That the Committee think it right to add, that there were charges of bribery made by the agents of the sitting Members against the petitioners. Your Committee also found that in the case of

READING,

at the last general election, Mr. C. Russell and Lord Chelsea were declared duly elected; that the opposing candidates were Mr_ T. Mills and Mr. W. Tooke.

The state of the poll was—

Mr. Russell Lord Chelsea Mr. Mills Mr. Tooke 570 564 410 • 397

That a petition was presented by Mr. T. Mills, one of the candidates, which charged, among other things, that "gross and systematic bribery and corrup- tion were practised and carried on at the said election by divers persons, with a view to the election of the said C. Russell and Viscount Chelsea." (Sec Appendix D.) That the Committee think it right to add, that there were charges of bribery made by the agents of the sitting Members against the petitioners. That a Committee was appointed to try this petition, and was proceeding with the inquiry, when, on the third day of its sitting, it was suddenly paten end to by a compromise entered into by the agent of Mr. C. Russell and Lord. Chelsea on the one side and the agent of Mr. T. Mills on the other. This arrangement was afterwards signed and acted on by the principals themselves.

The terms are thus set forth in duplicate ; one paper signed by Mr. C. Musa and Lord Chelsea, and the other by Mr. T. Mills.

" READING ELECTION PETITION.

" It is agreed between the petitioner and the sitting Members as follows- " 1. That the petitioner shall withdraw from the prosecution ot his petition; and such reasons shall be assigned to the Committee as counsel on both sides shall agree on, and the sitting Members declared duly elected. "2. That one of the sitting Members shall vacate his seat in such time that a new election may take place during the present session ; and that both of them shall use their utmost endeavours to secure the elect1on and return of the pe- titioner at the next election for the borough of Reading, (whether caused by such vacating, by death, advancement to the peerage, or any other cirmun- stance,) without opposition, and to induce the Conservative electors of the borough of Reading to du the same.

" That in the event of the petitioner's election not being effected in the way above proposed, the sitting Members will forthwith pay (2,00010 two thousand pounds to the petitioner. "C. Roseau,. "London, 2d May 1842. " CHELSEA.

" Witness, Charles A. Saunders."

The petition on these terms was withdrawn.

The circumstances which induced the sitting Members thus to give up one seat and run a risk, deemed by Mr. Russell himself almost a certainty of paying 2,0001., are stated to hare been- 1. An apprehension on the part of the counsel of the sitting Members that there was great danger incurred, by defending the seats, of losing them both. 2. The certainty of great expense, with very great chances of an unfavour- able issue.

On the part of Mr. Mills, the expectation was that he was certain of being returned upon the vacancy. That the constituency of Reading is 1,050. That the gross coat of this electiontj Mr. Russell, the Committee could not accurately ascertain, as the accounts have not yet been rendered to him. He himself states that he has paid on account about 1,100L or 1,2001. The agent of Mr. Russell says, that he has delivered to himself, as agent of Mr. Russell, further bills to the amount of above 3,0001.; some of which he believes are joint bills of Mr. Russell and Lord Chelsea. Lord Chelsea himself believes, as appears from his answers to the Committee that his expenses will not exceed 2,0001.

Of the application of the whole of this money the Committee could gain no accurate information. Mr. Russell, Lord Chelsea, and their agent, distinctly assert that no part was expended in direct bribery ; though it is admitted by both sitting Members, that so large a sum could not all have been spent in legal and proper disbursements ; and their agent, when asked as to this expen- diture, and more especially whether beer-shops had been opened, declined to answer. The opposite agent speaks in very positive terms as to the charges of treating add bribery he expected to prove. That the gross cost of the election to Mr. T. Mills was 1,600/. Of the expenditure of this money nothing very accurate could be ascertained ; that any part of it was spent in direct bribery, all parties concerned in its dis- tribution deny ; hut at the same time it is admitted by Mr. Mills, and also by his agent, that much must have been spent improperly.

Your Committee also found, in the case of PENRYN AND FALMOUTH, that at the last general election Captain Vivian and Captain Plumridge were returned as duly elected ; that the opposing candidates were Mr. Gwyun and Mr. Sartoris.

That the state of the poll was as follows—

Captain Vivian 462 Captain Plumridge 432 Mr. Gapin 381 Mr. Sartoris 240 That a petition was presented by certain electors on behalf of Mr. Gywnn, praying for a void election in the case of Captain Plumridge; which petition contained, among others, charges of bribery and corruption on the part of Cap- tain Plumelige and his agents. (See Appendix E.) That a Committee was appointed to try this case, and proceeded so to do ; when, on the fourth day of its sitting, and towards the close of the petitioners' case, the labours of the Committee were brought to a sudden termination, by a compromise entered into by the against of Captain Pluinridge on the one hand, and the agent of the petitioners and Mr. Gwynn, the opposing candidate, on the other.

The terms of this arrangement were merely verbal, and were to the following effect-

]. That tbe petition was to be withdrawn. 2. That Captain Plumridge would thereupon, and before the 1st of July, accept the Chiltern Hundreds, and thereby vacate his seat.

3. That no opposition should be given by Captain Plumridge to the return of any person proposed by the party presenting the petition. That this an angement, though made by the authorized agent of Captain .Plumridge, was made wholly without his knowledge or consent. The circumstance which by the agent is stated as the cause of his making this compromise, was the apprehension on his part that any further defence of the seat would have been useless, as he felt certain that the case of general cor- ruption would be believed by the Election Committee : that, indeed, he had no further funds for the defence ; but that, if he could have had all the money that was needed4he would not have continued the defence ; and that he was en- tirely led to this determination by the certainty that extensive and systematic bribery would be proved to the satisfaction of the Committee.

It appears that during the election Captain Plumridge spent no money, bore no part of the expenses; and he declares solemnly that he was personally not cognisant either of any direct or indirect bribery or coruption. His agent for the conduct of the petition states that a general system of bribery did prevail at the election.

He states further, that bribery was common to both aides; and this was ad- mitted also by the agent for the petitioners. The gross sum expended on the joint election of Captain Vivian and Captain Plumridge was by the agent stated to be about 4,000/. The gross sum expended by the opposing candidate was by their agent stated to have been 4,000/.

As to the acknowledged illegal expenditure of these sums, your Committee beg leave to refer the House to the evidence of the agents of the sitting Members and the petitioners. This case gives rise to the observations of the Committee on the injustice re- sulting from the present state of the law in those cases where a void election is simply prayed for, and not the seat.

[In introducing the next case, the Committee state that they omit the evi- dence, because they could not prevent the witnesses from mixing up with it matter of a purely personal nature ; although the Committee confined their inquiry to the public question, without seeking to enter into personal dif- ferences.

Your Committee have been enabled, in the case of BRIDPORT, to come to the following conclusions, which they now lay before the House. They found that at the last general election Mr. Warburton and Mr. Mitchell were returned as duly elected ; the opposing candidate being Mr. Alexander Cochrane.

The poll was as follows—.

Mr. Warburton 304 Mr. Mitchell 282 111r. Cochrane 244

That soon after the election, Mr. Warburton, hearing that a petition was about to be presented against his return, as well as that of Mr. Mitchell, on the ground of bribery and corruption, made an offer to Mr. Cochrane, which eventually was accepted, and reduced to writing in the following terms— "MEMORANDUM.

" Westminster, 27th August 1841.

" It is hereby agreed, that the letter of Mr. Warburton to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of this day's date, soliciting the Chiltern Hundreds, is deposited with Mr. Leman, on behalf of Mr. Warburton and Mr. Cochrance, on the con- dition and honourable understanding that it is so deposited confidentially, and is not to be made known or used, under any circumstances, before the expiration of the fourteen days allowed for presentation of election-petitions; and it is further understood and agreed, that the letter is to be returned to Mr. War- burton if Mr. T. A. Mitchell within such fourteen days shall have accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. It is also honourably understood that no opposition, either directly or indirectly, is to be offered by Mr. Warburton or Mr. Nicho- lettee, or their mutual friends in the borough, to the return of Mr. Cochrane as Member for the borough, on the vacancy to be created, whether by the resig- nation of Mr. Warburton or Mr. Mitchell.

" JOSEPH PARKES, "JAMES LEMAN."

•

The circumstances which induced Mr. Warburton to make this agreement are stated in his evidence to have been- " A fear that his friends might suffer in consequence of the exposure threatened by Mr. Cochrane: afterwards, finding that he himself might be sup- posed implicated in the malepractices of the election, he was desirous to have a public inquiry ; but deeming himself bound by the offer of his agent, and that the negotiation had gone too far for him to break it off with honour, he yielded to the necessity, and relinquished hi, seat." Mr. Warburton declares most solemnly, that be himself was not merely not cognisant of bribery on the part of his friends, but that he believed, during and till long after the election, that no anclo practices could be by any possibility charged against himself or his agents ; that the bribery at the election was car- ried on wholly without his knowledge and without his sanction, express or im- plied; and that his fear on this subject was not for himself, but for his friends, whom, after the election, he discovered to have been implicated in the bribery carried on by the friends of Mr. Mitchell. In consequence of this agreement, Mr. Warburton accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, and Mr. Cochrane was elected without opposition ; as the apposition threatened was averted by the interference of Mr. Warburton and his agents, and by means of a negotiation, the particulars of which will hereafter be explained.

That the cost of Mr. Warburton's election was 2,166/.

Part of this sum was expended in treating ; and to one peculiar portion of the subsequent expenditure your Committee would solicit the attention of the House. A custom, it appears, has long prevailed at Bridport, for each success- ful candidate to give a dinner after the election to such of the constituency as have voted in his favour; and in the case now before us, the sum expended by Mr. Warburton, in accordance with this custom, was about 700/.; and the other successful candidate, Mr. Mitchell, for the same purpose, expended a like sum of 700/. It would be well if some means could be devised of putting an end to so mischievous a custom.

That the number of registered voters was 557.

That after Mr. Warburton had undertaken to resign, a petition was presented against the return of Mr. Mitchell, on the part of electors in the interest of Mr. Cochrane, and that of this petition Mr. Cochrane had the control and management. This petition contained charges of bribery and corruption al- leged to have been committed by Mr. Mitchell and his agents. That a petition was presented against the return of Mr. Cochrane by electors,- in the interest of Mr. Mitchell. This petition contained charges of bribery and corruption alleged to have been committed by Mr. Cochrane and his agents, both at the general election, on which occasion Mr. Cochrane was defeated, and at the second election, when he was elected: this petition was under the control and management of Mr. Mitchell. Your Committee also found that various actions were brought for penalties in consequence of bribery, both on the part of Mr. Mitchell's friends against those of Mr. Cochrane, and by friends of Mr. Cochrane against the partisans of Mr. Mitchell : that mutual indictments were also preferred ; and that a rule, on the same ground of bribery, to show cause why a criminal informa- tion should not be filed against Mr. Cochrane, was also obtained.

That in September 1841, and before his election, and in consequence of opposition threatened to this election, Mr. Cochrane agreed with certain, electors at Bridport to withdraw all actions against certain persons for bribery, provided that the threatened opposition was withdrawn.

That at the same period Mr. Cochrane further agreed, that if the opposition- were withdrawn he would prosecute the petition against Mr. Mitchell's return only on documentary evidence ; promising not to employ any oral testimony, as that might implicate certain persons the friends of those with whom he was negotiating. It should be remarked, that at this period Mr. Cochrane's agent bad in his possession documents proving the bribery at Bridport on the part of Mr. Mitchell's friends ; which documents came into his possession in consequence of a quarrel between Mr. Mitchell and his legal agent at I3ridport.

That on this arrangement the opposition was withdrawn and the actions with- drawn.

That in the month of March 1842, before the time appointed for the triaLbf the election-petition against the return of Mr. Mitchell, certain actions were to be tried at the Somerset Assizes, which had been brought against the friends of Mr. Cochrane : in this state of circumstances, and before any of the trials came on, the following arrangement was made between Mr. Mitchell on the one part and Mr. Cochrane on the other—

Mr. Mitchell agreed to withdraw all the actions and indictments, and all other criminal proceedings against Mr. Cochrane and his friends, together with the petition which had been presented against the return of Mr. Cochrane.

Mr. Cochrane, on the other hand, agreed to withdraw the petition against the return of Mr. Mitchell The circumstance which led Mr. Mitchell to agree to this arrangement was the fear of being unseated on the charge of bribery by his agents. On the other hand, Mr. Cochrane was led to agree to this arrangement front. a fear of the consequences of the various investigations to himself and his friends.

Thus, in the various transactions, the following compromises were entered into- 1. That of Mr. Warburton and Mr. Cochrane.

2. That of Mr. Cochrane and certain electors, his opponents, at Bridport.

3. That of Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Cochrane.

4. That of Mr. Cochrane and Mr. Mitchell.

The sum expended by Mr. Mitchell in this election was 3,300/.

Of this sum a large portion was spent, some in treating, some in direct bribery- This bribery was commenced without the cognisance of Mr. Mitchell, but was continued after it had become known to him' not being interdicted by him.. This fact was learned from Mr. Mitchell himself, and from one of his friends. [Here follows a statement that Mr. Cochrane refused to answer questions, constituting himself the chief obstruction to the inquiry ; no material obstruc- tion having arisen in any other case, though other witnesses in that case also refused to answer questions ; specimens of which are given at length. The' Report concludes thus] That bribery in the present case did take place, all the evidence plainly shows ; and that it was extensive and systematic, and that it was practised by the partisans of Mr. Cochrane as well as those of Mr. Mitchell, your Committee- cannot doubt.

July 18, 1842.