Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

The Attorney-General was of opinion should be set aside for the purpose of that the petitioners' counsel ought to be allowing the defendant to come forward heard first.

in order to be heard by counsel. It would Mr. Tennyson objected to hearing counsel be an act of injustice even to the defenin this stage of the proceedings. To hear dant himself; for, if such a course was counsel before the case of the complain- pursued, it would enable the plaintiff to ants was closed, appeared to him to be discover where the weak points of his manifestly absurd.

evidence lay, and thus he would be enabled The Attorney-General conceived that to take measures for strengthening it. the way

in which the House was proceed- Mr. Pecl was of opinion, that the ing was unconstitutional. If a member's learned counsel ought to be allowed to seat were attacked, he got up, made his decide for himself, when it would be defence, and called his witnesses ; and prudent for him to address the House. here they were about to disfranchise a The present case was like finding a bill borough without giving the petitioners a before a grand jury, and it would be a similar privilege. He claimed for these most unusual thing if the party accused individuals the same right as that enjoyed entered on his defence before all the witby a member when he defended his seat. nesses were heard on whose testimony the Counsel ought to be called in and heard bill was either to be affirmed or dismissed. in their defence.

He would, however, leave it to the decision Mr. Wynn believed, that it had not been of the learned counsel, whose ability and usual to call on any member for his defence, acuteness would leave him to wave the until the whole case against him had been privilege of addressing the House in the gone through. All he contended for was, present stage of the business, if such a that the whole evidence in support of the step should appear to him to be calculated preamble should be concluded before the to injure his clients. evidence for the defence was begun. It Mr. G. Bankes moved that counsel be would be inconvenient to hear the defence called in.—Mr. Denman accordingly apin parts; and it would be unjust, after the peared at the bar. The Chairman indefence was opened, to examine evidence formed the learned gentleman, that the against the petitioners.

committee had decided on hearing him on Mr. G. Bankes contended, that there the subject of the disfranchisement of was a distinction between this case and East Retford, and that they called on him that of a private bill. In this case they to state the course he meant to takehad already heard a considerable part of whether he wished to be heard before the the evidence; indeed, all that would ever evidence was adduced, or whether he was be taken on oath had been already printed desirous that the evidence should be and circulated. Many of the members given first, and that he should be perhad expressed their opinion, that that mitted to comment on it hereafter. evidence would be alone sufficient to Mr. Denman said, he felt himself only warrant the disfranchisement. The com- capable of answering the question in mittee, therefore, would not be hearing general terms. He was quite sure that counsel against a shadow, but against that the course which might be considered by which would probably be the best evi- the committee the best mode of prodence that could be obtained against the ceeding would be that which would give borough.

him the fullest opportunity of doing his Mr. Littleton agreed with the hon. duty towards his clients. Owing to causes gentleman, and moved, that “Counsel chiefly of an accidental nature, he had should be at once called in, and heard been unable to attend last Monday to against the preamble."

object to the principle of the bill; and Mr. Tennyson remarked, that the pe- it was, he apprehended, highly probatition was, that counsel might be heard ble that, by the time the evidence was against the enactments of the bill, and gone through, he should be called by his not against the preamble.

avocations to another part of the country. Mr. D. W. Harvey said, they were then He had no doubt that an ample opporin the middle of the plaintiff's case, and he tunity would be afforded, when the evithought it would be very strange if, before dence in support of the bill had closed, so the plaintiff had sustained his case by that no enactment might be made to the all the evidence he could produce, he prejudice of the parties concerned with

out their being fully heard in their defence: back. Some of them had twenty guineas;

. ' but if it would not interfere with the pro- and some were paid although they did not ceedings of the committee, he hoped he promise their votes till the inorning of the might be permitted to make such general election. They were paid half. Mr. observations on the case as then occurred Dickenson assisted me on that occasion.' to him.

He was a magistrate, and since dead. Counsel having withdrawn,

Witness sat with him while the men Mr. Secretary Peel said, that as the were paid. Witness pointed out the learned counsel was satisfied that the parties, and named the sums they were to course the committee might follow would receive.

This was

at the Angel-inn. be conformable to the ends of justice, and Witness knew Pickup; he was an election as he had not stated that it was absolutely agent for one of the candidates.—By denecessary to the interests of his clients sire of the Chairman, witness read the that he should then address the committee, list of names through. He explained the he thought it useless that counsel should distinction of whole men, half men, and be heard until after the evidence had been quarter men. The whole men were those gone through. The committee could not who received the full sum of twentytake into their account any circumstances guineas ; the half men were those who had of private convenience; it was the duty of not promised their votes till the day of the petitioners to provide themselves with election, and therefore received only ten counsel who would be able to attend to guineas; and the quarter men, who protheir interests. It would be proper, there- mised still later, received only five guineas. fore, to move “that the Counsel be in- There were very few quarter men. There formed that they would not be heard until was no particular bargain ; but the voters after the evidence was concluded.” understood what was doing, and none of

The Chairman having notified the de-them refused the money. In the list the cision of the committee to Mr. Denman, sums each man received were marked and the preamble of the bill having been against his name. There were twentyread, Mr. Richard Hannam was called in, nine out-voters, and the sums opposite to and examined,

their names were to be paid to them by By Mr. Tennyson. — Was a solicitor. Mr. Pickup. The name of George HudHad lived at Retford and in the neigh- son, now an alderman, was not in the bourhood thirty-three years. Had seen paper. The name of Samuel Buxton was in many elections in the course of passing the paper, but he was not paid at the Angel. on. Was concerned in one. It is gene- William Grant was paid, and was in the rally understood that forty guineas is paid list. Stephen Lawrence was paid, but after the election ; twenty guineas each witness had not him in the member; that is notorious ; it is not a lobby. Witness received several apsecret ; I believe it is known to every one plications by letter for money from in the town. Had been concerned in the out-voters. He had six of those letters election for 1812. Mr. Osbaldiston and with him (a letter was selected from the Mr. Marsh were returned. Upon that number.] It came by post, and was postoccasion I saw a great deal of election-paid.-Witness then read the letters. [They money paid. One or two I paid myself, were all to the same effect, being written in 1814, for Mr. Osbaldiston. About by out-voters who claimed payment for sixty or seventy voters were paid in one their votes. One stated, that he had not day. I have in my pocket a list of the yet received his money, which would “be whole of the persons who were paid. It very acceptable,” and begged an early atwas made out at the time they were paid, by tention to his application. Another hoped myself. It is all in my own hand-writing. It that he should be used the same as the only contains a list of those living at Ret- other voters, and suggested that his moford and the neighbourhood; there were ther was entitled to her deceased husband's some at Nottingham, and some at Man- share. Another took the liberty of writing chester, of whom I know nothing. It con- to witness, as he was informed that he had tains a list of about seventy-five burgesses. the powerof doing something forthe friends They had borrowed some little money of Mr. Osbaldiston, and begged an advance of me; their names are mentioned, and of 81.or101., as he was atthat time in want of that money they had of me was taken off money). Witness continued. He thought the twenty-one guineas, and so it was paid it probable that many of the burgesses VOL. XVIII.

2 H

seen

were not paid.-He knew Thomas Butler : / transaction. What papers he had, he had he came to his office to pay his rent, and given up to Mr. Osbaldiston. Mr. Hanwitness talked to him about the election, nam had never given witness a list of perwhen Thomas Butler said, “I do not care sons to whom money was to be paid; at a pin about my franchise. I do not care least be recollected no such list. Witness about members, unless I can get my forty had never paid any voters but those paid guineas.” When Mr. Pickup came to him at Retford, who might be about 50; he to pay the voters, he did not come in se- should know the list he paid them by, cret. Several whose names were upon the if he saw it. A paper was here shown to list were not paid. There was a mark or the witness, which he said was the list writing against their names. One had in question. He had paid the voters acbeen transported, and two were dead. cording to that list. Mr. Hannam pointed He believed that Mr. Marsh did not pay out the parties to him who were to be paid. anything for his votes. It was impossible Jonathan Fox was called in, and exfor him to say that the candidates did amined, know what money was paid. Was not By Mr. Tennyson.—Was a clerk in the aware that the candidates made any con- Retford bank in 1818 and 1819, and retracts with the voters. He lent money to ceived 1001. from Mr. Crompton, for his several of the voters after the election. services in the election of 1818. In 1819, Expected to be paid out of the money a sum of 2,8401. was paid into the Retford which the voters were to receive from the bank on Mr. Crompton's account. This members. He received 9001. from Mr. was paid out again in different sums; but Osbaldiston, to pay off the House bills. witness could not tell to what parties, or He was not aware that the same practice for what purposes, as he had not the had been continued in the elections sub- vouchers. The vouchers had been desequent to 1812. He believed that in livered to Mr. Crompton, and destroyed. subsequent elections the voters were paid, Witness's impression was, that the money but he did not know, of his own knowledge, had been paid into the bank, and paid out that any one was paid. Mr. Marsh and for election purposes. Received the 1001. Mr. Osbaldiston were the candidates in from Mr. Crompton as a present. Does 1812. Mr. Marsh never came again. He not recollect ever to have folded up elecreceived the money from Mr. Osbaldiston tion-money in papers, and directed it to through the bankers. He paid the free- particular individuals : recollected that the men in 1814. Did not pay any in 1816, 2,8401. had been drawn out in various because there were actions against Mr. Os- sums from the East Retford bank, but baldiston in the court of King's-bench, could not say for what purposes, not having and it was not thought prudent to pay any the vouchers : the money was chiefly, or money until they were disposed of. The entirely, paid by himself. His impression money he lent the voters came out of the was, that a part of the money had been money he received from Mr. Osbaldiston paid to tavern-keepers, and for other elecfor the house-bills. The other voters were tion purposes, but it was impossible for paid by Mr. Pickup.

him to specify the amount or destination of The chairman here asked the counsel, any particular sum. He could not charge if he wished to ask the witness any ques- his memory with having himself ever paid tion.

any money to voters. He had every reason Mr. Denman said, he would only ask to believe that the whole account was an witness how many of those persons, to election one. There were riots in the town whom payments had been made, he knew at and before the election. Many pubto be alive now?-Witness said he could lic-houses open, and many of the freemen not exactly say. There were only a few constantly drunk. On some occasions the of them dead to his knowledge.

military were called out : witness thought Henry Pickup was then called and ex- properly, and necessarily. Mr. Crompton amined,

kept no account with the Retford bank By Mr. Tennyson.--He keeps an inn. before the election. He kept a book with Was employed in 1814, by Mr. Osbaldis- the bank while he had his account there, ton, to go to Retford, and pay money to in which the entries were made by witness. the voters. Witness believed that the voters Still witness could not, after so great a lapse received twenty guineas a-piece at that of time, swear to the destination of any part time, but had no papers relative to the ! of the money. (On the motion of Mr.

[ocr errors]

D. W. Harvey, the day-book of the Ret- occasion, for his trouble in paying out seford bank, for the year 1819, was called veral small expenses : could not say what for}. In answer to other questions the they were for." The amount of the whole witness stated, that his impression was, was somewhere about 7001. The paythat part, if not all the money paid in on ments were made from June, 1819, to Mr. Crompton's account, had been made April 1820. The 1001. was paid to him up in parcels, and given to a person named for his trouble in making those payments, Ledbeater; but this he could not state po- and nothing else. Witness had posted out sitively. Some parcels were made up and the payments as one sum, under the head given to him. Ledbeater was the bellman of of sundries. If any checks or draughts were the town. How many parcels he got, he given for the payments by Mr. Crompcould not say—whether they were one hun- ton, they were returned to him. The dred, or twenty, or five, or one; but his names of the parties to whom the several impression was, that some parcels, con- payments were made did not appear in the taining money, were given to him. Could posting of the account. It was posted not state how often. Ledbeater, the bell- under the head of “sundries.” That was man, had no account at the bank.

If not the general way in which accounts money was given to him, it must have were kept. But one other account was been on some voucher from Mr. Cromp- kept where several entries of sums were ton; those vouchers were not now in the posted as one sum. If there was an error bank. They had been given up to Mr. in the account of any day's account in Crompton. Witness had received 1001. which those payments were made, he for his services in paying out the several could correct it only from memory. Witsums of money. He could not state for ness did not make any entry of the numwhat particular purpose those sums were bers of the notes he paid on any one check. paid. Witness was again closely pressed If there were any error in the daily baas to whether he had not made up several lance, he could check it by the memoranparcels of money, directed to several per- dums he had got. Those memorandums sons, and given them to Ledbeater, the were given up to Mr. Crompton. bellman, but he persisted in saying that he By Mr. Baring.--You have stated could not positively charge his memory belief that this money was paid to Ledwith the fact. His impression was, that beater? Yes; I only stated my belief of some parcels were so given, but he could it.-Do you think it possible you could not state how many or to what amount. at any period of your life have delivered He believed the parcels were directed to many hundred pounds in small parcels to burgesses. Ledbeater had since died. the bellman of the town, and not have Did not know how Ledbeater had disc recollected it to the last day of your life? posed of the parcels he got. Witness told I only speak from recollection. I certainly Mr. Tennyson's solicitor to apply to Led- cannot state the thing, because I only beater's widow for information on that state my conviction that I think it was subject. Witness had made no entry of done; even now I cannot say most posithe particular items for which the sums tively it was done. [The witness was inwere paid. That course would be trouble- formed that was no answer to the quessome. He could not state any other rea- tions, and was cautioned by the chairman sons for not having made the entries. to answer the questions as they were put.] There was no book kept in the bank in By Mr. Tennyson.-Give an answer to which those items would appear. The the question. I can only state to the payments made on account of the sum of best of my belief; I can only say I never 2,8401., paid in by Mr. Crompton, were made such a payment in a particular way, entered as one sum under the head that it makes that impression upon my of sundries. Could not say that the mind that it was paid for the purposes I

accounts of any other customer who have stated.--In answer to another ques- kept an account at the bank were so tion, witness said parcels were made up in

kept. Could not say whether the draughts sums of twenty guineas. He then went made on account of the 2,8401. were on to state, in answer to other questions, paid in cash or notes. Witness got that, if any of the freemen took money for the 1001. for himself, for his trouble in their votes, he did not believe that all did. paying out the several sums. A sum of He could not say whether there were ten 1001. had been paid to him on a former' or five who had not taken money; but

[ocr errors]

doing so, he was satisfied it was all right, and then threw the vouchers and the book into the fire.-Is it the practice of your bank, on paying a check of a customer, to make an entry of the manner in which you discharge the check? Perfectly so.

there were some, he could not say how many, or who they were. He had got the 100. solely for his services as clerk to Mr. Foljambe. He had never heard Mr. Foljambe state any thing about sealed packets. This money had been paid on Mr. Crompton's account, after the elec--If it is your custom to enter in your tion of 1818. He remembered another book the manner in which you discharge instance where money was paid in on every check, where is the entry of the account of a party, after an election, who manner in which you satisfied that check had not kept any previous account at the of Mr. Crompton's? There is no other bank. That was paid in on account of entry but that; it is posted into the regulord Fitzwilliam. It was 500l. and 7001. lar books.-Do you mean to say you paid on two occasions. Witness could not a check of that magnitude without making speak as to the dates. He supposed the any entry whatever in any book, of the money was paid with reference to election mode in which you paid or discharged transactions, and for election purposes. that check? I certainly should have He could not state the foundation of this described the mode, and the person's opinion. He believed Mr. Foljambe name; but I think there must have been knew more of these transactions than some list furnished to me that would state witness did. Never recollected any other all; that if so, that was furnished to Mr. instance of such sums as those before- Crompton.-When you speak of the list, named being so lumped. Could not have do you mean the names of persons? Yes. put the sums up in packets, without an-You mean the names of persons who express order. Assuming that your impression is well founded, who would be the person in your establishment that would make up those packets? I presume it would be myself; but I cannot remember what number of freemen there were at that time.

By Mr. Peel. Supposing there were packets, you would have made them up? I presume so.-Supposing you saw packets, and you were the person who made them up, would you have sealed them, or not? I cannot say.-Do you think it probable? I really cannot say.-Would the inclosures in the packets consist of gold-of sovereigns at that time? I cannot say in what way.-Supposing there were packets, they would probably contain notes of your own bank? It is highly probable they would.-Supposing the payment was made in packets, is it not probable it would be made at the banking-house? I cannot say, for I do not recollect any thing about it.

By Mr. D. W. Harvey.-You have said you have given up all your vouchers to Mr. Crompton? They are all given up to Mr. Crompton.-You say that you applied to Mr. Crompton since to lend you these vouchers? Yes.-What was his reply? That he had received them, but having the highest reliance on the honour and fidelity of our house, that we should do nothing wrong; he had looked cursorily over the things, and on

were to be the ultimate receivers of that money? Yes. Was the sum of money you were thus to distribute, making up the great total, made up in parcels or packets? I really cannot say. You have said you had a recollection that some were so? Yes.-Do you think the whole amount was so disposed of? I really cannot say.-You think the person who brought Mr. Crompton's check, or order, brought a list, in which were stated the names of persons who were to be the receivers of that money? Yes, I should think so.

The witness was directed to withdraw.

Mr. Alderman Waithman observed, that the committee could not suffer its dignity to be trifled with in this way. He would appeal to the committee whether this man's answers could be believed. Something ought to be done to support the dignity of the House, which ought not to be trifled with in this manner. He should move, that the witness had been guilty of gross prevarication.

Mr. Baring asked, how, if the inquisitorial power of the House was to be exercised, that power could ever be exercised if it was treated in this manner? One phrase was perpetually in this man's mouth. In a well-known case, a poor man who came from Italy, got great disgrace for using the same phrase. Here was a man from a short distance who had entertained the committee for an hour and a half, with

« ElőzőTovább »