The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-10 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.--(THIS DAY.)

CONSPIRACY—THE KING t'. IZENsETT AND OTHERS.
Sir W. FOLLETT (with whom were Mr. Starkie and Mr.
Peacock), stated the case. The present was a most important
case, both as regarded the nature of the offence, and the position,
which the parties charged occupied in the parish of Marylebone.
The defendants, with the exception of one, all held office in the
parish. They were vestrymen elected under the provisions of an
Act of Parliament, and one of them (Flood) is the assistant ves-
try-clerk. They were charged in the present indictment with
having conspired together to defeat the provisions of the Reform
Bill. They were charged with having put a number of fictitious
claims upon the list of voters, for the purpose of introducing ficti-
tious votes for the county of Middlesex. The present defendan4
were elected by the ratepayers to fill the office of vestrymen. They
went out one-third annually, and the whole body were renewed
every three years. Whether that system worked well or not, was
not new a subject for the consideration of the Jury. Of this,
however, he was quite su-e, that from the proceedings that had
taken place upon the present occasion, some of the persons so
elected were not worthy to fill that office. They had the manage-
ment of the parish funds, and the regulation of the parochial
affairs, and they ought to have dismissed from their minds all party
motives, and should have regulated themselves in the discharge
I of their official duties, by no other rule than that of a wish to do good
to the public. The present defendants allbelonged to one politicalparty,
they were all supporters of one of the Members for the borough of
Marylebone, and one of the Members for the county of Middlesex.
It was necessary to state that much, although he (Sir W. Follett)
felt that he was now addressing a Jury who were divested of all
political feeling ; for although political feeling had mixed itself up
in almost all the business of life, it had not yet found its way into
the Jury-box. The Jury had, therefore, nothing to do with the
political sentiments of the defendants, further than that the present
charge was founded upon the circumstance of their having abused
their power for political purposes • that they had not acted for the
public good, but for party, and the sake of party. In order to make
the nature of the offence intelligible, it was necessary that he
should point out to the Jury the provisions of the Reform Bill, with
which the defendants had tampered. They were aware, that un-
der it, very great power was entrusted to the overseers of the poor.
They were authorised to make out lists, and had the power of ob-
jecting to parties ; and to them was entrusted the whole machinery
of the Bill, previous to the revision of the lists. In the parish of
Marylebone, Messrs. Harwood and Garrett held the office of over-
seers of the poor, and although they belonged to a particular politi-
cal party, according to his instructions, they did not in any way
concur in the present disgraceful act. Very great power was, un-
doubtedly, placed in the hands of the overseers, but to guard against
any misconduct or abuse of it, they were liable to a penalty of
five hundred pounds. So far the interests of the public
were protected by the Act, but in the palish of Marylebone,
the offence charged had not been committed or countenanced by
the overseers : it was the act of persons holding office in the parish,
in whOm there was no authority of the kind vested. By the 37th
section of the Act, the overseers were directed to make a list of
the voters for the county, and to give notice to all persons entitled
to vote to send in their names. These claims must be sent in pre-
vious to the 20th July, and the overseers were then to make out
the lists, with the Christian and surname, place of residence, and
ground of claim to vote. They had also the power to write the
words " Objected to" against the name of any person on the list,
and then to cause the list to be affixed to the doors of the parish
church, and to keep a copy for public inspection. By that arrange-
ment, all persons either having the right of voting, or claiming to
have that right, had the power of inserting their names on the
list. The overseers were then directed, by the 40th section, to
send a copy of the lists to the High-constable and the Clerk of the
Peace, and he was to produce the lists signed by the overseers be-
fore the Revising Barrister. No power was vested in any other
person, either to strike out or put in any name upon the list. In
the vestry of the parish of Marylebone there was a very great pre-
ponderance of one political party, and the substance of the offence
charged against certain members of that body, was this:—They
came to a resolution, " That a Committee be appointed to assist
the overseers in making out the elective lists for the parish, for the
year 1835." That Committee was appointed, under the pretence
of assisting the overseers, and he (Sir William Follett) did not
mean to say that, if they had been appointed with a bona fide
view to investigate claims, there would have been any thing
wrong in it, but the Jury would shortly see that it was not
for the purpose of assisting the overseers, but to promote the
views of a particular party. That resolution had been pro-
posed by Mr. Kensett, one of the defendants, and on the next
meeting of the vestry Mr. Robinson, who is an attorney, and also
of the defendants, proposed a Resolution—" That no person be al-
lowed to copy from the rate books, and that agreeably to the 32d
section of the Vestry Act, no person be allowed to inspect the
books of the Vestry, unless he or she be a rate-payer, or a creditor
of the parish." That was an ille,al resolution, for as the right of
voting depended upon the rating, every rate-payer was entitled to
inspect and copy from the rate books, and although such a proceed-
, ing was not sanctioned by the Act of Parliament, the vestry passed
the resolution. Mr. Haywood, the Overseer, then received a let-
ter from the defendant Flood, who was the Assistant Vestry Clerk,
calling upon him to attend the so appointed Committee, and to as-
' sist in revising and preparing the lists. Mr. Harwood, however,
remained in the Court House until the 20th of July, for the

greater part of every day, and there received the claims of all persons
who chose to send them in., During that time he received 134 claims
to vote for Members for the county, and these clauses were handed
by him to the defendant, Flood, the Assistant Vestry Clerk. There
was then a meeting of the Committee, at which Mr. Harwood was
present, and the defendant, Kensett, commenoed writing opposite
the names of several of the claimants objected to, although he had
no legal authority to do so, and was at length stopped by Mr.
Harwood. On the 24th of uly the lists were signed by the Over-
seers, Harwood and Garnett, and after that time no alteration or act-

, -
dit.ion could be legally made to them, and now began the contrivance
of the defendants. The defendants, who were Messrs. William
Kens.tt, George Glazier, Henry Stewart, Robinson, Flood, the
Vestry Clerk, and Daird, a printer, were all implicated in the
transaction. They discovered, on looking over the lists, that their
party had not so great. a preponderance as they wished, and set
about to get in an additional number of names upon the list for
their party. What were they to do? In the first place the
day had gone by. In the second place, there were no free-
holders to put in claims ; but neither of these obstacles
stopped them. Their first object was to create votes—there was
a burial-ground in the parish, which, under an old Act of Parlia-
ment, was vested in the vestrymen of the parish. It struck Mr.
Kensett and Mr. Robinson, the lawyer, that they might create
votes out of this burial-ground. There were 120 vestrymen in the
parish, and their notion seemed to b 2, that each of these had a right
to vote in respect of that burial- ground. No rational or sensible
man could entertain so absurd an idea ; but as there were many
gentlemen of the vestry not of their party, and many who would not
have countenanced such a proposition, they resolved to select those
only who had a strong political feeling on their side, or, as Mr.
Kensett would be proved to have expressed it, " Those of-the right
stamp." And, accordingly, 42 vestrymen were singled out, who,
in the opinion of the defendants, would• form a very judicious addi-
tion to the list of voters. They imagined that if they could in-
troduce these 42 names into the lists previously signed by the
overseers, they would escape detection and run no risk of their being
objected to. They attempted to make the overseers party to that
scheme, and on the 28th of July, eight days after the claims could
have been legally sent in, Messrs. Kensett, Glazier, and Stewart
go to the overseer Harwood, and ask him to allow them to intro-
duce these forty-two names. Mr. Harwood acted as a person
holding such a situation ought to have done—he said he would
have nothing to do with it—that he would not allow it or counte-
nance it. It was represented to him that their party would be
benefitted by it ; that they were persons of " the right stamp," but
Harwood was firm. He said he had a public duty to perform ;
that he was responsible to the public, and could not countenance
such a fraud. . They pressed him further, and intimated that there
were certain offices at the disposal of the vestry, any of which he
could have; but he still refused. These applications were made
mere than once—they also applied to Mr. Garnett, but to no pur-
pose. What then was to be done ?—the overseers would be no
party to the fraud, but the defendants were still determined to in-
troduce the forty-two names. They went to Daird, who was a
member of the Committee' and he in order to assist his party, con-
sented, without the authority of the overseers, to print a list
having these forty-two names fraudulently introduced, and having
the names of the overseers affixed thereto. These lists were
affixed to the Church-doors of the parish in the room of the original
lists, and the question was what had become of that list made out
by the overseers, of which they should have kept a copy. The list
was given by Harwood to Flood, by whom it was given to Kensett,
and was not afterwards heard of. When the lists were brought
before the Revising Barrister, ho asked for the original list
signed by the overseer. The overseers are examined, and they
stated that that was not the original list—that it contained names
not on the list. Flood stated that he had given the original list to
Kensett, and Kensett declined to answer any question. It would
be proved that the proof-sheet of the list was seen at the Court-
house in the hands of Flood. The sums of one shilling each on the
original 134 names were lodged in the bank to the credit of the
parish, and Flood contrived to lodge the additional sum of 425. for
the 42 surreptitious names in the bank in the very same way. Al-
though all these precautions had been taken, it appeared that the
trick did not succeed—it had been discovered, or probably these
fictitious voters would be to-day upon the list : that, however, did
not render the fraud less criminal, for the contrivance of the de-
fendants had been to effect it. He would show that all the
defendants were implicated in the transaction' and that Ro-
binson actually appeared before the Revising Barrister, and said
that he was instructed to appear in support of their claims.
He was satisfied that his Learned Friend, the Attorney-General,
would not attempt to vindicate such conduct ; every one, whatever
his political feelings or bias might be, was interested in the proper
working of the Reform Bill, now that it was the law of the land :
and above all, every one was interested in the proper discharge of
public duties by public officers. If the facts were proved as he had
stated them, he had no doubt that the Jury must find the defendants
guilty.
The Attorney-General appeared for the defendants, Flood and
Daird ; Mr. Hill and Mr. C. Phillips for Kensett and Glazier ;
and Mr. Clarkson, Mr. Cobbett, and Mr. Thompson for Stewart.
The defendant Robinson appeared in person.
Mr. Greenwell, vestry-clerk of the parish, was examined by Mr.
STARKIE. He produced the vestry books, and therefrom read the
resolutions agreed upon by the vestry, as stated by the Counsel in
his opening
.speech. The documents for the payment of 6/. 14s.
2s. into the bank of Sir C. Scott and Co. were endorsed
County Claims," and were in the handwriting of the defendant,

Flood.
The witness was cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL
as to the appointment of similar Committees in former years, but
knew nothing of these having been appointed. Flood's duty was to
obey the orders of the ♦estry. Daird merely printed what he was
paid for. The witness knew nothing of the Loyal and Constitu-
tional Association of the parish of Marylebone.
Cress-examined by Mr. HlLL—Persons who were not rate-
payers attempted to take copies of the rate-books, and he be-
lieved that was why the resolution was passed by the vestry. The
vestry had the making, collection, and management, of the rates.
The Burial-ground at St. John's Wood contained six acres, for
which the parish had paid 6001. per acre. There was a chapel
built in it, which cost the parish 30,000/. The income from it was
upwards of 1,0001. per annum. There was also a stone yard at
Lisson-grove, which is very valuable.
The witness was then examined by Mr. CLAItKSON, but nothing
material was elicited.
Cross-examined by the defendant Robinson—There are 120 ves-
trymen, and the parish property is vested in them. The burial-
ground and stone-yard are parish property. The vestry manages
all the affairs of the parish except the poor. Th,, affairs of the
poor are managed by the directors and guardians, who are ap-
pointed by the vestry, and by whom the money is voted weekly.
The overseers are selected by the Magistrates from a list furnished
by the vestry. I hardly know what the overseers do.—(A laugh. )
They obey the orders of the directors and guardians—they neither
receive nor pay money, nor keep accounts. On the 4th July there
were 62 vestrymen present. There are about 12,000 rate-payers.
The overseers could not make out the list of voters for
the borough of Marylebone without the assistance of the 'vestry
and its officers, the number of voters being so many. Witness
Mr. ROBINSON wished to put some further question to the wit-
ness, which was overruled by the Court.
Mr. Mortimer, from the office of the county of Middlesex, had