The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-27 00:00:00

CAMBRIDGE ELECTION COM.

NIITTEE.

On the meeting of the Committee at the usual Lour
on Saturday,
Mr. Sergeant WIIANGHA 5{ resumed his argument,
which had been adjourned on Friday—The Committee
would recollect that his Friend's argument wa.z. that
Long was the agent of the sitting Member, because
he was the agent of Mr. Swan, who was the agent of
the sitting Member. It was, therefore, a sine qua non
that he should establish. There was a body acting as
a committee, sitting in such a manner that the sitting
Member was responsible, not only for the acts of the
body collectively, but of its members individually.
Upon the evidence which his Friend had himself col-
lected, he had shown yesterday this was not the case,
and, having done so, he was satisfied to leave it in the
hands of the Committee, upon the result of the evi-
dence which had been given. Looking at the evidence
impartially, it appeared there was a bitter political con-
test carried on for some time at Cambridge. These
parties met in contest. What was the result ?
Those interested in the battle interested themselves
continually in fighting it, for at Cambridge they found
Mr. Fisher and others were employed in contesting these
matters before the Revising Barrister or municipal
officers. It appeared those gentlemen must have be-
come better acquainted with these matters than the
parties themselves who contested the election, and ac-
cordingly those who had been engaged on the registra-
tion of any particular parish were those engaged in can-
vassing it at the election. All of them naturally
rushed to the head quarters, the Eagle, where Mr.
Twiss, the agent, sat, to give information affecting the
election. The confluence of them being so great Mr.
Twiss was obliged to quit the large room where they
had assembled for a smaller and more private one, to
transact the real business of the election. His friend
said this secret conclave conducted the affairs of the
election. That Mr. Twiss and his clerks did
so there was undoubted proof, but how far
they were a secret conclave might be doubted.
How his friend could persist in calling it so,
after the evidence, passed his comprehension, but
so it was. It was a delusion on the part of his Learned
Friend, or an attempt to delude the Committee. His
Friend threw out that Mr. Sutton was at his private
apartments at the Eagle, employed in corruption,
which was what his Learned Friend called the real sub-
stantial business of the election : but that turned out
to be entirely unfounded, it being proved that Mr. Sut-
ton had no apartments at the Eagle, but resided at
Trinity College. They had the positive statements of
the witnesses that this was a room to which the agents '
removed, to avoid the pressure of the numbers in the
larger one. Unless his Friend could establish the fact
of this secret conclave, he was unable to ascend the
first step of the ladder by which he hoped to reach his
conclusion. Had his friend brought Mr. Swan into
this secret conclave on one occasion ? It lay upon
his friend to prove this, but he had not
shown this ; and, then, what way had he con-
nected Mr. Swan with Committee business, or
made the sitting Member responsible for any acts he
might have committed ? When, then, his friend had
thus laboured in vain, would the Committee presume
Mr. Swan was there, against all the evidence which
went to prove that he was not ? There was, therefore,
no connection proved between the sitting Member and
Mr. Swan at this secret conclave, and he could not but
regret his Learned Friend should have unnecessarily
encumbered the case with attempts to prove it. But
it was said ho was seen at the Eagle. He (Mr. Wrang-
ham) doubted if any respectable Conservative in Cam-
bridge could be shown who was not. Every person
felt an interest in the success of their favourite candi-
date, and all those who were well-wishers of this candi-
date resorted there, and having gossiped returned to
relate any information they had acquired to their friends
and partisans. That all these were Committee-men
was a conclusion to which he was sure the Committee
would not come, and that the Sitting Membe w r as respon-
sible for the acts of these individuals was an argument
his Learned Friend would not use, unless qualified by
saying the individual must be connected with the sit-
ting Member by some act of the latter which consti-
tuted the former his agent. His Friend had cited
three cases, and it might be supposed he was afraid of
them unless he adverted to them, which he would there-
fore shortly do. The Learned Sergeant than referred
to the case of tioneywood and Sir Wm. Geary, and
contended there was nothing that proved that Mr.
Swan was, like Mr. Larkin (th Mr. Swan of that case),
Chairman of the Committee, or had, like him, given
orders for the conduct of every part of the election.
The next case was that of Felton v. Easthope, which
appeared to hirn to have no bearing on this case, be-
cause it was said if an agent bribed a voter, it was not
necessary to prove the connivance of the principal.
Yes, if an agent did so, no doubt ; but they must prove
the man was an agent ; and this they had not and could
not show Mr. Swan to have been. The other case was
that of Ridler v. Moore which was an action brought
by a publican against the two joint candidates for
Tewkesbury, for a bill incurred by the order of the
Rev. W. Smith, or a committee nominated by him,
who was the avowed agent of the two candidates,
and the head of the Committee ; and Lord
Kenyon held they were responsible ; but were
the Committee sitting as jurors on an action brought
against Mr. Sutton for the amount of an order given by
Mr. Swan, would they find a verdict for the plaintiff,
sad compel Mr. Sutton to pay that bill ? Unless they
would do so, the case of Ridler and Moore could.not
possibly be applied to this case. This was a fair test ;
and how did the case stand when they passed from
Swan to Long ? An action was brought for goods
ordered by him ; was there an lion. Member who, as
a juror, would not scout such an action out of Court ?
So much then for the cases his Learned Friend had
cited. As to Mr. Swan having canvassed with the sit-
ting Member, that was not disputed ; but Mr. Fisher
proved he was not more actively engaged in canvassing
than many others ; and if this was an indication of
agency for Mr. Sutton, for which he was responsible, it
would be making all candidates responsible for the acts
of every individual who solicited a vote for them at an
election. Mr. Swan's name appeared very frequently
in the cross-examination of his Learned Friend, but
very rarely in the answers of the witnesses ex-
cept in the negative. It appeared less in the whole
of the proceedings than any other. It was not
found among those who were at Miles's rooms—at
the room at the Eagle, and even as contributing to the
suLscription for defraying the expenses of the election,
but then his friend said it was to be found in some
bills ; but was the sitting Member to be responsible for
the bills of every publican who might improperly, with-
out authority, place his name in it.
Mr. PLUNIPTHE requested the Learned Sergeant to
address himself to Skinner's bill.

Mr. Sergeant WRANGIIAM said the wife of the land-
lord explained that as an order given by Mr. Swan
For half a barrel of ale on the night of the day of elec-
tion. This was a sample of the whole. The bill was
received by Mr. Twiss and paid by Mr. Bishop. The
Committee would recollect previous to the election Mr.
Sutton limits his payments to 3001. for the expenses of
the election, subsequently he adds another 1001. to the
sum, and pays the 400/, to Mr. Fisher. Subsequently
a subEcript!on was made to defray bills which had arisen
in the course of the election. Mr. Twiss has to pro-