The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-10 00:00:00

THE BRISTOL ELECTION PETITION.

In the Court of Common Pleas yesterday before Lord
Chief Justice Bovill and Justices Willes, Byles, and
Smith, the case of " Britt and others, appellants, v.
Robinson, respondent," came on for decision.
Mr. Justice Bramwell had reserved for the Court
the question whether bribery at the test ballot would
vitiate the election. The special case sent up stated that at
the last Parliamentary election for Bristol, Mr. E. S. Robin-
son was returned. On the vacancy occurring in the repre-
sentation, three candidates came forward in the Liberal
interest. To avoid a Conservative being returned, it was
arranged that one Liberal candidate only should stand,
and :test ballot was taken to ascertain who it should be.
The persons to vote at the test ballot were to be all the
voters for the city, except those who on former occasions
had plumped for a Conservative. On the ballot Mr. Robin-
son had a large majority, and the two other candi-
dates thereupon retired. A Conservative candidate after-
wards appeared, but on the poll Mr. Robinson was re-
turned. He received the support of many voters who had
preferred one or other of the retired candidates. On the
occasion of the test ballot, two agents of Mr. Robinson
gave trifling sums to induce persons to vote for him on
such ballot, and one agent gave drink to voters for the
same purpose. Some of the voters so dealt with voted
for Mr. Robinson at the test ballot but his majority on
that occasion was great compared with the number of
votes given by these persons. Some of them at the elec-
tion voted for the Conservative. Both the giving money
and the giving drink, if given to induce persons to vote at
the election, would have been corrupt practices. The
gifts, however, were in reference to the test ballot only,
and there was no bargain expressed or implied as to the
votes at the election. The question for the Court was
whether both or either of these cases constituted a case
of bribery within the meaning of the Act.
Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., Mr. Serjeant Sleigh, and Mr..
Ffookes appeared for the appellants ; and Mr. Mellish,
Q.C., Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, and Mr. Chandos Leigh
for the respondents.
Mr. O'Malley submitted that the cases referred to were
bribery, within the meaning of the second and fourth sec-
tion of the Bribery Act of 1854. It was stated in the
statute that it was passed for the purpose of pre-
venting corrupt practices at elections, and the second
section said that any person would be guilty of bribery
who should `f directly or indirectly, by himself or by any
other person on his behalf, give, lend, or agree to give or
lend, or should offer, promise, or promise to procure, or
to endeavour to procure, any money or valuable con-
siJeration to or for any voter, or to or for any person on
behalf of a voter, or to or for any other person, in order
to induce any voter to vote or refrain from voting,
or should corruptly do any such act as aforesaid, on ac-
count of such voter having voted or refrained from voting
at any election." Then the section concluded with a
proviso that its enactments should not extend to any
money paid on account of legal expenses at the
election. The fourth section said that any can-
didate who should, by himself or his agent,
either before, during, or after an election give
any n eat, drink, entertainment, or provision, to
or for any person, or for the purpose of corruptly in-
fluencing such person to vote or refrain from voting,
should be guilty of tho offence of treating. The learned
counsel argued that the present case came within both
these enaetmoits. It was not material that the majority
on the test ballot was large compared with the number of
persons bribed ; and it was justifiable to assume against
Mr. Robinson that the majority was obtained by bribery,
notwithstanding the statement in the special case.
Mr. Mellish, Q.C., for the appellant, submitted that the
sections being penal, must be construed literally, looking
at the letter, as well as the spirit of the Act.
He contended that the words only contemplated
voting at the polls ; and were it otherwise
then any influence used for securing a show
of hands at the nomination would be punishable.
The agreement between the parties was as to the test
ballot alone, and the voters were free to vote as they
pleased at the subsequent election. The influence referred
to in the sections was clearly that of purchasing seats, or
the exercise of a wholesale influence by a landlord.
The Court held that the test ballot was a step in the
election ; and inasmuch as the candidate heading the bal-
lot was almost certain of election, the bribery to place
him in that position was sufficient to influence the elec-
tion at the poll. It was bribery within the meaning of
the Act,

The effect of the judgment will be to deprive Mr.
Robinson of his seat.

MR. GOLDWIN SMITH AND MR. DISRAELL—The
Times says :—Mr. Guldwin Smith has in his letter shewn
his accustomed unwisdcm in appropriating to himself one
of the least flattering characters• sketched in " Lothair."
Public curiosity would be much relieved if the prototype
of Mr. Phoebus and Mr. Pinto would also reveal them-
selves.

'VILE FENIAN BIIAVES.—TIie New York Thhes
says that only once during the late Fenian expedition did
" The Grand Army?' chew any unanimity of feeling, and
that in their desire to get out of Canada directly they had
got into it. The New York Citizen says contemptuously,
We have have had a fine Fenian raid this week. It was
quite a Fenian sUccesk and the' festivities wound up as
usual." One half the Fenians blame General O'Neill,
the other half General Spear, and both are fierce in out-
cry,