The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-27 00:00:00

BRIDPORT ELECTION PETITION.
The following is the report issued by order of the
Ilouse of Commons, from the Select Committee to whom
the petition of William Roekett was referred, met who
were appointed to inquire into all the circumstances
under which Joseph Welsh gave evidence before the
Select Committee on the Bridport election petition, that
William Rockett voted for Mr. Rornilly :
Your Committee are satisfied that. William Rockett
the transfer of whose vote by the Bridport Election
Committee, on the evidence of Joseph Welsh, from Mr.
Cochrane's to Mr. Romilly's poll, was the means of seat-
ing Mr. Romilly, voted at the last Bridport election for
Mr. Cochrane, and that there is no ground for supposing
that he voted for Mr. Romilly.
It appears that Rockett went twice to the polling-booth
to vote; that at th, time of his first going there was a
great crowd and noise in the booth; that Rockett, who
is sixty-four years of age, and afflicted with asthma, was,
from exhaustion and confusion, almost unable to speak
when he had got through the crowd to the poll-clerk,
and that, having gone away on this occasion without
giving his name and address, which were, however,
known to the pt 11-clerk, ho was considered not to have
completed his vote; and that he afterwar ,s returned and
duly voted for Mr. Cochrane. On the first occasion
Welch, the witness, who appeared before the Bridport
Election Committee, and other respectable and intelli-
gent witnesses, who have been examined by your Com-
mittee, declared that they heard Rockett say " Romilly,"
after he had got within the bar of the polling-booth for
the purpose of voting. The poll-clerk and the two
check-clerks (one of whom of. coarse acted in Mr.
Romilly's interest) aseree in stating that -Rockett did not
say " Romilly," while tendering his vote; either on the
first or the second occasion; and the pollsclerk further
confirms Rockett's own statement, that the first time he
came, though he did not give his own name and address,
be said several times he voted for Mr. Cochrune. Under
these circumstances, the Committee cannot doubt that
Rockett's vote was given for Mr. Cochrane; but thq
see no reason to impute falsehood to the witness Welch.
Rockett, in• his confusion, may have said "Romilly"
without knowing it, after he got within the bar, the
first time of his going up to vote, and this might
have been heard by persons standing out-
side the bar, though not heard by the poll-
cler k and the check-clerks ; or, in the noise and confu-
sion, which all the witnesses agree in saying prevailed
at the time in the booth, a cry of " Romilly may have
been mistakenly supposed to come from Rockett.
Under these circumstances, the question naturally
arises, how is it that the evidence by which W elch's
statement could have been contradicted was not brought
before the. committee ? The following extracts from
Mr. Coppock's evidence will show that an arrangement
was made between the parties, in the committee room,
that Rockett's vote should be transferred from Mr. Coch-
rane's to Mr. Romilly's poll without opposition from Mr.
Cochrane.
Can you give us any information, and if you can,
have you any objection to give it, which may show the
Committee how it was that evidence which might have
been produced on the other side to rebut Welch's evi-
dence, was not brought befOre that committee. Before
you answer that question, the Committee wish you to
know, that not only they will not require you, but they
do not want you to tell them anything that you may
have learned from the agent on the other side confi-
dentially ?—I can.
Will you do so ?—Yes •, it was by agreement that
this vote of William Rockett was brought before the
Committee.
By agreement with whom ?—By agreement between
counsel.
How do you know that ? I was present and heard it.
You heard that agreement made ?—I was asked
whether it should be made 'before it was made.
Who asked you that 7—My own counsel.
What did they ask you P—l was asked whether I
could take the seat easily ; whether I could transfer the
majority of one without much trouble, and without in-
volving anything more than the mere question of the
vote, and I said I could ; and I had that vote of Rockett,
and by agreement that vote was taken off one poll, and
put on the other.
Is that all that you were asked by your counsel ; are
those the exact a ords in which the question was put to
you by him P—l cannot say that they are the exact
words, but that is the exact import, as far as I can state.
Ycu say, " Without much trouble ?"—Whether I
could do it without involving any other question than
the question of the vote.
Was any further explanation given by counsel of
those words which you refer to, " without raising any
other question than the question of the vote ;" was any
further explanation given of that ?—There was ; I per-
fectly understood what was meant.
You must not tell us what you understood, unless you
can tell us what was said to you.—lt was arranged that
Mr. Cochrane should give up the seat, and I was then
asked that question, that Mr. :Hominy should take it.
I had those witnesses at hand, and as that opened no
question but the-mere question of a vote, that was the
vote 'that was agreed to be taken.
Mr. Cripps—Was Rockett's the first vote that you
meant to go-into ? No, possibly the last.
Chairman—What cases did you intend to take first ?
I meant to take the case of a voter who had been dis-
qualified by receiving 101. not to vote, and on a subse-
quent part of the day had received 101. to vote. I
meant to have called that identical man before the Com-
mittee.
Will you explain to the Committee what you mean by
the words, "Cases involving no other question than the
question of the vote ?"—Cases that would raise no point
at all, but the mere question of the propriety of its
being recorded ; the question of the vote itself.
Will you explain to the committee what you mean by
"Cases that could raise other questions ?" A common
scrutiny only involves the one simple question of the
right to vote ; a bribery scrutiny would involve many
other circumstances besides the right to vote.
Do you mean that those were cases that would not
involve a bribery scrutiny ?—Certainly.
The following is. the evidence of Mr. Templer, the
agent for Mr. Cochrane, on the same subject :
Can you give us any information which may show the
Committee how it is that evidence, which might have
rebutted Welch's, was not brought before that Com-
mittee ?—Yes, I can give this reason for it ; we were
not in a situation to have rebutted the evidence, for we
were not aware that Rockett's vote would be called in
question ; they. furnished us with a certain list, and we
came here under the impression in the morning that
they would have opened their bribery cases, and would.
have gone into the general allegations of the petition. It
was Mr. Cochrane's firm determination, at a consulta-
tion, that he would not go into a scrutiny, and the con-
sequence was what has occurred. I remember Mr. Cock-
burn opening the case of a scrutiny, and Mr. Austin in-
terrupting him, and saying that he would not be dragged,
at that period of the Parliament, into a scrutiny, and if
that was the course which his Learned Friend intended
to pursue, he would advise his client not to proceed
further with the inquiry.
That was said by Mr. Austin openly ?—Yes.
Did you hear any private conversation between Mr.
Austin and Mr. Cockburn ?—No, I did not; none v. hat-
ever. . The first
.intimation that I had of Rockett's
vote being put.up, was by Mr. Sergeat Kinglake, in the
Committee-room. Mr. Sergeant Kinglake, told the
Chairman that there was a vote which had been impro-
perly recorded for Mr. Cochrane, the sitting Member,
which vote, if properly recorded, would have given the
petitioner a majority ; and that, by transferring that
vote from the poll of Mr. Cochrane to the poll of Mr.
Romilly, that would leave the majority in Mr. Romilly's
favour ; and that, as it was not the intention of Mr.
Austin, on the part of the sitting Member, to go into a
scrutiny,' that would determine the matter on the part of
the sitting Member.
Was any application made to the Committee for time
to be allowed to bring up evidence to rebut Welch's
statement P—Not in the least. I should not have inter-
fered if half the votes had been struck off. I considered
that when Mr. Cochrane determined not to open the re-
gister, or to go into a scrutiny, I was hors de combat ;
that my professional labours were at an end. This was
on the Saturday, and we could not, if we had wished it,
have got up evidence until the early part of the week,
which would also have led us into great expenses, which
Mr. Cochrane dreaded.
Lord A. HERIWC—You stated that you were agent
for Mr. Cochrane, and that your client was determined
not to enter into a scrutiny ?—Precisely ; it was Mr.
Cochrane's firm determination not to do so ; and I con-
sidered my professional duty at an end when that deter-
mination was come to.
When you stated that you understood that the other
side meant to go into the question of bribery, did you
mean a scrutiny of bribery votes ?—From the allega-
tion of the petition, it was my opinion that it was en-
tirely a bribery question ; a generally case of bribery
and not of scrutiny upon the registry at all ; and so I
advised Mr. Cochrane. I thought it was so, and I was
in ignorance upon that subject until a very late consul-
tation ; within two or three days I thought that the po-
tion would have been entirely confined to that point,
from the language of the petition.
If it had been confined to bribery, should you have
defended the seat ?—Certainly.
Chairman--I thought you said that six days before
the Committee met, you had seen a list of the oljec-
tions?—Yes, I had.
Did not the list show you that it was likely to be a
scrutiny case as well ?—Yes ; but it does not follow that,
because they reserve to, themselves the power, they will
use it. Indeed, I thought that the language of the peti-
tion had precluded them ; and I went to a consultation,
I think, only two days, a day or two days, before
u the
a
tknt, Mr.
meeting of
AthuestCino,smananidttmeer. Sergeant,lortheexress Murphy'sp
opinion
on that point. I thought that they would have been
precluded, and I said I thought the fight would take
place upon the bribery ; but Mr. Austin was strongly
of opinion that the prayer alone of the petition would
enable
yrthcelommtmo
&oteeiothoatvleie
feltscrutiny.
themselves precluded by
the decision of the House,
which negatived tha.twtaertth(of
the original motion which sumgestedinlu
any compromise or arrangement was en't:,erierif7l:eo by the
parties to the petition, their counsel or agents, to pre-
vent the disclosure of bribery and treating; and also
whether, and to what extent, bribery arid treating were
practised at the last election for the borough of Brid-
port," from pursuing any further examination into the
circumstances of the arrangement spoken of by Mr.
Coppoek and Mr. Templer. It is clear that the effect
was to prevent the extensive allegations of bribery in
this case from being gone into; and your Committee
cannot help expressing their vet.) great re gret that thes.e
allegations have not been thoroughly investigated.
Your Committee think it right to direct attention to
the practice, adopted in this case, of altering a vote by
arrangement between the contendin ; parties without the
knowledge of the voter, and withoutfullairnravensgtlaetniotns:
Mr. Coppoek's evidence shows that votes have often been
extensively struclt off a poll by similar
this Instance, Rockett's vote was transferred from one
poll to another. Your C 9111440 venture IQ suggest