The Sun.
London, England, 1869-03-09 00:00:00

THE WESTMINSTER ELECTION PETITION

Mr. D'Eyncourt has just given his decision on the appli-
cation made on behalf of Colonel Dickson, late candidate
for Hackney, for a summons against a solicitor named
Jenkins, for having, by means of corrupt practices, con-
spired to procure the return of Mr. Smith, the Conserva-
tive member for Westminster. A written information,
signed by Colonel Dickson, was laid before his worship.
It stated as follows :—" On the 16th of October last, after
a public meeting in Hackney, for which place I was also a
candidate, I was informed by some of my committee that
a gentleman had been clown that day in the borough for
the purpose of seeing me, as he had sum of money to
hand over to me—they said some £soo—to assist
me in paying my expenses ; and he wanted to
know my address, which they gave him. On the
following morning a gentleman called on me, giving the
name of Howard. This gentleman told me he bad been
down in Hackney the day before, and that he wanted to
see me, and to know if I would allow myself to be put
in nomination for another metropolitan borough. I told
him that I thought standing for one was enough at a
time. I asked him what borough he meant. He at first
said he would rather not say, and then said, What do you
think about Westminster ?' I said, I would not go
against our friend, Mr. Mill. He then said, ' What do
you say about Grosvenor ?' I said I should not mind if
it did not hurt Mr. Mill, as I had no love for the
Grosvenors, having suffered enough wrong and injustice
by my connection with Lord Wilton. He then said
£5OO was at my service if I consented to stand
for Westminster, and £5,000 to pay the expenses
if required, and he added, Will you think
about it?' I told him I would, and he said
a deputation would wait upon me if I would allow them.
I said the following Thursday would suit me best. I said
the deputation could meet me at the Adelphi Club,
Adelphi-terrace, but he said they had better meet at my
house. I asked him his name and address in town. He
said his name was Howard, and that he did not reside in
London, but bad come that morning from Weybridge,
where he had been fishing. The whole of this conversation
was heard by a gentleman who was present. I appointed
some of my committee to meet at my house on the follow-
ing Thursday (October 22nd). Also Mr. Edmond Beales
and Mr. Odger. They came on the Thursday, and
remained some considerable time, but Mr. Howard
and his deputation never put in an appear-
ance." The information then went on to say that
Mr. Jenkins accosted the Colonel, and spoke to him
on the same subject on the 26th of January. He
said Mr. Howard had so styled himself, but that in reality
he was his (Jenkins's) father. Light now seems to have
beamed on the Colonel. Was not Mr. Jenkins one of Mr.
Smith's agents? Would it not be for Mr. Smith's benefit
to divide the Liberal party in Westminster ? So Mr.
Jenkins was called upon for an explanation of the matter, but
(according to the information) refused to give any, saying,
"He should deny having had anything to do with the matter." I
Colonel Dickson, however, having first spoken peaceably
to him, received the offer of another borough. "Mr.
Jenkins," the information concludes "admitted to Mr. '
Cobb that be had sent his father to me under the name of
Howard, and it has been proved on the trial that Mr.
Thomas Jenkins, also his father, Mr. William Jenkins,
alias Howard, were agents for Mr. Smith. Also that Mr.
William Jenkins, alias Howard, produced a bundle of
bank-notes to my committee.
In giving judgment, Mr. D'Eyncourt said he had been
carefully through the declaration as set forth, and he had
quite come to the conclusion that the offence it charged the
party with—supposing it to be an offence—did not come
under the cognizance of the Act (the Act for the Preven- !
tion of Bribery and Corruption). He could not see how 1
it could be construed into bribery where a person offers
money or gives money to a candidate to procure his
return. Suppose a man having a son a candidate,
and he chooses to supply money to that son for his
expenses, that could not be termed bribery. The offer of
money in this case was to procure his (the Colonel's) own
return. He (the learned counsel) says the offer of money
was to procure the return of Mr. Smith. He could not
say whether it was a case that came within the intention
of the Act. He did not think the Act contemplated
such a case as this. Then as to conspiracy and mis-
demeanour, there was not sufficient evidence for him
to grant summonses for these. He declined granting.
the summonses.

Mr. Littler : I wish to say that the imputations against
Colonel Dickson have been disproved.
Mr. D'Enycourt considered he was clear of all imputa-
tion.

After thanking his worship for his trouble, all parties
left the court