The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-10 00:00:00

OLD COURT.

Mr. Edward Auchmuty Glover surrendered to
take his trial for misdemeanour, in having unlaw-
fully made a false declaration as to his qualification
to sit as a member of the House of Commons.
Mr. Edwin James was specially retained, with
Nr. Welsby, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Clark, to con-
duct the prosecution.
Mr. Montagu Chambers, Q.C., was also specially
retained, with Mr. Giffard and Mr. F. H. Lewis,
on behalf of the defendant.
Mr. James, in opening the case for the prosecu-
tion to the jury,
said that
under t he
ac
resolutionharge agai mosf the
thet
defendant was preferred
e
House of Commons,
and upon the facts that he
should shortly detail to them. The defendant was
elected member for the borough of Beverley, in
Yorkshire, at the last general election, but a peti-
tion was subsequently presented against his return,
upon the ground that he was not duly qualified,
and the Committee of the House of Cemm ms, to
whom the matter was referred, reported that this
had been made out, and by a resolution of the
House of Commons, the Attorney-Gent ral for the
time being was directed to take the present criminal
proceedings against the defendant. In consequence
of the change in the Government the matter was
referred to his successor in office, and he (Mr.
James) was called on to conduct the prosecution
at the request of the present Attorney-General,
his duties at the present time preventing him from
being personally in attendance. The charge against
the defendant, as he had before stated, was, that
when be was called upon to give his statement of
his qualification to sit as a member of that house,
and to make a declaration of the truth of that
statement, he wilfully made a false statement of
qualification, and in point of fact he had no quail-
ticalion whatever. The jury wore, no doubt,
aware that no person could sit in the House of Com-
mons unless ho was possessed of certain property
qualification, which by the statute of the Ist and 24
Viol, iria was fixed at 3001. a-year for boroughs, and
6001. a-year fir counties. It appeared that at the
geueral election last year Mr. Glover was a candi-
date for the borough of Beverley, and that at the
time of the election two of the electors, as they
were empowered to do, demanded his qualification,
and after making some excuse, he virtually gave
the same qualification as that which he afterwards
put forward in the House of Commons, when he
was called upon to take the usual oath and declara-
tion. The defendant was a lawyer, he was member
of the Irish and the Euglish bars, and had prac-
tised in his profession, and it appeared to him that
when the jury had heard the nature of the declara-
tion made by the defendant, and the facts connected
with the property that was alleged to be the sub-
ject of the qualification, they would be of opinion
' that the defendant could not have aced under any
mistake, and that he must have wilfully made the
false statement that was the subject of the present
inquiry. The learned counsel then went on to state
that the qualification set up by the defendant ap-
peared to rise out of three properties, two of them
being situated in the county of Cork, where the
father and the family of the defendant resided, and
some property in the neighbourhood of Faversham,
and Whitstab'e and Herne Bay, in the county of
Kent ; but he said he should be able to show in the
most satisractory manner that the defendant bad
not the least shadow of interest in any of these
properties such as would form a qualification for a
member of Parliament. With rega-d to the Irish
property, that originally was no doubt the pro-
perty of the defendant's father, but its
total value was not large, and although
it had been conveyed to the defendant by a
deed that would be put in evidence, it would be
showed that this was only done to secure the pro-
perty from being made liable to the debts of the
father, and it was besides so heavily mortgaged that
it was of no real value whatever. In addition to
this, he said he should also show that in 1849 the
defendant became insolvent—his debts being at
that time more than 13,0001., and the whole of his
property was vested in his assignee, and this
specific property was included in his schedule, so
that the defendant must have known perfectly well
that ho had no claim to it, and that he was not
justified in making it the qualification for him to
sit in Parliament. The other property in the county
of Kent consisted of a house called the Oaks, at
Ospringe, and a farm ire the Isle of Harty, iu the
county of Kent, which belonged to a gentleman
name t Toker. The Oaks property was worth alto-
gether about 1451. a year, and he believed that upon
the occasion of Mr. Glover offering himself as a
candidate for the city of Canterbury, in 1854, a con-
veyance was mad. to him of this property, but it
was merely a sham, and was only done for elec-
tioneering purposes. He should, however, prove
that this property, which only yielded 1451. a year,
was mortgaged to the extent of 3, 500/• and that Mr.
Glover was awtve of
this fact, and that in conse-
quence he had not a shilling of real interest in it.
The other property he had referred to was, no
doubt, of considerable value. It consisted of a
farm and 1 end at Whitstable, which was let for
4251. a year, and the defendant claimed t o have a
rent-charge upon this land to the amount of 3251.
per annum. A deed to that effect was, no doubt,
executed by Mr. Toker, who was a very old man ;
but he should be able to prove that no considera-
tion was ever given for this supposed rent-charge,
and that it was, in point of fact, only created
for the pure )sea of another election. Besides
this, it would to proved that, at the time this
deed was supposed to have been execu'ed, the pro-
perty was mortgaged to the ex ent of 9,600%, and
that the defendant was perfectly aware of t'uisi, and
must have 1:n )wn that he could have had no in-
terest whatever in it when he represented it as his
qualification to sit in Parlia ne •
sat The learned
counsel then sta.ed that these were the main fasts
upon which the charge aga;nst the defendant would
rest, and id hough a complaint would probably be
ma is by his 1 arned friend that the defendant could
not be called as ;
a witness in the present proceed-
ings, he felt bound to state that when the inquiry
took place bef re the election committee of the
House of Commoas, the defendant was challenged
to come forward and declare upon his honour as a
gentlem in that, at the time he made the declara-
tion in question, hereally believed he wasposseesed
of the qualification to which it referred, but he
declined to do so, and the House of Commons had
f.et 64 the duty devolved upon them of directing
the present prosecution.
Some for wal evidence was then gone into, show-
ing the return of the clsfeudant for the borough of
Beverley, and the subsequent taking of his seat in
the House of Commons, when he made the decla-
ration as to hie qualification that was the subject of

inquiry, It appeared that, upon the defendant
being requested, at the time of the election, to state
the na,tura of his qualification, he said he was not
prepared for such a discreditable proceeding, and
he had not brought his title-deeds with him, and
he could only state from memory the nature of his
property, and he then described the qualification
that was the subject of the present prosecution.
The defendant made the same statement of his
qualification in the House of Commons, and proof
was given that he had signed a declaration that this
was a true statement.

A number of deeds were put in, having reference
to the Irish property, and evidence was also given
of the defendant having petitioned the Dublin
Insolvent Court, and to his property and estate
being vested in an assignee by order of that court.
The amount of the deb's was over 13,000/. and the
defendant in his schedule represented that a great
portion of them were without consideration.
Mr. Mursell Worrell, the trade assignee ap-
pointed under the insolvency of the defendant, de-
posed that he was not aware of any of the debts
having been paid.
In answer to questions put by Mr. Chambers,
this witness said that a gentleman who had taken
au active part in reference to the insolvency of the
defendant was recommended to him by one of the
parties who was a petitioner against the return of
the defendant for Beverley. He also said he be-
lieved that some of the defendant's property was
still in process of sale in the Encumbered Estates
Court, but he believed it was encumbered by prior
claims, and it was not likely to realise anything to
the defendant's creditors under his insolvency.
At this stage of the case the trial was adjourned.