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

OLD COURT.

Mr. Edward Auchmuty Cr-lo;e- r 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
9,
retained, with Mr. Giffard and Mr. F. H. Lewis,
on behalf of the defendant.
Mr. Jame in opening
the case for the prosecu-
tion to thejury, said that the charge agairsst the
defendant was preferred under a resolution of the
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 Comm ins, to
whom the matter was refereed., reported that this
had bean made out, and by a resolution of the
House of Commons, the Attorney-General for the
time being was directed to take the present criminal
proceediags against the defendant. i f n 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 he 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 tkat
statement, he wilfully made a false statement of
qualification, and in pint of fact he had no qtrdi-
ficanon whatever. The jury were, no doubt,
aware that no person could sit in the House of Com-
mons unless he was possessed of certain property
qualification, which by the statute of the Ist and 2d
Victoria was fixed at 3001. a-year for boroughs, and
6001. a-year for counties. It appeared that at the
general election last year Mr. Glover was a candi-
date for the bcrough of Beverley, and that at the
time of the election two of the electors, as they
were empowered to coo, demanded his qualificarien
and after making some excuse, he virtually gave'
the sun° qualification as that which he afterwards
amember
pr
of_
ac
put forward in the House of Commons
when l
, le
was called upon to take the usual oath and declare-
t io
thefa Irish . The d e
andfe
nd
thet etas a
English la lawyer, he
nd was
had
,
tissd in his profession, and it appeared to him that
when the jury heal heer I the nature of the declara-
tion made by the defendant, and the facts connected
with the property that was blleged to be the sub-
ject of the qualification, they would be of opinion
that the defendant could not have a,:ted 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 qualielcltion 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 Favereham,
and Whitstable and Herne Bay, in the county of
Kent ; but he said he should be able to show in the
mest satis'actory manner that the derentlant had
not the least shadow of interest in any of these
properties such as would form a qealiticetion for a
member of Parliament. With rega d to the Irish
property, that originally was no doubt the prc-
. perty of the defendant's father, but its
total value was not large, and although
• it had been conveyed to the defendene 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 1819 the
defendant became insolvent—his debts being at
that time mote than 13,0001., and the whale 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 he had no claim to it, and that he was not
justified in making it the qualification for him io
sit in Parliament. The other prop.-Tty in the county
of Kent consisted of a house called the Oaks, at
Ospringo, and a farm
in the Isle of Harty, iu the
county of Kent, which belonged to a gentleman
name t Token. The Oaks property was worth alto-
gether about 1451. a year, and he believ: d that upon
the occasion of Mr. Garver offering himself as a
not a stliti
veyarice was made t
candidate for he city
0 ilia' of this property, but it
was merely a sham, and was only done for elec-
tioneering purposes. He should however, prove
that this property,
fe:::::::::_i the
pro-
pertywas mortgaged to the extent of 3 506/., and that Mr.
lilsifacott,.
queues he had
Glover was aware of
welch or e
Canterbury,
l)ii
yieldedryin 114855/4. 'a
ayceoanr.-,
The other property he hart referred to was, no
doubt, of considerable value. It consisted of a
farm and hurl at Whitstable which was let for
425/. a year, and the defendant claimed to have a
rent-charge upon this land to the amount of 3251.
' ar
I le
real that
interest
c ii ri
' si
et
-.
per annum. A deed to that effect was, no doubt,
executed by Mr. Token, 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, ai
for the purposes of another election. .Beside.s
this, it would be proved that, at the time this
deed was supposed to hp:it:bell created.
was mcwgliael to the • en'
, . ttl'' ex e -
of 9, 6001., and
that the defendant was perfectly aware of this, a.na
must have hn mu that he could have htd. no in.-
terest whatever in it when he represented it as his,
qual,fication to sit in Parlianenr. The learnea
counsel then steed that these were the main facts
upon wh Aran the charge t the defendant would
rest, and houali a cen7pi,int would probably br
Ina to by hisl arned friend that the defendant could
not be called as a witness in tie present proceed-
ings, he felt bound to state that when the inquiry
took place befere the ehc ton committee of the
House of Counone, the def' ndant was challenged
to came for ward and declare upon his honour as a
gentlemen that, et the time he made the declara-
tion in question, hereally believed he waspossessed
of the qualification to which it referred, but he
declined to do so, and the Houe of Comeions had
felt that the duty devolved upon them of directing
the present prosecution.
Some formal evidence was then gone into, ehow-
ing the return of the defendant for the borough of
Beverley, and the subsequent taking of his seat in
the House of Con:miens when he made the decla-
ration as to hie qualification that was the subject of

inquiry. It appeared that, upon the defendant
being request( d, at the time of the election, to state
the nature 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 13,0001. 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
an 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 Eitates
Court, but be 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.