The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-13 00:00:00

PONTEFEACT ELECTION.

Sharei Railways.

Paid• Closing I Boehmls
Price. Dona.

The Select Committee appointed to inquire into the
allegations contained in the petition of Hugh Culling
Eardley Childers, Esq.; (presented 9th August), relative to
the withdrawal of the Pontefract Election Petition—have
considered the matters to them referred, and have agreed
to the following Report :-
1. Your Committee have inquired into the allegations
contained in the petition of Mr. Childers relative to the
withdrawal of the Pontefract election petition, and they
have examined the following witnesses—namely, Mr. Lee-
man, Mr: Wilkinson, and Mr. Childers himself in support
of the petition ; and Mr. Rose, Mr. Spofforth, Mr. Cariss,
and Mr. Overend in reply to the allegations therein con-
tained. Mr. Leeman and Mr. Wilkinson are the agents of
the petitioner; Mr. Rose and Mr. Cariss are the agents of
the sitting member • and Mr. Spofforth is 'connected with
Mr. Rose, jun., in election business.
2. Your committee regret that much of the evidence is
very conflicting; so conflicting that it is impossible for
them to reconcile the discrepancies in many of the state-
ments that have been submitted to them ; and, under the
circumstances, your committee conceive that they will best
discharge their duty to the house by stating in order the
material facts as admitted or proved, and by calling atten-
tion to those statements upon which the parties so widely
differ.

Atlantic & St Lawrence!
Leased at 6 per cent..
Bom.,Baroda&Cent.lndi

79 81

16 17.

Do 5 per cent

Do. Addit. Capital A
Do. Do.
Buffalo and Lake Huron
Do. New
Buffalo,Brant. &Godrich
6 p. et. bds. 1 Aug., 1872
Do. do. 1 July, 1873
Do. do. 1 June, 1874
Clcutta. &S. Eas trn. Lim.
Cape,Eastn. Prov.(Lim.)
Cape Town & Dock Scrip
Central Oude (Limited)
Ceylon Guaranteed 6p.c
Demerara
Eastern Bengal.gu.sp.c
East Indian, ;-u. 5 p. C
Do. C Shares
Do. F Shares Ext
Do. Jubbulpore
D 0.44 p.c. Bds. pay.'s9
G eelong& 11iel.gua.5 p. C.
Geelong Corporation 6
per cent. Bonds
Grand Trunk of Canada
Do. 6 p.c. Deben.,pay.'7B
Do. 6 per cent. Pref
Gt. 'nob aPenin.g-ua.sp.e
Do. New, gua.s per cent
Do. do
Gt.S.of Ind.Lim.—Scrip
guaranteed 5 per cent.
Gt.W. of Canada Shares
Do. New
Do. Bonds pay. '76,with
ept. till '6O
Do. do. '73 till '6O
Do. do. ''3 without opt
Do. 54. p. c. do. '77 do
Madras, guar., 4i p. c
Do. do. 5 per cent
Do. Pf p. c. Extension
Do. Third Ex. gua.s.p.c
Do. Fourth do.
Melb. Corp. &p .c. Bonds
Newßrunswlck&Canda.
R y. &Land(Lim.)g.6pc
Class ACapitl.Share
Do. do. Land do
Do. do. B. Capital do
Do. do. Land do
Northof India Tramroad
Limited, Scrip
Oude (Limited)
Scinde 4-4
Do.
Do. New os
Do. Punjaph
Do. Indus. St Flo 1:4,0""
ISt. Andrews & Quebec A
Trinidad(Limited) Scrip

3. At the general election for the borough of Pontefract
there were three candidates, the two sitting members, Mr.
Milnes and Mr. Overend, and the petitioner, Mr. Childers;
the votes polled were as follows :
For Mr. Mines 497
For Mr. Overend
For the petitioner, Mr. Childers
On the 9th of June a petition was presented by Mr.
Childers against the return of Mr. Overend, praying that
return might be declared null, and asking for a scrutiny.
This petition was appointed to be heard on the 21st of
July, and, consequently, the preceding 15th of July was
the day fixed by the Act of Parliament fol. delivering in to
the clerk of the general committee of elections the list of
voters intended to be objected to.
4. It is not disputed that the list of voters intended to be
objected to was delivered in at the proper time; and this
list was, by agreement, exchanged with the list of the
sitting member on that eveninc, or the following day.
5. On the 15th of July, the day so fixed for delivering in
the lists, a conversation took place with reference to the
election between Mr. Leeman and Mr. Rose. This con-
versation is differently reported by those two gentlemen.
According to Mr. Leeman, Mr. Rose inquired " Whether
some arrangement could not be made respecting the Ponte-
fract petition ?" and Mr. Leeman said that " the only
terms which he knew of that could be made was for having
the seat for Mr. Childers." Mr. Rose then suggested, ac-
cording to Mr. Leeman, first, that the petition should be
withdrawn on the terms of paying the petitioner's
expenses, and afterwards that an arrangement might
possibly be entered into for some of those seats that
were then pending on petitions. To the first of
these propositions Mr. Leeman said, " That is out of the
question; Mr. Childers' object is Parliament—the seat."
To the second he observed, "That he would discuss and
talk the matter over with Mr. Childers." According to
Mr. Rose, the conversation was Materially different ; he
states that when Mr. Leeman was asked whether an
arrangement could be made about the Pontefract petition,
his answer was, " Yes, if Mr. Overend will vacate his seat
at the end of the session ; that he laughed and treated it as
a joke ; that he said, ' that is quite out of the question ;' "
that Mr. Leeman replied, "You see, Mr. Childers' object
is to get into Parliament ; could not you put Mr. Overend
into another seat ;" that he then said, " That would be a
most unreasonable proposition considering that he is in
possession. That Mr. Leeman then observed, " Could you
put Mr. Childers in anywhere else ? What places have
you likely to be vacant ; let us go through the list."
It will thus be seen how widely different is
the recollection of the parties as to the conversation
which then took place. Equally different is their recollec-
tion also as to what occurred on a subsequent part of the
day. Mr. Leeman states that he went back to Mr. Rose in
the afternoon; Mr. Rose has no recollection of that inter
view ; he has searched his call-book, and he has no entry
of Mr. Leeman's calling.
_

6. On the following day Mr. Rose left London, but Mr.
Leeman saw Mr. Spofforth, to whom, after some conversa-
tion on the expense of a scrutiny, he suggested two courses ;
the first of these courses was in substance this—" That the
two parties should go down to Pontefract and fight the
battle over again, each party. pledging himself to the other
not to be guilty of anythinc, impure." Ihe second, " That
some gentleman of high standing should hear the whole
ease, and upon his decision the two, arties should consent
to act." Upon this Mr. Spofforth saw that he could not,
in the absence of Mr. Rose, do anything. Thus far Mr.
Spofforth and Mr. Leeman are agreed, but at this point
there is an important divergence of opinion. On the one
hand, Mr. Leeman says that the second course suggested
contained a material addition, viz., that "in the event of
the arbitrator deciding that the sitting member ought not
to retain his seat, he should agree to accept the Chiltern
Hundreds before the session was terminated, so as to enable
Mr. Childers to go down again." On the ther hand, Mr.
Spofforth asserts that he did not hear any thing of that
kind ; that he wrote to him on the Saturday, or Sunday,
stating that Mr. Leeman had been up, and that he was
evidently desirous of getting rid of the petition, and
had made two propositions ; that he there treated the
first proposition "as quite absurd," and that it was
his impression "Mr. Leeman, or his client, did
not intend to proceed with the petition, and wished
for some excuse to say to their constituents in the country
that they should not go on with it." He subsequently
adds " but not a syllable was said about the seat."

7. 'The second course, suggested by Mr. Leeman (whe-
ther with or without the additional provision your commit-
tee has by no means to determine), was ultimately agreed
to ; and a memorandum of that agreement was drawn up
by Mr. Rose on Tuesday the 19th of July. The alterations
mentioned in the petition were made in the memorandum
by Mr. Leeman. While this interview was going on,
Mr. Rose sent the followin telegram to Mr. Overend.
" Philip Rose, 6, Victoria-street, Westminster Abbey,
to W. Overend, Esq., Q.C., on circuit, York. L.
offers to withdraw the record, upon my agree-
ing with him, to refer all questions arising out
of the late action, to a member of the house of
high standing on our side, both parties to be bound by his
decision. May 1 consent? I think it a fair offer and in.
tended for a dignified withdrawal. Telegraph reply at
once." This telegram was not communicated at the time
to Mr. Leeman.

8. Mr. Overend seems to have doubted the meaning of
the proposal, and he consulted Mr. Liddell and Mr. Price
upon it. Having :satisfied himself, on their advice, that
the seat itself was not in dispute, but some matters arising
out of it which were to be the subject of reference or state-
ment, he sent back to Mr. Rose the following telegraphic
message :—" Do the best you can for me ; I leave myself
in your hands." This was shown to Mr. Leeman on the
Tuesday afternoon ; and afterwards Mr. Rose wrote to Mr.
Overend the following letter
" Victoria-street, Westminster Abbey, S.W.,
19th July, 1859. (Private.)
'"My dear Sir,—Your petition will be settled by the en-
closed memorandum, The name to be filled in is to be Sir
John Pakington or Lord March, if either of those members
will undertake the reference. I think you will be amused
at this termination. I certainly am. It is clear that
the Childers family are too great to consent to a with-
drawal, pure et simple; but they don't mind withdraw-
ing upon an illusory arrangement, such as this. I have
done all I could to let them down gently. It has required
delicate handling, and Leeman has been backwards
and forwards the greater part of the day. I will
telegraph to ybu when the petition is actually withdrawn;
but I think you may conclude it is as good as gone, and I
heartily congratulate you. I shall propose that we meet
after the long vacation. Yours truly, PHILIP ROSE..--
W. Overend, Esq., M.P."

9. On the following day a meeting was held, at which
duplicates of the agreement were exchanged. The agree-
ment was as follows :—" Pontefract Election Petition.—lt
being distinctly understood that no personal charges can be
brought either against Mr. Overend on the one hand or
against Mr. Childers on the other, and having regard
to the peace of the borough, which would be greatly
disturbed by proceeding with the petition, it is agreed
that the petition shall be forthwith withdrawn, and
that instead of proceeding with the scrutiny it shall
be referred to Lord March to decide, upon hearing
the statement of facts from both• sides, and evidence, if ne-
cessary, on any disputed points as to what ought to be done
between the parties, both the sitting member and the peti-
tioners being bound to act by the award." During the
bmeeceatmineg observations
aNvarethatmr.wcehre milderadsine,tbey hindwedtcoh Mr. Spofforth
Sthpeoffseoartth.
10. Your committee have detailed these circumstances
with some particularity, because the meaning and object of
this memorandum is the great subject of dispute. On both
sides it is admitted to be ambiguous; and this ambiguity
appears to have been intended, in order that the parties
might not commit themselves to any act which
theits provisions. deni
would amount to a breach of the privileges of the
house. Hence has arisen a complete misconception as to
the intention of the parties, and the effect of the memoran-
dum. One party contends,
underand
d
sup-
port these different views, both refer to the two telegrams,
and Mr. Rose's letter of the 19th of July. But your com-
mittee observe, and they observe with concern that these
documents, on the only point in issue, are almost, if not
othere s, Tto h at
a
scrutiny could be demanded
quite, as ambiguous as the memorandum itself.
11. In consequence of this arrangement the petition
against the return of Mr. Overend was withdrawn by Mr.
Childers on AVednesdayiffhe 20th of July; and Mr. Lee-
man, as his agent, went down to Pontefract to prepare his
statement for the referee.
12. There cannot be a doubt that Mr, Leeman acted
under the strongest conviction that in the reference he
would be entitled to claim the seat for his client. Inde-
pendently, altogether, of the parol evidence, the fact is es-
tablished by the letters he wrote to Mr. Cariss and Mr.
Rose. The first of those letters was addressed by Mr.
Leeman to Mr. Cariss, on the 25th of July, and it contains
the following passage :—" The necessity for immediate
procedure before the arbitrator, arises from the shortness of
the Parliament; the arrangement being, as you know, that
if the referee decides that Mr. Overend shall accept the
Chiltern Hundreds, the latter shall do so in time to enable
Mr. Childers to be elected during the present session."
The second of these letters, which was addressed by Mr.
Leeman to Mr. Rose, stated as follows,--" f wish, in con-
sequence of what fell from you just now, that you should
distinctly understand that I cannot, on Mr. Childers' part,
consent, to any delay in entering upon the matters of the
reference, inasmuch as the arbitrator must have oppor-
tunity to hear the case so as to enable him to make his
award in time for a new writ to issue during the session."
Mr. Cariss st
os
Leeman,
noteoheeimsmanb, y questionmr.confirmed
L te he
me
bareceipt r
d. of
tcthhheenldeet evidencert
Childers,
a da
s-
todofrrews.shMCeadartr. took place on the 28th of August in Mr. Rose's
office, clearly shows that Mr. Cariss's impression with re-
ference to the memorandum was the same as that of Mr.
Leeman. With regard to Mr. Rose, he states that he never
saw the letter addressed to Mr. Cariss on the 25th of July;
and with regard to the letter addressed to himself, he says
that he does not believe he read the letter • that he received
it after hearing his first set of consultations of that
evening; that he arrived at chambers at seven o'clock,
just as the post was going out; that he found that let-
ter, and wrote to Mr. Caries to come up. In justice to
Mr. Rose, it ought here to be observed. that he has in-
formed the committee that he did not personally attend
to the Pontefract election petition ; that it was entirely
under the charge of Mr. Spofforth, a gentleman in his
office, who was in connection with his firm in election
business, and who had the sole charge of that petition, and
that he knew nothing, therefore, of the facts except what
he casually gathered from him." It is, therefore, all the
more lmpOrtent to attend to what pawl between Mr.
Leeman and Mr. Spofforth.
Mr.
13. Mr. Spofforth and Rose both admit that at the
fir
time when the agreements a reference were exchanged,
M. Childers urged that the matter must be gone inte tat.
inedioal
y; i sobat, if he had a decision in his favour,
he might be enabled to have a writ issued before the
communicated to Mr. Rose that Mr. Leeman would not
end of the session." It also admitted that Mr. Spofforth

THE Sthst" LOI(DON, SATURDAYr&j'EI‘TiNG, AUGUST 1 , 18b9.

-
consent to the postponement of the reference, adding,
" It was evident that Mr. Childers expected he could get
the seat." This communication seems to have made but
little impression on Mr. Rose, who said "Pooh, pooh; it
' is ridiculous that a man of Mr. Leeman's discretion or
acumen would never have signed that agreement under
such an expectation."
14. The reference to the arbitrator was originally fixed
for Monday, the Ist of August, but in consequence of the
inability of Mr. Overend to leave his circuit it was post-
poned by Mr. Rose till Thursday, the 4th. In the mean-
time a meeting took place at Pontefract between Mr. Wil •
kinson and Mr. Cariss. At this meeting, on which the
question respecting the seat arose, Mr. -Wilkinson
represented that the followihg conversation took place :
" If the seat is not in question (and you know very well
that nothing else was), will you, as a favour to myself; tell
me what on earth could possibly be in question except the
seat ?' And he said, ' Well, I have been very frank with.
you, as you have with me and I think I have said enough.'
I said, Well, Ido not think you have said anything. If
you tell me that the seat is not in question, I wish you
would tell me what is in question ? I do not call it
being frank.' And I said, Come, as a matter between
us, just tell me (there can be no secret about it), what
it is that is in question ? For goodness' sake, let me
know what, in your view, we have been agreeing to
refer, and keeping all our witnesses about ?' And at
last he said, ' Well, what we have considered was in ques-
tion was the money that we are to give Mr. Childers for
withdrawing the petition, and perhaps that there should be
some arrangement made, or statement by Lord March, that
Mr. Overend was not to oppose Mr. Childers at another
election.' I told him that he really could not imagine that
I could believe it, that Mr. Childers was not in want of
money, and that it was no money question, and they had
known it from the beginning. I said, ' I have known every-
thing that has passed between Mr. Leeman and Mr. Rose ;
and the first words almost that Mr. Rose opened his mouth
to utter to Mr. Leeman were words which imported the
withdrawing of the petition for a money consideration,
and Mr. Leeman told him that he would have nothing
to do with anything but the seat.' He said, Did Mr. Rose
say so ?" I said, " Yes, he did say so, and I say so to you
now. We have never ceased saying that it was only the
seat that was in question."

- --
The view here taken by Mr. Cariss appears to ba the
same as that which was taken by Mr. Rose ; for in the an-
swer to question 465, Mr. Rose says, " I have stated to
the committee that when I wrote that document, what was
passing through my mind was the two subjects—the power
of the arbitrator to award such costs as a committee could
award on either side, and to prohibit Mr. Overend from
offering himself again in competition to Mr. Childers."
15. The meeting appointed for Thursday the 4th of
August was again postponed to Friday the sth. In the
interval, however, namely, on Tuesday the 2d of August, a
meeting took:place between Mr. Rose and Mr. Leeman
(Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Childers also being present), in
which Mr. Leeman, for the first time, heard that Mr. Rose
did not consider that the seat was the subject of the refer -
ence. A warm discussion then took place in which Mr.
Rose admitted to Mr. Leeman, that at the time when the
agreements were exchanged, Mr. Spofforth told him that
"Mr. Childers did mean the seat." On the 3d of August.
Mr. Cariss was appointed by Mr. Rose to meet -Mr. Lei;,azi
on the following day; but on that day, instead r.;l' meeting
him, Mr. Cariss wrote to him the following I,2,'Eter :
" Thursday, Aug. 4.
" Pontefract Petition,
"Dear Leeman,—l have just now been sent for by Mr.
Rose, and ordered to meet you and endeavour to agree upon
the statement of facts mentioned in the agreement with-
drawing the petition. You are aware I declined to do this
with Mr. Wilkinson on Monday last, because the question
at issue was interpreted by you so very differently to what
we agreed to, and I have to-day declined, and still decline,
to enter upon a statement of facts until the issue is 'agreed
upon.—Yours truly,

" BEN. CARISS."

" George Leeman, Esq."
The following correspondence ensued :
" Fendall's Hotel, Palace-yard,
Half-past Four, 4th Aug.
" Pontefract Petition.
" Dear Rose,--I send you copy note received from Mr.
Cariss at 20 minutes past four. Have you anything further
to say to me?—Yours, truly, " GEO. LEEMAN.
" P. Rose, Esq."
" 6, Victoria-street, Westminster Abbey, S.W.,
4th August, 1859.
" Pontefract Petition.
"Dear Leeman,--I sent off for Mr. Caries the momext
after leaving you, and he has just been here. He states
that he purposely absented himself to-day, and still declines
going to Fendall's on account of the misapprehension as to
the real issue ; and that, until he has seen Mr. Overend,
and [the referee] has decided upon the scope of the refer-
ence, it would be useless for him to attempt to agree upon
any statement.
" I shall make a point of seeing Sir W. Jolliffe again to-
night, and hope that he will be able in some way to assist
us through our difficulty.—Your very truly, _

" PHILIP
" Geo. Leeman, Esq., Solicitor, Fendall's Hotel."ROSE.
" Fendall's Hotel, 6 o'clock, Aug. 4, 1859,
" Dear Rose,—The matter is one, not for [the referee]
or Mr. Cariss, but entirely between you and me, and I
must hold you to the performance of it. The whole mis
understanding is one on your part only, as you now see,
and it can be put right by you in a moment. Much as we
have been prejudiced by its continuance, we shall be ready,
even at the eleventh hour, b accept your statement that it
is over, and Mr. Cariss (or yourself) and I can settle our
evidence at 8 a.m. to morrow, so as to be ready for [the
referee] at 12.

" At what hour this evening shall I have a positive an-
swer to this, remembering that I have been waiting since
10 this morning.—Yours very truly,
" P. Rose, Esq." " GEO. LEEMAN.
6, Victoria-street, Westminster Abbey, S.W.,
4th August 1859,
"Dear Leeman,—What you ask of me youmust be aware
it is impossible for me to perform.
" I cannot Llter the terms of reference, nor can I conceal
the impressions under which I agree to them, and which I
communicated at the time to Mr. Overend.
" I admit now that you have explained what was passing
in your mind, that you meant one thing, while it is equally
clear that I (and Mr. Overend through me) understood
another.

"In this state of affairs the memorandum ought to speak
for itself, and I think any one will admit that it is a fair in-
terpretation of my understanding.
" But I should not be content to rely upon a mere tech-
nical construction of the wording of a memorandum in-
tended to embody an honourable understanding, and I am
quite ready that [the referee] should decide, ater hearing
your statement and mine, what ought, as between men who
only intend fair dealing, to be the scope and extent of the
reference; and I have no doubt Mr. Overend will feel
bound to act upon any interpretation which [the referee]
thinks ought to be given to it.

" More than this ought not, and cannot be asked.
" If our views and intentions had been identical, you
would have been entitled to hold me to the most complete
fulfilment of the understanding; but when it is seen that
we were as the poles in our conception of the arrangement,
while I do not insist upon a rigid adherence to my view,
you cannot expect an arbitrary concession to yours. It is
such a difference as can only be decided by an honourable
man between all parties, and I doubt not the decision of
[the referee] will be satisfactory to us all.
" At the same time, I deeply regret
that any controversy
of this nature should have arisen btween us.—Yours, very
truly, _ " PniLir ROSE.

"-deo. Leeman, Esq., Fendall's Hotel."
16. On Friday, the sth of August, Lord March, as the
referee, sat for the purpose of hearing the matter which
had been referred to him, but that meeting led to no result.
17. Such are the facts with reference to the withdrawal
of the Pontefract election petition. Many of these facts
aro still under dispute ; but one thing is clear, and that is,
that a great misconception has prevailed throughout, as
well with regard to the intention of the parties, as also with
regard to the meaning and effect of the memorandum itself.
The consequence is, that the election petition has never
been tried, the agreement intended to be substituted for it
has failed of taking effect, and the rights of the parties with
regard to the seat have not been determined.
18. Under these circumstances, your committee are of
opinion that the petitioner should, if possible, be restored
to the same position in which he stood before the agreement
of the 19th July, 1859, was signed, and before the election
petition was withdrawn ; but your committee must leave it
to the house to determine whether it possesses the power of
restoring the petitioner to that position.
19. Your committee have refrained from giving any opi-
nion on the personal matters which have been brought
under their notice. As the character or conduct of several
parties have been more or less impugned, they have allowed
a fuller latitude of statement than they would otherwise
have thought right ; but having done that, in order that
everything which can be urged on either side may fairly be
brought under the consideration of the house, they conceive
that they will best discharge their duty by confining their
observations to the only matter which has been specifically
referred to them, namely, the allegations contained in the
petition of Mr. Childers relative to the withdrawal of the
Pontefract election petition.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS

The usual weekly meeting of the Metropolitan
Board of Works was held yesterday in the Council-
chamber, Guildhall ; Mr. J. Thwaites in the chair.

The financial statement, as presented, gave a
;otal balance of 371,4731. Bs. sd. _ _

The board proceeded to open tenders sent in for
the construction of the Victoria-park approach
bridge, which were as follows :—Hockston, 4,8431; ;
Moordish, 5,1881. ; M0x0n,5,800/. ; Delhick, 5,9501.;
and Peto and Betts, 8,4351. It was resolved to ac-
cept Mr. Hockston's tender, subject to the usual in-
quiries.

A report was received from the engineer, sub-
mitting for approval plans and specifications of the
southern outfall sewer, from Deptford Creek to
Crossness Point, and recommending that advertise-
ments be issued for tenders for the execution of the
works.

Mr. Deputy HARRISON said he had some doubts
as to whether they ought to issue advertisements
for these tenders in the present state of the build-
ing trade, and he should like to be informed by the
engineer whether he had made any arrangement
under the existing circumstances. He also wanted
to know something about the main d:ainage works
for the northern high level sewer, contracted for by
Mr. Moxon.

Mr. BAZALGETTE, the engineer, said there was a
large number of works which must soon be brought
forward, and it was desirable that the contracts for
this sewer should be entered into, but he had pro-
posed that a clause should be inserted in the con-
tracts to give power to the engineer to make an
allowance of time for the completion of the con-
tracts in cases of strike. With respect to the high
level sewer, the works were almost at a stand.
There were a few navvies at work, but no brick-
layers.
Mr. DOULTON moved as an amendment that the
consideration of these tenders be postponed.
Mr. TITE,IM.P., also took this view of the matter.
Mr. CARPMAEL was of opinion that in postpon-
ing the advertisements for these tenders they
ought to, express that they did so in consequence of
the strike. _ _ _

Mr. FREEMAN protested against the board be-
coming partisans on this subject.
The subject was eventually postponed, and the
board adjourned.