Star.
London, England, 1830-12-16 00:00:00

TILE EVESHAM ELECTION.

Select Committee of the Have of Commons, for the purpose of trying
the petition against the return of Sir C. Cockerell and Lord Kennedy,
at the Evesham election.

Chairman, Mr. E. B. Clive.
Mr. F. Berne, Sir George T. Stanton.
The Hon.W. Russel]. Mr. J. M. Clements.
Mr. J.W. Buller. Mr. R.W. Mills.
Mr. A. Duncombe. Mr. M. Bell.
Mr. H. Tufton. Lord J. G. Lennox.
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Addam and Mr. Sergeant Mere.
wether ; for Sir C. Cockerell, Mr. Harrison, and Mr. Sergeant Ludlow;
tor Lord Kennedy, Mr. Rigby.
The committee commenced its sitting on Friday, Dec. 3, and con.
tinued from day to day Its labours, which have been brought to a con.
elusion this morning, Monday, December 13.
In the course of this inquiry evidence was brought forward to prove
tile agency of parties; their treating by dinners, the outvoters in Lon.
don, the travelling of these outvoters at the expense of candidates from
town to Evesham ; their being supported there, and their receipt, by
those who chose to have it, of sums of money from each =Midste
atier the election, in most cases to the amount, between the two caadi.
dates, of from 101. to 121. as a payment for expenses and loss of time;
when the parties themselves acknowledge those expenses not to have ex.
ceeded from 20s. to 30s. including coach-hire. It was attempted to
prove, on the part of Lord Kennedy and Sir C. Cockerell, that pro-
mises were not made prior to the election ; but on the side of Lord
Kennedy, the agency of parties appeared in evidence, and on that of
Sir C. Cockerell, the providing of carriages by his agent to convey the
voters from town, and the custom of former elections, as to their re-
ceipt of money afterwards. But it appears, that a man of the name of
New did make promises on the part of Lord Kennedy, and commit
sundry other acts of agency; also a man of the name of Baddenham
appears to have been very active.
Mr. Sergeant Alzazwaratan summed up the evidence of the pe-
titioners in a very able but concise manner, considering the mass of
evidence, &c. which he had to wade through ; going over the different
details, and making references to cases bearing on the points—a:Ft
others to the Berwick case. p. 401, Ist v. Petewell ; to the Abingdon
case, p. 204 and 5, in the same book to the Ist Ludor, p. 31 96,
Ipswich case; to the Boston case, p. 434, Ist Peckwell ; to the Durham
case, 2d PeckwelL On which decision a discussion took place, that
there is a doubt even whether expenses can be allowed in going
down to an election ; and the point of his argument, supported by
these authorities, was, that all voters going to an election should be
free and unbiassed, which could not be the case if they were brought
down to the election at the expense cf one of the parties. He then al.
laded to the llchester case, as liltely to be touched on by the learned
counsel on the other side, where the bribe goes under the term horse.
radish, and it was held hat it was not bribery, unless a bargain was
made before the election ; he know this was the case his opponent
would rely on, and he would meet him at once with it. The sums
paid for expenses and compensation are the same nearly in all the cases
where they choose to take it, although their situations in life are
very different ; the East India porter the same as the tradesman ;
lied one of the witnesses, although he is in the Stationery-office,
where he is receiving his salary, is paid for his time the same as the
others. In parliamentary law, if an agent does with or without the
knowledge of the principal, promise a bribe to an elector prior to the
election, it then becomes void, altbongh such would not be the case in
civil law. New at the Crown Inn gave to an elector some negus, and
offered him a sum; also a similar offer was made at the same place to
soother party. This man, also, when at Evesham, acknowledged him-
self equally an agent for Lord Kennedy. There is a difference between
Sir C. Cockerell and Lord Kennedy ; the former is a well known real-
deat in the neighbourhood, the latter is a stranger. "Runes payment of
voters on former elections, as well as on this, and his ordering horses,
&.c. must prove his agency, although he cannot be found. He
stated he had proved clear and distinct cases of bribery at the last
election at Evesham—the one against Lord Kennedy, the other against
Sir Charles Cockerell ; and concluded by hoping he had redeemed
his premise of trespassing on the time of the committee as little as
his duty to his clients would allow him, znd by stating he bad
been prevented from going over many points of the evidence, which
he otherwise should have done, by the very great attention paid to
the case and evidence, in the course of its progress, by the committee
themselves. _ _ _ _

Mr. Serjeant LUDLOW, on the part of Sir C. Cockerell, rose regret-
ting the unavoidable absence of Mr. Harrison, who would so much
wore ably have advocated the cause he was undertaking. It was not
his intention to trespass on the time of the committee by producing
witnesses. The point he should direct their attention to was—
" Does all the evidence, supposing it true, amount to the crime of
!tribal/? and, if so, whether Sir Charles Coekerell is to be affected by
wits' has been done ?" He argued that Serjeant Merewether had not
established either. He would take the two branches of the case in the
way &leant Merewether proposed. He then referred to the ease Ser-
jeant Merewether had alluded to—that of Lord Huntingtower at H.
duster. Practices of bribery were known as early as the time of
Queen Blimbeth. Returning *Seers have been obliged to kneel down
before the house for acts of bribery. In George 11. an act was passed
against it, and in the 19th George 111. a new act was peeled. The
giving of money after the poll, unless it exists in vane preconceived
bargain before the vote, cannot be considered as bribery lie then
referred to a case 29th George 11. Mayne. He then again referred
to the care of Lord Huntingtower at Ilchamr' and the opinions of
lie. Justice Bayley, Mr. Baron Holroyd, and Mr. Justice Best, and
read e part of the bribery an, to prove it related solely to the act and
undentaading wish the party before “
voting: the 7th section of the act
has nee the words "in tinier,' —it rum, If any person shall ask, or
receive, or take," 9.e. "to give his vote, or to refuse or forbear to
give his vote," Rt. and refers to Mr. Justice Bayley's opinion, who
says, " the wads are prospective, and not retrospective, te. for if
the legislature had intended a retrospective view of the case, it
Mould have inserted the words to give, kg. or hereaftet to give," tc.
red so Mr. Justin Beat,—" I am of opinion, notwithstanding the
heath! effects of bringing discredit, ate. by bribery at elections, as
judges, we must take care not to transgress the rules of law. lam of
opinion that if there was no previous contract, if he takes a sum of mo.
eel eastwards it cannot be considered as under the bribery act." But
he did ant rest of what the courts of common law may have said, but
referred to the Sudbury case, which la tote found in the Sd volume of
Lord Oksbervie's Reports. Mr. Lee was counsel in that ease. They
stated they could prove a very public distribution of money after
the election, but as they did not prove any matey or promise of
meney given previous to the election, they did not arrive at bribery.
Hi this termed to the Cirencester case, where 10s. fid. was delivered
to each vote after the election witk a similar result. If they have tot
paved that money or promises of money were give the last else.
eitio, Wised have aot their ease. His ease is Merest host that of
Lead y' is no dining s the only thing plowed is. that
dim ere wedges provided to early voters down, without any
as le lima thaw veersassto be given. In doing this there is pledge
• Itialr all• is Oath say ja paying as out-voter any resemble allowance
Ter his mpenres and anspeasatisa for his late. but admits it if
been mac say preview agnomen. Hs then alluded to the

account of Sir Charles, which was produced in evidence, to prove the
small sum actually expended on the election account, part of which was
for coals for the poor. And after a very long address, concluded by
hoping, to the satisfaction of the cotntnittee, he bad exonerated his
client.
Mr. R 162! then rose for Lord Kennedy, and addressed the commit-
tee at great length urging every point, and making every reference
he could, as bearing on the case of his noble client; and he had not con-
cluded when the committee was summoned to attend the Speaker in the
House on Saturday evening. This morning (Monday) he resumed his
argument, contending strongly, that if there was treating, it was totally
unknown to Lord Kennedy; if there was mmey, it was equally un-
known to him. For in the first instance a la. Harris had been intro-
duced to the electors at Evesham, part of the money paid, and the first
supper, as appeared by Pearce's evidence, was by that gentleman's
friends ; and as to his knowledge of New, Lord Kennedy was in Scot-
land at the time, and when he heard of this subject he:was indignantly
surprised.
We have not room to follow the learned gentleman through the
whole of his argument; but suffice it to say, every exertion and legal
talent was brought forward for the protection of his client. He con.
eluded with paying the same deserved compliment which his predeces-
sors had done to the great and unwearied attention paid by the coin.
mittee to this long and anxious case.
At about two o'clock the Committee, after being closed for a consi-
derable time. delivered the following decision.
" That Sir Charles Coekerell is not duly elected; that Lord Ken-
nedy is not duly elected and that the last election at Evesham is void.
That the promotion of the petition was neither frivolous nor vexatious;
that the opposition to it was neither frivolous nor vexatious : that Sir
Charles Cockeeell is declared guilty of bribery. That Lord Kennedy
is declared guilty of bribery.
Thus terminated this anxious and interesting case, on the ninth day
of its sitting.