Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to Your Majesty, that Sir Samuel Martin, knight, one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer, and one of the Judges selected for the trial of Election Petitions, pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, has reported to the House of Commons, that corrupt practices did prevail at the last Election for the City of Norwich, and that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices did extensively prevail at the said Election. We therefore humbly pray Your Majesty, that Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause inquiry to be made pursuant to the Provisions of the Act of Parliament passed in the sixteenth year of the reign of Your Majesty, intituled, "An Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament," by the appointment of George Morley Dowdeswell, esquire, one of Her Majesty's Counsel, Horatio Mansfield, esquire, Barrister at Law, and Robert John Biron, esquire, Barrister at Law, as Commissioners for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of such corrupt practices." (Mr. Attorney General.) Question again proposed. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, hon. Members must be aware that in 1852, a statute had been passed, providing that in those cases in which an Election Committee reported that corrupt practices had, or that they had reason to believe that they had, extensively prevailed in a borough, that House, together with the other House of Parliament, might address the Crown on the subject, and the Crown might thereupon appoint a Commission to inquire into the existence of such practices. Commissions thus appointed had full powers for the purpose of conducting their investigations; and might not merely confine them to the particular election immediately in question, but carry the inquiry back to former elections. The House was aware that the By the Act of last Session, the Reports of the Judges, by whom election petitions were now tried, were substituted for those of the Committees; and he had before him the Report of the learned Judge who tried the Norwich petition, to which, he felt assured, the House would not attach less importance than they had hitherto been in the habit of attaching to the Report of a Committee. Formerly, he might add, it was the practice for the Chairman of the Committee to move for the appointment of a Commission, when it was deemed right that that course should be taken; but there were now no Chairmen of Committees to undertake that duty; and, as it might turn out that that which was nobody's business in particular might not be done at all, he hoped the House would be of opinion that he was not taking too much on himself in rising to move for the issue of a Commission in the present instance. Having said thus much, he would invite the attention of hon. Members to the Report of the learned Judge, who said "And I further report that corrupt practices did prevail at the said Election, and that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices did exof the nature stated in my special Report." tensively prevail at the same, and that they were Then came the special Report of the learned Judge; and he might, before more particularly referring to it, observe that the powers of the Judge were confined to inquiring into the existence of corrupt practices at one election, and into the existence of extensive corrupt practices to that degree which might be necessary to determine his judgment as to whether there was sufficient evidence to unseat the Member, so that, under those circumstances, it must not be supposed that his Report could dispose of the whole of the cases of corruption which might have occurred in the borough. In his special Report, the learned Judge went on to say— statute to which he referred had on many occasions been acted upon, and "At the middle of the day of polling Sir William the Commissions issued under it had, he Russell and Mr. Tillett, the Liberal candidates, believed, by general consent, done their had a considerable majority, and there is no reason work well, and brought to light a good to believe that up to this time any corrupt vote deal of corruption, which, without their until the close of the poll I believe that bribery had been given on either side; but from thence aid, would have escaped observation. was extensively committed in order to procure Action, moreover, had, in more than one the election of Sir Henry Josias Stracey. So instance, been taken on their Reports in far as the evidence went, the voters who were the shape of prosecutions instituted by labourers for daily wages. These people did not bribed were of one class-namely, workmen or Attorneys General and of Acts of dis-go to work that day, but collected in considerable about that the candidate at the bottom of the poll at the middle of the day was at the head of the poll at the close of the day. It appeared that a number of and there waited to be bribed. Some of them either of themselves thought, or it was suggested to them by others, that it was reasonable and just they should be paid their day's wages by the candidate for whom they voted. It may be that in some instances this feeling was honestly enter-public-houses were engaged, and that tained, but in the great majority of instances it was a mere pretext in order to obtain bribes. A number of these voters went to the poll in a gross state of drunkenness, some of them so drunk as not to know for whom they came to vote; and I have no doubt that a very considerable number of bribed voters gave their votes between two and four o'clock of the day of polling. I expected that there would have been a scrutiny, but it was abandoned on behalf of Mr. Tillett, and I am, therefore, unable to state the number of the bribed voters. I am also unable to state who the bribers were, with the exception of the man Hardiment, who absconded after the petition was presented, and the man Arthur Hunt, who was examined at the trial. Another man called Warledge also absconded after the petition was presented, and he, probably, was extensively employed in bribing. The sum paid to each bribed voter was small. One pound to each was the sum proved to have been paid by Hardiment, and seven shillings and sixpence each to the voters bribed by Hunt. I am also unable to state what amount of money was spent in bribery, and I failed to obtain any information as to the source from whence the money came, or the persons by whom it was supplied to the bribers; but I believe that there was a corrupt agency at Norwich by which the money was supplied." The Report proceeded to state further instances of bribery; but he did not think the House would be of opinion that it was necessary he should enter at any great length into the evidence. It would be enough for him to say that the evidence, which he had carefully read, appeared to bear out the Report of the learned Judge, which Report, as might be expected, rather kept within than went beyond the extent of the bribery practised at the election. The general aspect of the case was that until about two o'clock the Liberal candidates at the late election for Norwich were considerably ahead, the Conservative candidate Sir Henry Stracey far behind. After two o'clock, however, much greater activity on the side of Sir Henry Stracey began to be displayed. As the time drew near for the close of the poll voters began to poll for him in greater numbers, so that in the last half-hour a larger number of votes were recorded for him than in any previous half-hour throughout the day, and the result was that he was returned. On examining the evidence they could not be at any loss to account for that increased electoral activity, and he would refer to it to show the House how it was brought knots of twenty or thirty voters were collected together waiting to be bribed. The bribery, it further seemed, was confined to one side, and therefore the figure was not high; but in saying that he was far from wishing to impute bribery to only one party, or stating that the Liberal party had always been immaculate at Norwich; because, on a previous occasion, two Members who sat on the Liberal side of the House were unseated for bribery. But, be that as it might, he should, by way of giving a sample of the evidence which had been adduced at the recent inquiry, read two or three extracts from it. There were several public-houses in the town, one of which was called the "Marquess of Granby." One of the witnesses went there and saw Mackley, and, he said "He told me that he had a considerable num ber of men either in his house or about his premises who would come and vote for the Liberal candidates; they only wanted to be paid some money; and I told him it was not our intention to do anything of the kind." Whereupon all the men went away and appear to have voted on the other side. There was another public-house named the "Trumpet," and what took place there was very shortly but graphically narrated by one of the witnesses main bribers, came into the room and asked the "Mr. Hunt, who was reported as one of the men present had they voted. They said 'No,' and he then said I have 58. for each of you.' Did he count the money?—Yes. Did he say anything more than I have got 5s. for you?'-They grumDuring that time was Smith, the fowl-dealer in bled at the 5s., and said they would not have it. the room?-He was. Upon the grumbling taking place did Smith say anything?-He said, 'My boys, I shall be a sovereign out of my own pocket, and give you 2s. 6d. each more, which will make it 7s. 6d. Upon Smith offering to make up the amount to 7s. 6d. did any persons in the room accept it?-They then said that they might as well take it, for if they did not take it they should get nothing." So these men having stood out against 58., and finding that they could not get any higher terms, condescended at length to accept the amount offered; they were all bribed, and they all went to the poll and voted. At another public-house called the " Woolpack," a man named Hardiment bribed, and the price then appeared to be about £1. Ĥardiment Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to Your Majesty, that Sir Samuel Martin, knight, one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer, and one of the Judges selected for the trial of Election Petitions, pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, has reported to the House of Commons, that corrupt practices did prevail at the last Election for the City of Norwich, and that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices did extensively prevail at the said Election. We therefore humbly pray Your Majesty, that Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause inquiry to be made pursuant to the Provisions of the Act of Parliament passed in the sixteenth year of the reign of Your Majesty, intituled, "An Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament," by the appointment of George Morley Dowdeswell, esquire, one of Her Majesty's Counsel, Horatio Mansfield, esquire, Barrister at Law, and Robert John Biron, esquire, Barrister at Law, as Commissioners for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of such corrupt practices." (Mr. Attorney General.) Question again proposed. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, hon. Members must be aware that in 1852, a statute had been passed, providing that in those cases in which an Election Committee reported that corrupt practices had, or that they had reason to believe that they had, extensively prevailed in a borough, that House, together with the other House of Parliament, might address the Crown on the subject, and the Crown might thereupon appoint a Commission to inquire into the existence of such practices. Commissions thus appointed had full powers for the purpose of conducting their investigations; and might not merely confine them to the particular election immediately in question, but carry the inquiry back to former elections. The House was aware that the statute to which he referred had on many occasions been acted upon, and the Commissions issued under it had, he believed, by general consent, done their work well, and brought to light a good deal of corruption, which, without their aid, would have escaped observation. Action, moreover, had, in more than one instance, been taken on their Reports in the shape of prosecutions instituted by Attorneys General and of Acts of dis By the Act of last Session, the Reports of the Judges, by whom election petitions were now tried, were substituted for those of the Committees; and he had before him the Report of the learned Judge who tried the Norwich petition, to which, he felt assured, the House would not attach less importance than they had hitherto been in the habit of attaching to the Report of a Committee. Formerly, he might add, it was the practice for the Chairman of the Committee to move for the appointment of a Commission, when it was deemed right that that course should be taken; but there were now no Chairmen of Committees to undertake that duty; and, as it might turn out that that which was nobody's business in particular might not be done at all, he hoped the House would be of opinion that he was not taking too much on himself in rising to move for the issue of a Commission in the present instance. Having said thus much, he would invite the attention of hon. Members to the Report of the learned Judge, who said "And I further report that corrupt practices did prevail at the said Election, and that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices did exof the nature stated in my special Report." tensively prevail at the same, and that they were Then came the special Report of the learned Judge; and he might, before more particularly referring to it, observe that the powers of the Judge were confined to inquiring into the existence of corrupt practices at one election, and into the existence of extensive corrupt practices to that degree which might be necessary to determine his judgment as to whether there was sufficient evidence to unseat the Member, so that, under those circumstances, it must not be supposed that his Report could dispose of the whole of the cases of corruption which might have occurred in the borough. In his special Report, the learned Judge went on to say "At the middle of the day of polling Sir William Russell and Mr. Tillett, the Liberal candidates, had a considerable majority, and there is no reason had been given on either side; but from thence to believe that up to this time any corrupt vote until the close of the poll I believe that bribery was extensively committed in order to procure the election of Sir Henry Josias Stracey. So far as the evidence went, the voters who were labourers for daily wages. These people did not bribed were of one class-namely, workmen or go to work that day, but collected in considerable into the sources from which the money so cor- places where corrupt practices had prevailed; and the petitioners therefore prayed the House to deal the same measure of justice to them as to other places, and not to cast a stigma on the honesty of 12,000 or 13,000 electors because of the corrupt practices of a few. He was not going to contend that Norwich had always been an immaculate city. In olden times a Liberal majority was purchased by the Liberals, and that was attempted to be overturned by Conservative money. This state of things reached its culminating point in 1859, when the gentlemen who had since succeeded in disfranchising Lancaster very nearly succeeded in disfranchising Norwich, and in consequence of the startling and disreputable disclosures then made both parties determined to turn over a new leaf, though undoubtedly there still remained a residuum of drunkenness and venality. At the recent election the heads of both parties declared that they would not in any way countenance any act of bribery; and it had been proved that, on the part of the Liberals, not 6d. was spent, and that up to two o'clock in the afternoon the Conservatives were equally free from bribery. By that time some 8,000 honest electors had recorded their votes, and then, no doubt, a few over-zealous and injudicious partizans did bribe to a limited extent; but there was no organized system. What was done was small in extent and insignificant in amount. The Attorney General MR. READ said, the constituency had overstated the case in some respects. which he represented embraced many Only one or two persons were reported of the leading citizens and men of in- to have received £1, none to have refluence in Norwich, and that must be, ceived 10s., but some had taken 7s. 6d. in part, his excuse for asking the House or 2s. 6d. It must be remembered that not to agree to the Motion of the hon. the Norwich trial was the first that took and learned Gentleman. He had just place under the new Act, hence a certain presented to the House a Petition signed harshness of procedure that was not by upwards of 2,900 magistrates, mer- practised elsewhere; and he believed. chants, manufacturers and tradesmen of that the law laid down with regard to all shades of politics in the city of agency was hardly the same as had been Norwich, and that must be a further subsequently laid down by the same excuse. The persons signing that Peti- learned Judge in the cases of Westmintion stated that corrupt practices pre-ster and Wigan Petitions. In regard to vailed at the last election only to a very the state of the poll at two o'clock, the slight extent, and were conducted by private persons entirely on their own responsibility; that only eight cases of bribery were proved, and that the amount given was small and at a late hour, negativing the idea of any preconcerted scheme of corruption; and, further, that new Writs had been already issued to facts were these that the Liberal committee only issued one return at ten o'clock, which claimed for them a majority of 600, but they afterwards owned that it was incorrect, and they issued no more. The Conservative returns showed a gradual diminution of the majority against Sir Henry Stracey after eleven |