{This is a transcript of the nine daily reports in The Times on the proceedings of the committee to determine a petition raised by members of the Liberal (Whig) party against the election of the Conservative (Tory) candidate in the Cambridge byelection of 20th March 1843}.

The Times, Thursday, May 18, 1843.


The select committee appointed to try the merits of the petition complaining of an undue return for this borough assembled yesterday morning at 11 o'clock; Sir W. Heathcote in the chair.

Mr. Kinglake[1] and Mr. Burcham appeared as counsel in support of the petition; and Messrs. Austin[2], Cockburn and Hildyard in opposition thereto.

The committee having come to the usual resolutions.

Mr. Kinglake proceeded to open the case on behalf of the petitioners, certain electors of the borough of Cambridge. The allegations of the petition were, that the late election and return were brought about by bribery and other corrupt practices. He inferred that the other side were prepared with evidence to resist and deny these allegations, but he should lay a mass of evidence before the committee so cogent and conclusive as to satisfy them that the late election could not stand. He thought the hon. member for Ipswich[3] was quite right in having such an array of counsel to defend him, for it would require all their skill and ingenuity to extricate him from the facts of corruption he should lay before the committee. He would briefly refer to the state of Cambridge at the last election. A vacancy took place suddenly by Sir Alexander Grant accepting the Chiltern Hundreds, and it was remarkable that the first person who announced that event was Mr. Fitzroy Kelly. On the Monday a new writ was issued. That very evening Mr. Kelly arrived in Cambridge, and the next morning the vacancy was announced. Certain gentlemen, amongst others a Mr. Bartlett, once a member of the University, and now a tutor in Cambridge, had previously gone to London and seen Mr. Kelly. On the Monday they came down to Cambridge with Mr. Kelly in his carriage. They drove to the Eagle. At the Eagle, as would be proved, Mr. Kelly's chief committee sat during the election. On the next morning Mr. Kelly and Mr. Bartlett went to the Red Lion Inn[4], where there was an assemblage of the electors, and in the presence of Mr. Kelly, Bartlett there addressed the electors. To this speech he wished to draw the attention of the committee; for, speaking of the way in which the election was to be conducted, Mr. Bartlett used these expressions:—"Much during the election will be done by good and much by bad, and the things to be done in the dark will not be less important than those which will be done in the light." This was certainly a strange declaration, and it might have been expected that Mr. Kelly would have been struck with the fact that Cambridge had been already sufficiently distinguished by impurity; that Long had but just come out of prison, where he had been expiating his former corrupt practices. He should also prove, that inducements were held out to electors to vote for Mr. Kelly both in his speeches and during his canvass. He should next come to the mode in which the elections was carried on. At the Eagle a committee was formed for managing the affairs of the election, and placards were distributed announcing that Mr. Kelly's committee sat daily at the Eagle. Amongst the members constituting that committee were Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Southey, a surgeon; Mr. Hazard, Mr. Payne, the gaoler; Mr. Austen, Mr. Bishop, and Mr. Naylor, a friend and associate of Mr. Kelly, a barrister on the Norfolk circuit, who left the assizes at Bedford for the purpose of assisting his friend in a mode neither politic nor correct. He should prove that Mr. Naylor was more than busy, and that he was constantly at the Eagle. During the election, certain persons were sent to the Eagle to receive employment as messengers, doorkeepers, &c. They went to the Eagle, were employed, and sent to the different parts of the town, which he should afterwards refer to. He begged to call the attention of the committee to a district celebrated in the annals of Cambridge, viz., Barnewell. Bad as the place was, it was rendered worse by the practices there carried on at the last election. A few days before the election, a beer-house, called the "Old English Gentleman," which had been for some time previously shut up, was opened by Mr. Southey, and was intrusted to the care of certain doorkeepers and messengers sent from the Eagle. This was the sink of iniquity in which Mr. Southey planned and carried on a system of corruption as complete as the mind of man could conceive. He had a room for himself down stairs, to which numerous persons were admitted, but orders were given to the doorkeepers to admit only one person at a time. Mr. Southey also associated himself with an association called the Mechanics' Conservative Association, and to them there was appropriated a room up stairs. Mr. Naylor was president of this society. There was also an association of members of the university, called the Pitt Club, of which Lord Nelson[5] was president. They also had a room at the Old English Gentleman. Mr. Southey also appointed subordinate committees, who were called watch committees. Their duty was to go about the town, by night, to watch what was going on. He should prove that there was a constant communication going on between Southey and those acting at the Eagle; also that, during the course of the election, Southey promised money to various parties. Between Friday, the 17th of March, and Monday, the 20th, when the election took place, Southey was at the Old English Gentleman by day and by night, and took all the management of the election. Bartlett and Naylor were also continually there, for what purpose it would be for the committee to judge. He should submit that, if he proved that Southey bribed certain electors, he was so implicated and mixed up with those who acted at the Eagle, that they must be taken to be cognizant of his acts. He should also call the attention of the committee to the acts of Mr. Bishop. The town-clerk called upon certain parties to enter into undertakings for the expenses. Mr. Bishop signed the undertaking on the part of Mr. Kelly. He went to the town-clerk for that purpose. He should be enabled to produce that undertaking. Mr. Bishop was continually in the company of Mr. Southey, taking part in the election. There was a committee-room in a place called Parker's piece. There Mr. Southey and Mr. Bishop were actively employed, and there Mr. Bishop ordered liquor to be given to the voters. Such was the general history of the proceedings at the election. He should call the attention of the committee to one or two cases. He would now call the attention of the committee to the case of a person called W. Wilderspin. He was canvassed by Mr. Naylor, Mr. Kelly, and some others, but objected to vote, observing he should lose a friend by voting; on which Mr. Kelly said, "If you lose one friend, you will gain two." This might be a mere electioneering phrase of the moment; but when they came to consider other remarks made in the course of the canvass, there seemed to be something suspicious even in an observation of that sort. Wilderspin was pressed for an explanation why he would not vote, and he stated that he owed 7l. 10s. for three-quarters' rent, and refused to promise. Mr. Kelly, Mr. Naylor, and the others then went away, but afterwards a man of the name of Newbury, whom he should prove to be one of the messengers employed between the Eagle Inn and the Old English Gentleman, and who was also a workman of Bishop's, whom he had mentioned as the agent of Mr. Kelly, went again to Wilderspin and asked him why he would not vote, and he repeated that he owed 7l. 10s., and should not vote. He was then directed to go to the Old English Gentleman, and there he saw Mr. Southey, and, taking for granted that Mr. Southey knew his errand, he said "I suppose you know what I am come about?" "Oh, yes," was the reply, and after a time Mr. Southey told him that "all should be right". On Monday, the day of polling, Wilderspin went again in search of Mr. Southey; but, not finding him, he proceeded to the Elephant and Castle[6], and there he saw Mr. Naylor and a Mr. Scott. The latter took him aside and talked to him about his vote, and then some communication took place between Scott and Naylor, and the man went away expecting the money to be paid before he polled. Like many men, who waited till the last moment before they voted, Wilderspin went to the poll only a few minutes before 4 o'clock. He tendered his vote, but was required to take the bribery oath[7], and in the meantime the fatal hour of 4 struck, and his vote was not recorded. On the Tuesday he went to Mr. Southey, and reminded him of his promise that "all should be right." Mr. Southey indulged in strong expressions respecting the "glorious victory" which had been achieved, and said, "You may send to me, and I will let you have a few pounds." The man applied again to Mr. Southey, who gave him 1l., saying "he would lend him the money." Next came a curious part of the transaction. Mr. Southey, having carried on this sort of bargain with the man, instructed an attorney, as soon as a petition against the return was presented, to write to Wilderspin, threatening him with legal proceeding unless the pound, together with 3s. 6d. costs, were paid on the following day. This was the miserable stratagem had recourse to by the immaculate Mr. Southey, as soon as he found that a petition was presented and that the man was likely to give information with respect to the transaction; but if Mr. Southey was guilty of the proceedings which he was instructed to bring before that committee, Mr. Southey might find that the law was able to reach him. He would now pass to the case of Smithers, an innkeeper, who was canvassed by Mr. Kelly and Mr. Naylor. It appeared that Smithers had, at some previous municipal election, let out part of his house as a committee room, for which between 18l. and 19l. was due to him. Mr. Naylor appeared to be mixed up with the proceeding, and had paid Smithers some portion of the money—namely, 5l. 7s., leaving 13l. 1s. 9d. due. When canvassed for his vote by Mr. Kelly and Mr. Naylor, Smithers told them he should not vote until the money due to him was paid. On the day of polling, and at 2 o'clock, when it was found necessary to make some impression on the poll, Mr. Southey and another gentleman, a fellow-commoner at the university, made their appearance at Smithers's. They promised to pay him the 13l. 1s. 9d., and having actually received the money, Smithers then went to the poll, and from the period of 2 o'clock Mr. Foster's majority wasted away. He would now mention the case of William Brooks and James Shedd, who were both stated to be bribed by persons of the names of Thomas Sterne and John Goldsmith, and if the committee were convinced they were so bribed, he should have no difficulty in showing that Sterne and Goldsmith were but the emissaries of Mr. Southey. Goldsmith was one of the messengers, and Sterne was constantly at the Old English Gentleman, and in communication with Mr. Southey. He was instructed to prove that Sterne and Goldsmith went to Brooks' house (Brooks and Shedd having been previously communicated with on the subject of their votes), and Sterne produced a handful of sovereigns, making use of this remarkable expression, fascinating to poor voters, "Here is the ochre;" meaning, he supposed, the yellow ochre with which these men's consciences were to be gilded. He took the man Brooks into a cellar, and Brooks was overheard grumbling about the money, as he received only 10l., having expected that he and Shedd would receive 10l. each, and he came out afterwards and exhibited the money. This was the general outline of the case as far as Mr. Southey was concerned, but he should connect him with a vast number of transactions. He should now advert to a person of the name of William Gilbert, a butcher in Cambridge. Between the Friday and Monday he was busy among the voters; he was at the Old English Gentleman, seeing Mr. Southey, and he got hold of a certain number of voters at the King's Arms[8] public house, and he believed that he should be able to satisfy the committee that Gilbert bribed those voters. Gilbert had been searched for, but in vain, for more than a fortnight, for the purpose of being served with a warrant, and it was only at the last moment he made his appearance, and now pretended to be too unwell to attend the committee, and intended to forward a medical certificate to that effect. It was for the committee to say whether they could draw any other conclusion but that he must have some cogent reason for absenting himself. The transaction between Gilbert and a certain number of voters had taken place at a public-house kept by a man of the name of Humm. [Mr. Cockburn—"It's all hum." (Laughter)] He wished it was, but Gilbert and Humm, both of whom knew what the transaction was—the one flies away, and the other could not be found. Where, too, was Mr. Bartlett—he who went into Cambridge with Mr. Kelly, who canvassed with him, who was constantly at the Old English Gentleman associated with Mr. Southey—where was he, when his presence before the committee was needed? "Echo answers 'where'!" He had fled. What inference was to be drawn from such conduct? Was it the conduct of parties who felt that they could come into court innocent? He had shown that Messrs Southey, Bishop, and Bartlett were mixed up with these election proceedings. It also appeared that a Mr. Swan, of Cambridge, made an application to George Smith, a chimneysweeper for his vote. He seems to have been rather reluctant, and what means were had recourse to in order to bring him to the poll? The committee would hardly imagine. They produced a sort of Treasury warrant for his vote. A letter was written to him. The seal did not, he believed, prove to be altogether authentic, for it appeared to have the impression of Mr. Swan's thumb, but the document was given to Smith to compel him to vote, and was as follows:—

"London, March 17, 1843.

"George Smith.—There is an election now coming on for a member of Parliament for Cambridge, and Mr. Swan writes to me, that on applying to you for your vote for Mr. Kelly he had met with a refusal. When I recollect what occurred before on a similar occasion, the regret which you afterwards expressed to me for your conduct at that time, and the manner in which I was at length induced to overlook it, I feel both surprised and hurt. I hope you will reconsider your answer. You now have an opportunity for retrieving yourself, and I request you will go to Mr. Swan, without loss of time, and state to him that it is your intention to vote for Mr. Kelly, and that after you have made this promise you will stand true to it. If you hesitate about doing this you need never expect to hear from me again.

"A. Pringle"

And "A. Pringle" was the name of one of Her Majesty's Lords of the Treasury[9]. Whether this was an authentic letter it was not for him to say; but George Smith, who received it from Mr. Swan, believed it to be genuine and authentic, and the language of the letter certainly appeared to be the language of an educated man, and of one applying the screw for the purpose of getting a vote. Having given a specimen of the means by which the Cambridge election was decided, he would next call the committee's attention to some intrinsic evidence, showing that the result was brought about by some such means as he had alluded to. The constituency of Cambridge amounted to about 1,900, and out of this number 714 polled for Mr. Kelly, and 681 for Mr. Foster. But let the committee look at the progress of the poll. At 11 o'clock in the day there was a majority of 68 for Mr. Foster; and at 1 o'clock a majority of 64 for the same gentleman. At 2 o'clock there was a majority of 49 for Mr. Foster; between 2 and 4 o'clock the tide seemed to have turned somehow or other, and gentleman conversant with elections, particularly borough elections, knew that there was something very suspicious in the fact of the poll turning in such a manner, and that a borough election fairly fought was won or lost before that hour. Mr. Foster had a majority of 49 at 2 o'clock, but repeated strides were made upon him after that hour, and at 4 o'clock Mr. Kelly had a majority of 33. How was this majority obtained? By the means he had alluded to. It was also his intention to prove that several public-houses were opened, and that treating went on. The question to be decided by the committee divided itself into two. The first was a question of fact—whether bribery had been committed at all; and he apprehended he should have no difficulty in establishing that fact. The next question was—whether Mr. Kelly was to be responsible for the bribery; and this would depend not on the bribery being committed by Mr. Kelly (for he did not charge Mr. Kelly with personal bribery), but on its being committed by persons who were his agents. He did not know whether any struggle would be made in that committee as to the question whether an hon. member guilty of bribery by means of his agents could be deprived of his seat. The old law on this point was the same as the present law, as far as it was to be collected from all the decisions of committees. There was the Nottingham case[10], in which his learned friend (Mr. Austin) had contended at great length, that an hon. member could not be made responsible, to the extent of losing his seat, for bribery committed by his agent, and he called upon the Nottingham committee to lay down the law for the guidance of future committees. His learned friend said, the time had arrived when it was expected that the law should be well settled by that committee, in which the public had full confidence. That committee was presided over by the hon. member for Beverley[11], with respect to whom it was perfectly unnecessary on his part to apply every expression that was due to intelligence and honesty. Notwithstanding his learned friend's appeal, the committee came to a decision, which he (Mr. Kinglake) held to be sound, and determined that Mr. Walter was guilty of bribery by means of his agents, though he had no personal knowledge of or consent in the same. The committee thereby laid down the law precisely the same as it stood prior to the act of Victoria[12],—that a member might lose his seat for bribery committed by his agent, though committed without his knowledge or consent, on this simple and plain ground—that if a person appointed others to act for him in an election, or took advantage of the acts of others, allowing them to interfere with his knowledge and consent, he should be fixed with the consequences. Since the passing of the act in question, committees were called on to make a report as to whether the bribery, when proved, was committed with the knowledge of the member, and this had raised a dispute as to whether the old law was altered; but numerous committees had decided that the law was unaltered; and it appeared that this provision had been introduced for the purpose of enabling the House of Commons to take special measures against any member who was found guilty of bribery with his full knowledge and consent. The learned counsel referred to the decisions of two or three committees, and observed that the decisions since the passing of the act of Victoria all showed that a member might be deprived of his seat by reason of bribery which was proved to have been committed by his agents, though the member himself in no way knew or consented thereto. He apprehended that his learned friend would be hardly able to raise this question again before the present committee; and if it should appear that bribery was committed at the election for Cambridge, and that the persons committing it were connected by means of agency with Mr. Kelly—if they were carrying on the election for him—if they were brought in contact with him through canvassing and through being his committee, and he was aware that they were carrying on the election for him; and if the election were carried through their improper practices—then, under these circumstances, Mr. Kelly was bound by their acts. Therefore, unless the present committee altered the old law, which had been confirmed by the decisions of recent committees, they would, if he proved that bribery had been committed at the election for Cambridge by the agents of Mr. Kelly who managed his election, declare that the gentleman was not duly elected for Cambridge.

On Mr. Kinglake proposing to hand in a list of the voters whom he intended to prove had received bribes, and also of the persons bribing them,

Mr. Cockburn objected to the list being received, on the ground that it did not contain sufficient information to enable him to prepare a defence. It ought to contain all particulars as to the time when, and the place where, such bribing took place; and the trusted the committee would alter their resolutions if they did not meet the case.

Mr. Kinglake submitted that Mr. Cockburn was too late in his objection, Mr. Austin having assented to the resolutions; and he further urged that the resolutions had been originally prepared by the chairmen's committee, and were in accordance with the the resolutions of the Ipswich, Sudbury, Southampton, Nottingham, and other committees.

Mr. Cockburn, in reply, urged that this was a proceeding in the nature of an indictment, and that a judge would require a counsel in opening his case to enter into the particulars which he meant to prove.

The Committee decided that they would not alter their resolution; and that counsel for the petitioners might go into evidence to prove any case of bribery, provided the names of the party offering and the party receiving the bribe were specified in the list given in.

Thomas Stevenson examined by Mr. Burcham.—I was mayor and returning-officer at the last election. I received the precept on the 14th of March, the nomination took place on the 18th, and the election on the 20th. I received the poll-books sealed from the town-clerk on the morning of Tuesday, the 21st. I accompanied him with them to his office, and saw them locked up. They were in the same condition as when I received them. I received an undertaking from Mr. Bishop on the part of Mr. Kelly. Mr. Bishop met Mr. Harris and Mr. E. Foster, jun., by appointment at my house. The poll-books are in the custody of the town-clerk.

Charles Pestril Harris, examined by Mr. Kinglake.—I was town-clerk of Cambridge at the last election. I produce the poll-books. I received them from the poll-clerks on the evening the poll closed. I have kept them ever since. The final state of the poll was for Kelly, 713; for R. Foster, 680. I find the name, William Wilderspin, 904 in the poll-book. "B.O." is against his name, which means he was sent to the mayor's booth to have the bribery oath administered. I do not find the vote recorded. I put in the register. There are 1,904 names, including the double entries, removals, and dead persons. I applied on the 15th or 16th of March to the chairman of each committee requesting a meeting to arrange about the hustings. I sent the one to Mr. Kelly's chairman at the Eagle, and to Mr. Foster's at the Hoop.[13] Mr. William Bishop came on behalf of Mr. Kelly, and Mr. H. H. Harris and Mr. E Foster on behalf of Mr. Foster, to the mayor's house. Directions were given about the hustings by Mr. Bishop on the one side, and by Mr. Harris and Mr. Foster on the other. I drew up a memorandum, which I produce. I showed it to Mr. Bishop and he signed it. Mr. Harris also signed it. The hustings were erected. Mr. Kelly used them.

Mr. Austin objected to the memorandum being received, and Mr. Bishop had not been connected with Mr. Kelly by Mr. Kinglake in his opening speech or by evidence.

Mr. Kinglake urged that the town-clerk, in the discharge of his duty, made a communication to the chairman of Mr. Kelly's committee with regard to the erection of hustings, and Mr. Bishop having attended at the mayor's house on behalf of Mr. Kelly's committee, and having signed a memorandum authorizing the erection of hustings, he was entitled to read the memorandum.

Mr. Austin submitted that Mr. Kelly had not authorized Mr. Bishop to act for him in the erection of hustings, nor had he adopted his acts.

The Committee decided that the evidence hitherto given was not sufficient to let in the paper.

The examination of Mr. Harris was then proceeded with.—I was at the Eagle during the election, but not on election matters. I saw Mr. Kelly a day or two before the nomination in the street. He came across from the entrance to the Eagle. Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Kelly were together at the door of the Eagle. I had no talk with him about the hustings nor about the election. After the election I made out a bill for the hustings, the whole amount was 108l. I sent a copy to the chairman of each of the committees. I have been paid half of it by Mr. Foster's committee. I have not received the other half.

The Speaker was then announced to be at prayers, and the committee adjourned until 11 o'clock this day.

The Times, Friday, May 19, 1843.



This committee reassembled yesterday morning at 11 o'clock; Sir W. Heathcote, Bart., in the chair.

The examination of C. P. Harris was resumed by Mr. Kinglake. It was proposed at the meeting at the mayor's house that Mr. Kelly should be first nominated. Mr. Bishop made the proposition, but the matter was left open. The mayor ordered checkbooks to be prepared; each candidate was to have seven. Bishop was present when it was so arranged. I prepared the checkbooks. Some one from each committee-room fetched them away Mr. Kelly was proposed first, to the best of my recollection.

Mr. Kinglake proposed to read the memorandum mentioned yesterday with a different object in view from that he entertained yesterday. He then wished to read it, because Mr. Bishop therein described himself as agent of Mr. Kelly. He now wished to read it to prove one of a series of acts on the part of Mr. Bishop, from which he should ask the committee to infer that he was the agent of Mr. Kelly. In no case could agency be proved if it was necessary in the first instance to prove previous authority before proving acts from which agency was to be inferred, nor could subsequent recognition by the principal ever be proved, unless the acts done were first proved. It was true that committees had refused to allow an act of bribery to be proved in order thence to infer agency; and the reason was this, that an act of bribery was an illegal act. But, in the present case, the acts sought to be proved were innocent and legal acts, and might fairly be proved to establish agency; and this view was supported by the Dunfermline case, 1 Peckwell 13; and the Hertford case, Perry and Knapp, 554, in which a most learned counsel (Mr. Harrison) admitted, that only criminal acts were excluded from being given in evidence to prove agency. The erection of hustings was an act done, and if he had a right to prove, as he undoubtedly had, a verbal declaration connected with that act, he had a right to prove a written agreement connected with that act. In the Nottingham case precisely the same question arose, and the undertaking given by the agents of the candidates was read. He did not wish to fix Mr. Kelly with the agency of Mr. Bishop by reason of the declaration contained in the memorandum, but he submitted that the document must be read as connected with with one of a series of acts done, from which agency might be proved.

Mr. Austin complained that this discussion had been renewed, as no fresh evidence tending to prove agency had been adduced. Before the late statute, no evidence could be given before agency had been proved, and the only alteration made by that act was where an act of bribery was alleged, in which case evidence might be given before agency was proved. But no act of bribery was proposed to be proved in the present instance; therefore, the case must be decided by the ordinary rules of law, and the rule of law was that no act, no declaration, no proceeding of any one individual could be given in evidence to affect another, unless the authority of that other was first proved to have been given, or he had afterwards adopted the act. It had been laid down by Mr. Justice Buller, in the Cricklade case, that no man could make himself an agent for another who did not employ him. If the declaration of a supposed agent was admitted, any man might make himself agent for another. The erection of hustings was a distinct act done, and might be proved aliunde, but no conversation, no writing of Mr. Bishop's, could be given in evidence without first proving that authority had been given him so to do. In the Nottingham case, acting in the exercise of his discretion as counsel, he did not object to the production of a similar paper, but the course a counsel chose to pursue in any particular case was not to conclude or determine a rule of law. The Nottingham Committee did not decide this question, as it was never raised before them. No new evidence had been given to connect Mr. Kelly with the erection of hustings. The committee had decided the day before, on that ground, that the paper could not be given in evidence; he trusted they would not be blown about from day to day, but would abide by their decision.

The room was then cleared, and the committee decided that the document should be read.

The paper was then put in and read. It purported to be an agreement between the agents of the two candidates as to hustings, check clerks, &c., and was signed by Mr. Bishop as Mr. Kelly's agent.

Edward Anderson, examined by Mr. Burcham.—I am a coachman. I remember Sunday, March 12. I drove the Wisbeach mail on that day. I stopped at the King's Head at Cambridge about 12 at night. I saw Mr. Bartlett there. The Harwich down coach came from London whilst I was there. Mr. Bartlett was wrapped up. He was at the bar of the inn. I then drove the coach to London. I drove it back again on Monday, the 13th. We left the Golden Cross at half past 9 in the evening. Mr. Bartlett was on the box. I got down at the Belle Sauvage. When I came back Mr. Hurley was on the coach talking to Mr. Bartlett. He got down at the Flowerpot, Bishopsgate-street. I then drove to the Shoreditch railway terminus. Mr. Bartlett gave me a carpet-bag at the Golden Cross. It was very heavy; it might weigh 60lb. or 70lb.[14] At the station I saw Mr. Bartlett walking with a gentleman. I afterwards saw him at Cambridge. It was Mr. Kelly. At Bishop's Stortford I got my coach off the train[15] and saw Mr. Bartlett there. He did not go on to Cambridge on my coach. I saw him get into a carriage about 200 yards from the terminus. Mr. Bartlett told me to give the carpet bag to Mr. Kelly's servant. I gave it to a gentleman's servant. I saw him afterwards in Barnewell with the same carriage. I saw Mr. Bartlett at Cambridge a little after I got there. I saw Mr. Bartlett at the King's Head several times. I never saw Mr. Kelly in that carriage.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cockburn.—I know Mr. Bartlett well; he is a Master of Arts and private tutor. I was to take great care of the carpet bag, and I took it into the coach when I got on the train. Mr. Bartlett paid the full inside fare to Cambridge.

Thomas Hurley, examined by Mr. Kinglake.—I am a law-stationer at Cambridge and voter for the borough. I was in London on the 13th of March. I saw Mr. Bartlett on the Rapid coach on Ludgate-hill. I got on the coach and went to the Flowerpot, where I got off. I went to Cambridge the next day. I saw Mr. Bartlett the day after at the Red Bull. I made an appointment to meet him at Mr. Mitchell's, at the Red Lion. He told me he would try to get me employment at the election. When I got there he told me he could not, as I was a voter. Instead of the Red Lion I meant the Eagle, where I met Bartlett. There were placards on the Eagle wall to this effect:—"Mr. Kelly's committee sits daily at the Eagle Hotel." I know Mr. Southey very well. He is a surgeon. I saw him the day after I arrived at Cambridge; he was on horseback. I was with a person who stopped Southey, and said he had a voter. Southey said he (meaning me) might as well be d—d as vote against Foster. I said that was not his business. After his conversation I went to the Old English Gentleman, about 12 o'clock on Friday or Saturday night. I saw two men of the name of Flindell, also Austen and Southey. The Flindells were preventing the people from going in. They prevented me. I saw Mr. Southey sitting in the room. There were other persons there. I then went away. I went there again on the morning of the election. I know Samuel Long. He had been in the town gaol. I had seen him there about two months before the election. I saw him in the town on the polling-day. He asked me whom I was going to vote for? He said he could put a little money in my way.

Mr. Cockburn here interposed, and objected, as this case of bribery was not opened by his learned friend in his speech nor contained in the list given in by him.

Mr. Kinglake said he was not going to prove any act of bribery relating to this witness, but he wished to put the committee in possession of the way in which the election was carried on; and referred to the words of the late statute, wherein is is stated that "the committee shall receive evidence on the whole matter whereon it is alleged that bribery was committed." Mr. Southey did not stand alone; there were a number of emissaries in all parts of the town, one of whom attempted to bribe the witness. It was the duty of the committee to receive evidence on the whole matter and system of corruption by which the election was carried.

Mr. Cockburn contended, that the resolution of the committee precluded his learned friend from going into evidence as to vague and general cases of bribery, but tied him down to specific cases mentioned by him in his opening.

The Committee decided, that counsel might proceed with his examination of the witness, relying on his assurance that it was not with the object of proving a case of bribery with regard to Thomas Hurley, whose name was not mentioned in his opening speech.

The examination of Thomas Hurley continued.—I went with Long to the "Old English Gentleman." Long went in and came back saying, "Mr. Southey is not there, let us go to his house." We went. Long told me to remain outside while he went in. He came out in a few minutes, and said that Southey was not at home, but added, "Don't vote till I see you again." He said he would see that I had some money, and, pulling out several sovereigns, offered me one as an earnest.

A discussion again took place as to the line of examination adopted by Mr. Kinglake; the room was cleared, and

The Committee decided, that counsel might proceed with the examination of the witness, but only with the view of its bearing upon some particular case of bribery of which notice had been given.

The Committee then adjourned until 11 o'clock this day.

The Times, Saturday, May 20, 1843.


Third Day.

This committee re-assembled yesterday morning at 11 o'clock; Sir W. Heathcote in the chair.

Mr. Kinglake said, that before proceeding with the examination of the witness Hurley, he wished to ask the Committee whether the questions he proposed to put to him were within the rule they had laid down the day before. He proposed to prove that the witness was canvassed by Scott, Long, and Goldsmith; that these men were connected with the Old English Gentleman; that one of them who offered the witness a bribe was the same man that offered Wilderspin a bribe.

After some conversation, it was arranged that the case of Wilderspin should be gone into first.

The examination of Thomas Hurley resumed by Mr. Kinglake.—I was canvassed by Mr. Kelly personally at my own home on the Saturday. Mr. Julian Laurence was with him, and, I think, Mr. Naylor. I saw Mr. Kelly canvassing about the town. I have seen Mr. Bartlett since the election. I was asked by John Goldsmith to vote for Mr. Kelly.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hildyard.—I last saw Mr. Bartlett about three weeks ago. I was served with the Speaker's warrant on the 13th of this month. I was once clerk to Mr. E. Foster, a solicitor, a relation of the candidate. I left him about 12 months ago to set up for myself as a law stationer. No one communicated with me yesterday after I left the room. Several persons spoke to me, but not about the election; Mr. Coppock's clerk told me to go into a little room outside. I did not go into any room where Robert Goldsmith was. A person named Aveline was in the room with me. The room Goldsmith was in communicated with that in which I was. I did get my head into the door of the Old English Gentleman, it was between 12 and 1 o'clock in the morning. Mr. Southey was there, he was sitting to the right of the door of the room into which I put my head. It was the outer street door through which I looked, it opened into the room. I think the table was in the middle of the room; there seemed to be no passage. I was not employed by Mr. Foster's party to go out as a spy, or in any other capacity. Before I went to the Old English Gentleman, I came last from the George the Fourth[16]. I was never at the committee-room of Mr. Foster. I have been at the Hoop. I was there in the middle of the day, before I went to the Old English Gentleman. Long said he would make it right with me when he pulled out the sovereigns. I said very well. He said he would see me in the after part of the day. I told him I would not take the sovereign, it would not do for me. He did not ask how much would do for me, nor did I tell him. I said I would see him again before I voted. I did not see him again.

Re-examined by Mr. Kinglake.—I saw John Goldsmith after I had seen Long; I also saw Scott. When I last saw Mr. Bartlett, he was going by the name of Taylor. He told me to call on him at the oyster-shop next the Adelphi Theatre. Mr. Coppock's clerk told me to go into the little room, and not speak to any one.

William Wilderspin, examined by Mr. Kinglake.—I am a shoemaker, and voter for the borough of Cambridge, The last election was the first time I was entitled to vote. I am a tenant of Thomas Frohock. I was canvassed by Mr. Kelly and Mr. Naylor, and three other gentlemen, on the 16th of March; they came into my house. Mr. Kelly said he had come to solicit my vote. I said, "I do not think of voting at all." He said, "Why not?" I said "I may injure myself." "Oh," he said, "if you lose one friend, you will gain two." I said, "I doubt it." He said, "Will you promise not to vote against me?" I said I would not promise. He said, "I think I have seen you before in Court." I said, "I think not; I very seldom go there." I said, "I am in a great hurry, I shan't make any promise about my vote." He then went out. I was three quarters' rent behind at Lady-day, it amounted to 7l. 10s. Mr. Naylor, I believe, had a book. Some one nudged Mr. Naylor's elbow, and a mark was made in it. I went to the Old English Gentleman on Saturday night, between 10 and 11 o'clock. I saw Mr. Southey there. The door was shut when I went there. A man of the name of Smith took me there; he is called Gypsy Smith. He took me into the house. I saw Mr. Southey at the table writing. There was also a man called Taylor there. There was the register of voters on the table, and a slip of paper, on which Southey was writing. He told me to sit down, and said we will have a glass of ale in a few minutes, there is a deal of writing to do in this business. After a few minutes he came over to me and said, "Well, old fellow, you intend voting for Mr. Kelly?" I said, "If I can; I suppose you know how I am situated." He said, "Yes, what is it?" I said "Three quarters come Lady-day." He said, "That shall be all right; give me your hand, I will give you my honour." We made that exchange. He said, "You be here on Monday morning, it shall be all right." I said, "I thought we were going to have a glass of ale." He said he had not any in the house. On Monday morning I went to the Old English Gentleman. There were three or four persons in attendance at the door; Flindell was one of them, and his son. I was shown into a room where there were several person, all strangers except Austen, a tailor. I inquired for Southey; they said he would be there in a few minutes, and asked me to go into a small room nearer the door. I went, Austen showing me the way. I was asked to have a glass of sherry; I said "I don't mind; I have not had any for ten years." I had some. I waited an hour for Mr. Southey. I was asked if I would have a fly and go to the hustings; this was by a man named Bridgeman. I refused, and said I would walk. I had some ribands given me. I left the house with Bridgeman, Austen, and another. We went to the Elephant and Castle. On the way we went into Bridgeman's house, and I had some brandy. At the Elephant and Castle I saw Scott and two or three others whom I did not know. I asked Scott if Mr. Southey was there; he said he was gone away. I had some ale. Mr. Naylor came in, and asked if I would have a fly to go to the poll. I declined. I went part of the way to the hustings with Austen and Naylor. When I got to the corner of Burleigh-street I said I would go home first. When I got into Burleigh-street I was taken from Naylor and Bridgeman by some of other party. They left me at my own house. I was fetched again to the Elephant and Castle. Scott was there; he asked why I did not go to the poll? I said I wanted to see Mr. Southey. He took me into a little back room, gave me some ale, and asked me the difficulty. I told him about the rent. He asked how much it was. I told him. He then went to the door, and had some conversation with Mr. Naylor. He came back, and said go and poll, and see me at 8 o'clock, and it shall be all right. I said I should like to see Mr. Southey first. Mr. Jaler came in, and asked me to go and vote. I started with Jaler to go to the hustings. When I got there I tendered my vote for Mr. Kelly. The check-clerk objected. I was then taken to the Mayor's booth; before he examined me 4 o'clock came and the poll was closed; I then went home. On the Tuesday I saw Mr. Southey at his house. He said, good morning, a glorious victory! I suppose you have called about what we were speaking of the other evening. I said, yes. He said, he had not yet got proper returns; I do not know what to do at present; write to me in the course of a week or 10 days for a few pounds; don't mention any sum; it shall be brought to your house; don't ask any questions; the person who brings it won't know. I called the next day. He said "I am going to dinner, I can't speak to you now; call again in half an hour." I did so. He said he had not got the returns yet. I said I was a poor man, and had done nothing all the week, and should be much obliged if he could do something for me. He said he would let me have a sovereign, which I took. He said, "I am not going to do things in a boyish kind of way." I sent a note to his house some time after. I saw it left. I did not see him again. I afterwards received this letter, now produced. It came by post. I have not been paid the money then demanded. I received another letter on the Monday after. It was the latter end of April when I received the letter. I had heard there was going to be a petition.

Cross-examined, by Mr. Austin.—When I was canvassed by Mr. Kelly I was not alone. Mr. Kelly and his friends stayed about five minutes. I will not state on my oath that it was Mr. Naylor who had the book. My landlord voted for Mr. Foster. I did not know his politics until I saw the poll-book. A canvassing card of Mr. Foster's was left at my house on the Thursday. When I saw Scott at the Elephant and Castle I said, if I offend my landlord, he may do something. I did not say I wish to vote for Mr. Kelly, but I am afraid my landlord will sell me up if I do. I did not know my landlord was a Whig. I believed he was. I had heard say he was a Whig. I had no doubt about it. I did not mean to take the bribery oath. I meant to vote when I went to the booth. I knew there would be an oath put to me at the Mayor's booth. I have no doubt it was the bribery oath, but I did not know. There was a card given to the messenger when I was sent to the Mayor's booth. I did not hear the objection made to my vote. I sent the letter to Mr. Southey by a little boy. I do not know his name. Daniel Thurston wrote the letter. It was not a trick of his. I met Thomas Thurston in the street, as I was going to Southey's; he waited for me while I went in to Mr. Southey's by arrangement. I was at Thomas Thurston's on the Wednesday. Daniel wrote the letter in Thomas Thurston's parlour. It was a week after I went to Southey's. Daniel is the son of Thomas Thurston. I saw Mr. George Levitt on the Tuesday evening of the election week in Mr. Thurston's parlour. George Wallace Brown was there. Mr. Levitt is a friend of Mr. Foster's. The Thurstons were friend of Mr. Foster. I saw no one else that week. Half a year's rent is still due. I paid one quarter's rent on Lady-day. My wife earned it by washing. I saw Mr. Ganning about the election. I do not know who paid my coach-hire to London. I had two sovereigns with the subpœna given me by R. Goldsmith. I did not pay my coach-hire, nor have I paid any bills in London. I am living with the witnesses at No. 5, Little Smith-street. I expect to have to pay my expenses. I was once an under porter at Trinity. I was turned away ten years ago last July. I do not recollect a gold watch belonging to a Mr. Ponsonby. I did not steal it. I was turned away, because I was charged with being absent from my post one Sunday evening. I had to keep a gate closed, leading from the cloisters. I was only absent a minute on necessity. I know Mr. Adcock. I made a statement to him of my conduct in the election. I never told him that I had not received any money. He asked me to tell him all the circumstances. I did not tell him a word of what I had stated to-day.

James Aveling, examined by Mr. Burcham.—I am a cabinet-maker. I was living in Blucher-row at the last election. I was in Flindell's employment. The Old English Gentleman is about 30 yards from my house. I know Payne, the late gaoler; he came to Joseph Flindell's house the Friday before the election. In consequence of what he said I went to the Old English Gentleman. I got into the house the back way, over a wall. I received a bunch of keys from Mr. Flindell. I found one to open the front door. I let in Mr. Payne. I took down the shutter. While I was cleaning the place Dr. Southey came. He asked how we got in. I told him. He gave me some keys, and told me to keep them, and not let any one have them. In consequence of his directions, I procured pen, ink, paper, candles, &c. Tables, chairs, fire-irons, &c., were brought into the house in the afternoon. Mr. Grey supplied them. In the course of the afternoon, Mr. Austen, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Robinson came, and Mr. Naylor in the evening. Mr. Sterne was also there. There are three rooms on the ground-floor, and four upstairs; one room upstairs was set apart for members of the university, the large room downstairs was appropriated to the general committee, and a small room was appropriated to Mr. Southey. I saw Lord Nelson there, and other members of the University; they came about 9 o'clock in the evening, and stayed until 1 o'clock in the morning. Mr. Southey remained the same time. This was on the Friday. On the Saturday, Mr. Southey came about 10 o'clock. I saw Brown, and Austen, and Naylor there on that day. I also saw Bartlett there, and Payne and Robinson. Mr. Southey stayed about an hour; he was engaged in writing. Mr. Southey came in again in the afternoon, and stayed a short time, and again in the evening about 7 o'clock. He then stopped till between 11 and 12 o'clock. That evening Wilderspin came; he asked for Mr. Southey. Joseph Flindell and myself acted as doorkeepers. Wilderspin was shown into the large room, where Mr. Southey was, and one other person. There were members of the University there on the Saturday smoking and drinking. Some had their caps and gowns on and thick sticks. They were watch committees. Some had false whiskers and moustachios, and one had his face blackened. They stopped until 12 o'clock. Southey went away a little after. Mr. Payne and Mr. Robert Hedley remained there. I went home on Sunday morning, and went to bed. I returned in the afternoon, and found Mr. Southey there, and Brown, Austen, Robinson and Sterne. There were no University men there that afternoon. I saw a Mr. Hazard there. Wine, brandy, and gin were brought there on the Sunday evening. It was drunk there. Many University men were there on the Sunday evening. I know John Goldsmith. I saw him at the Old English Gentleman on the Sunday evening. and several other times he was with Mr. Southey in the little room. I know Samuel Long; he was often at the Old English Gentleman. Mr. Southey was in the room with him. It was the large room. I only saw Mr. Naylor there once, Mr. Bartlett several times. Six University men stoped all the Sunday night. On the Monday morning Mr. Southey came about 8 o'clock. Wilderspin came between 6 and 7 in the morning to see Mr. Southey. About 1 o'clock Mr. Brown came and asked if I had seen Long. Brown came again and asked to see Long, saying he had got two voters. I know a woman named Newman in Blucher-row. From Friday to Monday about 40 or 50 persons came to the Old English Gentleman. Those who inquired for Mr. Southey were shown into the little room one at a time, and Mr. Southey went to them. There were watchmen appointed in different districts. Mr. Southey was most active, and after him Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Payne was also active. On the Monday week I went to the Rose and Crown. I saw Mr. Payne, Mr. Southey, Robinson, Austen, Sterne, and Brown. Mr. Southey was paying the watchmen. I was not paid then. I went there three times, and he said he had not got the money from London. The last time Mr. Southey said he had a charge against me of going to the Star and Garter[17]. I denied it. I have never been paid. Mr. Southey told me when he got the money he would pay me well. I know John Goldsmith. I saw him outside this door this morning.

Mr. Cockburn objected, as it had nothing to do with the charge against the sitting member, and was intended to prejudice the minds of the committee.

Mr. Kinglake said he had to make a distinct charge against John Goldsmith of threatening the witness in case he went into the room and gave his evidence, and he claimed the protection of the committee for this and the other witnesses.

It was arranged that the charge should be deferred until after the cross-examination of the witness.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cockburn.—I left Cambridge about the 20th of April. I now live in Evangelist-court, Doctors' Commons. I went to Ratcliffe Highway when I first came to town. I work for Mr. Clark, 42, Poultry. I left Cambridge because I had not sufficient work. I did not say I had important communications to make. A note was left for me directing me to go to Exeter-hall Hotel. I went and was served with a warrant. I saw Mr. Coppock there, and told him what I knew. This was a week after I left Cambridge. I have received no money, nor do I expect any, for coming here. I told Mr. Adcock and another gentleman I had not seen Mr. Coppock. I thought they came to trap me. The watch committee were to look after the watchmen. I do not know what the watchmen were to do. I do not think any persons were at the Old English Gentleman on the Saturday between the time Mr. Southey came in the morning and the time he came in the afternoon, but the members of the Conservative association. I only saw John Goldsmith twice at the Old English Gentleman. I saw Mr. Bartlett there but twice, the first time for about 10 minutes. I said Mr. Bartlett took the most active part next to Mr. Southey because a number of persons came to inquire for him. I have mentioned that Mr. Southey did not pay me. Several others were in the same predicament.

Re-examined by Mr. Kinglake.—The persons who were waiting to be paid at the Rose and Crown were principally those who had been employed at the Old English Gentleman, but there were others. Before I came into the room, I saw J. Goldsmith, he held up a phial bottle to me. It was labelled draught. He asked me if I would drink, and said they had a bitterer draught in store for me.

This startling announcement did not seem to have any effect on the Committee, who then adjourned until 11 o'clock this day.

The Times, Monday, May 22, 1843.


Fourth Day.

The Committee re-assembled on Saturday at 11 o'clock, Sir W. Heathcote in the chair.

The Chairman read a letter addressed to him by Mr. Bartlett, complaining of the observations made by Mr. Kinglake in his opening speech relative to his absence, which was caused by domestic calamities, and not from any wish to avoid giving evidence. He should return to Cambridge, and would be at his usual residence to await any communication that might be made to him.

Henry Flindell examined by Mr. Kinglake.—I live in Barnwell, and am a sheriff's officer's assistant. I know the Eagle Hotel. I went there the Friday before the election, between 12 and 1 o'clock in the day. A messenger of the name of Larkins showed me up. I went to the door, and saw Mr. Knowles in the room. Mr. Alderman Deighton was standing at the door. Mr. Knowles came out, and I asked him if he could give me a situation at the election? He said "Yes." I told him John Goldsmith had sent me. He told me to go to him, and it would be all right. I then went away, and went to Goldsmith. I found him on Market-hill. I told him I was employed, and was to go with him. In the afternoon he sent me to the Eagle for a poll-book. I saw Mr. Naylor in an ante-room. I asked one of the messengers for a poll-book. He brought me one out of the committee-room. I then went back to Goldsmith. I found him on the Eden walk. We then went into the the Star and Garter[18], and had some ale, thence to the Druid, and thence to the Old English Gentleman[19]. Mr. Southey was there. My father, Joseph Flindell, was there as doorkeeper. James Aveling was there, also Brown, Austen, Overbury, Taylor, Wallace, George and Gypsy Smith. Mr. Southey ordered Goldsmith and me out of the house; he said he had taken the house for himself, and should have only his own people here. Goldsmith said, "I was sent here by your master, and I shall stay here." We stayed a few minutes, and we then were put upon the watch to see if the opposite party were doing any bribery; we did not see any done. The next day, Saturday, I went up to Parker's Piece, and met John Goldsmith. I afterwards met Goldsmith by appointment at the Star and Garter. In the evening we went out to watch again. I went two or three times to the Old English Gentleman that night. I saw Mr. Southey there, some messengers, and some University men. Southey was writing in the little room on the right. I saw William Brooks at his own house on the Saturday afternoon. He asked me if I thought he could get anything for his vote? I told him I thought he could. He said he should not vote unless he had 10l. He said he had another vote to dispose of as well as his own, a man of the name of Shedd; whom he could get for about 5l. I told John Goldsmith of this when I met him at the Star and Garter. On Sunday when I went to Brooks again. I told him I thought he would be able to get some. I then went to the Old English Gentleman. I found John Newbury there; he is a tailor, he works for Alderman Bishop. I went away, and returned in the evening. I then saw Mr. Southey, Mr. Medcalf, and several messengers. There was drinking going on; I had some ale, and then went home. On Monday I saw Brooks. I went to his house: he said he and Shedd would not vote unless the money came. I went and found Goldsmith and told him that Brooks would not vote unless he had 10l.: Shedd 5l. and 5l. between Brooks, Goldsmith and myself. Goldsmith then went out, and came back with Sterne. Sterne said he had got the ochre all right. He pulled the sovereigns out of his pockets, and told me to go to Coldham-lane. I went, and came back to Brooks's house. Brooks, Sterne, and Goldsmith were in the yard. Goldsmith and I came out of the yard. Sterne and Brooks went into a cellar through the kitchen: I and Goldsmith remained in the kitchen. I heard Brooks say to Sterne that there was to be 10l. a piece. Harry (meaning witness) told him so. Now there is but 10l. between us. They then came out into the kitchen. Brooks said to me, "it is not as you told me it would be." I said "You've only got 10l. between you." He said, no, we have not. Shedd was upstairs at Brooks's. He came down. Brooks told him it was all right. Goldsmith and Sterne went away. They came back again, and we persuaded Brooks and Shedd to go and poll. It was in the afternoon when they voted. Mr. Barron paid me for my time after the election. I saw him in the Eagle during the election. He was putting down the names of men to be employed. I went to Barron to be paid by order of John Goldsmith.

Cross-examined by Mr. Austin.—I was engaged at the last general election. I know Mr. Gunning, also Robert Goldsmith. I saw him at that election. I was always engaged on the Conservative side. Robert Goldsmith changed sides at the last election, and was employed on the Liberal side. I have been with him since the last election. He was employed in getting up this petition. I have not been so employed. I saw Mr. E. Foster about the petition, also Mr. Coppock. He was at Cambridge. Robert Goldsmith told me to go to the Hoop to see Mr. Coppock. I told him what I knew. I was with Robert Goldsmith frequently after the election. I had a good deal of talk with him about the election. I agreed to go to see Mr. Coppock. I sometimes live with my father, and sometimes at a house of ill-fame in Short-street. I had two sovereigns given with the subpœna. I did not pay my coach-hire, nor have I paid any bills. I saw Robert Goldsmith the Friday morning that I went to the Eagle. He and I and John Goldsmith were together. None of the watchmen were voters to my knowledge. There were watchmen on both sides. I know Austen. I saw him at the Red Bull after I received the Speaker's warrant. I did not say I did not know why I saw served with the Speaker's warrant. I told him I had not seen any bribery, he was trying sift me. I did not see any bribery, as the door was shut. I don't recollect Robert Goldsmith being there.

Re-examined by Mr. Kinglake.—Robert Goldsmith is an officer and serjeant-at-mace of Cambridge. I have had a great deal of business from him in serving writs, &c. I was before that employed by Mr. Mayne, a sheriff's officer, for seven years. I know Mr. Adcock, the agent for Mr. Kelly, he has changed his opinions as well as Mr. Robert Goldsmith. Mr. Brooks and Mr. Shedd are both well enough to travel. I tried to serve a warrant on Bartlett at his office in Green-street on Friday. He was out, and I was told he would be in at 7 o'clock. I called again at that time and could not see him. I waited till half-past 8 o'clock. I went the next day to Histon to look for him, also to his house; the servant told me he was not in town.

Cross-examined by Mr. Austin.—I saw Mr. Bartlett in Cambridge the day before I first called at his office.

William Smithers examined by Mr. Burcham.—I am a publican in the East-road, Barnewell. I keep the Rainbow. I am a voter for the borough. I remember the municipal election in 1841. My house was used by the committee, Mr. Naylor, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Hopkins, and others. They never left it for 12 days. I supplied them with refreshments. I gave the bill to Mr. Naylor and Mr. Lawrence; it amounted to 18l. 8s. 9d. I applied to Mr. Naylor, Mr. Lawrence, and to Mr. Deighton for payment. Mr. Naylor paid me 5l. 7s. two days before the municipal election in 1842, on account of my voting for Mr. Lawrence. I remember the last election for the borough; I was canvassed by Mr. Kelly, Mr. Lawrence, and Mr. Naylor. I told Mr. Kelly I should not attempt to vote for him until my bill was paid. Mr. Kelly said it did not signify to him about the money, but he hoped I should vote. I told Mr. Naylor I would not vote unless I was paid my bill. I remember the day of the polling. About 11 o'clock Mr. C. Burdon and a friend called on me and wished me to go to the poll later in the day, about 2 o'clock. Mr. Southey, Mr. Burdon and his friend called. They said they were all behind, and they hoped I would go and vote. I said I wouldn't unless by bill was settled before I went. Mr. Southey and Mr. Burdon said "Will you promise me to go and vote if I pay your bill." I said "Yes, but I'll have my money first." 13l. 1s. 9d. was then paid down to me. They then said, "We hope you will go and vote." I said I would. I went and voted for Mr. Kelly.

Cross-examined by Mr. Austin.—When I applied to Mr. Deighton for payment he took me by the collar and turned me out of the house in Mr. Naylor's presence. It was Mr. Burdon paid the bill. I meant to go over to the other party on account of the ill-treatment I had received. I was convicted at the Cambridgeshire quarter sessions of of bigamy in 1830. I have had three wives, and she who now lives with me is not my wife.

Re-examined by Mr. Kinglake.—I did not undergo any punishment in consequence of my conviction. I first married another man's wife; she lived with me a fortnight, when her husband fetched her away; 28 years after she appeared against me at the session; in the mean time I had married again.

James Atkinson examined by Mr. Kinglake.—I am a shoemaker at Cambridge. I am not a voter. I know Frederick Grey; he kept a beer-shop. I saw him on the evening of the nomination in Regent-street. He stopped me, and had some communication with me. We then went to the Eagle, to the committee-room downstairs. I saw Bayes, the attorney, and his son, Barron, and Payne. Bayes and Barron were writing. Grey said, I hope it is all right about my vote.

Mr. Austin interposed, and asked what his learned friend proposed to prove by this witness? If it was a case of treating, he should object, until agency had been proved.

Mr. Kinglake proposed to proved two things—the connexion between the committee at the Eagle and the Old English Gentleman, and also a distinct act of treating at Frederick Grey's house. He contended that he was entitled to prove treating before he proved agency. In the Norwich case[20], before the act of the 4th and 5th Victoria, and act of treating was allowed to be given in evidence as an act done with a view to prove agency, and not as evidence to prove treating. In the Newcastle-under-Lyme case[21], and the second Ipswich case[22], both since that act, evidence of treating was received without proof of agency. Treating for the purpose of influencing votes was not within the treating act, but was a species of bribery and an offence at common law. This was the view taken by Lord Lyndhurst in his judgment in "Hughes v. Marshall," 2 Tyr. 134. Although bribery was the only word used in the 4th and 5th Victoria, yet treating being a species of bribery, was clearly within the spirit, if not within the terms of that act, and in either case, whether as coming within the exception allowed by that statute, or as an act done from which agency could be inferred, he was entitled to proceed with his examination.

Mr. Austin contended that an act done could not be admitted in order thence to prove agency, otherwise what was the object of the 4 and 5 Victoria? That statute was not to be enlarged, but construed strictly as it related to a penal offence; bribery was a corrupt contract, treating was not a contract. Bribery was an old common law offence, treating a new statutory offence, irrespective of the object for which the meat, drink, &c., was given. Before the 4th and 5th Victoria agency must be proved before evidence of treating was gone into. That statute made no alteration, as treating was not mentioned in it; he submitted, therefore, that his learned friend must first prove agency.

The Committee came to two resolutions:—

1. That the act of the 4th and 5th Victoria cannot be applied to treating, unless it be proved that such treating influenced any particular vote.

2. That the counsel could not be permitted to go into evidence as to acts of treating which cannot be shown to have influenced some particular vote, unless such acts are charged to have been committed by parties previously shown to be agents of the sitting member, excepting when the evidence which is intended to prove the treating cannot be separated from that which is intended to prove agency.

The Committee then adjourned until a quarter past 11 this day.

The Times, Tuesday, May 23, 1843.


Fifth Day.

The Committee re-assembled yesterday at a quarter past 11; Sir W. Heathcote in the chair.

James Atkinson, examined by Mr. Kinglake.—When I first went to the Eagle on the Saturday, I saw in the room Bayes and his son, Payne, Barron, and others. Mr. Hazard came in, and grey took him to another part of the room. Grey came back and told me to go to the Old English Gentleman. I asked Hazard if he would put my name down for something at the election. He took a slip of paper and wrote something, and told me to give it to Barron and I did so, and he said, "It is all right." I then went with Grey to the Old English Gentleman. Flindell, the elder, and Austen were there keeping the door. Grey inquired for Southey. Southey came out and said, "Grey, come this way; I want you." Grey went into a room at the foot of the stairs with Southey. The door was closed, and they remained there a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes. Grey and I then left the house with six University men. We went to Grey's house at Hyde Park-corner. It is a beer-shop. I know Alderman Bishop. I went to him at the committee-room on Parker's-piece on the day of polling. I had before been to Grey's house. I saw Mr. Bishop, Mr. Woodley, Mr. Hazard and Mr. Brown at the committee-room. I told Bishop, Grey said he would not vote unless his house was opened. Mr. Bishop said I will go along with you to Grey. We went to Grey's. I saw Mr. Southey go into the committee-room at Parker's-piece on the Monday. This was after I fetched Mr. Bishop.

Upon witness being asked what passed between Bishop and any one at Grey's house,

Mr. Austin objected to the question.

Mr. Kinglake contended, that the evidence he was tendering came within the exception of the second resolution of the committee. Southey, Hazard, and Bishop were acting in concert in the management of the election, and the proof of agency was so mixed up with the acts done, that it was impossible to separate them.

Mr. Austin contended, that Bishop's going to Grey's house or what he did there could have nothing to do with proving the general connexion between Southey, Hazard, and Bishop.

The Committee decided, that the evidence came within the exception of their second resolution, and might be admitted.

James Atkinson, re-called by Mr. Kinglake.—We went into a back room. I left Bishop and Grey together. I saw Mr. Bishop when he came out. What Mr. Bishop told me I communicated to Grey. I received directions from Bishop, in consequence of those directions I ordered some beer from Grey's. It came in by pitchers. It was drunk by anyone in the house. A good many of Mr. Kelly's messengers came in. Mr. Bishop wished me to get Grey to vote as soon as possible, and to let him know. I pressed him to go, He said "I know what I am about: I intend to have some empty barrels before I vote." I then left him. I went to Mr. Bishop about 2 o'clock, at the committee room, and told him Grey had voted. I saw Mr. Barron about my being paid on the polling day. He gave me a paper. I presented it some days after to Mr. Hazard, at the Castle-end Inn. There were a great many persons present; but only two were admitted at a time into the room where Hazard and Barron were. Mr. Hazard gave me a sovereign and a half for two of us. That was not all that was owing. I had spent 36s. or 37s. in treating the messengers. I afterwards saw Mr. Southey about it; he said if he had employed me he would have paid me, but as he had not he could not pay me.

Cross-examined by Mr. Austin.—I had applied to Mr. Southey for employment, and he refused. I had been discharged from the police. Mr. Southey had been a member of the police committee. I was discharged for drunkenness. I was afterwards employed again. I was discharged in 1831 from the excise for being in debt, and going hunting and shooting with the traders.

By Mr. P. Scrope[23].—I paid for the beer that was drunk at Grey's, and it was part of my bill of 36s. or 37s. When I was pressed for my poor-rates Mr. Knowles, the collector, recommended me to apply to Mr. Bishop for a sovereign. I did. He said it was very dangerous to pay money at present, but he would see Knowles. My rates stand over until after these proceedings are over. I have not been asked for them since.

Thomas Mitchell examined by Mr. Burcham.—I am landlord of the Eagle, the House used by the Tory party. I remember the Monday before the election. When I got up on the Tuesday morning I found Mr. Kelly there. He occupied No. 33 as his sitting room, 36 as his bed-room. No. 34 was occupied as a committee-rom. I have seen Captain Drake, Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Deighton, and Mr. Bishop, go there. There was another room down-stairs occupied by the clerks: this room and No. 31 were charged to the committee. They have not been paid for. I don't know who ordered them.

Leila Humn, examined by Mr. Kinglake.—I am wife to John Humn. He is a gardener, and keeps the King's Arms, Prince's-street, Cambridge. He is not a voter. I remember the last election. Many persons came to our house. A man named Gilbert was there; also Chapman, Tait, Edward Stokes, E. B. Berry, Robert Fawley, and John Thackeray; they were drinking in the tap-room. I know Mr. Southey. I don't recollect seeing him in our house during the week preceding the election, nor on the polling day. Gilbert was there. I did not make out any bill after the election, nor do I know whether my husband did. There was a large ham and a piece of beef dressed on the Sunday evening. I do not know where my husband is. He went away about a month ago to avoid being served with the Speaker's warrant. He came back on Sunday week last about 10 o'clock in the evening, and went away again between 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning. Mr. Laxton and Mr. Scott saw him. Gilbert came in with my husband. Gilbert left with my husband the first time. He did not go away the second time with my husband, but is now in Cambridge.

George Shedd, examined by Mr. Kinglake.—I am a tailor at Cambridge. I remember the last election. I went to Mr. Laurence's office on the Wednesday before the election, and from thence to the Eagle to get some situation. By Mr. Laurence's direction I went to the lower committee-room. I found Mr. Barron and Mr. Bartlett there; Mr. Naylor and Mr. Laurence came in afterwards. I said I wanted a place. Mr. Barron put my name down, and Mr. Naylor as well. I stayed in that room all day, employed in folding up circulars by direction of Barron and Bartlett. I went there the next day. Mr. Barron was there. Mr. Bartlett came in and told me to go and order some flys to take the voters up on the Monday. I was sent on messages to the upstairs room, I saw Mr. Hazard, Mr. Bishop and Mr. Fisher there. I saw Mr. Kelly in both rooms. I have seen him talking to Mr. Bishop. I have also seen him talking to Mr. Southey both upstairs and downstairs. I have seen Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Naylor, and Mr. Bishop go out canvassing with Mr. Kelly. On the Friday night there was a meeting at the Black Bear.[24] I saw Mr. Sterne and Mr. Sherman there. I afterwards went to Barnewell with them to the Old English Gentleman. There was no one there but Flindell and some messengers. We went there a second time and found Mr. Southey. He told us not to stay long, but to do our duty. We were to see that no one was idle. On the Saturday I went to the Eagle. I found Mr. Barron there. He and Bartlett sent us out to deliver speeches in the town. Sterne was with with me. I went to the Eagle on the Monday, and found all the gentlemen had gone to Parker's-piece. I followed them and found there Mr. Kelly, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Hazard, Mr. Newberry. Mr. Southey came up to the door on horseback. Mr. Naylor came in and asked me to go to the Elephant and Castle with him. I was in the committee-room half an hour. Mr. Kelly was there all the time. Mr. Naylor went with me to the Elephant and Castle. I saw Mr. Scott there; also Mr. Southey and several gentlemen. I was sent by Mr. Naylor with a gentleman to point out where certain voters lived. After the election was over, I went to Mr. Barron for my money by Mr. Laurence's orders. I received 15s. I afterwards saw Mr. Southey at the Rose and Crown, Barnewell and he gave me 15s. more; this was for my night work.

Cross-examined by Mr. Austin.—I am not a voter. There were watchmen on the other side. This witness was subjected to a very severe cross-examination, with a view to make him contradict himself, in the course of which he became faint and was led out of the room.

William Bidwell was the next witness called, but before giving evidence he said that he wished to call the attention of the committee to obstructions he had met with in coming to the room. Certain persons, amongst whom were Messrs. Scott, Southey, Partley, Austen, Newman, Gilbert, Bishop, and Grey, had called out to him on the stairs, "You are going to perjure yourself like the rest; you took the money; you'll go to Newgate;" and had used other opprobrious language.

Mr. Kinglake said his witnesses were constantly subject to the same sort of treatment, and called on the committee to protect them.

Messrs. Southey and Scott being called and questioned by the chairman, denied having spoken to the witness.

The subject was then dropped; the chairman giving a general caution to all parties against tampering with the witnesses.

William Bidwell, in continuation.—I am a voter. I recollect the Tuesday before the polling. I attended a meeting at the Red Lion of Mr. Kelly's friends. Mr. Hopkins presided. Mr. Bartlett came in at the close of the meeting. I heard him address the meeting. I remember him saying, "Much was to be done for good, much for bad, much in the dark, and much in the light." I attended a meeting at the Black Bear on the Friday evening, Thomas Hack Naylor in the chair. Mr. Kelly addressed the meeting. I remember the day of polling. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Hazard came to my house in the morning. Mr. Preston, Mr. Hazard's clerk, had called before. Mr. Kelly said, he understood I was favourable to him. I said I differed with him on the corn laws, and had been insulted by his friends at the Bear, and I should not vote at all.

Mr. Cockburn objected to this line of examination, as neither Mr. Kelly nor Mr. Hazard had been charged in the opening with bribery attempted or committed.

Mr. Kinglake urged that he had a right to give evidence of the way in which the election was carried on, and the connexion between Kelly and Hazard.

The Speaker was announced to be at prayers, and the committee then adjourned until 11 o'clock this day.

The Times, Wednesday, May 24, 1843.


Sixth Day.

The Committee met yesterday at the usual hour, Sir W. Heathcote in the chair.

The Chairman announced that Mr. Kinglake might proceed with his examination.

The examination of W. Bidwell was then resumed by Mr. Burcham.—Mr. Kelly said, "If you will promise me your vote anything I can do for you I will, as I never receive a favour without returning it. If you want nothing for yourself, perhaps you may want something for some of those little ones." Mr. Hazard was stroking the children, and kissing one of them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hildyard.—My wife was present during part of the conversation between Mr. Kelly and myself. There was no other person present. I was discharged from the police force about four years ago for being absent from my beat. I once deserted my wife, but not with any other woman. It was on account of my wife's temper. I was absent about four months. I know Laxton; I one had some conversation with him about the election. I never offered him money to give evidence. He said if any one would give him 10l. he would surprise the town, and tell more than ever had been told.

Edward Butt, examined by Mr. Kinglake.—I am a hairdresser in Regent-street, Cambridge. I remember the last election. I made application to Mr. W. Mitchell, at the Lion[25], for employment, and he told me to go to the Eagle. I went and found Mr. Southey and Mr. Barron in the downstairs committee-room. I told Mr. Southey Mr. Mitchell had sent me. Mr. Southey said to Mr. Barron, "Put his name down." The name was put down by Mr. Barron. I then went away. The same evening I went to the Old English Gentleman. I saw Mr. Southey, Mr. Bartlett, and several others there. I told Mr. Southey that I wished to be employed on the night watch. He told me to go to the Black Bear. I met him there. Mr. Naylor and Mr. Kelly were also there. Southey told me to go to Gilbert. I went and found him at Humn's, the King's Arms. I saw Mr. Southey again at the Old English Gentleman; he then engaged me as night watchman. I went back to Humn's. I found there Tait, Berry, Fawley, Thackeray, Robinson, Stoker and Chapman, all voters. Gilbert was there as superintendent of the night watch. He wrote reports and sent me and others with them to the Old English Gentleman. I gave the reports to Mr. Southey. He sent me back to Humn's, and said we were having too much to drink. We were only to have two pints each an hour[26], and were only to rest 5 minutes in each hour. The voters had three times as much drink as we had. I saw Mr. Southey at Humn's on the Monday. Gilbert and Humn were with him. On the Saturday night the same voters were there again, and Gilbert. I was on the watch that night again, and on the Sunday. On the Monday the same voters were at Humn's, they had ham and beef. Mr. Southey paid me for my watching at Humn's. Laxton was paid at the same time. Mr. Hazard and Mr. Barron paid me for being a messenger at Mr. Hall's house; there were a number of others paid; it took all day to pay them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cockburn.—I communicated to Mr. Levitt on Monday that I had something to tell about the election. Laxton told me he had so informed Mr. Levitt before. Nothing passed between me and Levitt about money. Mr. Levitt took me to Mr. Gunning's, and I made my statement to him. I had not been paid properly, that was my motive. I was employed three days, and three nights, and only received 1l. 5s. I expect to be paid for my loss of time in coming here. Since I came to town I have made a statement to Mr. Coppock. I received two sovereigns with the warrant.

William Gilbert, examined by Mr. Kinglake.—I am a butcher at Cambridge and a voter. I voted for Kelly. I know Mr. Southey. I asked a voter or two to vote for Kelly. I can't say whom exactly. I believe I asked Fawley; he said he should vote as he always had, for a Tory. I said I was much obliged to him. I saw Mr. Tait and Butler Berry. They said they should support a Tory, as they always had done. I know William Laxton. I can't swear whether he was with me when I spoke to Tait and Berry. I believe I did not see Southey that day. I went into Humn's in the afternoon, and had a pipe and a glass of ale; there was no one there but Mrs. Humn. I stayed there from 2 o'clock till 4. I don't know where I then went. I found myself at home at teatime. After tea I went to Mr. Humn's again. There was no one there but Mr. Humn in the first part of the evening. There might have been persons come in during the evening. I believe Mr. Denny came in and had some wine. I don't recollect anyone else. I believe I went home about 8 o'clock and lay abed till 9 o'clock. I then got up again and went to watch to see if the Whigs were going to corrupt any of the voters. Several people were going to assist me. William Laxton, Huntly, Samuel Humn, Pentecost, John Humn, and William Smith, were to assist me. I had told them I should want them, and told them to meet me at Humn's at 9 o'clock. I found them there and sent them round the streets. I stayed at Humn's till 1 o'clock in the morning. I know E. Butt. I can't say whether I put him on the watch on the Friday or Saturday evening. This was not all my arrangement. Butt brought me a message, saying that I was to put him on. I do not know whom the message was from, but I believe Austen. I am certain he did not say the message was from Southey. I put him on the watch. I know William Chapman. He is a voter. He was at Humn's with me. He was on the watch. I did not employ him. I might have asked him for his vote. I know Thackeray. He was at Humn's on the Saturday. He is a voter. He stayed till 1 or 2 o'clock. He came to have a glass of ale. I saw him pay for two pints of ale. I saw Stokes there; he is a voter. He came in like the rest, and had a glass of ale. He wanted me to put him on the watch; he said, "I shall just walk round, whether I get anything or not." He had some drink. I saw him pay for it; I can't say whether in coppers or not. Fawley was there; he stayed till 2 o'clock. He was on the watch. He was not employed, as I told him I could not put any voter on. I did not see him drink. I saw Berry drink, and pay for it. He wanted to be on the watch, but I gave him the same answer. Tait was there and I gave him the same answer; he went round once or twice. I don't know whether he had any drink. Butt brought me a message from Austen, that I was to have nothing to do with any voters. This was in the middle of the night. I know the Old English Gentleman; I went there once during the election. I was going by, and seeing a number of people there I walked in. It was on the Sunday evening. I saw Austen, Payne and Partley there. I don't recollect Southey being there. I went back to the King's Arms; Fawley and Stokes were still there. I told all of them if they had beer they must pay for it themselves. I never heard any order about the quantity of beer being limited. On the Saturday evening I went to Humn's again, I saw Butt there. I can't say whether Chapman and the rest were there. There was beer drawn. I went there again on the Sunday. I don't recollect seeing any voters there. Southey called on me on the Sunday; it was to see my wife. He said he should be up there again the next day. About 11 o'clock the next day I saw him at Humn's. I don't know whether Chapman and the rest were there. Chapman was not there. Tait was there, also Stokes. I had no communication with Southey there. I don't know what he was doing there. He might be there 20 minutes in one of the rooms where there was a ham. The room was next the taproom. The ham was carried up-stairs, and I had some of it. I did not see any one else eating. I was a quarter of an hour eating, and no one came into the room. There was a piece of beef also. I paid the persons whom I employed. I paid Laxton, Huntly, and John Humn, and others. I don't think it fair to ask where I got the money from. I can't say how much I paid altogether, I should think about 4l. I saw Mr. Southey pay some persons three weeks after the election; Mr. Sterne and Mr. Sherman were with him at the time. It was at Humn's. I do not know who paid the men. I do not know what Mr. Southey, Mr. Sterne, and Mr. Sherman were about. No money was given me at the election nor since, nor have I made any demand. I have not been called upon to make out an account of the balance of monies in my hand.—Upon Mr. Kinglake asking where he had been living since the election?

Mr. Cockburn objected to Mr. Kinglake's treating this witness as a hostile witness, and seeking to throw discredit on his testimony, which was contrary to the rules of proceedings in courts of law.

Mr. Kinglake urged, from the answer and demeanour of the witness, it was evident that he was an adverse witness, and quoted a dictum of Chief Justice Abbott, to the effect that in such cases the witness might be treated as the witness of the other side.

The Chairman intimated his opinion that Mr. Kinglake could not seek to discredit his own witness, although he might put leading questions.

The examination of Gilbert resumed.—I had nothing to do with the ordering of the meat I saw at Humn's. No bill was given me by Humn. I saw him not long ago at Cambridge. I went to Cambridge with him. I can't exactly say from what place.

This witness fenced with every question, and was several times reprimanded by the chairman.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cockburn.—It has been the custom to have watchmen on both sides at elections at Cambridge. I arranged about the watch with Austen, Sterne, Sherman, Southey, Brown, Partley, and Taylor. I did not employ any voters. I never ordered a drop of beer for any one. The men I saw at Humn's live in the neighbourhood, and use the house constantly.

By Lord Howick[27].—When I engaged watchmen I did not mean to pay them out of my own pocket; but the money I paid them came out of my own pocket.

This closed the petitioner's case, and

Mr. Burcham proceeded to address the committee on the evidence, but as he had not concluded when the Speaker went to prayers we postpone the report of his speech until after its conclusion.

The committee adjourned until 11 o'clock this day.

The Times, Thursday, May 25, 1843.


Seventh Day.

The Committee met yesterday at the usual hour, Sir W. Heathcote in the chair.

The evidence for the petitioners being closed,

Mr. Burcham said, it became his duty to address the Committee upon the evidence, and he should direct their attention to those parts only which bore upon the question of bribery, of treating, and of agency. The two first involved the facts at issue; the question of agency was to be drawn by process of reasoning from the facts. He should submit that the facts proved in evidence justified the allegation that the election was carried by unfair and dishonourable means, by bribery and corrupt practices on the part of the friends, partisans, and agents of the sitting member. He should first direct the attention of the Committee to the general way in which the election was conducted. The vacancy took place on the Monday, and that evening Mr. Kelly arrived at Cambridge. On the Tuesday there was a meeting at the Eagle, and a committee formed; in the evening of the same day a meeting at the Red Lion, at which Mr. Bartlett made use of those expressions the fulfilment of which was accomplished at the Old English Gentleman. On the Friday Southey takes possession of the Old English Gentleman, and then was the commencement of the deeds to be done in the dark. The things to be done in the light were to be carried on at the Eagle, but the connexion between the two houses was so intimate that they must be identified. Very soon after Southey took possession of the Old English Gentleman, Mr. Naylor, who frequented the committee-room at the Eagle, who canvassed with Mr. Kelly, made his appearance at that house; how could he have done so unless he had had communication with Mr. Southey? From the evidence of Atkinson and Flindell, it appeared that messengers were continually sent from the one houses to the other; and when Goldsmith was told by Southey that he must not stay in the Old English Gentleman, he refused to go, saying, "Your master sent me here. I am employed by the same person as yourself." On the morning of the polling day the committee at the Eagle migrated to Parker's piece. The connexion between these three committee-rooms had been proved. The messengers hired by Southey at the Old English Gentleman were paid by Barron, the clerk to the committee at the Eagle. Thirty or forty persons were admitted to the private room of Mr. Southey at the Old English Gentleman. Why were they admitted one at a time? Was it likely that deeds of light were taking place there, or was it not more likely the deeds of darkness which had existed in Mr. Bartlett's mind? It had been proved that Southey had made a corrupt contract with the witness Wilderspin. He had been canvassed by Mr. Kelly and Mr. Naylor. In the evening he went to Mr. Southey, at the Old English Gentleman, and the conversation which took place between them showed there had been a communication between Naylor and Southey. It was of no consequence that Wilderspin did not vote, or that the contract was not carried out by Southey. The question was, what was the expectation raised in the mind of Wilderspin when Southey made the exchange of his honour for the other's hand? The witness Smithers had been paid 5l. 7s. for his vote at the municipal election in 1842, and when canvassed by Naylor at the last election he had refused to vote unless the rest of his bill was paid. At 2 o'clock on the day of polling Southey and Burdon call and pay his bill, and he votes for Mr. Kelly. Then Mr. Kelly was in a minority of 49, and the witness had sated that he had intended to vote on the other side. How could Southey and Burdon know the amount of his bill unless Naylor had communicated with them? The learned counsel then commented on the case of Brooks and Shedd, bribed by Goldsmith and Sterne with 10l., and submitted that acts of bribery had been sufficiently proved. He next called the attention of the Committee to the cases of treating at the King's Arms and at Frederick Grey's. That at the former was proved by the evidence of the witness Butt, and at the latter by the witness Atkinson. The treating there had been by the orders of Mr. Bishop, who was the agent of the sitting member. Atkinson had paid for the beer given away at Grey's, and being pressed for his poor rates, had applied to Mr. Bishop for money, and was told by him that it was dangerous to give money until the petition was settled, but he would see the collector; and the witness had never been applied to for his rates since. The learned counsel then quoted the treating act, 7 William III., c.4, and also the Middlesex case, 2 Peck. 31, and contended that if the treating had been by the orders or at the expense of the sitting member or his agents, no matter however small it might have been, the election was voided. He next begged to draw the attention of the Committee to the question of agency. There were two committee-rooms at the Eagle, in both of which Mr. Kelly had been, and in communication with Bishop, Hazard, and Fisher. When the town-clerk addressed a letter to the chairman of Mr. Kelly's committee, Mr. Bishop attended a meeting at the Mayor's, and there signed an undertaking as Mr. Kelly's agent. He was frequently at the committee-rooms at the Eagle, and at Parker's-piece, and he also canvassed with Mr. Kelly. What other conclusion could be drawn than that he was the agent of Mr. Kelly? The evidence had also shown that Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Naylor, Mr. Hazard, and Mr. Southey, were constantly in the different committee-rooms, were in Mr. Kelly's company, gave orders to messengers, and acted as Mr. Kelly's agents. There were also subordinate agents—viz., Goldsmith and Sterne, who were concerned in bribing Brooks and Shedd. These had been brought into connexion with Mr. Southey at the Old English Gentleman. The proof of agency was almost entirely inferential. In this case there was a variety of circumstances, which though separately weak, yet, when taken in their collective and cumulative character, unite to establish in the fullest possible manner the connexion between the persons beforementioned and Mr. Kelly. It was not requisite to show that the principal had knowledge of the particular acts. In the case of "Felton v. Easthope," Lord Tenterden laid it down, that "if an agent bribes voters with or without the knowledge of the principal, it will void the election; the principal is to that extent liable." And the principle was this—that a person who derives a benefit from the acts of others has no right to shrink from the consequences of those acts. The learned counsel then quoted the New Windsor case, 2 Peck. 193, and the Norwich case, Perry and Knapp. 571, both previous to the act of 4 and 5 Victoria, 57, and argued that the legal consequences of bribery by an agent were not affected by that statute, which was passed for the sole purpose of facilitating the proof of bribery. The Newcastle-under-Lyme, the Ipswich, and the Nottingham cases, all since the statute, had decided this. The Nottingham case[28] bore a striking resemblance to the present in its main features, but this was a much stronger and more conclusive case. Lord Kenyon had laid it down in "Ridler v. Moore and Trant," that a committee were both individually and collectively the agents of a candidate. He trusted that the Committee would, acting on the principle and example of the Nottingham Committee, give a similar decision, and give a warning to candidates to employ none but those in whose honesty and judgment they could place confidence and trust.

The room was then cleared, and on strangers being re-admitted,

Mr. Austin proceeded to reply on the part of the sitting member, but had not proceeded far when the Committee adjourned until 11 o'clock this day.

The Times, Friday, May 26, 1843.


(Eighth Day.)

The Committee assembled yesterday at the usual hour, Sir W. Heathcote in the chair.

Mr. Austin replied to Mr. Burcham, and complained of the manner in which the case had been opened, of the insinuations which had been thrown out, and the exaggeration which had been made. Two issues had been raised by the petition—whether the sitting member had bribed by his agents, and whether he had treated by his agents. They had to be satisfied that bribes had been offered, and that treating had taken place, as facts, also that the persons offering the bribes and ordering the treating were the agents of Mr. Kelly; and he submitted that there was no primÔ facie case made out, that no jury in England presided over by a judge who knew his duty would find a verdict of guilty on such evidence as had been adduced. There were but four cases attempted to be proved. In the case of Wilderspin, he contended that there was no corrupt contract, even supposing that he was to have been indemnified in case he was sold up by his landlord, but no such expectation was raised in his mind in his interview, as was proved by his going to Scott afterwards, and by his application to Southey after the election. Besides, suppose the crime to have been committed, Wilderspin was an accomplice, and, on his uncorroborated testimony, when other witnesses might have been called, no jury could convict. Besides, he prevaricated, and committed gross perjury in his cross-examination. Therefore, he said, the Committee could not act on the evidence given in his case. So in the case of Brooks and Shedd, which was the only instance of a bribe, in the ordinary sense of the word, attempted to be proved, the charge rested on the uncorroborated evidence of Flindell, who was to have participated in the corruption. How unlikely was it that the original agreement, by which Brooks was to have had 10l., Shedd 5l., and Goldsmith, Flindell, and Brooks, 5l. between them, should have been varied when Sterne, the alleged briber, pulled out 30 or 40 sovereigns. Would they have been content with less than the original sum agreed upon? What was the character of the witness Flindell? By his own confession, of the vilest description. He had also received 2 sovereigns before giving evidence. He had been bribed to give evidence, and his evidence must be rejected. The other case of imputed bribery was that of Smithers, and here he contended there was no corrupt contract. A bill was owing to Smithers, and when canvassed by Mr. Kelly, he refused to promise his vote unless his bill was paid. Mr. Kelly said he had nothing to do with that. At 11 o'clock on the day following, Mr. Burdon, an undergraduate, called on him, and he refused to vote unless he was paid his bill. At 2 o'clock Mr. Burdon called again and paid his bill. Now, there was no corrupt contract on the part of Smithers or Burdon; the former was a steady Tory, he never meant to vote on the other side. He was offended at his bill remaining unpaid, and acting under that feeling, refused to vote. Burdon had no corrupt intention in paying the bill, but thought he was only discharging a just debt. No action would lie against Smithers for penalties, for no legal offence had been committed, no money had been wilfully and corruptly taken, and this was the true experimentum crucis; this case must also be struck out, and thus the second allegation of the petition was disposed of. He had now analysed the cases of Wilderspin, Brooks and Shedd, and Smithers. With regard to Wilderspin, it was doubtful whether there was bribery at all. That, also, was no promise or gift of money for a vote, and he called upon the Committee to reject the evidence in that case. His learned friend, in opening the case, had mentioned three places—The Old English Gentleman, Parker's-piece, and the Eagle. With respect to the first, the most ridiculous misstatements had been indulged. It had been called a sink of iniquity, and a den of darkness. But the only evidence in the case was, that this place had been opened for the purpose of carrying on what was called the system of "the watch". The watch committee was composed of under-graduates of the University, and the object of it was to prevent the kidnapping of a certain class of voters. No illegal intention of corruption or bribery was connected with it. In Barnwell the large majority of voters were in favour of Mr. Foster (Mr. Kelly having a majority in the respectable central parts of the town); and, therefore, if Mr. Foster's partisans had a "watch" there, Ó fortiori did Mr. Kelly's partisans require one; and in proof that no corrupt intention existed, he might mention that two men who were connected with the "watch" were turned off when they were found to be voters. There was no treating of any description going on at the Old English Gentleman, and though a few undergraduates had wine and beer there, it was proved in evidence that both were brought to the place by the porter of the Red Lion. At Parker's-piece, it was stated that Mr. Bishop and several other gentlemen were present; but nothing that was done there that was complained of; and all that had been attempted was to show that certain individuals were there in order to connect them with the sitting member. The same was the case as regarded the Eagle, and his learned friend wished the Committee to infer from the evidence he had adduced that Mr. Southey was the agent of Mr. Kelly. This he entirely denied. With respect to Mr. Bartlett, it had been suggested that that gentleman came from Cambridge to London to make arrangements with Mr. Kelly, and had gone down with him to Cambridge on the Monday previous to the polling. It had also been alleged that Bartlett had spoken of deeds that were to be done in the dark, and that he had absconded in order to avoid being summoned before the Committee. The evidence adduced proved that Mr. Bartlett's meeting Mr. Kelly at the railway was accidental, and that in speaking of the "deeds to be done in the dark," he referred to practices which might be feared from Mr. Foster's friends. The statement about Mr. Bartlett's absconding ought never to have been made. Mr. Bartlett was a Master of Arts, and a gentleman of unblemished character; and he blamed, not his learned friend Mr. Kinglake, but the parties who instructed him, for that unwarrantable statement. Mr. Bartlett had gone to Canterbury on domestic business, and in a letter written to the Committee, he offered to come to London and give evidence if required; but his learned friend determined not to call Mr. Bartlett, whom he had described before as a witness of great importance, and had expressed his desire to bring before the Committee. His learned friend had, in his opening speech, said that Mr. Bartlett had absconded, and he called upon the Committee to draw their inference from that circumstance. His learned friend had since had an opportunity of calling Mr. Bartlett before the Committee, and declined to do so; and he (Mr. Austin) now called upon the Committee to draw the only inference that could be drawn from this fact—that Mr. Bartlett's evidence would have completely exonerated the sitting member from all participation in the acts with which his learned friend sought to connect him. The learned counsel then proceeded to comment on the evidence adduced for the purpose of showing that Southey was an agent of Mr. Kelly. He denied that this was the case. If an injudicious friend of a candidate chose to come into a committee-room, talk to the members, and thrust himself upon the candidates, what was to be done? They could not knock him down, because, though he was a fool, he was still a friend. If such a person chose to go to a public-house and lay out 20l., was he, because he happened to enter the committee-room, to be considered an agent of the candidate? He must be knowingly and wittingly employed by the candidate, in order to make the candidate responsible. He must be an agent capable of binding the candidate by his acts. Suppose an action were brought against Mr. Kelly for printing expenses, and the plaintiff proved that Mr. Southey gave the order, how could the jury be called on to infer that Mr. Southey was an agent for Mr. Kelly. And if Mr. Southey could not bind Mr. Kelly for the expense of printing 100 placards, how could the penal consequences of bribery be fixed on Mr. Kelly for any act of Mr. Southey, presuming that bribery had been committed. An agent was one whom the principal put in his place for the performance of certain acts. He is the substitute for the principal. "Qui facit per alium, facit per se."[29] This was the definition of an agent. There was a distinction with reference to the proof of agency before election committees, which he wished to advert to. By the present statute, preliminary proof of agency was dispensed with, but previously, no corrupt act could be proved until agency was established; and, accordingly, committees, after swaying backwards and forwards in a contrariety of decisions, laid own a rule of this sort—they made a distinction between agency and primÔ facie agency—that was to say, they allowed ex parte proof of agency to be given for the purpose of introducing evidence of criminal acts, leaving the real substantial question of agency to be subsequently determined. His learned friend on the other side had called the Committee's attention to the case of New Windsor[30], where the committee decided that Mr Ramsbottom had been guilty of bribery by his agents, and wished the Committee to infer that the proof of agency reported in that case was the agency on which the case was decided. This was not the fact; the agency reported in that case was the primÔ facie agency to which he had adverted; and the real proof of agency did not appear to be reported in the case. Let the Committee refer to the Norwich case. There an individual was proved to have canvassed with the sitting members, and paid a treating bill. This was sufficient under the old law to let in evidence of bribery; and according to the report, several acts of bribery were proved. Now, if his learned friend's reasoning were good, Sir J. Scarlett and Lord Stormont would have been unseated; but this was not the case, because there was a distinction drawn, as he had stated, between primÔ facie agency and substantial agency. The next case to which he should call the attention of the Committee was one of a different complexion—it was the case of "Felton v. Easthope." He would venture to say that the case was not worth a feather. It was stated that it was not reported, and very probably Mr. Rogers had got it at second-hand. But if any weight was to be attached to the case, it was in favour of the view for which he was contending. The following was the case:—"This was an action for penalties for bribery, the agent by whom the acts of bribery were committed being the principal witness. Lord Chief Justice Abbott told the jury, that 'it was perfectly true, if an agent who may be employed for various purposes to canvass, etc., does, without the knowledge, privity, or approbation of the principal, promise a sum of money, the principal is not liable to be sued under this act for the penalty. No person is liable to be sued for that penalty, unless that which was improperly done was done by his authority. If an agent bribes voters, with or without the knowledge and direction of the principal, it will void the election: the principal is to that extent liable, but not so in an action of this sort. It must be proved to be done with the knowledge and authority of the principal.'" Now, it was evident that the decision must have been to this effect—that, as the action was for penalties, in order to implicate the party accused with the proceeding, it was not enough to say that the bribe was given by an agent; but it must be shown that the bribe was given with the knowledge and authority of the principal. But Lord Tenterden is reported to say that to unseat the member it was not necessary to prove that the bribe was given with the knowledge of the principal, if the bribe was given by his agent. Now, what did Lord Tenterden mean by an agent? Lord Tenterden spoke of an agent who might be employed for various purposes, to canvass, &c. Lord Tenterden meant an agent employed to conduct the whole election, and to see that all necessary things about the election were properly performed. What difficulty then did this case raise? If Mr. Southey had been employed to conduct Mr. Kelly's election, to canvass and do all legitimate things for carrying on the election, and if he had chosen to bribe, he (Mr. Austin) could conceive that this might vacate the seat; but there was no authority for the position, that because a man was a member of a committee for carrying the election, that therefore the candidate was bound by his acts. If he were so bound, it would be impossible to carry on any election, for some judicious enemy or fool would always have it in his power to upset the result. He asserted that Mr. Southey was no member of the committee for carrying on the election of Mr. Kelly; and if he were, that the candidate could not be bound by the acts of any individual member of the committee. He did not think Parliament would go too far if they declared that corruption, unless committed with the knowledge and consent of the principal, should not vacate the seat; and it appeared to him that some such notion was expressed in the existing statute, though, in consequence of its being altered as it passed through Parliament, it was obscurely expressed. He had submitted this proposition to the Newcastle Committee and to the Ipswich Committee. In the latter case (to the circumstances of which the learned counsel referred) two gentleman, with respect to whom not the shadow of a suspicion of the slightest impropriety could attach, were, after the enormous expense of an inquiry before an election committee, unseated. And what was the result? A new election, and the return of two other gentleman of the same political party as the late sitting members. He had submitted this proposition also to the Nottingham Committee; but he was too much exhausted to go into details. He durst say that most of the hon. members in that room had heard Mr. Hogg state the principle on which he came to the conclusion that agency in that case was proved (for the agency was decided by the vote of a single member). He ventured to say that the decision of that committee was a very unsatisfactory decision; that it was not one to imitate, but rather one which should serve as a beacon to warn other committees against coming to rash conclusions. With regard to the present case, there could be no doubt that Mr. Southey was no agent of Mr. Kelly's, and Mr Kelly could not be bound by that gentleman's acts, unless the Committee meant to say that if any individual spoke to, or was brought in any way in connexion with, a candidate, the latter should therefore be bound by his acts. It was impossible to say how far such a doctrine might be pushed, if committees were so weak as to act upon it. Indeed a great deal of alarm had already been caused by the decisions of committees. During the contest for the county of Suffolk the following question had been sent him to answer:—"How is Mr. Adair to conduct his election without losing his seat?" (Laughter.) He (Mr. Austin) replied that he knew how an election ought to be conducted to avoid such a result, and he stated the manner; but he added that he could not say how seven gentleman might look at the matter; and that if they were to proceed on recent principles, he (Mr. Adair) could not conduct his election safely, and had better not go to the poll at all. (Laughter.) Lord Rendlesham also put the same question, observing, that he understood that if any gentleman chose to give a dinner to half a dozen of his tenants during the election, and afterwards came to the committee-room and merely shook hands with the candidate, the latter was liable to be turned out of his seat. He should have returned the same answer to Lord Rendlesham as he gave to Mr. Adair, if he had not been previously applied to by the latter gentleman. The learned counsel then proceeded to refer to the charge of treating. He went minutely through the evidence on this head; and contended that the charge had not been substantiated. He complained of the enormous expense to which Mr. Kelly had been subjected by the present frivolous petition, and expressed his confidence that the committee would declare that there was not the slightest pretence for this attack on the seat of the sitting member.

At the conclusion of Mr. Austin's address the Committee adjourned until half past 11 o'clock this day.

The Times, Saturday, May 27, 1843.


Ninth Day, and Close of the Inquiry.

The Committee assembled yesterday morning at half-past 11 o'clock, Sir W. Heathcote in the chair.

The room was immediately cleared, and the Committee remained in deliberation until 2 o'clock, when the Chairman announced the following resolutions:—

"That Fitzroy Kelly, Esq., is duly elected a burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Cambridge."

"That William Smithers was bribed by payment of a sum of 13l. 1s. 9d., balance of an outstanding bill, such payment being made by a person not legally liable to pay the same, for the purpose of procuring his vote; but it does not appear that such payment was made with the knowledge of the sitting member or his agents."

Joseph Doughty was called to prove that attempts had been made to serve John Humn with a warrant without success.

Mr. Coppock deposed to having obtained a Speaker's warrant against John Humn, and that his evidence was material to the case.

The Committee then dissolved.

Transcribed by Keith Edkins 2014—8. Original reports believed to be in the public domain due to their antiquity.

Return to: The Cambridge elections of the mid-1800s.



John Kinglake (1802-1870), later Liberal MP for Rochester. A Trinity man.


Charles Austin (1799–1874), eminent parliamentary barrister, high-steward of Ipswich and chairman of the quarter-sessions of East Suffolk. A Jesus man. Frequently spelt Austen in these reports, which I have corrected (and conversely there is a minor character in Cambridge whose name seems to be Austen, which I have corrected when it appears as Austin). Ironically, given he often represented Conservative members against election petitions, he was a noted Radical.


Mr. Fitzroy Kelly had indeed been member for Ipswich prior to 1841, but this seems like an odd way of expressing it and may be a lapse by counsel (or a transmission error) for Cambridge. He was first elected for Ipswich in 1835, but he and Robert Dundas were unseated—on account of bribery and corruption by their friends and agents! Although he was apparently defeated in the 1837 election, an election petition led to lengthy arguments about votes of disputed validity, and Kelly was ultimately awarded the seat.


On East Road, about where Shenstone & Wheaton Houses now stand.


Horatio Nelson, 3rd Earl Nelson (b. 1823), great-nephew of the naval hero. A Trinity man.


In New Street.


The Bribery Oath: "I, A. B., do swear (or being one of the people called Quakers, I. A. B., do solemnly affirm), I have not received, or had, by myself, or any person whatsoever in trust for me, or for my use and benefit, directly or indirectly, any sum or sums of money, office, place or emolument, gift, or reward, or any promise or security for any money, office, employment, or gift, in order to give my vote at this election."


In Newtown, where the garage block to Hanover Court now stands.


Alexander Pringle, MP for Selkirkshire.


This related to the election of 5th Aug. 1842, and the Committee sat March 15-23 1843. Mr. John Walter was found guilty, through his agents, of bribery, and his election was declared void.


James Hogg, later created a baronet; great-grandfather of Quintin Hogg, Lord Hailsham.


The Parliamentary Elections Act 1841; 4 & 5 Vict. c. 57., which is short enough to give in its entirety:

An Act for the Prevention of Bribery at Elections. 22d June 1841.

'Whereas the Laws in being are not sufficient to hinder corrupt and illegal Practices in the Election of Members to serve in Parliament;' be it enacted by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That whenever any Charge of Bribery shall be brought before any Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to try and determine the Merits of any Return or Election of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament, the Committee shall receive Evidence upon the whole Matter whereon it is alleged that Bribery has been committed; neither shall it be necessary to prove Agency, in the first instance, before giving Evidence of those Facts whereby the Charge of Bribery is to be sustained; and the Committee in their Report to the House of Commons shall separately and distinctly report upon the Fact or Facts of Bribery which shall have been proved before them, and also whether or not it shall have been proved that such Bribery was committed with the Knowledge and Consent of any sitting Member or Candidate at the Election.

The Chairman of the Nottingham committee asked this question of Mr. Austin:—

"The result of your argument, as I understand it, is this,—that unless the committee could report against the sitting member under the 4th & 5th Victoria, as cognizant of acts of corruption, he could not be unseated?"

Mr. Austin's response is more noticeable for its length than its clarity, but the Nottingham committee clearly did not endorse this interpretation of the 1841 Act.


In Bridge Street.


If this was one of the notorious "bags full of sovereigns", that would be somewhat over 3,000 of them!


The railway did not reach Cambridge until 1845. Bishop's Stortford was the railhead from 1842 until then.


On East Road, near the Red Lion.


In Petty Cury.


In Petty Cury.


Both in Fitzroy Street.


Regarding the 1832 General Election, the first after the Great Reform Act. The Committee sat in March 1833. All that was reported at the time was their finding that Viscount Stormont and Sir James Scarlett stood duly elected. Mr. Austin tells us more in his closing speech.


Regarding the 1841 General Election. Committee sat 4-11 May 1842. The election of the Liberal John Quincey Harris was voided on the grounds of bribery by his agents. Harris stood in the ensuing by-election and topped the poll, but it was ruled that he was disqualified from standing and his Conservative opponent John Campbell Colquhoun was deemed elected instead. A small cast of parliamentary barristers recur in all these cases; in this one Mr. Hildyard represented the petitioners and Messrs. Austin & Cockburn represented the sitting members.


Regarding a by-election 3 June 1842. Committee sat 21-30 Jul. 1842. The election of the Conservatives, Lord Desart and Mr. Thomas Gladstone (elder brother of W.E.) was voided on the grounds of bribery by their agents. The Conservatives retained both seats at the subsequent fresh by-election. The first by-election was itself caused by the voiding (for bribery!) of the election in 1841 of two Whig members. Messrs. Kinglake & Austin were opposing counsel in this hearing.


A member of the Committee—G. Poulett Scrope, MP for Stroud.


In Market Street


Probably the one which stood where is now Lion Yard.


Drink responsibly!


A member of the Committee, seeking clarification. Viscount Howick was the son of former Prime Minister Earl Grey, and at this time was MP for Sunderland. He succeeded to the Earldom, and to a seat in the House of Lords, in 1845.


Regarding a by-election held on 5 August 1842. The Committee sat 15—23 March, 1843. It was proved that 26 electors had been bribed by agents of Mr. John Walter, whose election was thereby voided. Messrs Kinglake and Austin were the opposing counsel in that hearing also.


"He who acts through another does the act himself."


In 1804, related to the General Election of 1802. It appears that bribery by agents was proved against BOTH candidates and a completely fresh election was held.