FOR THE TRIAL OF ELECTION PETITIONS.
SANDWICH ELECTION
JUDGMENT delivered by the Right Honourable Mr. Justice Lush and the Honourable Mr. Justice Manisty, on the TRIAL of the SANDWICH ELECTION PETITION, at Sandwich, on Tuesday, 10th August 1880.
GOLDSMID – Petitioner.
CROMPTON-ROBERTS – Respondent.
[Mr. Justice Lush] The conduct of the election which is the subject of the present inquiry is distinguished from all others which we have had to deal with, in that both the requirements and the prohibitions of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts seem to have been totally disregarded from first to last. Although the Act which prohibits the supply of ribbons, or other mark of distinction, to any inhabitant of the borough, and the payment of money for flags and banners has been in force for more than a quarter of a century, and the practice we thought had died out, it was revived by both parties at this election, and sums expended in rosettes, which were distributed amongst the wives and children of voters, and in flags, banners, and ribbons, which would have gone a great way towards paying all the necessary expenses of an honest and properly conducted election.
The Respondent’s accounts alone for these forbidden attractions amount to 348L. 10s., and we observe in passing, that 315L. 10s., part of this amount, forms part of an item of 370L., which, in the summary handed to the returning officer for publication, is charged under the head of “Clerks and personation agents.” This sum of 315L. 10s. was chiefly expended amongst 10 tradesmen in the borough, all of whom were probably voters, and it represents no less a quantity than 365 dozen of rosettes and favours, and 3,605 yards of bunting and ribbon. To these are to be added 80 special rosettes for the committee, charged at 2s. each, and 500 other rosettes at 1s. each, which appear in a separate account returned by Mr. Hughes. The cost of these, added to the 315L. 10s-., makes up the aggregate of 348L. 10s. spent by the Respondent on rosettes, ribbons, flags, and banners. Other illegal devices were resorted to which I do not stop to advert to, as my learned Brother has observed upon them.
Further, the summary of the election expenses of the Respondent was not delivered till the 3rd instant, and no vouchers were delivered until the first day of our sitting, the 5th August, though the poll was declared on the 18th May, so that the Petitioner’s agent had not any opportunity beforehand of examining them. On the other hand, the Petitioner’s election expenses have not been returned to this day. The person appointed his election expenses agent is not a professional man, and seems to be utterly ignorant of his duties. The bills of the creditors, which should have been delivered to him, were sent to the two law agents, and neither of them thought it right to conform to the law by handing them over to the expenses agent.
It does not appear that any of them have been paid, and it is due to the Petitioner to say that he disputes many of them, and that his present solicitor says he was not aware till he came here to attend the trial that they had not been filed, as they ought to have been. We have required an inspection of the accounts which are in the hands of the two law agents, and have gathered from them such information as they afford, but it falls far short of what ought to have been furnished. The total of the Respondent’s accounts, delivered to the returning officer, is 3,153L. 5s. 3d.
The total of the accounts we have received from the Petitioner’s agents is 2,669L. 18s. 10d., but it is evident that these do not represent all the claims, or, at least, all the outlay at the election in question. Mr. Hughes, the agent of the Respondent, admits that he has received from his client, since he came down to Sandwich, sums amounting in the whole to 4,000L., and that he has in hand about 800L. to account for, but he drew the last 500L. on the 2nd of June, after the election banking account, which he opened at Deal when he came down, was closed. Yet he says there may be no balance for him to pay over when the accounts are settled. Why he drew the last 500L., or how ho makes out that there may be no balance, we endeavoured to ascertain, but we are bound to say that his explanation was far from being satisfactory. When asked again, by the Respondent’s counsel on re-examination, he said that he had something to charge Mr. Roberts in respect of the Petition. But although we are unable to ascertain what the entire cost of the election has been to either party, enough appears in the accounts and the evidence to show that there has been profuse and reckless expenditure on both sides, and that each party has striven to outdo the other in providing attractions which the law expressly forbids.
The particular expedients I have mentioned are not in themselves corrupt practices,and do not of themselves affect the seat. They are forbidden under penalties. But when we see a deliberate purpose, from the beginning, to set the law at defiance, and to win the favour of the constituency by unlawful means we cannot help viewing with suspicion any matter which is left in obscurity or doubt, and especially any act of a questionable nature which might affect the seat and the quality of which we are bound to decide upon.
The Petition contains the usual charges of bribery, treating, and undue influence, but it does not claim the seat. The charge of bribery against the Respondent, after a fruitless attempt to prove it personally, was at the end of the trial, withdrawn. Several specific acts of direct bribery are charged in the Particulars, and two of them, the Petitioner’s counsel attempted to prove, but failed; and that line of attack was abandoned. No evidence was given in support of the charge of treating, as the word is ordinarily understood, and we gladly take the opportunity of saying that, while we find much to censure, we have found no trace of money having been spent in drink, either on voters or non-voters. The Respondent’s agent says, and we entirely believe him, that he carefully abstained from this, the common and most demoralising form of corruption.
The acts of bribery insisted on are the hiring in a large number of public-houses in Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich, of rooms, under the name of “committee-rooms,” which it is contended by the Petitioner were unnecessary, and were hired only as a pretext for the payment of money to the publicans, as a nominal rent, in order to secure their votes.
The Parliamentary Borough of Sandwich comprises Sandwich, Deal, and Walmer. The number of voters on the register is 2115. The borough was divided into six polling districts, two of them being in Sandwich, three in Deal, and one in Walmer. 1,850 votes were recorded, at the election in question, and the Respondent was returned, by a majority of 440. At the general election in April there was no contest, and the Liberals were returned.
The election in question was caused by the elevation to the peerage of one of these gentlemen ; and immediately the approaching vacancy was announced the Respondent appeared and issued his address. He was a stranger to the borough, and was probably invited by the local Conservative Association, for some of the members of that body appear to have, on his arrival, made proposals to some of the publicans for the hire of their rooms.
On the 5th May, Mr. Hughes, a solicitor, came from London,. having been recommended, he says, by Mr. Spofforth, the Respondent’s private solicitor. He was called as a witness by the Petitioner, and became, as it turned out, the principal witness in the case. He undertook the general management of the election, and had, according, to his own words, absolute control over everything.
His first act was to engage 71 public-houses in Deal and Walmer, and 17 in Sandwich. The negotiations for some of these, he says, commenced before he arrived; but on the 6th May he sent a Mr. Olds, a clerk of Mr. Spofforth, round to the different houses in Deal and Walmer, engaged a room in each, and paid to each of the proprietors 5L. down. He says he could not get them for less; but, according to the evidence of six of these persons who were called, there was no bargaining about the price. Olds merely asked if he had a room which he would let; upon hearing that he had, he at once offered and paid 5L., and took the signature of the man to one of a number of receipts which Olds brought with him. The form of this receipt was drawn up by Mr. Hughes. The following, is a copy of it:.
“Sandwich Election, 1880. Received of Mr. Crompton-Roberts the sum of five pounds, for the use of room at the ‘Deal Castle Inn’ for committee meetings (when required), and for exhibiting bills, &c., during the election. Walmer, 6th May 1880. (Signature.)” The receipts were all in the same form: all of them specified the same amount, 5L. and the only words requiring to be inserted when, the money was paid, were the name of the inn. One of the six witnesses stated that his room was a backroom, but that it looked: on a yard through which persons came in by the back-door. Another of the rooms hired had one window at the side and another in the front. A third publican offered his, tap-room, which was accepted; but, he says, he removed the business for a time to another room.
The striking fact is that no objection was made by Olds in any instance, that we know of to the size or the position of the room ; the same price was paid for each room, whether it was a front or a back room, a large or a small one. For two of these houses the rent paid by the tenant was 12L. a year, for one other 17L., and for two others 18L. The question was omitted to be asked of the sixth witness; and at this stage of the case the accounts were referred to, and as they disclosed the payment of 5L. for each of the 71 houses, it was not necessary “to proceed further with this class of witnesses.
The 17 rooms engaged:in so many public-houses at Sandwich were taken at the same time by an agent: deputed by Mr. Hughes for the purpose, and the same sum of 5L. paid down, for each ; so that some days before the writ issued, and a week before any rival candidate appeared, a room in each of 88 public-houses was hired, and the hire of 5L actually paid. All these houses, with very few exceptions, were tenanted by voters,, and all but four of these actually voted. The sum put down in the accounts for “Committee Houses” is 527L. 1s 3d., a sum considerably more than 5L. per house for 88 houses. What the difference represents was not satisfactorily explained, further than that part of it was for the central and other rooms actually used as committee-rooms.
The question is what was the object of hiring all these rooms ? Committee-rooms, proper, were provided both at Deal and Sandwich,. and in these the ordinary business of the election was transacted. The 88 rooms were not wanted for any committee business. Mr. Hughes said he wanted a certain number of public-houses in order to conduct what he described as the public business of the election. “You cannot,” said he, “get at the voters unless you have some place to canvass them.” But he admitted that 40 would, have been enough, even according to his view of what was necessary for “public” business, and that only 17 were ever used at all, and then only for small meetings. Mr. Matthews contended that the persons who frequented these houses were more easily met with there, where they attended in the evenings. But was it needful to pay the innkeeper 5L. in order to be able to visit the tap or the kitchen? All that the innkeeper did for his 5L. was to put up a few bills (in some cases one only) in his window and at the bar.
Another reason assigned for hiring these houses was that they were wanted for the use of the window for bills; but this is futile. the real motive for engaging these houses was disclosed by Mr. Hughes in his examination. “ The licensed victuallers,” he sa id, “are a very important element in an election, and are acknowledged to be so. An election agent who wants to succeed cannot look over it. It is indispensable in all boroughs.” He says, further, that he always begins in this way, and that at the last election for Greenwich he engaged 350 of these houses. This practice seems to have been known at Deal, for he says that when he first went there he was congratulated on being first in the field, and having the pick of the public-houses.
The motive further appears from an incident which occurred between Mr. Olds and the wife of the person who keeps the “Lord Warden Inn,” at Deal. Olds had engaged a room in that house, but had not paid the 5L.; and when she heard that the other innkeepers had received it, she applied to him to know why he had not paid her. Olds’ answer was, that her husband’s name had been scratched out because he was not a voter. She appealed to Mr. Hughes, and claimed fulfilment of the contract, and he paid her. We must here complain of a want of candour on the part of Mr. Hughes in connection with this incident. He stated in his examination that the hiring was not confined to voters; and as proof of the fact, instanced as one of them the “Lord Warden.” The evidence of the innkeeper’s wife had not then been given. That evidence made it clear that Olds would not have hired the house if he had not thought that the innkeeper was a voter.
We do not feel any difficulty in answering the question; what was the object which Mr. Hughes had in view in engaging these numerous public-houses? It was to secure the vote and interest of the innkeeper. The rooms were not wanted for use, nor was any real use ever made of more than a few of them. The argument that if the Conservatives had not taken the rooms the Liberals would, may be, and probably was, true; but that shows that the object of paying the money was to influence the vote, to induce the voter to vote, and give his interest on that side; and that is the essence of bribery. There is no difference in substance between a colourable hiring of a voter’s room as a committee room, and a colourable hiring of the voter himself as a messenger. The object in each case is to secure his vote. The only difference between the two cases is in the form of the disguise.
Another matter has been revealed by the accounts, and the evidence which is not charged in the Particulars ; but which, being disclosed, we cannot pass without remark. Mr. Hughes would not admit that there was a committee, though there were committee-rooms; from which circulars were issued, as from the committee: and every one of the 71 receipts purported to be for the use of the room as a committee-room. He said he was very cautious not to have any agents under that denomination; but there was a large number of active partisans whom he preferred to call “canvassers.” He appointed at the outset 42 of them at 6L., each ; and a number of others at 5s. a-day. The amount paid to this class of agents, which is mixed up with some other items in the accounts, he says may be taken at 450L. Giving to each of those who were paid by the day, 12 days, the number of this class of paid agents was upwards of 100; all except two or three being voters. And although there is no direct evidence that they actually voted, no one can doubt, looking at the efforts that were made to win the election, that every voter whom Mr. Hughes could command was brought to the poll.
It is not necessary to pronounce any judgment upon the employment of this body of so-called “canvassers.” The hiring of the public-houses, which we adjudge to be colourable, is sufficient to void the election. We must certify to the Speaker accordingly. We have further to certify and report whether corrupt practices have or have not extensively prevailed. Looking, at the accounts produced by the Respondent’s agent, we find an item of 617L. (in round numbers) for committee-houses, as against 527L. (in round numbers; in the Respondent’s accounts ; and evidence was given to the effect that the Petitioner had a larger number of public-houses engaged than the Respondent. When, and by whom these were engaged, or the ribbons and flags provided, does not appear.
It is clear that they were provided; but, as before observed, the Petitioner has not paid for them, and he disputes his liability. We feel bound to report, in view of these facts, that corrupt practices did extensively prevail; and must report the names of those who are found to have been guilty of such practices. The costs of the Petition ordinarily follow the result; but this is an exceptional case.
The Petitioner has failed in his attempt to bring home personal bribery to the Respondent, his agents, or some persons on his behalf, have been guilty of the same illegal acts as are charged in the Petition ; and to this day they have withheld from the returning officer his election expenses. I, therefore, think that each party ought to bear his own costs of this Petition. I, of course, include any interlocutory costs which might, by Judge’s order, have been made payable by either party, in any event.
[Mr. Justice Manisty] This case has caused me more than ordinary anxiety, partly owing to the fact of the Respondent being charged personally with bribery. That charge was withdrawn by the Petitioner at the somewhat sudden and unexpected close of the inquiry yesterday. But much remains to be considered which is of an unusually painful character. We have repeatedly said that in drawing inferences in particular cases of alleged corrupt practices, we take into consideration the conduct of the candidate and his agents generally. If we find the election conducted on pure principles as a rule, we are very slow to draw adverse inferences in a few exceptional cases; if, on the other hand we find the election conducted on corrupt principles, we have regard to that fact when considering particular cases.
I am sorry to say that in the present case the election was, in my opinion, conducted upon such corrupt principles, that it is difficult to approach the consideration of the evidence in the particular cases of alleged bribery upon which the seat depends without being unduly biassed by that fact. The Respondent entrusted everything to his professional election agent, Mr. Hughes, who by himself and his sub-agents seems, from first to last, to have disregarded both the common law and the statute law against corrupt practices at elections, with the single exception of not resorting to treating, by giving meat or drink to voters for the purpose of influencing their votes.
The constituency, after allowing for deaths, &c. &c., consisted of about 2,000 electors. It was known to be a dangerous constituency. The licensed victuallers and beerhouse keepers, numbering about 200, or one-tenth of the whole constituency, were an important element: and to secure their interest was, Mr. Hughes says, indispensable. Accordingly’, acting upon a principle which he had practised largely at other elections, the first thing he did was to hire from 88 licensed victuallers and beerhouse keepers, all of whom save three or four were voters, no less than 88 small rooms, which he called “committee-rooms,” and for the use of each of which, when and if required during the election, he paid 5L. This is the alleged act of bribery upon which the case, as regards the seat, depends, and as to it, I shall make some comments afterwards.
The next thing which Mr. Hughes did was to divide the borough into districts, and to work the election as it is called, not by Committee men for he says he determined that there should be no committee, but by means of “canvassers,” whom he admits would, in the eye of the law, be considered as a “committee.” He engaged upwards of 100 paid canvassers, all of whom save two or three, were voters. I cannot doubt but that by far the greater part of these voters were hired and paid for the purpose of influencing them to vote for the Respondent; but as the Particulars do not include these cases I can only notice them as showing the general character of the practices resorted to at the election.
Another illegal, if not corrupt act, done for the purpose of influencing the constituency was, to arrange for a regatta to take place on the 17th of May. On the 12th of May, being the same day on which public notice was given that the 18th would be the polling day, bills were issued, printed in Conservative colours, by which the regatta was announced, and Mr. Crompton-Roberts, the Respondent, invited the inhabitants to use the Deal pier free of the usual charge of 2d. per head. Mr. Hughes paid Chapman 5L. odd for printing the regatta bills: he also paid 15L. for the use of the pier: 15L. for a band; and 22L. towards the expenses of making arrangements for the regatta. The regatta did not come off owing to the bad state of the weather; but that makes no difference as regards the device resorted to in order to influence the constituency.
Mr. Hughes says it was expected that the election would be over before the 17th of May’; I doubt it. Be that as it may, it was as corrupt to promise an entertainment immediately after the election, as immediately before it. It certainly is an extraordinary coincidence that the bills for the regatta and the notice of the day of polling, should have appeared on the same day’. This case also is omitted from the Particulars delivered by the Respondent, and can only be noticed in. the same way as the paid canvassers.
Another illegal device was resorted to, namely, that of exhibiting banners and flags, and distributing rosettes, &c., which, according to Mr. Hughes’s evidence, were greedily sought after by the members of the families of voters. My learned Brother has gone into this point fully; I therefore .abstain from saying any more about it, except that it is no excuse for one candidate to resort to corrupt or illegal practices because the other does it. This is the only excuse put forward by Mr. Hughes for acting as he did. In the eye of the law it is no excuse at all.
Many other things were done by the Respondent’s agents, as appears by an inspection of the vouchers handed in during the course of this inquiry, and which, with those I have adverted to, lend me to the conclusion that the election generally was conducted upon illegal and corrupt principles, and with the determination to win at any hazard. This brings me to the vital question, whether the 88 rooms hired from 88 licensed victuallers and beerhouse keepers, nominally as “committee-rooms,” and rooms for exhibiting bills, were hired and paid for, with intent to influence the votes of the persons from whom they were hired. I am constrained, by the evidence of Mr. Hughes himself, to come to the conclusion that they were. It is proved that all the 88 persons, save one or two, were voters; and that all, save four, voted.
It is said by Mr. Hughes that it was indispensable, with the view to gaining the election, that the interest of the licensed victuallers should be secured; that very few of the rooms (I think he says 17) were used for any purpose except exhibiting bills; and that even those were used very seldom. Above all, he admits that 40 would have sufficed even for the purposes for which he says he engaged 88. The great point attempted to be made by the Respondent’s learned counsel was, that the rooms were really needed for exhibiting bills, “to get at” the voters, which, he said, meant meeting them for the purpose of canvassing them. In supporting this latter argument, he relied upon the evidence of Mr. Hughes, to the effect that each house had its clique or set of customers, which frequented it as a working man’s club. If such be the fact, there was no heed of taking a room in each house for the purpose of meeting them, seeing that they could just as easily have been canvassed there without it. And as to engaging the rooms for the purpose of exhibiting bills, the point has been sufficiently dealt with by my learned Brother, and I say no more about it, except to call attention to the fact admitted by Mr. Hughes, that the professional bill-poster for the borough came to him on his “arrival,” and, though a Liberal, agreed with him for 20L. to post the bills for the Conservatives. An arrangement was come to by both parties with this fortunate monopolist, that he should post bills throughout the borough for both sides, each party paying him 20L.
In my opinion the election was conducted from first to last in such an illegal and corrupt manner as substantially to interfere with the free and pure exercise of the franchise by the electors; but having regard to the allegations in the Petition, and the Particulars which have been delivered by the Petitioner, we are, as regards the seat, restricted to the particular cases of bribery, to which I have averted; and they are only proved to an extent winch inculpates the Respondent by his agents.
I hope this case may be a warning to candidates in future. If they will furnish money to their agents to such an amount that it is impossible to suppose it can be expended legitimately; and if they will shut their eyes to what is transparent, they must not be surprised to find that Election Judges in future take a more severe view of their conduct than they have hitherto done. It is unnecessary to say what conclusion I should have arrived at in the present case, as regards the Respondent personally, if the Particulars had been so framed as to include treating by providing and paying for entertainment other than meat or drink. I have not formed any conclusive opinion upon the point: but this I think I ought to say, that, as regards treating personally, the Respondent has had a very narrow escape.
I do not believe that anything approaching to purity of election will ever be attained, unless the law be amended by restricting the number of agents, clerks, and messengers; and preventing all paid voters from exercising their franchise, The return made at the last moment, and long after the statutory time, by the Respondent’s election expenses agent, Mr. Hughes, is highly reprehensible; and the fact that no return has been made by the election expenses agent of the Petitioner, is unpardonable.
There is strong reason to believe that the Petitioner, by his agents, was guilty of corrupt practices very similar in character .and extent to those on the part of the Respondent. I agree that the Respondent should be declared to have been not duly elected or returned, on the ground of bribery by his agents; and, considering that the Petitioner has failed to establish the most important part of his case, and that he has not returned his election expenses, coupled with the fact that corrupt practices were extensively resorted to by his agents, I agree that each party should bear his own costs of and relating to the Petition, save those, if any, which have been ordered to be paid by either party in any event. We shall have to make a report to the Speaker in the terms mentioned by my learned
Brother.
[Mr. Justice Lush] We shall give certificates to the witnesses who have been examined, and who have criminated themselves. We must report the names of Mr. Hughes, Mr. Usher, and Mr. Cloke, as having been guilty of corrupt practices; but we shall give them certificates to protect them from prosecution under the statute.