CASE XVII. EVESHAM. The Committee was chosen on the 8th of March, 1838, and consisted of the following Members : Sir Robert Peel, Bart. (Chairman), Tamworth. Sitting Members-George Rushout Bowles, Esq. and P. Borthwick, Esq. Mr. Thesiger, Q. C., Mr. Austin, and Mr. Banks. The petition contained allegations of bribery and treating against both the Sitting Members, it also complained of the want of qualification of Mr. Borthwick, and of the improper reception at the poll of votes for the Sitting Members, and it prayed that the return of the Sitting Members or one of them might be set aside, and that Lord Marcus Hill might be declared duly elected. The election took place on the 25th of July, 1837, and the numbers at the close of the poll were, for 1838. The poll-books and register of voters were produced. Mr. Cockburn after having opened the case against both the Sitting Members, on the ensuing day on entering upon the evidence abandoned the case against Mr. Rushout. sonal bribery. The part of the case first entered upon on the part of Charges of perthe petitioners, was the charge of personal bribery against Mr. Borthwick. The charge of bribery divided itself into two parts. The gift of a snuff-box to a voter of the name of Pearce and the offer of a gift of money to another voter of the name of Clements; with regard to the first part of the case the proof was as follows: A shopman of Messrs. Storr and Mortimer, proved that on the 10th of July, 1837, he went to the house of Mr. Borthwick, according to order, and took with him some silver snuff-boxes, which were shewn to Mr. Borthwick, who selected one, which he said was intended by him as a present to an old schoolmaster, he gave directions that his own crest should be engraved on it with the following inscription:" Ebenezer Pearce, ex dono amici sui qui conducit;" (1) that this snuff-box was sent about a fortnight before the election by the mail, by Mr. Borthwick's instructions, addressed to "Charles Best, Esq., Bingworth, Evesham, Worcestershire." The price of the box, engraving and case was 77. 5s. 6d. Early in July, Mr. Borthwick told Ebenezer Pearce that he had a snuff-box for him which had been at Rundell and Bridges for him for some months. The voter himself was examined, and stated that (1) "Qui conducit," was stated to be Mr. Borthwick's motto. 1838. Mr. Charles Best, who was an attorney at Evesham, in Mr. Borthwick's interest delivered the box to him, with Mr. Borthwick's compliments, on or about the 14th of July, a week before the election. That he had not received the snuff-box when Mr. Borthwick first mentioned it to him, which was about a fortnight before the election; that subsequently, and before the election, he received the snuff-box, and that Mr. Borthwick canvassed him three or four times after he had received it. The voter said to Mr. Borthwick, that he could not vote for him unless Lord Marcus Hill was safe, and in fact, he did not vote at all at the election. On behalf of the Sitting Member it was elicited that the voter at the previous general election in 1835, had been a supporter of Mr. Borthwick's, and that upwards of a year before the election the voter, on observing Mr. Borthwick's carriage and arms, had expressed a wish to have the crest and motto engraved on a snuff-box. It appeared that this observation had afterwards been made matter of conversation, and that in the summer of 1836, Mr. Best had told witness that he would have his snuff-box. On the other side it was shewn, that at the election for a single member, last preceding the present, in Jan. 1837, the voter had voted for the candidate who stood on the opposite interest to that by which Mr. Borthwick was supported on the present occasion. Evidence was also given to establish another case of personal bribery against Mr. Borthwick, in the case of a voter of the name of Clements. The voter, Joseph Clements, was examined and swore that before the election in 1837, he was tenant to one Rudge of some land at Evesham, at the yearly rent of 361. 6s., that Mr. Thomas Pearne, a grocer, at Evesham, was agent to Rudge, that the voter went to Mr. Pearne on the 19th of July, 1837, and paid him 127. 3s. in part of 181. 3s. then due for rent. Mr. Pearne after receiving the rent canvassed him for Mr. Borthwick, and went with him to the Crown Inn where Mr. Borthwick was staying, and took him into Mr. Borthwick's room. Mr. Borthwick was present with several other persons; there was wine on the table, of which the voter partook. Mr. Borthwick asked the voter for his vote, and after some conversation left the room with Mr. Pearne. Mr. Pearne shortly returned and told the voter that Mr. Borthwick wished to speak with him. The voter went into a room where he found Mr. Borthwick alone. Mr. Borthwick then asked the voter for his vote, to which the voter replied, that he could not give it to him, because he understood there was a junction between him and Mr. Rushout, and he had already promised one vote to Lord Marcus Hill. Mr. Borthwick then told the voter, that if he would. give him his vote, he would give a sovereign to the voter's son and indemnify him against the arrears of rent due to Mr. Rudge. That the voter did not vote for Mr. Borthwick at the election. The voter further swore that he left the Crown with Mr. Pearne, and that he then mentioned this offer to him, and that he also mentioned it shortly afterwards to a person of the name of Taylor. Mr. Rushton summed up the evidence and contended that a case of personal bribery was established against Mr. Borthwick in both cases. With reference to the first case, he cited R. v. Pitt (1) and R. v. Mead, (1) and R. v. Vaughan, (2) and contended that all allusions to the wish of the voter to have a snuff-box given him were made in jest, and that the expression of his wish never would have been followed up but for the purpose of securing his support which his vote at the last preceding election had rendered doubtful. With reference to the voter Clements, he said the whole question for the Com(1) 3 Burr. 1335. (2) 4 Burr. 2500. 1838. 1838. mittee was, whether there was the slightest reason to disbelieve the testimony of the witness. Mr. Thesiger applied for an adjournment to enable him to obtain the evidence of Mr. Pearne, who had refused to attend, except under the compulsion of a Speaker's warrant, in answer to the alleged bribery of the voter Clements. Mr. Rushton opposed this application, but agreed to postpone the inquiry into the cases of bribery and proceed with the scrutiny which was acceded to, and the scrutiny was then entered on and continued till the arrival of Mr. Pearne. It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Pearne, that Clements had called on him in July, 1837, and paid him 12. 3s. for rent, due to Mr. Rudge, leaving 67. due, that witness had canvassed Clements on behalf of Mr. Borthwick, and taken him to Mr. Borthwick's room at the Crown, where there was wine on the table of which Clements partook, that Clements went into a room with Mr. Borthwick alone, to which room he had been directed by witness at the request of Mr. Borthwick, and that witness left the Crown with Clements, but the witness further stated that he had never at any time mentioned to Mr. Borthwick that Clements was in arrear to Mr. Rudge, nor had Clements ever mentioned to witness that an offer had been made to him by Mr. Borthwick. Mr. Thesiger addressed the Committee on the evidence imputing personal bribery to Mr. Borthwick. He complained of the extraordinary position in which Mr. Borthwick was placed. Originally a petition had been presented against Mr. Rushout as well as Mr. Borthwick, the case was opened against both, suddenly without any apparent reason the case had been abandoned against Mr. Rushout, before any evidence had been gone into. The temporary suspension of the investigation into the |