IN PARLIAMENT.] LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN, &C. RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL. [IN PARLIAMENT. generally recognised as the Waverley Route. That its length from Edinburgh to Carlisle is ninety-seven miles or thereabouts, while the length of the competing route of the Caledonian is 101 miles. That by the said Act authorising the formation of the said railway, your petitioners are expressly bound to work the line as a through communication. That by sect. 51 certain trains are thereby directed to run throughout the system between Edinburgh and Carlisle. That by sect. 54, provision is made for facilities over the line, to, from, and over the railways communicating therewith, and such provision is enforced by severe penal enactments. That following the said provisions for compelling your petitioners to work and use the said line of railway as a through communication for traffic between Carlisle and Edinburgh and places beyond the same is an enactment in sect. 55 of the said Act for moderating the anticipated competition between your petitioners and the Caledonian Railway Company for traffic passing over their respective lines between Scotland and England, and with that view empowering the two companies to enter into agreements as to rates and traffic. That since the formation of the said railway to Carlisle, the North British Railway Company have been amalgamated with the Edinburgh, Perth, and Dundee Railway Company, whereby your petitioners have become owners of the routes, vid Perth and Broughty, to the north and north-eastern districts of Scotland. That in the last session of Parliament the North British Company also acquired by an amalgamation the undertakings of the Monkland Railway Company and the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway Company, where your petitioners' system has been extended to Stirling and to Larbert in the north, and to Glasgow, Helensburgh, and other places in the west of Scotland. That, further, by the last-mentioned amalgamation, your petitioners have become owners of the great network of mineral railways forming the chief medium of inter-communication throughout the coal and iron districts of Lanark, Stirling, Linlithgow, and Dumbarton. That your petitioners, possessing traffic resources of such extent, have been desirous to turn to profitable account their said line of railway between Edinburgh and Carlisle, which they have since its opening faithfully maintained and worked as a through communication in terms of the recited Act. That your petitioners have made increasing efforts to accomplish that object, but have been thwarted in all their attempts to open the route by the opposition of the London and NorthWestern and other railway companies, who work and control the routes south of Carlisle, and that notwithstanding the facilities conferred in favour of their and other railways by the said recited Act for using your petitioners' Carlisle lines as a through route, under penalties against your petitioners as before mentioned. That the London and North-Western Railway Company is associated in terms of close alliance with the Caledonian Railway Company. That the London and North-Western Company long possessed, if they do not still hold, a large interest in the share capital of the Caledonian Railway Company. They have ever been identified with the projects of that company, and those two companies together have all along pursued a concerted policy to promote their common in terests. That the London and North-Western Company have, in order to promote the interests of the Caledonian Railway Company, invariably forwarded the whole traffic passing from or by their system via Carlisle to Scotland over the lines of the Caledonian Railway, and have excluded your petitioners from participating in any share thereof, and in like manner the London and North-Western Company have thrown every obstruction in their power in the way of traffic being transmitted by your petitioners to England via Edinburgh and Carisle, and by the difficulties and impediments they have placed in the way of communication between their and your petitioners' systems, they have rendered abortive the route of your petitioners' Carlisle line over the London and NorthWestern. your petitioners, and has thrown a large and valuable traffic (in the carriage of which they are most justly entitled to participate) entirely into the hands of the Caledonian Railway Company. That, under the circumstances, your petitioners have observed with no little apprehension that a Bill has been brought into your honourable House, entitled, "A Bill for vesting the undertaking of the Whitehaven Railway Company in the London and North-Western Railway Company, and for conferring on the last-named company running powers over & portion of the Whitehaven and Furness Junction Railway Company, and for other purposes." That the said Whitehaven Junction Railway Company is an indispensable link in the existing line of communication from your petitioners' line of railways, via Carlisle, to the rich mines of hematite iron situated on the Whitehaven and Furness Junction, and the Whitehaven, Cleator, and Egremont, and other railways in the county of Cumberland; and that, therefore, if the said Whitehaven Railway Company shall become amalgamated with the London and North-Western Railway Company, the obstructions hitherto placed in the way of your petitioners carrying the said hematite ore to the iron works upon their system will be perpetuated; for, following their uniform policy, the London and North-Western Company will not fail to divert every ounce of Whitehaven junction traffic for the Scotch ironworks from your petitioners' railways in order that it shall pass over the Caledonian line. That the operation of the said amalgamation, if sanctioned by your honourable House, would not only be to create great loss to your petitioners but to cause serious injury to the public interest; inasmuch as that while the Legislature has sanctioned two distinct routes between Cumberland on the one hand and the seats of the iron manufacture in Scotland upon the other, the said amalgamation, if sanctioned, would exclude the public from the use of one of these routes and prevent all competition between them. That statements in the preamble of the said Bill are unfounded and cannot be proved. The promoters objected to the locus standi of the petitioners on the following grounds :-- That the railway of the petitioners has no junction with the Whitehaven Junction Railway, being distant about thirty miles therefrom. That the Bill contains no provisions for taking or using any part of the lands, railways, stations, or accommodations of the petitioners, nor for running engines or carriages upon or across the same, nor for granting other facilities over or in respect of the undertaking of the petitioners. That the petition does not disclose any such case of competition as entitles the petitioners to be heard upon that ground. That the petition does not allege any grounds of objection to the Bill which, according to parliamentary practice, entitle the petitioners to be heard against the same. Clerk for the petitioners.--The circumstances of this case are peculiar, and raise a question of great importance. The London and North-Western Railway runs to Carlisle, and there stops, and the line to be amalgamated with it, the Whitehaven Junction Railway, is a line from Whitehaven to Maryport, where it joins the Maryport and Carlisle, which runs from Maryport to Carlisle. The North British Railway commences at Carlisle, and goes to the north to Edinburgh and Fife, and other places mentioned in the petition. The first objection to our locus standi is that we have no junction with the Whitehaven Junction Railway; that is true, but it is equally true of the London and NorthWestern. The second objection is also true. As to the third, that we do not disclose a case of competition, I submit that is not the question, as our objection is, that the amalgamation will shut out competition. Our grounds of complaint are, that the London and North-Western Company have such influence over the lines south of Carlisle that they have stopped the iron ore going over our line to How the ironworks upon it. [Mr. RICKARDS. would the amalgamation aggravate that?] Because it is only in contemplation of the amalgamation that the Whitehaven company have acted in a That the consequence of this refusal on the part of the manner which is, in fact, contrary to their own Whitehaven Junction Company has been most disastrous to interests, as we have offered to give them their That your petitioners' traffic is thereby subjected to much inconvenience. That traffic which should naturally flow to places south of Carlisle from points on your petitioners' railways without interruption or break of system is now forced to leave the system of your petitioners and pass over the Caledonian Railway to Carlisle, to which place your petitioners have a route of their own they are bound to keep open for the purposes of the very traffic they are not permitted to That in like manner other railway companies beyond Carlisle subject to the influence of the London and NorthWestern Railway Company have refused routes to your petioners of traffic of most vital importance in the mineral districts traversed by your petitioners' railways. carry. That in particular the Whitehaven Junction Railway Company have refused to permit the Cumberland iron ore, now so mach in demand in the counties of Lanark and Linlithgow, to be sent over your petitioners' route via Carlisle, whether consigned to works in the neighbourhood of Coatbridge, or to the Almond and Kineil Iron Works, in the county of Lin lithgow. IN PARLIAMENT.] THE BOROUGH OF HARWICH (No. 1). own mileage over our line. So long as the Whitehaven is an independent company it is their interest to send their traffic by any route that is open to them; but if this Bill is passed the London and North-Western will have the control of the line, and will send the whole of the traffic by the Caledonian. [Mr. RICKARDS.-How long has this policy been pursued by the Whitehaven company?] About a year, and the amalgamation will make it perpetual. The North British are compelled by i their Acts to keep their line open for traffic from the south, and yet they are to be deprived of this valuable iron. The effect of this amalgamation will be to prevent competition. The Maryport and Carlisle is an independent company, and though from the present agreement between the Whitehaven and the London and North-Western there is an existing block to us, that is against the interest of the Whitehaven company, and has only been entered into in contemplation of this amalgamation. The question is, if the London and North-Western company shall become possessed of an isolated link of mineral traffic. [Mr. HAZARD.-I don't understand how the traffic can be sent by the Caledonian by the London and North-Western when it has to pass over the Maryport and Carlisle, which is an independent line.] Because they can give a through rate. [Mr. HAZARD.-Not if the Maryport and Carlisle objected.] But we know that they would not; they would give us facilities; but if this amalgamation takes place, there never can be a through rate. The through rate is only prevented by the London and North-Western forcing all the traffic at Carlisle over the Caledonian. We could have a clause in the Bill to the effect that, if the Maryport and Carlisle consented to give us facilities, the Whitehaven Junction should do the same, they having their fair proportion of the rates. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, I submit that we are entitled to be heard. Davison, Q. C. for the promoters.-I don't contend that an amalgamation Bill should be argued like a construction Bill, that it is necessary that the lines should be in contact, but I say that all precedent and practice is against this locus standi. As regards what has been said about booking the traffic through to the ironworks which are in Almond and Kineil; it was only last year that the North British got to those places, and why should we book through? I am told that, taking the distance from Carlisle to Kineil, there is a difference of thirty miles in favour of the Caledonian. [Clerk. -Three miles.] Well, say three, but I say it is thirty, and why should the Whitehaven company send the traffic round by the Waverley route? The substance of the case is, that we have no minerals on the line that we are going to amalgamate; the minerals are on the Cleator line, which is in connection with the Maryport and Carlisle, who can send them where they like. This is merely a measure of protection; the Whitehaven line being worked by the London and North-Western, the gentlemen who constructed that line wish to get rid of the responsibility. There being, therefore, no injury, what right have the petitioners to be heard? The Maryport and Carlisle do not petition, and Almond and Kineil are the only two places that the North British can make a grievance out of. I submit that the North British Company have not made out any grievance, and if they had, what remedy could they get? It is not likely that the committee would give them running powers over a line with which they are not in contact. [ELECTION PET. Election Petitions. Reported by F. O. CRUMP, Esq., of the Middle Temple. THE BOROUGH OF HARWICH (No. 1). (Before Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, Chairman; Mr. J. held the rank of captain in the Royal Artillery, and brevet-major in the army. In 1856 he received a regimental order to report himself to his superior officer at Enfield. He was then employed for twehe months as assistant superintendent of a Royal small arms factory at Birmingham. He was transferred to Enfield, where he acted for twelvemonths in a similar capacity. He was lastly transferred to London, and assumed the command of a corps of armoury serjeants, newly created. For these services he received pay in addition to his regimental pay. In 1859 he was elected member for Harwich, and whilst still superintendent of the small arms factory in London, in command of the corps of armoury serjeants, he was re-elected: Held, that J. did not hold a new office or place of profit under the Crown within the disqualifying provisions of 6 Anne, c. 7. The petition was presented by Michael Wills, an unsuccessful candidate for the representation of the borough at the last election, against the return of Henry Jervis White Jervis upon grounds set out in the extract from the petition given below. The poll at its close stood thus :-Jervis, 209; Kelk, 194; Wills, 117; Stephens, 77. Counsel for the petitioner, Phinn, Q. C., FitzJames Stephen, and Philbrick. Counsel for the sitting member, Rodwell, Q. C., Henry James, and Wolferstan. The material clauses of the petition are the following: That before and at the time of the said election and return the said Henry Jervis White Jervis held an office or place of profit under the Crown, to wit, the office of assistant superintendent of the Royal Small Arms Establishment in London, such office or place having been created since the passing of reign of Queen Anne, entitled "An Act for the Security of Her the Act of Parliament made and passed in the sixth year of the Majesty's person and Government, and of the Succession to the Crown of Great Britain in the Protestant Line," and was Secretary of State for War within the meaning of an Act of also a deputy or clerk in the office of Her Majesty's principal Parliament made and passed in the fifteenth year of the reign of King George the Second, entitled "An Act to exclude certain Officers from being Members of the House of Com law of Parliament, the said Henry Jervis White Jervis was mons," whereby, under the statutes in force and the policy and and is wholly disqualified and incapacitated and ineligible to serve in this present Parliament for the said borough, and the said election and return of the said Henry Jervis White Jervis were and are wholly null and void. That the disqualification of the said Henry Jervis White Jervis was generally and publicly made known to the electors of and for the said borough, before the commencement of the polling at the said election, and notice thereof was also given to the said electors, and each and every of them, before the said electors or any of them gave their votes for the said Henry Jervis White Jervis, and the fact of the said Henry public notoriety among the electors of the said borough before Jervis White Jervis holding the said office was matter of the commencement of the polling at the said election, and that by reason of such disqualification and notoriety, and notice to the electors of the said borough, and each and every of them as aforesaid, the votes given for the said Henry Jervis White By the REFEREES (after consultation).—The Jervis at the said election were null, void, and of no tach locus standi of the petitioners is disallowed. Locus standi disallowed. and thrown away; that the votes of such electors and each and every of them were bad, illegal, and invalid, so far as the same were given for or in favour of the said Henry Jervis ELECTION PET.] THE BOROUGH OF HARWICH (No. 1). White Jervis, and ought now to be struck off the poll as votes in his favour; that the majority of votes recorded for the said Henry Jervis White Jervis was wholly made up of such bad, illegal, and invalid votes, and was only a colourable majority: that the said election and return of the said Henry Jervis White Jervis were and are wholly null and void. That in truth, and in fact, a majority of good, legal, and valid votes were given for your petitioner, and your petitioner was elected at the said election, and ought to have been declared duly elected and returned in the place of the said Henry Jervis White Jervis Your petitioner therefore humbly prays that your honourable House will take the premises into consideration, and declare that the said election and return of the said Henry Jervis White Jervis was an illegal election and return, and wholly null and void, and that your petitioner was duly elected and ought to have been returned, and will cause the said return to be amended by erasing the name of the said Henry Jervis White Jervis, and substituting that of your petitioner; and will give your petitioner such further and other relief as to your honourable House may seem meet. The sections of 6 Anne, c. 7, relied upon by the petitioner were the following: Sect. 25: That any person who shall have in his own name, or in the name of any person or persons in trust for him or for his benefit, any new office or place of profit whatsoever under the Crown, which at any time since the 25th Oct. 1705, have been created or erected, or hereafter shall be erected or created, nor any person who shall be commissioner or subcommissioner of prizes, secretary or receiver of the prizes, nor any comptroller of the accounts of the army, nor any commissioner of transports, nor any commissioner of the sick and wounded, nor any agent for any regiment nor any commissioner for any wine licences, nor any governor or deputygovernor of any plantations, nor any commissioner of the navy employed in any of the out-ports, nor any person having any pension from the Crown during pleasure, shall be capable of being elected or of sitting or voting as a member of the House of Commons in any Parliament which shall be hereafter summoned and holden. Sect. 29: And be it further enacted that if any person hereby disabled, or declared to be incapable to sit or vote in any Parliament hereafter to be holden, shall nevertheless be returned as a member to serve for any county, stewarty, city or cinque port in any such Parliament, such election and return are hereby enacted and declared to be void to all intents and purposes whatsoever, and if any person disabled or declared incapable by this Act to be elected, shall after the dissolution or determination of this present Parliament presume to sit or vote as a member of the House of Commons in any Parliament to be hereafter summoned, such person so sitting or voting shall forfeit the sum of 5007. [to be recovered as there inafter provided]. The following section (1) of 15 Geo. 2, c. 22, was also cited in the course of the argument: No person who shall be Commissioner of the Revenue in Ireland, or Commissioner of the Navy or factory office, nor any deputies or clerks in any of the said offices, or in any of the said offices following, that is to say, Lord High Treasurer, Commissioner of the Treasury, or of the auditor of the receipt of His Majesty's Exchequer, or of the tellers of the Exchequer, or of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or of the Lord High Admiral, or of the Commissioners of the Admiralty, or of the Paymaster of the Army or of the Navy, or of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, or of the Commissioners of the Salt, or of the Commisioners of Stamps, or of the Commissioners of Police, or of the Commissioners of Wine Licences, or of the Commissioners of Hackney Coaches, or of the Commissioners of Hawkers and Pedlars, nor any person having any office, civil or military, within the island of Minorca or in Gibraltar, other than officers having commissions in any regiment there only, shall be capable of being elected, or sitting, or voting as a member of the House of Commons in any Parliament that shall be hereafter summoned and holden. Phinn opened the case for the petitioner.-In 1855 the war department was reorganised, it being separated from the colonial department, separate Secreretaries of State being appointed, one for the war department and another for the colonies. In consequence of that it was necessary to make certain arrangements, the principal of which were effected by an Order in Council, dated June 2, 1855. In the schedule to that order one of the appointments specified is that of Superintendent of the Factories of Small Arms, who was charged with the superintendence of all Government establishments where small arms were prepared. Another appointment named was that of Captain Instructor, and the pay of the officers discharging the duties of these positions were voted in the ordinary civil service [ELECTION PET. estimates for the year, at the rate of 2001. per annum. Capt. Jervis's pay was divided into the following items, and so appeared in the estimates for the year in which the election took place:regimental pay, 2217; extra pay, 3501.; contingencies, 731.; servant, 181. In the early estimate there was a foot-note to this effect:-"These officers receive in addition to their civil salary the regular pay of their rank as officers of the royal artillery." This note was omitted in the later estimates. The question to be decided was, whether Capt. Jervis, holding these appointments at the time of his elec tion was the occupant of a new office or place of profit under the Crown within the meaning of the statute. A significant circumstance to begin with was this, that in the Appropriation Act, schedule C, a separate appropriation is made for the manufacturing department amounting to 972,000. There were three propositions to be established:-First, that this is an office or place of profit; secondly, that it is under the Crown; thirdly, that it is new. He would deal first with the question whether it was new. If created since 1705 it was new. It would be advisable to glance at the acts bearing upon this point. The important excepting clause in the statute of Anne was sect. 28, which declares that "nothing hereinafter contained shall be extended, or be construed to extend, to any member of the House of Commons being an officer in Her Majesty's navy who shall receive any new or other commission in the army and navy respectively." That was to prevent officers who accepted promotion from vacating their seats on each promotion. The statute itself was a compromise, and was founded on the jealousy of the Crown, which had increased and was increasing, and which jealousy was carried in some earlier enactments to extent. a very ludicrous The origin of these statutes was in the Commonwealth: the SelfDenying Ordinance of 1644, by which it was provided that no member should have or execute any office, civil or military, under which statute Lord Clarendon observed the Rump denied themselves nothing. In the year 1700, after the succession of the House of Hanover, it was enacted that no person who held an office or place of profit under the Crown, or who received a pension, should sit in Parliament. That was repealed early in the reign of Anne (4 Anne, c. 8, s. 25). After the Revolution the Act of Settlement was passed, which declared a holder of an office or place of profit under the King, or enjoying a pension during pleasure, incapacitated from sitting in the House of Commons. Now, was this a place of profit? It was very observable that in the later statutes the words "or place" were added, which obviously were introduced to give the greater eertainty. Hallam remarks upon the construction of the revised article in the Act of Settlement, which passed the Houses in 1706, that there were "two provisions of great importance, which still continue the great securities against an overwhelming influence; first, that every member of the House of Commons accepting an office under the Crown, except a higher commission in the army, shall vacate his seat, and a new writ shall issue; secondly, that no person holding an office created since the 25th Oct. 1705, shall be capable of being elected or re-elected at all. They excluded, at the same time, all such as held pensions during the pleasure of the Crown; and to check the multiplication of placemen, enacted that no greater number of commissioners should be appointed to execute any office than had been employed in its execution at some time before that Parliament. These restrictions ought to be rigorously and jealously maintained, and to receive a construction, in doubtful cases, according to their constitutional spirit; not as if they were of a penal nature towards individuals; ELECTION PET.] 6 THE BOROUGH OF HARWICH (No. 1). an absurdity in which the careless and indulgent temper of modern times might sometimes acquiesce." A distinction also was to be noticed in the words "under the Crown" as distinct from the words "from the Crown." "Under the Crown," as distinct from "from the Crown," means an office in the public service. That is the construction always adopted in the interpretation of this statute. The two phrases are contrasted in sects. 25 and 26 of the Act, and upon this subject Rogers observes (p. 205), "But besides this there is an important distinction to be noticed in the wording of the two sections. The words whosoever, &c., under the Crown' in the 25th section seem to apply to all offices connected with the public service, whilst the words 'shall accept from the Crown' in the 26th section, seem to limit the operation of the section to such officers as are in the immediate patronage of the Crown. If such distinction be correct, it would be immaterial with regard to a new office to inquire whether it be in the gift of the Crown itself or part of the private patronage of an officer of the Crown; whilst with regard to an old office it would be important to determine whether it was held under the Crown' or accepted from the Crown.' In the latter case only-an acceptance from the Crown, i.e., from the minister of the Crown distributing the Court patronage-would the seat be vacated; and even then, as we have before seen, a member would be capable of re-election." This distinction is confirmed by the Irish Act, 41 Geo. 3, c. 52. Bearing generally upon this argument was the Cambridge case of this session. In that case it appeared the Secretary of State for India has the power of submitting to the Crown an establishment for his office under the last India Act, and among the offices submitted to the Queen was that of counsel to the Secretary of State. The nomination and appointment were, he believed, made by word of mouth. The committee of the House of Commons determined unanimously that that was a new office under the Crown. [ELECTION PET. military pay was then recognised by the committee. Is Capt. Jervis's case within any of the exceptions? or are the duties which he performed merely extra duties annexed to the captaincy of artillery? The class of cases, where officers of scientific corps in Great Britain are employed in various civil offices in the State receiving a civil allowance in addition to their military pay is very large, and if this single case was allowed to pass Parliament would be invaded by men employed by the Crown, of whom the Ministry would have the absolute disposal, and thereby the freedom of the Commons would be jeopardised. He then referred to the first section of 15 Geo. 2, c. 22, s. 1, and if Capt. Jervis did not fall within the designation of a gentleman holding an office, or place of profit under the Crown, then he apprehended he fell within the designation of a deputy, or clerk in the War-office. The Superintendent of Factories was entirely obedient to the War Department; but if he could not be brought within this denomination it was a question whether he was not covered by the words expressive in the statute as "one holding the office of a commissioner of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State." The Marquis of Hartington examined by Phinn, Q. C.: When he took office Capt. Jervis was assistant-superintendent of the small arms factory in London. He proved the estimates providing for the salary of Capt. Jervis not only as military but as civil pay. The Secretary of State, when a vacancy occurs in the establishment, informs the Commanderin-Chief, who recommends an officer, and if the Secretary of State concurs, he is appointed. He was not aware of any change in the office from a civil to a military office. The Secretary of State has entire control over the officer. The officer for the service is not necessarily a military officer, but he was not aware of a civilian holding the post. Cross-examined by James: In his opinion as Secretary at War he was supreme over the Organisation. Every officer is bound to obey the orders of the whole army, as reported by the Committee on Military Secretary of State. He was not aware that a civilian ever made a return as to the state of a military corps liable to the Mutiny Act such as Capt. Jervis had to make in the position which he held. He had never known a civilian subject to James.-Capt. Jervis did hold under the Crown: regimental orders. At any time he could have commanded we admit it. Phinn.-A case bearing some similarity to that is the case of Mr. Harvey who, in 1839, was appointed registrar of hackney carriages under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 79. That office was created by Act of Parliament; the appointment was vested, not in Her Majesty, but, curiously enough, in the Secretary of State, who nominated by force of the statute. Yet the House, taking notice of the matter itself by means of a committee of privileges, determined that Mr. Harvey held an office under the Crown. In 1727 the House asked for a return of new offices, evidently with a view to excluding from the House of Commons those persons whom it was the policy of the statute of Anne to exclude, and in that return was named the office of Superintendent of Factories. The learned counsel then proceeded to refer to sect. 48 of 28 & 29 Vict. c. 104, to elucidate the construction to be put upon the words "from" and "under," and passed on to the consideration of Gen. Skene's case, 1 Lud. App. 455. This officer held the post of Baggage Master of the Forces and Inspector of Roads in Scotland. Gen. Skene said that he was not disqualified, because the offices were military and old ones. The committee were of opinion that the novel creation of one of the offices was notorious, and unseated the member. It did not appear by whom the appointment was made. No inquiry was instituted into this question because the committee decided that the office was ew. A principal allegation in the petition was t he was paid his salary by warrant of the asury, and the difference between civil and Capt. Jervis to rejoin his depot. There were many cases where a military officer received additional pay. Re-examined by Phinn: The appointment had been called a civil appointment. Tinder ordinary circumstances the Secretary of State for War does not interfere in military appointments. Are you aware of any case in which a civilian has performed such duties-such, for instance, as commanding the armoury serjeants? I am not. By the Committee: The Secretary of State could have directed Capt. Jervis to join his regiment. Phinn.-How has the office in question been treated? It has been called a civil office. Major Jervis M.P., examined by H. James: Up to 1854 he performed the ordinary duties of an artillery officer. In 1855 he was ordered to America on the part of the Board of Ordnance, and whilst there received extra pay. In 1856 he was ordered to report himself to Col. Dickson at Enfield for service at Birmingham. He did report himself to Col. Dickson, who was his superior officer. The only appointment was that made by a letter from Col. Bingham, DeputyAdjutant-General, who was acting as Master-General of the Ordnance. His duties were to examine all the rifles brought into the service. In pursuance of a regimental order he proceeded to Enfield. It was against his wish to go to Enfield or to come to London. In 1858 he was employed in London, and had entire command over a new corps of armoury serjeants the Mutiny Act. They stood in the same relation to him as a who were subject to courts-martial and liable to be tried under private bore to his officer in the line. Substantially his duties had been the same at all three places. He was first elected for Harwich in 1859. No objection had been taken until the present time, when a legal gentleman stood against him. On the 1st Jan. 1866 he was ordered to join his regiment. ELECTION PET.] By Phinn: THE BOROUGH OF HARWICH (No. 2). He had command of the armoury serjeants by virtue of his commission. He had clerks under him, some being civilians and some military. In 1858 a change was made in the emolument paid him, but he drew the whole through his regimental agent. To Mr. Armstrong: The orders I received were regimental orders. I was bound to obey them. General Peel was next examined, and stated: That he was a member of the Committee on Military Organisation. He agreed in the report of that committee He believed that if a question arose between the Commander-inChief and the Secretary of State, the authority of the latter would be paramount. The appointment to such a position as that held by Capt. Jervis lay with the Secretary of State. The Commander-in-Chief, on being applied to, recommended officers for the appointment. Cross-examined by Phinn: An officer is bound to obey every order of the Secretary of State. The CHAIRMAN said:-The committee are of opinion that the appointment in question was not "an office or place of profit" within the meaning of the Act; but that it was extra work given to a commissioned officer, which he was bound to execute under his commission. An allegation in a petition that an agreement was entered into between two candidates in the same interest, that one should use his influence and that the other should pay the expenses of the election, must be supported by the clearest possible evidence. A. was a director of the Z. Railway Company, whose line runs into the borough of H., and communicates with a line of packets plying between H. and the Continent. B., a stranger to the electors of H., joined A. in contesting the borough on Conservative principles, and they were successful, sixty out of the sixty-three employees of the 7. company at H. voting for A. and B. A petition was in due course presented against the return upon the following ground: "That it was corruptly and unlawfully agreed by and between A. and B. before the election that the said A. should unduly use the influence of himself and the Z. company (whereof he was the deputy chairman and a director) with and over voters for and in the said borough in favour of the said B., and that the said B. should in consideration thereof pay and bear the expenses of and attending the election of the said A. or some portion thereof;" averment of the payment of the expenses and return of the said B. In support of this allegation D. was called as a witness, and swore that he met B. in H. at the time of the election, and mentioned to him the terms of the rumoured agreement, and that B. replied, " Essentially but it does not contain all the conditions." that is So, On the other hand, A. and B. swore that no such agreement had been entered into, and that A. had paid all his own expenses : Held, that A. and B. were duly elected; that there was no evidence of undue influence; that the agreement alleged in the petition had not been entered into, and that the petition was frivolous and vexatious. This was a petition presented against the return of Henry Jervis White Jervis and John Kelk, sitting members for the borough of Harwich, by the following electors of the borough:- John [ELECTION PET. Gurney Kelley Burt, doctor of physic; Frederick Everard, draper; William Haylett, shoemaker Elijah Race, innkeeper; George Nalborough, grocer; John Lewis, shipowner; William Sallows, baker; John Baker, gentleman; and James Norman, greengrocer. The material parts of the petition are the following: That it was corruptly and unlawfully agreed by and between the said Henry Jervis White Jervis and John Kelk before the said election, that the said Henry Jervis White Jervis should unduly use the influence of himself and the Great Eastern Railway Company (whereof he was then deputy chairman and director) with and over voters for and in the said borough in favour of the said John Kelk, and that the said John Kelk should in consideration thereof pay and bear the expenses of and attending the election of the said Henry Jervis White Jervis, or some portion thereof, and the said John Kelk promised the said Henry Jervis White Jervis to pay and bear the said expenses in order to induce the said Henry Jervis White Jervis to endeavour to procure the return of the said John Kelk as a burgess to serve in this Parliament for the said borough, and the said Henry Jervis White Jervis, in consequence of such promise of the said John Kelk, promised and endeavoured to procure, and did procure, the return of the said John Kelk as a burgess to serve in this Parliament for the said borough. That in pursuance of the said corrupt agreement, and for the purpose aforesaid, the said Henry Jervis White Jervis did unduly use the influence of himself and the said Great Eastern Railway Company with and over voters for and in the said borough in favour of the said John Kelk, as well as of himself, and did thereby induce them to vote for the said John Kelk and for himself, and did for this purpose employ and cause to be employed for the said company a large number of the said voters before and during the said election, and did purchase and cause to be purchased for the said company goods from a large number of the said voters before and during the said election, and by threats of withdrawal of custom, and of the infliction of other injury to some of the said voters, made in order to induce them to vote for the said Henry Jervis White Jervis and John Kelk, or to refrain from voting for the said Michael Wills and James Fitz-James Stephen; and by promises of money, custom, employment, and other valuable consideration made to others of the said voters in order to induce them to vote or to refrain from voting as aforesaid, did induce many of the said voters to vote for the said John Kelk and for himself the said Henry Jervis White Jervis, and to refrain from voting for the said Michael Wills and James Fitz-James Stephen. That by reason of the premises the said election for the said borough was and is wholly null and void, and the said Henry Jervis White Jervis and John Kelk were and are disqualified and ineligible to be returned or to sit in this present Parliament for the said borough. The petitioners relied upon 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, 8. 4: self, or by or with any other person, or by any other ways or Every candidate at an election who shall corruptly by himmeans on his behalf, at any time either before, during, or after any election, directly or indirectly, give or provide, or cause to be given or provided, or shall be accessory to the expenses incurred for any meat, drink, entertainment, or provision to or for any person in order to be elected, or for being elected, or for the purpose of corruptly influencing such person or any other person to give or refrain from giving or providing, or shall pay wholly or in part any giving his vote at such election, or on account of such person having voted or refrained from voting at such election, shall be deemed guilty of the offence of treating, and shall forfeit the sum of 50l. to any person who shall sue for the same with full costs of suit, and every voter who shall corruptly accept or take any such meat, entertainment, or provision, shall be incapable of voting at such election, and his vote, if given, shall be utterly void and of none effect. Counsel for the petitioners, Ballantine, Serjt., Clerk, and Daly. For the sitting members, Rodwell, Q. C., Henry James, and Wolferstan. Ballantine, Serjt. opened the case for the petitioner. Ten years ago a question very similar to the present arose in connection with the same borough of Harwich, and the member was unseated. The Act of Parliament upon which the petitioners rely is 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, s. 4. [The learned Serjeant read the section.] Now the voters of Harwich were mostly of the humbler class, numbering altogether 347. Capt. Jervis, one of the sitting members, at the time of his election was a director |