§ In the matter of the City of Gloucester Election Petition.
§ We, Sir Charles Edward Pollock, knight, one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer, and Sir Henry Hawkins, knight, one of the Justices of the High Court of Justice, two of the Judges for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby, in pursuance of The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, and The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1880, certify that upon the 9th day of June instant (1880), we duly held a Court within the City of Gloucester for the trial of, and did try, the Election Petition for that City between Edmund Digby Worsley, James Franklin, and George Twyford, Petitioners; and Thomas Robinson and Charles James Monk, Respondents.
§ And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, We certify that at the conclusion of the said trial we determined that the said Thomas Robinson, one of the Members whose Return and Election were complained of in the said Petition, was not duly elected, and that his Election and Return were void, because he, by his Agent, one John Clement Morris, was guilty of bribery at and before the said Election, and that the said Charles James Monk, the other of the said Members whoso Return and Election were complained of in the said Petition, was duly elected and returned.
§ And whereas charges were made in the said Petition of corrupt practices having been committed at the said Election to which the Petition 60 refers, we in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:—
§ That upon the trials of the said Petition no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any or either of the Candidates at the said Election.
§ And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we further report that the persons who were proved at the trial to have been guilty of corrupt practices, namely, of bribery at and before the said Election, are:—
§ John Clement Morris, Joseph Stoddart, and Thomas Meadows.
§ And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we report that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the Election to which the Petition relates.
§ And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we specially report the following matters which arose in the course of the trial, an account of which in our judgment ought to be submitted to the House of Commons.
§ The Petition was presented against the said Thomas Robinson and Charles James Monk jointly, and charged them jointly and severally with bribery, treating, and intimidation and undue influence, before, during, and after the said Election.
§ In the particulars of the bribery alleged and charged against the Respondents, no less than 80 cases of bribery were specifically mentioned.
§ On the day before the trial, the Respondent Thomas Robinson, by a notice under his hand, signified his intention not to oppose the Petition.
§ At the trial, the Respondent Thomas Robinson did not appear either in person or by Counsel or otherwise to oppose the Petition. The Respondent Charles James Monk did appear by Counsel. The evidence of Joseph Stoddart and John Clement Morris (Shorthand Notes of which accompany our Report) was abundantly sufficient to satisfy us that bribery had been committed by John Clement Morris, an Agent of the said Thomas Robinson, that he had bribed Joseph Stoddart, Thomas Meadows, and a third man, whose name was unknown, to vote.
§ Stoddart was the first Witness examined, and it will be seen that in his evidence he stated that he was asked by Morris to vote for Monk and Robinson.
§ This Witness was allowed to leave the box unquestioned by Mr. Monk's Counsel. It is due to Mr. Monk to say that Morris, who was afterwards called, denied that he had mentioned Mr. Monk's name, but this was after Stoddart had left the box.
§ No other evidence was offered with respect to any one of the other cases mentioned in the particulars, and there was no attempt made to establish any one of the charges made against Mr. Monk or his Agents.
§ We have no reason to suppose that in delivering the particulars the Petitioners acted otherwise than under a belief that they would be in a condition to affect both the seats.
§ Before the trial we believe that the charges of personal bribery against Mr. Monk were abandoned, but no application was made to withdraw the charges of corrupt practices through his alleged agents, and his Counsel appeared in Court as though those charges were to be persisted in.
61§ No explanation was offered to us as to the reasons why no attempt even to prove those charges was made, notwithstanding they had never been withdrawn.
§ And no observation was addressed to us by Mr. Monk's Counsel, which indicated to our minds that he was surprized at the course adopted, and at the sudden abandonment of the Petition so far as it affected Mr. Monk.
§ Moreover, after our judgment was given declaring Mr. Monk to have been duly elected, Mr. Monk's Counsel made no application for his costs, which we were prepared to award him had he asked for them, as we intimated to him; hut he declined to make any application upon the subject.
§ Under these circumstances we are not satisfied that the abandonment of the case against Mr. Monk was not the result of an arrangement made with the view of withholding from us the evidence of the extensive corrupt practices which there is reason to believe had taken place at the Election.
§ Given under our hands, this 15th day of June 1880.
§ C. E. POLLOCK.
§ H. HAWKINS.
§ To the Eight Honble.
§ The Speaker of the House of Commons.
§ And the said Report, together with the said Certificates and Reports, were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.