HC Deb 14 February 1881 vol 258 cc761-2
SIR EDWARD WATKIN

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been drawn to the judgment of Mr. Justice Lush, in the case of the trial of the Election Petition for the Borough of Westbury, and to his strictures on the conduct of George Cornish and William Cornish:— We feel it our duty to report these two persona to the Speaker of the House of Commons as having" been guilty of corrupt practices, in order that the attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions may take such action as to them may seem fit, to bring the offenders to trial and punishment. No language is too strong to characterise the conduct of a man who intruded himself into the ranks of a party to which he had not professed to belong, and made it his business to go about corrupting the humbler class of voters, and endeavouring to tempt them into crimes by promises and offers of reward, and that, too, from the basest of motives; and, whether he proposes to direct a prosecution, as suggested by the Judge; and, if not, if he would explain to the House on what grounds?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),

in reply, said, he had considered whether these men ought to be prosecuted, and whether there was a likelihood of their being convicted, for it was very injurious that an abortive prosecution should be commenced on the part of the Government. These men had only on one occasion been found with money in their possession, and they had not been detected actually passing money to any voter. Neither of them, according to the learned Judge, appeared to have gained a single vote. Under these circumstances, though he believed the men to be guilty, he had come to the conclusion that a prosecution would not be likely to result in a conviction; and, therefore, he thought it better not to institute proceedings.