The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-12-03 00:00:00

THE BRIBERY PROSECUTIONS.

Mr. Justice Denman, Mr. Justice Hawkins, and Mr.
Justice Bowen sat in Banco on Tuesday in the High Court
of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) to give judgment in the
causes of Reg. v. Samuel Olds (Niaidstone)—Reg. fo James
Barber Edwards (Deal)—Reg. • v. Woods, Mackins, Mackie,
Spears, Porter, and Rae (SFaidwich)—Reg. v. May ad Mair
(Macclesfield) "—We take the following report of the case
from The Times of Wednesday :
These were the cases of certain persons who had
been convicted of corrupt practices at the general
election last year. The circumstances of each case
have been so much before the public that it is suffi-
cient for present purposes to point out that the Sand-
wich defendants, having been refused certificates by
the Commissioners appointed to inquire into corrupt
practices, were afterwards tried and convicted of
bribery and conspiracy to bribe before Lord Justice
Bramwell; the Macclesfield defendants, who are both
solicitors, were tried and convicted before Lord Justice
Baggallay, the charges against them being bribery both
general and specific, and that of making false returns,
contrary to the statute • while, of the other delin-
quents. it may be said that James Barber Edwards,
of Deal, is also a solicitor, and with the rest had been
found guilty of bribery or conspiracy to bribe. The
different trials took place at the last Summer Assizes,
and Monday was fixed for the parties to attend and
receive judgment; but the whole day having been
occupied in re .ding affidavits and testimonials and in
hearing the addresses of counsel, Mr. Justice Denman
postponed passing sentence until Tuesday morning.
At eleven o'clock, the hour fixed, the defendants
were again in attendance, and the court was crowded
in every part when the Judges entered and took their
sesta

_NET% Justice Denman said—lt has been determined
that the duty of sentencing defendants, hitherto per-
formed by the senior puisne Judge of the Queen's
Bench Division, shall in future devolve on the Judge
chancing to preside on the occasion. It has, therefore,
fallen to me, however unwelcome a task it may be, to
pronounce upon ten men the punishment which, after
long and careful consideration in each particular case,
we feel compelled to order. Before doing so I wish to
make a few general observations. At the last general
elections, as appeared from the shameless disclosures
made, before Judges and Commissioners, gross and in
many places general corruption prevailed, disgraceful
to the community and damaging to the State. Many
hardly affected to condemn the malpractices widely
existing, and that was a feature of the time which
must operate on the mind of any tribunal award-
ing punishment. Moreover, the last election was
after a large extension of the franchise, when many
voters in a dependent position took part, and were
liable to influences of richer and more powerful
persons. Where such voters have been unfairly and
wrongly dealt with by persons in a higher position,
the Court must consider carefully what it is its duty
to do. In the cases of you ten men, some of you are
men who have abused your position and influence by
corrupting others less intelligent and less independent.
Many others, from the reluctance of juries to convict,
have been guilty of like misconduct. The sentence
which, after anxious consideration, we now feel it our
duty to pass is the least which we think it right to
pass. First as to the defendants from Macclesfield,
John William May and William Mair. It is melan-
choly to see men occupying the positions which you
held standing here. You, May, were appointed elec-
tion agent for Messrs. Eaton and Whitehorn, the Con-
servative candidates, and whereas these two candidates
expressly forbade illegal expenditure, large sums were
handed over by you to sub-agents for purposes of
bribery. The jury, therefore, had no option but to find
you guilty of bribery. Again, you being a person bound
to make a true return, intended by the legislature to
check this conduct, and being a solicitor bound to obey
the orders of the Commissioners, made false returns,
thereby taking a course calculated to defeat the very
object of the statute. This constitutes the gravity of
your case. You have received high testimonials from
the High Sheriff, members of Parliament, and others.
You hold high and important appointments in your
county and bear a high character, but can the Court
look upon you as an hononrablertnan and as a i;eal,le-
man when your acts declare you the ^entrary ? You
were strongly recommended to mercy by a jury who
have done their duty agnst much of that sort of
pressure which would exist in a place like Maccles-
field, which would probably have applauded your
ar,quittal. We must also do our duty, as the jury did
theirs. This is a statutable misdemeanour, punishable
by a common law punishment, fine as well as imprison-
ment. Our punishment must be firm, but not
vindictive. Here it is, in our opinion, not desirable
to inflict any fine in any of the cases before us. It is
hard to do relative justice by penalties in money, for
a fine which may be ruin to one is not felt by another
of larger resources. Neither do we intend in the im-
prisonment which we inflict that you should be
treated as first-class misdemeanants, and the imprison-
ment we order will in no way differ from ordinary
imprisonment at common law. Your case, Mair, is
similar to that of May; but ; difference may be made
in your favour. You gave some information, you did
send in one report, purporting to be a legal account,
and did afterwards attempt to get payment from
the candidate of moneys known to have been
expended in bribery. Like May, your character
stood high and respectable. Nevertheless, more
than five hundred voters in Macclesfield were
influenced by your bribery. You sought out
the secretary of the Commissioners and proffered
information. But this is capable of two constructions,
both that you wished to give information, and that
you were anxious to shield yourself. Now, if any
one could do this, and by giving information protect
himself, how could the ringleader of corruption be
punished? You must be so punished as that all
persons in similar situations may abstain from prac-
tices so disgraceful in themselves and so damaging
to society. The sentence of the Court upon each
of you is bhat you be imprisoned for nine calendar
months. You, James Barker Edwards, are a solicitor
of high position in the borough of Sandwich. The
Court cannot lose sight of this circumstance, and the
influence that such a position is likely to exercise upon
poorer persons and sub-agents. Very large sums
were spent and handed over to minor members of the
community for bribery. One matter in your affidavit
wrings the heart of this Court—the sad effect which
your punishment may have on one who is dearer to
you, perhaps, than your life. But how can we tell
poorer criminals, who make a similar plea to us, that
they should have thought of that before, if in your
case, because you occupy a higher position in life,
we listen to such appeals? We cannot heed such
considerations. We must be just to all, both high
and low. The certificate was denied you, because
as regards one payment you made incsmplete dis-
closure. You did not send in false returns.
Considering, therefore, this, with your high cha-
racter, and that you are 63 years of age, the
sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned for
six months. You, Samuel Olds, are not a solicitor,
but you are a Town Councillor of considerable influence
in getting the votes of your fellow burgesses, and in a
position to lead them wrong. You knew before the
election that corruption was to be practised in the
borough. It is said that it was understood that on both
sides corruption was to lee practised. This we hold to
be no extenuation. You took a leading part in this
drama of bribery ; you took £l,OOO over to Calais; you
laid it out at the rate of a head, and one way or
another you were instrumental ia spending about
£2,500 in bribery among 850 voters. Your character
also was high, but we must deter men like you from
such conduct hereafter. Your punishment, like that
in the last case, must be six months' imprisonment.
Addressing, then, the six defendants from Sandwich,
his Lordship continued,—You have pleaded guilty to
bribery. Three of you—Mackins, Rea, and Spears—
re publicans. Your punishment must be three
months' imprisonment. You, Woods, are a farmer
and in a position to have set an example to others,
and your punishment must also be three Months' im-
prisonment. As to the rest of you, who are boatmen
merely, the Court sentences you to two months' im-
prisonment. By these different sentences, we hope
that all will know that this Court looks most seriously
on such crimes as you have committed. The defen-
dants then left the court in the custody of the tipstaff.

-