The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1819-11-15 00:00:00

orlisd any friend of his WO elidiefi to viVieseit
the borough.
The Areoenr.T-Geltritslf., on the part ef the
prosecution; replied to Mr. Smitten. His Litemed
Friend had reemeintended his client. Sir Mostemsft
Lopez. to their Lerdshipe mercy. on the ground
that the offence with which he was charged was
not complete. inasimoch as he had am been ulti-
mately successful in obtaining a seat in the Rouse
of Commons; but, though diet Gentleman had
not succeeded. lie had used his utmost efforts by
bribing a number of the voters. Of the act of
bribins there could be no doubt ; and of that he
was convicted. His Learned Friend had also
contended that Sir Manasseh was not the principal
mover in the bovine's. but that Mr. 11-nnt had
taken the prominent and active part. It might be
so; but Mr. Flout was only the agent of Sir Mo.
month, for whom it was hIS intention to reran •
oral itt Parliament. With respect to the other De-
fendants, he hail trot a sufficient knowledge of the
facts as related to them, to he able to say whether
there were any shades of difference in the mag-
nitude of their offelices ; it did appear, however,
to him that some of them held situations in the
borough, which was au aggravation to their
crime. This was originally a private prosecution.
and the Defeedents were convicted at the Spring
.daises; no step., however. had been hikers for
brinein the Defendants up for judgment; and the
House of Clommous had, in coosegrieuer, instruct-
Pa him (thr /Ott y General) to split! for their
Lordship's' lutignicsit on the subject. The House
lonini•wraortuid considered it right. in defence of
eif"tights of the people. to do this; bet whilst
they prayed judgement, they did it in- no vindictive
spirit : they rested the rave entirely with their Lord-
ships, who would. in their wisdom, inflict such a
punishment as would seem to them meet fur the
offence.

Mr. Justice BATLEY, in delivering the judgment
of the Court, commented in strong terms on the
enormity of the offence of which the Defendants.
particularly Sir Manasseh, had beets convicted.
His Lordship dwelt particularly on the necessity
there was at all times, but more especially at pre-
sent, to preserve the House of Commons pure, that
the people might place confidence in it. Among
the Defendants, Sir Manasseh stood conspicuous ;
he had utilised the property with which Providence
had l►lessrd him, by applying it to the worst of
purposes, and might hare induced those who came
within his it ke:ice to commit the horrid crime
of perjury. Indeed it did appear that one of the
Defendants, Devonshire, had commenced taking
the bribery oath. and would have gone through it
but for the mercy of the person who had required
it Amid be administered, but a ho, on seeing his
intention, humanely prevented his proceeding.
The Court had taken all the circumstances or
the case into consideration. and' for the first offence
of which Sir Manasseh had been convicted, they
sentenced him to pay a fine of 8,000/. to the King,
and to he imprisoned twenty-one mouths in Exeter
gaol; for the second offence, a further fine of
2,0001. and three months imprisonment in the same
prison. Devonshire they sentenced to six month.'
imprisonment in Bodmin gaol. and the rest of the
Defendants to three months imprisonment in the
same prison.