The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-04 00:00:00

of Chatham, was bribed by a situation as a letter-carrier in
the Post-office, obtained for his son, Charles Greathead, by
Sir John Mark Frederick Smith." And now with regard
to theto which the hon. baronet had referred.
precedents
He quite agreed with the hon. baronet that there were
numerous precedents to be found on the journals in which
the house, on the reports of committees, had directed the
Attorney
but to prosecute persons for bribery and
perjury ; but he beli interferedg venture to say that
the house had never in that manner unless in
cases of flagrant and gross corruption, or cases of such a
character as seemed to call imperatively on the house to
do so. He would, however, mention one or two cases in
which it appeared to him some little caution was given to
the house as to the mode of proceeding in cases of this
description. In 1841 Mr. Charles Williams for
Webster
Wynn
brought forward a motion for prosecuting D
bribery at the St. Alban's election. The committee had
not reported that Dr. Webster was guilty ery,
but, on examining the evidence taken before the com-
mittee, there were two cases which seemed to establish the
charge against him. With some reluctance, and after
considerable opposition on the part of members of great
weight and authority, the house, as he thought unfortu-
nately, yielded to the motioif, and directed a prosecution
to be instituted against Dr. Webster. Now, he thought
the house would go along with him in opinion that they
ought never to direct a prosecution unless they had a
reasonable expectation that they would be able to secure a
conviction ; because it was obvious that the house would
sustain considerable prejudice and damage if they solemnly
directed a prosecution to be instituted, and it afterwards
turned out that the charge made was without foundation.
Well, what happened in that case ? He (Sir F. Thesiger)
appeared on that occasion as Attorney-General, and the
hon. member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) appeared
for Dr. Webster, and the result was a verdict of "not
guilty." But there were some proceedings consequent on
the motion of Mr. Wynn which he thought were not cal-
culated to sustain the credit of the house in the estimation
of the country. Mr. Ward, who took part in the debate
against the motion for prosecuting Dr. Webster, in three
days afterwards (June 11) brought forward a motion with
reference to the Cambridge election, the report of the
committee on that subject having been presented to the
house in June, 1840 ; so that 12 months had been allowed
to elapse after the report of the committee had been pre-
sented before bringing forward the motion upon 't lt
was perfectly clear, therefore, that it was a retaliatory
motion. (Hear, hear.) Unfortunately, the motion
of Mr. Ward was carried, not for the prosecution
of Mr. Manners Sutton, who was declared
have been by his agents guilty of bribery, but
for the prosecution of two persons named Long and
Swan—Long being then under prosecution by other parties.
He thought, therefore, that the house should be extremely
cautions in directing prosecutions which might be attri-
buted in the first place to strong party feelings, and in the
next place where there was not a fair and reasonable pros-
pect that there would be a conviction if they went before
a jury. (Hear, hear.) Now, what were the circumstances
of the present case ? Sir F. Smith, he might mention, had
been for 19 years resident in Chatham as Commandant of
the Engineers there. He mentioned this to show that Sir
Frederick was no stranger in the borough, and that he had
local interests and claims which were likely to be available
on presenting himself as a candidate there. He commenced
his canvas in March 1852, at which period he was the only
candidate in the field. About that time he called upon
Joseph Greathead to ask him for his vote. On Sir
Frederick's first visit Greathead, although he expressed
himself favourably disposed towards him would not pro-
mise his vote, but on his second visit he distinctly pledged
himself to support him, and not only so, but proceeded to
give him active support in canvassing. He thought it only
fair to Sir F. Smith to call the attention of the house to
the opinion which he had expressed, on oath, as to the
sacredness of a promise given him by a voter. He was