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 the precedents to which the hon. baronet had referred.
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, Irrd directed
Attorney-General to prosecute persons o bribery and
perjury; but he believed he might vetntuarennetro
unisayestshiant
the house had never interfered in tha m
cases of flagrant and gross corruption., or cases of such a
imperatively on the house to
character as seemed to call
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 proceedingo
in cases f this
description.
In 1841 Mr: Charles 'WilliamsWynn
brought forward a motion_for_prosecuting
opurttee had
Der.Weibsterfor.
bribery at the St. Albans election. The
not reported that Dr. Webster was guilty of
the
bribery,
but, on examining the evidence taken
com-
mittee, there were two
.cit"?! which seemed to establish the
and after
charge against him?... reluctance,With
aTilartf membrs of great
considerable opposition on the o
weight and authority, the house, as he thought unfotrtun-
etay, yielded to the motion, and directed a prmecu io
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 Shoe) 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 it. It
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 to
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
asked—
" In the conduct of your election did it occur to you,
looking to the character of the voters of Chatham, that,
whoever the man might have promised, he might not
finally determine to give his vote until, in point of fact,
he recorded it at the poll ?—lt did not, as I said yesterday,
I believed those who promised me ,their votes would give
me their votes.
" Did it never occur to you that some of those who
promised you their votes might have promised the other
side ?—I never suspected it.
" Looking to the character of the voters, did it never
occur to you, in a large constituency like Chatham, that it
was possible many of them who promised their votes to
you might have promised them on the other side ? I
firmly believed that the promises given both to my oppo-
nent and to myself would be carried out."
He was also asked if he saw the distinction between a
candidate soliciting places for the Admiralty for persons
he expected to vote for him, and a member making an
application after the vote had been given. He answered—
' I do not see the distinction ; indeed I do not, because
I consider the promise as good as the performance of it."
To show the house how Sir Frederick carried out this
principle in practice he might mention that when he called
on a voter, and found he had promised to vote to any other
candidate, he never solicited that person further for his
vote, considering a promise to vote against him as binding
as a promise to vote in his favour. (Hear, hear.) After
Greathead had given his promise to vote for Sir. F. Smith
he was canvassed by a Mr. Crockford, in favour of Mr.
Romaine, who had by that time become a candidate.
Greathead, it appeared, was under some particular obli-
gation to Crockford, and in consideration of that oblige-
- tion, he promised to vote for Mr. Romaine, and after
Mr. Romaine had left the field he promised Crockford
to vote for Sir James Stirling. It appeared from
Greathead's evidence that he had entered into some
negotiation for disposing of his business, which he expected
would be completed before the election, and that he
believed he should not be in the borough to record his
vote for either candidate at the time of the election.
All this time Sir F. Smith was utterly ignorant of
these circumstances, and, indeed, he was not in the
slightest degree aware of them until he heard them
given in evidence before the committee. On the 10th of
May Greathead applied to Sir F. Smith to procure a situa-
tion in the Post-office for his son, who, it appeared was a
journeyman tailor in London in a bad state of health. Sir
F. Smith having previously, as be thought, secured the
vote of Greathead, and never imagining that he was doing
anything at all illegal or irregular, applied to the Govern-
ment for a situation in the Post-office for Greathead's son,
which situation he obtained on the 20th of May. So little
idea was entertained by any of the parties that there was
anything illegal in this transaction, that no secret was
made of it by either of the parties concerned. On the 17th
of June, Greathead's negotiation about the disposal of his
business having gone off, and finding himself obliged to re-
main in Chatham, he gave his vote in favour of Sir F.
Smith. Now, the question which the committee had to
consider was whether, in the circumstances to which he
had just referred, there was something which brought Sir I
F. Smith within the province of the act against bribery,
and which would compel them to report unfavourably
against him. The committee examined both Sir Frederick
Smith and Greathead. Greathead was asked—
" Upon your oath, were you induced to vote for Sir F.
Smith in consequence of any promise or any expectation
that he held out to you that you would get a place for your
son in the Post-office or elsewhere ?—I most solemnly de-
clare that I gave my vote to Sir F. Smith irrespective of
anything.
' Were you on Sir F. Smith's committee ?—No.
" You utterly disavow any bargain or contract with Sir
F. Smith ?—Decidedly.
" No conditions whatever?—Not any."
Now, he appealed to the experience of hon. members, whe-
ther, in canvassing a large constituency, there was any
thing which they had found more difficult than to prevent
persons making applications to them for favours on such
occasions ? Sir F. Smith, who, as many hon. members
knew, was a straightforward, manly, honourable person,
And who had no notion that, when a promise to vote had
been given, it was possible for the voter to recede from it,
made the application for the situation without the slightest
idea that he was thereby endangering his seat. (Hear,
hear.) The committee had evidently some difficulty in de-
ciding the question as to whether this transaction consti-
tuted bribery on the part of Sir F. Smith or not, and ac-
cordingly they framed their report in a manner which,
while he admitted it affected Sir F. Smith's seat, was more
directed to the bribery which was connected with Great-
head and Greathead's influence than with the acts of bribery
committed by Sir F. Smith himself. The house would ob-
serve that in the guarded expressions used by the commit-
tee in their report they did not allege that Joseph Great-
head had been bribed by Sir F. Smith, but by a situation
obtained for his son by Sir F. Smith. He (Sir F. Thesiger)
considered that no bribery, in the proper sense of that
term, had been committed by Sir F. Smith. The 7th sec-
tion of the 2d George 11., chap. 24, provided that if
any person himself, or any person employed by him,
should by any gift or reward, or by any promise, agree-
ment, or security for any gift or reward, corrupt, or pro-
cure any person to vote at elections, the offender should for-
feit 5001., and incur certain disabilities. It was necessary
therefore that Sir F. Smith should have been shown to
have' corrupted, or procured the vote of a party by the
promise or gtft of some office under the eftmnment.
He (Sir F. Thesiger) had given this subject very anxious
consideration and if he had been a, member of the commit-
tee he must have come to the conclusion that no case of
bribery had been established against Sir F. Smith. He
would further say, that he . was satisfied no court in this
kingdom would hold that where a voter, without any in-
ducethent or improper influence, had promised his vote,
and had adhered to that promise, anything which inter-
vened, and which the voter himself declared had not the
slightest influence in inducing him to give his vote, could
be regarded as corrupting, or procuring the vote of such
person, within the intention of the act of Parliament.
Supping, however, the committee were right in coming
to the conclusion that Sir F. Smith had been guilty of
bribery in respect of this transaction, he thought it was
clear that it was not the intention or wish of the commit-
tee that any proceedings should be taken against Sir F.
Smith. He conceived this was satisfactorily shown by the
very guarded language of the report. He would put it to
the,house, then, whether they ought to undertake the office
of prosecutor unless very gross and flagrant corruption had
taken place, and unless it was perfectly clear that upon
the evidence which could be adduced a jury would convict
the person accused. It was no light matter for the house
to determine upon a prosecution of this kind, because there
would necessarily be a very strong prejudice against the
person placed upon his trial, for it would be assumed that
the house had very carefully weighed and considered the
evidence, and that the circumstances were of such a cha-
tacter aa to render it imperative upon the house to inter-
h!ere for the vindication of its honour and integrity. (Hear,
,r.) • Re -would further ask the house to consider the
stigma they Would affix upon the character of a highly
honourable -(11 en by determining to institute such a pro-
secution.
gross and sea:ad:AL If Sir F. Smith had been guilty of
quite right that a s corruption, then it would have been
him ; but he (sir should be instituted against
bekeve that it p. 81 h."iger) could not bring himself to
to infringe the law. smith had had the slightest intention
perjury he (Sir F. Thesi )woad case of flagrant corruption or
to proceedings for Punistbgtheoiftdqnier,tewrhecadthyertob assentver e
a poor man or occu
Piedouseannotxt lted position ; but he
earnestly implored the h
which would at once be a conde toft adopt hastily a course
e 1 rests ce th
unless they thought there were other
17
of
SirnF',,Simnithe'
case than those which he (Sir F. Thesiger) had felt it his
hethe hon.
duty to bring before them. If the object
member for Westminster was punishmentof
Thesiger) could only say that Sir F. Smith had bee already
Ill;
most severely punished. (Hear, hear.) He baron under"
the heaviest imputations ever since the hont (Sir
J. Shelley) had given notice. of his motion, he had lost the
seat in that house which ha( I been the object of his pride
and his ambition, and he (Sir F. Thesiger) believed that
his punishment had been qui to sufficient to lead candidates
NE if , carefully to abstain from an) . transactions whatever with
electors beyond mere my; Passing. He (Sir F. Thesiger),
----,-- - - would put it to honourable g entleman whether there was
4.--
:.7-,‘, .--. ; one member in *hat how if) who, after his return, had
- not been Ton
71 --- --r--. elite for him or for their rela-
(
dlyaaiplied t o to obtain mituati_ons. either
1(4-
.7,'-,FI, r; for persons who h voted
'''. 1,4,t1' ''. ' Jives ? (Hear, hear.) Was t here any honourable member
''"'•.-,Nr-- who bacr,..happened to be connected with. th4Gmevdes:
2164 100 had not OYU and o war mail] APPLIN 1

.