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

LLOYD'S SHIPPING--(THIS DAY.)

LONDON, May 4.—Wind this day at Noon, E.; light
sirs, and dull hazy weather.
DEAL, May 3.—Arrived from the River—Rokeby, for
Quebec ; Rubicon, Bombay. Arrived from the' River,
and sailed—Tyne, for Melbourne.
COWES, May 3.—Wind, S.W. Arrived—Adepheid,
Callao; Elbe, do.
PORTSMOUTH, May 3.—Wind, S. to S.S.W, Sailed—
Moslem, Calcutta, and brought up in St. Helen's Bay ;
Jeannetta, Ceylon, and brought up at the Netherlands.
SOUTHAMPTON, May 3.—Wind, N.W. Arrived—LMa-
drid (s), Gibraltar, &c.
FALMOUTH, May 3. Wind, variable, light airs. Arrived
—America, Rio Janeiro.
DARTMOUTH, May 3.—Wind, S.W. Arrived—Ma-
Ella, Swansea, for Southampton, leaky, and with bowsprit
sprung. Off Port—Menado, Batavia, for Rotterdani.
PLYMOUTH, May 3.—Wind, S., foggy. Arrived—Mes-
senger, Cardiff, for London ; Foyle Packet, Cardiff to
Harbury—both to stop leaks.
OFF PENZANCE, May 2.—Statesman, Port Philip.
ST. IVES, May 3.—The Ariel, of Elsfieth, with coals,
blew up, April 30 ; one man lost by the explosion:
DUNBAR, May 3.—The Thomas, of and from Arbroath,
is on shore at Fast Castle Head; crew saved.
BRIDLINGTON, May. 4!--The Jeans and Margstrt, St.
Valery to Newcastle, is on Flamborough Head, and likely
to be a wreck.
Cnottnn, May 4.—The Jean and Mary, of-Sunderland,
has been put on shore with sft. Water in her hold, having
been on a ledge of rocks ; it is feared she will become a
wreck.
LOWEBTOFFE, May 4.—The Minerva, of Bartleur, struck
on Hasborough Sand, and sank in deep water ; crew
saved.
SUNDERLAND, May 3.—Wind, S.S. E. Sailed—Ex-
change, Quebec.
HOLYHEAD, May 3.—The Owen, of Port Madoc, is on
shore near Amlweh, and is likely to become a total wreck.
BELFAST, May 2.—Wind, S.W.. Sailed—Elizabeth,
Melbourne ; Gilbert, New York.
BERBICE, April 6.—The Louisa, hence for London, was
destroyed by fire, off the bar, March 28 ; crew saved.
MADEIRA, April 2G.—The Boadicea (British schooner),
for Naples, was abandoned in a sinking state, lat. 46,
long. 10 ; crew saved, and landed here by the Thames,
London, for Australia.

MARKET NEWS-(THIS DAY.)

CORN EXCHANGE.

To-day's market was chiefly supplied with Monday's
unsold samples, in very middling condition. For all kinds
of English wheat the demand was in a very inactive state,
at barely Monday's prices. For forward delivery next to
nothing was doing.
Tho show of foreign wheat was good ; all descriptions
commanded very little attention, and low parcels were
offering on easier terms. Floating cargoes were very dull.
Barley, the show of which was good, sold slowly, but
no further decline took place in prices.
We had a slow sale for malt on former terms.

Oats and flour were very dull. Beans and peas corn
manded previous rates.

ARRIVALS THIS WEER.
Wheat. 1 Barley. i Blatt.
1,160 1,110 2,220

Oats.
130

Flour.
$2O

English ••
Irish •• ••
Foreign ..

2,310 2,980
I-

750
3,260

610 sk,

BOROUGH HOP.
We have a very slow sale for all kinds of hops, at lasi
week's prices.

WHITECHAYEL.

The demand for each kind of meat at this market to-day
•
ruled steady. The following are the quotations :
Beef, 2s 6d to 3s 8d mutton, 3s 6d to 4s 6d ; lamb, 4s 10(1
to 60 2d ; veal, 35 6dte 48 6d ; Pork, 2810 d to ts per 81bs
by the carcase.

TAUNTON ELECTION.—This election has resulted in
the return of the Liberal candidate by a much more
narrow majority than had been reasonably anticipated.
At the close. of the poll the numbers were-373 for Sir
T. Ramsden (Liberal), and 866 for Mr. H. Padcock
sen Mr. o
(Conservative).
ROBBERY IN OXFORD•STREBT.--YeSterday morning
information was forwarded from the various police sta-
tions of an extensive burglary which was effected on the
premises
r other part
descriptions
Oxford-streetrlnVin. ,gB
whenul
arcs
t 1 et t,
The twoproperty
upper
d
of the ad
doorsto thef r from m P r
amountPrince's-
street, of
e ' s
t
several hundred pounds was carried off, between the
hours of ten o'clock on Saturday night and seven o'clock
on meda of
yf mjoining house is to let, and through it the thieves are
supposed to have effected an entrance. They then com-
menced packing up every valuable article, including 250
goldanwdatsch brooches,ilver watches,
shirt2oo
pine,
an
guards, 700 rings, 60
gold bracelets, 200 gold brooches, besides studs, sleeve
links,
of property.
Por Gobs THE WITFIEIL—Not a little excitement
was created in the neighbourhood of St. George's-place,
Hyde-park-corner, this morning, by the precipitate and
unusual entrance of a fine great fof ellow of a sheep, right
through the plate-glass front Messrs. Rogers and
Dear, where he, no doubt, found himself rather abroad
midst the mimic flowers and plants represented in the
carpets, tapestries &c., which usually adorn the win-
dows of those fashionable upholsterers ; we believe the
poor animal was impelled to this strange refuge by the
attack of one of those troublesome curs which seem to
infest our streets more at this season than at any other.
ROYAL THAMES YACHT CLUB.—Yesterday six yachts
of this club contended for two prizes of plate value re-
spectively 100 and 50 guineas. The distance was from
Erith to the Nore Light and back. The following ves-
sels started at a quarter to twelve with an easterly wind.
Of the first class Lord!" Londesborogh's Musquito,
50 tons ; Mr. Bartlett's War H awk, 50
reth tons ; Mr.
Cranie's Volante, 48 tons ; Mr. C.
Brand's Pauline,
35 tons. Of the second class Mr. George Coope's
Thought, 25 tons • Mr. S. Lane's Phantom, 25 tons.
Tne yachts arrived' at the NoraHou Lighrs.t
Min in t
Sec
he following
. .
order and time :
4512
g 2416
Phantom. ..................... 3 54 50
War Hawk ................... 4 4 40
Pauline: ........................ 4 9 8
The arrival Erith was as follows :
Hours. Mb. Sec.
Viols:nutlet? ...........................................
Mosquito (the winner)..... 7 14
47
7
Volante ......... . ............ 7 2
Phantom (winner 2d class) 7 46

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
SHERIFF AND COMMISSARY COURTS
(BERWICKSHIRE) BILL.
On the motion of Lord PANMURE, the bill was read
a second time.

LUNATICS' CARE AND TREATMENT BILL.
Lord St. LEONARDS said this bill would make ex-
tensive alterations with regard to the administration of
the estates of lunatics. The expenses were proposed to
be raised almost wholly by a graduated scale, according
to the amount of the property to be administered. In-
stead of separate commissions of lunacy, there would be
a general commission, which would save great expense.
In some cases a jury would be required, but in others,
where that could be safely done, the jury would be dis
pensed with. After there had been a finding by the
commission, power was given to dispenie with a grant
from the crown, which had been always necessary for the

lunatic, and which led to great expense. That expense
would altogether in a great measure be put an end to. An-
other point was with regard to persons who were in fact not
lunatics, but who were detained in asylums under old
certificates. This bill would give the Lord Chancellor
power in such cases to require the persons detaining such
alleged lunatics to furnish a general account of their con-
duct ; and this was a provision which, in more cases than
their lordships would be willing to conceive possible,
would at oneo show, if there was improper detention,
what was the cause of it ; the cause being, he believed,
the conspiracy of other persons to obtain and enjoy those
alleged lunatics' property. This bill, which might be
regarded as another recommendation, would entirely do
away with the exceptional position hitherto occupied by
Bethleham Hospital. (Hear, hear.) He was bound to
say that the governors of that hospital had not shown
the slightest objection to this bill ; and the fair inference,
which it was but just to state, was that they were not
afraid of the light of day being thrown on that institu-
tion, and that they were willing that it should be visited,
and examined, and controlled and improved just like any
other lunatic asylum in the country. This measure
would, therefore, as a whole, he thought, give a new

tone to the administration of lunacy, protect it from its
abuses, and give to lunatics every benefit and every care
which justice and benevolence could suggest. (Hear,
hear.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR was understood to say
that he would not run the chance, by offering any foi?a-

ments, of being supposed to dissent from any of the
views of the noble and learned lord ; and he would con-
tent himself by saying that he believed the bill would
effect very desirable amendments in the law.
The Earl of HARROWDY also pressed upon their
lordships' attention the urgency that there was of a
change in the law affecting criminal lunatics, and he
hoped her Majesty's Government would take the subject
into their consideration.

Lord ST. LEONARDS enforced what he had before
,observed;—by stating that in his visits to, lunatic asylums
he had •often heard lunatics compfain to him of their
being thrown into the company of other lunatics con-
victed of crimes ; and there could be no doubt of their,
extreme aversion to such a system. It was a great mis-
take to suppose that because a man had so far lost his
mind as to be in certain senses a lunatic, therefore he was
not deeply impressed with anything affecting moral con-
duct. • (Hear, hear.)
The report was then received ; as alio were the reports
on the Lunatic Asylums Bill and the report on the Lu-
nacy Regulation Bill. Third readings fixed for Monday.

LAND IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord CANNING, having proposed that the discus
sion on this bill should be postponed until the stage o
the report, when he would bring up amendments, an ob
jection was taken to the delay, and general objections
were offered to the bill, by Lord Beaumont ; but after a
conversation between these noble lords, Lord Monteagle,
Lord Wicklow, Lord Clanricarde, and Lord Dufferin,
the motion was agreed to ; and the En having been put
in .cemmittee pro forma, was reported, and fixed for an
early third reading.
SOUTH SEA AND OTHER ANNUITIES
COMMUTATION MILL.
Earl GRANVILLE, in moving the third reading of
the bill, said that he would not carry out his intention at
that hour (8 o'clock), and in the then state of the house
(not ten peers were pressed), of making a statement of
the objects and scope of this bill ; but if a discussion
should be entered on he would reserve to himself the
right of offering some comments in the way of a reply.
Their lordships were aware they could not make any
alterations in a bill of this kind sent up from the Com-
mons, and therefore, he apprehended, a discussion wasnot desired ; aid it might be the less desired as what had
fallen on the previous evening from the noble and
learned lord (Lord St. Leonards) had suggested that a
supplementary measure with. regard to the funds of
suitors in Chancery might become necessary, and the
views of their lordships might then be expressed.
The Earl of DERBY put it to the noble earl if he was
taking a becoming course with this bill ? Not a word
had been said on it since it had come up to their lord-
ships' house, although many noble lords had been desir-
ous of expressing an early opinion of it ; and he now put
it to the noble lord, whether, in the then state of the
house, it would be decent that evening to read the bill a
third time ? It might be that their lordships had no
right to alter the bill, but really for it to be passed sub
silentio in this way would be to attach to their lordships'
house a character which he might say, without using
disrespectful terms, the noble earl himself could not pos-
sibly desire.
Earl GRANVILLE was only consulting public con-
venience, and, as he thought, their lordships' wishes.
Great public inconvenience would be caused by delaying
the passing of a bill of this kind ; and if it was wished,
he would go into a statement then, at once.
The Marquis of SALISBURY suggested a delay un-
til to-Morrow (this day.)
Lord REDESDALE.—Ah, but we den% sit on Wed-
nesdays. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of DERBY thought that if there was to be
a • supplementary measure, they ought to discuss the
matter, so as to see what should be the•character of that
measure. At all events, the House of Lords ought to
know what was going to be done.
'The Earl of WICKLOW thought the matter was
clear. The house was thin, because every noble lord
knew that the house could not alter the bill ; and the
noble Earl (Derby) share the responsibility for that thin
attendance with the Government. If the noble earl
wanted a discussion it could be taken • there the bill
was, and the noble President of the Council had said
that he was ready to go on, if it was wished.
After a few words from Lord MONTEAGLE, to the
effect that though their lordships could not alter these
bills, they were, nevertheless, bound to discuss them,
the discussions in their lordships' house on the property
tax being instanced as debates of great importance, and
of great influence on national finance.
Earl GRANVILLE agreed to give a formal state-
ment of the bill, and proceeded accordingly to describe
its more familiar features—only three or four peers being
present when he began.
Lord MONTEAGLE must repeat his conviction that
it would be highly objectionable to allow this bill to
pass a third reading without discussion. It pro-
posed to issue Treasury or Exchequer Bonds of un-
certain amount, the minimum being fixed at 100/. ;
but it did not in the least make any provision for
the future conversion, nor was there to be any
check placed upon the mode or manner of issue. It
was the first time in the history of England that
Parliament had been asked to confer such a power
upon the Financial Minister ; and since these bonds were
to be made transferable from hand to hand, and yet not
convertible at any given period, what was to prevent
the Minister, in times of trouble and difficulty, having
recourse to an over issue ? (Hear, hear.) That was an
insuperable objection to the bill, which their lordships
would do well to ponder over.
Ertl GRANVILLE thanked the noble lord for some
useful corrections which his speech -bad supplied. The
noble lord had compared the Exchequer bonds to bank
notes, and said the Government ought not to issue bank
notes when they had not a corresponding amount of bul-
lion in the bank ' • but that was not the case, as the only
difference would be in the machinery. Instead of a per-
son having a transfer on the books of the bank, he would
have it in the shape of a bond. The bonds would be re-
deemable at the end of a year, and would have value in
the eyes of a banker which no other security could have.
The bill was then read a third time and passed, and
he house adjourned at nine o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(YESTERDAY.)
CHATHAM ELECTION.

Sir J. SHELLEY read the report of the Chatham elec-
tion committee to the house, and drew attention to the
fact that, on the motion of the member for East Surrey, the
Attorney-General had, on the strength of the accusation in
that report, been directed to prosecute Stephen Mount for
perjury. At that time he himself had stated that the house
should proceed further and prosecute Sir F. Smith for
bribery ; but in order to allow hon. members full time to
consider the evidence, and to determine what course their
duty to themselves and to the house required of them, he
had asked leave to postpone the whole subject till after
Easter; and this was his first opportunity since. He would
not go into evidence, which was in every hon. member s
hand, but, assuming that they were familiar with that
evidence, would urge upon them to stand by the report,
and to recollect that it was their duty to strengthen the
hands of their committees. He thought that they ought
to vindicate themselves, and to support their committees,
and he therefore begged to call the attention of the house
to the following resolution :—" That if it shall appear that
any person hath been elected or returned member of this
house, or endeavoured so to be by bribery, or any other
corrupt practices, this house will proceed with the utmost
severity against all such persons as shall have been wilfully
concerned in such bribery, or other corrupt practices ;"
also, to the following resolution of the Chatham election
committee :—" That it was proved to the committee that
Joseph Greathead, an elector of Chethain, had been bribed
by a situation as a letter-carrier in the Post-office, ob
tained for his son Charles Greathead, by Sir J. Frederick
Smith ;" and to move, that the Attorney-General be di-
rected to prosecute the said Sir John Mark Frederick Smith
for bribery at the last election at Chatham.
Sir F. THESIGER said he had hoped that some mem-
ber of the Government would have expressed their opinion
on this motion. (Hear, bear.) The hon. baronet who had
brough it forward had disclaimed being actuated by any
personal feeling in the matter. Ho (Sir F. Thesiger) felt
satisfied that that was the fact, and he was sure the hon.
baronet would be gratified, as many other members would
be, to find that, upon considering the evidence in the case,
the house would not bo under the necessity of interfering ,
in the way proposed. (Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet had
stated that the committee had reported that Sir F. Smith
was guilty of bribery. Now, that was not exactly the
report of the committee. Their report, which was very
guardedly framed, was as follows :—" That it has been
proved to the committee that Joseph Greethead, an elector

•f 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, had directed the
Attorney-General to prosecute persons for bribery and
perjury; but he believed he might venture to say that
the house had never interfered 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 Wynn
brought forward a motion for prosecuting Dr. Webster for
bribery at the St. Alban's election. The committee had
not reported that Dr. Webster was guilty of bribery,
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 motion, and directed a prosecution
to be instituted against Dr. 'Y'ebster. 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 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
cautious 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 Greathoad, 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 soliiited 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 obliga-
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 he 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 ef 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
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. Greathoad 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,
%lid 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 ho admitted it affected Sir F. Smith's seat, was more
directed to the bribery which was connected with Great-
hei4 and Greathead's influence than with the acts of bribery
con fitted 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. Smi . He (Sir F. Thesiger)
considered that ho bribery, in ' proper sense of that
term, had been cby rinamitted Sir i 'Smith. The 7th sec-
tion of the 2d George IL, 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 gift of some office under the Government.
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-
ducement 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.
Supposing, 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. Ho 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 again th
ttha';
' person placed upon his trial, for it would be assumed
evidence,the house
andhad that
very
weighedttfecfulirclyumsta nee s
werean and
o consideredf sula c theh a
.
fere for the vindication of its honour and integrity. (
meter as to render it imperative upon the house to Hear,
the character of a highly
stigma they would affix upon .
hear.) He would further ask the house to consider the
guilty of
secution. (Hear.) If Sir F. Smith.th do
.d
have been
honourable man by determining to insatitultzesnuch a pro
gress and scandalous corruption, thlr le w ul
bring himself to
quite right that a prosecution could l
him ; but he
(Sir F.
Thesiger) the sligtest intention
believe that Sir F. Smith had haof
flagrant
not instituted against
corruption or
to infringe the law. In any p
perjury he (Sir F. Thesiger)the offender, whether ho were
would be quite ready to assent
to proceedings for punishing
occupied an exalted position ; but he
a poor man or
earnestly be condemnation of
implored the house not to
.adopt hastily a course
Sir F. Smith,
unless would at once a
unless they, thought there were other circumstances in the
case than
those which he (Sir F. Thesiger) had felt it his
duty to bring before them. If the object of the hon.
baronet
lainon etuni (Sirler
member for Westminster was punishment, he (Sir F.
Thesiger) could only say that Sir F. Smith had
hadhad been already
most severely punished. (Hear, hear.) n
the heaviest imputations ever since the hon,
J. Shelley) had given notice of his motion, ho had lost the
seat in that house which had been the object of his pride
and his ambition, and he (Sir F. Thesiger) believed that
his punishment had been quite sufficient to lead candidates
carefully to abstain from any transactionsii whatever with
Ho (Sir F. Thesiger)
ewleoeutloarsp
put it beyond
li oraneoruer aeball le
vgaesns it? egm. an whether there was
one member in that house who, after his return, had
not been repeatedly applied to to obtain situations either
for persons who had voted for him or for their rela-
-1 tives ? (Hear, hear.) Was there any honourable member
who had happened to be
. connected with the Govern-
ment who had not over and over again applied for and ob-