The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, JUNE 27, 18 53,

opinions on the subject of licensing duties.
We have condemned the entire system, root
and branch, as alike opposed to natural
justice and to sound policy. Why, ,we ask,
should there be any restriction imposed on any
branch of industry ? Why should. men be pre-
vented from engaging in any trade or calling for
which they might otherwise be qualified, or
why, when their earnings are to be taxed, should
there be a virtual prohibition to their attempting
to realise any profits whatsoever? The greater the
competition the greater the benefit to the com-
munity. But if that competition is to be checked
by heavy preliminary payments, too frequently
prohibitory, we can easily perceive that it must be
alike prejudicial to the individuals whose sphere
of industry is thus unduly narrowed, and to the
public, who have not so many competitors for
their favour in that peculiar department to resort
to, and may therefore be compelled to submit to an
imposition that would not otherwise have been
attempted, and to insolence that under other cir-
cumstances would ruin the prospects of the
offender.

QUEEN'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster,. before Lord
Campbell and a Special Jury.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. MOUNT.

This was a prosecution instituted by the direction of
the House of Commons against Stephen Mount, for per_
jury committed while under examination as a witness
before the Chatham Election Committee.
The Attorney-General and Sir F. Thesiger condcted
the prosecution, and Mr. E. James and Mr. Hawkins
appeared for the defendant.
The Attorney-General, in opening the case, stated
that the alleged perjury consisted in certain statements
made by Mount in reference to a voter named Bradshaw,
a very old man about 80 years of age, and the keeper of
a lodging-house at Chatham. Mount was a farm la-
bourer, and he deposed to being present when a conver-
sation took place between Bradshaw and Sir F. Smith
in the streets, about two weeks before the election.
The conversation he deposed' was to this effect :—He
said that Sir F. Smith asked Bradshaw if there was
anything he could do for him ; and he replied, that he
wished to get into Greenwich College. Sir F. Smith
then asked what pension he received. Bradshaw
said 151. Sir F. Smith observed that that was
not enough for losing an arm (Bradshaw being minus
that important limb), and that if he would give him his
vote, he would get him into the college. Sir F. Smith
also asked Bradshaw if he had not a son in the yard, to
which he replied "yes," and Sir Frederick said, " If
you will give me your vote, I will do what I can for
you and him too." Mount further said that Sir F.
Smith at this time had his hand in his breeches' pocket,
that he took it out, and shook hands with Bradshaw,
and that he (Mount) saw immediately afterwards a half-
sovereign or a sovereign in Bradshaw's hand. Mount
further added that he saw Bradshaw come out of the
Sun hotel, that he showed him three sovereigns, which
he said he had received from Sir F. Smith, and he ob-
served that they were better than a kick.
The Attorney-General stated that he should be able
to prove Most distinctly that the preceding conversation
never took place, and that Mount had been guilty of
wilful and corrupt perjury in representing that it had.
The short-hand winter's note of Mount's eVidence
having been put in and read,
Sir J. M. F. Smith, examined by Sir F. Thesiger,
said, he was a colonel in the Engineers, and was candi-
date for Chatham in July, 1852, and was returned.
Knew a voter named Bradshaw. In the course of his
canvass Bradshaw came and offered him his vote. He
met him in the Military-road. Witness shook hands
With him, when he tendered his vote. There were seve-
ral of the canvassers with witness. Thinks that Mr.
Wells was present, but was not certain. Mr. Grover
was present ; thinks also that Mr. Isaacs was in his
company at the time. Nothing further passed on that
occasion. Subsequently he saw Bradshaw on the Brook.
It was early in March, 1852. At that time there were
several gentlemen with witness. Thinks all he said was
" How do you do, Bradshaw ;" he then shook hands
with him and passed on. On neither of these two occa-
sions did witness ask him for his vote, nor did Bradshaw
say he did not know about it. On the second occasion
nothing was mentioned about his vote at
never asked him if there was anything he could' do for
him. On neither of the two occasions did Bradshaw
say he wanted to get into the college, nor did witness
ask him anything about his pension. Did not say—" If
you will give me your vote I will get you into the col-
lege, or I will do what I can for you." I Did not ask
him if he had a son in the yard, nor say " Give
me your vote and I will do what I can for you." I put
money into his hand on neither occasion. It is not true
I had my hand in mybreeches' pocket, and that I pulled
it out and shook hands with him, and gave him some
money. It is not possible, for I have not worn breeches'
pockets for years. I put no money whatever into the
hands of Bradshaw, or any other , voter. After the
meeting at the Brook, and before the' election' I saw
Bradshaw again. He came to a meeting of my friends
in the large hall at the Sun Hotel. Some conversation
then passed between us about the college. He said he
wanted to get into the college, as he thought he was
entitled to go there owing to his service, and that of his
son, and because he had lost an arm. I stated I would
make
inquiry whether he was eligible or not. I think
then, or, subsequently, he said he had a pension of 151.
a year for the loss of his arm ; and he signified that
while it would be an advantage to him to b admitted,
it
nothingwnu furldbte
ehar gainto the public service. I remember
which then passed. I enquired of my
friend, Sir James Gordon, the Lieutenant-Governor of
Greenwich Hospital, whether admission to the establish-
ment rested with him. Bradshaw mentioned that he
had claim to admission in the hospital, as he
had lost two sons one was drowned; and the
other was lost at the North Pole. I told
him afterwards that his application must be made to the
Admiralty, and I added, I doubted his being eligible,
and Sir James Gordon also. I took him to the Admi-
ralty in the month of April or May. I saw Mr. Briggs
about him, the chief clerk; and he said he would inquire
into the case, but that he doubted, like Sir James Gor-
don and myself, whether he was eligible, for want of sea
time, meaning sufficient service at sea. A few days
afterwards I received an intimation from Mr. Briggs
that he was not eligible. I communicated this to Brad-
shaw in May or June before the election. I never gave
Bradshaw three sovereigns, or any sum at all. I made
no promise to him at any time for the purpose of obtain-
ing his vote. I never gave him any reward for having
voted for me. I believe he once got some mutton chops
and beer through the kindness of the people at the hotel.
I never recollect sending for him to come to the Sun
Hotel, in order to communicate to him the answer of
Mr. Briggs.
Cross-examined by Mr. E. James—l was unseated by
the Parliamentary cominittee. • I do not know that the
committee were satisfied that I had bribed Joseph Great-
head, an elector. I think one of the charges against me
was that I had bribed him by procuring for his
son a situation as letter carrier in the Post-
office. Joseph Greathead is a chemist at Brompton.
I was examined in answer to his evidence and in answer
to the whole case. I was unseated on the terms used in
the resolution of the committee, and saw Bradshaw
about 4or 5 times before the election, but only once
to speak to him at his house at the Brook. To my appre-
hension, Mount must have been incorrect in saying that
Bradshaw asked me to get him into the hospital. I
have no recollection of anything of the kind. I am
quite certain I did not at the Brook say I would endea-
vour to get him into the hospital, but that I did not
know whether my influence was strong enough. I did
not ask him what pension he received—he told me
about it himself. I first learnt from him that he had got
a pension. lam not aware that he promised his vote
to Admiral Stirling. I did not pay Bradshaw's expenses
to London when he went with me to the Admiralty. I
don't know any one who has. I never canvassed him.
My canvass lasted nearly 5 months. I make a distinc-
tion between a promise of a situation given before a vote
is promised and before it is polled. I cannot say how
many applications I made for situations for voters before
they recorded their votes for me. Certainly not 100, not
50. I kept no memorandum or entries of them. I
applied chiefly to the Admiralty for places for labourers.
I cannot answer the question whether I made applica-
tions on behalf of any who were not voters, or the rela-
tions or friends or voters. I never obtained a vote by
making a promise. My promises were always made
after a vote was promised, for I conceived that was
within the law. I should consider I should have been
within the law if I had promised a situation to Bradshaw
after be had promised me his vote. I know a voter
named John Driver. On his application I obtained a
situation for his son under the contractor of ordnance
works at Portsmouth. The father did,not vote for me ;
he refused to take the bribery oath in consequence of
my promise to get his son employment. John Locke
also refused to take the bribery oath because he asked
me to try and get a situation for his brother. I refused
to entertain the application as it came so close upon
the promise of his vote. I thought it ought not to
form part and parcel of the same transaction. I can-
not say what time in my opinion should elapse
between the promise of a vote and the promise of a
situation in order not to make the latter bribery. Locke
told me that ho considered his application had influvuced
his mind, and I said that if he did not feel in promising
his vote he was bartering it in consequence of making
his application for his brother, I saw so reason why he
should not vote. I won't swear that I did not make
application for situations as soon as the day after a vote
was promised. I have no recollection of doing so. I
cannot say that I have made an application on the same
day. In the case of Cooper I recollect writing a letter
in his shop to the Admiralty, and posting it within half
an hour of the promise of his vote. The object was to
get a person named Pitt restored. The letter had no-
thing to do with his vote—he had promised it to me
some time before.

It may be said that there should be some
test for the qualifications of the candidates
for public favour. Granted. But a pecuniary
test is the worst that could possibly be adopted,
its only effect being to make men determine
to reimburse themselves at any sacrifice of charac-
ter. Let the examination as to character and fit-
ness be as stringent as possible—but the quack
would willingly pay a higher duty than, the regu-
lar, and better educated practitioner; than any man
who had determined to resort to unfair methods
of obtaining profits, than one who was determined
to act in a conscientious and straightforward
manner. The obnoxious proposition is, however,
withdrawn for the present, but " the snake is only
scotched, not killed." If the Joint-Stock Ad-
ministration remain in power—if Mr. GLADSTONE
be at the head of the Financial Department in
1854—it is more than probable that we shall have
an elaborate, but, perhaps, no less objectionable,
proposition than that which has just been declared,
and it is very desirable that Fiscal Reformers
should consider the subject in all its bearings, so
as to be prepared for decisive action whenever the
emergency may arise.

COURT CIRCULAR.

His' Royal ,Higliness Prince Albert, attended 'by Co-
lonel the Hon. C. B. Phipps and Captain the Hon.
Dudley de Ros; returned to Buckingham Palace-at half-
past five o'clock on Saturday afternoon from the camp
at Chobham.

Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent visited
their ROyal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Saxe
Coburg Gotha on Saturday at Buckingham Palace. The
Countess de Neuilly also visited their Royal Highnesses,
His Serene Highness the Prince of Hohenlohe Lan-
genbourg visited his Majesty the King of Hanover on
Saturday at the residence of the Hanoverian Legation
in Grosvenor-place._

The Diake and Duchess of Saxe Coburg Gotha, at-
tended by Baron Seebach and Baron Treskow, visited
the Zoological Gardens in the Regent's-park.
The Queen. and Prince Albert, accompanied by the
Duchess of Saxe Coburg Gotha, took a dnve in an open
landau and four on Saturday afternoon.

Prince Albert, attended by Captain the Hon. Dudley
de Ros, honoured the officers of his regiment, the Gre-
nadier Regiment of Foot Guards, with his company at
dinner on Saturday evening, at the London Tavern,
Bishopsgate-street.

Her. Majesty, accompanied by their Royal Highnesses
the Duke and Duchess of Saxe Cobourg Gotha, and his
Serene Highness the Prince of Hohenlohe Langen-
bourg, honoured the Royal Italian Opera with her pre-
sence on Saturday evening: The Royal suite consisted
of the Countess of Mount Edgcumbe, the Baroness de
Wangenheim, the Marquis of Ormonde, Lord Charles
Fitzroy, Baron Seebach, and Baron Treskow, Prince
Albert joined the Queen at the theatre.

The Duchess of Kent, accompanied by the Princess
Adelaide of Hohenlohe, and attended by Lady Anna
Maria Dawson, Lady Augusta Bruce, and Lord James
Murray, also honoured the performance with her pre-
sence.

The Queen and Prince Albert, the Princess Royal,
the Princess Alice, and the Duchess of Kent attended
divine service yesterday morning in the private chapel of
Buckingham Palace.

The king of Hanover, attended by Lord Elphinstone,
Major-General Buckley, and Baron d'lssendorff, was
alsopresent.

The Hon. and Rev. Gerald Wellesley officiated.
The Ladies and Gentlemen in waiting and the domes-
tic Household also attended the service.
The Duchess of Saxe Coburg Gotha, attended by the
Baroness de Wangenheim and Baron Treskow, attended
divine service yesterday morning in the German Chapel
in the Savoy.

Re-examined by Sir F. Thesiger—My acquaintance
with Chatham extends over 40 years, and I know most
of the persons there. I went to Chatham first in 1812
as sub-director of the engineers, and I went there again
in 1841, when I gave up the situation of inspector of
railways. _ _ _

-Henry Bradshaw, examined by the Attorney-General
—I will be 80 years of age in August. I am a pen-
sioner belonging to the naval service. I knew Sir F.
Smith for six years before the election last year. I met
him early in his canvass on the Military-road. All that
I passed on that occasion was that I promised him my
vote. I know a man named Stephen Mount ;he for-
merly lodged with me. He was not with me during
that 4interview, nor did be ever see me speak to Sir F.
Smith on any other occasion. (The witness here dis-
tinctly denied all the conversation alleged by Mount to
have taken place with Sir F. Smith.) Came up to
London with Locke, about getting into the Hospital.
Saw Sir F. Smith at the Admiralty. Had not yet got
into the Hospital, and never expected he would. There
was no objection to his character ; it was only said he
had not been long enough in the service. Would swear
he had never received any money whatever from Sir F.
Smith.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hawkins—When I saw
Sir F. Smith on the second occasion at the tooth, I told
him that I had promised to give my vote to him, and
that I would stand by my promise. Cannot recollect
whether I said before the committee that Sir F. Smith
asked me for my vote. I believe he did ask me. I re-
collect saying to him, "I will give you my vote, and I
should like to get into Greenwich Hospital, if you can
do it for me." Sir F. Smith did not reply he would
get me in if he could, but that he did not know
whether his influence was strong enough. I might
have said to the committee he made that reply, but I
cannot say positively—my memory is not so good as it
was 40 years ago. (Laughter.)
The witness was under examination when our report
left.