The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-11 00:00:00

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH, Dec. 10.

CONSPIRACY TO CARRY THE ELECTION OF
BRII)GMASTER.
THE QUEEN V. WNAMARA AND OTHERS.

The Court sat at half-past nine o'clock this morning,
when the proceedings in this case were resumed. The
Court was crowded as soon as the doors were opened.
Mr. JERVIS addressed the Jury on behalf of the de-
fendant Simpson, and said that he deplored as deeply,
and detested as strongly, as his Learned Friend the At-
tory- General could do, any system of bribery or trickery
of the nature alleged to have been committed in the late
election for Bridgemaster ; but the question they would
have to determine was, not whether perjury had been
committed, not whether bribery had been committed, not
whether personation had been committed, but whether
the defendants had conspired together to procure Gibbs'
election by the commission of those crimes—whether
this had been in their minds a foregone conclusion, not
whether they had taken advantage of circumstances
which might have arisen, but whether they had delibe-
rately concocted a system of bribery, perjury, and per-
sonation, for the purpose of procuring the election of
Gibbs. Now he begged them to look at the character
and station of his client, Mr. Simpson. He was a resi-
dent:in the borough, the ruler or head of the Company of
Fellowship Porters, an office to which he had been ap-
pointed by his fellows in the Company, and this was
the gentleman accused by his Learned Friend of these
crimes on the testimony of such a witness as Mr. Miller.
He complained of the manner in which the indictment
had been drawn up. It contained no less than eighteen
counts, but the charge resolved itself into two heads,
first, a general charge of conspiracy; second, a charge
of conspiracy for bribery of good and bad votes.
Lord DENMAN—I apprehend the charge of attempt-
ing to bribe good votes must fall to the ground. It ap-
pears that only one good voter had received money, and
he said lie did not consider he received it for his vote,
but for what he had been employed to do.
The Attorney-General bowed assent.
Lord DENMAN—I mention this now because it is ex-
ceedingly desirable to simplify this most monstrous in-
dictment before it goes to the Jury.
Mr. JEitsas continued—He was surprised that not
more than 150 bad votes had been polled, considering
the loose and careless system adopted in the City of
London in taking these votes, and they had good reason
for concluding that quite as many had been 'polled
on the other tide, for if that had not been the case,
why had not the prosecution produced Mr. Croucher or
Mr. Thompson ? Mr. Simpson had long been a friend
of Mr. Gibbs, and he had taken the room at the Bell,
which was used as a Committee-room, and which was
always crowded by Mr. Gibbs' friends. Because a man
was sitting in a room as one of a Committee, was he to
be held responsible for every thing that any one else
might be doing, and to be charged with conspiring to
procure the electionby bribery, perjury, and personation.
This was a new reading of the doctrine of agency. Was
it probable that a man, sitting openly as a Com-
mittee man, having taken the room himself,
would be guilty openly of such practices ?
And on what testimony was it sought to convict him ?
On that of a man who, as one of the Jury had justly
observed, had so disgraced and degraded himself in the
eyes of the public, that it was useless to question him ;
and yet except upon the testimony of Morris there was no
evidence to convict any one of the defendants of con-
spiracy ; and that was the charge they had then to try,
and not that of personation or perjury ; and he could
well believe that the system of paying for the day's
work, which was not illegal in the present in-
stance, might have induced these unfortunate
men, some of whom perhaps had wives and families
in destitution, to have adopted the system of personation
which had been pursued, and by which he could well
believe the Committee might have been deceived. Would
they convict the defendants on the testimony of a man
who acknowledged he had four times deliberately per-
jured himself—who had four times been committed on
suspicion of theft, and once as a rogue and vagabond—
who shamelessly acknowledged, in the face of the open
Court, that he had lived upon the prostitution of his wife—
and whose conduct had excited such disgust, that not even
the respect due to his Lordship and the Court could
restrain the expression of deep and general indignation
with which he was greeted at the conclusion of his evi-
dence? and that was the witness brought forward by the
City of London. Was he not justified in considering
this the prosecution of Mr. Ledger and not of the City of
London, when he saw the testimony by which it was
supported? He could not believe that the City of Lon-
don would insult the Court and disgust the public
by putting such a witness into the box, and with the ex-
ception of his testimony what was there to prove con-
spiracy ? They had even attempted to make out
the charge, by showing that one Simpson and M`Namara
were seen speaking together in the Hall. Why, if that
were the case, he wondered that the witness Harker
had not been included in the indictment, for he had
spoken in the Hall to the defendant Shervill. In all
me other cases the persons had been introduced to Mr.
Simpson by the names by which they had voted, and by i
their Companies, and how was he to suspect that these per •
suns were not voting in their real names ? Then as to the
payment of these persons ; he denied that it was bribery ;
it might be treating, but it was legal in the present instance.
It was merely what took pla ,e at all elections of this
sort, the paying of the men their daily pay for the loss
of their day's work. But there was not even evidence of
this on which the Jury could act. Not one of the wit-
nesses to that fact but what had acknowleged he had fur
7s. 6J. risked his immortal soul by perjuring himself.
Had they been convicted of perjury their evidence
could not have been taken, and could they trust
their evidence because they stood self-convicted
of infamy ; the parchment record only being
wanted to prevent their ever polluting the• wieness-
box of a Court of Justice by their presence ?
Not a single untainted witness had been brought forward
to depose to any of these acts. He could not conclude
his address without commenting on the manner in which
the prosecution had been conducted. There had been
the most studious desire to prosecute and harass the un-
fortunate defendants, and to procure their conviction by
any and every means. As an instance, he would men-
tion the conduct of Cayle, who, failing to obtain anS'thing
by his threats, went with another witness, expressly
sent to the Bench to drink and smoke with two of
die defendants, in hopes to wheedle and coax out of them
something like a confession. There was no evidence of
any conspiracy and .concert, except from the .polluted
evidence of Morris, and even that did not touch Mr.
Simpson. He regretted as much as his Learned Friend
could the system of personation which had been adopted,
but he must consider that such a prosecution as this,
emanating as it did from the disappointment of
.Mr.
Ledger, and supported as it had been by such testimony,
was not calculated to repay it.

Mr. KELLY, on behalf of Mr. M‘Nainara, put it to the
' Jury whether they would, by their verdict, stamp him, a
luau hitherto of irreproachable character, with that in-
famy arid degradation which would most justly be his
!ot if he had been guilty of the crime laid to his charge.
lie r,:gretted and detested, as much as any man could do.
the system of perjury, bribery, treating, and personation
which seemed to have prevailed at the late election for
City Bridgemaster ; it was disgraceful to the City of
London, it was disgraceful to the nation at large. But what
evidence was there to connect Mr. M'Namara with that sys-
tem? Mr. M'Namara well knew that he had not been guilty
of any illegal act; that he had not incited any other person
to the commission of an illegal act; and that, until the

matter became a subject of public notoriety, he was ig
norant of any illegal act havicg been committed ; and
there was not a scintilla of evidence to show that M'Na-
inara had either-given,- or procured to be given, any
single illegal vote. If any member of a Committee at
an election were to be, therefore, held cognizant of

the
everything that might be done by any agents or other
idracy. If the Persons,.utt. then no man could venture to exercise his lin-
: tliiArr:ih_ad. itniosttig
1 btod letral and constitutional rights, without running
risk of rieiiiil.utterly ruined by beingchurged with con-
ity of London could prove that Air. M`Na-
ate:d one single person to vote illegally, why
Powell after he
elndi_l_",_3,.m indiet him for that one fact, instead of in-
hneau"s4e him inllad ahesweeping. charge of conspiracy, merely
son had heard what h ean seen in the Guildhall speaking with
come from votin although no per-
evidence as
what situation wouvir
that
N they were talking about? It' such
arker have stood irfficient to prove conspiracy, in
made the twentiethai defendanttha in this indictment, when
if he bad seen
after he had voted? If every
lie himself
(Harker) immediately
Jury
had said were true, he
Powell spoke to him
yfat‘o, act on the wholesome
word that the witness
should still call upotnhtehemJoust
convict
construction on
risotahis client of a most
maxim of putting
and to
it was to
ambiguous words, and not to
t? give a false
sat.ion• but could
the: testimony of such
atrocious crime-for a most atrc,
but hae,;'t'
suborn a man to personate another,
given. them
and who
vote, on words loosely uttered. in eonver
Guildhall
they stamp a man with
Infamy
1831, but
a witness :is Perkins, a warm political opponent,
said he had not bribed voters in
separate
11. a piece for coach-hire from Clerkunwell to
From what little experience he (Mr. Kelly) had i` •
in election matters—(A smothered laugh)—he should
think it exceedingly improbable that these voters li id
each come up from the Committee-room in a
coach ; and, when pressed, Perkins had represented he
hid spent 101. when be had spent but Cl., and had put
4/. in his own pocket for one day's expenses in eating
and drinking ; and could they convict a man like
Mr. IVl.Namara, of the most unblemished repu-
tation, on the testimony of a. political opponent,
and that opponent such a character as Mr. .Perkins ?
Could they believe that M•Namara, had avowed to Per-
kins, his most active opponent, his intentions to do that
which would enable them afterwards to avoid the election.
It was monstrous, incredible, and impossible to suppose
such a thing could have. occurred. Thompson, who . was
the Secretary to Mr. Ledger's Committee, was stated also
to have been present; and yet. the Counsel' for the prose-
cution had not ventured to produce Thompson to confirm
Perkins.l Could they,. on snch testimony, consign to
i f
1"147, 43 long as his life similaylast, 6 man
4