The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-10 00:00:00

MORE ABOUT ADULTERATION.

Sugar and spice have a good nursery reputation, and
we are not much shocked to learn that a large proportion
of the substances advertised as " pure cocoa" is adul-
terated with from 30 to 40 per cent. of sugar. It is a
little more startling to find that the " genuine cocoa"
of the shops is adulterated with from 15 to 30 per cent. of
starch, and that to some a good deal of water it added,
and to others a little red earth. Sugar and starch
are useful articles of diet, highly carbonaceous, the
chemists would say. But, as sugar and starch are very
cheap and accessible substances as compared with cocoa,
many people will feel a well-founded objection to paying
for them at the rate of ls. 4d. a pound. Chocolate is a
mysterious composition, including all sorts of sugars,
starches, and flavouring matters, a good deal of vanilla,
" and sometimes," it has been said, " even cocoa. "But cocoa
is not hypotically a complex drink, and really people who use
it ought to be allowed some information as to what
bevarage they are employing. When the adulterations of
coffee with chicory were much discussed, the dealers told
us that chicory was a valuable addition to the coffee-
bean, and that people who knew what was good for them
would prefer the adulterated drink. Nevertheless, no
practical disadvantage and some economy has resulted
from the practice of selling the two separately, or at
least of marking plainly the admixture when it
occurs. Dr. Muter's examinations of some 30 fair
specimens of cocoa indicate that only one of the whole
number answers to the analysis of pure decorticated
cocoa. He justly concludes that there is considerable
objection to calling them genuine when all the connection
they have vith solubility consists simply in the small
amount of real cocoa which they give at a dose.
The remedy to be sought is an Adulteration Act, so
amended as to compel everything to be sold under its
own name, with proper officers to see the Act carried out.
—Pall [hall Gazette.

THE BRIDGWATER BRIBERY
PROSECUTIONS.

On Monday, in the Court of Queen's Bench, Mr. Fennelly
was brought up to receive sentence for bribing electors at
Bridgwater to secure the return of Mr. Vanderbyl. The
trial took place at Taunton Assizes in March last, before
Mr. Justice Hannen. The Attorney-General had filed
an information against Mr. Vanderbyl and Mr. Fennelly
for bribery and conspiracy to bribe ; but the jury found
that there was no evidence to fully satisfy them of the
guilty conspiracy on the part of Mr. Vanderbyl, and they
consequently gave him the benefit of the doubt. Then,
with regard to Mr. Fennelly, they found that there were
extenuating circumstances in his case, inasmuch as great
pressure was put upon him.
On the Lord Chief Justice, and Justices Blackburn,
Mellor, and Hannen, taking their seats on Monday,
The Attorney-General prayed the judgment of the
court.
Mr. Justice Hannen having read the notes of the
trial,
Mr. Lopez rose to read the affidavit of the defendant,
Mr. Richard Fennelly. It stated that Mr. Fennelly
had been called upon at Bristol by Mr. Purcell, the
secretary of the Bridgwater Commissioners, and was asked
by him to furnish all information about bribery at the
election of Bridgwater. Mr. Fennelly made a full disclo-
sure for the purpose of helping the Commissioners in their
inquiry, and expecting that he would be called upon to be
examined before the Commissioners and receive a cer-
tificate of indemnity. Though he had attended for
a fortnight at Bridgwater before the Commissioners,
and afterwards when they were sitting at Westminster
they refused to hear him. He considered he was entitled
to a certificate ; but the Commissioners had told him that
he would be dealt with by the Attorney-General.
The affidavit of Mr. Cower was next read as to the
youth' and good character of Mr. Fennelly : and, further,
that Mr. Purcell had told him that an assurance had been
given to Mr. Fennelly that he would be called upon be-
fore the commissioners.
Mr. Lopez asked that the affidavits of Mr. Price and
Mr. Coleridge, two of the commissioners, should be read,
as he considered their evidence was in mitigation.
The joint affidavit of the two commissioners was then
read. They denied having given any authority to Mr.
Purcell to say that Mr. Fennelly would be called before
them. _

Mr. Lopez then addressed the Court, praying for a
discharge, on three distinct grounds. In the first place
Mr. Pennelly was young and inexperienced in election
matters, and went down to Bridgwater to serve no pur-
hpose of his own, and at the very last moment
e resisted every effort on the part of Mr. Vanderbyl
to indulge in any corrupt practices. It was only under
th e uncompromising importunity of the solicitors that he
resorted to bribery. Secondly, the jury had recommended
Mr. Pennelly to the mercy of the court ; and, thirdly, for
a much more cogent ground. The conduct of Mr.
Purcell was such as to entitle Mr. Fennelly to
the merciful consideration of the court. Mr. Purcell was
a private friend of Mr. Fennelly, whom he induced to
disclose everything under the assurance that he would be
called before the Commissioners. This was uncontra-
dicted by any of the affidavits. If Mr. Fennelly had not
made a statement to Mr. Purcell, he would have been
called before the Commissioners to receive a certificate of
indemnity for making the full disclosure. Mr. Purcell
had acted more in the character of a detective than any-
thing else.
The Court said the guilt of the transaction was not the
less because Mr. Fennelly had not been called before the
Commissioners.
The Attorney-General, having said a few words as to
Mr. Fennelly's connection with the bribery,
The Court intimated that they would reserve sentence
until the other cases were heard.
The Attorney-General said the " Queen v. Dr.
Hamilton Kinglake " would have come next in order,
but he had received affidavits from Dr. Kinglake that he
was too ill to appear before the Court, and, therefore, he
did not pray the judgment of the Court.
Sir John Karslake, for Dr. Hamilton Kinglake, said he
had filed the affidavit of Dr. Litton, who stated that he
had attended Mr. Kinglake for many years to treat him
for heart complaint, and that he would be in great and
immediate danger of his life by coming to the Queen's
Bench.

The Court, after a short conference, determined to go
on with the case, and act as they thought expedient with
regard to passing sentence.
Mr. Justice Hannen then read the notes of the trial,
from which it appeared that Dr. Kinglake was tried for
bribery and conspiracy to bribe the electors
of Bridgewater, in order to secure the return of
his brother, Mr. •A. W. Kinglake. Mr. Kinglake
was the Liberal candidate ; and it was thought that if
bribery were not resorted to by the Conservatives he was
sure to be elected. However, on the eve of the election,
Mr. Lovibond, the agent of Mr. Kinglake induced Dr.
Kinglake to give a check for £l,OOO to be used in case it
was wanted. This check was cancelled at half-past
ten o'clock on the morning of the election ; and it
was only by a mistake, as alleged by Dr.
Kinglake, that Mr. Lovibond got the money after the
cheque had been cancelled.

Alter the reading of the notes by Mr. Justice Hannen,
the affidavits of Dr. Kinglake, Mrs. Hannah Kinglake,
and W. A. W. Kinglake were then read.
Sir John Karslake then addressed the court. He said
Dr. King'ake had been convicted upon the evidence of a
co-conspirator Mr. Lovibond, of whose examination he
complained as against Dr. Kinglake. Nothing was done
to have money at Bridgwater until the nomination day, when
it was represented that Dr. Kinglake that the election would
go in his brother's favour if the other side did not resort
to bribery. Mr. Lovibond then induced Dr. Kinglake to
give a checque to his bankers, Messrs. Seeley and Prior,
on the day previous to the election, but on the following
day at half-past ten o'clock in the morning, he cancelled
the check given to Prior. That cancellation was not com-
m unicated to Mr. Lovibond, who went to Mr. Prior,who drew
the money which was afterwards expended in bribery. There
was no intention on Dr. Kinglake's part to bribe; and it
was only upon the pressure put upon him that he gave his
consent to issue the cheque. Jn this Dr. Kinglake was
corroborated by Mrs. H. Kinglake, and his brother Mr.
A. W. Kinglake. He submitted that though technicaliy
there might be conspiracy, still in reality the cheque
having been cancelled at ten o'clock it could not have
done any harm, and, therefore, so far as Dr. Kinglake
was concerned he was entirely blameless.
The witnesses at the trial had interpreted the going of Dr.
Kinglake to the bank for a 210 note for his brother as
going there to secure the money which was expended
within the last hour of the election, but their lordships
now had the affidavits of Dr. Kinglake, Mrs. Kinglake
and Mr. A. W. Kinglake, stating that the cheque
was really cancelled at half-past ten o'clock on the morn-
ing of the election, and consequently he was not the person
guilty of bribing the electors.
The Solicitor-General, after paying a high compliment
to the character of Dr. Kinglake, said it was his duty, on
behalf of the Crown, to ask that at any rate some sentence
shculd be passed upon Dr. Kinglake. After having pro-
ceeded to analyse the evidence for a short time,
The cases were postponed.