The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-02 00:00:00

CHARGE OF PERJURY ARISING OUT OF
THE BRIDGWATER BRIBERY ENQUIRY.
-SATURDAY.

William Heal, 62, described as a manager, of Durstone,
Somerset, was brought up at Bow-street, on a warrant
before Sir Thomas Henry, charged with having, on the
19th of April, 1866, before a committee of the House of
Commons, committel wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. Pollard, from the Treasury Solicitor's office, con-
ducted the prosecution, and Mr. Lamb appeared on behalf
of the defendant.

Mr. Pollard, in briefly setting out the facts, stated that
in April 1866 a committee of the Hotise of
Commons was sitting at Westminster to inquire
into alleged corrupt practices at the Bridgwater
election. The defendant was then examined, and the
evidence given by him was taken by shorthand-writers.
In August last year a Commission of Inquiry was held at
Bridgwater for the same purpose, and the defendant was
again a witness. He then swore that all the evidence he
had given before the committee of the House of
Commons was false. This fact coming to the
knowledge of the Attorney-General, the present
proceedings against the defendant were ordered. The
first witness called was Mr. John Stiles, of 11, Trinity-
square, Brixton, Surrey, who said that he was a short-
hand writer, and as such attended before the select com-
mittee of the House of Commons in 1866, appointed to
inquire into the Bridgwater election. He took a short-
hand note of the examination of the defendant, who then
gave evidence as a witness. He had since compared the
transcript of them with his notes, and found them
correct.
Mr. Pollard then read portions of the evidence given by
the defendant before the House of Commons' Committee
in 1866. The defendant then swore that he did not bribe
any voter during the election ; did not give or promise any
money to any man to get him to vote for the best can-
didate ; nor did he receive any money from a Mr. Wes-
tropp or any of that gentleman's agents to distribute to
voters. Further on the defendant, in reply to a question
—" This was the first time at the Bridgwater election
that you had not been guilty of bribery ? " replied,
"Yes."

Mi. Wm. Aish Davis, shorthand writer of Osborne-
terrace, Clapham-road, deposed to having in 1869
professionally attended the sitting of the Commissioners
appointed to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices
at the recent Bridgwater election. Witness was present
on the 30th of August, 1869, when the defendant was
examined as a witness. He took a note of his evidence.
Mr. Pollard read another portion of defendant's
evidence, in which he said that at Westropp's
election in 1865 he voted for the Conservatives
and got £2OO. He kept that for his own vote, but it was
given to him to distribute to others. Being given to him
to bribe the people, still he kept it for himself. Nothing
was ever offered to him for his vote, and he never asked
for it. When he took the £2OO he promised to distribute
it in bribery-. It was, in fact, given to him for that
purpose. He received it in the street but the
man who gave it to him was a perfect
stranger to him. A man named Jarman was with him
defendant) at the time, the stranger offered to give
hiM £7O or £BO at first. He (defendant) said that
it was of no use, and it was at length arranged
that they should have £5OO. The stranger got
five packets, two of which he gave to him (defendant), and
three to Mr. Jarman. Each packet contained £lOO,
and he had £5O out of Jarman's. The following
morning he went into the " Golden Lion " and distributed
there £5O. He offered a man named Gilbert £lO, which
he refused, and wanted £l5. Because he (defendant),
would not give him .£l5, Gilbert returned the money.
He denied that in 1866 he had told the committee at
Westminster that he had been guilty of bribery at every
election except the one in 1865. When asked what he
denied, he (defendant) replied, " What I told them in
London was not correct." He swore that it was false, and
refused to state why he had done it.
Mr. Davis said that the parts read to him were correct
transcripts of his notes.
Sir Thomas Henry : Does he give his reason ?
Mr. Pollard : No ; that transpired at a subsequent
meeting.
Defendant was then remanded, upon the application of
Mr. Pollard.