The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-24 00:00:00

!THE ATTEMPT TO BRIBE A CHAIRMAN
OF MAGISTRATES.

George Edward Gurney, landlord of the
" Earl of Cardigan " beershop, Marlborough-
road, Chelsea, appeared iu discharge of his
bail, yesterday, at the Bow-street police-court,
to answer the charge of attempting to corrupt Robt.
Stubbs, Esq., Middlesex magistrate, and chairman
of the bench of magiitrates for the Kensington dis-
trict of the said county, in the exercise of his duty
as such magistrate, by offering him a sum of £4O as
a bribe, to induc3. him wrongfully to grant to the
defen:lant or assist him in obtaining a publiehouse
license for the sititi beershop.

The prosecution was conductel, as before, by Mr.
Poland, instructe.l by Mr. Pollard, from the office
of the Treasury solicitors. The prisoner was de.
fended by Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Burnaby, chief clerk of the court, read over
the depositions, which were substantially identical
with the information already published.
Mr. Poland said that after the statement made by
the prisoner to the constable who apprehended him.
(the summoning officer Buck), he did not wish to
trouble the Court with any further evidence as to
the main facts of the case. He must, however,
examine Mr. Cornell, clerk to the bench of magis-
trates for the Kensington division, to give evidence
as to certain matters of form.

Mr. Samuel Cornell, clerk to the magistrates of
the Kensington division, deposed that the General
Licensing Meeting of the magistrates for that divi-
sion was held on the sth March last, when it was
adjourned to the 19th of the same month. It was
then again adjourned to the 26th. A petition had
been presented by the prisoner in the usual form for
a license to sell spirits. According to the practice of
the special sessions, applications for new licenses
were heard at the adjourned meeting, which in this
instance would have been on the 19th, but in con-
sequence of the great number of applications they
were not able to get through the business on that
day, and so it was postponed to that day week. Oa
that day (the 26th) the defendant appeared and
made his application personally, proving the service
of the required notices in the usual way. He was
also heard by his attorney in support of the applica-
tion, which, however, was ultimately refused.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis—Mr. Tubbs did
not vote in favour of the license. No magistrate
voted for it; it was rejected unanimously.
Nothing was mentioned, to witness's knowledge,
about " this affair." But as he was at some dis-
tance from the magistrates he did not hear what
conversation passed between them.
Mr. Poland said that upon this evidence he should
ask the learned magistrate to commit the prisoner
for trial to the Central Criminal Court. Consider..
ing the position of Mr. Tubbs as chairman of a bench
of magistrates, it was not a case to be sent to the
Middlesex Sessions.
Mr. Lewis, before the case was closed, would ask
that an order might be made for the restoration of
the £4O, in order that the prisoner might be placed
in a position to pay for his defence. He did not ask
for the identical notes. Mr. Tubbs' cheque for the
amount would equally answer the purpose, As to
the merits of the case, the letter produced did not
contain any actual offer to bribe.
Mr. Flowers—There is the £4O.

Mr. Lewis said the mere fact of a man acting
foolishly and indiscreetly by sending the money was
not sufficient to show that he had committed a legal
offence. It was not evidence of an offer to bribe.
The first letter, evidently the writing of an ignorant
man, was quite consistent with his declaration when
apprehended that he did not know that he was doing
anything wrong. He coultl not have supposed that
the paltry offer of £4O could influence Mr. Tubbs,
who indeed had acted in the only way that could be
expected of a gentleman, by communicating the
matter to his brother magistrates. They refused
to grant the licence, and no doubt what the de-
fendant had done would be sufficient ground for
refusing the licence, but that did not make it a
legal offence. He (Mr. Lewis) had looked into all
the authorities, and found no case applicable to the
present charge. Wherever bribery was a misde-
meanor it was always made a statutory offence,
as in the case of bribery of a Custom-house officer,
bribery to obtain Indian appointments, &c. But
why were these made statutable offences? If they
were misdemeanors before, what could be the object
of making them misdemeanors by statute ? It was
clearly because they were not offences at common
law that statutes were made creating these offences.
Mr. Lewis then read over the first letter, and con-
tended that it did not show any design on the part
of the prisoner. that the money he enclosed should
operate as an inducement to Mr. Tubbs, and that,
he should receive it by way of a bribe. The sessions
opened on the sth of the month, and the letter was
not written until the 9th. If it had been intended
to influence the proceedings of the magistrates, it
would no doubt have been forwarded before the day
on which the case was expected to come on, and
would have been heard but for some circumstances
which led to an adjournment. Then with regard to
the second letter, enclosing a stamped and directed
envelope for a reply, it might have been suggested
that the object was that the money should be
re-
turned. Of this, however, there was no intimation
in:the letter itself, a fact that showed that the pri-
soner had no such meaning, but merely sent a
directed envelope to give less trouble to the worthy
magistrate in replying. He himself (Mr. Lewis)
received every week scores of letters asking for re-
plies, and enclosing stamped directed envelopes. If
the prisoner had intended the money as abribe, and
i.ad found it unsuccessful, would he not in the
second letter have expressly demanded the return of
his money, avowing, perhaps, that it was an illegal
contract, but a contract unfulfilled ? He thought
that the Treasury having instituted this pro-
secution, and continued it to its present stage,
had sufficiently vindicated public justice, and had
afforded a sufficient warning to persons in the pri-
soner's position. They would show a proper respect
to this Court, and extend a mercy. to the prisoner
by allowing the proceedings to terminate at this
point.

Mr. Poland rose to reply—
Mr. Flo.vers observed that he had no doubt upon
the question.
Mr. Poland was quite sure of that, but after the
suggestion which had fallen from his friend Mr.
Lewis, it might be convenient for his information,
and fair to the prisoner, to point out what was the
state of the law. In " Russell on Crimes," Book
1., cap. 4, sec. 47, was the following passage :—"lt
was held indictable to attempt to bribe a Cabinet
Minister and a member of Council to give the de-
fendant an office in the colonies, and an infonna-.
tion was granted against a man for promising money
to a member of a corporation to induce him to voto
for the election of a mayor. An information also
appears to have been exhibited against a person for
attempting by bribery to influence a juryman in
giving his verdict; and it is laid down generally
that if a party offers a bribe to a judge meaning to
corrupt him in the cause depending before him, and
the judge takes it not, yet this is an offence punish-
able by law in the party that offers it." Again in
the same work, Book IL, cap. 16, sec. 151 :—"The
law abhors the least tendency to corruption, and
upon the principle, which has been already men-
tioned, of au attempt to commit even a misde-
meanour, being itself a misdemeanour,attempts
, to
bribe though unsuccessful have in several cases been
held to be criminal."

Mr. Lewis said these quotations applied entirely
to statutable bribes.

Mr. Poland said that was not so. These autho-
rities did not relate to statutable offences, but en-
entirely applied to the common law. Other refer-
ences wen.: to be found in the pleas of the Crown
and in the 3d institute, in which it was held that
this was an offence at common law.
Mr. Flowers said the only point on which he re-
quired further to hear Mr. Poland was as to the re-
quest if the money should be returned.
Mr. Poland should ask the magistrate not to make
any order, because he did not know what view the
superior court might take. Perhaps it might be held
that the money offeredfor an illegal purpose should
be forfeited to the Crown.
Mr. Tubbs observed that he could not, under any
circumstances, give a cheque for the amount. He
had, in fact, nothing to do with it, having handed
the money over to the Treasury.
The prisoner was connuitted for trial, the same
bail innag taken m upon the remand.