The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-09 00:00:00

~1l ,

)
BRIBERY AT CIE 80D31.7217 ELECZiar-Vr;

EWS PAPER

-.
.::,,,F7,7,- -77:-.-gi,t,-. ' •\:.-4_,
BOI)MIN, SATUR r'il litkii; "•Itf*, ''l
! .r,
~ ~,Q-73.; .:,7,
At the Guildhall, Bodmin, yesterd v.,'.her*,ll-;-,-1/43,--a V;,'.4
1
Mayor, Mr. John Ward, and Captain liddip;-101141,5,
Belling, watchmaker and silversmith, Niftittt,,,l
with bribery, in having given Thomas Chttithatil S
farmer, residing at Halgover, a countyy. parish
within the boundary of the Parliamentary borough,
£lO for the purpose of inducing him to vote for one
of the candidates at the recent election for Bodmin.
The charge was laid under the second section of the
Corrupt Practices Prevention Act (1854).
Mr. Whitehurst, the honorary secretary of the
Ballot Society, London, conducted the prosecution ;
and Mr. Bishop, solicitor, Fowey, defended Belling.
At the recent election for Bodmin there were
three candidates, Mr. Wyld, the late member, the
Hon. F. Levescn Gower (Liberals), and Dr. Mitchell,l . .
a resident in the borough, who styles himself a
Liberal Conservative." The contest lay between
Mr. Wyld and Dr. Mitchell, and it was a very -
warm one. The defendant exerted himself to pro- .
cure the return of the Tory candidate, and it was
while so employed that the alleged act of bribery
was committed.

Thomas Chapman deposed as follows :—I live at
Halgover, and am a voter for the borough of
Bodmin. I know a man named Brewer.
Mr. Bishop objected to the witness detailingany
conversation that took place with Brewer unless
the defendant was present.
Witness continued—l know a man named John
Belling, who is now in court. On the 25th April
I had a conversation with him outside my house at
Halgover about the election. He said to me that
if I would vote for Dr. Mitchell he would lend me
£lO, and I might give him a note of hand for the
money. I said that I should not like to do any such
thing, and that if Dr. Mitchell was not returned he
would call on me for the money. He said that he
would pledge his word and honour the note should
be given up as soon as the election was over. I re-
plied that I should not like to do business in that
way. He then said to me, "Do you consider the
offer. Are you coming into the town one night in
the week ? I said, "I am." He said that he
should not be at home on the Tuesday, and desired
that I would come on the Wednesday. He said that
I was to come about that time in the evening, which
was between seven and eight o'clock. I saw him
about eight o'clock on Wednesday evening, the 27th
April, in his own house, in Fore-street, Bodmin.
There was not much said about the election then.
I asked him what I was to do with my second vote.
He said, " Do what you like with it, so long as you
give Dr. Mitchell one." I said that I had voted for
Mr. Wyld at former elections, and he said, " Well,
Ido not think you can vote for a better man." He
then said, " I want to bind you to secrecy, which
you are not to divulge to any one—not even to
your wife." I said, "It won't do to tell the women
everything that is done." Then he offered me two £5
notes, which I took. Before he gave me the notes, he
rose up, and asked me to step back into a darker part
of the room, which I did. He then said tome, "Take
this, and go out of the back door." I then left
the house, and I went to Mr. Pearce, Mr. Wyld's
solicitor, to whom I gave the notes. (The notes
were produced and identified by the witness.)
In cross-examination the witness said that he was
not canvassed by Mr. Wyld, or by any one on his
behalf, before seeing the defendant on the 25th.
Was canvassed by Mr. Wyld before the 27th, but
did not promise himself to that gentleman. Had
voted for Mr. Wyld at former elections, and pro-
mised him one vote now. Mr. Wyld did not pay
him for voting for him before. He went to London
before the election of 1852—it was in 1847 or 1848.
Had voted for Mr. Wyld at that time. Went to
London to prove that he took a refreshment ticket
for ss. Made a communication of what took place
with Brewer to Mr. Wyld. Mr. Pearce, Mr. Wyld's
solicitor, suggested the line of conduct witness was
to pursue. Mr. Pearce instructed him to take the
money, and he went to Belling's house with the
view of taking it. He was asked to vote for Dr.
Mitchell when he was given the money, but he did
not intend to vote for him. Did not like to take
the money at all, when it was first mentioned to
him on the 25th, and would not have taken it at
if he had not been advised to do so by Mr. Pearce.
That gentleman stated that no penalty would attach
to him for taking the money.
Mr. Bishop—My friend Mr. Whitehurst has
called your attention to the second section of the
act ; but did Mr. Pearce read to you the third
section, which states that any person taking any
money or agreeing to do so shall be liable to the
same penalties as the person who offers the bribe
Witness—No. Mr. Pearce did not then promise
he would keep him out of trouble. Was not aware
that he was going to get into any trouble. Mr.
Wyld was present when he handed the two £5
notes to Mr. Pearce. Something was taken down
in writing that evening by Mr. Pearce, and no one
was present but him and Mr. Pearce at the time.
Did not intend at any time to take the money
un tilladvised to do so by Mr. Pearce, and having done
so had no intention of voting for Dr. Mitchell.
Mr. William Pearce, solicitor and agent for Mr.
Wyld at the last election, corroborated the evidence
of the last witness, so far as related to receiving the
two £5 notes from him, which had never been out
of his possession since.
In cross-examination he stated that he had ad-
vised Chapman to receive the money, and that no
offence had then been committed to his knowledge.
Advised him to do this knowing the law, and gave
him this advice in order to detect bribery.
Another witness, whose evidence was unim-
portant, having been examined, the case for the
prosecution was concluded.
Mr. Bishop having addressed the bench,
The Bench retired, and after an absence of about
ten minutes, the Mayor stated that they were
unanimously of opinion that there was sufficient
evidence to justify them in committing Belling for
trial for the offence.

Bail was accepted for the defendant's appearance
to answer the charge, himself in £lOO and two
sureties of £5O each.

Mr. Bishop then applied to the magistrates for a
summons against Chapman on the information of
John Herden, charging him, under the third sec-
tion, with a misdemeanour, in having accepted 'a
bribe, according to his own confession.
The Mayor and Captain Liddle said that they
did not think the circumstances under which Chap..
man had accepted the money would justify them in
granting a summons against him ; and Mr. Ward
said that he should require time to consider the
tehurst said that he was perfectlyapApilr. aticli vohni
pre-
pared at that moment to discuss the questionvhe-
ther Chapman had committed any offence under the
Act of Parliament.
The bench were of opinion that Chapman, in
accepting the money, did so without any corrupt
motive.