Page images
PDF
EPUB

to the praise of having reclaimed bis electors from this inveterate abuse of their franchises.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mansfield. • Who were present at the Rose and Crown when this passed that you have mentioned ?--There were eighteen or nineteen of us: there was one Joseph Lamb.

[ocr errors]

Who else?--I cannot recollect.

Not recollect one?---I cannot say I can, to

be certain.

Was Richard Ingram there?---I cannot say

Jeremiah Lucas ?---I cannot recollect.

. You can recollect none but Lamb ---No. Can you recollect any other man that saw this holding up of hands?---I suppose, every body there must see it.

[Elias Stevens was called upon his subpoena, but did not appear.]

Mr. Serjeant Davy. My lord, we rest our case here on the part of the prosecution.

Mr. Mansfield made a speech to the jury in behalf of the defendant, but did not call any 'witnesses.

[ocr errors]

Mr. Baron Hotham then summed up the evidence to the jury, who by their verdict probounced the defendant Guilty of the charge ålledged in the information.

Mr. Calthorpe and Mr. Beckford were acquitted.

[blocks in formation]

bench prison.

Previous, however, to this commitment, viz. on the 16th of May, the new election for Hindon took place; and Mr. Smith having again declared himself a candidate, he was returned, together with Henry Dawkins, esq.

On Saturday the 8th of June, being the second day of Trinity term, 16 Geo. 3, Mr. Smith and Mr. Hollis were again brought up for judgment.

On the former occasion, Mr. Serjeant Davy, as counsel for Mr. Smith, had informed the Court, that bis client had, a few days before, been re-elected by a great majority of voices, to represent the borough of Hindon, and since there was not (as he alleged) the least shadow or pretence, for any charge of bribery against him at that election, be hoped that would operate with the Court in mitigation of the punishment they might think fit to inflict upon bim. He said, that at his first election, instead of introducing, for the first time, corruption into the borough, Mr. Smith himself had been led astray, and induced to the offence of which the verdict of a jury had found him guilty, by the established, and almost universal practice, among the voters of Hindon, of exposing their suffrages to sale; and that by the purity with which the last election had, on his part, been conducted, he was, in some measure, entitled VOL. XX.

Each of the informations contained several counts, and both Smith and Hollis were found guilty on all the counts, in the informations against them. Most of the counts charged them with acts of bribery committed in October, 1774, immediately before the election. For 1776) to actions on the statute of 2 Geo. 2, those acts, they were liable stil! (until October, cap. 24, and to all the penalties inflicted by that statute.* The court of King's-bench, in don, when the defendant was found guilty on the case of the King against Heydou, or Hayan information for bribery granted by the Court, respited the judgment, till the time within which actions on the statute might be brought was expired, in order that he might not be twice punished for the same offence; and, nearly about the same time, in the case of the King against Pitt, and against Mead, they, on the same principle, established it as a general rule, not to grant informations for bribery in future, until the end of the two years allowed by the statute, for proceeding by way of action. This rule, however, could only operate upon informations granted, by the discretion of the Court, to private prosecutors, and could not affect those filed, ex officio, by the Attorney General.§ The reason of the rule is, indeed, formations, ex officio, the Court might obtain equally applicable to both, and in cases of inthe same end, by respiting judgment, as in the case of the King against Heydon, till the expiration of the two years. But the rule, though general, was never meant to be universal; for in the case of the King against Pitt, and against Mead, lord Mansfield said, "There may possibly be particular cases, founded on particular reasons, where it may be right to grant informations, before the limited time for commencing the prosecution [on the statute of 2 Geo. 2, cap. 24.] is expired."[]

Mr. Justice Aston now delivered the judg ment of the Court. After stating the qualifica tion with which the general rule had been accompanied in the above-mentioned case, he observed, That there was a very great difference between the cases in Burrow, (where the of fence was the bribing of a single voter, and the prosecutions carried on by private persons, who might also have sued on the statute) and the present instance, which was that of a general corruption, and the prosecutor, the Attorney General, acting under the express order of the House of Commons. He entered largely into the nature, enormity, and dangerous tendency of the offence; taking notice that among many evil consequences, one of its most obvious ef fects was, to give rise to the crime of perjury,

* Vide Douglas, vol. 1, p. 410.
+ 3 Burr. 1359.

Ibid. p. 1340.

For the difference between these two sorts of informations, vide Blackst. Comm. vol. 4, p. 304, 4to ed.

|| 3 Burr. P. 1340.
4 N

[ocr errors]

Justice Aston and Mr. Justice Willes, before the other judges were come down. Yet, I presume, it is to be considered as having been done in court, since the recognizance was undersigned "By the Court."

because a voter who has sold his vote, or has been even promised a reward for it, must, if the bribery-oath is tendered to him, be guilty of perjury, before he can be admitted to poll. He traced the history and gradual progress of election-bribery, and of the different remedies The reader will remark that the same incawhich the House of Commons and the legisla-pacities ensue upon a conviction on a prosecature had provided against it; and mentioned, tion for bribery by way of information at comparticularly, that a very gross scene of corrup-mon law, as when the proceeding is by an action which had taken place at Beverley, in tion under the statute; the disabling words in Yorkshire, in the year 1727, had given rise to the act of 2 Geo. 2, cap. 24, sect. 7, being as the statute of 2 Geo. 2, cap. 24. follows:

[ocr errors]

The Judgment he delivered nearly in the following words:

"The Court has taken into consideration the imprisonment you have already undergone, and they adjudge that you shall pay, each, a fine of 1,000 marks; and that you be imprisoned six months, and until you pay your respective fines.

"As to you, Richard Smith, the Court cannot help expressing their astonishment at what appeared from the mouth of your own counsel, that you continued so boldly to persist in your attempt, and that you have been again returned for the same place. They therefore have thought proper to add to your punishment, that, at the expiration of the term of your imprisonment, you shall give security for your good behaviour for three years-yourself and two sureties--you to be bound in 1,000l. and each of the sureties in 5001,"

In consequence of this judgment, both the defendants were conveyed back to the King'sbench prison, where they continued till the 23d of November following. i. e. for the space of 168 days, or 6 lunar months.†

"And every person offending in any of the cases aforesaid, from and after judgment obtained against him in any such action of debt, bill, plaint or information, or summary action, or prosecution, or being any otherwise lawfully convicted thereof, shall for ever be disabled to vote in any election of any member or memhers to parliament, and also shall for ever be disabled to hold, exercise or enjoy any office or franchise to which he and they then shall, or at any time afterwards may be entitled, as a member of any city, borough, town-corporate, or cinque port, as if such person was naturally dead.” Douglas's Election Cases.

“1776, 17th May. The Attorney General came into the court of King's-bench, and moved for judgment against general Smith, for bribing the electors of the borough of Hindon : Mr. Justice Willes stated the evidence against him. As soon as he concluded, serjeant Davy and Mr. Mansfield endeavoured to mitigate the sentence, by shewing how much the general had already been punished for his offence, the great expence he was at, and likely to be at. In answer to what was urged in his favour, the Attorney General insisted, that the reasons given in favour of him, only aggravated his

On that day, their fines having been paid into the hands of sir James Burrow, the clerk of the crown, some days before, Mr. Hollis was discharged by the marshal. Mr. Smith was brought up to Westminster-hall, and in the treasury-chamber of the court of King's-guilt. Lord Mansfield then began by expressbench, was bound over agreeably to his sentence for three years. This passed before Mr,

It is impossible to collect any thing of the particular merits of this case of Beverley from the entries relative to it in the Journals. Vide Journ. vol. 21, p. 24, col. 1. 1 Feb. 1727-8, p. 188, col. 1, 2. 22 Jan. 1728-9, p. 236, col. 1, 2. 25 Feb. 1728-9, p. 249, col. 2. 9. p. #50, col. 1. 4 March, 1728-9, p. 259, col. 1, 8.8 March, 1728-9.-Douglas.

+"A month in law is a lunar month, or 28 days, unless otherwise expressed, not only because it is always one uniform period, but because it falls naturally into a quarterly division by weeks. [Thus in a case in Dyer, 218 b. on the statute of enrolments, the six months were reckoned of 28 days each.]" Blackst. Comm. vol. 2, p. 141, 4to ed.-There is another reason why, in cases of punishment by Imprisonment, the computation should be by lunar mouths; namely, the favour which is always to be shewn to liberty, where the terms are ambiguous and doubtful.-Douglas.

ing his concern that the defendant had brought himself into so disagreeable a situation, pursued the Attorney General's idea, that as to the expence, the general brought it on himself by procuring a return by corruption; that the voters being willing to receive bribes, was no justification of the giver, that such punishment should be inflicted as would compel the candi date to be honest, that the present case was of the most serious nature. An officer of the crown, on behalf of the public, prosecuted to conviction. A man endeavouring to get into the senate by corruption; this crime called for ample punishment by way of example; it was the first instance of the kind heard of, and should be maturely censured, as it would be impossible to preserve the constitution from ruin, if courts of justice did not act with vi gour, when such matters came before them. His lordship then ordered the general for the present to stand committed, and to be brought

⚫ I was favoured by sir J. Burrow with the account of these circumstances.-Douglas.

up the first day of next term to receive whatever sentence the Court should think proper to pronounce. Mr. Hollis, the other candidate, standing upon the same ground, was dismissed in the same mauner, and both sent to the King's-bench prison.

"June 8th. General Richard Smith, and Thomas Brand Hollis, esq. the late members for Hindon, were brought before the court of King's-bench, in order to receive sentence, having before been convicted of bribery at the last general election, when sir Richard Aston prefaced their sentence with a pathetic speech, in which he expatiated on the enormity of the crime, as, by violating the freedom of election, and corrupting the electors, the British constitution, the most perfect in the world, could only be undone, that the crime of which they had been guilty was aggravated by the tendency it had to lead the ignorant and unwary to the commission of that horrid and foul sin of perjury, the only barrier between God and man. From these and other reasons equally forcible, he inferred the necessity of an exemplary punishment, and adjudged them to pay a fine of 1,000 marks each (6667. 13s. 4d.) to the king, and to suffer six months imprisonment, and one of them (general Smith) at the expiration thereof, to enter into a recognizance of 1,000l. himself, and two securities in 500l. each, for his good behaviour for three years.

"The day following, one of the voters at the same election was brought before the same Court, to receive sentence for wilful and corrupt perjury, in his evidence before the House of Commons, when he received sentence to stand on and in the pillory, with a paper on his forehead signifying his crime, "Wilful and Corrupt Perjury,” twice in the town of Hindon on market-days, between eleven and two, the first time to-morrow se'nnight, and the second the Thursday following. And accordingly on Wednesday the 19th following, he was brought from the King's-bench prison to Fisherton gaol, Wiltshire, and on Thursday was carried to Hindon, where he was placed in the pillory for the first time. He was met on the road by a number of his friends, with two flags, and blue ribbons in their hats. The populace treated him very favourably, their attention being taken off, in a great measure, by a person mounted on a stool, who sung and sold an election ballad, much to their entertainment. He was brought back to Fisherton gaol in the evening, and is to undergo the remainder of his sentence the Thursday following."—Annual Register.

See more concerning these transactions, and the borough of Hindon, in Douglas's Election Cases, vol. 1, p. 173, vol. 4, p. 271. 18 Parl. Hist. 575, et seq.

560. The Trial of an Action brought by STEPHEN SAYRE, esq. against the Right Hon. WILLIAM HENRY Earl of ROCHFORD, one of his Majesty's most Hon. Privy Council, and theretofore one of his Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, for False Imprisonment: Before the Right Hon. Lord Chief Justice De. Grey, in the Court of Common Pleas in Westminster-hall: 16 GEORGE III. A. D. 1776. [Published from Mr. Gurney's' Short-Hand Notes.]+

[ocr errors]

Thursday, June 26.

Counsel for the Plaintiff.

Mr. Serjeant Glynn, Mr. Serjeant Adair, Mr. Davenport, Mr. Alleyne, Mr. Arthur Lee.

Counsel for the Defendant.

Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Serjeant Davy, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Serjeant Walker, Mr. Dunning.

* I suppose that he was the person meutioned by Mr. Douglas in his Reports of Election Cases, vol. 3, case 26. Seaford Case.

As the original publication contains not the speeches of the Counsel, or the Lord Chief Justice's charge to the Jury, I have inserted in notes the report given of them in the Morning Chronicle newspaper of June 28th, 1776. In the Annual Register for the year, History of Europe, p. 53, is a brief account of the arrest of Sayre.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

To this the defendant pleaded, First, the general issue of Not Guilty: And then several other pleas in justification: and his justification is, That he was at that time one of the lords of his majesty's privy council, and one of his majesty's principal secretaries of state; and that, upon an information upon oath, by one Richardson, against the plaintiff, for treasonable practices, he did issue his warrant to arrest the plaintiff for high treason, and to seize his papers; and did issue another warraut to commit hin close prisoner to his majesty's Tower: this he pleads in justification. The plaintiff has replied, That this was done in his own wrong: upon that issue is joined which you are to try: we shall bring our evidence and prove our case; and upon that we trust, that the justice of your verdict will give us ample reparation for the injuries we have

sustained.

After Mr. Lee had opened the declaration, Mr. Serjeant Glynn went at large into the facts and circumstances of the case,* and then proceeded to examine the witnesses, as follows:

Joseph Wood sworn.

Examined by Mr. Serjeant Adair. What are you?-A shoemaker by trade. What else?-A constable.

Do you remember being at Mr. Sayre's house? Yes, I was called upon on Monday morning by Mr. Bond, sir John Fielding's clerk, and I went along with him to the king's

*In the Morning Chronicle of June 28th, 1776, the opening speech of Mr. Serjeant Glynn is reported thus:

messengers, and from there we went to 'squire Sayre's house.

What messengers?—I don't know their names, two of the king's messengers.

For what purpose did you go to Mr. Sayre's house?-They had got a warrant, they said. Did you see that warrant?—I did not read it, they had it in their hand.

What did you do when you came there?— They knocked at the door, the maid-servant came and opened it: they said they wanted to speak with 'squire Sayre about some particolar business she went up and told the 'squire, I befieve; she came down again, and let us into the parlour on the right-hand, and then the 'squire came down; they shewed him a paper, the warrant I suppose it was, and said they must look into his apartments for some papers. They must search for papers?—Yes.

Did they read the warrant ?—Yes, they read the warrant to him.

What did they do in consequence?— As soon he shewed them all the desks where they were. as the 'squire had settled a-bit, and got ready,

Did they take any thing?-I believe they took two or three away, I cannot say which. Did they search among his papers ?—Yes; I stood by, and the 'squire was by.

Where did they go, and in what manner did they belrave?-They behaved very genteel and quiet.

What did they do with his papers?—They read a great many over, and those that they did not want, I suppose, they left.

They examined them ?---Yes.

deducing from the whole such inferences as were most likely to alarm the jury and bring the circumstance home to each man's breast. The Recorder of London, as leading coun- He painted in the liveliest colours the injustice sel for the plaintiff, opened the cause, and stated of issuing a warrant to seize a man's person the grounds of the action to the jury, begin- and papers on an information not less improbaning with an account of the mode of putting ble than ridiculous: he urged the inquisitorial the first warrant in force on the 23d of Octo- stile of the private examination of a man so apber, by sending three of the messengers of the prehended, and the manifest malice and sevesecretary of state to Mr. Sayre's house, where rity of refusing bail, and committing him close they pretended they wanted to speak to him prisoner to the Tower, after the magistrate berespecting a forged note of 2001. and by that |fore whom he was examined, had found reason means got possession of his person and con- to alter his opinion of the fact with which be veyed him to lord Rochford's office, after hav- was charged, and thought proper to change ing rummaged his cabinet and seized his papers; the description of his offence, and to insert in reciting the examination of Mr. Sayre before the commitment words of such vague and inlord Rochford and sir John Fielding, with the determinate import, as the words treasonable refusal of the defendant to accept bail, al- practices.' Having enlarged on the general ilthough he had changed his ground and com- legality and evil tendency of such conduct in mitted Mr. Sayre for treasonable practices, any man, and more particularly in a secretary notwithstanding that the warrant of apprehen- of state, he retouched his picture and increased sion charged him with high treason, and final- its effect by shewing how particularly misJy mentioning the committing him to safe and chievous it was to Mr. Sayre; who, when the close custody, which was rigidly observed, (ex- event took place, was a banker of great credit, cepting the compliance paid to a restrictive and was now, in consequence, a ruined man. order for the free access of Mrs. Sayre) al- He hoped therefore the jury, from their natuthough the offence on the face of the commit-ral feelings and wish to do justice, would see ment was merely a misdemeanour, and therefore bailable.

The Recorder dwelt on each particular above-mentioned with great force and ability,

the case in its true light, and then he doubted not they would think the plaintiff materially injured; and make him a just compensation by awarding him ample damages,"

They took what they pleased, and left what they did not like?-They took two or three, I think, away.

What did they do afterwards?-The 'squire dressed himself, and went with them to my lord Rochford's office.

What time in the morning did they go there? -I think they got there about seven o'clock in the morning, or between seven and eight, I am not positive, but it was about that time.

How long did you stay at Mr. Sayre's house?-I reckon we might stay there three quarters of an hour.

Did any body else come there while you were employed about this business?—Nobody else came there.

Where did you carry Mr. Sayre?-He went to my lord Rochford's office.

Did you go with him?-I did not go in the coach, 1 followed the coach, and saw it there. You did not see any thing that passed afterwards? No, 1 was not in the office.

When Mr. Sayre came down to them, and they read the warrant, tell particularly in what manner they proceeded, and what they did? They said they had got a warrant for hightreason: the 'squire did not seem to be at all dismayed: he said they should look, he was not afraid of any thing; he did not seem to be the least discomposed; he said they were very welcome to fook, he did not know that he had done any thing amiss.

Was Mr. Sayre in the room all the time they > were there?—Yes.

Did he offer at any time to go out of that room?-No.

Did he ask to go any where else?-He asked to go to dress himself, and they did not allow that; he had his clothes brought into the room where he was.

They would not then permit him to go into another room to dress?-No.

Did they keep the door open or shut?-It was shut: they ordered me to lock the door when I went in, but I saw the 'squire was not dismayed, and I did not lock it.

Did they make use of any excuse to get into Mr. Sayre's house?—Yes, that they had some particular business, and must see the 'squire.

Did they say what the business was ?—They mentioned something that they wanted to see him about a note.

Edward Mann sworn. Examined by Mr. Davenport. You are a secretary of state's or a king's messenger, are not you?—A king's messenger. Pray have you got the warrant P-No, I have not.

Had not you the warrant ?—Yes, I had. What became of it?-I gave it to Mr. Sneath. Who is he? The first clerk in the secretary of state's office.

When did you give it him?-Last Monday. Did you go, upon the 23d of October, with Wood the constable to Mr. Sayre's house?—I did.

Under what pretence ?-With a secretary of state's warrant.

Did you tell the person who let you in that you had a secretary of state's warrant?-I did not.

What did you tell the person who let you in that you came for?-I cannot tell the very words: I believe I said to this effect, that I had some business of consequence to communicate to Mr. Sayre, and I should wish to see him.

Do you remember saying you came about a draft that there was reason to believe was forged?-I believe I did mention something of it.

Was the forged draft the warrant, or what other thing did you allude to ?—Mr. Sayre was then not stirring.

So this forged draft was stirring before him? -Speaking of it was stirring before him.

How came you to say that you came about a forged draft, when you were a king's [messenger armed with a warrant?-Because I wished to see Mr. Sayre.

And therefore you made a pretence of a forged draft, instead of telling him you came with a warrant ?—I did mention that, and with a view of his coming down stairs.

That warrant I think you say you delivered to Mr. Sneath ?—Yes.

Is he the secretary to lord Rochford, or was he then?-He was first clerk then to lord Rochford.

When were you served with a subpoena to attend this trial?-Upon Monday last.

Before or after you delivered the warrant to Mr. Sneath ?-After.

You were served with a subpæne to bring the warrant with you?—I read the subpoena, and finding it mentioned that I was to bring the warrant or any other papers which I had, I went to Mr. Sneath to ask him for it: he told me he had not done with it.

When did you go to him?---On Monday. How long after you delivered it?---Within an hour after I received the subpoena.

How long had you delivered it before you received the subpœna?---I believe it might be three or four hours.

Did you go to him upon Tuesday?—No, I did not.

Did you go to him upon Wednesday ?--I went to him upon Wednesday, and told him the same.

He had not done with it then?---He told me that it was mislaid, and he could not find it.

Then it is lost?--I don't know.

What do you believe about it?--I believe it is mislaid, I only guess by Mr. Sheath's words.

Will you be so good as to tell me whose hand-writing it was, and by whom signed ?→→→ Signed by lord Rochford.

What was it an authority to do?-1 believe it runs in the usual form that warrants do: [ have one at home I had 15 years ago, and it runs in a similar form to that.

Was it a warrant to take him for high treason?-To the best of my remembrance it was,

« PreviousContinue »