A Whose money?-I did not know that, I have said so before. So you went there not knowing whose money it was, nor what it was for?-I was not certain of that. Whom did you understand it was for, whose favour did you understand it to be ?--I understood it was in Mr. Hollis's favour. Cross-examined by Mr. Batt. to offer himself a candidate for the borough of Hindon, at the next ensuing election, and hoped he should have the favour of their votes; Stevens said Mr. Hollis was an honourable gentleman, and would behave with honour, then the voters said it must be 'one and all.' T What else did they say?—I cannot recollect what they said besides. Did Stevens say any thing when they said so at the Cross?—I cannot say he did. What did the voters say when Stevens pro I believe you were examined before the committee of the House of Commons, and gave a very long account of this matter there?-posed Mr. Hollis at the Cross ?—They said it Yes. What did you tell the committee was the answer Mr. Hollis made when the voters said down and down?-Mr. Hollis said, ' It should be so, and that soon.' Was that the answer you made to the committee?—That was down upon my examination. You have read your examination lately?— Yes. must be one and all.' Was there any thing else said ?—I don't recollect now. Did you hear Stevens say any thing more at that time?-I cannot recollect that I did. Was this Stevens, Jobber Stevens?—Yes. When was it afterwards, that you saw Mr. Hollis ?...The same day, at the Rose and Crown. What was said then ?---We were some of us Then you have read it to little purpose: the billetted there; he came in, and said he hoped words you said before the committee were, he should have the favour of our votes and in'that he should be as good as any other gentle-terest: we told him, we had no objection, proman,' not that it should be so :' now, you say, vided he was as good as another gentleman; that in answer to the voters saying down and Mr. Stevens said, he made no doubt of it. down,' he said ' It should be so,' which is the truth, they cannot both be true? If Mr. Hollis only said one, now which is the true account? -The meaning of both goes to one thing. I desire to know which of the accounts that you have sworn to is true?-That which I have sworn last is true, and that is what I have sworn in London. Mr. Batt. Then that which you said before, cannot be true, of course. Mr. Serj. Davy. Did or did not Mr. Hollis say that he was recommended by Stevens to offer himself as a candidate, and that he would be as good as any other gentleman ?—Yes. Mr. Batt. You said you just read over this examination; what was the reason of that ? To be sure not to make any mistake. You were afraid of not telling the truth I suppose?-No, I came here to tell the truth. How lately have you read it ?—I cannot tell exactly. Tell me within a day or two?-When I was in London about a fortnight ago. You said just now that this money was Mr. Hollis's, what reason had you for thinking so? -I could think no other, as he came to canvass the town so soon afterwards. William Crabb sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant Grose. Do you live at Hindon ?—Yes. Was Mr. Hollis present? --- Yes. What was further said by Stevens ?---Nothing further: some of the voters asked him when it might be; he said, Your time shall be my time; they made answer, the sooner the better: he said, once within a week he would do something for them. Court. Did Stevens say all this ?---Yes, some of the voters asked him how much it might be; Stevens lifted up his hands, holding up his five fingers, and said, Gentlemen, twice this: we took that to be, that it should be twenty guineas. Did you go at any time afterwards any where ?..To the White Horse, about a week afterwards, according to Stevens's orders. What passed at the White Horse ?---I found there Henry Huffe, Benjamin Cholsey, and Jacob Stevens's brother, and another gentleman that I did not know. What was done when you got up there?... Did any body else sign with you?---Yes, Do you remember Mr. Hollis's coming to took it, that it was to vote for Mr. Hollis. Hindon ?-Yes. When was it?-In August. Whom did he come with ?-With butcher Stevens. Where did you first see him at Hindou ?—At the Cross. What did he say there?-That he was come band Did any body tell you whom it was to vote for ?---No. What was it you received at the hole of the door ?--- Fifteen guineas I received in my hand. Did the rest receive any thing ?-They put their hand to the hole; I cannot tell what they received. to the praise of having reclaimed his 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. 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. Mr. Baron Hotham then summed up the evidence to the jury, who by their verdict pronounced the defendant Guilty of the charge alledged in the information. Mr. Calthorpe and Mr. Beckford were acquitted. On Monday, May 20, being the last day of Easter term, 16 Geo. 3, Smith and Hollis were brought up to the court of King's-bench, to receive the judgment of the Court; but as the judges were desirous to have longer time to consider of the proper punishment, they were committed till the next term, to the King'sbench 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 judg ment. On the former occasion, Mr. Serjeant Davy, as counsel for Mr. Smith, had informed the Court, that his 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, he hoped that would operate with the Court in mitigation of the punish ment they might think fit to inflict upon him. 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 informatious 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 still (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 Heydon, 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 qualification 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 offence 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 generat 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 effects was, to give rise to the crime of perjury, * Vide Douglas, vol. 1, p. 410. 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 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." The reader will remark that the same inca 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 which the House of Commons and the legisla-pacities ensue upon a conviction on a prosecu ture had provided against it; and mentioned, particularly, that a very gross scene of corruption which had taken place at Beverley, in Yorkshire, in the year 1727, had given rise to the statute of 2 Geo. 2, cap. 24. 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 500l." 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.+ 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'sbench, was bound over agreeably to his sentence for three years. This passed before Mr. tion for bribery by way of information at com mon law, as when the proceeding is by an ac tion under the statute; the disabling words in the act of 2 Geo. 2, cap. 24, sect. 7, being as follows: “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 Dary 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 guilt. Lord Mansfield then began by express ing his concern that the defendant had brought himself into so disagreeable a situation, pursued the Attorney General's idea, that as to the exIt is impossible to collect any thing of the pence, the general brought it on himself by particula merits of this case of Beverley from procuring a return by corruption; that the the entries relative to it in the Journals. Vide voters being willing to receive bribes, was no Journ. vol. 21, p. 24, col. 1. 1 Feb: 1727-8,justification of the giver, that such punishment p. 188, col. 1, 2. 22 Jan. 1728-9, p. 236, col. 1, 2. 25 Feb. 1728-9, p. 249, col. 2. 9. p. 250, col. 1. 4 March, 1728-9, p. 259, col. 1, 2. 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 months; namely, the favour which is always to be shewn to liberty, where the terms are ambiguous and doubtful.-Douglas. An officer of the should be inflicted as would compel the candi 1 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 manner, 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 (666l. 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 5001. 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 fore. head 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.]† Thursday, June 26. Counsel for the Plaintiff. Mr. Serjeant Glynn, Mr. Serjeant Adair, Mr. Davenport, Mr. Alleyne, Mr. Arthur Lee. Counsel for the Defendunt. Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Serjeant Davy, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Serjeant Walker, Mr. Dunning. I suppose that he was the person mentioned by Mr. Douglas in his Reports of Election Cases, vol. 5, 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. 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 warrant to commit him 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 particular business: she went up and told the 'squire, I believe; 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 behave?-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 improba ning 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 seve secretary 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 be respecting 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 he veyed him to lord Rochford's office, after hav- was charged, and thought proper to change ing rummaged bis 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 misly 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 natu though 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," |