PUNISHMENT OF BRIBERY.
TIM case of the Independent party in Warwick versus the Lord of the Castle, was admirably got up before the Committee of the llorse of Commons. But it seems that the Warwick Reformers (lid not content themselves with the exposure of the noble (ar- VI and his satellites in the high council of the nation, but have prosecuted of some of the latter in his Majesty's courts of law. Two of the Cammittee of Sir CHARLES GRE VI L LE at the last election have been convicted of employing bribery, and sentenced to pay a fine of soot. each, and to be henceforward disqualified from voting or holding any civil office A trial for a similar offence hangs over the head of a third party.
These men of IVarwick do indeed deserve well of their country. They have set au example which ought to be followed in other places. Cannot the Reformers of Hertford and Norwich lay hold of some prominent agents in the work of corruption, and bring them to the bar of justice? Are the Whig assertions of the bribery prac- tised at Leeds during the late contest well founded? If so, cannot the charges be brought directly home to some individuals? A few such verdicts as those at Warwick, would at the next general election secure the return of many independent men, who arc kept back by sheer weight of purse on the side of the adverse interests.
It is pleasant to find that the law of the land sontetime.v bears with due severity on the corrupt rich and their minions. We doubt not that Messrs. OR AM and TRE PA SS, the Warwick convicts, con- sidered themselves abundantly secure while sheltered by their noble patron. But such thick-and-thin partisans will be less elli- eient in future, since bribery is no longer to be licensed, nor the law against it to be deemed a dead letter.
Previous page
