[12] Note 12. Page 295.
Hamlet.
[13] Note 13. Page 298.
Bribery at elections of members of Parliament was always an offence at common law, punishable by indictment and information; but there are no traces of any prosecutions at common law for such an offence. In the year 1729 the legislature interfered, and, by stat. 2 Geo. II. c. 24, inflicted the penalties which were sought to be recovered by the actions mentioned in the text. Mr. Rogers, in his excellent treatise on Election Law, says that it is not difficult to account for the silence of the books of common law on the subject of bribery. When the increase of money, and the growing importance of a seat in the House of Commons, gave rise to a frequent commission of this offence, the House began to assert its exclusive judicial power over all matters affecting the election of its members—and punished bribery as one of the highest offences affecting the freedom of elections. Having thus made it a matter of privilege, it would have been dangerous for prosecutors to carry their complaints to any other tribunal. Even since the passing of the Act in question, however, numerous cases are on record of proceedings for bribery, by indictment and information—at the instance, not only of private persons, but of the attorney-general prosecuting by order of the House; which latter power has been greatly extended by the statute referred to in a former note.—With reference to the particular transaction of Gammon with Ben Bran, narrated in a former page, viz. promising after the election to pay the Quaint Club for the votes they had given—that alone was held, in the case of Lord Huntingtower v. Gardiner, 1 Barn. & Or., 297, (A.D. 1823,) not to be an offence within the statute 2 Geo. II. c. 24, § 27. But Gammon, it will be borne in mind, had been fatally implicated, by his negotiation with the club for the purchase of their votes, before the day of the election. The penalties sued for in the text, are to be understood as having been due in respect of offences committed by other cases of bribery, as already explained, than those affecting the Quaint Club.
[14] Note 14. Page 307.
The system of joint-stock companies' speculation, as described in the foregoing and subsequent pages of the text, so far from being an exaggeration, falls far short of a complete illustration of the stupendous scale of swindling which has, during the last ten or fifteen years, been tolerated in this great commercial country. At length, however, in the year 1844, the legislature has struck a blow calculated to demolish the whole fabric, or, at all events, prevent any similar erection. By statute 7 and 8 Vict. c. 110, entitled, "An Act for the Registration, Incorporation, and Regulation of Joint-stock Companies," passed on the 5th Sept. 1844; and by act 7 and 8 Vict. c. 111, entitled, "An Act for facilitating the winding up the affairs of Joint-stock Companies, unable to meet their engagements," passed on the same day—such restrictions are placed upon fraud and improvidence, as are calculated to paralyze much of their powers of practising upon public credulity. Publicity and responsibility are two objects which are effectually attained by the combined operation of these acts, which are masterpieces of commercial legislation.
[15] Note 15. Page 367.
I. e.—The proctors' setting forth of their client's name and interest.
[16] Note 16. Page 392.
See the note to a preceding page in this volume, (ante, p. 307,) where an explanation is given of the salutary change recently effected by the legislature, in the law of joint-stock companies.