violation of truth as a temporal offence, the penalty might be proportioned to the temptation, and greater
security obtained for the veracity of witnesses; whereas the opportunity of doing this is lost by making the
offence spiritual, and subject of course to no gradations of punishment, whether the sum of the temptation be a
hundred pence or a hundred pounds. But it cannot on the other hand be concealed, that the low tone
of morality prevailing generally in our English courts of justice, to whatever cause it may be owing (and
the many scandalous licenses of mendacity countenanced by our prescribed forms of law have doubtless
had their effect in producing it), would render any such change a matter of extreme danger at present.
It is even argued, with no little force of reason, that instead of diminishing oaths, you might do well to
increase them, by requiring all preliminary pleadings to be verified by the oaths of the parties. At
present any plaintiff or defendant may just tell what lie he pleases on the files of the courts, these lies
entailing great expenses on his antagonist, even when they do not trip him up by some failure of form in
replying to them; and not till he comes into court to support his falsehoods by oath does he incur the
least responsibility for them. It is urged therefore that to permit false statements before trial, and only
punish them when sworn to afterwards, is substantially to tempt men to crime; and that the most
likely way to prevent men from swearing falsely would be to stop them when first they would tell you a
falsehood.

NARRATIVE OF POLITICS.

The Royal Commission for enquiring into the alleged
Corrupt transactions at the St. Alban's Election commenced
its proceedings at that place on the 27th of October,
and has sat frequently during this month. The inquiry
is not yet terminated, the sittings having been adjourned
to the 1st of December. The following are some of the
principal features of the voluminous evidence which has
been given before the Commissioners.—Mr. Jacob Bell,
the sitting member, stated, that the first communication
he received upon the subject of the election was from
Mr. Coppock, the parliamentary agent, who sent him a
note telling him he wanted to see him particularly
respecting a vacancy. Mr. Bell saw Mr. Coppock, who
told him the vacancy was at St. Alban's, and that if he
became a candidate he was likely to be returned, and
that the expense of it would be about £2500. Mr Bell
expressed himself rather surprised at the largeness of the
amount, and wanted to know what it was for; to which
Mr. Coppock replied, that there were various expenses,
and a good deal to pay for agents, and that that would
be about the amount, and he thought he could secure
him the election for that sum of money. Mr. Bell afterwards
communicated with Mr. Brace his solicitor, on the
subject matter of the money, and with Mr. Hills
(Mr. Bell's partner), and left it entirely to them. Mr.
Bell banked at two banks, and at one jointly with
his partner, and it was from the joint partnership bank
that £2000 out of the £2500 was drawn, and the £500 he
might perhaps have given out of his own pocket. With
reference to the election expenses, Mr. Bell produced and
referred to a parcel of bills, which he had paid after the
election, amounting to £1300, and which had been
incurred after the presentation of the petition against
his return, but he could not say specifically whether the
whole of it was incurred for petitioning expenses or
whether some portion of it was for electioneering expenses.
—Mr. Brace, the solicitor, stated that he was at
first concerned for Mr. Bell in the electioneering, but
subsequently retired, finding that interviews had taken
place between Mr. Coppock, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Bell,
in the course of which it was frequently mentioned that
£2700 would be required for carrying out the election.
He had lent Mr. Hills, Mr. Bell's partner, £1000 on the
28th November, 1850, which had been repaid. He lent
also a second £1000 soon after, and received letters from
Edwards, saying he would send his son to Coppock's
for "packets." No money passed from witness's hands
to Coppock.—Mr. Hills, of Oxford street, one of the
partners of the sitting member, deposed, in very
hesitating terms, to sending, but without the sanction or
knowledge of Mr. Bell, during an interval of six weeks,
sundry "packets," containing £500 in gold, to Mr.
Coppock's, the parliamentary agent, which were regularly
called for by Edwards's son, the total sum amounting
to between £2500 and £3000, by cheques and moneys on
his own account. Expected that it would meet with
Mr. Bell's approbation, and that he would reimburse him
after the election, as a matter of honour.—Mr. Edwards,
who it will be remembered was committed to prison for
contumacy as a witness before the Committee of the
House of Commons, now gave full and explicit evidence.
After detailing the preliminary arrangements for Mr.
Bell's coming forward as a candidate, Mr. Edwards
described his mode of distributing among the electors
the money placed at his disposal. In the evenings
Edwards usually 'took tip his position at his office,' and
a soirée was held, at which, 'according to the regular
custom of twenty-five years,' the voters attended, and
'if they promised their vote, he gave them head-money.'
The current quotation on such occasions was £5, which
was increased a little if the functions of messenger, spy,
or pugilist were added to that of elector. At the last
election there were 'three prize-fighters employed to
keep the peace,' whose actual services to the cause of
Mr Bell the witness estimated at full £50, though they
only received £15. After, a general description of these
matters, Mr. Edwards was required to give the actual
names of the electors whom he thus bribed. He
at first objected to do this, even with tears, but
being threatened with imprisonment he yielded.—
The commissioners were furnished with copies of the
borough register of electors, and proceeded to call over
the whole of the names in regular alphabetical order;
asking the witness whether the voter in question had
received anything for his vote, and how much. The
witness made his answers from his recollection, by the
aid of a copy of the poll book. The commissioners' in
this manner went over the whole of the register for St.
Alban's parish; and the witness gave in about a hundred
names of electors who had all received bribes of £5 or
upwards. In about a dozen cases the amounts were as
high as £8; but then the parties in most instances were
stated by the witness to have been employed either as
messengers or spies, to entitle them to the excess above
£5; and in some of these cases Edwards gave it as his
opinion that the men had actually been under-paid,
rather than over-paid, in consideration of the services
they had rendered to him during the five weeks during
which the canvassing lasted. In a few instances the
bribes had been received by the wives in the absence of
the voters; and sometimes the husband repudiated the
bargain, and withheld his vote from Mr. Bell, without,
however, returning the money. The witness explained
that his security against the bribed voters breaking their
promises after they had pocketed the money was to have
nothing to do with them on any future occasion; and if
they should at a future election keep their word, or give
an unsolicited vote, he generally recompensed them
with £2 or £3 after the close of the poll. The whole
amount of money spent by Edwards in bribing the
electors by head-money, might have amounted to about
£1700; and about £800 was spent for the hire of
committee-rooms, salaries of clerks, payments to the band,
refreshments, unlimited drink to the committee and
their assistants, and the dinners at which Mr. Bell was
present. The money which Edwards himself received
was "a delicate point." They would not believe him
when he told them. But he had "another inducement"
besides the money. He should think that he
appropriated about £50 to himself. He had been
offered £300 by Mr. Simpson, an attorney, if he would
leave the matter in his hands, but had refused,
and would have refused had it been £3000 instead of
£300. This answer provoked a searching question; to
which he replied—"I could easily explain it, but I
don't think you will press that question, if you think of