and perhaps, in large constituencies also when there is a violent contest. at least as much as if there were no laws against bribery. It remains then to consider what difference there is between the unpunishable traffic in votes and the present practice of selling them secretly in evasion of the law. If votes may be bought and sold like other things, no positive law is violated; but a traffic is carried on in a thing which the judgment of all reflecting persons condemns as demoralizing and as politically dangerous. If votes may not be bought and sold, but still are bought and sold, the law is secretly evaded, and the demoralization and political danger are at least as great as if there were no laws against bribery; unless the fact be that stricter penal laws will make bribery less than it would be without them. Those who think so should aim at improving this part of our penal code, but they should not forget to direct their legislation chiefly against the briber. may be most easily bribed, even if he is above want, and he who, whether he has principle or not, is in want of money to supply his necessities: the guilt of him who takes a bribe, merely because he loves it, is inexcusable; the offence of him who sells his vote to supply his necessities, has its excuse. But what excuse is there for the man who buys the unwilling vote of a starving man? If it should be said that a less sum will buy a dishonest poor man's vote than that of his dishonest richer neighbour, the proposition would be true, but not fruitful in any practical consequences. Every elector may be compelled to take the oath against bribery and corruption at the time when he gives his vote. Blackstone observes, "It might not be amiss if the member elected were bound to take the oath [against bribery and corruption]; which in all probability would be much more effectual than administering it only to the electors." If any party should be compelled to take The sum is, that the best check on the such an oath or make such a declaration, traffic in votes is to make the constitu- it certainly should be the candidate. It encies large, and as far as possible to would not be difficult to frame an oath concentrate them; and further to assimi- or declaration so comprehensive as to inlate them to one another as much as pos- clude every possible mode of bribery sible, and so that every electoral district that could be practised by a candidate shall contain a large number of persons or by his agent, or by anybody else whose condition and station in society with his knowledge and consent. The render them not accessible to the ordi- Romans directed all their legislative nary means of bribery which a candidate measures against the candidate, because it can command. Small constituencies, was easier to deal with him than all the whatever might be the qualification of electors, and because the proof of bribery the constituents, would be accessible to is easier, when the receiver is not punishbribery. For it is a political principle able, but the giver is. The English legiswhich should not be overlooked, that all lation punishes both electors and candimen may be bribed, but that different dates when bribery is proved, and so amounts and even different modes of renders the proof of bribery almost imbribery must be applied to different per- possible; and it does not require from sons; and also that a man might accept a the candidate the security of the oath or bribe for his vote, and at the same time sin- the declaration that may be required of cerely condemn bribery. It is generally the elector. It is difficult to understand assumed that the poor are most ready to how it should be supposed, as some supsell their votes a fact which is not proved pose, that a declaration from a candidate by experience; unless the word poor shall might not be made effectual, that is, so mean a man who is in want of money. full and complete as to prevent him from But a man may be poor as compared with taking the oath or making the declaration another, and yet may be better able to if he was privy to bribery; and it is still supply the wants incident to his station in more difficult to understand why the ex life than another who is absolutely richer.periment has not been made, except on It is he who is destitute of principle who the supposition that the members of the legislature have not hitherto been in | with great ingenuity of argument on both earnest in their attempts to prevent sides. 'An Argument in favour of the bribery at elections. If there are to be penalties for bribery at elections, they should fall solely on the candidates. It may be objected that if this were so, attempts would be made in the heat of contested elections to charge a man with bribery who was innocent of it, and it is easy to suppose that unprincipled men would sometimes attempt to maintain such a charge. But as the proof of bribery by a candidate is not easy, even when he has actually bribed, it would not be made easier if he had not bribed. And as the case against him should be proved by most unexceptionable evidence, so the failure to substantiate a charge should be visited with costs heavy enough to deter dishonest men from making it. There remains a difficulty which arises out of the expenses incident to elections as they are now carried on, which are paid by the candidate, and are not expenses incurred for the purpose of buying votes directly or indirectly: these are expenses of printing, of committee-rooms, and of other things which are incident to what is considered fair canvassing. If public opinion were what it ought to be, or if the system of representation were placed on a sound basis, the candidate should pay nothing. The necessary expenses should be paid by the electoral district. There are no doubt difficulties connected with this branch of the subject, which could only be satisfactorily removed by those who are fully conversant with the nature and practice of elections. When the legislature shall take these matters in hand, and fairly grapple with all the difficulties attendant on elections, people will then believe that they really wish to put an end to the corrupt purchase of votes; when they shall see the legislature attempt to secure the purity of the elected as much as the purity of the electors, and not visit with equal or similar penalties the man who attempts to buy his way into the House of Commons by violating the Law, and the man who assists him by taking the bribe that is offered. The effect that secret voting might probably have in preventing bribery, has been much considered of late years and Ballot,' by W. D. Christie, M.P., contains also reference to the opinions of the late Mr. Mill, Mr. Grote, and others on this subject. A pamphlet entitled 'Is the Ballot a Mistake?' by S. C. Denison, contains, among other arguments against the ballot, the argument against its being likely to prevent bribery, and also much valuable historical information on the subject of voting at elections. The mode in which bribery was managed at the election at Sudbury in 1841 is explained in the Report of the Commissioners to inquire into the existence of Bribery in the Borough of Sudbury, 1844.' It was fully proved that "Systematic and extensive Bribery prevailed at the last election of Members of Parliament in this Borough." (Commissioners' Report.) Sudbury was disfranchised in 1844 by the act 7 & 8 Vict. c. 53. The mode of investigating alleged cases of bribery by Election Committees is explained under ELECTIONS. The House of Commons have shown on several recent occasions a determination not to flinch from investigating cases of bribery; a circumstance which encourages us to expect that the subject will soon receive from them the consideration that its importance entitles it to. [CHILTERN HUNDREDS.] BRICK, used in building, and too commonly known to require description. It is noticed here as an article on which a tax is levied. The activity of this manufacture is one of the most unerring indications of prosperity. In 1756 a tax on bricks and tiles was proposed by the ministry, but they were forced to give it up. (Walpole's Letters, iii. 203.) Mr. Pitt proposed bricks as an article of taxation in his budget of 1784; and though the opposition to such a tax was very great, his measure was carried, and an excise duty upon them was imposed by 24 Geo. III. c. 24. The duty was at first 2s. 6d. per 1000 on bricks of all kinds, or less than one-half of the present rate of duty. By 34 Geo. III. c. 15, an additional duty of 1s. 6d. per 1000 was imposed. In 1802 distinctions, which are still retained, were introduced in the denominations of bricks, and they were subjected to different rates | cashire than in any other part of the of duty. (43 Geo. III. c. 69.) The duties kingdom. In 1838 the duty on bricks have been increased at different times, in England and Wales amounted to and are now as follows:-Bricks not ex- 419,1037.; and the amount contributed in ceeding 10 inches long, 3 inches thick, the Manchester collection was 33,967, and 5 inches wide, are charged 5s. 10d. or nearly one-tenth of the whole. In per 1000; exceeding these dimensions, 1836 the duty for the same collection 10s.; smoothed or polished bricks, not was 56,3791. The demand for bricks for exceeding 10 inches by 5, are charged the metropolis is principally shown by 28. 5d. per 100; and exceeding these the duty obtained in the following Excise dimensions, 4s. 10d. per 100. Ireland collections: - London, 20,319%; Liis exempted from duty. The duty on bridge, 21,2251.; Rochester, 20,2471. tiles was repealed in 1833. The number of bricks brought to charge, and the amount of duty, was as follows, in 18401-2 and 3: In 1842 the duty charged in England was 390,2101. on 1,271,872,112 bricks, and in Scotland 98751. on 31,942,619 bricks. The number of brickmakers (that is, persons having brick-kilns) in England in 1835 was 5711, and in Scotland 128. In 1841 the number of persons employed in brickmaking, according to the census, was 18,363 for Great Britain, of whom 470 were females. The number for each country separately was, England, 16.840; Wales, 312; and Scotland, 1142. The kind of building material in use causes. in different parts of the kingdom is de The number made in England and Scot-termined in some measure by natural land, at different periods within the pre In Scotland, for example, few bricks are used, because an untaxed me sent century, has been as follows:terial, equally suitable, is everywhere abundant. 1802 1811 1821 1831 England. Scotland. 698,596,954 15,291,789 950,547,173 18,765,582 Total. 713,888.743 913,231,100 1,125,462,408 27,586,173 1,153,048,581 The difference between 1821 and 1840 is nearly 90 per cent. The increase in houses somewhat exceeds the increase of population; for while the population of England and Wales, from 1831 to 1841, increased 14.5 per cent., the increase of houses was 18.6 per cent.; and the actual increase from 1831 to 1841 in England and Wales was 515,813 houses: the total number returned in 1841 was 3,142,031. It is to the increase of manufactories and the construction of railroads that we must look for the great increase in the trade of brick-making. As many bricks have been used in a single railway tunnel (the Box tunnel on the Great Western railway) as have been made in Scotland in a year. The number of bridges on a line of railway is said to average 24 per mile, and in their construction a very large number of bricks is used. There are several viaducts in which above eleven million bricks have been required. A greater number of bricks is made in Middlesex and Lan The duty is imposed when the brick s in a wet state, when, in fact, it is a lump of clay; and it is necessary to make an allowance, as compensation for bricks destroyed in the kiln, or injured by the weather and other causes: this allowance is 10 per cent. The duty of 38. 10d. per 1000 on common bricks is said to be equal to an addition of 8s. to the price, which is about one-third of their vaine. The value of bricks made annually is not less than 1,500,000l. taking one year with another. There is a duty on the m portation of bricks of 158. per 1000, 78. 6d. if from British possessions, Looking at the state of the dwelling of the poor in this country, the tax bricks must be regarded as an impolite tax, like all other taxes on builing materials. The legislature has evidenty thought it so as far as churches an concerned, by allowing a drawhack a these duties which, on an average, avs nearly 300l. for each church. The drawback allowed on materials used in building the church of St. Pancras, Londre, was 36531. Another objection to the tax is, that it is a charge on one kind of material from which others, used for the same purpose, are exempt. When the duty on bricks was first imposed, the brickmakers were told that other kinds of building materials should also be taxed, and a heavy customs' duty was laid on stones and slate; but the effect was felt to be injurious, as an obstruction to such works as docks, bridges, &c. The duty on stone was therefore first repealed by 4 Geo. IV. c. 59, and next the duty on slates, about six years afterwards, by 1 & 2 Will. IV. highways, although the principle of that distinction does not seem very clear. Every county bridge is a highway, inasmuch as it is a bridge over which a highway passes; it is therefore in that respect strictly a highway: so also is every other public bridge over which a highway passes. The usual distinction drawn between them is derived from the nature of the space over which the bridge gives a passage. A county bridge, or, in other words, a bridge which the county is bound to repair, is usually defined to be "a common and public building over a c. 52. There was immediately a large river or water flowing in a channel, more increase in the consumption of slates, and or less definite; whether such river or as a matter of justice the duty on tiles channel is occasionally dry or not." This was repealed. As there is now no duty is evidently a very loose definition, for either on stone or slate, it is clear it does not prescribe the width of the that the conditions held out to the brick-river, or the nature of its channel; but it makers, when the duty was first imposed on their manufacture, have been violated. The distinctions in the rates of duty occasion a good deal of trouble, without the revenue being adequately benefited. In 1835 the duty on polished bricks did not amount to 5000l. The charge on these bricks is also a check upon ornamental architecture. The duty on bricks is precisely one of that class which should be repealed, and the deficiency made up by some other tax that would bear equally on all who are able to pay it. The brick duty is the subject of the 18th Report of the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry, issued in 1836. BRIDEWELL, a name frequently given to houses of correction. St. Bride's well, near the church of St. Bride, in Fleet Street, was one of the holy wells of London, and in its vicinity Edward VI. founded an hospital, which was afterwards converted into a receptacle for disorderly apprentices, in fact, into a House of Correction, for which purpose it is still used. Houses of correction in different parts of the country are called bridewells, in consequence of the hospital in Blackfriars having been the first place of confinement in which penitentiary amendment was a leading object. BRIDGES are of two classes, public and private. Public bridges may be considered either as county bridges or as seems clear that a county bridge must pass over a water, as the county would certainly not be bound to repair a bridge erected across a ravine, or over an ancient road crossed by a new road, having no reference to water. A county bridge may be either a foot, horse, or carriage bridge. A private bridge is any bridge which does not answer the description of a county bridge or a public highway. It is subject to no other laws than the general laws of property. The liability to repair a county bridge depends either on the common law or on the statute law. By the common law the expense of maintaining both county bridges and highways is to be defrayed by the public, this having been part of the trinoda necessitas to which every man's estate was formerly subject. [TRINODA NECESSITAS.] But the burden of repair of county bridges is thrown on the whole county, that of highways on the inhabitants of the parish wherein such highways lie. Primâ facie, therefore, by the common law the whole county is liable to repair a county bridge; but they may rebut this presumptive liability by showing that for some reason or other the burden has been shifted from them on another. They may either show that a hundred, or a parish, or some other known portion of a county is by custom chargeable with the repair of a bridge erected within it; or that some person, The first statute on this subject is the 22 Henry VIII. c. 5, called "the Statute of Bridges." This statute is merely in affirmance of the common law. In course of time, owing to the indistinctness of the principle on which public bridges were divided into county bridges and highways, it was found expedient to pass an act to clear up the doubts and difficulties arising from this principle. In order, therefore, to ascertain more clearly the description of bridges hereafter to be erected, which inhabitants of counties shall and may be bound or liable to repair and maintain, it is enacted by stat. 43 Geo. III. c. 59, § 5, that no bridge hereafter to be erected in any county at the expense of any individual or private person, body politic or corporate, shall be deemed to be a country bridge, unless it shall be erected in a substantial and commodious manner under the direction or to the satisfaction of the county surveyor, or person appointed by the justices of the peace at quarter-sessions to superintend and inspect the work. This act applies only to bridges newly built, and not to those repaired or widened. andividual or corporate, is liable to that stream, where a culvert would have been expense. In the case of private indivi-sufficient, but a bridge was better for the duals, such liability may depend either public, it was held that the county could on tenure; that is, by reason that they not refuse to repair such bridge on the and those whose estate they have in the ground that it was not absolutely nelands or tenements are liable in respect cessary. thereof;-or on prescription. In the case of corporate bodies, on prescription only. With regard to corporate bodies, Lord Coke says, "If a bishop or prior, &c. hath at once or twice of almes repaired a bridge, it bindeth not (and yet is evidence against him, until he prove the contrary); but if time out of mind they and their predecessors have repaired it of almes, this shall bind them to it." (2 Inst. 700.) Any bridge answering the definition above given of a county bridge may become a charge upon the county even though not originally built by the county; as, for instance, if it be built by the crown or by a private individual: but not every bridge which answers the above definition is therefore chargeable to the county for repair, unless it be also used by and useful to the public. The public use and benefit seem to be the criterion and if a private individual build a bridge of any sort, which is principally for his own benefit and only collaterally of benefit to others, he will be liable to the repair, and not the public: but where the public derive the principal benefit, they must sustain the burden of repairing it, on the ground that it would greatly discourage public-spirited persons from erecting useful bridges if they were ever after to be burdened with the costs of repair. The county are even liable to the repair of a public bridge erected by commissioners under an act of parliament, even though the commissioners are empowered to raise tolls in order to support it, or though other funds are provided for the repairs; unless there be a special provision for exonerating them from the common law liability, or transferring it to others. This common law liability of a county to repair a public bridge is so strong, that although it has been erected and constantly repaired by trustees under an act of parliament, and although there are funds for the repairs, the county are still liable to repair it. And where trustees under a turnpike act build a bridge across a It was found in very early times that many practical difficulties arose from the indistinctness of the common law as to the precise limits of a bridge-that is to say, as to the precise point where it ceased to be a bridge and began to be a highway; and vice versa. This indistinctness gave rise to many disputes about the liability to repair, and it was found expedient to enact, by stat. 22 Henry VIII. c. 5, § 9, that such part and portion of the highways as lie next adjoining to the ends of any bridges within this realm, distant from any of the said ends by the space of 300 feet, be made, repaired, and amended as often as need shall require; and that the justices of the peace should act respecting the repairs of such highways as they were empowered to act respecting the bridges themselves. The effect of this statute was merely to limit |