and perhaps, in large constituencies also | may be most easily bribed, even if he is when there is a violent contest. at least above want, and he who, whether he has as much as if there were no laws against principle or not, is in want of money to bribery. It remains then to consider supply his necessities: the guilt of him what difference there is between the un- who takes a bribe, merely because he punishable traffic in votes and the pre- loves it, is inexcusable; the offence of sent practice of selling them secretly in him who sells his vote to supply his evasion of the law. If votes may be bought necessities, has its excuse. But what and sold like other things, no positive excuse is there for the man who buys the law is violated; but a traffic is carried on unwilling vote of a starving man? If in a thing which the judgment of all re- it should be said that a less sum will buy flecting persons condemns as demoralizing a dishonest poor man's vote than that of and as politically dangerous. If votes his dishonest richer neighbour, the promay not be bought and sold, but still are position would be true, but not fruitful bought and sold, the law is secretly in any practical consequences. 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. 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, adds: stant activity of every species of industry. Smith observes, "The bounty is given in order to make up this loss, and to encourage a man to continue or perhaps to begin a trade of which the expense is supposed to be greater than the returns; of which every operation eats up a part of the capital employed in it, and which is of such a nature, that if all other trades resembled it, there would soon be no capital left in the country." And he :-"The trades, it is to be observed, which are carried on by means of bounties are the only ones which can be carried on between two nations for any considerable time together, in such a manner as that one of them shall always and regularly lose, or sell its goods for less than they really cost. The effect of bounties, therefore, can only be to force the trade of a country into a channel much less advantageous than that in which it would naturally run of its own accord." ... · One of the most striking instances of the failure of the bounty system occurred about the middle of the last century in connexion with the white herring fishery. Tempted by liberal bounties persons rashly ventured into the business without a knowledge of the mode of carrying it on in the most economical and judicious manner, and in no very long space of time a joint-stock of 500,000l. was nearly all lost. The bounty on the exportation of corn was given up in 1815 [CORN TRADE], and that on the exportation of herrings, linen, and several other articles ceased in 1830. In 1824 the sums paid as bounties for promoting fisheries, linen manufactures, &c. in the United Kingdom was 536,2281.; 273,269. in 1828; 170,999 in 1831; and in 1832 and 1833 the sums of 76,5721. and 14,7137. respectively. Bounties are not now allowed on any article of export; but in some cases it is believed that DRAWBACKS constitute in reality a bounty, being greater than the duty which has been paid on the article. The drawback on refined sugar, for instance, has been fixed at a certain amount proportioned to the quantity of raw sugar supposed to have been used, which is calculated at 34 cwts. of raw to 20 cwts. of refined; but by improvements in the mode of refining, a less quantity of raw sugar may be required in manufacturing 20 cwts. of refined sugar; and the drawback on the difference is in reality a bounty. BOUNTY, QUEEN ANNE'S. [BENEFICE, pp. 343, 345.] BREAD. [ADULTERATION; ASSIZE.] BREVET, in France, denotes any warrant granted by the sovereign to an individual in order to entitle him to perform the duty to which it refers. In the British service, the term is applied to a commission conferring on an officer a degree of rank immediately above that which he holds in his particular_regiment; without, however, conveying a power to receive the corresponding pay. Brevet rank does not exist in the royal navy, and in the army it neither descends lower than that of captain, nor ascends above that of lieutenant-colonel. It is given as the reward of some particular service which may not be of so important a nature as to deserve an immediate appointment to the full rank: it however qualifies the officer to succeed to that rank on a vacancy occurring, in preference to one not holding such brevet, and whose regimental rank is the same as his own. In the fifteenth section of the Articles of War it is stated that an officer having a brevet commission, while serving on courts-martial formed of officers drawn from differrent regiments, or when in garrison, or when joined to a detachment composed of different corps, takes precedence according to the rank given him in his brevet, or according to the date of any former commission; but while serving on courts-martial or with a detachment composed only of his own regiment, he does duty and takes rank according to the date of his commission in that regiment. Brevet rank, therefore, is to be considered effectual for every military purpose in the army generally, but of no avail in the regiment to which the officer holding it belongs, unless it be wholly or in part united for a temporary purpose with some other corps. (Samuel's Hist. Account of the British Army, p. 615.) Something similar to the brevet rank above described must have existed in the French service under the old monarchy, 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. c. 52. There was immediately a large increase in the consumption of slates, and as a matter of justice the duty on tiles was repealed. As there is now no duty either on stone or slate, it is clear that the conditions held out to the brickmakers, 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 cisely 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. pre 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 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 river or water flowing in a channel, more or less definite; whether such river or channel is occasionally dry or not." This is evidently a very loose definition, for it does not prescribe the width of the river, or the nature of its channel; but it 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, ndividual or corporate, is liable to that expense. In the case of private individuals, such liability may depend either on tenure; that is, by reason that they and those whose estate they have in the lands or tenements are liable in respect 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 stream, where a culvert would have becn sufficient, but a bridge was better for the public, it was held that the county could not refuse to repair such bridge on the ground that it was not absolutely necessary. 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. 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 versâ. 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 |