“one Newnam was called to prove a declaration made to him by Brackstone a voter, about having got the promise of a _house_ from Mr. Jolliffe for his vote.” The committee resolved that the evidence was inadmissible on the grounds that-- “although the declaration (not upon oath) of a person who cannot be obliged to be a witness on the subject himself, is admissible in evidence to _affect such person_, yet is not admissible _against a third party_.” Although the traditional figure of “Punch” is associated with punishments dealt out indiscriminately, it appears in the old electioneering days he was the agent for distributing illicit rewards for iniquitous acts. In the case of a “controverted election” for the borough of Shaftesbury (Dorset) the evidence produced vividly recalls Hogarth’s representation of an election broadside, “Punch, Candidate for Guzzletown,” introduced in his picture of “Canvassing for Votes.” After the general election, 1774, it was alleged that the sitting members, Sykes and Rumbold, by themselves or their agents, had been guilty of bribery, while it was attempted to be shown that Mortimer, who was the petitioner, had promised money to procure his election. The trial lasted four weeks, and among the points of evidence was the following indictment against the manœuvres of “Punch:”--Money, to the amount of several thousand pounds, had been given among the electors,[58] in sums of twenty guineas a man (654 votes were recorded in 1774; 532 being for Sykes and Rumbold). The persons who were entrusted with the distribution of this money, and who were chiefly the magistrates of the town, fell upon a very singular and absurd contrivance, in hopes of being able thereby to hide through what channel it was conveyed to the electors. A person concealed under a ludicrous and fantastical disguise, and called by the name of “Punch,” was placed in a small apartment, and, through a hole in the door, delivered out to the voters parcels containing the twenty guineas; upon which they were conducted to another apartment in the same house, where they found a person called “Punch’s secretary,” and signed notes for the value, but which were made payable to an imaginary character, to whom they had given the name of “Glenbucket.” Two of the witnesses, called by the counsel for the petitioner, swore that they had seen “Punch” through the hole in the door, and that they knew him to be one Matthews, an alderman of Shaftesbury; and, as the counsel for the petitioner had endeavoured to prove, an agent for the sitting members. It was said that those voters who admitted that they had received “Punch’s” money, had at the poll taken the bribery oath; it was contended for the other side that this was not legal evidence, that “it would be unjust to suffer what a man had said in conversation, and without an oath, to invalidate what he had solemnly sworn.” The committee determined that, with regard to supposed agents, evidence