Star. — London, England, 1819-07-06 00:00:00

~: ~, ~ / k; she final consideration of their cases ; but that docu %fs,iw not being brought to the House, for which the Gentleman who attended as Short-hand Writer, apo- logized, the witnesses were ordered to attend again to-morrow evening : Two additional witnesses, named Wake and Stan bury, were then brought forward and examined with respect to certain traqsactions at former Elections at Barnstaple ; these of 1804 and 1806. The further consideration of the ease was then ad journed till to-morrow. The numerous Bills upon the table being then respectively forwarded, the House, at Ten o'clock, Adjourned as above. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Mr. CALLY, from the Office of Public Accounts, presented the Second General Report of the Conunissienen.—Ordered to lie on the table. Mr. P. MOORE presented a Petition from certain Prote stant Dissenters of Boston, praying that some provisions of the Marriage Act might be repealed.—Read, and ordered to lie on the table. The House resolved itself into a Committee on Dunn's Di vorce Bill ; Counsel were heard, and witnesses examined.—The Bill was then reported, read a third time, and passed. On the motion of Sir IL. PARNELL, the Adjourned Fi nance Debate was postponed till Wednesday. On the motion for postponing the Adjourned Debate on the Store-Keeper-General's Bill, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (in answer to a question by Mr. Primrose) stated that on the Revenue in the last quarter, as compared with the same quarter in the preced ing year, there was, according to the final Returns, an increase of £440,000. This increase was principally under the head of Customs and Excise. Comparing the last quarter with the cor responding period in 1817, there was an increase of £1,540,000. So far as it Was possible to state at present there Was every pro spect that the increase of the Revenue would be pr)gressive. The debate was then postponed till Wednesday. The Fisehequer Bills uarwas read a third time and passed. The Irish Treasury Bills Bill was read a third time and passed. The Report of the Irish Excise Licenses Bill was brought up, the Bill re-committed, and the Report received and agreed to. The Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-ntorrow. On the motion for the third reading of the Appropriation Bill, Mr. WYNNE, adverting to the inconvenience of an accumu lation of business at the end of the Session, suggested that it would be proper next Session to pass a Standing Order to pre vent any new Bill from being introduced after a day to be fixed, unleu on the Report of a Committee of the whale House. In answer to a question by Mr. Peotaou, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated, that the £s,oeopoo to be repaid to the Bank was the subject of a distinct clause in the Bill. The Rill seas then read a third time and passed. BRIBERY AT GRASIPOUND. The House then proceeded to the order of the day for the Committee on the Grampound Bribery In dictments. The House having resolved itself into the Committee, theffirst witness called was Welter Po meroy. On his being asked to state by whom a cer tain sum of money was paid, he refused to answer it, as tending to crinainate himself. Mr. WARREN thought the House had no right to. call upon the witness to answer in such a case. A discussion tbeu ensued between Mr. WYNNE, Sir JASIES MACINTOSH, Mr. B. AIARTIN, Sir C. Bun- Stet.L, Mr. LUSIIINGTON, Mr. TENNISON, Lord J. RussaLL, and Mr..Couarzwar, as to the right of the House to compel an answer in such cases. In the end the right of the House seemed to be recognized. on all sides, but it was resolved not to press the ques tion in the present instance. Meddlicote was called to the bar, and under went an examination.—Joseph Child followed. He peiisente.d a do'cument containing a statement of the ys promised for the influence of tile Borough. eras ordered to withdraw. Mr.MARTIN, of Galway, objected to the receipt of this document. His objections, however, were over-ruled. Joseph Child was recalled to the bar. The docu ment was read in his presence. It stated, that the sum promised was 82001.; that 40001. had been re ceived ; and that consequently 42004 remained due. Mr. D. W. HARVEY put several questions to the witness relative to the engagement,-and was answered in the affirmative. The witness was ordered to withdraw. Sir J. HAWKINS endeavoured to vindicate him self as a Candidate for the Borough. Mr. C. W. WYNNE proposed that the Minutes of Evidence should be reported. The House resumed. Mr. P. MOORE brought up the Minutes of Evi dence. They were ordered to be printed, and to lie on the table. Lard JOHN RUSSELL then rose and said, with respect to the case now before the House, as the greater part of the evidence had long been printed, and the remainder had just been heard by the House, he had no difficulty in now submitting to the House the two following Resolutions:-Ist. That it appears to this House, that such a notorious system of cor ruption has prevailed in the Borough of Grampound, as to call for the serious animadversion of this House. 2d. That this House will take the same into consi deration at an early period in the next Session of Parliament. That a notorious system of corruption had prevailed in the Borough of Grampound, must be evident to every one ; indeed so strong a case was hardly ever brought before Parliament. On this subject it was therefore unnecessary for him to oc cupy the attention Of the House. But with regard to the second Resolution, pledging the House to take this case into their consideration early next Session, ,he had a few words to say. Since the period of the Revolution, time had made in our Constitution-two great innovations. In consequence of Parliament having become so great a power, seats in this House had become more valuable than before, and a much greater degree of competition for these naturally took place, and hence some of the smaller Boroughs had become the seats of corruption. This fact had been acknowledged by the House in three cases in different periods of time, in which the House had thought proper to establish as the principle, that the notorious existence of such corruption was a suffi cient ground for their interference, and had endea voured to remedy the evil by extending the right of voting to. the adjoining hundreds: The other inno vation was, that great cities and towns had since grown up, in consequence of the extension of our coarntrunerce and manufactures, which were not re. presented, but which ought to be represented as well as the other cities and towns that were represented' before the Revolution. But the principle of admit ting the unrepresented large towns into a share of the representation had not yet been adopted by the House. What be should propose next Session, would be founded on the two principles to which he had al luded, namely, cleat of destroying corruption in the Boroughs in whickitt,ecistad, and giving the right of voting taJien from thetas to other bodies of men, who poseeeeed such a stake in the country as to entitle ~~~ 'R them to a voice in the naming of those who had to' watch over their interests, and whose numbers and interest in the general welfare of the country, would. secure tbem from, corrupt influence. In admitting this principle, he conceived the House would not be admitting any dangerous - Reform. When in former cases the House had given the votes of the disfran chised Boroughs to the adjoining Hundreds, it had always been said the freeholders had no more right to this vote than any other persons who were' not represented in the House ; and this argument was unanswerable; for the only ground on which the franchise could be given to the adjoining Hundreds was that of general expediency, under the hope (which had turned out to be well founded), that the measure would prove a remedy for the evil.— With the same hope he should propose that the elective franchise should be transferred to counties or towns in which there were large bodies of men possessed of great wealth who had hardly any repre sentatives in that House. So much he considered it necessary to say at present, but the other reasons on which he should recommend this measure, he would reserve for the occasion when he brought the subject before the House. The Noble Lord con cluded with moving the two Resolutions already given by us, which were agreed to. MR. ALEX. LAMBE. Mr. C. W. WYNN rose to call the attention of the .House to the conduct of Alexander Lambe, a witness examined in the case of Grampound, with which the House had recently been occupied. This witness had net only contumaciously' refused to answer several questions put to him, but had also taken it upon him to destroy a material document respecting the late election, after his first examination. It would be ne cessary for the House to adopt some measure to pre vent the recurrence of acts of this nature in future ; otherwise, at every step of an examination, a witness would feel himself at full liberty to destroy every document, however material to an investigation, The 'Honourable and Learned Gentleman concluded with moving, " That Alexander Lambe having, since his first examination before this House, destroyed a ma terial document relative to the Grampound election, is guilty of a wilful suppression of evidence, and a high contempt of the authority of the House." Mr. R. MARTIN suggested, that it might be ad visable to call ow Mr. Lambe again, to afford expla nation respecting this transaction. Mr. C. WAVYNN said, if Mr. Lambe had had any explanation to give he ought to have come forward while the Committee was sitting. Mr. MARRYAT contended, that Mr. Lambe had been guilty of no disobedience to the authority of the House. He had no reason for thinking that this do, cument would be demanded from him. It was a private agreement between two solicitors, and the moment the money was paid stipulated in it, the agreement was to be destroyed. Mr. Lavie, the other solicitor, had also destroyed his copy. How could Mr. Lambe be answerable to the House for a docu ment he was bound to destroy, and which he-had not been called on to produce? Besides, there was no information in this document which could not be ob tained from other sources, furnished by the assiduity of Mr. Lambe, in his character of solicitor for the prosecution in this case. There was no occasion, therefore, for calling on him to violate the confidence reposed in. him. He thought the conduct of Mr. Lambe not objectionable, and he felt it his duty to give the motion his decided negative. Mr. ABERCROMBY conceived, if the destruction of documentary evidence, after a witness had been examined before the House, were to be tolerated, it might prevent the House from carrying on any in vestigation or inquiry whatever. The House were not to take into their consideration, whether the in formation contained in the document could be ob tained elsewhere. But he thought the House would best consult its own dignity, in adopting the most lenient course towards 'qr. Lambe, who stood in a peculiar situation in this case, being concerned pro fessionally with those who were engaged in the trans actions of this election. It would be sufficient, in his opinion, to reprimand Mr. Lambe. Mr. ARREN contended, that in the first exami nation of Mr. Lambe nothing was to be found which indicated that he had been given to understand that he would be required to prodvie the agreement. It was, therefore, not to be wondered that he had said that he did not recollect any question as to that agreement; and when he had admitted the other day, that in that examination (of the 27th May) he had been given to understand that he might be called on to produce that document, he must have been mistaken, as not a word respecting it was to be found in the minutes. He therefore urged that though Mr. Lambe might not have acted with propriety, he had done nothing which could deserve either the gentler or the severer punishment. Mr. W. WILLIAMS said, that when Mr. Lambe was about to leave the House after his examination of May 27, he (Mr. Williams) had distinctly stated to him, that he was not to consider himselfreleased from attendance en the House, and that he would be exa, ,mined as to that agreement. Mr. Lambe, therefbry was a better judge of his own feelings than the titi-1 nourable and Learned Member who had spoken last, when he had admitted that he had been told that this agreement would be referred to. Yet he had told the House, that he had within ten days, that is, since his last examination, destroyed this document. As "to the confidence between lawyer and client, which had been spoken of, he thought that plea could not be construed to extend to the protection of an attorney, when he departed from the fair course of his profes sion, to enter into illegal compromises affecting seats in that House. Mr. WARREN put it to the House, whether a Member could fairly alle,se to the injury of a wit ness, words addressed by him to that witness, which words had not been entered in the minutes ? Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that his caution had been addressed by him to the witness from his place, and in the hearing of the Members who were then pre. sent—(H ear, hear.) Mr. ERNAL thought that Mr. Lambe bad Imp guilty of an infraction ofthe privileges of the Hai" and this opinion made it compulsory on him to vote for the Resolution. As, however, he was inclined to think favourably of the disposition which Mr. Lambs had shewn, to protect the interests of his client, di*, (if he might be allowed the expression) thispeccagla' -(No, so, from Mr. Wpm, and a laugh), might I. visited gently. . . - Mr. WYNN said, that far from being a peccadillo, the offence of the witness was one of the worst which he could have been guilty of, against the privileges 'of the House and the course of justice. He observed, that it was the uniform practice that cautions ad- ' dressed by individual Members to witnesses should, not be entered in the Minutes of Evidence. He was' sorry to see any disposition to palliate the offence of which the witness had been guilty, by allegations that he had been actuated by such and such feelings. As to the protection which the House was bound to afford to attornies, it could only extend to bona fide communications between them and their clients. If the House were to be stopped in all its inquiries as to what had been transacted by them as agents, their powers of investigation would be nullified. In the present case, lie should, however, accede to the pro posal for a mitigated punishment. The Resolution was agreed to. Mr. WYNN then proposed that A. Lambe be brought to the Bar to-morrow, in custody of the Serjeant at Arms, to be reprimanded by the Speaker for his said offence.—Agreed to. CAMELFORD ELECTION. The House went into a Committee, to consider the Report from the Committee on the Camelford Election. Mr. P. MoORF. took the Chair. Mr. Hallett, of St. Mary-Axe, was called in and examined by Mr. D. W. I L tavey. He stated, that in June, 1818, he had intended to go down to the Borough-of Camelford. He had about that time a convescition with a Mr. Sibley on the subject. Witness's intention was to go down to Cameltord to endeavour to procure the return of two 'Members to Parliament. He was introduced to a Mr. Stewart on the 10th June, and he left London on the 11th. He was introduced to Mr. Stewart by a Mr. Allsop ; on that day they made arrangements for Mr. Stewart to accompany him to Camelford.— Till Mr. Allsop introduced him to Mr. Stewart, wit ness had never heard of the latter Gentleman. Mr. Stewart and Mr. Allsop wished to be returned for the Borough of Camelford. Mr. Allsop had been introduced to him by a Member of the House (whose name it was not necessary to mention), whom he had informed that the Borough of Camelford was satisfied with its Patron. The I-lon. Member had told him that Mr. Allsop would be glad of a seat. Previ ously to the 10th June he had sent a letter to a Mr. Chingal, Camelford, containing the halves of a parcel of Bank-notes ; they were the halves of six £l,OOO notes ; he received part of those notes as the discount of Bills from his Banker (as would appear from his Banker's book), and the rest he raised by other means. He threw himself on the indulgence of the House, whether, as a mercantile man, he should be called on to state how he had procured them, but he declared he had raised them on his own means. He had rea son to suppose that he should be able to procure the return of two Members to Parliament for Camelford, and he had been given to understand that in the case of a contest, the appearance of money would be re quired to inspire the confidence of the Electors in a contest with so powerful a person as the patron. This was done to procure the return of an individual whom he had never seen till the Ist of June. He was to avail himself of this money as the exigencies might require. He knew James Ilarvey of Camelford. The witness had been engaged in an attempt to raise potters' clay in the neighbourhood of Camelford, and he thus came to the knowledge that the people were dissatisfied with the patron of the Borough. He made an arrangement with James Harvey, that he should go down to Camelford with two Gentlemen, as Candidates. Mr. Stewart, Mr. Amory, and Mr. Sibley, went down with him. It was James Harvey who told him that £6OOO would be necessary. The half notes were only sent to Ching for the sake of se curity. Witness having declined to state why he had sent the £6OOO down to Mr. Ching, was ordered to withdraw. Mr. HARVEY was of opinion that the witness ought to answer this question. There could be no excuse here that an answer would be a breach of pro fessional confidence. Mr. PRIMROSE thought that the witness ought to have been examined before a Select Committee. He had pledged himself to give a full account of all be knew, but is was unfair to put questions, the an swers to which would implicate himself. Th e; House had an instance in the case of Mr. Merceron of the impropriety of compelling a witness to answer. The testimony extracted from that Gentleman before a Committee of the House of Commons, had been used against him in one of the Courts below, and he was convicted upon it. Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN observed, that if this question could not' he put, they had better give up the investigation altogether. After a few words from Mr. R. MARTIN and Mr. W. Ws The witness was again called in. He knew that many of the Electors were in debt to a Mr. Carpenter, and to several other persons, and he had provided himself with money accordingly. He did not know on what ground the Electors had received loans of money, but having been told by J. Harvey that a 'sum of E 6090 was necessary, he had provided him self with it. He declined stating whether he did or grid not know of his own knowledge, that the £6OOO or any part of it was to be paid to the Electors.-- Ordered to withdraw. Mr. PRIMROSE suggested the propriety of in forming the witness, that he would be protected against the effects of any evidence he might give before the House. Witness being called in, was told by the Chairman that the House would protect him as far as was in its power ; but he was at the same time cautioned against refusing to answer any question put to him.. Witness then said his impression was, that in t1:66 event 6f the two Candidates nominated by him being returned, he was to give up the £6OOO. He did not recollect having told his partner, Mr. Sibley, that the Camelford Electors were a set of scoun drels. He had particular reasons for cautioning the House against relying on the testimony of Mr. Sibley. If the parties nominated by witness had been return ed, he had no doubt but they (Messrs. Stewart and Allsop) would have honourably repaid him his ex penses. He had been repaid his travelling expenses by Mr. Amory. He did not know the Electors had received money at former elections, or notes of band which were not to be presented unless the parties re fused their votes to the holders. There were six Can didates for the Borough. Two were proposed by Lord Darlington, two by Mr. Mason, a Clergym an, and two by witness. Mr. Mason lived within miles of Camelford. Witness had the sum of L. .0 in his possession for some days before he sew. d ie half notes to Mr. Ching. He never had any commit. nicapon with any elector qn the subject of purchasi ng his vote; he never made any attempt of the kind ; he was disappointed, and had no opportunity o f making any such attempt, probably if he had h e might have done so ; he understood the majority o f the voters had promised the other parry. Sir G. HILL objected to any questions whi c h went to inquire what witness would or might e done in any given case. He ought only to be CA. pined as to matters of fact. Mr. PRIMROSE submitted that his exarninati% was directly in point. His object was to elicit cru el the witness those truths which he seemed very l i n . willing to tell. He had stated that he had posse ea himself of the means of corrupting the Electors, L I that he declined using those means, though he wea down with the avowed purpose of having his friend; returned; from whom, by the bye, he expected to he repaid all his expenses, in the event of their election. The witness being again called in, the Committee proceeded with his examination, which was chiefly directed to ascertain how he had obtained the 6,000 i. and how he had disposed of it after the election. ,The witness stated that he had obtained it partly by dis. counts from bankers,partly by loans from his friends, and partly from the concern in Which he was a part. ner. He believed he had paid it into the blinker's bands after the election was over, but could not say so positively. Being asked to state the names of the pe r . sons from whom he had borrowed part of the money, Mr. BROUGHAM objected to the question as un necessary and unfit to be pet. Mr. WAITHMAN maintained the propriety cf putting the question, upon which a conversation arose, and alter a few observations from Mr. W. Hanvcv, Colonel DAVIS, Mr. MARRYAT, Mr. K. DousLar, "'Mr. GORDON, Mr. PRIMROSE, and Mr. W. IVYNX, a division took place.—For putting the question 2.6 Against it IB—Majority 8. The witness was then again called in, and under went a long examination as to the mode in which he bad obtained the 60001. after which the' Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Wednesday. Mr. P. MOORE presented the Evidence taken before the Committee.—Ordered to be printed. It was ordered, that the Speaker shu . uld not issue a new ors fur the Borough of Carnelford before Wednesday next. Mr. CARLISLE presented the Second Report of the Cm. mission appointed to inquire into the State of the OsatitaLiells. stitutions for the Education of the Poor.—Ordered to be prim 4, The other (artless of the Day were then disposed of, sada One o'Clock this morning the Douse adjourned. THE EVENING STAR. LONDON. TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1819. THE FUNDS. PRICE OF STOCKS THIS DAY AT ONE O . CLOCK : Bank Stock 2171 217 3 per Cent. Reduced 68 671111 3 per Cent. Consols 671 661 67+ 67 ex. div. Si per Cent. 75+1 76 75+-4. per Cent. 85185 5 per Cent. Navy 1011i1 ex. dive Bank Long Annuities 17 13-16 I India Bonds 6 2 pre. Exchequer Bills (2d.) 1 pre. 2 dis.: Drank= 01 131 dis. Consols for Acct. 69 681Hi1. The Bill to prevent the misapplication of the Poor Rates, which had passed the House of Commons, and stood for a second reading in the Lords last night, was thrown out ; the Marquis of LANSDOWNE moving that it should be read a second time this day three months, and the Noble Marquis's Amendment being adopted without a division. The Insolvent Debtors' Bill was recommitted ; several verbal Amendments were made to it. The measure, however, was de clared, both by the LORD CHANCELLOR and Lord REDESDALE, to be wholly inadequate to its object.— The Clause, which went to deprive Debtors of the indulgence of the Rules, was amended on the motion of Lord REDESDALE, and a power given to the Com missioners either to grant or to withhold this in dulgence. Last night the House of Commons was occupied till seven o'clock with hearing evidence in the case of the Grampound Election. The evidence being closed, it was voted, on the motion of Lord Joss RUSSELL, that a system of notorious corruption had prevailed in the Borough of Grampound, and that the House would take the same into its consideration in the next Session of Parliament. MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS. Extract from a letter from Pollockshaws, near Glasgow, dated June 29. ' 6 If you consider the weavers in their collective capacity, their sufferings are now increasing at a frightful ratio. A vast quanti7 of webs are daily finished, numbers are thrown entirely idle, and those who are employed have work so coarse, or so badly rag!, that their existence is rendered pitifully wretched, and extremely precarious. Some means must be speedily found for the relit of so considerable a part of our population. Surely such times of dreadful distress plainly prove the policy, the humanity, and the benefits of the poor laws. A sweeping dullness of trade may turn the English workman idle, and cause him to fare mere sparingly, but he runs no risk of actual starvation; while our luckless labourers, en the contrary, having no legal recount whatever, must either calmly starve in midst of bounty eurst; or procure a momentary relief in a way to which it would be highly imprudent to make the most distant allusion." The weavers at CoCkermouth are finishing thc:r webs that were in their looms, but do not engage any more work at the present rate of wages. The men who belong to the parish are employed by the town in repairing the highways. Several Public meetings have been held at the Town Hall there, for the pur pose of giving the question of low wages a considera tion, at which J.. D. B. Dykes, Esq. of Doienby Hall, • • I e g a r d d I If , . 'r • T Q I•' I