Star. — London, England, 1827-05-19 00:00:00

e j o y e a. There were instances of sovereigns having b e ta given under the pretence df dinner tickets. it had b ee n proposed to transfer 'the right of election to the hundreds. The neighbourhood of Penult was the eery sit place to which he would tiansfkr the right:— Iwo, hear.) —We should much tither prefer to trans jet the right of voting to some great manufacturing or to wroercial place, and no plate more required to such a re presentation, from its immense commerce and po masiion, th•in the town of Manchester.—(Hear. bear.) lift. H. GURNEY said, that Mr. Grenville might hoe lost the confidence of the larger body of the elec. t o n, but it was only a small minority which it was ne trssary to corrupt. • Lord ALTHORP said, that Mr. Grenville stated that has not the case, for, as far as he knew, he had not lost the confidence of the greater part of the electors. Sir C. HAWKINS made some observations, which here wholly inaudible in the Gallery. Sir C. 'BURRELL said that, from the Hon. Member trho spoke last having directed his eye towards him (Str Charles), he supposed his observations alluded to him, though, for his part, he could not catch one word of them. He wished to call to the recollection of the House that in 1819 a Bill had passed this House for the disfranchisement of Penryn, and if, after this, the House found fresh mal-practices, be thought they could come to but one conclusion, that this borough was not a pro per place to send Members to Parliament. Sir EDMOND CARRINGTON said the Bill before the House embraced three propositions—the first was, bribery had been practised on former occasions as well slat the late election in Penryn-•-secondly, that it was necessity to provide a remedy against the future °icor. rence of such practices—and thirdly, that it was expe dient to partially disfranchise the botough, by admitting to the right of suffrage the two adjacent hundreds.— With respect to the first proposition he should say, that whatever might have taken place at former periods, it sppeared that at the recent election, though acts of bribery might be brought home to particular in dividuals, who would thereby deserve the animadver. sion of the House and the punishment of the laws, yet that the present Members were returned by a most re spectable and unimpeachable body of the electors. Would the House then determine, from the misconduct of the few, to take away the ancient rights of the innocent. and to brand them and their posterity with a perpetual mark of reprobation at every recurring election? But if he disapproved of the second proposition as unjust and uncalled for, he was still more dissatisfied with the projected remedy—namely, to admit to a participation of the franchise of this Borough the inhabitants of the adjacent Hundreds. This was a proceeding which, however it might be warranted by two or three modern precedents, was highly to be objected to on constitu tioral grounds, as tending to disturb the due balance which existed between the different , classes in the State, by creating a mode of petty County Elec tions, and depriving Cities and Boroughs of that estab lished proportion in the system of representation which they ought to bear as compared with counties. To such a transfer, therefore, he should be most decidedly op posed ; and he should think it far less objectionable, in tase it was ultimately determined to remove this place from its station among the 'elective Boroughs of the empire, that the franchise should be transferred to some great and spasm city, which, at present, did not pos sess the privilege of voting. At the same time be felt Om it would be more discieet, that neither Manchester nor soy other town shoold have been designated as en titled to that succession, before the previous question whether the disfranchisement shouldiake place had been temperately and impirtially decided. Mr. L. limos havilig replied; the Bill was read i se• road time.—Upon the question that it be committed. Mr. BARCLAY said, that notwithstanding the pre judices which prevailed against the Borough of Penryn, he was convinced that its character was. very mush changed since the year 1819, and that it had been in deed undergoing a gradual change for the better since the year 1807. After a few words from Sir C. Burtaitt, the House went into a Committee on the Bill, and witnesses were ordered to be called. - - - - - —.--- John Stanbary wan then called to the Bar, and eramined by Mr. Lame Kece. The witness stated in substance, that he had bete an inhabitant of the Borough of Penryn since the year late, and had taken an active part in the electioneering proceedings when Mr. Weedon wee a can did ate, from-whom Ise' hid received various suns of mown width were espendid in paying to different parties their legal charges for services rendered to the cause of that Gen. *tam He denied that be bad promised to support Lord Per creel if certain bets or other monies were= be had never re ceived nil. or any other rem, from John , in consideration et the transfer of hie interest te Mr. Manning. He had never asked a single elector to vote for Mr. Manning ; he remembered no con- Striation with John Mallett, in which be bad said that he left Lord Pereexats party, and joined Mr. Manning's, because the former were ea pour that nothing could be got out of them, nor had be la fact done so. He bad never paid money to any of the persons, who voted for Mr. Manning, except in payment of debts due to' ekes. evereince tans ay Mr. Weedon, and with that Mr. Weed= loPeied hint. He tee* a person of the name of Putts, to whom he bad lent IN, beaidol which he paid him, as a matter of private accommodation. Jiikrared never told Pitts that he had made an ar rangement with Nt. Fieddisid, by which be was to receive 1,3001. for the trashier lifi limiting to Mr. Manning, nor bad he in fact made stay sink' ' ' * He bad paid a debt of ill. tos. to a tenon of the wend and 19i. to Thomas Titus, for debts tile to th esis He Idd h oleeti b Oarnond, might keep a list of the aeris r voters with the several sums paid against each name—paid be meant in a legal way..-(iblangb). • Tide doh was only employed by him in ni ectiwitethat allehlanse ,Het Mai mem sent Hallett to Mr. Anderson for the nesnaissdeee of ; die . be thought hi:welt en. titled to. He bad relied sped Me. 4iaH, but it wan far PAP ment for his own services, Spylie_akilllid no eerlain emu Then had been discussions of an angey nature, but be bad never threateued ao expose then all if he was net paid. He had applied to Joseph Harrell for an. advance of SOL but it was as a private Mende and bad nothing to do with any disappointment. Had not been in communication with Mr. Freshfield or Mr. Sorrell since the eke tion. He knew Mr. Hayley, and bad seen him since the election ; but had - not attempted to Impress upon hint the danger that if the Petition prdceeded the Borough would be disfranchised—(During this examination Mr. li , egh Keck once or twice reminded the wit. ten that there were other persons to be examined, many of whom bad already sworn to the facts of the ease.) Mr. BROUGH AM then took up the exami na ti on , and extracted the * following statements a—The witness was born at Barnstaple, and had lived at Penryn for two years. He carried on no trade, and had been en gaged i n e l ec ti o n e e r i n g business at Barnstaple, Tregony, budgewater, Penryn, and Exeter. The Hon. Member caked whether not also •at Lincoln?—(d laugh).—To this the witness answered in the negative. He had Ilaan engaged at one time in Tregony and Barnstaple, ald had introduced a candidate at Exeter, where there *at no opposition. For this service at Exeter he had n° Payment, promise, or 4 oed turn whatever. He bad alto been at St. Albans. He bad never been , "gaged at any former election in the same man nn, only at Barnstaple, all his life. He was not turn at Exeter; bad newer lived at, or had any con ',lion with, that City. The Electors. sent to him rofhe to them. He introduced Mr. Tyson as a Candi ilia. Being *Aced reiterated and varied tuitions as to 4 the means he had ever had of getting ati honest lieeli hdod, he stated that he had at first been apprenticed to a shoemaker at Barnstaple, that he was afterwards a labourer in the East India Company's Warehouses, and subsequently a clerk in the War 0: , ce ; that, after his engagement in the War Office, and up to the present time, be had been a yeoman occupied in the cultivation' of his awn Lind, to the extent of 44 acres. lie had re cently been building houses in the borough of Tregony, which had not yet yielded him any returns, and upon which he had expended 4,0004 He had cottages or houses in different boroughs. He enquired if he was bound to answer the question how he obtained the two thousand pounds laid out in building houses? and being told yes, he thcinght he could answer it if he had his books. He did not make it as a labourer at the Ent- India House nor as a clerk in the War•ofice, nor as a farmer cultivating forty-two acres of land. He had not purchased the land. In fact it was not his. He farmed it of Squire Innis. Except by farming this rental of SBl. a year, he had made no money but what was made by being engaged in elections. He had received money upon those occasions. He had known Mr. Fteshfield .since June last. By Mr. BROUGHAM.—Did you not in fact plant yourself in Penryn to turn the elections to your own profit, to become the electioneering jobber or agent, in fine for the purpose of selling seats in this House ? Witness.-1 did nothing illegal. He bad applied to Mr. FreskSeld since the election for the expenses actually incurred at this House, but that Gentleman would give him no answer. It was within fourteen days of the election, but be knew nothing about fourteen days being the period limited for the presentation of Petitions. He did not know that Mr. Freshfield was Mr. blanning's agent, or what his business was at Penryn. Had heard that he was Mr. Meaning's Attorney. He bad applied only fer 401.--would have been satisfied with 401. but better satisfied with 501. Mr. Freshfield bad never given Ides a farthing yet.• At other places he bad not been paid se scantily. At Barnstaple be had received 5001. for his services. Bat other money of Sir Byre Cooties bad passed through his hands. This was at the election in 1812. At the previous election in 1806, Mr. Taylor had paid him 5001. for his services, and 5001. after wards out of respect. The election cost Mr. Taylor 5,0001.; be knew it did not cost him 6,0001. At Tregony, the expense bad been I,looB—The witness was here ordered to withdraw. The ATTORNEY GENERAL submitted to the House, that it was inexpedient to pursue so extensive a course of examination. The transactions at other elec tions were not connected with the subject before the House, which was merely to inquire as to the necessity of disfranchising the Borough of Penryn. Mr. BROUGHAM was prepared to vindicate the course be had pursued in his examination. It was the tight and duty of the House, when they got within their walls a man, whose whole life had been one flagrant violation of their privileges, to expose him and hold him up to the indignation of the world. The At torney-Generals of other days had themselves sustained and exercised this duty, instead of attempting to check and obstruct it, as his Hon. and Learned Friend had done. But whilst he felt that he was.pursuing a consti tutional coarse, he would not be deterred, notwithstand ing the disappi obation of his Majesty's Attorney-General. His examination had besides been intended to try the credit of the witness, for he knew from the course pur sued by the Hon. Member for Devonshire, that other witnesses were to be examined, and that he expected their statements materially to vary from those of the witness now under examination. In this witness they bad before them a specimen of the beings who were only to be found in Cornwall, or perhaps an Devonshire. He had been born in Devonshire, and afterwards trans planted to the more genial soil of Cornwall, where the pabulum that nourished these noxious creatures was found in the greatest abundance. He hoped it was not the intention of his Majesty's present Government to stop short in the investigation of such transactions as these. The ATTORNEY GENERAL trusted the House would give him credit for feeling a full share of in dignation towards the practices in which the witness had been engaged, as was expressed—he repeated, was expressed—by his,Leareed Friend. But the object the House had in view would be best attained by temperate and well-regulated ,proceedings. He had not inter posed until after he had heard on all sides of him ex pressions of impatience at the great length and boundless latitude of thebeaamthation by his Learned Friend, and although that examination had been entertaining to him self, he thought it right to submit it to the discretion of his Hon. and Learned Friend, whether he was not pro ceeding further than was either necessary or expedient, in introducing other places, and ether names, uncon nected with the subject of the immediate inquiry? He had no objection to other places being enquired about, whether for the purpose of exposing the character of the witness, or for that of :hewing the extent of the evil.— What he objected to was the details, in reference to those other places, into which his Hon. and Learned Friend seeined disposed to enter. Sir C. BURRELL expressed the pleasure with which he bad listened to the examination. Mr. W. WYNN said, that the character of the wit-1 nest had been so entirely blasted by his own admissions l I and prevaricitions, that it was hardly worth while to occupy the time of the House by any further attempts to expose him. Mr. BROUGHAM said, that putting the mater upon that footing, he quite concurred in the opinions of his Right Hon. and his Hon. and Learned Friends.— He bad not been, aware that the House was so fully se isfie d. The ATTORNEY•GENERAL thought that every body roust have been satisfied long ago. Mr. L. KECK thanked the Hun. and Learned Gen. ileum for his valuable assistance. He understood that the witness had screwed himself up to a total denial of the facts, and nothing but the knowledge that other wit nesses were to speak after him could have extorted any portion of truth horn him. Mr. HUME thoug ht the Right Hon. Gentleman op posite had indulged in unwarrantable severity of lan gasp respecting the witness. For any thing he had heard there was no reason for such an assertion as that the character of the witness was blasted. He had not been committed to Newgate for speaking falsehoods ) but for nonattendance upon the Committee. Mr. W. WYNN said it was on account of the mani fest prevarication of the witness that he had spoken of him as he had done. His committal to Newgate had nothing to do . with it any farther than in he bad nothing further to dread from the displeasure of the House. • Mr. Secretary BOURNE said, that from the com mencement of the examination it was clear that the witness was not worthy of credit. His only sutprise was, that the Hon, Member for Devonshire should have thought it worth while to bang sech a witness before the House, Mr. L. KECK said the witness would not have been called by him, but that they could , not get him before the Committee to whist) be had been summoned, and he tbottght his evidence might be necessary to make the case complete. Mr. R. GRANT observed, that the Hon. Member , r Montrose had not, upon this subject, empl fr ved his usual industry. If he had read the evidence &Vets be. lore the Committee he Would have found wirae,l after witness deposing upon oats to the facts which this mall ,fo positively denied. But to dispose of him it was not ne cessary to resort to the testimony of other%witnesses— his own prevarications were enough. • Mr. D. W. HARVEY said, that the witness was plainly entitled to no credit, but yet his evidence might explain matters deposed to by others. He ought to be examined as to the reasons why he had requested his ' name to be kept oat of the way-bill of the coach by which he had travelled, and forbid the coachman to mention his name upon the road—(Cries of question). Oa the motion of Mr. Secretary Boom; the other witnesses Elon within the House were ordered to withdraw, and John Stan bury was again called to the Bar. In reply to questions from Mf. Secretary Boeass, the witness stated, that the money paid by him to the voters was received from Mr. Weedon, on account of debts due from him two years ago. The number of voters who received a share of this money was 800. The whole number of electors in the Borough was 800. By Dr. LUSHINGTON—He never gave money to any Of the electors for their votes, and never promised any. Witness kept a banker's account ; kept one at the bank of Truro, and doe at the house of Barclay in London. All the sums be expended did not pan through these banks. Was at Tregoity, at Mr. Med. awes, while the Committee of that Home was deciding en the =election. Was too ill to attend the Committee ; had the to of doctors to that effect. Went from Tenney to-Dam =4ao& no pales to keep that journey a secret; does net re -0 have told Mr. Medlicot to keep it a secret. Did 'unlink Wand( op, or shut himself up, to avoid a summons—and had no object In doing so. Was served with the summons by a man who preseaded that he came to furnish him with bills. Took no means to avoid being served. Did net go away secretly, and does nut re enact having said a word to the guard of the coach about conceal kigthit-pbee he was going to. Does uot recollect having told the wad ea leave his name out of the waybill. By Ur. W. HARVEY—Does not recollect having told King, *guard of the Falmouth coach, to conceal his name; knows John Bel fey and his son, at Penryn ; occupied two rooms in their house dosing the last election, In which the voters came to him; could sot retellect how many were paid there who had claims on him.... 20 or palmy, IS ; the largest sum he paid to any one of them was 19/.; paid in ail 10111.; a person named Curran was one of those whom be paid; was not present at the meeting held before the election at the Grange,in Penryn. By Mr. L. KECK—Do you distinctly say that nine of those persons whom you paid money received it In consideration of giving theft votes T—l do. The witness was ordered to withdraw. Thomas Weedon calledin and examined by Mr. LEGH HECK. —Witness was Candidate foe the Representation of Peron at the last Election. John Sunbury was not authorised by Idea to pay any sums of money for debts contracted at the Election. Did not proceed to the poll. Recollects the names of Mallet and Harley. Dora not recollect their having told him that be hail no &ann. From his experience (as we understood) of the disposition of the voters, he did net think It probable that he could be re turned without paying motley or promising it. He perceived this to be the case, and therefore be desisted. He advanced Stan bury two sums of 6001. each, and me of 4001. He thought be ought not to have been put to expense and trouble without some remuneration, sad therefore he lent him this money. lisimbsify .ever said that It should be applied to facilitate his ekcileeme— Was not told that it would be necessary for him to bribe a certain Maher of voters to secure his election. Very few hitinutad to hint that they expected anything ; not so litany as fifty. lied a Warrant of Attorney from Stanbury for 11100 of the mosey Met, and copybold security foe the rest. As soon as he found what was likely to be required by the voters he retired from the contest. itst:yr. G. LAMB- r Witness is a merchant; knew nothing of before; understood that he possessed copybold and other . Mr. Stanbury Devil. told him that he expensed money L' "-b.11 7 g tin 'lreton; he advanced him the sum of 1,5051. think. legbina a person of good substance, and a (deed, and that it might be uf sere* t. him. He represented to witoessthat be had copy bold property near Plymouth. Q. Are you in the habits et lending money on rub represersia. tlons?—lt is net a large sum. By Lord PALMERSTON—Ten perhaps, more or less, it was intimated to him expected something for their votes. No sum was mentioned. Cannot now recollect how it came to his knowledge that such expectations were entertained. It was not Mr. Stanbery wise toiddiins so. Did not hear it was a prevalent Custom. Does net tam whether he was the only Candidate of whom suck ex retains were formed. Was engaged fatly a fortnight in can. emeing, and wog to every Elector's house at his first visit. Not ate of them, upon that occasion, told him directly or indirectly, dot be expected money. . 11, in Hots. Mmamia—What reason bad you to suppose that you could be returned for a Borough in Cornwall, where you were quits . unknown? Witness—l canvassed the Electors, and made speech after speech—(A laugh). They had some notion also that I was In. dined to be a Ministerial man. His agents paid about 4110 fat Sags, and other polling expenses.—The witness withdrew. John Came, called In and examined by Mr. L. Kier.-Js a Mike of Penryn. Knowythree persons, named Stanbury, Andertow,ond Fresidleid. Is a carpenter by trade. Was not employed by Stan. Wry to go to Anderton for money. Was sent for something, be did not bow what, but Anderton said he would see Sunbury himself 'best it. Q, Are you aware of any payments or promises made by Sun bury t. the Electors?—A. What about—on bribery ?—(A laugh.) Stanbery paid him. He was not aware of his payments to others. Was employed by Stanbary during the election to carry colours. Mr. D. W. HARVEY—Witness voted for Mr. Manning. Was not employed by Staobery in hunting for votes for another Candidate. Witness persisted as before, in denying that he was sent by Stanbury to Anderton for money. By Dr. PHILLIMORE—He got ISI. during the election. Was never bribed before. Gm it partly for his lost time. Q. How did you lose your time?—A. Why, going about drink ing, or one thing or another—(A laugh). He was engaged for no person but Mr. Weedon. By Lord PALMERSTON—Witness lost his time walking about and drinking; was not told by any one to lose his time: Mr. James Mallet called le and examined by Mr. L. KECK, and other Members—Recollects when Weedon withdrew; Stan bury told him that Weedon would not stand the poll; beard of the thing called the breakfast at Penrya, but did not know what it was. Witness himself was never made comfortable; never received a farthing in his life; beard that, 22 years ago, it was the practice to give a sum of money, but did not know what the breakfast meant; did not know that it meant putting 241. into meth voter's band.— The witness, 111 answer to various questiooe s persisted is asserting his total &poultice of the breakfast. • .: . Mr. Alderman WAITHM AN said every person knew what the breakfast meant. They had it in evidence in 1819, that it meant the giving to each voter present a cam of money. Now here was a man also resident in Penryn, who said he wag entirely ignorant of it. He hoped when a witness prevaricated in this manner, the Committee would see the propriety not merely of threat ening him with Newgate, but of sending him there. Lord MILTON thought the witness was being rather hardly dealt with. The witness had said, that the prav, rice of giving breakfasts had ceased twcrand-twenty years ago, and it was, therefore, not reasonable to expect that he should be acquainted with their nature. He did not see that the witness bad as yet prevaricated, and he saw no reason for the Committee proceeding tq the course recommended by the Hon. Alderman. Mr. PEEL thought the Committee ought not so fax to forget its own dignity as to make use of a menace to' the witness without sufficient grounds to induce their carrying it into effect—(Hear, hear, heat).. If the wit ness had prevaricated, so as to call for the interference of the House, then let the proper steps be taken at once; but surely the House would pause, and see that thole steps were irdispensable, before they proceeded to take away a man's character, and inflict upon him one of the .heaviest punishments he could suffer—(Hear, heat). Arta some further observations the witness was retailed, and the Coalmine informed him, that his answers had not been cond. dered quite satisfactory or respectful to the House, and that they must be plain, direct, and distinct. • Mr. W. HARVEY and-other Hen. Members then proceeded with the eltarninailuit of the witness, who said, teat be 614 si Iniii which was open during the election to the *rakes of Lord PIK01111•1 and Mr. Barclay t be did not know the Meaning of being 4 trtaii comfortable" The witness was ordered to withdraw and Mr. Charles Ady was called and examined by hfr. L a solicitor, and canvassed the llorimgb of Petters in 1144 ad eiebalf of Lord Perceval; the feelineof the Voiced were only el- by their saying they wished him well, that he meat mealiest, and call opens their wives. The canvass was a general one, and he found that Lord Perceval bad then no chance from the ground being pre.oecupted. la August, 1123. be caniassed the Borongh agate with Lord Percent, and found the same disinilinatioo On the pirt of the voters to promise their votes without receiving a primates of Motley. Was asked for money by several timers in snottier Cantu' previous to the election. Was preseneat a meeting held in die Eitircitigh qd the Saturday previous to the election, at *hi& mope:fug it *as avoid that the Candidates 'honld keep open Muses, at which houses there war afterwards treating throughout the whole of the Hadeevetal offers of support made to him for divers sums. Wad once tubed up in the middle of the night by a person named Moore, who offered him 76 votes at £lO a piece. Does net believe that any person could have nude a successful (invert of the Bo: rough without giving money, or the promise Of money. Many persons told hint they would rather tote for Lord Perceval for as than for £lO from the other party. A Verson named Stepireni offered him ten or twelve votes at ten pounds each. On die fourth day of the election witness became a candidate for the purpose of administering the Bribery Oath, which was objected to by Mi. Manning's Couniel. When iomi person+ who hid offered their votes to him for money took the oath, he *as ad.: 'bed not t in adminkteridg 1G Witness is quite Is. heed that no Candidate has a chance in the Borough without bribery. if the other Candidates bribe. After he left Penryn, was informed that arrangements had been made by the Candidates for paying the rates of the voters, and that 114 had their rates paid at the last deeded. The ATTORNItt 0 lINERA L here suggested, that the Houle should get the evidente of facts from persons togllbuint df them frost their own personal knowledge. 'l'he *icons bating heard these things could be no ground on which the Muse should come to a deci.ion. After a few words from Sir E. Eatercsthetr. and Sir C. Bunamt, the witness was recalled, and the examination proceeded. There was general treating throughout the borough; should think that almost all the voters partook of the treating, and certainly more than half of the bribery. Believes the corruption of the borough to be such, that a person cannot carry an election through with sea. cues unless be resorts to bribery. lusnination continued by Lord MILTON and other Meetberei In the canvass of August lath Lord Percent's prtimbts amounted to seventy or eighty y those who then promised did not all vote for him. The expectation of money in to/1116140u of their votes was more prevalent among the pocirer Malmo than the higher; the higher classes did not require money, het they asked foe places in the India House, or any where, for their fa. mily canneloni. The contest was between Lard Pereeval and Mr. Manning, and the second vote of both those Candidates .was given to Mr. Barclay. Does not believe that Mr. Barclay made use of any bribery:. there was no necessity ter his doing so. Mr. Moore, who te n dered the seventy votes to the witness, was not to elect or; does not believe he *oakd have fulfilled his engagement if it had been accepted; he did not live in Penryn I ke came from Orampound--.(A laugh.) Three persons told the witness they had received money from Mr. Anderson, who is Mn Manning's son-in-law. Lord Perceval received- promise of sup port (turn 173 voters ; .believes those voters expected to receive money after the election ; did not discourage that expectation said nothing either one way or the other. Witness became a mina didate himself on the fourth day of the election for the purpose at putting the bribery oath; was dissuaded from it by his ovin party, as he believes, as he believes, to avoid the general odiunt of its being taken. The treating was general: gave orders that there should be no treating by his agents; the order was nut attended to, and did not much expect that it would be carried hate effect when he gave it. If one Candidate bribes, and ano+ they did not, in any borough in England, think* the bribing Candidate would have the best chance. Has beard of large sums given for canary birds ; has heard of 401. being given for emu Captalu Fellow calla!, and examined by Mr, L. KECK—Has always resided at Penryn; is well acquainted with the transactions of the election of 1824 ; there was bribery then: At the last eleca tion heard that a great deal of bribery was carried on, but did not knew it of his personal knowledge, having Mere ill at the time.- a The witness was of opinion that bribery awl corruption existed to a great mtheastka latge proportion of the electors, as be bad heard, task Wiley. Had not beard any man declare he had received money fee toting; no intimation was given to him from any voters that be expected money for his vote; he voted for ?dr. Barclay y be canvassed eight or ten voters, but did nut take a very active parr. In theelection of 18E4, he believed there were intimations that voters expected money for their Kites. Several that he canvassed for Mr. Barclay said It is time enough yet, we will wait. One said he should be happy to vote for Mr. Hereby, but It was his interest to vote another way. He had no doubt many of the voters were disposed to vote for Mtn who gave the largest bribe. He never heard any conversation tending to bribery, in the presence of Mrs Barclay or any other Member. Out of three hundred electors; he thought a moiety would take bribes. The witness being asked whether be knew of any act of bribery ? said he never was pity to any am. He had heard mach about bribery, but had not seen it.—e He could not recollect any act of bribery. My. C. WETHERELL, after the witness had been ordered to withdrew, observed that the evidence which had been given, could not be considered such as the House could *et upon. _ The AT CORNEY•GENERAL was of the sante opin on. No evidence had been obtained that night upon which the House could act. The last wives; bad expressed an opinicn that bribery exiAed in the borough of Penryn, but was unable to suite any fact. Thomas Ones was then called in.—The whom said be was a tee sident in Pearyn. He was acquainted with the elettion of 11124.-.. Whilst he was engaged in canvassing, he believed the voters were open to bribery. That an election for Penryn could not be carried on without bribery, he was as conscious as be was of his own exist. 'nee ; large sums of money were given to persons Who were punt before the Election. At the election of Lord Perceval the cry was You may have me if you will ; call at my house; I shall not be at home, but my wire will be there, and she will do the business."—• The witness was ordered to withdraw. Lord MILTON then said, before the next witness was called in, he wished to call the attention of the Cem• mittee to the false statement made by John Carne. That witness having been asked whether he had seen Stan bury ? answered that he had seen him in the lobby of that House. He was then asked whether he had not seen him in Newgate?— The answer was Nn. He (Lord Milton) understood that the turnkey of Newgate, who was in the lobby. was.able to prove the falsehood of the assertion. The Noble Lord accordingly moved that Edward Harris, the turnkey of Newgate, be called i n . Harris was tai led to the Bar. What is your name 7—Edward Harris. Have you had Stanbury is your custody I—l have: Has any person been to see him in Newgate?—Yes, one. Who is It7—Carne. Should you know him again?—yes. • Did you see him with Stanbury 7—Yea. Joha Came was then called in. and Mr. GURNEY, baying re. (erred to his evidence, read it over to him. The question was—Have you seen bids (Stanbury) since he has been in Newgate 7.—A. No. Lord MILTON—I wish to ask the witness whether the answer he gave is true 7--Carne--Yes, it is. . . Mr. WYNN—I ask the witness Whether he has seen gtanbury at any place but in the lobby of the House; whether he has not seen him in Newiate, and stopped with him a quarter of an hour ? Carne—When you asked me the questron just now, ft did not occur to fey mind to say I bad seen bias. but I did See Islin in Newsate. The witness was ordered to withdraw. Mr. WYNN could not avoid believing 'the inten:ion of the witness had been to deceive, and it was of im portance to the-House that respect should be. paid iCy such persons to their proceedings. He shoult move that the chairman report that John Carne,had been guilty of prevarication and falsehood. An Hon. MBUSER thought it just possible that the witness might have concealed the truth from miser prehension. , . Dr. PHILLIMORE consideredijt a clear attempt to deceive the House. Mr. PEELsaid, jf it wasthegenehil opinion tha t the man had shewn an intention to deceive the House, the better way would be so deal with the offence forsho __,Ersila t 1 1 I i t l i 1 1 I i I I i . 1 I I • .. 9 k . I. Ii '.... 1 I ' 1 ,, 1 I I . 1 ' I I. . 1 110 1 1 I 1 I . i; fi, r 1 1 r , , • I • i • ft . , t