The Sun. — London, England, 1827-05-19 00:00:00

therefore, now, as to tlie neeeMitv bf visiting Penryn with a punishment 01f:cable to its offence. Parliament would not disfranchise every borough where bribery might take place. .rut when it was proved, by successive inquiries, that toe great mass of the electors were contaminated with the guilt of the corruption by which the Members were returned, it was the bounden duty of the House to vindi cate its privileges, and maintain the purity of election. He (11r. Ferguson) was now prepared, on the evidence re ported by the last Committee, and confirmed by the two former Committees, to vote for depriving Penryn of the right of election it had hitherto exercised. If he had only the last report before him, he might have fbund considera ble difficulty in this case, as the Con'amittee, though they had found that gross bribery and treating had ten place at the last election, had uevertbOCS3 declay.-eel that the two sitting Members were duly elected, and thtt no case of corruption had been brought home to them. f the Ijon. Gent. suspended his speech for a few minutes, 'while he conferred witli a friend.] He believed he was tr:dingly in mot.. The petition was only against opt el the sitting Menittses. But the decision of the Coraraittee was substantiatly the same. They de clared there had been gross vases of bribery, but that the Hon, Gentleman (Mr s IN Tanning) had not ken concerned in them. For the o .',3cuss.ion of this Bill, it mattered not Low the case et'7;od with reference to to that Hon. Gentle man. Them were certainly many difficulties in considering the Report, because, if the agency of Sewell and Stanbury was proved, it followed irresistibly that that agency was brought home, if not to the sitting Members, at least to their immediate friends and agents. The bribery was of the gro..dest kind. Sovereigns were given under pretence of r;:toing dinner tickets, and the electors who bad taken moth the dinner and the sovereign were allowed to vote for the Hon. Gentleman who had been petitioned against. There was sufficient ground in this Report, and the pre vious ones of 1807 and 1819, for the House to proceed on against this borough. The bill contained a provision, open ing the right of election to the adjacent hundreds. That was a remedy which he thought highly objectionable. Th e neighbourhood of such a borough as - Penryn was the last place to which he would transfer the franchise. He wo - uld infinitely prefer to adopt the opinion expressed, by some Hon. :Members, that the right of returni: ig a Member to Parliament be transferred to some 'great manufacturing and commercial town.—(Hear. )—He entirely- agreed that no place required the ieuefit of representation in that House so much, con•;tdering its extensive trade and im mense per tilation e as Manchester.—(Cheers.) Mr. H. GURNEY 'remarked, that the statement of Mr. Grenfell might be reconciled with that of the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. D. Barclay), by supposing that he had loge the confidence of the small minority whom it was not necessary to corrupt. Lord ALTHORP said, the only answer to that xpla nation was, that Mr. Grenfell stated positively that that was not the case. Mr. Grenfell denied that he had lost the confidence of the respectable part of the inhabitants. Sir C. HAWKINS then ad',,ressed the House at some length, but was totally in audible in the Gallery. Sir C. BURREJei, understood that his name had been used by the Hernourable Baronet. If he did not reply to the allus;. - on, he trusted his conduct would not be im puted to disrespect, as he really had not been able to catch one word of the Honourable Baronet's speech. As to the general question, he advised the House not to discuss what should be done with the franchise of Penryn, till they }tad decided whether any thing at all should be done with it. There could be no doubt that Penryn was, to a certain degree, impure. In 1819, a Bill had been actually carried up to the Lords to disfranchise that borough. That fact ought not to go wholly out of their sight during the pre sent discussion. If in addition to the many acts of bribery then proved against Penryn, it appeared that corrupt practices had since prevailed there, the House could come to but one conclusion, viz. that such a borough was no longer fit to send Representatives to Parliament, persever ing in its corruptions as it did after the repeated and seri ous warnings it had received. Slr E. CARRINGTON admitted there could be no doubt that bribery had been proved ; but it was by no means clear, therefore, that the ultima ratio of Parliament was to be applied, and the Borough disfranchised. Were the wrog,, ,,- L'pings of the guilty only to be borne in mind, in order that the unoffending might be deprived of the rights and privileges they had never abused? They had done their duty faithfully, vet they were to be punished. He utterly disapproved of the proposition to extend the right of voting to the huadreds. He objected t o th a t course on pr i nc i p le in all cases. It was making a sort of petty County Elec tion, and therefore it should be viewed as a dangerous in novation on the ancient system of representation. He knew how this kind of remedy had operated practically, being a near resident to Aylesbury. Certainly, at Shore ham, the change had turned out to be no great improve.. meat - He would not enter into the discussion of the pro priety of transferring the representation to Manchester. It Would, he thought, be more discreet not to mention the name of any place until the question as to the disfranchise ment of Peneyn was decided. Mr. LEGH KECK having replied, the Bill was read a set end time. - - Upon the question thatit be committed, Mr. D. BARCLAY again rose, and addressed the House, but from the noise below the Gallery we were unable to hear the nature of the Hon. Gentleman's argument. We understood him to , say, that notwithstanding the preju dices whi c h prevailed against the borough of Penryin he was convinced that its character was very much changed since the year 1819, and that it had been indeed under going a gradual change for the better since the year 1807. After a few words from Sir CHARLES BURRELL the House went into a Committee on the Bill, and wit nesses were ordered to be called to the Bar. John Stanbury was then brought in under the custody of the Governor of Newgate, and examined by Mr. Legh Keck, to the following effect :—He said his name was John Stanbury, and that he received a summons to attend upon the Committee appointed to consider the Penryn Election petition, but that he did not so attend. He was a resident inhabitant of the borough of Penryn at the time of the last Election. He acknowledged that he had taken an active part in the Election before the last, when Mr. Weed ing was a candidate, and that he had received three • several sums of 1000/., 350/., and 500/., to treat the Electors. At the last Election he had two rooms in the house of John Pawley in the borough. He never received more than 20/. to treat the Electors, and be certainly did not receive 2751. He did not recollect any such circumstance as his telling a person named Sewell to support Manning, because Lord Percival's party were so poor they could not pay any money ; was quite sure that he did not receive gold and notes at his room, from Sewell, in order to treat the electors, and riot to join Mr. Manning's party. He received no money, except for the payment of debts incurred for treating the electors. He wa s quite sure there were no debts except for treating the electors. He knew Thomas Pitts, and lent him ten pound; was certain the .money was only lent.—[Mr. Legh Keck here observed, that Pius must be a very ungrateful fellow, as he had distinctlysworn the money was given as a bribe.l He never said to Pitts or to any other person, that he had received 13001. for the exertion of his interest in the Bo rough of Penryn. He knew John Curran, but never gave him any money. He knew John Jcyce, and gave him ten pounds ten shillings, which he owed him. He paid Thos. Jones nineteen pounds during the time of the election for his services during two years. Thomas Jones was in his eruploymeritas a manager in electioneering concerns; but in no other that he knew of. He confessed that his clerk kept list of the names of the voters, with the amount paid to each put down at the end of the name. Those sums, however, were all paid in a legal vray.—(Hear, and laugh.) He admitted that he was to get money, but it was not to pay any voters; it was for his services ; he did not recol lect to have said that he had been deceived ; that he was very angry, and that unless he were paid he would expose the whole transaction; he bad not had any communication with Mr. Sewell since the election ; he denied having said to Mr. Haddy that if this petition were proceeded i n , th e Borough of Penryn must be disfranchised ; he had never paid any money to voters in Penryn for the purpose of ob taining their support. Cross.exarnined by Sir. BROUGHAM.—Where were you born—was it at Penryn ?—No. At Barnstaple ?—Yes. How long have you lived there ?—Two years. Hale you any property there ?—No., What is your trade ?--(A pause.)—Have you any, or none ?—None. . Were you ever any ?—I intended to be in the grocery line. Did you open shop ?—No. Then, in point of fact, you are of no trade or livelihood ? —No, was otherwise engaged. How, and where ?—ln the borough of Tregony. In others—in Barnstaple, for instance ?—Yes. In Bridgewater ?—Yes. In Truro ?--Never. Where eLse ; come, tell us—Exeter ?—Ay, in Exeter. —(A laugh.) G o °o—What other boroughs ?—Lincolu.—(Renewed laughter.) you ever t r sbthielln; Whate n g aged other i - have n at any one t i me ? — Th e w it ness paused. Come answer : count them when yo 4 bay; couutw your ti up on y our fingere ; and users out, go 411 with your memory to finish the number laugh.)—l have been engaged at Tregony. \Veil—where else—at Barnstaple ?—Yes. At Exeter ?—There was no opposition there, Sir. Well ' • but you did a little business notwithstanding, did you not ?—Yes. What was it, eh?—A something. What was that something ?—I assisted a candidate.' In what way, what assistance ?—I introduced Mr. Dy - son as a candidate. What did he pay you for the favour of your introduc tion ?---Nothing. What did he promise you ?—Nothing. What did any body else pay you for him ?—Nothing. Do you mean to say that you never received pay, promise of pay, pod turn, or promise of good, directly or indi rectly, for this introduction of ➢ir. Dyson 2—j aid not. Was he elected ?—No ; he declined the contest. What other borough have you been engaged in ?—To what do you allude Were you at St. Alban's ?—Yes. Were you there at any former general election ?—No. Never even at Barnstaple ?—Yes; I have been there all my life. What did you mean to say, then, when you told the Hon. Member opposite, that you were never before engaged in any general election business ?—I meant at any other places, only at Barnstaple. Were you not at Exeter before?—Only at the last elec tion. mean. Did you not dabble at Exeter before ?_Only two years ago, when Mr. Dyson went. How did you get connected with Exeter ; what concern had you there ?—I was applied to by the electors. You did not apply to them ?—No, they applied to me. Why, to you, were you born there also ?—No, I was only born at Barnstaple.—(A laugh.) What, then, was the origin of their attachment to you? —The freemen sent to me to introduce to them a candi date. Where did you live all this time ?—At my cottage near Plymouth. What's your trade ?—None. What trade have you ever in your life followed, to get a livelihood—an honest livelihood 2.—1 was a clerk in the East India-house. How long 2—Eight years. When did you leave 2—ln 1806. Then. you were there from 1798 to 18062—Yes. What were you before 1798 was a labourer in the East India Company's se;vice. When did you enter/upon that office ?—When I was 17 years old. Were you ever put to any trade or calling ; were you ever bound apprentice—to a cobler, for instance?--..-Ta a shoemaker. Well, be it so, to a shoemaker. When did you first set up it the election business at Barnstaple? was it in 1806 ? —No, in 1802. . And you have continued your attentions to that borough down to the present time?—Mostly so. Now since that time—call it 1802 or 1606—have you had any honest calling of any kind whatever ?—Yes, I have. Where ?—At the War-office. What there ?—I was a clerk. When ?—ln 1812. What since ?—A yeoman. A working or a farming yeoman, say which?—A farm ing one. How many labourers have you employed ?-1 have three servants. How many acres do you farm ?—Forty-two. Whose property?—My own property. Have you any elsewhere ?—Yes, I have cottages at Tregony. At Penryn?—Yes, I have rented a house there these two years. At what rent?-157. a year. Who pays the taxes ?—I do. How long have you ever lived there at one time ?—Six months. Have you any other house in any other borough ?—None. From the year 1812 till now, exeept farming these 42 acres of land that you say you have, have you done nothing else to gain a livelihood?—Oh, no; I have done a good deal.—(A laugh.) Where and what ?—At Tregony I have built two houses. How much money have you made out ofthem?—Nothing yet, for the tenants are not in long enough. Then, as yet, you have had no return for the money you laid out in building at Tregony ?—No. How much did you lay out there?-2,0001. - How did you make that 2,0001. ?—A pause. Come, come, give me an answer ?—I have not my books i if I could refer to my accounts. Will you allow me? No, no : did you make that 2,0001. as a labourer in the East India House?—No. I am not bound to answer. Yes, you are, and you must answer. Did you make it as a clerk in the East India House ?---No. Did you as a clerk in the War-office ?—No. How else then ? was it out of the profit of farming the 42 acres, you being a yeoman?—(A pause.)—Cannot I refer to my profits on my books ? No, I do not want to hear of your profits from the farm; but did or did . not the 2,0001. arise therefrom : cannot you say- that cannot answer. Is is that you cannot, or that you will not ?—I cannot. What would this land of yours, which you, a yeoman, farm, fetch an acre?--.51. What ! Do you mean to say that your 42 acres would let for 51. an acre, and thereby produce above 2001. a year ? —No, I don't say that. Would they fetch 100/. a-year ?—I don't know. . Did von buy that land ?—No, I only reside upon it ? Where do you reside now?—(A pause.)—ls it not in Newgate ?—Yes. You are quite aware of that ?—yp s . An.l for a contempt of the orders of this House ?---Yes. Did von not, in your previous examination, represent this land as being your own property?—No, I only meant to say that I lired upon it. Then if you did say it was your own property, you spoke an untruth.—l might have mistaken the question. No, but you mistold the answer, for you said the land was your own.—l rent it. From whom ?—From Squire Guinness. What rent do you pay him?--381. a year. How long have you had it?—Six years. What did you mean to say, when you talked of 5/. per acre for this land of yours. Would any one acre let for 51., or did you ever think of asking 5/. for it?—Some acres are worth it. _ . How many ?—I think I could let some acres for it. Two otld acres, I suppose, in a corner ?—No ! 10 or 12 in a field. ~ What is the'name of that field 2—l do not recollect.— (A laugh.) Do you recollect any one acre, field or not field, that would let fur 5/. ?—I do not recollect. For what term is your lease ?—For 7, 11 , or 14. years. How long have you occupied it ?—Six years. Have you always paid• your rent to Squire Guinness ? Yes. _ _ _ Then was it out of the profit of this farm that you made the 2,000/. which you laid out in building houses ?—No. Then in what other trade to get money have you been since 1812, except this farming affair of the few acres— speak out ?—ln none, except being engaged in some elec tions. Ah ! That is it, I am just coming to these elections, but I understand from you, that in this your electioneering occupation you received no money; was it not so ?—Yes. How long have you known Mr. Freshfield ?-4 only saw him in 1826. You never saw him, corresponded with him, or heard of, or from him, before ?—No. How ? Did yen introduce yourself to him then ?—He introduced himself to me at Penryn. How, did he tell you that he was the Bank solicitor?--No. What did he say, then, when he introduced himself to you ? Come, let us have it ?—He came and asked me to give my support to Mr. Manning. Were you living in Penryn then?—Yee. And a voter ?—Yes, for two or three years. Have you not taken root in Penryu for no other than electioneering speculations ? Are you not, in fact, a general electioneering-jobber?--No ; I am sometimes an assistant. No, a jobber.—Are you not a dealer in the seats of this House ?—Nc, I am not. Come, answer; you need not be afraid, for you know you arc in Newgatc already?—(Roars of laughter.)—l cannot answer you. Yes, you can ; you know, of course, that in what you have done, you have steered clear of the law have en deavoured to do so. Well, we shall see haw far yoUr. endeavours have been successful. What did Mr. Fresh&ld say to you, or you to him, at this introduction ?—He asked me to give my sup port to Mr. Manning ; and I said that I had no objection. Upon what terms—let us hear them ?—None whatever. Was he not surprised; did lie say nothing of the pro bable value of your services, for the day, for the week, or for the whole job ?—No, net a word. No stipulation 7—Nothing whatever. You know you are not upon your oath now?—Yes, I know that. What were you to do for Mr. Freshfield ?—To support Mr. Manning. As Mr. Weeding had declined the poll, to get my friends to vote for Mr. Manning. 119 W many votes did you get for Dever mud for one. I Went to the voters and told them to vote as they pleased ; I did not desire a single one to vote for Mr. Manning. . Of course you told Mr. Freshfield that this was the sort of assistance you would give him, not to ask for a vote, or influence a single elector ?—That was what I did. Did you tell him so ?—No. Did you see Mr. Freshfield after the election was over? —I did. What passed between you ? Did he say any thing to you, or you to him ?—I spoke to him. What did you say ?—I said that there was some expense unpaid at my house during the election, for treating, or the like ; and he said he could say nothing about it then. Oh, no, of course not then ; nor until the 14 days were over : you understand that ?—No, Ido not. What, not understand the 14 days ?—I don't know any thing about it. Will you venture to my that you do not know that there is danger in touching money until 14 days after the new meeting of Parliament ?—I know about the 14 days you Yes, I thought you that had been engaged in so many elections, must have heard of that.—l When Mr. Freshfield told you that he could say nothing then, what did Sou understand he meant ?.—He said be was not the agent for Mr. Manning. What was he at Penryn for, then ?—I don't know. Did you not know that he appeared there as Mr. Man ning's solicitor ?—Yes, I beard as much, What else did you think he was?—l thought he was the solicitor, not the agent. How long after did you see Mr. Freshfield about your small bill for what was done in your house ?—I never saw him after. Did you write to him, or receive letters from him ? I think I heard from him. Did you not ask him for money ?-.-Yes, for some little expense I was put to. How much ?—lt might be about 401. Do you mean to represent that you never asked for more than 40/. never asked him for any specific sum, or made a demand of any. What did you expect?—Heft that to himself. Should you have thought 40/. enough ?—I should haie been contented with 50/. What were the expenses at your house ?-401. Then you would have been satisfied - for your trouble with 10/. profit only ?—I had no trouble for Mr. Man ning, or any agency for him. I went to the election at that time merely to keep up my interest in the borough. . What would have satisfied you for this effort to keep 4 your interest ?—I should have been satisfied with the pay ment of the 40/. Did you not this moment say 50/. ?—No ; I said I should have taken 50/.—(A laugh.) Oh, you would have been satisfied with 40/., but better satisfied with 50/.—that is what you mean ?—(Renewed laughter.)—l never said I asked for money; all I wanted was what was justly owing for the expenses of indivi duals. Of course nothing but just debts could pass into your hands. How much money did you ever get, directly or indirectly, from Mr. Freshfield ?—Not a farthing. Has he written to you, or sent to you, about money?-- Not a word. Have you always been paid in this scanty manner, or ra ther not bceu paid at all, for your services at a borough election ?-ob, no. I have been liberally paid on other occasions. Well, that is what I want. Now, what was the utmost you ever got in this way ?—Where? Any where. Suppose we say Barnstaple? 5001. '—l got once From whom ?—Sir Eyre Coote. Was that 500/. clear net profit, or had you the handling of any other money?—lt was clear money. Were you his agent ?—No. Then for what was the money ?—For .my services, tra velling about to see the electors, and associating with the voters. What election was that ?—ln 1812. Did you ever get any other money ?—Perhaps I might. Perhaps you did. Come, what did Mr. Taylor give you ?—ln 1806, I think he gave me 3001. Do you mean to say that that was his whole expense. You know Mr. Taylor is alive ; Sir Eyre Coote, as you are well aware, is dead ?—I cannot say that. Did you ever receive any other money from Mr. Taylor but that 300/. ?—I think that out of respect for me (a laugh) he might have let me have a couple of hundreds afterwards. Besides the 3001. clear pay, and the 2001. respect mo ney, how much more did Mr. Taylor give you ?—I do not understand you. How much did that: etectiois haps 3,0001. Perhaps 6,000/. ?—No, it did not. I know not what it cost him. In 1806 it did not cost him quite 3,000/. In what way was that 3,000/. disbursed ?-=Each of the London voters had 81. to go down, and 8/. 'ter come up, au - a that made 1,600/., as there were 100 of them. The Bristol electors had to be paid besides 121. each. Had you the payments to make ?—Yes ; all that money passed through my Lands. Was that the whole of the expense ?—No, I believe not. This was at Barnstaple : how much did you get at Tre gony ?—There was no expense there. What ! No expense in getting 180 voters at one side in a contested election ?--:None, only the treating. Did the treating money pass though your baffle ?--Yee• Did you pay it all yourself?—Yes. Out of your own pocket ?—No. How much ?—I cannot tell. Come, tell us within 5001. of the sun...--1 cannot say. Was it 3,000/. ?—I don't know. Two thousand pounds?—l don't know. Was it 1,200/. don't know. On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the witness was then ordered to withdraw. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would submit to the Committee whether it was expedient, by continuing the course which his Honourable and Learned Friend had adopted, to go into matters which took place at other elections, when the question before the Committee was, what had transpired at the election of Penryn. He really thought his Honourable and Learned Friend had, by his question, brought another issue before the Cominittee, which was in no way essential to the matter before them. —(Cries of hear.") Mr. BROUGHAM was astonished at what had fallen from his Honourable and Learned Friend. It was both the privilege and the duty of the British House of Com mons, when they got within their reach such persons as this, to expose them as much as it was possible they could be exposed, and to hold them and their worthless employ ers up to the scorn and indignation of the country..—. (Cheers.)—He required no other argument—he would seek for no other argument—than this, by which to justify himself in adhering to a practice which all former Attorney- Generals had rather thought it their duty to sanction than to attempt to stifle by taking technical objections—a prac tice which he had always followed, and had never before seen excepted to—a practice, moreover, in which he was sure that he should be upheld and protected by the House, no matter by what . authority it might be impugned, even though it should be that of his Majesty's Attorney-Gene ral.—(Loud and repeated cheers.)-11e would • defy the subtilty of his Honourable and Learned Friend to` point out any inquiry of his which did not make for the pur pose before them—which did not involve the credit of testi• mossy. If he were not allowed to put questions to which an intelligible and distinct answer must be given, the wit ness had nothing to do but to make tip his mind to say , s N o ," a s he had done to the questions of his Hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire. He had no doubt that his Hon. Friend had other testimony by which he could confront and confound these answers of the witness. He could see plainly that his Hon. Friend had such testimony in reserve, by the manner in which he had, in his ques tions, referred to other persons, and associated them with the subject of those questions. He called upon the House to consider but for a moment the uncertain, the unsatisfac tory, the negative answers of the witr :Ls, and he would then ask them if it were not absolutely necessary to put such a man to the test of a rigorous examination. He never knew before that night that such a character was one of those that ought to be protected; a character born, it was true, in Devonshire, but transplanted at an early period into Cornwall—the pabulum of corruption, where this nauseous root might shoot deeper, and flourish better ; a character the most despicable—that of a Cornish boroughmonger.— (Cheers.)—He should be exceedingly sorry to go one step t'arther than his duty directed him, in this or in any other inquiry, but with one step short of that he would not content himself; and he hoped that his Majesty's present Government would not allow any let or hindrance to be thrown in the way of such a course.—(Loud cheers.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that his Hon. and Learned Friend had really mistaken him if he suppo sed that he meant for a single moment to protect the wit ness. He felt quite as much indignation at his conduct as his Hon. and Learned Friend could possibly feel. It was not because he felt less than his Learned Friend, that he had taken a less indignant tone, but because he thought that a temperate discussion was better suited to the pur pose of the committee. If any member of the committee thought it necessary for the subject before them to go into these matters, he should be the last man to stop such a course ; And kris 'Ply reason for rising was, that many gentleman around him thought the matter had been pushed a little too far. For his own part,, the investigation hail been rather entertaining to him than not ; and his object was only that of saving the time of the committee. If, however, his Hon. and Learned Friend, or the Hon. Member who had brought the subject forward, thought that it ought to be gone on with, he should cheerfully withdraw all opposition. Mr. N. CALVERT thought it expedient to enter into a cross-examination, however diffuse, if the truth could be elicited by such means. Mr. C. W. 'WYNN said, that this man being already in Newgate, and having now exposed himself by so many falsehoods, appeared to him to be in Such a situation, that "non habet uncle cadat." It was impossible for him to fall any-lower, or to be in any worse situation, since being in Newgate the House could visit him with no farther punishment for his prevarications and falsehoods. Mr. BROUGHAM said, he perfectly concurred in that view of the matter; and if that were the impress;on of the Committee, he was perfectly satisfied. Indeed, he was perfectly satisfied at a very early period of the exami nation—from the very moment in which the witness had told him that he did not know what sum of - money his fields let for. .The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was satisfied half an hour ago that no one in the House could believe the witness. Mr. LEGH KECK must say that he heartily thanked the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Brougham) for the manner in which he had cross-examined the witness, because be was sure, from the manner of his answers, that he bad screwed himself up to the sticking-place of Mr. HUME thought the language which the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wynn) opposite had used in speaking of the witness _extremely strong and hardly tolerable. It ought not to be said that a man's character was blasted, without there were very strong grounds for such an asser tion. If other evidence were called by which it could be proved that his evidence was false, such language might be fairly used ; but until then, he really thought it uncalled for. As to his being sent to Newgate, it ought to be re collected that he was sent there for not obeying the Speaker's summons, and not for telling any stories.—(A laugh.)-He had not seen any thing to warrant the lan guage which the Hon. Gentleman had used. - Mr. W. WY} N Said, that in his opinion the witness had flatly contradicted himself, and was therefore alto gether unworthy of belief. This was all that he had said. As to the fact of the witness being sent to Newgate, he had never intimated that he was sent there for telling false hoods, hut had merely mentioned it for the purpose-of ob serving that the House had no power to put any further punishment upon hini. Mr. STUftGES -BOURNE thought that if his Hon. Friend (Mr. Legh Keck) had known the character of this witness before, it would have bean better not to have pro duced him at all, as no reliance could be placed upon his evidence. Mr. .LEGH KECK said, that the witness would not ,appear before the Committee, and he was therefore glad that he had been enabled to produce him before the House, in order that the House might be satisfied that what other witnesses had said of him was correct. Sir R. FERGUSSON said, that there was scarcely a single fact which had been sworn to by the witnesses in the evidence whieh this witness had not contradicted ; and yet the Hon. Alember . for Montrose wished to hear other evidence before an opinion was pronounced upon the credi bility of the witness. He thought that no one who had heard the examination in chief, to say nothing of the cross examination, could think that the witness was entitled to credit. Mr. D W. HARVEY thought it very important that this witness-should be further examined. The witness had said that his clerk kept a list of voters, with the sums paid to each marked against their names ; it was very desirable that it should be ascertained who paid those sums. Though the evidence of the witness was not worth any thing of it self, yet it might be received in support of the less question able evidence of others. He observed, that it was deposed in the report, that Stanbury, when he left Penryn, desired the guard of the Falmouth coach not to tell that he was a passenger, and to keep his name out of the way-bill. It would not be unimportant to discover for what purpose he took these measures for concealment. John Stanbury was then recalled. Examined by 11Ir ! S. BOURNE—He had told them be- fore, that his clerk kept a list of the voters, together with an' account of the money paid to each. That money came from (as we understood the witness) Mr. Weeding. Upon the motion of an Hon. Member, whose name we could not learn, the Chairman desired all persons who were witnessew in the Penryn case to withdraw from the House. "Eittiutifiattditi"'Obrltititted..—The money pall ' 'these votel4 teas in consideration of services performed by them. They had been engaged for the last two years. By Dr. PHILtIMORE.—AII the money he received was for treating at Penryn. Perhaps 300 electors might haVe partaken of this treating. The nature of the treating was eating and drinking. On one occasion he recollected distributing four.bullocks. - By Dr: LUSHINGTON.—He never gave, or promised to give, any money to the electors of Penryn for their votes. He kept two banking. accounts iu Cornwall, and one in London ; he kept a banking at Praed's at Truro. and ,at Carne's at Penryn ; and at Barclay's in London. All the sums which he paid did not pass through his bankers hands. He had some of the bankers' books with him in London. At Penryn, the money he paid passed through Carne's hands : he had not got that banking book with him. He was at Medlicot's house, at Tregony, when the summons to attend the Committee on the Penryn elec tion was served upon him. He did not obey that sum mom, because he was prevented by illness. His illness arose from carbuncles. He had a certificate to that effect, signed by -two physicians. Neither of these physicians re sided at Tregony. They both lived at Truro. He had to send 10 miles for them. They- had not attended him before he received the summons. He sent this certificate up to London, and afterwards petitioned the House. He thought this was all that was necessary. When he left Tregony he went to Barnstaple. He was able to take that Journey in spite of his carbuncles. He took no means for keeping that.journey a secret. He did not recollect telling any body not to say where he was gone. He did not re collect that he told Mr. Medlicot to keep his journey a secret. He was not shut or locked up in Mr. Medlicot's house, for the purpose of avoiding being served with the summons. The person who served hint with the summons said that he had a claim upon him for some straw, which he wished to have settled ; and when he came into the room he served him with the summons. He did not go away in order to avoid the summons. He went away upon business. He knew King, the guard of the Falmouth coach. I He believed that he gave him half-a-crown, or something of the kind. He did not think that he ever said any. thing to the guard about keeping his journey a secret. He had no reason for wishing to have it kept a secret, or for telling the guard• not to put his name in the way-bill. By Mr. D. W. HARVEY—He did not conceal him self. He was ready of access to any one who wished to see him. The man who served him with the summons had no occasion to tell a falsehood in order to gain admit tance to him. In fact, the man did not tell a falsehood, for he had a claim upon him for straw. If the guard of the Falmouth coach ever said that lie (witness) told him to keep his journey a secret, and not to put his name in the way-bill, he (the guard) said what was untrue. Having a house of his own at Penryn, he also engaged two rooms in the house of John Paulet. He took these rooms, in order that .the voters who bad claims upon him might come there. He could not say how many voters came to him there. He might have paid the claims Of about 25 voters. The largest sum which he paid to any one of them was 19/. The person to whom he paid that sum had been engaged for more than two years. He had read the report of the Committee on the Penryn election. He had the report with hint in Newgate. By Mr. LEGH KECK—He meant the House to un derstand him as gravely and deliberately staling that he did not believe any of the voters to bare received money for their votes. The witness was then ordered to withdraw Robert Weeding was then called. Examined by Mr. LEGH KECK—He had never au thorised 3 , ihn Stanbury to pay any money for election debts.—(After the first question, the tone in which the witness spoke was so low, that very few of his answers were audible in the gallery.) He knew two persons of the names of Mallet and Ha►vey. He did not recollect that these persons ever came to him and told him, that if John Stanbury did not pay the money which be had promised the voters, he (witness) had no chance of coming in. He advanced three sums of money to Stanbury ; two sums of 5001. each, and one of between 3001. and 4001. ' By Mr. D. W. HARVEY.—The money he advanced to Stanbury was by loan. Stanbury did not say that any part of the money was to be devoted to election purposes. By Mr. C. - BARCLAY.—He suspected that there was not a sufficient number of persons who would vote for him without remuneration, and it was for that reason that he went away. The witness was then examined by Mr, LAMB, and in answer to variousinterrogatories adniittpl, that he lent a stun of money to Stanbury, Who OW he bad pressing necessity for it. Witness lent the money to Stanbury because be believed his mresentation, and wished to serve him. - . • Examined by Lord PALMERSTON.—WouId witness state what sum or sums of money the electors of Penryn expected to receive?—Could not say. How did they express their expectations no intel ligible form.—(A laugh.) Were you informed that the electors were in the habit of receiving money for their votes ?—No, never. What led you to suppose that they expected money from you, if they did not expect money from other candidates? —They first promised me their votes, and then stipulated for the sums they were to receive for, them. Did not you lose your election from the corrupt practi ces in the borough of Penryn, or because you could not be returned on other grounds ?—I conceived I had no chance unless I resorted to corruption. • In answer to subsequent inquiries, he said that he had visited Penryn about a fortnight before the election, and that he visited every voter in the borough, amounting to about 400. Witness had given Stanbury a note of hand for 1,0001., and a warrant of attorney for F.OO/. The charges of petty matters connected with the election did not amount to more than 1501. The witness was then ordered to withdraw, and Mr. John Carden was called to the bar, and examined by Mr. Legh Keck. Was a voter of Penryn, and knew Stanbury ; was once sent by him for some money to a person named Anderton ; went by Stanbury's directions, but did not receive the money; Mr. Anderton sent back word that be would see Stanbury in the course of the day. Was not aware that this money was for the Purposes of bribery. The witness was examined on this point at some length by Mr. Legh Keck,- Mr. D. W. Harvey, and Mr. C. Pel ham, but no material admission was elicited. The witness being asked respecting the nature of his en gagement at the election, replied, that he was paid for loss of time. . . _ Mr. LAMB—What does the witness mean by loss of time ?—Drinking in public-houses, and one thing other.— (A laugh.) Were you not otherwise engaged during the election ? No; I was paid for my loss of time. What! paid for drinking in public-houses?. doubtedly.(Renewed laughter.) Examined by Mr. 'D. W. HARVEY—Were you not at a meeting which was,held in Penryn en the Monday-pre ceding the election ?—No I was seven miles distant from Penryn when that meeting was held. The witness was then ordered to withdraw and James Alallett was called to the bar, and examined iir,• Mr. LEGH KECK—Is it not a custom in the Bo rough of Penryn to give a breakfast on the morning of an election, at which the sum of 20/. is given to each voter ? —The .witness replied, that he was not aware of such a '-Un- practice. Do you know what is meant by a phrase, which is very Common its the borough, namely—to make people " com fortable ?"—No ; I never heard the term mentioned until now. Examined by Mr. D. BARCLAY.—How long since has the practice of giving breakfasts in the borough ceased to exist ?—I cannot say. Has it been practised within the last 22 years ?—I do not know. By Mr. HARVEY.—What- was the object of the prac - - ticei—l cannot say. Was it not understood that a sum of money was paid for each vote at the breakfast ?—Witness professed his ina bility to answer the question. Witness remembered to have heard of "breakfasts," but did not know that they were given within the last 22 years. The examination of this witness was continued for a considerable time, in order to get from him, whether by " breakfasts" was not understood in Penryn a certain sum of money given to each elector for his vote ; but he con tinued so to evade a direct answer, as to leave the House in ignorance of what his impression of the term meant.— He had heard of money having been given, but he could not say to whom, or how much—whether 30/. 20/. or 101. He had never received any. _ _ _ Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN having moved that the witness do withdraw, observed, it was evident that the man was trilling with the House, in the answers he had just given. He had over and over again stated, that he did not know what was meant by breakfasts, but when the sub ject was before a committee of that House in 1819, it was proved that every man, woman, and child in the borough knew perfectly well that it meant the giving money for votes, and even the sum of twenty-four guineas was well enough understood by the term. He hoped, therefore, that the witness would be made to answer the question, and that a threat of sending him to Newgate should be-made -,far..,the purpose. Mr. C. PELHAM and BR. S. BOURNE said each a few :words, but-therwere not audible is the gallery. Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN repeated his statement, that the witness could not be ignorant of what was meant by the word "breakfasts." It was known to every man in the borough ; and one of the objections, by some of the electors, against Mr. Swann was, that he had not paid the " breakfasts." _ _ _ Lord MILTON thought it would be rather too hard to threaten the witness with Newgate .for declaring his igno rance of what he said had been discontinued in the borough for the last 22 years. It might be that he did not know. He could not concur in thinking that the witness had yet prevaricated in his evidence at the bar. Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN repeated his opinion that the witness had prevaricated. Mr. PEEL entirely concurred with the Noble Lord (Milton) ; and unless the House thought that the witness deserved to be sent to Newgate, he hoped they would not so far _forget their duty, as to hold out a menace which it was not meant to enforce.—(Hear, hear.)—He thought there was at present no ground which would warrant the Chair man to menace the witness with Newgate. If the Hon. Alderman (Waithman) could show that the witness was present at any meeting where " breakfasts" were mentioned as a sum 67 money to be given to the voters, then he might have a ground of charging him with prevarication. But the witness denied any knowledge of the kind ; and until they could bring evidence•to attach discredit to what he stated, they had no right to menace him for not stating any particular fact. They must wait till his evidence was contradicted. • _ _ Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN said it was clear, from the answers of the witness, that they were evasions of many of of the questions ; and he submitted that he ought to b e cautioned to give direct answers. Mr. N. CALVERT thought that the man ought to be cautioned to tell the truth, as he was not on his oath. A ny man who heard the witness, and observed his manner, must, he thought, be convinced that he was professing his igno rance of that which he well knew. The witness was then recalled, and the Chairman was about to address him, when Mr. G. DAWSON said he did not understand that the Committee had directed the Chairman to use any menace to the witness, and should object to that course. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not conceive that the Hon. Chairman intended to address any menace towards the witness, but he thought he had a perfect right to cau tion him, as several .Members had expressed themselves dis satisfied with his answers. Independently of that, it was his duty as Chairman to give the witness a caution, if he found he was not answering directly, and he believed that was all be was about to do. Mr. TENNYSON (the Chairman) said, that his object w as, not to hold out any menace to the witness, but as he could collect from the opinions of several Members that his answers had, not been satisfactory, he intended merely to caution him to be more careful. Sir ROBERT HERON said, that witnesses were so instructed and drilled befol they came there as to how far they might go in their answers, that it would be useless to protract the inquiry unless they could adopt some other mode of eliciting the truth. Mr. D. BARCLAY said, he should be glad if the Hon. Baronet would point out, if he could, who were the drill sergeants on this occasion. Sir R. HERON did not mean to allude to any person in particular. He judged -only from the manner in which the witness went on. The witness was then recalled. The CHAIRMAN.—Witness, several of the answers you have already given have not been considered satisfac tory or respectful to the House. I therefore caution you to give to the other questions that may be put to you, plain, direct, and distinct answers. The witness was again examined by Mr. D. W. HAR VEY as to what he meant by the word " breakfasts," the practice of which be said had ceased for twenty-two years, and he was understood to say, that he had not received any. At the suggestion of Mr. PEEL, great part of the wit ness's previous examination was read over to him, and the question was again put as to what he understood by " breakfasts." His answer was not heard. He was then directed to withdraw. Mr. BANKES said, it was clear the witness was speak ing of his own knowledge, and not as to what was under stood by others. .Witness recalled, and examined by Mr. HARVEY.— He was not at a meeting held at the Green in Penryn a few days before the election ; but he believed the object of that meeting to be to consult with respect to the election. He kept a public-1105e which wAs opened in the interest of Lord Perceval 'and Mr. Barclay. He voted for 6* candidates. By Mr. N. CALVERT—Did not unders tend what 0 5 meant by being made " comfortable." Witness withdre' Mr. Charles Francis Addy was then called in, an d 4. amined by Mr. LEGH BECK.—Witness is a so lleit° :l and canvassed the borough of Penryn in 182 4 for I, Perceval. He found a great disinclination in the voters 7 speak out. The general expression was, " I wish you vie' Sir ; you may have me if you like ; you have only to oP e ' w to my wife, and it is your own fault if you have not 14 vote." Witness added, I considered that I had no chill at that time. The ground was wholly in the interest ° Mr. Barclay, and it was not considered advisable to Po t ' used any further then. In 1825 I canvassed the bor ou g. with Lord Perceval in person. The reception we met 'O w was nearly similar to that which I had before ex perienat I found a generaldisinclination towards us, because it s eat ' to me that the people were used to receive money, an d e%.. pected we would give it. I was not asked for MI until a few days before the last election. was preses a meeting on the Green a few days before the election.'"' The object of it was to induce the candidates to open h° s ' el as usual. A crier went round the town calling upon the voters to attend, that they might send for the two tlot i c ' cessful candidates from Tregony, to offer themselves. consequence of that was, that an open system of tr ee Use commenced. Without that system, I believe the candid ° would have had no chance. I had several offers of Or a port, for money. On one occasion I was called up a t tw , - o'clock in the morning, by a person who offered me 00,1 votes at 101. a-piece. I did not accept that offer, tv wc was made by a person of the name (we believe) of goorei I do not believe it possible that a candidate can be suc cessf li in that borough without money or a promise of money ~.0 4 one candidate bribes, the man opposed to him who_ °. not bribe has no chance whatever. I found great du*,'"*"- : culty in getting the voters up on Monday and Yawl ; some came up on the Wednesday, but a great mall °n the Thursday. I was informed that bribery was going e ° , l and that we had no chance. Several tenders of votes' 1'; made to me. The parties did not ask for ro e , ° % down, but said that if the thing was made " all right" tile:, would vote. Several told me that they would r ather r°,7 for 5/. a-head from Lord Perceval, than for 101. from the other party. There were several who voted for Lord r ceval who had' not got any money or promise of money a was found that the party who bribed, seeing that 1 0 Perceval would not bribe, stopped, and then many P ere °:, came and voted for his Lordship who would not others": have done so. A person of the : name of Stephens - and offered me ten votes, at 10/. a-head. On the fo tu i;" day of the electi on I b eca me a candidate. I did so for purpose of administering the bribery oath. I did order to be administered, but it was objected to by Mr. It'f a ! i t ning's Counsel. Several persons advised me not to pr essi i as it was very obnoxious in the borough, and many them had strong objections to take it. I found it was less to press it, for I saw some who offered me their ve t for money take the oath. Witness then repeated his fl le t opinion, that no candidate could have a chance who d id ' bribe, while the man opposed to him could do so. 111 8- ,:o swer to other questions, he proceeded to state, that it 'lstv an usual practice in the borough for candidates to paY oie rates of those voters whose rates remained unpaid At a s time of the election. For this purpose a certain sum Ivo deposited by each candidate ; and if a man voted for to candidates, his rate was paid between them. The of 194, or 195 voters were so paid at the last electioniter believe this to be the fact, but I did not know it until after wards. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that the the lief of the witness would not be a legal ground for House to act upon. To make it legal, he must call fit the party from whom he heard it, and who knew it ° own knowledge. t. Mr. BANKES thought that the practice of taking, we d ters on the belief of witnesses had been too much f oil° . ;n this examination. Mr. LEGIT KECK submitted, that in this oa le 'r t :hei , were not to be tied down by strict principles of lasv• object was to come at the truth, if they could, in a e m - 'l l - table manner. This question was agitated in the C°ll/-1 tee of 1819, and rejected by the House. ex' The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that the par' , w as ainined, net being on his oath, was one reason why ' t desirous that he should confine himself to facts. The witness, in answer to a question from gr. i-' 5 ll ll KECK, said he believed there were witnesses who c° „, to prove the payment of the poor-rates. He then wen t _ m . °- state that the treating was general ; that it Was sine ble to avoid it. He believed that nearly all the v oters P 1 tew took of- . the treating; - and_ he would add, that more half of them were bribed.B o By Lord MILTON.—Lord Perceval received go or ed promises in 1825. All those promises were.not fureheil; I myself took - up a body of 18 to vote, and nine 04 "„ -- 0 , 4 voted againit us. Ido not know the reason, from iin c Y o" knowledge, as I did not see the bribery myself. 'Jill; vassed 400 voters. There were 430 voted. We were 1J...el Swann party, as -many of the lower orders had pr° l3ll aw their support to that interest. I did not see th e cone position in the higher classes of voters, to take lia o f le .Y'fot in the lower. Some of the higher classes offere d votes situations in the India House, or other places. By Mr. C. BARCLAY.- 1 do not mean to saY t candidate would have no chance of success if neithel' P w bribed. Mr. Manning's voters divided their seem: 011:o with Mr. Barclay ; so did Lord Perceval's. Id° that Mr. Barclay was guilty of bribery at the las t ele'" ° He had uo occasion for it. Some questions by Lord GRANVILLE SO3L-zi ere jto —A person of the name of Jonathan M o ore teed vd, Lord Perceval '7O votes, at 101. e ac h. Witness "";,,, -e u la that this Moore, who was not an elector of PenrY ° ' 7 not have carried his promise into execution. - a One By Mr. D. W. HARVEY.—There was - ' at Y system of treating throughout the borough of Pent,Y a last election. Witness was satisfied, that if bri be " rot been employed by his opponent, Lord Perceval ba l d have carried his election. There were 172 voters vitaeba promised plumpers to Lord Perceval, and many ntb.„e-ssfe: promised to vote for him as soon as Mr. Barclay "-urea' Lord Perceval only polled 152 votes ; and of these ai many were votes split between him and Mr. Bar kes Witness believed that the voters who had neglecw;, t promises to Lord Perceval bad been bribed and botig;lS by the other aide. Witness saw Stanbury at '',.ot l l during the election. He believed that a great naanYA sr went to John Paulet's house, where Stanbury 10dg'u"'y he whilst there, either received or were promised ctit their votes. A voter of the name of Dick told me {tom had first received 101. then 21. and then Si. 0 1 - w' ry o ' Mr. Anderton, who‘was Mr. Manning's agent a isc ie for his vote. Two other voters of the name o f Maddox told me that they had also received al e )/1 Mr. Anderton. Slade said) that he Ilkd receive,' hard cash, and a written pledge for 5/. more. ->nifio ° By Mr. PEEL.—When witness received number o r'i voter!l72 plumpers for Lord Perceval, the total num bat t"' u to the best of his belief, was 234. He believe d t n, boi persons expected to receive money after the e1e,,,,e10r 0 0 , they did not express that expectation to him• that if they were in the hands of honourable I,oe would be satisfied with an understanding.- -- ( A 1 ' ji° Jonathan Moore was not a resident elector of PentYool% came, according to witness's belief, from G ranll3° ,4l l° d laugh.)—Witness believed that Moore bad autheiris olp the promises he made, but be 'could - not say , from to knowledge, that he had. No voter e ver referrea Jonathan Moore, to learn what he would do. By Mr. LESLIE FOSTER. — Witness one of the sitting Members was not indebted to bil ie his seat. He could not say that his belief was 1 1,1e1), , as to the other. He believed that the other wa s qbat ,, to bribery for - his seat ; and f or thi s reason , - - 14 counsel objected strongly to witness's admivi s r tel :7oo l ',la not b e e n enabled l l a et r l g e L s o u rd m t P o er ex ce p v e a u l a t ° o bribery oath. He thought that the payment 01 c od "b 1 From I. would n, ohoi sl havewould Moore,da that y experience in election matter* b e ii rrY fr " the election of a corrupt borough. o lf t fr fo r By Mr. Y. PEEL. p t had offered b o e o ba candidate for the borough of Penryn ; and his efi t ' pa t tM doing so was, that he might qualify himse lf ' - frao s 04 bribery oath to the electors. It was so lel lake difficulty of finding any elector who wo uld tbo . o himself the odium of administering that oa tat t bA do had put himself forward. He did not tec ell ;eorP o of ever applied to any respectable inhabitant of r o kiog of put that oath. He had never thought 64 a the inhabitant to do such a thing, as he four ra e idea of it was most obnoxious. be ° o ? By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.--W itee' O t t ? a candidate on the fourth day of the clection. af Glee ej had then a prospect of success, as a large lo d Y ° t lecl ie o he was then unpolled. Lord Perceval had not t th ll t ,O —lt was before he tendered the briberY ° a f v o. „/ qualification was asked for. His intention__ j oe the bribery oath to the voters created °l' panic in the borough. th' t 3 By Mr. STANLEY.—Witness - thong cl a ee on proportion of the inhabitants of Penry n 1 10 taken the bribery oath with a clear conacienCe. as o fe e n By Mr. BROUGHAM---There was trawl, ' 0 0 A $0 • cato bribery at the last election. Both were T h e re co l t' , extensively. All the candidates treated. be uo ye t expreel order issued by me,- that there s holld_ t a s if ing ; but the public-h ouse s were kept open bad as order bad never been given. Every