The Express.
London, England, 1853-03-09 00:00:00

eon, and a great many others were there. They stopped
there ell day drinking, and paid nothing. Ackerman
called Mogley out of the room. The keit morning witness
went to the Lord Nelson again, hut he wee not roe to the
Golden Eagle. lie was called into the back yard. and
Ackerman told him he wont' give him 31., but would sat
give it all to him at once, but at the rate of 11. a week
Witness agreed to take it out in auger, and Ackerman Paid
he should have lf.'s worth neat day. and a little more.
About a week after he went to Mr. Worthing'oe's
dike (an attorney), and told him they bed not received
either money or meney's wotth from Ackerman ; that
Ackerman sent them home beastly drunk, and gave
them nothing. Isle. Worthington said he thought they
had got it, but that it was a drunken job altogether, and
he'd "blow the whole vat over and begin afresh." When
witness went home, he found a lump of sugar about 3011,5.
weight, which housed in his trade. In about a week after,
he went again to Mr. Worthington, and toad him about the
sag it. but said that was not all he wanted.
On cross-examination. the witness said there never was
en election at Derby but what he got a little money at.

(Laughter.)
Mr. Roe here informed the committee, that after making
a most diligent search to find out the whereabouts of Mr.
Robinson Cos (the attorney) and Mr. Lund. in order to
serve them with the speaker's warrants, they had not suc-
ceeded in finding those gentlemen.
The committee then adjourned until this morning.

SOUTHAMPTON.

Yesterday this committee resumed its inquiry, at
11 o'clock, Mr. H. A. Herbert in the chair, when Messrs.
Alexander and Sewell, for the petitioner, adduced additional
evidence as to alleged bribery by means of payment of ex-
travagant sums under the guise of travelling. expenses.
In the course of the evidence it transpired in several
eases, cot possessing features of sufficient public interest to
justify a detailed report, that sums of money varying from •
few shillings to a few sovereigns had been paid by Mr.
Alderman Tucker in the name of travelling expenses, and
Mat under certain circumstances a reasonable allrivrance
lid been made to individuals for refreshment on the road
and is Southampton. The great majority of the witnesses
MOM th.t they were considerably out of pocket by the
lesmeaction, and moat of them had received the exact sum
they had upended. They all concurred in swearing that
the sums they bad received were not intended to influence
their votes.
The committee then adjourned to this day at 11 o'clock.
HUDDERSFIELD.
Yesterday, on the re-assembling of the Committee,
Mr. Walpole in the chair,
Mr. Scarlctt, !newer, at Huddersfield, admitted that he
had sent out nine 36-gallon cubs of ale, and three 24-
gallon casks on the day of the election, and that au entry
of 121. for that ale, from Stanstield's committee, in his
books, was in the hsadwriting of one of his clerks.
James Dent, one of Searlett's clerks, was examined on
the same subject, and mentioned the circumstances under
which the ale was sent out, and the parties to whom it was
sent: also that he received the money for it from a Mr.
T , on behalf of Mr. /Mansfield's committee.
George Schoefield deposed to Soerlett sending a supply
'of ale to Hdlawell, when he told him his uncle would nut
vote till he had "got ale, u well as other folk."
Joshua Hallawell deposed to 40 gallons of ale coming to
him, and to 30 gallons remaining, which he sold. His uncle
had long promised his vote fur Stanfield. The ale was
called " Election ale."
The next class of cases was those relating to what were
called " discount" payments, for votes in 1817.
William Radford, of the Fox and Grapes, Huddersfield,
a voter, examined—Had a vote in 1847, and voted for
Stansfield. Witness had an account against Mr. Booth,
who was a supporter of Stansfield. Received about 81. in
1847, and the balance left was in the shape of 10 per
cent., which was then taken off. Was canvassed by Willsn's
party at the last election. Mr. J. Beaumont saw witness
about his vote for Stansfield. Perhaps he might have
asked Beaumont shout his old account and the payment of
the discount, but Beaumont did not say he would pay it if
witness voted for Stansfield. Beaumont said he would have
nothing to do with it. Knew • number of beenhop-
keener*, but said he would not vote for Stanfield
' until the old amount was paid. Had an account at the last
election for breakfasts. It had been paid by Mr. J. Beau-
mont, and witness put the old " diacount " on the new
bill, which had been pail altogether. Had not seen Leech.
Cross-examined—Put the "discount" down by charging
I a little higher for the items. Had promised Stanfield a
long time, and could not vote for a man who wanted to
divide " Church and State." (Laughter.)
Re-examined—Received the orders fur breakfast on the
nonivation day from John Sykes, for 12 or 16 people.
Thee came back. The amount of the bill sent in was 101
William Leech kept the Bull's Head, and voted for
Stansfield, against whose party he had • bill in 1817, which
was discharged, with the exception of the "discount."
What witness put on, vie., 10 per cent., was unjustly put
on ;he pat it on because he knew it would be taken off
again. Provided entertainment at his house at Ike last
election, by order of Mr. John 'Oakes, and three or four
days before the election he promised to vote for Stansfleld.
Breakfast was provided for 20, and witness went to the
George and saw Oakes, aad got en I 0 U for payment.
Oakes gave it him, and on the faith of this his " !Riau*"
provided the entertainment on the day of the election.
The voters had tea and coffee, and the things in nese, to
make a good breakfast. Charged 2a. 6d. each, and Mr. J.
Oakes came for the bill and paid it. The amount of the
bill was 21. 10s., but the whole bill that Oaks paid him was
a little more than 51. The little something more was for
beer to the band and several friends, non-electors. It was
short of 61., but it was not part of the unjust demand or
discount of 1847.
Cross-examined—Voted for Stansfield at the last and pre-
vious elections, and should have voted for Stansfield if that
party had not come to him. There were some old accounts
owing to other parties, aad witness said let them ,y those
off, and be would tell them if he would vote for Stens-
field. (Laughter.)
Re-examined—Wished to see the others paid as he had
been paid, viz., 20s. in the pound. Heard these parties
had been satisfied, and he voted for Stansfield, when he
heard these honest debts had been paid.
John Oakes exassitsed—Knew Radford. Spoke to him a
few minutes ago in the lobby. Witness took part in the
last election as a canvasser. Went to the George commit-
tee-room and got a canvassing-book from Mr. Tom
Robinson, one of the committee. Knew Mr. Leech and
canvassed him. Could not say what passed. Asked Leech
for his vote, but did not recollect anything being said
about an old account. Leech did not say he should not
vote until the old accounts were paid. Saw Leech at the
George, who came to isquire how matters were going on.
Witness signed a paper ordering breakfast, and making
himself responsible for the money. The order was for 20
breakfasts, which witness along with the other parties was
to pay out of their own pockets. John Brook, a member
of the committee, also signed the paper. Witness would
not swear he did not write the order in the committee-
room. Gave Leech some money when he paid the bill
the Saturday after the day of election, and Mr. Frederick
Turner repaid witness.
The committee at 4 o'clock adjourned to this day.

THE CAMBRIDGE ELECTION PErITI ON.

It will:be recollected that towards the close of the
inquiry on the late Cambridge election petition Mr. Edwin
James, Q.C., as counsel for the petitioners, stated that it
was merely the object of the petitioners to press the in-
quiry so far as would result in the declaration by the com-
mittee that the members had been unduly elected. The
sitting members wore examined, and exculpated themselves
from all personal knowledge of the proceedings proved,
and Mr. James pressed his case by evidence until the com-
mittee declared themselves satisfied; but the recommenda-
tion to issue a commission of inquiry did not form part of the
report of the committee to the house. A requisition, signed
by 19 liberal members of the town council, MU got up im-
mediately, and presented to the mayor, calling upon him to
appoint a *pedal meeting of the council to petition the
house for the commission. The meeting took place on
Monday, and the following form of petition was agreed to::
"That your petitioners are satisfied that corrupt prsetioes
did extensively prevail at the said (last) election, and year
petitioners submit to Tour honourable house that a more
complete and thorough investigation into the manner in
which the said election was conducted is imperatively re-
quired. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray your
honourable house to take such steps as to your honourable
house may seem fit, with • view to the issuing of a com-
mission of into the *ahem, of corrupt practices at
the said e • that yew baseerable house will adopt
such other tissaasM with respeet b wash corrupt practices
as your howessalill base may 4111118 ofigedient."
All the eicusreellwat puma valet kr the adoption of the
above pstlties.