The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1819-03-09 00:00:00

Roped to be in town on Thursday next. Coder
these circumstances, he would incise
That the order for oxamining evidence, this day, touching
the complaint against the Hon. Wyndham Quin, he
rlix-
charged, on account of the inners of a trump's, and that the
amid order be renewed for Thursday next.—Agreed to.
PENRYN ELECTION.
Mr. ll'. Wrest gave notice trod he would, on
Wednesday next, move for leave to bring in a Bill
for the better regulation of elections in the borough
of Proryn.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXcliFOuga. moved
the Order of the Day for retuating the 041°°'"ed
debate on the titration for issuing a new writ for a
Member to serve in Parliament for the borough of
Penryie in the room of Henry Swum), Esq. who
has not been dole elected.
Sir C. 13vaster.r., in calling tile :mention of the
Moire to this subject, could assure Gentlemen that
lie acted purely uu public grounds. He had no
ceimexion with the borough, nor had he any ac-
qoaititunce with the Petitioner against the rehire of
Mr. Swaim. If lie were not borne nut by the
rules al Parliamept in what lie was about to prrs.
pew to the !loose, lie should feel happy to he cor-
rected, where lie was wrong, by Gentlemen of
greater experience. He liegged leave to draw the
stienthm of the House to those parts of the mos
nudes taken before the Committee, which struck
him as lining the moot iMportset. In doing this,
he would divide the subject into four heads :-Ist,
The acts of bribery and instances of general cur-
mph that weir proved before the Cemmitter—
`.2,l. The imiteishiridite4 as to the common practice
—3.1, 'Elie trllllllloll3*--:11111 4th, The
course to be pursued. Ile re lie w wised it to be ob-
served, that he oltuuld consider it very wrong for
ally person to Insist to his memory on all 1.11:CM1011
like the present, where the dearest rights mid psi-
'lieges ~f his fellow-subjects were deeply concern-
ed. Ile bad therefore, made some notes horn
the minutes, to which be would refer, in order
to bring the subject clearly before the House.—
Meer, hear.)—The first witness called for the
Petitioner, was Mary Curter, who (page 6) stated
that he hail received .51. from Mr. Swann, to induce
him to vote on his side—and that Mr. Swann said
to I " I expect that you went money as well as
the rest of the voters." This mom prevaricated
very much—and, it appeared, that though he got
51. on one side, lie voted on the other. Thomas
Nos:tuns also ntateil, diet lie Revived .5/. from
Dlr. Swaim, to induce him to vide for his return
—but, on being pressed, he declaied, that though
lie took the money, he meet meatit to vote for Mr.
Swaim. It decant &strum (the son-in-law of the
lag witness) was lists examined—(page 16). He
stated his understanding of the general practice of
vottre receiving money rat, or after, the period of
election. Jobs Gill (Page 19) was the next
wit-
nesa before the Committee. Ile desciibeil, very
minutely, the means which Mr. SW3IIII adopted to
entice him. He steles', that after Mr. Swaim soli-
cited his vote, he deniended 15!. for it, which Mr.
Swistm agreed to give. In page 21, he further de-
pieresl, that lie got 61. from a person minted A bey
Witte, to vote for Mr. Swann, but lie would not
vine for that sum (although lie took it) us he con-
sidered 61. to be a were fiq, and out enough, t on-
bieteutly wills ti.e cuAoirs of Peorye, to purchase
a vote. He totaled, beyond this, that lie took
the y. but voted for Mr. A orlertlon and
Sir C. Hawkins, lie acknowledged that lie had
been offered more money than Its received f
31r. Swami, by somebody else—and Gentlemen
would easily perceive drum fir examination,
that those •lis had promised I ' more were in
the opposite interest. lo 'mother place, he de-
posed that lie sow Mr. Swum' tars' a person of
the if 11111 r of Charles Wilko, 61. This proved the
cooloe pursued ;it Penryn. Spies were employed,
▪ every ineuvs were taken in circumvent the ad-
verse party, as well as to 'tribe the greatest number
of voters. lii page .26, Wiliam 1 immin, another
• i1.1.0,id that • perish.' of the name of
was bribed by Winn, to vote for
J. Swann. When be returned from the 11411,
witesss saw him with live or six bank notes
in his From the statement of this man,
it appeared to be generally known that the most
011:•11 hhtlieiv was carried on in Peuryn. In page
30, Thomas ('ark, another witness., deposed to a
variety of acts of bribery. Amongst the rest, that
o man of the name of Donsford, an egont of Mr.
Sc eon, gave 16/. to the wife of a Mr. Triadic), to
induce her hipband to vote fur Mr. Swann. In
page 43, 11r. Guodeve, a brewer of Neap', who was
accused of hissing bribed a man of the name of Chas.
Leckie Skinner, to vote for Mr. Swann, in his
evidence fur that Gentleman, totally denied that
he bad any participation in the bribery charged
. to him, or that he had received any money from
Mr. Swann, for such a purpose—and he also de-
clared, that Mr. Dmisford never said, that he bad
given 111/. to Trill hen'. wife, to influence her hos-
band's rote. Tratheti was then called, but his evi-
dence was opposed, as lie was a voter, und a i)erson
interested. however, the Committee decided, ip
'4 that he was competent witness to the general
transactions of the election ; but diet he could not
be exesisined to rebut the evidence of the fact of
his having be. a himself bribed." Ile (Sir C. Bur-
rell) did,uot approve of this decision;—for, when
a witness was brought forward to tell the truths the
whole truth, and nothilig but the truth, he conceived
no obstacle should lie thrown in Ins way. los
page 61, lie deposed that air. Anderdon had
offered to make hint master of one of his Com-
pany's true's, if lie would give him his vote.—
lit page 5!, lie stairs that this offer was repeated
all the t.s-oii.g of the first day of the election.
After einichiditig the uotes of the minutes of the 5
evictviice, he observed, that this was no party clues-
tion, and lie was sure that the House would give
the subject that attention which so grave and so
important a subject required. The present consi-
deration did nut partake of that wild and visionary
species of reform of which so much had been beard ;
it was of a tangible nature, which operated for the
benefit of the country and the character of Parlia-
ment. He would, therefore, move fair a renewal of
of the Committee to inquire Pith the existence of
corrupt and evil practices in the Borough of Pen.
rysi. previous to, and during the late election.
The SPEA K ER said, that the Hon. Member's pro-
position gas not strictly regular. The question before
lilt House was, that it new writ be issued for
illeioye, and the utliforin course of proceeding was
to wove as an amendment, that the writ do not
Italie till a certain day; iii the mean time the Hon.

Member bring on a distinct and substantive
motion.
Sir C. Bunitete said, lie would adopt the sug-
gestion of the Hots. Member, and move that the
I Speaker do not issue his warrant before this day
fortnight.—This bring reiroidereil IMO short, It
was ell, that the Speaker do not issue his war-
taut to make out a new writ for the Borough of
Pritryn, before this day month.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER Paid lie
did not think that in the
the Committee, statement in the Report of
now before the Flouse, there were
sufficient grounds to induce the House to make an
I alteration in the constitution of the borough in
question. The him,. Baronet had laid before the
House a case of corrupt practices proper for the sub-
jsct of Inquiry its It Committee. They hail beets
inqiiired into by • Committee, but the inquiry
did not inculpate the entire body of the electors,
and in a case where punishment would fall on the
innocent as well as on the guilty, it behoved the
liumw to net with the greatest caution. Ile was
the less Inclined to agree to the motion of the lion.
Bromet when I.e ricorierted that the object of his
motion was to appiiint a second Committee, to re-
vow the decision of a former Committer. Ile con-
ceived that where a ConoWttee of that House had
once decided tai a .pirmtion referred to them, their
decision wits final, but the motion of the Honourable
Member was for theappoisitment of e second Com-
mittee, fur the purpose of revi.ing the proceed.
ings of the tiro Commit tee.—( C'ries of " IVo, no.")
—lf he had mistaken the statement of the /lon.
Baronet be was open to correction ; but if lie
mideretood the Honourable Barmiet tightly, that
was the amount of the Honourable Baronet's pro-
poodioti. In every fin 'tier crew, where the new writ
was delayed with a view to the disfranchisement of
therlertors, iii every instance of that nature it was first
established that the great majority of the voters had
been guilty of corrupt practices, but nothing of that
I kind appeared in the present case. That there were
many sinter, in the borough in question, he did not
deny, but whatever steps of severity the House
plight take against particular persons, he did not
think that Parliament would be justified in deport.
; tog the electors of their franchises. The Right
/bun. Gentleman, after complaining of proceedings
instituted on surmise and tittle-tattle, concluded
by expressing his dissent to the tnotion.
Sir JAHL6 MACKINTOSH said, that important as
the question was, he thought the reasoning of the
Right Honourable Gentleman of more importeirce
than the question itself. To one observation of the
Right Hun. Gentleman lie would entirely agree.
Ile beloved it was the only observation of huts he
could assent to—namely, that the prssent subject
was one of importance ; and if ever there was a
time that the House should interfere, when they
were called on to act with good faith, with zeal and
with vigour, lie thought it was the present. He
could not but observe on the Icsity shown in i he
language of the Right (lots. Gentleman out this
subject; he could nut hear without indignation the
latiguege applied by a Minister of the Croton to a
case of notorious, scandalous, and infamous cor-
ruption. The Right Hon. Gentlemen bad said,
that thew was not evidence sufficient before them
in authorise the House to disfranchise Peurysi—un-
doubtedly there was not—but was there not esi-
deuce to raise a prima /ode case, that corruption
exists in that borough ? The disfranchisement of
the borough formed no part of the argument of
the Hon. Baronet—that was not the i tttt nediate ob-
ject of his !notion. The questiou brought before
them by the Hon. Baronet, for which he deserved
the thanks of the /loose and time country, well,
whether they would inquire into the extent of the
corrupt abuses of the borough of Petiryii ? and
this was an inquiry in whirls he thought the charac-
ter and the tumour of Parliament were deeply in-
terested. There was, he said, • uniform colour
and complexion of corruption, from the beginning
to the cod of the transaction, that called fur a
prompt and immediate inquiry. It was not the
fist time that this borough had been convicted of
the grossest acts of corruption. Ile could not for-
get the important fact, that a few years since,
on aunt her election from the same borough, similar
acts of corruption had been proved against it, but
the Right lime Gentleman had objected to the
inquiry, because the Committee would not have the
power of administering oaths. He could not help
considering this lengunge in any other light than as
an outrageous attack on the rights of the I louse of
Commons. Did the Right Hon.Gentletnan forget
the Grenville Act ? Wes he itsiiiitunt that the pri-
vileges of that House formed part of the law of
the land, when he said that not administering an
oath suspended their inquiries and destroyed those
privileges ? They had the power of impeachment,
and of attainder—and had they not the power of ex-
amining into corrupt practices, of exposing them, and
of punishing those who might he guilty of them ?
The question was, had • Committee of that House
ally 'tower at all ? If it had, surely the most
natural and the most necessary exercise of that
power was the r orrection of such corrupt and odious
practices us were now before them. The extent,
indeed, of those practices were nut known to them.
The Committee had only examined ii,to those
practices so far us they affected the conduct of the
Member and of the Petitioner ; and though it
might be true that what incidentally cause nut be-
fore the Committee might 'lot justify an imme-
diate proceeding to disfranchise the borough,
yet, surely, there was enough before them to in-
duce the House to inquire into other matters, to
induce them to probe this body of corruption, and
to clear the representation from its foul and fatal
•inipurities. He conceived that am inquiry was due
to public feelisig—to the clialacter and the honour
of Parliament—to the reveience in which they held
the Constitution, whose best privileges were, in the
present case, so much abused.
Mr. ATRYNS WRIGHT said a few words, which
we could nut distinctly hear.
Mr. FRLDERICK DOUGLAS said, he considered
the present as wt important constitutional pies-
tion. He was, he said, prepared to go to the full
length with Use Honourable Baronet, and would
agree to suspend the tenting of the writ, until
en ultimate decision should he made by the House.
He was not one of those who followed the wild
schemes of what was called reform, but where
abuses existed so flagrant as in this case, they ap.
peered to be abuses which called down the reprobres
tion of the country. Ile thought the case re-
quired a strict and immediate investigation.—

could, be asked, after what bad come nut against
the voters of Penryn—could the House order a
new writ, as if nothing had taken 'Place, ajt, no
corruption had been practise(' or exposed ? It was slot
necessary for the present purpose to bring home
guilt to any individual ; it was only necessary fu►
the. House to know that improper practices had ex-
isted to authorise inquiry. There were two parties
implicated—the person returned, and the person
who petitioned against the return; and it appeared,
that at a meeting of the Petitigner's friends, one
hundred persons had attended and tnade public
complaints of a nun-compliance with their corrupt
demands.

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, he could not but
feel surprised at the virtuous indignation expressed
against the practices of this borough, as if prac-
tices equally corrupt were not found to exist in other
boroughs in the kingdom, as well as the borough
of Penryti. Ile r' collected some years ago when
charges were brought against the Minister of the
Crown for corrupt traffic in seats in that House—
that inquiry was stopped, and that Minister lass
defended on this ground, that those metiers were
as notorious as the sun at noon-day. After that
declaration, it was a little too much to believe that
other boroughs were more pure, or were less corrupt
than the unfortunate borough of l'enryn. The
country would not shut their eyes to the real state
of the case—the country would hot be deluded by
an idle display of words—

• "Species verhis nihil reinards."
If any step were taken against Penryn without a
general inquiry into the rotten borough system, he
would consider it un act of gross injustice. lie
could not call it by any other name, and as to the
policy of the proceeding, it was too confined to he
useful ; in his mind such a proceeding would ope-
rate in favour of corruption, it would be more se-
cretly and securely carried on. Without a general
itiquiry into the system, an investogatiori like the
one in contemplation would be a mere scape-
goat. As to those Gentlemen who cry out, No !
no !"—whose virtuous indignation is directed
against Penryn, how properly might Mr. Swami
turn on them mid say, " Of you the same story
might be told?" Would he have said falsely?
Is Penryii the only corrupt borough ?—is Old
Sarum snore virtuous, or is Knareshorough snore
independent ? lie did not understand the cry that
had been raised by those who, strangely incon-
sistent, would uphold what appeared not more
defenceable. It was not at all pernicious to the
public to charge 4 or 5,000/. Tor a borough, but
it was enough to rouse the virtuous indignation of
Gentlemen to hear that a sum of 20/. was charged
for a vote; yet it was exceedingly moderate, not
more than half the common price, which sliewed
that in the borough trade the good people of
Petorvii were very reasonable in their demands. He
could not concur in the proceeding ; if evil exists,
and he thought it was an evil, he thought there
should he a general inquiry. Nothing short of that
would satisfy the people ; for in his opinion the
practices of Penryn were not worse, were not so
bad, as a great many other boroughs. It would not
therefore ameliorate the system, nod would only strike
the public mind as an act of hypocrisy and injustice.
He would much rather the sale of votes were pub-
lic, open, and avowed, than to see ass affectation
of purity. He was sure there were many honest
melt, who would willingly 'lay 4 or .5,000/. to
sit in that House, with no other wish than to form
and to forward schemes for the bentfit of their
country. Many would do so—he knew many that
did so. It was much more fur the good of the pub-
lic that the system should he avowed openly, thou
to have it as it was, corrupted and concealed.
Mr. BRAND said he rose to protest against the
expressions of the Honourable 13aroiset. Ile was
anxious as any one for it revision of the law of
the representation of the people, but he protested
against the wild and visionary scheincs so often ob-
truded on the House, aid which he believed Mal
much to injure the cause of teleran. On the im-
mediate subject before the House, he war surprised
to have braid it' urged, that because a Couitnit•
tee had sat to try the merits of the election,
that now the House laud not a right to inquire
into the state of the borough. Would the Right
Hon. Gentleman ray—that if he (Mr. Brand)
pledged himself to Inner forward charges of cor-
ruption against that borough, that yet the door
would be •Itut against investig aligns ? Here the
Hon. Gentleman entered somewhat at large into the
particulars of the evidence, and concluded by say-
ing, that some speedy means should he adopted to
prevent the recurrence of such odious practices as
had been imitifestrsi at the last election of that
corrupt and contemptible borough.
The CH 4NC ELLOR vi the BKO4E4OIEII. Said,
though lie disapproved of the mode proposed, he
would not object to an inquiry, if held at an early
slay.
Mr. MARTIN (of Galway) would object to the
proposition, hecause at was a species of 'dorm.
Mr. BA NKES, though lie condemned the cor-
rupt practices of the electors, yet he considered
the mode of appointing a second Committee
against the proceedings of Parliament, and egaitist
established precedents. He would. if any tolio.r
mode could be pointed out, willingly vote fur the
fullest inquiry.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, in considering flak
subject it was itnpossible to pass over the character
of the borough—it was impossible to forget that it
was before convicted of the most flagrant acts of
corruption. He considered small open boroughs as
above all the most corrrupt ; it was impossible to
see without disgust eighty or one hundred persons
publicly tendering their votes for sale—tinkling sap
the representation to the highest bidder—and
ac-
tually 'wilding for a cnotomer to town, the son-in-
law of a rich Bank Director, who, it was supposed,
would give any sum for the corrupt suffrage. There
was a great body of evidence before them, and
further inquiry would no doubt expose many
flagrant acts of profligate corruption. Was the
House then, he would ask, in earnest ?—if
they were, let them proceed to an iminediate
inquiry, and whilst they avoided and discoun-
tenanced wild and visionary plans of reform, let
them proceed to every useful inquiry, amid to every
Pale mid salutary measure that would tend to cor-
rect abuses, to punish corruption, to reform, whilst
tt preserved the sys•rm of our government.
Mr. CA itEw spoke at some length in favour of the
motion. Ile condemned the conduct of the voters' of
Penryn, and instanced, as a proof of the general tor-

roption, the I.A oi,c of the candidates &refl to put
the bribery oath to any of those freeholders who
voted for the other. But he would not condemn
the candidates altogether, because it was well
known, that to tender the bribery oath was con-
sidered so great a breach of politeness in Cornwall
As to destroy all the hopes of the Member who
might lie so unwise as to propose it.
Mr. WYNN said, that the case of this borough
iu 1807 was one of the greatest corruption ever
proved, but the case was not followed up by die-
friinclusing the borough ; he trusted that the
House would now enter into the fullest inquiry.
He differed with the Hon. Gentleman who said
the course was opposed to precedent. and lie in-
showed the case of the county of !Jerks, not so
strong u case as the preeent, where the House sus-
pewted the issuing of the writ. The question was,
whethi r a new writ should be delayed ; and how-
ever Members might differ as to the amount of
the evidence already before than, though that was
evidesite of gross and shameless corruption, yet
every ore must see that the case was one which de-
manded inquiry ; no one doubted but that further
evidence would come out, and it would he
difficult to say upon whet principle the produc-
tion of the' evidence could be fairly resisted.—
From certain circumstances there was st strong ;Rs-
pression on the Members of the Committee, that
it should he disfranchised. It appeared that •
meeting of electors had been held, and that in
consequence of what occurred there, a Member
went down ; but the Committee doubted whether
his part in the transaction could be brought home
to the Member. Handbills, also, of a most illegal
and indecent description had been circulated ; but
neither were the Committee sure that they could lie
brought home to him. lie could not forbear ex-
pressing his surprise at the cosine pursued by the
Member for Westmioster. The Honourable Ba-
ronet denomiced the corrupt and shameful practices
that had come to light, nod if be understood his
words aright, he wished that further inquiry should
take place on an extensive scale. But because the
House did not do its duty in an individual case
ten years ago—because it had on one occasion
passed over, unpunished, an example of gross cor-
ruption, the Honourable Baronet desired it should,
in no other instance whatever, express its abhor-
rence of such abuses. vindicate its honour. atid
guard its purity. The Honourable Baronet had de-
clared that the electors of Penryie when upbraid-
ed with their misconduct, might turn round on
every Member of the House, and address them—
" mutate nomine de te, faults narrater," But he
should tell the Honourable Baronet that such au
imputation was a calumny—so universal a charge
was false and groundless.—(Hear, hear.)—How
far it might apply to the Honourable Member him-
self, lie knew not ; lie could speak for himself—
( Ifearj—but no directed against him (Ir. Wynn),
and those numerous friends whom he knew and
valued, around him, the charge was utterly un-
founded. The House was boomd to take cog-
nizance of such scandalous abuses ; by that alone
would it be. able to preserve its own dignity and
character, as well us its power of defending the
rights of the people. It was its duty to exercise
the powers %sin) which the Constitution bed in-
vested it, for the correction of those evils. He did
not look turn the corruption yet proved to be so
gross as what had transpired in 1807; but when he
Pew the same Member implicated, the same electors,
and the same price fixed for votes (24/. each) as at
that period, there was strong reason to believe that,
on further investiestion, it would be established to
• larger extent. He should advise the Honourable
Baronet opposite (Sir C. Burrell) to move that the
issuing of the writ should be delayed for a fortnight,
in the first instance, at the end of which,. if the
Commit tte should riot then have made their Report,
a further delay might be given.
Sir F. Bynum,' complained that the Honourable
Member had misrepresented him, in saying lie had
applied his remarks to every Member of the !louse;
his statement was, that the persons accused might
turn round no the Members of every other rotten
horon:th, and make the same charge, and if the
Hotiourable Member asserted lie find made use
of ally other term, he asserted what was false.
Mr. IVv:lst understood the remarks of the Hon.
Baronet most strictly to apply to every Member of
the I louse.—( Hear.)
Mr. V. BLAKE made some brief observations,
which were not audible to us.

Mr. C. CALVERT, as a Member for one of the
most irovtilous boroughs in the kiligdcrin, wished to
observe, thut as the Hon. Baronet hart limited his
charges to borougho, if he meant it to apply to
him, it was most false.

Sir F. BURDETT Mid it was hard to he called on
personally in that way. lie had declared before,
that to attribute so general a charge to hula had no
found:nit-in in truth.

Sir H. Wtr.sos would not have pained over
the remarks of the Honourable Baronet in
silence, had he not conceived them more limited
in their application than appeared to other Mem-
bers. He hoped with him that a general and ra-
dical remedy would be npplied to the evil, but
agreed with the Memher for Hertfordshire, that it
was their duty to punish past inetancee of indivi.
dual corruption. He thought that by strictly fol-
lowing up the present case, they were putting
thens.ekes in the right road to reform, and that
they ought not to be deterred fron► it, because
there were some difficulties in their way.
Sir C. BURRELL had no objection to adopt the
proposed amendment. He did not think it neCti•
sary to reply to the remarks of the lion. Baronet,
they had been so effectually answered by the Mem-
ber for Hertfordshire.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that the change from a month to a fortnight entirely
obviated his objections.—(A laugh.)
The SPEAKER wished to ascertain if it was the
pleasure of the House that both the former propo-
sitions should be withdrawn, and the last put.
The House having signified its assent, the last
amendment. via.—" that the Speaker do nut issue
his warrant for a new writ for the borough of Pen-
ryn till this day fortnight," was put and carried.
Sir C. By Rent. then moved "that a Committee
he appointed to inquire into the further existence
of certain corrupt and illegal practices, which ap-
pear to have prevailed in the borough of l'enryn,
previous to and (luring the late election ; and to
report their observations thereon to the House."
The question having been put, Mr. BANKEA was

I,