The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-09 00:00:00

declared could not be made according to the rules of the
house without seven days previous notice.
Sir G. GREY also thought it was important to deter-
mine whether they were strictly in order before the house
ordered the issue of the writ.
The report of the election committee having been
read,
Mr. HEA.DLAM said Mr. Peacock was unseated
on the ground that he had promised an elector to
assist him in getting a situation ; but though that
might, strictly speaking, not be an act of bribery, yet
as the house had established a rule that these should not
issue without seven days' notice, he thought the house
would do well to refuse the writ for the present.
After a few words from Sir J. TYRELL,
Sir F. KELLY insisted that this case did not come
within the terms of the rule which had been referred to
by the hon. member opposite.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the case certainly did not
come within the rule, but still, under the circumstances
reported by the committee, they ought to refuse the writ
without previous notice.
Mr. T. BUNCOMBE said all these difficulties were
the result of the committee not having complied with
the Controverted Elections Act, and reported whether
or not a writ ought to issue. For his own part he was
disposed to refuse a writ to this old offender, Harwich.
(A laugh.)

Mr. AGLIONBY said there was no statute obliging
a committee to report whether or not a writ should
issue. Now this case was neither bribery nor treating,
but inasmuch as it was worse than either, he did not
think it would be wise to issue the writ for the present.
He should, therefore, move that the debate be adjourned
until this day fortnight.
Mr. DISRAELI suggested that the debate should be
adjourned until Friday.
Mr. GOULBURN thought it would be better to post-
pone this motion until the evidence in the case was
printed.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE read a clause from the Contro-
verted Elections Act, to show that he was correct in
what lie had previously stated.
Sir J. PAKINGTON contended that no sufficient
case had been made out to justify the withholding of the
writ.

.. ___.
Sir G. GREY, on the other hand, insisted that a very
strong case had been made out against the sitting mem-
ber, who had been guilty of a " corrupt practice ' in its
worst form.
After a few words from Sir J. Tv—RELL, the house
divided, when there appeared—

For the the adjourment
Against it

Majority 6l
The debate was accordingly adjourned for a fortnight.

[LEFT SITTING.]

ELECTION COMMITTEES.-(THIS DAY.)

PLYMOUTH.
(Continued from our First Edition of this day.)

Mr. Mare was then called and examined by Mr.
Slade. He stated that his reason for going to Plymouth
was his connection with the General Screw Steam Na-
vigation Company, whose vessels started from Plymouth.
He denied ever having dined ever having dined with
Mr. Stafford at Devonport, as stated by Mr. James in
his opening. He also contradicted the whole state-
ment of the witness Bird and denied that he
had ever stated to him that Lord Derby
had promised him the Governnient influence at
Plymouth, as he could not trust Mr. Palmer. He had
never seen Lord Derby until three weeks after the elec-
tion. The witness was proceeding to deny Knapman's
evidence, when he was interrupted by
Mr. Burchem, on behalf of the petitioner, objecting to
the. line of evidence. Mr. Mare was called to exculpate
himself, and not to contradict the case of the petitioners.
Mr. Slade maintained that the purpose of calling Mr.
Mare, was to explain the share which he had had in
these transactions, and that could not be done, except
by examining him as to these particular transactions.
The Chairman thought it would be better for the
counsel to confine the evidence of Mr. Mare as nearly
as possible to the object of disconnecting himself with
the acts of his agents.
Mr. Mare then proceeded to state that he had never
made Knapman any promise of any sort. He had
seen Knapman one day during the canvass in
a small room at the Royal Hotel, and he
introduced himself as a voter who had promised to
vote for him (Mr. Mare), and then asked witness to do
him a favour. Witness said he could not listen to any-
thing of that sort, and referred him to Churchward. Never
made him a promise of any sort. Did not remember seeing
King, and did not even remember his name. Witness also
denied having made any promise to Geach of a situation
for his son in St. Katherine's Docks. Had no connec-
tion with those docks whatever. Never took down
Geach's name in his pocket book. Never remembered
receivinc, letters from Geach. Mr. Churchward opened
all the letters from Plymouth.
By the Chairman—lf a voter at the time of promising
his vote had asked a favour conjointly with his promise,
and he had granted it, he should have conceived
.that
to be a bargain. He never interfered with the appoint-
ment to vacancies in his dockyard at Blackwall, nor had
Mr. Churchward any authority to recommend persons.
Plymouth men on applying were always admitted when
there was a vacancy, and instructions were given to
make no inquiries as to their politics.
The room was then cleared, but the decision was post-
poned until to-morrow.