The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-25 00:00:00

PUBLICATIONS.

Just Published, Foolscap Bvo. cloth lettered, price 3s. Second
Edition, with additional information and a coloured Map of the
IColony,
SOUTH AUSTRALIA IN 1837-8.
By ROBERT GOUGER, Esq.
Harvey and Darton, Gracechurch-street.

SPLENDID PRESENT GRATIS.
OSunday, the Gth of January, 1839, every sub-
scriber to the WEEKLY CHRONICLE, price Four-
penee.halfpenny, will receive a splendid steel Engraving (designed
by Latina and engraved by Hall) of her Majesty QUEEN VIC-
TORIA, in her Robes of State.
All parties desirous of securing this magnificent present, the only
recognized Likeness of her Majesty, must give their orders to their
newsmen previously to the 31st December, as no greater number of
papers will be issued on that day.
Advertisements intended for insertion on January 6, when
150,000 copies will be issued, must be sent to the Office by the Sd
of January, and will be charged at Is. each line.—Office, 16, Ca-
therine-street, Strand.

PETER PARLEY'S WORKS for YOUTH,
with numerous Engravings, b6und with embassed covers.
Published by THOMAS TEGG, No. 73, Cheapside,
And sold by all other Booksellers.
1. Tales about Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, 7s. 6d.
2. ----- Beasts, Birds, Fishes, and Insects, 7s. 6d.
3, ------ the Sea and Pacific Ocean, 4s. 6d.
4. the Sun, Moon, Stars, and Comets, 4s. 6d.
5, ___.--- the United States of America, 3s. 6d.
6. ----- England, Ireland, and Scotland, 7s. 6d.
7, ----- Ancient and Modern Greece, 4s. 6(1.
g. -- Christmas and its Festivities, 7s. 6d.
g, --- the Grammar of Geography, 4s. 6d.
10. --_—_— Universal History, 4s. 6d.
..---- Rome and Modern Italy, 4s. 6d.
19, -- the Mythology of Ancient Greece and Rome, 4s. 6d.

CHEMISTRY MADE EASY.
Just published, in 1 vol. 18mo. cloth boards, 3s. 6d., with 60 fine
Outline Engravings and Diagrams,
PRACTICAL FACTS IN CHEMISTRY;
EXEMPLIFYING THE RUDIMENTS,
And showing with what facility the Principles of the Science may
be Experimentally Demonstrated at a Trifling Expense.
" It unfolds the principles of the science in plain and concise
language, and will encourage that spirit of ingenuity and perseve-
rance by which difficulties, apparently insurmountable, may be easily
overcome."—Dr. Ryan's London Medical Journal.
Thomas Tegg, and Simpkin, Marshall, and Co., London ; also
John Ward, 79, Bishopsgate-street Within.

9,UADRILLES ROYALES, as Piano Duets,
by Czerny.—No. 1. Victoria, 4s.—No. 2. Alexandrine.,
45. en new sets from Italian Operas and National Airs, each 4s.
—Strauss' Le Boquet des Dames, 2 Nos., each ss.—Dos. La Mode
de Vienne et do la Cour de la Grand Bretagne, 24 sets of his best
Valses, each 45., or in 2 vol. boards, each 6s.—Piano Solos
Strauss' Hommage a la Reines, 4s.—Do.'s Cou3rt Quadrilles, 12
sets, each 2s,—Do.'s Beauties, 24, each 2s. 6d., or in one vol., 365.
—Do. 's Souvenirs, 24, each 2s. 6d. and Is., or in one vol., 365.-
12 Sets for Flute and Piano, each 35.—D0. Violin and Piano, each
3s.—Do, for a Quadrille Band, arranged by Schallehn, late mem-
ber of Straws' Band, each 6s.
To secure correct copies, ask for Cocks' Edition.
London : Published only by R. Cocks and Co., 20, Princes-
street, Hanover-square.
N. B. Mr, Schallehn attends (with his orchestra), Balls, Con-
certs, and Routs.
—.--...
T. HILL, Medical Bookseller, Great Windmill-street, Haymarket,
has just published
NEW EDITIONS of the following interesting
and important MEDICAL and SURGICAL WORKS :
No. 1., price 2s. 6d.
A PRACTICAL ESSAY on the DEBILITIES of the GE-
NERATIVE SYSTEM, their Varieties, Causes, Treatment,
and Cure. By a Member of the Royal College of Surgeons, Lon-
don, and Surgeon to a Metropolitan Infirmary.
No. 11., price 3s.
A PRACTICAL TREATISE en the TREATMENT and
CURE of STRICTURES of the URETHRA ; wherein is re-
commended a New and Improved Method of Treatment, its effi-
cacy being illustrated by a variety of highly interesting Cases. By
C. B, COURTENAY, M.D., 42, Great Marlberougk-street.
No 11., price 45.
An HISTORICAL and PRACTICAL TREATISE on SY-
PHILIS : Its Varieties, their Treatment, and Cure. With con-
cluding Observations en an Improved Mode of Treatment adopted
b tke Author for the Cure of Gonorrhrea, and all Urethral Disor-
dey rs. By C. 7i, COURTENAY, M.D., 42,Great Marlborough-
street.
geld by Simpkin and Marshall, Stationers'-hall-eourt ; Onwhyn,
Catheriur-street, Strand ; Templaman, Regent-street, London ;
Barton, Birt.ingham , Ross and Nightingale, Liverpool; and all
Ntwicselers in Tawa ar Catiatry,

.kaeUere in 'fawa ar Comore,.
-----
SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. Wheat. I Barley. -----
—. Pease.
..........--.----...... -- ...........—_„.....-..-...--- —.....--
Per Quarter. a. to s. s. to • s. to s. s. 8 s. to L
TATTERSALL' S—YESTRAD4 r. Car1i51e............................ 81 -42 •••• 27 .-41 - '29
nn
11/iE prainr. Hexhaeewrowroweto 01 76 .25 46 's 36 - --- - -
M0rpeth.....,.........---. 60 76 130 36 24 52 42 44 4`) 44
The numerous departures from town for the Christmas ho. ,',11,:itte14,1.....,..----. 7771 11- :',3 _ t 27 _ 53
lidays had a marked effect on the attendance and betting here w ,
..inc..ester .:• Clii to 27 :1(.; 70 ''',' 7172 441'5) 3-5 'r<
g,awrviriren.-........ 2./) r, g (0)
this day, and will probably' be felt for some days. The favou- Per Bushel. s.d. s:_d• s. d. ~(1. ~ (I. ...d. ~; d. I. dsd. s d
4 0 00 44 o o 0( 0 0 0(
rite, it will be seen, is slightly on the decline-12 to 1 offered
in a good quarter, but those who had appeared willing to back Neweabtr;Far.) :I 0 io n 3 6 1 t), V.
gg gg 29, 33 3(i,
him in the early part of the afternoon, now fought shy, and tsltoorntehatiertoo..—.lll 00 100
(al d , v
i , 4 0 3 3 4 0 5 6 6(' 0 0 0
was done, Flambeau was backed for fifty at 10 to 1, swari;.•-.. ........ 9 0 00i '6
i 3
88 $0 :
80 12 0 7 6 11 0
nothing vv4l`;','')`:—.27-0 ;1(1 11"0 Ign 222 g g`ogg °o°o
and some small sums laid out on To; Cammellino,
lVdahlain-
BoatiThardeastle 16 03201 A n
court, and Epidaurug i the backer of thp latiaF WO4
,ativie,
gone on there been la era. T. he, fol.:ow:7:7 tbe,saL.T
had .. . . ,am .............-..... 14 0 sz• . 0.1 g,.0 51,)9it 0 26 90
sßtiocclrtooxincl-............. , 187 00 ;;.9; 0 s moo 93,
71
06
-.4:"11011 !..... 90 60 i 3019 0 110 90 fib
8 G 0 0 01,

TATTE,RSALL' S—YESTRAD4 r.
paaar.
The numerous departures from town for the Christmas ho-
lidays had a marked effect on tbe attendance and betting here
this day, and will probably be felt for some days. The favou-
rite, it will bete en, is slightly on the decline-12 to 1 offered
in a good quarter, but those who had appeared willing to back
him in the early part of the aforernoon, now fought shy, and
nothing was done, F larnbeca as backed for fifty at 10 to 1,
ll sums laid out on Tfos, Cammellino, Valain-
and some smacourt, and Epidaurus the backer of the tattoo would have
gone on had there been layefs. The following warp the pally
horses mentioned:—
it to 1 agst Lord Jersey's Brother to Bay Middietoa,-offered
16 to 1 apt pike of Rutland's Flambeatt—taken and aft. offered
21 to 1 agst Lord AlLepvle's Tros—taken and after
ftw. offered
offered
'2.-s:to 1 agst Col. Anson's Znorue,rw.F7-:--taken anda
27 to i agst Sir G. Heatheote's lot—taken
32 to 1 agst Mr. Bowes's Epidaurus—taken
19,99 0;28 agst Mr. Dicon!s Cammellino—taken
11/ t? St
Sir.V He, ya)aincourt—taken
• • .

Warineic
Per 2011.
Barnardeastle«... W 0 22 0 8 0
14 0 21 0 7 0
18 0 21 0 7 0
0 19 6 9 0

70 8$
5 3 1 9
60 so
76 S 0

__—
Southey, the poet laureate, is to be married next
June to a literary lady of considerable eminence, but the
net's junior by more than twenty years. The two daugh-
ters of Or. Southey, both
4'o 'to be niEirrie4. shm*, ..
highly accomplished, are, it is

when the party came up to her, and she said she was
standing at the threshold of her own door ; that Mr.
Carlisle and Mr. Berkeley were foremost, and Mr. Carlisle
asked her if her husband was at home. She stated that
Mr. Carlisle and Mr. Berkeley were on the threshold of
her sitting-room door inside, when all the gentlemen who
were there on that day would prove that they never set
foot inside her door at all. " Let us make this clear—
when you stood in this little passage, you spoke of a
passage between the door into the room and the outer
door into the passage ?" " Yes." " And you stood under
the entrance of your own sitting-room door ?" " Yes."
Then she says her daughter by a former husband, Sarah
Anne Hayward, and a Mrs. Hazard were in the sitting-
room behind her. " When they got into the passage, who
spoke?" " Mr. Carlisle spoke to me first." " Was Mr. Ber-
keley within hearing when he spoke ?" "Close to him, close
to me." " What did Mr. Carlisle then say ?" "He asked
me if I knew whom my husband was goinc, to vote for at
the ensuing election. I said I believed he was going to
give one and one. Mr. Carlisle said he would act like a sen-
sible man, and he would give him the 61. at Christmas ; you
can tell him from me, he will act like a wise man if he does
so." That was the first part of the defendant's testimony
that was charged, and upon which the indictment was laid.
In that part she added to the correct version of what really
occurred, the words that Mr. Carlisle would give him the
6/. at Christmas. " I made my curtsey when he promised
me the 61., and thanked him." " Now when you had
thanked him what passed next." " Mr. Carlisle handed me
a pink card." That was the fact, for when the party went
about canvassing, they presented pink cards to the voters,
but he (Mr. Crowder." had omitted to state that. " Did
Mr. Berkeley do or say anything ?" " He held me his hand ;
and shook hands with me, and said to Mr. Carlisle
I hope you will remember them at Christmas."
Again—" I shook hands. He told me to give
that to my husband. He spoke quietly. That was the
card ? No, it was not. Just explain:yourself when you say
he spoke quietly. Mr. Berkeley shook bands with me.
He put something in any hands, and told me to give it to
my husband. Do you mean he spoke to you as I am speak-
ing now, or in what way r He said, " Give that to your
husband, with my respects, Mrs. Virrier." Was it said
loud, or was it said in a whisper ? "In a whisper." She
did not ascertain what it was till all the gentlemen were
gone. What was it ? It was a sovereign, wrapped up in
some paper—a small piece of paper. Did anything more
pass after that ? Mr. Carlisle told me he should not forget;
it was in his power to give my husband the 61. at Christ-
mas ; it was in his power to do so, and he said, I will not
forget it ; and Mr. Taunton will call on Mr. Virrier in a
few days." These were the three points of the defendant's
evidence, upon which wilful and corrupt perjury was al-
leged. First, the statement that Mr. Carlisle had pro-
mised her husband 61. at Christmas. Next, that Mr.
Berkeley had put a sovereign into her hands. And, thirdly,
that Mr. Carlisle told her it was in his power to give her
the 6/. at Christmas, and that he should not forget to do
so. She was asked a few more questions as to what further
occurred after the sovereign had been given her. " When
your husband came down stairs, what did you do ? I
showed him what I had given me for him. I threw the piece of
paper in the fire, and put the sovereign in my pocket." The
cross-examination of the witness was then conducted by
Counsel, and after that had terminated, the Committee, as
they. bad a right to do, whose object was to ascertain the
truth of the statements made, feeling that it was a most
singular and unaccountable statement, proceeded to examine
her minutely as to how it was that she did not mention the
fact of the sovereign to her daughter or Mrs. Hayward ;
and without going into all the details it would be his duty
to point out certain passages which would show that that
woman, without a single witness being called against her,
could not by any rational man be believed. It must have
struck the Committee as extraordinary that Mr. Berkeley
should go to her house and ask a vote—that he got the
vote, it being stated that her husband would vote " one
and one," and instead of saying he was much obliged and
proceeding, the witness would lead them to believe that
Mr. Berkeley gave her a sovereign, and that he would
think it necessary, because she had given the promise to
vote, to whisper in her ear, and put a sovereign in her
hand, and that Mr. Carlisle, who was well known in Bris-
tol, and who had taken an active part in public affairs on
such occasions, openly, loudly, and without any whisper
at all, should say " Your husband acts like a sen-
sible man—l will give him at Christmas 61.—1
can do it and I will." The Committee took up that
I vote, and he would direct their attention to some
'of the points upon which she was examined, and the
Jury would see the accounts she gave of the transaction.
The Counsel inquired into the state of her husband's cir-
cumstances. It appeared that he had been three times
through the Insolvent Court ; that lie had been a petitioner
for 6/. under Lady Peloquin's Charity in 1833, before the
appointment of the present trustees, as one of the persons
designated in it. He made another application in 1836,
after the appointment of Mr. Carlisle and the other trus-
tees ; but, by the rules of the Charity, no person could re-
ceive it oftener than once in three years. His petition was
sent in in the usual way, and the answer was that it could
not be granted. It appeared. also, that he had applied in
1837, in January or February, respecting the 61., which
would fall due at Christmas, 1837, and upon that occasion
Mr. Carlisle, who had known him as A newsvender, told
him he would do the best he could for him. That any pro-
mise was ever made by Mr. Carlisle he utterly denied. It
would be a gross dereliction of his duty to do so, because
the usual course was for a petition to be sent in to the

Mr. CROWDED. (with whom were Messrs. ADOLPHUS
and CHAMBERS) stated the case. The Hon. Ftancis Henry
Fitzhardinge Beri.eley, one cf the Members for the city of
Bristol, was the prosecutor ; and the defendant was Mrs
Sarah Virrier, the wife of a newspaper vender, who cairied
on business in Bristol ; and they had heard from his Learned
Friend who had opened the p.eadings, that it was a prose
cution instituted against the defendant, Sarah Virrier,
charging her wi.h the commission of wil'ul and corrupt per
jury, when giving her evidence before a Committee of the
House of Commons, that Committee having been ap
pointed for the purpose of trying the validity of Mr. Ber-
keley's return. He was satisfied that the Jury must con-
sider it a case of very considerable importance, and it was
of deep importance beyond all question to the defendant,
against whom the charge of so grave an offence was alleged.
It was a case also of great importance to Mr. Berkeley, who
by the alleged perjury of the defendant was charged with
the offence of bribery at the election for the city of Bristol,
,Ind it must be obvious also that every case of perjury was
e of deep importance to the public at large, because
there was no man whose fortune, liberty, character, or even
life itself, might not at one time or another depend on the tes-
timony oneetnesses in a Court of Justice. He said that in or-
der that the jury might give their most anxious attention to
the case. So that, if the defendant was guilty of that most
serious offence, they would have no hesitation in pro-
nouncing a verdict of Guilty, and that the most serious
punishment might follow ; but unless they were satisfied of
the evidence of her guilt, beyond all question they should
give her the benefit of it. The circumstances of the case,
as they would perceive, arose out of the :last election for
the city of Bristol. The general election took place in
July, 1837 ; and in that month, on the 20th br 22d July,
the nomination of Members for the city of Bristol was
made, and two or three days afterwards the election took
place. On that occasion three persons were candidates for
the honour of representing the city of Bristol, Mr. Miles,
Mr. Fripp, and Mr. Berkeley. Mr. Miles and Mr. Berke-
ley were returned, Mr. Berkeley having 56 votes over the
other candidate, Mr. Fripp. The constituency was very
large, and the numbers polled for Mr. Berkeley was 3,156.
Previous to the election, of course it was necessary to can-
vass the electors of Bristol ; and Mr. Berkeley, prior to
the month of July, being wholly unacquainted with the
city of Bristol, had introductions to those persons on the
same side of politics with himself, and a Committee was
appointed among :those who were his friends, for the pur-
pose of securing his return ; and a canvas took place.
Accordingly, on the Gth July, Mr. Berkeley, in company
with five or six other gentlemen, members of his Commit-
tee, went upon a canvass. The constituency being exceed-
ingly large, it was a considerable labour to go through it,
from house to house ; but they proceeded until they came
to a passage called Adam and Eve-passage, in which the
defendant and her husband lived. The party of canvassers
proceeded up that passage and called at the house of
Virrier, her husband ; and that took place between Mr.
Berkeley and the canvassing party and Mrs Virrier, which
formed the subject of the statements made by Mrs. Virrier,
before the Committee of the House of Commons, on which
the charge of perjury was assigned. He would state before
lie went into the particulars of what occured, that after
the return of Mr. Berkeley, as Member for the city of
Bristol, on the 21st of November, a petition was pre-
sented against his return by Mr. Fripp and other persons.
That petition was in the ordinary way referred to a Committee
of the House. It sat on the 16th February, and on the 17th
and 18th witnesses were examined. On the 19th Mrs.
Virrier was called as one of the witnesses in support
of the petition. The petition against Mr. Berkeley's re-
turn contained, amongst other matters, charges of bribery
against Mr. Berkeley, and charges of bribery were also pre-
ferred against others, agents of Mr. Berkeley, of a
most serious character as would be found when he
had called the attention of the Airy to it. (The Learned
Counsel here read an extract from the petition in
question—" That the said Francis Henry Fitzhardinge
Berkeley, in person, was guilty of open and ex-
tensive bribery and corrupt practices, in order to
procure the votes of persons having or claiming toliave a
right to vote.") A charge more serious could not
well be brought, for it charged Mr. Berkeley with
having- -committed open and extensive bribery, and
it also alleged that those persons who had the
administration of the funds of the public charities
of the town were guilty of using those charity funds for
political purposes. It was in support of these two charges
that on the 19th of February the defendant Virrier was
produced and sworn before the Committee, and her evidence
referred to the period when Mr. Berkeley, and the canvassers
who accompanied him were in Adam and Eve-passage, on
the Gth of July, as before referred to. He would state to
them now what did occur an that occasion, and it was ex-
ceedingly brief. Mr. Berkeley was accompanied by Mr.
Carlisle,nd A'
Mr. Visger, Mr. Rankin, two Messrs. Saunders,
an
d Mr. Somerton. Adam and Eve-passage was a narrow
one,
running from one street into another, at the entrance
it was only three or four feet wide, but about eight or nine
opposite Virrier's shop, which he stood on the right hand
side. It was known to Mr. Carlisle, who was one of the
trustees of the charity funds, that Virrier was a freeman and
lived there. Mr. Visger was also one of the trustees and
Mr. Saunders another. Those three gentlemen were con-
nected with:the:charity, and Mr. Carlisle, who had known
Virrier before, saw Mrs. Verier, the defendant, standing at
the door, and asked if her husband was at home. Her an-
swer was that he was not at home. Mr. Carlisle inquired,
" Which way does he intend to vote ?" Mrs. Virrier re-
plied, " I believe he intends to give one and one." Mr.
Carlisle seemed satisfied at that, and said " I think your
husband is a sensible man if he does so." and then intro-
ducing his friend added, " this is Mr. Berkeley." Mr.
Berkeley put his hand out, thanked Mrs. Virrier,
and proceeded on his canvass immediately. What
he had stated occupied about two minutes and then
the parties separated. That was the whole of
what took place, he could most distinctly state
to them, and it would be proved on oath by Mr. Berkeley,
Mr. Visger, Mr. Somerton, and the other gentlemen referred
to. They would state that not a single word was uttered
about giving any sum of money or promising it on that
or indeed or any other occasion. At the election,iVirrier
in truth, did not vote at all, for he believed he had been
off to gaol a day or two after that occurrence.
lie ( Virrier) had passed two or three times through the
takenln solvent Court, and was in very embarrassed circum-
stances, but at the time of the election he did not vote at
all. Before he called the attention of the jury to what Mrs.
Virrier stated, and the account she gave of the matter before
the Committee, he would say a word or two respecting the
Charity, of which Mr. Carlisle, Mr. Visger, and Mr.
Saunders were three of the trustees. Bristol had for a long
time had a number of charities, some of them very rich,
which, from time to time, were distributed according to the
trusts of these charities, some of them at a particular period
of the year, Christmas. Among other rich charities distri-
buted, was that of Lady Pelloquin, and the custom in that
re-
spectwlciooh nmr se:ntma,o
abeing
smTi
daifeinrereaaegbmel
jurymee ne
wnaotle
trreoerfwapti
charitable
ooenba a bohlfy a
was to distribute 6). each, to a number of poor men and
freemen,daware,f
beenu n
funds
thatmo at.
3t
ad wrll d
Ili
et
ay the
eb
ro i up t:
Municipal Corporation Reform Act, Prior to that altera-
tion these funds were in the hands of certain persons, and
it was not known
under what precise circumstances the
distribution took place, but it was deemed prudent by the
Legislature, that on application to the Lord Chancellor a
proper inquiry should be made, and that certain
persons should ho appointed as trustees of the
funds which previously belonged to the Corporation.
With respect to the city of Bristol, in October
1836 an application of that nature was made to ap-
point proper persons to administer these funds ; that was
referred to the Master, and certain names were mentioned
to the Master whose business it was to see that the
persons so
Among the names so mentioned were those of Mr.
named were proper to fill so important a trust,Carlisre, Visger, and Mr. Saunders, and fifteen or sixteen
others. The Chancellor
confirmed the report of the
Master, constitntiog those individuals trustees of the
Charity, and he thought it very necessary tq mention those
facts, a charge being made in the petition, and it being
attempted tq lac supported by the witness, and it went
to the character of those parties, who, being trustees for
the distribution of the" funds 'according to theie consciences
and the best information they could ?ibtain, were charged
.with having applied q. for the purpose of inducing a pctrtv
to give hid vote for a political purpose. Nqw ha begged
t. 9 call their attention tq whai had occurred on that occa-
sion, arid tq the evidence given before the Committee.
She (Mrs. Virrier) was examined as to what had occurred
in Adam and Eve-passage, and her account in the first
instance was short and conclusive, but they would find by-
and-by, when she had undergone a short, examination, the
sort of answers she gave. Sjie was asked where she stood

trustees. It was then considered, inquiries were made,
and the cases were to be considered by the whole body of
tke trustees together, before they could come to a final
arrangement and determination as to what parties
were to receive it, All, therefore, that was dope
with reference to that was, that Mr. Carlisle, in the be-
ginning of the year said he would do his best for him.
When the election had taken place, It turned out that the
character of Virrier was not such as entitled him to relief,
and in truth his petition was rejected in Christmas, 1837,
and then it was that in February, 1838, Mrs. Virrier was
called before the Committee, and made those statements.
One thing that struck the Committee very strongly was,
that she mentioned nothing about receiving the sovereign
from Mr, Berkeley. She gave an account of that which
was worthy the notice of the Jury. She first said that she
never told Mr. Harmar about it till that morning, that she
showed it to her husband, but did not tell her daughter
or the other female, nor ever said anything at all about it
—and then she says, I went to Mr. Harmer to know why
my husband did not get the 61. " That was about a fort-
night or three weeks ago. Did you tell Mr. Harmar about
the sovereign ? Neither Mr. Harmar nor any body else
knew anything about it. Had you a conversation with
Mr, liarmar ? Nothing more:than that he told me he was
sorry he could not get the 61. for me. Was that taken
down ? Yes, all was taken down." She was then asked
where she was taken to when she came to London, and she
said the Gun Inn. She does not know where that is ; she is a
stranger. Then follows " Have you seen any body else since
you have been at the Gun Inn besides Mr. Harmer ? I do
not think I have seen Mr. Harmer at the Gun Inn." They
would find presently that she said she had seen him at the
Gun Inn, and then told him abort the sovereign. She was
then asked about the locality, and said she was standing at
her room 401' AA the threshold. " Did you tell your
daughter you had got the sovereign ? No. I did not.
Did you tell Mrs. Hazard ? No. You told your husband ?
Yes. Did you tell any one else ? .-I did not. Can you
form any conjecture how Mr. Harmer found all this out ?
(No answer.) Do you think Mr. Berkeley told him? I
do not know, I am sure ; perhaps he did ;" and then re-
collecting herself, she added, " of course I told Mr. Harmer
of it when he asked me the question ? Then you did tell
Mr. Harmar you got the sovereign? I told him of it this
morning ? That was on the morning of the 19th Fe-
bruary. Then of course he could not have known it on
Friday last, when the Committee first sat, and the Learned
Counsel made his statement r His Learned Friend Mr.
Thesiger then stated the fact about the sovereign,
Mr. THESIGEA—I did not, most decidedly.
Mr. CaowDEß—His Learned Friend stated that it
could he shown that Mr. Berkeley himself had personally
committed bribery, in contradistinction to bribery com-
mitted by his agents.
Mr. THESIGER—No, no.

Mr. CROWDER—His Learned Friend did state to the
Committee that he would show Mr. Berkeley to have shaken
hands with Mrs, tinier, under such circumstances as
would leave the matter under no mistake, and which would
be more particularly detailed in the course of the evidence
he should have to offer on that part of the case. But to
return, " She never told him, before that morning You
don't know whether your husband may not have told him ?
If I did tell Mr. Harmer, I told ;him on the same condi-
tions as I told him the rest of it. What do you mean
the same conditions... hat were the conditions on which
you told qnyiLing to Mr. Harmar ? Mr. Harmar asked use
re‘peeting the promise Mr. Carlisle had made, and I told
f
him he had promised me the 6/., and Mr. Berkeley: o
course, did not give it to me, ho only gave me a sovereign.
Do Tou mean to, say you only told this to Mr. Harmar

Mr. CROWDER contended that he had a right to to read
and comment on that part. " Now, tell me this, did I not
understand you to say that you told him of it at the same
time, when you told him about the 6/. ? Yes. Did you
tell us so ? I did not tell him of it then, not in Bristol.
Then, you are quite sure you told him of it at the Gun,
since you came to London ? Since I have been in London,
and heAlid not know it before. And that you have told us
was at the Gun ? Yes. ';Did you not say a little while
ago, that you never saw Mr. Harmar at the Gun ? Ido
not know what the name of the place is : lam a stranger
here. Did you not tell us the name of it was the Gun ?
Where the coach stopped, I do not know what the name of
the place is. Did you not tell us that you had never seen
Mr. Harmar at that place ? The coach stopped at several
P• laces No : I mean the place r% here you stopped on get-
ting out of the coach ? Do you mean the first place ? The
first or the last, the place which you call the Gun : did you
not state you had never seen Mr. Harmar at that place ?
Mr. Harmar did not know it when I stopped. These
were exactly the shuffling answers a witness would
give when pressed hard. He would not press it further, as
the whole evidence would be read over to them. She then
went on, " I stopped this morning, I had a biscuit at the
place where Mr. Harmar is." " She did not know the
name of the place." Do you mean to say that you never
saw Mr. Harmar in London, except where you stopped
this morning ? " I saw him several times but not to
speak to him." " Therefore, the only place where you
spoke to him in London, was the place where you saw
him this morning?" Yes, that was where I spoke to him,
where I had the biscuit. Do you mean to say you told am
you had mentioned that story to him, or given him that ac-
count at Bristol ? Ido not. Then when did you first give
him the account of the sovereign? The first time I was at
his house, when I was out one day last week, I spoke to
Mr. Harmar about it. Why woman, did you not say just
now you had never spoken to him till this morning ? Ido
not know what you mean ; I did speak to Mr. Harmer
about it, but not at the Gun. Is it true that you never
spoke to Mr. Harmer in London until you spoke to him
in London at the place where you took the biscuit ? I
am sure I spoke to him last week. Was that in Lon-
don ? In London. Where was it ? At the same house
where I spoke to him this morning. Then last week you
spoke to him at the same house where you spoke to him
this morning : was it there that you spoke to him about
the sovereign ? It was at the same house. Was it at
that time last week ? I did speak to him last week
about it in the same house.—Do you adhere to this, that
last week, in the same house where you spoke to him this'
morning, you spoke to him about the sovereign?" t. Yes:
" Last week ?" " Yes," " Was that the first time spoke to him about the sovereign ?" " Yes." " you
You are
quite sure (except on the occasion when you spoke to him
last week at the same place where you spoke to him this
morning, you had no conversation with him about the sove-
reign) that was the only conversation you had ?" " Yes:'
Did he take down your conversation about the sovereign
on that occasion ?" " I am not certain, I am sure I took
'no notice." " You are quite sure you did not tell him any
thing at Bristol about the sovereign ?" "No ; I do not
believe I said a word to him about it in Bristol." Are you
quite suro you did not?" " I believe I am quite sure I did
not."—The Jury would see from these specimens how the
witness prevaricated and contradicted herself: It would
be recollected that neither Mr. Berkeley nor any of the
persons implicated in the petition cauld be called, but it was
not so to-day, for Mr. Berkeley would be called before them,
and would tell them distinctly that it was false in every parti-
cular. She was then asked to explain why it was that she had
not mentioned the matter before, and they would see her an-
swers on that point. " Now let me ask you why you said
nothing to him about the sovereign in Bristol when you
spoke to him about the 6/. Because I did not think
of it. Had you forgotten the transaction ? No, I had
not. Now did not the conversation about the 61. bring
back into your mind the transaction about the sovereign
Yes, certainly it did, Then what did you mean when
you said you did think of it ? I did not go to Mr. Har-
mer respecting the sovereign, but to see wbether he
would get me the 61. You are quite sure you did not tell
Mr. Harmar anything about the sovereign at'Bristol ? Yes,
I am." So that she most distinctly contradicted herself
over and over again relative to that transaction. The
witness was then asked why she had not then mentioned
anything with respect to the sovereign, and her excuse
for it was that there were several gentlemen in the
room. That was a different reason from the one she
had given before. She further stated that when she
went to the office of Mr. Harmer, no questions were
put to her respecting the sovereign. Now was that likely ?
It was well known that Mr. Harmar was a strong par-
tizan upon the other side ; that he was the solicitor for
the petition ; was it likely, then, that he would allow
such an opportunity to escape him without inquiring
into the matter? Was it in the nature of things that
when Mr. Harmar was applied to respecting the
alleged promise of the 61. that he would make no men-
tion of the 11., or make any further inquiries. Accordingly
one part of the evidence showed clearly that Mr.Harmar had
asked Mrs. Virrier about the sovereign, as would clearly
be made out by the evidence which had been given by the
woman. He would not trouble them by going through the
whole of the cross-examination, as they must hear the
whole of it read, that being one of the privileges of a de-
fendant, when indicted for conspiracy, that he could insist
that the whole of the evidence given by him should be
laid before the Jury. He had laid that which he thought
was important before them—they would hear the whole of
the woman's testimony—and then it would be for them to
say whether it was possible for any one to put faith in one
single word which had fallen from her. Other witnesses
were examined before the Committee. He would not then
allude to their evidence. They were also indicted ; and, as
before the Committee they were called to corroborate Mrs.
Virrier, it was possible that his Learned Friend might put
them into the witness-box. If so, then it would be his duty
to address them again ; and make such comments upon
their evidence as it might be open to. After the defendant
had given her testimony, his Learned Friend, seeing that
the feeling of the Committee was strongly against him,
stated that he would press the proceedings against Mr.
Berkeley no further, and accordingly that gentleman was
confirmed in his seat, and the Committee unanimously
stated that no imputation whatever rested upon the charac-
ter of the trustees. After such evidence had been given
before the Committee Mr. Berkley had felt it a duty which
he owed to his constituents—a duty he owed to himself—to
the trustees, and to public justice—to indict the parties,
and they were then on their deliverance before a Jury of
their countrymen. The evidence he had to offer was
plain, simple, and clear. He would call before them
the whole of the gentlemen who were present on the 6th.
July. Mr. Berkeley would voluntarily put himself in the
box in order to subject himself to a cross-examination by
his Learned Friend, so as to test the truth of the state-
ment made before the Committee: It would be proved
that Mr. Berkeley, from an unfortunate lameness in his
right foot, was in the habit of using a stick in his right
hand, and usually leaned upon the arm of a friend when he
was walking with one. It would be proved that upon the
occasion in question he was so leaning upon the arm of Mr.
Visger, and that that gentleman must have seen all that
passed. It would also be proved that Mr. Carlisle had a
peculiarly strong voice, and was in the habit of talking
loudly, so that even his whisper would be clearly heard :
but ho would prove from the position of the parties, that
had anything of the kind occurred as Mrs. Virrier alleged,
they must all have been cognizant of it ; but they would
one and all declare that no such thing ever happened, and