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

Can you tell how many you printed of all These tracts ?
—What tracts do you mean ?
Those relating to the charities ; there are four of them ?
—[The tracts were here put into the witness's hands.]
Now, you can tell us how many you printed ? Alto-
gether about 120,000.
Who paid you for them?—Mr. Cunningham.
The Chairman of Mr. Berkeley's Committee ? Yes.
Just look at this Paper, and tell me if it is one of your
Papers ?—Yes.
You are the proprietor of that Paper am.
Mr. THESIGER read the following paragraph :—" In the
mean time we will leave these admitted facts to the good
sense of the freemen, that 18 out of the 21 Charity Trus-
tees are good straightforward Liberals, and in the distribu-
tion of their trust funds they are sure not to reward a single
Tory vote."—(A laugh.) Are you the author of that ?
—I am not.
Who is ?—My Lord, am Ito answer that question ? I
am responsible for the article.
Lord DENMAN—I don't think it is quite necessary.
Mr. CROWDER—I have given my Learned Friend all
the latitude he is fairly entitled to, but I submit the ques-
tion has nothing to do with the issue in this inquiry.
Lord DENMAN—It might have a very important bearing
if it could be traced to some of these witnesses.
Mr. CaownErt—l admit that, my Lord.
Lord DENMAN—Mr. Thesiger, you will understand the
line I have drawn ?
Mr. THEstuEu—Certainly, my Lord. I take it for
granted Mr. Berkeley is not the author P—No.
Was Mr. Harman Visger the author ?—No.
Was Mr. Carlisle ?—He was not.
Was Mr. Saunders ?—No.
Mr. CROWDER—There are two Mr. Saunders.
Mr. THESIGER-4 thank my Learned Friend. Was
the other Mr. Saunders ?—Neither of them.
Was Mr. Cunningham ?—No, Sir
How much did you receive for your printing account ?
—My printing account included advertising not only in the
Mercury, but also in all the other Bristol papers, with the
exception of some for advertisements ; and for advertising
and printing in the whole it was about 1201., a few pounds
more or less.
Mr. TIIESIGER—Does your Lordship think I am en-
titled to ask whether this was written by any of the Cha-
rity Trustees?
Lord DENMAN-4 rather think not. These matters,
with respect to all these persons, are entirely behind their
backs.
I understand you not to be able to swear precisely to the
expressions used by Mr. Carlisle ?—Not to the words but
to the import. They were tantamount to what I have
stated.
You were near enough to hear them ?—Certainly. He
said, then he will act like a sensible man. I cannot state
positively the words, but they were to that effect.
That was all that passed ?—All, to the best of my recol-
lection.
Did you see any other persons there ?--I did.
I don't mean canvassing, but in the house ?—I saw a
young woman behind Mrs. Virrier, her daughter ; and I be-
lieve there was another female older, who was behind her
again. lam not quite positive as to the third female.
You saw the daughter ?—Yes.
Clearly ?—Yes.
Where were you standing during the whole time this
passed.—ln front of the street door.
Who was before you ?—No person stood between me
and Mrs. Virrier. We spread ourselves out in front of the
door.

Who were with you ?—Mr. Berkeley, Mr. G. E. Saun-
ders, Mr. Thomas R. Saunders, and Mr. Carlisle.
You were all close to the door ?—Yes.
Were those persons, the females, within the room ?—ln
the passage. I think one of them was partly in the pas-
sage, and partly in the room.
So that they were obvious to any body ?—A person
standing, and looking where I was, could see them easily.
In the position you stood, you saw them plainly ?—Yes.
Could the other parties, from where they stood, have seen
them ?—lf they were looking in the same direction as my-
self, they could have seen them very well.
Were you nearer the passage than any of them ?—I
don't think I was.
Was any body nearer than you ?—I can't say as to their
relative position.
Re-examined by Mr. CROWDER—We stood in a semi-
circle round the door. I know the position of the riom,
having been at Virrier's on business. I know it from that
circumstance better than the other parties. I understood
one of the females to be the daughter of Mrs. Virrier. I
think she stood behind her mother. We left in about two
minutes. I cannot say when these tracts were first pub-
lished. They were not issued certainly before the 12th of
July. I was blamed by the trustees for publishing that
paragraph.
Mr. THESIGER objected to that evidence. His Learned
Friend would not allow him to ask who wrote it.
Lord DENMAN did not think it evidence at all. It fur-
nished an observation with regard to what passed at the
time.

Thomas Rankin examined by Mr. ADOLPHUS—I am a
wine merchant at Bristol. I accompanied Mr. Berkeley
in his canvass on the 6th of July. I was at Adam and Eves
pasage when we called upon Virrier ; we were there about
two minutes. Mr. Carlisle said to Mrs. Virrier that her
husband would act like a sensible man by voting as she had
stated he intended to do—that was, one and one. I heard
no other observation. Mr. Berkeley thanked her. I heard
him say nothing more. He shook hands with her. I
should say he had nothing in his hands when he shook
hands with her ; I saw his hand, I saw nothing in it ;
there could not, I think, be a sovereign wrapped up in
paper in it. I must have seen it if there had been. He
spoke in his usual tone, as did also Mr. Carlisle. Mr.
Carlisle said nothing about giving her husband 61. at
Christmas. Mr. Berkeley did not say they were deserving
people. I knew Mr. Miller ; I believe he is in South
America at present. I know there is no means of getting
at him now, for the purposes of this trial. Every person
present might have heard what passed while we were there.
Cross-examined by Mr. THEsIGER—I was standing
with Mr. G. Saunders. I saw into the passage, but saw no
person but Mrs. Virrier. Mr. Berkeley was on my left.
I don't think he turned in any way when shaking
hands. I remember some of the party looking through the
window. lam sure it was not Mr. Visger, but I don't
know who it was. I did not look in myself.
George E. Saunders, examined by Mr. CHAMBERS—I
reside at Bristol, I am a Magistrate, a Town Councillor,
and also a Charity Trustee. I accompanied the canvass-
ing
sparty
iti l
who, on the Gth July. I was at Adam and Eve-
passage
wascan't o
told, was
le f
e rall.s the
Virrier. conversation.
e
d
I saw a woman,
nothing said by Mr. Carlisle, of giving 61. to Virrier at
Christmas. I think it impossible but I must have heard
it from the usual tone of Mr. Carlisle's voice. All that was
said by him was in his usual loud tone. I saw Mr. Ber-
keley shaking hands with the voters generally. I did not
see him whisper io Mrs. Virrier, or any person during the
canvass. The interview was only a minute or two.
Cross-examined by Mr. THESIGER—I don't recollect
what Mr. Carlisle or Mr. Berkeley said. All I know was,
we were promised a vote there. lam a member of the
Liberal Association. lam not a member of the Bristol
Political Union. I was asked to be President, but at once
declined having any thing to do with it. Never had any
communication with it. I have seen a great many tracts
like this during the election. I never saw the manuscript
of any of them. I may have distributed some of them. I
don't know whether I distributed any in Patterson's-yard
or not. Mr. Cunningham was with me there, but I can't
say whether I distributed them or not. I read a great
many of these tracts.
Re-examined--I don't know where they were distributed,
Thomas Richard Saunders examined by Mr. CROWDER—
I am a merchant at Bristol, and a member of the corpora-
tion. I accompanied Mr. Berkeley on his canvass at Adam
and Eve-passage. I did not call at Mrs. Virrier's house, but
was in the passage five or six yards from the door. The
party
lounging,
after
the only
n
remained
flaytaigufees of wminutes.theday.
II
di
il wasno t
tired
pay
muchand
attention to what was going on. The case for the prosecu
tion here closed.

1 Mr:TIIE:ICEa addressed the Jury for the defendant.
he was there to defend a person in an humble station
He rose with feelings of very considerable auxiety, because
be to fix that charge
p
of life, from a most serious charge that had been preferred
against her. And he could not help thinking, that if the
resounithe orf
theinquirty should
er ruin. of. herself and her family.
u ittlitins us dtabye's
utter
He (lid not on that account ask of the jury any feeling of com-
passion in her favour. Nor did lie desire that they
should not do complete justice without reference to
the condition of the parties ; but it might be necessary, in
order that they might be fully impressed with the import-
ance of the duty they had to discharge, to pay more than
ordinary attention to the circumstances of that most extra-
ordinary case, and to follow out the observations which he
was called upon shortly to present to their consideration.
He complained of the course pursued by his Learned
Friend for the prosecution, because he had had unfor-
tunately some
considered that it e:!periewasnce
the in
bounthese cases, and he had always
den
-. duty of every gentle-
man to whom was entrusted the important office of 'public
prosecutor,
at all events, to abstain from any virulence of
expression. and anything calculated to add to the weight of
the charge the party,
.had to s.ustain. Yet, to his astonish.
went, his Learned i.riend, after carefully scrutini‘ing the
long examination that took place before the Committee,
spoke of that poor woman as a shuffling, prevaricating,
quibbling woman, and not satisfied with calling her 4
wretch, denounced her as utterly unworthy the at-
tention of a Jury. Did they belieye that came
from his Pearge4 Frinad boo.? vg.
liis Lean:led
•!
" ,' : '

Friend had feelings of honour, and knew what ought to
be done on occasions like the present. This was a
question of character ; and he would say that the cha-
racter of the party accused was as dear and valuable to
her as that of the accuser. Nay, in one sense of the
word he might be allowed to say it was infinitely dearer
and more valuable, because it was almost essential to
her existence ; butthey did find that therewere persons in a
higher condition of life who unfortunately could exist and
could maintain a station in the world without its being
necessary for that existence that they should possess
character. In opening the case, his Learned Friend had
advertedto the course of examination that had taken place,
and on that he had founded a great number of obser-
vations. He had told them that the greater part of the
examination to which he had directed their attention was
an examination not by Counsel, but by the Committee it-
self, for the purpose of investigating the case. He (Mr.
Thesiger) admitted that it was a most important duty
which a Judge had to perform in all the tribunals
of this country, frequently to put questions for
the purpose of eliciting the truth, which one party
could not and the other party dare not put, and
even in the course of the present day, they had witnessed
the Noble Lord who presided putting most important ques.
tions for that purpose. It was therefore a most essential
and important duty in a Judge, that on various occasions
he should put those questions to the witnesses which Coun-
sel on either side might, for reasons of their own, abstain
from putting. Because the Counsel on each side had one
duty to perform—to regard the interests of their respective
clients only, while the Judge only regarded the interests of
justice. The Jury, also, should be only desirous to ascer-
tain the truth—they had no partial or prejudiced view, as
the advocates necessarily had ; and from the position they
were placed in, they frequently put searching and important
questions, by which the truth would be more satisfactorily
ascerta;ned. If he had found that on the present occasion
the anxiety of the Committee, to which his Learned Friend
had referred, was merely occasioned by a desire to elicit
the truth, he would have passed it over without observa-
tion ; but he did feel himself challenged by his Learned
Friend to call their attention to the peculiarity of
that examination, and then to ask them if even those
of the firmest and steadiest minds could stand the
ordeal of the severe scrutiny to which that poor
woman was exposed by a Member of that Commit-
tee. Would not any one have faultered occasionally and
perhaps have forgotten what they had said on a previous oc-
casion. The reading of that examination had occupied 55
minutes, and 25 of these were consumed by the examination,
cross-examination, and re-examination of the Counsel on
citheir side, but hat more than half of the inquiry was in-
stituted by a particular leading Member of the Committee ;
who with all the zeal and experience of an advocate, coupled
with all the authority of a judge, contrived to harrass and
torture that unhappy woman for a period of at least three
or four hours, assuming facts in order to trap her, endeavour-
ing to twist her evidence, until at length he wrung from her
that expressions—" I am not to be brow-beat in this way."
That simple expression of a person exposed to the torture
of such an examination for the period he had mentioned,
would describe the mode of examination that had taken
place. He agreed with his Learned Friend that they were
labouring under the disadvantage of merely hearing the ex
amination read—they _ had not seen it, but he would say
that from the mode in which the examination was conducted
it was utterly impossible for any firmness of mind to resist
the ingenuity, he had almost said the malicious ingenuity,
applied to that inquiry by the person to whom allusion had
been made. It was not the examination of a Member un-
used in legal investigation, it was that of a most acute and
experienced advocate, a gentleman who was Attorney-
General for Ireland, to which station he had been elevated
since that inquiry had taken place. His friend had a perfect
right to state that counsel for the petitioners did, on
the third day, exercise a discretion with respect to
continuing the inquiry. He felt there was no chance of
success from the mode in which the inquiry was conducted,
that it was useless to heap up expenses, and protract that
which was utterly hopeless in the result, and therefore he
did exercise his discretion in retiring from such a contest,
in which it was perfectly clear there was nothing to be
gained. One fact, with respect to that examination, he
would call their attention to—on one occasion his Learned
Friend, whose assistance he (Mr. Thesiger) then had, so
contrary to all the rules of evidence was the ex-
amination, was obliged to interfere, a circumstance
he was happy to say extremely unusual in other
Courts, and point out to the Learned Cross-exa-
miner, that he was not taking exactly the legal course that
ought to be adopted. He found that Gentleman putting
things into the poor woman's mouth that had never occurred,
merely to entrap her. Of the same character were the ob-
servations made by him upon a word used by her, and com-
mon and intelligible to persons in her class of life, he meant
the word "conditions" of which the Learned Gentleman
affected ignorance. That would give the Jury an idea of
the fairness of the mode of examination pursued. When,
however, he (Mr. Thesiger) had adverted to the mode of
inquiry pursued, he was satisfied, that much of his Learned
Friend's arguments, would entirely fail, and that they must
come back to that which was the only ground on which their
judgment could be demanded, namely, whether or no, Mr.
Berkeley and his party, on the 6th July, did or did not
make a promise to Mrs. Virrier, on behalf of her husband,
which she has alleged they did. And whether Mr. Berke-
ley did or did not, on parting shake hands with her and put
into it a sovereign, which she also alleged he did,
and which Mr. Berkeley denied. In the first place,
he (Mr. Thesiger) complained of the feeling, for
Mr. Berkeley said it was a matter of feeling, which
had been adopted in the case His Learned Friend
had told them that four witnesses had been exa-
mined, Mrs. Virrier, her husband, Mrs. Hazard, and
Sarah Anne Heyward—they all confirmed one another
with regard to the main part of the story, namely, as to the
6/. and the sovereign. What had the other party done ?
Indicted all of them, so that when he called before them,
as he most undoubtedly would, Mrs. Hazard and Sarah
Hayward, the daughter, his Learned Friend might be able
to ask them, and to stigmatize them with the question—
" Are not you the subjects of indictments for pejury ?"
With the exception of what had been said by Mr. Berkeley,
with respect to the sovereign, and Mr. Carlisle with re-
spect to the 61. ; all that had been said by the other wit-
nesses was perfectly reconcileable with the evidence given
by the defendant on the subject. Now, the law required
that every person indicted for perjury must have the testi-
mony of two persons to convict him ; that been
held not to mean two viva voce living witnesses,
but one and each confirmatory, documentary, or
other evidence as would fully corroborate it. The
Jury would recollect the manner in which the gentle-
men who had been before them had given their evidence—
one had heard nothing, and the other could recollect no.
thing ; so that in fact, as the matter stood, it was merely
oath against oath. There were the oaths of Mr. Berkeley
and Mr. Carlisle against those of the witnesses who were
examined before the Committee. Then look at the manner
in which the case had been got up. Before the Com-
mittee there were four witnesses examined, amongst whom
were Mrs. Virrier and her husband. They were now in-
dicted, so that he was left with only the other two witnesses,
and in order to disqualify them—for the purpose of pre-
prejudicing them in the eyes of the Jury—for the purpose
of throwing discredit upon their testimony, they also had
been indicted for perjury. Notwithstanding all that, he
would be able to defend the unfortunate, humble woman
who was his client, and shield her from being stigmatized
as a perjurer—he had materials enough to shield her from
being so branded. He perfectly agreed with his Learned
Friend that it was very base conduct in any one to
use the funds of a charity for political purposes,
no conduct could be more deserving of every
man's reprobation ; that charge formed a part of the pre-
sent case—a necessary part of it, and therefore the case
became very important. His Learned Friend had insinu-
ated, not only that those witnesses had gone before the
Committee with the intention of perjuring themselves, in
revenge for some fancied slight ; but he had also had the
hardihood of insinuating that they had been suborned to
that perjury by the agents of the opposite party. That
was a grave charge, yet his Learned Friend had been in-
structed to lay it before the Jury ; for he said that it was not
difficult to get persons in the station of life in which the
defendant lived to swear anything. That was imputing the
subornation of perjury to some one, and it was pretty
plain in what quarter it was intended that it should rest.y
His duty therefore was not merely to defend his immediate
client, but he was bound to defend those other objects
attack who had been so unfairly and improperly
brought before the jury without any means so
being afforded
them of making any defence. Now when they
found the party calling itself Liberal, in delibe-
rate publications—in writings which must have cost
much study, and therefore must have been matter
of deliberate thought—when they found that this party
put forth to the freemen deliberate statements that the
charitable funds were in the hands of those to whom a Li-
beral vote would be a recommendation_when this was
put forth in their Newspaper, and dinned into the ears of
the poor electors, by means of the 120,000 pamphlets.
surely it was no violent presumption that the same party,
in the heat of a canvass, should give tittaranea to what
was in their thoughts, and tell tlae poor electors that
a Liberal vote would not ho forgotten at Christnrws, when
these Liberal gentlemen were disposing of the charity. It
was not a very violent presumption to suppose that when
in the heat of the canvais these Trustees should 1141 out
such a lure for peer freemen. The canvas% was not that
In
L
of Mr, tierkeley, it was that of the Asaociation—t
heral Association. Mr. Ilerlioley was as nothin6- n their
hands, he was a mew automaton, 0;7,u was dragged
i
about q any way they pleitaed. There was in
Bristol a Liberal #ssoci*ip,9,4 There was a IlgArd

of Charity Trustees, and there was an Election
Committee of the Liberal Association, and strange to say,
the Chair of the whole three was filled by one man Mr
Carlisle filled the chairs of the whole of them. Here they
had upon the canvass the Chairman of the Association,
but he was also the Chairmanof the Charities ; they had several
other trustees along with him, but not a word ever drops from
the lips ofany of them with respect to the Charity Funds orits
distribution. No, even when some of the electors forgot.
themselves so far as to allude to it, the indignant virtue of
the canvassers was roused, and they did what—referred
them to the tracts. Those tracts would be laid before the
Jury, and they would judge how far the indignant virtue
went. They said that formerly the Trust Funds had been
wastefully and shamefully misapplied by the Tories,
but things are all altered now. Reform has gene
through the land—we are virtuous—do not speak
to us of such doings—our indignant virtue is such, that a
vote on our side, so far from boing considered as a claim
upon us for the charity funds, will be almost a bar to
any poor elector, but look at the tracts." In the news-
paper written by Somerton,' or some one else, it was loudly
stated that eighteen out of the twenty-one trustees were
belonging to the thorough Liberal party, and that the charity
funds would not be applied to reward a Tory vote. What,
did that mean, if it did not mean that votes on the Liberal
side would be rewarded ? His Learned Friend, no doubt,
would say this was put forth on the 21st July, fifteen days
after the canvass ; but did it not show what was in the
mind when they saw such a paragraph in a delibe-
rate publication ? and was it too much to suppose
that while it was rankling in the minds of these.
trustees, it should come out while there was a prospect of
its gaining a vote for their party..? Then what was the time
selected for the publication and distribution of the 120,000
tracts. It was denied that they were put forth for elec-
tion purposes, but so ridiculous, such a flimsy denial
he had never seen put before a Jury in the whole course
of his experience. They were published upon the eve
of an election, and it was carefully stated is
them that the vast majority of the trustees were
Liberals, and that they had the means of rewarding
upwards of 400 electors according to their pleasure, and
stated that never in future would the 61. be given in the
proportion of 40 Tory votes to one Liberal. It would be
idle in him, it would be an insult to the common sense of
the Jury to contend for a moment that they were
not put forth for a political purpose, and for the
purposes of the election. It was impossible to
put any other colour upon these pamphletst han pink. It
had been his duty to inquire into the previous character of
Mr. Berkeley. It was a question of character altogether,
and he had a perfect right to make such inquiries. They
had heard the account given by Mr. Berkeley of his former
life, and it was not exactly one which they would be well
pleased to hear of one nearly related to a noble family--e
gentleman, or of one who had attained the
high honour of being a representative in Parliament. The
evidence of the other witnesses he would leave in their
hands, merely remarking that not one of them swore
positively ; that there was confusion amongst them ex-
cept in one thing, and that was, that Mr. Berkeley did
shake hands with Mrs. Virrier. The case he had tai
lay before them would entirely controvert that of
the prosecution, and it would be proved by
wit-
nesses, whose character would bear a strict investiga-
tion. He thanked God they were now before a tribunal
where impartial justice would be done—where no political
feeling would enter into the question—and where no jea-
lousy would await the result. He thanked God that they
were now before a jury of the country, for no one could
find fault with the judgment they came to. He would call
before them the two parties who had been examined before
the Committee, and they would confidently repeat the
statements made by them there. Most providentially,
however, he would be enabled to confirm the testi-
mony by that of a witness who ;seemed to have been
mercifully sent for the protection of the innocent, At the
time in question the defendant had in her service a young
girl named Mary Young. She happened to be in the
cellar when the canvassers called, and overheard all the cow
versation. At the time when the defendant gave evi-
dence before the Committee the girl had left her service,
and as there were so many to confirm her, but espe-
cially as they were unaware of the little girl's know-
ledge, no exertion was made to get her for
the purposes of the Committee. In October last she
returned to the service of the defendant, and hearing her
speak of the approaching trial, which naturally must have,
formed a frequent topic of conversation, the young girl for
the first time told that she had been a listener to the conversa-
tion, and therefore she was an important witness. She would
be produced—she would give her testimony,and be subject to
the searching cross-examination of his Learned Friend,
and from her demeanour the Jury would judge of the
value of her testimony. He had other two witnesses to
call before them, They had heard that Mr. Carlisle
had an almost stentorian voice, and that he could not
modulate it to the tones of a sucking dove. It was
lucky in the present case, that it was so because lie wag now enabled to produce two witnesses who were in the
neighbourhood at the time of the transaction, and who from
the want of thought of Mr. Carlisle, or from the impossi-
bility of subduing his stentorian voice, heard him make
the promise of the six pounds, as alleged by Mrs. Vir-
rier. That was the case he intended to lay before
them on the part of the defendant. He meant to say
that it was true the Charity Trustees had shamefully and
disgracefully abused their trust, and had perverted the
funds entrusted to them to political purposes ; that upon
the occasion referred to, they did endeavour to prevail upon
a person to hold fast in the intention to give their
party a vote by the promise of the 61. and that their
candidate had then and there sealed the bond by that shake
of the hand and the deposit of the sovereign as deposed to by
Mrs. Virrier. Not one of the witnesses, except Mr. Berke-
ley swore positively that he had not so deposited the sove-
reign, while Mrs. Virrier was equally positive on the other
side. It was for the Jury to judge of the probability of
the cases made out by one party and the other, and he was
satisfied that they would give their verdict according
to the weight of evidence, and not according to the
weight of station of the parties. He was satisfied that
they, holding the scales of justice between title
parties, would
see good cause to allow his client to
'go from that Court
without disgrace, without the brar;(i of perjurer being in-
delibly stamped against her na7,e.
Sarah Ann Hayward, e!'.amined by Mr. TALBOT—Wasthe daughter of Mr. Virrier,, who in July, 1837, lived in
the Adam and Ev-a-passage, and carried on the business of
newsvender there. Recollected the canvassing party com-
ing round. Mrs. Virrier came to say they were cowing'
when Mr. Virrier refused to see them, and we-nt up stairs.
After Mr.Virrier went up stairs Carlisle:came and knockedat
the door. Mrs. Virrier went out and spoke to him. Witness
remained in the sitting room. She heard Mr. Carlisle
ask if her father was at home, to which her mother said be
was not. Her mother said her father intended to vote one
and one ; to which Mr. Carlisle replied, he would act like
a sensible man, and bo should have the 61. at Christmas-
Mr. Berkeley was then introduced to her mother ; upon
which he shook bands with her, and said something to
ber
in an under voice, which witness could not hear. Alter-
wards Mr. Carlisle again said he would give him the ,
if he voted as his wife had stated. Something was sal;
about " deserving men," but witness could not catch all
that was said.
Cress-examined by Mr. CROWDER—Thought she bad
said she heard the word deserving before the Committee of
the House of Commons, but would not say positively
Thought the conversation lasted about ten miautes vii,th
her mother and Mr. Carlisle. Mr. Berkeley nook
beau°
with witness's mother, but could
n tell vibe:
they he thanked her. Mr. Virrierot was vritness, -
step-father, He had been in P'aol several times,
and also through the Insolvent, Debtor's Court. Witness
bad been with Mrs. Bentson, a miP.Mer. Since then she bad
been living with her mother. Came up on the same coach
with the other witnesses to give evidence before the Com-
mHiattdeen.eSvear b
Saw Aelern. Ht
there More
Believedt afortnig fortnight
hbeaef mare that time.
anything about the sovereign before she
went other
there.bad
Thought it was a day or two before they came to Loudon
that she heard her mother speak about it. Her father was
been there befort. Her mother had not told her
not in the room when witness and her mother was ex-
amined. Recollected her mother saying Mr. Berkeley had.
given her a sovereign ; but did not recollect exactly 411
that took place, When the canvassing party departed,
Mrs. Hazard left, and witness's mother told her to go uP
stairs and tell Virrier to come down. Knew Mr. Carlisle
well, he bought newspapers from them. Heard Mr. Car-
lisle say to her mother, I believe your husband's a freeman,
to which her mother replied that he was. After witness
Was examined in London she returned to Bristol, and had
resided with her mother ever since. Was not aws:re of her
mother having any money except what had been got by the
Newspaper business. Shortly after the cP.-avassing com-
menced, Mrs. Hazard came to live at IPIr mother's house,
and was residing there when they ca;ne to London to be
NSirh.eHdiadzanrodt,hwinhgo © ;he was there ; she was
By the CouaT—Mrs4 Halarsda
leix,ainmginweidth.
mother's house when Mr. Berkeley called.
wsoalsicintoort or
Tiringa cco uant t ahnetr.
By the Jury—.. Knew Mr. Somerton. He was with Mr.
Berkeley when be called.
Su.
sa"4ll Hazard-, examined by Mr. THESSIGER---WAS
marrlecis and Eyed at Bedminster. Her husband was
at one time in the Navy, but had since writ-
ten for gentlemen. Recollected being at Vit-rier's on
the.. t'ay Mr. Berkeley's canvassing party arrived. She had
been there to buy a newspaper. Heard Mr. Carlisle as,s
Mrs. Virrier who her husband was going to vote for ; and
upon her stating one and one, be saii.l he would act like a
sposihle man. Witness heard something said about money
N. being promised at Christina* last. Saw Mr. Berkeley