The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-25 00:00:00

shut. There were persons drinking at my house on the
nomination night. Ido not think there were more than
twenty. There were voters among them, and they took
nothing which they did not pay for. I did not receive a
single order from any one on the subject. I did not know
at the time who would pay me. Several people
might have advised me to enter on the speculation.
I do not recollect the name of any person who gave me
such an advice. Mr. Milos was security for me with my
brewer, Mr. Serle. I cannot swear whether Mr. Milns
told me to open my house ; it is likely he might have
talked to me about it. Mr. Milns was so often in my
house, and so often intoxicated, that I cannot swear as to
what he might have said. I did not tell my brother Robert
that I had a good order from the Tories for the election.
do not remember seeing either Mr. Headly or Mi. Steen
at my house at the time of the election. I have received
the whole amount of my bill, which was 53/. 103. ; 301.
was paid to me,' and 23/. 103. was advanced by Mr.
Bishop. I owed my brewer about 221. before the election.
I paid a bill to my brewer at the time from money I had in
the house. Ido not remember any money being advanced
to me at the time for the purpose. I got a loan of some
money from Mr. Barker. I was canvassed at the last
election. I think it was by Mr. Sutton himself. I pro-
mised my vote to Mr. Sutton. I did not vote at all at the
election of 1837. I voted at the previous elections for the
Whigs. I voted for the Tories at the Municipal Elections
in November, 1838, after I had got the loan from Mr.
Barker.
By Mr. Asonews.—Mr. Serle is my landlord. He
voted for Mr. Gibson. After I had voted for Mr. Deigh-
ton at the municipal elections, he told me that if I did not
pay him an arrear of 301. he would make me leave the
house immediately. I had been in gaol before taking the
benefit of the Act in 1837. I stopped in the house till
after the last election. I left it last Michaelmas, having
been ejected from it. There was a distress for non-pay-
ment of emit, at the suit of my landlord, Mr. Serle. My
goods were not seized. I had two bondsmen, Mr. Milks
and another. I had notice to quit before the election. I
do n it know whether it was in consequence of my het vot-
ing for the Tories. His had behaviour to me was the rea-
son why I voted for Mr. Sutton at the last election. Mr.
Milns used to come to my house formerly two or three
times a week, and be was frequently intoxicated
on these occasions. After having prepared refrt sh-
ments, few came in at first. The Whigs went
to the Umivereity Arms, during the election ; and 1 should
say they had even a better trade there than I had.
I think I got the cheques from Mr. Twiss's clerk, and that
I did not see himself at all. When I went to Mr. Bishop
for the 23/. 10s., I told him I was in distress, and I asked
the money from him as an act of kindness.
By Mr. AL'STIN—..I owed but a quarter's rent when I
was turned out of my house. I have paid it since.
George Smith was then called in.
Mr. ANDREWS said that before the witness was examined
by the opposite Counsel he wished to put a question to him.
Do you believe in the Testament?-1 believe in the Scrip-
tures and the ten commandments.
Do you believe in the book you are about to be sworn
by ?—I do.
The witness was then sworn, and examined by Mr.
COCKBURN—I am a shoemaker. and reside at Cambridge.
I have always voted for the Whigs. Mr. Long came to
me before the last election, and entered my step I asked
him if he were a purchaser, and he said he should want
shoes for his boy. The shoes were made, and I sent them
home. Mr. Long called in a few days afterwards and
paid for them. He called again on Thursday the 22.1
of August. He looked at some goods hanging out-
side the door. He said he wanted a pair of shoes for his
little girl. He came again and brought a measure. He
then commenced to speak to me on the subject of politics.
Ile said there was likely to be an election, and that it was
immaterial how a poor Alan voted, for the Whigs and Tories
were, both a bad lot, agreed with him, and lam of
the same opinion still.—(Loud laughter.) He said
nothing to me then about my vote. He came again on
the Saturday morning following. He shoved the door
open, and looked round, to see, I suppose, if there was
any one there.
The witness was then asked if Long had said at that
time anything to him about his vote.
Mr. WRANGIIAM objected to the question, on the ground
that anything done by Lorg could not affect Mr. Sutton,
inasmuch as it had not been proved that he was Mr. Sut-
ton's agent.

Mr. AUSTIN said that though there was a resolution of
the Committee to the effect that they would require proof
of agency in the first instance, but that they would not
refuseproofs of bribery which might show agency, he could
not help alluding to that subject. He wished to take the
opportunity of protesting against such a resolution, as
being contrary to every sound legal principle. The
Learned Gentleman then cited a passage from a work of
Douglas, in confirmation of his opinions, in which the
writer stated that the bribery should be proved first, and
that all that was necessary for that purpose was that some
probable grounds of agency should exist_ He knew, how-
ever, that after the decision of the Committee it would
be idle to dwell on that point, and he would pass to an-
other part of the question. The Learned Gentleman then
proceeded to contend that he was entitled to question a
witness as to the proceedings of Long, for the purpose
of showing that Long was, during the election, the sub-
agent of Mr. Swan, jun. It was true that it was denied
by the opposite Counsel that at the election Mr. Swan
and other gentlemen had acted for Mr. Sutton, as a
Committee. The Learned Gentleman said that this point
was a most important one, and he then entered into a long
examination of the evidence already taken before the Com-
mittee for the purpose t,f showing that though Mr. Sut-
ton had no nominal committee, there were a number of
gentlemen who had acted for him in that capacity, con-
sisting of Mr. Fisher, as chairman, and of Messrs. Swan,
Faucit, Browne. Barker, and others. Mr. Fisher him-
self had acknowledged that he had addressed a letter to
Mr. Woodhouse of C-ius College, in which he had signed
himself the chairman of Mr. Sutton's committee. Mr
Faucit had stated in his ev;iderce that the gentlemen as-
sembled at the Eagle were, to all intents and purposes,
conducting the election for Mr. Sutton, as packed com-
mittees had formerly done. The entire pro-
ceedings cf the party proved the truth of that state-
ment. Public houses were thrown open, and the
bills of the publicans were paid. There was a
band and flag-bearers consisting of 160 persons, who must
have been hired by some parties. Mr. Sutton had ac-
cepted the services of the gentlemen sitting at the Eagle;
his case must stand or fall by their proceedings. If it
were otherwise, and if parties at elections were allowed
to escape all responsibility because they did not style
themselves a committee, the most flagrant bribery might
be practised with impunity. It was also proved in evi-
dence that Mr. Swan had given orders to publicans for
furnishing ale after the election, and the ale so furnished
had been paid out of the election fund. Under these
circumstances be thought there could be no doubt of Mr.
Swan's agency. The next position he had to prove was
the connexion between Mr. Swan and Long. He thought
there was abundant evidence on that :übject. Such con-
nexion was proved by Mrs. Large's letter, by the green-book
and other papers found in Long's possession. The moment
of Long's arrest he was found talking with Mr. Swan, and
he was afterwards bailed by Mr. Corny and Mr. Hcadly,
two members of Mr. Sutton's committee. Far these
reasons he thought he was entitled to put the question,
and that Mr. Sutton was responsible for the proceedings
both of Long and Mr. Swan.

Mr. WRA;;GIIAM said in reply that his Learned Friend
had made'no attempt to establish an immediate connection
between Long and Mr. Manners Sutton. He had merely
endeavoured to prove such a connection by a cbain of facts
which should not be admitted as conclusive without the
greatest caution. The evidence in such a case should be
most distinct and definite, and should not be derived exclu-
sively from a general co-operation of any parties in the
proceedings of an election. The Committee could not
take upon themselves the responsibility of judging on
sach a subject as that under their consideration from
presumptions, suspicions, or conjecture. He should first
observe that no one was better fitted than Mr. Swan him-
self to prove the fact of his agency. Mr. Swan, however.
had been summoned by the opposite party, and yet they had
not called on him to give his evidence, and had thus de-
prived the Committee of the benefit of the information he
could offer. Others had been asked about Mr. Swan's
proceedings, and he himself had not been called on to give
any account of them. Such a circumstance appeared to him
to be at best a strange one. It was attempted to be
proved that Mr. Swan was the agent of Mr. Sutton, on
the ground that Mr. Swan had canvassed with the other,
and that his name appeared on orders in two or three
bills. He did not think such grounds were sufficient
to establish an agency ; and he believed that there was no
more reason for looking at Mr. Swan as the representative
of Mr. Sutton than any other member of his party. It was
argued that the room in which Mr. Sutton's friends had
assembled was in reality a committee-room. Nothing,
however, could be less borne out by evidence than such an
assertion. It was open to all the friends of Mr. Sutton—
there were frequently 30 or 40 persons in it ; and Mr.
Faucit, on whose evidence so much reliance seemed to have
been placed, stated he had seen 100 persons there at a time.
His Learned Friend Mr. Austin had ea.d that it had been
arranged, for fraudulent purposes, that the meeting should
not be called a committee. There was, however, suffi-
cient rea,on for the friends of Mr. Sutton not forming a
committee of any kind, in their desire to avoid
the consequences which might follow from an im-
prudent or unpriticipli • ' .d act on the part of any
of its members, if it should have been formed.
The Hon. Member was proceeding to show that the
meeting at the Eagle could not be considered a C ,mmit-
tee, when it struck Four o'Clock. It appeared that he
would still have for a long time to continue his address, and
the Committee therefore adjourned before its conclusion
till to-morrow (this day).