The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-13 00:00:00

CAMBRIDGE.

The Committee appointed to try the merits of the
petition of Mr. Milner Gibson, against the return of
Mr. Manners Sutton for the borough of Cambridge,
met on Saturday. Sir Cans. LEMON, Bart., Chair-
man.

Messrs. Austin and Cockburn were counsel for the i
petitioner.
Mr. B. Andrews and Mr. Sergeant Wrangham were
Counsel for the sitting Member.
At the sitting of the Committee Mr. ANDREWS
objected to the proceedings. He contended that after
the General Committee for Elections had made one
selection, they had no power to do so again.
The Committee decided that their powers were valid.
Mr. AUSTIN then opened the petitioners' case, and
entered into many cases of bribery and treating of a very
gross kind ; which he said he would be enabled to
prove, and bring home gross bribery not only to the
agents of Mr. Sutton, but as having been committed
in his presence. We think it better to give the facts,
as they are proved in evidence. He then called
Mr. Gunning, the Town Clerk of Cambridge, who pro-
duced the poll book, and proved the agency of Messrs.
Fisher and Twiss for the sitting Member, and that
Messrs. Cooper and Cannon acted as agents for the
petitioner.
Samuel Long, a harness-maker at Cambridge, had
been principally engaged by Messrs. Swan. Remem-
bered the election of 1837. When he voted for Mr.
Sutton, had no interviews with him on that occasion.
Also remembered the election of 1839—had no inter-
views with Mr. Fisher, nor did he ever speak
with Mr. Sutton in his life. He had been ap-
prehended and held to bail for bribery—the trial
was about to come on in March last, but he had made
no communication, either directly or indirectly, with
Mr. Cannon, until he saw him in London about six
weeks ago. Upon that occasion he gave him a state-
ment of the circumstances of the charge. He told
Mr. Cannon that he had seen Messrs. Mitchell and
Fisher during the election in the presence of Mr.
Sutton. Told Mr. Cannon that Mr. Mitchell, by
Mr. Fisher's desire, had given him forty sovereigns
for the purpose of bribery, but upon his oath there was
not a word of truth in the statement. He met Mr. Can-
non by appointment,and not being upon oath be thought
he was at liberty to make any statement to him that ha
pleased. He believed he might have made more state-
ments than one to Mr. Cannon—he made them as often
as he asked for them. He told Mr. Cannon that he
was well acquainted with Mr. Sutton, and was the ge-
neral agent for the Tory party, and had frequent private
interviews with the agents for that gentleman. The
witness was examined at great length as to the com-
munications he had made to the solicitor
.for the peti-
tioner, in which it appeared that the witness had given
him a detailed statement of the bribery in which he was
engaged, all of which he now stated to be entirely false.
When taken into custody he tore up a paper on which
were the names of several voters, in whose handwriting
he did not know.

Mr. COCKBURN—Did you give 9/. to Mr. Smith ?
Witness—l am not bound to answer that question.
Mr. COCKBURN—Why not ?
Mr. ANDREWS objected. The witness was indicted,
and he ought to be informed by the Committee that be
was not obliged to criminate himself.
Mr. Cociatuati did not think the witness required
any caution.
The Committee inquired whether the witness had
not pleaded Guilty ?
Mr. Cocksuari said, Yes.
Mr. ANDREWS said a motion was now pending to
withdraw the plea of guilty, and enter a plea of not
guilty.
The Committee cautioned the witness that he was
not bound to answer any question criminating himself.
In answer to Mr. COCKBURN, the witness said the
effect of answering the question might criminate himself.
Mr. COCKBURN—Did you give nine sovereigns to
Mrs. Smith ?
The Witness—l decline to answer the question.
Mr. COCKBURN submitted that he had a right to an
answer to the question.
Mr. ANDREWS objected, and after argument,
The Committee said that enough had been got from
the unwilling witness, and thought the question ought not
to be pressed.
The Witness was then recalled and said when he was
apprehended he had between 16 and 17 pounds upon
him. He got it in different places—some of it from
the Messrs. Swan—could not say how much.
Mr. ANDREWS again objected. There was no proof
that Long was in any way an agent for the purposes of
Mr. Sutton, any evidence in the case was the other way.
Mr. COCKBURN contended that he had a right to
treat the witness as a hostile one, and cross-examine
him. It was the practice to allow proof to be given
of agtncy after the examination of the witness.
While th, Committee were discussing the question
the Speaker was announced to be at prayers, so that
the decision could not be given till to-day.

FEROCITY of A BULL.--On Monday last, a
young man, son of Mr. Larkins, of Wendy, in this county,
went into a field adjoining the house, for the purpose of getting
out a bull, and when approaching it, the animal ran at him, and
ought him under the chin with his horn, by which the young
man's cheek was turn up, and his eyes nearly torn out. He
afterwards kneeled upon him. His features could scarcely be
discerned, and his life was for some time in great danger. A
dog which the young man took with him, seized the bull by the
nose; which enabled his friends to release him, who immediately
shot the beast.—Cambridge Chronicle.