The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-08 00:00:00

EVEN 1N G EDITION.

- -
LUDLOWELECTIONCOMMITTEE

The Committee met again yest_......._—_erday at eleven o'clock, when
Mr. COCKBURN opened his case against the Clive interest.
He said he would be enabled to prove a case 0 treating, such
as had never yet come under the cognizance of any Commit-
tee. He would be enabled to prove one of the grossest and
worst eases of corruption which had ever been inquired into.
Of course his first duty would be to prove the agency of those
parties whose conduct he would impeach. First of all he would
prove that Mr. William Holmes, a well-knovrn character, was
the prime agent and mover of all the corruption which took
place at the late election for Ludlovr. Ho
e would show him
Committee
re-
siding at Denham House—presiding er
of the election— g general
formed there for the purposes gieie
orders respecting it, and in constant communication with Mr.
H. Clive, the candidate. He would have little difficulty also
in proving the agency of Dancy, Frail and Revis, all of whom
were deeply engaged in the corrupt practices which had been so
plentiful at the late election—the names of Williams and Lloyd
would also be frequently brought before the Committee in con-
nection with these cases. His Learned Friend had had much
difficulty in proving any case of treating, and bringing it home
to any agent of Mr. Alcock. He (Mr. C.) would have no
difficulty at all in proving the grossest case of wholesale treat-
ing carried on, not secretly, but openly. Voters were not
invited privately to go to So-and-so, and they would get spirits
( or ale. No, they were invited by placards posted throughout
the town, inviting the voters to such an inn one night, and
another, another night. He would prove that those meetings
were presided over by one of Mr. Clive's agents—that they ,
made electioneering speeches—that Mr. Clive very frequently
attended—and that the voters paid nothing for the liquor which
1 had been consumed. His next proof would be of bribery ;
i and although at all times it was very difficult to get at cases of
1 bribery, if his instructions were correct he would have no &fa-
culty in proving clearly and distinctly many cases of extensive
bribery. It appeared that a Mr. Revis formerly resided in
iLudlow. He was a stationer, and a clever man, who wrote a
good many articles in the local newspapers. He for some time
had gone to reside in Shrewsbury. When the election eame
about, having been formerly an active agent, he was sent
for by a person named Frail ; but before coming
over to Ludlow, there was a little piece of cor-
iruption to be done in Shrewsbury. Orders to do which
had been brought over by Frail. There was a person
Inamed Richard Cook, who was in gaol in Shrewsbury for
i a debt of 481. He had formerly been a very busy messenger
1 in the Clive interest, and a voter also, and Frail and Revis,
before going to Ludlow, paid the debt and took him along with
them. They went over, and Revis went to Denham House,
1 where he met the Committee presided over by Mr. William
i Holmes. That gentleman took Revie out, and said he was
l wanted for the very important purpose of writing squibs against
Mr. Alcoa. lie said a gentleman much more fit for so im-
portant a duty was to be in Shrewsbury next morning, viz., Dr.
\
Macginu. He was despatched over to fetch the Dr., but he
had nut kept his promise, and Mr. Revis returned to Denham
Ilouse. He had several conversations with Mr. Holmes, who
said that the eleotion was to be gained, if money could do so. He
was shown abet of voters, with brackets against several names, and
I the name of other persons against them. His own was against
I several, and he was informed that it was considered that he had
Isome influence over those persons, and lie was to use every en-
deavour t, get jthem, at whatever expense. The Learned
1 Gentleman then detailed several cases of gross bribery, of
i which the following is a sample :—There was a miller in Lud-
;law, named Bartlett ; one of the gentlemen who, he could
' prove, acted as an agent for Mr. Clive. west to him, and put
the very pertinent inquiry—." How much money it took to set
up a miller comfortably ? " The miller said it required
1 a good deal. The agent then asked if 701. would do
ihim any good? He said it would. The agent then
I plainly said --" That sum shall yours if you vote fur
111 r. Clive." Bartlett had always been a voter on the other
side, alid thought he might do his party good some other way
than i.y voting for them; he therefore waited upon Mr.
Alice,k's Committee and informed them of all the circurn-
! stain cc. He was instructed to go on. lie accordingly pro-
, wised his vote, and before the election he waited upon the
agent of 11r. Clive. He was told to send his wife ; she went,
and received 10/. in three 51. notes, with 35/. in sovereign
wrapped in a brown paper ; the remainder of the money was to
ibe paid after the vote hadbeen given. That money and that brown
• papvv would be produced before the Committee. There was an-
-1
t, other ease, wherein the attempt at bribery totally failed. The
sleet ion was near a close, and a Mr. Wade ewe believe), a voter
on the Liberal side, bad not yet tendered his vote ; it was
theranre thought he might be bought over, and he was v:aited
even by Mr. V.evis, by order of Mr. W. Holms, and 5001
WitS tqfklytt to his vote ; it was to be born
ee in mind that the
• '-ii depended almost upon a single ote, and that Mr.
an adverse voter—that :ccounted for the immense
red to that gentleman ; it was, however, steadily re-
at :;otli criminally and morally the party were equally
.' 'dr. Wade hail fallen before the temptation. Theme
~, was called adducing :.
en tit ii or tlirce miles out
, -end kept there for severs
on the fat of the land, and, in
4: the r usual oeverage of beer, or gin and water,
'ously every day upon champagne. But olle
was even mere kindly treated and highly
was taken to Walcot House. the seat of Lord
ali‘i there he was feasted until the day of okr-
a inciter of course, he voted in the 'Clive in-
, he would hare proved one of
.on that had been seen even in these
st take the consequences of the acts of
whose hands he had placed himself. lie

Tatle v

br

t:

luv: to au Ira]

t.L11111;t

tiV :Nit)!

111 proved these fac

i

ease
atl,l (

and those

this

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 7.
Their Lordships met at the usual hour.
Petitions against the repeal of the Corn-laws, from
various places in England and Scotland, were presented
by Lord Lovelace, the Earl of Winchilsea, and the Earl
of Aberdeen.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented several
petitions from the West Riding of Yorkshire is favour of
an alteration in the Corn-laws.
IRISH CORPORATION REFORM.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a pe-
tition from the Corporation of Londonderry against
the Irish Corporation Reform Bill. This pe-
tition was sealed with the seal of the Corpo-
ration, so that although the petition whi he
ch
had presented on a former night was only the petition of
the Mayor and Sheriffs in their own individual character,
his Noble Friend opposite was deceived by his Radical
friends when he was told that the corporation of London-
derry were in favour of the Bill.
The Earl of WINCHIL SE A presented a similar peti-
tion from the corporation of Dublin.
The Marquis of WE STMEATH presented a similar
petition signed by 73,000 inhabitants of Dublin. The pe-
titioners stated that the Bill was a confiscation not only
with respect to present property, but property to accrue,
because it gave a power of taxation upon property of five
times the amount of the property in the city of Dublin. The
measure was one among the many that had been
brought forward by the Government for the purpose of
ur.- Protestantizing Ireland, and to take the property from
the Pretestants of Ireland to give it to the Roman
Catholics, who coveted it. He did not believe
that it was competent for her Majesty, consistent
with her Coronation Oath, to give her assent
to the Protestant Confiscation Bill. He should like to
know from the Noble Viscount what impeachment he
could bring against the Corporation of Dublin, that they
should be subject to this wholesale confiscation. According
to the present Bill, there was no necessity for any
qualification for magistrates, and they might be taken
from the very dregs of society for any thing that was con-
tained in that Bill. Their Lordships were asked hood-
winked to confiscate the property of the Protestants of
Ireland. He could not believe that in that Protestant
House such a measure would ever be allowed to pass. Did
ber Majesty's Ministers think because they were forced
by one who ought never to have been in the House of Com-
mons, to do that which their better reason would shun, that
therefore they would force that House to give their assent
to the Bill ? Unless the Noble Marquis opposite was im-
peached for what he had done in Ireland, and lost his
head, Lords Derwentwater, Balmerino, and Ratcliffe were
murdered men.—( Laughter.) The Noble Marquis con-
cluded by expressing a hope that their Lordships would
not pass the Bill.
The Marquis of HE A DFORT, notwithstanding what
had been said by the Noble Marquis against the Roman
Catholics of Ireland, believed that they would stand up to
a man in support of her present Majesty and her Crown,
if necessity required it, as they were thankful for the tran-
quillity which Ireland at present enjoyed.
The Marquis of NV ESTMEATH said he did
not speak against the Roman Catholics of Ireland, but
against the demagogues that were in that country. He
believed the Irish Catholics would be angels if it were
not for the demagogues that were there.
Lord WYNFO RD presented petitions from Cork,
against the Irish Municipal Bill.
The Duke of BUCC LEUC /I presented petitions from
different parts of Scotland against the intrusion of Ministers.
The Marquis of LONDON DERRY presented peti-
tions against the Irish Nlunieipal Bill.
The Bishop et LONDON presented a petition from
Leeds against the trade in opium, end a similar petition
from Worcester.
Lord GLk NG ALL presented a petition from Cashel
against the Irish Municipal Bill. The Noble Earl wished
ro know whether it was the intention of the Noble Viscounr
to move the second reading of the Bill on Friday?
Viscount MEL BOURNE said if they were to go into
Committee on the other Bill it would be impossible to