The Sun.
London, England, 1860-10-31 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 31, 1860.

VIE .73. R

TSSION.

Paid.

Closing
Frice.

leiness done

BERWICK-UPON-TWEED.
This morning the Royal Commissioners appointed to in-
spare into the, circumstances relative to the election of
Berwick-upon-Tweed, assembled in Committee ROom
No. 11.
Tho first witness examined was Mary M'Donald—She
said she recollected the election at which Mr. Hodgson and
Mr. Majoribanks were candidates. Since the election she
had become no wife of John M'Donald. On polling day
she was engaged in attending customers at the Woolpack
Inn, Berwick, tvhich was kept by her father. She recol-
lected a room to which there was an entrance from
the yard. She saw Joshua Patterson in the yard
several times. She on the same day saw Mr. Gall
in the yard &beet 12 o'clock. She also saw M'Gall talking
to a person named Waite. She supposed it was about the
state of the poll, because they had papers with figures upon
it. About one o'clock she saw M'Gall in the cellar. There
were chairs there. The witness was then examined at groat
length with respect to the positions occupied by several
parties while they were in the cellar, and as to the number
of persons who entered the cellar after one o'clock. She
eould not say whether they went in singly or in a body.
She could net say whether the door was closed when they
went in. About two o'clock she saw Waite there. Did
not have any conversation with any of the parties. I did
not hear that the people were in the cellar or in the house
for the purpose of receiving bribes. She did not hear that
M'Gall had been bribing the voters. She could not say
whether. she heard that M'Gall had been bribing in the
house after the poll closed. It was stated in the parlour
some days after the election that M'Gall had bribed seve-
ral persons. She vas well acquainted with several freemen of
Berwick. Some of the persons, whose names she could not
mention, were freemen. There were a great many freemen
at the Woolpack on the day of the election. She might have
changed some gold, or 11 notes, on that day, but could not
now recollect. She was generally paid in silver for the
refreshments supplied. She saw M‘Gali at her father's
house a long time before the election. M'Gall was not a
regular customer at the Woolpack. She did not recollect
any person telling her after the election that he had got
money for his vote. She had heard that some persons had
received bribes. Miller was one of the names mentioned.
She knew Robert M'Queen and John M'Queen were there
the day mentioned, the latter of whom was in the kitchen
of the Woolpack. From the many times she had occasion
to go to the seller on the day of tho election, she believed
that M'Gall was in there from about twelve to three.
Mr. Alexander Brodie said he was a military traveller
for Messrs. Culter and Son, outfitters, Hanover-street.
Previous to entering that service he was sergeant saddler
to the Ist Dragoons. Ho was dismissed the service for pre-
venting a duel at Canterbury. After dismissal he came to
London, and was engaged as foreman of the saddlery at
the War Department, Weedon. He occupied that position
about two years, but he was dismissed from that post because
he had shown up the abuses that existed in that establish-
ment. Ho was examined before the Weedon Commis-
sion. He was not aware that the Commissioners had
placed very little reliance on his evidence. He had
seen the report of the inquiry, and was thoroughly dis-
gusted with it. Mr. Selfe had expressed himself highly
with respect to his conduct. After dismissal, he thought
he was ill -used, and he exerted himself with influential
persons to get his wrongs redressed. It was very shortly
after dismissal he saw Mr. Disraeli. He had an interview
with that gentleman about his wrongs. It was about
three vnontlis before he came into power. He saw
him more than once before the change of Government.
The only object he had in view was the redress of his
wrongs. Mr. Disraeli seemed to compassionate his (wit-
ness's) situation, and promised he would have an inquiry
into it when ho got into power. Witness saw Mr. Disraeli
more than a doaen times, relative to his ill-treatment. Ge-
nerally saw him at his own house. Had met him in the
street. He thought that from what Mr. Disraeli seemed
disposed to do he should receive some compensation, or a
Government appointment. He was in the habit of attend-
ing in the lobby of the House of Commons to see the mem-
bers about his wrongs. On the 14th of April, 1159, he saw
Mr. Disraeli in the lobby of the house. It was in the even-
ing, but he could not recollect tho hour. To the
best of his belief it was about eight o'clock. He had not
previous to that seen Mr. Nicoll. He did not know he was
in the central hall. Mr. Disraeli, when he came out of the
house, turned to the left and went to the library. He saw
him (witness) and said " Ah I Brodie, what are you doing ?"
He told him he was waiting to see Sergeant Gossett. He
(witness) followed Mr. Disraeli to the lobby. He told him
to follow him. He was about two yards from the door
when Mr. Disraeli spoke to him. He followed Mr. Disraeli
to a little room on the left, just by the side of the library.
He remained with Mr. Disraeli about a quarter of
an hOur. We talked together as we went down the lobby,
but it was not on the subject of his (witness's) wrongs.
We talked about Berwick, and he then told him that he
(witness) had some friends there. Mr. Disraeli said Mr.
Earle was going there. We had no other conversation on
that occasion. My uncle and cousin, whose names are
Brodie, reside there. They are publicans and small
farmers. Previous to the election he (witness) had been to
Berwick on business. He could not say his relatives
were voters for Berwick. He had a great many friends in
Berwickshire. The uncle and cousins he had spoken of
reside in the town of Berwick, but ho had a great many
friends who resided out of the town who had votes—not
for the town, bat for the shire. He had no reason at
that time to look upon Mr. Disraoli as his friend. His sen-
timents changed about a month previous. He (witness)
fancied that his claims had not been attended to. The
circumstance that had produced the change was that, hav-
ing left his papers at the Chancellor's office for examina-
tion, he had them returned without having been opened.
Mr. Disraeli asked him if he could be of use to Mr. Erle at
Berwick, and he said he would see what he could do. He
told him he had relatives at Berwick, merely because he
thought it would be of use to the Conservative party. Cer-
tainly r o other reason. He supposed their votes and influence
would be of use to the Conservative party. He remembered
that he had just stated that his sentiments towards Mr.
Disraeli had changed. He had seen the memorandum just
put into his hand. It was given to him by Mr. Disraeli.
[lt was merely an envelope with Mr. Rose's name and ad-
deeee on it.] It did not contain a letter when he (witness`,
received it. fir. Disraeli gave him the envelope in the
little room just referred to, or by the door, he could not be
certain which. Mr. Disraeli told me to go and give it to
Mr. Rose, he would know it was his handwriting, and that
- would be quite enough. He said Mr. Rose would give me
money to go and get votes.
Chairman—Where ?
Witness—At Berwick-upon-Tweed or Frome.
Chairman—You say Mr. Disraeli used those words ?
Witness—Yes. He said it would put £5O in my pocket,
as he wanted to give me a turn.
Chairman—Had you requested a memorandum, similar
to the one produced, to be given to you; or was it Mr.
Disraeli's spontaneous act ?
Witnes—l can't be sure about that. I have told as near
as I could recollect all I knew about Berwick. I don't re-
collect that there was something said about my being em-
ployed as an election agent or canvasser of electors. I will
swear Mr. Disraeli did not say so when he gave me the
envelope to take to Mr. Rose ; all ho said was, that I was
to get votes.
Chairman—Did you tell Mr. Disraeli you knew who
would take bribes at Frome and Berwick ?
Witness—Not at Berwick.
Chairman—Did you tell who would at Frame ?
Witness—l said I thought I could find out who would
at Tkome.
Chairman—Then you did not tell who would take bribes ?
-- Witness—No. It was merely a passing conversation.
Chairman—The words about going to Mr. Rose and
getting the money, were they used at the door of the little
room ?
Witness—Yes.
Chairman—And the envelope was given to you whili
you were in the room ?
Witness—Yes.
Chairman—Did he know that you were in the employ of
the Messrs. Cutler
Witness —Ye F. .
Chairman—You left Mr. Nicoll's service," in which you
had previously been on good terms ?
Witness—Yes ; quite so.
Chairman—You gave the envelope to Mr. Nicoll imme-
diately after you left Mr. Disraeli ?
Witness—Yes.
Chairman—Did you present yourself to Mr. Rose the
next morning ? •
Witness—Yes ; I went about the middle of the day.
The Chairman here observed the witness was referring
to some papers, and desired him to close them.
Witness—l should like to refer to these notes, or I may
make some mistake.
Chairman—You must answer the questions without

75 60
9311 94
5 56(
61 a
75 80
67 72
67 72
k d ip

LAT INTELLIGRYCE-(THIS DAY).

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
IN RS HILLS_

doing so.
Witness—Very well. I went to Mr. Rose's. I had seen
that gentleman repeatedly at the chambers. While I was
at Mr. Rose's I saw Sir William Jolliffo. Mr. Whitmore
then shook hands with. me.

Chairman—What, on Friday the 15th
Witness—l'll not swear to the date. I will swear I. saw
several of the clerks on the day I went after I got the enve-
lope from Mr. Disraeli. I went upstairs. I now think I
went on the Saturday also. I can't say whether I went
more than once that.day. I saw Mr. Rose on that occasion.
I saw Mr. Rose in the private room. I told Mr. Rosethat,
I was in the Chancellor's confidence, and he told me to
come and get money of him to go to Berwick-upon-Tweed
and Frome. Mr. Rose said he must see the Chancellor
about it, and directed me to come to-morrow. I said to-
morrow would be Sunday, and he then said I mean Mon-
day. Nothing further took place between us on
that oteasion. I did not tell Mr. Rose I had
received an envelope of memorandum from Mr. Disraeli.
I had had conversation with Mr. Rose onco before in Down-
ing•street. I mean I once asked him if Mr. Erle was in,
and on the other occasions I have wished him good morn-
ing. As far as I know he did not know my name. I had
never told him. I went to Mr. Rose's on the Monday. I
told him the money I was to receive from him was to get
votes. I told him so the first conversation I had with him.
Jae said he would do nothing till he had rseeu the chancel-

I cannot answer all these questions without looking
at my notes. I may say something that may cdinmit my-
self. I have only one desire, and that is to tell the truth.
[The Chairman directed witness to answer without refer-
ence to his papers.] After the interview I told Mr. Disraeli
what Mr. Rose had said;and he replied it was quite right
tobe cautious. I must have seen Mr. Disraeli sometime aftsii
I cannot say positively when. I saw Mr. Rose about a day
after I saw Mr. Disraeli at his residence inVistoria-street. I
told him I had seen Mr. Disraeli, and ho had told me he
would explain to him (Mr. Rose) that I was in his confi-
dence. Mr. Rose told me Mr. Disraeli had spoken to him
about me, and that if I came the next day he would get
me a place ready, as he thought Berwick-upon-Tweed and
Promo safe. This conversation took place when I had the
second interview with Mr. Rose. Mr. Rose, on the occa-
sion referred to, said he did not know that I was in the
Chancellor's confidence. "1 went to see Mr. Rose the next
day. Ile told me to come every day until he had got a
place ready for me. I did so. I did not get any place. I
did not get any money. Mr. Rose never told me how it
was I did not get either place or money. I was in the employ
of Messrs. Cutler at this time, and I was enabled to
make these repeated calls at Mr. Rose's, owing to having
business to transact at Westminster. I was constantly
passing up and down Victoria-street. It was not a part of
my employment to call at Mr. Rose's. I abstracted the
time from them for the purpose of furthering the ends of
justice. If I had received the appointment to go to either
Promo or Berwick, I should have had leave to go from the
Messrs. Cutler.

At the conclusion of this witnesses examination, the
committee adjourned.

These bankrupts are described as of 131andford, bankers.
The case has been fully reported, and to-day judgment
was to have been delivered by Mr. Commissioner Fon-
blanque, but in consequence of the illness of that learned
gentleman the case was adjourned,
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulbottrn.)
IN RR SHARPE.
This bankrupt was described as an underwriter. The
debts and liabilities are rather largo—described in the
accounts as £28,000, and the amount realised is stated
at £l,OOO.
The examination is likely to last for a considerable time.

THE RELIGIOUS DISSENSIONS IN ST,
GEORGE' S-Ill'- TITS-EIS T.

MR. ROSIER'S APPEAL (THIS DAY).
(Before Mr. BoMdkin, the Assistant-Judge, and a Bench of
aOstrates at Westminster.)
MR, ROSIER, (APPELLANT) V. G. P. ELLIOTT, ESQ., A
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (RESPONDENT).

This case, which has excited great attention, involving as
it does important principles both of law and fact, came
before the court this morning, sitting at the Guildhall,
Westminster, a large number of the leading parishioners
being present.
Mr. Poland appeared for the appellant. The respondent
was represented by Mr. Metcalfe, who, on the outset, ob-
jected to proceeding with the case on the ground that,
under the Act, the case ought to have been tried during the
last sessions. lle objected also tkat the notices were in-
formal and fatal to the case. _ _

Mr. Bodkin, on lotting to the act of parliantenf-, said he
could not entertain the objection, and must overrule them.
The case was then proceeded with, the facts being as fol-
lows :—On the 19th of July last Mr. Rosier was charged
before Mr. Elliott, who was then sitting temporarily at the
Thames Police-court, on a summons taken out by the Rev.
T. D. Dove, of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, assistant
curate of the parish of St, George's-in-the-East, charging
him with having, on the previous Sunday, in the parish
church, and during the celebration of Divine service, made
a disturbance. The summons expressed that the defendant

"did unlawfully molest, let, disturb, vex, and trouble the
said Thos. Dove Dove, a clergyman, in holy orders, minis-

tering in the parish church of St_ George during the cele-
bration of Divine service." The summons was issued under
the 2d clause of the new act, 23 and 2t Vic., cap. 32, which
imposes a penalty, not exceeding, £5, or imprisonment with-
out the option of paying a fine, not exceeding two months.
The evidence went to show that Rosier, who was foreman
to a clothier and pawnbroker, carrying on business in St.

George-street, better known as Ratcliffe Highway, was pu
forward by a party in St. George's parish in opposition to
the rector (the Rev. Bryan King) and his church services.
He occupied a pow near the reading-desk, and said the re-
sponses very loudly, so loudly, indeed, that Mr. Church-
warden Thompson wont to him and requested him not to
make so ranch noise, when he turned round and sharply
exclaimed, " Don't interrupt me, sir," and continued his
loud reading. The churchwarden then called in the police
and had Mr. Rosier removed. In the course of his judg-
ment on the case Mr. Elliott referred at some length to the
act which had been passod only 16 days previously, and
said he was of opinion that every rector or incumbent of a
church or chapel had a right to prescribe the frrode of cele-
brating Divine service, and whether it should be a
church service or otherwise. If a clergyman thought fit to
order that the response should be sung, and people read the
responses in a loud voice in order to prevent the saying of
them as directed by the minister, that was an offence
within the meaning of the act. It was of opinion that the
defendants and others by reading the responses loudly
wished to prevent the saying of them, and did in adopting
that course, disturb, vex, and trouble the minister. Ile
therefore fined the defendant £3, and against this decision
Mr. Rosier gave notice of appeal—a right of appeal given
by the act to the general or quarter sessions, on due notice
to that effect being given.
Mr. Poland said he had to submit to the Court that Mr.
Elliott's conviction was informal, and void at law on the face
of it. The conviction failed to state that the offence
charged was contrary to the statute made and provided.
Another objection he had to urge, but it did not state
when the fine of £3 should be paid. For anything,
to the contrary stated in the act the penalty might be paid
in 20 years. Mr. Elliott sentenced Rosier to a pecuniary
fine of £3, and in default of payment to 14 days' imprison-
ment in the House of Correction. The imprisonment he
held could not be inflicted, no time having been mentioned
for the payment of the penalty. Another objection he had
to urge was, that under the act no power was given to a
magistrate to send a person to prison in default of his pay-
ing a pecuniary fine. Upon tkeee grounds he urged that
the conviction was bad and ought to be quashed.
Mr. Metcalfe argued that the points urged were of no
legal importance, and that it ought to bo inferred that the
magistrate only gave the persons convicted a reasonable
time for payment. The statute did not fix the time, and
the magistrate did not therefore state the time in the con-
viction. Tho magistrate was the judge of what was rea-
sonable time, and he clearly had the power to carry out the
sentence.
Mr. Bodkin said he had a strong opinion that there was
some force in the last objection.
Mr. Metcalfe said the objection had come upon him by
surprise, and expressed a hope that the case might be ad-
journed in order that he might look into the matter.
After some further conversation, the conviction was
quashed, the Assistant-Judge remarking that he hoped
such a case would not occur again.
The proceedings then terminated.