The Sun.
London, England, 1803-04-23 00:00:00

4,11114. n.

Arb.. WALL/ICIS rose, anal began to take a ge.
rtal view ()lam Illawigtment of thellchester Dec-

, .
tiUfi..when
17,? SPE/IWER saiJ, he thought it was..,iie.
re,,.313, to say, that the qaestion hefine the House
iva3 entirety confined to the Cow,ideration of the Te-
!o4:titln which applied to Mr.. White FarAoni, and
r. Do vison; and not to the general merit 4 of the
•

Mr. W ALL ACE,said, he thought it was neces.
sary to take a view Of-the whole of the tirctimstances
cun:ietieti with the -11 chester Eledinn, before the
11;tne could judge of the question before thorn,
'qls'.Aion being whether a Prosecution shou:d
instituted against-certain persons Mentioned
• the Resolution, for Bribery and Corruption.
con.,idered it highly necessary to be acquaint-.
with dl the circumstances reladng to their
in order to judge of their guilt or in-
c:-:.nct-, and 'whether there - were -sufficient
to scild the patties to trial,' fur theoffence
;;•(-y lidee h.e,i charged with. It was his opinion,
:u.t the House, in this case,. was similar to a Grand
whose duty it was to learn every particular
with the -purport of the indiftmect, before
Ot--y sent the in.liyidual to trial. It appeared to
that so much confusion attached to this ques.
i.on, that there would be a great•difficulty to bring
guile home to Alexander Davison. Qdffeld
told a story, which amounts to this, that Mr.
1'.,t,,(1. procured a person to go down to the. 80.
to bribe dl the Medina in this aft of
corruption My. Davison was connected but

from a 'fair investigation of ail the circum;
stances, it would he impropee to give any credit
to it. A person of the name of Houlton, who'
is counated ,with this question, is well known
-to be a professed dealer in Boroughs, and whose
evidence is not to be attended to. In his mind
there did tint appear any conneelion between him
and the sitting member. He hid taken some pains
to consider the minutes of the Committee, and
though some blame might attach to Mr. Davison,
there did not appear any good grounds to send him
to trial. He was sure, if the House in' ita wisdom
should think it right to institute a prosecution
against Mr. Davison, a jury would acquit him.

Mr. BURDON said, on looking over the report
of the,Committee,' he was satisfied there was the
most clear proofs of bribery and corruption ; he
certainly did not mean to couple Davison with some
of the others, who were engaged in this;-seene of
iniquity, but he thought , his conduft was not
altogether right. It appeared that the Ele4ors
were purchased at 3o pounds per man ; this was an
incontrovertible fact. As to the evidence of Old.
field, he thought that person could not-be consider.
ed in any other light than a King's evidence; he
was _extremely sorry that men_ should sell their
suffrage for a few pounds, such. condat lessened
their importance, and rendered them wretches of the
utmost contempt.. Added to the persons already.
mentioned, he thought Mr. Happen' ought to be
put, with the rest on their 'trial, and he did not
doubt but they would he convieled. As far as he
vas able to judge the merits of the case, it Was his
opinion that the resolution should receive the vote
of the House.

Mr; JOHNSTONE said, we ought not to engage
HisMajesty'sArroß NEr Nelt ALM institute a pro.
secut ion against th,:se persons, with Ont good grounds,
and he, for one thought there was sufficient ground
to prose Cutes the persons in question. The evidence
of Oldfield was confirmed by many circumstances
which had been made out in so clear a way, that
there can be no doubt of their guilt. It, did not
appear to him that Davison could he, separated from
the rest : there was no doubt. but he was involved
in their wickednesi, and it had been pretty clearly
proved, that 'he was deeply concerned in carrying
bribery as far as it could be carrietL He thoUght
the crime was of p very serious nature, and that
Parliament would not discharge their duty unless
Mr. Davis'on- was put on, his trial.
Mr. Siwrrn explained.
Mr. CALA' PAT said; that the whole, of the parties,
ought to come before a Court' of Justic;.'
The first Resolution was then agreed to.
The second Resolution being:read, as follows :
Resolved, That Alexander Davison. of St. James's-
square, was engaged in the said SyStem of Corruption,

Lord Co L t said a few wordy in favour of the Re-
solution.

Mr. SHERIDAN said, there' was 'certainly no.
thing like proof, that Mr..Davison had been guilty
of the offence he was accused of ; and before the
House gave,instrudions to the ATTORNEY.GENERAL
to prosecute the Gentleman named in the -ReiOlu.
lion, it was necessary to know more of case.
An Hon. Gentlethan bad ' taken the liberty to call
the Eledors of this Borough " a set of wretches,"
for having taken Thirty Pounds each for their vote.
Ile would beg leave to inform that Gentle.
man,
.that a great many elevated Charaders had no
other way of getting a Born Ugh, but by pecuniary
influence. With resped to Mr. Davison, there
was no. proof that lie used Bribery ; though 301. a
man had been given, it did not appear that he had
any particular.conncdion With the .Corruption talk-
ed of: all that had been said, did not prove that an
atom of Corruption had flown from Mr. Davison;
AMITTART spoke decidedly against the
condua of the persoirrmenrioned in the Resolutions,
and observed, that Mr. Davison might have peti-
tioned the House, and.have been heard in his de-
fence.', Much hail been said that the testimony of
one or two persoos could not be depended on ; "bur,
their e,vidence had been corroborated by the testi-
many of many odic's, whose evidence could nut he
objected, to. He, was, satisfied that they had corn.
'flitted a very gross offence, and he did not doubt but
the Grand Jun. would find a Bill against them,
whenever it wal preferred;

The MASTEJc of the ,ROLLS said, from the npi-
.
nion he had of the case, he would not advise' the
Hou4 to be too hasty in prosecuting persons for the
offence now the subjeCt Of debate, 'I he proseco.:
lions that have been. generally instituted against
persons by the order of the House, have been for
libels against-the House, and which were only no.
ticed by, the .House. With respe4 to prosecutions
for Bribery, that was originally an offence at coma
'mon' law, but it was made a most serious offence by
.the statute of G. 11. When that act passed the Corn::
Mons, the penalty for bribing at eleetions was
fifty pounds, but in the Lords, who were by no
means fairourable to the bill, the penalty was made
five hundred pound's, -in the
...expeftation that
the Commons would not agree to the. amendment.
Contrary, however, to g2nr!.,;l exile Cation, the
commons agreed to the amendment made by' the
Lords, and the penalty for each individual aCi of
Bribery of.CoUrse was soOl. Upon this Statute,
therefore, any person might sue for the penalty, so
that a prosecution by a commoo Informer, and a
prosecution ordered by. that House, might exist at
the same time.

In other cases the Attorney. General might issue
a noll tromp; ; but if any person should institute a
prosecution upon the statute of Geo. IL the At;or.
ney.General could not stop it, and the.two prose.
cations must go on together. It therefore appeared
to him not consistent with the dignity
of the House
to institute a Prosecution, where -a firosecution
might at the same time he going on by a Ommon
Informer., antl he understood that in the present
case there were aaions going on against Mr. Davi.
son to recover penalties to the amount of 48,0001.
It was always a principle ailed upon by that, House,
not to prejudge any question which was likely to
come before a Court of Justice for decision. It was
true, that theoretically speaking, the Debates of that
House could not circulate outside of wails ;= hut,
in point of fat, the sentiments of the IVlembers of
that House were made known to the Public, and it
would be extremely inconveoienr if a Jury hilottiti
come to try these persons with the opinions of zt:
Members of that House, ok)on their guilt or

cenee,.hefore them. The iniblication of a common
hand-bill before a Trial, to influence the minds of
a Jury, was considered as highlrcriminal, and pu-
nished accordingly. He did not wish to affirm po-
sitively what he was not absolutely certain cf, but
be believed that there was on instance where a Pro.
secution had been ordered by that House, where
another Prosecution was going on at the same time.
It was upon these grounds, .and not upon any opi-
nion he had formed upon the faels'of the case, that
he thought this Prosecution otight not to be insti.
toted. -. An Hon. Gentleman had stated, that al-
though there might be Prosecutions for Bribery in-
stituted by. other persons, yet that the House might
institute a Prosecution for a Conspiracy. He had
nor read .theevidence with a view to that question,
and should• require further time to consider it, before
he,,gave an opinion. upon it. Upon-all these grounds
he should •move• the previous question.
Mr. FOX said, he approved of the previous
question, because it would not 'stand in the way of
any further proceedings, if -it should he thought-
necessary.

Mr. i3RAGdE said, he should vote for the pre.
vious question, it being understood that it would
not stand in the way of any further proceedings.
The House had already determined that a system
of Corruption had been formed at Ilchester, and that
further proceedings should be instituted : therefore
the House had in some degree prejudged the guts-
tion.—With resped to the alions which had been
bronght, they might, for ought he knew, be collu-
sive.

Mr. PANS I7TART said, W it were true that
there were actions brought, he should vote fur the
previous question.

Mr. GREY merely rose to call the recollection
of Gentlemen to the-situation in which the House
was placed. They had determined (that which
they certainly could not help determining) that
there was a scandalous scene of corruption dis-
played in this case, and that further proceedings
should be instituted. Whether Davison or the
others were concerned in the corruption, it was cer-
tain that corruption was praCtised. But if' these
persons were acquitted on. the prosecutions now
carrying on, would the House then take up the
business, after a jury had determined that they
were not guilty of bribery ?—Then the Resolution
would remain upon the Journals, and also the Res°_
lotion that further proceedings should be instituted.
In his opinion, it would be,better if the Committee
had advised the House to adopt some measures with
respett to the Borough, or those who had taken
bribes, as in the case of Shoreham and other places,
either enlarging the number of voters, or by dis.
franchising those who had abused their privileges.
But after the Resolution which the House had come
to, he thought the business ought not to rest in
silence.

BRAG9E explained.
The [notion for the previous question was then
agreed to..
• The Resolution with respell to Mr. White Par-
sons was then read.

ResoLved, That John ‘Vhite Parsons, of West Camels, in
the County of Somerset, was alto cogaged in the said System
of Corruption.

Mr. SMYTH moved, that the Resolution should
be a g **cc(' • co. . .
The MASTER of the. ROLLS moved the pre-
vious question. He said a Prosecution. was insti.
cured either against Parsons or licippin, but he did
not know which.

•
ne CHANCELLOR of. the EXCHEQUER
said, that the observation of an Honourable Nlem.
her (Mr. GREY) would relieve the House from the
difficulty arising from the Resolution which they
had, adopted. The Househad committed itself to
this extent, that bribery :had. been committed at
Ilchester ; but it was material that thellotise should
indicate a disposition to adopt, some measure Won'
the
.occasion. if the House would not determine
that these ,persons were guilty of.bribery,
it ought
to order, the Report to he taken into consideration
at a future day ; for unless there was a recorded
intention of 'following it up, it would appear' to the
Poblic as if the whole•.affair was dismissed. He
begged to he understood as giving no opinion upon
the filets of the, case, for he was almost ashamed to
say, ,that he had nor perused the Minutes .of the
Evidence with sufficient attention.

The Previous Question was then agreed to upon
the other Resolutions.

The farther consideration of the Report
was put
off till Monday. fortnight.
The Clergymens' Residence Bill went through a
Comtnittee, and the Report was ordered to be taken
into consideration on Tuesday sennight.