The Sun.
London, England, 1819-05-15 00:00:00

ITNRYN ELECT CON.

0n the motion of Sir C. BUkI4,LL, the House
resolved into a Committee upon the reoryo Bri-
bery Bill, and proceeded to examine witnesses.
'The first witness called was
Thos. Trelove.—He' stated, that he was ac-
quainted with the conduct of the Elections for
Pent yn for several years. To a certain question
the witness denim red, observing that he was un-
willing to make any answer that might commit
himself. Witness was ordered to withdraw ; and
Sir C. BURRELL said, that it ought to be inti-
mated to this. as well as to other witnesses, that
the answer of a man at the Bar of that House did
not expose him to prosecution elsewhere.
'Mr. MARTIN Oh Galway) maintained, that no
man should be there, or any where else, called
Upon to criminate himself.
The CliAlkilAN (Mr. Brogden) observed, that
that House was uot restrained by the rules which
pyrvailed in the ordinary Courts of Law—and
that it appeared the sen,e of the Committee the
wituess should answer the question which had
been put to him.
Ti:e witness being re-called to the Bar, stated,
that be, slid not call upon Sir Manasseh Lopez
%vial any authorized statement from the Electors
of Penryn, that they would elect him for-money.
Being asked, • whether he would say that he made
no such statement to Lopez, lie declined, to an-
elvcr pie4tion, iebt hp should
.criminate him-
self. iVithess was again ordered to withdraw, and

Mr. MARTIN (of-Galway) rose again to enter
his protest against any attempt to extract from
the witness any answer that might serve to crimi-
nal himself.

Sir J. NEWPORT remarked., -that there was a
decided difference between the examination of
evidence at that Bar and at any other place,
land for :his- plain reason, because no an-
swer given by a witness at that Bar could
serve to commit or criminate him elsewhere,
no such answers being producable elsewhere—l►e
in ea t in any of the ordinary Courts of Law.
Mr. MARTIN asked whether, although the state-
ment of a winless at that Bar was not, as the
Right lion. Baronet had said, produemble in evi-
deece against J►im in any of the ordinary Courts
of Law, it would not still be unfair to call upon
a wit tress to make any reply that might operate
to disparage his character in general society ?
Mt. C. WYNN thouglit the witness should be
caned in, and told thp in any answer he might
give he was under the protection of the [louse,
and chat if, after being so informed, he persisted
iu retusit►g to aiiswer any question, the blouse
would (kid with him accordingly.
Mr. G. LAMB said, that if a witness in this case
were alfowen to refuse answering a question, upon
any al►ttrehension, real or pretended, that be
crim;nate himself, it would be as well fur

the I.4otise at once to pot an end to t'►is inquiry
altogether. But, aceordiug to the Honourable
Member for Galway,- a witness should be at
libery to decline giving any answer likely to
disparage his eliaJaeLer. He submitted, however,
that it such a role were established, the inquisito-
lial powers of that House must become perfectly
nugatory.
Mr. MARTIN still maintained, that the witness
f,hould he to!d not only that he was' not to give
anv ansVer to criminate himself, but that it Avas
discretionary with him to give or iiefuse any an-
swer likely to disparage his character.
Sir J. NEMPt;RT observed, that the rule urged
by tie last spe.iker, as 61,iepersons at the Bar being
c.-dlec! upon► to give at►swer likely to criminate
themselves„ was not :it all analogous to the ge-
ovrai practice of the House ; for it must he in the
ru collection 0-t'evet yone who heard him, that the
answers of printers as to their connection with
publications 'in which libels upon •the House or
any of its Members appeared, generally formed
the ground for the committal of such printers.
The witness being recalled to the Bar, was in-
formed, that in any answers which he might give
he was Wider the protection of the House. Wit-
ness declared that he never said to Sir M. Lopez
that a portion of the Electors for Peuryn would
vote for him from any consideration whatever ;
did believe he never said to Sir Manasseh that he
could carry the Borough fur any price ; be could
not, however, deny that money was mentioned,
and that he might haee 'said the distribution of
20001. among about 200 person, would serve to
carry the election ; for such a representation,
however, lie bad no authority from the Electors
Pentyri ; he always consi►iered the Ineakfasts
at the Penryn Election to mean a promise of 241.
to each voter.

John E{l yards was the next witness.—He de-
scribed hiitiself us an Attorney at Truro, much in
the lti;bit of attending the Elections for Cornwall.
He was pretty generally consulted as to the ught
of voting according to the Constitution of the
several :Boroughs in that Coif v• Anion g Whet-
pl:Aces, he had been at Penryn at the last Elec-
tion, where lie had heard that Sir M. Lopez was
invited to become a candidate. The Pettryn
breakfast he understood to mean a pledge or pro-
mise 24 guineas to any voter whb-would sup-
port two candidates. Had heard of some (limit-
tistaction v:ith respect to Mr. Swann for not giv-
ing any public breakfast ; but he did not believe
that any candidate could be returned fur Penryu
by means of mo,nry t-(A laugh.).--11 such a man
as Mr. Sewell, however, could introduce a can-
didate with moncy to the Electors, this introduc-
t ion wOuid, no doubt, have great weight. Wit-
net;s belies ed, but he could not-state with cer-
tainty, that there were from 8 to 900 Freeholdeis
in :he two adjacent Hundreds. Witness was or-
dered to withdraw.-

Edward Butt was next examined.- lie was Edi-
tor of the Newspaper published in Cornwall, call-
ed The West &Ron. After the Election of Pen-
ryo, Mr. Anderdon had an interview with him,
and a conversation took place, which the witness,
throwing himself on the candour of the House,
begged to say Mr. Anderdon never expected would
be revealed. He was, however, in the bands of
the House, and should obey their orders. The
witness then read an article from the Newspaper,
highly complitnentary to the conduct at Mr. An-
denim', and to his popularity at Penryn. This
article was given to him for insertion by Mr. An-
derdon. In the course of conversation, Mr. An-
derdon talked of the bribery practised at Penryn
by the returned Members. Witness remarked,
that any man who knew Penryn, knew that no-
thing could be effected without. money. Mr. An-
dcrdoo admitted the fact. and said, that all his
engagements should be fulfilled when he could du
so with safety.
On the motion of Mr. GEORGE LAMB, the ex•
tract from The West Briton was expunged from the
Journals, as irrelevant to the subject before the
Committee.

Win. Richards, J. Reynolds, and E. Coode
were ;e-examined, after which the Hatise result].
etl, when the Chairman reported progress, and
obtained leave to sit again on Monday.