The Sun.
London, England, 1828-04-19 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
MONDAY, APRIL 21.—ORDERS OF THE DAY.
1. Linen Manufactures (Ireland) Bill—Second reading.
2. Larceny Laws (Ireland) Bill—Second reading.
3. Sheriffs (Irela id) Bill—Committee.
4. Malicious Injuries (Ireland) Bill—Second reading.
5. Madhouses (Scotland) Bill—Second reading.
G. Turnpike Bill Fees—Adjourned Debate thereupon.
7. Offences against the Person Bill—Second reading.
9. Law of Evidence Bill—Second reading.
9. Land Tax Commissioners Names Bill—Second reading.
10. Election Trial Acts Consolidation Bill—Committee.
11. Cities and Towns Improvement (Ireland)Bill—Second

reading.
12. Stamps on Cards and Dice Bill—Committee,
13. Crown Solicitors Bill—Committee.
14. Supply—Committee.
lb. Ways and Means—Committee.
16. Promises and Engagements Bill—Report.
17. Records Variance

NOTICFs OF MOTIONS:

I. Mr. Harvey—ictitiOn from the Silk Weavers of Spi-
tal-fielaß, praying for some legislative measure to
cure to them remunerative price for their labour.
2. Mr. Chawellor of the Exchequer—Grant out of Con-
.

solidated Fund. (In Committee of Ways and Means.)
3. Mr. Secretary Huskisson—Select Committee to in-
quire into the present state of Civil Government in
the Canadan.

NOTICE CaVEN .s-EsTmlnAr.
Tuesday, May 20.
Mr. Wilmot Horton—Resolutions respecting Emigration.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 18.

The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the
Penryn Witnesses' Indemnity Bill, and to several private
Bills.

The Commissioners were the LORD CHANCELT OR, the
Earl of SnavrEsatrxy, and Earl BATHURST.
The Stamps and Insurances Bill was read a third time
and passed.
Lord COLCHESTER presented a petition from the
proprietors of a Lunatic Asylum in Oxford, against the
Lunatic Asylums Bill.
The Earl of ROSERERRY presented a petition from
the Provost and Corporation of Linlithgow, praying for the
Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts.
The Noble Lord presented a petition from the same
place, praying that the state of Gaols in Scotland might be
taken into consideration.

The Duke of RUTLAND presented a petition from the
parish of St. Margaret, Leicester, against any further con-
ceaqions to the Roman Catholics.

The Noble Duke presented a similar petition from Gran-
tham.

Lord KING said that he had a petition to present,
breathing more Christian feeling than that just laid on the
table ; it was from certain Roman Catholics residing in
the King's County, in Ireland, and it prayed that their
Protestant Dissenting Brethren, as the petitioners called
them, might be relieved from the oppression of the Corpo-
ration and Test Acts.

Several petitions were presented in favour of the Stockton
and Darlington Railway Bill. The Bill was read a second
time and ordered to be committed on next Monday week.
Lord HAREWOOI) presented a petition from a parish
i❑ Yorkshire, against the Importation of Foreign Lead.
Lord MELVILLE presented a petition (which his
Lordship stated was very respectably though not very nume-
rously signed) from Christians of various denominations,
praying that the Government would grant a repeal of the
Test Act so far as it compelled those received into office
to receive the Sacrament from Clergymen of the Established
Church ; yet, at the same time, that the Sacramental Test
might not be altogether done away with.
The same Noble Lord also presented a petitien from the
College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, against the impediments
thrown in their way by the difficulty of procuring subjects
for anatomy.

A return was brought up of the number of prisoners
tried for criminal offences in the Great Session of Wales,
from the years 1823 to 1827.
Mr. Joyce brought up a copy of the report respecting
the Agricultural Trade of the country.
On the motion of Lord SALISBURY, the order for
snmmoning their Lordships on the Sale of Game Bill, was
discharged and renewed for Monday, the 28th inst.
Lord CARNARVON moved the Order of the Day fur
hearing evidence in support of the Bill for Disfranchising
the Borough of Peuryn. His Lordship argued upon the
necessity of passing a Bill which should extinguish a cor-
rupt borough, and confer the franchise upon one of the
most opulent, populous, and commercial cities, for its ex-
' tent, in the world. In such instances as the present, it was
usual to refrain from coming to the discussion of the ques-
tion, until the evidence had been received on both sides;
and, therefore, he would only make a few observations. He
was glad to find that the subject had been brought forward,
and so ably argued by a Noble Lord in the other House, the
introduction of which Bill, and the indefatigable manner
in which it was supported, certainly formed one of the most
brilliant actions of his political life.—(Hear. )—Corn-
wall had been once celebrated as the emporia of the
country, but the only manufactures that at present existed
in it were those which he wanted to put down, and they
were the manufactures of Members of Parliament.—(A
laugh.)—The NoWe Lord concluded by moving, that Coun-
sel should be called in for the examination of the witnesses.
Mr. Adam and Mr. Frederick Williams appeared far the
Bill, and Mr. Harrison, for the petitioners, against the
Bill.

Cairne was called to the Bar, and in compliance
with the suggestion of Mr. Harrison, the remainder of the
witnesses were ordered to withdraw.

Mr. Cairne then underwent an examination by Mr.
Adam, and deposed to his having hdvanced considerable
sums during the Penryn election. He referred particu-
larly to the election of 1826, but the like circumstances
had occurred in 1824. Mr. Harrison objected to
this evidence as antecedent to the last election, but the
Lord Chancellor decided, that as the preamble of the Bill
contained a charge of gross corruption against the Borough
of Penryn, such evidence should be received. The witness
produced several books, which were laid before the House.
James Teed examined by Mr. Williams—This wit-
ness proved that in canvassing the Borough of Penryn, on
the part of Lord Percival, in 1826, the general answer he
had received from the electors was, " You may have me if
you like." He could not, however, recollect the name of
any individual who had given him such answer; being a
stranger in Penryn, he did not know the names of the
electors.

The LORD CHANCELLOR asked whether the witness
had seen any indiyidual polled who had given him that
answer ?

Witness could not refer to any individual, but many
electors had given him that answer, and he had seen all the
alectors
Several questions having been asked the witness by the
Loan CHANDELLQR, and othe►s,

Lord DURHAM suggested that it was impossible the
Counsel could perform their duty, or elucidate the matter
properly, if they were to meet with such interruptions.
He thought they should be allowed to proceed with the exa-
mination. _

The MAID CHANCELLOR believed their Lordships
would agree with him that they were pursuing the proper
course ; no deposition should be received, the tendency of
which was not fully understood.
The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Harrison—
He had a book in which he had entered the names of those
he had canns,,,edt and the replies they had given him as to
whom they would vote for. He repeated, however, that
he could not recollect the name of any individual oho had
given him the answer to which he had referred, He could
not tell what had become of his canvassing book—he be-
lieved it had been destroyed.
The next witness examined was James Reed.
Examination of James Reed continued—Do you know
from their own confession if any voters received money for
their votes ? I know that they did.
The LORD CHANCELLOR declared that, in his opi-
nion,'the above answer should not he received in evidence.
It appeared to film, that in justice to that part of the
borough which was allowed on all hand,s to be pore, they
could not admit testimony tending to convict another per-
son from that person's own confession.
The Earl of CARNARVON said that such evidence
was admissible in a Court of Justice, and ought also to be
admissible before their Lordships, and that it was so, he
could show by a reference to the Journals of the House,
by which it appeared that when irt a similar case the same
exception had been taken by Sir William Giant, it had
been overruled by a decision of their Lordships.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said nobody could feel
more anxious than himself that the question should be well
sifted, and if the evidence went to prove as much as was
set forth in the preamble of the Rill, he wonld be found as
ready to support it as the Noble Lord. He thought, how-
ever, that at present, when a case of general corruption
was by no means established ; but, on the contrary', it ap-
peared from evidence that there was a party of the borough
against the purity of which there was no charge ; it would
he extremely unjust to admit evidence of that description
,advocated by the Noble Earl, and especially when it was

considered that those individuals, whom it was alleged had
been bribed, were accessible, and might be cross-exa-
at the bar of their Lordships' House. But still, whatever
might be his own individual opinion upon the subject, he
was ready to admit that if the case were found to be esta-
blished, as stated by the Noble Lord, he would be bound
to defer to the decision of their Lordships, and would not
feel himself justified in attempting to press his objection
farther ; but if the case were not proved to be directly in
point, if it were found only to apply to a state of general
corruption, he argued that on principle, and when it was
considered how great was the magnitude of the stake for
which the purer portion of the borough had to contend,
evidence of this kind ought not to be received.
The Earl of CARNARVON stated that the same objec-
tion had been taken at the Bar of that House, by Sir Wm.
Grant, and that it had been over-ruled.
The Journals were then produced, and examined by the
LORD CHANCELLOR after which his Lordship said, that
he was perfectly satisfied the decision of their Lordships
was, as the Noble Earl had stated it, and that he, of course,
at once withdrew his objection.
After a few words from the Marquis of SALISBURY,
and the Earls of CARNARVON and LAUDERDALE, it was
agreed that the answer be received in evidence.
The examination of witnesses was then resumed.

Thomas James, on his cross-examination by Mr. Har-
rison—Witness admitted that he had chaiged. Mr. Stan-
bury 15/. 9s. for a pair of shoe,. They were good shoes,
and he charged a good price. Mr. Stanbury put 107. in
witness's pocket, which he took away, but did not vote for
Mr. Stanbury's friend.
Lord SHAFTESBURY—Then you put the money in
your pocket, but did not vote for Mr. Stanbury's friend ?
Witness—Mr. Stanbury put it in my pocket.
Lord SHAFTESBURY—That was not bribery 1 sup-
pose,. _ . _ • . .

• Witness—Why I intended to ask your Lordships whether
it was bribery or not.—(Laughter.)

The witness then withdrew.

John Panley was next called and examined by Mr. Adam
—Witness had many times seen Mr. Stanhnry talk to the
wives of the voters.

The examination of the witness having terminated, he
was ordered to withdraw.

The Earl of FALMOUTII then moved that the further
consideration of the mutter be postponed to Tuesday next.
His Lordship, feeling it to be perfectly consistent with the
forms of their Lordships' House, begged leave also to move
that a particular hour, namely, ten o'clock (at night),
should be fixed for the termination of each day's proceeding
upon that specific subject.
The Earl of CARNARVON concurred, and the motion
was then agreed to.
Their Lordships then, at half-past ten o'clock, adjourned
to ten o'clock to-morrow (this day) to hear appeals.