The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-14 00:00:00

September, the day following the date of the letter last
referred to.
-,.!.T.1aat,.0A, the morniag of the 26th of September, Mr.
Cochrane and 1-lg-agent-ea-Ned `on- your --pt titioneprata
asked him to be a eonsenting party to the withdrawal of
the petition against Mr. Mitchell, as, in that caae, the
petition against Mr.•Coehrane would not. be presented t
which proposition your petitioner said ba should refer to
the consideration of his friends.
"That, on the 29th of September, your petitioner ad-
dressed a letter to Mr. Cochrane's agent, stating that
your petitioner'had referred the -proposal of the termer
day to his I.Ondon agent, to-whom he .(your petitioner)
had stated the view he took of that proposal, in the lel-
lowing terms That, in my judgment, I stand in that.
position,' that no appeal made to me, as to what Mr.
Cochrane shall or ought to do, can with propriety be
answered by me, If I advise one-course, my friends will
consider me as abandoning them, and as sanctioning the
most monstrous injustice ; if I advise another course, it
may be imputed to me that I have conspired to turn Mr.
Mitchell out of his seat ; that to Mr. Cochrane and his
• advisers, therefore, I must leave the undivided responsi-
bility of determining on their course of action.'
" That, on the Ist of October, Mr. Cochrane 's agent
called on your petitioner, to state that he had received
from the agent of Mr. Mitchell, a proposal that his client
should resign his seat at the end of two years ; and Mr.
Cochranes agent begged to know whether your peti-
tioner would consent to that 'proposal ; to which your
petitioner answered that he would not.
" That, on the 4th of October, Mr. Cochrane and his
agent again proposed to your petitioner that he should
consent to the abandonment of the petition against Mr.
Mitchell's return; and if he would not consent to that

proposition, that he should avow himself the prosecutor
of the petition, and pay the costs of prosecuting it ; both
of which proposals your petitioner declined.
" That on or about the 24th of January it was signi-

fled to your petitioner's agent, by Mr. CoChrane's agent,
that Mr. Mitchell's agent had intimated the willing.

ness of Mr. Mitchell 170 refer all matters in dispute to
arbitration ; and to that proposal Mr. Cochrane's agent
begged to know whether your petitioner would consent ;
to which your petitioner replied that he would, if the.
arbitrator were to be empowered to examine him and
Mr. Mitchell, and were to regulate his decision by the
rule of hOnour as between gentlemen ; and your peti-
tioner is informed that, on your petitioner's answer
being communicated to Mr. Mitchell, he, Mr. Mitchell,
disavowed having ever authorised such a proposal to be
made. _ _ .

"'That various actions for penalties, and indictments,
and a criminal information for bribery have been brought,
in the course of these proceedings. as your petitioner is
informed, in the one part, by Mr. Mitchell or his agents,
to induce Mr. Cochrane to abandon the petition against
Mr. Mitchell's return ; and on the other, by Mr. Coe.ll-
rtme or his agents, to induce Mr. Mitchell to resign his
seat ; but that all these proceedings against Mr. Mitchell,
and. his friends and agents, were put an end to by Mr.
Mitchell's pecuniary compromise of the dispute between
himself and the agents who had disclosed his secrets.
"That, from the beginning of February in the pre-
sent year, to the middle of March, various applications
were made by Mr. Cochrane's agent to your petioner's
agent to furnish evidence in support of the petition
against Mr. Mitchell, on the allegation that the evidence
of bribers', in the possession of Mr. Cochrane's agent,
was insuilicient fl,r the purpose of rendering the oppo-
sition to that petition frivolous and vexatious ; end ulti-
mately a letter was received from Mr. Cochrane's agent
by your .petitioner's agent, stating that if the evidence
minima was not supplied by a given day, Mr. Cochrane
would abandon the petition. That your petitioner's
agent, doubting the intention of Mr. Cochrane's agent
to prosecute the petition, but not choosing that he should
have' he plea of abandoning it for want of evidence.
promised to furnish the proofs required, and did furnish
them by the appointed day : but the day before that
appointed for delivering the proof:. which latter was the
21st of March, .your petitioner was informed, by a letter
from Mr. Cochrane, that he had abandoned tin' petition.
and on the same day, viz., the said :list of March, the
petition against Mr. Mitchell's return, and the petition
against Mr. Cochrane's return. were both withdrawn,
and the proofs furnished by. your petitioner's agent were
returned unopened.
• " That in the course of obtaining the said proofs,

your petitioner's London agent discovered circumstances
which were not communicated to your petitioner until
the 2.)tit of March ; and which, if your petitioner • had
knout n at the time of his said compromise with Mr.
Cochrane, would have induced your petitioner not to
enter into such compromise.
" That your petitioner's London agent discovered
that, in about nine cases, the canvasser whom Mr.
Mitchell !gad borrowed of your petitioner's Bridport
agent, had been directed by Mr. Mitchell's agents to
offer bribes for votes to be given to your petitioner as
Well as Mr. Mitchell ; and that, in nine other Mies, or
thereabouts, the said canvasser had been employed to
offer bribes for votes to be given to Mr. Mitchell alone.
" And it further appeared that the said Matthew
Hutchinson, jtm., the agent of Mr. Mitchell, not liking
to deposit moneys in the hands of Mr. Mitchell's Brid-
port agent, had made your petitioner's agent the depo-
sitor atile moneys the said -Matthew Hutchinson, jun.,
might have occasion for during the election ; and that
orders for the payment of various sums of money were
given and paid by your petitioner's agent, which sums
were caused to be applied by the said Matthew Hutch-
inson, jun., in bribery.
" That your petitioner believes that the gross cost of
the said last contest for the borough of Bridport, in
June, 1841, exceeded that of all former ele?tion contests
since the Reform Act ; that the said Thomas Alexander
Mitchell expended 3,200/.., or thmabout, besides other
sums laid out on his behalf by his agent, Matthew
Hutchinson, jun. ; and that the said Alexander Dundas
Bailey Cochrane also expended a considerable sum, in
amount unknown to Your petitioner ; and that further
considerable turns of money have been paid for legal
proceedings, and for cemproinise of actions end indict-
ments by the said Messrs. Cochrane and Mitchell. •
" That your petitioner, on coming to the knowledge of
these latter circumstances, which it appeared to him re-
quired investigation, saw the more reason to regret that
the petition against Mr. Mitchell's return had been with-
drawn, since under an Act of the last Parliament (4th and
sth Victoria, cap. 57), his, your petitioner's personal
conduct, as a candidate, might, before the Committee ap-
pointed to try that return, have been submitted to strict
investigation, and might. have been reported on by that
Committee to your Honourable House.
"That your petitioner humbly trusts that in the fore-
going recital of facts he has slated sufficient grounds to
justify him in praying your Honourable House, to refer
the same to the Select Committee to be appointed to in-
quire into similar compromises, bribery, nod erection
corruption,
" That your petitioner and his Bridport agent, Edwin
Nicholetts, and your petitioner's London agent, Joseph
Parkes, will prove to your Hon. House the above facts,
and unreservedly communicate to your Hon. House all
I documents and correspondence relating thereto.
"And your petitioner will ever pray, Sze.'
The Hon. and Learned Meniber concluded by expressing
his intention to move that the petition be printed and
circulated with the Votes.
Mr. COCHRANE would not then enter into the parti-
culars of what had occurred at thelast Bridport election.
He had yesterday received front the llon. Member for
Liskeard a note, stating that it was his intention to pre-
sent the petition that evening ; but he had not antici-
pated that the Honourable Member would have taken
that. opportunity of making such statements as
he had done, without concluding with a motion.
He (Mr. Cochrane) would not then enter into any expla-
nation with reference to what had passed at Bridport at
the last election; but he felt great satisfaction, that ,as
regarded the questions between himself and Mr. War
burton, he should have an opportunity next week of lay-
ing' a statement fully before the House. After that
statement should have been made, he (Mr. Cochrane) felt
satisfied that no imputation could rest on him,
and that not even the breath of slander
could tarnish his character. If be (Mr. Coch-
rane) had acted at all erroneously, his error
had arisen front over-sensitiveness and over-regard for
the interests of Mr. Warburton.—(Cheers.) If be
had acted as many others would have acted under
similar circumstances, he would nut have been subjected
to the harassment front which he had suffered
since lie had become the representative of that borough.
He should avail himself a another opportunity of laying
before that House a full and entire answer to the peti-
tion which had just been presented ; and, at the same
time, tie would express his conviction that that answer
would add to his own character as a gentleman anti mutt
of hOilUilr. Ile felt assured that it would reflect no cre-
dit upon the Hon. Gentleman who had signed the peti-
tien.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MUCIIELL said that he had not been aware
that it was the intention of the lion. Member for Lis-
keard to read any portion of the petition. and he had not
m that 'account taken care to be, present during its
presentation. He had only heard a portion of its con-
tents ; and he could not, therefore, undertake to an-
swer its various allegations on tl occasion. lie
would, however, take that. opportunity of giving his di-
rect and positive denial of the few Words which he had
heard, at the end of the extracts read by the lion.
Member for Liskeard, to the effect that a gentleman, of
the name of 'Hutchinson, had acted as his (Mr. Mit-
chell's) agent in spending his money at the elec-
tion. To this assertion he gave an explicit denial.
and he could not help expressing his surprise that it had
been made by Mr. Warburton.---(Hear, hear.) He
would, on a future occasion, answer more fully the alle-
gations contained in the petition, and he would not,
therefore, allude to the matter any farther on that oc-
casion.
Mr. C. BULLER was proceeding to Say that the Hon.
Gentlemen could not complain of the course he had taken
on that occasion, when the I lon.G entleman was interrupted
hy cries of " Order, order." Ile then moved that the
petition should be printed and circulated with the Votes,
for the use of Members of the House ; and gave notice
that on that day week he should call the attention of the
House to the subject of the petition.
NOTICES OF MOTION.

Mr. YORKE gave notice, that on the House going
into Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Act. he
would move that the Commissioners be not empowered
to enforce any separation between man and wife.
ELECTION PETITIONS.

Sir J. WALSH gave notice that on Friday next he
would move that, in the order made by the House, for
the appointment of a Select Committee, to inquire
respecting certain alleged compromises of elec-
tion petitions, the words " and whether such
bribery has taken place in the aforesaid terms," he struck
out, and the inquiry be confined to the objects indicated
by the previous notice of the. Hon. Member for Bath,
aid embraced by the motion which be first submitted to
the House.
Mr, SHARMAN CRAWFORD gave notice, that on
the motion that the Poor-law Commission Bill be read a
second time, he would move as an amendment, that it
be read that dad' six mouths, The Hon. Member further