The Sun.
London, England, 1827-05-19 00:00:00

PENRYN ELECTION BILL.

On the motion of Mr. LEGH KECK, the order of
the day was read for the second reading of the Penryn
Election Bill.

Mr. D. BARCLAY said, that he felt it a duty he owed
to his constituents to oppose the motion. The second
reading of the Bill had been urged forward with great and
unbecoming haste. He could not believe the House would
sanction such a course, with regard to a measure which
involved the privileges of five hundred people.
Lord ALTHORP having asiserted to a statement made
by the Hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House—
that though Mr. Grenfell had published an advertisement,
stating that he had retired from the Representation of
Penryn, on account of the corrupt practices of the elec-
tors, the true reason why that Gentleman had withdrawn
was, because he had lost his interest in the borough—said,
that in consequence of this statement, Mr. Grenfell had
addressed a letter to him (Lord Althorp), accompanied with
a request that it might be read to the House. Mr. Grsn-
fell was very desirous to have the statement of the firm.
Gentleman (Mr. Barclay) corrected, the mistakes of which
he ascribed entirely to that Hon. Gentleman's misinforma-
tion. The Noble Lord then read the letter of Mr. Gress-
fell which was to the following effect :
" My dear Lord—On perusing the report of what passed
in the House of Commons, on Tuesday last, when the evi-
dence from the Penryn Committee was under the conside-
ration of the House, Mr. Barclay is represented (how cor-
rectly I know not) to have stated that I had withdrawn
as a candidate from Penryn, not in consequence of any opi-
nions entertained by me injurious to the character of the
borough, but because I had lost the confidence of the elec
tars ;' and, as it might be inferred from this supposed as-
sertion of Mr.• Barclay, if not contradicted by me, that I
had done something to justify the electors in withdrawing
their confidence from me, I should be much obliged if you
could avail yourself of some opportunity of stating, on my
behalf, that although I am satisfied that this assertion by
Mr. Barclay can only have been the result of erroneous in-
formation, conveyed to him by others, I must, in justice to
myself, declare, that nothing can be more incorrect than
the assertion itself : for the truth is, that I withdrew from
Pcnryn, not because I had any reason to believe that I had
lost the confidence of the electors, but because I felt that the
electors had forfeited the confidence I had placed in them.
I had confided in the sincerity of the assurances which they
made to me, both before and after my election in 1820,
that they would continue to support me upon the princi-
ples which I most distinctly told them were the only prin-
ciples upon which I would accept their suffrages. I had
adhered strictly, on my part, to those principles. I had
never deceived them, but I had reason fur believing that
the electors were preparing to break their compact with
me. As soon, therefor 6, as I had satisfied myself, by re-
presentations made to me from various quarters, that I had
no chance of being elected a second time, without a recur-
rence to those illegal practices which had formerly pre-
vailed in the Borough, I determined at once to withdtaw
from it.

" It has, indeed, been stated, that the two Gentlemen
who now represent Penryn were elected without any par-
ticipation, either directly or indirectly, in those acts of
bribery and treating, which, in the Report now before
the House, are proved to have been practised at the elec-
tion in June last; but whatever means they may have
possessed for thus recommending themselves to the pure
and unbiassed choice of the electors, I am satisfied that no
such means were within my reach, and that I had no
chance at Penryn without lending myself to those acts of
corruption which ere now proved to have occurred at the
last election, although without the knowledge or partici-
pation of the two Honourable Members who at present re-
present this borough.
" I cannot conclude without concurring in the opinion
which has been expressed by others, as to the respectability
of many individuals who are electors of Penryn, and who
are not only incapable of being parties to, but who re-
probate, in the strongest manner, the corrupt practices re-
ferred to. I have the. honour to be, my dear Lord, very
faithfully yours, " PASCOE GRENFELL.
Charles-street, St. James's, Friday, May 11."
This was the letter which he (Lord Althorp) bad re-
ceived. He thought it best to read it at once to the
House, as a more easy and certain mode of making known.
its contents than by giving the substancein any words of
would not
his own.
the House by going the
discharged this act of privateduty,he
general
question before it.
Mr. D. BARCLAY begged to be allowed to make a few
Havingdetain
observations on what had fallen from the Noble Lord.
The SPEAKER suggested, that it would be more or-
derly for the Hon. Member to take another opportunity in
the progress of the Bill.

111 r. FERGUSSON said it was absolutely necessary
for Parliament to interfere in defence of the purity of elec-
tion, against the practices that had prevailed in the bo-
rough. On the report that had been presented witn re-
spect to the late election, he would have had very consi-
derable difficulty in making up his mind as to the course to
be followed ; but when he perused the reports of the two
several Committees in 1807, and in 1819, both disclosing,
in the evidence on which they were founded, the grossest
and most shameful cases of bribery and corruption that had
ever come before Parliament, he bad no doubt whatever as
1807 it
si t
Naye peared,
agreementby
ir Christopher Haw-
he
he
f
C
t
had
of the Borongli,
khtt
be
Report
yr
wasl shouldatsir:regularly
:apex
ndedermftooibrt
between
ebnt
the
het
nlehnar
and a Committee of the Burgesses, by which it was
settled that each elector should receive twenty-four guineas
for his vote. There was every reason to believe that the
money had been paid in pursuance of this agreement._.
The Report also stated that proof had been given of various
other acts of bribery. The result was, that Sir Christopher
Hawkins was, by the returning officer, declared duly elec-
ted. On a petition against his return, a Committee of the
House resolved that Sir, Christopher Hawkins had been
guilty of bribery and corruption. He was, of course, un-
seated by the Report, and a prosecution followed in the
Court of King's Bench. What were the facts in 1819,
with regard to Mr. Swan and another Gentleman, who
was then a candidate for this borough ? It was stated in
the Report on that election, that that Gentleman, whim
lie (Mr. Fergtnson) would not name, in the public and open
day, went from house to house, and paid 5/. to each eli,.!tor
for his vote. Yet this Gentleman was, by the returning
office, declared duly elected. A petition was afterwards
presented against his return, and he was unseated, as guilty
of bribery and corruption, There could be uo doubt,

therefore, now, as to tlie neeeMitv bf visiting Penryn with
a punishment 01f:cable to its offence. Parliament would
not disfranchise every borough where bribery might take
place. .rut when it was proved, by successive inquiries,
that toe great mass of the electors were contaminated with
the guilt of the corruption by which the Members were
returned, it was the bounden duty of the House to vindi-
cate its privileges, and maintain the purity of election. He
(11r. Ferguson) was now prepared, on the evidence re-
ported by the last Committee, and confirmed by the two
former Committees, to vote for depriving Penryn of the
right of election it had hitherto exercised. If he had only
the last report before him, he might have fbund considera-
ble difficulty in this case, as the Con'amittee, though they
had found that gross bribery and treating had ten place at
the last election, had uevertbOCS3 declay.-eel that the two sitting
Members were duly elected, and thtt no case of corruption had
been brought home to them. f the Ijon. Gent. suspended his
speech for a few minutes, 'while he conferred witli a friend.]
He believed he was tr:dingly in mot.. The petition was
only against opt el the sitting Menittses. But the decision
of the Coraraittee was substantiatly the same. They de-
clared there had been gross vases of bribery, but that the
Hon, Gentleman (Mrs IN Tanning) had not ken concerned
in them. For the o.',3cuss.ion of this Bill, it mattered not
Low the case et'7;od with reference to to that Hon. Gentle-
man. Them were certainly many difficulties in considering
the Report, because, if the agency of Sewell and Stanbury
was proved, it followed irresistibly that that agency was
brought home, if not to the sitting Members, at least to
their immediate friends and agents. The bribery was of
the gro..dest kind. Sovereigns were given under pretence
of r;:toing dinner tickets, and the electors who bad taken
moth the dinner and the sovereign were allowed to vote for
the Hon. Gentleman who had been petitioned against.
There was sufficient ground in this Report, and the pre-
vious ones of 1807 and 1819, for the House to proceed on
against this borough. The bill contained a provision, open-
ing the right of election to the adjacent hundreds. That
was a remedy which he thought highly objectionable. The
neighbourhood of such a borough as -Penryn was the last
place to which he would transfer the franchise. He wo-uld
infinitely prefer to adopt the opinion expressed, by some
Hon. :Members, that the right of returni:ig a Member to
Parliament be transferred to some 'great manufacturing
and commercial town.—(Hear. )—He entirely- agreed
that no place required the ieuefit of representation in that
House so much, con•;tdering its extensive trade and im-
mense per tilatione as Manchester.—(Cheers.)
Mr. H. GURNEY 'remarked, that the statement of Mr.
Grenfell might be reconciled with that of the Honourable
Gentleman (Mr. D. Barclay), by supposing that he had
loge the confidence of the small minority whom it was not
necessary to corrupt.

Lord ALTHORP said, the only answer to that xpla-
nation was, that Mr. Grenfell stated positively that that
was not the case. Mr. Grenfell denied that he had lost the
confidence of the respectable part of the inhabitants.
Sir C. HAWKINS then ad',,ressed the House at some
length, but was totally in audible in the Gallery.

Sir C. BURREJei, understood that his name had been
used by the Hernourable Baronet. If he did not reply
to the allus;.-on, he trusted his conduct would not be im-
puted to disrespect, as he really had not been able to catch
one word of the Honourable Baronet's speech. As to the
general question, he advised the House not to discuss what
should be done with the franchise of Penryn, till they
}tad decided whether any thing at all should be done with
it. There could be no doubt that Penryn was, to a certain
degree, impure. In 1819, a Bill had been actually carried
up to the Lords to disfranchise that borough. That fact
ought not to go wholly out of their sight during the pre-
sent discussion. If in addition to the many acts of bribery
then proved against Penryn, it appeared that corrupt
practices had since prevailed there, the House could come
to but one conclusion, viz. that such a borough was no
longer fit to send Representatives to Parliament, persever-
ing in its corruptions as it did after the repeated and seri-
ous warnings it had received.
Slr E. CARRINGTON admitted there could be no
doubt that bribery had been proved ; but it was by no
means clear, therefore, that the ultima ratio of Parliament
was to be applied, and the Borough disfranchised. Were
the wrog,,,,- L'pings of the guilty only to be borne in mind,
in order that the unoffending might be deprived of the rights
and privileges they had never abused? They had done their
duty faithfully, vet they were to be punished. He utterly
disapproved of the proposition to extend the right of voting
to the huadreds. He objected to that course on principle
in all cases. It was making a sort of petty County Elec-
tion, and therefore it should be viewed as a dangerous in-
novation on the ancient system of representation. He
knew how this kind of remedy had operated practically,
being a near resident to Aylesbury. Certainly, at Shore-
ham, the change had turned out to be no great improve..
meat - He would not enter into the discussion of the pro-
priety of transferring the representation to Manchester. It
Would, he thought, be more discreet not to mention the
name of any place until the question as to the disfranchise-
ment of Peneyn was decided.
Mr. LEGH KECK having replied, the Bill was read a
set end time. - -
Upon the question thatit be committed,
Mr. D. BARCLAY again rose, and addressed the House,
but from the noise below the Gallery we were unable to
hear the nature of the Hon. Gentleman's argument. We
understood him to, say, that notwithstanding the preju-
dices which prevailed against the borough of Penryin he
was convinced that its character was very much changed
since the year 1819, and that it had been indeed under-
going a gradual change for the better since the year 1807.
After a few words from Sir CHARLES BURRELL
the House went into a Committee on the Bill, and wit-
nesses were ordered to be called to the Bar.
John Stanbury was then brought in under the custody
of the Governor of Newgate, and examined by Mr. Legh
Keck, to the following effect :—He said his name was John
Stanbury, and that he received a summons to attend upon
the Committee appointed to consider the Penryn Election
petition, but that he did not so attend. He was a resident

inhabitant of the borough of Penryn at the time of the
last Election. He acknowledged that he had taken an
active part in the Election before the last, when Mr. Weed-
ing was a candidate, and that he had received three
• several sums of 1000/., 350/., and 500/., to treat the
Electors. At the last Election he had two rooms in
the house of John Pawley in the borough. He never
received more than 20/. to treat the Electors, and be
certainly did not receive 2751. He did not recollect
any such circumstance as his telling a person named
Sewell to support Manning, because Lord Percival's party
were so poor they could not pay any money ; was quite sure
that he did not receive gold and notes at his room, from
Sewell, in order to treat the electors, and riot to join Mr.
Manning's party. He received no money, except for the
payment of debts incurred for treating the electors. He
was quite sure there were no debts except for treating the
electors. He knew Thomas Pitts, and lent him ten pound;
was certain the
.money was only lent.—[Mr. Legh Keck
here observed, that Pius must be a very ungrateful fellow,
as he had distinctlysworn the money was given as a bribe.l
He never said to Pitts or to any other person, that he had
received 13001. for the exertion of his interest in the Bo-
rough of Penryn. He knew John Curran, but never gave
him any money. He knew John Jcyce, and gave him ten
pounds ten shillings, which he owed him. He paid Thos.
Jones nineteen pounds during the time of the election for
his services during two years. Thomas Jones was in his
eruploymeritas a manager in electioneering concerns; but
in no other that he knew of. He confessed that his clerk
kept list of the names of the voters, with the amount paid
to each put down at the end of the name. Those sums,
however, were all paid in a legal vray.—(Hear, and laugh.)
He admitted that he was to get money, but it was not to
pay any voters; it was for his services ; he did not recol-
lect to have said that he had been deceived ; that he was
very angry, and that unless he were paid he would expose
the whole transaction; he bad not had any communication
with Mr. Sewell since the election ; he denied having said
to Mr. Haddy that if this petition were proceeded in, the
Borough of Penryn must be disfranchised ; he had never
paid any money to voters in Penryn for the purpose of ob-
taining their support.
Cross.exarnined by Sir. BROUGHAM.—Where were
you born—was it at Penryn ?—No.
At Barnstaple ?—Yes.
How long have you lived there ?—Two years.
Hale you any property there ?—No.,
What is your trade ?--(A pause.)—Have you any, or
none ?—None. .
Were you ever any ?—I intended to be in the grocery line.
Did you open shop ?—No.
Then, in point of fact, you are of no trade or livelihood ?
—No, was otherwise engaged.
How, and where ?—ln the borough of Tregony.
In others—in Barnstaple, for instance ?—Yes.
In Bridgewater ?—Yes.
In Truro ?--Never.
Where eLse ; come, tell us—Exeter ?—Ay, in Exeter.
—(A laugh.)
Go °o—What other boroughs ?—Lincolu.—(Renewed
laughter.)
you
ever
tr sbthielln; Whatengaged
other
i - have
n at any one time ?—The witness
paused.
Come answer : count them
when yo 4 bay; couutw
your
ti up on your fingere ; and
users out, go 411 with your

memory to finish the number laugh.)—l have been
engaged at Tregony.
\Veil—where else—at Barnstaple ?—Yes.
At Exeter ?—There was no opposition there, Sir.
Well ' • but you did a little business notwithstanding, did
you not ?—Yes.
What was it, eh?—A something.
What was that something ?—I assisted a candidate.'
In what way, what assistance ?—I introduced Mr. Dy-
son as a candidate.

What did he pay you for the favour of your introduc-
tion ?---Nothing.
What did he promise you ?—Nothing.
What did any body else pay you for him ?—Nothing.
Do you mean to say that you never received pay, promise
of pay, pod turn, or promise of good, directly or indi-
rectly, for this introduction of ➢ir. Dyson 2—j aid not.
Was he elected ?—No ; he declined the contest.
What other borough have you been engaged in ?—To
what do you allude

Were you at St. Alban's ?—Yes.
Were you there at any former general election ?—No.
Never even at Barnstaple ?—Yes; I have been there all
my life.
What did you mean to say, then, when you told the
Hon. Member opposite, that you were never before engaged
in any general election business ?—I meant at any other
places, only at Barnstaple.
Were you not at Exeter before?—Only at the last elec-
tion.

mean.

Did you not dabble at Exeter before ?_Only two years
ago, when Mr. Dyson went.
How did you get connected with Exeter ; what concern
had you there ?—I was applied to by the electors.
You did not apply to them ?—No, they applied to me.

Why, to you, were you born there also ?—No, I was
only born at Barnstaple.—(A laugh.)
What, then, was the origin of their attachment to you?
—The freemen sent to me to introduce to them a candi-
date.

Where did you live all this time ?—At my cottage near
Plymouth.
What's your trade ?—None.
What trade have you ever in your life followed, to get a
livelihood—an honest livelihood 2.—1 was a clerk in the
East India-house.

How long 2—Eight years.
When did you leave 2—ln 1806.
Then. you were there from 1798 to 18062—Yes.
What were you before 1798 was a labourer in the
East India Company's se;vice.
When did you enter/upon that office ?—When I was 17
years old.
Were you ever put to any trade or calling ; were you
ever bound apprentice—to a cobler, for instance?--..-Ta a
shoemaker.

Well, be it so, to a shoemaker. When did you first set
up it the election business at Barnstaple? was it in 1806 ?
—No, in 1802. .

And you have continued your attentions to that borough
down to the present time?—Mostly so.
Now since that time—call it 1802 or 1606—have you
had any honest calling of any kind whatever ?—Yes, I have.
Where ?—At the War-office.
What there ?—I was a clerk.
When ?—ln 1812.
What since ?—A yeoman.
A working or a farming yeoman, say which?—A farm-
ing one.
How many labourers have you employed ?-1 have three
servants.

How many acres do you farm ?—Forty-two.
Whose property?—My own property.
Have you any elsewhere ?—Yes, I have cottages at
Tregony.
At Penryn?—Yes, I have rented a house there these two
years.
At what rent?-157. a year.
Who pays the taxes ?—I do.
How long have you ever lived there at one time ?—Six
months.

Have you any other house in any other borough ?—None.
From the year 1812 till now, exeept farming these 42
acres of land that you say you have, have you done nothing
else to gain a livelihood?—Oh, no; I have done a good
deal.—(A laugh.)
Where and what ?—At Tregony I have built two houses.
How much money have you made out ofthem?—Nothing
yet, for the tenants are not in long enough.
Then, as yet, you have had no return for the money you
laid out in building at Tregony ?—No.
How much did you lay out there?-2,0001. -

How did you make that 2,0001. ?—A pause.
Come, come, give me an answer ?—I have not my
books i if I could refer to my accounts. Will you allow me?

No, no : did you make that 2,0001. as a labourer in
the East India House?—No. I am not bound to answer.
Yes, you are, and you must answer. Did you make it
as a clerk in the East India House ?---No.
Did you as a clerk in the War-office ?—No.
How else then ? was it out of the profit of farming the
42 acres, you being a yeoman?—(A pause.)—Cannot I
refer to my profits on my books ?
No, I do not want to hear of your profits from the farm;
but did or did.not the 2,0001. arise therefrom : cannot you
say- that cannot answer.

Is is that you cannot, or that you will not ?—I cannot.
What would this land of yours, which you, a yeoman,
farm, fetch an acre?--.51.
What ! Do you mean to say that your 42 acres would
let for 51. an acre, and thereby produce above 2001. a year ?
—No, I don't say that.
Would they fetch 100/. a-year ?—I don't know. .
Did von buy that land ?—No, I only reside upon it ?
Where do you reside now?—(A pause.)—ls it not in
Newgate ?—Yes.
You are quite aware of that ?—yps.
An.l for a contempt of the orders of this House ?---Yes.
Did von not, in your previous examination, represent
this land as being your own property?—No, I only meant
to say that I lired upon it.
Then if you did say it was your own property, you
spoke an untruth.—l might have mistaken the question.
No, but you mistold the answer, for you said the land
was your own.—l rent it.
From whom ?—From Squire Guinness.
What rent do you pay him?--381. a year.
How long have you had it?—Six years.
What did you mean to say, when you talked of 5/. per
acre for this land of yours. Would any one acre let for
51., or did you ever think of asking 5/. for it?—Some
acres are worth it. _ .

How many ?—I think I could let some acres for it.
Two otld acres, I suppose, in a corner ?—No ! 10 or
12 in a field.

~What is the'name of that field 2—l do not recollect.—
(A laugh.)
Do you recollect any one acre, field or not field, that
would let fur 5/. ?—I do not recollect.
For what term is your lease ?—For 7, 11 , or 14. years.
How long have you occupied it ?—Six years.
Have you always paid• your rent to Squire Guinness ?
Yes. _ _ _

Then was it out of the profit of this farm that you made
the 2,000/. which you laid out in building houses ?—No.
Then in what other trade to get money have you been
since 1812, except this farming affair of the few acres—
speak out ?—ln none, except being engaged in some elec-
tions.

Ah ! That is it, I am just coming to these elections,
but I understand from you, that in this your electioneering
occupation you received no money; was it not so ?—Yes.
How long have you known Mr. Freshfield ?-4 only saw
him in 1826.

You never saw him, corresponded with him, or heard
of, or from him, before ?—No.
How ? Did yen introduce yourself to him then ?—He
introduced himself to me at Penryn.

How, did he tell you that he was the Bank solicitor?--No.
What did he say, then, when he introduced himself to
you ? Come, let us have it ?—He came and asked me to
give my support to Mr. Manning.
Were you living in Penryn then?—Yee.
And a voter ?—Yes, for two or three years.

Have you not taken root in Penryu for no other than
electioneering speculations ? Are you not, in fact, a general
electioneering-jobber?--No ; I am sometimes an assistant.
No, a jobber.—Are you not a dealer in the seats of this
House ?—Nc, I am not.
Come, answer; you need not be afraid, for you know
you arc in Newgatc already?—(Roars of laughter.)—l
cannot answer you.
Yes, you can ; you know, of course, that in what you
have done, you have steered clear of the law have en-
deavoured to do so.

Well, we shall see haw far yoUr. endeavours have been
successful. What did Mr. Fresh&ld say to you, or you to
him, at this introduction ?—He asked me to give my sup-
port to Mr. Manning ; and I said that I had no objection.
Upon what terms—let us hear them ?—None whatever.

Was he not surprised; did lie say nothing of the pro-
bable value of your services, for the day, for the week, or
for the whole job ?—No, net a word.
No stipulation 7—Nothing whatever.
You know you are not upon your oath now?—Yes, I
know that.
What were you to do for Mr. Freshfield ?—To support
Mr. Manning. As Mr. Weeding had declined the poll, to
get my friends to vote for Mr. Manning.
119 W many votes did you get for Dever mud

for one. I Went to the voters and told them to vote as
they pleased ; I did not desire a single one to vote for Mr.
Manning.
. Of course you told Mr. Freshfield that this was the sort
of assistance you would give him, not to ask for a vote, or
influence a single elector ?—That was what I did.
Did you tell him so ?—No.
Did you see Mr. Freshfield after the election was over?
—I did.
What passed between you ? Did he say any thing to you,
or you to him ?—I spoke to him.
What did you say ?—I said that there was some expense
unpaid at my house during the election, for treating, or the
like ; and he said he could say nothing about it then.
Oh, no, of course not then ; nor until the 14 days were
over : you understand that ?—No, Ido not.
What, not understand the 14 days ?—I don't know any
thing about it.

Will you venture to my that you do not know that there
is danger in touching money until 14 days after the new
meeting of Parliament ?—I know about the 14 days you

Yes, I thought you that had been engaged in so many
elections, must have heard of that.—l
When Mr. Freshfield told you that he could say nothing
then, what did Sou understand he meant ?.—He said be was
not the agent for Mr. Manning.
What was he at Penryn for, then ?—I don't know.
Did you not know that he appeared there as Mr. Man-
ning's solicitor ?—Yes, I beard as much,
What else did you think he was?—l thought he was the
solicitor, not the agent.
How long after did you see Mr. Freshfield about your
small bill for what was done in your house ?—I never saw
him after.
Did you write to him, or receive letters from him ?
I think I heard from him.
Did you not ask him for money ?-.-Yes, for some little
expense I was put to.
How much ?—lt might be about 401.
Do you mean to represent that you never asked for more
than 40/. never asked him for any specific sum, or
made a demand of any.
What did you expect?—Heft that to himself.
Should you have thought 40/. enough ?—I should haie
been contented with 50/.
What were the expenses at your house ?-401.
Then you would have been satisfied - for your trouble
with 10/. profit only ?—I had no trouble for Mr. Man-
ning, or any agency for him. I went to the election at
that time merely to keep up my interest in the borough.
. What would have satisfied you for this effort to keep 4
your interest ?—I should have been satisfied with the pay-
ment of the 40/.
Did you not this moment say 50/. ?—No ; I said I should
have taken 50/.—(A laugh.)
Oh, you would have been satisfied with 40/., but better
satisfied with 50/.—that is what you mean ?—(Renewed
laughter.)—l never said I asked for money; all I wanted
was what was justly owing for the expenses of indivi-
duals.

Of course nothing but just debts could pass into your
hands. How much money did you ever get, directly or
indirectly, from Mr. Freshfield ?—Not a farthing.
Has he written to you, or sent to you, about money?--
Not a word.
Have you always been paid in this scanty manner, or ra-
ther not bceu paid at all, for your services at a borough
election ?-ob, no. I have been liberally paid on other
occasions.
Well, that is what I want. Now, what was the utmost
you ever got in this way ?—Where?
Any where. Suppose we say Barnstaple?
5001.

'—l got once

From whom ?—Sir Eyre Coote.
Was that 500/. clear net profit, or had you the handling
of any other money?—lt was clear money.
Were you his agent ?—No.
Then for what was the money ?—For .my services, tra-
velling about to see the electors, and associating with the
voters.

What election was that ?—ln 1812.
Did you ever get any other money ?—Perhaps I might.
Perhaps you did. Come, what did Mr. Taylor give
you ?—ln 1806, I think he gave me 3001.
Do you mean to say that that was his whole expense.
You know Mr. Taylor is alive ; Sir Eyre Coote, as you are
well aware, is dead ?—I cannot say that.
Did you ever receive any other money from Mr. Taylor
but that 300/. ?—I think that out of respect for me (a
laugh) he might have let me have a couple of hundreds
afterwards.
Besides the 3001. clear pay, and the 2001. respect mo-
ney, how much more did Mr. Taylor give you ?—I do not
understand you.
How much did that: etectiois
haps 3,0001.
Perhaps 6,000/. ?—No, it did not. I know not what
it cost him. In 1806 it did not cost him quite 3,000/.
In what way was that 3,000/. disbursed ?-=Each of the
London voters had 81. to go down, and 8/. 'ter come up, au-a
that made 1,600/., as there were 100 of them. The
Bristol electors had to be paid besides 121. each.
Had you the payments to make ?—Yes ; all that money
passed through my Lands.
Was that the whole of the expense?—No, I believe not.
This was at Barnstaple : how much did you get at Tre-
gony ?—There was no expense there.
What ! No expense in getting 180 voters at one side in
a contested election ?--:None, only the treating.
Did the treating money pass though your baffle ?--Yee•
Did you pay it all yourself?—Yes.
Out of your own pocket ?—No.
How much ?—I cannot tell.
Come, tell us within 5001. of the sun...--1 cannot say.
Was it 3,000/. ?—I don't know.
Two thousand pounds?—l don't know.
Was it 1,200/. don't know.
On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the
witness was then ordered to withdraw.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would submit
to the Committee whether it was expedient, by continuing
the course which his Honourable and Learned Friend had
adopted, to go into matters which took place at other
elections, when the question before the Committee was,
what had transpired at the election of Penryn. He really
thought his Honourable and Learned Friend had, by his
question, brought another issue before the Cominittee,
which was in no way essential to the matter before them.
—(Cries of hear.")
Mr. BROUGHAM was astonished at what had fallen
from his Honourable and Learned Friend. It was both
the privilege and the duty of the British House of Com-
mons, when they got within their reach such persons as
this, to expose them as much as it was possible they could
be exposed, and to hold them and their worthless employ-
ers up to the scorn and indignation of the country..—.
(Cheers.)—He required no other argument—he would
seek for no other argument—than this, by which to justify
himself in adhering to a practice which all former Attorney-
Generals had rather thought it their duty to sanction than
to attempt to stifle by taking technical objections—a prac-
tice which he had always followed, and had never before
seen excepted to—a practice, moreover, in which he was
sure that he should be upheld and protected by the House,
no matter by what . authority it might be impugned, even
though it should be that of his Majesty's Attorney-Gene-
ral.—(Loud and repeated cheers.)-11e would • defy the
subtilty of his Honourable and Learned Friend to` point
out any inquiry of his which did not make for the pur-
pose before them—which did not involve the credit of testi•
mossy. If he were not allowed to put questions to which
an intelligible and distinct answer must be given, the wit-
ness had nothing to do but to make tip his mind to say
,s No," as he had done to the questions of his Hon. Friend
the Member for Leicestershire. He had no doubt that
his Hon. Friend had other testimony by which he could
confront and confound these answers of the witness. He
could see plainly that his Hon. Friend had such testimony
in reserve, by the manner in which he had, in his ques-
tions, referred to other persons, and associated them with
the subject of those questions. He called upon the House
to consider but for a moment the uncertain, the unsatisfac-
tory, the negative answers of the witr :Ls, and he would
then ask them if it were not absolutely necessary to put such
a man to the test of a rigorous examination. He never
knew before that night that such a character was one of
those that ought to be protected; a character born, it was
true, in Devonshire, but transplanted at an early period into
Cornwall—the pabulum of corruption, where this nauseous
root might shoot deeper, and flourish better ; a character the
most despicable—that of a Cornish boroughmonger.—
(Cheers.)—He should be exceedingly sorry to go one step
t'arther than his duty directed him, in this or in any other
inquiry, but with one step short of that he would
not content himself; and he hoped that his Majesty's
present Government would not allow any let or hindrance
to be thrown in the way of such a course.—(Loud cheers.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that his Hon.
and Learned Friend had really mistaken him if he suppo-
sed that he meant for a single moment to protect the wit-
ness. He felt quite as much indignation at his conduct
as his Hon. and Learned Friend could possibly feel. It
was not because he felt less than his Learned Friend, that
he had taken a less indignant tone, but because he thought
that a temperate discussion was better suited to the pur-
pose of the committee. If any member of the committee
thought it necessary for the subject before them to go into
these matters, he should be the last man to stop such a
course ; And kris 'Ply reason for rising was, that many

gentleman around him thought the matter had been pushed
a little too far. For his own part,, the investigation hail
been rather entertaining to him than not ; and his object
was only that of saving the time of the committee. If,
however, his Hon. and Learned Friend, or the Hon.
Member who had brought the subject forward, thought
that it ought to be gone on with, he should cheerfully
withdraw all opposition.
Mr. N. CALVERT thought it expedient to enter into
a cross-examination, however diffuse, if the truth could be
elicited by such means.
Mr. C. W. 'WYNN said, that this man being already
in Newgate, and having now exposed himself by so many
falsehoods, appeared to him to be in Such a situation, that
"non habet uncle cadat." It was impossible for him to
fall any-lower, or to be in any worse situation, since being
in Newgate the House could visit him with no farther
punishment for his prevarications and falsehoods.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, he perfectly concurred in that
view of the matter; and if that were the impress;on of
the Committee, he was perfectly satisfied. Indeed, he
was perfectly satisfied at a very early period of the exami-
nation—from the very moment in which the witness had
told him that he did not know what sum of -money his
fields let for.

.The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was satisfied
half an hour ago that no one in the House could believe
the witness.

Mr. LEGH KECK must say that he heartily thanked
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Brougham) for
the manner in which he had cross-examined the witness,
because be was sure, from the manner of his answers,
that he bad screwed himself up to the sticking-place of

Mr. HUME thought the language which the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Wynn) opposite had used in speaking of
the witness _extremely strong and hardly tolerable. It
ought not to be said that a man's character was blasted,
without there were very strong grounds for such an asser-
tion. If other evidence were called by which it could be
proved that his evidence was false, such language might be
fairly used ; but until then, he really thought it uncalled
for. As to his being sent to Newgate, it ought to be re-
collected that he was sent there for not obeying the
Speaker's summons, and not for telling any stories.—(A
laugh.)-He had not seen any thing to warrant the lan-
guage which the Hon. Gentleman had used.
-Mr. W. WY} N Said, that in his opinion the witness
had flatly contradicted himself, and was therefore alto-
gether unworthy of belief. This was all that he had said.
As to the fact of the witness being sent to Newgate, he had
never intimated that he was sent there for telling false-
hoods, hut had merely mentioned it for the purpose-of ob-
serving that the House had no power to put any further
punishment upon hini.
Mr. STUftGES -BOURNE thought that if his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Legh Keck) had known the character of this
witness before, it would have bean better not to have pro-
duced him at all, as no reliance could be placed upon his
evidence.

Mr. .LEGH KECK said, that the witness would not
,appear before the Committee, and he was therefore glad
that he had been enabled to produce him before the House,
in order that the House might be satisfied that what other
witnesses had said of him was correct.

Sir R. FERGUSSON said, that there was scarcely a
single fact which had been sworn to by the witnesses in
the evidence whieh this witness had not contradicted ; and

yet the Hon. Alember. for Montrose wished to hear other
evidence before an opinion was pronounced upon the credi-
bility of the witness. He thought that no one who had
heard the examination in chief, to say nothing of the cross-
examination, could think that the witness was entitled to
credit.

Mr. D W. HARVEY thought it very important that

this witness-should be further examined. The witness had
said that his clerk kept a list of voters, with the sums paid
to each marked against their names ; it was very desirable
that it should be ascertained who paid those sums. Though
the evidence of the witness was not worth any thing of it-
self, yet it might be received in support of the less question-
able evidence of others. He observed, that it was deposed
in the report, that Stanbury, when he left Penryn, desired
the guard of the Falmouth coach not to tell that he was a
passenger, and to keep his name out of the way-bill. It
would not be unimportant to discover for what purpose he
took these measures for concealment.
John Stanbury was then recalled.

Examined by 11Ir! S. BOURNE—He had told them be-

fore, that his clerk kept a list of the voters, together with
an' account of the money paid to each. That money came
from (as we understood the witness) Mr. Weeding.
Upon the motion of an Hon. Member, whose name we
could not learn, the Chairman desired all persons who
were witnessew in the Penryn case to withdraw from the
House.
"Eittiutifiattditi"'Obrltititted..—The money pall ' 'these

votel4 teas in consideration of services performed by them.
They had been engaged for the last two years.
By Dr. PHILtIMORE.—AII the money he received
was for treating at Penryn. Perhaps 300 electors might
haVe partaken of this treating. The nature of the treating
was eating and drinking. On one occasion he recollected
distributing four.bullocks.
- By Dr: LUSHINGTON.—He never gave, or promised
to give, any money to the electors of Penryn for their
votes. He kept two banking. accounts iu Cornwall, and
one in London ; he kept a banking at Praed's at Truro.
and ,at Carne's at Penryn ; and at Barclay's in London.
All the sums which he paid did not pass through his
bankers hands. He had some of the bankers' books with
him in London. At Penryn, the money he paid passed
through Carne's hands : he had not got that banking book
with him. He was at Medlicot's house, at Tregony, when
the summons to attend the Committee on the Penryn elec-
tion was served upon him. He did not obey that sum-
mom, because he was prevented by illness. His illness
arose from carbuncles. He had a certificate to that effect,
signed by -two physicians. Neither of these physicians re-
sided at Tregony. They both lived at Truro. He had to
send 10 miles for them. They- had not attended him
before he received the summons. He sent this certificate
up to London, and afterwards petitioned the House. He
thought this was all that was necessary. When he left
Tregony he went to Barnstaple. He was able to take that
Journey in spite of his carbuncles. He took no means for
keeping that.journey a secret. He did not recollect telling
any body not to say where he was gone. He did not re-
collect that he told Mr. Medlicot to keep his journey a
secret. He was not shut or locked up in Mr. Medlicot's
house, for the purpose of avoiding being served with the
summons. The person who served hint with the summons
said that he had a claim upon him for some straw, which
he wished to have settled ; and when he came into the
room he served him with the summons. He did not go
away in order to avoid the summons. He went away upon
business. He knew King, the guard of the Falmouth
coach. I He believed that he gave him half-a-crown, or
something of the kind. He did not think that he ever
said any. thing to the guard about keeping his journey a
secret. He had no reason for wishing to have it kept a
secret, or for telling the guard• not to put his name in the
way-bill.
By Mr. D. W. HARVEY—He did not conceal him-
self. He was ready of access to any one who wished to
see him. The man who served him with the summons
had no occasion to tell a falsehood in order to gain admit-
tance to him. In fact, the man did not tell a falsehood,
for he had a claim upon him for straw. If the guard of
the Falmouth coach ever said that lie (witness) told him to
keep his journey a secret, and not to put his name in the
way-bill, he (the guard) said what was untrue. Having a
house of his own at Penryn, he also engaged two rooms in
the house of John Paulet. He took these rooms, in order
that .the voters who bad claims upon him might come there.
He could not say how many voters came to him there. He
might have paid the claims Of about 25 voters. The
largest sum which he paid to any one of them was 19/.
The person to whom he paid that sum had been engaged
for more than two years. He had read the report of the
Committee on the Penryn election. He had the report
with hint in Newgate.
By Mr. LEGH KECK—He meant the House to un-
derstand him as gravely and deliberately staling that he did
not believe any of the voters to bare received money for
their votes.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw

Robert Weeding was then called.
Examined by Mr. LEGH KECK—He had never au-
thorised 3,ihn Stanbury to pay any money for election
debts.—(After the first question, the tone in which the
witness spoke was so low, that very few of his answers
were audible in the gallery.) He knew two persons of the
names of Mallet and Ha►vey. He did not recollect that
these persons ever came to him and told him, that if John
Stanbury did not pay the money which be had promised
the voters, he (witness) had no chance of coming in. He
advanced three sums of money to Stanbury ; two sums of
5001. each, and one of between 3001. and 4001. '
By Mr. D. W. HARVEY.—The money he advanced
to Stanbury was by loan. Stanbury did not say that
any part of the money was to be devoted to election
purposes.
By Mr. C.-BARCLAY.—He suspected that there was
not a sufficient number of persons who would vote for him
without remuneration, and it was for that reason that he
went away.

The witness was then examined by Mr, LAMB, and in
answer to variousinterrogatories adniittpl, that he lent a
stun of money to Stanbury, Who OW he bad pressing

necessity for it. Witness lent the money to Stanbury
because be believed his mresentation, and wished to
serve him. - . •

Examined by Lord PALMERSTON.—WouId witness
state what sum or sums of money the electors of Penryn
expected to receive?—Could not say.
How did they express their expectations no intel-
ligible form.—(A laugh.)
Were you informed that the electors were in the habit
of receiving money for their votes ?—No, never.
What led you to suppose that they expected money from
you, if they did not expect money from other candidates?
—They first promised me their votes, and then stipulated
for the sums they were to receive for, them.
Did not you lose your election from the corrupt practi-
ces in the borough of Penryn, or because you could not
be returned on other grounds ?—I conceived I had no
chance unless I resorted to corruption. •

In answer to subsequent inquiries, he said that he had
visited Penryn about a fortnight before the election, and
that he visited every voter in the borough, amounting to
about 400. Witness had given Stanbury a note of hand
for 1,0001., and a warrant of attorney for F.OO/. The
charges of petty matters connected with the election did
not amount to more than 1501.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw, and Mr.
John Carden was called to the bar, and examined by Mr.
Legh Keck.
Was a voter of Penryn, and knew Stanbury ; was once
sent by him for some money to a person named Anderton ;
went by Stanbury's directions, but did not receive the
money; Mr. Anderton sent back word that be would see
Stanbury in the course of the day. Was not aware that
this money was for the Purposes of bribery.
The witness was examined on this point at some length
by Mr. Legh Keck,- Mr. D. W. Harvey, and Mr. C. Pel-
ham, but no material admission was elicited.
The witness being asked respecting the nature of his en-
gagement at the election, replied, that he was paid for loss
of time. . . _

Mr. LAMB—What does the witness mean by loss of
time ?—Drinking in public-houses, and one thing other.—
(A laugh.)
Were you not otherwise engaged during the election ?
No; I was paid for my loss of time.
What! paid for drinking in public-houses?.
doubtedly.(Renewed laughter.)
Examined by Mr. 'D. W. HARVEY—Were you not at
a meeting which was,held in Penryn en the Monday-pre-
ceding the election ?—No I was seven miles distant from
Penryn when that meeting was held.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw and James
Alallett was called to the bar, and examined
iir,• Mr. LEGH KECK—Is it not a custom in the Bo-
rough of Penryn to give a breakfast on the morning of an
election, at which the sum of 20/. is given to each voter ?
—The .witness replied, that he was not aware of such a

'-Un-

practice.
Do you know what is meant by a phrase, which is very
Common its the borough, namely—to make people " com-
fortable ?"—No ; I never heard the term mentioned until
now.
Examined by Mr. D. BARCLAY.—How long since
has the practice of giving breakfasts in the borough ceased
to exist ?—I cannot say.
Has it been practised within the last 22 years ?—I do
not know.
By Mr. HARVEY.—What- was the object of the prac-
- -

ticei—l cannot say.
Was it not understood that a sum of money was paid for
each vote at the breakfast ?—Witness professed his ina-
bility to answer the question. Witness remembered to
have heard of "breakfasts," but did not know that they
were given within the last 22 years.
The examination of this witness was continued for a
considerable time, in order to get from him, whether by
" breakfasts" was not understood in Penryn a certain sum
of money given to each elector for his vote ; but he con-
tinued so to evade a direct answer, as to leave the House
in ignorance of what his impression of the term meant.—
He had heard of money having been given, but he could
not say to whom, or how much—whether 30/. 20/. or
101. He had never received any. _ _ _

Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN having moved that the
witness do withdraw, observed, it was evident that the man
was trilling with the House, in the answers he had just
given. He had over and over again stated, that he did
not know what was meant by breakfasts, but when the sub-
ject was before a committee of that House in 1819, it was
proved that every man, woman, and child in the borough
knew perfectly well that it meant the giving money for
votes, and even the sum of twenty-four guineas was well
enough understood by the term. He hoped, therefore,
that the witness would be made to answer the question, and
that a threat of sending him to Newgate should be-made
-,far..,the purpose.
Mr. C. PELHAM and BR. S. BOURNE said each a
few :words, but-therwere not audible is the gallery.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN repeated his statement,
that the witness could not be ignorant of what was meant
by the word "breakfasts." It was known to every man
in the borough ; and one of the objections, by some of the
electors, against Mr. Swann was, that he had not paid the
" breakfasts."
_ _ _

Lord MILTON thought it would be rather too hard to
threaten the witness with Newgate .for declaring his igno-
rance of what he said had been discontinued in the borough
for the last 22 years. It might be that he did not know.
He could not concur in thinking that the witness had
yet prevaricated in his evidence at the bar.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN repeated his opinion that
the witness had prevaricated.
Mr. PEEL entirely concurred with the Noble Lord
(Milton) ; and unless the House thought that the witness
deserved to be sent to Newgate, he hoped they would not so
far
_forget their duty, as to hold out a menace which it was
not meant to enforce.—(Hear, hear.)—He thought there
was at present no ground which would warrant the Chair-
man to menace the witness with Newgate. If the Hon.
Alderman (Waithman) could show that the witness was
present at any meeting where " breakfasts" were mentioned
as a sum 67 money to be given to the voters, then he might
have a ground of charging him with prevarication. But
the witness denied any knowledge of the kind ; and until
they could bring evidence•to attach discredit to what he
stated, they had no right to menace him for not stating
any particular fact. They must wait till his evidence was
contradicted. • _ _

Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN said it was clear, from the
answers of the witness, that they were evasions of many of
of the questions ; and he submitted that he ought to be
cautioned to give direct answers.
Mr. N. CALVERT thought that the man ought to be
cautioned to tell the truth, as he was not on his oath. Any
man who heard the witness, and observed his manner, must,
he thought, be convinced that he was professing his igno-
rance of that which he well knew.
The witness was then recalled, and the Chairman was
about to address him, when
Mr. G. DAWSON said he did not understand that the
Committee had directed the Chairman to use any menace to
the witness, and should object to that course.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not conceive that
the Hon. Chairman intended to address any menace towards
the witness, but he thought he had a perfect right to cau-
tion him, as several .Members had expressed themselves dis-
satisfied with his answers. Independently of that, it was
his duty as Chairman to give the witness a caution, if he
found he was not answering directly, and he believed that
was all be was about to do.
Mr. TENNYSON (the Chairman) said, that his object
was, not to hold out any menace to the witness, but as he
could collect from the opinions of several Members that
his answers had, not been satisfactory, he intended merely
to caution him to be more careful.
Sir ROBERT HERON said, that witnesses were so
instructed and drilled befol they came there as to how far
they might go in their answers, that it would be useless
to protract the inquiry unless they could adopt some other
mode of eliciting the truth.
Mr. D. BARCLAY said, he should be glad if the Hon.
Baronet would point out, if he could, who were the drill-
sergeants on this occasion.
Sir R. HERON did not mean to allude to any person in
particular. He judged -only from the manner in which the
witness went on.
The witness was then recalled.
The CHAIRMAN.—Witness, several of the answers
you have already given have not been considered satisfac-
tory or respectful to the House. I therefore caution you
to give to the other questions that may be put to you,
plain, direct, and distinct answers.
The witness was again examined by Mr. D. W. HAR-
VEY as to what he meant by the word " breakfasts," the
practice of which be said had ceased for twenty-two years,
and he was understood to say, that he had not received any.
At the suggestion of Mr. PEEL, great part of the wit-
ness's previous examination was read over to him, and the
question was again put as to what he understood by
" breakfasts." His answer was not heard. He was then
directed to withdraw.
Mr. BANKES said, it was clear the witness was speak-
ing of his own knowledge, and not as to what was under-
stood by others.
.Witness recalled, and examined by Mr. HARVEY.—
He was not at a meeting held at the Green in Penryn a few
days before the election ; but he believed the object of that
meeting to be to consult with respect to the election. He
kept a public-1105e which wAs opened in the interest of

Lord Perceval 'and Mr. Barclay. He voted for 6*

candidates.
By Mr. N. CALVERT—Did not unders tend what 05
meant by being made " comfortable." Witness withdre'
Mr. Charles Francis Addy was then called in, and 4.
amined by Mr. LEGH BECK.—Witness is a solleit°:l
and canvassed the borough of Penryn in 1824 for I,
Perceval. He found a great disinclination in the voters 7
speak out. The general expression was, " I wish you vie'
Sir ; you may have me if you like ; you have only to oPe'w
to my wife, and it is your own fault if you have not 14
vote." Witness added, I considered that I had no chill
at that time. The ground was wholly in the interest °
Mr. Barclay, and it was not considered advisable to Pot'
used any further then. In 1825 I canvassed the boroug.
with Lord Perceval in person. The reception we met 'Ow
was nearly similar to that which I had before experienat
I found a generaldisinclination towards us, because it seat'
to me that the people were used to receive money, and e%..
pected we would give it. I was not asked for MI
until a few days before the last election. was preses
a meeting on the Green a few days before the election.'"'
The object of it was to induce the candidates to open h°s'el
as usual. A crier went round the town calling upon the
voters to attend, that they might send for the two tlotic'
cessful candidates from Tregony, to offer themselves.
consequence of that was, that an open system of tree
Use
commenced. Without that system, I believe the candid°
would have had no chance. I had several offers of Ora
port, for money. On one occasion I was called up at tw,-
o'clock in the morning, by a person who offered me 00,1
votes at 101. a-piece. I did not accept that offer, tvwc
was made by a person of the name (we believe) of goorei
I do not believe it possible that a candidate can be successfli
in that borough without money or a promise of money
~.04
one candidate bribes, the man opposed to him who_ °.
not bribe has no chance whatever. I found great du*,'"*"-
:
culty in getting the voters up on Monday and Yawl
;
some came up on the Wednesday, but a great mall °n
the Thursday. I was informed that bribery was going e°,l
and that we had no chance. Several tenders of votes' 1';
made to me. The parties did not ask for roe,°%
down, but said that if the thing was made " all right" tile:,
would vote. Several told me that they would rather r°,7
for 5/. a-head from Lord Perceval, than for 101. from the
other party. There were several who voted for Lord r
ceval who had' not got any money or promise of money a
was found that the party who bribed, seeing that 10
Perceval would not bribe, stopped, and then many Pere °:,
came and voted for his Lordship who would not others":
have done so. A person of the :name of Stephens -
and offered me ten votes, at 10/. a-head. On the fotui;"
day of the election I became a candidate. I did so for
purpose of administering the bribery oath. I did order
to be administered, but it was objected to by Mr. It'fa!it
ning's Counsel. Several persons advised me not to pressii
as it was very obnoxious in the borough, and many
them had strong objections to take it. I found it was
less to press it, for I saw some who offered me their vet
for money take the oath. Witness then repeated his fllet
opinion, that no candidate could have a chance who did'
bribe, while the man opposed to him could do so. 111 8-,:o
swer to other questions, he proceeded to state, that it 'lstv
an usual practice in the borough for candidates to paY oie
rates of those voters whose rates remained unpaid At
as
time of the election. For this purpose a certain sum Ivo
deposited by each candidate ; and if a man voted for to
candidates, his rate was paid between them. The
of 194, or 195 voters were so paid at the last electioniter
believe this to be the fact, but I did not know it until after
wards.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that the the
lief of the witness would not be a legal ground for
House to act upon. To make it legal, he must call fit
the party from whom he heard it, and who knew it °
own knowledge. t.
Mr. BANKES thought that the practice of taking, wed
ters on the belief of witnesses had been too much foil°.
;n this examination.

Mr. LEGIT KECK submitted, that in this oale'rt:hei,
were not to be tied down by strict principles of lasv•
object was to come at the truth, if they could, in a em-'ll-
table manner. This question was agitated in the C°ll/-1
tee of 1819, and rejected by the House. ex'
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that the par', was
ainined, net being on his oath, was one reason why 't
desirous that he should confine himself to facts.
The witness, in answer to a question from gr. i-'5llll
KECK, said he believed there were witnesses who c°„, to
prove the payment of the poor-rates. He then went_m.°-
state that the treating was general ; that it Was sine
ble to avoid it. He believed that nearly all the voters P 1
tew
took of-.the treating;- and_ he would add, that more
half of them were bribed.Bo
By Lord MILTON.—Lord Perceval received go or
ed
promises in 1825. All those promises were.not fureheil;
I myself took-up a body of 18 to vote, and nine 04 "„--0,4
voted againit us. Ido not know the reason, from iincY o"
knowledge, as I did not see the bribery myself. 'Jill;
vassed 400 voters. There were 430 voted. We were 1J...el
Swann party, as -many of the lower orders had pr°l3llaw
their support to that interest. I did not see the cone
position in the higher classes of voters, to take liaofle.Y'fot
in the lower. Some of the higher classes offered votes
situations in the India House, or other places.
By Mr. C. BARCLAY.-1 do not mean to saY t
candidate would have no chance of success if neithel' P w
bribed. Mr. Manning's voters divided their seem: 011:o
with Mr. Barclay ; so did Lord Perceval's. Id°
that Mr. Barclay was guilty of bribery at the last ele'" °
He had uo occasion for it.
Some questions by Lord GRANVILLE SO3L-zierejto
—A person of the name of Jonathan Moore teed vd,
Lord Perceval '7O votes, at 101. each. Witness "";,,,-eula
that this Moore, who was not an elector of PenrY°' 7
not have carried his promise into execution.
- a One

By Mr. D. W. HARVEY.—There was - 'at Y
system of treating throughout the borough of Pent,Ya
last election. Witness was satisfied, that if bribe"
rot been employed by his opponent, Lord Perceval bald
have carried his election. There were 172 voters vitaeba
promised plumpers to Lord Perceval, and many ntb.„e-ssfe:
promised to vote for him as soon as Mr. Barclay "-urea'
Lord Perceval only polled 152 votes ; and of these ai
many were votes split between him and Mr. Bar kes
Witness believed that the voters who had neglecw;,t
promises to Lord Perceval bad been bribed and botig;lS
by the other aide. Witness saw Stanbury at '',.otll
during the election. He believed that a great naanYA sr
went to John Paulet's house, where Stanbury 10dg'u"'y he
whilst there, either received or were promised ctit
their votes. A voter of the name of Dick told me {tom
had first received 101. then 21. and then Si. 01- w' ryo'
Mr. Anderton, who‘was Mr. Manning's agent aiscie
for his vote. Two other voters of the name of
Maddox told me that they had also received ale )/1
Mr. Anderton. Slade said) that he Ilkd receive,'
hard cash, and a written pledge for 5/. more. ->nifio °
By Mr. PEEL.—When witness received
number
o r'i voter!l72 plumpers for Lord Perceval, the total num bat t"'u
to the best of his belief, was 234. He believed t n, boi
persons expected to receive money after the e1e,,,,e10r 00,
they did not express that expectation to him•
that if they were in the hands of honourable I,oe
would be satisfied with an understanding.---(A 1 ' ji°
Jonathan Moore was not a resident elector of PentYool%
came, according to witness's belief, from Granll3°,4ll°d
laugh.)—Witness believed that Moore bad autheiris olp
the promises he made, but be 'could-not say, from to
knowledge, that he had. No voter ever referrea
Jonathan Moore, to learn what he would do.
By Mr. LESLIE FOSTER.—Witness
one of the sitting Members was not indebted to bilie
his seat. He could not say that his belief was 11,1e1),,
as to the other. He believed that the other was qbat,,
to bribery for - his seat ; and for this reason, --14
counsel objected strongly to witness's admivisrtel:7ool',la
not
been enabled
llaetrlg
eLsourdm
tPoerexcepveaulat°o
bribery oath. He thought that the payment 01 cod "b 1
From
I.wouldn,
ohoi
sl havewould
Moore,da
thaty experience in election matter* be iirrYfr"
the election of a corrupt borough. olf tfrfor
By Mr. Y. PEEL. pt had offered boeo ba
candidate for the borough of Penryn ; and his efit' pat tM
doing so was, that he might qualify himself '-fraos 04
bribery oath to the electors. It was solellake
difficulty of finding any elector who would tbo .
o
himself the odium of administering that oatatt bA
do
had put himself forward. He did not tecell;eorPoof
ever applied to any respectable inhabitant of r okiog of
put that oath. He had never thought 64 a the
inhabitant to do such a thing, as he four rae
idea of it was most obnoxious. be°o?
By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.--Witee' Ott?
a candidate on the fourth day of the clection.af Glee ej
had then a prospect of success, as a large lodY° tleclieo
he
was then unpolled. Lord Perceval had nott thll t,O
—lt was before he tendered the briberY °a f vo. „/
qualification was asked for. His intention__ joe
the bribery oath to the voters created °l'
panic in the borough. th't 3
By Mr. STANLEY.—Witness- thong
cla ee
on
proportion of the inhabitants of Penryn 110
taken the bribery oath with a clear conacienCe.
as ofeen
By Mr. BROUGHAM---There was trawl,' 00A $0
• cato
bribery at the last election. Both were There colt',
extensively. All the candidates treated. be uo yet
expreel order issued by me,- that there sholld_tas if
ing ; but the public-houses were kept open bad
as order bad never been given. Every

what they liked ; and witness heVer interfered to see whe-
ther his order was observed or net. There was no un-
deretanding among the candidates that they would not
take advantage of one another for treating. When wit-
ness gave the orders which he had just mentioned, he ra-
ther suspected that they would not be complied with.
BY Sir J. GRAHAM—Witness was of opinion, that in
every borough in England the nen-bribing candidate would
have but little chance against the bribing candidate.—
(A laugh.)
By Mr. R. GRANT—Witness believed that half the
electors of Penryn, if not more, had voted at the last elec-
tion from corrupt motives. He was of opinion that at
least one-half of them had been bribed ; and his reason for
adopting that opinion was, that when he asked them for
their votes, the answer lie received- was generally this :
"Speak to my wife—she manages such things for
ine."—
Witness believed that a great many respectable inhabitants
of Peery% would rather sea the borough disfranchised than
see the elections for it conducted in the present illegal and
unconstitutional manner.
By 11Ir. P. THOMSON—I was never asked more than
201. for a single vote by any elector of Penryn. The price
of votes at that time was not running high.
BY a MEMBER, whose name we did not know—Wit-
ness otter heard of shopkeeper's and tradesmen in Penryn
a'vancing money to the poorer electors, on condition that
it should he repaid to them out of the price they might re-
ceive for their votes at the next election. He had heard
of very extraordinary prices having been given at Penryn
fir cats, dogs, and canary-birds, previous to and during
e election. He knew that 40/. had been given for a
canary-bird.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
The next witness called was R. D. Mitchell. Mr.
LEGH KECK asked him a few questions, but the re-
plies given to them were not heard in the gallery.
Captain Pellew was next examined by Mr. LEGH
KECK—He stated that he was a resident at Penryn, and
was acquainted with the circumstances of the election at
••that place in 1824. His knowledge led him to believe
that bribery, to a very considerable extent, prevailed at
that election. Witness was very unwell during the last
election; but nevertheless saw something of what was
going forward. Witness had heard that there was a great
deal of bribery and corruption took place at the last elec-
tion, but he could not speak to. its existence of his own
141,Tvledge. He believed that what he had heard on that
440,35 et Was the fact. He was convinced that a candidate
tots offered himself for Penryn without bribing the elec-
would have no chance of being returned.
• 13Y Lord ALT HORP.—He believed, from his own ob-
hserrihvaetriyonhad
, and from what he had heard people say, that
been generally practised in the election of
824- Some persona told witness that they had received
1,1!:ey for voting, and others for refraining from voting. Mme or ten persons told me so. The witness here detailed
tot the House the language which they had used ; but in
iones so indistinct as to be inaudible in the gallery. In-
Zed, the whole of. his examination was very imperfectly
WhWcard' He had heard of a meeting at the Green at the
helection. It was cried by the bellman, who stated
at the object of the meeting was.
el/Y Mr. S. BOURNE.—Witness had never been sei. him-
.privy to any act of bribery in the borough of Penrvn.
1 Mr. C. WYNN. Witness believed that he had
!lever heard any elector acknowledge to him that he had re-
carved money
,r. for his vote. He recollected that one man,
"unta he canvassed, asked him 101. for his vote.
By other MEMBERS.—Witness had some times joined
ca"aesing parties. He had never in the course of those
„Ittiea heard any thing which led him to believe that the
electors took bribes. He recollected that a man did once
fatk hirn to buy a piece of beef from him, and charged him
it a price.far above the market-price for beef. Witness
had
voted for Mr. Barclay at the last election ; but bad not
.canvassed more than five or six persons. He believed that
there Was no occasion to purchase votes for Mr. Barclay, as
ge contest evidently lay between Mr. Manning and Lord
erevai.
At the commencement of the election a great
Arti,her, indeed he might say a majority of the electors, on
rtag asked for their votes, said, ", There is time enough
e--we will wait." One man afterwards told witness
that he should be happy to vote for Barclay, but that he
°.neht he could do better by voting another way.
.I`kis Hon. MEXBER here rose and observed, that gentle-
In% at that end of the House (near the Speaker's chair)
tc,auld riot hear any thing which the witness stated. He
v'oerefore called on him to speak louder, and to direct his
or towards the Chairman.
n answer to questions put to him by Mr. STANLEY,
thte. SUIT'', Sir C. WETHERELL, and Lord MILTON,
rpb,WnneSS answered, that he never heard any promise of
p—reitd... made in the presence of a Member. He heard no
bee;l7s° given on the canvass for Mr. Barclay. He
evedlso voters, at least, had been added to the number
ors since 18' They were mostly of the lowest
'44as of
t society.‘ e
5247 n ins opi"nion, more than one-half of
he, 3
--he would say, four-sevenths-4ould take bribes.
Mr. V. FITZGERALD.—Does the witness know of
Tspecific act of bribery having taken place ?
The witness. .—I never was privy to any act of the kind.
• -aver knew of it directly ; but as a Magistrate of the
thel had an opportunity of forming a strong opinion on
elthject.
IV or
" .11 W. SMITH.—Does the witness mean to say that a
w4,4115_ er o.f electors, exceeding one half of the whole body,
e Subject to bribery ? I mean to ask, has lie any more
than he
that the election at Penryn was carried by bribery,
if he had really seen the acts of bribery committed ?
Switness.._ have no doubt about it.
•saver
WETHERELL objected to the question and an-
which he thought ought to be expunged.
.Sir -Y witness was directed to withdraw.
.watC- WETHERELL then reiterated his objection, and
:heetalhed to his Learned Friend, the Attorney-General,
ether such a question could be received. Was it right,
mod,
to disfranchise any body of persons on such loose
~,n,ncertiiiii evidence?
1-ne ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that not only the
aiaj
sit to 'which his Learned Friend had alluded, but the
questions which had been put in the course of
neet :ening, were of a description that the. House could
' everso7pon.—(Hear.).—The present inquiry was, how-
a more extended nature—it was more large and
rneral.....than would; perhaps, be allowed elsewhere. He
ulluught, therefore, that the rules of the House would not
to de Such an When, however, the House came
aet, he certainly should argue most boldly and strenu-
thusa27,othat they ought not to proceed on any evidence other
Heat.
Whieli might safely be viewed as legal testimony.
's.ne‘'`eat.)--The gentleman who had just left the bar
-11;ed to entertain a strong opinion that bribery prevailed
-"pitnis borough, and several other gentlemen held the same
gil)-venn but certainlyno evidence. of the fact was yet
tich evidence might be received for what it was
at Ilan*, as the opinion of a man who had minutely
t tended to the subject, but who could not give evidence as
.• anY specific fact ; but such testimony was evidently too
illue to be ultimately acted upon.
o_ WhN. CALVERT agreed with his Learned Friend,
they ought to receive this evidence, and take it for
at it was worth. In his opinion there certainly was
ii,euthing of value in the declaration of a witness who had
belief
in this borough all his hfc, and who had stated his
that more than one half of the electors were corrupt.
4lr• th,„-Alderman WAITHMAN was proceeding to state
dsre in his view of the case, the evidence of the last wit-
Atm was very important, when
_Mr- PEEL rose to order. He appealed to the Chair-
man whether the Hon. Alderman was not transgressing the
„ questionquestion_order in speaking' when there was, ha fact, no
(so we underst before the Committee. The last three hours had
most unprofitable m
ood the Hon. Gentleman) been spent in the
manner
Mr. Alderman saesaTii„
• of " Order." "yq bezel, I'IAN rose amidst loud cries
if six hours had been testae,: ithe •Bon..Member said, that
attached to him.—(Criee. otP:Yoedr:terre,?
andp , Chair.")orti,ori of the
• cut of order. heblame
The CHAIRMAN decided., tht the Ron. Member had been
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN rose, amidst
lt,ion. He said that he bowed to the dee' great coati-
. airman; but be appealed to himpwuthehisienr
of the Hon.
it was right
thaan attempt should be made, to
by cla-
Illanr?---(Cries of." Order," and much downconfusio
should conclutidtaenbnizmakning
Were driven to it, he certainly
a.haotion.--e(Order, order. )—He was then
veindicate hie right to deliver his opinion as to
a Member- of
tUlt HOW*, and he would do so.—(Cries of "There is no
.Snestion before the Committee.")—lf there were not, it was
!tt his power to make one. He contended, that it was most
!faimproper to endeavour to silence him, by an unnecessary
ref order, especially as he should :lot have occupied sh",
101nweoevoefr,thhee Committee for one minute. He would not,
put down ; and he would now state that in
ea?_,,Pin.ion, the testimony of individuals residing on the
I:ailielththreelpiect to corrupt practices, was extremely va-
Mr. PEEL said it was exceedingly hard when one Hon.
Member appealed to the Whether another Hon. Chairman,
Chairman, to know from him
latter should conaplain. ofsuc e h
Member
proceeding as an attempt toer was out of order, that the
Put him down. If a course were pursued, there
lese
Would be an died of all re ida
Uoule.—(Hear.) g ntY in the debates of that
Thomas Olave was then called, and stated, %answer
to questions put to him by Mr. L. le,E
Lord ALTHORP, and Sir J. SRELLxr, that he halLrveer4
at PftuTp.forgeyerid years, and, was aCciaaiattd with

h;