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

rim SUN. LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 14,_1842.

fessioc of a Liberal- of —the, -I;LJ-, watcx--,Gf the The fldi;eivimme is elle petiti(-m
introducer of the Chartist petition. It is not for "TO Tll2 irbNortnAum TEETCOMMONS O TILE UNITED.
any but Mr. Duncombe's creditors (if he k-s any RINGDWI or GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND IN- PAR-
.,
such(, to inquire where got- the 34,0001., thus LIAIIENT AsSBZ,TEIXD :
"'The huinble petition of Heury Warburton of Chelsea,
expended, according- to his own account, in sutorning
in the county of Ilidd
fraud and perjury—in a -war against legitim R
ate in- 'ie,
" Respectfully showeth2-Tha't your 'se i
petitioner was re-
fluence ; but looking at the mass of the House of turned a :Member sera. I'llrfia)nent for the borough
Commons, we eininet.. suspect that . each. /siendit of of Bridport at thelate esenerel s•leltion in_.lunc last, xncl
puncombe's standing has been able, either from resigned his seat, by accepting the Chiltern Ilundrells in
his own resources, 'or upon credit, to squander such a t the following September. ~ '•
'stn as ',34,0001., :and less, we suppose, would not " That the conduct of your-petitioner, in resigning his
secure' a seat in Parliament, or Mr. Duneombe would seat,. lees shortly afterwardeobininented .- on at a public
not have been silly enough to expend so much. • Mr. meeting by one of. hoe Mayeety's principal Secretaries of
Duncothite'S oWn' experience, therefore, ''would state, and has since been alluded to in public by other
.
to be decisive against his monstrous assumption, that perms in other places.
" That your petitioner ppreeives, from the Votes of
Ofthe.whole. IlouSe 600 Members obtained admission
Your Honourable M)tteo, that your Henourable House
corruption. hes resolied to appoint e Select Committee to inquire
lehether corrupt compromises have been entered into in
the cases of election pethions presented from H an% ich,
Nottingham, Lewes, Penryn and Falmouth, and Read-
ing, for the purpose of avoiding investigation into gross
bribery, alleged to have been practised at the election for
the aforesaid towns, and whether such bribery has really
taken place.
'That your petitioner ' has been informed that a
motion may not improbably he made in your Hon.
oureble hionse to extend the propoSed inquiry to
the borough of Bridport ; and. believing, as he does,
that the circumstances leeding to,. and attending,
and consequent upon the resignation of his seat would
properly come within the scope of the inquiries of the
Select 'Committee to be appointed, he earnestly prays
your Honourable House to give that extension to its
inquiries, S since he neither-wishes to avoid incurring any
blame which your Honourable House may think he dee
serves, nor, by reason of mystery and concealment, to be
subjected to unjust reflections .on his public character
and conduct. -
" That your petitioner conceives that 'it is necessary to
state some grounds to your Honourable House_ for the
prayer of this his petition, that the proposed inquiry
should be extended to the borough of Bridport ; and he
therefore begs to inform your Honourable House of the
following circumstances.
" That your petitioner was returned a Member for the
said borough, for the first time, at the general election in
1826, and afterwards at the six following successive
general elections, the time between the first and • last of 1
such elections being sixteen years.
" That the Bridport elections of the years 1826, 1830,
and 1831, were uncontested, each political party in the
borough returning one Member ; that the elections of
1832, 1834, 1837, and 1841 were all contested, two Mem-
bers professing the same political opinions with your
petitioner, being returned,at each of those elections, ex-
cepting that of 1834, when one Member of opposite opi-
nions was returned.
" That in 1826, when your petitioner first became
connected with the said borough, he found it to be the
established custom and practice in that, as it then was
in many other ` open boroughs,-' for each successful can
didate, a twelvemonth after his return, to pay to every
elector who had voted for him, and chose to claim it,
head-money,' which, in the ease of the said borough,
Nt as 101. for every vote ; and that, though no previous
promises to pay were ever required or given, yet pay-
ment of such sum of 101. was expected ; and the major
part of the electors usually claimed payment. And your
petitioner begs to state that a twelvemonth after his re-
turn, he paid into his agent'e hands the sum of 2,000/.,
which, he has no doubt, was applied in payment of the
said head-money.
" That in 1830, your petitioner was re-elected -under
the expectation that, at the usual time, he would comply
with the ancient usage ; but that shortly afterwards, on
the introduction into Parliament of a Bill for reforming
your Honourable House, the principal political suppor-
ters of your petitioner in the borough assembled and de-
termined that the custom of paying ` head-money!
should be abolished, a.nd respired your petitioner, on
pain of losing their support, • to abstain from paying, the
` head-money' for the previous and any future election ;
aed that'your petitioner obeyed their direetion, but de-
voted a much larger sum than the ` head-money' for his
then last election would have amounted to, in the erec-
tion of a public building for the advantage of the 'town
and your petitioner begs to add that, to the credit of the
poorer electors at that period, not more than two indivi-
duals complained that your petitioner had disappointed
them ; and that, from and after the period referred to,
the practice in the borough of paying heael-money en-
tirely ceased.
"That, at all the above contested elections, your peti-
tioner was always returned at the head of the poll and
by a considerable majority ; and that the return of your
petitioner at such elections was always an event, as-
nearly as such events can be, morally certain, the con-
test lying entirely between the two candidates ; and that
the body of the electors who, at every election from Is3l
to 1841, supported your petitioner, did so from disin-
terested motives and from approval of his political
.prib-
eiples and conduct; and your petitioner trusts that, if the
inquiry he prays for should be granted by your Honour-
able House, and it should appear, on investigation, that
some of the poorer electors have occasionally yielded to
the temptation of bribery, your Honourable House will
not jndge them severely ; for your petitioner begs to de-
clare to your Honourabl House that, so far as regards
time general conduct towards bins of those erectors who
have been his supporters, it has been the revs rse of any-
thing mercenary or corrupt.
"That it has been the ivariable practice of your peti-
tioner, at all his elections, not.to have any committee to
assist in 'promoting his return, nor to interfere himself in
any way in the conduct and management of the election ;
but to employ one agent for that purpose ; that, with re-
gard to any second Liberal candidate for the borough,
whenever there has been One, the practice of such second
candidate has in all cases been; to employ a separate and
distinct agent, and also tO have a committee to assist in'
promoting his separate return.
"'That your petitioner's knowledge of the occurrences
at the difibrent elections 'at which he has been returned,
is derived almost entirely from the statements made to
him by his sole agent ; but so far as your petitioner
knows, and, as he believes, no money inducement for a
vote in favour of your petitioner,. at either of his said
four last elections, was offered, or paid, or promised to
any voter, by authority of
your petitioners said sole
agent ; and he avers that, if ever any such inducement
was held out, it was utterly without his knowledge, and
would have been disapproved of and strongly reprobated
by him.
"'That the usual expense of your petitioner's election
was from 1,5001. to 1,700/„.of Which sum your petitioner
believes that from 700/. to 80e/. was the cost of dinners
given after the election ; that from 2001. to 3001. or 400/.
was incurred in processions, one ut the entry of the can-
didate into the borough, .and the other at his chairing,
and the remainder in agency costs and in public house
expenses preceding the test of the writ. And your pe-
titioner begs to state that, on the Bth of June, your pe-
titioner, being then in London, received a letter from his
sole agent, stating that your petitioner's expenses at the
ensuing election would not exceed the usual average.
" That the actual amount which your petitioner's
agent stated to your petitioner. that lie had incurred on
.your petitioner's accounts and which your petitioner
paid. as stein as demanded, was 2,1661 175. Id., and
that the extra cost between the usual average arose, as
Your petitioner is assured and believes (and is accounted
your
in the bills), from breakfasts which were given to
the electors on the morning of the polling. That your
petitioner was apprehensive that this electors' breakfast
would come within the laW of treating that he was not
consulted before-hand respecting it ; • that ho did not
know of such breakfast at the time ; that he believes,
and has been advised, that if he had been petitioned
against, -and sech-breakfast had been brought home to
him, he might have been unseated in consequence, by
-being legally guilty of treating through his agent.
That the candidates to represent the borough, be-
sides your petitioner, at the late general election, were
Thomas Alexander Mitchell, Esq., and Alexander
Dundas Baillie Cochrane, Esq., neither of whom had
ever before appeared as a candidate at the election for
the borough ; that the former candidate professed the
same political opinions with your petitioner, and the
latter candidate opposite opinions.
" That the former of these gentlemen, as your peti-
tioner hits reason to know, determined to become a can-
didate for the borough at the next vacancy, so long ago
as in May, 1839 ; and was induced to do so, not in con-
sequence of any communication made to him by your
petitioner (with whom he had no acquaintance) but of
his own accord, in consequence of a commercial con-
IleN ion of long standing he had with some manufacturers
in the borough.
" That, from a correspondence which (with the ex-
ception of one letter) your petitioner had, for the first
tittle, the opportunity of reading in February last, your
petitioner believes, that' there existed, on the part of a
person in London, hereinafter named, at that time in
direct communication with Mr. Mitchell, a deliberate
intention of carrying Mr. _Mitchell's election by force of
money. That your petitioner is confident that if the
Select Committee of Inquiry be granted, such fact will
be proved. •
"That on the 14th of May in la,st year, when a speedy
dissolution of Parliament appeared probable, your
votes, he • r t
maority for any second-
peti-
his agent at Brid-
tilivaatsthineformei
successc, of a second Liberal candidate could
by letter from
, Making allowance
days subsequently j
to such letter, namely,
for
Liberal could not exceed foilyt:
Brid-
port, tt)i-jooltt',lttr
l:ie confidently expected t; fohat
all" That t 11 et
hdroeueb
dt fauyl
an Monday the 17th of May, a letter from your peti-
tioner's agent was delivered to your petitioner, in the
lobby of your Hon. House, by two gentlemen, agents of
Mr. 'Mitchell, stating that- a difference had arisen between
Mr. Mitchell and those agents, and requesting your pe-
titioner to endeavour to mediate between Mr. Mitchell
and them ; and that, in consequence of such application,
your petitioner on the following day saw Mr. Mitchell,
for the first time since your petitioner knew of his being
a candidate ; and, in the course of that interview-, your
petitioner informed Mr. Mitchell of his estimated very
narrow majority, and warned him, in case he should
continue to be a candidate, carefully to avoid having any
difference with his agents, and advised him to weigh well
the discretion of continuing, a candidate under those cir •
cumstances.
"'That AB-. Mitchell had no further consultation with
your petitioner on the subject of their previous confe-
rence ; but, on the 19th of in an address to the
Bridport electors, announced his intention of becoming a
candidate, and on the 218 t per!scnOlY visited the borough.
That, on the same day, an active canvass began in favour
of Mr. Cochrane, fuel, on this- following day, • a similar
canvass for Mr. Mitchell. •
" That Mr. Mitchell's first canvass was completed on
the evening of the 26th of Mae' ; when, it appearing to
•Mr. Mitchell's agents that the suecess•of such canvass
was not sufficiently decisive 'to justify them in calcu-
lating upon a certain majority, they came to the deter-
mination of buying votes, and acted on that determina-
eon froii:ethe 27th to die 30th of May inclusiVe, Mr.
Mitchell and his agent,. Mr. Matthew ilutchinson, jun.,
)eing at that time m the borough.

ELECI 10N COMMITTEES.
(THIS DAY.)
CORK.

The Committee chosen to try -the merits of the peti-
tion against the return f.or the county of Cork met this
day at half-past one o'clock,' in the Committee-room,
No. 1, G: Hayter, Esq., in the Chair.
- Mr. Sergeant Wrangham and Mr. Montague Smith
appeared as Counsel for the petitioners ; Mr. Austin
and Mr. A. Stephens for the sitting Members.
Mr. Sergeant Wriminitam opened the case for the pe7
titioners, Mr. Leader and Mr. Longfield. •At the last
election for the county of Cork, there were. • four
candidates •in the field,. Mr. Leader and Mr. Long
field, the petitioners, and Mr. E. B. Roche and
Mr. Barry ; but shortly before the day of no-
mination Mr. Barry withdrew, and Mr. O'Connell
took his place. The election took place on the 12th of
July, 1841. and was to continue for five days. The
polling commenced on the 13th of July, and the result
of the first day's poll was .for the sitting Members 399,
and for the petitioners 387. He gave these numbers, be-
cause they might be of importance in the consideration of
the question the Committee had to determine. During the
day of polling, and for days previous, the petitioners with-
drew, in consequence of what came to their knowledge;
the polling on the part of the sitting Members, however,
proceeded, and at the close of the poll the numbers were
—for the sitting Members, 1,274 ; and in favour of the
petitioner, Mr. Leader, 406, a few stray voters
having . recorded their votes in his favour..
After the first day's polling .the sitting Members
were accordingly returned,. and it was that return he
now sought to set aside. The grounds of the petition
were, that an organised system of agitation, menace,
violence,- and outrage was acted upon .during the election
for Cork, and that several electors were deterred from
voting in consequence of such a system, so that the
freedom of election was entirely destroyed. The
Learned Gentleman went on to say . that a very old.
statute, almost coeval with the. existence of Parliament,
was passed to preserve the freedom of election. That
was the statute of 3d of Edward First,—chap. 5, which
enacted - that no force of arms or menace should
be allowed at elections. . The Learned Gentleman then
went on to detail particular cases of • violence, and said
that sufficient voters having remained unpolled they
must be presumed. to vote for the petitioners till the con-
trary was shown.
The poll-books were produced by Mr. Ware, the Clerk
of the Peace for the county Cork..
Mr. Barry; • the High Sheriff for Cork at the late
election, was called to prove the protests that were en-
tered by the petitioners at the election. .
Mr. AUSTIN was proceeding to cross-examine - the
-witness, but my,. Sergeant Wrangham objected.--
The room was then cleared, and the Committee de-
cided that the cross-examination Might be proceeded with.
The Committee then adjourned. till eleven o'clock un
Monday.

FLINT (BOROUGH). .
•
The proceedings on the petition against the return of
Sir R. W. B. Butkeley were very speedily terminated.
The Committee met at eleven (this day), and proceeded
to the investigation of the allegations of the petition.
These were very well supported byeanclusive proof, and
87 votes being proved to be disqualified, the sitting
Meinber was declared :o have been unduly elected.

't Tirat the•:,aid liutettinzon, jutlior, quitted
tbc,borough on _Monday, dune the 7th, and returned to
the borough—on—SM-idaY;- June the 13th- and that on
Monday, the 14th, the buying of votes, by order of Mr.
Mitchell's agents, was resumv.l, and was continued during
the remainder of that

"That Mr. Mitchell .continued at .Bridport until the
2d of June, when be quitted it,. scat rub% to the borough
on the)444, and remaining,there- until the Ist of July,
two days after the election.
" That your. petitioner _remained in . London until
Monday, the 21st of ;runes on the-.evening or. ,i,hiCh. day
your petitioner entered the borciugh.
" That, from the . 2:ld to the 28th of June. inclusive,
the titne.iif your petitioner was busily occupied in can-
vassing the elettors in the, company of his agent, and
another elector acting as an. assistant canvasser.
"That in the course of this canvass, your petitioner's
agent having incidentally observed in conversation, that
be had consented to .allow such assistant canvasser to
aid Mr. Mitchell in his canvass, and also that during
Mr. Mitchell's absence from the. borough, he (your pe-
titioner's agent.) had lent the sum of 1501. to an agent
of Mr. Mitchell, your petitioner became, for the first
time, aware that he might be thus implicated in the
proceedings of Mr. Mitchell ; and as the rumour was
_current in the town that Mr. Mitchell's agents were
having recourse to bribery, your petitioner expressed
to his own said agent his regret that a common can-
vasser l.ad been so lent in aid of Mr. Mitchell, and that
money had been lent to _Mr. Mitchell's agent ; and also
your petitioner's fear that such connexion between him-
self and Mr. Mitchell might endanger the return of your
petitioner.
" That, at the said election, your petitioner was re-
terned by a majority of 60, and Mr. Mitchell by a ma-
jority of 38, your petitioner receiving 304 votes, Mr.
Mitchell 282, and Mr. Cochrane 244,555 electors having
voted out of 594 on the Register, and 272 electors
having split their vutes between your petitioner and Mr.
Mitchell. . .
" That, in the month of July, disputes having arisen
between Mr. Mitchell and his (Mr. Mitchell's) agents,
respecting the settlement, of election accounts, your peti-
tioner was requested by one of such agents to intercede
with Mr. Mitchell for theitadjustment and payment,
which your petitioner consented to do, and subsequently
did. That in the course of such agent's conversation
with your petitioner, that agent intimated that the ques-
tioning of Mr. Mitchell's return might. involve also the
return of your petitioner.
" That your petitioner, on the occasion of such his
communication with Mr. Mitchell, repeated his warn-
ings to Mr. Mitchell of the peril he incurred by giving
offence to his agents ; and he informed Mr. Mitchell of
the hints thrown out by one of them that the entire re-
turn might be questioned.
" That part of the balance of account descended of
Mr. Mitchell by his agent, was paid to that agent in a
manner offensive. to him; and a promise was given to
your petitioner's agent by Mr. Matthew Hutchinson,
jun. (an agent of Mr. Mitchell), that the remainder
should be paid before the meeting of Parliament in
August ; but w hich promise was not kept..
" That, on Monday, the 24th of, August, your peti-
tioner's agent arrived in London with information, that.
the agents of Mr. Mitchell had placed in the hands of
Mr. Cochrane's agent documentary and other proofs, es-
tablishing in a conclusive.manner the fact of an exten-.
sive system of bribery having been practised to return
Mr. Mitchell as Member for the borough.
" That your petitioner thereupon.. instructed his agent
to ascertain, in the best way he could, what would be the.
effect of these disclosures on the legality of your peti-
tioner's return ; .when your petitioner's agent returned
with the intelligence that there were proofs in the pos-
session of Mr. Cochrane's agent of your petitioner's agent
having lent the use of a person in his employ as a can-
vasser to Mr. Mitchell, and also evidence of that person,
while acting for Mr. Mitchell, bribing certain electors to
vote for Mr. Mitchell with -money borrowed of your peti-
tioner's agent by Mr.' Mitchell's agent.
. "That, coupling these facts with the further fact that
most of the voters so bribed for Mr. Mitchell had split
their votes between your 'petitioner and Mr. Mitchell,
your petitioner could not but be apprehensive that though
himself guiltless of the bribery committed by the agent
of another candidate, nevertheleSs he might, in a legal
sense, by the law of Parliament, he implicated in Mr.
Mitchell's proceedings, so far as concerned 'the validity
of your petitioner's return.
" That your petitioner further ascertained that Mr.
Cochrane was principally minded to unseat Mr. Mitchell,
and was desirous of not unnecessarily questioning the re-
turn of your petitioner, or subjecting your petitioner to
useless annoyance and expense ; and that., if Mr. Mit-
chell would resign his seat, and the political supporters
of your petitioner and Mr. Mitchell would consent to re-
turn Mr. Cochrane, no petition would be presented
against either of the then sitting Members.
"That your petitioner's agent at once communicated
these fi a -.to Mr. Mitchell, suggesting to Mr. Mitchell
sp
that, ass and his agents had both conceived the execu-
tion of t_isi bribery and directed it, and as they were his
agents and not your petitioner's, who had disclosed the
secrets of their employer, and as it was his refusal to pay
MS election accounts, and his neglect of the warnings
given him by your petitioner, that had led to that dis-
closure, it was Just that Mr. Mitchell should resign his
seat, and not your petitioner ; and other reasons were
urged upon Mr. Mitchell, arising out of the conditions
on which he was supported by your petitioner's friends
in the borough, viz., that your petitioner's seat was to be
the first secured. . , ... • . :
"That various representations to the same effect were'
made by your petitioner's agents to Mr. Mitchell and his •
agents without effect ; and various personal communica-
tions took place, the particulars of which your petitioner
is ready and anxious to Make known to your Honourable
House. •
" That, after two or three days thus spent in negotia-
tion with Mr. Mitchell and his; agents, your petitioner,
fearing that many of his .old' friends and supporters in
the borough were compromised more deeply in Mr. Mit-
chell's transactions than your . petitioner was aware of,
your petitioner suggested to his own agent that he, yeur
petitioner, should resign his seat for the purpose of
saving those friends from danger, and he directed his
agent with that view, to see the agent of Mr. Cochrane,
and report to him, your petitioner, the result ; which
overtures ended in two meetings, which your petitioner
and his agent had with Mr. Cochrane and his agent, on
the 26th and 27th of August, for the. purpose of arrang-
ing the terms and conditions on which your petitioner
should resign his seat ; but before the conclusion of any
such arrangement., information was given by your peti-
tioner's agent to Mr. Mitchell, that your petitioner was
then negotiating on his own. behalf, and your petitioner's
agent distinctly and repeatedly informed Mr. Mitchell's
agent, that one seat must be abandoned to secure their
common partisans from danger.
That the conditions which your petitioner enteredinto
and stipulated to perform towards Mr. Cochrasc were
the following :—That at the end of the fourteen days
allowed for presenting election petitions, he, your pe-
titioner, would accept the Chiltern Hundreds, unless Mr.
Mitchell, within that time, should agree to do so ; and
further, in case of the vacancy to be created by your
petitioner, or Mr. Mitchell's resignation, neither your
petitioner, nor his agent, nor their mutual friends in the
borough, should oppose Mr. Cochrane's return, and that
so far as regards that part of the understanding, your
petitioner begs to say, that his and his agent's under-
standing has been carried into effect, for that he resigned
his seat on the Bth of September, and that Mr. Coch-
rane was elected and returned on the 15th of that month,
and that on the 27th of September your petitioner re,
ceived from Mr. Cochrane's agent a letter, containing
the following voluntary acknowledgment :
' " ' Allow me to take this opportunity of expressing,
on behalf of Mr. Cochrane and myself, the deep sense
we entertain of the honourable and straightforward con-
duct which has marked the whole of the proceedings of
yourself and Mr. Nicholetts in this matter.' _And to
your petitioner's agent, on the same day, a letter was
addressed by Mr. Cochrane's agent, froin which the fol-
lowing is an extract :--' AlloWS me to take this oppor-
tunity of expressing to you how deeply both Mr. Coch-
rane and I feel ourselves indebted to. you and Mr. War-
burton for the honourable, straightforward, and ener-
getic manner in which you have carried out our London
arrangements.'
" That it being stated at the meeting of the 26th of
August, that no stipulation could legally or, safely be
entered into that would affect Mr. Mitchell's seat, your
petitioner .requested Mr. Cochrane to take no further
proceedings on the petition, against that gentleman's re-
turn ; to which Mr. Cochrane replied, that it was his
fixed determination to unseat Mr. Mitchell, and that he
could not entertain the request made to him by your
petitioner.
" That the conditions which Mr. Cochrane entered
into and stipulated, with regard to your petitioner, were,
that no petition should be presented against his (your
petitioner's) return ; that his letter of application for the
Chiltern Hundreds should not be made known or used
before the expiration of the fourteen days allowed for
presenting election petitions, and should be returned to
him in case Mr. Mitchell shOuld, within that time, agree
to vacate his seat, by making a similar application ; that
the petition against Mr. Mitchell's return, which Mr.
Cochrane declared he would not abandon, should be pro-
secuted in such a way as to save the legal liabilities and
reputation of your petitioner's friends ; that on this
matter your petitioner was informed by Mr. Cochrane
and his agent that reliance must be placed on their
honour.
"That on the 7th of September, the day before your
petitioner resigned his seat, on his expressing his
doubts to Mr. Zochrane and his agent, whether they
would be able to comply with the last stated condition ;
Mr. Cochrane's agent stated, that of evidence to prove
Mr. Mitchell's bribery he h'sd such an ' embureas de
riehesses; that he would have no difficulty in proving the
bribery, and at the same time saving the reputation of
your petitioner's friends.
That in further elucidation of the nature of the per-
formance intended by Mr. Cochrane and his agent, in
part of the above compromise, your petitioner begs to
give an extract from a letter, dated the 27th of Septem-
ber, addressed by Mr. Cochrane's agent to your peti-
tioner's agent :
" ' I need not assure you that, except to carry out the
arrangement for the benefit of Mr. Warburton, and your
friends as well as his, and in strict conformity with the
honourable understanding, between us, Mr. Cochrane and
I have no wish to take any steps whittever ; and that,
therefore, we feel ourselves 'entirely in. your and Mr.
Warburton's hands, to act as you may direct, as to the
actions and petition for Mr. Warburton's benefit. You
will see Mr. Warburton's' very correct and honourable
feelings towards us in this matter, and all I beg of you,
for his sake, is, not
.hastily to'decide on steps as to Hut-
chinsen's actions, &c., which may have the effect at last
to leave Mr. 'Wt rburtOn the only sufferer.'
" That, at the instigation of the above-mentioned Mr.
Matthew Hutchinson,
,jun., 'aspetition had been got up
in the borough against the return of Mr. Cochrane, on
an allegation of bribety Committed by Mr. Cochrane,
when a candidate at the electiOn in June ; which peti-
tion was to. bepresented to the Hotlse-on the 28th of