The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-28 00:00:00

PUBLIC•HOUSES BILL.

own case.
The COMMITTEE were of opinion that Mr. Mackay
could not be present.
Mr. Wren was then called, and his examination was
proceeded with. He stated on the last day, that Mr.
John Hunt and Mr. Coulson called upon him, at
the request of Mr. Abrahams, relative to Whit-
marsh. He called upon Whitmarsh, and after-
wards upon Abrahams. He told Abrahams that
Whitmarsh, would not vote for less than 20/, and that
he would not, on his own responsibility, guarantee it to
him. Mr. Abraham answered—" We must have Whit-
marsh, and any arrangement you make will be fulfilled."
We then went to Whitmarsh and secured him
for 201. Whitmarsh fixed that sum, and said,
he would not vote for less. Mr. Whitmarsh and
the Dibells went to poll together, and Mr. Whitmarsh
said "We will all poll for the same." After Whitmarsh
polled they went into a tavern, and remained there for a
few minutes, after which they returned to the Castle,
and in a private room there he gave the 201 to Mr.
Whitmarsh, in the presence of Mr. John Bennett Luce,
the landlord of the Castle Hotel.
To Mr. Sainx.—ls not aware that the Whig party
offered any money to Whitmarsh. He received money
from the Finance Committee, between 50/. and 601.
Knows a person named Twyford ; did not know him
previous to the last election ; Mr. Abrahams told him to
go to Twyford, as he understood he wanted 51. He
met Twyford and introduced himself to him by
mentioning Mr. Abraham? name. He said he knew
Mr. Abraham's very well. He (witness) said that he
understood he wanted 5/. Twyford answered he did.
Witness told him he would give him 51. He went to
Abrahams, and he got his signature as a guarantee to
the Finance Committee, that the 5/ was to be paid. Here
is Mr. Abrahams signature. The witness here handed
in a small book to the Committee. He did not pay
Twyford. He had other applications for larger sums.
At his suggestion an application was made to Mr. Ball, a
woollen-draper' and tone of the Finance Committee, for
more money. Mr. Ball came himself in consequence of
that communication. lie saw Mr. Ball give 71. to Mr.
Wyatt, the town-crier. • He was not an elector. Does
not know what the money was for. He then went to the
Portswood, with Mr. Ball, to a voter named Russell. Mr.
Ball and Russell had a private conversation. He be-
lieves it was for the purpose of giving him a bribe.
Whets he came back from Portswood, Twyford had
voted, and he came to witness the next day and asked
for the 5/ He referred him to Mr. Mackay, and Twy-
fbrd told him that he had seen Mr. Mackay, and that he
was satisfied.
To Mr. Snm..--Saw Abrahams sign the book himself.
The entry was, " Thos. Twyford, 51.," and opptsite was
attached A. Abrahams."
Mr. " paid " attached to several names
in this book. Are these the persons who; of your
knowledge, received money.
Witness—The word paid is not my writing, it is the
writing of Mr. Duncombe the Member for Finsbury.
The witness then proceeded to detail other cases of
bribery. Mr. Redwards received 5/, and Charles
Houghton received 121. They voted for Lord Bruce
and Mr. Mostyn. During the proceedings before the
late Committee, Mr. Deacon, the Town Clerk of South-
ampton, and an active Conseivative partisan, and a Mr.
Brown were conversing. together. This was the first
day that he (Wren) was examined. Mr. Brown, after the
conversation, came to him, and said, " Now, Wren, if you
make Mr. Martyn's election secure, I am authorised to
offer you a cheque for 1001." He (witness) said he had
but one course to pursue, and he refused it. He saw all
the persons, mentioned in the list handed to him, acting
on the working Committee for Lord Bruce and Mr.
Marty n. He saw the following persons on the Finance
Committee :—Messrs. Flicker, W. H. Mackay, W. Rouse
Mabson, Mr. J. Ball, and Mr. J. Lisle, Town-sergeant.
On the day previous to the polling, he handed in a list
of the names to whom he gave money. Mr. Mackay
objected to the sum of money given to Whitmarsh. Ile
(Wren) said that he gave the money under the au-
thority-of Mr. Abrahams. His list was compared with
others, and one of the members of the Committee said
that the average price was 81., and that the money
would b 9 sent to him. When he left the Committee he met
Mr. Lisle, who told him that he should have the money.
He received the money. It was between 50/. and 601.
He distributed it in the following way :—To Whit- I
marsh. 20/. ; to Houghton, 12/. ; to Wyatt, for an elec-
tor called Fry, 10/. ; to Bedwards, 5/. ; to Paskins and
Andrew, 3/. each, lie was out of pocket 2/. of his on n
money by the election. He heard Coulson say that
there was 5,2001. spent at the last election by the Con
servative side.

To Mr. SHIEL—Is of opinion that the Whigs practised
extensive bribery at the late election ; heard a person
say that they spent 4,0001. at it.
There was a General Conservative Association at one
time in Southampton. It was broken up in consequence
of some suggestion that award Association would be bet-
ter ; heard Mr. Stebling 'say that Mr. Fleming made the
suggestion. The object of the Ward Association was to
forward the Conservative interests at the election
for corporate officers and Members of Parliament.
They met at the houses of such publicans as were mem-
bers; at one house one night, and at a different house
ano:her night. Recollects a' Conservative festival in
Southampton on the 12th of October, 1840. Several
free tickets were issued for that festival. The price of a
ticket was a guinea. He distributed about twelve tickets.
Sir William Reathcote presided at that festival. There
were other dinners given. Almost every house in
Southampton was open for the purpose of treat-
ing. Is of opinion that three hundred persons
received money on both sides at the last election. He
knows Southampton well. Knows a good deal of pre-
vious elections. He was a working committee-man.
The most expensive election that/he recollects to have
taken place for Southampton was that of 1830. In 1832
lie voted for the Whigs. The system was, if possible,
growing worse every day. It was customary to employ
a great number of persons as colourmen and chairmen.
The general price for them was 21. Was never
before the last election engaged in acts of bribery.
To the CHAIRMA N—lt was in consequence of the great
excitement of the last election, that he lent himself to
those acts of bribery ; and also because persons, in a
more responsible situation than he, asked him to do so.
After his return home from the late Southampton Com-
mittee, proceedings were taken against him by Mr. Mackay.
He was sued fora debt of 11.45., due to a person named
Squib. Mr. Usher was Squib's attorney previously to this.
Mr. Mackay did not give him any notice before the writ
was served upon him; the costs were 1/. Bs. He since
paid the debt to Mr. Usher, and he offered his costs to
Mr. Mackay, who refused it unless he paid the debt over
again. Mackay knew he paid the debt to Mr. Usher;
wrote to him to that effect.
To Mr. SHIEL—Was offered 100/. as a bribe during
the late proceedings before the Southampton Committtes
and attributes the persecution of which he is the object
to the fact that he did not take that bribe, and becati,io
be would not perjure himself betoro the Commit:OP, 43re,
viously to his coming to London, he had a ponversation
with Mr. Mackay relative to the proceedings which were
to take place before the Committee, and the indemnity
which was to be afforded to witnesses, He told Mr.
Mackay he should act in an open, fair manner, and Mr.
Mackay said he would go tbr six months to poi
before he would divulge anything. Mr. Flcining pissed
by at the time, and Mr. Macke left WWI iuts been.
placarded and caricatured ,Tery pasaibie
way since the late proceedings,
Mr. HEARN was about to examine Mr. Wren, but it
being a quarter to four, the Committee adjourned till
twelve o'clock this day.

-BELFAST.
The Belfast Inquiry Cominitto4 Stands adjourned til o-day at twelve o'clock,

UNIVERSITY INTELLIGENCE.
OXFORD, JUNE 25.—The subjects for the University Prizes
for next year are as under
THE THREE CHANCELLOR'S PRIZES.
Latin Essay, " Qumnam fuerit publicorum certastinum apud
antiquos vis et utilitas."
Latin Verse, " Venetia)."
Feud English Essay: " The Advantages and Disadvantages of the
al System. '
SIR ROGER NEWDIGATE'S PRIZE.
English Verse, " Cromwell."
THEOLOGICAL PRIZE ESSAY.
" The Style and Composition of the Writings of the New
Testament are in no way inconsistent with the belief that the
' authors of them were divinely inspired."
SIRS. DENVER'S THEOLOGICAL PRIZE ESSAYS.
4son the Divinity of the Holy Ghost."
04t the Influence of Practical Piety in promoting the tem-
poral and eternal happiness of Mankind."
The Lawrenee collection of the drawings by Raffaelle and
Alicbael Angelo will at length be added to the works of art at
Oxford; the purchase has been effeCted by the Committee in
consequence of the munificent additional subscription of 4,0001.
by the Earl of Eldon, and by a reduction of 3,000/. by Messrs.
Woodburn fro* the original price.
rtitl ilZv, dames A. Dunnage, of Brasennose College, has
40 appointed Assistant Chaplain to the Tower of London.
The 'Rev. F. W. Alant, of New Inn Hall, has been pre-
sented to the Rectory of Ballintoy.
The Rev. Alexander H. Brides, of Oriel College, has been
ciesented to the Vicarage of St. Mark's, Horsham, in the
county of SktogiA•
Tb Master awl Fellows of University College have_pre-
sßted the Rev. e. C. Claughton, of their Society, to the Rec-
tory of Elton, in the county of Huntingdon.
The Hey. Jt C. Pring, of New College, has been elected
Chaplain to the Union at Headington, near Oxford.

A. letter from Munich, June 19, in the Avsburgh Ga
rate, informs us that the Duke de Leuchtenberg after a long
stay in the capital of Bavaria, :will come to Paris in the winter,
and afterwaids visit his eatatea in Italy.

On the motion of the Earl of STRADBROKE, this
Bill was read a third time and passed.
Lord MOUNTCASHEL gave notice that he should
postpone until to morrow his motion relative to certain
returns connected with the Medical Charities (Ireland).
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition, signed by
various parties affected by the tariff, complaining that the
tariff had been passed without a repeal of the Corn-laws.
AFFIRMATION BILL.
_ _ _

Lord DENMAN rose to move the second reading of
this Bill. His object was to provide a remedy for, or
defect in, the administration of justice, as it now existed
in this country. The evil consequences of the present
system, which led in many instances to the suppression
of truth, were often felt in civil, and still more seriously
in criminal, cases. Individuals, notoriously guilty, hall
on many occasions escaped the punishment due
to their crimes, because the law required that
evidence should not be received unless it were preceded
by a particular sanction, which wounded the religious
feelings of those who came to depose. Many were of
opinion that crime was on the increase in this country—
that a portion of our literature had taken a most unfor-
tunate turn, tending to inflame the passions and
to deprave the understandings of the working classes.
However that might be, if it were true, as he feared
it was, that crime was largely increasing among us, it
was the more necessary that they should take every
means in their power for its suppression. The sect in
whose favour the Bill he had introduced was
meant principally to apply, was the Baptists a
most respectable body, who amounted to about
100,000 in this country, and to some thousands in
Scotland. A large portion of that sect did not
object to the taking of oaths ; but there were many
of them who felt that objection, and almost all of
them were anxious for an alteration in the present law.
Again, there were the Independents, also a numerous
sect, many of whom entertained the same scruples with
regard to the taking of oaths. Under the present
system those parties, acting according to their con-
scientious convictions, forfeited their recognizanees,
or underwent a heavy fine, or were sent, perhaps to gaol
instead of the culprit, who was screened from punish-
ment. Was that a fitting state of things ?
A man was sent to prison for refusing to take an oath,
and yet he saw perhaps a Quaker or a Moravian mount
the witness-box to dispose of the lives and fortunes of
their fellow-creatures. The man's evidence was lost ;
that evidence might have been the the means of saving
an innocent man. If a letter were written to the Secre-
tary of State disclosing and proving this, would he allow
punishment to follow ? He (Lord D.) had received a
book from a gentleman in America, in which was de-
tailed the persecution of the Quakers in Massachusetts,
many being actually put to death. The Govern-
ment of Rhodes Island at last took a different view,
and they suffered the Quaker simply to declare ;
and now the people were beginning to loath that
place (Massachusetts) on account of these persecutions.
In. the Act of King Charles the Second it was provided
that Quakers should be transported for life for the hei-
nous offence of refusing to make depositions on oath.
But they triumphed over all this, and in the reign of
William the Third they were allowed to be received as
witnesses in civil cases. Since that time they had con-
tinual advantages. The Moravians also, who were not a
sect, but an ancient episcopal church, were admitted to the
same privilege, as also were a sect of recent origin. Now
he never heard that in any instance the privilege had
been abused, and he therefore asked the House to extend
the privilege to all those who entertained conscientious
objections to an oath. He knew that many people sup-
posed that there were those who had great regard for an
oath, and cared nothing at all for truth. He could not
see any reason for that opinion. On the other hand
it could not be denied that there were persons who were
at all times ready to come into a Court of Justice to de-
pose to the falsehood upon oath. There was great reli-
ance placed upon the fact, which was of frequent occur-
rence in the Courts of Justice, namely, that when a
witness was going on in a career of falsehood, he was
frequently checked by. being reminded by Counsel that
he was on his oath. But in such cases he was checked,
not by his regard fur the sanctity of an oath, but by
his apprehension that he should incur the penalty of
transportation for pelljury. He had now stated a case
which he considered would be full of hardship and in-
justice
to a large number of most deserving men. Ile
believed that the remedy which he had proposed was
efficacious and safe. It had been suggested that there
ought to be some re' /stration or some precaution against
the abuse of the law by people coming forward oc-
casionally, and claiming the exemption.—(Hear,
hear.) But, as he saw nu danger, he could
propose no precaution. The persons on whose behalf he
brought forward this measure, would receive the boon
with gratitude at the hands of Parliament, whatever might
be the precautions with which it should be accompanied.
The .Earl of IVICKLOW had not intended to follow
the Noble and Learned Lord, but as no one seemed in-
clined to rise to oppose the second reading of this Bill,
he felt it to be his duty to do so. He was much sar-
prised to find that the Noble and Learned Lord brought
so few reasons why the law upon this subject should be
changed. The Noble Lord said that a privilege had been
ex ttialed to Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists ; but
he (the Earl of Wicklow) did not think that that privi-
lege had been extended to any but Quakers. The Noble
and Learned Lord must recollect that the- oltjee*
tions of a Quaker to taking the oath were inhe-
rent in his creed, but the Noble and Learned
Lord admitted that such was not the case with respect
to those for whom lie pleaded. The cases cited by the
Noble and Learned Lord were imaginary ; he had
proved none. If this Bill passed, the consequence
would be that one half the religious community would
object to taking an oath. He (the Earl of 'Wicklow)
would rather vote for the abolition of oaths altogether
than this Bill. This Bill made a distinction between
oaths and affirmations, exceedingly prejudicial to public
justice.
The Bishop of LONDON said he did not know whe-
ther he could make up his mind at once as to giving a vote
upon this Bill. It was a question respecting the scruples
of a number of persons and sects. He felt it justice
to the Noble and Learned Lord to say, that these cases
of scruples were not exaggerated by him. He knew that
these eases were not imaginary. He knew many hint,
self. He knew one, which was the case of a member of ,
that profession to which the Noble Lord was an orPtt-
ment. But he (the Bishop of London) thought this Bill
took too wide a range, lie hardly thought they were
yet in a state to give this question proper consideration.
Betbre they altered the existing law, and removed a
religious sanction for eliciting truth, they should, he
thought, hear the opinions of those learned persons en-
gaged in the administration of justice, lie did not
know whether all the Judges of the land shared in the
opinions of the Noble and Learned Lord (Lord Den-
man) on the subject. He could not, therefore, give his
sanction to the present measure. He admitted, however,
that there were evils in the existing system, and that it
led to inconvenience, for which it was the duty of their
Lordships to provide a remedy. Ile confessed that lie
did not see his way clearly in-the case. The whale sub-
ject relating to the administration of oath..,s,a
great importance, and deserved their
.Lortt'Ps-sips'
consideration. He had doubts whether
now unnecessarily administered in u'
r"..t.tlis were not
.ny cases—in cases.
relating to property fbr instane--
, er in the examinatup of witnesses at their Lord'
The 0„,: -.nips' bar, or before Judges in
Chamber.
. . —a.° subject, would yet, he hoped, re-
eel% e the c°_sideration of the Legislature. With regard
of the Noble d Learned Lord, he could not
ve it his support, but and Learned Lord, he could not
cit his support, but lie could not on the other hand
deny the evils of the existing system ; and he should,
thvrefore, abstain altogether from voting on the motion
before the House.
Lord CAMPBELL supported the Bill. There could
be no doubt that many parties, whose scruples were net
respected by the present law, entertained conscientious
objections to the taking of oaths. The result of this
was that criminals often escaped, while the individuals
who should have deposed against theni were punished.
There could be nothing more preposterous than the pre-
sent system, which exempted sects, but did not exempt
individuals, from the necessity of violating their own
conscientious convictions. The declaration provided in
the Act was, that " I, A. 13., declare that I believe, in
my conscience, that the taking of any oath is contrary
to the law of God." How could there be any apprehen •
sion that a man, falsely snaking that declaration, would
be bound by any form of oath that could be imposed
upon him? He remembered that once, in the Court of
Queen's Bench, a witness, who was rather gaily dressed,
said that he would not take the oath, because he was a
Quaker. " What (said the Lord Chief-Justice), if you
are a Quaker, why do you come here here in the dis-
guise of a rational being ?"—(Laughter.) But the dis-
guised Quaker was allowed to make his affirmation,
without further question. He was one of those who be-
lieved that some form should attend the taking of evi-
dence in a court of justice, to give the solemnity neces-
sary to distinguish the statements made there, from the
unconsidered nature of ordinary conversation. The
Noble and Learned Lord concluded, by giving his entire
concurrence to*the measure, which he hoped their Lord-
ships would allow to go into Committee, in which it
might undergo such modifications as would remove all
the apprehensions that some persons entertained respect-
ing its operation.
Lord GALLOWAY opposed the second reading of
the Bill. He would be one of the last men in the
/louse to interfere with the religious scruples of con-
scientious persons, but he believed persons of very
different principles would avail themselves of this Bill
if it passed into law,
Lord ABINGER, in opposing the second reading of
the Bill, said that there was not any large number of
persons in this kingdom who entertained conscientiously
the scruples which the Bill was intended to relieve. In
the whole course of a very long forensic life, he had
met with but one instance—and, strange to say, that oc-
curred the day before yesterday.—(Laughter.) A
wo.nan said that she could not take an oath, because
she was a Baptist, and believed that oaths were not al-
lowed by the law of God. lIe((Lord Abinger) ex-
plained to her, that the interdiction of swearing in the
Scriptures did not apply to judicial oaths, and she ac-
cordingly took the oath.--(Hear, hear.) He had
known, in a Committee of their Lordships' House,
where witnesses were examined upon oath, that persons
gave evidence at variance with what they had stated

MR. ROEBUCK'S COMMITTEE. •
Mr ROEBUCK appeared at the bar, with a special
Report of the Committee appointed to inquire intocertain
compromises, and other corrupt practices, alleged to have-
' taken place in several boroughs in connexion with the.
late general election.
Tile Report having been brought up, was read
by the Clerk at the table. It stated 481
the Committee, iu pursuit of the inquiry for which they
had been constituted, had found it necessary to issue a.
summons to John Walter, Esq., to require his attendance,
before them, and that he should bring with him all let-
ters and documents relating to the election, or to his pit.-
tition against the return ; and all bills paid and unpaid
on account of the late contest for the borough of Not-
tinglunn. The Committee received from Mr. Walter a
letter declining to comply with the summons. The terms
of the letter were, that Mr. Walter had to acknow-
ledge the receipt of a summons with the signature.
of J. A. Roebuck, Chairman of the Committee. AL-
thouLth he would be at all times desirous to obey the sure,
mons of the House or its Committees, and would be
glad to communicate to the Committee any informatio/4
which might affect no one but himself ; yet when he cot. -
sidered tne power which the Committee possessed o.l;er
those who came before it, and further the influence of
the Chairman over the proceedings of the Oam-
mittee, he begged to point out to the Com-
mittee the position in Which he would be placid, . if
he were brought before a tribunal, at the head of Ivnch
was Mr. Roebuck, who in his place in 1 arlinment,
on the 14th of September last, had passed a, scan-
daloustiste aauntdhourn foistuan:iletairitrctileecitlihoinelisposi
hadp
himap (Mr. Walter)
in the alter)
Times newspaper, and of which article he (Mr. Walter)
did not know who the author was, nor had he ever
authorised any one to write that article, or insert it
in the Times. On that occasion Mr. Roebuck used dab
ofth
et the
werof. House,
the Times, and did not wish the attetli
were attacked by
following 1
to be repeated,
horsewhip the
unbecoming expression that that if any Mensb
he would recommend him at (mot: to
proprietor, Mr. Walter." lie (Mr, yv.)
trusted, therefore, that he would not be supposed to show
plaocethheimorsdelefrsin
a. Court, So
When be
person who hod expressed such undisguised hostility towards him. Eve*
constituted and presided over by a
dacedliinsreedgartod
if he should be forcibly compelled to appear before the
Committee, he should feel bound to decline to answer
questions put by a tribunal so constituted. At thee
same time he assured the Committee that he did not
possess any letters or other documents relating to tkia
election, or the petition, nor any accounts of the expenses
paid or "paid. Yet, as be was anxious to
afford the Committee every information, without subject-
ing himself to personal insult, he begged to state that Mr.
Francis Holmes, of Nottingham, had been his agent on
both the occasions when he was a candidate for that
borough, and that gentleman was in possession of all
the information and documents connected with the elec-
tions, and the proceedings that grew out of them. This,.
letter was dated the 24th June, 1542. 011 receiving this
letter the Committee issued a second summons in the saw