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

the election of 1824 ; be had a perfect opportunity of
knowing what the feelings of the voters at Penryn were;
he did not think it was possible to secure a majority there
without bribery ; he bad reason to know that consider-
able bribery and general treating went on in the borough
of Penryn. He was conscious that without bribery a Mem-
ber was not likely to succeed there.
By Lord MILTON.—On what is that consciousness or
opinion formed is founded on general observation.
Have you seen sums of money in the bands of persons
who, under ordinary circumstances, would not have been
possessed of those sums ?—I have seen persons with sums
of money to pay their rents, &c. which, but fur the elec-
tion, I think they could not have done.
Do you know any specific instance of bribery ?—1 have
seen sums of money in the hands of poor people when the can-
vass for Lord Pereeval was going on. The general cry of
the electors was, " You may have me if you will.—
(Laughter. )—lf you call at my house and sec my wife, she
will do the business as well as myself."—(Much laughter.)

_He had received such answers a these from a Cozen of
individuals.

Did the electors ever allude to the political opinions of
either of the candidates : Oh ! never.—(Laughter.)
Did you ever know of any positive act of bribery by
which a man's return would be vitiated ?—I cannot say
that I do. But I believe there was bribery, from the an-
swers generally given on the canvass for Lord Perceval.
In answer to further questions, the witness stated that he
bad heard of the poor-rates being paid for some of the
electors. In 1824, 380 electors had voted ; but at the re-
cent election, at least 500 were polled. He had not him-
self seen the rate-book ; but he knew the fact of the in-
crease from the overseers. Many of the new voters were
persons who came in from the adjoining parishes. Mr.
Bull, of Falmouth, had asked witness to come to town to
give his evidence. Mr. Sowell, he believed, took great
interest in the elections.
The witness then withdrew.
Lord MILTON observed, that Carr and Mallett had
stated they had not seen Stanbury, except in the lobby of
the House. Now he understood that the turnkey of New-
gate, who was in attendance, could prove that one of those
witnesses, at least, had seen and conversed with Stanbury
is Newgate.
The evidence of Carr was here read, wherein be stated
that he had not seen Stanbury since he was in Newgate.
Mr. Harris, the turnkey of Newgate, was then called in
and examined.
The witness had seen one of the witnesses now in the
lobby, whose name was Carr, in Newgate this day, in con-
versation with Stanbury, who was in custody.
Carr was here called in, and identified by the witness as
the person alluded to.
The witness Harris then proceeded to state that Carr in-
formed him that Mallett had been to Stanbury; but he
(witness) did not see him.
Mr. WYNN thought that Carr should be called in to
explain.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY observed, that it was incom-
prehensible how the witness could explain the matter.
He had distinctly declared he had not seen Stanbury• in
Newgate—that he had only seen him in the lobby of the
House.

Mr. STURGES BOURNE remarked, that it was im-
possible for the Committee to say what the witness might
allege in explanation. He ought to be called in.
Carr was then called in, and his evidence being read
over to him, he was asked if it was true? He replied it
was. He afterwards admitted that he had seed Stanbury
in Newgate, and stayed with him a quarter of an hour.
Being desired to explain why he had said otherwise, he re-
plied, that he had not clearly understood the question, and
his-visit to Stanbury did not occur to his recollection.
The witness was ordered to withdraw.

Mr. WYNN said, that it must be obvious that the wish
of the witness was to conceal the truth. If the Committee
was of that opinion, punishment ought not to be delayed.
He moved that the Chairman should report to the House,
that Carr had been guilty of prevarication and falsehood.
The motion was agreed to. The House resumed, and
the Chairman reported accordingly.
Mr. TENNYSON then moved that John Carr, having
been guilty of prevarication and falsehood, be committed to
his Majesty's gaol of Newgate, which was agreed to.
The House then resolved itself again into a Committee
on the same subject : Mr. TINNY SON in the Chair.
Wm. Edgcumbe was then called in and examined.
Witness paid the rates of some of the voters at the election.
He did nut know for whom they voted. He paid for Mr.
Manning. He had not been repaid. He did not expect
Mr. Manning would pay him. •He did expect to be
repaid. If by any one, it must be by Mr. Manning. The
number of persons whose rates he paid was 30. The
amount was 401. Ilis ground of opinion that Mr.
Manning would pay him was, that he was his friend. He
had never seen Mr. Manning before the election.
The witness was ordered to withdraw.

James Bird Read was then called in and examined.—
Witness had paid rates in arrear. The amount was 131.
The votes were in the interest of Lord Perceval. Wit-
ness expected th'be repaid by Lord Perceval.
The witness was ordered to withdraw.
Some discussion now took place as to whether the in-
quiry should be adjourned, as more witnesses remained to
be examined.

Air. LEGH KECK said, he thought the case was
sufficiently strong as it was, to support the Bill; he
should therefore decline calling the other witnesses.
Mr. STURGES BOURNE observed, that the evi-
dence already taken before a tribunal competent to examine
upon oath, was of infinitely greater value than any which
could be taken at the bar of the House for the purpo-
ses of the Bill.
The evidence therefore closed.

The CHAIRMAN then left the chair, and reported the
evidence to the House. It was ordered to be taken
into consideration on Monday se'nnight.
The Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at half-past one o'clock.