Star.
London, England, 1830-05-04 00:00:00

rrissionera of the Holyhtim: from a given period to the pre.
nut time.

...... .
A person presented at the bar a copy of the Fourth Report of the
Commirtionen for the Metropolis Turnpike roads.
Mr. Pvston. from the India House, presented at the bar a list of
the Hong intachant•, carrying on trade between China and the East
India I.kasipany.
Tin. Earl of MALMESBURY said their lordships probably
recollect that he had on a former day moved for returns re.
li.ti• gto tile county rates. The returns could not be completed in
teastivience of the acting treasurer for the western division re.
ruiing In nbcy the order of the house. The noble earl then moved
•• 03.4 he be ordered to attend at their lordships' bar on Monday
nt greed to.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from an indi.
vicilal relating to parochial returns.
The Duke of DEVONSHIRE presented a petition from a place
in Inland, complaining of distress, and praying relief.
The Marquis of BUTE presented a petition from Cardiff; in fa.
%cur of a free trade to India and China.
Lord GOWER presented a petition from Newcastle-under-Lyne,
zgainst the practice of climbing boys to sweep chimneys.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from Chip-
pirg Norton, for a revision of the criminal code.
A petition against the punishment of death for forgery from
Boston. was presented by a peer whose title we could not ascertain.
The Marquis of CLEVELAND presented several petitions from
the lead miners of Yorkshire, Durham, and Northumberland, pray-
ing the imposition of an additional duty on foreign lead and lead
ore imported. The noble marquis represented the situation of the
petitioners as being truly distressing. The noble marquis likewise
presented petitions from Stockton-on-Tees, Barnard Castle, and
another place in the county of Durham, against the renewal of the
East India Company's charter.
Mr. Legh Keck, Sir W. Freemantle, Sir W. Ingilby, and other
members of the House of Commons, brought up three private bills.
—Read a first time. _

The private bills on the table were then advanced one stage, some
read a third time, others passed through committees.
The order requiring the attends-ice of the witnesses examined on
Friday last on the East Retford Bill, on the motion of the Marquis
of SALISBURY, was discharged.
The noble MARQUIS then moved the order of the day for calling
in Council on that Bill.—Agreed to.
Counsel having appeared at the bar,
The first witness called in and examined was Mr. Wm. Evans—
He was the candidate for the years 1818 and 1820, to represent East
Retford in Parliament. Had no previous connection with the bo-
rough. Deposited 3,0001. with 3lr. Kippae in the year 1818. He
believes the object of depositing this money was, that it might be
known that he had plenty of money. Mr. Thornton, his agent,
told him that the electors expected to be paid 20 guineas each, se.
cording to the custom of former elections. In the election of 1818
he expended 4,4001.
On the witness having been called on to produce a paper alluded
to as a list, in his own hand-writing, of the voters whom he had
paid, he appealed to the consideration of the house to spare him
the necessity of complying with this requisition. His situation was
most painful for any gentleman to be placed in, to be thus required
to give testimony against a borough which he had twice represented
in Parliament. Whatever might have been the demerits of the
electors, they had been faithful to him, and deserved any thing at
his hands rather than an accusation of corruption.
This appeal gave rise to a long and desultory discussion on the
question of evidence, between Lords Durham, Holland, Malmes-
bury, Rosalyn, and the Chancellor, the result of which was, that
direct allusion to the produced list was waived. By a series of subtle
questions, however, the Counsel against the borough extracted
the contents of this important paper, which proved to be a list of
the names of those who had voted for the witness, to the number of
128, all of whom had been paid by his agent Thornton at the rate
of 20 guineas a man. Witness had advanced 2,7001. to the latter
agent. The number of London voters who had been paid had been
26. Witness believed he had sent Mr. Ward, his London agent,
6001. or 700 L to pay the voters.
Various other documents were here read, and acknowledged
by th witness, which went to establish similar facts in the elec.
tion of 1820. One letter mentioned twelve as the number of
independent, otherwise unpaid, electors who had given him their
support.
The witness, when asked why he did not present' himself to the
electors of Retford on the last election, said that reflection on the
circumstances of the former elections had prevented him. After a
serious consideration on the corrupt expedients to which he had been
o'ilipd to resort, and on the advice of a friend—
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—Did it require the advice of a
friend ?

Witness continued—He had decided that such proceedings were
too improper and indefensible to be again had recourse to.
The examination of the witness here terminated, and the fur-
ther proceedings in the cue were adjourned till next Monday.—
Adjourned.