House of Lords Journal Volume 62: 10 May 1830

Die Lunæ, 10 Maii 1830.

DOMINI tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Douglas et al. v. Brown & Craig.

The joint Answers of Walter Brown, Merchant in and lately Lord Provost of the City of Edinburgh, and James Gibson Craig of Riccarton, Writer to the Signet, Trustees for the Creditors of John Stein and Robert Stein and Company, Distillers at Canonmills and Kilbagie, to the Petition and Appeal of Henry Alexander Douglas of Old Broad Street, in the City of London, Merchant, and William Thomas the elder, of Friday Street, Cheapside, in the said City, Merchant, Assignees under a joint Commission of Bankrupt issued against the Estate and Effects of John Stein, Thomas Smith, Robert Stein, James Stein and Robert Smith; and Daniel Fisher, Writer in Edinburgh, Mandatory of the said Assignees, was this Day brought in.

Langston et al. v. Langston et al.

As was also, The Answer of James Haughton Langston, Sir Charles Morice Pole Baronet and Haughton Farmer Okeover, to the Petition and Appeal of Julia Langston, an Infant, by Henry George Francis Moreton her next Friend, and of Maria Sarah Langston, Charles Barter the elder, and Elizabeth Catherine his Wife, and Charles Barter the younger, an Infant, by the said Charles Barter the elder, his next Friend.

Sir J. Montgomery et al. v. M. of Queensberry, & Selkig.

After hearing Counsel further in the Cause wherein Sir James Montgomery Baronet, and others, are Appellants, and Charles Marquess of Queensberry, and Charles Selkrig, are Respondents:

It is Ordered, That the further Hearing of the said Cause be put off to Friday next.

Mullins et al. v. Townsend.

Ordered, That the Hearing of the Cause wherein The Honorable Edward Mullins, and others, are Appellants, and John Townsend Esquire is Respondent, which stands appointed for this Day, be put off to Friday next.

Governors, &c. of Birmingham Free Grammar School Leave to presenta Petition for a Bill:

Upon reading the Petition of The Governors of the Possessions, Revenues and Goods of the Free Grammar School of King Edward the Sixth in Birmingham, in the County of Warwick, under their Common Seal, and of The Reverend John Cooke Clerk, the Pedagogue or Head Master of the said Free Grammar School, and The Reverend Rann Kennedy Clerk, the Sub-Pedagogue or Usher of the said Free Grammar School; praying their Lordships, "That Leave may be given to present a "Petition for Leave to bring in a Bill for effectuating the several Objects therein referred to, in such Manner as to their Lordships shall seem meet:"

It is Ordered, That the Petitioners be at liberty to present their said Petition for a Bill, notwithstanding the Time limited for receiving Petitions for Private Bills has expired, as desired.

Petition referred to Judges.

Accordingly, Upon reading the Petition of The Governors of the Possessions, Revenues and Goods of the Free Grammar School of King Edward the Sixth in Birmingham, in the County of Warwick, under their Common Seal, The Reverend John Cooke Clerk, the Pedagogue or Head Master of the said Free Grammar School, and The Reverend Rann Kennedy, the SubPedagogue or Usher of the said Free Grammar School; praying Leave to bring in a Bill for the Purposes in the said Petition mentioned:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby referred to Mr. Justice Park and Mr. Baron Vaughan, who are forthwith to summon all Parties concerned in the Bill, and, after hearing them, are to report to the House the State of the Case, with their Opinion thereupon, under their Hands, and whether all Parties, who may be concerned in the Consequences of the Bill, have signed the Petition; and also, that the Judges, having perused the Bill, do sign the same.

D. of Argyle's Estate Bill, Ld. Elphinstone sworn.

The Lord Elphinstone was sworn at the Table by The Lord Chancellor, in order to give Evidence before the Committee, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for empowering George William Duke of Argyll and his Trustee to borrow a Sum of Money, and to make it a Charge on the Estate of Argyll, upon certain Conditions," stands committed.

Sir J. Murray et al. v. Howell et al. Respondents Petition to dismiss, & Appellants Petition for Recog ce to be entered into, referred to Appeal Com ee.

A Petition of Edwin Samuel Hervey Howell and Catherine Emily his Wife, Two of the Respondents in a Cause depending in this House, to which Sir John Murray Baronet, and others, are Appellants, was presented and read; praying, "That their Lordships will be pleased to dismiss this Appeal, with Costs, James Edward Maddox not having entered into the proper Recognizance for Costs on behalf of the said Appellants, pursuant to their Lordships Order of the 26th Day of April last."

Then A Petition of Sir John Murray Baronet, and others, Appellants in the last-mentioned Cause, was presented and read; praying their Lordships, "That James Edward Maddox, residing at No. 29, North Bank, near Hanover Gate, Regent's Park, in the County of Middlesex, may be at liberty forthwith, or within Two Days from the Time their Lordships shall make an Order on this Petition, to enter into the Recognizance on behalf of the Petitioners; or that their Lordships will make such other Order in the Premises, as to their Lordships, in their great Wisdom, shall seem meet:"

Ordered, That the said Petitions be referred to the Committee appointed to consider of the Causes in which Prints of the Appellants and Respondents Cases, now depending in this House in Matters of Appeals and Writs of Error, have not been delivered, pursuant to the Standing Orders of this House.

Douglas et al. v. Brown & Craig, Respondents Petition to lodge their Case, referred to Appeal Com ee.

Upon reading the Petition of Walter Brown and James Gibson Craig, Respondents in a Cause depending in this House, to which Henry Alexander Douglas, and others, are Appellants; praying, "That their Lordships will be pleased to grant them Leave to lodge their Case:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Committee appointed to consider of the Causes in which Prints of the Appellants and Respondents Cases, now depending in this House in Matters of Appeals and Writs of Error, have not been delivered, pursuant to the Standing Orders of this House.

Turner v. Gibb & Macdonald, Respondents Petition to dismiss Appeal, referred to Appeal Com ee. 28 Dec. 1825. 5 Jan. 1826. 11 Feb. 1826. 6 Mar. 1826. 18 Aug. 1826. 6 Sept. 1826. 6 Nov. 1826. 25 Jan. 1827. 16 Feb. 1827. 27 Feb. 1827.

Upon reading the Petition of William Gibb and James Macdonald, Respondents in a Cause depending in this House, to which Edward Errington Turner is Appellant; setting forth, "That the Appellant presented his Petition and Appeal to their Lordships on the 9th Day of July 1828, to which Appeal the Petitioners not having put in their Answer, the Cause has been set down for hearing ex-parte: That the Proceedings out of which this Appeal arose commenced in the Court of the Sheriff of the County of Edinburgh on the 29th November 1825, on which Day the Appellant presented a Petition to the Sheriff Depute, praying him to decern and ordain the Petitioners to withdraw an Arrestment or Attachment laid by the Petitioners on Four Cases of various Sorts of Yarn in the Hands of George Mather of the Daily Post Waggon Office, Edinburgh, addressed to the Appellant: That the Petitioners put in their Answer to the above Petition, stating that the Goods in question belonged to Sir Paul Baghott Knight, or Paul, Wathen and Co. of Woodchester, on whom the Petitioners had Claims to a large Amount; and that the Appellant was, and has all along acted, merely as the Servant or Clerk and Agent of Sir Paul, and was not the Owner of the Goods: That after a good deal of Litigation before the Sheriff Depute and his Substitute, the former ordained the Appellant to be judicially examined on the Allegations of the Petitioners; the Appellant refused to comply with the Order of the Sheriff, and presented a Bill of Advocation to Lord Medwyn, Ordinary of the Court of Session, who was pleased to refuse it, as incompetent: That the Appellant appealed to the Lords of the First Division of the Court of Session, who were pleased, after consulting the Judges of the Second Division of the Court, to adhere to the Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary: That the Petitioner thereafter applied to the Sheriff Substitute to renew the Order for the Appellant's Judicial Examination, which his Lordship accordingly did, and the Appellant accordingly underwent an Examination in the Presence of the Sheriff Substitute and the Counsel and Agents of the Parties: That after a great deal of Proceedure, the Accord was closed, and the Sheriff Depute was pleased to pronounce the following Interlocutor; "The Sheriff, having resumed Consideration of this Process, with Mr. Ross' Report, Finds it admitted by the Pursuer, in his Judicial Declaration, that different Invoices of Goods sent by Paul, Wathen and Co. to the Defenders Messrs. Gibb and Macdonald, were written by the Pursuer; Finds it instructed by the Letter, 24th October 1825, from Paul, Wathen and Co. to the said Defenders, (No. 18/23,) that Paul, Wathen and Co. intimated to the said Defenders they were to send the Pursuer, as their Agent, to tender to the Defenders the Goods required by their last Instructions; Finds it also instructed by the Pursuer's Letters to the Defenders, 19th and 21st November 1825, Nos. 18/25 & 18/26, that the Pursuer was at the Date of those Letters acting in Edinburgh as the Agent for Paul, Wathen & Co. in their Transactions with the said Defenders; Finds it admitted by the Pursuer, in his Judicial Declaration, that he shewed to the said Defenders the Letter dated No. 16, Seymour Street, November 11th, 1825, (No. 18/24,) as applicable to the Goods in question; Finds there is every Reason to presume that the said Goods are the Goods referred to by Paul, Wathen and Co. in their Letter, 24th October 1825, (No. 18/23;) Therefore, and in respect that the Pursuer has not condescended in Terms of Interlocutor of 10th July last, Finds that the Goods in question must be held to be the Property of Paul, Wathen and Co. and the Goods referred to in the above-mentioned Letters, 24th October and 11th November 1825; dismisses the Original Petition; Finds the Pursuer liable in the Expences incurred by the Defenders Gibb and Macdonald and George Mather, and allows an Account of these Expences to be given in; and further finds, that the Six damaged Parcels referred to in Mr. Ross' Report should, in Terms of said Report, be delivered to John Gray, Shawl Manufacturer in Edinburgh, in order that he may unfold the different Hanks, expose them to the Air, or take such other Measures as may be necessary to prevent further Damage, and grants Warrant accordingly, and allows the Documents referred to in the Pursuer's Declaration to be put into Process:" That the Appellant applied, by Petition, to the Sheriff Depute, for Leave to advocate the Cause, on finding Juratory Caution; but his Lordship was so satisfied that the Appellant had no reasonable Ground for Appeal, that he refused the Prayer of his Petition: That the Petitioners having given in an Account of their Expences awarded to them under the said Interlocutor of 11th August 1826, the Sheriff Substitute pronounced the following Interlocutor; "The Sheriff Substitute, having considered the Account of Expences found due to the Defenders Gibb and Macdonald, and whole Process, modifies the Expences to £35 3s. 2d. Sterling, besides the Dues of Extract, as the same shall be ascertained, and decerns:" That the Appellant applied by Petition to the Court of Session, praying to be permitted to sue in formâ pauperis, accompanied by the usual Certificates, which being remitted to the Counsel and Agents for the Poor, to enquire whether he had a probabilis causa litigandi, (according to the usual Practice,) the Counsel and Agent to whom the same was referred reported that the Appellant had not a probabilis causa litigandi: That the Judgment of the Sheriff Court on the Merits thus became final, no Appeal having been made to the Court of Session: That the Petitioners, having been unable to obtain Payment of their Expences awarded by the Sheriff, found it necessary, on the 27th December 1826, to serve the Appellant with a Charge of Horning, for the Amount of which Charge the Appellant presented a Bill of Suspension to the Lord Ordinary on the Bills, to which Bill of Suspension the Petitioners having given in Answers, the Lord Ordinary pronounced the following Interlocutor; "The Lord Ordinary, having considered the Bill, Answers thereto, and whole Productions made on either Side, refuses the Bill, finds the Chargers entitled to Expences, allows an Account thereof to be given in, remits to the Auditor to tax the same, and to report:" The Appellant presented a Reclaiming Note against this Interlocutor to the First Division of the Court of Session, but the same was refused; and the Lord Ordinary, in Terms of a Remit to him, awarded additional Expences against the Appellant: The Appellant, without submitting the said Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary to Review by the Inner House, has presented an Appeal to their Lordships, complaining of the Interlocutors pronounced in the Summary Action before the Sheriff of Edinburgh, and in the Action of Suspension before the Court of Session; but the Petitioners humbly trust that their Lordships will dismiss the said Appeal as incompetent; 1st. Because the Judgment of the Sheriff Court on the Merits has never been reviewed by the Court of Session, and it is not the Practice of their Lordships House to receive direct Appeals from the Inferior Courts of Scotland; 2ndly, Because it is not the Practice of their Lordships House to entertain Appeals from the Court of Session on Questions as to Expences alone, which is the only Point involved in the Action of Suspension; 3dly, Because, even altho' an Appeal from a Judgment on a Question of Expences alone were competent, the Appellant has included in his Appeal the Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary of 27th February 1827, awarding additional Expences, without having previously brought it under the Review of the Inner House, as required by the Act 48 Geo. 3, Cap. 151, Sect. 15, which contains the following Enactment; "Nor shall any Appeal to the House of Lords be allowed from Interlocutors or Decrees of Lords Ordinary, which have not been reviewed by the Judges sitting in the Division to which such Lords Ordinary belong;" and therefore praying, "That their Lordships will be pleased to dismiss the said Appeal as incompetent:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Committee appointed to consider of the Causes in which Prints of the Appellants and Respondents Cases, now depending in this House in Matters of Appeals and Writs of Error, have not been delivered, pursuant to the Standing Orders of this House.

Glamorganshire Canal Co. v. Blakemore, Defendant's Petition to lodge his Case, referred to Appeal Com ee.

Upon reading the Petition of Richard Blakemore Esquire, Defendant in a Writ of Error depending in this House, wherein the Glamorganshire Canal Company are Plaintiffs; praying their Lordships, "That he may be permitted to lay his Case and Appendixes in this Cause on the Table of their Lordships House:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Committee appointed to consider of the Causes in which Prints of the Appellants and Respondents Cases, now depending in this House in Matters of Appeals and Writs of Error, have not been delivered, pursuant to the Standing Orders of this House.

M'Gavin v. Stewart:

Ordered, That the Order made on Wednesday last, "That the Cause wherein James M'Gavin is Appellant, and James Stewart is Respondent, be further heard by Counsel at the Bar on Tuesday next," be discharged.

Same v. Same.

Ordered, That the Order made on Wednesday last, "That the second Cause wherein the said James M'Gavin is Appellant, and the said James Stewart is Respondent, be heard by Counsel at the Bar on Tuesday next," be discharged.

Morison et al. v. Mitchell.

Ordered, That the Order made on Wednesday last, "That the Cause wherein John Morison, and others, are Appellants, and James Mitchell is Respondent, be heard by Counsel at the Bar on Tuesday next," be discharged.

Thomson v. Forrester.

Ordered, That the Order made on Wednesday last, "That the Cause wherein James Thomson is Appellant, and Thomas Forrester is Respondent, be heard by Counsel at the Bar on Tuesday next, "be discharged.

Welsh Judicature, Petition from Denbigh against Abolition of.

Upon reading the Petition of the Gentlemen, Clergy, Freeholders and Inhabitants of the County of Denbigh; praying their Lordships, "That the Bill for abolishing the present System of Welsh Judicature may not pass into a Law in its present Form:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

London Bridge Approaches Bill, Petition against.

Upon reading the Petition of the Inhabitants of the Ward of Bridge, in the City of London, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; taking notice of a Bill depending in this House, intituled, "An Act to make further Provision for defraying the Expences of making the Approaches to London Bridge, and the Removal of Fleet Market;" and praying their Lordships, "That the said Act may not pass into a Law as it now stands, but that they may be heard by their Counsel, Agents and Witnesses in support of the Introduction of such a Clause in the said Act as will afford them a due Compensation for the Infringement of their Rights and Interests:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Slavery, Petitions for Abolition of: (Haworth:)

Upon reading the Petition of the Churchmen, Baptists, Methodists and all other Christian Denominations in Haworth, near Bradford, Yorkshire, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships, "That immediate Steps may be taken towards the speedy and effectual Abolition of the System of Slavery, wherever it exists, throughout the whole of His Majesty's Dominions:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Warley:

Upon reading the Petition of the Minister and Members of the Congregation of Protestant Dissenters of the Independent Denomination at Warley, Yorkshire, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships "to lift up their mighty Arm to crush for ever the Hydra-headed Monster of Slavery, that has so long infested the World, and cursed Mankind in almost every Part of the Earth:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Zion Chapel, Halifax.

Upon reading the Petition of the Minister and Members of the Congregation of Protestant Dissenters of the Independent Denomination assembling at Zion Chapel, Halifax, Yorkshire, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships "to adopt such Measures as may appear most desirable for the entire Abolition of Slavery throughout the Dependencies of Great Britain with as little possible Delay as the Nature of the Subject may require, in order that Slavery in every Form and in all Parts of His Majesty's Dominions may be speedily and for ever abolished:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Criminal Laws, Petitions from Collumpton & Gloucester for Alteration of.

Upon reading the Petition of the Inhabitants of the Town of Collumpton, in the County of Devon, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships, "That for the Good of Society at large, and for the better Protection of Property, the Punishment of Death may no longer be attached by Law to the encreasing Crime of Forgery:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Upon reading the Petition of the Inhabitants of the City of Gloucester and its Vicinity, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships "to abolish, in all Cases of Forgery, the awful Punishment of Death:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Assizes for West Riding of Yorkshire, Petition from Sandall Magna for Removal of, to Wakefield.

Upon reading the Petition of the Freeholders, Tradesmen and others, Inhabitants of the Parish of Sandall Magna, in the West Riding of the County of York, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships, "That the Assizes and General Gaol Delivery for the Business of the West Riding of the County of York may in future be held at Wakefield:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

East India, &c. Trade, Petitions for opening, from Renfrew & Warrington, referred to East India Com ee.

A Petition of the Noblemen, Freeholders, Commissioners of Supply, Justices of the Peace, Magistrates of Towns, Landholders in general, Bankers, Merchants, Manufacturers, Ship Owners, Colonial Proprietors and Legal Practitioners of the Shire of Renfrew, in County Hall assembled, was presented and read; praying their Lordships "to adopt such Measures as may tend to promote a Free Trade to India and China:"

Ordered, That the said Petition be received as the Petition of Sir John Maxwell Baronet, Chairman, who only has signed it.

Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Select Committee appointed to enquire into the present State of the Affairs of The East India Company, and into the Trade between Great Britain, the East Indies and China.

Upon reading the Petition of the Inhabitants of the Town and Neighbourhood of Warrington, in the County of Lancaster, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships, "That at the earliest practicable Period the Trade to the Interior of India and to China may be thrown open; that Permission may be granted for all British Subjects to settle, trade and hold Lands in all the British Dependencies East of the Cape of Good Hope; and that their Lordships will not consent to prolong the exclusive Commercial Privileges of The East India Company beyond the Term of the present Charter:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the lastmentioned Committee.

British Spirits, Petition from Stirling against additional Duty on.

Upon reading the Petition of Thomas Graham Stirling of Airth, and others the Noblemen, Freeholders, Justices of Peace and Commissioners of Supply of the County of Stirling; praying their Lordships, "That no Addition be made to the Duties on British Spirits without a corresponding Encrease on the Duties on Rum:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Anatomy, Petition of Westminster Medical Society respecting.

Upon reading the Petition of the Physicians, Surgeons and Students of Medicine, Members of the Westminster Medical Society, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships "to pass such Enactments to relieve the Petitioners from the Disadvantages and Disabilities under which they now labour; and to afford them farther Facilities for the Prosecution of the Science of Anatomy, as to their Lordships may seem expedient:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Deaf & Dumb Institution, Petition of W. Wright for establishing.

Upon reading the Petition of William Wright, of No. 45, Great Marlborough Street, in the Parish of Saint James and City of Westminster, Surgeon Aurist; praying for their Lordships Recommendation to His Majesty's Government to form a National Institution for the Cure of the Deaf and Dumb, under such Regulations as may be deemed proper:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Tithe Law, (Ireland,) Petition from Aglis for Repeal of.

Upon reading the Petition of the Landholders of the Parish of Aglis, in the County of Cork, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships "to repeal the Law relative to Tithes, which compels them to pay annually the Fifth of their Capital, Labour and Industry to enrich One Individual, while at the same Time it reduces over 2,500 of His Majesty's Catholic Subjects to Poverty and Distress:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Navigation Laws, Petition from Sunderland for Alteration of.

Upon reading the Petition of the Ship Owners of Sunderland, in the County of Durham, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying, "That their Lordships will be pleased to take the Distress of the Petitioners into their serious Consideration, which is mainly to be attributed to the late Change in the Navigation Laws of this Country, and speedily adopt Measures for their Relief:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Greenwich Hospital Fund, Petition of Trustees of Merchant Seamen of Sunderland against contributing to.

Upon reading the Petition of the Trustees in the Name and on behalf of the Merchant Seamen of the Port of Sunderland near the Sea, in the County of Durham, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying, "That their Lordships will be pleased to entertain their Petition, and grant them Redress by a Repeal of such Part of the Act of 1741 as subjects them to the Contribution of Sixpence per Month to Greenwich Hospital, for which they receive no Benefit; and that their Lordships will be pleased to alter or amend their own (Merchant Seamen's) Act so as that same may be applied to their own Fund, from whence they will derive the full Advantage of their own Industry:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Registry of Births, &c. Petition of Dissenters of South Shields for establishing.

Upon reading the Petition of the Protestant Dissenters, and others, of South Shields, in the County of Durham, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying, "That their Lordships will take the Propriety and Advantage of a general Civil Registration into their early and serious Consideration, and adopt such Measures as the Wisdom of their Lordships may deem sufficient to relieve the Petitioners and others similarly situated from the grievous Civil Disability of possessing no legal and permanent Registration:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Hop Duty, Petition from Wadhurst for Repeal of.

Upon reading the Petition of the Hop-planters of the Parish of Wadhurst, in the County of Sussex, whose Names are thereunto subscribed; praying their Lordships "totally to repeal the Duty on Hops:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the Table.

Kennedy's Estate Bill:

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to vest a Part of the Entailed Estate of Dunure and others, in the County of Ayr, in Trustees in FeeSimple, for the Purpose of disposing of or applying the Lands so vested, or the Price thereof, or the Securities to be granted thereon, towards satisfying the Debts contracted for Money laid out in the Improvement of the said Entailed Estate."

The Question was put, "Whether this Bill shall pass?"

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Beale's Estate Bill:

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for the Re-settlement of certain Interests in the Trust Estate of William Browne deceased; and for other Purposes."

The Question was put, "Whether this Bill shall pass?"

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Messages to H.C. with the 2 preceding Bills.

And Messages were, severally, sent to the House of Commons, by Mr. Farrer and Sir Giffin Wilson;

To carry down the said Bills, and desire their Concurrence thereto.

Hagley Inclosure Bill:

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for inclosing certain Lands in the Parish of Hagley, in the County of Worcester."

The Question was put, "Whether this Bill shall pass?"

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Edinburgh Advocates Widows Fund Bill:

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to raise a Fund for Provisions to Widows of the Members of the Faculty of Advocates of Scotland."

The Question was put, "Whether this Bill shall pass?"

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Chard Roads Bill:

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for amending an Act of the last Session, intituled, "An Act for more effectually repairing and improving several Roads which lead to and through the Town and Borough of Chard, in the County of Somerset, and for making and maintaining a new Road from Chard to Drempton, in the County of Dorset;" and for making and maintaining other Roads communicating with the said Roads, in the Counties of Somerset, Devon and Dorset."

The Question was put, "Whether this Bill shall pass?"

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Wibsey Road Bill:

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for completing, improving and maintaining the Road from Wibsey Low Moor, near Bradford, through Brighouse, to Huddersfield, with certain Diversions therefrom, in the West Riding of the County of York."

The Question was put, "Whether this Bill shall pass?"

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Messages to H.C. that the Lords have agreed to the 4 preceding Bills.

And Messages were, severally, sent to the House of Commons, by the former Messengers;

To acquaint them, That the Lords have agreed to the said Bills, without any Amendment.

Kingston Bridge Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Pallmer and others;

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for amending and extending the Provisions of an Act passed in the Sixth Year of the Reign of His present Majesty, for the rebuilding of Kingston Bridge, and for improving and making suitable Approaches thereto;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Birmingham & Edgehill Road Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Pallmer and others;

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for repairing the Road from Birmingham, through Warwick and Warmington, in the County of Warwick, to the utmost Limits of the said County on Edgehill;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Leases for Linen Manufacture (Ireland) Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Pallmer and others;

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Leases of Lands for the Purposes of carrying on the Linen Manufacture of Ireland;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Stamford Road Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Pallmer and others;

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for more effectually repairing and improving the Road leading from the Town of Stamford to the Division Stone in South Witham, in the County of Lincoln;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Great Strickland Inclosure Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Pallmer and others;

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for inclosing Lands in the Townships of Great Strickland and Thrimby, in the Parish of Morland, in the County of Westmorland;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

The said Five Bills were, severally, read the First Time.

Coals, &c. exported & imported, Accounts respecting, delivered, & referred to Com ee on the Coal Trade.

The House being informed, "That Mr. Tomlins, from the Treasury, attended;"

He was called in; and delivered at the Bar, pursuant to Orders of the 5th Day of April last,

"An Account of the Quantity of Coals, Culm and Cinders exported from the different Ports of England, Scotland and Wales, in the Year 1829, distinguishing those sent Coastwise to Ireland, to British Colonies and to Foreign Countries, and distinguishing the Quantities sent to each:"

And also, "An Account of the Quantity of Coals, Culm and Cinders imported into the different Ports of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland, with the Rates of Duty paid, and the Amount received for Duty at each Port, in the Year 1829."

And then he withdrew.

And the Titles thereof being read by the Clerk;

Ordered, That the said Accounts do lie on the Table.

Ordered, That the said Accounts be printed.

Ordered, That the said Accounts be referred to the Select Committee appointed to take into Consideration the State of the Coal Trade in the United Kingdom, together with the Duties of all Descriptions and Charges affecting the same, as well in the Port of London as in the several other Ports of the United Kingdom.

Revenues & Charges of the Ceded, &c. Provinces in India, Accounts respecting, & Minute of The Governor General, delivered, & referred to East India Com ee.

The House being informed, "That Mr. Preston, from the Court of Directors of The East India Company, attended;"

He was called in; and delivered at the Bar, pursuant to Orders of the 25th Day of February and the 30th Day of April last,

"An Account in detail of the Revenues and Charges of the Ceded and Conquered Provinces under the Presidency of Bengal, from the Year 1809-10 to the Year 1827-28, inclusive:"

Also, "An Account in detail of the Revenues and Charges of the Ceded and Conquered Provinces of Madras, from 1809-10 to 1827-8:"

Also, "An Account in detail of the Revenues and Charges of the Ceded and Conquered Provinces under the Presidency of Bombay, from 1809-10 to 1827-28, inclusive:"

And also, "Copy of a Minute of The Governor General of India, dated 30th October 1829, concerning the Indian Financial Estimates for 1829-30."

And then he withdrew.

And the Titles thereof being read by the Clerk;

Ordered, That the said Papers do lie on the Table.

Ordered, That the said Papers be printed.

Ordered, That the said Papers be referred to the Select Committee appointed to enquire into the present State of the Affairs of The East India Company, and into the Trade between Great Britain, the East Indies and China.

Mr. Gepp reprimanded.

The Order of the Day being read for the Attendance of Mr. Gepp, Acting Treasurer of the Western Division of the County of Essex;

The Officiating Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod informed the House, "That Mr. Gepp was attending, pursuant to the Order of their Lordships."

Mr. Gepp was accordingly called in:

And The Lord Chancellor said,

"Mr. Gepp, You are attending at the Bar of this House for having disobeyed its Orders in not having made a Return of all Monies levied for the County Rate of the Western Division of the County of Essex, from the 5th April 1815 to the 5th of April 1829, inclusive, 'till Saturday last. What Reason have you to give for having neglected to comply with the Orders of the House?"

Mr. Gepp said, "I am extremely sorry for the Remissness there was in collecting those Accounts. At one Time I certainly was ill, and laid the Paper aside, and forgot I had such a Paper, until reminded of it afterwards; but it was some Time before I had some Documents that were necessary. I had no Intention of shewing any Disrespect to this House. I then directly made Returns; but I have been harrassed in Business in a Way that certainly tended in some Degree to occasion this. I am very sorry for it, and beg Pardon of the House; and I hope on future Occasions I shall not incur their Displeasure. I feel very sensible that I ought to have been more particular in attending to the Business. I hope your Lordships will have the Kindness to pass over the Negligence."

Mr. Gepp was directed to withdraw, but to remain in attendance.

"It was moved, "That Mr. Gepp be reprimanded, and discharged from further Attendance."

The Question was put thereupon?

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Mr. Gepp was again called in:

And The Lord Chancellor said,

"Mr. Gepp, You have been guilty of a serious Offence in disregarding the Orders of this House: for such Offence you are liable to be committed to Prison; you, however, have expressed your Contrition, the House, therefore, is disposed to extend its Clemency towards you, and orders you therefore to be reprimanded, and discharged from further Attendance; and you are reprimanded accordingly, and discharged from further Attendance."

M. of Donegall v. Houlditch et al:

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of The Most Honorable George Augustus Marquess of Donegall, complaining of an Order of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, of the 4th Day of May 1830, made in Two certain Causes, in the first of which Edward Houlditch, John Houlditch, James Houlditch and Francis Stubbs were Plaintiffs, and The Most Honorable George Augustus Marquess of Donegall was Defendant; and in the last, the said Most Noble George Augustus Marquess of Donegal was Plaintiff, and the said Edward Houlditch, John Houlditch, James Houlditch and Francis Stubbs were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed or varied, or that the Appellant may have such Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that the said Edward Houlditch, John Houlditch, James Houlditch and Francis Stubbs may be required to answer the said Appeal:"

It is Ordered, That the said Edward Houlditch, and the several other Persons last named, may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Monday the 14th Day of June next; and Service of this Order upon the Clerk in Court of the said Respondents in the said Original Cause, shall be deemed good Service.

Cookson to enter into a Recog ee on it.

The House being moved, "That William Strickland Cookson of Lincoln's Inn, in the County of Middlesex, Gentleman, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for The Most Honorable George Augustus Marquess of Donegall, on account of his Appeal depending in this House:"

It is Ordered, That the said William Strickland Cookson may enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellant, as desired.

Ld. Cremorne's Guardian Leave for a Bill:

After reading and considering the Report of the Judges, to whom was referred the Petition of Thomas Ellis of the City of Dublin, Esquire, the Guardian of the Fortunes of The Right Honorable Richard Lord Cremorne, an Infant; praying Leave to bring in a Private Bill, for the Purposes therein mentioned:

It is Ordered, That Leave be given to bring in a Bill, pursuant to the said Petition and Report.

Bill read.

Hodie 1^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to enable the Guardian of The Right Honorable Richard Lord Cremorne, an Infant, to carry into Effect a Contract entered into for the Purchase of Rockcorry Castle and adjoining Lands, in the County of Monaghan, in Ireland."

Leeds & Selby Railway Bill.

The Lord Wharncliffe reported from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for making a Railway from the Town of Leeds to the River Ouse, within the Parish of Selby, in the West Riding of the County of York," was committed; That they had considered the said Bill, and examined the Allegations thereof, which were found to be true; and that the Committee had gone through the Bill, and made some Amendments thereto."

Which Amendments were read by the Clerk, as follow; (viz ^t.)

"Pr. 15. L. 26. Leave out from ("annexed") to ("And") in Press 16. Line 29.

"Pr. 16. L. 33. Leave out ("the said") and in the same Line after ("Walker") insert ("Esquire")"

And the said Amendments, being read a Second Time, were agreed to by the House.

Sir G. Chetwynd's Estate Bill Specially reported.

The Earl of Shaftesbury reported from the Lords Committees appointed to consider of the Bill, intituled, "An Act for vesting certain Parts of the Real Estates devised by the Will of John Williams Esquire, deceased, in the County of Stafford, in Trustees, in Trust to carry into Execution a Contract entered into for Sale thereof, and to apply the Money arising from such Sale in Manner therein mentioned;" "That the Committee had met, and considered the said Bill, and examined the Allegations thereof, which were found to be true; and that all the Parties concerned in the Consequences of the Bill had consented thereto in the Manner required by the Standing Orders of this House, except John Williams Esquire, a Lieutenant in the Royal Engineers, and one of the Tenants for Life in Remainder of the Estates devised by John Williams Esquire, the Testator mentioned in the Bill, the said first-mentioned John Williams being proved to be in the West Indies; but that Charles Clarke of Forebridge, in the County of Stafford, Esquire, appeared and consented to the Bill on the Behalf of the said John Williams, by virtue of a special Power of Attorney for that Purpose, which was produced to the Committee, and duly proved; and that the Committee had gone through the Bill, and directed him to report the same to their Lordships, with some Amendments."

Which Report, being read by the Clerk, was agreed to by the House.

Then the Amendments made by the Committee to the said Bill, being read Twice by the Clerk, were agreed to by the House.

Ordered, That the said Bill, with the Amendments, be ingrossed.

Peebles Statute Labour Bill.

The Earl of Shaftesbury reported from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for further regulating the Statute Labour, and repairing the Highways and Bridges, in the County of Peebles," was committed; "That they had considered the said Bill, and examined the Allegations thereof, which were found to be true; and that the Committee had gone through the Bill, and directed him to report the same to the House, without any Amendment."

Blacktoft, &c. Inclosure Bill, The King's Consent signified:

The Earl of Shaftesbury acquainted the House, "That His Majesty having been informed of the Contents of the Bill, intituled, "An Act for inclosing Lands in the Townships of Blacktoft, Gilberdike and Faxfleet, in the Parish or Parochial Chapelry of Blacktoft, and in the Parishes of Eastrington and South Cave, in the East Riding of the County of York;" was pleased to consent (as far as His Majesty's Interest is concerned) that their Lordships may proceed therein as they shall think fit."

Bill reported.

The Earl of Shaftesbury reported from the Lords Committees, to whom the last-mentioned Bill was committed; "That they had considered the said Bill, and examined the Allegations thereof, which were found to be true; that the Parties concerned had given their Consents to the Satisfaction of the Committee; and that the Committee had gone through the Bill, and directed him to report the same to the House, without any Amendment."

Whitesheet Hill Roads Bill.

The Earl of Shaftesbury reported from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for repairing the Turnpike Road from the Top of Whitesheet Hill to the Wilton Turnpike Road at or near Barford, in the County of Wilts," was committed; "That they had considered the said Bill, and examined the Allegations thereof, which were found to be true; and that the Committee had gone through the Bill, and directed him to report the same to the House, without any Amendment."

Ker et al. v. Sir W. Vaughan et al. Appellants Petition for Time for their Case, referred to Appeal Com ee.

Upon reading the Petition of John Bellenden Ker Esquire, and others, Appellants in a Cause depending in this House, to which Sir Robert Williams Vaughan Baronet, and others, are Respondents; praying, "That their Lordships will be pleased to allow the Petitioners until the 1st Day of February 1831 for lodging their printed Case:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Committee appointed to consider of the Causes in which Prints of the Appellants and Respondents Cases, now depending in this House in Matters of Appeals and Writs of Error, have not been delivered, pursuant to the Standing Orders of this House.

Dundee & Newtyle Railway Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act to amend an Act for making a Railway from Dundee to Newtyle."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords following:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on Wednesday next, at Ten o'Clock in the Forenoon, in the Prince's Lodgings, near the House of Peers; and to adjourn as they please.

Stonehouse Mill Bridge Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for erecting and maintaining a Bridge over Stonehouse Mill Pool, at or near Stonehouse Mills, in the County of Devon."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet Tomorrow, at the usual Time and Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Ashbourne & Sudbury Roads Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for repairing, altering and improving the Roads from Ashbourne to Sudbury, and from Sudbury to Yoxhall Bridge, and from Hatton Moor to Tutbury, and from Uttoxeter to or near the Village of Draycott-in-the-Clay, and from Hadley Plain, on the late Forest or Chase of Needwood, to Callingwood Plain, on the same late Forest or Chase."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on the same Day, at the same Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Foston Bridge Road Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for repairing the Road from Foston Bridge to the Division Stone on Witham Common, in the County of Lincoln."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on the same Day, at the same Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Mansfield & Chesterfield Road Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for more effectually repairing and improving the Road from Temple Normanton to Buntingfield Nook, in the County of Derby, and the Road from Tupton Nether Green to Stubbing Edge Lane and Knott Cross, in the said County."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on the same Day, at the same Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Limerick Hospital Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for the Management and Direction of the Hospital founded by Joseph Barrington and his Sons in the City of Limerick."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on the same Day, at the same Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Limerick Road Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for improving and repairing the Road leading from Newcastle, in the County of Limerick, to the City of Limerick, and from thence to Charleville, in the County of Cork."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on the same Day, at the same Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Shakerley's Divorce Bill.

The Order of the Day being read for the further Consideration and Second Reading of the Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the Marriage of Charles Peter Shakerley Esquire, of the Parish of Egham, in the County of Surrey, with Laure Angelique Rosalbe Shakerley his now Wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other Purposes therein mentioned;" and for the Lords to be summoned;

It was moved, "That the said Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Question was put thereupon?

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Then the said Bill was read a Second Time.

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Ordered, That the House be put into a Committee upon the said Bill To-morrow.

Tithes Composition Bill presented.

The Order of the Day being read for the Lords to be summoned;

The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury presented to the House a Bill, intituled, "An Act for encouraging and facilitating Compositions for Tithes and other Payments arising and payable to Incumbents of Ecclesiastical Benefices in England and Wales."

The said Bill was read the First Time.

Ordered, That the said Bill be printed.

Petition of T. Buxton against the Application to annual his Marriage with E. Hickson, referred to the Com ee on Wayte's Petition:

Upon reading the Petition of Thomas Buxton, formerly of Stenson, in the County of Derby, Farmer, and now a Prisoner in the Castle of Lancaster; setting forth, "That at the Spring Assizes for the County of Lancaster, in the Year 1829, the Petitioner Thomas Buxton, Mary Anne Buxton Spinster, his Sister, William Webster of Derby, Sheriff's Officer, Erasmus Webster, formerly of Derby, but late of Manchester, Attorney at Law, and Benjamin Wild of Manchester, Innkeeper, were indicted for having conspired to effect a Marriage between the Petitioner, the said Thomas Buxton, who was then 22 Years of Age, and Elizabeth Hickson of Stenson aforesaid, Spinster, who was then 18 Years of Age, without due Publication of Banns, that is to say, by causing the Banns of Marriage to be published at the Collegiate Church at Manchester, instead of the Parish of Barrow upon Trent, in the County of Derby, where the Petitioner and the said Elizabeth Hickson lived: That the Petitioner Thomas Buxton, Erasmus Webster, William Webster and Benjamin Wild were also indicted for having wilfully and feloniously caused a false Entry to be made in the Register of Banns of the said Collegiate Church at Manchester; and the Petitioner Thomas Buxton, and Benjamin Wild, were also separately charged by Two other Indictments with having caused a like false Entry to be made in the Register of Marriages of the same Church: That the Petitioner was arrested upon Warrants on these Indictments for Felony, and was compelled to give Bail in very heavy Sums for his Appearance, and to take his Trial upon the Charges of Felony; and he prepared and delivered Briefs to Counsel, and took many Witnesses from the Neighbourhood of Derby to Lancaster, at a great Expence, for his Defence against the same Charges: That when the Three Indictments for Felony were called on, the Prosecutor declined to offer Evidence upon any of them, and the Petitioner and all the other Defendants were acquitted upon these Indictments: That in fact it appeared, and was proved by the Prosecutor's Witnesses, on the Trial of the Conspiracy after mentioned, that neither the Petitioner nor any of the other Parties indicted had ever seen nor did they know the Contents of the Register of Banns containing the alleged false Entry; and it was also proved that such Part of the Entry in the Register of Marriage as was charged to be false was made after the Petitioner and the other Parties had signed the Book and left the Church, and that they had no Knowledge whatever of such alleged false Entry; and it further appeared, that it was not the Practice of the Persons in Authority at the said Collegiate Church to make any Enquiries as to the Residence of Parties applying to be married; and the Petitioner therefore affirms, that the Charges of Felony were made without any reasonable or probable Ground: That the Petitioner Thomas Buxton, William Webster and Erasmus Webster, were found guilty of having conspired to effect a Marriage in the Manner before mentioned, without a due Publication of Banns, and the said Mary Anne Buxton and Benjamin Wild were acquitted: That the Petitioner was anxious to have had Miss Hickson examined upon the Trial, and actually paid the Expences of her Journey to and from Lancaster for that Purpose; but by abandoning the Indictments for Felony the Petitioner was deprived of the Opportunity of examining Miss Hickson, and the Evidence of Miss Mary Anne Buxton (who was acquitted) was also excluded, by her having been made a Defendant in the Indictment for Conspiracy, and the Petitioner was thus prevented from bringing before the Court and Jury the true History of the Transaction: That the Petitioner Thomas Buxton, William Webster and Erasmus Webster, were sentenced by The Honorable Mr. Justice Bayley to be imprisoned in the Castle of Lancaster for Three Years: That on Monday the 3d of May instant the Petitioner was served with Notice of a Petition to be presented to their Lordships on the following Day, for Leave to bring in a Bill to annul the Marriage between the Petitioner and the said Elizabeth Hickson: That by reason of the very heavy Expences incurred in defending the multiplied, and for the most Part groundless, Prosecutions against him, the Petitioner is rendered utterly unable to employ Professional Persons to oppose the said Bill, but the Petitioner confidently trusts that their Lordships will not suffer him to be prejudiced by his Inability to procure the usual Professional Assistance; and he most respectfully submits to their Lordships the following brief Statement of the Facts connected with his Marriage with the said Elizabeth Hickson: That for Five Years before the Elopement after mentioned the Petitioner lived in the Village of Stenson, and the said Elizabeth Hickson also lived in the same Village: That the Petitioner and the said Elizabeth Hickson were in the same Condition of Life, being the Children of Farmers; and the said Elizabeth Hickson, and Mary Anne Buxton, the Sister of the Petitioner, went to the same School in the Town of Derby, and became very intimate Friends, and visited at each other's Houses: That an Attachment existed between the Petitioner, then 22 Years of Age, and the said Elizabeth Hickson, then 18 Years of Age, but being disapproved of by their Friends, it was carried on clandestinely, and they agreed to marry: That in fact the Petitioner wished the Marriage to be deferred until the said Elizabeth Hickson was of Age, but she objected to this, and in compliance with her Wishes the Petitioner determined to follow the Example of a Friend, who had lately been married at the Collegiate Church at Manchester, and to have the Banns published there: That the Petitioner constantly (though privately) communicated with Miss Hickson; and every Arrangement was made with her Concurrence and Approbation, and she took a very active Part in all that was done: That it was ultimately agreed that they should be married at Manchester on the 10th Day of June 1828; and for more effectually avoiding the Suspicion of Miss Hickson's Friends, it was proposed by her that she should, on the Day before, obtain Permission to visit a Family of the Name of Goodall at a neighbouring Village, and take that Opportunity of meeting and going away with the Petitioner; and such Proposal was in fact carried into effect by Miss Hickson, who contrived, upon some Pretext, to dismiss her Attendant, quitting the Road leading to Mr. Goodall's, and came alone, as she had appointed, to meet the Petitioner on the Road to Derby: That the Petitioner was considerably later than the Time appointed, and found that Miss Hickson had been waiting for him, and on his coming up to her they immediately went off to Manchester, and were married there on the following Morning: That Miss Hickson is not an Heiress, as has been untruly represented; and the Petitioner always understood from her that she was dependant upon the Bounty of her Uncles, who have a great Number of Relations in the same Degree as herself, and both she and the Petitioner well knew that her Uncles would disapprove of their Connection; and if the Friends of Miss Hickson apprehend that the Petitioner is likely to dissipate any Property to which he may become entitled in her Right, the Petitioner declares his perfect Willingness, and hereby offers and engages, to settle such Property in any Way that One of the Masters of the Court of Chancery or other competent Authority shall approve;" and therefore praying, "That this House will reject the Application to dissolve the Marriage of the Petitioner and Miss Hickson, which is a valid Marriage by the Laws of the Land; and that their Lordships will not pass a Bill to annul a legal Contract, founded upon long Acquaintance, mutual Attachment, Parity of Years and of Condition, and freely, voluntarily and solemnly entered into by both Parties:"

It is Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Committee of the Whole House, to whom the Petition of Mary Ann Wayte, and George Wayte Gentleman, her Husband, praying, "that Leave may be given to bring in a Bill to annul and declare void an alleged Marriage between the said Thomas Buxton and Elizabeth Hickson," stands referred.

Com ee on Petition for the Bill postponed.

The Order of the Day being read for the House to be put into a Committee upon the Petition of Mary Anne Wayte, and George Wayte Gentleman, her Husband, praying, "That Leave may be given to bring in a Bill to annul and declare void an alleged Marriage between Thomas Buxton and Elizabeth Hickson;" and for the Lords to be summoned;

Ordered, That the House be put into a Committee upon the said Petition To-morrow; and that the Lords be summoned.

East Retford Election Bill.

The Order of the Day being read for the further Consideration and Second Reading of the Bill, intituled, An Act to prevent Bribery and Corruption in the Election of Burgesses to serve in Parliament for the Borough of East Retford," and for the Lords to be summoned; and for permitting Counsel to examine Witnesses in support of the Bill; and for hearing Counsel on the Petition of the Burgesses of the Borough of East Retford, in the County of Nottingham, whose Names are thereunto subscribed, praying their Lordships, "That the said Bill may not pass into a Law;"

Counsel were accordingly called in.

Then William Evans Esquire was again called in, and cross-examined as follows:

(Mr. Adam.) "You have stated that a Sum of Money was paid by you to Mr. Kippax?"

"Before I answer that Question, I wish to make a little Explanation about a Question which was asked of me when I was last examined. I wish to have the Question which stands in the printed Evidence at the Head of Page 133 read."

The same was read as follows:

"The Question put to you is with reference to that particular Paper which has been described; was that Paper drawn up for the Purpose of regulating the Payment you were to make to the Voters?"

"That was a Paper which I stated I considered to be a private Memorandum. As soon as I got back to the Hotel where I was staying, after I had finished my Examination, on taking that Paper out of my Pocket, I found there was an Indorsement upon it which I had not before observed. I believe that Paper to be a Copy of Part of a Letter which I had written to Mr. Thornton; it was in my Writing; Part of a Letter which I had written with Instructions to Mr. Thornton."

Mr. Adam submitted, "That that which was produced to the House as an Original, and used as an Original, should not have been received, if a mere Copy of a Letter written by himself."

The Counsel were informed, "That that Paper did not appear to have been received in Evidence."

(The Witness.) "That was a Paper rejected."

(Mr. Adam.) "You have stated that a Sum of Money was paid by you, in the Year 1818, to a Mr. Kippax; what was Mr.Kippax?"

"I think Mr. Kippax was a Tanner; but I do not know; I do not recollect certainly."

"Did he reside in Retford?"

"Yes, he did."

"Did you know him at the Time you made that Payment?"

"I believe I must have known him; I had heard of him; I believe I had seen him."

"Did he repay you the Money?"

"Yes."

"The whole of it?"

"Yes, the whole of it."

"I think you said that Mr. Thornton was your Agent, and that Mr. Mee introduced you to Mr. Thornton; he recommended Mr. Thornton to you?"

"Yes, he did."

"How came Mr. Mee to recommend Thornton to you?"

"I probably asked Mr. Mee whether he knew any Person."

"Have you such a Recollection as to enable you to give an Answer?"

"I cannot speak positively."

"Does not your Memory enable you to answer the Question, how it was that Mr. Mee introduced you to Thornton?"

"No, I cannot answer that Question."

"How did you become acquainted with Mr. Mee?"

"I became acquainted with Mr. Mee in consequence of a Brother-in-Law of mine having met Mr. Mee in a Coach, and having told me that he had some Conversation with Mr. Mee in that Coach."

"Who were the Members at that Time?"

"I believe Mr. Osbaldeston and Mr. Marsh were then the Members."

"What was Mr. Thornton?"

"Mr. Thornton sold Shoes and Umbrellas."

"And he kept a Shop?"

"He did keep a Shop."

"I think you said that you believed the Sum you paid him was £2,700?"

"I believe it was."

"Why do you fix upon the Sum of £2,700; what Fact makes you recollect that?"

"Because I saw it in his Account; a Letter he sent me."

"Have you any other Reason except that?"

"I sent him that Sum, not together; but I have a Recollection that I sent him about as much Money as that."

"You did not send it him in one Sum?"

"No."

"How do you recollect that in several Sums you sent him as much as £2,700?"

"I think; I sent him in one Sum £2,000, and in another Sum £800."

"Then it was not £2,700, but £2,800, was it? Does not your Memory serve you to enable you to answer the Question, how much Money you paid to Mr.Thornton, either in one Sum or several Sums?"

"No; I cannot say what Sum I paid him exactly."

"Then it might have been less perhaps than £2,700?"

"I think not; I do not think it was."

"But you have no Recollection to fix it one Way or the other?"

"I think it was probably more altogether; I think it was more."

"Why then did you fix upon £2,700, if you think it was more?"

"I do not remember the Answer to which you refer."

"You say you think, to the best of your Recollection; you paid about £2,700, but that you cannot profess to speak very accurately. Why do you mention that Sum, if you have no Document to fix your Recollection? You cannot answer the Question, perhaps?"

"I believe that was a Question asked me upon a Letter with an Account."

"The Question put to you was without reference to any Papers or Documents. "Speaking to the best of your Recollection, what Sums did you advance to Mr. Thornton in reference to that Election?" Your Answer was, "I should think, to the best of my Recollection, about £2,700; but I cannot profess to speak very accurately." Why do you fix upon that Sum, £2,700?"

"I do not know why I fixed upon it then; but I think I remitted to him the Sum of £2,000, and at another Time the Sum of £800."

"That would not lead you to fix upon the Sum of £2,700?"

"I think I was led to name that Sum by Recollection, which I could not avoid, of the Sum charged by him in his Account."

"That was the only Reason?"

"I think that was the only Reason."

"You stated that you employed a Gentleman of the Name of Ward to pay the London Voters; what Sum did you pay him?"

"I think I paid him £290."

"Why do you think so; what Circumstance is there which induces you to fix it at that Sum; is it a Guess?"

"I think I remember a Sum being charged to me by my Banker to that Amount."

"Is it only by recollecting something charged in your Banker's Account that you fix upon the Sum of £290 as paid to Mr. Ward?"

"It is only by Recollection of that kind."

"And that Account is not here?"

"No, it is not."

"I think one of your Expressions was, "that you had remitted Money to pay the Voters who had promised you;" did any Voters ever promise you?"

"A great many."

"How many, do you think?"

"I should think, 150 or 160. Do you mean personally to me?"

"Personally to yourself."

"I really do not know; I should think probably a Hundred."

"Were they Residents?"

"They were some resident and some not resident. They were Persons who came over to Retford when I was canvassing."

"Did you canvass any of the Non-residents yourself? Did you call at any of their Places of Abode yourself?"

"I believe none, except those living in the Villages near Retford."

"Among those Persons, did they ever ask you for any Consideration for their Vote; or did you ever give them to understand that any Consideration would be paid?"

"I never gave them to understand that any Consideration would be paid."

"Did they ask you, before they promised to vote for you, to give them any Sum as a Consideration for their Votes?"

"I think there were some Individuals who said they hoped I should remember them, perhaps, or some Expression of that kind."

"Have the goodness to tell me the Individuals, and then the Expressions, if your Memory serves you?"

"I cannot remember any Individual by Name."

"Not any one?"

"No."

"How many might there be altogether who said they hoped you would remember them?"

"Very few."

"What do you mean by very few; Four or Five?"

"I should think not more."

"Can you recollect the particular Expression that any of them used?"

"I cannot."

"Four or Five made use of some Expression to the Import you have stated?"

"I cannot say Four or Five; but I think that some did; some small Number."

"Have you ever been in Retford since the Year 1820?"

"I am not sure."

"Have you ever been in Retford, for the Purpose of communicating with the Voters, since 1820?"

"If I have been there since 1820, it must have been to dine with the Bailiffs."

"How long was that after your last Election?"

"That was about Michaelmas, I suppose."

"Michaelmas 1820, or Michaelmas 1821?"

"I do not know which Year."

"Do you mean the first Michaelmas after your Election?"

"I do not know whether it was the first or the second."

"Was it a Year after, or more?"

"It was a few Months more than a Year, for the Election was in March."

"Was it the Michaelmas next after the March, or the Year after?"

"I do not know."

"Since that Dinner given by the Mayor, have you ever been at Retford; I do not mean passing through in travelling, but for the Purpose of remaining there?"

"I do not know whether I may have dined more than once since 1820; but on no other Occasion, I believe, since that Time."

"Did you canvass any Persons on the Occasion of either of those Dinners?"

"No, I believe not."

"Have you had any Communication with reference to Elections since the Election of 1820, with the People of Retford?"

"I think not. I may have had some Communication with Individuals who came to me perhaps; but I do not know."

"Do you mean to state to the House that you have had Communication with any Individuals?"

"No, I do not."

"You have not such a Recollection as to enable you to state, upon your Oath?"

"No."

"To the best of your Belief, have you had any Communication with any of the Voters on the Subject of the Election since the Election of 1820, so far as you remember?"

"I cannot remember that I have; but I am not at all prepared to say that I had not with any Individuals."

"Could you have had with any large Number without its being in your Recollection now?"

"I think not."

"It must have been a casual Conversation with a few People, if you had any?"

"Certainly."

"You told us you did not stand for the Borough of Retford at the Election of 1826?"

"I did not."

"That you had some Doubts of the Practice, I think, was your Expression?"

"I had so."

"When did those Doubts first cross your Mind?"

"I believe they crossed my Mind even probably between the Two Elections; and after the Second Election I thought I should consider them more fully than I before had done."

"You took the Time to deliberate, but you acted in the mean time, however; you repeated the Act in 1820 which you had performed in 1818, notwithstanding those Doubts, taking Time to deliberate; did you?"

"I had not considered the Subject at all scarcely, then, and the Election came on unexpectedly and very suddenly in 1820."

"There was not Time to make up a Man's Mind on such a Subject? Was the Subject on which you had any Doubt as to the Legality or Propriety of bribing the Electors of the Town of Retford; was that the Subject?"

"The Subject was, whether it was fit for me to stand for a Borough of that Description."

"Was the Subject upon which you had any Doubt, as to the Legality or Propriety of your bribing the Electors of Retford?"

"I thought I had sufficiently answered that Question."

"Was that the Subject upon which you had Doubts- the Legality or Propriety of bribing the Electors of Retford?"

"I believe it was."

"Had you any Doubt, before the Year 1818, about the Propriety or Legality of bribing the Electors of Retford?"

"I dare say I had."

"Notwithstanding those Doubts, you did so act?"

"I considered, I think, but little. I thought that was done so generally, and said to be done at so many Places; and perhaps thought the Excuse for other Men was an Excuse for me."

"Was it the Generality of the Practice, as you had heard it stated, which justified it in your Eyes?"

"Certainly."

"You would not have done it if it had been an individual Instance?"

"On no Account."

"But the prevailing notorious Practice justified the Act, though not proper for you to do under other Circumstances?"

"I do not know whether it justified it or not."

"In your Eyes?"

"It induced me to do it."

"And it was after the First Election that Doubts arose in your Mind as to the Propriety of that Determination of yours?"

"I think I had entertained an Intention of considering that Subject fully at some subsequent Time before the Second Election."

"But that Intention had not ripened into any Determination?"

"No, it had not."

"How soon after the Second Election did it occur to you that it was wrong?"

"I do not know."

"Had you heard that it had become a less general Practice, and was therefore less likely to be justified by other Instances?"

"No; I had not heard any such thing."

"Then nothing induced you to think that Bribery was less common?"

"No, certainly not."

"Has any thing since induced you to come to that Opinion?"

"Certainly not."

"Why, if the Generality of it justified it in your Eyes, and you did not think it had become less common, did you begin to think it improper?"

"When I said I thought it justified me-at least if I did say so, which I am not aware that I did say-I do not know whether I considered it a perfectly clear Case."

"Am I to understand that you did it when you did not consider it was perfectly clear in point of Morality or Propriety of Conduct?"

"Yes; I had Doubts whether it was perfectly right."

"From the very Beginning, had you Doubts?"

"I had Doubts before I went there, and they were removed by the Arguments of Friends of mine, and of others, which I suppose are commonly used to Gentlemen who stand for such Places."

"Commonly used with reference to Individuals?"

"Who stand for Boroughs of that Description."

"Boroughs of what Description?"

"I mean Boroughs where many of the Voters are paid."

"Is it within your Knowledge that there are many Boroughs where the Voters are paid?"

"It is not within my Knowledge; it has been stated to me a Hundred Times."

"Was the Fact assumed, in the Argument between yourself and your Friends, that there did exist such a State of Things?"

"Certainly."

"Your Friends prevailed upon you to think that it was not improper; did the Argument of your Friends prevail upon you to lead you to do the Act, as not being improper?"

"It induced me to think it not sufficiently improper to prevent my doing the Act."

"Having done the Act Twice, the Arguments of your Friends induced you to think it was wrong?"

"I believe it was more my own Reflection."

"Did your Friends dissuade you upon the Third Occasion?"

"I believe I consulted only One Person."

"And he did not dissuade you?"

"I think he did not give me any decided Opinion; his Advice was, that I should consider the Subject very fully myself."

"Your Friend himself had not, perhaps, formed any decided Opinion of his own; do you know how that was?"

"I think I knew the Conclusion to which he would have come."

"Had your Friend formed any decided Opinion, as he advised you to act upon your own Consideration?"

"He was not in Parliament, and had never been in Parliament, and said he had never considered the Subject."

"Did it require a Person to have been in Parliament to have led him to form an Opinion as to the Propriety of the Question?"

"I cannot tell."

"Had you ever stood for any other Place besides Retford?"

"No."

"Did you, after the Year 1820, stand for any other Place?"

"Yes, I did."

"I suppose that was not a Place open to the Imputation that Retford is open to?"

"Not at all."

"That was a pure Borough?"

"I believe so."

"I have a great Curiosity to know where it was?"

"It was Leicester."

"I think you stated that you had obtained the Confidence of the Burgesses of East Retford?"

"I believe I stated so."

"Did you not state, that having obtained the Confidence of the Burgesses, you ought to be the last Person to accuse them of any Offence, if it was one?"

"Yes, I did."

"Had you then obtained the Confidence of the Burgesses of Retford?"

"I thought so."

"I think you stated, that among the Papers you had there were the Letters of private Persons, did you not?"

"Yes, I did; there were some Letters of private Persons."

"And of private Persons not connected with the Borough of Retford?"

"There were some Letters of Persons not connected with the Borough of Retford."

"Were there private Letters of Persons not connected with the Borough of Retford among those which you delivered up to the Solicitor for the Promoters of this Bill?"

"Yes, there were."

"Did you deliver them up unasked?"

"I do not remember that I was asked. I shewed them to the Agent for the Bill. I did not expect he would take the Letters at the Time; but he had not Time to read them all."

"Did you go to him, or did he send to you, about the Letters?"

"He came to me."

"He was not aware, I suppose, that you were in Possession of them, was he?"

"Of those particular Letters?"

"Of the Letters you handed over to him; all or any of them?"

"I suppose he was aware that I had had an Order from this House to produce Papers."

"Was he aware you were in Possession of any Papers that you could have delivered over in compliance with the Order of this House, before you produced them to him?"

"I do not know."

"Have you any Doubt, from what took place, that he knew nothing of the Papers' till you produced them to him?"

"I should think he did not know."

"Was not he an entire and perfect Stranger to you?"

"Yes, he was a Stranger to me."

"Did you know any thing of him at all, except that he was the Solicitor for the Promoters of this Bill?"

"No, I did not."

"Was it to him you delivered over the Papers of Persons who had reposed Confidence in you, and the private Letters of Persons not connected with Retford?"

"It was. When I delivered those Letters to him I concluded that if I produced them to the House the Agent for the Bill would have every Facility of Access to the whole of them, and therefore I did not suppose that I was putting him in Possession of any Papers whatever that he would not have Possession of in case I had come down to this House with the Papers which I was ordered to produce here."

"How long before your Examination did you hand over the Papers to the Solicitor?"

"I thing it was on Friday; I expected to have been examined on that Day."

"Did you think of telling any of those Persons who had reposed their Confidence in you, that you had those Letters, and that you meant to deliver them over to the Solicitor against them?"

"No, I did not do so."

"Did you make any Communication to the Persons who appear against the Bill, the Solicitor who instructs Counsel against the Bill, respecting those Papers?"

"No, I did not."

"Or to any of the People of Retford?"

"No."

"Then you delivered over those Papers, being Papers and Letters of your confidential Friends, to Persons bringing forward a Bill to disfranchise them, without any Notice whatever to them?"

"I did. I did not give them any Notice, because I apprehended I had not the Power to prevent those Letters coming to the Knowledge of those Persons."

"Do you recollect at any Time giving any Caution to Mr. Thornton about the Payment of Money which you say he paid on your Account? Do you remember his writing to you on one of the Letters on their Lordships Table, "Shall pay due Respect to your Caution in paying the Money?"

"I remember that Letter."

"Do you remember his saying in another Letter, I have no doubt I can get the Money paid without their knowing from whom it came?"

"I remember seeing that Passage."

"Do you remember his Writing to you, "The Money has been paid to all the Freemen that I have had to pay in such a Way as it is not possible that any Proof can ever be made of its coming from you?"

"Yes, I remember that."

"Notwithstanding that Correspondence between Mr. Thornton and you, you delivered over those Letters from your confidential Friends to the Solicitor for the Promoters of this Bill, without any Notice to any body in Retford?"

"I gave him the Letters."

"Who was your Agent at Leicester?"

"I hardly knew whether there was any individual Person I could call my Agent."

"Had you any Connection with Leicester; any Property there?"

"I had no Property there. There were Relations of my Wife there. An Uncle of my Wife represented Leicester Eighteen Years."

"Were you yourself personally conversant with any Body of the Freemen?"

"Not any Number of them."

"Had you any natural Interest in the Borough of Leicester, any Personal or Family Connection, to make it a natural Introduction of you to them to represent them in Parliament?"

"No, not what I think would be called a natural Interest in the Borough."

"Had you more to do with Leicester than with Retford, before you represented that Place?"

"I knew more People in it than I did at Retford when I first represented it."

"It is a much larger Place?"

"Yes."

"Was there any Expression at Leicester about all is right, or any thing of that kind?"

"I never heard of any such; I believe there certainly was not."

"What was your Agent's Name at Leicester?"

"I employed Two or Three Attornies, I believe, at Leicester."

"Did you pay Money to those Two or Three Attornies?"

"Yes, I believe so."

"Have you any Doubt of that?"

"No, I have not any Doubt."

"Have you any Doubt that you paid Money with regard to the last Election?"

"No, I have no Doubt at all."

"Have you any Doubt that you paid to those Agents large Sums of Money?"

"I believe that my Expences were chiefly of Money issued; but this was chiefly by my Committee."

"Did you make good to the Committee the Sums advanced by them on account of your Election?"

"Yes, I did."

"To what Amount; was it Twenty-five thousand, or any thing like that?"

"No; I believe I paid Seventeen thousand, or perhaps a little more."

"I think the Sum that you paid at Retford in 1819 you stated at about £4,000?"

"About £4,400."

"What was the Sum you paid at Retford in 1820?"

"About the same."

"Those were for the Two Elections; the One Election at Leicester seems to have cost Three Times as much as the Two at Retford?"

"No; I believe more than Twice as much."

"The Witness was informed, "That the Indemnity Bill did not refer to any thing done by him in the Borough of Leicester; and that he was therefore at liberty to decline answering the Questions, if the Answers tended to criminate himself."

Re-examined by Mr. Law.

"You have been asked as to the Production of the Letters to the Agent for the Promoters of the Bill; did you produce any Letters to the Agent for the Promoters of the Bill, except those you considered comprehended in your Summons to produce before their Lordships?"

"Not one."

"You have stated that the Parties who corresponded with you were not resident at Retford?"

"Some Parties whom I corresponded with were not resident at Retford."

"Did you consider the Letters as having reference to the Election at Retford?"

"Certainly."

"Was that your Reason for producing them?"

"Certainly. I have brought up no Letter which I thought had no reference to the Election."

Examined by the Lords.

"You stated in your Examination the other Day, "I came up here in very difficult Circumstances; there were a considerable Number of private Letters of Persons not resident at Retford, and Persons not Voters at Retford, and Persons not writing at all about the Election, who, I believe, had some of them not probably ever been at that Place; those were amongst my Papers; but they related to the Election in such a Way that, by the Terms of your Lordships Order, I apprehended I must produce them, and bring them up here;" have you ever read the Terms of that Order?"

"Yes, I have read the Terms of that Order."

"Were you aware that there was no Mention made whatever in that Order of your Production of those Papers to the Attorney for the Bill?"

"None at all; I was aware of that, quite."

"Were you aware that the Terms of that Order required you to produce them at the Bar of the House?"

"Yes, I was."

"And that there was no reference whatever to the Attorney for the Prosecution of this Bill?"

"I believe there was no reference made to the Attorney for the Prosecution of this Bill."

"Did you think you were better repaying that Debt of Gratitude of which you spoke to the Burgesses of East Retford, in giving them up to the Attorney conducting the Bill for their Disfranchisement, than in producing them, in compliance with the Terms of that Order, at the Bar of this House?"

"Yes, I did think so; for I thought that if I produced them at the Bar of this House, both Parties would have Access to every Memorandum contained in them, and that they would be all printed in the Evidence; that if I produced them to the Noble Lord who had taken up the Matter, they would be printed; and I considered at the Time, that if I shewed them those Letters in the first Instance they would not require me to produce any not essential to the Case."

"How long before your Examination at the Bar of this House did you give up those Letters?"

"I believe Three or Four Days. I expected to be examined on Friday, but I was told I could not be examined 'till Monday."

"Was that before the Commencement of the Proceedings in this House?"

"I do not know when they did commence."

"At what Time before your own Examination?"

"I believe Three Days before I was examined."

"Were you not aware, or did not subsequent Reflection teach you to consider, that you were giving a great Advantage to the Promoters of this Bill, in putting them, Three Days before, in Possession of Documents which you were only required to produce at the Moment of your Examination?"

"I did not think so when I gave up those Papers, because I thought that if I gave those Papers in to this House, and was then called upon to give Evidence to them, and it was stated that any of the Parties for the Bill wished to have Time to consider the Papers, they would have Time, and that my Evidence would be postponed 'till they were fully satisfied as to the Papers."

"If that was your Opinion, why did you object to produce those Papers at the Bar of the House?"

"Because I concluded that had I produced them at the Bar of the House they would be all printed."

"You stated as a Reason for giving them to the Attorney, that you knew you would have to produce them at the Bar, and when you arrived at the Bar of the House, you required the House to protect you in your Refusal or your Objection to produce those Papers; having done so, how do you reconcile the Fact of your having handed them over to the Agent for the Bill voluntarily Three Days before?"

"I apprehended that my shewing them to the Agent of the Bill would do the Parties no Harm, if your Lordships did not insist upon my producing them; and that if I produced them to this House I could not withdraw any of them whatever."

"You remember probably the Answer you made to a Question put to you by Mr. Law, who said, "Have you a Paper in the Handwriting of Thornton junior?" the Paper referred to by the previous Question. Your Answer was, "I have such a Paper; if your Lordships positively require me to produce it I cannot resist it. I certainly entertain some Hopes your Lordships will not require me to produce it." Had you given that Paper which you hoped their Lordships would not require you to produce to them to the Attorney for the Bill?"

"I believe I had."

"Have you any Doubt about it?"

"No, I have no Doubt about it."

"In a Letter which has been put in by you, dated the 17th February, addressed to you by Mr. John Thornton junior, there is an Allusion to The Reverend Mr. Fell; the Letter says, "The Reverend Mr. Fell-I did not know what to say respecting him, whether you would make him the Present, therefore I included him as one;" was The Reverend Mr. Fell a Burgess of East Retford?"

"Yes, he was."

"Did you pay the Reverend Gentleman the same Sum of Money which you state you paid to the others?"

"I believe he was paid."

"In the same Way that the others were paid?"

"In the same Way that the others were paid."

"You have been examined by Mr. Adam a good deal as to an Expression you made use of, as to your Doubts of the Practice, and you have given as your Excuse the Generality of that Practice; you refer probably in that Answer, not to the Generality of that Practice in East Retford, but to the Generality of the Practice in other Boroughs of the United Kingdom?"

"I intended to refer to both; to that particular Place and also to many other Boroughs in these Kingdoms."

"You have no Doubt that Numbers are returned to Parliament in many other Boroughs by similar Practices?"

"None at all."

"Have you any Doubt that Peers of this House nominate Members of Parliament?"

"No; I have no Moral Doubt upon that."

"Have you any Doubt whatever?"

"No, I have no Doubt."

"Have you any Doubt whatever that Sir Masseh Manasseh Lopez returns the Two Members for Westbury?"

"I did not know that he did."

"You do not know it of your own Knowledge?"

"I do not know what Borough Sir Masseh did return any Members for, 'till your Lordship mentioned it at this Moment."

"Have you any Doubt whatever, that Members of Parliament are returned by the Influence of the Treasury?"

"I have always heard they were, and always believed it."

"You have said that your Election at Leicester cost you Seventeen thousand Pounds; did you see any Accounts referring to that Expenditure?"

The Counsel and Witness were directed to withdraw.

The Counsel and Witness were again called in.

The Witness was informed, "That the Bill of Indemnity protected him only in respect of Answers tending to criminate him in reference to Elections at Retford; and that he was not bound to answer any Questions tending to criminate himself with reference to any other Election, but that he was at full Liberty to answer such Questions if he thought proper."

The Question was put.

"Yes."

"Did any of those Accounts refer to the Distribution of Money among the Voters?"

"I have seen none that did."

"In what did the Particulars of that great Expence consist?"

"I believe a very great Expenditure was created by bringing the Voters up."

"Travelling Expences?"

"Very great, indeed."

"Were there any Expences occasioned by Treating?"

"I have no Doubt there were."

"Were there any Accounts relating to Liquors given to the Voters?"

"Yes."

"Did any of them relate to Ribbons made a Present of to the Voters and their Families?"

"Yes, there certainly were Ribbons given."

"Did no Doubts cross your Mind as to the Legality of these Practices, which you know are forbidden by Act of Parliament?"

"I do not know in respect to the Legality of them; none respecting the Propriety of them, because I had heard it said that there were very few Elections set aside for Treating, though there is an Act of Parliament which does not admit Treating; or for the Expence of bringing Voters up, for that has been maintained by some Persons to be an illegal Expence."

"You do not know that you might have been petitioned against for Treating, and that if it had been proved against you in respect to Leicester, you would have lost your Election?"

"I suppose I should have lost it."

"Did you not take Steps, in point of fact, to conceal the Participation you had had in that illegal Act?"

"No, I did not; I took no Steps."

"Was not the Money disbursed by your Committee?"

"It was disbursed by my Committee; for it was scarcely practicable for me to attend, in so large a Place, to the Expenditure. I did not take any Means of concealing it myself."

"Had you seen that the Money, or any Part of it, had been disbursed in Treating?"

"I saw there were Bills of Public Houses, after the Election."

"Have you destroyed those Accounts?"

"No."

"Have you any Doubt that Treating was practised by all the Candidates at that Election at Leicester?"

"No; I have no Doubt it was practised by all. I do not know to what Extent."

"Did you make any Distniction, in your own Mind, between the Expenditure at Leicester and the Expenditure at East Retford, as to the Impropriety or Illegality of it?"

"Yes, I did; a very great one."

"Did you consider that it was more improper to give £8,000 to the Electors of East Retford, in proportion of Twenty Guineas each, according to your Statement, than to pay £17,000 in Treating, and Travelling Expences, and other Charges for the Election at Leicester?"

"I thought it was more improper."

"For what Reason?"

"It appeared to more improper."

"Did you conceive it more improper to give the Money directly, as an Inducement to the East Retford Voters to give their Votes in your Favor, than to the Leicester Voters in the Shape of Liquor or any other Inducement?"

"I have great Doubts whether the Leicester Voters were induced by that only, or by that in part, in a certain Measure, to give their Votes."

"Do you think you would have had the slightest Chance of polling Ten or a Dozen Votes for the Borough of Leicester, if you had declared you would not spend any Money?"

"Yes; I think I should have polled a great many more than that. I should have polled none without paying the Expences of the People coming to the Poll, or no considerable Number."

"How many did you poll at that Election?"

"Two thousand, I believe."

"Your Expences in regard to the Borough of East Retford you considered as immoral, on account of their being Bribes, did you not?"

"I was not aware that I had stated that; I thought they were objectionable."

"You stated that you had Doubts as to the Practice; by the Practice you meant bribing the Electors of East Retford?"

"I meant paying them Money."

"Did you know that that paying them Money was in fact bribing them?"

"Yes, I think it was."

"Did you undertake the canvassing of the Town of East Retford with a Knowledge of the Certainty that you would have to bribe the Voters?"

"Yes, I did; I knew I should have to pay them."

"Did you ever hear, in the Course of your Canvass of the Borough of East Retford, the Expression of "all right" used there?"

"No, I do not recollect it."

"Did you ever hear the Expression of "Joss" made use of?"

"No, I do not recollect that Expression."

"Or "Tick?"

"No, I do not remember that."

"In spending the Money you spent at Leicester, did you conceive you held out to any individual Voters so strong an Inducement to vote for you as by paying the Money you did at Retford?"

"Certainly not; I conceive I did not hold out any comparative Inducement."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then George Kippax was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(Mr. Price.) "In the Year 1818, where did you reside?"

"Near to Retford; not in Retford."

"Were you acquainted with the Borough of East Retford?"

"I have known Retford all my Lifetime; I was born in Retford; I have known it ever since I was a Child."

"Do you remember the Election of Mr. Evans and Mr. Crompton in the Year 1818?"

"Yes, very well."

"Before that Election, were you introduced to Mr. Evans?"

"Yes, I was."

"How long before that Election?"

"It was the very Evening that Mr. Evans arrived in Retford."

"By whom were you introduced to him?"

"Mr. Mee the Attorney."

"Is Mr. Mee the present Town Clerk?"

"I believe he is at this Time."

"Before you were introduced to Mr. Evans, had you any Conversation with Mr. Mee relative to the Election of East Retford?"

"I never saw Mr. Evans in my Life before I was introduced to him; he had not been there Five Minutes. I was going to the Lawyer's on account of some Business of my own."

"Before your Introduction to Mr. Evans by Mr. Mee, had you not any Conversation with Mr. Mee respecting the Election of East Retford?"

"No; I never had a Word in my Life on the Subject. I knew nothing of Mr. Evans."

"Upon that Introduction, what was the Conversation which took place?"

"It was so long ago I cannot repeat every Circumstance that did occur."

"State as nearly as you can what passed upon the Occasion?"

"Mr. Evans said he was an entire Stranger as to Electioneering; and he did not know on what Footing he was stepping forward in it, as he was an entire Stranger to it. I believe that was nearly what was said to me."

"Was Mr. Mee present at that Time?"

"I believe he was; it was in his House."

"What passed besides that Observation?"

"I really cannot speak to it; there were many Things passed which I cannot recollect."

"Respecting the Election?"

"As I said before, I say again, that he said he had never embarked in Electioneering Concerns before, and he was an entire Stranger to it; that is all that I recollect him to have said on that Point."

"Did you upon that Occasion give him any Information?"

"Yes, I did."

"What was that?"

"I gave him my Opinion as to the Principle that had been adopted in Electioneering at Retford for a length of Time."

"What was that?"

"That it was expected, after the Member was returned and seated, that the Burgesses would have a Present made them afterwards; and on those Grounds he must expect that it would be expected if he came forward. I believe that was nearly what I said."

"What did Mr. Evans say in answer to that?"

"I really do not recollect what he said upon it."

"Was any thing said respecting a Deposit of Money?"

"Yes."

"What was it?"

"It was I that proposed it first. I believe I said as he was an entire Stranger he might establish his own Credit."

"By what Means?"

"By investing Money in a certain Person's Hands."

(Mr. Alderson.) "Are you a Freeman of East Retford?"

"No."

"Were you at any Time?"

"No, never."

"Mr. Alderson submitted, "That a Conversation between Two Persons not Freemen of Retford was not Evidence."

(By a Lord.) "How near do you live to Retford?"

"About a Mile."

"How came Mr. Evans to consult you?"

"Mr. Mee was my Attorney. I had Business with him, and I happened to step in at the very Moment when Mr. Evans came; and Mr. Mee would take me in to this Gentleman, Mr. Evans, to introduce him to me."

"Where did you meet him; at Mr. Mee's Office?"

"No, Mr. Mee's own House."

"Was Mr. Mee there?"

"Yes, he was."

"Was he present at the Conversation?"

"The whole Time I was there."

"Did he hear the whole of the Conversation which passed?"

"I do not know; he might have done so or not. I do not recollect that there was any other Gentleman present."

"Was he in the Room at the Time?"

"Yes."

Mr. Price submitted, "That the Statement made to Mr. Evans the Candidate, upon which he acted afterwards, was Evidence."

Mr. Law was heard in support of the Examination.

Mr. Alderson was heard in reply.

The Counsel were informed, "That the Declarations of the Witness as to the Practices of the Burgesses of East Retford could not be received as Evidence of the Facts stated by him; but that the Witness might be asked as to the Sources of his Knowledge; that any Question put by Mr. Evans connected with his subsequent Acts was Evidence, he being charged to be a Conspirator in this Transaction."

(Mr. Price.) "In consequence of that Conversation, was any Sum of Money deposited in your Hands?"

"No, none at all, at that Time."

"At any other Time?"

"Oh yes.'

"How soon?"

"It is so long ago, I cannot say."

"Was it a Week or a Month?"

"I cannot speak to a Week or a Month; I think it was some Time in January. I will not be certain when the Money was deposited. I never had it in my Hands."

"Do you know of any Deposit of Money after that Conversation with Mr. Evans in any Person's Hands?"

"Yes, I do."

"Was it placed in any Banker's Hands, to your own Knowledge?"

"It was placed in the Banker's Hands, to my Credit."

"How much?"

"£3,000."

(By a Lord.) "From Mr. Evans?"

"Yes, from Mr. Evans, by Smith, Payne and Smith, the Bankers, in my Name."

(Mr. Price.) "For what Purpose was it so deposited?"

"To indemnify me for any Expence that I might incur."

"Do you recollect any other Part of the Conversation just alluded to, in the Presence of Mr. Mee and yourself, with reference to that Sum of Money?"

"No, I do not; if I did I would state it."

"What became of this Sum of Money?"

"I gave an Order for it to be returned to the Credit of Mr. Evans's Account at Derby."

"When was that?"

"I will refer to a Paper."

"Was it made at that Time?"

"I have found a Letter which I received from the Bankers."

"Did you receive that Letter before the Election of 1818?"

"It must have been before."

"In consequence of that Letter, did you find there was any Money lodged to your Credit?"

"Yes."

"What was the Amount of that Sum?"

"£3,000. I cannot be wrong; it is impossible."

"Were you aware that that Sum of Money was to be so lodged?"

"I was aware of it, certainly."

"Did that Knowledge arise from the Conversation you had with Mr. Evans and Mr. Mee?"

"Yes, it was after that Conversation."

"What became of that £3,000 afterwards?"

"It went back again to Mr. Evans."

"By whose Order?"

"By my Order."

"Was it before or after the Election of 1818 that you sent it back?"

"It was in that Year."

"For what Purpose was that Money deposited in your Banker's Hands?"

"To indemnify me for all and every Expence that might occur."

"For what Purpose was it that that Money was vested in your Hands; what was the Indemnity to arise from?"

"I ordered the Dinner, the Canvass Dinner, and paid for it."

"Any other Expences?"

"Yes; I think I paid for another Dinner; I am not certain whether I paid for Two Dinners; I think I did for Two."

"How much did those Dinners cost?"

"I am sure I cannot say; I do not recollect; it is Twelve Years ago since I paid them."

"Were you concerned in the Canvass at all in favor of Mr. Evans?"

"I went with him on the Canvass."

"Were any Enquiries made of you by any of the Freemen on that Canvass respecting Mr. Evans?"

"Nothing as regarding Money."

"Were there any Enquiries made?"

"Yes; they made Enquiries, was he a Gentleman? and I said I looked upon him as such, or I should not have introduced him."

"Any other Enquiry?"

"No, I do not recollect any other."

"Any as to his Property?"

"I do not recollect being asked such a Question by any one; I think not."

"At any Time whatever, was any Enquiry made by any of the Freemen as to Mr. Evans's Property?"

"No, never, to me; I never was asked such a Question by any Voter."

"Was any Enquiry made as to what was to take place after the Election?"

"Not of me; there might be, but not through me; I never heard it."

"Did you ever hear the Expression of "All will be right?"

"All will be right?" Yes; I did hear that on the Day of the Canvass."

"What did you understand by that Expression?"

"They nudged my Elbow, and said, "Master, is all right?" and I said, "All is right."

"What did you understand by that-"All is right?"

"That Mr. Evans was, as I said before, a Gentleman, and they understood that."

"Was that the only Meaning you attributed to "All will be right?"

"Yes; I had no other."

"What did you understand by the Term of being a Gentleman?"

"I have known Mr. Evans a little; I took him to be a Gentleman then, and I have found him so since; that is all I mean to say about it."

"Did you understand that there was any Allusion made to Money by the Words "All is right?"

"No; not one Thing was ever mentioned as to Money."

"What did you understand by the Words "All is right?"

"I understood as this, that they meant to ask whether Mr. Evans was a Gentleman, and I thought he was one who would not deceive them; that was what I meant."

(By a Lord.) "Deceive them, in what respect?"

"After he was returned and seated, that he would make them a Present, as what had been done before, what was customary, and had been done for Years."

(Mr. Price.) "Did you ever make any Enquiry of any Freeman of Retford, after the Election, whether all was right?"

"No, never in my Life, to my Knowledge."

"Had you never any Conversation with any of the Freemen of Retford upon that Subject?"

"No, I do not recollect that I ever had."

"Never how Mr. Evans had behaved to them?"

"Well I cannot positively speak to that. I believe I did hear one Man say afterwards, which met me, a Man given to drinking, in Retford; he was rolling along; "Oh, Master; oh, Master; all is right; all is right;" that was all I heard."

(By a Lord.) "What was that Man's Name?"

"I cannot just now recollect it."

"Was he drunk?"

"Yes, he was in Liquor, I think. His Name was Hempsall; I think it was. He has an Impediment in his Speech. He said, "All is right; all is right; that is the Man."

"It did not happen to you often to have this Question, "Is all right?" it was only those Two Men?"

"I never heard another say so; not one but that Man."

(Mr. Price.) "After the Election, did you make any Enquiry of any of the Freemen as to whether all was right?"

"No, I never did, as I know of."

"Did any Freeman make any Statement to you upon that Subject?"

"No, not any one, to my Knowledge."

"This drunken Man was the only Person who said all was right, after the Election?"

"I cannot say no more than I know."

"Was he a Freeman?"

"Yes; he was a Burgess."

"How many enquired, upon the Canvass, whether it would be all right?"

"I am sure I cannot answer a Question like that. There were many following, and one thing and another; many asked many Questions that I cannot recollect any more than if I had never heard them."

"Many asked the Question, whether all would be right?"

"Oh no; not whether all would be right."

"What Enquiry did they make?"

"As to what Mr. Evans was whether he was a Gentleman, or who he was. I told them I believed him to be a Gentleman, or I would not introduce him; that was all that I said; I should not have introduced him if I had not believed him to be such."

Cross-examined by Mr. Alderson.

"When did you have this Conversation with this drunken Voter?"

"It was some Time after; I suppose Six or Nine Months after the Election."

"Was it then in the Year 1819?"

"I should think it would be; I think it would not be in 1818; but I will not say whether it was or not."

"Was there any thing remarkable in the Canvass in 1818?"

"Not that I recollect; it was all very quiet."

"Was there any Opposition?"

"No."

"Did you pay back the Money, after the Expences had been paid you which you had incurred in respect of those Entertainments?"

"I paid the Expences out of my own Pocket."

"Had Mr. Evans repaid you those Expences?"

"Mr. Evans did not pay me any thing; I gave the Account to Thornton."

"Did Mr. Thornton repay you the Expences of the Dinner and so on of those Men?"

"Yes."

"Was this Dinner eaten before the Teste of the Writ; before it came down?"

"No; it was after the Election was over; one of the Dinners at all events."

"Mr. Evans entertained his Voters after the Election was over?"

"Yes."

"Was there a Ball too?"

"No; I ordered the Dinner, I think, and paid for it."

"You were afterwards repaid by Mr. Thornton?"

"Yes; I believe I am correct; I think so. I speak to the best of my Knowledge."

"After you had been repaid by Mr. Thornton, did you pay back the £3,000 which had been deposited as a Security?"

"Yes; I gave an Order for it to be transferred back to Mr. Evans's Credit."

"Was that £3,000 originally deposited as a Security for those Expences which you, on behalf of Mr. Evans, might incur?"

"Yes, to be sure it was."

"And when those Expences had been repaid you, it was sent back to Mr. Evans?"

"Yes; that was the Fact."

"You were supposed to have said, that when you were on the Canvass the Voters came up and said to you, "Is all right?" is that so?"

"Yes; some of them said so; but if you take my Life I cannot say who they were."

"Can you say how many?"

"Perhaps Two or Three did say so."

"You cannot mention the Names of the Two or Three?"

"No, I really cannot."

"What you understood by "All is right" at this Time was that Mr. Evans was to make some Present after the Election?"

"Yes; that they would expect that."

"Did you go all the Way through the Canvass with Mr. Evans?"

"Yes, I think I did, the first Day."

"Was Mr. Evans in hearing to hear this "All is right?"

"No, I think not."

"You think that might have passed without his hearing?"

"Yes; I will not be positive; but I think he would not hear me say that. I introduced them to him in the House. There were many People crowding at the Door."

"Do you mean that he would not hear it, or could not hear it?"

"I think he was not within hearing. I never noticed that he was within hearing."

"Do you know any thing of any other Election than this?"

"I have known a good many."

"Had you ever any thing to do with them?"

"No; I had no Interest in having any thing in any of them."

"Have you any Property in Retford?"

"A little Bit."

"Not much?"

"Not a great deal."

"Are you a Freeholder?"

"Yes."

"In the Hundred of Bassetlaw?"

"Yes; I think what I have in and out is principally in Bassetlaw."

"If this Bill is carried your Interest is to have a Vote?"

"I would not give that for it (a Snap of the Finger); I would not value it as that."

"Have you been paid your Expences for coming up?"

"No."

"Do you expect to be?"

"I am sure I do not know; I cannot say; I live in hopes."

"Who sent for you?"

"I was summoned."

"Who served it upon you?"

"I think his Name is Butt."

"Do you know who Mr. Butt is?"

"I never saw him in my Life before."

"He simply came and served you with this Summons?"

"No, he did not come; I went to him; they sent up to my House, and I was in Bed; it was past Ten o'Clock."

"When was that?"

"It may be Twelve Days ago."

"Have you been here ever since?"

"I have been here Nine Days, I think."

"A Nine Days Wonder?"

"Nine or Ten."

"Did they tell you who was to pay your Expences?"

"No, I asked him for Money to pay my Expences up. He said he had none to give me. I asked, "Am I to go without Money?" He said, "You will be obliged to go." I said, "It is always the Case that when a Person is summoned he must have Money sent him."

"You expect to be paid?"

"I should hope so."

Examined by the Lords.

"Do you know any thing of a Club at East Retford for the Purpose of disfranchising the Borough?"

"No, I do not."

"Had you ever any Communication with any Person about a Disfranchisement of the Borough?"

"I never was there in my Life. I have heard of such a Place, but I do not know where it is. I have heard them say there is such a Thing going forward."

"You have no doubt of it?"

"I have heard say so; but I do not know where the House is, nor the Name of the House, nor any thing."

"Is not there a Rumour that there is such a Club?"

"Yes, there is."

"You said that this Mr. Butt served you with a Summons; is he a Native, an Inhabitant of East Retford?"

"He is a Resident here, I believe."

"Is he an Attorney's Clerk?"

"I really do not know what he is. He is in some Office here, or I suppose he would not have been employed."

"He is an Officer of this House?"

"Yes, I believe so."

"Did you ever hear of a Mr. Hannam?"

"Oh yes."

"What is Mr. Hannam?"

"He is a Lawyer."

"What sort of a Lawyer; there are several kinds?"

"As to Information, I do not know. I believe that some have a very good Opinion of him; but I have not a very good Opinion of the Profession; but that does not appear relevant to the Case."

"Is he a Counsellor or an Attorney?"

"He is an Attorney."

"Had you ever any Communication with him?"

"Never in my Life, to my Knowledge."

"Are you acquainted with him?"

"I know him as living in Retford; but I never had any Business or Transaction with him in my Life."

"Had you ever any Conversation with him regarding the Borough of East Retford?"

"I saw him when he was here, before he went away."

"Had you ever any Conversation with him regarding the Borough of East Retford?"

"We had some Conversation, but I took so little Notice I forget it now."

"Have you lost all Recollection of that Conversation?"

"I would answer it if I recollected it, but I cannot."

"Was it with reference to the former Elections, or the present Bill?"

"What Conversation we had was respecting Osbaldeston's Election; so long back as that; and I told him I could not recollect any thing about it."

"Did he say that Osbaldeston had not paid him any Money?"

"No; I do not recollect any thing of that kind. I had so little Interest any way that I took very little Notice of it."

"Have you had any Concern in any Election since 1818?"

"No; never before nor since. I never interfered in any other."

"You say you are a Freeholder in the Hundred of Bassetlaw?"

"I am."

"Is The Duke of Newcastle a Proprietor in that Hundred?"

"I should suppose he is; he has a good deal of Property there."

"Have you any Doubt of that?"

"No, I have not the smallest Doubt."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then William Pawson was called in; and having been sworn, was examined as follows:

(Mr. Law.) "Is your Name William Pawson?"

"Yes."

"Did you know a Mr. William Kippax, in the Year 1820?"

"Yes."

(By a Lord.) "Are you a Freeman of East Retford?"

"No."

(Mr. Law.) "In consequence of something William Kippax said to you, did you go to Retford to Mr. John Thornton?"

"Yes."

"Had you a Horse or a Gig there?"

"I think I rode upon a single Horse."

"Did you afterwards get a Gig?"

"Yes."

"Who went into that Gig?"

"Mr. Thornton and me."

"What Time in the Year 1820 was it, to the best of your Recollection?"

"I really cannot say."

"Where did Mr. Thornton meet you?"

"At the Outside of the Town of Retford."

"Where did he get into the Gig?"

"At the Outside of the Town."

"Did you go to Nottingham?"

"Yes; we went to Nottingham."

"Did Thornton accompany you there?"

"Yes."

"At what Time of the Day or Evening was it when you got to Nottingham?"

"It was towards the Evening."

"Did Thornton point out to you any House there?"

"Yes; he went to a certain House, but I cannot say where it was."

"Did he state to you his Object in taking you there?"

"When I got to Nottingham, he did."

"What did he say?"

"He gave me certain Parcels of Letters, and told me I was to go with those Letters to a Man to deliver them out to certain Men in the Town."

"To what Man do you mean?"

"I do not know the Man's Name now."

"Was it a Man at the House he pointed out there?"

"Yes."

"Did you go with that Man to certain Houses in Nottingham?"

"Yes."

"Did you deliver any thing at those different Houses?"

"I delivered Letters as Mr. Thornton told me they were directed."

"How many Letters do you think there were?"

"I cannot say."

"About how many do you suppose there were?"

"There might be from Six to Twelve."

"Did Thornton say any thing to you about delivering them?"

"He told me to be very careful of them, and not lose any of them, as they contained Money."

"Did he state what Money?"

"As they contained Money of the Election of Retford, that I should be careful not to lose any."

"Was Mr. Evans's Name mentioned?"

"Yes."

"How was Mr. Evans's Name mentioned by him?"

"That I should be careful not to lose any of them, as they contained Mr. Evans's Money."

"Did Thornton state to you at whose Houses they were to be delivered?"

"This Man went with me to point out the certain Houses; the Man Mr. Thornton took me to."

"Previous to Thornton pointing out the House where you met the Man, who went with you, did Thornton state to you for what Description of Persons the Letters were intended?"

"They were directed; and this Person went with me; and he shewed me the Houses."

"What Houses did Thornton tell you this Person knew?"

"He told me he knew all the Freemen of Retford who lived in Nottingham."

"Did you remain at Nottingham that Night?"

"We did."

"Thornton and yourself?"

"Yes."

"Do you know Bulwell?"

"Yes."

"Is that a Village near Nottingham?"

"It is."

"Did Thornton accompany you there?"

"Yes, he did."

"When you had passed through that Village, did you go on or stop?"

"Mr. Thornton pointed out a House or Two, and went forward in the Gig; and I delivered those Letters at those Houses. He remained outside the Village while I delivered them."

"Having pointed out the Houses where they were to be delivered?"

"Yes."

"Did you take up Thornton again?"

"Mr. Thornton took me up again."

"Do you know Arnold?"

"Yes."

"Is that a Village near Nottingham?"

"Yes."

"Did you go there?"

"Yes."

"Were any Letters delivered there?"

"I think there were, but I am not certain."

"Do you know Warsop?"

"Yes."

"And Mansfield?"

"Yes."

"Did you go to both those Places?"

"Yes."

"At Mansfield, did you deliver any Letters?"

"Yes, I delivered One or Two, but I do not know how many."

"Did you deliver any at Warsop?"

"I think we did; we stopped there."

"Did you go to Chesterfield?"

"Yes, we did."

"Did you go to Sheffield?"

"Yes."

"Were any Letters delivered there?"

"There might be One, but I cannot say."

"At Chesterfield?"

"I cannot speak to any being delivered at either Place."

"What was your Object in going to Chesterfield and Sheffield?"

"I do not know whether we delivered any Letters there or not."

"But you went to both those Places with Thornton?"

"Yes; and we stopped at Sheffield all Night."

"Having stopped there all Night, cannot you recollect whether you delivered any Letters there?"

"I cannot."

"How many Letters do you think you delivered in all, while Thornton accompanied you in the Gig?"

"I cannot say, it is so long since."

"Taking in the whole of the different Places?"

"I cannot say; it might be Five, or Six, or Seven; I cannot say how many."

"Recollect yourself a little better; how many did you say there were delivered at Nottingham?"

"From Six to Twelve there might be there."

"How many might there be in addition to those at Nottingham?"

"I know we delivered some at Bulwell; but I cannot say whether there were any at Arnold; I think there were, and again at Warsop; as to Chesterfield and Sheffield, I cannot remember whether there were or not."

"As nearly as you can recollect, how many were delivered, in addition to those delivered at Nottingham?"

"There might be Four, Five, or Six, or Seven, but I cannot say exactly."

"Upon all those Occasions of your delivering the Letters, was Thornton near you, or at a Distance?"

"He was always at a Distance."

"Do you think he was so far off that the Persons at whose Houses you delivered them could not see him?"

"They could not see him at the Time."

"Have you a Brother of the Name of Richard Pawson?"

"Yes."

"Are you related to Thornton?"

"Not in the least."

Cross-examined by Mr. Alderson.

"When was it that you went this Journey?"

"I think in 1820, but I do not now remember."

"In what Part of 1820?"

"I cannot say."

"Cannot you give me any Notion whether it was the Spring, the Summer, the Autumn, or the Winter?"

"It was either the Spring or the Back End of the Year. I know when I got to Nottingham I was out a long while in the Dark delivering those Letters; that is all I can say."

"It might be in Winter?"

"No; it was not very cold; but it was dark; there was no Snow on the Ground."

"You cannot tell whether it was the Spring or the latter End of the Year?"

"No; I cannot."

"Then you cannot perhaps tell me whether there were Six Letters?"

"Yes; I know there were from Six to Twelve; there was not more; but I cannot say."

"Will you undertake to say there were more than Six?"

"Yes; I will undertake to say from Six to Twelve."

"Were there more than Six?"

"Yes."

"Were there more than Eight?"

"I cannot say to the Quantity."

"Will you swear that there were more than Eight?"

"No, I will not."

"You have a very indistinct Recollection of what took place at that Time?"

"It was a long Time ago."

"Had you any Thought of being called upon?"

"No."

"Did you ever make any Memorandum of it?"

"No."

"When were you first asked about it?"

"Last Thursday Week."

"From the Year 1820 up to last Thursday Week, it had never crossed your Mind?"

"No; I do not know that it had, any more than thinking about going round with Mr. Thornton to those Places."

"To whom was it you told this last Thursday Week?"

"Mr. Butt told me I had to appear in London."

"Are you prepared to tell their Lordships that the first Time you mentioned it for Ten Years was to Mr. Butt last Thursday Week?"

"I never mentioned it before."

"You mean to say that the Officer of this House was the first Person to whom you mentioned this, last Thursday Week?"

"I went over to Retford after Mr. Butt summoned me, and I went to Mr. Kippax's House."

"To whom did you first mention it?"

"To Master Kippax"

"To whom did you first mention this?"

"To Mr. Kippax."

"Was that the Gentleman who has been just examined?"

"No; Mr. William Kippax."

"What is he?"

"He is a Currier at Retford."

"Is he one of the Club?"

"No."

"Is he a Freeman of Retford?"

"No, not that I know."

"Has he Property in Bassetlaw?"

"No, not that I know."

"Where does he reside?"

"At Spital Hill."

"Is he an Inhabitant of the Borough of Retford?"

"I cannot say whether it is in the Borough."

"Is he an Inhabitant of the Town?"

"Yes."

"What Property has he there?"

"He is a Currier. I do not know what Property he has there."

"Whom did you mention it to next after Mr. Kippax?"

"I do not know that I mentioned it to any body 'till I got to London."

"To whom did you first mention it in London?"

"Mr. Heptinstall."

"That is the Solicitor on the other Side?"

"Yes."

"Had he got any Account of what you had said before?"

"No; I did not know what I was coming here about, 'till he asked me the Questions."

"You do not know the Names of any of those Persons that you delivered the Letters to?"

"I cannot say; I cannot swear to the Names."

"How comes it that you recollect so clearly the Conversations with Thornton?"

"We had a long Journey together; we were out Three Days together."

"Had you known him before?"

"I had known him before, but had never had an Acquaintance with him."

"He kept away that he might not be even seen by those People?"

"Yes; he was not seen by One."

"And yet he told you this?"

"Yes; he told me that it was Mr. Evans's Election Money."

"Though he kept out of the Way to prevent the Voters seeing him?"

"Yes."

"Yet he had not known you before?"

"Yes; he had seen me before."

"How many Times had you seen him before?"

"I cannot say."

"Had you ever had any Conversation with him before?"

"No; not that I recollect."

"He told you all this Secret; though he was afraid of the Voters seeing him, he had this Conversation with you?"

"Yes; he told me this; but he never let the Voters see him."

"Is it true that he told you, a Stranger, the whole Secret, when he was afraid of the Voters seeing him?"

"He told me that I have said."

"Is that true?"

"Yes."

"Had you ever any Conversation with him about it afterwards?"

"I have been in his Company afterwards; but I cannot speak to any Conversations upon that Subject."

"Or any other respecting the Election?"

"I cannot say that I have."

"Had you any Conversation with the People whomyou left the Money with?"

"No."

"Did you deliver it to the People themselves, or leaveit at their Houses?"

"I might deliver it to some of their Wives, and tosome of the Men themselves."

"To whom did you deliver it themselves?"

"I cannot say. I remember delivering it to severalof the Women, and to one Man himself."

"They might or might not be Burgesses?"

"Yes."

"Do you know whether it was a Burgess of Leicesteror Retford?"

"The Person who went with me knew them."

Re-examined by Mr. Law.

"Were you acquainted with William Kippax at theTime?"

"Yes."

"What Distance were you sent for to go to Retford?"

"Fifteen Miles."

"You were sent for by Kippax?"

"Kippax came and fetched me."

"Do you happen to know whether Mrs. Thornton wasaware you were so employed?"

"I got my Breakfast at Mrs. Thornton's the MorningI set off."

"Mrs. Thornton had an Opportunity of seeing youbefore you started?"

"Yes; she breakfasted with us, and Mr. Thorntontoo."

"Were you present when Mr. Thornton was examinedin the House of Commons?"

"No."

Examined by the Lords.

"Did any body come to you about giving your Evidence here?"

"No, nobody."

"How came you to come up here?"

"Mr. Butt summoned me."

"A Summons from this House?"

"Yes."

"How long have you been in Town?"

"A Week last Saturday."

"Have you had any Communication with any bodysince you came to Town?"

"No."

"You have seen no Attorney?"

"None but Master Heptinstall."

"What did Master Heptinstall say to you?"

"He took down my Deposition, what I had to say."

"Had you any Conversation about Expences?"

"No."

"With nobody?"

"No."

"Did you say nothing to Mr. Butt about whether yourExpences would be paid?"

"I cannot say that I did."

"You expect to have them paid?"

"I cannot say."

"Have they been paid?"

"No."

"Have you defrayed the Charges of your own Expences?"

"No."

"You expect they will be paid to you?"

"Yes."

"You have been Nine Days in Town?"

"Yes."

"Do you know any thing of a Club in East Retfordfor the Disfranchisement of the Borough?"

"No, I do not."

"You never heard of it?"

"No; I cannot say that ever I did."

"Do you know Mrs. Thornton?"

"I did know her."

"Have you seen her since she was examined before theHouse of Commons?"

"No, I never have."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Then Richard Pawson was called in; and having beensworn, was examined as follows:

(Mr. Price.) "In the Year 1818, did you live at Besthorpe?"

"Yes."

"How many Miles is that from Retford?"

"About Fifteen."

"Do you remember the last Election in whichMr. Evans and Mr. Crompton were returned for Retford?"

"No, I cannot say that I do; the Election itself."

"Do you remember the Time it happened?"

"No."

"Do you know a Person of the Name of William Kippax?"

"Yes, very well."

"In the Year 1818, did you go to East Retford?"

"In the Year 1818 or 1819."

"Was that after the Conversation with Mr. William Kippax?"

"I had not any Conversation with Mr. William Kippax previous to going."

"Upon that Occasion, did you see Mr. John Thorntonat Retford?"

"I did."

"Did you go to his House?"

"Yes, I went to his House."

"Did you see any thing at his House?"

"I went to his Room, and there was a Quantity of Letters."

"How many?"

"I am not able to say the Quantity."

"About how many?"

"I should conceive about Thirty."

"Did you go out with him?"

"I went into the Town with him."

"What became of the Letters?"

"He gave me them to deliver to different People."

"How did you know to whom you were to deliverthose Letters?"

"Because he went with me as near to the Door aspossible, and told me, "Rap at the Door;" he pointedthe Door out to me, and told me to deliver the Letters there."

"Where was he standing when you delivered the Letters?"

"By the Wall-side."

"Could a Person from the Door see him in that Position?"

"No, I believe not."

"At what Time of the Day was this?"

"I think between Nine and Ten o'Clock at Night."

"How many did you deliver?"

"I am not able to say the Quantity, but I should thinkabout Thirty."

Cross-examined by Mr. Stephenson.

"Can you read?"

"Yes."

"Was there any Direction upon the Letters?"

"I do not know that I examined the Directions of any of them."

"In what Time of the Year was this?"

"It was not Winter; it was about Nine o'Clock at Night."

"What Time of the Year was it?"

"I conceive it was in Spring Time."

"The Year 1818 or 1819?"

"I am not positive which; I am not able to say which."

"It might be in the Year 1818?"

"It might be about 1818; it is Ten or Twelve Yearsago. I am positive it was either 1818 or 1819."

"You did not read the Superscription on those Letters?"

"No, I believe not."

"Do you know the Names of any of the Persons towhom you delivered them?"

"I can recollect the Name of one of them very well."

"Which is that?"

"Dawber."

(By a Lord.) "Is he a Voter?"

"I do not know, indeed; he kept a Public House, orhis Mother did."

(Mr. Stephenson.) "How many did you deliver?"

"About Thirty."

"What are you?"

"A Grocer."

"Do you live in East Retford?"

"No; I live at Besthorpe."

"Did you know Mr. Thornton before that?"

"I had seen him before that."

"How came he to send over for you?"

"Mr. William Kippax came over for me."

"Perhaps you knew him?"

"He was my Uncle."

"What did he say?"

"He told me he wanted me to go over to Retford withhim that Night."

"How long have you been in this Town?"

"About Nine Days; Ten or Eleven Days."

"To whom did you first mention this Matter since1818?"

"I do not know that I ever mentioned it to any body."

"From the Year 1818?"

"Or 1819."

"Can you recollect that you mentioned it to any body?"

"I cannot say that I mentioned it to any body, exceptto my own private Circle of Friends."

"When were you first asked about this?"

"Never 'till about Ten Days ago."

"By whom?"

"I was ordered to come up here by Mr. Butt."

"Had you never mentioned it to any one before that?"

"I do not know that I had."

Re-examined by Mr. Price.

"You mentioned a Person of the Name of Dawber towhom you delivered a Letter; did he keep a Public House?"

"I believe his Mother did."

"What is the Name of that Public House?"

"I do not know the Name; but it is on the Righthand Side, against the Church."

"Do you know his Christian Name?"

"No, I cannot say that I know his Christian Name."

"The Witness was directed to withdraw.

"Then John Uttley was called in; and having been sworn,was examined as follows:

(Mr. Law.) "Is your Name John Uttley?"

"Yes."

"Are you a Burgess of East Retford?"

"Yes."

"When were you admitted; in what Year were youfirst a Burgess?"

"I cannot recollect."

"Was it as early as 1806?"

"I think it was."

"Did you vote at the Election of Sir John Ingleby?"

"Yes."

"Did you afterwards vote in 1807 for Sir William Ingleby?"

"Yes."

"Did you receive any thing after that Election?"

"I think I received a Present after that."

"What was the Present?"

"It was about Forty Guineas, I think."

"Did you give a Plumper upon that Occasion?"

"Yes."

"In 1812, whom did you vote for?"

"For Mr. Evans and Mr. Crompton."

"In 1812, do you remember Mr. Osbaldeston andMr. Marsh's Election?"

"Yes."

"For whom did you promise upon that Occasion?"

"Both of them."

"Do you know the Angel Inn at Retford?"

"Yes."

"Were you there in the Year 1814, Two Years after the Election?"

"Yes, I was."

"Do you know Mr. Hannam?"

"Yes."

"Did you see him there?"

"I think he was there."

"Did you receive any Money in his Presence?"

"Yes."

"How much?"

"Eleven Pounds."

"Was it Pounds or Guineas?"

"I am not sure; I think it was Guineas."

"Did you receive any Sum of Money in advance before that?"

"No, not from him I did not."

"Did you receive any Money in advance respecting the Election, before that?"

"I understood he had paid some Money for me to my Landlord."

"Had your Landlord been paid some Money?"

"He did not tell me that he had received it; I never received it."

"What did you say about your Landlord being paid?"

"I understood he had received some Money from Mr. Hannam, but he did not tell me he had received it."

"Who did not tell you?"

"The Landlord did not."

"Did you find you were excused from any Rent you owed?"

"I was never axed for it afterwards."

"How much was it you owed, and that you were not asked for afterwards?"

"Perhaps Eight or Nine Pounds."

"In 1818, whom did you promise, when Mr. Evans and Mr. Crompton stood?"

"Both of them."

"Did you find any thing at your House after that Election?"

"Some Time afterwards there was a Parcel left there."

"How long after?"

"I am sure I cannot recollect."

"What did it contain?"

"Twenty-one Pounds, one did."

"What did the other Parcel contain?"

"Twenty-one Pounds."

"Did you vote for the same Parties in 1820?"

"Yes."

"Did you find any Packets, after that Election, at your House?"

"Yes."

"What did they contain?"

"The same as before."

"That is Twice Twenty-one Pounds?"

"Yes."

"Did you know Westby Leadbeater; was he the Town Crier?"

"Yes."

"Do you know whether he left either of those Packets?"

"No, I do not."

"Whom did you vote for in 1826, when Mr. Wrightson and Sir Robert Dundas were elected?"

"For both of them."

"Having received those several Sums of Money, are you the same Person as the John Uttley who is a Petitioner against this Bill?"

"Yes, I am."

Cross-examined by Mr. Alderson.

"My Learned Friend has not asked you whether you received any Money from Sir Robert Dundas and Mr. Wrightson?"

"No, I never did."

"Had you any Promise or Intimation, direct or indirect, of receiving any?"

"No."

"Had you any thing from Sir John Ingleby, after his Election?"

"Yes, I had."

"Was it Sir John or Sir William?"

"Sir William."

"You spoke of having voted for Sir John Ingleby; did you receive any thing after you voted for him?"

"No."

"After Mr. Osbaldeston's Election, Mr. Hannam told you he had paid your Landlord something?"

"I do not recollect that ever he told me that."

"Who did then; for my Learned Friend has made you say that?"

"I do not recollect my saying so; I understood he had paid some Money."

"From whom did you understand it?"

"From a Person who was with Mr. Hannam; I think he was a Stranger to me."

"You understood, from a Person who was with Mr. Hannam, a Stranger to you, that who had paid this - Mr. Hannam?"

"That Mr. Hannam had paid some Money for me to my Landlord."

"Did the Landlord ever tell you that?"

"No."

"Did you ever have any Receipt from your Landlord for it?"

"No; I was never axed any Questions."

"Who was your Landlord?"

"Robert Hudson."

"What was the Rent which was due?"

"Somewhere about Eight or Nine Pounds."

"You say Hudson has not asked you for it?"

"No."

"Has he ever given you any Receipt for it?"

"I am sure I cannot recollect whether I had any Receipt or not; I think I had not."

"Do not you know there has been a Dispute whether Mr. Hannam did pay the People in full?"

"I had nothing to do with that."

"Do you not know that there has been a Dispute about Mr. Hannam's not having paid the People in full?"

"I am sure I cannot say to any thing of that kind but myself."

"Have you continued Tenant to Mr. Hudson?"

"No."

"When did you quit Mr. Hudson's House?"

"It might be Twelve or Thirteen Years ago."

"Did you quit it immediately afterwards?"

"No; I stopped some Time afterwards."

"Were you unfortunate in Business after that?"

"Yes."

"You are the Person that is queried whether a Pauper in Mr. Thornton's Books?"

"Yes; I was ill at that Time."

"Re-examined by Mr. Law.

"How long did you remain Tenant to Robert Hudson after that?"

"I am sure I cannot say."

"A Year or Two, or more?"

"I should think it must be."

"And there was no Demand for that Eight or Nine Pounds House Rent?"

"No; I never heard of it."

"Did you pay subsequent Rent?"

"To Mr. Hudson? Yes, I did."

"What was Robert Hudson? Was he a Burgess?"

"No."

"You have been asked whether you received any thing after Sir John Ingleby's Election; was he an unsuccessful Candidate?"

"Yes."

"Sir William succeeded, did not he?"

"Yes."

Examined by the Lords.

"You have been asked whether you are not a Petitioner against this Bill. You have said, "Yes." Is that the Petition from the Burgesses of East Retford?"

"I do not know what it referred to."

"Have you signed a Petition against this Bill?"

"Yes, I have."

"Is that Petition the Petition of the Burgesses of East Retford against the Disfranchisement of the Borough?"

"Yes."

"Are you a Burgess?"

"Yes."

"You voted for Mr. Wrightson and Sir Robert Dundas at the last Election?"

"Yes."

"Did any body canvass you?"

"I promised Sir Robert Dundas myself, in the Street facing the Church."

"Who was with him?"

"There was a Gentleman or Two with him."

"Did you know any of them?"

"There was one Gentleman there, but he is dead now."

"What was his Name?"

"Colonel Kirke."

"Who else?"

"There was another Gentleman, but I do not remember his Name."

"Was Mr. Foljambe with him?"

"I think he was, but I am not sure."

"Did you know Sir Robert Dundas previously?"

"Only what I have heard other Burgesses say, that that Gentleman was canvassing."

"Who introduced him to you?"

"I just met him in the Street, against the Church."

"Who told you he was a Candidate?"

"Mr. Kirke."

"How did he tell you?"

"He told me that Gentleman was come to solicit me for my Vote."

"What did you say?"

"I told him I would give him One."

"Did you know Colonel Kirke before?"

"Yes."

"Did you ask him whether it would be as usual?"

"Never. I never made no such Bargains in my Life."

"You understood it would be as usual?"

"I never made any Bargain to receive any Money previous to an Election."

"You expected to receive it afterwards?"

"I have received it afterwards, but I never had any Promise that I should have it; I knew nothing at all about it when I gave my Promise."

The Witness was directed to withdraw.

The Counsel were directed to withdraw.

Ordered, That the further Consideration and Second Reading of the said Bill be put off 'till To-morrow; and that the Lords be summoned.

Suits in Equity Bill.

It was moved, "That the Order made on Monday last, "That the Bill, intituled, "An Act for further facilitating the Administration of Justice in Suits and other Proceedings in Equity" be read the Third Time on Tuesday next; and that the Lords be summoned," be now read."

The same was accordingly read by the Clerk.

Ordered, That the said Order be discharged.

Criminal Offenders (Ireland), Statement respecting, delivered.

The Earl of Shaftesbury laid before the House, pursuant to an Address to His Majesty of the 1st Day of April last,

"A Summary Statement of the Number of Persons charged with Criminal Offences who were committed to the different Gaols in Ireland for Trial at the Assizes and Sessions held for the several Counties, Cities, Towns and Liberties therein, or by any Special Commission, during the last Seven Years; distinguishing the Number in each Year, and shewing, the Nature of the Crimes respectively of which they were convicted, acquitted, and with which those were charged against whom no Bills were found, and who were not prosecuted; also the Sentences of those convicted, and the Number executed who received Sentence of Death."

And the Title thereof being read by the Clerk;

Ordered, That the said Paper do lie on the Table.

Ordered, That the said Paper be printed.

East Retford Election Bill, several Witnesses discharged.

Ordered, That William Evans Esquire, George Kippax Esquire, William Pawson, Richard Pawson and John Uttley be discharged from further Attendance on this House upon the Second Reading of the Bill, intituled, "An Act to prevent Bribery and Corruption in the Election of Burgesses to serve in Parliament for the Borough of East Retford."

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Martis, undecimum diem instantis Maii, horâ undecimâ Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.