Commons Sitting of 21 April 1807

MINUTES.
—On the motion of lord Porchester, it was ordered, that Drake, who was confined in Newgate under an order of the house, should be brought up to-morrow, to give evidence before the committee on the Westminster Election Petition.—Mr. White presented at the bar the following list of the committee chosen to try the merits of the Petition complaining of an undue return for Aberdeenshire: Tho. Bernard, R. Dawson, D. Jephson, sir J. B. Warren, John Patteson, Scrope Bernard, W. Taylor, D. S. Dugdale, lord Headley, E. Baillie, sir C. Hawkins, lord John Thynne.—Nominees, H. Erskine, sir J. Montgomery.

PENRYN ELECTION—SIR C. HAWKINS.
Mr. A. Wrightmoved the further consideration of the report of the committee upon the Penryn Election, which being read accordingly, and also the order for the attendance of sir Christopher Hawkins,
The Speakerstated, according to the custom in similar cases, that then was the time for the hon. bart. to deliver his sentiments upon the subject of the charge advanced against him.
Sir C. Hawkinsbeing present in his place, said, he should leave his case entirely to the justice and liberality of the house, and then withdrew.
Mr. A. Wrightsaid, that nothing was more remote from his wishes than to hurt the feelings of the hon. baronet in question. The proceeding he was about to take, was not matter of option but of duty. The parties in the Penryn election were strangers to him. The situation he had the honour to hold on the committee was the sole cause why he called the attention of the house to the transactions contained in the report. The report contained ample grounds for the motions he

505
was about to submit. The laws which secured to the people a free and unbiassed exercise of the elective franchise, would be but a mere dead letter if the proceedings enumerated in the report were not animadverted upon. He was aware that no gentleman engaged in a controverted election, without depending much on the assistance of friends and agents, and the house would allow the benefit of that consideration, so far as it would weigh in estimating this case. But, he lamented to say, that in the present instance, the hon. baronet had committed the offences charged upon him, not by others but by himself. The former patron of the borough of Penryn having withdrawn, it was resolved by a large party of the electors to look out for a new patron, meaning by a patron a person who either was to be a candidate for the borough himself, or to recommend a candidate. The terms agreed upon by these electors on which to sell their votes and interest, were 24 guineas a vote, and 10 guineas to each of the overseers. A deputation, at the head of which were a Mr. Stona and the Rev. R. Dillon, waited on sir C. Hawkins, to whom he admitted the first offer was made, and the terms being acceded to, articles were drawn up and signed. These papers the committee had not been able, with every exertion, to get brought forward. But there was the parole evidence of a person of the name of Moon, who was himself one of the parties, of a Mr. Hitchcombe, and of a Mr. Chiltern, steward to sir C. Hawkins, to prove the facts, and the payment of a sum of money, by the direction of sir C. Hawkins, to Stona, how much Mr. Chiltern, though otherwise trusted in money matters, could not say, and an order to a person of the name of Rowe, to distribute this money among the voters. Mr. Chiltern could not say whether the notes were large or small, or how many were in the parcel. But there was proof that notes had been sent and distributed to the voters. The minutes of the evidence were before the house, and he felt it unnecessary to make any comment on them. The house would deal with them according to its own feelings. He should move, first, that the house should agree in the resolution of the committee, declaring that sir C. Hawkins had been personally, and by his agents, guilty of bribery and other corrupt practices in the late Penryn election; and he should then move, that the Attorney-General be directed to prosecute sir C. Hawkins, and the others implicated in the said offences.
Captain Herberthad hoped that he should have had abler assistance in the defence of the hon. baronet and that he should not have been left to manage the whole case by himself, inadequate as he was to such a task He had particularly to lament the absence of an eminent gentleman of the law (sir A. Pigot), on whose support the hon. baronet particularly relied. Some important affidavits also were expected.
Sir W. W. Wynnethought the house ought to be cautious of procrastination. A threat of dissolution had been thrown out, and reports to that effect were very current. If therefore, the house wished to mark its sense of the offences contained in the report now under its consideration, it ought to do so before it should be bereft of the power by the execution of the unparliamentary menace he referred to.
Mr. Lee Keck saidthat as a member of the committee alluded to, he was convinced that there never was a stronger case made out for the consideration of the house, and it became them, consistently with their, dignity, to come to an immediate determination thereon. He looked upon the proceedings by the Attorney-General as the most moderate course that could possibly be adopted, under the circumstances of the case. The Committee had shown every disposition of leaning towards the accused; and, therefore, instead of proceeding further of their own accord, had made it the subject of a special report. If the house should be of opinion that any suspension of procedure should take place, he should bow with deference to their determination; but as a member of that committee, he protested against any suspension whatever.
Mr. Hurstdid not see the case in so strong a light as the honourable member; and in a case in which the feelings and the character of one of its Members were so touch called in question, the house was called upon to give every possible facility to the defence.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersuggested, that the house could take no affidavits into account, and that his hon. and learned friend, who had been alluded to, could probably attend without inconvenience to-morrow.
Mr. Bankeswished to know from the hon. mover, whether there was any precedent for an instruction to the attorney general, to prosecute in a case of this kind; he had himself inquired, and he believed there was no precedent for such an instruction, without some further proceeding.
Mr. Wrightwas not aware that there was

507
any precedent: but he thought the proceeding he suggested the most consonant to the case—The debate was then adjourned till to-morrow.