Mr. J. Fane ,chairman of the committee appointed to try the merits of the petition complaining of an undue election for the borough of Thetford, reported that the committee had decided that Thomas Creevey, esq. was duly elected, and ought to have been returned; and that James Mingay, esq. was not duly elected, and ought not to have been returned, and that the petition was not frivolous nor vexatious.—Sir G. Heathcote, chairman of the Maldon election committee, reported, that it had determined that B. Gaskill, esq. was not duly elected, and that Charles Western, esq. was duly elected, and ought to have been returned, and that the opposition to the petition was not frivolous nor vexatious.—Mr. Atkyns Wright, from the select committee appointed to try and determine the merits of the Petition complaining of an undue election and return for the borough of Penryn, informed the house, that the said committee have determined, that sir Christopher Hawkins, bart. is not duly elected; that Henry Swann, esq. is duly elected; that John Trevanion, esq., the petitioner, ought to have been returned; that the said John Trevanion, esq. is duly elected; that the said petitions did not either of them appear to the said committee to be frivolous or vexatious; and also that the opposition of sir C. Hawkins to the said petitions did not appear to be frivolous or vexatious. The deputy clerk of the crown was ordered to attend the house to-morrow to amend the said returns.—Mr. Atkyns Wright also acquainted the house, that the said select committee had come to several Resolutions, which they had directed him to report to the house; and he read the report in his place, and afterwards delivered it in at the table, where the same was read, and is as followeth, viz. "Resolved, that it appears to this committee, that sir Christopher Hawkins, bart. has, by himself and agents, been guilty of bribery and corrupt practices, to influence the last election for the borough of Penryn. That John Stona the elder, James Edgcombe, the rev. Robert Dillon, and other persons, being electors for the said borough of Penryn, were engaged in, and parties to, the said bribery and corrupt practices." Ordered, that the said report be taken into further consideration on the 23d instant; that the said report be printed for the members of the house; and that the minutes of the pro- 620 ceedings of the said committee be laid before the house.—Mr. Parrell moved, that the order for taking the Mayo election petition into consideration on the 24th of February, be discharged, with a view to postpone it to some early day in April. The precedents of the conduct adopted by the house in the cases of the Aberdeen, Dublin, and Londonderry election petitions, he urged as the grounds upon which the party founded his motion. The absence of a material witness, the circumstance of an eminent barrister, who was engaged to support the petition, being absent on other professional avocations, and a matter of general consideration in such cases, the distance of the place, he conceived to be additional grounds for inducing the house to comply with the object of his motion. Mr. Corry opposed the motion, as he could not possibly see that there was any analogy between the cases, which the hon. member had cited as precedents, and that which was the subject of the present motion. In the county of Mayo there were nearly 8000 freeholders, and about three fourths of those who voted had polled in favour of the sitting member. It was also to be recollected, that the witnesses might be examined by commission in the county of Down, and adjoining county.—The gallery was then cleared, but the house did not divide, and the motion was negatived.