EAST RETFORD DISFRANGHISEMENT BILL (Hansard, 7 March 1828)

Mr. Alderman Waithman
thought the House was bound to protect its rights and privileges. Those privileges, like all their other rights, they were bound to exercise for the public good. He believed that, if this individual had not been committed, not a word of truth would have been got out of the other witnesses. It was idle to talk of their ignorance. Those low Yorkshiremen were possessed of as much cunning as any hon. member in that House-But, if they were to bring' this man up to be discharged, surely they would take care that it should not be without a reprimand.

Mr. Stewart
supported the motion for the discharge of Fox.

§ Sir C. Burrell
also thought the motion ought to be agreed to.

Mr. Baring
said, that, if ever there had been a case for the interference of the House, it was that of the individual in question, whose conduct had been such as; to render it absolutely necessary to commit him. In his opinion, there would be no harm in allowing Fox to remain in Newgate until the termination of the inquiry relative to East Retford. However, if the I House thought differently, he was content that the individual should be called to the bar, and discharged, after receiving a proper reprimand.

Mr. Secretary Peel
thought the resolution of the House the other night was quite necessary, because the object of the witness seemed to have been the wilful concealment of the truth; and when the House had once shewn a determination to punish an individual who had so offended, they could not so trifle with their proceedings as to extend almost as a matter of course their lenity to him, merely because he came the next day and petitioned for their indulgence. He therefore wished this motion had been postponed; but as it had been made, and the petition was a proper one, he would give his consent to its prayer, amending it only by adding the condition, that the individual be brought up on Monday instead of that night, and that he should then receive a reprimand from the Speaker. He trusted that, if the worthy alderman had any prejudices against Yorkshiremen, he would not display them on the present occasion. The witnesses who were to be examined that night came from the town of East Retford, 1062 and with all deference to the topographical knowledge of the worthy alderman, he begged to inform him that East Retford was not in Yorkshire but in Nottinghamshire [a laugh.]

Mr. N. Calvert
did not object to the motion as amended, but should like to put the same witness again under examination, to see what effect his punishment had had on him.

§ Mr. W. Smith
thought the punishment too slight, considering the grave nature of the offence.

§ Mr. Crompton
stated, as an apology for the witness, that he was in ill health when he was called to the bar.

§ Mr. Tennyson
objected to the re-examination of Fox, lest it might be said that his evidence had been obtained by the application of a sort of torture.

Mr. E. C. Brown
was called in, and Mr. Tennyson proceeded to interrogate him. In your examination of the 4th of March, you stated that you knew in some of these elections, there were above forty electors at East Retford who would not take money. I will now put into your hands the lists of the burgesses for 1818, 1820, and 1826. Will you mark off, in any of those lists, the forty names you have alluded to.

§ Mr. Wynn
suggested, that as the witness had in his former examination, merely given his opinion, they had better not dwell on an answer so given, but go into the evidence of the particular fact sought to be established.

§ Mr. Tennyson
said, he wanted to shew how far the fact would, or would not, justify the witness's opinion of there being forty who would not take bribes. If the names were marked, then the opinion could at once be brought to the test.

§ Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, that the witness was not called upon to give an opinion against the guilty, but in favour of the innocent.

§ Mr. Wynn
said, that still they must have positive instead of secondary evidence; of what use, then, was the delivery of a mere opinion.

§ Sir J. Wrottesley
said, that even with the supposition that forty refused to take bribes, it did not follow, from a mere 1063 opinion, that all the other electors were guilty.

Mr. Stewart
said, that if it were competent for one witness to mark off forty names as innocent, it would be equally competent for another to mark off as many more who were in his opinion guilty—a course both irregular and inconvenient.

Mr. Fergusson
argued, that as it stood on the minutes that forty voters would not receive bribes, it was fit to ascertain who those forty were, and whether they deserved the character for purity which had been given them.

Mr. Batley
reminded the committee, that the witness had said, that sir H. Wilson was determined not to give a single penny, but to stand on his hostility to the Catholic claims.

Mr. Alderman Waithman
was in favour of pursuing the inquiry. The witness's declaration in favour of the forty burgesses was only matter of opinion, the value of which might be judged of by the various means in the power of the committee.

§ Sir E. Knatchbull
remarked, that the committee could not act upon the mere opinion of the witness after it had been given.

§ Mr. Calcraft
contended, that the opinion of the witness could not influence the vote of a single member, nor add at all to the weight of the testimony the hon. gentleman was scraping together to disfranchise the borough of East Retford. The assertion of the witness was, that there were forty burgesses who would not take bribes, and he was told to go out and mark them in the list, without being able to say from his; own knowledge whether such and such a man had taken a bribe. To take such evidence was only to incumber the minutes, and indulge curiosity without furthering the ends of justice.
The witness was recalled. He stated, that he had marked seventy names in the list of 1826, of persons who would not have received a bribe. He spoke from his own knowledge, because, when he told sir H. Wilson's voters that he would give them no money, they replied, that they would support him notwithstanding, on the ground of the Catholic claims. He had not said in terms, that sir H. Wilson would give them no money, but that he would do what was right and just, and no more. By the words "right and just," he meant that no money would be given to them. 1064 The number of voters who would not take bribes had been increased by him from forty to seventy, as nearly all who had been sworn in since 1820, were in favour of sir H. Wilson. When he told sir H. Wilson's voters that he would only do what was right and just, they knew that he meant that they would obtain no money. He had not used more direct terms, because he had been told not. They replied, that they would support him nevertheless, and hence he concluded, that they would not have taken bribes. If a candidate told the electors that he would do what was just and right, witness did not believe they would understand that those words meant that he would make the customary payment of election money. Witness had told the electors so, on the part of sir H. Wilson; but he believed the electors understood him to mean that sir H. Wilson would vote against Catholic emancipation. Many of them had promised to give their votes to sir H. Wilson if he would pledge himself to vote against the Catholic question. Twenty-three of the electors who voted for sir H. Wilson at that election, received no election money. None of them had complained of not being paid what they were promised. What witness said to the electors was, that sir H. Wilson would do what was just and right, and no more. There are 219 voters for East Retford, of whom seventy, witness believed, had not taken the election money. He did not know whether the practice of paying this money was usual. He did not believe that if the Catholic question had not produced so much excitement among the electors, so many of them would have declined to take the money. Sir H. Wilson was the popular candidate with the resident electors. There were 104 residing in the town. Sir H. Wilson polled twenty-nine votes. There were forty-two electors to poll when the election closed, of whom twenty-nine were for him. The general answer witness had when the votes were refused was, that they were already promised. Fifty-one electors had been admitted since 1820. The witness was asked, why he had omitted in the former part of his evidence to add the words "and no more," in the statement of what he had said to the electors on behalf of sir H. Wilson? His reply was, that he had always made use of the additional words. The short-hand writer read the evidence, which was contrary to the witness's state- 1065 ment. The explanation he gave was, that he had seen the words in the public papers, and thought he had used them. Being pressed to answer the question, whether, if a candidate or his agent was to say he would do what was just and right, the electors would not understand him to mean that he would give the election money? witness said, he believed the majority of the voters would understand that the candidate meant the election money. If sir H. Wilson had entertained the suggestion of giving the election money, what proportion of the electors would you have told him would have received it? I should have said three-fourths. From the conversations witness had with sir H. Wilson, he believed that that gentleman never did intend to give a single shilling.

Mr. Richard Hannam
was re-called to prove, that Leadbeater was one of those he had seen paid in 1812, at the Angel-inn. Witness was cross-examined by Mr. Denman, to ascertain whether he had not been accused of keeping some money intrusted to him? He answered very positively in the negative. At the Angel-inn Pickup had the money and paid it. Witness never touched a farthing of it: one man who had not attended there, was under the mistake that witness had his money, but such was not the fact: no money was intrusted to him to be distributed; it was not true that the electors had objected to his being employed as an election agent, because they alleged he had withheld any money from them. He had only paid one man himself, and that had been within a few days afterwards. He believed that the payments for the election of 1812, were all completed in 1814. It was well known that he was the agent of Mr. Osbaldeston in 1812, and he had pointed out to Mr. Pickup who were likely to be the friends of Mr. Osbaldeston. There was not a farthing deposited with the witness for the purpose of making payments. He had been clerk to the magistrates of the district for twelve or fourteen years. Mr. Clark was the partner of Mr. Vaughan, and the former had been connected with a celebrated will-cause that had been tried some years ago. Buxton was not paid because he was so intolerably drunk, otherwise he could have had his money, if he had come down for it. The witness had signed a paper that had been brought to his office for the purpose of obtaining the removal or extension 1066 of the enfranchisement of the borough; Ire had signed it because he thought it right; and he did not believe that there was a man in the town who did not think so. He had not discovered any of the secrets of his employer, nor would he do so. He had never given information about Mr. Osbaldeston's election till he had been summoned by the House, and he certainly would not have come if he could have helped it. Mr. Gregson had come down on the subject, and had written him a note: until he received it he knew nothing of him. In consequence of that note he went over to him at Barney Moor, and told him who had been paid. This took place before the matter had been brought before the House, for the first time, in the shape of a petition. All that he had disclosed to Mr. Gregson was, that the freemen had been paid as usual. He had not been offered any advantages for those disclosures, nor did he know for what he had been sent down. Ever since the election of 1812, it had been notorious that many of the freemen were corrupt: and he did not believe that any of the candidates had refrained from giving them money, with the exception of one, and he did not expect that he would ever stand again.

§ By Mr. Crompton.
—Have you ever received any penalties that have been levied under the game laws? I have.—Did you put those penalties into your own pocket? No; I have paid them over to the clergyman of the parish, and to the proper authorities.—The borough of East Retford was situated in the hundred of Bassetlaw. If the right of election was extended over the whole hundred, there would be seventy-four townships, or parishes included in it. There were many noblemen and gentlemen in the hundred who would have influence, owing to their estates. If the number of voters should be 1,200, there would be a great number of them under the political influence of the Duke of Newcastle.

By Mr. Davenport
.—If you were told a person had said to the freemen that he would do what was right and just, what should you understand by it? That he would pay them the forty guineas.

§ Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, it now became his duty to introduce a question of considerable delicacy, on which he wished to have the advice and assistance of the com- 1067 mittee. It had been stated in evidence by I Jonathan Fox, that in 1818 or 1819, he had received the sum of 2,800l. from a gentleman who was at that time a candidate for East Retford, and had at present a seat in the House. That money was to be distributed amongst the voters; and it appeared that Fox entered an account of its expenditure in a book; which official voucher he had subsequently given up to the gentleman by whom the money had been advanced. Now, it would not only be important, as forming part of a regular chain of evidence, to call that gentleman, and to examine him, for the purpose of ascertaining whether that voucher was still in existence; but it was still more important to take that step, for the purpose of removing any unfavourable impression with respect to their proceedings, that might be entertained by the public, who were anxiously watching these proceedings. Because, when it was seen that they had examined, with a great deal of just severity, persons in a subordinate station of life, whose poverty had tempted them to offend against the law, it became a matter of manifest importance, that an individual of rank, even though he were a member of that House, should not be passed over in silence. They were bound, in the discharge of their duty, to place that gentleman at the bar, in order that they might have the benefit of his examination. It ought, at least, to be made known to the world, that if persons whose poverty exposed them to temptation were brought before the House, they would not overlook individuals who were equally, if not more criminal, since they supplied the means by which honest indigence was tempted. Under ordinary circumstances, he might feel a good deal of delicacy in advising such a course; but any feeling of delicacy which he might entertain on the subject, was entirely obliterated, by the part which the hon. gentleman to whom he alluded had taken on this occasion. The evidence given before the committee, and the matter contained in the report, proved what is the conduct of the hon. member had been in these election transactions. As this was the case, it was to have been expected that the hon. member would have sought in silence, some consolation for the course he had pursued. When, therefore, he coupled this circumstance with the expectation which the community had a right 1068 to entertain, that they would administer even-handed justice between the poor and the rich, or if any difference were made, that it should consist in more severely scrutinizing the conduct of persons moving in a higher sphere than they would the actions of individuals who were not possessed of rank or fortune, he deemed it a duty incumbent upon him to move that the hon. gentleman to whom he alluded, should be examined at the bar. This was nothing more than an act of justice towards that hon. gentleman, who would thus have an opportunity of clearing himself from the imputations which had been cast upon him by the witness Fox. The hon. gentleman then moved, "that Samuel Crompton, Esq., formerly member for East Retford, and now a member of this House, be called to the bar of this House, to give evidence touching the East Retford election."

The Chairman
.—The question for the committee to consider is, whether, if the hon. gentleman be called to the bar, he will feel disposed to answer any questions that may be put to him, and if not, what power the committee possesses to enforce answers? The case of calling a member of the House to the bar is not, I believe, a very common one: but instances have occurred where members who were called upon to be examined before the House of peers have refused to answer certain questions. My impression is, that the hon. gentleman may also refuse to answer.

§ Mr. Wynn
said, it was in the power of the committee to demand answers to such questions as might be put to a member.

§ Mr. Crompton
said, he did not mean to say any thing at all on this question. He did not think it was necessary. He felt ashamed of nothing that he had done. As to what the hon. member for Colchester had said about his conduct, he would make no observation on it. He had been elected for this borough in 1812 and 1818; and, if that House determined to call on him for information, he hoped it would be found that he never had swerved from the right line of duty. But this he would say, that he never would come forward at the mere wish of the hon. member for Colchester, to enter into any explanation. It must be a better man than the hon. member for Colchester who would bring him to disclose his private affairs. [Cries of order.] He would not be examined by that hon. member.

§ Mr. D. W. Harvey
rose to order. The hon. member for Derby had chosen to state, that while he was willing to be examined by other persons, he would not allow himself to be examined by the hon. member for Colchester.

§ Mr. Crompton
.—" I won't—I won't."

§ Mr. D. W. Harvey
.—I say this, that if the committee come to the resolution to examine the hon. member for Derby, or if any other hon. member shall be examined, I, as member for Colchester, will interrogate that man, and it will not be in the hon. gentleman's power to prevent me.

§ Mr. Wynn
said, the hon. member would certainly have a right to examine any witness at the bar.

§ Mr. Calcraft
said, that his hon. friend (Mr. Crompton) evidently spoke under the impulse of very strong feeling. He should therefore recommend to the committee, that, in the state of excitation under which his hon. friend laboured at that moment, the question should be adjourned, and his hon. friend's examination taken at a future day.

§ Mr. Crompton
said, he never would dispute the power of the House; but he would say, that he never would be examined at their bar until it was made an order of the committee. He would not, at the nod or beck of any individual, come forward to disclose his private affairs. He was perfectly ready to bow to the decision of the House. They were deliberating upon a very important question, on which they were justified in procuring all the information they could; but he would not be bullied into any thing by any individual; and to that individual he would say, "When you are ready to lay open all the transactions of your life, and let the public judge of them, am I ready to do the same" [cries of "hear," and "order."]

The Chairman
said, he must again suggest to the committee, that no member could be examined contrary to his inclination.

§ Mr. Wynn
said, he had never before heard that any member of that House possessed within it, a privilege which exempted him from such examination, if it were the pleasure of the House to require that he should undergo it. The case was very different in respect of applications of this sort proceeding from the other House; for nothing was more reasonable than that one branch of the legis- 1070 lature should extend its protection over one of its own members, in reference to any jurisdiction exercised by the other. That was a privilege (the party being examined only upon his personal consent) which was essential to the relative independence of the two Houses of parliament. But assuredly the House of Commons was competent to put one of its own members upon his examination.

§ Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, the hon. member for Derby had misunderstood him if he had supposed him to say that he would exercise any personal interference. He had spoken merely as a member of the House. But in answer to what had fallen from the hon. member for Derby respecting the transactions of his life, he would tell that hon. member, that if he chose to move for an inquiry into all the transactions in which he (Mr. Harvey) had been engaged, from his cradle until the present moment, he should be ready and willing to go into the inquiry.

§ Sir R. Wilson
said, there was an evident misunderstanding on the part of the hon. member for Derby, in supposing that the hon. member for Colchester had attempted to exercise any improper jurisdiction. But a question had arisen, as to whether the House had the power of examining one of its own members against that member's inclination. It appeared to be the opinion of some, that a member, if he pleased, could protect himself under his privilege. Now the best way of settling this question, would be to move, "that the hon. member for Derby be examined in his place."

Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he was sorry that the hon. gentleman who had proposed that Mr. Crompton should be examined, should have prefaced his motion by the observations which he had made. It was true that that hon. gentleman had not said that he would exercise any [improper jurisdiction; but then it would have been better if he had abstained altogether from making any reference to the share which Mr. Crompton had taken in this investigation. An observation which the hon. gentleman had made, appeared to him to justify the warmth which it had excited in the hon. member for Derby, he meant the observation that whatever delicacy he (Mr. D. W. Harvey) might have felt in moving, "that the hon. member for Derby should be examined," was removed by the part which that hon. 1071 member had taken in the investigation. It was not his wish to throw any difficulty in the way of the hon. member for Derby being examined, if the House wished that he should be examined; but he really thought it would be better to postpone that examination, when it was considered that the hon. member was under a degree of excitement, from which he ought to be entirely free, when undergoing any examination, but more especially the examination of the hon. member who had occasioned the excitement.

Mr. Alderman Waithman
concurred in the propriety of postponing the motion until it could be considered with better temper.

§ Mr. D. W. Harvey
assured the hon. member for Derby, that he did not mean any thing disrespectful when he proposed his examination. He thought that if that hon. member had been silent, it would have been more delicate; but as that hon. member had taken part in the discussion, he thought it as well to examine him. He had stated to several hon. members, before the occurrence of this evening, that it was his opinion that both Mr. Evans and Mr. Crompton ought to be called to the bar of the House.

§ Mr. Crompton
said, he conceived the hon. member to have censured him for taking a part in the examination.

§ Mr. Tennyson
said, that in his opinion, there had been evidence enough given on the subject last session. Under these circumstances he had no intention to call on the hon. member for Derby. He had other witnesses whom he could call if the House pleased, but he considered his case to be fully established, and was ready to close it at any time. It was no longer his case, but that of the committee.
The motion was withdrawn, and William Leadbeater was then called. Alderman Waithman desired the evidence which this witness had given on a preceding occasion, in which he denied having received any money, to be read. The evidence was read, and the witness examined by alderman Waithman.—He recollected having given that evidence, meant to abide by it; persisted in it. Had said that he never received money in the presence of Mr. Hannam, and would now abide by that. Mr. Alderman Waithman desired Hannam's evidence to be read, in which he stated that Leadbeater had been paid in his presence. The evidence was read accordingly

Mr. Alderman Waithman
.—What have you to say to that evidence?—Witness.—I positively deny it. I still persist in the evidence I gave. I am innocent of it; Hannam was then called in and identified Leadbeater.

Mr. Alderman Waithman
then moved, that it was the opinion of the committee that Leadbeater having been guilty of gross and wilful falsehood, be committed to Newgate.

Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that although he had no difficulty in inflicting the other evening that punishment upon a man who had, in an examination before the House, committed wilful perjury, yet felt some doubts as to the propriety of pursuing the same course in a case where a witness was merely contradicted by the testimony of others, and that testimony not confirmed by any other incontestible evidence.

§ Mr. Benett
said, they could not have stronger testimony against any man, and thought it necessary to the dignity of the House that he should be committed.

§ Mr. Twiss
said, the witness might not be speaking the truth, but the House had not heard the evidence which might be produced on his part to disprove what was said by his accusers.

§ Mr. Benett
expressed his surprise that the learned gentleman should have any doubts upon the subject. The evidence of two respectable witnesses was all that was required to hang a man for felony, and yet the House paused upon that testimony in a case like the present.

§ Mr. Twiss
repeated his assertion, that the witness might be able to disprove what was asserted by other evidence, and that he ought to be allowed the same time and notice for that purpose as a criminal put upon his trial.

Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, that the testimony of Leadbeater had excited suspicion before he was confronted with Hannam and Newton, and the House ought to recollect that he was the son of the bell-man, who distributed all the money.

The Attorney-general
said, he had no difficulty in stating, that the evidence of two was preferable to that of one, still he did not see that this witness could be committed on the evidence of two other parties, without having an opportunity afforded him of proving his statement. This was always the case in prosecutions for perjury. He recommended that the 1073 man should have an opportunity of meeting the testimony against him. He never would consent to a man's being committed by that House upon mere suspicion. The ordinary rules and principles of justice must be attended to, if the honour and dignity of the House was to be upheld.

Lord John Russell
observed, that the House was not bound in its proceedings by the same strictness of rule which governed a court of law. It was to be recollected, that although a man accused before parliament of perjury had not the same advantages of defence that he would have in a court of law, the punishment inflicted upon him in case of conviction was considerably lighter. Unless the House acted with decision, it would be impossible for it to obtain the truth. If persons like the witness, were assured of the forbearance of the House, they had only to deny stoutly every thing that was alleged against them, and it would be impossible either to have the facts ascertained, or guilt brought home to the offending party.

§ Mr. G. Bankes
said, that the House would do well to be extremely cautious in its proceedings; since a hasty decision, whatever might be the quantum of personal suffering inflicted upon the individual, had the effect of casting indelible disgrace upon his character. In a court of law, the judge told the jury, in summing up the evidence, that if there was doubt in their minds they must give the prisoner the benefit of it. Now, in this case he had doubts, and he could not bring himself to vote for the motion.

§ Sir J. Wrottesley
was of opinion, that the assimilation of the House to a court of law was totally untenable. The object was, to obtain truth by simple and comprehensive examination, and to substitute common sense for legal subtlety. It was abundantly clear, from the evidence, that this man had received election money upon three several occasions. He did not see how it was possible for the House to shut their eyes to the notorious fact, and should certainly vote for the motion.

§ Mr. Twiss
contended, that no man ought to be declared guilty upon any charge without having an opportunity of being heard in his defence. This was principle of common justice, not peculiar to courts of law, but recognized by every tribunal in the world.

§ Mr. Wynn
thought there was sufficient 1074 evidence to support the resolution. When false evidence had been given, the dignity of the House required that they should take notice of it.

Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he could not concur with the noble lord, that because the House inflicted a less heavy punishment for perjury than would be inflicted by a court of law, it was on that account the less bound to be governed by the same principles of law and justice. Though the physical suffering inflicted by a sentence of the House might be comparatively trivial, it was to be remembered that by that sentence the character of an honest man, and even a man in the highest station of life, might be blasted for ever. Though the evidence before the House might warrant a moral conviction, it did not seem to him sufficiently clear to send a man to Newgate upon. It was just possible that the witnesses who deposed to the fact of Leadbeater's having received money, might have an interest in what they stated. The lists only proved that there had been an intention to pay him, not that he had been paid: the individuals who spoke to his having been paid, were those to whom money had been intrusted for his payment; and the House would observe that as these were transactions in which no receipts were given, the payment or non-payment must stand upon the allegation of the individual. He confessed that he was disposed, before Leadbeater was committed to Newgate, to call in the witnesses who had contradicted him, and re-examine them.
William Leadbeater was again called to the bar; when the chairman told him that there was strong evidence to induce the committee to doubt whether he had not been stating falsehoods. He gave him that caution before he entered upon his re-examination. The witness was then examined by Mr. Peel; in answer to whose questions he stated, that he had voted at the last election; that he had heard election money mentioned at East Retford; that he did not know what it meant; that he had been induced to vote for sir R. Dundas, because he had been canvassed for him and preferred him; that he had never asked his brother whether he had received election money; that he had never heard of such a person as Pickup; that he had never seen him at an inn at East Retford; that he should 1075 not know him if he were to see him now; that it was last month that he was at Hannam's office, when Hannam produced the list of voters; that he was not near enough to the paper to see the names; that Newton was not in the room; that he went to Hannam's about magistrate's business; that Hannam began talking about the list, and told him with a smile that his name was upon it; that he had no curiosity to ask Hannam what his name was on the list for; that Hannam did not ask him if he had received any money; that he did not now know what election money meant; that he could not guess at all what it meant; that he might have heard something about twenty guineas; that he could not tell what that meant; that he did not know that that sum was to be paid to the voter who voted for the successful candidate; that he did not expect that sum; that he did not know that any voter had had it; that he did not know that it would be wrong to take it; that he did not know there was any secret about it; that he had never heard at Retford of the expression; "just and right;" that if any candidate had said so to him, he should not have known what it meant; that he was not aware that his name was in the list which had been delivered in by Mrs. Thornton; that he had had no dealings with her husband; that he had never received 21l. from him; that he had never heard him talk of election money; that he did not know that there was any other William Leadbeater than himself in East Retford; that he had never found a packet which he did not expect; that he had never heard of such a thing; that he had never heard of packets having been left at the houses of voters; that he knew most of the burgesses of East Retford; that none of them ever mentioned such a thing to him, &c.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw, and the question was put—" That William Leadbeater had been guilty of gross and wilful falsehoods in his evidence given before the committee." On a division, there appeared—for the motion, 106; against it 15; Majority 91.
The House was then resumed. Mr. Gordon reported the resolution, which was agreed to; and it was ordered that for the said offence, Leadbeater be committed to Newgate. The House having again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Tennyson said, that he had concluded his case; and moved, that if counsel were 1076 in attendance in behalf of the borough, they should be called in.

§ Mr. D. W. Harvey
again pressed for the examination of Mr. Crompton on Monday.

Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that if, on Monday, the hon. member for Bletchingley thought his case deficient, and if it should appear that the House had the power to compel Mr. Crompton to give evidence, whether inclined to do so or not, then he should have no objection to such a proceeding; but he could not allow it to be considered as a matter of course.

Mr. Denman
was then admitted to the bar; and addressed the committee in be half of the burgesses of East Retford, The learned counsel having concluded his speech, the House resumed, and the chairman obtained leave to sit again,